On the December 17, 2010 edition of the O’Reilly Factor, Bill had a debate with two ladies of the liberal persuasion.  One of them was Dr. Caroline Heldman, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Occidental College.  Asked what the government owes its citizens, Dr. Heldman responded, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Let me stop there before continuing the quote.  Those are our founding ideals as stated in the Declaration of Independence.  It followed from the Founders’ belief that “all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” 

Okay, so the good professor takes these venerable words from one of our founding documents and proceeds to bastardize them into her progressive world view.  To continue her quote, “Life would be health care, the pursuit of happiness would mean that everyone who sought gainful employment would get it, and certainly higher education and a poverty safety net, especially for home makers who are taking care of children at home.”  Really?  Is that what the Founders meant with their carefully chosen words?  This is from an individual in a position to teach students politics?  Let’s try again.

Life

Life meant just that.  Everyone has a right to live.  Government should protect that right, from foreign powers who desire to take our lives and subjugate us.  We have a right to live.  It does not mean universal health care.  If it did, why didn’t the Founders mention it?  Was health and longevity such that no one cared about it at the time?  No.  Your health was your responsibility, not your right.  You have a responsibility to take care of yourself, not to engage in risky behavior such as eating too much, or drinking too much, not taking precautions to keep illness from your door.  You also have a responsibility to put away some funds should you need to call upon a physician.  Just as you put away funds for food, clothing, and shelter.  If you  need a professional like a lawyer, accountant, or doctor, you should be prepared to pay for those things. 

Liberty

The professor glosses over this point in her details and it is easy to see why.  She believes in just the opposite.  By Liberty our Founders meant free from government interference.  We should be left alone to live our lives as we choose without thousands of bureaucrats telling us we have to wear a bicycle helmet, buckle our seat belts, buy a low-flush toilet, use compact fluorescent light bulbs, use a low-flow showerhead, and on and on.  Leave us alone and we’ll take responsibility for our lives and we’ll do just fine.

The Pursuit of Happiness

According to Dr. Heldman, the Pursuit of Happiness would be that anyone seeking gainful employment would get it.  She doesn’t say exactly what she means by seeking.  Is that looking in the want ads?  And if you seek, you will get.  Who is going to guarantee that?  That was a rhetorical question.  I am sure that Dr. Heldman  wants the government to do that.  Of course, it would include higher education and a poverty safety net, especially for homemakers who are taking care of children at home.  It doesn’t sound like much of an effort has to be put out, for the goodies to come pouring in.  What was that passage from the Bible, “Seek and ye shall find?”  Dr. Heldman wants to go one better, “Seek and ye shall get.”  Benjamin Franklin had a better explanation for the Pursuit of Happiness, “The U.S. Constitution doesn’t guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself.”  Got it?  Pursuit is a far more active than seek.

 Pursuit, noun, the act of chasing after somebody or something in order to catch, attack, or overtake that person or thing.

Seek, verb, to try to find a person, thing, or place.

Chasing versus “try to find”, which do you think would take more effort?

Paying the Piper

When Bill O’Reilly challenged the professor that we can’t afford to give out all these things she quickly disagreed.  O’Reilly tried to pin her down to how much of his personal wealth she would take to make this happen, and as progressives are quick to do these days she couldn’t come up with a set amount.  You see, they will take as much as it takes.  When Bill asked if she would require 50%, she was okay with that amount.  If she needs more later, she’ll be back. 

Where does the government get its money?  Right, it gets it almost entirely from its citizens.  Even corporate income taxes are ultimately paid by individuals as the taxes are built into the price of the goods and services we buy.  So what Dr. Heldman is saying is we have to take money from citizens so we can give money to citizens.  Let’s be blunt.  What she wants is not Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as intended by the Founders, she wants wealth redistribution popularized by Karl Marx, “from each according to his ability (the successful), to each according to his need (the seekers).”

