The case against the Obama presidency (Part 2)

After reviewing Hot Air’s post written by Guy Benson, Mary Katharine Ham and Ed Morrissey, it became apparent more needed to be done. It is a good review, but there are many more reasons you should not vote for Obama Nov. 4.

I called that post my shortest in history since I provided no analysis, but as this may be my longest. I’m not going to mention the unmentionables, but simply review Obama’s own plans and provide analysis to show nothing is different with Obama. There is no change to be found; it’s pure liberalism and populism with a different face.

I hope that you’ll take the time to read this post and forward it to everyone that you know. I thought about breaking it up into three posts, but it will be easier to distribute if there is only one link. It’s long. Deal with it. It’s important.

Note: This is turning out to be a pretty popular post. I encourage you to copy the link and forward it to everyone on your e-mail list. Thank you!

This election year, we’re stuck with populist candidates. There are different definitions of populism, but mine is simply a candidate stating that he or she understands your pain, and will change government to solve your problems.

No thank you. This rhetoric is dangerous, since promises come with strings attached. A perfect example is Clinton’s effort to put 100,000 cops on the street. You can argue the number, but remember that after the original federal funding, the states, cities and towns were left to cover salary, training and benefits on their own.

That’s drop-and-run politics. Dump a bunch of cash or hold a summit, pronounce the problem cured and leave. Liberals are experts, they have also fine-tuned coming back two years later to complain about the evil Republicans who refuse to fund the programs – but that’s another post.

If Obama takes the oath of office on Jan. 21, I’m not sure if I will laugh or cry. Obama may speak the words, but I know he will not mean it. What you call one who swears an oath and ignores that oath? A liar. A con artist. Maybe just a politician.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

It’s a pretty simple job description, but I’ll be more disgusted if he adds the optional “so help me God.”

I’m going to qualify this list by stating up front that McCain may not be any better concerning some of the policies listed. But as Rush Limbaugh mentioned, we’re going to have to drag McCain across the finish line, get him in the Oval Office and teach him how to be a conservative.

I’ve pulled my information from the Issues section of the Obama Web site. I do not link to his site, but I do provide links to my other posts and outside sources.

Supreme Court Nominations

From my post on Feb. 7.

The average age of a Supreme Court justice is about 68, and more importantly, five of the eldest six justices are on the liberal side of the court. Stevens (87), Kennedy (72), Souter (69), Ginsburg (75) and Breyer (71), average 75 years of age. Scalia (conservative) is 72, and the three most recent additions – Thomas (60), Alito (58) and Chief Justice Roberts (53) – lean conservative.

If the next president is a liberal, status-quo may continue at SCOTUS, but if we elect a Republican, a more strict judicial interpretation of law may be brought to the court – exactly what we need.

If Obama is elected, SCOTUS will have the opportunity to stay left. The court is not just tipped slightly to the left. When you have justices think it is acceptable to legislate from the bench, consider current society opinions, and reference laws from other countries, we have a problem.

From Mark Levin’s “Men in Black” (chapter one, pages 12 and 13)

They [the framers] wanted a central court system free from the political pressures of the legislative and executive branches of the government with a narrow role and limited authority–a judiciary that respected, applied, and preserved the rule of law and the principles of popular sovereignty enshrined in the Constitution. …

The Supreme Court in particular now sits in final judgment of essentially all policy issues, disregarding its constitutional limitations, the legitimate roles of Congress and the president, and the broad authority conferred upon the states and the people. The Court has broken through the firewalls constructed by the framers to limit federal and, especially, judicial power. …

In essence, activist judges make, rather than interpret, the law.

In Obama’s world, Supreme Court judges are not tasked to simply interpret the U.S. Constitution and Amendments. His appointments – and there could be as many as four or five in the next four years – will be engineered to ensure the court continues to legislate from the bench.

The Second Amendment

Although Obama’s Web site is clear on the desire to have the federal government fund the restoration of neighborhood streets, not one word can be found concerning the individual right to bear arms.

Obama says the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, but qualifies that with an assertion the right does not prevent local communities to impose “common sense” regulations, similar to the District’s complete ban on handguns recently overturned in Heller.

In April, Robert Novak said it quite well.

That is a dance that many Democrats do, as revealed in private conversation with party strategists. As urban liberals, they reject constitutional protection for gun owners. As campaign managers, they want to avoid the fate of the many Democratic candidates who have lost elections because of gun control advocacy. The party’s House leadership last year pulled from the floor a bill for a congressional seat for the District to protect Democratic members from having to vote on a Republican amendment against the D.C. gun law.

In April, I wrote about how concealed carry works to reduce crime and violence. Obama stated he was not in favor of concealed weapons.

More than 40 states permit concealed carry after training the required background check. Are we seeing Wild West shootouts in the street? No. From my post on Sept. 20.

Gun Facts is a well maintained Web site with solid information. Here is a link to the 94-page PDF to help those interested in protecting the 2nd Amendment. Check out the myths about concealed carry starting on page 23.

I’ve got 13 posts that are in my 2nd Amendment category, including my original post dated right after Obama’s interview with the Tribune.

