Why did America Elect Barak Obama?

            I have tried to understand why so many Americans voted for Barak Obama and after two years of Obamaism why a right-minded American would want to reelect him. (By right-minded I mean sound thinking, not to the right politically).

            I’m not an economist, politician or intellectual.  I’m just a simple tax-paying American concerned with the direction Barak Hussein Obama and his liberal cronies are taking my country.  In that regard some pertinent questions keep coming to mind – primarily:    

            Is our government growing faster and larger than the population?  Are more and more Americans becoming dependent upon government for subsistence and livelihood?  The answer seems to be yes. But before carrying those thoughts further, how do I view the apparent Obama agenda or the thinking of President Obama?

            He thinks big government is the answer to all social problems.  He wants to “fundamentally change” America (from a capitalistic, independent nation to a socialistic, Islamic tolerant nation).  He wants to distribute the wealth – in other words, take the wealth of the producers and scatter it among non producers. 

            What is the background of Barak Obama?  How qualified is he to lead this great nation?  Here’s what I think:  He is a liberal, lawyer and intellectual.  Before entering politics he was a “community organizer.”  Just what is a “community organizer?  The following it taken from Wikipedia:

   Community organizing is a process where people who live in proximity to each other come together into an organization that acts in their shared self-interest. Unlike those who promote more-consensual "community building," community organizers generally assume that social change necessarily involves conflict and social struggle in order to generate collective power for the powerless. A core goal of community organizing is to generate durable power for an organization representing the community, allowing it to influence key decision-makers on a range of issues over time. In the ideal, for example, this can get community organizing groups a place at the table before important decisions are made.^[1] Community organizers work with and develop new local leaders, facilitating coalitions and assisting in the development of campaigns.

            It sounds like an ideal occupation for a “liberal intellectual” interested in power and radical change.  It also sounds like a highly urban endeavor intent on organizing the “impotent” and “have-nots” into a viable force. 

            My grandfather, who I was named after, was a prominent physician in Salt Lake City during the thirties and forties.  He was a confirmed democrat and supporter of the then powerful union boss, John L. (Llewellyn) Lewis.  Grandpa’s political preference was influenced by his patients who were coal miners from Price, Utah and smelter workers at Kennecott.  Unions were needed then so that workers were treated fairly.  But since then the unions have become too powerful, using the worker’s dues (money) and votes to gain power.  There is a symbiotic relationship between unions and some liberal politicians – like Obama.  Let’s face it, politics and unions are about money and power.

            What is an intellectual?  According to Wikipedia:  “An intellectual is a person who uses intelligence (thought and reason) and critical or analytical reasoning in either a professional or a personal capacity.”  But I have my own idea about intellectuals.  Where once the word “intellectual” had a positive connotation, like the word “gay,” it has been mutilated and now has a controversial meaning depending upon the circumstance and how it is used.  From a “capitalistic, conservative” perspective and intellectual is a liberal pedantic who knows what’s best for the individual and society.  He has no practical or laborious background having never earned a living by the sweat of his brow; his knowledge is generally analytical, theoretical and Marxist.  He is a Utopian sophist of the coffeehouse ilk who talks socialism but whose acts and covert methods and goals are autocratic and tyrannical.  Their intellectual philosophy embraces the axiom, “the means justify the ends.”  Therefore demagogy, exaggerations, embellishments and outright falsehoods are tools of the trade.  The following is an example:

            In the current congressional battle over the budget, liberal pundits are portraying conservatives as heartless, ruthless rascals who would throw their own mother over a cliff to get their way.  It is a despicable fear tactic of the left designed to rally their base, the non producer, the impotent, the unions, the individual dependent upon government – which involves quite an array:  those on the dole, social security recipients, Medicare and Medicaid, school teachers, those others that are employed by government like cops and firefighters, and let’s not forget those employed by companies who have government contracts. 

            My retirement involves a public employee’s pension and social security, but I’m not so dumb or naïve to succumb to the socialistic rhetoric of the Obama left.  I need ask but one simple question to satisfy my assessment of Barak Obama and his leftist cronies’ agenda. 

            As a retired public servant in law enforcement and a veteran my quality of life and freedom of movement has been drastically hampered by the high cost of gasoline. What, President Obama, have you done to bring the cost of gasoline down? 

            He released 50 million barrels of oil from our emergency reserves but according to experts it will have little effect on price at the gas pumps.  Experts claim the release was a political move rather than an act induced by an emergency.  He, Obama, can say, “I released that oil to help my fellow Americans but the evil oil barons wouldn’t drop the price.” 

            What has Obama done to increase the price of oil?  He shut down all US offshore oil exploration but supported off shore exploration by Brazil and apparently sanctioned a $2 billion dollar loan to Brazilian oil companies.  His executive orders have literally handicapped US oil exploration.  And he has done nothing to influence OPEC who controls the price of oil worldwide.  You would think that with a Muslim sounding name like Barak Hussein Obama he would have some clout with OPEC, especially are supposedly Saudi allies. 

            I have heard pundits state that 40, 47 and even 50% of Americans do not pay any income tax.  Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich but experts say that if he expects to balance the budget with increased taxes he will have to tax everyone.  It is the wealthy who provide jobs. The more money government takes from the wealthy, the less jobs that will be available. It’s simple arithmetic.  Since 2002 millions of jobs have been sent overseas.  Why?  Are Japanese, Indian and Chinese workers more efficient, talented and conscientious than American workers?  Nope!  My guess it’s dollars. The inefficiency and high cost of union wages have induced industry to take advantage of foreign labor.  Furthermore, American snobbery over the impropriety of menial jobs opened the door to cheap Mexican labor.  And if that is not enough, Islamic terrorism has created new government jobs and changed our mode and cost of travel.  Obama bailed out the auto industry not for the CEOs or the public good but so the unions, his liberal cronies, would still have a job.  If we insert the ubiquitous human foibles of avarice, envy and deviance into the dismal economic equation, it’s no wonder our economy and government is in such terrible shape.

            According to economists, in 2000 only 54% of the population was somehow dependent upon government.  If the current trend continues by 1018 two thirds of Americans will be dependent upon government for a livelihood.  If that disturbing forecast is accurate, where, pray tell, is government, the most inefficient organization in America going to get the money to sustain such a situation?  Will it take over all industry? 

            The following are quotes from (journalist and author) Rick Newman) and can be found on the Internet:

            By one measure, the government already plays an outsize role in our so-called free-market economy—and it has little to do with the recession. Economist Gary Shilling has calculated that 58 percent of the population is dependent on the government for "major parts of their income," including teachers, soldiers, bureaucrats, and other government employees; welfare and Social Security recipients; government pensioners; public housing beneficiaries; and people who work for government contractors. By 2018, Shilling estimates, an astounding 67 percent of Americans could be dependent on the government for their livelihood. The implications aren't comforting.

            If irate voters don't rein in America's debt binge, market forces will, perhaps because foreigners will stop lending us the money or the rates they demand will rise and effectively bankrupt the country. Higher taxes would help solve the problem—and are probably inevitable—but enacting them on rich people alone won't be enough. At some point not too far off, the U.S. government will have to close the vast gap between its income and its spending, and the pain will be widespread.

                I suspect that most of the people who would reelect Obama would do so for personal reasons and not for the good of the country.  In other words, they think, “what will reelecting Obama do for me?”  I also suspect many supporters of Obama are influenced by envy and go along with his demagoguery that vilifies the rich and big business.  It is a tool used by unscrupulous power seekers since ancient times, turning the have-nots against the haves for personal advantage.  It is a tool (inciting agitation) used by communists and socialists – the illusion of something for nothing.