Scared Yet?

Peter Ferrara, writing on The American Spectator website, has a very interesting look at a possible Obama presidency. His Special Report is titled “The Hugo Chavez Democrats.” I’ll hit the high points, but it’s a good read and I recommend following the link and seeing what Mr. Ferrara has to say.

According to Mr. Ferrara, an Obama presidency would bring the end of prosperity, a decline in our ability to defend the Nation, forced unionism, restraints on free speech, “Brown Shirt” thugs threatening anyone who doesn’t agree with the administration, and a massive swing to radical socialism. Perhaps Mr. Ferrara is a bit of a pessimist, but then again, perhaps he isn’t.

Mr. Ferrara thinks that during an Obama presidency, one supported by a highly-liberal Democrat Congress, there would be a rise in every major Federal tax, which would increase government spending and regulatory costs in order to pay for social programs. Mr. Ferrara points out,

”Obama has the entire country mesmerized by the promise of a measly $500 income tax credit for ’95% of Americans. . . . Yet another government check like that is not going to do anything to change the fundamental incentives, and so will do nothing to advance the economy. Indeed, it will harm the economy as the credit is swiftly phased out at higher income levels, effectively increasing marginal tax rates further by imposing another penalty as income rises.”

Interesting, isn’t it. I know that I’m mostly preaching to the choir, but Senator Obama’s rhetoric about cutting taxes for the average American and making the rich and corporate fat cats pay “their fair share” is really starting to sound like an old, broken record. As he told Joe the Plumber, the real purpose behind his tax and spend policy is to redistribute wealth. I tend to agree with Mr. Ferrara that Senator Obama’s proposed tax cuts are really “tax credits that would send new government checks to those paying little or nothing in federal income taxes” rather than true tax cuts; for anyone.

Mr. Ferrara also questions whether we can “really trust these ultraliberals with our nation’s defenses?” Good question. Liberal Democrat, Congressman Barney Frank, wants to cut national defense spending by 25%, even though Iran is trying to gain nuclear weapons, Russia is threatening its neighbors and trying to reassert itself on the world stage, and China is playing games. How does it make sense to cut defense spending when we have not yet quelled Islamic terrorism or when Iran is trying to build a nuclear capability? Senator Obama has said that he’ll sit down, without preconditions, and talk to Iranian leaders. But Iran has issued its own set of preconditions. They will not talk to us unless we withdraw all our forces from the Middle East (including Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey) and cut our ties with Israel. Remember that Iran is totally committed to the destruction of Israel. Why in the world would anyone think that cutting defense spending and talking to potential enemies would help defend our way of life? Amazing!

Mr. Ferrara also describes how the ultraliberals in an Obama presidency want to eliminate the secret ballot for union elections. The unions, big supporters of the Democrat ticket, think secret ballots are unfair; probably because they lose more elections than they win. A change to federal law would require employers to recognize a union simply when the union presents “union authorization cards” signed by a majority of the company’s employees. If there is no secret ballot, the union will be able to intimidate, threaten, and coerce employees into signing the cards. Anyone who doesn’t want to join the union would still be required to do so; and be forced to pay high union dues and let the union bargain on their behalf. As Mr. Ferrara says, under this scenario “the employer has lost control over his company” the minute union activists show up at their door with cards signed by a bare majority of workers.

Under an Obama presidency, state and local governments would be forced to recognize mandatory unions for public workers, including police and firefighters. Why should we require our “finest” and our “bravest” belong to a union before they can be our first responders. Does that make sense? Wouldn’t it make more sense to have a national right to work law that gives individual employees the right to decide whether, or not, to join a union? Isn’t that what freedom really means; the right to make our own decisions?

Then there’s the question of whether free speech can be fair. According to Mr. Ferrara, an Obama presidency would impose drastic regulation of the “public airwaves” that would require a “mandatory balance between competing viewpoints on public policy issues.” Obviously, this “fairness doctrine” is aimed at conservative talk radio, particularly since network news (now called the mainstream media) is exempt. You see, they are totally objective . . . right, sure they are! Under an Obama presidency, free speech is limited by government bureaucrats who will decide what is “balanced” based on totally subjective standards. What a recipe for abuse of power!

But then the Obama presidency is well primed for abusing power. The Obama campaign has already demonstrated it’s readiness to use legal processes, intimidation, and threats to shut down opposing views. Mr. Ferrara refers to these “minions” as “The Brown Shirts.” Consider this. The Obama campaign has sent letters demanding criminal prosecution of an advocacy organization and its primary donor because they sponsored TV advertisements critical of Senator Obama’s association with homegrown terrorist, Bill Ayers. The campaign has sent letters threatening FCC investigations of their broadcast licenses to TV stations that have run NRA-sponsored ads critical of the Senator’s anti-gun record. They have sent “WARNING letters” to potential GOP donors, threatening investigations into “their business and personal affairs” by the IRS, media, or watch-dog groups. The campaign in Missouri has even organized a “Truth Squad” made up of local prosecutors and law enforcement-types who will target anyone who “lies” about Senator Obama. Take a look at what happened to “Joe the Plumber.” Because he spoke out against Senator Obama, local government officials invaded his privacy; releasing information about his taxes, his support payments, and his driving history. Why? Finally, in Chicago, Senator Obama called for his minions to sabotage a WGN talk radio show because the host invited a writer critical of the Senator to appear on his show. The Senator said the writer did not deserve “time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves.” Senator Obama, just who “owns” those public airwaves? I’m really not sure it’s Senator Obama or his minions. Mr. Ferrara warns,

”If this is how Obama and his people are behaving now, what will they be like when they take over the Justice Department, and the FCC, and the entire federal government.?”

Good question. Are you frightened yet? I am. But if you’re not convinced that an Obama presidency would let the “Hugo Chavez Democrats” run wild, Mr. Ferrara ends his Special Report with this:

”I have left out Obama’s support for driver’s licenses and Social Security for illegal aliens, his massive proposed spending increases, including a new global war on poverty financed by U.S. taxpayers, recently totaled in the Wall Street Journal as amounting to $4.3 trillion over 10 years, his proposed government takeover of health care, his specified central economic planning for our energy industry, his support for the most liberal-left Supreme Court appointees in history, modeled after former ACLU General Counsel Ruth Bader Ginsburg, his support for federal legislation to repeal every state restriction on abortion, including parental notification, his ardent support for partial birth abortion, his promise to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and his opposition to making English the official language of America (he said Americans need to teach their children Spanish).

Scared now?