Rethinking Barack Obama
I once thought of Barack Obama as an evil man.
Barack Obama dismisses his critics with the enthusiasm of a child leaving school for summer vacation. Perhaps we are not completely right about everything we say. Reading someone on the inside, especially someone who plays us with carefully practiced external behavior is a tricky business. A week ago, George Stephanopolous (ABC) questioned Mr. Obama about his contention that a federal law making health insurance mandatory for everyone is not a tax increase. Watching this clip of the interview again, resulted in a transformative moment. Have I misjudged Barack Obama?
A comparison given by Barack Obama during the interview set me to thinking.
The responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase … any more than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.
Hold on, I thought. The issues of health and auto insurance are fundamentally different. This insight was helped along by the fact that I’m an old guy. I recall the debate on mandatory auto insurance well enough to know its tipping point. Owning and driving a car is not a fundamental right. You may operate a vehicle on private land without insurance, and without a drivers’ license for that matter. It is however, within the scope of state and local government authority to regulate driving on public streets and roads for the sake of public safety. That established authority was extended to assure liability coverage in case a driver causes damage to other people and their property.
Like Obama’s supporters, I too was impressed with his campaign performance, trouncing Hillary Clinton – beating her at her own game; manipulating the press as he manipulated the rest of his audience. Dishonest yes – but intelligent, I thought then. Cold, calculating, and manipulative. Perhaps I was wrong. After the election, handling questions impromptu rather than reading his teleprompter or reciting well practiced speeches, he appeared on occasion to be a bumbling idiot. Perhaps European commentators are right, I thought. Barack Obama isn’t evil. He’s just young and inexperienced, and too full of himself to seek wiser council on complicated matters when needed. Or, as many have observed; just hangs with a bad crowd and has been too heavily influenced by bizarre ideas from the fringe.
Then I thought again.
Before running for office, Barack Obama graduated from Columbia University (political science) and Harvard Law School, was president of the Harvard Law Review, a University of Chicago constitutional law professor, and an experienced civil rights attorney. It is within reason to believe that he has a basic understanding of his proposals for legal reform and the arguments he makes to promote them. We can, I assert, grant Barack Obama full responsibility for his own beliefs and behavior. We can, honestly and without reservation, fault him for the implications of his proposals.
Glaringly obvious at once is the fact that the one identifiable trigger for mandatory health insurance, our existence, is a fundamental right. (“… life, …”) Any competent constitutional lawyer or law professor, especially one practiced in civil rights law, understands that any successful shift in legal jurisdication to the federal government results in the elimination of civil rights. The shift requires reclassification of laws to social or economic policy, allowing completely arbitrary political control (with the exception of draconian equal treatment). (“… liberty, …”) A political science graduate, and holder of the office of president, surrounded by as many economic and budget analysts as he pleases as well as other political scientists and historians, Barack Obama also understands the implications of pulling heath care, along with other major parts of the U.S. economy, into the mandatory portion of the federal budget. We all get the bill, one so large that it will cause generations of suffering. (“… and the pursuit of happiness.”)
Whether or not forcing the cost of mandatory health insurance on the public is properly labeled a “tax” or not is a trivial matter. A rose, or its fertilizer, smells the same regardless of the name you choose. Much more important is that Barack Obama plans – yes, knowingly and intentionally – to make our very existence a sufficient basis for exercising arbitrary political control. He plans to overthrow Constitutional rule once and for all. This is by any reasonable definition, a “High Crime” against the United States of America. It is a coup.
I was right the first time. Barack Obama is an evil man.
| More from Roger F. Gay
Stumble It!
September 29th, 2009 at 3:52 am
I don’t think someone with differing political views makes them inherently evil. Bush, or his team, authorized torture, or pseudo torture if you like, and I don’t think Bush is evil. Our system has for a long time now been a very different animal than “pure” capitalism. Making our system more socialistic, does not a communist dictator make.
“to make our very existence a sufficient basis for exercising arbitrary political control. He plans to overthrow Constitutional rule once and for all. This is by any reasonable definition, a “High Crime” against the United States of America. It is a coup.”
