The Tipping Point

" The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings;

the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

Winston Churchill

Are We There Yet?

Some of my fondest memories as a child were those trips to visit relatives out of state and the vacation to places unfamiliar. The wonder of it all, the landscape flashing past the window in staccato repetition as if riding in a train.  Of course the physics of time operates differently on the mind of a child with minutes protracting into hours, giving rise to the universal expression of fatigue and anticipation - "are we there yet"?  The question was never asked once, but at ever increasing intervals until the ultimate arrival at the destination.

Sixty years later I find myself asking this childhood question again and at ever increasing intervals. The landscape now is again breezing by ominously as our nation is in transition.  So where is the "there" that I wearily and forlornly ask about? 

Malcolm Gladwell's 2000 bestseller The Tipping Point, popularized the very specialized term “tipping point” from epidemiology to a broader context - the moment of critical mass where the unexpected becomes expected, where significant change is more than a possibility, but a certainty.  

Today, as a nation we stand at the tipping point threshold.  Among the tens of millions of voting Americans who are suffering from PED (post election depression) the Obama victory represents the next step to the euro socialization of America.  We all know how well that works in Europe.

It was going to be difficult enough had Romney won to unwind the mess that Obama has left at the nation’s doorstep.  The fiscal precipice is painfully real and ominously looming, the stock market responded Wednesday by dropping 1.9%, the DJIA slipped below 13K for the first time since the day after Labor Day, the S&P down 5% and the Nasdaq 7% off since then.  

One thing for sure, had Romney been victorious the market would likely have had a substantial boost on the confidence that he would be able to manage down the $16 Trillion debt.  No such confidence even remotely exists in the incumbent.

So here we are, as divided a nation in my lifetime, all promulgated by a president that has led only in the areas of class warfare, racial tensions, welfare expansion, shamelessly squandering an $800 billion “stimulus”, creating a monstrosity of government controlled health care that most Americans didn’t want or need that will keep the U.S. in permanent debt crisis, and unprecedented domestic (fast & furious) and foreign policy (Benghazi embassy massacre) prevarication and cover up.  The next four years should cause any thinking American to shudder at a president who handles economic crisis with “I won” and foreign policy with “I’ll have more flexibility after I’m reelected,” and all without a mandate.  Look for Obama in his 2^nd term to govern by executive order rather than seek bipartisanship. Welcome to Europica.

Meritocracy as An Anachronism

Much of America became resigned to the fact that our president had too much mystery and too little achievement that would qualify him for president other than an educational path remarkable in its paucity of details…such is politics.  It became painfully evident that the president was woefully inadequate for the position in virtually every facet of the job as all meaningful metrics continued to worsen. Entering the presidential campaign the president had increased the debt by $6 trillion, 30 million unemployed, 7.9% unemployment rate, and 100 million people receiving means tested welfare payments.  Staggering evidence of complete failure by the president in the economy, not to mention foreign policy. 

The man who was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize before even taking office and won it later in the year, “For his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” responded to the award: “I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments but rather an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.”  Pretty well sums up what the president is all about - “affirmation” and “aspirations.”

With no record of positive accomplishments to run on Obama hung his hopes on women’s reproductive rights, big bird, and demonizing Mitt Romney.  And as we all know now, it worked.  Any management level person, or for that matter any person, would be summarily fired with a comparable workplace performance, giving credence to the notion that the long promoted cornerstone of socialism equality of outcome has taken root in the minds of many Americans leap frogging equality of opportunity. 

It’s difficult to find solace in the fact that Obama is the first re-elected president since World War II not to improve his margin of victory and to get fewer Electoral College votes in re-election.

Stranger in a Strange Land

 “The best argument against democracy is a 5-minute conversation with the average voter.”

Winston Churchill

Like Mike Smith the protagonist in the scifi classic novel Stranger in a Strange Land, many of my generation (the very first baby boomers) feel like a stranger in a strange land.  Only worse, Mike Smith was a Martian on earth.  The election numbers are both revealing and disturbing – in the most critical election of our lifetime 11 million fewer citizens voted than 2008, 9 million fewer Democrats and 2 million fewer Republicans, with the margin of popular vote victory at 2 % points, 5% points less than 2008.

From my perspective there are several fundamental reasons for the Obama win and Romney loss. 

First, let’s start with Postmodernism.  Postmodernism is a theory that began in the early 20^th century that involves radical reappraisal of modern assumptions about culture, identity, history and language.  The French philosopher Jean - Francois Lyotard called it “incredulity towards meta-narratives.”  Postmodernism has had significant influence on many disciplines including education, art, literature, ethics, morality, architecture, history, religion and politics.  For example in education, history is taught through reappraisal, seminaries teaching of Jesus as a historical figure rather than the son of God.  These influences shape our culture and how we view the world and events.

Second, Demographics, including the “browning” of America and how it has changed the electorate.  The famous Hudson Institute’s Workforce 2000 introduced America to the dramatic demographic changes in the workforce forthcoming in the 21^st century, e.g. females and minorities will compose the majority of the workforce in 2000, a no brainer today but in the 80’s this was big news.

