Obama vs. Us

2014-10-12-obamaSuppose you saw a person driving his car on the wrong side of a highway, against the traffic. Would you call him a stupid and/or incompetent driver? You say, “Williams, what kind of question is that? Of course he’s one or the other!” I’d say, “Hold your horses. What are his intentions?” If the driver’s intentions are to cause highway calamity, one can hardly call his actions stupid or incompetent. Given his intentions, he is wisely acting in a manner to achieve his objectives.

This observation lies at the heart of my colleague Dr. Thomas Sowell’s column last week, in which he says, “Pundits who depict Obama as a weak, lame duck president may be greatly misjudging him, as they have so often in the past.” After suffering an elective trouncing at the polls, President Barack Obama issued Congress an ultimatum, saying that if it doesn’t enact the kind of immigration law that he would like, he will unilaterally issue an executive order to change the nation’s immigration laws. This threat, along with other abuses of his office, is not a sign of presidential stupidity or incompetence.

Obama is doing precisely what he promised during his 2008 presidential campaign, to cheering and mesmerized crowds: “We are going to fundamentally change America” and “We will change America. We will change the world.” Obama is living up to those pledges by subverting our Constitution and adopting the political style of a banana republic dictator. He showed his willingness to ignore the Constitution when he eliminated the work requirement in welfare reform laws enacted during the Clinton administration. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, was enacted by Congress and hence is the law of the land. Obama has used executive orders to change the law on several occasions. Ask yourself whether our Constitution permits the president to unilaterally change a law enacted by Congress. For a president to do so is for him to behave like a banana republic dictator.

As Sowell says, “people who are increasingly questioning Barack Obama’s competence are continuing to ignore the alternative possibility that his fundamental values and imperatives are different from theirs.”

The recent elections, which gave Republicans control of both houses of Congress, clearly indicate a repudiation of much of Obama’s agenda. But the question is whether the Republican majority has the courage to act on that repudiation and stop the president from running roughshod over the Constitution. Because Article 1 of the Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse, there is not much a president can do without a budget appropriation. The question is whether Congress has the guts to exercise its power.

We can rightfully condemn the president for picking and choosing which laws of the land he will obey and which he won’t, in violation of the Constitution’s Article 2, but is his administration’s executive branch that much of an exception to the other branches of the federal government — the legislative and judicial branches?

The legislative branch is bound by Article 1 of the Constitution. Section 8 of Article 1 delineates the scope of congressional power to tax and spend. Nowhere within Article 1, Section 8 is Congress granted the authority to tax for at least two-thirds of the federal budget.

The courts are bound by the Constitution’s Article 3. Part of the courts’ responsibility is to ensure that the executive and legislative branches of government uphold the Constitution. In that respect, the courts have been grossly derelict, particularly during and after the New Deal era.

Seeing as all branches of federal government ignore most of the provisions of the Constitution, I think we can safely say that we’ve reached the post-Constitution stage of our history. Washington politicians are not to blame. It’s the American people who’ve lost their love and respect for our Constitution. Washington’s politicians are simply the agents for that contempt.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • truebearing

    “people who are increasingly questioning Barack Obama’s competence are continuing to ignore the alternative possibility that his fundamental values and imperatives are different from theirs.”

    This is the most important realization anyone can come to concerning Obama. For those of us who have been sounding that alarm for what seems like an eternity, it is indescribably frustrating that smart people continue to attribute Obama’s evil to stupidity or incompetence. He isn’t stupid. He is evil.

    Now what will Congress do to stop him when they still don’t understand Obama’s game, or the real reason they just won big in the midterms? They won because Americans are voting for survival. They instinctively know that Obama is a scourge and will ruin the nation if allowed to finish his mission. Congress needs to wake up and toughen up.

    The very least Congress should do is have hearings on the viability of impeaching Obama. It would provide a forum for reviewing his duplicitous, destructive presidency. The media would have to cover it. It would give Congress a chance to warn the nation, in detail, of the consequences of Amnesty. At the end of the hearings, there just might be enough Democrats to impeach him. It beats limpwristed ideas like suing him. that amounts to suing ourselves.

