Commentaries, Global Warming, Opinions   Cover   •   Commentary   •   Books & Reviews   •   Climate Change   •   Site Links   •   Feedback
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32
WEBCommentary Editor
Author:  Bob Webster
Bio: Bob Webster
Date:  November 3, 2008
Print article - Printer friendly version

Email article link to friend(s) - Email a link to this article to friends

Facebook - Facebook

Topic category:  Other/General

If Obama Comes to Power

The consequences of an Obama Presidency are especially grave for those living in Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Missouri, Indiana, Michigan, and Minnesota. It will be no picnic for others, either.

Our Constitutional Republic of the United States of America is in grave danger from the consequences of the election of an inexperienced, naive, junior Senator to this country's most challenging executive office, the Presidency of the United States. To those who have blindly succumbed to the chants of "change" and "hope" that litter the Obama campaign trail, this may be extremely puzzling to understand. One need only look to history to see plenty of examples where people willingly gave up their liberty to the promise of government that would take care of all their needs. Will the US electorate do the same?

Do the American people really want much higher electric bills? Obama has promised to deliver them. His campaign promise to put coal companies out of business by enacting severe regulation on carbon dioxide emissions is a matter of record. A President Obama is committed to destroying the coal industry. With that, the American freight rail system will have to absorb an enormous shock, as coal is moved to market exclusively by rail. So in one stroke, Obama is prepared to enact regulations that (in his own words) will "skyrocket" the cost of electricity, destroy the coal mining industry (how many jobs will that cost?), and severely injure the rail freight industry.

Do the American people really want much higher fuel costs for heating and transportation? In concert with an unrestrained radical Congress, Obama has promised to severely restrict offshore drilling. Ironically, China and Cuba will be able to tap into those same reserves that American oil companies could tap for the benefit of Americans. The recent severe drop in crude oil prices and the resultant drop in gasoline prices was a consequence of Republican-led efforts. With a President Obama and larger Congressional majorities, the Leftist Democrats will sharply revert to form and ban drilling with the blessing of a President Obama. Why? Because of the severe restrictions Obama and the Congress are determined to enact. Again, the basis for these restrictions is to deliberately drive the cost of fossil fuels to the point where currently non-competitive alternatives begin to become financially viable. But how does this help the American consumer? It doesn't. There is no benefit to making non-competitive alternatives artificially "competitive." According to a recent study (Biofuels might prove worse than COČ), when production methods of ethanol are factored in, the atmospheric pollution in terms of greenhouse gases from ethanol is actually worse than that from fossil fuel (gasoline)! Other inconvenient facts a President Obama is willing to overlook are (1) our planet is currently undergoing an episode of global cooling that may well rival the great Little Ice Age of 3-4 centuries ago, and, (2) atmospheric COČ has never been a cause of climate change in Earth's climate history. The consequence of a Carbon Cap & Trade scheme supported by the radical Congress and a President Obama would be dramatically higher costs for heating oil, gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuels, and natural gas (which is only obtained by drilling that would be banned).

Do the American people really want higher health care costs, less choice in health care providers, and less timely health care? A President Obama is committed to providing health care to everyone at everyone else's expense. This must inevitably drive the cost of health care up and bring choice down. Those health care professionals that we currently use will be bombarded with additional demands on their skills. After all, if tens of millions of people are suddenly given complete access to health care, as Obama promises, they have to be absorbed by the current resources. And who is going to pay for all this new coverage? The top 5% of taxpayers? Does anyone seriously believe that?

Do the American people really want even lower standards for graduation from college and university? That is exactly the outcome if a President Obama is given the opportunity to deliver on his promise of "free" college education to those in need. Institutions of higher learning will be required to take in more students so that Obama's promise can be fulfilled. However, the real measure will be in graduation rates, and there will be enormous political pressure (particularly in colleges and universities aided by government funding) to achieve 100% graduation rates. But what will a diploma be worth that does not guarentee an education worthy of the diploma? There is no such thing as a free lunch. I know this is a difficult concept for liberals to grasp, but it is an axiom that cannot be dodged. Another one is, "you get what you pay for." That, of course, isn't always true when it comes to public education, where the costliest education in our nation's history is producing poorer educated graduates from high school. But at least we didn't make any of those students feel bad by being flunked or held back. Now they can go forward in life, self-esteem intact, but without an education that will allow them to do anything of consequence with their adult lives. More potential wards of the state. Of course, that is never bad news to the socialists who have taken over the Democrat Party.

