A Watershed Election
Robert L. Wichterman
Robert L. Wichterman writes from Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
The November 6, 2012, Presidential election meets the definition of a "watershed," which Webster's Dictionary defines as a "crucial dividing point." If Barack H. Obama is re-elected, the fate of America, plus Israel, will be in the hands of a man who is determined to change our country and the Western world. The social and political columnist Thomas Sowell claims he has a "lifelong hostility to Western values and interests." As a narcissist, he never considers whether he will have to answer to the Judeo-Christian God, or to Allah. As he wrote in The Audacity of Hope, he is ". . . answerable mainly to the steady gaze of my own conscience." He, therefore, makes his own rules, which will advance his own interests.
President Obama's minister at his church in Chicago, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has been justly criticized for some of his messages. However, speaking about Presidential candidate Senator Obama at a media banquet in Washington, D.C., in October, 2008, he described Sen. Obama as a man "who will say and do whatever it takes to be elected." The Rev. Wright knew him well.
Barack Obama is the best Presidential campaigner I have ever seen. Unfortunately though, he does not know how to govern. Mr. Sowell wrote, "President Obama is such a genial man that many people, across the ideological space, cannot see him as a danger." Yet, his warped policies and ruthless tactics are a threat to our freedoms and American lifestyle. Mr. Sowell concluded, "A genial corruptor is all the more dangerous for being genial."
Our Constitution is a wall fortunately blocking his progress to deliver on his '08 campaign promise to "transform America." Thankfully, the First Amendment is especially troublesome.
In March, 2010, the President signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known generally as Obamacare. This is the bill which, when Speaker Pelosi was asked what was in it, she said, laughingly, we have to pass it to know what's in it.
One of the act's demands is that every non-profit organization that offers healthcare must provide its employees with the contraception and abortion inducing drugs known as "morning after pills." All churches of every faith and denomination are exempted from this requirement. If you are a charity, or an adoption agency though, and are affiliated with any religion, you must comply with it.
When the Roman Catholic non-profit institutions complained publicly, the administration invented an "end run." They said that for those non-profits who are associated with a church, their insurance provider would be responsible for furnishing the abortion drugs to all who request them. In effect, the non-profit pays the insurance company for buying the abortion inducing drugs for its employees. None of the Roman Catholic or evangelical Protestant churches are swallowing this "end run." A member church of the Presbyterian Church in America has taken a stand, and has authorized the publication of a "Protest of a Violation of First Amendment Religious Liberty." As the paper points out, "This law exceeds the appropriate role of Government." It quotes from the Westminster Confession of Faith:
. . . no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief.
It violates the church's understanding of the proper role of the state. The Alliance Defense Fund, a group of Christian lawyers who defend religious freedom issues before the Supreme Court, claim that, "It is consistent with the President's attempts to 'pressure-shrink' religion within many aspects of his administration."
The Obama administration is attempting to secularize religions in America. In Massachusetts, it was determined that any organization which implements the adoption of children may not discriminate as regards the persons to whom they give that child. Thus, the Roman Catholic adoption agency might have to accept a same-sex couple who come to them requesting a child. Rather than accept the government's ruling, the church agency's only other option was to end its operations and close its doors, which it did.
In order to pay for Obamacare, the President has cut $716 billion of "fat" from Medicare. His reductions are to take effect immediately. They are to be administered by the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), which has 15 members, all of which were appointed by President Obama.
The Board's recommendations for shrinking Medicare services or compensation are not subject to any Congressional review, and are enforced by administrative fiat. This panel will be, in essence, a "rationing board." Its decisions will be based on the vicious concept known as "Quality Adjusted Life Years." According to columnist Dick Morris, a recent Pew Institute Poll found that 45 percent of all medical doctors in America would consider retiring or closing their practice were Obamacare to be adjudged Constitutional by the U. S. Supreme Court, and be the law of the land. In Canada, the government health care program has driven so many physicians away that Canada now ranks 26th out of 28 developed nations in the ratio of medical doctors to population.
