Obama: Leader of The New American National Socialist Party?
It's been more than seven decades since a major country has had a potential new leader with a frenzied following of fanatical supporters who have absolutely no concept of where their would-be leader plans to take their country.
In the 1930s, Adolf Hitler lead the German NAZI party. Hitler's new symbol was the swastika.
In 2008 Barack Hussein Obama leads the Democrat Party (soon to be the New American National Socialist Party, NANSP). Obama's new symbol is his standard image for "change".
Hitler brought much change to Germany. For a short time, Germans were proud of their new nation. However, Hitler's ambition and power lust led to the greatest world war in human history, unimaginable human misery, and the destruction of the German nation. Few Germans were proud of those changes.
Obama promises change, too.
Obama developed a new standard for his mantra of "change." Obama's "change" symbol is to the Democrat Party campaign (the NANSP campaign) what Hitler's swastika was to the NAZIs - a symbol around which mindless fanatics could goose-step to the cadence of their smiling leader's oratory proclaiming "change" for the sake of ... change. Given that few Obama supporters have a clue where he would take this country, it doesn't seem to matter what kind of change he brings, so long as it is "change." Evidently designed to give the impression of a journey down a new road, or a new awakening (or both), Obama's new symbol, like Hitler's swastika, is just another slick prop for a vacuous campaign.
Nobody knows, because all Obama does is talk in platitudes and glib references, double-back and change his mind, or simply "flip-flop" on issues. He certainly does not provide any real sense of the direction in which he would like to see our nation head. Just "change."
Well, suppose in the name of "change" Obama's government decides to take 90% of what you own to support "programs" for "the needy"? Is that the kind of "change" people expect?
Obama believes the government should take over your health care, regardless of what you want. They can then charge you in taxes for your health care costs rather than you paying for them privately (you see, this way it's "free"). This would "solve" the problem of the few Americans for whom health care is not affordable. But for everyone else, it would cost dearly, even if for those who could afford their own health care, because private health care would have to be prohibited in order to make national socialized health care "work." No more scheduling your own health care visits. That burden would be lifted and left to a bureaucrat. You would have to deal with a monstrous bureaucracy every time you had any need for health care, whether just for a check-up or actual treatment of a disease. And be prepared to do what Canadians do when they have a serious health issue, wait, wait, and wait. The fortunate (or "Party" members) will be scheduled for treatment before they die. But, unlike Canadians, who now have the option of fleeing to the US for critical care, US patients would have no place to go for their treatment. Private health care would be banned in order to provide a sufficient pool to service "free" national socialist health care.
Ever notice how people actually believe in the concept of a "free lunch"? Just because payments are hidden in taxes collected some other time and place does not make something "free."
Don't buy Obama's promises of a "free" lunch.
There is only one road to success, and it is not a road that the lazy or shiftless will take. Hard work, a strong committment to self-improvement, and tenacity through adversity are required (but not always sufficient) to bring success in life. Success does not come from a government program. Don't look to Obama or any other politician to solve your problems. Politicians will only make your life more miserable while enriching their own life.
So, what is Obama going to do about soaring electricity and gasoline costs? Essentially, nothing. In fact, worse than nothing! "Let the public pay, let them walk" seems to be his view. Obama steadfastly refuses to allow the US to exploit known vast resources of oil, coal, and gas. If these resources were freed from government prohibitions the US could flood the market with virtually unlimited supplies of fossil fuels. Why does Obama block such moves? Because he believes it is more important to "protect" remote areas of the country (in Alaska, in the mountain states, well offshore in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico) from oil and coal extraction than to keep our energy prices affordable. Who is this person who thinks he knows what is best for us?
What is Obama's plan to deal with Gore's mythical "global warming"?
From his website:
Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050
Invest in a Clean Energy Future
Support Next Generation Biofuels
Set America on Path to Oil Independence
Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030
Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change
Folks, this "plan" is a plan for economic disaster that will have exactly ZERO impact on global climate.
Reducing carbon emissions by 80% presumes there is a good reason to do so. There is none. The myth that carbon dioxide is a significant climate change force has been thoroughly debunked in the scientific community and by real world observation and the application of a little common sense. So what is the purpose in reducing "carbon emissions"?
The economic cost to reduce carbon emissions is staggering. It means there must be a complete upheaval in electric generation and transportation. To do so while the nation continues to grow can only be done by mandating a standard of living that is reminiscent of those who lived over 100 years ago, and to continue that standard for more than 40 years! Are you really ready to do that?
There is nothing wrong with investment in clean energy. We have several methods that we can already use to burn fossil fuels cleanly and produce electricity from nuclear power plants. But Obama does not support that kind of clean energy.
Next generation biofuels might help, but government cannot mandate technological improvements (as the corn ethanal debacle is proving right now). When low cost methods are perfected for producing alcohol fuels from biomass, then such fuels will augment fossil fuels. However, there is an energy cost for virtually all alternate transportation fuel schemes. Ethanol is less efficient than gasoline as a transportation fuel and yields lower miles per gallon and poorer performance. There is a serious cost involved that includes lowered safety margins and greater quantities of fuel required to drive the same distance. This means more fuel must be transported to fueling stations increasing the cost. And what about the aviation industry? Can we afford the massive costs of converting aircraft to run on alcohol-based fuels?
America could have oil independence within a few short years if Obama and his other NANSP (Democrat Party) members stopped blocking exploitation of ANWR, offshore, and mountain state oil reserves. The ANWR site must be developed to continue use of the Alaskan pipeline (which will shut down in the near future when oil volume decreases to the point where it is no longer viable). A pipeline extended to the ANWR site on the north coast of Alaska would allow the vast untapped Arctic Ocean oil field (estimated to be sufficient to provide nearly 500 years of oil for US needs) to be exploited. This would drive down the cost of fuel and electricity to every American and relegate Arab terrorist bankrollers in Saudi Arabia to the status of second-rate suppliers of fuel. We would no longer be required to finance world-wide terrorism because Obama and his like-minded politician friends are busy blocking every effort to produce energy from domestic resources.
Obama's environment and energy "plan" is not a plan at all. It is a prescription for disaster that is completely unneccessary. The fact that Obama either believes it is necessary, or thinks he can fool the American people into believing it, suggests things about his character that are not complimentary.
Obama's senseless candidacy is motivated by hubris and a pure lust for power.
Yet another parallel with the candidate of 1930s Germany.
Bob Webster, a 12th-generation descendent of both the Darte family (Connecticut, 1630s) and the Webster family (Massachusetts, 1630s) is a descendant of Daniel Webster's father, Revolutionary War patriot Ebenezer Webster, who served with General Washington. Bob has always had a strong interest in early American history, our Constitution, U.S. politics, and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican with objectivist and libertarian roots. He has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for all high school students so they can appreciate the cost of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.
A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.