Election exit polling reveals Democrats dominate in the demographic categories of young voters (18-39) gender (women in general and single women in particular) race (all minorities) income (<$50K) population area (50K & & >), excluding suburbs.  Republicans strongly led in white male voters aged 40 & & >, earning > $50K.  Simply stated, if you voted for Romney like me, there are more of them than us.

Next, Government entitlements are a direct threat to our nation’s solvency, sovereignty and viability.  FDR kicked things off with the New Deal in the 40’s and things haven’t been the same since. It has slowly eroded our ability to cultivate a motivated workforce and compete internationally.  The welfare state since created by LBJ’s the Great Society has served to institutionalize and entrench poverty at the cost of over $3 trillion.

Currently a staggering 70.5% of federal spending goes to dependency creating programs.  Obama dramatically gutted the welfare eligibility requirements of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Expect the half of TANF recipients currently receiving a welfare check without performing any work at all to significantly rise.

The current arithmetic of America’s taxation system is simply not sustainable – 47% of all tax filers pay no federal income tax, while the rest of us foot the bill.  When almost 50% of American’s are exempt from funding the most basic constitutional functions of government, plus welfare, education, energy, veteran’s benefits, housing, foreign aid, etc., we sadly have half of the country with no interest in changing their tax status.  64 million Americans , about 1 in 5, is receiving direct government support Social Security, welfare, or Pell Grants, the highest level ever.

You can expect the situation to spin out of control over the next 10 years with the $716 billion that Obamacare cuts from Medicare to fund other entitlement expansions mandated by Obamacare.

Finally, the Öffentlichkeit has been corrupted.  The German language is remarkable in its affinity to capture an entire concept in a single word.  Take for example the feelings of Schadenfreude (delight in another’s misfortune) by many Democrats over the Republican defeat.  Öffentlichkeit is the climate of public opinion.

If you were to restrict your news information exclusively to the mainstream media of broadcast networks ABC, CBS, NBC and the overwhelming majority of newspapers, you would have an incomplete and slanted view at best, of the world and events.  
This is not a current or even recent phenomenon, it’s existed throughout the 20^th century but has reached an unprecedented level today.

Why is it that surveys consistently show that over 90% of journalists and reporters are democrats?  Well first, all except a precious few colleges and universities are liberal in their leadership, faculty, and curriculum and therefore have significant influence on their students.  Why are these institutions of higher learning so liberal?  

Academicians are by and large enamored of being regarded as the intelligentsia which places them in prominent positions within the social, cultural and political elite.  Academicians are attracted to new ideas and theories so that they may be on the cutting edge in their writings developing and advancing their own areas of expertise.  

This is why postmodernism has been so prevalent and effective in academic circles – it allows complete freedom to not only expand the envelope, but to leave the envelope entirely, all under the aegis of an accepted theory.

The highest reward for a teaching academician is to have legions of dedicated acolytes, creating a cyclical process.  The bias was more subtle in the early years of TV news with Cronkite, Huntley, Brinkley, who were all of liberal democratic persuasion; the next wave of Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings and many others continued the tradition. 

Today, the bias is hardly subtle and is exercised by commission – heavily weighted and slanted or omission – simply not reporting negative news e.g. black out of Benghazi massacre cover-up efforts. The internet and the Fox news network have stepped into this vacuum over the past 20 years, providing full disclosure which has been enthusiastically and successfully received.  It is extremely difficult to overcome decades of bias.

The Öffentlichkeit is further corrupted through the entertainment industry – movies, TV shows, music all feverishly dedicated to promoting a new social agenda.  An entire library could be dedicated to this corruption.  For example, the seemingly innocuous HGTV network blatantly promotes an agenda through the couples they choose to include in many of their episodes.

Public opinion has been definitely and purposefully shaped through no less than an assault via education including laws schools and seminaries, media – broadcast and print and entertainment – movies, music, TV, and yes sports.

Perhaps after 225 years our great republic may have run its course.  The Republicans lost the election, but America may have lost its soul.

Perhaps a better epilogue will follow.

Crossing the Rubicon

                                  ____________________________

In B.C. 49, the River Rubicon was crossed by Julius Caesar and his army, involving him in a civil war.  The crossing of the Rubicon became a reference as a “point of no return,” and resulted in Caesar becoming the first emperor of Rome and installing a new system of government.

                                       _________________________________

 The Supremely Stupefying Stunner

Much of the nation (according to polls over 60% of citizens oppose Obama care) remains stunned at the June 28 SCOTUS decision on the constitutionality of the individual mandate for national health care.  And for good reason, the conventional wisdom was that the SCOTUS would render a 5-4 decision striking down, at a minimum, the mandatory provision of Obama care, along the lines of the Courts conservative justices  – Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, John Roberts, with moderate Anthony Kennedy casting the swing vote.  Au contraire to conventional wisdom and wisdom in general, as the SCOTUS delivered its supremely stupefying stunner. 

Perhaps it is a fitting climax to this theatre of the absurd play, known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Shamelessly euphemistic and innocuously named, the insidious ACA has from its inception has been wrapped in deceit and prevarication, the hallmark legacy of seemingly all the policies of this administration.  Why, just its name is mendacious - neither “Affordable” nor an “Act”, it’s the Unaffordable Care Tax from which Patients’ need Protection.

