President of the United States

When Does It Become Obama’s Economy?

by Bill O'Connell on July 30, 2010

Share and Recommend:

The talking points have been established that it was eight years, eight, of failed Bush and/or Republican policies that got us into this mess and President Obama and the Democrats are working hard to get us out of it. Let’s take a closer look.

What blew up in 2008? It was the housing market. The underlying cause of the problem has Democrat/liberal/progressive fingerprints all over it going back to Franklin Roosevelt who created Fannie Mae. Add into that mix Lyndon Johnson privatizing Fannie Mae to hide it from the budget and creating HUD; Jimmy Carter creating the Community Reinvestment Act; Bill Clinton pushing for more home ownership among those who could least afford it, Andrew Cuomo as HUD Secretary pushing Fannie and Freddie to take on riskier mortgages; Barney Frank and Chris Dodd fighting against regulation before they were fighting for it (and where have we heard that formulation before?); and when housing prices run out of gas and the house of cards that the Democrats built collapses, it’s all Bush’s fault.

Let’s look at the timeline. When he took office, President Bush was handed a recession from Bill Clinton resulting from the dot.com bubble. In less than a year we had 9/11. In spite of that, Bush pushed through tax cuts and got the economy to grow through most of his presidency. The Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007 and in December 2007 the economy went into recession. One year later Barack Obama is elected President of the United States. Now, more than a year and a half after Obama is in office the economy looks like it is slipping into a double dip recession, and this is the Republican’s fault? Who has been spending like a drunken sailor? Who wasted almost $1 trillion on a stimulus plan that was so ineffective the Obama administration had to invent a new statistic, “jobs saved”, to hide its dismal performance. They add on ObamaCare, which no one in Congress read before voting on it and no one knows what is in it and so no small business is going to hire anyone until they know what it costs. How is that the Republican’s fault or Bush’s?

We are just a few months away from the tax cuts put in place by President Bush expiring. President Obama wants them to expire. This will place an additional massive burden on small businesses and just about everyone else and he wonders why aren’t companies hiring? The man came into office with no executive experience and the year and a half he has been in office he hasn’t seemed to pick up any. Could it be because he is surrounded by advisors who have little to no executive experience themselves?

To my fellow Americans I say, hang in there it is less than 100 days to vote the bums out. Perhaps not all of them, but at least we can bring in some adult supervision. It’s time to stop steamrolling the American people with the socialist programs and to let “We the People” take back our government.

Share and Recommend:

Comments (0)

Pass the Lipstick, Mr. President

by Bill O'Connell on March 3, 2010

Share and Recommend:

As President Obama said while campaigning to be President of the United States, “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig!” How true. Yesterday President Obama reached for the lipstick to dab on four proposals suggested by the Republicans to the massive pig of a health care proposal clinging to life. The four proposals are:

Use undercover medical professionals to conduct investigations to fight waste and fraud in Medicare, Medicaid and other Federal programs.
“Demonstrations of Alternatives” to the current malpractice mess.
Increasing doctor reimbursement for Medicare.
Expanding Heath Savings Accounts (HSA).

The pig smiled. She thought she looked beautiful. Just don’t try to put a bikini on her because, as President Obama famously said, she’s still a pig. Let’s look at the President’s magnanimous attempt at bipartisanship in detail.

1) Undercover Medical Professionals to Uncover Fraud

It is estimated that somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 billion is lost or stolen each year from Medicare and Medicaid. This program has been in place for 40 years. If those numbers are consistent over that period, that’s $4 TRILLION. Gone. Stolen from you and me. How much better shape would we be in if we had that money back? That’s government efficiency for you.

