Chasing threats while ignoring tyrannies

The most effective hiding place is often in plain sight. The human mind is more attuned to detecting potential threats than recognizing ones openly presented. For instance, a woodsman tramping through brush is wary of snakes. But while walking a cleared path the woodsman may fail to notice a snake until the last moment. Like a snake, the State is striking openly at our liberties while we're focused on possible threats among the briars and brambles.
Critics warned that Anwar al-Awlaki's death presented a threat to every American. Awlaki, you might recall, was an American citizen until killed in a targeted drone attack. His demise portended open season on typical American citizens who espouse ideas the State deems subversive. On the surface the argument appeared plausible.

Awlaki was an American citizen, but he was hardly typical. He wasn't targeted for opposing big government, occupying Wall Street, or criticizing U.S. policies. Awlaki dumped America for an area of Yemen known for hostility toward his homeland. Once there he allied with an organization that had declared and demonstrated its belligerence toward the United States. Awlaki willingly joined a foreign enemy on foreign soil, making himself a target in the process. That's quite different from killing American citizens on U.S. soil for alleged subversions. Anwar al-Awlaki's death established no precedent through which any governing body can legitimately execute an American citizen without due process.

Another example is the reaction to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (H.R. 1540). The law provides for indefinite detention of people engaged in terrorist activities, without trial, until such hostilities cease. Critics contend H.R.1540 authorizes military detention of any American citizen the State desires. Such warnings strike a chord with advocates of gun rights, pro-choice activists, and protesters of government from all political persuasions. But are the criticisms accurate? Maybe not.

Subtitle D, Section 1031(a)(d) of H.R.1540 authorizes the military to detain "covered persons" without trial until hostilities cease. So what constitutes a covered person? According to Sect. 1031(b)(1)(2), a covered person must have been involved in the 9/11 attacks, be a member or substantial supporter of al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces, and have committed hostile acts to aid those forces. Also, 1031(e) specifically states that no part of H.R.1540 can "affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens," or "lawful resident aliens."

Section 1032(a)(2)(A)(B) further restricts military detentions only to persons authorized under Sect. 1031 and clearly identified as members or affiliates of al-Qaeda and their allies. Only if subsection (B) were misapplied to include citizens engaged in sedition or outright revolt could the perceived threat materialize. Even then the rules change little. Since its inception the central government has enjoyed the authority to suppress insurrection. Finally, Sect. 1032 (b)(1)(2) plainly declare that the military's detention authority under H.R.1540 does not extend to U.S. citizens or lawful resident aliens.

Of course, laws can be changed, meaning H.R.1540 could someday become an imminent threat to fundamental liberty. The same can be said of Awlaki's demise. However, neither example allows the State to kill Bill Jones for his limited government activism or indefinitely detain Joe Smith because he criticized the State. While slippery slopes are legitimate concerns, indiscriminately incarcerating or assassinating citizens isn't a slippery slope; it's a headlong leap over a cliff. Slippery slopes aren't so noticeable.

People will react when they perceive assaults on basic liberties. Wouldn't detaining or killing citizens without due process be an open invitation to rebellion? Therefore, it makes no sense for the State to employ such tactics. It's much easier to grow tyranny a bit at a time, in plain sight, until the public becomes accustomed to abuses and willingly accepts blatant despotisms.

Both Awlaki's killing and H.R.1540 are like snakes in the brush. Both examples may be dangerous, but the dangers are more perception than reality. Because the threats are perceived we are more suspicious and willing to consider their potential dangers. While our eyes are focused on detecting the large snakes in the brush, we're ignoring the smaller vipers on our daily path; vipers that are continually poisoning our liberties.

Not much is said these days about Transportation Security Administration procedures that border on sexual predation. Yet their invasive tactics continue to expand. TSA agents recently detained a teenage girl because her purse displayed a decorative depiction of a revolver on the outside and were accused of strip-searching an 85-year old woman. It doesn't stop there. The TSA is conducting random detentions and K-9 inspections of interstate tractor-trailer and bus traffic. We'll eventually become so accustomed to encountering uniformed federal agents that their presence will be routine.

Such occurrences aren't unique to federal authorities. A Michigan sheriff has conducted indiscriminate checkpoints on busy highways. An Ohio sheriff's office faces civil proceedings for strip-searching a woman. Now, strip-searches aren't new and are sometimes necessary. But male officers assisted in stripping this woman, who was then left naked in a cell for six hours. Even if a woman deserves arrest, are we comfortable with our wives and daughters being subject to strip-search at the hands of male officers?

The first known arrest of a U.S. citizen using a Predator drone aircraft recently became public. But both federal and local authorities have previously utilized Predator drones, equipped with technology capable of determining individual activity from 10,000 feet, inside U.S. airspace. Furthermore, cameras are nearly as common as traffic signals on metropolitan street corners. While only the naïve expect privacy in public places, the possibility of constant surveillance should give us pause.

There's no need to seek affronts to liberty in the death of one defector to Yemen, nor do we need find them in legislation where their existence is, at most, miniscule.
Assaults on our liberty are happening right before our eyes. Why scour the bushes to find a snake when there are vipers aplenty in our path? Freedom would be better served if we were more attentive to obvious threats than to those existing in perception. Threats to liberty aren't always found in targeted enemies or slippery slope legislation. Too often the greatest threats are encountered daily, hiding in plain sight.

This column was first published at American Thinker.

One more precedent for tyranny

From the minute the Affordable Care Act was signed into law it was destined for the Supreme Court. Lower courts are split on the issue, with some contending ObamaCare oversteps federal authority while others accept it as the central government's legitimate function. The stakes will be high when the Supreme Court hears arguments next summer. Either ObamaCare will be scraped, establishing precedent to dismantle years of unconstitutional federal actions, or it will be upheld and liberty will again yield to tyranny.

From a limited government perspective it's difficult to see how the law can stand. The Constitution was written to restrain the central government, insuring it could legally act only within specified guidelines. Yet when courts, which are part of government, are the last arbiters of constitutionality, the guidelines are often blurred. Legalese supplants original intent, ensuring the Constitution lacks solid meaning. Jurisprudence is reduced to a legal playground where obvious liberties and logical conclusions yield to manipulation.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals Judge Laurence Silberman's recent opinion upholding ObamaCare's individual mandate represents such an abuse of judicial oversight. And lest Silberman's decision be dismissed as another wacky ruling from a pinko judge, understand that he's a Reagan appointee, an associate of Clarence Thomas, and considered a forceful conservative jurist. However, his decision represents nothing liberty can admire. In fact, Silberman's opinion confirms how the federal behemoth consumes those who enter its lair, regardless of said person's original ideals.

