Thursday, November 8, 2012

Obama is the Least Skilled and Least Effective American President since Jimmy Carter, but He is Far More Menacing.

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Only in America can a president who inherits a deep recession and whose policies have actually made the effects of that recession worse get re-elected. Only in America can a president who wants the bureaucrats who can’t run the Post Office to micromanage the administration of every American’s health care get re-elected. Only in America can a president who kills Americans overseas who have never been charged or convicted of a crime get re-elected. And only in America can a president who borrowed and spent more than $5 trillion in fewer than four years, plans to repay none of it and promises to borrow another $5 trillion in his second term get re-elected.

What’s going on here?

What is going on is the present-day proof of the truism observed by Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, who rarely agreed on anything in public: When the voters recognize that the public treasury has become a public trough, they will send to Washington not persons who will promote self-reliance and foster an atmosphere of prosperity, but rather those who will give away the most cash and thereby create dependency. This is an attitude that, though present in some localities in the colonial era, was created at the federal level by Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt, magnified by FDR, enhanced by LBJ, and eventually joined in by all modern-day Democrats and most contemporary Republicans.

Mitt Romney is one of those Republicans. He is no opponent of federal entitlements, and he basically promised to keep them where they are. Where they are is a cost to taxpayers of about $1.7 trillion a year. Under President Obama, however, the costs have actually increased, and so have the numbers of those who now receive them. Half of the country knows this, and so it has gleefully sent Obama back to office so he can send them more federal cash taken from the other half.

It is fair to say that Obama is the least skilled and least effective American president since Jimmy Carter, but he is far more menacing. His every instinct is toward the central planning of the economy and the federal regulation of private behavior. He has no interest in protecting American government employees in harm’s way in Libya, and he never admits he has been wrong about anything. Though he took an oath to uphold the Constitution, he treats it as a mere guideline, whose grand principles intended to guarantee personal liberty and a diffusion of power can be twisted and compromised to suit his purposes. He rejects the most fundamental of American values -- that our rights come from our Creator, and not from the government. His rejection of that leads him to an expansive view of the federal government, which permits it, and thus him, to right any wrong, to regulate any behavior and to tax any event, whether authorized by the Constitution or not, and to subordinate the individual to the state at every turn.

As a practical matter, we are in for very difficult times during Obama’s second term. ObamaCare is now here to stay; so, no matter who you are or how you pay your medical bills, federal bureaucrats will direct your physicians in their treatment of you, and they will see your medical records. As well, Obama is committed to raising the debt of the federal government to $20 trillion. So, if the Republican-controlled House of Representatives goes along with this, as it did during Obama’s first term, the cost will be close to $1 trillion in interest payments every year. As well, everyone’s taxes will go up on. New Year’s Day, as the Bush-era tax cuts will expire then. The progressive vision of a populace dependent on a central government and a European-style welfare state is now at hand.

Read the rest here.


  1. C'mon Judge, you're nibbling around the edges. Go ahead and admit it: voting is stupid. It's the process of allowing the trough-feeders to decide how much money they will steal from the productive sectors of the economy. Nobody who believes in liberty, freedom, and the sanctity of the individual could ever have imagined such an absurd process. de Tocqueville foresaw all this almost 200 years ago.

    1. If you don't like the way things are going you have only two ways to conceivably effect anything: violent revolt or voting. And if you try to the first one you'll lose because the majority of people are against you. What you anti-voters don't understand is that we're TRAPPED! There are statists all around us and they overpower us. We're never going to get 100 percent of the public's support, but if we banded together and worked hard we could conceivably garner enough to make a big impact on the system. If someone like Gary Johnson WHO YES I KNOW ISN'T PERFECT but is still decent and 100 times better than the other 2 guys got like 10 percent of the vote instead of 1? That would shake things up like people wouldn't believe. All of a sudden the sheeple would be taking libertarianism candidates more seriously, asking who are these people? Checking out what our views are. We wouldn't have to stay just a small fringe. But it can only be done through pragmatism and focusing on MAKING GAINS for liberty through political action, instead of this utopian thinking that if we just refrain from participating at all in the political process that it'll all just go away one day. That all we have to do is spread the ideas and one day everyone will agree with us and the government will go away. Sorry but it doesn't work that way. The world is full of thugs and goons at all income levels that don't care if we're right and are in love with the idea of using force to get what they want and smash those that they don't like. But if at least a third of people are relatively good & smart and willing to get behind our ideas we could win elections if we did it third party, and the fact that the majority of people are still assholes and haters would become irrelevant.

    2. "If you don't like the way things are going you have only two ways to conceivably effect anything: violent revolt or voting....."

      Or you could vote with your feet, as more and more people seem to be doing. If I was a lawyer I'd look into helping people expatriate. Talk about a growth industry......

      Back to voting, how's that working out for you? Ron Paul had a tremendous amount of support this time around and his fiercest opposition was from his own party. Gary Johnson wasn't even allowed into the debates. The government has its own agenda and it doesn't include people who might want to throttle it. Nobody who might threaten the status quo will be allowed near the levers of power.

      ...."But if at least a third of people are relatively good & smart and willing to get behind our ideas we could win elections if we did it third party, and the fact that the majority of people are still assholes and haters would become irrelevant."

      See, this is the problem. Now you're talking about getting together with some of your friends and imposing your will on the MAJORITY. You're outnumbered, but you think you might be able to sneak around and have your way through the ballot box. But we already have an oligarchy, and they're not hiring liberty-minded citizens.

    3. "'If you don't like the way things are going you have only two ways to conceivably effect anything: violent revolt or voting.....'

      Or you could vote with your feet, as more and more people seem to be doing."

