Monday, October 27, 2008

Divas and Oligarchy

A couple of news items came out over the weekend that truly disturb me. They’re about our very likely next President, Barack Obama.

Here’s the first story, (second version here) the lesser of the two. WFTV-Channel 9 (Orlando, Florida) anchorwoman Barbara West quoted the famous Karl Marx guiding statement of communism, “From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs,” then asked Joe Biden in an interview, “"How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to 'spread the wealth?'” That’s a solid question for which many Americans want to hear an answer. Joe Biden answered, “He is not spreading the wealth around,” and then explained how Obama/Biden want to give the middle class tax cuts. Actually, Senator Biden, Barrack Obama didn’t just state he wanted to spread the wealth around once, but several times.

Here’s the part about this story that bothers me. “The Obama campaign earlier Friday suggested that future interviews with WFTV were unlikely before Election Day.” Oh, really? WFTV asked hard questions, so you will no longer interview with them? What a joke. Since when did the presidential candidate and his running mate become pampered divas who only deign to answer questions they like? When did the campaign shift from a serious job interview for one of the most important jobs in the world to a tour for a capricious rock star?

Here's the interview. Note Biden's demeanor as you watch it.

Here’s the next story that should bother you. It demonstrates the consistency of Barack Obama’s Marxist “Spread the Wealth” philosophy.

What’s the problem here? Obama suggests it would have been good for the Supreme Court to place itself in charge of spreading the wealth. He approved of the idea of breaking free of the basic idea of the Constitution as a document that sharply limits government rights (thus leaving the most liberty in the hands of the citizenry) and suggested it would be better to change it to a document that lists rights of the people. Note that that fundamental change means two very important things: (1) The government has the power to give people rights, and (2) the government has the power to TAKE AWAY PEOPLE’S RIGHTS! There’s a reason the founders called the basic rights unalienable and God-given. They wanted to make sure that no government could restrict them. That is why the Constitution carefully fences in the government’s powers—so the government can not limit yours.

That’s also why constitutions, state and federal, are designed to be hard to change. They must only be altered by the voice of the people or our elected representatives, never by unaccountable groups. This is why judicial activism is a massively bad idea whether you agree with the court decision or not. In the moment a court gains the ability to change the principles of governance and societal definitions, we are subject to the whims of small groups of judges who can change our laws by 1 vote margins! That means we cease to be a republic and we suddenly become an oligarchy.

No comments: