Six Ways Obama Wants to Change America

What word does Barack Obama and his supporters keep chanting? "Change!" Like a drumbeat, Obama's chant for change runs nonstop in an endless loop. But how does Obama want to change America if he becomes president? Here are six different areas he would like changed.

For starters, Obama received a 100 percent rating from NARAL (a pro-abortion group) in 2005, 2006, and 2007. Why do they hold him in such high esteem? Because he supports every pro-abortion bill that comes along. He wants tax dollars for abortions, he voted against notifying parents of minors about abortions, he supports partial-birth abortion, and he would withhold life-saving measures from babies born after botched abortions.

Obama wants no limits on abortion, ever, but he is completely out of step with the majority of Americans. For example, seven out of 10 are against partial-birth abortion -- which is a brutal procedure in the second or third trimester of pregnancy in which babies are pulled feet-first from the womb, stabbed through the skull with a scissor-like instrument and their brains are sucked out via a strong suction tube. Afterwards the dead baby's collapsed head is removed from the mother. As ugly as it is, and as it sounds, in Obama's America it would be routinely done all the way up to the time of birth.

Secondly, Obama is glaringly weak on national security. He advocates negotiating with terrorists. One week after he told AIPAC, a pro-Israel group, that Jerusalem "must remain undivided," he backpedaled, did a shameless about-face, and now declares that the status of Jerusalem will need to be negotiated in future talks. Obama naively wants to pull our troops out of Iraq without first ensuring stability in the area, which will put all of America at risk.

It has been less than four years since he became the junior senator from Illinois. Guess which foreign leaders have expressed their desire for him to win? Communist Fidel Castro recently called Obama, "the most progressive candidate to the U.S. presidency," while an advisor from the terrorist group Hamas told WorldNetDaily, "We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the election."

Third, Obama will dramatically raise taxes. In response to Bush's 2008 State of the Union address, Obama said he is against tax cuts for Americans. "We heard the president say he wants to make tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans permanent, when we know that at a time of war and economic hardship, the last thing we need is a permanent tax cut for Americans who don't need them and weren't even asking for them."

Prior to clinching the nomination he proposed what he would do with your money: "And the Bush tax cuts -- people didn't need them, and they weren't even asking for them, and that is why they need to be less, so that we can pay for universal health care and other initiatives."

This leads to change number four, socialized medicine. "Well, look, I believe in universal health care," Obama said at a presidential debate last February. "Every expert has said that anybody who wants health care under my plan will be able to obtain it." Obama likes to call it "universal health care" because it sounds more palatable than what it is: socialized medicine.

Change number five is education. His far-left voting record voices his beliefs about education. In 2003, he cast his vote in Illinois to allow "age appropriate" sex education to be taught in elementary school. Planned Parenthood and the ACLU also supported this legislation.

In Illinois, Obama also supported "free" taxpayer funded college tuition for students as long as they maintained a "B" average. This sounds nice, but where does the money come from? You, of course, with higher taxes.

Finally, change number six is an end to free trade. USA Today wrote about Obama's plans: "Modifying or scrapping NAFTA wouldn't create jobs or more skilled workers. The idea raises false hope and seeks to scapegoat Mexico and Canada." The possibility of a President Obama is making Wall Street nervous and the stock market reflects it.

Remember, a favorite word liberals use to describe themselves is "progressive," and this means change. Every time you hear the roar "change," remember that this chant translates into elitist, left-wing, socialized change -- change for which you will dearly pay.

While socialized medicine in theory sounds like a nice idea, one has only to look at England and Canada to see that it doesn't provide the same care as we have now. Or, Michael Moore wants us to look at Cuba, healthcare paradise. They are routinely denied treatments or forced to wait months for critical surgery, or threatened with ending their medical benefits if they finance treatments privately. In the case of Cuba, the common person gets a dirty, dilapidated hospital with inadequate medicines.

But the USA surely won't have those problems since we're so rich, right? Even Obama will only be able to raise taxes so far without causing economic chaos, so the budget for this universal healthcare will be limited. The giant new Department of Healthcare will quickly bloat with civil service workers providing their usual high degree of efficiency and non-redundancy. Doctors and hospitals will be told by the Feds exactly what they will be paid for a procedure, and they will have to accept it and like it.

Persons now illegally in the US will get healthcare cards too. Millions of the poorest people, who have the most serious, chronic problems due to obesity, inactivity, smoking, cancer, bad diets etc, will flock to the free healthcare teat. Soon doctors and operating rooms will be overbooked for months, the doctors will not be happy about the $158.60 (or whatever) they are getting paid for the surgery, and the hospitals will be screaming that they can't continue to run on the alloted budget. Hospital employees will be cut to skeleton staffs, doctors will revolt and we will wait for our turn in the healthcare queue, right behind millions of others in that giant waiting room.

I guess that will result in emergency calls for more taxes to rescue the now foundering socialized medicine behemoth. Remember President Clinton's healthcare plan proposal, the one Hillary was dungeonmaster of? At the time, Senator Moynihan proposed a 10,000 percent tax on handgun ammunition, supposedly to help pay for healthcare victims. However, no one but the Government would actually pay $200 a box for handgun ammo, so there would have been no actual tax revenue. Moynihan later admitted that his purpose was to get rid of ammunition ("The nation has a 200-year supply of guns but only a 4-year supply of ammunition").

They would have better success slapping huge new taxes on cigarettes, but they are already so expensive that many people would quit or handroll their own. So again, little new tax revenue.

Aha! We'll just take those corporate windfall profits away from those evil corporations! And then what? Prices go through the roof and pension plans suffer. More economic chaos.

So we'll just tax the rich "their fair share"! If you take 75% of rich peoples' incomes, soon they will either not be rich for the plucking, will not invest in American jobs, or will shelter their money and jobs outside the US. Chaos.

We may have to put up with this bumbling experiment just to prove it doesn't work. Many will receive late, substandard care. Some will die. Then, at the beginning of the next Republican administration, dismantling the giant healthcare beaurocracy will be a great talking point for the Democrats. "President Ends Universal Healthcare, Thousands of Useless Beaurocrats Hardest Hit".

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.