21 May 2008

Obama’s Heavy Hand

In my previous post I pointed out Barack Obama’s apparent reticence to use American force against a foreign aggressor, Iran.  The proper approach to dealing with regimes that threaten us is, according to Mr. Obama, to engage them in conversation.  All that is needed to stop medieval killers is to talk to them.  If that doesn’t work, then we should really get serious and talk some more.

So, in what situations does Mr. Obama think government force is necessary?  

On the campaign trail in Oregon, he left us a clue.  “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times… and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.  That’s not leadership.  That’s not going to happen.” 1

What is not going to happen?  He is not going to permit us to do those things?  And how does he plan to stop us?  Apparently, this is what leadership means to Mr. Obama: telling American citizens what we are permitted to eat, how warm we are permitted to be in our homes, and what we are permitted to drive.  This is chilling to the bone.  

To be sure, John McCain and Hillary Clinton both pose significant implicit threats to our freedom, each in their own way.  But how can Barack Obama, a candidate for the United States presidency, explicitly threaten Americans to their face and then receive enthusiastic cheers?  Isn’t anyone paying attention to his words?

NOTE 1:  I first saw Mr. Obama’s quote on Gus van Horn's blog.


LB said...

I've been reading these things that Obama has been saying but the juxtaposition of his two worst ideas (change American behaviors through force and persuade Totalitarian Islam through talk) is really striking. Thanks for highlighting it so clearly. The fact that people are cheering for this is chilling to say the least.

Kim said...

I think he must be the most obviously dictatorial presidential candidate ever. I am not surprised that a large number of people are willing to surrender themselves to such demands from the government, though I think it's idiotic. I wonder about the motives though. Have they so little self-esteem they welcome having someone else tell them what to do? I'm leaning toward the idea that they really think other people ought to be doing something and welcome government interference in their own lives to get others to do what they think is right. I also think lack of foresight is a huge part of it as well--don't think forward enough to realize things they advocate are a precedent for violating everyone's rights.