Seriously. A government funded health care system that gives Amercan citizens more choice is hardly an overthrow of constitutional rule, anymore than Bush creating secret prisons, Blackwater, torture programs, secret warrantless wiretaps, etc. Where was your militia for constitutional rights then. Or does fighting people of a different religion throw out the rules all of a sudden. Obama inhereted problems left to him. Big ones, like a predatory health insurance system. And various politicians have been fighting for health care reform for 20 or 30 years. These matters are hardly “arbitrary”.
Well, I hope we can be gentleman when we are looking down the barrel of each others guns, because your above rant sounds like fighten’ words. He’s still my President, Commander and Chief, and his army, the one whose side I’m on, is bigger than yours. Do I agree with everthing he says, “Hell NO!”. He’s a Feminist, or at least claims to be. Somethings however, are not as black and white as you paint them, no pun intended.
Let the counter argument onslaught begin.
September 29th, 2009 at 4:19 am
Are you kidding?
Barack Obama hardly “trounced” Hillary Clinton. The primary contest between these two political superstars was the closest in history.
Hillary Clinton won more votes than any other candidate in the history of presidential primaries if you count the millions who voted in the FL and MI primaries, Clinton won the popular vote by 0.8%.*
If you choose to exclude these votes, then Obama won the popular vote by 0.1%.*
That is hardly a “trouncing”.
*Official popular vote totals at
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
September 29th, 2009 at 4:31 am
Roger, Obama an “Evil Man”? Come on now, what is evil about taking care of the least of the children? Moving something to the federal level is the definition of denial of civil rights? WOW! Protection of life, liberty and the prusuit of happiness is the ultimate of civil rights, and if it requires a bigger player than has been traditionally in the game, so be it!
There are many things that can, and pershaps should, be said about President Obama but the one thing is clear, he desires to heal both man and this country with the health care reform.
September 29th, 2009 at 4:58 am
Sir, he appeared to be “a bumbling idiot” BEFORE the election, you just weren’t paying attention (nor were 53% of the voters).
The time for Due Diligence is BEFORE the election.
September 29th, 2009 at 6:19 am
I found the body language occurring between the President and the interviewer was most revealing….
September 29th, 2009 at 6:32 am
“A government funded health care system that gives Amercan citizens more choice is hardly an overthrow of constitutional rule,”
Adding a gov’t option to the existing plans available to you does not increase competition or choice when the gov’t also gets to decide what coverages existing plans must provide. The gov’t option adds 1 plan to the mix but forcibly changes the private plans into carbon copies of the gov’t plan. Opening up competition across state lines would create 1300 choices for Americans. Obviously it’s the Republican proposals that offer choice and competition, Obamacare is simply offering control.
This health care reform like everything else Obama is doing is not about helping people or improving anything, it’s all simply about creating the requirements for higher taxation and establishing control over society into the hands of a permanent aristocracy of intellectuals. Health Care Reform has always been about creating a Socialist Utopia in America.
When gov’t has an interest in your health care costs, gov’t also has an interest in EVERY choice that MAY influence those costs.
“The way to crush the beourgeoise is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation” – Vladimir Lenin
The Cloward-Piven strategy for redistributive change through orchestrated crisis is the strategy Obama is governing by. It’s the strategy of the SDS (Ayers and Rathke) and ACORN (Rathke again).
The Stimulus, Omnibus, Cap and Trade, Health Care, Welfare Expansion, Longer School Days and Years are all simply more gov’t spending and services created for the purpose of overwhelming our gov’t in order to change it. Of course more services require more revenue thus more taxes – for everyone. All the debt generated by Obama also requires higher taxation for everyone, and monetizing that debt (which we’re doing) has always led to Hyper-Inflation. The innevitable taxation and inflation just makes everyone poorer thus we will all “need” more help (services) from the gov’t.
Obama is definitely an EVIL man. He’s evil because he thinks
the Presidency gives him monarchial control. He’s evil because he looks at all of us as his subjects instead of his bosses. Because he lies constantly, is a racist, is divisive and derisive. He is evil because he is a tyrant, forcing his beliefs on the rest of us, conscripting State and Congressional powers to himself, eliminating our individuality and rights. Obama is evil because evil is as evil does.
