n November 14, 2011, the Supreme Court agreed to review the constitutionality of President Obama’s health-care act. The central question is, What limits does the Constitution — specifically, the Commerce Clause — impose upon the federal government’s exercise of power? This health-care act is the defining legislation of the president’s term, and the issue of limited government is at the very heart of the debate between Obama and his opponents. The political, economic, and constitutional stakes are very high. These arguments before the Court will provide a dramatic — and perhaps even decisive — backdrop for the 2012 election.

Constitutional crises of this magnitude are not without precedent. Indeed, the seeds of this case can be found in the court battles of the 1930s and 1940s, as Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation challenged traditional constitutional bounds. Supported by record congressional majorities, FDR and his fellow Democrats passed a blizzard of programs designed to alleviate the economic hardship of the Great Depression — and to alter the very fabric of the U.S. capitalistic system.

The 1932 Democratic platform, largely written by the party’s 1924 nominee, John W. Davis, was a clear statement of conservative, Jeffersonian principles, but FDR abandoned this platform during his first hundred days in office. So radical were the changes that by 1935, conservatives — Democrats and Republicans alike — agreed with Davis when he wrote, “If the structure of this Government is to be preserved, the courts must do it.”

As conservatives looked in desperation to the judiciary for relief, Davis was their logical leader. A highly esteemed former solicitor general under President Wilson, former ambassador to Great Britain, former president of the American Bar Association, and senior partner at one of New York’s premier law firms, Davis commanded respect from all quarters of the political and legal spectrum. As a founder of the bipartisan, anti–New Deal Liberty League in 1934, Davis repeatedly wrote to his supporters, “I believe in the Constitution of the United States; I believe in the division of powers that it makes. I believe in the right of private property, the sanctity and binding power of contracts; the duty of self-help. I am opposed to confiscatory taxation, wasteful expenditure, socialized industry, and a planned economy controlled and directed by government functionaries. I believe these things to be inimical to human liberty and destructive of American ideals.”

Sensing the gravity of the crisis, Davis seized every opportunity and expertly wielded every legal weapon at his disposal to thwart the New Deal. Publicly labeling the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) “a bribe to farmers,” he signed the amicus curiaebrief and successfully led the fight that ultimately resulted in the court’s 6–3 ruling that the AAA was unconstitutional. He successfully opposed the Public Utility Holding Act in the lower courts and led the fight against it within the American Bar Association. Davis personally argued the unconstitutionality of the Frazier-Lemke Bankruptcy Act and the National Labor Relations (Wagner) Act before the Supreme Court.

When Roosevelt responded to these courtroom defeats by setting forth his infamous court-packing scheme in 1937, it was Davis who advised the New Deal’s congressional opponents in defeating the measure. By the late 1930s, he had earned the New Dealers’ enduring enmity, and he wore with pride their sobriquet, “Public Enemy Number One.”

During the course of these battles, Davis repeatedly warned that “paternalism fastens its grasp upon the country, and, little by little, the practice of local self-government fades away. Baptize a scheme, even the most fantastic, with a high-sounding and attractive title, and it will elicit the public support.” Of the failure to limit government, he admonished, “Nothing but mischief, to my way of thinking, can come from any government attempting tasks which lie beyond its power to accomplish.” Ever clear about the indivisibility of property rights from human rights, Davis contended, “The two are not antagonistic. History furnishes no instance where the right of man to acquire and hold property has been taken away without the complete destruction of liberty in all its forms.”

Read original page.

First lady Michelle Obama the other day railed at “the few at the top,” who do all sorts of bad things. A few months ago, we began hearing of the “1 percent” who are responsible for the current economic mess. “They” apparently make all their money at the expense of the other 99 percent. Are they the same as last year’s villains, who had not paid “their fair share” while making over $200,000 in annual income?

