The Case for Reelecting Obama

Don’t misunderstand the title. I’m against Obama completely. I’m against him personally, and every single thing he stands for: Socialism, nationalization of private property, Big Government, and neurotic human dependence on one another at the force of gunpoint.

However, Obama’s supporters are making a case for reelecting him. Nothing I hear is even remotely convincing.

The arguments for reelecting Obama boil down to three simple points.

‘Everything getting better is due to Obama’s policies.’

‘Anything not improved is Bush’s fault; Obama needs more time to fix it.’

‘Anything that got worse would have been even worse, had it not been for Obama’s policies.’

It’s called circular reasoning. It all flows from the premise that Obama is right, and everyone else is wrong. Facts be damned. Internal consistency be damned. Everyone be damned who dares even question this.

Obama’s supporters apply these three points to everything. Consider unemployment.

‘It’s true that unemployment is higher than when Obama entered office. However, it would have been even higher were it not for Obama’s stimulus bill, socialized medicine law, and other policies.’

Now imagine if some Republican had entered office in 2009. Let’s say he passed a bill cutting taxes across the board by 20 percent. Let’s say he cut spending — or at least the rate of increases in spending — to a significant degree.

If unemployment went up after 3 years, what do you think the response of socialist liberal Democrats would have been? Too shrill, and too loaded with expletives, to print here. But it’s not hard to imagine.

They apply this to health care. ObamaCare has yet to take full effect. It could possibly be struck down by the Supreme Court, although if it is, I’m not so sure there won’t be a Constitutional crisis, because liberals and socialists (still in control of most of the government) are not going to take that one lying down. Nevertheless, ObamaCare is partially in effect already. And what we’re hearing is that the Obama Administration itself is being forced to issue hundreds of waivers from the law to companies who cannot handle the insolvency the mandates in this law will create. Of course, this is ‘crony capitalism’ at its worst, and is actually the definition of fascism. Obama the President hands out favors and relaxes restrictions to companies he likes, while imposing those restrictions on companies which he dislikes, or to whom he’s indifferent.

Imagine for a moment if the Bush Administration had selectively allowed some companies to be exempt from government regulations, while still requiring others to follow them. The cries for impeachment would have been immediate, and the criticism would have been well deserved. Bush, of course, was no less guilty of  ‘crony capitalism’ than Obama or anyone else. But rarely, if ever, has a President been as open and explicit about it as Obama. And he gets away with it. There’s not even a whimper of criticism from anyone about this, other than what’s left of the ‘Tea Party’—and even then, just a whimper.

Double standard is too kind a word for this.

The same goes for rising oil prices. Gas prices did rise, overall, during Bush’s terms in office. This was (and still is) attributed to a conspiracy involving Bush, his vice president Dick Cheney and the hated oil companies, without whose productivity oil would be a worthless pile of goo in the ground. Now that Bush and Cheney are out of power, what’s the explanation for rising gas prices under Obama?

‘It’s not his fault. It’s the oil companies’ fault. Oil companies make too much.’ I suppose if oil companies made less, or didn’t work for a profit at all, kind of like a United Way charity, then all would be better? I wish a liberal would explain this to me. But I find that liberals are not into explanations. They scream and rage at dissension, or cry, or call you names, or (if they’re trying to be nice) they simply change the subject, but they never explain.

Imagine if Mitt Romney actually wins. When he runs again in 4 years, things might be the same, worse, or a little better. If they’re a little better, he’ll be forced to defend why they’re not even better than they are. ‘Unemployment is down to 5 percent. Why isn’t it 3 percent?’

You see, the ‘case’ for reelecting Obama isn’t a case at all. It’s simply a shrill and angry defiance. That’s all Big Government liberalism, like its parent ideology socialism, really is. Like a child stamping its foot for wanting his or her way, the policies of Obama can lead to nothing but gratification of needs which serve no rational purpose whatsoever. The evidence that Obama’s policies do damage, not to mention further undermining the remnants of freedom which still existed in our once thriving economy, are permitted no sunlight. There’s no way to defend Obama’s policy failures other than circular reasoning based on child-like, almost primitive emotions. And to most, evidently that’s OK.

Obama loves to preach about how we are all our brother’s keepers, and how it’s his job to make sure this personal view of his has the force of law. To Obama, we bear the burden of responsibility for one another. What about his own responsibility for his policies?

Obama is the percet candidate of command-and-control American liberalism. He’s right, and the facts don’t matter. Shut up and follow orders.