Fears Of Our Fathers: An Intangible Presidency
April 25th, 2011
By Barry Secrest
On March 22, 2011, Reuters posted a news article which dealt with the hazards of sex and sudden death syndrome. To summarize, the article made it plain that certain individuals are at least 2.7 times more likely to suffer a massive heart attack during sex than at any other time. Since that article debuted, we have been both watching and waiting for the White House to institute yet another drilling moratorium, but this one being of a highly personal nature.
Granted, one may laugh, and yet, from all of the insidious pervasiveness of this administration, one which has even sought to limit the sport of fishing, of all things, it would not actually surprise some were this type of Orwellian overreach to occur--not to mention the efforts exhausted to make it function, albeit clumsily.
At this point we might only hope that Bill Clinton would be made the hypothetically instituted Federal Czar of Coitus, in a fitting tribute to the ongoing bureaucratic redundancies. This, however, is the new America where government meddling is now the rule rather than the exception, which speaks to our present set of circumstances in large part.
The Myopians of Orwellian Oversight
For instance, the Federal government recently went after yet another case of extreme corporate corruption according to the Obama Administration. In this case, a very large company, Boeing, chose to add a plant for building aircraft in Charleston, SC. The problem was simply that the Machinist Union, whose Boeing employment numbers total around 80,000 in the state of Washington, took issue with Boeing for building a new plant in a largely non-union state.
How dare they! Obama promptly sent in the National Labor Relations Board which filed suit against Boeing for building in a non-union state. And no, to answer your suspicions, this is not a joke--we wish it were, in fact. One wonders what might have been the response had Boeing chose to relocate the plant overseas. Would the administration have sent the CIA after Boeing? Doubtful, because this would have represented an international redistribution of wealth, no doubt in keeping with Obama's now clear redistributionist goals.
But we have seen this type of Orwellian overreach time and time again by the authoritarian Obama Administration, and yet we rarely, if ever, see either the House or the Senate swing into militant action when a clear oversight occurs. An oversight committee, which is actually one of the many vital functions of Congress, might at least embarrass and mitigate future efforts at unconstitutional meddling by the Executive Branch, not to mention placing it into a prolonged defensive stance--which is undoubtedly needed-- at this point.
But our mind-numbed members will whine something on the order of "not wishing to polarize the media," as if that hasn't already occurred, or the growing repetitive mantra "we simply don't have the numbers." The damage, therefore, continues unabated while our liberties continue in retreat to a severe degree.
This fact brings us to the new American paradigm in which many now yearn for the time when the Federal Government was run largely in the background rather than at the forefront of societal concern.
- In fact, there was such a time as when the American dream was one of prideful property ownership rather than the dourly symptomatic, never-ending government unemployment check nightmare, my how quickly things change.
- There was a time when both the church and the community meaningfully looked after its own, rather than a government bureaucracy forcibly mandating the inwardly cynical aid.
- There was also such a time as when private hires were made for not only the need of the employer, but also the needs of the hiree's.
But it, indeed, would seem now that the world of Big Brother, that we had all been previously raised up to fear, has finally found its way to us, and the fears of our fathers were certainly justified, as it turns out.
Nourishing The Pallid Malignancy
While the as of yet unstaunched, cancerous bleeding of government soaks into and stains the very fabric of society in America, the Commandant in Chief has undauntingly continued feeding the aggressive malignancy in earnest. In yet another pallid example of this fact, during the President's Facebook Townhall meeting, recently held in Palo Alto, California, the many left-leaning ideologues of Facebook were allowed to sound off to the President via texting. The President, in turn, responded verbally, and that's when the "fun" began this time.
The first question came from the Z-Man himself, Facebook entrepreneur Mark Zuckerberg, who asked the President "about the debt and what specifically we could do about it?"
The President's answer, predictably, first sought to fix the blame by ostensibly stating who wasn't to blame--being Obama himself--and our new Federal Coitus Czar, being former President Bill Clinton. Obama went on to state (for the first time in my personal knowledge) that tax-cuts were not matched by cuts in spending, whereas he has previously stated that the tax-cuts "were not paid for." Interesting change, that.
Then Obama moved back into character by, once again, whining that President Bush "started a prescription drug plan for seniors that wasn't paid for." Indeed, Mr. Obama, would be our answer, but the seniors' prescription drug plan, when compared to the economy stalking, revenue black hole of Obamacare IS paid for, Sir?
So herein lies the depraved disingenuity of Obama, who would actually seek to compare the shaving nick of a senior prescription care plan to the nationwide disemboweling of Obamacare.