September 29th, 2009 at 6:57 am
Jay Black;
You’re a real product oftwo-party system brain-washing. Hope you can shake it off and start thinking for real one day. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
September 29th, 2009 at 7:00 am
csh;
If you were paying attention, you would have noticed that Hillary’s nomination was a foregone conclusion. She started campaigning when her husband was still in office. The Senate was a stepping stone. She even had a television serious produced purely to promote her candidacy. Her followers were so brain-washed that they threatened to vote Republican when she lost. (And the McCain campaign so stupid that they thought there was a chance in h…)
Definitions of trounce on the Web:
* flog: beat severely with a whip or rod; “The teacher often flogged the students”; “The children were severely trounced”
* beat: come out better in a competition, race, or conflict; “Agassi beat Becker in the tennis championship”; “We beat the competition”; “Harvard defeated Yale in the last football game”
* call on the carpet: censure severely or angrily; “The mother scolded the child for entering a stranger’s car”; “The deputy ragged the Prime Minister”; “The customer dressed down the waiter for bringing cold soup”
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
* to win against (someone) by a wide margin; to beat thoroughly, to defeat heavily
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trounce
* trouncing – thrashing: a sound defeat
* trouncing – beating: the act of inflicting corporal punishment with repeated blows
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
September 29th, 2009 at 7:02 am
Rev JDSpears;
Wow – a Democratic Party “talking point.” May God forgive you!
September 29th, 2009 at 7:03 am
Oatka;
Re: the relationship between government and the people, the time for due diligence never ends.
September 29th, 2009 at 10:01 am
“The gov’t option adds 1 plan to the mix but forcibly changes the private plans into carbon copies of the gov’t plan. ”
Does it? I haven’t heard anything remotely like that.
“This health care reform like everything else Obama is doing is not about helping people or improving anything, it’s all simply about creating the requirements for higher taxation and establishing control over society into the hands of a permanent aristocracy of intellectuals. Health Care Reform has always been about creating a Socialist Utopia in America. ”
Yeah, a half black guy from a middle class background community organized his way to the presidency just to consolidate power for the intellectual elites. And why? Higher taxes and a socialist utopia no less! What strange ambitions he must have had as a young man. Are you sure you just don’t really hate paying taxes? Its allright, you can say so, you don’t have to make up a communist dictator hiding in the closet to justify that. And just to clairify, which part of health care for all doesn’t jibe with “LIFE, liberty, and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS”? Sending people to the doctor is so diabolical its surely something only Stalin would have dreamed of! Must keep the workers healthy! I mean, its obviously going to be a catastrophe for our freedoms, if only there was an example that we could learn from….hmm…oh yeah, how about every other industrialized country in the world! Why, they’re all gulogs! I hear in Sweden, they force you to take 3 months vacation every year, and, and…its just so horrible I can’t bare to say it…they pay for you to go to the doctor for preventive care!! Gasp!! Seriously though; too much of anything is bad. Too much socialism is bad for sure. Howevere, I don’t think were at that tipping point yet, although I’m sure you disagree. Too much captialism doesn’t work either though; 70 hour work weeks, child labor, Robber barons, monopolies, nepotism, unsafe work environments, unsafe food and medicine, anti-competitive practices the likes you’ve never imagined, and an even greater rift between the haves and the have nots. Is it too much to ask for a little balance between survival of the fittest and a democratic rule of one man = one vote.
“Obama is definitely an EVIL man. He’s evil because he thinks
the Presidency gives him monarchial control.”
“Cough” Bush “Cough” Cheney “Cough”
“You’re a real product oftwo-party system brain-washing. Hope you can shake it off and start thinking for real one day. Two wrongs don’t make a right.”
I’m an independent, and yes your point if very valid. Both sides suck, and just because one side sucks more, doesn’t mean we should give carte blanche to the other. However, a two party system is what we are stuck with. It is mathmatically speaking, what a democratic system often boils down to. You even see it in the buisness world with companies in established economic sectors. Two big guys slugging it out, with one or two little guys getting by on the scraps. I don’t like it either, but many people are sheep, and don’t have time to study idividual candidates on the isssues, or on their merit, so they just vote the party ticket. If you have a better way to set up our electoral system, I’m all for it. I just believe, based on his life and his words and his actions, that Obama wants what’s best for the country. If he is deviously nefarious, he’s damn good at hiding it. You just about make him out to be a comic book super villian. Maybe Obama is Osama!! It all makes sense now!! I’m not saying he’s perfect by any means. And I don’t like a cult of personality around anyone, for any reason. So with that said, lets stick to policy, not hero worship or character attacks. And lets keep the religously tinted proclamations of a battle between good and evil out of it. Right wing rednecks (and I live in South Carolina, so I know em’ personally) don’t need anymore of an excuse to do something stupid, like hang a murdered census worker up in a tree naked with the word Fed written on his chest. Too soon? Too soon….
