What do health care reform, properly inflated tires, adorable puppy dogs and the sun have in common?
They're all endorsed by President Obama, and they're all bad for America.
There's a perceived axiom attributed to Obama's critics, that everything Obama and the White House like, we hate. While it may seem this way, I—and other likeminded critics—assure you this is certainly not the case. There are indeed disagreements, but the roots of these disagreements are logical and well-reasoned.
They're definitely not reflexive, knee-jerk reactions to counter anything Obama says. To prove this, I'll examine a few areas of contention between the administration and us critics.
Firstly, Barack Obama doesn't deserve a Nobel Peace Prize. While he may claim to champion peace efforts and work toward fighting back nuclear proliferation, the domestic situation in this country is anything but peaceful. Look at the anti-government rallies being spurned across the nation; look at the shouting matches from protesters at town hall meetings. You call that peaceful?
Why, Obama's policies have gotten me so mad that I just want to run to the nearest health reform supporter and shout something obscene in their face. Of course, this anger is all the president's fault. Without his meddling in health care, I wouldn't be so aggressive. If anything, the committee should give the Nobel Prize to people like me for angrily combating such a Stalin-esque policy: a sentiment echoed by Mr. Glenn Beck who wants Obama to give the prize to the teaparty protesters, the very same protesters who drew swastikas and Nazi references on their posters.
But let's be honest, what's more peaceful than referencing Nazism?
Another point of contention was made before Obama was even elected president. While on the campaign trail, Obama posited a simple solution that could help reduce Americans' energy strains: keep our cars tuned up and tires inflated.
So it's true that the U.S. Department of Energy states, "Every pound per square inch of tire underinflation wastes 4 million gallons of gas daily in the U.S." This basically asserts there's a 3-percent fuel economy benefit from taking this precaution. And it's also true that Obama mentioned keeping our cars tuned up won't solve an energy crisis alone.
But really, inflating tires? That's absolutely ridiculous. It makes economic sense, and it makes sense in the grander scheme of fuel efficiency: but actually getting off the couch and using a tire gauge to check pressure and inflating the tires accordingly? Why not have us solve one of the Millennium Problems in mathematics while we're at it?
The ultimate problem becomes motivation. Pretending there's nothing wrong with our vehicles and just blindly paying off the fuel inefficiencies because we don't actually want to know how bad things are is easier than fixing it.
The next disagreement comes over end-of-life care provisions, or the so-called "death-panels." Both the White House and AARP have called these claims misleading. They assert that the end-of-life counseling is designed to inform physicians of a patient's wishes when they are near death.
A perfect example, they claim, comes from a La Crosse, Wis., resident who learned of her mother's wishes through this service. Ann Kottnaur knew that her mother, who suffers from Parkinson's disease and dementia, wants to die at home instead of a nursing home, something she wouldn't have known without the patient-physician meeting.
These "death-panels" are regularly practiced in Wisconsin.
Although this anecdote seems to contradict the "death-panel" claims, we need only look towards the numbers for refutation. It's a statistical fact that the overwhelming majority of cancer patients who are told they are near death will die in that time frame.
To go even bigger, we've all been told that the average life expectancy for Americans is 75 to 80 years old. Then isn't it quite the coincidence that most Americans die, on average, when they're 75 to 80 years old?
So we've established a clear cause-and-effect relationship between being told that one is going to die and then dying. The numbers don't lie: When you're informed of your impending demise, there's a 100-percent chance you may die.
Logically, if we allow these "death-panels" to go on, then we'll be committing an entire generation of Americans to genocide.
Can you live with that on your conscience Mr. Obama? I'd say the "death-panel" criticism is more than fair.
Let's continue disproving that anything Obama likes, his critics instantly dislike by looking at some more detailed positions of the president. Specifically, let's talk asbestos.
President Obama has pushed for asbestos removal, thereby siding with anti-asbestos advocates. The claim is that asbestos causes mesothelioma and respiratory problems after prolonged exposure.
But asbestos has a positive side as well. Before a widespread ban was put into place, asbestos was used in everything from bricks to pipes to insulation and even lawn furniture.
So Mr. Obama opposes this highly versatile compound just because a bunch of crybabies get terminal cancer from it?
What a fascist.
When he was elected to the presidency, Obama promised his children he would get them a dog. So obviously Barack Obama loves puppy dogs, which is quite unfortunate because puppy dogs are one of the biggest threats to our national sovereignty and threaten the very fibers that hold together these United States.
Puppies may seem cute, but they take up precious resources better suited to other areas of our economy. Their medical problems drive up the costs of veterinary procedures, and they release copious amounts of methane into the air, which negatively contributes to global warming. Is this the kind of America the administration wants? A dystopic landscape inundated with merciless puppies?
is a member of the 
4 comments