Thank you politico.com for the source of this blog entry: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27134.html#  Everything in italics is taken directly from the article. 

When he ran for president, George W. Bush promised to be a modest reformer at home and a humble representative of the United States on the world stage. The Al Qaeda-organized-and-funded terrorist attacks of eight years ago changed all that. During his presidency, Bush created massive new government bureaucracies, sent troops into two wars and threatened more as part of Americas war on terror.

Barack Obamas initial approach to the office of the presidency has been as grandiose as Bushs was restrained. Its not hard to recall that he ran as a transformative candidate, promising sweeping, though somewhat fuzzy, change during the campaign.

No one can deny that the terror attacks of 9-11-01 had a dynamic change on the Bush presidency.  He took a stand against the terrorists that Clinton refused to do.  Just look at the terror attacks while Slick Willy was in office: the first attack on the World Trade Center; the Khobar Towers attack that killed American military (an act of war if you ask me); the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania; and the USS Cole.  All of these terror attacks were linked to Al Qaeda.  How many people were killed or injured in the Clinton years by terrorists?  What did Billy Boy do?  Thats right, he used cigars on Monica while in the OralI mean Oval Office.  But Im getting away from my point.  The Big-O is a commie.

For the first several months of his presidency, Obama has labored to deliver on that pledge. He pushed a controversial stimulus bill through Congress to help rev up the economy, turned Bushs reluctant bailout of Chrysler and General Motors into a giant government auto buyout and appointed a record number of czars to help regulate bureaucracies in both public and formerly private sectors.

                Here we have the government taking control of free enterprise.  A business operates on public demand.  When the public no longer wants their product, that business will shut down.  It doesnt matter if its a mom-and-pop store or a huge conglomerate.  It sucks when either goes out of business, but that is one of the basic ideas of capitalism.  When asked about it, the Big-O said something to the effect that the government will hold onto the auto industry until the government feels that it can survive on its own.

The Employee Free Choice Act may be stripped of its card check provision in the Senate, which would effectively do away with secret ballots for unionization elections. Even in its watered-down form which still includes highly objectionable, mandatory, binding so-called gunpoint arbitration and makes no concessions to employers who dont want to have to prop up teetering union pensions it might not pass the Senate. And the leadership of the House has refused to touch it until the other chamber has made up its mind.

                Again, we have the government dictating what free enterprise is supposed to do.  This is nothing like using the Taft-Hartley Act (which by the way was first used by Harry S. Truman, 12 times).  Here the Big-O is trying to influence free enterprise before any issues arise to even qualify for the Taft-Hartley Act.

                I know that the article is right-winged, but it does show communistic actions that this president has taken.  What have you to say about this one left leaners?