On a final note, you don’t have to give me healthcare reform, I can live with that, I’m very healthy and active and on a company plan right now, but when all is said and done, you better fight to take away medicaid, medicare, and social security too. We are all hypocrites in some form or fashion, but how big of a hypocrite are you willing to be as you slip into the next life? I don’t know the bible, but there is no way in hell Jesus was down with saying one thing while doing another.
I do have all due respect to those on the opposing side of this agrument despite any sarcasm I may employ as a debating tactic. I consider us family hashing it out at the dinner table. You don’t learn by agreeing with everything your told; I don’t, you don’t, and we are both better people for it. Some people find me funny sometimes also. At least thats what I keep telling my wife, but she just sneers at my jokes anyways.
September 29th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Roger Gay – Hillary’s presidential nomination was no “forgone conclusion”.
The right wing spent years and millions to insure that she would never be elected to public office. Their non-stop lies and attacks could have ruined a weaker person.
Rick Lazio raised 60 million dollars to run against her for the Senate in 2000. A record amount. Yet, despite that 60 million and the 73 million Ken Starr witch-hunt, Hillary beat Lazio in a landslide.
Despite the lies and attacks, Hillary Clinton won the NY senate seat in a landslide, was re-elected 6 years later in an even bigger landslide (nearly 70% of the vote) and then went on to win nearly 18 million votes in the democratic primary – the most in history.
September 29th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Obama is evil because he is a Commy.
Communism is evil because it causes death in the millions every time it destroys a free country, because it encourages laziness and dependence on government, with nobody having any incentive to do anything, save drink vodka, because it usurps rights not under the authority of government, and because everybody who survives it lives in toal, albeit equal misery, except of course the handful of party leaders like Obama, Soros, Kruschev, et al, who live in luxury at the expense of their peon serf servants, the people.
Maybe Karl Marx was just ignorant and had a really, really, bad idea, with no understanding of human behavior, any concept of liberty or the invisible hand of Capitalism, or any appreciation for family or morality. But anybody who espouses Marxism today is either stupid or evil, and I believe Obama falls into the latter category.
September 29th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
I find him inspirational for America. I think more Europeans like him than actual Americans.
September 29th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Jay;
You might not be supporting any particular party right now, but you’re not yet independent. You are a child of the two-party system and you need to break free. The idea that democracy boils down to a two-party system is quite wrong. Every country in the “civilized world” has a large center-right and center-left party. The United States is the only exception (and is quickly leaving the “civilized world”).
It is so easy in most systems to change which are the two largest parties. If the US had a democratic system, the Democratic Party would have been replaced by now for being too far left and too corrupt and the Republican Party would have been replaced by now for being too far left and too corrupt.
RE: The health insurance issue: You’re never going to understand it by choosing sides based on the rhetoric offered by the two parties. The argument that the purpose of federal intrusion is to send people to the doctor is a silly one. The Democrats went through the whole discussion during the Clinton years, with the HillaryCare debates. They assembled everyone they thought could help craft a “solution” and went through the whole process on national television. The result was that they could not figure out what to do.
The current effort to “reform health care” has been a purely political action. Democrats argue for reform without having their proposals written. They’re asking for public support for bills they will write later – having not yet decided what will be in the bills or how health care will work when they’re passed, how much extra it will cost, the impact on health care in the US, etc. They’re asking you to believe that the result will be a “solution” to the hyped up complaints they’ve made. But they actually have no solution. As demonstrated by their rhetoric, they don’t know what the problem is (or at least won’t tell the truth about it – and that should make you nervous).
I hope you will be able to break from your programming and read the article. Also, since civics is not taught in schools now, you may need to study that on your own. Shifting control to the federal government is a very, very big deal. I’ve included in my article something about the effect of violating the Constitution in that way. See if you can find it.