      There are, in fact, many ways to "effect" things - one version we call "civil disobedience" - just stop cooperating in your own rape. Don't fight back, but for God's sake, don't spread your legs, or your children's. There's also the Mennonite/Jansenite/Amish system of non-participation, although, due to "the Nature of the Beast," they (the State) only seem to accept groups and collectives as valid.

      As to voting, wasn't it JP Morgan - or was it Tweed - that said, "let me choose the candidates, and it doesn't matter how you vote," or something like that?

    4. @ Dave,

      Apparently that whole part about Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton in the article went straight over your head.

      If you can reform a criminal, violent organization from within, maybe you should try it on the mafia first and see where it gets you. And that's not even an organization that can make its own immoral and violent actions legal.

      "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal," -- Emma Goldman.

      You need to stop thinking you will see change in your lifetime. The only way is education and properly raising your kids with libertarian philosophy. Ron Paul had the BIGGEST impact any libertarian politician has had, and he had it through education on truth and principles.
      Now take a look at how many people Gary Johnson has inspired or how many minds he has changed. Nada.
      You know why? Because he is incapable of TEACHING people anything. Compromisers (i.e. politicians) simply can't because you can't teach values that you are willing to compromise.

      Ron Paul was the best chance and you saw what happened, politically. There is no other Ron Paul.

  2. The US government is set to experience a fatal financial collapse due to accelerating fiat money debasement.

    Napolitano, Paul, Block and other great libertarian minds must waste no time in preparing a simple, common sense Declaration for Liberty and Private Property that can win popular support and ensure continuity of American civilization after the demise of dear old Uncle Sam.

    1. I'm so happy. Obama's re-election has galvanized my family and we have been discussing (seriously) relocation to Columbia/Costa Rica.

      I'm thrilled. Before tuesday they were reluctant. Now they are all for it! Woo-hoo!

  3. @ Jay Broni. It is not that voting is stupid, it is that the way voting is practiced in the United States is stupid. Taxes should be assessed once per annum and paid at the polling booth right before voting. That keeps voting tied to people who are actually covering the costs for the vote. AND if we have a graduated taxing system the voting system should be similarly designed. If everyone has an "equal" vote then everyone should pay an "equal" tax burden. That would by necessity shrink the size of the .gov by enormous proportions.

    This of course is completely aside from the philosophical argument that if we were truly a nation of laws, with the Constitution the supreme law of the land, that routinely electing lawmakers should not be necessary since all they do is pervert that first and highest law.

    1. @Anonymous. I like your system of "graduated voting" better than the current system. But why have voting at all? Do we need to elect politicians to represent our interests shopping at Target vs Walmart? Do we need politicians to help us choose the best for-profit arbitration court to specify in contracts? Do we need politicians to help us choose the best for-profit security services insurance companies?

      What is the crucial JOB that we are voting for politicians to do on our behalf? Surely not pillage our neighbors for us? Surely not that.

    2. No we don't elect people to Target or Wal-Mart as consumers, but we do as shareholders. Shareholders have to buy in to vote, and the more they buy the more their vote counts.

      The question is whether a government which does not violate the non aggression principle would treat its citizens like customers or like shareholders.

    3. Philosophically I agree with you. But as a practical matter, if we are being serious, a system in which we are no longer voting to elect lawmakers, because no lawmakers are needed, will unfortunately take time and a series of steps. In my opinion a graduated vote to match a graduated tax would be a "step" in the right direction. It is certainly not an end in and of itself.

      Although even with our current broken system, it only needs three things to be repaired:

      1.) Sound money
      2.) Per capita tax in which each individual pays the same amount.
      3.) Taxes assessed once per annum and are paid right before entering into the voting booth.

      With that you have effectively capped the size of the state, and forever prevented an ability for the majority to tyrannize the hard working minority.

    4. @George. A shareholder owns a portion of the enterprise and can sell it to anyone, eg. a cousin in Hong Kong. Are you saying that there should be a US Government Corp that we each will be given a share in that we own...and we can sell to whom we want? I don't get it. And, in any case, I still don't understand what the JOB of US Govt Corp would be that could not be more happily arranged by private buyers and sellers.

    5. The Constitution LOL!! It's like a hundred years old or something.

    6. @ George

      "The question is whether a government which does not violate the non aggression principle would treat its citizens like customers or like shareholders."

      There is no such thing as a government that does not violate the non-aggression principle.

      A government must by definition violate the non-aggression principle to still be considered a government.
      If it doesn't, it would just be another service-providing company out of many.

  4. Nullify congress & end the fed!

  5. I am increasingly coming to the conclusion the present U.S. system is not fixable(a system that is being implemented globally, so not a lot better elsewhere). Take time to read 'Democracy: The God That Failed'(H-H Hoppe) and 94 page phamplet 'Beyond Democracy'(F. Karsten, K. Beckman) to understand what has evolved, what is going on. Another interesting read I am into is 'Over Here: The First World War and American Society(D.Kennedy) looks at the beginnings of the Progressive movement around WWI, as well as pointing out how that war removed citizen liberties, and the use of debt, taxation to fund it, that never went to pre-war levels.

    What really needs to happen is the U.S. is split into new countries, territories, be allowed to devise totally new systems, letting those that love the present system of Democracy have at it, for those that want something else that should be an alternative.

    It is a waste of time to focus on the system that has evolved.

    1. That is my dilemma. My family (mom, dad, partner, and aunt) are ready to move, but a secessionist movement that had TEETH would be acceptable as an alternative. If Texas, SC, NH and AK (all of which have active secessionist movements) called DC's bluff then I would stay. Hell, the TINY, INCONSEQUENTIAL issue of marijuana decriminalization might be enough to start the total breakdown of the Empire. I hope Colorada and Washington fight like mad dogs against the Federales!


      (and I am certain that I am being "monitored" by the stormtroppers