Wednesday, August 29, 2012

The case against Obama

Anyone who actually reads this blog knows that I've been an opponent of Barack Obama all the way from back when he ran against Allen Keyes for Senator in Illinois.  His lack of any background other than a well-polished speech at the Democratic National Convention, as well as being an intellectual lightweight set him as a much lesser candidate than Keyes.  Unfortunately the people of Illinois disagreed and bought the slick marketing and packaged product that is Barack Obama.  And the rest, as they say, is history.

However, as he's served (I use that word lightly, given the number of times he's been absent of leadership) as president, he's given us an excellent insight into the way his mind works (or doesn't, as the case may be) and into his vision of Obama's America.  And I don't like it.

His utter arrogance and inability to accept when people would possibly disagree with him displays an immaturity and egotism that you rarely see in a true statesman.  Even the old drunk himself, Ted Kennedy, could have a decent discussion or relationship with someone who disagreed with him politically.  However, our president has chosen to instead isolate himself from the opposition by only attacking them and then letting his proxies negotiate any agreements between the R's & D's so that the D's get credit for bringing a bill to him.  His "you didn't build that" comment provides insight into the weight he puts upon the government's influence and contributions to the private sector.  Anyone who has ever actually built a business knows better, but of course, since he's never actually done that, much less met a payroll, paid employer taxes, or anything else that actually involves running a business, he wouldn't know this.  While I admit that much of the uproar surrounding the comment takes it out of context, in full context the comment is condescending, arrogant, and doesn't acknowledge the fact that if it wasn't for the small business people building those businesses themselves, the government wouldn't have any money for those asinine boondoggles that they love to spend OUR money on.

Speaking of boondoggles, let's talk about the healthcare plan:  In a ridiculous payback to the pharmaceutical & medical device industry, as well as the hospital organizations across the country, this healthcare plan benefits no one, except these corporations.  More people have ended up without insurance in the last two years since the plans has gradually come into effect and the price of insurance has increased rather than decreased.   So, how exactly was this plan supposed to "help" people?  And companies are being forced to provide birth control via their insurance when they did not previously, even when doing so violates their religious tenets, including the Catholic Church and Catholic organizations such as Ascension Health (which operates 60+ not-for-profit Catholic-affiliated hospitals in the US).  This was the origination of the whole whatshername is a slut comment by Rush Limbaugh.  I don't remember the woman's name, nor do I care enough to even Google her, but essentially she sat in front of Congress representing herself as a regular-ol' law student who can't afford birth control, since it costs over $3000 over the time she was in law school.  Later, we found out with just a little bit of research (which we have to do, since the media won't do their jobs), that she was an advocate for women's reproductive rights, abortion advocate, and was 29 or so.  Additionally, we found out that a birth control prescription at the local Walmart, Target, or other big-box pharmacy only costs $9/month, easily affordable by even the poorest college student.  Ironically, she was attending one of the most expensive law schools in America, Georgetown.  Funny that she's smart enough to get into that law school, pay for it, and yet still thinks that BC pills are $1,000 a year.  Rush shouldn't have called her a slut, he should have called her an idiot.

Since we're talking about idiots, let's talk foreign policy.  The Republicans make a big deal about President Obama bowing everywhere he goes and asking for forgiveness from leaders, or 'patience for flexibility' until after the election.  Honestly, I'm not worked up about that.  What I don't like is that while President George W. Bush put our military in harms way in two countries, it looks like President Obama is willing to use our military in Libya, in Uganda, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, and has a "kill list" he has admitted and almost bragged about.  Seriously?  A kill-list?  Not even Cowboy W had a kill-list that he bragged about.  Yet the media remains relatively silent about this.  Yet President Bush was crucified when he used the word 'evil-doers'...Ridiculous.  It seems that while Republicans believe in large-scale use of our military (see Iraq & Afghanistan), the Democrats would rather cause us death through a thousand cuts by putting a company of troops here, there, and everywhere (see Bill Clinton's military deployments throughout Africa & eastern Europe).  Honestly, as anyone who knows me will attest to, I'm perfectly fine with supporting our national interests through violence against our enemies.  However, what national interest do we have in Uganda, Libya, Somalia, Syria, or any of these other ridiculous places where we're expected to have limited engagement rules and improper support?  And speaking of ridiculous rule of engagement, anyone else wondering why it is that we do not unleash the dogs of war on the animals in Afghanistan, finish it up, and get out?  You'd think that if President Obama really wanted to get out of Afghanistan, he'd unchain the military and let them clean it up.  By clean it up I mean "kill anyone who threatens us".  Anyone.  I would follow the philosphy of one of my fellow Marines, Major General James Mattis when he said, when speaking with some warlords in Iraq "I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all."  There is something to the old adage 'peace through superior firepower'.  Don't have our troops sitting on their asses, only able to engage if eighteen different steps are followed.  Let them shoot first and ask questions later.  Afghanistan would be cleared out and settled down in a matter of months.  Look at what happened after 'the surge' in Iraq:  violence against our troops decreased incredibly in the months following.  And that was even with silly RoE's.

Finally, tax policy.  President Obama believes that making the 'rich pay their fair share' will balance the budget and provide some much-needed fairness to the economic model.  While I agree that people like Mitt Romney, Bill Gates, Steven Spielberg, Warren Buffet, and Oprah Winfrey paying an average tax rate of 13% isn't fair to those of us who pay an average tax rate of 25-30%, increasing the rate of the rich isn't the way to fix it.  Flat tax/Fair tax is the way to fix it.  At the moment, only about 51% of the population actually pay federal income taxes.  Yes, everyone who works has taxes deducated from their check, but that doesn't mean you PAY taxes.  This is a detail that many have generally overlooked.  When you get all the money you had deducted during the year back after filing your return, you don't PAY taxes.  Everyone needs to pay their fair share.  Everyone.  That's the only way this country will EVER get back to the greatness we once experienced.

These are my major points against the re-election of President Obama.  I didn't bother mentioning his ridiculous promises of transparency that immediately were broken, or his promise to spurn lobbyists, then then almost immediately hiring several for his cabinet or advisor posts....or his complaints against "insiders" and then hiring one as his Treasury Secretary...or his obvious opposition to the second amendment, including his cynical and murderous 'Fast & Furious' plot by the ATF to send guns to Mexico, then have those guns used in crimes and accuse rogue dealers of crimes and push for more gun control....

This doesn't mean that I support Mitt Romney either.  I expect to have a post against Romney's election within the next week or so.  I don't believe in voting for the lesser of two evils.  When you do that, you just get evil. 

1 comment:

Jeff Johnson said...

And by the way, I completely left out President Obama's support for NDAA, The Patriot Act, and other infringements on our civil rights. Had this been a Republican president, there would have been ridiculous outcry. But since it was "The Chosen One", the only outcry was amongst a few folks on the Internet.