Obama Backlash Growing Quickly

March 16, 2009 | By | 14 Replies More

For the last eight years, the fear and doubt crowd have had one of their own in the head office. Comforted that science will be suppressed and church programs will be federally funded, the vocal conservatives fell into relative complacency. Or did I miss it?

obama fear

Courtesy of ButAsForMe.com

But now, the flood gates are opening. The “gun nuts” are buying up weapons and ammunition creating a price spike never before seen. Why? Because they are convinced that Obama is a communist who will outlaw their guns and tax their ammo.

The anti-family-planning crowd is staging bigger sit-ins at health clinics. They are also submitting bills to local, state, and federal government to restrain the feared upsurge in availability of contraception and related information.

He overturned the stem cell funding ban. Now discarded blastocysts are again eligible research subjects rather than just trash. The humanity! After all, they quail, if we don’t respect trashed cell clusters as people, how can we possibly value adult citizens?

Anti-science groups are pushing ever more vocally for science in schools to be properly tempered by religious counterpoints. Bills appear in state after state calling for “Academic Freedom,” meaning to give the Bible equal weight as proven science in schools. Yes, this started long ago, but now they have greater urgency.

The conservative media is calling Obama’s initial tax cuts a hike, and his pushing through of the stimulus package (that had been in the works for months under his predecessor) as typical unrestrained Democrat unilateral spending. They can get away with it because they knew that the necessary spending will pass whether or not they approve it. Looking tough with no teeth is all they have, at present.

Recall the political fury during the 1930’s depression. A Democrat prevailed over strong Republican objections and turned the country around doing basically what Obama is now doing. He kept getting re-elected because he got results. Results directly opposite of all the dire predictions of the Republicans. Basically, the same arguments being made now against Obama.

Share

Tags: , , ,

Category: American Culture, Fraud, History, ignorance, Media, Politics, Reproductive Rights

About the Author ()

A convoluted mind behind a curly face. A regular traveler, a science buff, and first generation American. Graying of hair, yet still verdant of mind. Lives in South St. Louis City. See his personal website for (too much) more.

Comments (14)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Lola26 says:

    Seemed like there were just as many flakes pissing and moaning about W when he was in office. Lets face it, this has less to do with the men in office than the political ideologies.

    As for the stem cell issue, I guess the ends justify the means, huh? What's next, cloning?

  2. Dan Klarmann says:

    "Flakes pissing and moaning" indeed.

    We flakes complained that America would fall farther behind intellectually because of Dubya's anti-science policies and his principle of cutting funding to those schools that need the most help (NCLB). We were right.

    We flakes complained that cutting taxes for the top 5% would grow the deficit and do no good for the then-flush economy. We were right.

    We flakes complained that an incursion into Iraq would involve a decade of occupation, further balloon the deficit, and would be counter-productive to our national security. We were right.

    We flakes complained that faith-based initiatives like abstinence only sex-ed would show negative (worse than neutral) results. We were right. See Governor Palin.

    We flakes complained that prosecutions of anyone without due process would cause strong international backlash. We were right.

    Let's see if any of the current Flakes turn out to be right. Care to wager?

  3. Lola26 says:

    WOW, I haven't heard that kind of "sun also rises" logic since my four year old offered the quarter under his pillow as proof that the tooth fairy exists. By that very same logic, you'd have to admit that Dubya's policies on terrorism have made the U.S. a safer place because there have been no other attacks on U.S. soil. A proposition with which, by the way, I do not agree.

  4. Niklaus Pfirsig says:

    One possible use of stem cell research is in the regrowth of replacement organs, which could be considered a limited form of cloning.

    Right now, there are waiting lists for all types of organ transplants. Many are turned away because systemic damage to body resulting from the failed organ makes them a non viable risk. Even those that receive a transplan, face a future of continous immuno suppression therapy to stave off organ rejection, and often the transplant is rejected anyway.

    Stem cells offer a way to grow replacement organs that are 90 to 100 percent compatible, meaning practically no risk of rejection. And while Right-winger claim to champion the right to life, most fail to understand that the majority of pregnancies spontaneously abort within the first few weeks, often before the woman suspects she might be pregnant. The stem cells come largely from a type of spontaneous abortions, commonly know as miscarriages.

    As to the war on terror, there are indications that it has increased terrorist activity against Americans at home and around the world. It seems, however that many of the terrorist attacks on us soil are not counted as terrorist attacks. Antrax letters, food tampering, highway sniping, even when politically motivated are no longer counted, as well as any terrorist attacks by non-moslem groups such as the Freeman militias and the KKK, ALF, and others.

    • Glen Blackstock says:

      Niklaus I agree with you on most of your comments and I really hope they can find a way to reproduce stem cells that does not create a black market in fetuses. Unfortunately you are wrong about the use of of miscarriages. "It has been shown that not only are stem cells from spontaneous abortions very difficult to obtain, they usually are not a viable source because they had a defect of some kind causing the miscarriage." You need health stem calls which only come from health fetuses.

      I am Canadian and normally Anti-American, but Obama may change that too.

      The whole world thought Americans must be blind, deaf or stupid when You reelected G.W.Bush. I think Obama is going help the USA regain some respect it lost over the last 8 years.

      I was proud of our Liberal Prime Minister after 911 for standing up and saying no we won't join you in starting a war that can't be won. Killing suicidal gunmen is a waste of ammo and never works. It only creates a new generation of hatred among the surviving children. If USA had dropped game systems, and flat screen TVs by parachute instead of bombs the young terrorist would be too busy playing online games to bother killing the nice American solders.

  5. Niklaus Pfirsig says:

    Glen, many of the spontaneous abortions are not due to defects, but to immune system incompatibilities, but you are correct that obtaining stem cells in this manner is difficult. I do recall an article that was published shortly after the stem cell ban concerning a more reliable source.

