Obama's policies destructive

  • Follow Letters

I am sure that President Obama’s minions are going to scream “foul!” at my suggestion that he has crossed the line from president to dictator in chief who wants to be king.

His latest assault on our Constitution, forcing religious institutions to supply birth control by law, is another infringement of the people’s rights and a breach of separation of church and state.

Obama’s servile dependents haven’t got a clue as to the ramifications of his supposed acts of generosity. He smiles at the masses, tells a little joke disarming them, then goes in for the kill telling them that he knows what is best for them.

The gall of this man has no bounds. He pushed the health-care bill through behind closed doors denying anyone the right to challenge it. He has systematically injected government into the lives of the American people taking away one right after another.

People may think Obama is the knight in shining armor who robs from the rich and gives to the poor, but he has stolen the rights of the people either to be prosperous or to fail in their endeavors.

He has denied the people the right to have goals to reach by enabling those who are too lazy or inept to make any effort at all, because he will give simply give it to them. What he has done is misuse taxpayers’ money to ingratiate himself to people who could care less if this country goes the way of the Roman Empire.

He is a destroyer of free will, putting into place his idea as to what he thinks we should be, which ignores the Constitution. His despicable acts have taken us one step closer to being destroyed as a nation.

Gregory J. Topliff

Warrenville, S.C.

Comments (23) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Retired Army
17513
Points
Retired Army 02/23/12 - 12:31 am
5
5
Good ol' "ad holmium" Greg

Good ol' "ad holmium" Greg Topliff. Has it really been 30 days already?

Where to start? Oh heck, how about an enumeration of all the lost rights we've all experienced in the last three years. Please Mr. Topliff, we common folk need you to tell us what the lost rights are. I just don't know what I'm missing. The Chronicle really doesn't limit your space here as long as it's used to criticize our President. You know, the guy millions of patriotic Americans support.

specsta
7137
Points
specsta 02/23/12 - 12:49 am
4
7
"He is a destroyer of free

"He is a destroyer of free will, putting into place his idea as to what he thinks we should be, which ignores the Constitution. His despicable acts have taken us one step closer to being destroyed as a nation."

Wow. I didn't realize President Obama had it going on like that. You claim that he destroys free will...and nations? I guess he must be some sort of supernatural mastermind, able to race trains and leap over buildings in a single bound. Maybe we should call him Super-Obama!

It will be interesting to see what happens during President Obama's second term. Maybe the gloves will come off a bit more, and he will do even more great things for this country. He's done a pretty good job so far of mopping up the mess created by GW Bush and company...

copperhead
1035
Points
copperhead 02/23/12 - 03:38 am
9
4
Why such devotion to hussein?

Why such devotion to hussein?

southernguy08
532
Points
southernguy08 02/23/12 - 06:14 am
0
0
RETIRED, the AC also doesn't
Unpublished

RETIRED, the AC also doesn't limit those who think Obama walks on water, as evidenced by Lowell Greenbaum's monthly rants praising Obama and blaming Republicans for everything wrong in the world.

nofanofobama
6993
Points
nofanofobama 02/23/12 - 06:53 am
6
4
specta--the problem is

specta--the problem is obumler thinks he's a supernatural mastermind..have you forgotten his speech of now the time has come for the earth to heal, the oceans to recede and time has come where we truly care..his speech in 2008 after he recieved enough votes to beat hilliary in the primary..or how about his wife..who couldnt be proud of this country til thev nominated her husband...and retired army how but reading b/4 commenting his 2nd paragraph cited an infringement upon the right guareented by our constitution..you may not agree but he did state one example right away..

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 02/23/12 - 08:37 am
3
2
“GA Republicans Condemn

“GA Republicans Condemn Contraception Policy, GA has Same Policy”

[since 1999]

http://gapolitico.com/en/2012/02/09/ga-republicans-condemn-obama-birth-c...

impossible
124
Points
impossible 02/23/12 - 10:24 am
5
2
Obama is a very talented
Unpublished

Obama is a very talented disaster. It is reasonable and logical to assume that his destructin of our culture and constitutional republic is intentional. Anyone who claims ignorance of his blatant efforts at this destruction has blinders on. Of them it can be predicted tht they will one day (especially if he is re-elected) finally realize, "We have met the enemy and they is us."

dichotomy
37474
Points
dichotomy 02/23/12 - 10:32 am
7
3
"He's done a pretty good job

"He's done a pretty good job so far of mopping up the mess created by GW Bush and company..."

Heh heh heh, yeh right. I assume you are pointing your prayer rug to the north nowadays.

