Bad News: J.C. doesn't stand for "Jesus Christ," it stands for "Jimmy Carter."
Don't believe me? Check out the quotes at Roger Kimball's blog:
Where to start with this? It seems that Barack Obama believes that the rest of the world thinks that we drive too much, we eat too much, and we consume too much energy to keep our homes comfortable. And apparently, he cares so much about the rest of the world's opinion that he thinks we should institute Carter-style austerity measures so that they will like us better. I have one word in response for Senator Obama:
Barack Hussein Obama, May 2008: “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times . . . and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.”
James Earl Carter, July 1979: “I ask Congress to give me authority for mandatory conservation and for standby gasoline rationing. . . . And I’m asking you for your good and for your Nation’s security to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel. Every act of energy conservation like this is more than just common sense — I tell you it is an act of patriotism.”
Actually, that's a polite euphemism for the one-word response, although it also begins with a B. Even if we all stopped driving our cars completely, ate a diet of bread and water and opened all our windows to keep our homes at the same temperature as the outside world, the rest of the world wouldn't like us one whit more. And frankly, I don't give a damn what the rest of the world thinks of us, and neither do most other Americans. If they don't like us, they can go suck eggs.
The Obama quote is troubling in one other respect, because it tells us the kinds of things that he would do if he is given the power to do so. It also tells us what he thinks the proper relationship is between the State and its citizens. Like many on the Left, he believes that the State should make decisions for the citizens because they are not wise enough to make those decisions for themselves. You'll drive less, you'll eat less, you'll shiver or sweat more, not because you choose to do so but because the State decides that you should.
There's a word for this kind of system: Fascism.
It will be Liberal Fascism, fascism with a smiley face, fascism "for your own good," but it will still be fascism. And if you are an American who believes in personal liberty, that's a Very Bad Thing.
For example, the State will provide your health care, but in return, you will be required to take appropriate measures to keep yourself healthy and thus minimize health care costs to the State. Abuse of tobacco or alcohol or drugs, obesity, etc., will not just be personal failings but will be Crimes Against the State, since you will be causing damage to State Property (that is, yourself). You will no longer have the option of being out of shape, since that would increase the State's costs. A cadre of dietitians and physical trainers will make sure that you become healthy, whether you want to or not. Hey, what do you want, "free" health care or freedom?
You probably think I'm joking or exaggerating for effect. I'm not, not in the slightest. Things are already heading in that direction in Great Britain, which has nationalized health care and won't give people certain treatments if they have done things that caused their own health problems. They also won't give fertility treatment to women that they deem to be overweight.
Do you really want to elect someone who wants to take us down that path?
And I strongly recommend Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism. The earlier link is to his web page about the book at the National Review Online site. The book will open your eyes to the nature of Liberal Fascism in America. (And if you think that fascism is a right-wing phenomenon, then you really need to read at least the book's introduction, titled "Everything You Know About Fascism Is Wrong.")