The Quintuplets of Deficit Birthed
The President then went on to comically postulate that "we should be living within our means," when in fact it seems that the only endeavor that isn't being forced to live within its means now, in America, is directly under Obama's purview--being the Federal Government itself, for Heaven's sake. Obama went on to restate how he inherited a $ 1 trillion debt when he came into office. Yet, Obama always leaves out the fact that, since he came into office, that debt has quintupled by $ 5 trillion dollars. Whose fault might that be?
The President, his Townhall session slowly becoming a "one question" dominated lecture, went on to talk about how both he and Congress would need to cut $ 4 trillion over 10 years and increase taxes on the wealthy, to which Zuckerberg dutifully stated, "I'm cool with that." While only a few days before in a speech, Obama had indicated that his mystery cuts would total about $ 4 trillion dollars over 12 years. Has Obama suddenly upped the anti or is it more with regard to the following old adage:
"He who has a faulty memory should never take upon himself the trait of lying?"~unknown
We could not locate any other reference to this actual lie or misstatement anywhere in our media research, so perhaps you heard it here first. Regardless, Obama then stated that he would like to move back to the tax rates which were being paid during Clinton's time, to which we might proffer that our spending should also then go back to the same levels as well. Fair's fair, right? The President went on to his normal dirty laundry list of wants, which included green energy, transportation and broadened internet access, among others, to include somehow lowering Medicare and Medicaid costs while just having instituted Obamacare and, of course, criticizing the Republicans' plan despite having none of his own detailed.
A Cluelessness of Contrivity
The next question asked of Obama: "What could be done with regard to the housing crisis and the fact that it was difficult, now, for prospective home-buyers to obtain loans." The question actually should have been "why is Government hamstringing the banks with armies of newly restrictive regulators before a loan can be made? The President's answer was long and painfully seemed to point out essentially everything that is wrong with the confirmedly clueless Obama Administration:
- He spoke of the housing bubble that had been artificially created, which was actually caused by his own liberal brethren in the first place, to include himself.
- He spoke of renegotiating mortgage terms when his own convoluted plan in that regard failed miserably.
- He spoke of the difficulties of obtaining a loan, while his own administration has overseen the implementation of new ground rules, which caused these loan difficulties in the first place.
- He even went on to point out, if not to suggest, that many people in America "would now be better off renting."
An American President actually suggesting that the new American dream is to rent? No doubt, the President, it would seem, has given up quite easily, while most of us prefer to battle back against the onus of anti-property ownership. And yet, we have both heard and seen this mindset before with our radical leader. Why is this, and what might it actually mean?
It could obviously mean many things or even nothing since Presidents are supposed to, and often don't, carefully consider virtually everything that erupts from their mouths, Bush having made this comically if not painfully clear. But nothing is certainly not the case when considering this particular question with this particular President, and this is why.
The Constitutional Intangibles Of Property Rights
The President's stance on property ownership versus renting, to our way of thinking, hearkens all the way back to the President's words of becalmed revolution all through-out his administration. Remember, the President has, supposedly, been extraordinarily trained as to the details and meanings and intricacies within the US Constitution.
The one thing to bear in mind is simply this: The Rite and rights of property ownership are, of a necessity, within the essential essence of the US Constitution.
The Constitution sets forth, within the Bill of Rights, the basic meaning that property, along with the right to own it, does not extend simply to the material world in which we live, but it also extends itself deeply into the very essence of what it means, both spiritually and otherwise, to be a free and wholly self-owned individual with endowed and inalienable rights.
The sad but simple fact is that any foray into diminishing the individual's capability of owning property will therefore empower the ease of the State to gain property while lessening the underpinnings of natural law.
The Deeper Meaning Behind the Bill of Rights
When the amendments to the Constitution were originally set forth, they were in essence speaking to the various ownerships, both material and abstract, that each individual holds essential rights to:
Allows that we own our religion, as if it were a tangible property, and no one can take it from us, along with our speech, our media, our right to assemble, and our ownership of the right to redress our Government, all are intangible properties that we own.
Allows that we may own the property of firearms, along with the intangible rights to do so, and no one can abridge that property right.
States that we own our own homes as a right, being material property, and no soldier can coerce that right of property from us via conscription, except by specific prescription of law.
Once again, lays forth that our property in the form of papers, effects, houses can not be unreasonably searched and seized without probable cause and through a warrant obtained from a Court. The right to own such property is a right of property in and of itself.
Allows that we own the property of individual judicial process conducted speedily and that our lives, our liberty, as well as our silence are properties which are owned by each as an individual.
