Here’s what we know about the Obama perspective on international affairs:
Obama appointeesthink Karzai’s election in August was a fraud.
Fraud also occurred during the 2004 election, when Karzai was initially elected.
When Obama thinks a government has been removed without an election, he wants the old government to be reinstalled, no matter how poorly that government may have acted.
This White House has made significant policy shifts based on a brutally-oppressive regime’s statements and promises alone, or even in hopes that another government will change its behavior in response to our unilateral change.
Leading liberal intellectuals believe that we must negotiate with the Taliban.
So, if the Taliban comes forward, apologizes for killing over 800 Americans over the past 8 years and for harboring al Qaeda in the years leading up to 9/11, and promises not to harbor terrorists in the future, will Obama let them have their country back? Or at the very least, will he consider the matter of who governs Afghanistan to be an “internal matter” and get out of the way?
Over at RealClearPolitics, David Paul Kuhn assesses the importance of the growing willingness within the comedy class to make fun of Obama. Of course, some of us have been making fun of Obama for months, but I guess adulterers have more street cred.
People seem to be waking up to the lurking threat of the weak dollar, and David Malpass is the latest to make the case. Kevin Hassett takes the fear to the next level in the latest issue of National Review (subscription required), comparing the U.S. debt load to (mostly Latin American) countries that have defaulted on their debt over the past two decades. As you might imagine, the comparison is not favorable. This blog has been on the record about its concerns with the weak dollar and the money supply for quite some time.
We all knew that Chicago wasn’t about to blame President Obama for their stunning Olympic flop. Instead, the city’s politicians decided to mimic their favorite son’s most cherished rhetorical flourish – Blame Bush. The Sun-Times summarized it by saying that “President Obama could not undo in one year the resentment against America that President Bush and others built up for years.”
The Rev. Jesse Jackson demonstrated exquisite message discipline:
“There must be” resentment against America, the Rev. Jesse Jackson said, near the stage where he had hoped to give a victory speech in Daley Center Plaza. “The way we [refused to sign] the Kyoto Treaty, we misled the world into Iraq. The world had a very bad taste in its mouth about us. But there was such a turnaround after last November. The world now feels better about America and about Americans. That’s why I thought the president’s going was the deal-maker.”
State Rep. Susana Mendoza was a bit more muddled. At first, she felt like lashing out at the IOC like they were a bunch of right-wing nutcases, calling the vote “political and mean-spirited.” But once she realized that they probably supported universal health care and cap-and-trade legislation, she changed her tune to one more confused than outraged:
“I travel a lot. … I thought we had really turned a corner with the election of President Obama. People are so much more welcoming of Americans now. But this isn’t the people of those countries. This is the leaders still living with outdated impressions of Americans.”
Rep. Jan Schakowsky, on the other hand, showed her Washington polish by wielding a nameless “consul” as her cudgel against the Bushian stench that still poisons the world’s opinion of America:
“He said … he was hearing that there wasn’t enough time for Barack Obama to dispel the old image. … But I don’t know if that’s it.”
But the White House realized that while this line of attack has its benefits, distracting the blame as it does from the President himself, it also means that the President hasn’t brought hope and change to the world, and that he’s not had a meaningful impact on America’s international standing. We can’t have that, so cue Robert Gibbs:
“No, I think you saw both at the U.N. General Assembly, you saw at the G20 last week … I think virtually every measure of our standing in the world is different than it was just this time last year. So I don’t read too much of that into this.”
Don’t worry, Gibbs – give yourself a good night’s sleep and I’m sure you’ll find a way to make this all Bush’s fault without suggesting that your boss is weak and ineffectual. I just have no interest in helping you do it.
UPDATE: In case you doubted that this was a coordinated line, Sen. Roland Burris also took the time to blame Bush for Chicago’s Olympic’s vote.
There isn’t much going well for the Obama Administration right now, and that’s kept the White House from riding its favorite rhetorical metaphor: the high horse. But when all other moral high grounds fail, they never get tired of flogging Hondurans.