Do they include the greedy doctors, who, the president once asserted, recklessly lop off limbs and yank tonsils for profits? Is my urologist a dreaded one-percenter? He found out what was causing my kidney stones but probably makes good money. Was a nearby farmer one, too? I bet he makes over $200,000 but, like many other growers in this area, has found a way to produce beef and cotton more cheaply and efficiently than farmers in almost any other part of the world, thereby enriching his county, state, and nation.

View original post.

A House subcommittee is
set to take up a bill that would restrict travel in the United
States for senior Chinese officials, in a protest over China’s
one-child “family planning” policy.

Republican Representative Chris Smith, a frequent and
fierce critic of China’s human rights record, authored the
legislation going before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on
Immigration Policy and Enforcement.

Smith’s proposal would empower Obama to deny US entry
to any senior Chinese official, or family members of any official
closely tied to policies that set back democratic reforms in
China.

China’s one-child policy has been in the news recently beyond
this new legislation. Joe Biden, you’ll remember, made waves
recently for seemingly dismissing the one-child policy as something
he wouldn’t be “second-guessing.”

View source page.

I missed the Occupation of Europe by a few years so I’m
delighted to have an opportunity to Occupy America. Hey, it’s a
start. Today America, tomorrow China!

Critics of Occupy Wall Street (also Boston, Denver,
Oakland, Dubuque, etc.) claim that the protesters have no stated
goal, which could not be further from the truth. The current
movement is a major advance in protests — the first all-purpose
grassroots protest in American history, which very neatly serves
everyone’s purposes — mine anyway.

Former protest marches, sit-ins, love-ins and the like
were much too narrowly focused for me on specific outrages –
segregation, women’s inequality, anti-Vietnam war, that sort of
thing. Good causes, I’m sure, but not enough to get me really fired
up. I was never able to take part in any of them, for one reason or
another (inclement weather, a dental appointment, something always
came up), but the Occupiers have come up with a brilliant catch-all
solution that allows everyone to get anything bugging them off
their chest immediately.

This is a far more efficient way to protest major
problems, and I commend the organizers for coming up with such a
perfect tactic that suits every trouble — one size fits all. Can’t
get a home mortgage loan? Credit card interests rates too high?
Boss not appreciating you? Grocery prices going through the roof?
Spouse refuses to listen to you? Cost of movies and sports events
out of sight? The kids ignoring your advice? Wait time to see a
podiatrist too long? Leaf-blowers and plastic shrink-wrap driving
you nuts?

Folks, if any of those things are bothering you, it’s time
to grab your tent and get yourself down to your neighborhood
Occupiers location. There is one near you. If not, it isn’t too
late to begin your own protest site. Go to Occupiersunited.com to
find out more. Be the first on your block to establish an official
protest area and get on local TV. Learn to become a community
organizer, which could put you on the path to the White House.
Become a talented on-site cook. Perfect your outdoor survival
skills under blizzard conditions. Find new markets for T-shirts,
posters, coffee mugs, and trinkets. Yes, people, great career
opportunities await you!

In the past, as I say, I tended to sit out political
demonstrations of every kind (though I did once put a “Ban the DH”
sticker on my bumper), but the Occupy Whatever people showed me
that even I, a lifelong non-protester, could be roused into action
by taking a stand against whatever riled me — and, to my delight,
I found that not necessarily just one cause, but several, could be
taken care of in one fell swoop. Talk about catharsis.

So I made a list of stuff that’s been bugging me lately
and was surprised how long it was — 136 matters in all, starting
with noisy TV commercials. When I contacted officials at Occupy
Main Street (a wholly owned subsidiary of Occupy Wall Street), they
said that there was a limit of a dozen issues per month that one
person could protest against. “Otherwise, this thing could really
get out of hand,” they emailed me.

“We prefer major issues,” they said, “but whatever’s
troubling you may be included. The more the merrier. We have a
fairly lax policy here.” They said it wasn’t necessary for me to
run my issues past them. “Just show up and hand out fliers. Hey, it
gets you out of the house, and of course, like in the ’60s, it’s a
great way to meet girls.”

“That’s a good enough provocation right there,” I
said.

Read original post.