The President of the United States is the chief law enforcement officer in the country. The amount of Medicaid and Medicare losses each year are four times the entire budget of the Department of Justice. How’s this for a proposal? Create a Medicare/Medicaid fraud unit within the FBI and fund it so that we can stop these losses. If you stop the fraud, it’s free money. What you save in fraud should more than pay for the FBI funding. Why take medical professionals and give them law enforcement duties. Are you going to ask police to operate on you? Mr. President it’s your job to enforce the laws and prevent this widespread fraud. You don’t need a new act of Congress. Just Do It!

2) Tort Reform –No; “Demonstrations of Alternatives” — Yes

Trial lawyers are one of the biggest contributors to the Democratic Party. Do you think such “Demonstrations of Alternatives” will amount to anything other than hush money? “Shut up , we’re looking into tort reform.” The counter argument is that Americans have a right to their day in court when they have been injured. True enough, and I am reluctant to arbitrarily limit their awards through a fixed dollar limit. I would take aim squarely at the lawyers.

John Edwards, one-time Senator and presidential candidate, was involved in about 63 cases as a personal injury attorney and amassed a fortune of about $70 million. In one particular case, he stood before the jury and took on the persona of a child in the womb crying out for oxygen to appeal to the emotions of the jury and win the case. Oddly enough he voted against a ban on partial birth abortion. Gee, in the once case it’s a child who can actually speak while still in the womb! But on the other hand it is just a mass of tissue at birth that can be disposed of with the trash. We have learned a lot about the moral character of John Edwards. He is the poster boy for the old joke, “How do you know a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving.”

Here is a simple solution to tort reform. Fixed fees for attorneys and loser pays. The lawyers should set their hourly rate and bill according to hours worked, not how much they can squeeze out of the jury. The award should be for the benefit of the injured party, not the lawyer. The second part is to prevent frivolous lawsuits. The loser pays the legal fees of the winner. The argument here will be that the tables will be turned and no one will sue corporations for damages because of the risk of paying their legal fees. Right now lawyers are running a lottery fishing for lawsuits of any kind because they know that most corporations will settle for less than it would cost to defend the suit, even if they know they are right. All customers of that corporation pay more for their products (e.g., drugs, medical devices) and the lawyer gets rich. I am sure that if such a proposal as this gets passed a new market for “legal fee insurance” will open up where a plaintiff with a strong case can buy insurance to cover the cost of the other sides legal fees if they do lose.

3) Increasing Doctor Reimbursement for Medicare

So much for bending the cost curve down. The real way to curtail spending on health care is to eliminate 3rd party payers. (see It can be done).

4) Increase Health Savings Accounts

These plans exist today, however, they are not all available across state lines (see It can be done). I had such a plan in New York while employed by a company, but when I went out on my own I could not buy the same plan in New York State. We don’t need ObamaCare, we just need states to allow these plans to exist within their borders or allow individuals to buy across state lines.

The Pig Lives!

Three of the four Republican proposals that President Obama likes don’t cost anything. But he $1 trillion to $2 trillion health care catastrophe is still alive and until we slay that beast and start over we will go from a serious health care problem to a fiscal crisis and end up with both. If you don’t believe me, read how the model for ObamaCare is working in Massachusetts.

Share and Recommend:

Comments (0)

To Protect and Defend

by Bill O'Connell on January 25, 2010

Share and Recommend:

“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” – Presidential Oath of Office, Constitution of the United States of America, Article II, Section I

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” — Constitution of the United States of America, First Amendment.

“This ruling strikes at our democracy itself,” Mr. Obama said, adding: “I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest. The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington, or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections.” — NY Times, January 25, 2010

Last week in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission the Supreme Court struck down a provision in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill that prohibited “electioneering communication”, that is, broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary election or within 60 days of a general election. It is what I and many others dub the “Incumbent Protection Act”, because it tips the scales heavily in favor of incumbents who have the name recognition, and the communication power of their office as an advantage in an election. In addition, the 30 days or 60 days are when many voters really start paying attention. Our elected representatives love to talk tough about reform, but that reform typically ends up making it harder to replace them.