This year, we’ve had North Korea launching missiles at our allies, shipping military supplies to our enemies, and renewing its nuclear weapons program; Iran hiding its own nuclear weapons program from the world; Russia strengthening its hold on territory in Georgia; Libya celebrating a terrorist’s homecoming; but the only nation whose actions warranted harsh punishment from the U.S. government was Honduras.
First. when Honduras acted to protect its constitutional system and remove a president unrepentant in his treason, the President called it a “coup,” and the State Department ordered the interim Honduran government to allow former President Zelaya to return and finish his term.
When Honduras refused the Administration’s edict, it struck back, withholding all non-humanitarian aid from Honduras ($32 million) in an effort to force a change in policy. When the Honduran democrats refused to budge, the U.S. revoked the visas of all officials who participated in Zelaya’s removal and exile. The grounds? That Zelaya should be allowed to finish his term in office as the elected leader of Honduras. Apparently Democrats believe that once you’re elected president, there’s nothing you can do that makes your ouster appropriate, but we already knew that.
Then, the White House threatened not to recognize the outcome of Honduras’ November presidential elections. Mind you, these elections were planned long before Zelaya was removed from office. In fact, it was these same elections that Zelaya was trying to hijack, by holding a referendum intended to allow him to run for president again. But nevermind that – the Obama Administration apparently believes that all democratic activities in Honduras are tainted by Zelaya’s ouster — even though he couldn’t participate in them even if he had remained in office. State Department officials called this maneuver “putting [Honduras] in a box,” which may or may not be like putting Baby in the corner.
So, you might have thought the State Department was pleased by the news last week that Zelaya had sneaked back into the country and was hiding out in the Brazilian Embassy. But no – that, too, was an occasion for tut-tutting in Foggy Bottom. After initially calling for “restraint” from all sides, the U.S. Ambassador to the Organization of American States unloaded on Zelaya:
“The return of Zelaya [without] an agreement is irresponsible and foolish. He should cease and desist from making wild allegations and from acting as though he were starring in an old movie,” said Mr Amselem at an emergency meeting of the OAS.
“Having chosen, with outside help, to return on his own terms, President Zelaya and those who have facilitated his return, bear particular responsibility for the actions of his supporters,” he added.
Of course, in the spirit of indiscriminate disdain for Honduran government officials, the good Ambassador didn’t hesitate to take the interim government to task for refusing to allow his buddies in the OAS to intervene and for declaring a state of emergency in the country.
Once again, we are left wondering exactly what the Obama Administration wants out of Honduras and its leaders. It tries to uphold its democracy by removing its treasonous president, and it loses economic aid. It tries to defuse the situation by removing the ex-president from the country, and it’s called a coup. Its leaders continue to operate as a democracy in the weeks and months since the president’s ouster, but their visas are voided by the United States. It continues to plan for elections in November, but the U.S. refuses to recognize them. The U.S. demands that the ex-president be allowed to serve out his term, but when he returns to the country, he’s called a fool.
We recognize no constitutions, no elections, no rule of law, no leaders worthy of respect. Sounds like the White House is desperate to install a banana republic in Honduras.
[n]o one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold. The traditional divisions between nations of the South and the North make no sense in an interconnected world; nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War.
In an earlier post, I explored whether the Obama health insurance mandate was constitutional in a positive sense — is the federal government empowered to take this action? But through the very interesting debate that resulted from that post, it occurred to me that there is a second question that needs to be asked. Does the Constitution affirmatively prohibit such a mandate?
The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution is one of the simplest and most morally-defensible principles in our charter:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Pretty easy thing to avoid, no? No American shall be forced against her will to serve another.
As an initial matter, let me be clear – I am in no way suggesting that the severity, cruelty, and horror of human slavery is comparable to the relatively-minimal cost of the health insurance mandate on most Americans. What I am comparing is a principle, and it’s the principle that is prohibited in the Thirteenth Amendment. At an elemental level, the two practices are the same.
