The Need for FEMA!?

First off, let me say that my prayers go out to all those affected by Hurricane Sandy.

This post is not to diminish their suffering.  I actually support having FEMA in order to coordinate relief efforts across state lines.  However, my point is to point out the faulty logic being used by "big government" supporters in order to politicize this tragedy.  Okay, okay, by responding to them, I am politicizing it as well.  Fine, argue that, but I am simply responding to them rather than instigating.  At any rate, here goes.

Is FEMA a necessary agency?  Is it even a constitutional one?  Let's take a look at this and see.  FEMA was established by a 1978 law under President Carter.  It began operations on April 1, 1979.  Since then, it has helped and assisted in several disasters, sometimes with good results and sometimes with not so good results.  However, the first and foremost question for me is always: is it constitutional?  Well, there is no delegated power in the Constitution that grants the federal government the power to run to the aid of the states in times of emergency.  That's why the states have national guards, etc.  Additionally, I don't recall any amendments to the constitution that have given the federal government this power and reduced the sovereignty of the states in any way.  That is why governors need to invite FEMA in to help, in fact.  FEMA's role is supposed to be one or coordinating efforts across state lines, which seems like a logical thing for the federal government to do, not to take over efforts and tell the states what to do.  At any rate, it seems that FEMA's constitutionality is questionable, at best.

So, what about the other question.  Are they really needed?  Well, to listen to people talk in the wake of hurricane Sandy, you'd think this country had never seen a major disaster before without having FEMA in place to "help".  That's rather laughable logic on their part since FEMA didn't start operations until 1979.  So, what disasters took place where there was no FEMA to help and what has happened since there has been a FEMA?  Since FEMA usually does not get involved when only one state is affected, I'll focus on disasters that impacted multiple states.  However, I may mention a few major disasters that only impacted a single state as well.

So, the early years in the U.S. had one major interstate disaster and many intrastate ones that could be mentioned.  First of all was the year with no summer.  This occurred in 1816.  A volcanic eruption of Mt. Tambora in modern Indonesia disrupted the climate enough that all of New England and much of the northeast of the U.S. say cold and freezing temperatures and snow during the summer months, which caused massive crop failures and famine.  I don't think anyone would claim that the U.S. didn't survive and thrive as a nation because there was no FEMA to help out.  Other notable events certainly bring to the light the need for the Coast Guard (which is entirely constitutional under the defense and commerce clauses).  This includes three notable shipwrecks where over 100 people lost their lives.  The Mexico, the SS Central America and the PS Lady Elgin all sank in coastal waters.  There are many other shipwrecks throughout history, but they are more evidence of a need for the coast guard than they are for FEMA.

There are other disasters like the various "great" fires.  Ones in New York, Michigan, Chicago, Seattle...in fact, many cities have stories that stem from some great conflagration in their past.  All of these cities were rebuilt and still exist today, even in the absence of FEMA.  I wonder how that happened since liberals seem to be claiming the states and local jurisdictions can't do it without the federal government.  But I digress.  The next major disaster killed over 2200 people in 1889.  The Johnstown flood in Pennsylvania was the result of a failed dam that flooded the entire town in a matter of minutes.  People lost their lives and their homes.  A major section of railroad track was destroyed which hampered relief efforts.  Yet, when you go to the Johnstown museum of this event, you see that people all over the country sent supplies or travelled there to assist in relief efforts and Johnstown is still there today, the burst dam a national landmark of how Americans can bring assistance to bear when and where it is most needed.  Amazingly enough, this was done without FEMA.  Go figure.

