Who is this guy? (Obama vs. the Constitution)

by Rossputin | 2:50 am, September 21, 2009 | Comments Off

With every passing Barack Obama sermon, I become more and more convinced that the country made an enormous mistake electing a man who is on a permanent campaign (or maybe just permanently “community organizing”), who misunderstands the constitution and the role of the president, and who has no conception that other people’s money is other people’s money.

Obama spoke at the University of Maryland on Thursday. I heard part of the speech on the news, so I decided to find the whole thing online. For the sake of informing you, dear reader, I put myself through the torture of listening to it.  There is so much to find objectionable that I can’t begin to cover it all, but I’ll offer you thoughts about our Organizer-in-Chief, with some emphasis on the health care discussion, since that was Obama’s primary issue of the speech, the major issue of the day, and quite likely to define Obama’s career as president. (His one term career, I hope.)

Early in the speech, Obama says “There are still those in Washington who are resistant to change.” Besides being the classic rhetoric of statists of all stripes, from the Progressives to Nazis to Leninists, Obama’s statement, in addition to being untrue, begs the question of whether change, at least in the way Obama means it, is a good thing.  Opposing bad change is certainly not the same as opposing any and all change just for the sake of doing so.  But that’s what Obama wants you to believe.

Actually, his statement reminded me more than anything of the Borg characters from Star Trek – Next Generation, who walked around telling humans who were fighting back that they “will be assimilated” and that “resistance is futile.”  If you could look at Barack Obama’s political soul, it might look something like this:

 

 

Obama said these same people are more interested in protecting the status quo than in addressing problems, getting a chorus of sympathic “boos” from the sycophantic college crowd.  Again, that’s simply untrue.  I don’t know of anybody opposing Obamacare who thinks that the current health care system isn’t in need of substantial reform; we just don’t want his big-government version of “reform” which would and must make problems worse rather than better, not to mention the fact that it’s unconstitutional.

Someone in the crowd yelled “We love you, Obama”.  Obama said “I love you back.”  Who is this guy? Must be a community organizer cum cult leader.  He couldn’t really be the President of the United States, could he?

Obama then moves to health care directly, calling it a “defining struggle”, again language straight out of Marx and Hitler.

He starts in with the scare tactics: “Every day, one in three young adults is one accident or one illness away from bankruptcy.”  Ummmm….so what.  One in three young adults has a net worth not significantly different from zero.  But they have parents who support them when necessary.  Most “young adults” end up paying for their health care and are not free riders on the system.  Furthermore, most young adults do not have very expensive health issues.  And finally, most auto insurance covers health care for injuries incurred during an automobile accident.

He gave a few horror stories about people who were treated badly by insurance companies (including at least one story that has already been at least partially debunked), and then had the temerity to say “Too many engage in scare tactics instead of honest debates.”  Are you kidding me?

He spews a lot more misinformation and misdirection as has been the wont of Democrats these days, including the lie that the majority of doctors and nurses support his socialist/fascist plan. But a lot has already been written about the nuts and bolts of the health care debate by me and by others, so I won’t dwell on it further in this note.  Instead, I want to talk about Obama’s apparent and very troubling underlying philosophy and distinctly non-presidential style.

After several minutes of his usual overworn stump speech on health care, he begins his community organizing:

“That’s why I need your help. When I was running for President, I never said change would be easy. Change is hard. It’s always been hard. Civil rights was hard. Getting women the right to vote, that was hard… That’s how Americans are, we refuse to stand still. We always want to move forward. And that journey doesn’t take – that doesn’t start in Washington, D.C. It begins right here in College Park. It begins on campuses like this one. It always has. Just like the change that began in our campaign, it starts with people – especially young people – who are determined to take this nation’s destiny into their own hands.”

Just as I noted regarding Obama’s speech to young American students, it is standard fare among revolutionaries to mobilize and propagandize the youth. What Obama did yesterday at the University of Maryland was no different, and it was entirely in keeping with the statists’ cry for “progress”, which inevitably means progress toward government control and away from liberty. But Obama was just warming up…

He spends the next several minutes discussing his campaign chant: “Fired Up” which is to be followed by a sycophantic “Ready to go!”  I was going to put the transcript of the last couple of minutes of Obama’s talk here, but I think a video clip gives a clearer understanding.

Watch this carefully:

Change the world?  Transform this nation? Who is this guy?  The role of the president is not to do these things, not to spend speech after speech, TV appearance after TV appearance, day after day, trying to foment a gentle version of a revolution. The role of the president is to live up to his oath of office “to protect and defend the Constitution” , not to treat the oath as a small stumbling block on his race down the road to serfdom.

Maybe I should cut Obama a break here.  After all, the oath requires that the president protect and defend the Constitution “to the best of (his) ability”.  If his ability is almost none, then maybe we can’t blame him for attacking the Constitution rather than defending it.  But that doesn’t mean we need to support him or avoid criticizing him for such behavior.  And it doesn’t mean that his race is a fair defense against his anti-capitalist, anti-American rhetoric and ideas. Americans should learn from their mistakes and elect as strong a counter-balance as possible, as soon as possible, to this Manchurian Candidate.  To me, Obama’s actions and positions are the same ones that a Soviet agent during the Cold War would take, and the same ones that enemies of our nation would take today – particularly economic enemies.  We’re not talking about killing the US with nuclear weapons. We’re talking about killing it with a government takeover of…well, everything, if the Democrats were to get their way with health care “reform”, cap-and-trade, and card check.  (For the record, I think the last two are dead, and I think health care “reform” may be dead as well. I certainly hope so.)

I realize there are some (or many) who will think my judgment of Obama’s behavior too harsh.  But I think my characterization is not harsh enough.  I don’t know whether Obama is constitutionally eligible to be our president, but I’m sure that if the Constitution could speak (hint: it can’t because it’s not a “living document”) it would scream “please, make him stop!”

Comments

Praise for PPC From Our Lefty "Fan"

• "Zany-ass bombast-entertainment...Hackneyed weirdo communist pseudo-nostalgia" --Alan Franklin, ProgressNow

Featured Posts

• Rising Oil Production in Alberta: More Evidence Disproving Hubbert’s Peak

  In today’s environment it’s hard to find good news. But this is good news: the free market is working, and putting statists’ predictions, like Hubbert’s, to shame. Oh, the joy!

• Regulatory Agencies Continue to Slow the Economy
• Printing Money Doesn’t Work in Britain Either
• Oklahoma’s Constitutional Amendment Would Pit Taxpayers Against Unions
• Friday’s Unemployment Numbers: Correcting the Corrections
• Romney Woos Grand Junction, Earns Sen. King’s Endorsement
• The Borking of Netflix: movie service finds privacy law to be an inconvenience