Obama Weighs In

As the above quotes demonstrate, President Obama’s job is to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution protects free speech. So why is President Obama attacking a Supreme Court ruling that protects Free Speech? Is that what he is supposed to be doing? Instead he says it “strikes at democracy itself.” He doesn’t mention that it also lifts restrictions on the speech of unions that typically favor the positions of his party. Perhaps that is because with the Obama administration unions have extraordinary access to the White House. From January to July, White House logs show that Andy Stern, President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) visited the White House 22 times, more than anyone else in the visitor logs.

If President Obama is truly concerned about the influence of lobbyists, it does no good to drive them out of advertising on TV into personal visits to the White House. Of course, the president would be selective in who has an audience with him. If you really want to reduce the number of lobbyists, then reduce the reasons for them to lobby. If, for example, you want to reduce the lobbying effort of the giant agricultural corporation Archer Daniels Midland, then get the government out of the business of ethanol subsidies, farm subsidies, and shut down the federal Department of Agriculture. Lobbyists will call on Washington less, if they have less to call about. Shrinking the federal government will reduce the number of lobbyists and their influence, reduce the deficit, help balance the budget, and make the government more manageable so that we can reduce or eliminate waste and fraud.

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens blasted the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision saying that the ruling is not grounded in the writings of the Founding Fathers. His argument being that certain groups could have their speech curtailed and only individuals had their speech protected. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a separate concurring opinion to address Stevens argument. In part:

“I write separately to address JUSTICE STEVENS’ discussion of “Original Understandings”… This section of [Stevens'] dissent purports to show that today’s decision is not supported by the original understanding of the First Amendment. The dissent attempts this demonstration, however, in splendid isolation from the text of the First Amendment. It never shows why “the freedom of speech” that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form. To be sure, in 1791 (as now) corporations could pursue only the objectives set forth in their charters; but the dissent provides no evidence that their speech in the pursuit of those objectives could be censored….

The [First] Amendment is written in terms of “speech,” not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals–and the dissent offers no evidence about the original meaning of the text to support any such exclusion. We are therefore simply left with the question whether the speech at issue in this case is “speech” covered by the First Amendment. No one says otherwise.” – Antonin Scalia, concurring opinion in “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Newly seated Justice Sonia Sotomayor voted against free speech. I always marvel when people who succeed against tough odds attack the very principles of this country that allowed them to succeed. The Bill of Rights was designed to protect against the tyranny of the majority by defining certain rights of every individual that could not be infringed upon. It is one reason why people around the world fight to come here for a chance to succeed. Because they know that these principles will allow them to do so if they have the drive to succeed.

Share and Recommend:

Comments (0)

Time to Go, Hillary

by Bill O'Connell on August 17, 2009

Share and Recommend:

From being the foregone conclusion as the first woman President of the United States in 2008 to a marginalized, snarky misrepresentative of the United States, it time for her to realize, the band stopped playing and everyone has gone home but her. It’s time to call it a day and resign.

Keep Your Friends Close and Your Enemies Closer

Proving, once again, he is the master of hardball politics, Barack Obama dangled the Secretary of State job in front of his vanquished rival. She took the bait. No more would she be a force in the Senate able to challenge Obama at the first stumble. She was now part of the problem, not a potential solution. Once ensconced at Foggy Bottom, she thought she enhance her image by holding the most prestigious post in the Cabinet. But she again underestimated Barack Obama.

He proceeded to divvy up foreign policy among many advisers, undercutting Hillary every step of the way. She’s no fool, she can see it and it is eating away at her, to the point where she is becoming a gaffe machine to rival Joe Biden.

She’s No Condoleezza Rice

Upstaged by her husband in North Korea, negotiating the release of the journalist hostages, she was asked what her husband thought about another matter while in Africa. In a similar situation, Condoleezza Rice, would have handled that with aplomb and not become rattled. But here is Hillary’s response. Hillary Snaps. Smacking down a questioner on the world stage? Well that will surely “correct” our image as the Ugly Americans.