In the form of slavery practiced in the United States in the 19th Century, a man was born or brought into this country with an obligation to serve another. His service demanded that he expend at least some, if not all, of his energies, time, and labor on the tasks he was given by his master. In exchange, he was usually given the basic needs for human survival – food, clothing, shelter – but not much more. If he failed in his duty, the law allowed him to be punished. If he fled that obligation, the government would hunt him down and force him to return to servitude. The man could do nothing to pay his debt or satisfy his obligation – he was bound for life.
Consider, now, what Obama’s health care mandate requires you to do.
You must, from the day you become a citizen of the United States, labor to earn money to pay a health insurance company. In return, you are given a promise to pay for most health care services you require. You are coerced to remain in this relationship under penalty of law.
If you become unable to work, you must still seek health insurance from the government (if you are poor, from Medicaid) or spend your savings on health insurance (for those who are not poor). If you fail to do so, you will be punished by the government. If you lose your job, you have no liberty to choose to forego health insurance to pay your mortgage, or buy food for your family, or keep your daughter in college. If you fail to keep your health insurance, you are a criminal.
This obligation begins, for most of us, on the day we are born. Most children will be covered on their parents’ policy, but their parents will immediately be forced to work harder to pay their children’s legally-enforceable debt. If the parents stop paying, not only will the parents be liable, but so will the children. An infant without health insurance will be a fugitive from justice.
When we grow up and become independent (if not sooner), we will be expected to lift the yoke of health insurance off the shoulders of our parents and begin paying for it ourselves. Nevermind that this might happen in our teens, or that we’ll be lucky to pay for pizza delivery to our freshman dorms — the government will demand that you pay for your health insurance first.
If you have a conscience-based objection to the insurance required by the government, you cannot follow your conscience and forego coverage. If you can’t stand the idea of purchasing insurance that covers abortion, you will be punished by the law. If you think a man should stand on his own two feet and refuse to accept “welfare” like Medicaid, you must spend your last dollar on health care or face indictment.
If a health insurer sees that you have stopped paying your premiums, he has a vested interest in snitching to the government, hoping that the threat of law enforcement will get you to start paying again. If the threat isn’t enough, the government can act to force you to get insured or lose your remaining liberty.
If you ever let your health insurance lapse and the government fines you, you’ll be forced to tell future employers that you have been convicted of a crime. Even if you never used any health care during the lapse, your non-payment of premium is a criminal matter.
In short, under the Obama plan, you can never escape your health insurance masters – you can only choose which master you wish to serve. If you ever lay down your shovel and try to walk away, your government overseer will find you, punish you, and put you back in line.
***
We are a society that is blessed in countless ways. One of those blessings is a total ignorance of human bondage. In other countries, marriages are enforced like servitudes. In Africa and Southeast Asia, classic 19th Century slavery is still practiced and, to some degree, countenanced by the government. Even in some Western democracies, citizens are forced into petty private obligations at the government’s whim, small sacrifices of liberty for the common good.
As much as we often decry the loss of freedom in the U.S., we are an astoundingly free people, particularly in the commercial arena. We are allowed to organize our lives in innumerable ways, and the government largely stays out of the way. One of those ways is health care. Most of us go the easy way, taking the insurance offered at the office, muttering curses at the co-pays but largely happy with the care. Some smaller percentage of us do other things, others take advantage of government programs, and a small but not insignificant group opt out of the insurance market altogether. Does this liberty cost the nation? Yes – all liberty does, because liberties imply the right to make mistakes. But We the People decided some 232 years ago that the costs didn’t matter – we wanted freedom. We fought the bloodiest war in American history to extend this freedom to everyone. We endured decades more of strife and struggle to break the cords of bondage forever.
Surely – surely – our first black President isn’t about to be the first to sign into law an act of Congress that abridges the Thirteenth Amendment?
