The Connecticut independent says he opposes any sort of public option, even with an opt-out provision
This isn’t the first time the W.H. has given a boost to Grayson’s reelection prospects. See also: Grayson goes too far for colleagues
Obama and the Constitution; He Has His Doubts
Posted By Michael Ledeen On October 21, 2009 @ 6:46 pm In Uncategorized
I missed this first time around. Brian Lancaster at Jumping in Pools [1] reported on Obama’s college thesis, written when he was at Columbia. The paper was called “Aristocracy Reborn,” and in the first ten pages (which were all that reporter Joe Klein–who wrote about it for Time–was permitted to see), the young Obama wrote:
“… the Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy.”
That’s quite an indictment, even for an Ivy League undergraduate. I wonder if the prof–and I’d like to know who the prof was–made an appropriate marginal comment, something about historical context, about the Constitution’s revolutionary status in the history of freedom, and about the separation of powers in order to make the creation of any “shackles” as difficult as possible.
Maybe instead of fuming about words that Rush Limbaugh never uttered, the paladins of the free press might ask the president about words that he did write. Maybe he’d like to parse “the so-called Founders,” for example. I’d like to know what he thinks of those words today. And what about the rest of the thesis?
_____________________________________________________________________________
My opinion; The Above quote cannot be verified, it is important that I point that out,
Even tho this quote may not be accurate, Obama did give this interview in 2001
I actually addressed this back in May of this year I will post the article below. This shows an extreme lack of intellectual curiosity or outright intellectual dishonesty, simply for the fact the founders addresses the subject of wealth distribution at length and I call attention to this in my article. Most importantly how can someone who is so ardently opposed to the constitution and the founding principles be trusted to fulfill his oath to protect and defend them.
Barack Obama, The Anti-founder
This article was written on May 7th 2009
New York Times magazines published an interview in which President Obama claimed that "Wall Street will no longer play a dominant role in our economy." He also stated that lower salaries on a wall street as a result of regulation imposed by his administration are in fact a "healthy thing." His logic is that it will drive talented workers into different and in his opinion more noble professions. True, but aside from the arrogant assumption that the United States will be following his economic blueprint for time eternal, I’ve learned to Expect that level of conceit from this man, what was even more disturbing was this statement; "We don’t want every college grad with an aptitude for mathematics to become a derivative’s trader. We want some of them to go into engineering, and we want some of them to be going into computer design." First, I would love to ask the president, who is we, exactly? What I do know is when Obama says we he is not talking about you and me.
Like all of Obama’s focused grouped statements, this seems innocent enough on the surface.After all who would have a problem with their son or daughter becoming a scientist or engineer. But just because someone has an "aptitude" for math doesn’t mean they mean they will seek a career in one of these fields, and even if they do it doesn’t mean that they will end up in that profession. People for the most part don’t aspire to be wall street traders when they grow up then settle into a career in engineering. In fact it is usually just the opposite, and to go one further if someone did have a passion for science or engineering that person could fund an endowment with some of those evil wall street profits, in turn benefitting society many times over.
The Reality is that draconian government regulation and statist attempts to mandate demand only create more of the bubble and burst economic events that Obama is claims he is trying to stamp out. This approach will also drive down salaries overall. The laws of economic are a lot like the laws of gravity, absolute. If workers migrate from one profession, because of diminished salaries, that creates a surplus of workers else ware in the market, Therefore, driving down wages.
When Barack Obama speaks in terms of we, he really means I, and even more he means government. Obama is the quintessential Marxist, he believes that it is governments role to determine the winners and losers of society. In every way Barack Obama is the anti founder. In his own words he views the constitution as a flawed document of negative rights. He rejects the limitations it places on centralized government, and he faults the founders for not addressing "economic justice." Economic justice is the Marxist euphemism for wealth redistribution. But as much as Obama Wraps himself in hope and change, his ideas are old and stale.
The founders recognized his type long ago. It was Samuel Adams who said this; " The utopian schemes of leveling and a community of goods, are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the crown. These ideas are arbitrary, despotic, and in our government unconstitutional." The founders were intent on preserving the natural rights of man, and not the distribution of "economic justice", which is by definition arbitrary and subject to rationing. The founders did not believe rights were the governments to distribute. Obama believes rights are the provinces of the state, to be rationed as he sees fit.
