Saturday, May 02, 2009


If you’re watching my postings, you already know I don’t do current events for the sake of doing current events; they might be mentioned –or even scrutinized—if the subject is relevant to political theory, but my focus is not on the small, distracting picture. There are a lot of political writers (all journalists) who can do that tedious job. I don’t write for the sake of writing – I don’t write for a job or to impress or to fill the pages of a newspaper- there are lots of folks out there who can do that in a far more entertaining fashion. I write to vent my frustrations – to help me actually figure out what I am thinking – and to, hopefully, help open the eyes of someone –anyone—who is confused or concerned over the “big picture” direction of our politics. I write for the future of my country; and lately, I’ve been writing a lot!
My primary big-picture concern is trying to figure the best way –which has to mean “entertaining” way— to rebirth the concept of (small "r")republicanism. This concept is exactly were the GOP’s new panel of so-called experts should be focused. Why? Several reasons.
1) Americans are getting smarter; once intrigued, they desire the process.
2) There is a major push by the statist to deliver the saleable pieces of The
Rights Of Man to the people; republicanism must counter it.
3) Republicanism opens a sundry of easily understood talking points already
listed in our Declaration of Independence
4) Republicanism is actually more closely related to Libertarianism because it
allows for local and state’s rights- the people control their own borough.
5) The people appreciate the idea of people helping people directly
6) It empowers the individual and confines an ambitious regime
7) Promotes family and rural living.

Anyway, back to writing: I am not going to try to write a follow-up journalistic critique of Mr. Obama’s 100-Day speech. But I do have some grave concerns. No, I didn’t have any misplaced hope of finding a patriot under the sleek presidential exterior of our Leader. No, I didn’t expect the questioners to present any difficult philosophical inquiries into Mr. Obama’s politico/socio intentions. But why not a question about how our soon-to-come nationalized health care system is going to avoid the pitfalls we’ve seen in ALL other nationalized care systems? Why not a question about the trillions of dollars in debt we are forcing onto the backs of those yet-born? Why not questions about the legitimate concerns over government staying within constitutional boundaries? Why not one simple question questioning his authority to dismiss a private-sector CEO? Why not a single question regarding the well-known anti-military, ant-free market, pro-internationalist positions of Cass Sunstein to the Office of Information? Why not a question over Mr. Obama’s reckless release of papers exposing Ms. Rice as THE one most responsible for authorizing enhanced interrogation techniques?

Why not a question about Mr. Obama’s first-time-time-ever use of the Supremacy Clause to direct domestic policy? Why not a question about the known internationalist-philosophy of Mr. Koh, who put the U.S. on an “Axis of Disobedience” list with North Korea and Iraq, and suggested our American legal philosophy should look at including “common underlying concepts” of Shariah law (This tells me Mr. Koh does not believe in federalism and completely rejects John Locke’s Natural Law theory. Perhaps, like Mr. Obama, he too enjoys the philosophy of Niebuhr).

We already know President Obama believes our Constitution is heavily flawed (from his 2007 NPR interview), and that he has no understanding (or respect, or both) of federalism. His ilk refuse to admit the House is the People's House (meaning a check against national tyranny with the strength of the states behind it); his ilk believes the White House is the Superior national governors mansion (in direct opposition to the founder's intent of creating a federal system rather than a national one), thanks to their strongly held "respect" for the 17th Amendment which deligitimized the 9th and 10th Amendments, turning our power structure upside down with the "national" government on top and the People on the bottom.

Why not questions over the legitimate concerns about Ms. Rosa Brooks’ extremist positions? The list of relevant, hard, on-point, pertinent, questions could go on and on- Why wasn’t Major Garret allowed a single question (he was sitting in the front row right near the podium)?

“What has “enchanted” you the most”(classic NYT)? Questions about the décor in the Whitehouse; curiosities about .. crap .. I expected an apology about using the term “swine.” Huh? We are at war on two fronts – the Taliban’s headquarters is now 70 miles from the 5th largest nuclear arsenal in the world – several hundred thousand protestors are fresh from a nationwide protest (the largest widespread protest in our history, belittled by Mr. Obama with his ‘waiving tea bags’ remark) – Government fingers are turning into arms and legs – and America is going through a historical transition. And some guy named Drudge has a better accuracy rate than the NYT?

Hey, has anyone thought of asking Mr. Obama if there are any limitations to his power? (Did someone suspend the habeas corpus?) How about just one question regarding the Constitution – about government limitations?-- we do know the most basic desire of government is to plunder, don’t we? (If not, that is another area the new GOP panel needs to focus, playing on the fear of reality.) Mr. Obama specifically and obviously avoided questions about Afghanistan, even when the question was formed as friendly as possible.

Mr. Obama stated –emphatically— he does not want big government; does anyone believe that? If you believe the mulit-trillion dollar growth in government over the next 9+ years is not “growth,” then what is it? Why were there no questions regarding the greatest growth in government ever? Why was there not a single question including the fact that Obama’s first 100 days has cost Americans more than ALL the budgets of ALL the presidents since George Washington?

All of this is so .. unsettling. My country is morphing into something I cannot identify – the people are complacent, apathetic, mesmerized over a live-and-let-live, dangerous utopian desire, reflected by its naïve government. The First lady's apparel is more scrutinized than her husband's root intentions. I am disgusted.

Powered by

No comments:

Post a Comment

Think out your thoughts first: