When Obama starts exercising the duties of the Office of the President, after lying that HE will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, HE is in for a great disappointment. You see, HE believes HE is going to have 57 states to boss around. HE will find out that 7 states have disappeared.
Some commentators have said that HE faces more severe problems than any President upon assuming office! This is nonsense. HIS problems are small compared to those of Lincoln, but HE may think HE has the same problem as HE wonders about the missing states. Did they secede?
Come to think of it, we used to have a regular secession of states threatening to secede in the first 80 years of the republic. In some cases, this may actually have put some pressure on the federal government not to interfere too much with state affairs or those individual rights which some states sometimes tried to protect from the government. True, in the case of slavery in the South, the states were terribly wrong, but when South Carolina had earlier protested tariffs, she had a good case. When New England protested trade restrictions with Europe, she had a good case. In these cases, the states were acting to protect the rights of their citizens. So, will we ever see some Red States threaten secession to impede the march of socialism coming from the Blue States? Will Obama actually have an aide come to him to tell him that Oklahoma and Wyoming have seceded? These good states voted more than 2 to 1 for candidates other than the socialist Obama.
Entertaining.
ReplyDeleteI echo my other comment in how I find it interesting how Objectivist bash Obama/Democrats while exaulting McCain/Republicans, when they merely represent different shades of the same color. At least Economically, which is what I've been lead to believe is all that really matters to an objectivist.
Also, as you rant on the 57 states, I suppose you have never heard of misspeaking.
:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp
Oh well, Just thought I'd pipe in.
Doesn't change anything either way.
I read both of your comments prior to responding and then responded to the economic preoccupation in the wrong place. I will repeat that here and then talk about misspeaking.
ReplyDeleteEconomic issues are not the only issues of importance to Objectivists. A huge portion of the hours of our lives are put into our attempts at productive labor. The reason for this is that we are trying to make our lives richer and more secure through this labor. When this aspect of our lives is under relentless attack, it is a big deal.
However, it is also important that we retain the freedom to make individual decisions about managing our own lives in other things also. It is important that we have freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of assembly, and freedom from involuntary servitude, all of which are clearly protected by the Bill of Rights. These freedoms fare fairly well in our society, with the exception of involuntary servitude. Those freedoms secured by the 9th Amendment of the Constitution are not well-treated. These include the rights to property, privacy, sexual self-expression, our bodies, entertainment and many more rights which our government does commonly interfere with. These are important to me as an individualist. I discussed many of these issues in my early blog posts, but I am sure I will revisit them before long.
Yes, presidential campaigners are sure to be weary through most of the campaign and Obama may well have misspoke. But, given the MSM's propensity for calling all Republicans stupid, this is simply a bit of counterbalancing. They used to say Ford could not walk and chew gum at the same time and were delighted every time he bumped his head. They used to delight in Eisenhower's not always smoothly flowing speech. They called George W. Bush stupid, but absurdly called Gore and Kerry intelligent. They called Reagan just a B movie actor, which he was as an actor, but he was a better thinker than most of our presidents.
Besides, Obama is the ONE. HE should not make any mistakes. It is HIS time. HE presumes to know how we should live our lives and is prepared to see to it that we live them as HE wishes us to. HE plans to use all the force of government to see to it that we do. I see little reason to cut this most presumptuous being any slack. I fully recognize the asymmetry of our warfare: I use words only to name the truth, while he uses words to distort the truth and force against any disagreement.
I should add to my earlier comment on secession of states. States have as much obligation to protect the individual rights of their citizens as does the federal government. In addition, sovereignty resides in each individual and it is entirely inappropriate for the federal government to hold a whole state worth of the people hostage when they do not willingly consent to being governed by a federal government which is routinely violating their rights.
ReplyDeleteIt is appropriate for the people of a state to hold a convention and decide whether they give their consent to be governed to the federal government. If they do not, then they should not takeover federal land and facilities and they should not use force against the federal government, since the Civil War established that they will be crushed. But the convention would make a clear statement of civil unrest and the people may be able to make an effective protest of the infringement of their rights by dragging their feet in carrying out federal laws. In some cases, they may be able to ignore offending laws if they do so in large enough numbers. Every individual has the right to stand up for his individual rights and try to defend them, but he is wise to do so in such moderation as will not make it convenient for the federal government to kill him and his loved ones.