Obama loves to speak of equality. The founders addressed this as well. Ben Franklin often wrote that kingly government seizes power under the illusion that it will somehow establish equality among citizens, and it was John Adams who said "That all men are born with equal right is true. But to teach that all men are born with equal powers and faculties, to equal influence in society, to equal property and advantages through life is as gross a fraud, as glaring an imposition on the credulity of the people as was ever practiced." The founders new that men who made false promises of equality would only lead the nation toward tyranny.
President Obama is walking briskly down that despotic road, by arbitrating the recent Chrysler bankruptcy he exceeded the bounds of the executive and assumed the role of the courts. He has shown a complete disregard of fiduciary law. He deploys the Treasury Department as a means to reward his political allies, by encroaching further and further on private property and industry. With this style of governing you always need fresh domestic bogeymen to trot out in front of the public. Eventually he will have none left to blame.
Anthony D Dolpies
USSR, 1959: I am a "young pioneer" in school. History classes remind us that there is a higher authority than their parents and teachers: the leaders of the Communist Party.
The story of young pioneer Pavlik Morozov is required reading. Pavlik reported his father to the secret police for disobeying government regulations. His life exemplified the duty of all good Soviet citizens to serve their government.
From the first year in school, all of us are made aware of our ethnicity (ethnic Russian, Jewish, Asian, etc.) and class (proletariat, intelligentsia), around which society is structured. This inherent divisiveness makes it easy for the government to stir ethnic and class tension and in this way distract from economic failure.
Newspapers and TV transmit government-approved news. Any critical voice is immediately suppressed and publicly denounced.
My parents, as all citizens of the USSR, work for state-run companies. All workers are unionized — another way the state controls the citizens. There is no private enterprise in USSR.
Whatever small private farms or shops that existed before 1930 have been taken over by the state. All medical care and schools are state entities. The government regulates what kind of technology, service and compensation are allowed.
From school age through adulthood, citizens are called to public service four to five times a year. Activities such as farming, cleaning places of work, and paper/metal scrap collections are mandatory.
Religious symbols are forbidden in schools or on state property. Most old religious buildings are transformed for secular use.
The Soviet government imposes the Iron Curtain. The state has strict control over our ability to travel abroad. This prevents us from realizing the discrepancy between the media's image of the great socialist country and the reality of our low standard of living.
USA, 2009: "Progressives" control the government. Children in some public schools sing songs about the president and study his directives.
Progressives view people not as unique individuals, but as groups. They play on class envy, or divide people by ethnicity (African-American, white, Hispanic, etc.). From early childhood they remind children of their ethnic identity. The idea of a color-blind society united under the American flag is not politically correct.
The mainstream media are aligned with the government. Those media outlets critical of government policy are publicly criticized by government officials and are in danger of suffering repercussions.
Government seizes a majority stake in two major auto companies and, through TARP money, has control over major banks. Congress discusses capping salaries in private businesses and is in the process of increasing its control over the health care industry.
Big labor union leadership is fully aligned with the progressives in government. There is strong pressure to eliminate the secret ballot in order to increase union membership.
Cap-and-trade, if passed, will drive a lot of small businesses into bankruptcy and create a fruitful soil for favoritism and government control over private entities.
Sept. 11 is declared a day of national service by the administration. It is no longer a day of remembrance for the horrific attack perpetrated by terrorists.
The American Constitution protects the separation between church and state. Atheist zealots pervert this ideal in order to force out religious symbols and traditions from public space. It is fashionable in progressive circles to ridicule religion and religious people. "Tolerance" is applied only to anti-religious values.
As a former citizen of the USSR, I heard and experienced all of this before. I listen to the speeches by the president asking people to sacrifice and serve. So what are we to sacrifice? For what? And to whom? I think I get it now.
Citizens of America, sacrifice your elders and forget your selfish aspirations of prosperity for yourself and your family! Sign onto Service.gov and serve your government!
• Kunin lived in the Soviet Union until 1980 and now lives in Connecticut. She wrote "The Perspective of a Russian Immigrant" that ran on the op-ed page Sept. 8-11.
| ||||
 2009-2010 | Main Street TARP Act of 2009 |
To use amounts made available under the Troubled Assets Relief Program of the Secretary of the Treasury for relief for homeowners and affordable rental housing.
Posted October 12th, 2009 at 9.36am in Health Care.