The Apology Tour Continues

She goes on to make a speech in Nigeria and wants to emphasize that there is no place in the world for corrupt elections. A very good point to make, that few could argue with. But what does she use as an analogy? She openly suggests that Jeb Bush fixed the 2000 Presidential election for his brother. Of all the analogies of corrupt elections that she could have used, let’s see, Iran? Cuba? the old Soviet Union? she points to the oldest democracy in history and suggest that we are as corrupt as any third world dictator. Hillary Compares U.S. Elections to Third World Corruption. Disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who endorsed Hillary to take his Senate seat, must be turning over in his grave. He used to staunchly defend the United States at the UN and here his protege is saying we are no better than the worst of them.

In Honduras, the rule of law is being followed to prevent a Chavez style dictator from taking over that country, and who does Hillary and the Obama administration support? The Chavez puppet. What about standing up for democracy in our Hemisphere? It is time for her to go.

The Gore Thing in 2000

Let’s get this straight one more time. On election night 2000, Gore lost Florida. He lost the recount. He lost the re-recount. He lost the re-re-recount. He lost the official recount. He lost the private recount sponsored by newspapers.

Their count showed that Bush’s razor-thin margin of 537 votes — certified in December by the Florida Secretary of State’s office — would have tripled to 1,665 votes if counted according to standards advocated by his Democratic rival, former Vice President Al Gore.

“In the end, I think we probably confirmed that President Bush should have been president of the United States,” said Mark Seibel, the paper’s managing editor. “I think that it was worthwhile because so many people had questions about how the ballots had been handled and how the process had worked.” — CNN

If Democrats and their radical supporters want to salve their wounds with this myth, live the fantasy. But don’t smear this country with these lies while acting as our chief diplomat.

Share and Recommend:

Comments (1)

Obama Watch — Week 1

by Bill O'Connell on November 11, 2008

Share and Recommend:

Well it’s been a week since Barack Obama has been elected the next President of the United States, so a decent interval has passed for him and his family to enjoy the moment. It’s time to resume the watch to observe in which direction he will lead us. Here is what we observed in week 1:

Appointment of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff – Emanuel is known as a partisan with sharp elbows and a take-no-prisoners style. On the one hand it can be viewed as the first step in finishing off the opposition. On the other hand, he may be spending more of his time protecting Obama from Congress and all the far left groups who are holding his IOUs. So the jury is still out on this one.
Dow Jones Industrial Average — Down 765 points. The Dow which is considered a leading indicator is down about 8% in five days, not exactly a vote of confidence in the hope and change heading our way.
Private meeting with President Bush today — After the meeting which was between Barack Obama and the President with no staff attending, it wasn’t long before the essence of what was discussed was in the newspapers. Tradition has it that private presidential conversations are, well, private. Bush was angry about the leaks. Let’s see, private meeting, Bush and Obama, word leaks to the press, Bush is angry. I’ll go out on a limb here and put my money on it was Obama who leaked the information. Well that didn’t take long. What else can he be trusted with?
Obama pushes Bush to implement another stimulus package immediately and to help out GM and Chrysler. Why would he do that? Here’s a hypothesis, if Bush acts before Obama takes office, and it goes well, Obama can take credit for it by either saying that the recovery took place on his watch or that he prodded Bush to act. If it goes south and the taxpayers are stuck holding the bag on yet another socialist grab, well Obama can do what he campaigned on, blaming Bush. If nothing happens until he takes office, he will have to make the decision and bear the responsibility. Remember what happened with the $700 billion bailout package, Obama stayed as far away as he could.
Obama’s transition team is talking about rescinding some of Bush’s executive orders, including one that allowed more drilling for oil. So with overwhelming support for “Drill here, Drill now”, Obama immediately wants to reverse course and drill less. This should help drive the price of gasoline back up again. But wait, this just in, his advisors are saying a decision hasn’t been reached yet.