Let's see........unemployment is over 8%, the national debt is up 100%, the cost of health insurance is up between 30% and 100% depending on provider, the price of gasoline is up 100%, the price of food is up 25% or thereabouts, the value of my home is down 40%, and I apparently stole GM from the rightful owners and gave 50% of it to the unions... for free and then "invested" $50 a share for the other half which is now worth $25 a share. Frankly, I don't think I can stand much more help from Obama and the Democrat controlled Senate. If you call this "mopping up a mess" I certainly do not want to see your kitchen floor.

nofanofobama
6993
Points
nofanofobama 02/23/12 - 10:46 am
5
2
well put-dichotomy

well put-dichotomy

specsta
7137
Points
specsta 02/23/12 - 11:46 am
3
8
@ dichotomy - You mentioned

@ dichotomy - You mentioned some interesting "statistics" in your commentary, but let's look at the reality:

1. Most folks that lost their jobs did so under the economic collapse that was the Bush administration, and right now now the economy is slowly recovering.

2. The price of everything has gone up - as it always does, and more folks can actually see a doctor now when they are sick thanks to President Obama.

3. I remember paying over $4 a gallon under GW Bush for gas. What we see right now doesn't even compare.

4. Obama isn't responsible for the greed of banks that chose to make questionable loans, resulting in foreclosures, resulting in diminished home prices all around.

5. GW Bush and company orchestrated the auto and Wall St. bailouts - not President Obama.

6. This nation is in serious debt thanks to Bush and company taking the surplus from Clinton, fabricating lies to start wars and to fatten the pockets of the military-industrial complex.

7. President Obama has been mopping up Bush's mess on the floor - but the Republicans in Congress keep tracking in dirt with their greed and narrow-minded viewpoints.

dichotomy
37474
Points
dichotomy 02/23/12 - 12:33 pm
7
2
@ spectra 1. Well, most folks

@ spectra

1. Well, most folks lost their job after the crash when Obama was president. The crash caused by the real estate collapse, in turn caused by Democrat mortgage policies. And the stock market crash, which happened in October '08 which probably happened when the polls showed that Obama, a "wealth distributor" was going to win the election.

2. The recent rise in the cost of food and fuel is well above the normal inflation rates.

3. You have never paid this price for fuel at this time of year under Bush and today, in FL, there are places charging $5.89 a gallon. Unheard of anywhere in the country, particularly in February.

4. Banks were forced to make questionable loans to unqualified borrowers by government agencies so that "everyone could own a home". That government policy interference crushed the old tried and true standards of making responsible mortgage loans. Once you open the gate you may well be stampeded.

5. I do believe the Bush administration gave a bailout loan to tide them over a few months and the Obama administration decided to seize GM from the legal owners, the bond holders, and give 50% of the company to the union and "invest" (risk) the taxpayer money in stock rather than a loan which would have to be paid back if the company survived. This was not a Bush plan.

6. Mostly true but no excuse for Obama to take the existing debt and DOUBLE it. There is no proof that the Bush administration fabricated anything and, in fact, every intelligence agency in the world and the United Nations and NATO agreed that there was a credible threat.

7. Not worth responding to from an obviously narrow minded Democrat drone.

I don't necessarily agree with all Republican positions, particularly on some of the social issues, but with our system we apparently only have a credible choice between two people and Obama ain't my choice. The Democrats apparently think they have an open ended credit card, cannot come up with a budget much less cut spending, and can't even get their own people to vote for Obama's joke of a budget. Believe me, the mess we have today is ALL, 100%, Obama and the Democrats mess. The Democrats have not "cleaned up" anything. They just moved to a back room, closed the door and turned off the lights where they could not see the mess, and passed Obamacare and made a mess in that room. They won't even acknowledge the debt problem, robbing Medicare with cuts and "payroll tax breaks", or the fact that 47% of our country does not pay any federal taxes. Somehow it is all the fault of the 53% of the people who are already paying 100% of the bills.

ekharonne
20
Points
ekharonne 02/23/12 - 12:45 pm
2
2
dichotomy, please read this

dichotomy, please read this article. Like to hear your response. Don't brush it off by saying "Not worth responding to from an obviously narrow minded Democrat drone":http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/on-the-president-as-alien/2012/02/22/gIQAces8TR_story.html

impossible
124
Points
impossible 02/23/12 - 01:08 pm
2
0
Dichotomy. On which
Unpublished

Dichotomy. On which republican positions on social issues do you disgree/. More importantly, wjat os your rationale for doing so? My reason for asking is that our economic mess and our cultural decay are intimately related.

impossible
124
Points
impossible 02/23/12 - 01:09 pm
1
1
P.S. excellent response to
Unpublished

P.S. excellent response to Spectre.

bdittle
78
Points
bdittle 02/23/12 - 01:16 pm
2
1
Gregory, your letter is too

Gregory, your letter is too full of hyperbole to pay it any attention.

ekharonne
20
Points
ekharonne 02/23/12 - 02:57 pm
2
2
All you narrow minded

All you narrow minded "Democratic Drones" keep it up. Perhaps some time in 2013 when "obumler" or "Hussein" is re-elected, this "fair and balanced" editorial staff will respect the intelligence and compassion that PRESIDENT Obama brings to the White House.