    • frodo

      37% of registered voters voted. Calling any win in the midterms big is simply incorrect.

      • Pete

        The Democrats sure spent a lot of money.

        The Democrat Media sure pulled out all the stops, but then they never stopped. As soon as the last round of elections they followed their marching orders and immediately asked leading questions of any potential Republican candidates.

        • frodo

          Also so what? The GOP spent lots of money too. I don’t understand what your second line is about.

          • Pete

            The Leftwing money machine is much bigger.

            The MSM is a wing of the Democrat party. It is why honest reporters like Sharyl Attkisson are leaving.

          • frodo

            Again, so what? Money’s a problem with both parties. A bigger problem is the failure of citizens to turn out and act like citizens by voting.

          • Pete

            Money is a not a problem.

            What is a problem is transparency.

            All the money in the world cannot buy an election if the people are well informed.

          • frodo

            Sure, transparency is a problem for all parties. I’d still argue that money is too. What do you mean by “well-informed”?

          • Pete

            You know like your typical Democrat voter. they march with John Forbes (China Opium Trade old Money) Kerry against the neutron bomb while not saying a peep against the Russians having the same weapons.

            They will protest the U.S. testing anti-satellite weapons and not say a peep against the Chinese or Russians doing the same.

            I take great offense against those people who protest against the neutron bomb. Those people ought to be strung up.

          • truebearing

            More lame equivalencies…that’s all you ever produce.

          • Pete

            What are you suggesting? Offering chicken dinners? It seems that is what Democrats are suggesting.

      • Pete

        One politicians, Fifth Ward Alderman Leslie Hairston, offered gift certificates to induce people to vote.

        Do you want those people to vote?

        What do they know about the issues?

        ‘Walking Around Money’ to Drum Up Campaign Support Alive and Well in 2010 Election

        • frodo

          That’s not the point. Any claim of a mandate or that “the People” have spoken when the turnout is this low is mendacious at best. The election cannot fairly be said to have voiced anything except a broad and alarming disaffection with the whole process. Rather than going on about how the GOP won “big,” it might be better to think about what that 60+% nonparticipation rate means.

          • Pete

            And 50% to 60% is?

          • frodo

            It would be better, wouldn’t you agree?

            Hypothetically, if 38% of the electorate turns out and a simple majority of those voters vote Republican, that means that 20% of the electorate voted Republican. That’s not a stunning number. And that’s my point here. A supermajority of eligible voters did not vote–that’s far far more important than talking about a big win (which really isn’t big).

          • WW4

            Many state’s ballots had non-binding advisory referendum on issues that are predominantly favored by liberals (e.g. minimum wage hike), and those measures passed by unmistakably large margins, meaning people who voted for Republicans also voted in favor of liberal policies. You are absolutely right that this election was no bellwether.

          • truebearing

            That is one interpretation. When it comes to governors, even in blue states, many liberals voted for Republicans. The results don’t lie.

            Scott Walker soundly defeated Burke, even after the unions poured money into Wisconsin, once considered a blue state. That is four pivotal elections in a row where the Left has been beaten, and three of those were by Walker.

            Also, turnout in Wisconsin was high.

          • frodo

            And at the same time voted for putatively liberal policies. It’s hard to generalize.

          • WW4

            Fair point. I think Walker makes one thing plain: people have become less sympathetic to the claims of public sector unions.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            Frankly, your desperation to deny the meaning of this election is showing. Low-information voters didn’t turn out in the numbers that helped Obama win in 2012, which is a very good thing. Those who voted are those who really care about this nation, and this election indicates they were shouting out one thing only: “For God’s sake, Stop Obama!”

          • frodo

            I disagree with your premise that “low-information” voters didn’t turn out and that they are disproportionately Democratic. And I still haven’t seen an argument that can make 38% turnout productive of any kind of straightforward statement.

            You have heard of confirmation bias, right?