I'll treat storms separately...they tend to impact multiple states and so I'll look at them in that light.  However, some other major events took place before FEMA that were not "acts of God" as some people call storms.  There have been many railroad, air, and other transportation disasters over the years.  These, by their nature, are single state events most of the time, they are directly related to interstate commerce.  Therefore, they certainly are cause to have the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), but FEMA?  Other major events that weren't storms include the 1906 San Francisco earthquake that killed 3-6 thousand people.  These deaths though were mostly attributed to the resulting fire that followed rather than directly to the earthquake itself.  However, I'll point out that there was no FEMA and San Francisco is a living and thriving city today.  Then there was the massive flooding of the Ohio river in 1937 that affected 4 different states.  This would certainly call for FEMA efforts today, and having spent time growing up in Louisville, Ky., it is well remembered.  Yet...all the states impacted and the towns and cities along the river built flood walls and survive and thrive today, without FEMA.  Now, once you start getting into the 1930s, you can't say there was no federal response because of the various New Deal programs, etc.  I'd have to do a lot of research to see which of these disasters got later support from the Army Corps of Engineers or the Works Projects Administration or the like.  However, that isn't the point of this article.  Rather, I'm asking whether FEMA is required and necessary.  Next, were two more earthquakes.  The 1946 Aleutian island earthquake that caused a Tsunami that hit Hawaii.  Then again, in 1964, the Good Friday earthquake that again caused a Tsunami that hit Hawaii, Oregon and California.  Had you heard of these disasters and how awful they were because there was no FEMA to save us all?  Yeah, I hadn't heard that either.

Now the storms.  There have been lots of deadly storms over the years that impacted multiple states.  2 hurricanes in 1893, each of which killed over 1000 people.  The 1900 Galveston hurricane that killed 6-12,000.  The 1919 Florida Keys hurricane that killed 600.  The 1925 tornados in Mississippi, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky and Tennessee that killed over 700.  The Okeechobee hurricane that killed over 3000 in 1928.  The 1935 Labor Day hurricane.  The 1938 great New England hurricane that killed 600.  Camille in 1969.  The 1974 "super outbreak" tornadoes that hit Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and New York that killed 315.  And the 1977 and 1978 blizzards in the Great Lakes region and in the Northeast.  All of these events had major impacts on the areas they hit and most of them impacted more than a single state.  I grew up hearing all sorts of stories about Camille, the 1974 tornado, even the great New England hurricane, as I moved around the country.  All of those stories talk about the devastation and loss of life and how the communities came together to rebuild.  None of them talk about how they couldn't have made it without FEMA.

So what has happened since FEMA was established?  Two things in 1980.  A massive heat wave that hit the south and the eruption of Mt. St. Helens.  The Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989 as well as hurricane Hugo.  The 1993 "storm of the century" blizzards that impacted all of the eastern United States which resulted in the Great Flood of 1993 in the midwest when all that snow melted.  While there were a lot of hurricanes in the early 2000s, I'll only mention those that affected more than one state.  Hurricane Ivan in 2004, Katrina in 2005, Ike in 2008 and Irene in 2011.  In addition, there was the Evansville tornado of 2005, the Super Tuesday tornadoes of 2008 and the massive tornado outbreaks of 2011.  Most of the time, when FEMA has been called in, they've done a perfectly fine job is providing aid and support to these areas.  Katrina is a notable exception where pretty much everything broke down.  However, based on past experience, are we really claiming today that the only way any of these disasters could be recovered from is because FEMA is there to help?  I think anyone making that claim needs to seriously reconsider it based on history.

Finally, many events do not impact multiple states, but only one state.  Who bears the brunt of the disaster in that case.  Sure, the state can and often does ask for assistance, but the brunt of rebuilding is on the states, the brunt of providing security during crises is on the states, the brunt of first response is on the states.  Living in Florida, we get hurricanes all the time, and it isn't FEMA I look to, but local fire fighters, local police officers, local power companies, local charities, and national gas companies and grocery store chains to provide what is needed most.  The local response is what is most important, not the federal one.  Just food for thought for all those who want to believe that FEMA and the feds is the only way to save ourselves in times of need.

About that social contract!?

So...I was thinking...we are hearing a LOT about the "social contract" these days.  It goes by different names such as social safety net, but it is what we are talking about whenever the topic comes up.  In my thinking, I started to question.  Just what is a social contract?

