A Crisis in Courage

Chief Justice Roberts voted to sustain Obamacare, ensuring its survival by a 5 to 4 vote in the Supreme Court. His vote was the deciding vote. Four other justices voted to invalidate Obamacare in its entirety. Roberts was nominated for the Court by George Bush, but he voted with the liberals on the bench. Why?

Roberts said it was not his job to protect the citizenry from the consequences of its political decisions. This is true. But it is his job to protect and defend the Constitution, and he failed miserably. His vote was result driven, not process driven. Even he agreed that the Administration’s argument for the law on the basis of the Commerce clause was not valid. Even he argued that the mandate was not a penalty as argued by the Administration, but a tax. As Kennedy said, the Supreme Court should not be in the business of rewriting law, but that is precisely what Roberts did. The law was passed with pledges from Obama that it was not a tax. The bill would not have passed if it was considered a tax. Yet Roberts said that despite the fact that the Obama Administration has steadfastly maintained that it is not a tax, it nevertheless could be considered as a tax. Roberts seemed more concerned with the outcome than in the process. Justice Anthony Kennedy dissented, saying Roberts was “guilty of vast judicial overreach” and of attempting to “force on the nation a new act.”

Roberts appeared cowed by the attack that he knew the Left was preparing to launch against the Court. After the Court’s involvement in the Bush-Gore presidential election, the political profile of the Court has risen. He seems as though he was trying to preserve the stature of the Court as above politics. But in trying to preserve the stature of the Court, he has abandoned the Court’s mission which is to protect the Constitution. What is the Court if it has sacrificed its mission? What has Roberts preserved? If he did not have the courage to defend the Constitution, he should not have accepted his nomination to the Court.

Obama has publicly declared that he does not believe in the Constitution even though on taking the oath of office he swore to protect and defend it. He also has steadily diminished the role of the legislature and he is trying to do the same to the Court. It seems that the Chief Justice is aiding and abetting him.

The liberal justices are never driven to protect the Constitution. They don’t like it, even though they have sworn to defend and protect it. They are driven by agenda, not law or the Constitution. They do not back off. Their votes are never in doubt by the Left. The problem with moderates and conservatives is they still believe in compromise; the Left does not. This means that slowly and steadily America as we know it is being dismantled. The State is growing like a cancer and destroying America.

This country is being fundamentally transformed by Obamacare which was pushed through Congress in a highly partisan way, using questionable legislative techniques, and is now being validated by the Supreme Court in a 5 to 4 decision. Is this really the way we want to move our country forward?


Liberalism: The Enemy from Within

As Cicero famously noted the most dangerous enemy is not the outsider. Liberalism is destroying us from within. The liberal agenda is taking us toward economic ruin.

Government annual budget deficits are way above sustainable levels and the amount of public debt is becoming alarmingly high. Federal debt at the end of 2008 was equivalent to 40 percent of GDP, marginally above the 40 year average of 37 percent, but since then it has risen dramatically higher to about 70 percent of GDP in 2011.  Moreover, according to the Congressional Budget Office, it is possible that public debt will rise further to 101 percent by 2021 and to 187 percent by 2035. Even these projections are too rosy, as Obamacare will add significantly to both spending and the debt.

In addition, the government hides the true extent of the problem behind bad accounting. Not only is the government spending far more than it can afford, but it is lying about what it is doing. If a CEO of a business were doing this he would be thrown in jail for fraud. Unfunded liabilities of government, for example, are estimated at above $75 trillion, and these are not even included in the budget.

Despite this Obama and the Democrats continue to press for expanded spending and accumulation of more debt. National debt rose from $9 trillion in 2008 to over $15 trillion by May 2012, and is increasing at a rate of $3.96 billion per day. This increase is more than has occurred for all previous presidents combined. As President Reagan said, “they say Democrats (liberals) are spending like drunken sailors, but this does a disservice to the sailors; at least they are spending their own money.”

It is clear that these policies if left unchecked have the capacity to destroy capitalism and the bedrock of our economy, yet liberals keep pushing their destructive policies. There are two fundamental explanations for this; either they are incompetent or are deliberately trying to destroy America as we have known her. Of course they could be both, but it seems highly improbable that they could be so stupid as not to recognize what is happening. Given this it seems likely that the intent of the liberal establishment is to destroy capitalist America so that they can rebuild it on new utopian socialist foundations.

Obama certainly harbors resentment toward colonial powers given that his Kenyan father was subjected to abuse by the British. He also attended Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s church in which hatred toward America as well as toward whites was preached regularly. As a constitutional law student he was very clear that he did not like the Constitution.

Another alternative is that this behavior represents a form of addiction denial. Liberals are debt junkies. Like drug addicts or alcoholics, they do not seem to recognize that they have a problem. The addiction of liberals to spending is a disease. Liberalism shares much in common with other forms of addiction.

Still another alternative is that it constitutes a rational pursuit of self-interest to the detriment of others. Perhaps liberals are pursuing goals of short-term political and personal benefit. So what if others have to pick up the tab for their prodigality and pursuit of self-interest.