Do the American people really want to restrict feedom of speech? Are they prepared to have President Obama and the radical Congress re-establish the inappropriately labeled "Fairness Doctrine"? That "doctrine" is a federal regulation that would require "balance" in presentation of ideas over federally-controlled airwaves. In other words, because nobody wants to listen to liberal-drivel, the government will require the equal time exposure of liberal ideas with those construed as being "conservative." This regulation just begs a Supreme Court knock-down. But will an Obama-stuffed court support our Constitution, or will it instead rule according to the political winds of the time? The only resources for information that were not completely and unabashedly biased in favor of an Obama election were conservative talk radio, a single TV network and internet blogs. Democrat socialists would dearly love to silence each of these voices. Where would the people go for objective information if the Left manages to shut down all opposition (as they have historically done with every nation over which they've assumed complete political control).

Do the American people want a President Obama sitting idly by and not lifting a finger to help Israel should Arab nations launch an attack? That is exactly what you can expect from a President Obama who is the favorite candidate of Arab radicals and who has promised to slash the Defense budget by 25% and cut funding from all future research and development of new weapons systems. Apparently, it isn't "fair" that the US military is the best in the world and no other nation has the power to match the US militarily. One term under Obama should fix that disparity.

Do the American people want more terrorist attacks in the United States? Look at it this way, if you were a terrorist looking to inflict severe damage to the United States, would you prefer a weak President who thinks it is possible to talk down tyrants? Or would you want to have to deal with a President who understands that it is imperative to deal from strength with a resolve to use all means necessary to do what is right?

Do the American people want reinstatement of the draft to fill a President Obama's desire to build a domestic civilian police force? Obama has campaigned for the establishment of such a force, ostensibly to be anti-terrorist agents, but who might easily be used to intimidate political opposition? Have you seen the video of the Obama brown shirts (actually, they wore camouflage) who marched into a school with paramilitary demeanor chanting allegiance to Obama? Do you think the Greek columns meant nothing? Are you prepared for an American version of the Gestapo or the KGB?

Do the American people really want a socialist America? That is precisely what the radical Left Congress and President Obama will have in store for you if you do not take responsibility on election day to see that they are thwarted. As the old saying goes, "a leopard doesn't change his stripes" and with Barack Obama, you've got a smooth-talking, snake-oil salesman, socialist! Don't be surprised if he governs exactly as he has promised, if given the chance.

All of Obama's radical Left proposals will be enacted and probably more swiftly than most people would expect. The economic cost to this country of an Obama Presidency is incalcuable. A filibuster-proof majority in a radicalized Congress will embolden Obama to enact his dream scenario - redistribution of wealth and consolidation of Leftist political power for the foreseeable future.

To those who think these suggestions preposterous, you simply haven't been doing your homework on who this Barack Hussein Obama really is. Perhaps you should have demanded more of your information resources, or perhaps you should have taken advantage of talk radio when it was available for you.

Unless you want a Marxist in the Presidency, you have only one choice in Tuesday's election. Regardless of any other consideration, if you want our Constitutional Republic to survive as it was constituted, your only choice is to vote for John McCain. Anything less than that and you will have to accept responsibility for your role in bringing the destruction that will ensue from the naive actions of a Marxist Obama Presidency.

Bob Webster
WEBCommentary (Editor, Publisher)

Send email feedback to Bob Webster

Biography - Bob Webster

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.

Read other commentaries by Bob Webster.

Visit Bob Webster's website at WEBCommentary

Copyright © 2008 by Bob Webster
All Rights Reserved.

[ Back ]

© 2004-2021 by WEBCommentary(tm), All Rights Reserved