Federal authorities -- whether legislators, executives, or judges -- become part of a governing apparatus where there's no benefit in limiting federal power. Fueling the bureaucracy becomes the goal and the central authority is enabled to act as it wills. On page 29 of his ruling Silberman concludes that Congress has the right to force citizens to purchase health insurance under the Commerce Clause. If he's correct, every conceivable economic transaction is subject to congressional oversight. In fact, according to Silberman's opinion, people retain neither economic liberty nor individual rights. We aren't endowed by our Creator with unalienable and self-evident rights, but are granted privilege as the central authority finds pleasure. The entire experiment in self-government is turned upside-down.

Consider Congress' constitutional authority to "regulate commerce . . . among the several states," found in Article 1, Section 8. In Judge Silberman's opinion, "to regulate" means "to adjust by rule or method . . . to direct . . . to order; to command." The definition is technically accurate, prompting Silberman to assume an unlimited ability for Congress to affect commerce, even to the point of forcing citizens to engage in commerce that doesn't yet exist. However, Silberman's opinion flies in the face of the Founder's vision.

James Madison, considered the Father of the Constitution, would reprimand Judge Silberman. Madison described the federal government's constitutional powers as "few and defined" while recognizing those remaining in state hands as "numerous and indefinite." Madison found Congress' authority to regulate commerce only within its enumerated powers and not beyond. Consider, too, his assessment of the General Welfare clause:

With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.

If the Framers considered Congress' ability to promote the general welfare constrained only to specifically delegated constitutional authorities, why would they empower Congress to regulate commerce at every turn? The idea is preposterous when liberty is held as a right of human existence. Yet it's perfectly sensible when the purpose is expanding government at freedom's expense.

While Silberman recognizes the Framers' distinction regarding what commerce Congress can regulate (p.29), he invokes judicial precedence to override the Founder's vision. To support the decision he writes, "Supreme Court jurisprudence over the last century has largely eroded that [the Framer's] distinction." What should be apparent is the lack of judicial authority to amend the Constitution through convenient interpretation and erroneous application.

Doubtful Judge Silberman meant to highlight a problem inherent to judicial activism, yet he did just that. Relying on precedent involves a fatal flaw. If one foolish ruling precedes a second foolish ruling, a foolish precedent is established. Subsequent rulings based on the foolish precedent will necessarily be of equal or greater folly. Precedent is therefore no substitute for original language when ruling on constitutional matters. Ironically, Silberman cites one of the most foolish, anti-liberty precedents in U.S. history to support his ruling.

According to Silberman, Wickard v. Filburn (1942) confirms Congress' power to force citizens to purchase health insurance. Filburn, a farmer, violated federal law when he grew more than his allotted quota of wheat, not for open sale but for his family and livestock. The Court unanimously upheld the law under the pretense that had Filburn not grown the excess wheat he would've purchased it on the open market. His action contradicted Congress' interest in preserving the national wheat price and supposed authority to stimulate commerce. Remember, foolish precedent equals foolish rulings, and foolish rulings produce foolish regulations.

If Congress can force the public to purchase health insurance because health care affects the overall economy, it can force the public to purchase anything. Automobile sales affect GDP. Can Congress then compel a citizen to buy a car? Can Congress also force an individual to buy a subsidized model from a subsidized manufacturer, say a Chevrolet Volt? Under such a pretence, the economic decisions the central government can force upon the public are infinite.

What's more, in light of Silberman's ruling based on Wickard v. Filburn, there's no private act government cannot manage. A homeowner has no right to remodel their residence due to the work's affect on the construction market. A car owner has no right to perform maintenance due to the affect on repair businesses. A landowner can't even grow tomatoes for personal consumption without undermining produce prices. Every economic act becomes a matter of privilege rather than right. The Court's decision on ObamaCare thus carries implications far beyond health insurance. At issue is whether citizens enjoy inalienable rights or the federal government holds unlimited authority.

Rejecting the individual mandate would undo a century of federal expansion based on foolish judicial precedent. Rulings like Wickard v. Filburn would be exposed as twaddle and the concept of constitutionally limited government would gain a foothold. Overturning ObamaCare means far more than overturning ObamaCare. It offers a sliver of hope that liberty has not perished.

Upholding federal authority to force individuals to buy government approved products is yet another blow to freedom. The foolish precedent will become further entrenched and every American will suffer as a result.

The stakes are high. The Legislative and Executive branches, combined with a generally complicit Judicial branch, have placed the Framers great experiment in self-government on life support. The question is whether the Supreme Court will establish a new trend based on liberty or follow the century-old precedent toward greater tyranny.

Basic civics courtesy of a Syrian protester

Politicians and media experts readily adopt the latest notions, often without question. No one wants to miss their seat on the politically correct bandwagon. Toward that end media personalities and worldly politicians gush and swoon over the so-called Arab Spring. However, rhetoric and wishful thinking aside, the jury remains out on the forces driving Middle East protests and the emergence of westernized constitutional republics in Arab lands.

Consider what is known about the Arab democracy movements. The Muslim Brotherhood’s legacy belies the moderate agenda with which it has been credited, instead promoting violence, Sharia Law, and a general anti-Zionist bent. A Libyan rebel leader spent six years incarcerated at Guantanamo prison because of his links to Islamic extremists and the powers behind Syrian and Yemeni uprisings aren’t likely to prove better.

Arab Spring will likely bloom into Sharia Summer and Islamist Autumn, the result being greater authoritarian rule than Arabs previously experienced. But there’s at least one Arab protester who seems to understand the idea of deposing tyranny. In fact, America would do well to heed his simple civics lesson. This one man, a Syrian Kurd opposed to Bashar Assad’s rule, held a simple sign espousing a profound message. His poster read, “Rights are not given as charity.”

Such a concept of rights and liberty is becoming rare within American politics. Rights are increasingly defined as a function or extension of government with human liberty existing only when government reigns supreme. America has largely forsaken the Jeffersonian view of liberty sanctified in the Declaration of Independence, wherein freedom is a gift from our Creator, a divine and inherent right. It doesn’t exist at the whim of presidents, legislators, or bureaucrats.