A contract is "an agreement with specific terms between two or more persons or entities in which there is a promise to do something in return for a valuable benefit known as consideration" (free legal dictionary).  Contracts can be written or spoken.  In other words, you can sign a document to agree to it or you can give your word, so to speak.  This latter one is where we get ideas like "sealed with a handshake" from.  In the case of a contract, all involved parties must agree to the terms in order for them to have force.  Also, all involved parties expect to receive some sort of benefit in the transaction.  This is how contracts work.

Social is defined as "of or relating to society or its organization" (free dictionary).  So, social is something that happens within the context of society as a whole.  That brings me back to the "social contract".

Just what is it?  From the above definitions, you'd think it was a contract that all of society agrees to.  After all, for it to be a contract governing all of society, it must be agreed to by all...right?  Well, it is defined as "an agreement among the members of an organized society or between the governed and the government defining and limiting the rights and duties of each" (free dictionary).  This sounds like an agreement between a governing body and the governed on how they want to be governed.  In other words, the U.S. Constitution, for example.  But...the Constitution isn't what people are talking about when they say the "social contract".  They are talking about things like welfare, Social Security, health care, and other "positive rights".  Our Constitution doesn't allow for positive rights.  In fact, it is specifically set up to prevent the federal government from doing anything to or for us, contrary to what modern politicians want us to believe.

However, people could easily argue that the Constitution is our social contract.  It is the contract that "we the people" agreed to.  We agreed that the federal government would be limited to only enumerated powers (amendment 10), that it would be prevented from passing laws that inhibited our inalienable rights (amendment 1: press, religion, speech), (amendment 2: right to bear arms), (amendments 3-4: various forms of property rights), that it would be governed by a specific set of rules regarding how it treated its citizens (amendments 5-8), that it didn't cover every form of right and so the government couldn't do things that violated those not stated either (amendment 9) and it goes on.  However, nowhere does it say that the government must do something for you.  It doesn't give the federal government the responsibility of helping the poor, the sick, the elderly, the infirm, or anyone for that matter.  In fact, it is a contract designed specifically to  make the government keep its hands off.  Madison said that the powers of the federal government are limited and defined whereas the powers of the states are unlimited and infinite.  This means that Madison (who wrote much of the document) had the proper understanding of our federal government.  He knew that the federal government could only exercise those powers specifically granted it.  The states, on the other hand, had power to do just about anything, as long as it wasn't one of the granted powers in the "contract".

So, the Departments of Education and Homeland Security are clearly not governed by granted powers.  The Department of Energy is only allowable under the commerce clause, meaning the federal government can only get involved when interstate commerce is in play.  This means they can't tell a state what kind of power plant they can or can not build unless that plant provides power across state lines, but that is for another post.  At any rate, there are a lot of departments and agencies in our modern federal government that have no basis or authority in the Constitution.  Yes, I know the Supreme Court said so, but since they say so in favor of the federal government 90 percent of the time, they can't be trusted to protect the Constitution and therefore certainly not the citizens who either directly or implicitly agree to the contract.  The U.S. Constitution is the ONLY contract that our society has ever formed, as a group, with our government, and it is being violated and ignored on a regular basis by that government.

That brings me back to the social goods that we are really talking about when we say "social contract".  Welfare, Social Security, assistance to children, food stamps, unemployment insurance, health care, etc.  These are all programs that most people would find to be "good".  This "most" is the key term here.  This is where we get the idea of a social contract.  If "most" of the people think it is good, then we should do it.  This is also where the problem lies.  Democracy is, simply put, majority rule.  It is a system that says that whatever "most" people want, that is what we'll do.  However, we don't live in a Democracy.  If we did, a lot of things would have been different than they are today.  Nonetheless, we live in a Republic.  This is a system where we use representative government.  Both Democracies and Republics are systems that, left unchecked, eventually deny the rights of the minority in favor of the majority.  This is why we have the concepts of division of powers and checks and balances written into our Constitution (not that anyone knows what they mean or pays any attention to them, but I digress).  This is also why our founders felt it necessary to say what government couldn't do to us and also to spell out exactly what they thought government could do.  Our system is meant to protect us from the whims of the majority, whomever they may be.  So, just because most of us think something is good, does that mean the federal government can enact laws to carry it out?  This is the essence of the social contract.  If the government is not limited and is not designed to protect the rights of everyone from the whims of the majority, then it can do whatever it wants in the way of enacting a "social good" into law under the Constitution.  If the government is limited and is designed to protect the rights of everyone from the whims of the majority, then there is no way that any laws for "social good" can be enacted constitutionally.

