Declaration of Independence

Liberty in Obama’s Crosshairs

by Bill O'Connell on October 28, 2008

Share and Recommend:

[the Warren Court] “didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.” — Barack Obama interviewed on Chicago Public Radio WBEZ-FM September 6, 2001

On January 20, 2009, Barack Obama may be standing before Chief Justice John Roberts, place his hand on the Bible and take the oath of office of the President of the United States and pledge to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.”  Can he take such an oath with a clear conscience?

Obama’s View of the Constitution

Steven G. Calabresi writes in the October 28th, 2008 Wall Street Journal, describing how Obama’s philosophy is that justice should not be viewed by our courts in a legal sense, but rather in a social sense.  Social justice means just what he said to Joe the Plumber, spreading the wealth around is a good thing.  Not only is it a good thing, but it should be guaranteed by the constitution.

What this means is that he believes that if an individual goes to court and has a hard luck story to tell, the judge should rule in that individual’s favor, regardless of the legal merits of the case. As Mr. Calabresi writes, “Empathy, not justice, ought to be the mission of the federal courts, and the redistribution of wealth should be their mantra.”

The Threat to Liberty

How does this impact our individual liberty?  Well, liberty is defined as freedom from arbitrary or despotic control.  So if a homeless person, breaks into your house and eats your food, he should not go to jail or be punished.  Perhaps if he vandalizes your house, he may be punished, because that wasn’t necessary.  However, if you were his former boss and you laid him off or fired him, then maybe the vandalism is okay.  If you have food and can afford to buy more, then the homeless have a right, constitutionally protected, to take yours.  Now you may well say, that will never happen!  Maybe so, but then you will see the next best thing, the government will take the equivalent of your food in the form of your wealth and give it to the homeless person.  And just what is the difference between a criminal with a gun, and the government with the power to throw you in prison when the goal of both is to take your wealth.

What Did the Founders Think?

The reasons the founders incorporated what Obama calls “essential constraints” into the Constitution was their deep seated distrust of a powerful government.  They knew the power of a government that paid little heed to their liberty.  They threw off that government with the Declaration of Independence.  They were fearful of putting a similar one in its place.  They felt that individuals should be free to enjoy Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, and that government is necessary, but should be minimal.

Listen for yourself:

Obama Redistribution of Wealth

Share and Recommend:

Trickle Up Economics

by Bill O'Connell on October 17, 2008

Share and Recommend:

Ever since Ronald Reagan was president we have heard our friends on the left berate “trickle down economics.”  The idea that a tax break applied uniformly to all taxpayers, was somehow unfair because the dollars saved at the lower income levels were dwarfed by the savings at the upper levels.  They always point to the glass being half empty rather than half full, meaning that they will never talk about how much these same individuals still pay in taxes, after the tax cut.  Barack Obama said in the debates that John McCain wanted to give wealthy individuals a tax break of $700,000.  What he doesn’t say is how much that individual still pays after the break.  If they are saving $700,000 they are probably still paying several million in taxes.

Our country was founded with these words from the Declaration of Independence:

“WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness — That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the Consent of the Governed…”

Let’s parse these words in the context of Senator Obama’s tax policies.

All men are created equal .  A tax cut of a constant percentage applied to all taxpayers would treat them equally, providing a benefit proportional to the size of their tax bill.  If their tax bill is $1,000, a 10% tax cut would give them $100.  If their tax bill is $7 million, a 10% tax cut would yield $700,000, which is an enormous difference.  But, the amount of taxes the former would end up paying is $900 and the latter is $6.3 million.  Do you think they would want to swap tax bills under the guise of fairness?  Senator Obama’s unequal plan is to raise taxes at the top and cut them at the bottom.

“Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” – it’s the Pursuit of Happiness, not Happiness.  It is not government’s role to make you happy.  Government’s role is to allow you to live your life, free from arbitrary or despotic control (Liberty), and free to pursue your happiness, whatever that means to you.  In your pursuit we’ll all be pulling for you, but it is not the collective responsibility of your fellow citizens to deliver it to you on a tasseled pillow.

Deriving their just powers from the Consent of the Governed” — this points to accountability and it should be the guiding principle behind any program or proposal.  Since the President of the United States is the only office put to a vote of all Americans, the president should ask him/herself, does this program or proposal benefit all of my constituents (i.e., all Americans; the Consent of the Governed)?  If asked, would they consent?  From time to time tough, unpopular decisions will have to be made, but they should be made in the spirit that it benefits the country as a whole.  I believe such consent would be granted on the question, do we need the Armed Forces?  Providing for the national defense is a fundamental Federal responsibility.  Could the same be said of a bridge to nowhere?  How about most tax loopholes?

In Senator Obama’s, now famous, encounter with Joe the Plumber he told Joe, “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

So, it’s mean, stupid, evil, and unfair to free up a lot of capital, the lifeblood of the economy, at the top.  But it is a jolly good idea to give relatively small amounts to individuals where it will probably be consumed rather than invested and that the benefits will trickle up to everyone else?

It is contrary to the Declaration of Independence to spread the wealth around, by taking from one individual to give to another.  It was Karl Marx who said, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”  From Joe the Plumber according to his ability, to someone else according to his needs!

Private giving to help one’s fellow man is perhaps the most noble and honorable thing a person can do.  What is wrong is using government force to steal from one group to give to another.

Share and Recommend:
© 2008 Liberty's Lifeline. All Rights Reserved.