Mankind possesses liberty from birth, just as we’re born with a beating heart and lungs capable of processing our life’s breath. The human spirit is free until subjugated via direct force or subtle coercion. Enter government, which often shows precious little regard for the inalienable rights of man: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, attaining said happiness isn’t guaranteed, as success and fulfillment are individual, not collective, determinations. Government cannot pledge happiness or achievement to one person without denying those pursuits to another. For instance, when government provides food, shelter, or clothing to one person as a matter of right, another person’s property rights must be ignored. The so-called contributor is denied the right to benefit from their production and to determine its proper use.

Governments are ideally instituted to secure and protect the innate rights of mankind. Yet such administrations are the exception rather than the rule, and too often temporary in duration. Governments are inclined to oppose liberty at every turn. Restraining liberty, often to the point of bondage or death, is government’s natural progression. Government must subside for liberty to flourish. So too, liberty must yield for government to ascend. When legislative bodies expand in scope they transform into ruling bodies, assuming a self-perpetuating identity.

Civil authorities are no more content with merely securing the blessings of liberty, as Jefferson described a government of just powers, than drunkards are satisfied with a single gin and tonic. A metamorphosis takes place. Governments instituted as benign protectors of liberty become imperious sovereigns dedicated to regulating every aspect of human behavior until freedom and individual decision are eradicated. Public charity is a proven, useful tool for manipulating the decline of the individual in favor of the state.

The Heritage Foundation’s 2010 Index of Dependence on Government reveals disturbing long-term trends in America’s dependency on governmental charity. From housing and medical care to welfare and education, Americans are ever-increasingly dependent on government. Liberal politicians, bureaucrats, and social activists have sold dependency as a human right and the provision for personal need as a charitable act of government. Surging dependency signifies a people willingly surrendering their liberty birthright and a government capitalizing on the population’s apathy.

The Syrian protester hasn’t likely considered the profundity in his message as applied to American concepts of liberty. He does, however, understand human rights aren’t a matter of government charity. Liberty exists even when the possessor doesn’t embrace its presence and when governments fail to respect its existence. No government, via charity or other device, can grant that which we possess by matter of birth.

America stands at a crossroads in our understanding of rights. On one hand we demand less government, lower taxes, and greater individual choice. On the other hand we love liberty only until it interferes with a favored Washington program. Then all bets are off.

If America is to retain freedom, and preserve it for our posterity, we must become reacquainted with liberty’s core concepts: individual responsibility, self-motivation, and basic respect for self and others. Let’s begin with a civics lesson from an anonymous Syrian. Apparently, he possesses substantial wisdom regarding rights and their origins, a knowledge woefully lacking in the land of the free.

Arrogance and narcissism reign in King Barack’s Court

Arrogance is defined as an inflated degree of self-importance with a supplementary contempt for others. Narcissism describes a person totally infatuated with their own persona and possessing an overblown sense of ability or worth. Arrogance and narcissism are somewhat synonymous. Yet there is sufficient difference between the terms to apply both to the persona our current Commander-in-Chief embodies.

President Obama is a walking contradiction. Acts he once considered an abuse of authority are but policy recalculations when he exercises them personally. Other presidents have overstepped their authority. Obama, however, is uniquely intelligent and supremely qualified to properly wield powers he once considered abusive and to rule a free people. “Rule” isn’t a word chosen at random; it’s a term Obama himself has used to describe his administration.

Barack Hussein Obama doesn’t see himself as merely the United State’s 44th President; he is her liege, King Barack the First.

Obama’s use of signing statements confirms his narcissism and arrogance. Obama’s position on signing statements is similar, but in mirror image, to John Kerry’s position on the Iraq War. Remember how Kerry voted for the war prior to voting against it? Obama was against presidential signing statements before he used them.

Before his coronation Obama considered signing statements beyond the president’s constitutional authority. He pledged not to use such statements to circumvent Congress, a charge he leveled at his predecessor. However, when Obama’s signing statement accompanied the recent budget deal he had to redefine his position.

King Barack has changed his mind. Signing statements aren’t beyond the president's power after all, as he stated when campaigning in 2008. But such executive statements shouldn’t be abused in the way his predecessor abused them. Note the arrogance and narcissism. Other chief executives have abused the signing statement. Obama, however, possesses the virtue, wisdom, and sound judgment necessary to exercise the signing statement effectively without crossing the line into abuse.

Obama further displayed his royal manner in his refusal to comply with Congress’ ban on White House czars. Worse than his contempt for Congress, a feeling with which most Americans can empathize, is his disregard for the U.S. Constitution.

The President, according to Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution, will appoint various officers of the United States subject to the Senate’s review and consent. The language represents a problem for czar appointees, who aren’t presented for Senate review. The President may also appoint inferior officers, which could be interpreted to include czars, at his discretion. However, such discretionary appointments can be made only if Congress has empowered the presidency to make them. A Congress that can grant discretionary appointment authority to the president via legislation may revoke that authority in like manner, as this Congress did in the budget bill.

Yet the czars remain and Congress’ duly passed law is ignored. King Barack the Arrogant and Narcissistic simply snubs Congress and the Constitution’s directives on presidential appointments.

Instances abound to confirm His Majesty's elevated sense of worth and authority. Obama also thumbed his nose at a judge’s decision declaring Obamacare unconstitutional. If you or I ignored such a ruling we would be arrested. But people of superior intellect and insight, like King Barack, can't be bothered with trivialities, such as court rulings, that would apply to those of us in the great unwashed.

Arrogance allows Obama to travel on the publicly-funded Air Force One at $70,000 per flight hour while demonizing corporate CEOs for flying privately-funded aircraft at a fraction of the cost. Narcissism vindicates King Barack the First when he compensates his supporters with taxpayer provided stimulus cash while praising his administration’s exemplary ethics.

Signing statements aren’t the problem, be they issued by King Barack or a simple president. But a President serves within the office’s authority at the pleasure of the governed. A King serves at his own discretion, believing the contemptible governed are beneath questioning or comprehending their ruler’s decrees. Rulers embody arrogance and narcissism individually and simultaneously, a feat thoroughly possible in the Court of King Barack the First.

