Obama’s changes may not be what voters bargained for
During the past few months, there have been an abundance of distractions in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere that have diverted the public’s attention away from many far more serious events taking place in our nation’s capital.
Consider the following:
• The announcement that Supreme Court Justice David Souter will be retiring at the end of the current term and the subsequent interest and concern about whom President Obama will appoint as his successor.
• The war of words triggered by Democrats, but soon engaging Republicans, about who is the real leader of the Republican Party: National GOP Chairman Richard Steele, radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, former Vice President Dick Cheney, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich or someone else.
• The thousands of missing and uncounted ballots of U.S. military servicemen in the 2008 elections.
• The charges of massive voter fraud conducted by the political action group ACORN and the question of the integrity of the upcoming U.S. Census count.
• The selection of former Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as secretary of the huge Department of Health and Human Services and the leadership role she will play in the president’s plan to socialize our nation’s health care system. What expertise and knowledge of our medical system does she have to head up such a challenging task? Does she enjoy the respect of those in the health insurance business?
• President Obama’s selection of Cabinet members, many of whom admitted they were in violation of income tax laws, and his appointment to senior positions of individuals who have been engaged in lobbying activities when one of his campaign pledges was that he would not bring lobbyists into his administration.
• The ongoing debate about what to do with terrorists being held at Guantanamo and whether to close the detention facility. Along with this is the simmering debate on the tactics used to acquire valuable information.
These and many other similar matters have engaged the public in highly partisan debate while the president has conducted a blitzkrieg-type assault on the country’s capitalist, free enterprise system of private business ownership.
He is following to the letter the advice of his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, to never let “a serious crisis go to waste.” The deep recession of the latter part of 2008 and extending to the present time provided an ideal setting for the president to ram major legislation through Congress and for him to exercise his executive privilege to force precedent-shattering policies on this country.
For one reason or another, the public seems almost to be in a stupor, unwilling or unable to wake up to what is going on.
Granted, during his campaign for the presidency, Obama called for “change,” but did those who voted for him have any idea he would try to change so much? Sure, many voted for him because they didn’t like President Bush, and with his massive war chest, Obama was able to run a picture-perfect campaign.
Consider what has happened in a very short time:
• The government has taken control and management of America’s automobile business. What’s to stop him from taking over other major, or small, businesses?
• The government has taken management positions in our nation’s banking system.
• The government is in a controlling position in some of the nation’s major insurance companies.
• The government is proposing legislation about how much individuals can earn.
• Billions, trillions of dollars have been spent, and the nation faces the largest debt in its history.
• We no longer are supposed to refer to the fighting and killing in Iran and Afghanistan as a “war;” it merely is a conflict.
• Obama is calling for a massive change in our medical system and, just this week, has announced that automobiles made in America will have to be smaller, have far greater fuel efficiency and produce fewer harmful emissions by 2016.
He wants to control more and more of what goes on in America.
He does, indeed, intend to bring about “change,” but is this change good for America? Are socialism and nationalism and bigger government good for this country?
He is smart, clever and a gifted speaker. To what degree he is devious or less than honest in his motives is up for debate. Does he want to change the American system of government, business and lifestyle? If so, what does he think is better? Socialism and a redistribution of wealth?
He is spending trillions of dollars trying to sell his ideas and programs. Is the idea to have many of the recipients of this government largess feeding off the federal teat and voting the way Obama wishes in the 2010 and 2012 elections?
How long will it take for citizens to wake up to what is going on? Probably too late to stop many of Obama’s veiled and dangerous “changes.” Too late for any effective opposition in the 2010 congressional elections?
Only history will tell us whether Obama is a slick, dangerous political ideologue or a wise, genuine politician with a sound vision for our nation’s future.
It’s an extremely dangerous option.