The Democrat ticket will not protect your 2nd Amendment rights.

A Lack of Executive Experience

McCain does have leadership experience; four years at Annapolis, seven years as a pilot before being shot down, and he served as the executive and commanding officer of a training squadron in Florida for a couple of years. One thing is for certain, the armed services of our country do a very good job training leaders.

I was certain that Obama would not select Biden for this reason alone. Neither have managed a business, an office, a city government or a state government.

Presidents normally have had executive and/or military leadership positions prior to taking office.

Bush (43), Clinton, Reagan, Carter and FDR all came from the ranks governors. Bush (41), Ford, Nixon, Johnson and Truman were vice presidents prior to taking the oath. Kennedy was a senator prior to taking office, but had four years of military service during World War II. Eisenhower had extensive military experience beginning when he enrolled at West Point in 1911.  Even Hoover had eight years of experience as the US Secretary of Commerce under Harding.

That’s almost 80 years of presidential history. Obama does not have experience to match previous presidents.

Meeting with Terrorist Leaders

In July of 2007, Obama was asked: “Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?…..”

“I would,” he answered.

Although everyone wants to qualify that statement now, nobody thinks it’s a good idea to have direct talks with dictator/president/dear leader-types. And by the way, the State Department is already speaking with all of those nations.

Meetings between our president and these goofballs will give them great propaganda video and still photo opportunities. Nuff said.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research

There is a difference between embryonic stem cell research and (adult) stem cell research. Too bad seven out of 10 don’t seem to know the difference. Obama has renewed his support for embryonic stem cell research. Did you know that the Catholic Church supports stem cell research? Did you know that there have not been any cures or treatments produced using embryonic stem cells while more than 70 have been produced by adult stem cell research?

Are my links biased? Probably, but look up the facts yourself.

Where are Obama’s Friends?

Where are all of his friends from when he grew up and was in college? Who were his mentors, friends and drug dealers? If Cindy McCain’s addiction to pain killers more than 15 years ago is fair game, why does the media ignore Obama’s lifestyle during high school and college?

Joe Biden’s Overture to Iran

Foreign policy plan A: bribery. From a New Republic article in October of 2001, less than 45 days after Sept. 11.

At the Tuesday-morning meeting with committee staffers, Biden launches into a stream-of-consciousness monologue about what his committee should be doing, before he finally admits the obvious: “I’m groping here.” Then he hits on an idea: America needs to show the Arab world that we’re not bent on its destruction. “Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran,” Biden declares. He surveys the table with raised eyebrows, a How do ya like that? look on his face.

The staffers sit in silence. Finally somebody ventures a response: “I think they’d send it back.” Then another aide speaks up delicately: “The thing I would worry about is that it would almost look like a publicity stunt.” Still another reminds Biden that an Iranian delegation is in Moscow that very day to discuss a $300 million arms deal with Vladimir Putin that the United States has strongly condemned. But Joe Biden is barely listening anymore. He’s already moved on to something else.

Tax Cuts for 95 percent of Families

How can 95 percent of families get a tax cut in the Obama plan when 50 percent of the tax payers don’t pay hardly any federal income taxes at all? Here is a 2006 tax year table that I created for a previous post.

The top 12 percent of wage earners already pay more than 82 percent of the federal income taxes collected.

Obama’s tax cuts or credits are neither. His program is welfare, taking from one group of people and spreading the wealth around to others.

More taxes for the top performers does not help. Raising taxes on successful individuals results in job losses, lower benefits, smaller paychecks and higher prices for everyone.

The Bush tax cuts ensured everyone who paid federal income taxes got a tax cut.

  • As tax rates decline, the federal income tax receipts as a percentage of GDP stay constant.
  • After the 2003 tax cuts, corporate income tax collected as a percentage of GDP has also gone up.
  • Looking for numbers not tied to a percentage of GDP? During 2000, the federal government’s revenue was in decline. The 2003 Bush (43) tax cuts brought federal revenue way up. Well how the heck did that happen?

Spending is growing faster than government revenue. If you think that lowering taxes means that the government has less money in the bank, you are wrong. The federal government is tasked to promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare. Look up the definitions of promote and provide and get back to me.


Obama’s plan is to get the federal government more involved in local education programs. More dollars are not the answer for our education problems.

Walter Williams had a great column about education in August that I discussed here, and in December 2007, I discussed another Williams column and directed readers to a 2005 study by Bruce Twambly at

There is no correlation between the dollars spent per kid and academic results. Quoting myself…

As a matter of fact, there is no correlation between student to teacher ratios, class size or the number of computers in the classroom either.

The only clear correlation was between test scores and median income of the family.

Ask me any question you want about education in the United States, I’ll almost always end up with a solution – get government completely out of the education business and make it a commodity. Two things will solve the education crisis, competition and a perception of value.

Obama’s education plan is full of phrases like provide funding and double funding. More money and programs from the federal government has never been and is not the answer.


No mention of nuclear power on the Obama site. Not one word. He claims that he will support building nuclear power plants, but I bet not one will be approved for construction during the first term of an Obama presidency. The environmental whackos control the liberal energy policy and teams of lawyers from the Sierra Club will stop any action to get things going on that front.

