Obama and King George

I am reading "The Real George Washington" by Jay Parry and Andrew Allison, and "The Last Founding Father - James Monroe and a Nation's Call to Greatness," by Harlow Giles Unger. The first was recommended by Glen Beck who interviewed the authors on his program, both modest, well informed historians. The book on Monroe, who fought at the battle of Trenton and helped shape the Constitution's balance, covers similar ground from a slightly different vantage point. Most importantly, both books solidified my strongest belief that central governments will ultimately abuse their powers if they can find a way to do so or if "the people" are sufficiently weak to allow their natural rights to be abused. This was the primary concern then and it is certainly of grave concern now. As I read through Washingtons writings about the British and the imposed yoke of slavery, it seemed so easy to substitute "federal government" for the "British". So I ask, in what ways are Obama and his ham handed administration similar to King George? Is this a ridiculous comparison? Actually, no it is not.

Consider the offenses by the Crown toward the colonists, a lengthy and sordid list. The Stamp Act, closing Boston harbor, restricting appointments for governor to the authority of the Crown, restricting town meetings to annual events, the Quartering Act, taxation without representation. In our own dusty constitutional language these offenses were all "takings" of a sort - intrusions on the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Despite these abuses many colonists tried to work things out with the Crown to no avail; King George was deaf to the concerns. Obama is similarly deaf to the electorates' concerns and similarly abusive of his authority. How many Czars has he appointed to date? Ray Mabus, oil Czar brings the total to thirty-eight. Mountains of new regulations, a completely unvetted expansion of the executive branch. What of Obama's closing of all deep water drilling by executive fiat, casting 20,000 people out of work, demanding BP pick up the tab for all the lost wages? Very King Georgesque. Judge Feldman has struck this down for lack of objective standards for the fiat and Obama responds by pulling one of his two levers; a legal threat back. (His other lever is printing money.)How about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009? Arguably less King Georgesque since Congress voted on this and therefore technically not imposed by fiat. But it was signed into law despite opposition by the majority of Americans, as was Obamacare. King Georgesque deafness. Is the Constitution flawed by permitting these sorts of abuses or is the natural evolution of all central governments toward taking power permanently from localities and individuals?

What if instead of a majority vote to pass legistlation, obtained with the requisite bribery and threats by Pelosi, each state's delegates voted separately within the state and a majority of states voting "yea" would be required to pass legislation? This was the manner in which the original nine colonies ratified the overhaul to the Articles of Confederation. Congress today could not fathom this type of coordinated negotiation. Nothing would get done under such restrictions! Government would falter! People would suffer, children would go hungry! Maybe. Or maybe there would actually be true compromise, such as occurred in 1787. Admittedly, most were unhappy in some way with the Constitution, including George Washington and Patrick Henry, then Governor of Virginia. The compromise cobbled together a wide array of competing interests- merchants, farmers, slave holders, abolitionists, eastern states and western states. The end result, our Constitution, with the ensuing Bill of Rights was a compromise which has done several things over the history of our nation. On the one hand it has allowed for the greatest advancement of personal prosperity and liberty for individuals in the history of man. Strangely, on the other hand, it also gave birth to FDR's first 100 days, with its systematic destruction of wealth, Social Security, Medicare and Obamacare , modern versions of taxation without representation. Massive amounts of wealth transferred from the few to the many. Presidents Wilson, FDR, Johnson, Obama have used a hole in the Constitution through which to shove the Federal government permanently into each and every American family. Was this mushrooming of federal power inevitable?

Back then, having cast the British out after eight years of war, a sacrifice incomprehensible to Americans today, the states continued the struggle which began prior to the launch of the revolution. Namely, which entity will govern what? Federalists versus Republicans, of the Jefferson sort, not the Bush sort. States versus the Feds. As we all know, this argument rages on today and the Federal government is winning this battle. It is important now,however, to win this war for the Constitution, possibly amending it in such a way that this type of runaway central authority is contained once and for all. The Continental Congress assembled on the heels of the American victory over Britain was lazy, mean-spirited, narrow minded, regionally factional and abusive of the rights of the common man; just like today's Congress. But even they were able to accomplish great things. The thing that really, really worries me is where are the Madisons, the Adams, the Monroes and the Washingtons to move us forward as a nation but safeguard our rights as individuals? Is our culture so depleted that we now only cultivate King Georgesque Obamas? I sure hope not.