          • kasandra

            First of all, in most presidential elections the turnout is in the high 50s to mid-60s percent. So by your reasoning no president has had a mandate because the majority of eligible voters did not vote for him, yes? Also, in your universe do people usually demonstrate their approval of candidates and parties by failing to go out and vote for them? In the real world, wrong track/right track polls had consistently shown that 65 to 70 percent of eligible voters felt we were on the wrong track which is in line with the election results. Your argument is simply untenable. The Democrats, and particularly Obama, suffered a devastating repudiation. Anyone who doesn’t believe that is just whistling past the graveyard.

          • frodo

            There’s difference when more than half of eligible voters actually vote and when almost two thirds do not. Just focus on this election.

            And, yes, I do think that much “mandate” talk is overblown and plays to a bogus winner-takes-all mentality that’s not good for actual governing.

          • kasandra

            Why is that? If 54 percent of eligible voters vote, and half plus one vote for one candidate, that candidate got 28 percent of the vote. But you would say that is a mandate (although probably only if your guy won). I doubt there is a serious political analyst anywhere in the world that doesn’t believe the recent election was a repudiation of Obama specifically and the Democrat party generally. If you don’t believe that, that’s your problem. Everyone besides diehard supporters of Obama, who are struggling heroically but in vain to argue to the contrary, knows it is true.

          • frodo

            No, I wouldn’t say that that’s a mandate. It’s a pernicious thing, I think. The winner-take-all thing is a problem for whichever party wins.

          • kasandra

            I actually think I agree with you in general if you are defining “mandate” to mean that the winning party should get whatever it wants – you know, like the Democrats have been trying to do since 2006 and, particularly, since 2008. But I do think that some elections clearly demonstrate a public sentiment. In this recent election that sentiment was that they wanted Obama stopped. That doesn’t mean that the Republicans should get anything and everything they want or that the public doesn’t want Obama to prevail on anything. But I do think it does mean that the public wants Obama restrained to a large degree.

          • truebearing

            Who cares whether you agree there was a mandate? Elections have consequences and one of the consequences of electing Obama is that the nation is going into the toilet, so motivated, high-information voters came out to support Republicans, hoping they can stop Commiebama.

            You can whine and cry all you want, but the Congress is now Republican. Obama has to break the law to force his agenda now, which he will do, and you will rationalize. The majority don’t support Obama’s lawlwssness, but you do.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            It’s fairly obvious who didn’t turn out – welfare voters from the inner city. These people shouldn’t even have a vote in the first place. Not to mention that they’re incompetent as citizens (they’re still voting Democratic in Detroit even after the Party has destroyed their city!) and poorly-informed. This election was far more fair than the last one in 2012, when welfare voters went for Obama to get their hands on their fellow citizens’ money – something that should be impossible in America.

          • SoCalMike

            I don’t want the larger number of ignorant people who voted because they got free stuff like Obama phone voting.
            Those votes are ignorant and corrupt.
            We have ben suffering as a result of those votes for the last 6 years.
            Thank God they didn’t come out to vote.
            The fact that they voted for Obama twice has royally screwed this country as well as the rest of the world.

          • SoCalMike

            This was for you, not Pete.
            I don’t want the larger number of ignorant people who voted because they got free stuff like Obama phone voting.
            Those votes are ignorant and corrupt.
            We have ben suffering as a result of those votes for the last 6 years.
            Thank God they didn’t come out to vote.
            The fact that they voted for Obama twice has royally screwed this country as well as the rest of the world.

          • frodo

            That’s offensive nonsense. Votes you don’t agree with are not necessarily ignorant and corrupt.

          • Pete

            What was offensive was the Obama phone lady, which is why the Democrat Machine prosecuted her.

            Of course conservatives wanted her prosecuted if she broke the law, but Democrats prosecuted her because she made them look bad,

            An important distinction. the latter is not an impartial application of the law.

            There are many more like the Obama phone lady.

          • frodo

            These are non sequiturs. I’m responding to your characterization of votes you don’t agree with as necessarily ignorant or corrupt.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            But many Democratic voters are demonstrably ignorant and corrupt. Look at the polls – many Democratic voters don’t even understand our system of government, and many others are looking for piles of other people’s money (welfare recipients and overpaid public-sector workers).