How do I conclude this?  Well, the tenth amendment clearly states that only the granted powers belong to the federal government and all other powers belong to the states and the people.  There are no powers in the Constitution granting the federal government any authority to "take care of the people" in any way.  So, a limited government with dispersed powers amongst the various states and the people can't help anyone out without specifically amending the charter in order to grant the federal government that power.  But we've been doing these things for 80 years now you say.  Well, precedent doesn't make it constitutional despite the predilections of the Supreme Court.  Yes, for the past 100 years, our federal government has enacted law after law through the Progressive Era, the New Deal, the Great Society, etc. in order to "help" our fellow man.  This growth in power in absence of a Constitution basis for it can mean only one thing in the long run.  It means that, eventually, the tenth amendment becomes utterly useless and all the power will be concentrated in the federal government while the powers of the states and the people will be placed on the scrap heap of history.  In essence, it means we will one day go down the same road as every other democratic project in history.  Tyranny.

After all, the only contract that our society can say it has with its government is the Constitution.  Properly ratified treaties also count since they are considered constitutional.  However, all other laws passed by the government are not inherently part of the contract unless they are governed by a specific clause in the charter document that grants the federal government that power.  Therefore, all laws where this is not the case must be agreed to by every generation in order for them to bear any weight.  I believe this is partially what Jefferson meant when he said "It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes."  He was saying that it is immoral for one generation to pass on to the next the debt it incurred.  So, it is also immoral for one generation to make a law that is not part of the actual social contract, the Constitution, that is applicable to the next generation.  The principle is the same.  Therefore, almost nothing the federal government does is Constitutional and I certainly didn't agree to have money taken from my paycheck to pay for programs I may or may not agree with.

The proper and constitutional role for the programs we call the social contract are to allow each state to enact them individually or choose not to do so.  Over time, the programs that work filter up and the programs that don't die off.  But no!  We have to have the federal government dictate to us now rather than using a proper, yet longer, method.  Sure, some states might not pay for their poor or uninsured or disadvantaged as well as other states do, but that is one great thing in this country.  If you don't like what your state is doing, you can move to another one.  With all these one size fits all cookie cutter federal programs that generally have done more harm than good (yes, that's my opinion, but there are a few studies that I'd argue support it), we have no alternative but to submit to them.  I guess we are already at tyranny folks!

The news!

Mark Twain is considered one of the great American writers by many.  He could even qualify as a journalist, although he might deny that.  Therefore, it might be surprising to some how he seemingly felt about the news and journalists in particular.  I find his views on this to be rather enlightening.  In fact, they speak to an issue that still exists today.  Bias and usefulness of the media in general.  Now, I support a free press and I'm certain that Mark Twain did also.  However, you have a free press in order to ensure that information gets out and to make sure that the government is NOT controlling what is reported.  In a free press, you'd have multiple news sources, some of which do choose to spin as the government wants, some who spin as corporations want, some who spin as their individual editors want, etc., but none that can truly claim to be unbiased.  To claim they are unbiased is a rather ridiculous statement, but this obviously isn't ridiculous to many since they continue to think that the news is worth reading.  Therefore, below are some quotations about the media.  This is a grouping of things over time that clearly shows the media doesn't change much in America.  Unfortunately, they do still control the conversation.  So, I will share a bit about why I think each of these quotes are relevant to what we experience today.