Thus, there are a myriad of alternatives. I believe each may play a role. The conscious intent to destroy capitalism certainly cannot be dismissed, as frightening as it is to accept. Before taking office, Obama said “we are 5 days away from fundamentally transforming this country.”  No one bothered to ask into what. Intent was clear on Obama’s part.

President Kennedy, often lauded as a liberal, was really a conservative; in his inaugural address he said “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”  He lowered taxes and was strong on national defense. Today’s liberal mantra is “Ask not what you can do for your country, but what it can do for you.” The utter bankruptcy of this concept is manifest.

Rubio for Vice President?

Rubio not only understands the importance of the American dream; he is living it. He believes in the uniqueness of America and is infused with a Reaganesque optimism which this country sorely needs now.  Moreover, being of Cuban background, he has seen the damage that socialist policies can wreak on a nation. Liberalism is a serious threat not just to America, but to the western democracies in Europe as well, so it is critically important that our leaders understand this very real existential threat. Rubio feels it in his blood and family history. Too many politicians, including many Republicans, are beguiled by the liberal rhetoric of good-intentions and the slow, but steady, creep of liberalism to see the real danger. Rubio is different.

People do not comprehend what a great country we have. Americans have not traveled enough to realize what it is that we have here. They do not understand the poverty and misery that surrounds us in the world. We are the envy of the world and our own citizens are looking down on what we have. Civilization is very tenuous. We can easily lose what we have.

The founding fathers sought to create a country protecting the rights of the citizens from the government. The Constitution was predicated on this principle. For the liberals of today, like Obama, this is anathema. They do not like the Constitution, seeing it as a constraint on what the government can do. Their interest is in expanding the rights and powers of government to the detriment of citizens. The War of Independence and the Civil War as well as the two World Wars were fought to preserve our traditions and ideals, but liberalism is now surreptitiously taking them from us from within.

Liberals, like Obama, do not like this country. They want to change it. You would think that someone like Obama who has risen from nothing to become President of the United States would see the greatness of this country. You would think that he would appreciate that we are truly the land of opportunity where anyone can achieve their dreams. But he does not. He sees only unfairness and injustice. The contrast with Rubio could not be more stark.

Unfortunately, many of our leaders as well as our citizens have lost an appreciation for the greatness of this country. Sometimes it takes a foreigner or an immigrant to understand what long-time citizens have lost sight of. This is one of the things that makes Marco Rubio such a promising new political figure. As a young, Cuban-American, he is a classic example of what hard work can do for you in this country.

He recognizes and appreciates that only in a country like America could he have risen from nowhere to be considered as a possible Vice Presidential running mate for Romney. He understands who we are as a nation. He would like to build on our strengths, not transform us into a European type socialist state.

Liberalism and “Economic” Justice

America since its founding has been all about political justice. To this end the founding fathers established the democratic foundations of this country. Since FDR, however, there has been a fundamental shift in the nature of justice. Liberals have been pushing hard for economic justice, and they have been willing to sacrifice the pillars of our democracy to pursue it. In essence political justice is now being sacrificed for “economic” justice.

Economic justice for liberals means redistribution of income and wealth. For them it is not right that some should have more material wealth than others. They are uninterested in who creates wealth and of the nature of economic growth; they are solely interested in the distribution of wealth. For liberals this is economic justice. It is not justice that people get what they contribute to the economy and in meeting the needs of others which is the notion of economic justice created by our founding fathers and which is embedded in our market oriented economy. For liberals someone who does not want to work and is a drain on the community should get rewarded out of the fruits of the labor of others.

In talking about the redistribution of income to help the poor, it is important to understand what we mean by the poor. It is recognized in this country, unlike in most of the world, that in talking about the poor we are not talking about people worried about survival. They have food, shelter, and health care. Almost all also have television sets and many other modern conveniences. What we are talking about then is not survival, but rather seeing to it that most everybody has the same level of wealth and material well-being. We are talking about relative, not absolute, wealth and well-being. Where does this stop? Should everyone have a Mercedes, a mink coat, a house? Of course, it is the latter, the attempt to see that everyone would have a house which caused the financial crisis of 2008, but this of course does not divert the liberal from his course. The massive damage done even to those they purport to trying to help does not seem to register.

For liberals the government should deliver economic justice through taxation, public spending, and regulatory action. Government can impact both vertical and horizontal equity; that is it can lead to redistribution away from higher income earners to lower income earners, and can also shift income and benefits between people of equal economic status. Regarding horizontal equity, government intervention has favored public sector employees over private sector employees, and those who willingly do not work and act responsibly. You have public sector employees deliberately underperforming on the job and overusing sick leave, because they know they cannot be fired. You have people deliberately dropping out of the labor force to collect unemployment insurance. You have people in the underground economy receiving their income in cash and evading taxes, while at the same time collecting benefits and financial assistance from the government.These problems of inequity between people of roughly the same economic status should cause liberals to wince, but one does not hear concern from this quarter.