*this post used to be entitled “The Health Insurance Mandate: Is It Slavery?,” but some friends pointed out that involuntary servitude is the more precise term.
The federal government has three ways it can obtain a law-abiding American’s property:
1. It can tax you. Taxation is the power of the government to force transfers of cash from owners to itself. It is a broad power, expressly stated in the Constitution:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States . . . .
Sometimes the government takes your cash on the basis of your income. Sometimes the government takes your cash because you bought something, like cigarettes or gasoline. Sometimes the government takes your cash when you trade with other nations. And sometimes the government takes your cash because you die. But if the government taxes you, it is always the direct recipient of the money – at least for a moment, before it spends it.
2. It can take your property (and pay you for it). Eminent domain is the power of government to force transfers of property from owners to itself or its designees. A little-known fact — the power of eminent domain is not in the Constitution itself. Rather, it was presumed by the Framers to be an inherent power of government, but one that needed to be controlled. Thus, the Fifth Amendment prohibition on uncompensated takings:
No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Here, the Framers were striking back at the abuses of the British government, which occasionally took private property for use by the Crown, without compensation. And when the Fifth Amendment says “property,” it means the tangible stuff — your real estate, your tractor, your great aunt’s buffet, you name it — just not your money. That only makes sense, because when it comes to the “just compensation,” unless the property owner agrees otherwise, it’s always going to come in the form of cash.
One small change in practice since the days of the Founders has been the designation of some limited private parties with the right of eminent domain. In these cases, the government usually grants heavily-regulated companies (railroads, power companies, telecoms) with a limited right to exercise eminent domain in furtherance of a public utility. But even in these cases, the private party must demonstrate that the taking is necessary for a public purpose; it can only take tangible property (not cash); and the taking must be justly compensated with cash.
3. It can regulate your commerce (and take your cash in the process). Since the advent of the 20th century, Congress has done remarkable things through its Article I power to “regulate Commerce . . . among the several States. . . .” It has regulated the financial markets, ensured the safety of foods and drugs, prohibited pollution, protected endangered species, and imposed workplace rules. In each case, it requires a person or corporation performing a certain activity to perform it in a certain manner. For example, if a mining company chooses to employ workers in mining, it has to properly train them and give them certain equipment necessary to do their jobs safely. The government does not require anyone to actually mine — that is up to the company — but if it chooses to mine, it has to do it right. Similarly, if a steel mill wants to operate, it has to get an air pollution permit. That permit might require the company operating the mill to pay certain fees to the government, but only because it wants to operate. If instead it shuts down the mill and didn’t doesn’t emit pollution, it doesn’t have to pay the fee.
Does this sound elementary? Maybe so. But if President Obama’s health care plan is enacted as described, it will attempt to create a fourth way for the federal government to take your property. Let me explain why.
Our good friends at American Missive took aim at our President’s latest easy target: his claim that his “excise tax” on those who refuse to buy health care under his plan is not a tax. Let’s look at his explanation:
Frankly, I agree with the President. This is not a tax. A tax requires a property owner to pay cash to the government to pay for public services or debt. In this case, the only time the government gets cash is when it fines the individual for failing to obtain health insurance. That’s not a tax — fines are an act of law enforcement. Even if one gets fined here, he still has to pay a private party for health care. So, President Obama, you’re right — this is not a tax.
So, one has to ask — which of the other two options is it? Let’s take the easy one first — it’s definitely not an exercise of eminent domain. Why is that an easy answer? Because the transaction doesn’t involve tangible property. Rather, Obama’s health care plan would require a private citizen to pay cash to a third party for a service (health insurance). Now, the health insurance mandate does bear one similarity to the eminent domain option. Only the eminent domain option allows government to invest a non-governmental entity with the ability to act in the public interest — the government can’t give private parties the right to tax or regulate. But remember why the eminent domain option exists — to allow the government (or its designee) to obtain specific tangible property that it needs for public purposes. That need isn’t in play here, so eminent domain is off the table.