September 29th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
ch:
Not sure which side of the argument you’re on. Hillary’s Senate campaign was a long time in the making – still, she only won in New York. It’s a little difficult for a Democrat to lose there. She said “conservative” in a funny way, and the city dwellers voted for her in droves. She was then the front-runner in the Democratic Party presidential candidate nomination process from the beginning – starting far, far ahead of anyone else. She was the presumed nominee up until the last few months.
That being beside the point anyway – the FEDERAL government take-overs are – as a matter of fact – destroying the country. It is an evil thing.
September 29th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Jen:
The European press, on average, always favors the Democrats. The Marxist left’s vision has always been global and campaigns for Democrats and against Republicans are continuous in Europe. There is no corresponding global public campaign on the right – which traditionally respects national sovereignty, etc. It’s always weird trying to discuss US elections with Europeans. They only hear one side of the campaign, typically laced with a great deal of negative propaganda about the other side.
One thing I’ve found Europeans to be right about, regarding American politics – much more than Americans – is the impression that the discussions and debates are extremely superficial. The two-party system has no mechanism for forcing serious discussion about the actual issues. The two parties just work on the image they want to portray to the public – and most importantly, to pretend that there is a right-left political balance of some kind.
When you go deeper, actually look at the bills and the level of “bipartisan cooperation” in Washington, it’s very easy to see that the public debate is just a dog and pony show. Most of the time the laws that are written and passed have the opposite meaning and effect compared to the impression given to the public. For those who look deep, it’s obvious that even the titles given to the bills are intended to deceive. A “Bill on Internet Freedom,” for example, is likely to create taxes and restrictions on the use of the Internet.
September 29th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
And one of the most destructive things that’s happened in recent US history has been the elimination of civics education in schools. Most Americans now, and certainly the vast majority of young voters, do not have an understanding of US political history and how the Constitutional system works. When it comes to political decisions – they have no foundational knowledge to help them sort out the propaganda fed to them by the two parties (and the “mainstream media.”) They do not have sufficient knowledge to, in any way, defend themselves against Big Lie politics.
So, the US lacks democracy and allows strict two-party control – even in controlling the public political debate. And voters (now a majority) are not sufficiently knowledgeable to keep from being lead in the wrong direction. The knowledge gap is filled with propaganda – effectively brain-washing. It’s a very dangerous situation.
Europeans should be worried about charismatic leaders in the US. Very, very worried.
September 29th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
BTW: RE: “A “Bill on Internet Freedom,” for example, is likely to create taxes and restrictions on the use of the Internet.”
– And the people promoting the bill will tell the public that they’re trying to assure freedom of the Internet. Those who honestly call attention to the fact that the bill would do the opposite are presumed partisan and made out to be the liars.
September 29th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Obama was not a professor and he did not teach Constitutional Law. He was nothing more than a lecturer who taught community organizing.
As an outsider, yes I am not a citizen of the USA, I see quite clearly that Obama has almost no knowledge of Constitutional Law, or if he does, he is using that knowledge to thwart the Constitution as part of a wider power grab. Anyone who thinks that this is not true needs to go have a second look… take the time to read the Constitution of the USA and understand its fundamental rights…..
You are right, this man is evil. He is a Marxist through and through.
September 29th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
It is entirely deceptive to say that a public plan with bottomless pockets and the ability to change rules for all the others on the fly is just “offering more choice”. It is easy for the rule-writers to make it impossible for private plans to compete in terms of premiums or benefits. Consider that the SS system, despite firm, stern wording in the original legislation, was transformed into a Ponzi scheme (current contributions pay current expenses, and are NOT “set aside” for the contributors’ benefit. They will depend on whoever happens to be contributing when they need services or pensions, etc.)
So a public player option is not just “competition”; it is cannons against muskets.
September 29th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Typo: “public payer option”.
P.S. Note that you can use private plans ONLY if you are already enrolled, and if you ever leave your plan your only option is the public plan–forever. With “choice” like that, who needs compulsion?
September 30th, 2009 at 12:10 am
To Aussiewoman @20
**He was nothing more than a lecturer who taught community organizing**
When you put it that way…
September 30th, 2009 at 2:28 am
aussiewoman;
I looked into the question about whether Obama was a constitutional law professor. The question was raised by Hillary Clinton during the primaries. It’s been answered authoritatively. Hillary was intentionally misleading. It has been established the Barack Obama was a constitutional law professor. A “senior lecturer,” which was his more specific title, is a faculty member – a professor. He was not a tenured or tenure-track professor. It was offered to him, but he turned it down.
