• Sign in

• Home
• Write for Webgazine
• Sign in
• About
• Contact

Reasons So Many Distrust Obama’s Administration

Many people were deeply skeptical of Barack Obama during the presidential campaign. Also many people did not feel that John McCain would make a good president. So, some of the doubts and skepticisms were simply dismissed because they did not want to vote for McCain. And these doubts and skepticisms had nothing to do with race. I acknowledge that there were perhaps a great number who were racially prejudiced, but on the other hand, a much larger number voted for him because of his racial mix.

Many of the doubts and concerns are now coming to the forefront and this is a reason there is so much disagreement now permeating the air. Before the election, Obama’s previous associations were adequate to cause much concern, even though they were passed off as casual and meaningless or that they were never known to do or say such things in his presence. The excuses were so lacking in substance that only those who were trying desperately to believe them, could do so.

Also the notorious ones who where spending millions to see that he was elected. Everyone talks about special interests behind a candidate, many of those who were behind Obama were subversive, haters of America, hard shelled socialists, mobsters and more. His former acquaintances included Jeremiah Wright (20 years), Bill Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, Bernardine Dohrn, Michael Phleger, James Meeks, and dealings with Rod Blagojevich, Tony Rezko, Raila Odinga, and more. It was difficult to find a former associate who was reputable. His primary financial backers consisted of the likes of George Soros and the MoveOn.org group, Louis Farrakhan, The Democratic Alliance (another George Soros gang). All of these whose aims were/are to bring down America and make it socialist.

Obama is in deep obligation to Soros and those who are tied with him, plus being indebted to organized labor parties. Much of his agenda reflects the wishes of those various organizations. His political appointees also reflect the approach he has taken towards government. After losing several of his potential appointees because they, “inadvertently forgot to pay their proper taxes“, several have made statements in the past which should be frightening to all Americans. And much of these remarks are causing the present depth of concern over the ambiguous portions of the Health Care bill. The reasons of concern are valid and serious. Not only has the bill left an immense amount of authority resting upon the Secretary of Health, but has wording that would enable future interpretations of serious consequences.

Let’s take an example of his appointees. I urge you to read the following excerpts carefully and pay close attention to the handling of the constitution, and our rights, proposed in them.

“John P. Holdren is advisor to President Barack Obama for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology” (Wikipedia)

Mr. Holdren has written many articles and reports and is author, or co-author of several books and following are some excerpts taken from his “Ecoscience”

Page 837: To date, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. For example, under the United States Constitution, effective population-control programs could be enacted under the clauses that empower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce, or under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws constitutionally could be very broad. Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. (emphasis mine...JH) Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion, however.

Page 787-788: Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. Physiologist Melvin Ketchel, of the Tufts University School of Medicine, suggested that a sterilant could be developed that had a very specific action—for example, preventing implantation of the fertilized ovum. He proposed that it be used to reduce fertility levels by adjustable amounts, anywhere from five to 75 percent, rather than to sterilize the whole population completely. In this way, fertility could be adjusted from time to time to meet a society's changing needs, and there would be no need to provide an antidote. Contraceptives would still be needed for couples who were highly motivated to have small families. Subfertile and functionally sterile couples who strongly desired children would be medically assisted, as they are now, or encouraged to adopt. Again, there is no sign of such an agent on the horizon. And the risk of serious, unforeseen side effects would, in our opinion, militate against the use of any such agent, even though this plan has the advantage of avoiding the need for socioeconomic pressures that might tend to discriminate against particular groups or penalize children. Most of the population control measures beyond family planning discussed above have never been tried. Some are as yet technically impossible and others are and probably will remain unacceptable to most societies (although, of course, the potential effectiveness of those least acceptable measures may be great).

Page 838: Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction. Some people—respected legislators, judges, and lawyers included—have viewed the right to have children as a fundamental and inalienable right. Yet neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce. Nor does the UN Charter describe such a right, although a resolution of the United Nations affirms the " right responsibly to choose " the number and spacing of children (our emphasis). In the United States, individuals have a constitutional right to privacy and it has been held that the right to privacy includes the right to choose whether or not to have children, at least to the extent that a woman has a right to choose not to have children. But the right is not unlimited. Where the society has a " compelling, subordinating interest " in regulating population size, the right of the individual may be curtailed. If society's survival depended on having more children, women could he required to bear children, just as men can constitutionally be required to serve in the armed forces. Similarly, given a crisis caused by overpopulation, reasonably necessary laws to control excessive reproduction could be enacted. It is often argued that the right to have children is so personal that the government should not regulate it. In an ideal society, no doubt the state should leave family size and composition solely to the desires of the parents. In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?

A quote taken from CNSNews Christopher Neefus, July 29, 2009:

" A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States, " Holdren wrote in a 1973 book he co-authored with Paul R. Ehrlch and Anne H. Ehrlich. " De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation. "

Again, this man is advisor to President Barack Obama for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. These types of advisors are enough to cause concern for any freedom loving American.

One of Obama’s appointees made a remark which I heard on TV, but I have forgotten which one it was. Possibly this Holdren, or possibly the Secretary of Health. His remark was something similar to the following: “The elderly people are simply going to have to realize that pain and sickness comes with age and you just have to live with it.” This in reference to certain benefits in Medicare.

 

» left by Anonymous (2 years 259 days ago.)

So do you actually believe your own misinformation (lies as I think of them), or are you really this brainwashed?

» left by Joel Hendon (2 years 259 days ago.)

I do appreciate your profound refutation of my remarks. Most of them are quotes from his associates. Ask them if they are lies as you think of them.

» left by Marty from CT (2 years 71 days ago.)

Excellent write up. You put in to words what I could only think of.

 

The reasons I do not like him;

 

1) His administrations agenda and policies. They are pandering far too much to the left and not enough to the middle and the right.

 

2) He is arrogant yet he is naive. He bows to everyone and his gifts to our most important allies (dvd's, etc)

 

3) Our economy has been hurting since he took off yet he has done nothing to correct it, instead he makes healthcare his priority. The reason he does this is he has to pay back Bill and Hillary. He has wasted a year of Congress' time focusing on healthcare when it should have been focused at fixing our economy.

 

4) His sucking up to special interest groups. There is NO doubt that he is behind all the unions, take a look at the kickbacks that the auto unions, acorn, and seiu are getting from him.

 

5) His lies. He speaks out both sides of his mouth and his been caught in entirely too many lies. latest one is the Patriot Act..see Guantanamo..troops in the ME..Acorn

 

 

» left by Joel Hendon (2 years 71 days ago.)

Thank you for reading and commenting Marty, and for the helpful remarks. The only good thing I can see right now is that he is so arrogant and self-centered that he cannot see he has placed a loaded pistol to his head and is now sqeezing the trigger. His know-it-all approach is going to cause him to self-destruct.

• Home
• Terms of Service
• Privacy
• Categories
• Writers' Guidelines
• Write for Webgazine
• Tag Cloud
• About
• Contact