I am personally acquainted with hundreds of journalists, and the opinion of the majority of them would not be worth tuppence in private, but when they speak in print it is the newspaper that is talking (the pygmy scribe is not visible) and then their utterances shake the community like the thunders of prophecy.
- "License of the Press," speech, 31 March 1873

This is one from Mark Twain and he shows he has a rather low opinion of journalists in general.  The real essence of this quote is that journalists are just like you and me.  Their opinions and stories have little more weight than yours and mine.  However, once they put it in print, somehow it takes on an aura of importance it hasn't earned and doesn't really deserve.  I like this quote because the perpetuation of blogs and twitter and everything else brings more of "our" opinions to the forefront and begins to lessen the importance of those things put in the media by "journalists".

This next quote is often attributed to Mark Twain and sometimes attributed to Thomas Jefferson, but the real author is unknown as far as I could find.

If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed.

 This is the essence of the news media after all.  They don't care about the truth, they care about selling "papers".  These days, they sell tv news, blog sites, websites, newspapers, etc., but it is all the same.  In television, they want ratings, in newspapers they want sales, in internet sites they want hits and downloads, etc.  In the end, the integrity of the news is entirely dependent on where they get their revenue.  This is why MSNBC is a liberal hack network and FoxNews is a conservative hack network.  They know their audience.  That said, beware of the good sounding person who claims to have the answer to this conundrum.  They trumpet the "public" press as the alternative.  However, the same trap applies.  The publicly funded press is beholden to those who provide it with their budget.  Therefore, they are beholden, not to the taxpayer but, to the government.  This leads to the "state press" which has worked out oh so well in Soviet Russia, Cuba, China, etc.

Here's an interesting quote that speaks to this very phenomena:

If one morning I walked on top of the water across the Potomac River, the headline that afternoon would read:  "President Can't Swim."  ~Lyndon B. Johnson

 LBJ is recognizing a truth here.  That newspapers challenge those in authority.  However, he is also pointing out that they spin the truth to suit their purposes, whatever those may be.

Mark Twain has further insight into this.

It has become a sarcastic proverb that a thing must be true if you saw it in a newspaper. That is the opinion intelligent people have of that lying vehicle in a nutshell. But the trouble is that the stupid people -- who constitute the grand overwhelming majority of this and all other nations -- do believe and are moulded and convinced by what they get out of a newspaper, and there is where the harm lies. - "License of the Press," speech, 31 March 1873

He is asserting that newspapers (the media) lies and that they knowingly do so in order to mold the masses.  Now, you argue, they can't lie as he claims because they'd be hit with a libel suit.  Sure, they could be sued, if they ever lied in such a way as to be so blatantly obvious.  The LBJ quote above speaks to this as well.  The newspaper headline paints the former President in a very negative light while being "technically" truthful, but it is a lie nonetheless.  So, Twain is building on this quote from a few years earlier.

I am not the editor of a newspaper and shall always try to do right and be good so that God will not make me one. -- Mark Twain in Galaxy Magazine, Dec. 1870

So, what does Twain mean here?  Well, as I stated below, the news editor has a great deal of power...just ask William Randolph Hearst.  I think Twain is hoping he doesn't fall into the trap of letting his own biases dictate what gets printed.

In 2008, Sarah Palin was treated horribly by much of the media.  Whether you like Palin or not, you should recognize the double standard for her as a woman (or perhaps it was because she is a conservative woman) and cringe.  She was criticized for getting new clothes paid for by the Republican Party before the convention because it didn't fit her "average girl" persona.  Yet, our male VP candidate here in 2012, Paul Ryan, is criticized because the Republican Party apparently can't afford to have a tailor make sure his clothes fit.  Sorry media, this one stinks of bias.  However, Palin was also criticized for her inability to answer a "simple" question.  That is, where does she get her news from?  Well, here is Thomas Jefferson's answer to that question. 

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.  ~Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson is quite clearly stating that it would be better to be the uninformed person quoted about above than be a person who only relies on the media.  So, should Palin have been able to answer the question?  Certainly, but the big deal made out of her not being able to say "well Katie, I watch your show" instantly was horrendously biased.

After all, even David Brinkley knows that not everything reported is really worth anything.  He's quoted as having said this. 

