journal:

Still Getting It Wrong

By Jonathan Feaster

2008-03-18

Even though he's everywhere, I've never given much more thought, than necessary, about Barack Obama. I pretty much made my mind up about him when I read his views on the Constitution in his book, "The Audacity of Hope", over a year ago. For me, it was a good indication that, if he got the Constitution wrong, he would probably get everything else wrong. His errors haven't surprised me and, in a recent speech, "A More Perfect Union", he gets things wrong again. Like all the other statists, he just pays lip service to things like the Constitution and liberty and leaves me wondering how people ever fall for it.

So says Obama:

"And it means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny." - A More Perfect Union

If he really believes in personal responsibility, then why doesn't he promise to make real change-real change in which the government would finally get out of the way so that we are free to "write our own destiny"? Freedom from government is what America was supposed to be about. The framers wrote a constitution to place strict limits on the government and to protect the people from domestic and foreign governmental aggression. They wanted us to be a nation of laws and not a nation of men (like we had under monarchs who governed by whim). However, Obama thinks that we should continue the reversion to an unrestrained and belligerent government:

"When we get in a tussle, we appeal to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution's ratifiers to give direction. Some, like Justice Scalia, conclude that the original understanding must be followed and if we obey this rule, democracy is respected.
Others, like Justice Breyers, insist that sometimes the original understanding can take you only so far-that on the truly big arguments, we have to take context, history, and the practical outcomes of a decision into account.
I have to side with Justice Breyer's view of the Constitution-that it is not a static but rather a living document and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.
I see democracy as a conversation to be had. According to this conception, the genius of Madison's design is not that it provides a fixed blueprint for action. It provides us with a framework and rules, but all its machinery are designed to force us into a conversation." - The Audacity of Hope

If he wanted to "appeal to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution's ratifiers", shouldn't he consider the reasons why they created the Constitution in the first place?

If he can't get these issues straight, it's obvious why he gets everything else wrong.

No, Obama doesn't believe in real change and he's certainly not a man for peace. He just promises, under the guise of change, the same old big government ideas of tyrants like Wilson, FDR and LBJ, among others. He's just another dangerous sort (with some new additives) that Reagan warned us about:

"He's the government and he's here to help"...really, for a change, hope or whatever makes you feel good!

No difference. No surprise.

With hope like Barack Obama, who needs pessimism?