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 02/23/12 - 03:08 pm
2
1
“CRA Thought

“CRA Thought Experiment”

“Given how thoroughly the ‘CRA caused everything’ meme has been debunked, you have to wonder why some poor souls are still pushing this discredited political talking point (other than as linkbait).”

“So this morning, I want to try a completely different approach — the opposite of our usual data driven, analytical framework. Rather than show more facts, data and specific details, instead, I want to do a little thought experiment.”

“In reality, the precise opposite of what a CRA-induced collapse should have looked like is what occurred. The 345 mortgage brokers that imploded were non-banks, not covered by the CRA legislation. The vast majority of CRA covered banks are actually healthy.

The biggest foreclosure areas aren’t Harlem or Chicago’s South side or DC slums or inner city Philly; Rather, it hs been non-CRA regions — the Sand States — such as southern California, Las Vegas, Arizona, and South Florida. The closest thing to an inner city foreclosure story is Detroit – and maybe the bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler actually had something to do with that.”

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/cra-thought-experiment/

harley_52
25880
Points
harley_52 02/23/12 - 04:04 pm
3
2
I find it amusing that some

I find it amusing that some folks who present themselves as staunch believers in facts only and demanding of rigorous proof for positions taken by others are so easily led by their nose in taking a position so obviously misleading and neatly wrapped within a political agenda.

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 02/23/12 - 04:35 pm
2
1
Columbia Journalism Review

Columbia Journalism Review summary of many analyses debunking the CRA myth

“A Community Reinvestment Act Reader
We still have to debunk this myth?”

“Daniel Gross took a whack at the CRA speciousness back in October over at Slate.

‘The Community Reinvestment Act applies to depository banks. But many of the institutions that spurred the massive growth of the subprime market weren’t regulated banks. They were outfits such as Argent and American Home Mortgage, which were generally not regulated by the Federal Reserve or other entities that monitored compliance with CRA. These institutions worked hand in glove with Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, entities to which the CRA likewise didn’t apply. There’s much more. As Barry Ritholtz notes in this fine rant, the CRA didn’t force mortgage companies to offer loans for no money down, or to throw underwriting standards out the window, or to encourage mortgage brokers to aggressively seek out new markets. Nor did the CRA force the credit-rating agencies to slap high-grade ratings on packages of subprime debt.’”

http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/a_community_reinvestment_act_r.php?page=all

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 02/23/12 - 04:36 pm
2
1
Columbia Journalism Review

Columbia Journalism Review summary of many analyses debunking the CRA myth

“A Community Reinvestment Act Reader
We still have to debunk this myth?”

“And it must be said:

‘These arguments are generally made by people who read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal and ignore the rest of the paper—economic know-nothings whose opinions are informed mostly by ideology and, occasionally, by prejudice.’”

http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/a_community_reinvestment_act_r.php?page=all

harley_52
25880
Points
harley_52 02/23/12 - 06:13 pm
1
2
"Conclusion. The Community

"Conclusion. The Community Reinvestment Act has not encouraged investment in lower income neighborhoods in a way that would not have happened in its absence. Without even addressing the essential questions about the government’s right to tell private banks and thrifts what to do, the nation should seriously consider repealing the
Act based on its ineffectiveness alone.

Further, its uneven application to small banks and thrifts is unfair. The American Bankers Association may make a valid point when it says that, “Today, credit unions have the ability to offer complex financial products, just like banks. They have been able to extend their membership…again just like banks“31—but that does not justify applying an ineffective regulation to credit unions as well as banks.

Yet some members of Congress want to do just that. House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), in a speech to the National Association of Federal Credit Unions on September 11th, 2007,32 endorsed legislation loosening restrictions on credit unions’ field of membership and net worth standards, but went on to recommend reexamining credit unions’ exemption from the CRA."

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/Michelle%20Minton%20-%20CRA%20-%20F...

harley_52
25880
Points
harley_52 02/23/12 - 06:20 pm
1
2
Still more on the CRA and

Still more on the CRA and democrats....