Stay tuned…

Share and Recommend:

Comments (0)

The End of Racism?

by Bill O'Connell on November 8, 2008

Share and Recommend:

Throughout the presidential campaign there was an undercurrent of racism. It bubbled up every time it looked like an issue could be effectively used against Barack Obama. Talk about William Ayers? You’re a racist. Talk about Revered Wright? You’re a racist. Talk about ACORN? Your a racist. Say you are not going to vote for Obama, then that proves you’re a racist.

What’s interesting is that the only people who talked about race and racism were the Democrats. It was as if knowing that racism was receding to the darkest corners of society and withering and dying as it went, they had to resuscitate it and keep it alive. One of the most powerful tools in their arsenal was looking about as potent as Jack La Lanne, at 94.

The Election Results

Barack Obama won the election for President of the United States with 53% of the popular vote. That is a higher percentage than Bill Clinton got in either of his elections, while he had the hubris to call himself the first black president. It was a higher percentage than Jimmy Carter got in 1976, the last Democratic presidential winner to garner more than 50% of the popular vote, with 50.1%. You have to go back 44 years to Lyndon Johnson to find a Democrat that got a higher percentage of the popular vote.

Barack Obama and John McCain didn’t submit job applications to a committee, where Barack Obama might get a few extra points for being a minority. He won in the popular vote and even more decisively in the Electoral College. He even won three states from the old Confederacy (Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida). I think it’s fair to say that race wasn’t a significant factor. He could not have won the race on the black vote alone and regardless of how other categories broke down, the fact remains he had to get substantial support from all groups in order for him to be close enough for the black vote to put him over the top.

Progress Has Been Ongoing

If you look around it was not just this one man who has succeeded, there are also many others: Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Oprah Winfrey, Charles Rangel, Clarence Thomas, Douglas Wilder, Lynn Swan, J.C. Watts, Michael Steele, Kenneth Chennault, Reginald Davis, Tiger Woods, and on, and on. So perhaps we can put the deck of race cards in the drawer and leave them there.

The Next Chapter

How Barack Obama plans to lead would typically be revealed in his inaugural address. I would like to offer some text that he might consider including to set the tone for bringing the nation together:

“As I look out on this crowd of great Americans I can see in the distance the Lincoln Memorial. It was there some forty-five years ago, another great American, Martin Luther King, Jr., addressed a large crowd. In that speech he said,

‘I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’

As I stand here before you, I am humbled to think how momentous those words were then, and how great this country has become in the intervening forty-five years. He also said:

‘I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.’

I was a little child when he said those words and I consider myself as much one of his children as his own flesh and blood. So I say to you on this day, that we are about to write a new chapter, the fulfillment of that dream. I pledged to bring change, to bring you hope, and to end partisanship and unite this country. Therefore, I proclaim that we should end all Affirmative Action programs, and we should end them with two words:

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

Including that message in his inaugural address would be on par with Kennedy’s “Ask Not….” It would set him apart from the dull technocrats and bureaucrats and define his presidency. Anyone want to wager if that will ever happen?

Share and Recommend:

Comments (0)

Queue Up for the Loyal Opposition

by Bill O'Connell on November 4, 2008

Share and Recommend:

Apologies to Yogi Berra, but it appears that Barack Obama will be the 44th President of the United States. He displayed extraordinary political skill on par with Bill Clinton. As commentator Juan Williams put it on Fox News, Obama was the stealth candidate. He spoke in platitudes about hope and change, but he was flexible on the details. In a period of just a few weeks his famous claim of a tax break for anyone making under $250,000, became $200,000 and through other allies it continued to decrease to $150,000 (Biden) and then $120,000 (New Mexico governor Bill Richardson).