So the progressives pervert the ideals of our Founders and redefine them according to the beliefs of Marx, and as long as their definition contains the words life, liberty and happiness (or two out of three) they claim to be upholding the ideals on which this great country was founded.  If the good Dr. believes what she believes, that’s fine.  Just be honest enough to say it.  She doesn’t believe in liberty she believes in wealth redistribution and instead of personal responsibility she believes in the responsibility of the collective.  Then we can have an honest debate.

Until then, I say to the government: Give not, take not.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours.  Please comment below.

Yesterday in an interview with Oprah Winfrey for her Christmas special, President Obama magnanimously gave himself a grade of a “solid B+” on his first eleven months in office.  Now that’s grading on a curve!  I once had a very good professor who opened the first class with his philosophy of grading.  He said:

“I don’t believe in grading on a curve.  I don’t subscribe to the theory that if everyone learns nothing, you all get A’s”

Amen, brother.  Now if you revisit President Obama’s statement, he must have really, really done badly, because grading his class of one student, he couldn’t even pull that “A”.  Let’s look at his achievements:

• A stimulus plan promised to hold the unemployment rate to 8%, and if not passed the unemployment rate would rise to 9%.  His team must have really screwed up that project because it caused the unemployment rate to rise 1.2% above the “do nothing” scenario, and we are $787 billion poorer to boot.
• Cap and Trade — the Climategate scandal gives credence to the hypothesis that pro cap and trade scientists were cooking the books to manufacture conclusions that supported their political agenda.  Rather than backing away from it as it if were a skunk at a garden party.  President Obama is embracing it and pushing forward.
• Health Care — President Obama is trying to have the federal government take over 1/6 of the U.S. economy, because in doing so they will lower costs and make sure everyone is covered.  Sensible market based ideas such as: tort reform, patient control over how patients money is spent, insurance available across state lines, etc., need not apply.  How likely is this to work? (see bullet #1 above). Because this hasn’t passed yet was one of the only reasons Obama didn’t give himself an “A”.
• Continuing to blame President Bush for his shortcomings sounds a lot like “my dog ate my homework,”
• Agreeing to try the 9/11 suspects in civilian court rather than in a military tribunal.  Although President Obama says they are guilty and will be executed (can you say mistrial?) how many of us are looking forward to a replay of the O.J. Simpson trial with the acquittal included?
• Meanwhile, Black Panther’s who stood outside a Philadelphia polling place brandishing clubs have their case dropped by the Obama administration, even though there was a default judgment against the men for not showing up in court to face the charges. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!
• Yes, they’re Fat Cats but their MY Fat Cats:  After blasting bankers for being Fat Cats, why does Obama have so many Goldman Sachs alumni in his administration?  Mark Patterson, former Goldman lobbyist, Treasury Secretary Geithner’s chief of staff; Reuben Jeffrey III, undersecretary of state for economic, business and agricultural affairs; Neel Kaskari, assistant secretary of the treasury for financial stability, administering the TARP funds; Dianna Farrell, deputy director of National Economic Council.
• In the midst of all this mayhem, he finds time to go pitch Chicago for the 2016 Olympics.
• He is piling so much debt upon our children and grandchildren that they will probably have to work 3/4 of the year, just to pay their taxes.

How Bad is Bad?

What kind of calamity would we have to be in for Obama to give himself a “C” let alone an “F”?  So we know where Obama’s ego is, and it is doing well, thank you very much.  But the American people have their own report card and it shows that support for Obama has been on a downward straight line since his inauguration with his approval rating now in the mid to upper 40s, the lowest level in history for a president at the same point in his tenure.

Such a disconnect between Obama’s opinion of himself and the American people’s opinion is a serious problem.  It drives him to continue to pursue policies that Americans adamantly oppose (e.g., 61% oppose the Senate health care bill).  Most reasonable people would take such feedback and reassess their actions.  But if an employee is blind to his shortcomings, the only thing to do is show them the door.  The sooner, the better, folks because it’s not going to get any better.