It’s The Pattern

Much has and will be written about the President’s ‘shot’ at the Supreme Court. It is, however, simply one more instance in a pattern of behavior that occurs within clear context. Forget the fancy rhetoric, the story is not in the particulars, the story is in the pattern.

Had the President not taken a shot at the Supreme Court’s consideration of ObamaCare it would have been a surprise. He publically castigated the Court over the Citizens United decision in the context of a State of The Union Speech. He reminds us that the Supreme Court is ‘unelected’. The President, however, has no problems with Courts that have furthered the Leftist agenda such as striking down public referendums. Duh! Has Homer Simpson turned up as a key legal advisor to our former Constitutional scholar?

The President publically announced that what failed legislatively would be accomplish by way of bureaucratic regulation. The President has gone ahead and done exactly that. Departments of Energy, Interior and the EPA have essentially applied the thinking behind Cap and Trade despite rejection in Congress and the potential for dire economic consequences. Dire economic consequences are why India and China have totally rejected Kyoto and why we did as well.

Mr. Obama’s regulatory ‘Czar’, Mr. Sunstein believes that you just keep executing ‘regulatory pushes in increments’ to move regulation into a position where it dominates legislation. This is the same guy that wants lawyers for your dogs and cats. The President’s key advisor, Ms. Jarrett, has an unquestionably Socialist past. His former White House environmental advisor sat on the board of the Socialist International. Forget the details however, look to the pattern.

The firm majority passing ObamaCare that the President spoke of was, as I recall, 222 to 215 and that only after deals and assurances that were, in some cases, ignored. The President apparently considers this vote a mandate. Nowhere does he mention the 2:1 public opposition to ObamaCare because in the Leftist view, your opposition is nothing more than trailer park ignorance. ObamaCare is not about health care in the final analysis; it’s about how much government control the left can accomplish over your life.

Mr. Holder, questioned on the ongoing need for Affirmative Action responds that in his view it has not even started yet. Voter Intimidation and death threats by the New Black Panthers are ignored empowering them to, as a petulant child would do, push further to identify the limits; assuming that in Mr. Holder’s view, there actually are limits. Radical Islamist theology does not exist for Mr. Holder, can’t even get the words out of his mouth. This is the man appointed to protect your legal rights under a Constitution that he essentially rejects when inconvenient to his desires. Patterns?

This is the threshold of a future the Left has dreamed of; a small cadre of elites who know best. A system whereby you as an individual are minimized as unequipped to make significant decisions about your life and the systems you are governed by. This thinking is, and has always been essentially totalitarian. The Left has been the source of Fascism, Socialism, Communism and any number of philosophical and political hybrids. But they all maintain guiding principles: centralized control, eventual evolution to totalitarian systems and the ‘enlightened’ strong man as the centerpiece of absolute control.

The American version of evolving Fascism is incremental; bit by bit the individual is diminished in the interest of: security, fairness, or the ‘greater good’. The context changes but the goals have always remained the same. The tactics have also remained the same, divide and conquer. Separate society by class, race and religion. Evolve the political process so that no one philosophical or political position is capable of fighting off the pattern. Demonize, create the straw man as a nexus for anger and frustration; “it’s the ‘other’ that has done this to you’; whomever the ‘other’ may happen to be. Create dependencies; eliminate the energies and commitments necessary to turn away from the evolution to totalitarianism. Dissemble; insure that it’s never really about what it appears to be about or what you say it’s about. Don’t worry about being on both sides of the issue, the true believers know the code.

Patterns! It’s the only way to evaluate the particulars.

  • D.D.Mao

    “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”…….President Barack Obama

    What the President should have known FROM TEACHING CONSTITUTIONAL LAW but refused to acknowledge was JUST BECAUSE CONGRESS PASSES A LAW DOESN’T MEAN IT’S CONSTITUTIONAL! Chief Justice Marshall declared in McCulloch v Maryland “For a law to be necessary and proper the end must be legitimate and it must consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution.” While in Marbury v Madison judical review ruling the Supreme Court has the final say of what is law.

    BUT the “PATTERN” FOLLOWS BOTH PARTIES.President Bush(W”)signed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill saying “I believe the bill is unconstitutional but I will sign it and let the Supreme Court decide.” Then again President Bush’s “Big Governement Conservatism” was about re-thinking government NOT shrinking government. And then people question why I disparage Republicans?

    The judicial Branch of our government should not be representative of the people in the same sense as the Legislative Branch or Executive Branch.When justices base their decision on empathy(the governments arguement that there are 40 million without healthcare)they are going back to the French Revolution where condemning the bourgeois just for being capitalist is fashionable.Do we really want Madame de Farge and Le Tricoteuse determining the law of the land?

    “The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.”..Daniel Webster

  • D.D.Mao

    Upon Further Review:

    In regard to the Presidents remarks concerning the members of the Supreme Court being “unelected”.

    * Did it bother the President that he “APPOINTED” 45 Czars to cover every aspect of our lives and they weren’t elected?

    * Does it bother the President that he “APPOINTED” Richard Cordray to serve as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Board in January along with THREE APPOINTMENTS to the National Labor Relations Board ALL WITHOUT SENATE APPROVAL AS THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES?


    * Does it bother the President that the laws Independent Advisory Board has the power to DETERMINE WHAT HEALTH CARE WILL BE AVAILABLE AND WHO GETS IT AND THEY AREN’T ELECTED?


    Please Mr.President we aren’t the fools or sheep you want to believe we are!

  • D.D.Mao

    Upon Still Further Review:

    I just read an interesting article that ties some of the loose ends together on the Presidents “pattern”. It was brought up by Judge Napolitano a Fox news commentator on the Neil Cavuto’s show on the 4th of April.”I think the President is dangerously close to totalitarianism” Napolitano said. A few months ago he was saying “The Congress didn’t count,the Congress doesn’t mean anything,I am going to rule by decree and by administrative regulation.” “Whenever Congress refuses to act,Joe and I,were going to act.In the months to come,wherever we have an opportunity,were going to take steps ON OUR OWN to keep this economy moving.” He’s now saying the Supreme Court doesn’t count because they aren’t elected. That would leave only ONE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT….THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.When you add this to the appointments he made listed in my previous comment of the 6th of April and the EPA and Justice Department going rogue you have a clear picture of where the President is coming from.

    This is a president who said he can’t wait for Congress to act and will govern by Executive order and regulation if necessary.If I remember right the New Black Panthers and the SEIU was using strong arm tactics on his behalf also.It seems every day the President shows us how little he knows about Constitutional Law.