Colonel Gaddafi needs a promotion

Any dictator worth his salt holds a rank or a title befitting his position. Hitler was der Fuehrer, Stalin a Premier and Castro the leader of the people’s revolution. Despots invariably come packaged with lofty monikers, either by personal choice or popular declaration. So what happened to Col. Muammar Gaddafi?

Gaddafi is no doubt the perfect thug. But he falls short when it comes to image. Gaddafi has ruled in Tripoli since shortly after Thomas Jefferson’s forces persuaded the Barbary pirates to give up the ship. Yet the highest rank he has attained is that of colonel?

No disrespect intended toward colonels, mind you. Some of America’s greatest military leaders wore the silver eagle at one time or another: Pershing, Patton, Ridgeway, McArthur, Eisenhower, Schwarzkopf. But each one moved on to general before making their reputation and securing their fame. Few are the colonels who are household names.

Sure, there are some. Col. Sherman T. Potter of the 4077th M.A.S.H. comes to mind, as well as Colonels Hogan and Klink from Stalag 13. A colonel managed Elvis Pressley, at least for a while, and Col. Sanders is famous worldwide. There were also the Kentucky Colonels of the defunct American Basketball Association. Yet “Colonel Gaddafi” lacks the requisite pizzazz we would expect from an iron-fisted dictator who has ruled for half a lifetime.

Col. Gaddafi, your grip on Libya is tenuous at best. Still you’ve vowed to die rather than surrender. If the time is nigh for your departure to the land of seventy virgins grant yourself a promotion before you go. I assume you possess that authority, and it’s only fitting for a tyrant to outrank his military generals.

Pick a new title, Colonel. Call yourself a Six-star General, or High Commander of the Libyan Revolution. How about Exalted Excelsior or Perpetual Potentate? Or you can go the acronym route. How about the Sympathetic, Understanding, Caring, Knowledgeable and Excellent Ruler of Libya (S.U.C.K.E.R. for short)?
Chose anything you like. But don’t die a colonel. You don’t want to be the lowest ranked despot gathered around Satan’s fireplace. The other dictators--the ones with cool titles--will laugh at you. “Hey, Col. Gaddafi, fix me another cup of brimstone.”

Your boasts are bold, Muammar. You’ll fight to the last drop of blood. Judging from the mobs in your streets, the defection of senior diplomats and air force pilots, and the fall of one city after another you’ll probably get your chance. Don’t disgrace history’s great dictators by checking out of here a mere colonel. Go out with a new title, something grand, eloquent and memorable.

Libya’s Supreme Sultan of the Ceaselessly Shifting Sands. Now there’s an epitaph any tyrant would envy, and it’ll look great on your tombstone. What’s more, a Supreme Sultan won’t spend his eternity fetching cups of brimstone for Chairman Mao.

The Middle East reaches a fork in the road

A fork in the road tells travelers that their current path has ended. The travelers are then compelled to decide among the four choices a fork presents. The first options are obvious; choose one of the new paths. The third option is to be satisfied with their current position and remain at the fork. The fourth option is to return the way they came.

Egyptians have followed Hosni Mubarak’s path for more than a generation. But autocratic rule has little respect for the individual and can carry a people only so far. Egypt has reached the end of Mubarak’s path. They arrived at the proverbial fork in the road and must choose from the four options.

Eliminate the third and fourth alternatives. Egyptians have no interest in revisiting the past or maintaining the status quo. The street protests and Mubarak’s subsequent resignation prove their desire to go in a new direction, with both the right and left fork presenting a series of unsettling unknowns.

How much time will pass before the wisdom in Egypt’s selection is manifest? Will their new path equal greater freedom, or produce a more caustic brand of totalitarianism than experienced under their former ruler, as did Iran’s revolution in 1979? How will Egypt’s new direction affect its relationship with the West, particularly the United States? As of now there are no adequate answers, only opinions.

Captain Ramius (Sean Connery, the Hunt for Red October) stated it so well, “A little revolution now and then is a healthy thing, don’t you think?”

American history began in revolt against a tyrannical sovereign, only our revolution was bloodier than Egypt’s has thus far been. Thus Americans admire the underdog, the courageous few who will thumb their nose at the despot. However, as much as we would love to see liberty flourish in the Arab lands, allegiance with the protesters is premature. That fact hasn’t kept President Obama from singing their praises.

Obama said that “Egypt will never be the same.” He is correct, change is coming and Egypt will be different. Yet neither he nor anyone else knows how the transformation will unfold or what future waits down either fork the Egyptians follow. Free elections, democracy in action, don’t guarantee freedom.

For instance, one of the Iraq War’s key objectives was to depose a dictator and establish a democratically elected government. Such a government would, theoretically, produce a free Middle Eastern state with close ties to the West. That mission is complete. Saddam Hussein is gone and Iraqis have chosen their path. But the result hasn’t been the Jeffersonian Republic we had expected or hoped for, at least thus far.

Post-Saddam Iraq is a Shiite Muslim theocracy, governed by the same religious doctrine that guides Iran’s Ayatollahs. Liberty, particularly religious liberty, isn’t common under such rule. Iraqi Christians have suffered repeated assaults on not only their religious liberty but their very lives. And the Shiite attitude toward women is in no way conducive to freedom.

Egypt’s new path could lead in a similar direction. What’s more, Egypt isn’t the only predominantly Muslim nation facing a choice. Many such nations stand at a comparable fork in the road. In each case--Algeria, Tunisia, Bahrain, Iran, etc.--protesters are targeting authoritarian regimes. Their uprisings have brought the United States to its own fork in the road.

Americans admire the revolutionary spirit and desire for self-determination. But revolts are worthwhile only when they result in free nations with peaceful intentions. It’s too early to determine that freedom and peace are coming to Egypt or to the Middle East overall. In fact, there’s little reason to believe either fork will foster greater liberty, prosperity, or peace with Western Civilization within the Islamic world.

Middle East protesters have no apparent desire to retrace their steps or remain at the fork. They will choose one of the paths ahead. But it’s quite possible that both paths will lead them to another, perhaps harsher, form of authoritarian oppression. Let’s not be hasty in pronouncing 2011 the year Arabs and Muslims chose the road to liberty.

Nancy Pelosi: A ruler of fools

Nancy Pelosi isn’t long as Speaker of the House. But if there’s one constant in our ever-changing world it’s that Pelosi will prove unconscionable until the gavel is wrested from her hand. During a recent speech on the House floor she expressed opinions about unemployment insurance and tax policy that seem irrational even for her.