When the Going Gets Tough, the President Gets Joe Biden

The White House,serving as the metaphorical symbol of the Obama administration is the most over-leveraged, tapped out piece of real estate in the country. In eighteen months Obama has spent every nickel of political equity he came to office holding. Now,equity spent,reviled by many his next move is exactly what? Call in the second string,the human shield named Joe Biden. Today I listened to what should be to everyone the impossible; Joe Biden cheerfully explaining that the economy is getting better. Obama was no where to be seen.

"Don't take my word for it, the economy is improving. You can see the ripple effects everywhere." Don't worry Joe, I would never take your word for it.

This was his summation, along with the litany of, "millions of jobs saved or added since the signing of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act yada yada yada." It would be easy to hack away at Biden's mindless recitation of the rank and file's propaganda and unnecessary since most informed people are already familiar with the verbiage and have filed it under "B" for nonsense. What is interesting is the fact that the White House and its various men behind the curtain are starting to realize what many have known since day one; Barrack Obama is not a very likable fellow. Joe Biden, a grinning silly man, is more approachable, less abrasive. Maureen Dowd observed that the Obama hailed by the press as the charming, new JFK has not yet materialized. Hmm. She further notes that he is "thin skinned and controlling." As an elitist he really does not enjoy mixing with the rabble. Not surprisingly Dowd complains more about his relationship with and to the press than she does about his serious missteps in policy matters. That is why she writes for the New York Times.

Dorothy Rabinowitz and her piece,"The Alien in the White House",notes something more important about Obama at this stage of his brilliant career.

"A great part of America now understands that this president's sense of identification lies elsewhere, and is in profound ways unlike theirs. He is hard put to sound convincingly like the leader of the nation, because he is, at heart and by instinct, the voice mainly of his ideological class. It is a White House that has focused consistently on the sensitivities of the world community—as it is euphemistically known—a body of which the president of the United States frequently appears to view himself as a representative at large."

This is beautifully put and is the source of the primary friction between this president and the American people. Displeased with the rising level of hostility toward himself personally, Joe Biden is thrust forward as Obama collects his wits. And many, including the press corps, may prefer Joe Biden since, all deep political differences aside, he is simply more credible as he seems more like one of us. Obama, the citizen of the world is alien in the worst sort of way, the mean way that condescends to Americans as though we are stupid children. Obama, floundering for a toe hold as he tries to put a leadership spin on the BP saga, retreated yet again to ideological chest thumping for cap and trade in his address to the nation. He cannot help telling us what we need, even when the need is urgently and specifically different than he defines it. Americans listened in amazement, what about the oil? It continues to gush, the live web cam horrifically mesmerizing, and he is back on the campaign trail, making promises about what he will do, all the while doing absolutely nothing except fact find with his fellow Nobel Laureates as though he were writing a term paper on deep water drilling. The trouble with being in the executive branch is that execution is essential. The American people, the ones he is supposed to be serving feel betrayed not only by his primary failings as an executive, but by his inability to be, well, American. The adage,"when the going gets tough, the tough get going", so perfectly American, pinpoints exactly what is missing; this man is not tough and he is not particularly American.

Obama the Junior President Zigzags

Voters were warned about Obama's unsuitability to serve as head of the executive branch. However, he ran a very good race and placed first in what can only be regarded as a very expensive popularity contest; the office of President. Eighteen months into this presidency Obama still struggles with changing gears from campaigning to leading, which really was the problem all along with his credentialing. The problem with winning the popularity contest for president is eventually one has to turn to the very unpopular job of being president. And here we all are, stuck with Junior for another three years or so. Fasten your seat belts, it's going to get rough.

