Obamaâ€™s Executive Orders Of Destruction
By: Michael John McCrae
Liberalism is an amazing mindset.
The website â€œMy Wayâ€ posted an AP report by Stephen Ohlemacher entitled: â€œObama to use executive orders for immediate impactâ€
It was an interesting read in that it gives some valuable insight into the mindless carnage that can be caused by signing a Presidential Executive dictate, also called an â€œExecutive Orderâ€.
The article is mostly speculation. Until President-elect Obama is actually President Obama, we really donâ€™t know the direction of the country, its policies or its temperament.
Within the speculation however is some not so well disguised exposure to the core values of liberalism and the President-elect in particular.
From the article: â€œPresident-elect Obama plans to use his executive powers to make an immediate impact when he takes office, perhaps reversing Bush administration policies on stem cell research and domestic drilling for oil and natural gas.â€
We all know that the question of when life begins is well over the â€œpay gradeâ€ of Mr. Obama. So it comes as no surprise that he would opt for increased rates in baby murder. Apparently third-trimester murders arenâ€™t enough to satiate a liberal mindset. All abortion is justified for all reasons, so say liberals. President-elect Obama is prepared to sign an executive order to create enough babies to kill for a science that has not shown any results. Scientists and physicians working in stem cell research have produced much greater results using adult stem cells.
The myth here is that Bushâ€™s order stopped all embryonic stem cell research. The truth is that Bushâ€™s order only prevents federal funding of such research. Bush does not believe taxpayer money should be used for the horrendous procedure of creating children only to kill them and harvest unproven stem cells. As far as private enterprise, Bush was not interfering. Liberals, on the other hand see no reason not to charge taxpayers to support a legalized form of murder.
As for â€œoil and natural gasâ€ drilling, President-elect Obama is not for true oil independence. He is willing to reverse an order that opened up lands known to be rich in resources to prevent exploration and supply. This is his caveat to the environmentalists whose sole objective if to see America crippled with debt to oil producing countries that have been undermining the American economy for decades.
From the article: â€œPresidents long have used executive orders to impose policy and set priorities. One of Bush’s first acts was to reinstate full abortion restrictions on U.S. overseas aid. The restrictions were first ordered by President Reagan and the first President Bush followed suit. President Clinton lifted them soon after he occupied the Oval Office and it wouldn’t be surprising if Obama did the same.â€
This interested me because the â€œrestrictionsâ€ involved Americans looking to government controlled medical facilities to gain fully funded abortions pay by the taxpayer. Reagan said no. Clinton said yes. Bush said no. Obama may say yes again to the taxpayers to fund more killings: all of this when any American can walk into any foreign medical facility and pay for an abortion. Why are Americans who want no connection whatsoever with the murders of innocents compelled by liberal executive orders to fund such barbarism?
Could it be bipartisanship? From the article: â€œMany moderate Republicans also support [embryonic] research, giving it the stamp of bipartisanship.â€
As difficult as it is to understand the murderous mindset of liberals who agree with baby-killing, it is even more difficult to understand those known as â€œmoderate Republicansâ€. A â€œmoderateâ€ is simply a person who will go with the majority mindset. Moderate Republicans are traitors to the ideals of limited government. It is the so-called â€˜moderatesâ€ who have allowed the current administration to grow the size of its hand exponentially inside the pocket of the individual taxpayer. Moderate Republicans are worthless in advancing the ideals of conservatism. Their â€œstamp of bipartisanshipâ€ could not pay to send a postcard from New York to New Jersey.
Yet in that vein of bipartisanship the article touts the possibility of retaining Secretary of Defense Robert Gates by quoting Harry Reid shouting: â€œHe’s not even a Republicanâ€¦ Why wouldn’t we want to keep him? He’s never been a registered Republican.â€
So thereâ€™s your litmus test. If youâ€™ve never â€œbeen a registered Republicanâ€ there might be a spot for you on the bipartisan Obama Administration.
Read the article and have a laugh or two, but remember who these liberals are and what they stand for. Corruption and the culture of death are staples of the liberal mindset and we conservatives should not accept that as a light fact. The Republicans who compromisingly accept the idealism of Marx may as well register with the Democrat Party. Democrats who blindly support the far left policies espoused by President-elect Obama will have to answer for the added millions of innocent lives at risk through the expanded abortion practices enacted by executive order. I recommend all conservatives keep an eye on the executive orders link at www.whitehouse.gov to keep informed on the dictates of our new President.