The one function that TV news performs very well is that when there is no news we give it to you with the same emphasis as if there were.  ~David Brinkley

So, if we give it to you straight with the same emphasis as we'd give "real" news, then you'll buy it and be happy.  Thanks David for confirming the above.  It also speaks to the next set of quotes, which are not particularly rosy towards the media either.

It seems to me that just in the ratio that our newspapers increase, our morals decay. The more newspapers the worse morals. Where we have one newspaper that does good, I think we have fifty that do harm. We ought to look upon the establishment of a newspaper of the average pattern in a virtuous village as a calamity.
- "License of the Press," speech, 31 March 1873

Twain is saying the the perpetuation of media decreases morals and should be seen as a calamity.  He said this in an age where newspapers were pretty much it and news traveled slowly over distances.  Today, with our desire for instant gratification and the media's ability to provide it to us, this outlook can only be compounded.  Now, whether or not Twain's assessment is truthful is a matter of opinion, but those who argue about the decay of society (right or wrong) could certainly find a correlation with the proliferation of media.

The public have an insatiable curiosity to know everything.  Except what is worth knowing.  Journalism, conscious of this, and having tradesman-like habits, supplies their demands.  ~Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man Under Socialism, 1891

Oscar Wilde speaks here about several aspects already referred to.  Brinkley talked about supplying news even when there wasn't any.  Twain discussed the proliferation of media and his belief that it negatively impacted society.  I've mentioned the motivation of the media being to make money, etc.  So, Wilde seems to recognize all these things and sums it up nicely here stating that the public's own insatiable curiosity is to blame.  There is demand, so "journalists" provide the supply. 

Finally, we come to this warning.

If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.  ~Malcolm X

Malcolm X is not normally a person I would quote, but he makes a very good point here.  The media knows full well that they have the ability to move society in certain directions.  Jefferson, Twain and Wilde also clearly understood that and they also believed the media was fully aware of it.  Society has to be careful here, because the media does in fact have the power to move us in a direction we might not take in the absence of media.  We've seen it before.  We saw it in the north-south split of the newspapers during the Civil War era.  We saw it with the original split of our founders in the north-south split of federalists and anti-federalists.  We saw it when William Randolph Hearst decided we should go to war with Spain and used his media empire to bring about that exact outcome.  We see it again now, with Fox supporting conservatives and MSNBC supporting liberals.  This is nothing new, but our job is to carefully consider that we will begin to agree with a particular viewpoint if we limit ourselves to only a few sources of media.  Our responsibility as good citizens is not to be informed by the New York Times, or the Washington Post, or CNN, or FoxNews, but rather to expose ourselves to multiple media sources expressing multiple viewpoints and biases.  Anything less than that makes us all one of the stupid masses led blindly along by the whims of the media, which is my way of summing up what Mark Twain said and agreeing with what Malcolm X said.  Now, you liberals, go read more FoxNews and you conservatives, go listen more to MSNBC.

Where we've gone really wrong!

I was thinking about why I will be voting how I've decided to vote and could not really justify it to myself.  After all, we don't have any real good choices and the United States is heading very badly in the wrong direction.  Do I think Obama can right us?  No, he's part of the problem.  Do I think Romney can right us?  No, but he might slow down our own demise.  How do I figure this?  Well, the below might help.  It is my response to the statement that they couldn't vote for McCain in 2008 because he had a clown for VP and they can't vote for Romney because he has an ideologue.  I'm not going to argue with either statement, because they are true.  However, I urge you to read the below response and hopefully you'll gain some insight into just how much trouble I think we are in if we don't start stopping some of the stuff we are doing.