          • frodo

            One could just as easily say the same thing about GOP voters, and about as accurately and productively. The poster I was responding to was making an unsubstantiated and unprovable assumption about voters.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            Well, no, you couldn’t, at least not with any justification. I though it was generally recognized that Republicans are better-informed than Democrats, and Conservatives better-informed than Lefties. There hasn’t been a huge amount of research, but what there is points that way. See, e.g. this Pew poll that demonstrates the knowledge gap between Democrats and Republicans. And really, any group that believes in the mysto-B.S. of Keynesian economics should be judged pretty ignorant on that basis alone.

          • truebearing

            Bullsh*t. GOP voters are far better informed on average than the leeching scum that elect Democrats. Studies have proven, for instance, that Fox viewrs are better informed than the dolts watching the liberal nutworks.

          • truebearing

            No, your lying is offensive nonsense.

            ” Votes you don’t agree with are not necessarily ignorant and corrupt.”

            He never said disagreement with his vote determined whether a person is ignorant or corrupt, did he? And votes aren’t corrupt and ignorant. people are. Duh.That was a deceptive and pathetic way to avoid the truth of what he said, slimebag.

            Thank God the Obamorons didn’t vote. it’s good for the country. If I had my way, they’d have to pass an IQ test, a civics test, a current events test, and prove they are of sound mind. That eliminate you, too.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            B.S. – this election voiced loud and clear the voters’ determination to stop Barry Hussein and his Democratic co-conspirators from completing the destruction of this nation. It’s a mandate to press forward – hard – and do anything necessary to stop Obama.

          • frodo

            BS back at you. The only groundswell is of disaffection with the process–and that’s not the same thing as an endorsement of any position.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            Discontent with the process? Ho-ho! No, it’s obviously discontent with the government, firmly under control of Obama and the Democrats. And you did notice how devastating amnesty was as an issue? Voters are against it and voted accordingly.

          • Dare Tuitt

            The other voters didn’t show because they didn’t like what Zero has been up to either, but are either too dispirited to show up to vote or just don’t care. Liberals who did not vote thus voted with their feet. If Dems had won with a similar turnout, you would be trumpeting a huge mandate. The fact is, most Americans see this fop for what he really is and can’t wait for him – and those who support him in his party – to LEAVE.

          • frodo

            First, I would not be trumpeting a huge mandate. See other posts. That so few people vote is a huge problem in its own terms and what the commentariat does post-election is also a problem.

            Second, it’s impossible to speak to what “most Americans” think when most Americans don’t vote.

          • Dare Tuitt

            It’s not impossible. Pay attention to what polls tell us. The people want change – but not the chaos “progressives” have given us. And we sure have had enough of Obama! No one likes the Liar in Chief.

          • truebearing

            Actions speak louder than votes sometimes. The democratic voters are too lazy and unmotivated to vote, plus they too can see what a loser Obama has been. Voting isn’t the only metric for judging elections..

          • truebearing

            I didn’t get to read your deleted comment, but have no doubt is was deserved.

            Judging from your babble, I assume you accused me of saying the results of the last election was a mandate. It was, in a way, but it was more of a cry for help from Americans who have figured out that Obama and the Left are intentionally ruining this country.

            The nonparticipation BS you are vomiting is straight from Commie Talking Point Central. All elections see most people sitting it out. What about the nonparticipation rate in the job market, dimwit? I don’t see you blathering about that? A record number of Americans have stopped looking for work,but aren’t included in the unemployment numbers because Obama is cooking the books to make himself look better.

            You aren’t honest or smart enough to meaningfully discuss what the nonparticipation rate means.

            The GOP did win big, moron. Are you disputing that FACT? They won because the Democratic Party is run by crooks and communists. Blame yourselves for that.

          • frodo

            I’m not sure why a simple comment about the historically low overall numbers was deleted. No idea. The GOP did win, I’m not convinced it means all the things folks have been saying it does.

      • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

        It was the most informed and most concerned citizens who voted – that makes it big, for the loss of inner-city Democrats looking for more free stuff and low-information voters who pull the “D” lever is no loss at all.

        • frodo

          How do you know this? Really?

