I make a good effort to read The Citizen every Wednesday because of its coverage of city and county news as well as the regular columnists. The period before the general elections is the more active period in terms of political news and the columnists of all shades and shapes.
The Citizen of April 4, 2012 had the widely syndicated columnist Cal Thomas on “After Election, Obama Unleashed” on page 4. In my opinion, Mr. Thomas introduced the recent diagnosis of President Obama’s “open-mic” affliction during a discussion with Russian President Medvedev.
President Obama was quoted as saying that once re-elected, he would have “more flexibility” to deal with missile defense. Mr. Thomas then takes off and, with the help of Mr. Dick Morris’s “thinking” and “belief”, paints a picture of what the president’s second term will be like.
One reasonable take-away from the article is that Mr. Obama must be denied a second term. Before we get to that, I have issues with Mr. Thomas’s article.
Where has Mr. Thomas been living during the past three years (since Mr. B.H. Obama graduated from the Senate to the White House)?
A few hours after he won the presidential election by beating Mr. John McCain, who, contrary to civil decorum, refused to shake Mr. Obama’s hand after presidential debate, Mr. Mitch McConnell publicly declared that he will be singularly focused on ensuring that the new president fails.
The Republican firebrand and conservative spokesman Mr. Limbaugh also weighed in and publicly ‘prayed’ for Mr. Obama to fail as president.
If a president fails during a four- or an eight-year term, that sets this great country back and it yields ground, power, prestige and respect to another country.
I do not wish that to any president of the USA, no matter his party affiliation.
To my knowledge, the Constitution-imposed constraints on presidential powers are still in force and not likely to be changed during another Obama term. Such a change requires a Constitutional amendment and the current “balance of party” influences in the country work against both Democratic and Republican push for a Constitutional amendment.
So, what other mechanism can Mr. Obama employ (with or without a Democratic Congress) to turn the country into a socialist state or a “vassal state to a globalist entity”?
What is the strength of the armed forces of this “globalist entity” for it to be able to overwhelm and subjugate the armed forces of this country whose primary duty is defense of the Constitution?
I know that no single scientist has all the facts regarding any problem and may only proffer solutions based on current knowledge. I know that every scientific pursuit has some degree of uncertainty and risk. Those with a good understanding of such risks may determine whether or how to proceed with the pursuit.
As a chemist, I know the importance of laboratory standard operating procedures which may morph into government regulations if dealing with petroleum drilling or prospecting.
I remember that the current administration had signed off on additional off-shore drilling just before the BP Gulf of Mexico blow-out. That is an administration exercising caution with a re-evaluation of current drilling practices.
The USA has ample reliable sources for petroleum outside of the Persian Gulf region. The production capability, reliable and stable market in the USA ensure this country will continue to dominate the global oil market, with or without terrorism or state-sponsors of terrorism.
I do not have any party affiliation but am very civics-conscious. I follow politics but I do not like “professional” politicians because they do not have objective convictions.
Mr. Thomas and Mr. Morris “believe” Mr. Obama’s second term will “yank the country leftward” rather than be bipartisan. I wonder what Mr. Obama was trying to accomplish when Speaker Boehner, Mr. Cantor, Mr. Ryan and others, walked out on him. These men also warned the chairman of the Federal Reserve to avoid policies that will ease the recession.
I support the former president’s decision to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, I do not understand how, in the past few months, deficit spending has become an overriding concern of the Republican hierarchy.
We were fighting two wars and had a tax break simultaneously. I remember Mr. Cheney saying that he was not concerned with the deficit. This was in response to concern expressed regarding the deficit the G.W. Bush administration had managed to achieve even though the previous administration left a surplus.
Now all shades of political economists are telling us how and why the Obama administration’s economic policies cannot lift the country out of the current doldrums. Some of these people are outright puerile and ludicrous.
I know that one of the functions of Congress is to ratify treaties entered into by the USA. Consequently, I do not understand how Obama’s second term will lead to
• unilateral signing and enforcement of the International Criminal Treaty;
• unilateral signing and enforcement of the Rights of the Child Treaty;
• signing and enforcement of the global ban on small arms control in the USA;
• signing and enforcement of the Law of the Sea Treaty;
• banning US weapons in outer space, thereby eliminating an anti-missile capability;
• creation of two countries within the USA: the hard-working and upwardly mobile and the welfare-dependent classes.
I know that in order for any administration to do all of the above, the three arms of government must be actively involved.
Mr. Thomas’s column makes for a scary scenario during Mr. Obama’s second term, if it happens. But there is comfort in knowing that Mr. Cal Thomas and Mr. Dick Morris are just pundits or strategists with very appalling records as prognosticators.
Elections in this country depend on the conviction of the citizens and not on rabble rousers. The next president will be chosen based on the strength of his ideas, accomplishments in previous positions and ability to convince the citizenry to share in his dreams for the future direction of the country.
Peter Awachie, Ph.D.
Fayetteville, Ga.