    As for electing GWB to two terms, Well no one really knows. The 2000 and 2004 elections were both plagued with massive and unprecedented election fraud. In both elections and in 2008, election officials in key states manipulated election laws to disenfranchise large block voters who traditionally vote against the Republican party, extending the gerrymandering concept to a new low. In spite of these efforts, the 2000 election was so close that pivoted on the election results of one state, Florida, where a close recount was stopped by a judge when the count favored Bush. So in effect, Bush was appointed by a Florida judge.

    By the 2004 election, a large number of the outdated mechanical election system had been replaced electronic voting machine that were not certified for use in elections. Most of the electronic voting machines were proven to be insecure, lacked any type of audit trail, and made the idea of a recount impossible. as could be expected, the 2004 election had a considerable number of voting machine "malfunctions" that favored the Republican party.

  6. jon says:

    This coming backlash is deeper than that. The simple fact is that most rational Americans don't really want the kind of change Obama is proposing to give us. Change and hope are nice slogans, but they were just platitudes. It's not a dem or repub thing, it's an American thing. Anybody who isn't just a little worried is either ignorant or for some reason they want the government heavily involved in our day to day lives.

    Our freedoms (our real freedoms, the right to choose our own destiny, not the silly crap everyone whined about when Bush was in office), things guaranteed by the constitution and our inherently capitalist culture are at stake here.

    I see what's happening and I don't like it. Many feel the same way.

    As for your history lesson, no, the New Deal only made things worse on top of worse, it's just basic knowledge to anybody who has honestly studied the period. What Roosevelt did was talk up America to the American people and kept us clinging on, something Obama has yet to do. In the end, "Lend Lease" pulled us out of the depression, not Roosevelts policies.

    One last thing to consider. Look at all of Bush's spending programs….you, like Obama, said his policies didn't work? Then why is Obama doubling and trippling down on all the same garbage Bush waisted money on?

  7. Niklaus Pfirsig says:

    Jon, the bailout payment approved by Bush explicitly called for a lack of accountability in regard to how the money as used. The lack of oversight was pretty much like saying "Get your free money! We don't care what you do with it, burn it, buy a learjet, give yourselves a big hefty bonus.. We don't care, cause that democrat is taking over and we want to screw the economy up so bad that he can't straighten it out. Then in four years, we'll be back and everybody will vote Republican, then we can outlaw all opposition, and do away with that stupid election process, 'cause we won't be needing it with only one party, and we will answer to no-one !";

    Seriously though, Obama's plan has requirements on how the money is to be used. I think the initial money approved by Bush before he left office was the financial equal of a "scorched earth" policy and it is completely consistent with the ploitical leaning of Dick Cheney.

  8. jon says:

    You have a good point on accountability, but why should the government be placing even more restrictions, regulations and oversight on the private sector, or even bailing them out in the first place? Bush, I believe, was scared and acted hastily and now Obama is following up with overkill.

    Even worse, Obama is doubling and tripling down on other Bush policies such as massively increasing the size and scope of the federal government, something I always had a problem with Bush doing. Some people don't know what to think about this guy (Obama); there are so many contradictions and so much double speak, but I can see through it. I don't understand why so many people are being so gullible. It's downright scary if you ask me.

    • Erich Vieth says:

      Yes, it's all downright scary. No one disagrees. But Obama is attempting to apply Keynesian economics to the wretched situation he inherited. He's not inventing this attempted remedy out of whole cloth; it's not an irrational approach, as you seem to suggest. It's an approach advocated, in principle by many Republicans. I hope he pulls this off, but we are in for a rough ride. Based on numerous economists, it would be much much worse had we done nothing to replenish the money supply. Consider this from Wikipedia:

      Keynesian economics (also called Keynesianism (pronounced /ˈkeɪnziən/) and Keynesian Theory), is a macroeconomic theory based on the ideas of 20th-century British economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynesian economics argues that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes, and therefore advocates active policy responses by the public sector, including monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government, to stabilize output over the business cycle.

  9. Niklaus Pfirsig says:

    Jon, It's not a matter of adding more restrictions, it's about reinstating the good ones that were lifted early in Bush's first term. The market has proven it is unable to regulate itself.

    Unfettered by the regulations. the financial conglomerates were pressured to seek the highest short term ains without any long term plans. They bet their investors' money on the high risk items and lost.

  10. Dan Klarmann says:

    And now a local article about the booming gun business: Heavy demand for guns, ammo puts strain on supply chain

    Basically, as I mentioned in the original post, gun owners fear that the Obama administration will strip them of their rights to have large-magazine rapid-fire weapons to protect children in our schools. Or something along those lines.

  11. Tony Coyle says:

    Dan, the backlash is not even at all sensible (as you point out).

    The reinstatement of the assault weapon ban would restrict the sale, manufacture and importation of 19 types of guns and magazines that carry more than 10 bullets.

    I don't know about you, but I don't think the constitution mentions anywhere that citizens should be equipped with rapid-fire assault weapons! Where does that one restriction infringe on the "right to bear arms"?

    Does the NRA suggest that everyone should have the opportunity and right to purchase RPGs, SAMs, mobile artillery, and the like. I'd quite like an Apache gunship or two (RC controlled, of course).

    Not. Going. to. Happen!

    Do those restrictions impinge upon my 2nd amendment rights? I don't think so! A ban on assault weapons is no different.

    The NRA Bullshit (as quoted in the article) is simply another right-wing talking point:

    "They realize this administration does pose a risk to their Second Amendment freedoms," said Alexa Fritts, spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association.

    They do like their talking points to be as fact-free as possible, don't they.

  12. Tony Coyle says:

    I infer Jon has libertarian leanings.

Leave a Reply