WASHINGTON — Supposedly this White House has just made a
furious attempt to sink a book,
Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a
President, by Ron Suskind, which came out September 20. Jay
Carney, the White House spinmeister, spoke ill of it. Numerous
former White House staffers spoke ill of it. Carney said, “one
passage seems to be lifted almost entirely from Wikipedia.” Why
would a respected writer want to do that? I suspect that the White
House is going to be as effective in sinking Suskind as it has been
in keeping President Barack Obama’s polling numbers lofty.

The book tells us what we Obama critics have all been
saying since early on. This President is the most incompetent and
ideologically rigid president in American history. For my part I
began the refrain in July of 2009 with a comparison to Andrew
Johnson, who at least had the excuse that he was drunk most of the
time that he was in the White House. I continued it in August of
2010 when I complimented Jimmy Carter by saying he is no longer the
worst president of modern times (a compliment that has as yet gone
unacknowledged, I might add). And I have continued with monotonous
regularity, hazarding the prospect of becoming a bore. Yet I
suppose one is never a bore when one calls a Liberal hansdoodle a
hansdoodle even when he sits in the White House and has been called
all manner of genius by our Liberal elites. Remember when the
“historian” Michael Beschloss said Obama’s “IQ is off the charts”?
There will come a day when Michael explains that he was saying
Obama registered “off the charts” at the opposite end of
genius.

How are all the Liberal sages going to get out of their
absurd exaggerations of Obama’s modest gifts? Increasingly they
admit that Obama has chosen the wrong policies, but he speaks so
beautifully — using a teleprompter for the most measly address.
Ah, but he is so forceful. So is his former chief of staff, Rahm
Emanuel, when he dons his tutu. But he is curious, adventurous, a
sponge for new ideas. Actually he has been a hopeless socialist,
lost in Fabian abstractions.

Most of this becomes clear as you lug yourself through
Suskind. Skip the first 150 pages. The author needs an editor.
Settle with Suskind’s discussion of the fights between the boys and
the girls on the White House staff, and Obama’s utterly insensitive
meeting with the aggrieved ladies at a dinner he held to placate
them. One, a notably dumpy economist with all the sex appeal of
Paul Krugman, complains that “I felt like a piece of meat.” She has
the catchphrase wrong, of course, unless she was wearing a bikini.
Yet it tells you how confused the Democratic feminists have become,
even the economists.

Move on to Suskind’s first quote from economist Larry
Summers complaining to economist Peter Orszag that “We’re home
alone. There’s no adult in charge.” Settle on page 365 where the
speculations of us Obama critics are pretty much vindicated. There
is Obama’s inability to make a decision, his “drift,” his “loss of
interest,” and Summers once again. Orszag is quoted as telling
Suskind, “Larry would say to Obama, ‘I’ll make my argument first;
you can go after me.’” Orszag then recalls to Suskind something
Suskind was to hear from countless others, “I’m thinking, ‘I can’t
believe he’s talking to the president that way.’ I just don’t know
why Obama didn’t say, ‘I made that decision a week ago. Just do
what I say.’” Well, Obama probably did not make that decision a
week ago. In another meeting, after “a dozen arguments,” Suskind
writes, “Obama, in a voice that was softly dispirited, said, ‘Well,
if you guys can’t agree, I mean, we don’t have to do it.’” As I
say, this is from one page. The book continues, and makes very
painful reading even for me in all my vindication.

Suskind contains his narrative to Obama’s economic policy
and, to a lesser degree, healthcare. There is nothing in the book
about foreign policy or the way this President has conducted two
foreign wars and a worldwide effort against terrorism. My agents
tell me Obama’s conduct of foreign affairs and of the war on terror
are even more appalling.

Somewhere in the deadly proceedings Suskind calls in one
of the President’s still happy servitors, David Axelrod, who still
can sing of Obama’s “broad intellectual curiosity. He just fluidly
moves from one thing to another.” Ah, note those fluid moves, and
Axelrod assures us that “Obama will be one of history’s seminal
presidents.” I suppose that is true if our history is to include
national decline. I, however, see a better future.