Pelosi supports extending unemployment insurance beyond the current 99 week limit. To substantiate her position she touted unemployment benefits as a burgeoning economic catalyst. All we need do is and tap into their power. Pelosi informed Congress, “Unemployment insurance . . . returns $2 for every $1 that is put out there.”

A two dollar return for every one invested is a lofty promise. No financial advisor would make such a guarantee, especially in these days of stagnant stocks, miniscule interest rates and sunken real estate values. Not even a gold-plated, platinum diamond could augur a 100-percent return on investment.

Is Pelosi a pecuniary Nostradamus? If so, it’s imprudent to squander her financial perception. To realize the full economic impact unemployment insurance portends, every American from restaurant bus boys to Fortune 500 CEOs should cease work immediately. According to Pelosi’s two-for-one estimations, living on unemployment alone would boost our gross domestic product from 2009’s $14.1 trillion to $28.2 trillion. In an instant the U.S. economy would exceed that of the European Union, China and Japan combined. And this can be accomplished while we sit home watching reruns of Hogan’s Heroes.

Does Pelosi sound crazy? As the old saying goes, “Brother, you ain’t seen nothing yet.” If Pelosi’s take on unemployment benefits has your blood boiling, you’ll erupt over her thoughts on taxation.

“Giving $700 billion to the wealthiest people in America does add $700 billion to the deficit,” Pelosi claims. Of course, extending the current tax rates gives nothing to anyone. Furthermore, Congress doesn’t have to “pay” for tax cuts even when reductions are on the table. But remember, in Pelosi’s world a static tax rate equals a cut because all wealth is first and foremost government property.

Even the casual observer knows that when tax rates are static, or reduced, Congress doesn’t send the taxpayer a check. Tax rates simply determine the percentage of wealth that remains with its rightful producer instead of going to Washington. Money that never arrives in Washington cannot add to the deficit. The $700 billion budget hole that Pelosi laments--superficially, I might add--didn’t result from insufficient taxation but from Washington’s lust to spend like drunken sailors in foreign ports.

At this point it’s natural to conclude that Nancy Pelosi is the stupidest woman on earth. If not stupid, she must certainly be ignorant. Would that either case were true, for both stupidity and ignorance are correctable.

If Pelosi is stupid, teaching her will be yeoman’s work, for she knows very little and resists learning. Yet she can learn if her teacher is patient and persistent. It will be difficult, but not impossible. Correcting an ignorant Pelosi is much easier. Ignorance is the absence of knowledge or understanding, nothing more. Expose an ignorant Pelosi to facts and the ignorance dissipates like vapor.

Nancy Pelosi will benefit from neither approach because she isn’t stupid or ignorant. She is a spin master, an epic fraud, an insufferable boor and a pathological liar. But she isn’t dumb. No one could attain her position while drinking the sociopolitical Kool-Aid she serves up. No, Pelosi isn’t stupid or ignorant. She does, however, credit those characteristics to her constituents. Sadly enough, she’s correct. Otherwise, her seat in Congress wouldn’t be so secure.

A people’s representative respects the intelligence of the people he or she represents. That may sound outdated, but it’s nonetheless true. A ruler expresses utter contempt for their subject’s intellect. Therefore rulers, unlike representatives, treat people like stooges and serfs. Rulers quickly become proficient in the artistry of condescension and falsehood, confident that the masses are too dense to discern the truth.

Is Nancy Pelosi a representative or a ruler? Anyone who can’t answer that simple question needn’t worry about representation. They should prepare to be ruled.

This column first appeared at American Thinker.

America is becoming a nation of “Boxers”

In the George Orwell classic Animal Farm, there lived a horse named Boxer. He was strong, willing and dependable. In fact, Boxer was so dedicated to his assignments and his leader that he often said, “Napoleon is always right,” followed by his personal pledge to “work harder” toward accomplishing the state’s goals.

Boxer was a good, faithful horse. But his fault was his blind devotion to his leader and his willingness to sacrifice himself to Napoleon’s grand goals. Boxer never benefited from his loyalty or from Napoleon’s phony promise of an easy future. When he was no longer useful he was shipped to the glue factory, ironically under the guise of receiving state provided medical treatment. Let that sink in, Obamacare advocates.

On Animal Farm, appeals to necessity, subtle changes to established rules and revisionist history were the tools used to control Boxer and his comrades. Boxer willingly accepted his marching orders until his fate was sealed. The tactics that led to his demise, and the enslavement of his friends, are now deployed at airport security checkpoints across America. I can’t help but wonder if we’ve become a nation of “Boxers.”

Even before John Tyner’s videoed confrontation with body image scanners and full-body groping sessions there was Joe Sharkey, who wrote of his own experience with the TSA. Sharkey also refused to be scanned, which prompted security screeners to repeat a vocal alarm that might have been necessary had Osama bin Laden himself tried to board a plane. But there was no reason to suspect Sharkey. There was nothing conspicuous or suspicious about him. His sin was balking at being treated like the terrorist he isn’t.

Sharkey’s article mentioned another flier, Bruce Delahorne, who faced a similar situation. When Bruce questioned the need for the unfamiliar tactics to which he was exposed he was informed that nothing had changed in airport security screenings. “We have always done this,” the TSA agent explained. After passing through the checkpoint Delahorne asked the same question of another agent. He received a similar answer, “the process has always been the same.”

Well, airport screenings haven’t always been this way. Sure, we live in a post-9/11 environment and caution is prudent. But body imaging every air traveler isn’t the same as intercepting specific phone conversations between Abdullah the Butcher and a cave in Waziristan. We’re dealing with de facto strip searches of everyday Americans, pat downs of nuns and confiscation of shampoo and nail clippers. All of this nonsense is done so as not to offend Islam, whose virulent adherents fostered this “necessity.”

The rules are changed and history is rewritten so that everything appears constant. Napoleon is always right. And we, like Boxer, adapt and comply.

The TSA has released images from both the millimeter wave and backscatter imagers currently in use. The fact is that the TSA images aren’t exactly fodder for next month’s Playboy centerfold. Other images are circulating that depict an inverted scan that reveals both nudity and identity. But such photos are easily faked and there appears to be no proof that they are authentic. That’s little comfort to air travelers who are exposed to humiliating body scans and invasive pat down searches. Even the stance assumed for the scans--feet apart and hands held above the head--portrays a submissiveness that belies a free people. Fellow Americans, our government has declared us guilty until we prove our innocence.

