All of these are terribly unflattering, of course, and in all likelihood not accurate. In an attempt to be fair, I would prefer to think of Obama's positions and actions as being those which he truly believes are the best for our country.
However, his positions and actions do seem certain to bring our great nation to a place it's never been and a place that is not good for "The American Dream" as envisioned by our founding fathers. That is, a place where individualism is not viewed as good, where capitalism is viewed as only a means to "keep the people down", where what's good for all must be good for one, and where the "collective betterment" is far superior to individual responsibility.
Hence, my term "Anti-Gault".
The term "Anti-Gault" is derived from Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged" with reference to "John Gault", a character in the book.
As the plot unfolds, Galt is acknowledged to be a creator, philosopher, and inventor who symbolizes the power and glory of the human mind. He serves as a principled counterpoint to the collectivist social and economic structure depicted in the novel. The depiction portrays a society based on oppressive bureaucratic functionaries and a culture that embraces stifling mediocrity and egalitarianism, which the novel associates with socialistic idealism."
My premise of the "Anti-Gault" label emanates from statements and positions that Obama has espoused:
Domestic (from www.americanthinker.com):
"- He wants to deny individuals access to the marketplace --where they can make their own decisions about their own health care -- and instead put the government entirely in charge.
- He's willing to give government control over American businesses (e.g., the bank takeovers and Government Motors).
- His administration, while on record as opposing the Fairness Doctrine, is aggressively exploring a backdoor regulatory scheme that would have precisely the same practical effect as the Fairness Doctrine: it would impose government restrictions on content, rather than allowing the market (that means us, the consumers) to control content.
- His FCC wants to control the internet, a humming beehive of free speech (much of it critical of Obama).
- As his loud battles with Rush Limbaugh and Fox News illustrate, he desires a single-party press, not a free one.
- He believes that now that he is in power, the opposition should shut up and "get out of the way," a notion that runs directly counter to the First Amendment.
- Although he's mostly erased the record that once existed in cyberspace, his dream is to create a civilian national security force, subordinate to the administration, which would be larger than the American military. The military, please note, is controlled by the Constitution and has traditionally existed separate from, but subordinate to, the rest of the American government.
- He wants to take away the right to bear arms. He'll pay lip service to supporting the Second Amendment, but his fundamental goal is to use government to remove arms from individuals.
- In a stunning blow to the freedom of born alive infants, he is one of a handful of politicians nationwide who believes it is appropriate to leave such infants to die alone and untended. With few exceptions, even those whose politics are entirely colored by a pro-choice viewpoint couldn't swallow this approach.
- Without money, people have no choices. The more money the government siphons to itself, the fewer choices we as individuals have. Although he dresses it as fairness (it's "fair" for the "lucky" to pay substantially more), Obama believes that it's government's role to "spread the wealth." That may be "fair," but it's not consistent with liberty, hard work, and individual choices."
"- Through selective punishments and rewards, he has turned against the only democratic nation in the Middle East (that would be Israel) in favor of the bloodied tyrannical theocracies on her borders.
- By reversing his pledge to keep a missile defense system in place in Poland and the Czech Republic, he has favored Iran's Muslim tyranny over these democratic nations only so recently freed from Communism.
- Figuratively and literally, he bows to dictators (Saudis, Venezuelans, Russians, Iranians, Cubans, etc.). In other words, contrary to America's hundred-year history of siding with the people against their tyrants, he sides with the tyrants against their people.
- In Honduras, he has sided with the delusional Manuel Zelaya against the people and their Constitution.
- In Iran, when the people took to the streets against a corrupt dictatorship, through his silence and muted statements, he effectively sided with the megalomaniac theocracy and against the people.
- In his much-heralded speech to the Muslim world, in addition to grounding Israel's right to exist solely on a Holocaust the Muslim world denies, he repeatedly and noisily trumpeted the right of Muslim men to control Muslim women, a trope he reiterated in subsequent speeches.
- In his global speeches, he assures tyrannies the world over that America is abandoning her century-old role as the world's policeman against megalomaniacs and tyrants. They are freed from any constraint.
- By joining the farce that is the U.N. Human Rights Council, he is lending America's imprimatur to the most violently anti-Semitic, authoritarian, dictatorial, anti-American political body in the world.
- Through his waffling in Afghanistan, both in terms of ideology (why are we fighting?) and practical matters (troops! we need troops!), he is emboldening Al Qaeda and the Taliban, while simultaneously painting targets on the backs of our armed forces.
- As part of his belief in the increasingly discredited notion of climate change, he stands ready to cede American sovereignty to a U.N. body that can control American wealth distribution and police the American body politic."