View source page.

In a 2008 debate, Charlie Gibson asked Barack Obama about his support for raising capital-gains taxes, given the historical record of government losing net revenue as a result. Obama persevered: “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital-gains tax for purposes of fairness.”

A most revealing window into our president’s political core: To impose a tax that actually impoverishes our communal bank account (the U.S. Treasury) is ridiculous. It is nothing but punitive. It benefits no one — not the rich, not the poor, not the government. For Obama, however, it brings fairness, which is priceless.

View original post.

 

FOR a few days in July Barack Obama and John Boehner, the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, flirted with the idea of a “grand bargain” to hold down entitlement spending while increasing tax revenue. This, they briefly hoped, might unite their parties behind a durable solution to America’s deficit. But if any hope of such a grand bargain remained, it evaporated this week.In a speech in Washington, DC, on September 15th, Mr Boehner flatly declared tax increases “off the table”. Four days later Mr Obama proposed a detailed deficit-reduction plan that combines token trims to entitlements with multiple extra taxes on the rich. The newly combative president also promised to veto any attempt by Congress to cut health-care benefits without also raising taxes on the wealthy.Mr Obama’s more partisan tone reflects several things. In July he not only saw a genuine prospect that Republicans could be talked into higher taxes; he also needed their votes to raise the debt ceiling and avoid default. Neither is true now. Mr Obama’s liberal supporters had worried that, in his pursuit of a grand bargain, he would sacrifice both the…

Read original post.

Obama’s presidency lurches from fad to fad — from gays in the

military to “green jobs” to the “Buffett rule.” Hyped as a profound
presidency, it has turned out to be an embarrassingly frivolous
one. Sober historians of the future, not cowed by political
correctness, will no doubt look back and say that Obama fiddled
while America burned, indulging his sophomoric socialism,
environmentalism, and social engineering at a time of terrorism and
economic crisis.

The weighty and thoughtful orator of Democratic mythology
looks more like a glib used car salesman, and in his case most of
the used cars are electric. It is fitting that his hawking of cheap
environmentalist propaganda would lead him into the first major
scandal of his presidency. The Solyndra debacle is exactly what one
would expect from an administration determined to push the politics
of environmentalist conjecture at the expense of the American
taxpayer and economy.

Out of Obama’s implausible ideological insistence that
“green jobs” would bolster the economy, and the political need to
prove that claim, came a hasty loan to a dubious solar panel maker
that promised to create them. Obama leaves the American taxpayer
with a bill of over half a billion dollars for this environmental
lark, and it is only the most recent bill. His “green jobs” loan
guarantee program has been a bust, costing taxpayers tens of
billions for the creation of a pitifully small number of
jobs.

The Solyndra scandal stands as a symbol of the
administration’s reckless and unserious approach to the economy,
undermining job creators while propping up job destroyers. Needing
to divert people’s attention from the greed and irresponsibility on
display in the scandal, Obama now turns back to raw class warfare,
hoping to egg the poor and middle class into an idle hatred of the
rich. The great unifier seeks to set secretary against
boss.

Obama says his gimmicky “Buffett rule” is not class
warfare but simple math. Maybe he means the “new math” taught in
public schools. Senator Charles Schumer of New York must not have
received the “simple math” talking point; he admits openly that
Obama’s proposal is timed to capitalize on potential class
resentments in a bad economy. “When everybody went up, it was a lot
harder to make this argument,” he told the press. “I think the time
is ripe again. And I think the president sensed that.”

Obama’s half-baked Marxist musings with Joe the Plumber
remain his deepest thoughts on the purpose of taxation. He still
feels entitled to seize wealth and “spread” it around. When he says
that the rich aren’t paying their “fair share,” all he is saying is
that their money belongs to the government automatically for
redistribution. But that’s just theft masquerading as taxation. The
true principle of taxation is not the redistribution of wealth but
the financing of legitimate government activity, and under that
principle the rich are paying more than their fair share, as they
carry a disproportionate amount of those costs. Republicans should
resist the Buffett rule not just because it will inhibit job
creation and consumption but because it is a bald act of
theft.

