Obama no Democrat
To the editor:
Does anyone realize that our president is not a Democrat, but, according to Eric Etheredge of the New York Times, a social democrat? Are you aware of what a social democrat is? According to the on-line Merrian Webster dictionary: “I: a political movement advocating a gradual and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means. 2: a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices.” For more information consult the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Europe went that way after World War II. It was the peaceful take over by democratic means of state regulation, but not state ownership, (GM?) that preserves certain elements of capitalism. Social democrats vilify the “rich” over the “working poor,” a redistribution of wealth, the use of state power to seize private property and the overarching secularism that rejects the past in favor of a materialistic progress.
Is this what Americans voted for when they elected a Democratic president and Congress? Is this the reason for the overwhelming pace of the last 100 days? Is he trying to get as much through before we wake up and realize that a lot of the freedom and liberty we now enjoy has been taken away?
Already in the pipeline is more regulation of banks, universal health care, money being allocated to schools, along with more regulation, taxes being overhauled, renewable energy (remember ethanol? Cost more energy to produce than it gave). It is moving so fast that people do not have the time to debate this in an orderly manner. Some of it may be beneficial, but does it have to be rammed through now? Do we need a nanny state like Europe?
If this is the way we want to go we need a Constitutional convention to write a new founding document, because our entire economic system and philosophy of government will be changing.
Bill and Doris Heyns
Cape Coral