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            It’s a fair inference based on the way Republicans kicked your side’s sorry azzes from one end of the country to the other without offering (frankly) any coherent plan of their own other than to oppose amnesty (and the “leadership” didn’t even do that much). This tells me that independent voters would probably not turn out in huge numbers for the GOP, and that in turn implies the Democratic base (parasites living off other people’s money and radical malcontents) must not have turned out to the degree they did in 2012.

            Of course, you may disagree with my reasoning, in which case I offer you this analysis from Boston’s NPR, a source which cannot be considered biased toward Republicans! (“When turnout drops off, it’s usually older, whiter and wealthier voters that still show up…”)

          • Pete

            The low voter turnout bothers me. Rush Limbaugh and others have talked about it.

            None the less the # of officers are many different levels that are held a the state and local level will help to keep offices going forward. The Democrat Party knows this which is why they specifically targeted the state secretaries officers across the nation.

            What ought to bother you is how the polls are used to shape public opinion. Polls are used to dispirit segments of the population. Once again we had polls shift in the last 23 weeks to more accurately reflect what the actual election results would be. I believe and many other do also that this is purposeful.

            I expect ISIS to be on the ropes by May unless Turkey is really f_cking us hard and 1,000 recruits are flowing through Turkey to ISIS every month. If Mosul and Raqah are taken from ISIS, I will give no credit to Obama. They should not have fallen in the 1st place. Sure the ISIS no longer has a state, but the damage has been done. there should not have been so many refugees. I doubt Obama can make the refugees whole as you would in court of law. He cannot even come close.

            I am looking to May at the earliest and 1 year at the latest. Afterwards I expect deaths due to terrorism to go up sharply. They went up in 2013. I expect them to go up even more. So if Obama is going to thump his chest, it will be an ill conceived for him to do so.

            Point is that the world is going to shat and Obama is letting it or making it much worse than it should be. It is one reason why Democrats took a drubbing. That won;t change by 2016.

            (P.S. 60 groups pledge allegiance to the Islamic State.
            You should take a look at it. Those groups are not gong away.

            http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2014/11/16/ISIS-Doubles-Down-Infidels-Boosted-60-New-Terror-Groups

            http://warnewsupdates.blogspot.com/2014/11/60-global-terror-groups-have-joined.html

            Neither is Obama stupidity. He has claimed Somalia, Yemen and Libya as success stories. Really? Obama says that and you back him?

    • victoryman

      “Evil” is the key word here. Obama is neither stupid nor incompetent. He is accomplishing what he stated he wanted to do – change our country. The “Loyal opposition” is non-existent. As Debbie Schlussel wrote in her brilliant comment/analysis on the midterm elections, “If you think the republicans taking over the Senate and gaining more seats in the House mean a change for the better, you are smoking crack.” The republicans will continue to do what they do best……talk loudly and carry a twig. Fold like empty suits. Chris Christie has just come out with “Advice” for the republicans………”Compromise.” The republicans are afraid of their own shadows, as usual.

  • Bamaguje

    I misread the title as “Obama vs U.S.”

  • Pete

    Nancy Pelosi has telegraphed the game plan.

    We are to fear Thanksgiving eve or Christmas eve. That is when Obama will announce Amnesty instead of the usual Friday data dump.

    The Republic has fallen. The Principate is here. Like Ceasar Obama did not kill the Republic but merely put in the final nail.

    If La Raza gets its’ way then we will transition quickly from Republic to dismemberment.

    F CK the DEMOCRAT PARTY!
    F CK the RINOS!

    • mezcukor

      And F CK Obama

  • Hard Little Machine

    His friend, Turkey’s Erdogan once quipped, democracy is like a street car, you take it to where you’re going then get off.

  • frodo

    I have to admit to some confusion here about how precisely what is being contemplated differs from executive actions taken by GOP presidents like Reagan regarding immigration. Likewise, it’s worth remembering that the current administration has deported huge numbers of undocumented people.