September 30th, 2009 at 2:30 am
aussiewoman;
As you can tell from my article, I am quite convinced that “he is using that knowledge to thwart the Constitution as part of a wider power grab.” It is not a new thing in the US. The country is no longer under Constitutional rule. The basics already established, the assignment of the Obama administration is to grab the power – all of it – over everything.
September 30th, 2009 at 6:24 am
When people don’t get offended by my smart-assery (even when I ask people not to be), I generally take that as a sign that they are very confident standing on the foundation of their arguments. That said, I feel that your understanding of the situation excedes mine in meta and micro analysis (accuracy of conclusions still debatable). With that humble concession, let me get my learn on:
First though, we must all admit biases to some extent, and with that understanding, what is your political label, if you had to give yourself one. Be as creative as you want. (Just like I call my religous beliefs Omni-Theistic Evolutionism, because even though I invented it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t deserve a name. I know, I’m like a little kid with an over-active imagination.) And know for class;
1. What constitutional principles/rights are being ignored or broken when a federal program is implemented?
2. What is the difference behind a public health care option, say versus, interstate highways, No-Child-Left-Behind (dept. of Education for that matter), federal narcotic laws (DEA for that matter), IPA, NASA, etc. etc?
3. If what you are saying is true, is it true that we have been overstepping the constituition on a federal level for a very long time now? Is that always a bad thing? One example I’ve heard was the Louisiana Purchace; no constitutional right, but done, and immensely beneficial.
4. I’ve always thought the states should have more control when it came to marriage, drugs, alchohol, speed limits, etc., but is the right not just as guilty as the left when it uses federal muscle to enforce things like drug and alchohol regulation?
5. Has this shift to federal power vs states rights not been a slow and steady process since the beginning of our country’s history?
6. Are we prepared to role back successful programs in the name of philosophical political beliefs, just to remain “pure” in concept?
7.Is the federal governments evolution from its original constitutional blue-print mal-adaptive, or ultimately beneficial in terms of strength on the world stage?
I know thats a lot of questions. One word answers will suffice in most cases, as I’m just fine tuning my political thought schema?
Thanks,
September 30th, 2009 at 10:17 am
In question two, I meant EPA, not IPA.
September 30th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Julie;
The SC has stretched the interstate commerce rule beyond all recognition. The Constitution specifically reserves all rights and powers not EXPLICITLY assigned therein to the federal level to the states and the people. That is the default position. Some states will do things that work, others will screw up, and the rest will learn by observing. Far better than putting all eggs in one Master Blaster Basket, and hoping for the best.
And Obama’s Commissars are unconstitutional, one and all. Birds of a feather …
October 1st, 2009 at 12:07 am
I’ve also been commenting much on Constitutional principles, so I’m going to jump in here to confirm what Brian said, whether it needed confirmation or not. Everything these days involves money (even your very existence). The fed. defined that as the criteria for invoking the commerce clause. Since people cross state lines and since they’re sometimes involved in some circumstances with interstate relationships, they’ve defined everything as a matter of interstate commerce and subject to federal jurisdiction.
This might seem confusing when I talk about the transition from civil law to “social policy.” From a Constitutional perspective, “social policy” is just another name for “economic policy.” If you’re talking about taxes, people will prefer the term “economic policy.” If you’re talking about welfare entitlements, people will prefer the term “social policy.” It’s about the use of arbitrary political power by the federal government – i.e. they have the power to set taxes to anything they want and to set welfare entitlements to anything they want. The bulk of civil rights are not applied in checks and balances.
When the federal government takes over an area not explicitly assigned to it, the laws are reclassified to fit within this scheme of their explicit powers, and the transition happens. Civil Rights are effectively abolished. That’s why civil rights derived from the Bill of Rights – which are formally defined as “unalienable” – in setting child support award amounts, for example, are no longer applied. Family law was ripped from Civil Law and redefined as social policy as the direct result of unconstitutional federal intrusion. (And thus, it was also a corrupt act by the US 9th District Court of Appeals that redefined it.)
