Bookworm Room asks a question I’ve been wondering about for some time – is Barack Hussein Obama anti-American? For awhile I was content to believe that he was merely incompetent, but the longer I watch, the more concerned I become for the future of our once-great nation. His penchant for alienating allies and abetting our enemies is disturbing. BHO’s words may say one thing, but his actions speak volumes:
- He wants to remove any last vestiges of the marketplace from individuals’ control over their own health care, and put the government entirely in charge.
- He’s willing to give government control over American businesses (i.e., Bank takeover ands Government Motors).
- His administration, while on record as opposing the Fairness Doctrine, is aggressively exploring a backdoor regulatory scheme that would have precisely the same practical effect as the Fairness Doctrine: it would impose government restrictions on content, rather than allowing the market (that means us, the consumers) to control content.
- His FCC wants to control the internet, which is a humming beehive of free speech, much of it critical of Obama.
- Although he’s mostly erased the record, his dream is to create a civilian national security force, subordinate to the administration, which would be larger than the American military. The military, please note, is controlled by the Constitution and has traditionally existed as a separate entity from any government.
- He wants to take away the right to bear arms. He’ll pay lip service to supporting the Second Amendment, but his fundamental goal is to use government to remove arms from individuals. I’ve never held a gun in my life, but I know that the Founders understood that, for individuals, their single biggest defense against an overreaching government, is the right to arm themselves. Statists never allow their citizens to bear arms. Indeed, the first thing the Nazis did was ban guns in citizen’s hands.
- He wants to redistribute wealth. Without money, people have no choices. The more money the government siphons to itself, the fewer choices we, as individuals have, which makes us increasingly subordinate to the government.
- He has turned against the only democratic nation in the Middle East (that would be Israel), in favor of the bloodied tyrannical theocracies on her borders.
- By reversing his pledge to keep a missile defense system in place in Poland and the Czech Republic, he has favored Iran’s Muslim tyranny over these democratic nations only so recently freed from Communism.
- Figuratively and literally, he bows to dictators (Saudis, Venezuelans, Russians, Iranians, Cubans). They ask, he gives. In other words, contrary to America’s hundred year history of siding with the people against their tyrants, he sides with the tyrants against their people.
- In Honduras, he sided with the delusional Zelaya against the people and the Constitution.
- In Iran, when the people took to the streets, he sided with the megalomaniac theocracy, against the people.
- In his much-heralded speech to the Muslim world, in addition to grounding Israel’s right to exist solely on a Holocaust the Muslim world denies, he repeatedly and noisily trumpeted the right of Muslim men to control Muslim women, a trope he reiterated in subsequent speeches. This goes beyond the idiocy of multiculturalism and actively supports the subordination of an eighth of the world’s population. (If 1/4 of the world is Muslim, and half of those Muslims are women….)
- In his speeches, he assures the tyrannies of the world that America is abandoning her century old role of America’s policeman. They are freed from any constraint.
- By joining the farce that is the U.N. Human Rights Council, he is lending America’s imprimatur to the most violently anti-Semitic, authoritarian, dictatorial, anti-American political body in the world.
- As part of his belief in the increasingly discredited notion of climate change, he stands ready to cede American sovereignty to a U.N. body that can control American wealth distribution and police the American body politic.
October 27th, 2009 07:22 am
What’s wrong with net neutrality? I know that I don’t want to be single handedly responsible for keeping up the roads leading to my house. And in the same way, because I can’t pay Verizon big bucks, I don’t want them slowing down traffic to my blog. I also don’t want them slowing down Google because they’ve cut a deal with Microsoft. I would be happy to pay a little tax for everyone to have equal access to content across the board. The world of bandwidth seems to more easily fit a public utility metaphor than a market metaphor. Maybe I am misunderstanding the issues at hand.
John T Meche III´s last blog ..Life in the Quarter: My First Month in Pictures
October 27th, 2009 10:28 am
Good article, Steve! It is critical to get these facts out the the American people. Many are unaware of Obama’s agenda.