    • WW4

      Reagan was a Republican and considered a saint, though he did things that would have conservatives calling for a firing squad for anyone else: cutting and running in Beirut, selling arms to Iran, funding the people who would become al Qaeda, passing a huge amnesty bill, increasing the size of the federal government, massive deficit spending. Obama is a Democrat and considered the devil, therefore, neither logic nor objective standards apply.

      • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

        No, the unpleasant (for you) fact is that Reagan, for all his flaws, was still the best President of modern times and Obama is still the worst. Conservatives criticize some of Reagan’s actions (like Beirut, for instance), although fairness requires us to realize that with Democrats in control of Congress there was no way he could get spending under control.

        Obama is considered the Devil for a very good reason – I leave you to figure out what that might be.

        • WW4

          No doubt you have many excuses for overlooking the very things for which you’d be calling for a Democratic president’s head, and no doubt every single excuse you invent points to Democrats. I’ve come to expect that sort of rationalization and mush-headed lack of principle from so-called conservatives. It’s what you live and breathe.

    • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

      I haven’t the time to straighten you out completely, but Reagan and Bush were trying to implement the law of the time, which had left some loose ends in the form of perhaps tens of thousands of people. Neither contemplated or did anything on the scale Obama is planning (tens of millions of people), nor were they trying to make their own laws and ignore the express will of Congress.

    • kasandra

      The current administration has only “deported” huge number of illegal aliens by changing the definition of “deporting” to include people turned back at the border whereas it previously only included those who came into the country, were apprehended, and were actually deported.

      • frodo

        Even granting that a change in terms (which started under Bush II, not Obama) alters the data, the numbers are still high and don’t suggest some opening of the borders to floods of “illegals.”

        • kasandra

          In fact, the administration won’t provide the numbers or let the media or congressional representatives meet with the aliens, particularly this past summer’s batch. Nor will it inform the state governments who will have to pay for their education and probably health care where they’re being taken. Where do you get the idea that the redefinition of “deportation” changed under Bush. You should call AP because no one has previously reported that other than, possibly, Mother Jones.

  • BillG4

    Not all citizens have lost their faith in our Constitution. There is a movement to use a portion of the Constitution that the framers wisely included to amend the document to stop such bad behavior by the federal government. If you agree with most of the article above, here is a solution that I believe you can support and hope you will -
    http://www.conventionofstates.com

  • hrwolfe

    I have said the same and the biggest part in this column is that the schools do not seem to teach the Constitution or civics. I think that is the core of this issue. many think it an out dated document that needs updating for the times, that shows real ignorance of the document. It is for all times a timeless Document stetting out the limit and separation of powers, what people have issue with is Supreme Court decisions.

    • WW4

      Really? Find a school that does not teach those things. They are generally required in any curriculum. On top of that most universities require students to pass a Constitution test before graduating. But teaching these things, and actually learning them are two different things. Probably too boring for many.

      • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

        And of course you believe that the schools are completely unbiased. Well, the inconvenient truth is that the schools have been under your side’s (the Left) control for a long time now, and you’ve mis-educated several generations of our youth.

        • WW4

          That’s right, go on your gut feeling; trumps reality every time.

      • nightspore

        “most universities require students to pass a Constitution test before graduating”

        What? What are you smoking? Or do you just trot out any argument that you think will fly?

        I’ve never encountered such a thing – and I’ve never heard of such a thing. And I suspect I have a lot more experience in Universityland than you have.

        • WW4

          Spent a lot of time scrubbing floors in a university have you?

      • nightspore

        I should add that you and frodo could give Obama lessons in mendacity.

        (How do you guys do it? Is it genetic?)

      • hrwolfe

        We had to do a Constitution Notebook Report to get out of the 8th grade. Talk to any High School Grad and even Collage Grad and many draw a blank on any understanding of the Constitution. I have been told that Civics is not even in the curriculum any more, all I can judge by is what I see. I am not looki8ng for scholars but most should have a clue.

        • WW4

          Does that mean they are not taught, or that the students didn’t retain anything?

          • hrwolfe

            The 30 somethings I’ve talked to here in Cali8fornia said they were not taught it. Further they said they learned a little about WWI nothing about Korea and Vietnam and WWI is a blank. To my experience they not little to nothing about Civics, US history or basic economics. I am not talking about 1 or 2 people I am talking about a majority of folks under 40 and some 50 somethings too. Our collective ignorance ought to be a National Shame.

