Government of Autonomy

When I was a kid, the socialistic, morally relativistic, soft-on-crime, pro-abortion, pro-gay lifestyle, love "the mother", anarchistic type "liberal" thinking individual was kind of a political oddity. The reason for that was simply that most people knew that the thinking of people like that was well...just----"out there". These days, political personalities who largely fit that profile are commonplace in the United States. Right now, persons who could generally and fairly be described as thinking that currently hold the majority of power in the U.S. executive and legislative branches of government.

It was also when I was just a child that the "counter-culture" movement was well under way, and there were a lot of encounter group gurus out there duping huge groups of followers into believing their nonsense. "Dr." Timothy Leary was a pretty good example of how bad things had become in the 1960s. He coined a phrase in 1966 when he said that he only had three things to say to young people at that time---"Tune in, turn on, drop out." He was an anarchist whose drug-influenced thinking infected millions through word-of-mouth or by his writings, lectures and recordings. He was one of only many bad examples. The general influence of his kind of thinking is very prevalent today. So is the influence of those within social movements of the 1960s and early 1970s who advocated violence for social change. In my little circle of friends and family, we all thought they were nuts. I remember years later in the early 1980s reading an interview with a former well-known college radical (whose name I have forgotten). In the interview he admitted, "We didn't know anything." In other words.....he and his compatriots were simply caught up in the fervor of the "anti-establishment" movement.

That's one of the dangers of electing a leader whose whole campaign strategy is built upon "change". That is a pretty broad-sweeping word to use if no one can nail down exactly what is meant by it. If for example things are messed up because they aren't being carried out in a constitutionally proper way---correct those things. If on the other hand one simply doesn't like the constitutional foundation upon which this country is based......then that is change I can do without. Leaders whose desire it is to radically change an already democratic republic from the ground up are usually out to change it into something other than a democracy. Such a strategy depends on people who don't have a clue about politics, or whose young hearts, uninformed by life experience and swing them to your side. They are simply easier to sway. It is an informed citizenry that keeps this kind of thing from happening. Unfortunately, I know too many people my age and older who got pulled into the liberal thinking, anti-establishment movement of the 1960s. They still think like that. They raised their kids to think like that. Guess what? A lot of those kids are still like that. They are "anti"-normative in just about every way. The deal is, the kids are a lot more smooth, and a lot more sophisticated about implementing what they believe and getting it called righteous and reasonable by society.

This nation is fast becoming less of a representative republic than a burgeoning socialist experiment. It's infrastructure and management are being deconstructed and reconstructed differently right in front of us every week---by the present White House administration, and I know I'm not alone in hoping that it isn't too late to do anything about it. This nation dodged a serious bullet when President Obama decided not to sign sweeping international climate change legislation in Copenhagen last December. Had he done as was hoped by Ban Ki-moon, Gordon Brown and others, this nation would be far less concerned about how BP may handle the oil disaster. It would have all become a U.S. responsibility entirely. Fortunately, President Obama still valued American autonomy enough to avoid doing something that would have been so immediately disastrous on most every level for this nation.

Even at that, President Obama's popularity is dwindling right now. That's happening because even some of the people who fancy themselves to be liberals are at odds with his policies. I understand that. I am having trouble agreeing with the President on just about every policy he's come up with in one way or another. That isn't the big deal though. What I really find astonishing is that he acts without constitutional support so often, and no one seems to be able to do anything about it. How about the BP oil disaster that I mentioned earlier? What constitutional provision allows the President to take money from BP and dole it out to people who have been damaged financially by the disaster? Seriously? I'm not doubting that people's lives are being disrupted and financially wrecked by this disaster. I'm not at all unsympathetic to their situation. There is a constitutionally provided way for these concerns to be addressed however, and that just doesn't appear to be happening. James Harrison was credited by John Adams as saying that this is supposed to be "A government of laws and not of men."

BP is likely to cough up 20 billion dollars, and it is President Obama's intention to provide those monies to persons which he believes need to be financially compensated. Where was (where is) the "due process of law"? This oil disaster is not something which Barrack Obama can turn around and blame on the Bush administration. It happened on his watch and we are well-beyond any such lame notion. How the President deals with this disaster is being watched by the whole world, friends and enemies alike. That fact will determine the President's reactions to what goes on, because he will weigh the disaster and his responses carefully for political considerations. He has more of a free hand than any past president I can think of. His unique position, backed by a super-majority of party members, gives him an almost free pass to use his expanded powers to govern in a way that was never intended, let alone granted the president by this nation's constitution. Because of these factors, he seems to be able to impose his personal will onto people in both the private and public sectors. Such actions are not those of a person who believes in government of the people, by the people and for the people.