In fact our citizenship, in and of itself is, a now lessening in value, property owned by each individual, and much of the Constitution is predicated on the fact that we own ourselves as a property, in essence, and deals with the various instances of human interaction which can result in another individual's rights of such ownership being violated, along with the remedies.
However, somewhere along the way, these essential rights while remaining obdurately present, have been continually diluted down to the point of limited effectiveness. The Reasons for this often belie simple explanation, however, the slow and gradual process of erosion is the most quantifiable means to illustrate our suborned constitutional processes. Much of this, regrettably, has everything to do with the slow democratization of our Republic's supposed guardians, and my avowed party, the proud Republicans.
The Guardians Of Inculpability
One, at some point, begins to wonder if our Constitutional Republicans actually now view the Conservative victory in November, not so much as a Democratic loss but rather as a decisive win for those yahoo upstarts in our Tea Party. In fact, it often seems that we can hear the words US Constitution and control the spending copiously spewing from their lips, but disgorging more like spent mouthwash rather than heartfelt words of resolve. And yet we seem not to be seeing, from them, the kind of firebrand opposition that we would expect at times such as these.
Do the Republicans see themselves, perhaps, as the Congressional third wheel, or is something else that's bothering them? It's almost as if they have relaxed, just for a time, in order to gather their collective breath from the onslaught of the prior two years. At least it's a bit more comforting to think of their seeming lack of resolve as being nothing more than a brief bout of post-traumatic stress syndrome that will fade in quick time, rather than how it is beginning to appear to most of we now beleaguered Americans.
This phenomena brings to mind the quote of all quotes, which often percolates up from my own personal brand of battle weariness:
"Fatigue makes cowards of us all."~Vince Lombardi
Are the Republicans simply worn-out and weary from the prior withering onslaught , or is it something else? Now, make no mistake, there are many a congressional Republican member who continues battling, almost at ease, against the hopelessness of canned hope and the changeling nature of a change that no one can now believe in. But at some point you have to begin to wonder if losing is now of such a second nature to the Republicans that they accept it with a sort of fatalistic elan? Perhaps the Republicans don't quite understand that, at this juncture within our Republic, failure is not an option.
We Shall Fight...
Dare I point out, to our Constitutional champions, that the United States, along with much of her crew, is teetering on the edge of such an abyss that failure to act now may mean a certain loss of much, if not all, of the things that we as a country hold dear? This abyss, mind you, is no garden variety abyss either. This paradigm of plunge has all of the markings of an engineered torpedo run rather than a series of unfortunate events that our ship of state just couldn't avoid. And this is where our Republicans fail and do so mightily.
Stop being afraid of the birther issue, stop being afraid to tackle to the exclusion of all else, constitutional oversight committee's with razor-sharp teeth. If you can undermine the enemy's resolve, as your President has stated, then do so with every breath.
Tie the debt limit to Ryan's budget plan and be willing to walk away if it doesn't work out. At this point, Gentlemen and Ladies, we have little if anything to lose, and everything to gain. Stop being afraid of losing at the expense of your actually winning. This, as we have continually put forth, is not rocket science.
The Republicans appear to have simply forgotten how to appropriately utilize the power of leverage, the artfulness of determinedly carving out a position of power where none may formerly exist. Boehner's words of "we only control one half of one third of the government" were weak utterances of surrender rather than the expected powerfully condemning battle cry that most Americans not only wish, but expect to hear, which should go something like this:
"We now control one third of the government and by God you will listen to us and, oh, by the way, if you bastards keep this up we will easily control all of the Government in very short order, November is coming and it won't be pretty, ladies"
Nobody wants or even cares, Republicans, not even a tittle about niceness, nor of ridiculously cloying civility, nor of what the Media or anyone else might think or say, especially when our Republic stands in extreme peril of failure. Further, our Republicans seem to still be playing in the old dust-covered, antiquated media ballfield that their opposition uses, by even the same old rules and with the same dog-eared equipment.
Kind of silly, when they have a brand new sparkling state of the art ballfield just waiting to be tried out in the new media--the one that provides an essential balance to the old which, might I remind you further, proved very effective if not paramount to the Tea Party's and the Republican's seemingly now forgotten, but extraordinarily hard-fought November victory.
The funny thing is simply this: With an astoundingly outraged American society seeing the unbelievable damage which has been vengefully wrought by our left-leaning leaders, you Republicans actually believe that this train-wreck of a Presidency has an ice-cube's chance in hell of being elected to a second term?
2012 is just around the corner so..."Just one more time... for the Gipper" until then.