So we’re left with Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. To be sure, this power has been a carte blanche for Congress for almost 100 years now, so one might be tempted to end the analysis right here. But even a broad-minded advocate of the Commerce Clause has to acknowledge that the health insurance mandate is entirely new territory. Why? Because it regulates a citizen’s existence, not her activity.
If you want to understand the outer limits of the Commerce Clause, it’s best to head to the wilderness. Consider, for example, whether the proposed regulation would apply to a person who effectively opted out of all commercial activity, pitched his tent in the woods, caught or grew his own food, and did everything in his power to avoid the rest of humanity. Obviously, such a person is not engaging in interstate commerce — he’s not engaging in commerce at all, in fact. The closest he comes is when he kills his food (he might be shooting a spotted owl, after all), but that’s a debate for another day. Regardless, our man in the wilderness is NOT consuming health care and driving up the costs for the rest of us. But under the Obama plan, he would still be subject to a fine for failing to obtain health coverage. Our man in the wilderness isn’t undertaking any activity, or availing himself of a privilege — he is surviving, plain and simple. When Congress has attempted to criminalize activity that is inherently intrastate (as this man’s would be), the Supreme Court has struck down those regulations (U.S. v. Morrison; U.S. v. Lopez).
Consider three scenarios where Obama’s fine would apply. We’ve already considered the first — the person who never seeks health care or insurance. It’s impossible to conceive of how that individual might impact interstate commerce, but it’s also difficult to conceive of such an individual in today’s society. So we move to the second example — the person who always pays cash for health care. This was the model for health care payment as recently as fifty years ago. Is it possible that such behavior — which creates no public debts, nor imposes higher costs on the insured — has such an irresistible impact on the health insurance industry that it can be subject to civil enforcement? The third scenario goes to the individual who has health insurance, but not a plan that meets all the bells and whistles required by an Obama regime. If a conservative Christian refuses to carry health insurance that covers abortion or contraceptive services for religious reasons, does her conscience-based alternative create consequences for interstate commerce? She pays her premiums; she covers her co-pays; and yet her business transaction is one worthy of national regulation?
But this all ignores the more fundamental question: Can the federal government require a citizen to pay cash to a private party for services he does not wish to receive, and if he refuses, penalize him? Such an act would be unprecedented for the federal government. It is so unprecedented that, to my knowledge, it has never been tested in the federal courts. I would argue it’s never been tested because no prior Administration would ever argue it was possible. It’s not taxation — the government isn’t getting the money. It’s not eminent domain, because no tangible property is being exchanged. And it’s not regulation of commerce, for the burdened citizen is not seeking to engage in the commercial transaction being regulated. So what is it?
So former Honduran President Zelaya found a way to get back into the country, then hunkered down in the Brazilian embassy for safekeeping. I’m sure his remaining supporters are overwhelmed by this dramatic show of courage.
President Obama can’t be happy about this development. His Administration has taken a manifestly undemocratic position toward the situation in Honduras, as this blog has previously explored. Now, he’s gotten what half of what he said he wanted — Zelaya in the house, but not in power. As he has in all other moments requiring true leadership (CIA investigations; stimulus bills; annual budgets; Afghanistan strategies), President Obama has largely allowed others to take the lead.
But this debate has largely occurred off stage. Most Americans likely know nothing about the events in Honduras, and if they do, they have only heard the mainstreammedia’suncriticalrecitation of the Obama line — it’s a military coup opposed by the United States. But the return of Zelaya to Honduras cannot help but place a spotlight on the details, and it may spark a true debate in this country about what our policy should be toward the Micheletti government. Why are we siding with Manuel Noriega, Hugo Chavez, and the Castro brothers? Why is this supposed military regime headed by the nation’s top legislator, and supported by all branches of its elected government? If the interim government fears democracy, why are they holding a new election this fall? And as I asked in a previous post, what should Honduras have done when Zelaya tried to override his nation’s constitution through a lawless referendum?