McCain is overly ambitious thinking that he can get 45 plants built in 10 years. But Obama thinking he can strategically “invest” $15 billion dollars a year during the next 10 years and completely replace the oil we get from the Middle East and Venezuela is delusional.

He wants to help create five million jobs to support private efforts to build clean energy alternatives. So I guess that means that Obama is for corporate tax breaks for companies like ExxonMobil and BP who are taking the lead in this type of research.

He wants to put 1 million plug-in hybrid cars on the road within seven years and ensure they are manufactured in America. More corporate tax breaks and subsidies for American automakers?

The government should not be doing this stuff. Private enterprise will step up since there is a clear benefit. Future profits.

Illegal Aliens

Illegal immigrants, undocumented immigrants, undocumented workers – call them what you will. I’m all for legal immigration to the United States, but there is zero leadership from the political elites on this subject. Everyone – including McCain – dances around the issue. It’s the new third rail in politics.

Hospital emergency rooms are closing. Schools are overwhelmed, city services are being cut. All partly due to the illegal alien problems in this country.

Sanctuary cities like San Francisco provide comfort, services, rehab and education opportunities to illegal alien MS-13 two-time felons who gun down families in the street. Then the mayor tries to blame the NRA.

There may be little hope for conservatives concerning the illegal alien issue, but we can not be one issue voters.

Social Security

The former third rail of politics. Guess what? The Obama administration won’t do a damn thing because Social Security won’t begin to spend more than it takes in until 2017, two years after Obama leaves office if he serves two terms. It’s not his problem.

Sure, he’ll speak about the problem and suggest that those making more than $250,000 need to contribute “a little bit more” to keep the system sound, but in the end he won’t do a damn thing. It’s not part of his legacy plan.

More tax increases to cover the rising benefit requirements of Social Security is the only thing he can offer. They refuse to allow us to keep part of our own Social Security retirement funds and invest them the way we see fit.

More class warfare. More taxes. Less economic growth.

Health Care

Do you want the government to run health care? Do you think the private sector (insurance companies, hospitals and health care providers) run the health care system now? If so, you are wrong.

State and federal regulations – that mandate care, coverage and paperwork – drive the cost of health care. Government involvement is the problem.

Socialized medicine does not work. Doctors who are general practitioners will not be allowed to make enough money so they will try to switch to specialties. Then the government will come in and set quotas for general practitioners and specialists. Lowering standards for health care providers would also be on the table.

You’ll have to wait an average of 18 weeks to receive the treatment you require. Need an MRI? A 10 week wait. Welcome to Canada. My neighbor got an MRI the next day after seeing his doctor. He was told he could get it the same day but he was tired and wanted to go home.

Why the long waits in Canada? It’s supply and demand. There are not enough doctors and equipment available to service the demand. Why become a doctor when you have to deal with a government bureaucracy?

Obama wants to bring in prescription drugs from other countries. Drugs in Canada and other places are subsidized by the government. Drug manufactures must be allowed to make a reasonable profit or research and development will stop.

Recently the pharmaceutical industry has been doing quite well, with net profit margins between 14 percent and 18 percent for market leaders. That’s great! They have more cash to do more research and solve more health related problems.

Every pharmaceutical company in the United States participate in programs that offer free or heavily discounted name brand prescription drugs to those in need. These are not government programs. The efforts even have funding to advertise with Montel Williams as their spokesperson.

More programs can be found through a quick search on the Internet.

Other Obama Plans
All of these items will cost money. Lots of money. Before the list, why not review Amendment 10 of the US Constitution.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Got that? Congress does not have the power to provide these programs. The programs sound wonderful, but none of this is the federal governments job!

Obama says that he will cut unnecessary spending, but he’ll expand it by leaps and bounds. Billions will be spent on new projects that will tie the federal government to every program possible. As a matter of fact, researchers would be hard-pressed to find ONE local or state program or service that was not subsidized in some way by the Obama plans.

Barney Frank (D-Ma.) said it best. He’s certain that they can get more cash from the rich to fund these programs.

  • Provide housing and create jobs for low and moderate income people.
  • Every child guaranteed health care.
  • Protect children from violence and neglect.
  • Help rebuild neighborhood streets.
  • Expand hate crime legislation.
  • End deceptive voting practices.
  • End racial profiling.
  • Reduce crime through more ex-offender support. (What’s an ex-offender?)
  • More job training.
  • Substance abuse and mental health counseling to ex-offenders.
  • Improve transportation so low-income Americans have transportation to get to work.
  • Raise the minimum wage to $9.50 per hour by 2011. (Kill small businesses)
  • Tax credits, more tax credits and even more tax credits.

Obama equals populism, which equals socialism and less freedom.

You must vote for McCain/Palin on Nov. 4.

6 replies
  1. Steve Wenzell
    Steve Wenzell says:

    Very well done Steve. I may not finish reading it until Thanksgiving, but I am on your side so I do not need convincing. I have passed it on to many friends and family.
    Keep up the good work

Comments are closed.