October 1st, 2009 at 1:12 am
Brian H #28,
Hi there.
Y’know, you are in a big country where most people are quite happy to do business in just one city let alone one state or growth to interstate while I am in a small country that needs to rely on International trade. Sooo, I can see where you are coming from but at the same time it is not in my interest to want nationalism. I’d rather international harmonisation.
***”The SC has stretched the interstate commerce rule beyond all recognition.”****
I don’t know who the SC is nor what rule has been stretched … I can only wonder if interstate commerce in America is being affected by international commerce. Yes? No?
***The Constitution specifically reserves all rights and powers not EXPLICITLY assigned therein to the federal level to the states and the people. That is the default position. Some states will do things that work, others will screw up, and the rest will learn by observing. Far better than putting all eggs in one Master Blaster Basket, and hoping for the best.****
I disagree with commerce being done that way because I don’t think the economy should be left to chance and I don’t consider board members/business men and women to be any more ethical than I do single mothers to go to work if you give them the option of living on a benefit.
***And Obama’s Commissars are unconstitutional, one and all. Birds of a feather …***
He could be worse. He could be like Nicolas Sarkozy (French president) and totally regulate commerce so you don’t have economic crashes. Yet you won’t get booms either. Obama said he would tighten regulation at the G20 meeting but not control it enough to bring America in line with international standards.
I thought this an interesting article.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/II06Dj01.html
October 1st, 2009 at 4:19 am
Julie:
Total regulation of commerce does not mitigate economic cycles except when it simply destroys the economy. With only due respect to Marx and Engels, et al. (i.e. little to none) it’s actually opposite if anything. Complete control in Russia and China for example, led to widespread starvation. That’s because one wrong policy can cause complete disaster. To a great extent, distributed decision making hides the micro-economic risks from the macro-economy.
October 1st, 2009 at 5:40 am
To Roger F. Gay,
***Total regulation of commerce does not mitigate economic cycles except when it simply destroys the economy.***
I don’t understand why you say except when it simply destroys the economy. But yes, IMO regulation does mitigate the economy.
I am thinking that America would not be in the position it is today if all stakeholders of big companies knew the books were crooked. Including the government.
I am thinking American people would have done something if they knew they were broke at the beginning of the century and if they knew in the 90’s they were going to go broke a decade later.
Then again, maybe they did know but had to ride it through before changes could be made.
Regulations won’t stop economies from doing extra well from good decision making and it won’t stop a natural disaster lol, but it will give fair warning for the need for change and the chance to make adjustments to pick the economy up at the first sign of deterioration. IMO of course .
But I wonder,… if you don’t regulate big companies books, what happens in the future? Will America ever get out of dept or will it just keep the economy going from one extreme to the other?
*** With only due respect to Marx and Engels, et al. (i.e. little to none) it’s actually opposite if anything. Complete control in Russia and China for example, led to widespread starvation. That’s because one wrong policy can cause complete disaster. ***
Well, It gets complicated when this sort of discussions is involved. But I am sure we have learnt a lesson from Russian communism and the Berlin wall. Yet social behaviours in countries are a factor to all the borders coming down even within accounting standards. So far 90 countries are involved with America not being one of them unless corporations choose it themselves.
***To a great extent, distributed decision making hides the micro-economic risks from the macro-economy.***
Sorry, but I don’t understand the point behind this.
October 2nd, 2009 at 3:54 am
julie
If you don’t understand economics and political science, why are you making such grand pronouncements?
October 2nd, 2009 at 8:47 am
To Roger,
***If you don’t understand economics and political science, why are you making such grand pronouncements?***
That’s a good comment back. Why should I know something well and discuss it if I don’t know something else well.
I sort of know what you are saying.
***To a great extent, distributed decision making hides the micro-economic risks from the macro-economy.***
If it is possible distribution decision making will hide the microeconomic risks from the macroeconomy, then some other theories will start to emerge and study will occur. You have already made point that something is needed and I am sure there will be others who are just as smart as you thinking of doing something about it.
October 2nd, 2009 at 11:46 am
What a ridiculous and obnoxious diatribe.
If you are indeed an older person, feel free to give back your government-provided Medicare insurance at any time. After all, having government involved in your health care just forces you under government controls and regulations, right? Free yourself by giving back your socialistic Medicare insurance!