Every politician has several almost-single-issue constituencies. The environmentalists (also known as Tree Huggers) are one of President Obama's cliques whose opinions are important to him. He has disappointed many of the other factions, including the anti-war group. For instance, he had promised to close the Guantanamo Bay prison for Islamic terrorists as soon as he took office. Another failure was his plan to try those terrorists before a civilian court in New York City.
Thus, when the recommendation to approve the Keystone XL pipeline project came before him, he had to reject it. Even when the AFL-CIO told him it would instantly create 25,000 jobs, he had to stand firm. When Canada said they would sell that oil to China, he could not budge. His re-election, and the support of this coalition are more important to him than the economic life of America. Many Members of Congress though, are being persuaded by their constituents to support the building of the pipeline. He may, therefore, have to acquiesce and no longer block it. But, he will then put the onus for that reversal on the oil companies and the Republican millionaires. It is interesting that no failure of any of his plans has ever been his fault.
Responding to criticism regarding the high gasoline prices, or to our vulnerability since we have to import a large percentage of our oil, President Obama's stock answer is that, first, the President has no control over the retail price of gasoline. The prices rise and fall due to supply and demand in the free market. Second, it takes from eight to ten years to fully develop a new source of oil.
His answers are valid, as far as they go. He has also noted that we are producing more oil and gasoline than in recent years. That is the result though, of President Bush having approved those new wells. President Obama has never allowed any new facilities on public land. The increase in oil production has been almost entirely on private and state lands. Moreover, oil production has declined 11 percent on federal lands. Further, the President's environmentalist friends are pleased that he has reduced the permitting of off-shore oil and gas to a trickle.
As noted, he is opposing the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline until an environmental study is completed, which will be - Surprise! - after the November 6 Presidential election. If he is re-elected however, the study will probably declare that the pipeline would be a threat to wild life, and too dangerous to build. In order for our nation to move forward, he must be denied a second term.
In addition to the HHS Department's assault on our First Amendment Freedom of Religion rights, President Obama and other spokespersons in the Administration, continue to blame George W. Bush for every national trouble. The predicament caused by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guaranteeing mortgages for homebuyers who were not financially capable of meeting the monthly payments, is one example. It is a fact that George W. Bush was President when the housing bubble burst. Most of the Members of Congress who had pushed for the lower standards were Democrats, led by Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Christopher Dodd, although too many Republicans also agreed with them. In 2004, when President Bush attempted to rein in Fannie and Freddie, 76 House members recruited by Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, and Charlie Rangel, fought him on it, and they won. The housing market was booming, so he had to back down. Unfortunately, Fannie and Freddie are still "sacred cows" that continue to suck up billions of dollars just to stay solvent. Moreover, the deficits Barack Obama contends he inherited from George W. Bush came from the Democratic House of Representatives, with Nancy Pelosi as Madam Speaker.
President Obama has never managed a private business that had to make a profit in order to survive. Yet he considers himself smarter than the free market, and that he can recognize the industry that will make money for its investors. One of his favorites, in which he invested millions of the taxpayer's dollars was Solyndra. Another was Chevrolet's Volt electric car. Then there was Phillips, which has developed an eco-friendly light bulb, that retails for $50 a bulb.
Many other writers have listed the obvious failures of the Obama Presidency, from his promise of "the most transparent Presidency," to the manner in which every problem of his administration is always explained away, and is then traced, circuitously, back to George W. Bush. It is becoming apparent that Barack Obama is simply unable to handle any criticism of his or his administration's decisions or its operations.
To achieve the "change" he wants, the Superpower Status of the United States will have to end. He wants to reduce our economic and military power, and when we become financially insolvent and militarily weak, he will have succeeded with his mission. There is no guarantee that a new President will be able to rectify the damage Barack Obama has already inflicted on our country, but we must try.
The President of the United States of America is, among his other executive functions, the Commander-In-Chief of our military. During my life, Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan were models of what a Commander-In-Chief should be. At the other end of that line, we have Barack H. Obama, who is our Politician-In-Chief. This will be a true "watershed election" on November 6, 2012. The future of the United States is at stake. *