Liberals are only concerned about vertical equity; you never hear them complaining about horizontal equity.  Liberals do not complain about this, perhaps because they do not want to draw attention to the shortcomings of government and also because they do not want to risk offending some their constituents, the takers or parasites on society who game the system out of selfishness. Moreover, to the extent that this kind of inequity helps grow the government, this is to the liking of liberals who are bent on growing the power of the State and the ruling class.

Taxation for the purpose of income redistribution can be considered as a theft of a person’s labor. In paying taxes most of us are in effect working several months out of the year for the government. Does the State own me or do I own myself? Do I have a right to the output of my own labor or does the State? Most of us would argue that we own ourselves and likewise are entitled to the product of our labor. If the State can’t take one of my kidneys or one of my eyes to help someone who in their judgment needs them more than I do, why can it take the product of my labor to give to someone else?

The record for liberal efforts to impose economic justice has been dismal. Liberal anti-poverty programs have been a well-acknowledged failure. Horizontal equity problems have been significant and cannot be justified. Economic growth and prosperity have been adversely affected. And the threat to liberty from massive government intervention is a clear and present danger to our democracy.


Liberal Justice: Case of Trayvon Martin

The liberal notion of justice is nothing more than an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. Justice implies equal treatment and fairness, but liberals use justice as a tool not for advancing equal treatment and fairness, but for advancing their agenda. They are not interested in equal treatment or the evenhanded application of laws, but rather in preconceived outcomes.

Thousands of blacks are killed every year, almost all of them by other black men. Are liberals concerned about this? No, there is very little attention paid to it. They look for a crime that can divide us, because that is the way they sustain themselves and advance their agenda of power.  Before almost anything was known of the Trayvon Martin case the liberal media and establishment put a spotlight on it. The Washington Post put it on their front page and called the alleged perpetrator, George Zimmerman, a “white” Hispanic. To satisfy their template of division, it simply didn’t fit if Zimmerman was Hispanic, so they called him a white Hispanic. They also made him out to be a racist even though he reportedly mentored black kids and in 2010 actively protested against police corruption when the son of a policeman was not arrested for beating a black homeless man. No one knows what the facts are in this case. The criminal justice system is the forum for sorting this out.

Even if it were clear that Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin simply because he was black or due to racial profiling, would it serve the interest of society to blow it up and cause racial tension and anger if it was one out of thousands of killings? It is always possible to look for things in society which will divide us. Is it not better to look for things that bring us together?

Liberals profess they are against racism. They claim they want to diminish tensions between ethnic groups and work toward a society of unity. Yet their actions and modus operandi militate to fan divisions and work against unity.  This is because the real goal of liberalism is power and the politics of division are the means to achieving it.

Justice for liberals is subservient to their quest for power. They do not mind sacrificing it if it advances their power. In fact the rule of law, equal treatment under the law, is something they are uncomfortable with, as it constrains the exercise of the power of the ruling elite.  The ruling liberal elite prefer to exercise discretion rather than submit to principles or laws. Thus in the economic sphere they want to decide who gets what economically, so economic justice for them is not served by the rules of the market place. Likewise in the legal sphere, the rule of law gets in their way, so they brush it aside.

They are not concerned with justice for George Zimmerman. The media fanned the flames of racism by trying to depict him as a racist with no information to work on.  It is interesting that mob justice and vigilantism, the very things that blacks were most terrified of early in this country’s history, seem now to have become their modus operandi in this case.

Why not let the justice system handle the case? Why try to exert outside pressure without knowing the facts? In fact it is even worse than that in that, by various accounts, the liberal media distorted the facts to make it appear that Zimmerman was guilty of racism.

We all want to see justice for Trayvon Martin, but should we not be interested in justice for George Zimmerman too?  Is it not better to let the judicial system see that justice is served, rather than let the liberal media and race rabble-rousers determine guilt or innocence without a full consideration of the facts?  As a result of what has already happened it will be very difficult for Zimmerman to get a fair trial. Jurors will be intimidated by the raw emotions which have already been stirred. They will fear reprisal if they would decide to acquit Zimmerman and they would fear the probable outbreak of widespread rioting as well.

The New Black Panther Party allegedly issued a bounty on George Zimmerman’s head, but Attorney General Holder has not even said anything about it. Holder also dropped charges against this group a few years earlier when they were outside a site of voting, allegedly intimidating voters. Meanwhile Holder went to a joint event with Al Sharpton who has been actively raising racial emotions in the case. Does something sound amiss here? Does this behavior seem fitting for the Attorney General of the United States whose job it is to see that laws are implemented in an evenhanded way? The liberals claim they were upset with the reported vigilantism of George Zimmerman, but seem bent on practicing it themselves.  The death of Trayvon was a tragedy, but we should not make matters worse through ill-advised, irresponsible actions which serve only to make matters worse.

Liberals love to use the word justice, but in practice make a mockery of it. The liberal view of justice is not just an oxymoron; it is the antithesis of justice. It is not just non justice, it is antagonistic toward justice. It is based on mob emotion arising out of anger and hatred. It is in short a disease of mind and spirit. With the politics of division practiced by liberals, our society is riven and divided. Like a disease in which part of the body fights other parts, liberalism is fostering the growth of a cancer of division that works to the harm of us all.