America’s “jobs president” is more like a crooked Robin
Hood. Economic decline is not so much a crisis for him as a policy
and a pretext for ideological opportunism. Given the choice between
liberal ideology and the creation of jobs, he consistently selects
the former. He chooses unions over jobs, environmental regulations
over jobs, and trivial tax-hike gimmicks over jobs.

Obama’s blasé attitude about Solyndra, shrugging off an
enormous loss to taxpayers as no big deal, is part of this
ideological blindness and complacency. No failure ever prompts any
reflection on the wisdom of a liberal scheme; he just moves
forward, trying out new ways to present failed ideas as a boon to
the common good.

A popular slur among liberal pundits is to say that
Republicans oppose Barack Obama’s economic ideas because they want
the economy to stay sluggish before the election. The slur makes no
sense. If that were the Republicans’ crass calculation, they would
be supporting his ideas, as they are sure to make a bad economy
worse.

But it is not enough for Obama to damage the economy. He’s
also proud of shaking up the military. Just as he is making life
harder on businessmen through new taxes and regulations, so he now
makes life harder on generals through social engineering. The
media’s coverage of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has been
laughably propagandistic, designed to leave the impression that
everyone is thrilled with the change. The reality is that it
creates new headaches for generals who already have too many of
them. And there is no end in sight to the politicized struggles to
come. According to the Washington Post, gay activists have
a new cause to press upon a hidebound military — the “unknown
number of transgender troops serving in uniform without formal
recognition.” Perhaps this cause will dovetail with Obama’s next
likely innovation for the military, a full-blown women in combat
policy.

After all, he owes feminists a favor, having allowed,
according to author Ron Suskind, a “hostile workplace” for women to
fester in the White House. One would have thought Bill Clinton’s
presidency might have triggered that complaint. Instead, “I feel
like a piece of meat”-style complaints comes from Obama’s. Life in
the workplace has grown difficult everywhere under Obama, including
in his.

View original article.

“DO YOU recognise the irreconcilable class antagonism between workers and capitalists that exists under the present economic system?” That is question one on the membership application form of the Socialist Labour Party of America. A helpful note explains that all questions must be answered Yes for an application to be considered. This insistence on ideological purity may explain why the fortunes of the party have disappointed of late. Though it can trace its history as far back as 1876, when it was known as the Workingmen’s Party, no less an authority than Wikipedia pronounces it “moribund”.Paul Ryan, the Republican chairman of the budget committee in the House of Representatives, accused Barack Obama this week of waging “class warfare” by suggesting that millionaires should pay at least the same rate of tax as the common man. But, really, would any president risk declaring class war and following the Workingmen’s Party into oblivion? Not only is social class supposed not to exist in America, it is almost a dirty word—“America’s forbidden thought”, in the words of one sociologist.Anyone who does commit the…

Read original page.

President Obama’s campaign team has trotted out AttackWatch.com, a spooky new Web site that asks followers to report “lies” being told about the president.

The apparent point is to drown out opposition to Obama and his policies by encouraging instant cyber-swarms aimed squarely at the critics.

The rollout brought much derision, with The Washington Post calling the site a full-fledged “laughingstock” within hours of its launch. Online satirist IowaHawk wrote, “I’m grateful to live in a country where the totalitarians are so hilariously inept.”

Totalitarian might be a bit over the top. Trolling for snitches, which is what AttackWatch appears to be about, is more like it.

Is the site in poor taste? Sure.

But a threat to liberty? Not so much.

O & Co. got props for social-media savvy in 2008, and rightly so. They seem to be a little off stride here — and AttackWatch is operating in the same zone of free speech that has empowered Obama’s many critics.

But Twitter, etc., can bite back — and once the virtual flash-mobs form, things can quickly spin out of control. (Ask Anthony Weiner about that.)

If AttackWatch steps over the line, it won’t work to the president’s advantage.