Take off the tin foil hat Mr Gay.
October 4th, 2009 at 2:06 am
Julie;
I’ve not tried to write a basic text book on economics and political science. What I’m talking about is basic and far from being a new idea. Economics emerged from natural science studies and in its early days had much in common with the study of biology. If governments could control natural evolution had it had been turned into a centrally controlled process, there would be no life on earth. Diversity, and individuals responding and adapting directly to their environments is what has allowed life to prosper.
The same is true of economic systems and whether or not they are diverse and under independent control; responding and adapting to market conditions – supply and demand.
A more finely tuned view of economics does assign some role to governments in regulation, but finds an optimal point that allows the “invisible hand” to function as it should. That has been part of the basics since at least Adam Smith’s observations in Wealth of Nations. Presenting a choice between pure laissez faire and a totally controlled economy is offering a false choice – which is something people do in intentionally planned propaganda efforts.
October 4th, 2009 at 2:11 am
Brian,
I don’t apologize for getting ahead of people. I know there’s too much for any one person to understand everything. I write carefully, trying to fill in information and understanding that I know many people don’t have. But if you’re unwilling to read thoughtfully and think about things, it’s not my fault. So, don’t blame me for it. Rudeness won’t make you any smarter.
October 4th, 2009 at 2:31 am
Brian,
I’ll try to help you a little, but as much as I’m willing to discuss and provide information, responding rudely is not a replacement for finding out what’s going on – and no way to treat someone who’s willing to provide information to you.
You apparently don’t know yet – even though it’s been widely discussed and written about – that the Democrats plan to cut Medicare dramatically as part of their “health care reform”. It’s quite a scandal, involving AARP – which provides a more expensive alternative for extended coverage which will be pushed.
You are apparently not aware that the Democrats have put effort into defining major “health care reform” since the Clinton presidency (when it was called “HillaryCare” and that they have failed to produce anything positive – i.e. that could reasonably be labeled an improvement.
You are apparently not aware that even Barack Obama has been forced to admit that the reform package will not produce improvements. That his only stated goal is a complete takeover of the health insurance system – eventually – even if it has to happen in stages.
You are apparently not aware that the government control issue does not arise as a vague theory related to (what you assume to be legitimate) government activities. The issue is government intrusion and control in the most direct sense possible. That’s what it’s about. Health care is just a mechanism toward more control – not something with a plan for any actual improvement in health care.
And, for all I know, you’re not aware that the federal government has taken control of other large segments of the economy during the past few months and plans to continue the effort to take even more.
I mean – thing is – why don’t you at least make some effort to find out what’s going on before trying to argue about them ….
October 6th, 2009 at 7:07 am
Roger
There are many individuals within the current administration that are committing ‘High Crimes’ (treason). Obama recently accepted an appointment to the UN to temporarily be recognized as the ‘King of the World’ which is definitely unconstitutional. Our country is being annexed into the New World Order – the conspiracy is not a theory anymore (it is a reality). Obama is just the latest puppet that has sold his soul to the globalists attempting to enslave the world. see also “The Obama Deception” at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7535755025025800195#
October 7th, 2009 at 2:17 am
Jim,
I certainly agree that the current administration has committed crimes and has an agenda focused on destroying the USA. Certainly money and banking have a strong influence in world affairs, but I do not give much credibility to the commentary by the people in the video. One of their key messages is that the Federal Reserve system needs to be “nationalized.” That means more central control, which means more political manipulation of the economy and more instability. Steps have been taken within my lifetime to make the Fed. more independent.
I think there’s a lot of stuff out there that just serves to get people to take their eyes off the ball – by redefining what the ball is. Now we’re supposed to believe that the people in public office don’t matter because they have no power and no way to avoid being controlled by this outside group. If they are, so what? I mean – we have a corrupt political establishment. How should our response change assuming that we know more about the richest people in the world? Are we to wait passively until they all die and hope that the next generation is more responsible and compassionate?
We need democracy – the only way to kick the bums out without a violent revolution.
October 7th, 2009 at 3:48 am
How America Was Destroyed – The Rise of Big Lie Politics
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/08/17/how-america-was-destroyed-%E2%80%93-the-rise-of-big-lie-politics/