Although there are many, many policy disagreements to debate and hopefully repeal should a conservative majority ever surface, the least well articulated is the constitutional battle between this administration and his strongest opponents the Tea Partiers. More accurately, Constitutional Conservatives. It is truly shocking that this president is as vocal a critic of the United States Constitution and as such is unchallenged by any other than Constitutional Conservatives. Obama is on record as an Illinois state senator claiming the Constitution is fundamentally flawed by serving as a series of "mostly negative rights." Simply stated, the Constitution is a prescription for what the government cannot do to you, and lacks any specific authority or power to do something for you. For Obama, this is a problem. For Constitutional Conservatives, these "negative rights" preserve individual natural rights to live free from government intrusion. Here lies the problem, the yawning divide.

It is very likely that when Obama made what can only be regarded as a radical Acornian statement he never in his wildest, most narcissistic dreams believed that he would some day be President. An even more wild fantasy came to pass; he is a President residing over a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate. As such he has been able to zigzag around pieces of the constitution that he as a radical finds lacking in terms of positive rights, to make things more equal and fair. This is a serious problem in a serious time and for this reason he is not qualified to be President. For example, as a state senator in Illinois he voted against any and all restrictions to a woman's right to abortion on demand, up to and including providing any medical treatment for babies surviving a late term abortion. His ardent defense of what can only be regarded as a barbaric and cruel policy was a woman's right to privacy as stated in the Constitution. This specific defense of Roe vs. Wade has been debated ad infinitum and is not the point here. The natural next question is however, where is the right to privacy for an American citizen declining to participate in the health insurance market? Is health care not by definition a most private type of choice? Does arguing that failure to be insured poses such a substantial burden on society that any type of unconstitutional legislation is justified? If Obama's vision of federal electronic record keeping comes to pass, will the Department of Health and Human Services have access to very private information about individual Americans' personal health histories, all in the name of stream lining and saving the government money? This is privacy? Weight, height, manner of birth control, high blood sugar? An infusion of positive rights, government guaranteed health care as a right. Zigzag.

It is no secret that Obama dislikes the second amendment; people who exercise their second amendment rights, "cling to their guns and religion." Note the connection between guns and religion; a broad swipe at both the first and the second amendment. The progressive jingle being sung against the second amendment is something like, "militias are a quaint artifact from colonial history when our liberties were not secure and the British were oppressive. As such, guns have no use in modern life as currently being lived by the average American." Setting aside the fact that Constitutional Conservatives believe we currently live under a tyrannical,expansionist Federal government and are constitutionally protected to bear arms to ward off tyranny, there is a constitutional method for repealing pieces of the Constitution that no longer apply; a two thirds majority vote in each house.

What if a very different type of president, Ronald Reagan plus George Bush to the tenth power, broadly interpreted the Commerce Clause and ordered Congress to write legislation requiring all Americans to purchase firearms? Would this be constitutional? If no, why not? At first blush this seems an imperfect analogy. Maybe. What is the difference between buying guns and health care in terms of regulating commerce? If there is a difference it is only by virtue of how the government has inserted itself into the commerce of health care, Medicare and Medicaid, and very little difference between the two as a mere commodity. In fact, the Constitution specifically addresses the right to bear arms, whereas there is obviously no mention made of health care, or a right to privacy. Interpreting the Commerce Clause so broadly renders it meaningless, even if the objective is to ensure Americans behave responsibly. Coming soon to a neighborhood near you; federal legislation mandating energy updates to private homes before transferring ownership. Commerce Clause?

Years ago when the abortion debate was active Sandra Day O'Connor warned that if it is deemed the purview of the government to protect a woman's right to an abortion, could it not some day become the government's purview to say a woman must have an abortion? If the Constitutional Conservatives prevail,and that is a very big if, questions such as this will be revisited through a rigorous constitutional filter. Which is not to say that abortion would disappear but that non-federal matters would be routed to the sovereign entities specifically charted by the Constitution to address such issues; the states. If true rigor were restored we could witness an array of state intrusion into areas previously dominated the Federal government;gay marriage, abortion, charter schools, integration of illegal immigrants. Until then those of us in the opposition movement must keep our boot heel on the neck of this administration and cry foul as they "zig" and "zag". If we don't our future is a bleak series of any and all manner of "comprehensive reforms" pole vaulted through by this most junior of presidents.