There remains the argument that body scanners are necessary to prevent terrorists from smuggling bombs aboard aircraft. That may be true, but realistically the scanners do nothing to combat terrorism as a tactic. A terrorist attack isn’t like an advancing army; it doesn’t acquire territory and it need not commandeer or destroy an airplane to accomplish its goal. Terrorism need only sow doubt and fear to be effective.

When innocent Americans are essentially strip searched in airport concourses the terrorists have achieved their goal. In fact, terrorists are equally served without boarding an aircraft at all. Suicide bombers need only detonate their payload at a crowded TSA checkpoint. Scores of unsuspecting travelers would be killed or injured. Such an attack would do more to shatter our illusion of security than blowing up an airliner.

We’re being sold a false sense of safety from a Department of Homeland Security that can’t muster the courage to identify our real enemies, much less target them. But Napoleon is always right. Thus we’ll be scanned and probed so not to offend the very people who hate us, our liberties and our culture simply because we’ve refused, thus far, to adopt their ways.

The day will come when we won’t be able to enter a sports arena, a shopping mall, or a public parking deck without passing a body imaging checkpoint. Maybe then we’ll realize we’ve become like Boxer, dutiful and obedient until securely locked in the knacker’s wagon.


This column originally appeared at American Thinker: Americans Learning to Submit.

Ballplayers aren’t Cincinnati’s only “Reds”

Is nothing sacred? Is there no limit to the lengths busybodies will go to rule every aspect of our lives? Apparently there isn’t. Not even baseball, America’s pastime, nor a victory celebration can escape the bureaucrat’s oversight or the anonymous meddler’s nosiness.

The Cincinnati Reds are the National League’s Central Division champions, heading to the playoffs for the time since 1995. It’s a monumental accomplishment, the culmination of a dream shared by innumerable ballplayers since Little League. A celebratory moment is warranted following their successful march through the tough slog of the Major League season. So Reds owner Bob Castellini distributed cigars in the Reds locker room after the team clinched and players puffed a smoky salute to their triumph. That’s where the fun ended.

The Reds’ cigar party occurred inside the team clubhouse and was broadcast on television. Five “whistleblowers” saw these outlaws and phoned Ohio’s smoking ban hotline to report their dangerous assault on public safety. While it’s possible that jealous Cubs or Cardinals fans are behind the complaints, that doesn’t mitigate the nature of the anti-smoking “whistleblowers.” They are meddlesome tattletales in desperate need of a mission other than snooping in their neighbor’s business.

The Reds’ cigar party violated Cincinnati’s indoor smoking ban. City inspectors will now investigate--including possible undercover trips to Cincinnati’s playoff games--to determine if the scofflaw Reds will continue sneaking illicit smokes. Just how many murderers, rapists, burglars and assorted thugs will wander Cincinnati’s streets while taxpayer’s money is used to ensure public safety inside the Cincinnati Reds clubhouse?

How long should we stand for such lunacy? How long should the blatant waste of resources remain acceptable? Is there no end to the gullibility that allows government to transform erstwhile private citizens into bureaucratic stooges, anonymously spying on our neighbors? Above all, how long will we tolerate the incessant assault on private property and personal decisions that pass for “public safety” initiatives?

Obviously the clubhouse at Great American Ball Park isn’t the only place to find “Reds” in Cincinnati. It isn’t the only place to find “Reds” in America. Tyranny is expected from the Nancy Pelosi sect. But it’s unnerving when “everyday” Americans consider it good citizenship to snitch on their countrymen’s private affairs. Isn’t it time to root out these useful idiots among us, these petty tyrants, and expose their treachery?

Anonymous tip lines that encourage people to tattle on their neighbor have become all too common. If the Reds’ cigars are such a serious offence, let the offended come forward, like adults, and openly air their grievance. Since they obviously lack the courage to take a public stand, let these mice return to their holes.

Move aside cowards and let the bold dogs can bark. Let the barking commence at the Reds’ first home playoff game. I’d like to see the entire Cincinnati starting nine take the field with stogies in their mouths, just for a show of solidarity.

Although I’m a non-smoker and a Yankees fan, I’ll put my head on the block alongside the Reds. I will smoke a cigar--indoors, of course--if Cincinnati wins the World Series. What’s more, I will video my tribute and send a copy to the Cincinnati Health Department. Consider it the “puff heard around the world.”

Originally published at American Thinker.

Iran: Marching boldly into the 10th Century

Iran is modernizing, having recently joined the nuclear age. And if you’re concerned that their atomic agenda could prove less than peaceful, take solace. Russia is on the scene, monitoring the program to ensure the Iranians play by the rules.

Of course, Russia’s presence may not quell the angst within the prudent Westerner’s soul. Cold warriors will remember Russia as the black heart of the defunct Evil Empire. The Soviet Union won no prizes for transparency and square dealing when it came to nuclear arms. So trust the “Russkies” if you like. But believing Russia will prevent Iran from going nuclear is akin to trusting Bill Clinton to safeguard both your girlfriend and your finest cigars.

Nuclear technology isn’t the only area where Iran is advancing. The ruling ayatollahs, mullahs and imams are instituting social reforms, too. Thanks to their foresight and open-mindedness, Iran will soon be only a millennium behind the civilized world, give or take a century.

Take the case of Sakineh Ashtiani. Like the woman the Pharisees brought before Jesus, Sakineh is charged with adultery. Also similar to the biblical story, her accusers presented no co-conspirator. Even so, Sakineh has been flogged, imprisoned, denied access to family and counsel, convicted and sentenced to death by stoning; all in a manner that makes the biblical Pharisees seem like America’s Founding Fathers.

Ironically, this is where Iran’s Islamic courts prove their nation’s cultural development and social advancement. In response to international pressure Iran has rescinded Sakineh’s stoning sentence. You heard right, no state sanctioned stoning for Sakineh. They’ll hang her instead.

I’ve nothing against a good hanging, mind you. The gallows served our own country well in dealing with murderers, rapists and other assorted ne’er-do-wells. But adulterers? We’d have to hang half of Congress. Okay, so that’s another point in favor of the noose. But in Iran, exchanging the stone for the rope is decided progress.