Obama campaigned furiously against George W. Bush, despite Bush not being in the race. McCain was no match for him as far a political skill was concerned. McCain refused to mention Reverend Jeremiah Wright in the campaign, he failed to explain how his involvement during the bailout debate got the Republicans back in the game when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid effectively shut them out of the discussions until McCain got involved. Where else did he fall short?

He failed to adequately explain his health care plan leaving him open to attacks from Obama which went largely unchallenged.
He took a pounding from Obama and Biden who said he voted with Bush 94% of the time, but he failed to tie Obama to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi when Congress had an approval rating about half of what Bush had

The Next Four Years

As the loyal opposition we have to be on guard and speak out against the radical positions that Obama has espoused, but are out of sync with the American people, only 27% of whom call themselves liberal. What to watch for:

The Fairness Doctrine — this is an effort to squelch our voice. The Fairness Doctrine which was set aside by Ronald Reagan, required that a broadcaster provide equal time to present opposing viewpoints whenever a political position was expressed. This would mean that if a radio station broadcast a popular show like Rush Limbaugh, they would have to broadcast three hours of an opposing viewpoint such as was heard on Air America, the liberal network that failed for lack of listeners. Faced with this, many broadcasters would drop talk radio and go back to playing Top 40s. Liberty under attack — The First Amendment guarantee of free speech
Card Check — Right now if a union wants to organize a workforce there are two methods that can be used: a secret ballot, or by having the potential members fill out a card and give it to the union. They choice of which method is to be used is up to the company, many of whom choose the secret ballot. Unions want that choice to be theirs and they favor the card system. This would allow the union to apply pressure to workers at home and other places off the job. This is even opposed by none other than George McGovern, who has run commercials opposing the union’s position. (McGovern Interview on YouTube) Liberty under attack — the secret ballot.
Redistribution of Wealth — Obama has spoken extensively, although not recently excepting the Joe the Plumber slip, about the redistribution of wealth. Joe “Buck-a-Day” Biden, which represents how much this multimillionaire gives to charity, says that paying more taxes is our patriotic duty. Obama scoffs at descriptions of him as a socialist, by saying that if he gave half his peanut butter sandwich to a schoolmate, he’d be called a socialist. But sharing your peanut butter sandwich with a schoolmate is charity, having your teacher take away your peanut butter sandwich, your cell phone, and your Legos, and give them out to your schoolmates and maybe, maybe, give you half of your peanut butter sandwich back, that’s socialism. Liberty under attack — The Fourth Amendment right to be secure in your person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Bankrupting the Coal Industry — The United States generates 49% of its electricity through coal. With more and more focus on electric cars and other alternatives to using foreign oil. Obama has said that “If someone wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them.” We are the “Saudi Arabia” of coal, with an estimated 200 year supply. To take coal off the table, would be very dangerous and increase not decrease our dependence on foreign oil. Liberty under attack — our economic freedom.
Crisis — According to Joe Biden, we have about 6-8 months before we will have a crisis to test Obama. Many liberals point to the budget surpluses of the Clinton Administration as proof of the prudent fiscal leadership of the Democrats. However, they accomplished those surpluses mainly by gutting the military. This led to some of the disasters of 9/11/2001 and what followed. At a time like this and with Obama’s plans for massive increases in government spending, what will happen to our military and as a result what will happen to our ability to deal with a crisis. Liberty under attack — providing for the national defense

This is an historic moment in American history with the election of the first African American as President of the United States. As the loyal opposition, it is our duty to make clear whenever he and his followers stray from the principles on which this country was founded, those of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. We must make sure we fight any challenges to the First Amendment and we must preserve our ability to raise our voices and speak our mind.

God Bless the United States of America

Share and Recommend:

Comments (2)

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.

President of the United States

When Does It Become Obama’s Economy?

Pass the Lipstick, Mr. President

To Protect and Defend

Time to Go, Hillary

Obama Watch — Week 1

Queue Up for the Loyal Opposition

Recent Posts

Archives

Blogroll