A Non-Obama Supporter Responds!

By: Laura Baumgardner

I made a comment to Thad regarding a blog that Natasha Donghia had posted. She is an Obama supporter and decided to speak up in defense of him. That is her right to do so, as it is everyone’s right to have an opinion. She wanted me to explain why I disagreed with some of her statements. I did, and what I thought would be a quick response turned out to be quite long. I didn’t mean to write so much, but once I got going it was hard to stop. Anyway, my blog is actually my response to her….

Natasha, you wrote a great blog and I applaud you for doing so when the views you expressed aren’t shared by many people “in these parts.” I do agree with you on a few things. I guess that’s where our conservative values meet. Like you, I disagree with his health care policy. I think it is greatly flawed too. Unlike you, however, I don’t think Obama’s plan will benefit the private health insurance companies themselves as much as it will diminish the quality and the amount of care that we will be allowed to receive if the government has control of it. Both Canada and Great Britain are prime examples of the diminished health care one receives when it is government regulated. In Great Britain, if you are diagnosed with stage 4 cancer, no treatment will be made available to you. You are past the point in which they think you are “curable.” I want to know there are cures available and have every opportunity to find it. I’m also glad that Obama lifted the ban on federal funding of stem cell research, but I still believe that we should only use adult stem cells in the research and not embryonic stem cells.

I agree with you that our country is great. I love my country and the freedoms which it offers. Are we fat and lazy like we are portrayed in the rest of the world? Absolutely. Why? I believe it’s because the government has made us this way. The social program we know as Welfare is the biggest reason that we’ve become a lazy society. Sure, there are times when we need to help those less privileged and less fortunate. However, when you have families that become “welfare dependent” generation after generation it proves the system has failed and needs to be changed. Will the government do that? No. Instead Obama wants to do a little thing called redistribution of wealth. Seven years ago Obama said in a radio interview, “the U.S. has suffered from a fundamentally flawed Constitution that does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.” I’m sorry but in my opinion, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the Declaration of Independence speaks of has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth. I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of footing the bill for the people who are able to work but are unwilling to do so because it’s easier for them to draw a paycheck from the government. It’s time for a “change” alright, but I’m sure his slogan didn’t mean in it that respect. It’s my sincere belief the he wants to grow a much larger welfare dependent society because that will allow the government to have the power over the people. (Government health care plan included).

As for your comment that his administration inherited the problems for the former administration, it’s the same statement uttered by every new president that has taken office. I doubt that will ever change. I agree that a few of the problems can be blamed on the Bush Administration, but some of the problems can also be placed squarely in the laps of his own Democratic party who were in control during the Bush years. That being said, Obama has taken office during one of the most difficult times our nation has ever faced. I don’t disagree with that. However, I don’t think that some of Obama’s actions and plans have been in best interest of our country. It is not the government’s place to fire a CEO of a public owned company. It is not the government’s place to say that a bank can receive a bailout will not have a chance to repay that money. Yes, the TARP fund was started by the Bush administration, but it is the Obama administration who is saying that the banks aren’t going to be allowed to pay it back. That is a HUGE conflict of interest when the government controls the largest and most powerful banks in America.

You asked what administration WANTS industry to be nationalized by government. Are you kidding me? It doesn’t matter who is in control, Democrats or Republicans. The government will seize any opportunity it has to grow larger and more powerful. Once it grows in size, you can be assured that it will never shrink. That’s why we need to be careful and pay attention to what’s going on in our society. Everything is happening at such a slow pace that I’m afraid that most people don’t see how “we the people” are losing our voices. It has nothing to do with being a Republican or a Democrat. What’s the old saying? Throw a frog in a pot of boiling water and he will jump out, but throw a frog in cold water and turn up the heat he will slowly cook to death. That is the analogy I use with our government.

I agree with you that the structure of our economy was different 30, 40,and 50 years ago. You mentioned that mom and pop stores are closing because Wal‑mart and other larger companies are forcing them out of business. That’s true. I can say that because I was one of them. We closed our business because we knew we couldn’t compete against the giants like Petsmart and Petco. I’m not blaming them for being successful, though. Every large company had to start somewhere. That is what’s great about our country. You can start small and dream big, eventually becoming wealthy and successful. So why would you let the government come in and decide how much money you can make or how much money you can pay your employees? Where do you draw the line? Sure, I’ll be one of the first to say that Wall Street was out of control and that the “golden parachutes” the CEO’s rewarded themselves with were shameful, but it’s the stockholders and shareholders who should decide what happens in the private company. Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned. The Obama administration is most certainly trying to stifle capitalism. He is wanting to control the wealth, and the amount of wealth one can earn. We may be in uncharted territory, but you had better watch where Obama steps because it may be on your toes next. You can’t have it both ways.

As for the man himself, I don’t appreciate our president visiting another country and apologizing for Americans being “arrogant.” He may be trying to improve relations, but dogging one’s own citizens isn’t the way to go about it. If the American citizens are arrogant it’s only because we’ve been taught that you don’t have to work hard or have a job in order to have your needs met. The government will give it to you anyway. Our forefathers worked hard and fought hard to get ahead in life and I think they would be ashamed to see what has happened to our country.

America was founded on God and Christian principles, and for Obama to say that we aren’t a Christian nation is an outrage. “In God We Trust” can be found on all of our currency. “One nation under God” is in our Pledge of Allegiance. Heck, even the Alabama State Constitution states “ that all men are equally free and independent; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” So do what you want to make you happy in life, but please don’t trample the values of the U.S. Constitution in order to get there, and don’t expect me to foot the bill for it.