Obama's version of liberalism

Charles Kesler, editor Claremont Review of Books, describes here why Obama differs from the mainstream liberals like Wilson, Roosevelt and LBJ, and how that difference is reflected in what he is doing and wants to do to in governing.  In essence Obama is mostly a postmodern liberal. As such he doesn't believe so much in eternal truths or God-given rights as the basis for governing principles, (as put forth by the founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution) but by what currently the enlightened class "feels" is the right thing to do.  In other words the application of those "right" feelings about the needs of people, dictates what the government should do to satisfy those needs.  In the other post modern liberal world, the Constitution is a quaint document that has little or no relevance to the world we live in today.  The idea of "limited government" is a silly notion, suited, perhaps, to an earlier, simpler time but irrelevant now.  In the Obama world the individual American has a right to a good living, a good home, a good education, and healthcare, all to be guaranteed and provided by the state.  There are no countervailing responsibilities required by the individual.

This sounds like a version of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".  Or put another way, doesn't this sound like Marxism?  This philosophy explains why Federal laws are ignored by this administration (and others in the past) when the enforcement of them doesn't suit its narrative.  Enforcing the law controlling the illegal entry into the US, and prosecuting the election fraud case in Philadelphia are two recent examples of the Obama administration's failure to act by the clear intent of laws they do not care to abide by for political reasons.  We the people are now in the hands of a lawless state that will do whatever it wants whenever it wants.  This is not good.

Usual democrat corruption

Not to say there isn't corruption in the republican party, there's just a lot less of it, and there are some principled republicans and no principled democrats, as in none.  This article highlights the connection between big business and the democrat party and its creepy operatives, like the Podesta brothers.  Someday someone will write a book about this connection and at least inform the American public how it works.  Meanwhile the corruption marches on, and gets worse.

Kagan Hearings questions

Here is a list of questions that George Wills thinks Elena Kagan should be asked in her SC confirmation hearings before the US Senate Judicial Committee.  Wonder how many will be asked?

-- It would be naughty to ask you about litigation heading for the Supreme Court concerning this: Does Congress have the right, under its enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce, to punish the inactivity of not purchasing health insurance? So, instead answer this harmless hypothetical: If Congress decides that interstate commerce is substantially affected by the costs of obesity, may Congress require obese people to purchase participation in programs such as Weight Watchers? If not, why not?

-- The government having decided that Chrysler's survival is an urgent national necessity, could it decide that Cash for Clunkers is too indirect a subsidy and instead mandate that people buy Chrysler products?

-- If Congress concludes that ignorance has a substantial impact on interstate commerce, can it constitutionally require students to do three hours of homework nightly? If not, why not?

-- Can you name a human endeavor that Congress cannot regulate on the pretense that the endeavor affects interstate commerce? If courts reflexively defer to that congressional pretense, in what sense do we have limited government?

-- In Federalist 45, James Madison said: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite." What did the Father of the Constitution not understand about the Constitution? Are you a Madisonian? Does the doctrine of enumerated powers imposeany limits on the federal government? Can you cite some things that, because of that doctrine, the federal government has no constitutional power to do?

-- Is it constitutional for Arizona to devote state resources to enforcing federal immigration laws?

-- Is there anything novel about the Arizona law empowering police officers to act on a "reasonable suspicion" that someone encountered in the performance of the officers' duties might be in the country illegally?

-- The Fifth Amendment mandates "just compensation" when government uses its eminent domain power to take private property for "public use." In its 2005 Kelo decision, the court said government can seize property for the "public use" of transferring it to wealthier private interests who will pay more taxes to the government. Do you agree?

-- Should proper respect for precedent prevent the court from reversing Kelo? If so, was the court wrong to undo Plessy v. Ferguson's 1896 ruling that segregating the races with "separate but equal" facilities is constitutional?

-- In 1963, President John Kennedy said Congress should "make a commitment ... to the proposition that race has no place in American life or law." Was he right?

-- In 1964, Sen. Hubert Humphrey, a principal sponsor of that year's Civil Rights Act, denounced the "nightmarish propaganda" that the law would permit preferential treatment of an individual or group because of race or racial "imbalance" in employment. What happened?

-- William Voegeli, contributing editor of the Claremont Review of Books, writes: "The astonishingly quick and complete transformation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, from a law requiring all citizens be treated equally to a policy requiring that they be treated unequally, is one of the most audacious bait-and-switch operations in American political history." Discuss.

-- In a 2003 case affirming the constitutionality of racial preferences in law school admissions, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said: "We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today." If you are a sitting justice in 2028, do you expect to conclude that such preferences can no longer survive constitutional scrutiny because they no longer serve a compelling public interest?

-- The president is morose about the court's Citizens United decision holding that the First Amendment, which says Congress shall make "no law" abridging freedom of speech, means no laws abridging a corporation's freedom to speak, including nonprofit advocacy corporations such as the National Rifle Association and the Sierra Club. The court called it "censorship" for government "to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear." Do you agree?

-- You have noted that the court often considers legislative motives when deciding First Amendment cases. Should the court consider legislators' motives if, in response to Citizens United, they impose new burdens on corporate speech?

-- When incumbent legislators write laws restricting the quantity, content and timing of speech about legislative campaigns, are not their motives presumptively suspect?

Just wondering.

Corruption and hypocrisy in Obama's administration

We already know the Obama administration is thoroughly corrupt and hypocritical, however, this case proves it conclusively.  There was a spate of news about this intimidation case (durning the last presidential election) in the news after charges were filed against the Black Panther Party.  However, the story quickly faded from the news, no follow up occurred in the case.  The next chapter in this story is being written and here are the details.  This is a most interesting insight into the Obama DOJ, its politicization and racism, pure and simple.  The resignations of these two DOJ careerists should shake up the department and the administration.  Any bets that will happen?  Here's a bet:  this story won't even rise to a mention in the so-called mainstream media.  It is further proof of how far gone this media is in our country.  It has been hijacked by racists and the far left wing of the democrat party.  Meanwhile thank god for alternative media which hardy exihisted before the internet. Anyone  (and many aren't) interested in truly understanding how bad things are in our government today should come to grips with the implications of this story.

Sign of the times?

Anthony Weiner is an out an out socialist who has represented the boroughs of Queens and part of Brooklyn for six terms in the US House of Representatives.  Most of the legal immigrants to the US first locate in Queens and at least part of Brooklyn. These immigrants take the lowest paying jobs, learn the language, move on up the economic ladder and tend to move out of Queens and Brooklyn with success.  In the beginning they are likely feeling vulnerable and are   somewhat dependent on one or more of the various government programs for the needy.  Therefore they are susceptible to the appeal of socialists like Weiner.  What's interesting here, is the story of the "I've had enough" crowd deciding to challenge a formerly very safe democrat district incumbent.  The retired businessman running against Weiner decided to challenge after watching him refuse to answer legitimate questions on Fox New about the socialist nature of the healthcare reform program then being rammed through Congress by the Obama administrations.  This will be one interesting campaign to watch to see just how wide-spread the disgust with the runaway administration really is. The article is here.