          • WW4

            I don’t disagree with you. I wish we had a much hardier curriculum with regard to all those things, including a unit on entrepreneurialism.

            Even when I was a kid, I was interested in the political system. I had some form of civics at every level of schooling (usually in Social Studies class or POLS 101). So I remember it. I wouldn’t be surprised if my classmates would say they didn’t have it. I don’t remember anything about learning math functions (i.e., f[x]) but I’m sure it was part of my curriculum.

            People who come to websites like this are political. Many if not most people simply go to work and pay attention to politics once or twice every 4 years. Sad but true.

          • hrwolfe

            That is how we got here, a population distracted. Myself in high school algebra seemed a waste of time. A few years latter I was in my apprenticeship using Trig constantly and now knew the practical use of it. My point is not that every child is going to be a Constitutional Scholar but they should have some understanding and not think they are a citizen of the most despotic country in the world, and yes there are kids like that. This particular site yes it’s politics but about as many columns are of historical note of occurrences. I’m here for facts.

  • frodo

    It wasn’t a big vote by midterm standards–significantly lower than the last midterms for sure.

    And the assumption about low-information voters won’t become true simply by repetition.

  • USARetired

    Obama, or as I prefer, OBOZO, is as far left field as any traitor can get! The majority of his actions are anti American, and are intentionally detrimental to this Nation! That is what ‘Illegal aliens’ do when in Country illegally!

  • Scar

    First of all, I have studied his writings for many years and have the utmost respect for Dr. Williams. I understand his analysis about Obama and generally agree with him. However, as I’ve stated on other FrontPage posts, I believe that it’s entirely possible to be clever, devious and resourceful–yet completely and utterly incompetent–all at the same time.

    It’s really quite simple: Obama is, first and foremost, an ideologue. His ideology, first and foremost, is Marxism. His goal, first and foremost, is to replace the best system ever devised by man with a system that is, time and time again, a proven failure. Pretty stupid, isn’t it?

    No matter how clever and successful Obama is at implementing his evil plan, it cannot and will not succeed. He may indeed destroy the system he obviously hates, but the results will be catastrophic. Hence, intentionally replacing history’s most successful system with a cesspool that primarily features totalitarianism, economic failure and human misery is inherently incompetent. Being clever and devious doesn’t change that, does it?

    • joe kulak

      While the Russian Revolution and Mao’s Cultural Revolution and Fidel Castro’s dictatorship, etc. may have all been “incompetent” and doomed to eventual failure, in the meantime millions of innocents died. You cannot merely dismiss Obama as an incompetent who has no significant impact. History is full of insane, incompetent, and/or unprincipled leaders who were each doomed to failure, but caused untold misery because they were not stopped sooner. America needs to awake and acknowledge the horror that awaits it if decisive action is not taken soon!

      • Scar

        I am in no way dismissing his impact, or the pending disasters that [possibly] await us. Where did you get that idea? I think he’s one of the most dangerous individuals on Earth. I believe that what you said about Mao and Castro could eventually describe Obama. I didn’t realize that my comment could mark me as dismissive. Hope this post clears that up.

    • johninohio1

      Don’t make the mistake of believing that Obama seeks a more efficient or more prosperous economic/governmental system, and is simply mistaken in putting his efforts behind socialism. He has already made it clear that he has put ‘fairness’ on a pedestal. He truly believes that it’s better for everyone to be poorer than that there be any differences in wealth within society.

  • cree

    Those last two sentences are worthy of much more debate than Mr. Williams seems willing to allow.

    If not by a representative form of government, who then will be the agents of our contempt who have not lost our love and respect for the Constitution; who have the expectations of representatives of the people being held accountable other than by elections for EVERY violation of oaths of office?

  • Daniel

    Ask yourself this question:
    Why is there a Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights?
    Why is there only one amendment that precedes it?(making a site like this possible).
    If government officials will not follow the Constitution………what can be done?