I’ll tell you what — exactly what it did do. In fact, Zelaya’s return provides an opportunity for the Micheletti government to correct its only error from its initial actions: to try Zelaya on charges of treason, which are specifically invoked by the Honduran constitution when a president attempts to extend his term of office. We should all pray that the situation remains calm and nonviolent. But I also hope that our President ends his impressively consistent track record of appeasement for dictators, aspiring and otherwise, and stands up for democracy and the rule of law in a nation that most might have assumed to be too poor to care.
In the meantime, I’ll be drinking Honduran coffee. A lot of it. You should, too.
Obama may be ready to bail out his friends in the media, possibly by turning them into demi-churches — tax-exempt organizations with unique constitutional protection. Of course, that won’t make the press any more sycophantic…. One wonders if he’ll be as even-handed in his offer of federal tax largesse as he is in sharing his time on Sunday mornings.
My local failing paper tells us that cursive is slowly making its exit. As one who has scribbled into my share of bluebooks, a move to typed tests and essays doesn’t sound like such a bad thing. But it raises this question: why is a society that is so focused radically reducing carbon footprint simultaneously creating a living environment that requires more and more energy to operate? And why aren’t we teaching our kids that sometimes writing out your shopping list instead of saving it on your iPhone is a good idea for all kinds of reasons (including environmental ones)?
Michael Barone — who is, for me, one of the three must-read writers working today — eviscerates liberals who are attempting to shout down their opponents. Eviscerates them with polite precision, of course. He touches on a very salient point. Liberals are more prone to consider dissent out of bounds, because the places they develop their ideas (universities, unions, think tanks, activist groups, the mainstream media) are echo chambers with carefully-crafted methods of squelching dissent. Upon encountering strength on the right, a liberal is far less likely to know what to do with it, and more likely to assume that some rule has been broken or moral breached. Conservatives, on the other hand, cut their ideological teeth in very different environments. Some pass through those same liberal institutions, but form their arguments in opposition to, or despite, the predetermined liberal view, thus making them well acquainted with tilted playing fields and harsh debates. Others come to conservatism through exposure to the marketplace, the free-wheeling amphitheatre of ideas that has no tolerance for failure and obliterates arbitrary obstacles to truth. Finally, some arrive at their conservatism through faith, which teaches many of us to respect others and their views while believing that their side is right. But because religious conservatives (and I am one of them) have a much stronger tendency toward insularity and greater confidence in their rectitude, they are also less skilled at countering the opposition and more prone to rule it out of bounds.
Several outfits have polled the question raised by former President Carter: are those who oppose Obama’s policies motivated by racism? Fox News did a version of this, with the following question:
Thinking about Barack Obama’s policies, some people say [A:those who oppose Obama’s policies are mostly motivated by racism], while others say [B: opposition to Obama’s policies is based on honest disagreements] — which comes closer to your view?
The results showed that 65 percent think the disagreements are honest, and 20 percent* think they are borne out of racism (9 percent some of both, 5 percent not sure). That sounds good – a 40 percent spread.
But consider that in the same poll, 48 percent of those polled opposed Obama’s handling of health care, and 44 percent supported it. Since we can reasonably assume that the 48 percent who oppose Obamacare didn’t call themselves and their fellow travelers racists, that means of the 52 percent who either support Obamacare or aren’t sure, THIRTY-EIGHT PERCENT of them think that Americans are MOSTLY motivated by race when they oppose Obama’s policies.
Consider also that African-American respondents polled almost opposite to the country — 65 percent said race was the primary motivator for opponents, while 27 percent said opponents had honest disagreements. That’s a shocking total — and evidence that the election of a black President did not result in a sea change in the way black Americans view the political landscape overall. Sadly, we’re a long way from a post-racial America, folks.
Marque's Letters 