Obama Does Not Care About 2010 and 2012

It struck me yesterday, as I heard the reports that Obama was not watching the election results Tuesday night that Obama truly doesn't care.

Obama is a true idealogue who only wants to push as much of his spreawling, big-government, Liberal, socialistic agenda on the U.S. If he can get that done in the first year, he doesn't care about what comes next.

This is why he wanted the "stimulus" bill done in a matter of days; this is why he wanted the health care "reform" done in a few weeks; this is why he started to push Cap and Trade before the healthcare debate was settled.

Obama is committed to expanding the reach of government into as many venues as possible while he has the congressional majorities and before the American people wake up to what he is doing.

If all he could accomplish is socializing America, he would not care. If he is a one-term president, he would not care as long as he grew governement control as much as possible. If he goes down in history as a lousy president, he doesn't care.

For, even if Obama is declared by Americans as the worst president ever, his friends and associates at the Harvard dinner galas will laud his "transformation" of America. World organizations like the European Union and the United Nations will applaud his work to lower the standard of living in the U.S. to match the rest of the world. He will be cheered back in Chicago by his academic buddies for having taken the wheels off the capitalism train.

For that's all that matters to him. The rest of us are people to be looked down upon, to be lorded over. We aren't as smart as he; we aren't as sophisticated as he. We are just "mostly decent," "typical white" people who "cling to our bibles and our guns." He has no regard for us or our opinions.

This man must be stopped and the time is now.

Obama: Towards Socialism Swiftly

I, and many others, have posited that Barack Obama's ultimate goal is to turn the United States into a socialist country.

A friend, and reader of this blog, scoffed that Obama was not "pushing for state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods." Therefore he is not a socialist.

Well, since that late February posting, we have seen Obama making major strides towards just that:

• The United States now owns nearly all of one of the largest insurance companies in the country, AIG.
• The US owns 40% of CitiCorp, one of the largest full service banks in the world.

Today, we hear of the next outrage from the Obama administration and another giant leap toward government ownership of a private company by practically ordering the firing of the CEO of General Motors, despite the fact that GM's board supported Rick Wagoner.

Time and time again, General Motors Corp.'s board of directors reaffirmed its support for Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner, even as the company piled up billions of dollars in losses and begged for government loans to stay alive.

Here, we have the case of the president of the United States telling a private corporation to fire its CEO. I don't care who the president is or what the purpose of the firing might be, IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE PRESIDENT TO FIRE A PRIVATE CITIZEN AT A PRIVATE COMPANY. EVER!

If the CEO is doing something illegal, and it comes to the prez' attention, he would call for the Attorney General to investigate and prosecute, if needed. Even then, the president would not fire the CEO.

Further, Obama required that GM further consolidate its brands in exchange for 60 days of working capital.

So now we have the president of the United States telling a private corporation how it should operate? Now Obama is an expert in auto manufacture and sales?

After all, Obama knows best.

Obama turned to Chrysler and demanded the company merge with another company.

The president's auto task force said Chrysler needs to partner with the Italian car company Fiat, which has "committed to building new fuel-efficient cars and engines right here in the United States," Obama said in a speech at the White House.

"Fiat is prepared to transfer its cutting-edge technology to Chrysler," Obama said.

Fiat? Will Chrysler's collaborating with Fiat drive you to purchase that PT Cruiser anytime soon?

32 Review Centre Fiat Brava 1.4SX Reviews

Good Points: When it works its nice and easy to drive.
Bad Points: had constant problem witn starting and idling many repairs done at different garages but problem always comes back. I'll never never buy a Fiat Bravo again.

Looks nice, spacious and comfortable but mechanics and clutch with gear box are very unreliable. Not reliable in terms of parts. Electric faults come up every week.

These are two cases where the federal government is using its powers to extort private companies to engage in business operations of which the government approves.

And this comes barely a week after Obama made moves to control salaries of private citizens in private companies:

From the outset of the Obama administration, officials and European leaders have disagreed over how much to limit pay. And Mr. Geithner has discouraged the administration from imposing across-the-board limits on compensation of all employees at troubled companies receiving federal assistance and more burdensome pay restrictions at healthy institutions that the administration is trying to encourage to take government money so they can increase lending.

Obama wanted to have the power to set salaries for ALL employees at companies he decides are "troubled."

If these aren't giant leaps towards European-style socialism, I don't know what is.

Is this a Preview of Things Under President Obama?

Argentina recently elected a new president, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner. The parallels between President Fernandez and Sen. Barack Obama are interesting.

Fernandez, like Obama, is a short-term politician, serving time as a local politician before serving in the country's senate. During only her second term, Fernandez ran for president.

Fernandez started her public life as an activist; similarly, Obama started his political career as a "community organizer", an activist activity to be sure.

Like Obama, Fernandez is often complimented on his looks, receiving compliments for her "striking physical appearance." Many believe they both got votes based on their appearance alone.

Both politicians are lauded for making history in their respective countries: Fernandez is the first woman elected to the country's presidency; Obama, of course, is aiming to be the country's first black president.

Their politics and attitudes also have some overlap.

According to a October 2007 Boston Globe article, Fernandez stated that "she is not against business profit."

This comment is eerily similar to Obama telling "Joe the Plumber" It's not that I want to punish your success... Both politicians seem to be apologizing for policies that do harm business profits and do punish success.

Fernandez continued in her conversation to "urge companies to be socially responsible."

Again, this attitude mirrors Obama's comment that paying taxes higher taxes is akin to neighborliness, and Joe Biden's call that paying higher taxes is patriotic.

I make these comparisons as I wonder if Fernandez' presidency is a preview to an Obama administration.

One of Fernandez' first acts as president was to increase the tax on farm exports. Like Fernandez, Obama wants to raise taxes and restrict trade.

Instead of helping the economy, Argentina's increased farm tax caused major problems in the economy, leading to protests, higher prices, and inflation. According to a USA Today article, had the taxes not been increased, the (tax) windfall could have financed needed utilities and energy sector infrastructure or funded programs for the country's 10 million poor.

Fernandez justified the tax increase because farmer's profits "should be spread to help the poor." Similarly, Obama has been preaching the notion of "spreading the wealth."

More recently, Fernandez just announced plans for Argentina to take over private pension systems in her country. The move, not yet enacted, has already sent the Argentine stock market tumbling, inciting double-digit percentage declines in stock markets.

But, Obama would never let that happen in the U.S.A., now would he?

According to James Pethokoukis in USA News and World Report: House Democrats recently considered ideas that would eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement plans. In place of 401(k) plans, (the plan) would have workers transfer their dough into government-created "guaranteed retirement accounts" for every worker, which would yield a shockingly low 3%, and set mandatory saving requirement.

While this is just an idea being floated before the house, the lawmakers seem serious about killing 401K tax incentives; because, in the words of Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), the tax breaks are not "generating what we now say it should."

Part of the concern in Argentina is that there are no limits on how the government can use the seized funds; although lawmakers in the country are trying to limit how the government uses and invests the money.

Do you feel comfortable that the U.S. government would keep those funds apart from the general funds and not spend the money on other programs, considering that social security funds are used for other purposes?

I have to wonder, are we about to elect a man whose politics mirror the avowed socialist president of Argentina?

Scary times, indeed.