Now, given Obama's understanding of the Constitution as expressed in that last clip, and the fact that his oath of office requires him to swear to uphold and defend that document, can it not be argued that his advocacy through legislation for "redistribution of wealth" violates that oath?
If it doesn't, what would?
He understands what the Constitution means. It doesn't matter to him. In fact, it's an obstacle to be overcome. He has stated so in plain language, and now we have incontrovertible evidence that he has acted on his beliefs. He is in violation of his oath of office, and, I'd argue, so are the majority of the members of Congress who voted for this
Actually, I pulled this post so I could edit it and add to it. As usual, I have more to say. Back before the election even, it was pretty obvious what was coming:
But really that's not the case. This is true, though: Front Sight, Press wrote The Suicide of Capitalism, which began:
A coup d'état took place in this country during the past two weeks. If you didn’t notice, perhaps you were distracted by the Dolphins whipping the Chargers, or Tina Fey’s grotesque parodies of Sarah Palin, or perhaps you were immersed in blogs trying to prove that Barak Obama is a domestic terrorist. Regardless of the distraction, while our attention was diverted, a revolution took place. No shots were fired, but plenty of blood was shed. The United States ceased to be a capitalist economy and became a managed socialist state. The nation’s financial system has been nationalized. The government now calls the shots on who sinks or swims, who will have credit, where money is to go, and how much the robber barons of Wall Street will be compensated for their tender ministrations. The odds are good that the government owns the mortgage to your house. If you receive a paycheck a month from now, it will likely be possible only because the government insured the business loan that allowed your employer to cut your check.When that Newsweek issue came out, though, Michael Ledeen of Faster, Please! wasn't afraid to, well, call a spade a spade. In his essay We Are All Fascists Now, he hit the nail on the head (and affirmed what Jonah Goldberg had been saying since January of '08 in Liberal Fascism) when he wrote:
The coup d'état began with the Fed-managed fire sale of Bear Stearns. Then came the collapse of Lehman Bros., and the liquidation of Merrill Lynch. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over by the government. AIG was bailed out with a massive guarantee program. Washington Mutual fell to another Fed-orchestrated fire sale. Wachovia went down in flames, and Citigroup and Wells Fargo are fighting over the corpse. Then came “The Bailout” — $800 BILLION worth of government purchases and guarantees of “illiquid” loan baskets, with boatloads of pork to buy the votes of recalcitrant legislators. Today, the Federal Reserve began buying commercial paper, again to pump “liquidity” into the system. This amounts to a nationalization of the American financial system. There is no significant area of the financial markets that is not currently under the management of the federal government.
The supreme irony here is that capitalism has committed suicide.
There's a element of truth to the basic theme (although not to the headline): the state is getting more and more deeply involved in business, even taking controlling interests in some private companies. And the state is even trying to "make policy" for private companies they do not control, but merely "help" with "infusions of capital," as in the recent call for salary caps for certain CEOs. So state power is growing at the expense of corporations.But Jonah had already identified the problem with Fascism:
But that's not socialism. Socialism rests on a firm theoretical bedrock: the abolition of private property. I haven't heard anyone this side of Barney Frank calling for any such thing. What is happening now – and Newsweek is honest enough to say so down in the body of the article – is an expansion of the state's role, an increase in public/private joint ventures and partnerships, and much more state regulation of business. Yes, it's very "European," and some of the Europeans even call it "social democracy," but it isn't.
It's fascism. Nobody calls it by its proper name, for two basic reasons: first, because "fascism" has long since lost its actual, historical, content; it's been a pure epithet for many decades. Lots of the people writing about current events like what Obama et. al. are doing, and wouldn't want to stigmatize it with that "f" epithet.
Second, not one person in a thousand knows what fascist political economy was. Yet during the great economic crisis of the 1930s, fascism was widely regarded as a possible solution, indeed as the only acceptable solution to a spasm that had shaken the entire First World, and beyond. It was hailed as a "third way" between two failed systems (communism and capitalism), retaining the best of each. Private property was preserved, as the role of the state was expanded.
Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the "problem" and therefore is defined as the enemy.That work now proceeds apace. As evidence, read this piece at Moneynews.com:
This has been the liberal enterprise ever since: to transform a democratic republic into an enormous tribal community, to give every member of society from Key West, Florida, to Fairbanks, Alaska, that same sense of belonging - "we're all in it together!" - that we allegedly feel in a close-knit community. The yearning for community is deep and human and decent. But these yearnings are often misplaced when channeled through the federal government and imposed across a diverse nation with a republican constitution. This was the debate at the heart of the Constitutional Convention and one that the progressives sought to settle permanently in their favor. The government cannot love you, and any politics that works on a different assumption is destined for no good. And yet ever since the New Deal, liberals have been unable to shake this fundamental dogma that the state can be the instrument for a politics of meaning that transforms the entire nation into a village.
One of the nation's largest labor unions, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), is promoting a plan that will centralize all retirement plans for American workers, including private 401(k) plans, under one new "retirement system" for the United States.And we all know that you should never let a crisis go to waste, right? The head of SEIU is Andy Stern, one of the most frequent guests of the White House since the election. I seriously doubt they spend their time together playing Parcheesi. And we've already heard rumblings of the .gov wanting our 401(k) money.
In effect, government pensions for everyone, not unlike the European system and regardless of personal choice.
The SEIU, which was integral to the election of Barack Obama as president, is working with the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute (EPI), and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, on SEIU's plan, called "the Retirement USA Initiative."
The proposed retirement system would be operated under the following parameters:
• Benefits that move with you, even if you change jobs
• Payouts only at retirement
• Shared responsibility among employers, the government and employees
• Pooled assets, controlled by professional investment managers
"The financial crisis and the economic recession have shone a spotlight on the inadequacies of today's system," said Stephen Albrecht, director of benefits for SEIU.
I am more and more convinced that Rev. Donald Sensing was prophetic when he said back in 2003:
I predict that the Bush administration will be seen by freedom-wishing Americans a generation or two hence as the hinge on the cell door locking up our freedom. When my children are my age, they will not be free in any recognizably traditional American meaning of the word. I’d tell them to emigrate, but there’s nowhere left to go. I am left with nauseating near-conviction that I am a member of the last generation in the history of the world that is minimally truly free.When I asked him if his outlook had changed in October of 2008, he responded:
Yes, most definitely it has. The demise of freedom in this country has accelerated even faster than I imagined back in 2003.And on Sunday it accelerated faster still.
Socialism, fascism, either way we no longer have anything even resembling capitalism in this country. The Constitution is toilet paper for our elected officials, their oaths mean nothing. Both parties have been active participants in this, and now we have proof that at least the Democrats aren't adverse to defying their constituents now that they think they can get away with it.
Where is my country, and what have they done to it?