Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Why The Election Of Obama Would Mean The End Of America

Expand Messages
  • freedom@harshasankar.org
    From: Barbara Day Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 11:51 AM Subject: Why The Election Of Obama Would Mean The End Of America
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 1, 2008
      Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 11:51 AM
      Subject: Why The Election Of Obama Would Mean The End Of America

      Why The Election Of Obama Would Mean The End Of America
      By Herb Denenberg, The Bulletin
      This election isn't just about whether America is to be ruled by a political party a little to the right or the left of center. This is a uniquely dangerous election in all of our history. The issue is whether we elect a president and a party that will destroy America as we know it and so weaken America's economy, national defense, national security and foreign policy that others will destroy us first.

      I have been writing about Sen. Barack Obama five days a week, because I was so appalled at what I found out about him. And the more I investigated his background, associates, collaborators, friends and positions the more frightening the prospect of Sen. Obama in the White House became. Based on everything I've learned, and based on all my instincts and intuition about Sen. Obama and what the mainstream media has been hiding from voters, I'm convinced Sen. Obama would be an unmitigated disaster. I'm convinced if the full truth were known, he would look at least 100 times more dangerous than he does now.

      These are the factors that make the future look catastrophic if Sen. Obama is elected:

      1. We might well say, "Barack, we hardly know you." The mainstream media has not vetted him. We are essentially buying a cat in a bag. Even the wildly liberal Los Angeles Times, almost totally supportive of Sen. Obama, had to run a story saying reporters who cover him don't even know him or what to expect from him. He is usually scripted (and when he is not he makes horrendous mistakes, as when he finally admitted his socialistic objectives). He is kept from the press. He avoids news conferences. His campaign ignores tough questions.

      That's bad enough, but what we do know about him suggests he's a far left liberal extremist and radical and has flown with a platoon of racists, bigots, America-haters, socialists, anti-capitalists and even terrorists. It is inconceivable that such a man would even be considered for the nomination, let alone win the Democratic Party nomination, and be leading in the polls with the days dwindling down to a precious few.

      2. If he wins the White House, it is likely that he will have a Congress controlled by the same radical liberal wing of the Democratic Party that he represents - Sen. Harry Reid in the Senate with a filibuster-proof majority and Rep. Nancy Pelosi holding sway in the House also with a supermajority. Already they are talking about taking us down the most radical path in history with more spending bills in the works, with tax hikes of all kinds likely to kill business, with the "spread the wealth" philosophy in the air and with the standard Democratic Party cry of cutting defense spending.

      They represent the old Democratic Party's approach of endless taxing, spending, expansion of government, limitation of freedom, and a feeble military and foreign policy. But the Obama presidency would take that all to a power of ten, and would add on a stream of radical liberalism that we've never seen before.

      3. This also means Sen. Obama, if elected, will be naming perhaps three or more justices to the Supreme Court. And he is already on record as favoring a living constitution - code words for forgetting the intent of the Founding Fathers and legislating from the bench. He has also said he wants judges who empathize with the single mother, the disabled and other vulnerable people.

      This is his way of saying he wants judges who decide on emotions and sympathy rather than on the rule of law. That means there will be an explosion of far-out radical liberal laws and regulations, coming from all three branches of government. This means that the courts will be able to legislate the far-left liberal agenda Sen. Obama represents. That triumvirate is so far out that they make people like Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis and George McGovern look like conservatives. It is important to observe that even Mr. McGovern, former presidential nominee, has taken to the air to oppose proposed legislation backed by Sen. Obama, the Democratic Party, and labor bosses that in effect kills the secret ballot for union elections. Unions will be organized by workers just signing cards, subject to intimidation and harassment, and unprotected by the secret ballot. I've also detailed in earlier columns the anti-Democratic and sometimes even Storm Trooper mentality of Sen. Obama and his campaign. Unfortunately, Sen. Obama and the Democrats are more committed to power and winning elections that obeying and protecting democratic principles.

      4. And this barrage of radical liberalism will not just be an updated version of the New Deal or LBJ's Great Society. It will be a new form of radicalism that up to now would not even be dreamed of. We will see "spread the wealth" and "redistributive justice" on the face of legislation rolling through Congress and being signed by the president, without any checks and balances from a minority party, without any veto, and without any filibuster.

      We will see even more radical ideas that will change the face of America. As Rush Limbaugh reported on Oct. 29, Sen. Obama and the Democrats have big ideas for changing the very face of the nation. Sen. Obama has advocated citizenship for all 12 million of the nation's illegal immigrants. Sen. Obama has said, "... We cannot ... deport all 12 million people. That's why we need to offer those who are willing to make amends a pathway to citizenship. That way, we can reconcile our values as both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws."

      The Democrats will rush that citizenship, as they want to permanently tip the balance of power in favor of the Democrats. There has been a fine balance of power between the two parties, which will be ended by 12 million new voters who will favor the Democrats. That's because minorities and immigrants tend to like the big, benevolent, tax-and-spend governments that hand out welfare, benefits and cradle-to-grave security. Dick Morris, in his book Fleeced, points out how Sen. Obama wants to include even illegal immigrants in his universal health-care system. He argues that is sure to overload the system and create such new demand for health care that rationing will be in order. He goes on to point out that means that our senior citizens will probably have to be turned down for the most expensive treatments and surgeries, taking a back seat to younger immigrants and insureds, as their will not be the medical resources to go around.

      Senior citizens don't fair well in a system applying rationing of medical care. What 47 million new insureds will do to the cost, inflation rate and quality of health care is too frightening and too obvious to even need further explanation. Sen. Obama, by his tax plans, his socialistic schemes, and his new welfare programs, will destroy the health-care system and the economy in short order. Small businesses, subjected to tax increases probably even far in excess of those talked about during the campaign, will be dead as a dodo. The only question is whether we will be thus destroyed by Sen. Obama's domestic policies, or whether we will be first destroyed by his foreign policy that will weaken our national defense, demonstrate weakness too our enemies and invite attacks and the destruction of America.