If Iran continues down this road they may achieve Genghis Kahn’s level of genteel sensitivity, Medieval Europe’s social harmony and King George the Third’s regard for the rights of man. Who knows? With a little coaxing Iran’s ayatollahs might even become as enlightened as the 20th Century’s greatest humanitarians, men like Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, and “Uncle Joe” Stalin.

Who could’ve foreseen, just a few years ago, Iran becoming so contemporary that they would forego stoning for hanging. At this rate, Tehran is destined to become a tourist haven. Can’t you envision the sign in the travel agent’s window? Visit Iran: Gateway to the Dark Ages.

The Bad, the worse and the foolish: A frustrated look at recent events

Maxine Waters aided the sub-prime crisis

You might consider Rep. Maxine Waters’ funneling of TARP money to her husband’s friends and business associates at OneUnited Bank an abuse of both her office and the public’s trust. Not so for her California constituents.

Arturo Yrbarra, a director at the Watts Century Latino Organization, praised Waters’ for persuading banks to increase lending, thus increasing home ownership. Translated that means she helped pressure banks into approving mortgages they otherwise wouldn’t have touched with ten-foot poles. Excuse me, but wasn‘t that the cause of the economic downturn, which led to high unemployment and the exponential growth of our already enormous national debt? For this she receives praise from her constituents?

Waters is far from alone. Her actions are part and parcel to the Democrat Party platform, a platform congressional Republicans have lacked the courage to identify, much less oppose. Small wonder our fiscal house is out of order.

Bad news from the Gulf

Since the Deep Water Horizon oil spill we’ve been treated to one doomsday scenario after the other. The Louisiana bayous would be flooded with oil, with the advancing crude ruining the delicate wetlands. The Gulf Stream would pick up the oil, spread it across every inch of Florida’s beaches and deposit tar balls and sludge from Georgia to Maine. Fisheries would die and the entire Gulf of Mexico would become a giant dead zone. Communist organizers and their empty-headed zealots called for the federal government to seize British Petroleum.

That was then; this is now.

The marshes are healing and the gulf is cleaning up the crude, essentially eating the oil. Marsh grass is growing through the dead plants and new growth is evident in the mangrove trees. Only a month ago both were given up for lost.

This isn’t the word of Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity or some other “anti-environment” conservative pundit; it’s the word of scientists. And it’s bad news for environmentalists who’d hoped the BP spill would spark the public outrage necessary for them to forcibly implement their “green” agenda.

So, the earth is addressing a perfectly natural substance that has escaped its proper place, much like our bodies deal with infection. Is it just barely possible that God, the Creator of both crude oil and the Gulf of Mexico, knows a little bit more about how the two interact than does the Sierra Club and Greenpeace?

Tyranny gets a makeover

A New Zealand teenager was stripped of her beauty pageant title for conduct the pageant director considered unruly. There appears no evidence the young lady posed nude or sent compromising photographs to her boyfriend via her smart phone. She doesn’t appear to be a budding Lindsay Lohan. Her transgression is far more severe; she dyed her hair. Director Barbara Osbourne confronted the girl, Olivia O’Neil, on Facebook.

“You’re not going far in this world,” Osbourne raged, “Hand over your crown.”

O’Neil merely returned to her natural hair color. It’s not like she dyed her hair the colors of the rainbow and joined the gay and lesbian liberation front (bet you wouldn’t have heard a peep from Osbourne if she had). And shouldn’t beauty pageants have more important worries, like their winners engaging in the aforementioned unbecoming activities?

Yes, rules are rules. But petty tyrants are petty tyrants, too. They are every bit as evil as other tyrants, save on a smaller scale. Barbara Osbourne is the one with the problem. For her to lash out at a teenage girl over such a trivial matter indicates a person with one foot outside the plane of reality and the other seated firmly in Adolf Hitler’s boot.

A new purpose for the Supreme Court

Despite attempts to rally opposition, no one realistically expected Elena Kagan’s judicial nomination to fail. She was presented by a Democrat president, reviewed by a Democrat Senate and had public support from four Republicans, meaning a filibuster was out of the question. With the confirmation secure, President Obama was free to speak candidly concerning his desire for Kagan to be a judicial activist.

A White House press release expressed Obama’s pride in how Kagan would make the SCOTUS “a little more inclusive, a little more representative, more reflective of us as a people than ever before.”

May I remind Obama and Kagan that the Supreme Court’s job isn’t to be inclusive, or to be “reflective of us.” And we have the House to represent us, in theory at least. Those qualities aren’t prerequisite to sit on the Supreme Court. Justices are to apply the U.S. Constitution to the cases brought before them; no more and no less. But, admittedly, that notion’s a little quaint these days.

Harry Reid is at it again

Does anyone remember when Harry Reid complained about visitors to Congress smelling of body odor? He’s at it again. Reid said, “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK? Do I need to say more?”

No Mr. Reid, you’ve said plenty. Let me talk for a while.

Frankly, I don’t see how anyone with the requisite mental capacity to tie their own shoes could be a Democrat. I don’t know how anyone could vote for a man who rammed a mammoth, unread healthcare bill down our throats and then bitched about its contents. That would be you, Senator Reid.

I don’t know how any poor person could be a Democrat when the party’s policies have ensured a perpetual underclass the sole purpose of which is to ensure Democrat electoral victories. I don’t know how any poor person can be a Democrat, Sen. Reid, when you and your ilk have robbed the poor of their independence and their self-esteem.

I don’t know how any urban black person can be a Democrat when the problems urban black people face--drugs, blight, illegitimacy and family decline--are as bad, or worse, as when your party first promised to fix them.

I could go on, Mr. Reid. Do I need to say more?

From Islam, peace by upon it

Everyone knows about the brutal execution of ten Christian medical missionaries in Afghanistan (peace by upon it). Essentially, these people were treated with less respect than the cattle at your local abattoir. Not only were they executed, their bodies were unceremoniously dumped in a wooded area.

The Taliban (peace be upon it) claimed responsibility for the killings. Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid (peace be upon him) said the Christians were killed for “preaching Christianity.”

Well, at least there was good reason to systematically shoot these dangerous, although unarmed, subversives. And if that’s not enough reason to kill the infidels, they were found in possession of Bibles translated into the local language. Hmmm? Perhaps shooting was too good for them after all.