I, personally, don't think a VP candidate is relevant when voting.  They shouldn't have any real power at all.  Of course, if we bothered to follow the Constitution at all, that wouldn't be a problem.  In fact, the President should not have anywhere near the kind of power he exercises if we bothered to follow the Constitution.  I think that being opposed or afraid to vote for a candidate because their VP is an idiot or an ideologue shows just how far afield we've gone as a nation from where we are supposed to be constitutionally speaking.  So, I completely understand your reluctance on that basis.  All the more reason you should support true limited government.  I also don't think being an ideologue is necessarily a bad thing.  We are all ideologues about something.  So, it isn't that he is an ideologue, but about what he is an ideologue about that bothers you, I suspect.  People told me they wouldn't vote for McCain because Palin had no experience, which always gave me a chuckle because Obama had 0 years of executive experience.  He was never mayor, nor governor anywhere.  His biggest experience was 2 years in the U.S. Senate.  Palin had at least been mayor of a city and governor of a state.  While one of the smallest in population, it is the largest in land area, so I’d argue her experience far outweighed our current President’s at the time of the last election.  Also, there isn’t a much truer long serving idiot member of the Senate than Joe Biden.  We can agree to disagree on his competence, but I’ve questioned it often, even before he became VP.  Now him as President is also a scary thought for me for probably the same reasons you disliked Palin.  Of course, I also see Obama as the ideologue of that ticket, so …

What I mean by that is simple.  His philosophy and policies are clearly defined by one statement he made during a radio broadcast back in 2001.  I use this statement because nearly every action he has taken as President shows he truly believes it to be true.  Here is the quote: “as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.”

So, his entire ideology is based on the belief that the role of government is to “do something for you on your behalf”.  That is clear through Obamacare, through ignoring the will of Congress on multiple occasions and creating regulations to carry out parts of his agenda even though Congress specifically voted down the act.  In other words, Congress said no, but he figured he’s the President so he can just do it anyway.  Also, his speeches all sound good, but they tend to betray this underlying philosophy every time.  You can’t be more ideological opposed to me, but you also can’t be more ideologically opposed to the Constitution.  OF COURSE the constitution is a charter of negative rights that states what the government can’t do to you.  That is what the founders believed in.  They specifically argued about the need for the Bill of Rights on the grounds that they were afraid of what the government would do to, or for, them.  This is the essence of freedom.  While we can vote ourselves a “social contract” all we want, since we are a Republic (not a Democracy as Democrats love to spout), we technically can’t do it constitutionally because we never changed the document.  We just decided to ignore it.  Unfortunately, Obama betrays his own philosophy that we didn’t ignore it enough.  That we have to move the government into a position where it can do “for us”.  That is not liberty, but, historically, always results in tyranny of some form or another.  And no, I’m not someone who believes it can never happen here. 

After all, we’ve ignored the Constitution to this point.  We ignore the 10^th amendment entirely, we ignore part of all of many of the amendments, which make up the essence of liberty.  And how did we decide what parts we can ignore and what parts we can’t?  Well, in the past, it was solely based on the opinion of 9 judges who, right or wrong, were considered sacrosanct.  I now believe that to be bull.  A study of Supreme Court decisions showed that when the court had to decide a case involving the expansion of federal power, they decided on the side of the government 90 percent of the time.  That’s outrageous!  The government can’t, statistically speaking, be right 90 percent of the time.  So, in essence, we allowed a system to grow that relied on the federal government to police itself.  Jefferson and Madison may have been right, as it turns out.  We further weakened federalism by making the Senate elected by the people.  The Senate was supposed to be the house of the STATES.  To represent the interests of the STATES.  The House was the People’s House, thus how it got its nickname.  We destroyed that and in the process have pretty much destroyed any vestiges of states rights.  In other words, we’ve flipped it on its head.  Instead of the states establishing a unifying compact, they created a  beast that now dictates to the states.  This was never meant to be how things worked.

So finally, why does this philosophy annoy me so much that I call Obama an ideologue?  Well, I think Alexis de Tocqueville said it best.  First, he said this: “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”  He also said this: “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”  Well, we are 100 years into voting ourselves largesse from the public treasury.  That does NOT bode well for our future.  This is what I believe the philosophy the President has leads to.  He’s not the only one.  In fact, it is a rampant problem throughout both parties.  They both want to destroy our freedoms, they just have different ways in mind of doing it.  So, I will hold my nose and vote for the guy whose policies will destroy the Constitution slower, because I think it would be nice for America to continue to exist past 2130 or so…of course at the rate we are spending money we don’t have, it won’t make it that far.