      5. This all is more problematic in view of the demonstrated dishonesty of Sen. Obama in explaining his associations and positions. For more details see my column, "Obama Tells the Greatest Lies Ever Told, Even Before Beings Elected" (Oct. 30,) at www.thebulletin.us. Further adding to the grim picture is the whiff of corruption involving Sen.Obama and his campaign due to both of their connections to ACORN and its furtherance of voter fraud. During the debates, he said his only connection with ACORN was as a lawyer, but he omitted the more than $800,000 his campaign gave to an ACORN subsidiary and his work as an organizer for ACORN. It should also be noted Sen. Obama would have trouble getting a security clearance if he were applying for a federal job, due to questions about his loyalty and reliability flowing from his long standing association and collaboration with terrorists, subversives, radicals and hate-America types.

      6. The best demonstration of how Sen. Obama's foreign policy would destroy America comes from Melanie Phillips, who wrote the classic book Londonistan, on the ongoing conquest of the United Kingdom by Islam. She writes in The Spectator, a British publication, that the impact of the financial crisis has obscured the most important issue facing America. She says if Sen. Obama becomes president, "U.S. defenses will be emasculated at a time of unprecedented international peril and the enemies of America and the free world will seize their opportunity to destroy the west."

      Ms. Phillips writes that to understand the choice between Sen. John McCain and Sen. Obama you have to view each man in the round, and get a total picture of each man's world view, philosophy and values.
      Here is some of Ms. Phillips' reasoning:

      * "McCain believes in protecting and defending America as it is. Obama tells the world he is ashamed of America and wants to change it into something else. McCain stands for American exceptionalism, the belief that American values are superior to tyrannies. Obama stands for the expiation of America's original sin in oppressing black people, the third world and the poor."

      * "Obama thinks world conflicts are basically the west's fault, and so it must right the injustices it has inflicted. That's why he believes in 'soft power' - diplomacy, aid, rectifying 'grievances' (thus legitimizing them, encouraging terror and promoting injustice) and resolving conflict by talking. As a result, he will take an axe to America's defenses at the very time when they need to be built up. He has said he will 'cut investments in unproven missile defense systems'; he will 'not weaponize space'; he will 'slow our development of future combat systems' and he will also 'not develop nuclear weapons,' pledging to seek 'deep cuts' in America's arsenal, thus unilaterally disabling the nuclear deterrent as Russian and China engage in massive military buildups."

      Sen. McCain knows we have to fight Islamofascism and win that fight. Sen. Obama sees the source of evil in the world as America. He has said, "A lot of evil's been perpetuated based on the claim that we were fighting evil." He has said Iran is a tiny country and not a real threat. He quickly reversed himself but that tells you something about his worldview. He said Hezbollah and Hamas, the terrorist organizations that have murdered Americans and are now doing so, have "legitimate grievances." Ms. Phillips doesn't know what those "legitimate grievances" are and I'd venture to say no other rational man does.

      To solve the conflict, writes Ms. Phillips, "Obama places his faith in the UN club of terror and tyranny." Sen. McCain knows better, and also knows Israel is the victim rather than the victimizer. Sen. McCain knows that Israel is surrounded by genocidal enemies that just want to destroy the Jewish state. He also knows Israel is the first line of defense of the free world and that Israel is the first target in the Islamofascists attack on the free world.

      Sen. Obama's incredible naïveté is demonstrated many times, but no more dramatically than by his willingness to negotiate without preconditions with such genocidal maniacs as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and by his opposition to declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization. A move to so declare it passed the Senate by a wide margin.

      His statements (often quoted in this column) show he believes "Islamic terrorism is driven by despair, poverty, and inflammatory US policy and the American presence on Muslim soil in the Persian Gulf." Thus he adopts the agenda of the Islamofascists.

      This drift of his thinking should surprise no one as he has closely associated with those in the Islamists' camp. He has multiple links to anti-Americans, terrorists, and subversives. The latest such association involves Rashid Khalidi, former spokesman for a terrorist organization. Mr. Khalidi, Sen. Obama, and the unrepentant terrorists William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn all attended an Israel-bashing party when Mr. Khalidi left Chicago to go to Columbia University. What's worse, most of his foreign policy advisers have that typically radical liberal view of blaming the ills of the world on Israel and America. He brought in a few for cosmetic purposes, such as Dennis Ross, but his initial selection and his circle of collaborators and friends show where he really stands.

      Ms. Phillips summarizes her views of the meaning of a Sen. Obama presidency for the future of America:

      "There are, alas, many in the west for whom all this is music to their ears. Whether through wickedness, ideology, stupidity or derangement they firmly believe that the ultimate source of conflict in the world derives at root from America and Israel, whose societies, culture and values they want to see emasculated or destroyed altogether. They are drooling at the prospect that an Obama presidency will bring that about. The rest of us can't sleep at night."

      But we can still vote. And we better consider that vote carefully and not vote for a charismatic demagogue, who gives pretty speeches, but whose reality is the opposite of his rhetoric, who is inexperienced and shows it every time he gets off his teleprompter, who has a razor-thin resume, who has never done anything but run for office and self-promotion, and whose policies, advisers, and philosophy would destroy America as we know it.

      Herb Denenberg is a former Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioner, and professor at the Wharton School. He is a longtime Philadelphia journalist and consumer advocate. He is also a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of the Sciences. His column appears daily in The Bulletin. You can reach him at advocate@....

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.