This is done in Afghanistan (peace be upon it still) in the name of Islam (peace be upon it) while the American Left (no peace be upon them) gives itself a collective pat on the back for its tolerance and open-mindedness in approving construction of a mosque within spitting distance of Ground Zero. We wouldn’t want Muslims (peace be upon them) to soil their prayer rugs (on them, too), hijabs (once more) and burkas (ditto) during a long trip to spit on our 3000 incinerated countrymen, would we?

It’s a good thing Islam (peace be upon it once more), is a religion of peace. Otherwise, Muslims might get ugly about this infidel thing.

A parting dose of tolerance

Regressives claim that conservatives never say anything positive about the Obamas. Well, when you can’t think of something nice to say it’s better to remain silent. Therefore I’ll say nothing about Her Royal Highness Michele Obama’s trip to Spain, the taxpayer funded entourage that accompanied her, or the Spaniards who were shooed from their beaches so Her Highness could frolic in the surf. Consider my silence an act of tolerance.

An argument is missing in the healthcare debate

Since the House of Representatives unveiled its various versions of healthcare “reform” there have been myriad reasons given for why it shouldn’t become law.

Opponents have called attention to some rather ominous wording within the legislation. The “end of life” counseling sessions have sparked fear among seniors. Obama himself has said there are times when it’s better to take a pain killer than to treat an ailment, pointing out that such decisions are already being made.

He’s partially correct; such decisions are part of life.

Living wills convey a patient’s wishes in the event he or she is incapacitated. Resuscitation agreements provide instructions concerning life support. And yes, private insurers sometimes deny payment. But these examples aren’t synonymous with the Democrats’ arguments. In fact, they are apples and oranges.

These life decisions are largely a private matter, at least for now. Government isn’t involved; it has no say about what treatments are offered or when those treatments are deemed unwarranted. As for insurers, even when coverage is denied there remain charitable organizations to which a patient can turn.

Allowing government to become involved in individual life decisions is a dangerous precedent, even if it appears harmless at the outset.

That’s not the only argument. Opponents of “reform” point to wording that can end private health insurance, ration care, tax individuals and businesses that don’t carry “adequate” coverage, provide health insurance to illegal aliens and set wage controls for medical professionals.

All of this came to light as the President pushed Congress to rush healthcare legislation through at light speed, which is another reason to oppose its passage. Representatives both pro and con, and even President Obama, have admitted to never having read the legislation they’re so hot to pass.

Despite this dereliction of a representative’s fundamental duties, reformists have called the opposition everything from kooks to Nazis. It would be laughable if there weren’t so many empty minds soaking up this bilge hook, line and sinker.

Not even the people who write the gibberish that passes for legislation can explain what their bills say. The must call in lawyers, who must call in other lawyers, who then advise the impending bureaucracy on how to interpret the language and establish the rules. So, in all honesty, who can claim to know what “healthcare reform” means or how it will be applied?

But there’s one argument against healthcare reform that cannot be spun or disregarded. And it’s an argument that no legislator has shown the courage to make. Just where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to provide or manage healthcare?

All powers not constitutionally delegated to the federal government, or prohibited to the states, remain with the states and the people. Since the Constitution doesn’t allow the federal government to provide healthcare or insurance, anything passed and signed into law is invalid.

Sound radical? Take it up with Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson wrote in the Kentucky Resolutions, “whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”

I have yet to hear a single opponent summon the courage to challenge healthcare “reform” on constitutional grounds. Consider this a call to action, beginning with the representatives from my area.

Rep. Sue Myrick, Rep. Patrick McHenry, Senator Richard Burr and Senator Kay Hagan, heed your oath of office. Unless you want to publicly declare that your word is worthless you have no choice but to oppose this legislation.

Furthermore, you should demand expulsion for any colleague who votes for these “reform” measures. Such persons have violated their oath. They aren’t representatives enacting law; they are tyrants seizing illegitimate authority over the governed.

The Tenth Amendment hasn’t been repealed, much to the dismay of Congress. “Reform” opponents aren’t kooks, Nazis, racists, or lunatics. And there’s nothing subversive about holding our representative’s feet to the constitutional fire.

ObamaCare: power, ego and control

So, Obama says healthcare reform isn’t about him and it isn’t about politics. It is about a healthcare system that is breaking families, businesses and the economy. At least that’s what he says.

It’s more factual to believe that record deficits, unchecked borrowing and printing dollars like pin-up pictures would have more to do with our sour economy than medical spending. And let’s not forget the mortgage meltdown brought on by the government mandated manipulation of lending practices. But I’m getting off subject.

Even the most avid supporter of Chavez’s northern brother must wonder how Obama can say such things with a straight face.

Of course healthcare reform—better described as socialized medicine—is about him. It was about him when he first mentioned it, it’s about him now and it will remain about him long after it has been decided one way or the other. It is about his power, his ego and his self-righteous attitude, an attitude that bestows upon him and his cronies both the intellect and the moral authority to decide who should be treated, when, how and for how long. It is about being the sole arbiter of life and death, the god-like power Obama so craves and from whence his aspirations arise.

If this weren’t the case he wouldn’t be pushing so hard to see this measure become law before the details become public. If this weren’t the case he wouldn’t have told opposition Blue Dog Democrats, “You’re destroying my presidency.” It is about him, him and an agenda that would make Vladimir Lenin swell with pride.

Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat who opposes the current healthcare proposal, doesn’t believe Obama made that statement to the Blue Dogs. Stupak said, “I can’t see him saying that. He’s got too much self-confidence.” But I think Rep. Stupak, like many Americans, just can’t believe a sitting president could be so sinister.

Obama’s persona isn’t one of self-confidence, Rep. Stupak. Self-confidence is virtuous. Arrogance is the more appropriate term for describing Obama’s drive for socialized medicine.

If this plan is so grand there’s no reason why the President himself shouldn’t participate. His lovely and gracious wife Michelle can select the “public option” when her next Pap smear is due. And President Obama should expose his children to the same “healthcare for everyone” that he and his ilk would so blithely impose upon, well, everyone else.

It’s only fair, isn’t it? But don’t hold your breath waiting for it to happen.

Obama is promoting healthcare “reform” legislation that he hasn’t read and, for what it’s worth, is beyond the federal government’s constitutional duties. He is disregarding his oath of office, abridging his duty to his constituents and encouraging Congress to follow suit. Yet he accuses people who have read the proposal of lying about its contents.

Come to think of it, his actions extend beyond simple arrogance. Obama’s actions are tyranny in its purest form.