"The Community Reinvestment Act, first enacted in 1977, was relatively innocuous for its first 12 years or so, merely imposing reporting requirements on commercial banks regarding the extent to which they lent funds back into the neighborhoods where they gathered deposits. Congress amended the CRA in 1989 to make banks’ CRA ratings public information. Further amendments in 1995 gave the CRA serious teeth: regulators could now deny a bank with a low CRA rating approval to merge with another bank—at a time when the arrival of interstate banking made such approvals especially valuable—or even to open new branches. Complaints from community organizations would now count against a bank’s CRA rating. Groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) began actively pressuring banks to make loans under the threat that otherwise they would register complaints in order to deny the bank valuable approvals.

In response to the new CRA rules, some banks joined into partnerships with community groups to distribute millions in mortgage money to low-income borrowers previously considered noncreditworthy. Other banks took advantage of the newly authorized option to boost their CRA rating by purchasing special “CRA mortgage-backed securities,” that is, packages of disproportionately nonprime loans certified as meeting CRA criteria and securitized by Freddie Mac. No doubt a small share of the total current crop of bad mortgages has come from CRA loans. But for the share of the increase in defaults that has come from the CRA-qualifying borrowers (who would otherwise have been turned down for lack of creditworthiness) rather than from, say, would-be condo-flippers on the outskirts of Las Vegas—the CRA bears responsibility.

Defaults and foreclosures are, of course, a drag on real estate values in poor neighborhoods just as in other neighborhoods. Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke aptly commented in a 2007 speech that “recent problems in mortgage markets illustrate that an underlying assumption of the CRA—that more lending equals better outcomes for local communities, may not always hold.”7 If only Alan Greenspan had recognized that such a warning applies to credit markets generally and the nation as a whole, he might not have artificially expanded total credit so vigorously. We can only hope that Ben Bernanke will keep his own generalized warning in mind henceforth.

Meanwhile, beginning in 1993, officials in the Department of Housing and Urban Development began bringing legal actions against mortgage bankers that declined a higher percentage of minority applicants than white applicants. To avoid legal trouble, lenders began relaxing their down-payment and income qualifications.8

Congress and HUD also pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. A 1992 law, as described by Bernanke, “required the government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to devote a large percentage of their activities to meeting affordable housing goals.”9 Russell Roberts cited some relevant numbers in the Wall Street Journal:

Beginning in 1992, Congress pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase their purchases of mortgages going to low- and moderate-income borrowers. For 1996, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gave Fannie and Freddie an explicit target—42 percent of their mortgage financing had to go to borrowers with income below the median in their area. The target increased to 50 percent in 2000 and 52 percent in 2005."

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/hud/housing-finance-2008-financial-c...

harley_52
25880
Points
harley_52 02/23/12 - 06:30 pm
1
2
copperhead
1035
Points
copperhead 02/23/12 - 06:33 pm
0
2
harley_52, that pretty much

harley_52, that pretty much explains it!

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 02/23/12 - 07:30 pm
1
2
The Still (as of 02/23/12)

The Still (as of 02/23/12) Unanswered $100,000 CRA Challenge

“I’ve run out of patience with tired memes and discredited claims by fools and partisan.

The rhetoric of those pushing nonsense on the public in an attempt to confuse rather than illuminate — the phrase is ‘agnotology’ – only serves to aid the lobbyists working on behalf of the Banks and Investment houses to maintain the status quo.

All is well, nothing to see here, move along.

Well, its time to put up or shut up: I hereby challenge any of those who believe the CRA is at prime fault in the housing boom and collapse, and economic morass we are in to a debate. The question for debate: ‘Is the CRA significantly to blame for the credit crisis?’

A mutually agreed upon time and place, outcome determined by a fair jury, for any dollar amount between $10,000 up to $100,000 dollars (i.e., for more than just bragging rights).”

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/100000-cra-challenge/

harley_52
25880
Points
harley_52 02/23/12 - 08:29 pm
1
1
So, let's get this

So, let's get this straight.

Some left-wing propagandist offers something between $10K and $100K if somebody will show up somewhere, sometime, for a debate on the meaning of "significantly" to be decided by a "fair jury" of his choosing.

I don't know why people aren't lining up for the challenge.

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 02/23/12 - 08:56 pm
2
0
"A MUTUALLY AGREED UPON TIME

"A MUTUALLY AGREED UPON TIME AND PLACE, outcome determined by A FAIR JURY, for any dollar amount between $10,000 up to $100,000 dollars (i.e., for more than just bragging rights).”

allhans
24885
Points
allhans 02/23/12 - 10:46 pm
0
1
I understand that Barack said

I understand that Barack said today that he has 5 more years to get an immigration program, that he said it twice.

Cocky huh?

Back to Top

Top headlines

Daniel Field removes trees, lights structures in airspace

Daniel Field, managed by operations company Augusta Aviation, has spent more than $30,000 conducting land surveys, removing 30 trees and installing red blinking lights on top of the Newman Tennis ...
Search Augusta jobs