word count 1758
Understanding What's at Stake In the Presidential - Election -
The ideological differences of this year's presidential campaign opponents could not be more distinct at this precise time before Election Day 2012.
(1) One candidate, Mitt Romney, a Republican, wants to revive fiscal sanity and 'go back' to smaller government where fiscal responsibility requires, above all, balancing the budget every year; also, where the economy is driven by a lesser-regulated free-market dictated by basic supply and demand; and where social programs are designed for those who have a definite need for help from their government and are required to follow steps which insure they are qualified for a job when they are through with the process and where they must repay, in some way, whatever the government (the people-- tax payers--) deem necessary for their particular case; plus, where those who are unable to work, and have no means of support, are provided for in a fair and dignified manner. Health care and education would also be funded by businesses and the government together in programs where the recipients are expected to pay on the basis of ability and the extent of care given. Nobody would be forced into unions but neither would they be prevented from creating one if the needs of a particular business or industry might suggest a situation where employees would be better served if one was called for. Government employees might well need a union in this form of government, but as has always been a pre-requisite for federal unions, there must be safeguards for the tax-payers to insure union employees needs must never exceed limits of pay and other benefits which would interfere with the taxpayers rights. Small businesses can usually maintain levels necessary for sales for profits and benefits for employees in this system, but small business loans for properly planned businesses would receive federal backing in the manner of guaranteeing a percentage of the loans granted.
(2) The other candidate, the incumbent, Barack Obama, desires a system of government which requires a highly regulated, government controlled market, where, hopefully, other countries traded with are regulated in the same manner. He visualizes a system where everyone, in some way, is bound, and consequently dependent on the government for their education and health-care needs. And where people who earn more as co-owners with the state in business or industry, are required to pay more in taxes to the government which will 'redistribute' those funds to the lesser fortunate. He also favors converting over to 'green energy' uses as quickly as possible and has already insured that the country is dependent on foreign oil, by holding off production, and not allowing drilling, as an incentive to make sure we have all green energy by whatever means possible as quickly as we have the technology--- which, by the way, we already have a good deal of, but it is not nearly as efficient as it should be to take care of the needs of the general public. It's not cost efficient (that means it's too expensive)---. The business landscape would be one of larger corporations under Obama's system, which would necessarily require unions to represent the workers for most of their needs and salaries. Smaller businesses would not be particularly favored in this system simply because regulation would probably make them unable to sustain sales at a high enough level of production to maintain the necessary profits to remain in business. The government, would be the biggest employer in the country and would also require the largest union leadership since businesses require more regulations to make sure they are not making too much money, In order to insure fairness the government would need to control energy output and costs as well. Since Liberal Democrats don't wish to be known as Socialists, even though they are, they would end up with names like, The People's Labor Party, or, The National People's Union, and shortly thereafter, when they find out that they are named whatever the government decides to call them. They also, in due time begin to find out, they might just as well be called Communists or Socialists. About this time is when they discover the utopia they were told they would have is going to take a little longer to reach because they took so many shortcuts around the Constitution, they no longer have one, The government would not be a Constitutional Republic, it would be similar to a Russian Politburo.
There is a question with regards to Obama's seeming disregard for the Constitution. This is a broad enough issue that might call into question whether or not his ideological values may be at odds with the Constitution itself. The core of the argument being the assumption that the myriad new regulations and union standing with regard to federal and state government employees could have the results of being on the side of its employee representation and yet be against the needs of the citizens (taxpayers)when regulations tie the hands of the government--- of the people---, as their representative.
Without looking at other issues regarding the actual leadership of the incumbent, and whether his decision making, based on his unique ideology doesn't put him in direct opposition of the Constitution, there are ample examples of his conflicts of interest which should be of primary concern to the citizens of the United States and its elected representatives, which could conceivably be the grounds of an impeachment.
An example of the latter we have seen in the last ten days. September 11th to September 20th 2012:
In Benghazi, Libya, the American Consulate was attacked by a group of terrorist with RPG's (rocket propelled grenades) and other military grade weapons. This firefight with the American ambassador, and a small segment of guards (ex-navy seals in the case of two men and one other person) who appear to have been volunteers from a safe house near the consulate, lasted four hours, because there were no US Marines assigned by the State Department to protect Ambassador Chris Stevens. It was the Libyan acting president who told anyone who would listen that it was a terrorist attack. Spokespeople for the White House would not verify this.
At the same time around the world in various embassies, US and otherwise, it appeared Muslim Fundamentalists were organizing and fomenting sieges of dissidents over a video supposedly produced by a Christian of a little known sect, which was shown on YouTube.com--- and which first appeared on youtube.com back in July--- and supposedly used by the offended fundamentalists to incite rioters. (and kill people).
For some reason, this administration took the position that the video was responsible for agitating not only the rioters in all the embassies as well as the organized terrorist attack against the Benghazi embassy which had no demonstrators, and in which the Ambassador was killed. and yet the administration refused to call the attackers terrorists--- that would mean it was an act of war, on which the administration has taken the position that since Asama Bin Laden is now dead there can no longer be a war on terror. To admit that killing Bin Laden didn't stop the war on terror would mean Americans are not as safe as the administration claims in their advertising for Obama's re-election.
The facts demonstrate something else entirely than the administration's claim that these were spontaneous riots breaking out due to the offensive video, which, by the way the administration was still insisting, until today, was responsible for all the rioting as well as the killings of the Ambassador and the three men who came to his aid.
What this, evidently, was intended to accomplished was to tell the American people that the attacks were spontaneous and therefore the administration couldn't be held responsible in any way. Unfortunately, this raises many questions:
Question 1) Since the 9/11 disaster anniversary was the day the embassy was attacked, why were there no security measures taken by the State Department, or the White House for the possibility of this kind of attack? It is said that Ambassador Stephens had informed the State Department that he was on an assassination list of Al Queda, or at least a terrorist group of some kind. Meaning the White House as well as the State Department was informed ahead of time. Through, at least, the intelligence briefing that the media says Obama is too busy and to smart to attend since he knows more than anyone else in the room especially with respect to the Middle East. But he still supposedly reads them... Doesn't he?
Question 2) Attacking an Embassy is the same as attacking the US on home soil. Why was the WH and the State Dept. more intent on condemning the maker of the video than talking about not providing better security for the Benghazi Consulate? It is only common sense to realize that it was idiotic to have an Ambassador in a Consulate and yet not have a contingent of Marines there to protect him. Most especially in Libya.
Question 3) Why was the administration apologizing for the video instead of voicing objections and warning the militants of our intent to come down hard on them?
This is a perfect example of several things now happening in the US that should worry every citizen. It is a frightening sign that pretending, because Asama Bin Laden was dead, meant the terrorist war was over. That type of thinking was a disastrous failure of leadership.
Add to this Obama's Tour of Apology' where he bowed and scraped before leaders of countries where Human Rights are only a vague dream for the impoverished masses, his lack of commitment to seek real jobs for the millions of people that are out of work in the US simply by leaving the tax bill that Bush passed with both houses of Congress completely alone, his absolute lack of ability to even attempt to work with the Republican leadership to solve even the basic job of passing a comprehensive budget, even when he had enough of a majority of Democrats to pass a budget without their votes, and it becomes obvious we have someone who is so far over his head that whoever follows him will spend at least two to four years just cleaning up behind him.
Look again at Bush's record and he begins to look more and more like a savior.
D. Kenneth Ross