Chief Justice John Roberts eagerly abdicated his conservative principles and abandoned reason and logic as he rewrote the ACA to call the individual mandate, of all things, a tax, while rowing the ship of America across the Rubicon to a place never intended or seen by this nation – a statist socialistic country…Euromerica.

The Supreme Court and Chief Justices

It is a long standing political axiom, that there is no more important responsibility of a President than the authority to appoint Supreme Court nominees for ultimate Senate approval and appointment.  The lifetime appointment provides the opportunity for literally decades of profound influence over the nation’s laws, government and culture, a true co-equal branch of government. There have been only17 Chief Justices, while 44 Presidents have served during the same period.   Interestingly, one Chief Justice later was elected President – William Howard Taft.

As the final arbiter of the law, the Supreme Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.

When the president nominates a judge for the Supreme Court, the president is seeking an extension of his view of the constitution and how laws should be executed.  Seemingly simple in concept, it often produces disappointment and surprises.

A prime example is former Chief Justice Earl Warren, appointed to the Supreme Court by President in Dwight Eisenhower in 1953, saying that Warren "represents the kind of political, economic, and social thinking that I believe we need on the Supreme Court.”

Earl Warren went on to lead the most liberal and judicially activist court in history.  An appointment that Eisenhower hoped would moderate the eight “New Deal” justices who were on the court.  Signs across the nation sprouted up declaring Impeach Earl Warren.  Eisenhower gravely regretted his appointment, stating that it was “the biggest damned-fool mistake I ever made,” probably the similar sentiment being felt now by George W. Bush about his appointment of Chief Justice John Roberts.

One thing is for certain about the Chief Justice position, it is second only to the POTUS in prestige and its impact can arguably be greater than the POTUS in some circumstances and it’s a lifetime gig.

Because of the lifetime appointment, most if not all chief justices succumb to the “Deity complex,” where they view themselves as a primary force in shaping and changing society in ways that elevates them in the eyes of liberal historians, fawning over landmark decisions as if manna from heaven.  It wasn’t called the “Warren Court” for nothing.

So how does a judge with impeccable educational credentials applied in the Regan and both Bush’s administrations reach such an antithetical decision?

Here Comes da Judge

Chief Justice Roberts’ decision was so shocking that some opined that perhaps the medication he takes for epileptic seizures, in fact can have troubling side effects, including mental slowing and forgetfulness, suggesting that Robert’s writing reveals cognitive dissociation in what he is saying.

In hindsight, the influences to Roberts’ decision making may have been telegraphed in several public statements prior to the decision.   Roberts’ had been concerned since the 2000 Bush v Gore SCOTUS decision, about the public perception that his Court is a partisan-driven Court.  But no one realistically thought the Chief Justice would subordinate proper jurisprudence to public perception.  No one saw this coming.  

Clearly, a chief justice who views a self perceived public perception that the Supreme Court is partisan driven is either seriously naive or has caved into the main stream liberal media complaints, expectations, and invectives.  The latter seems more likely when you live and work in the epicenter of liberal criticism and praise. It takes a strong character to overcome the “Deity complex.”

The lawsuit filed by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business had at its center the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate (mandatory insurance) and was surprised the court even agreed to hear the Medicaid challenge, since the lower courts had sided with the government.

All legal minds expected the decision on Obamacare to turn on the constitutionality of the Constitution’s commerce clause - whether the federal government could regulate commerce and force people to participate in it.

It now seems clear that Roberts was determined to uphold the individual mandate by any means possible and salvage a vestige of some conservative principle.  How Roberts accomplished this is less clever than spurious.

The Forbidden Land of the Sophists

Here’s how Roberts did it.  First, he said the constitution offered no expansion of the commerce clause beyond regulating it.  Next, Congress is not free to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding.  Looking good so far, then the clincher, Roberts turns to the tax clause and says the individual mandate penalty operated as a tax, and thus was proper under the taxing clause.

So how did Roberts overcome the 19th century-law known as the Anti-Injunction Act, which said a tax cannot be challenged in court until someone has actually been forced to pay it. Since the Obamacare mandate wouldn't go into effect until 2014 that would mean there could be no court case until then.

In the health care law, the penalty was intentionally not described as a tax, did not appear in the revenue section of the statute and was not meant to raise revenue, but to enforce the mandate. Roberts had to effectively rewrite the law from the bench to make it a tax.

 As justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wrote in their dissent, "The government and those who support its position on this point make the remarkable argument that [the mandate] is not a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, but is a tax for constitutional purposes."

It strains credulity that any justice could allow an argument where for the purposes of constitutionality, it can be called a tax, yet for the purposes of avoiding the violation of the Anti-Injunction Act, it's not a tax, and causes us to realize just how badly Roberts wanted to uphold the constitutionality of this Frankenstein monster of a law.

Mike Carvin who argued against Obamacare before the court stated, "I'm glad he re-wrote the statute rather than the Constitution, but none of it can pass rational scrutiny."

The dissenting justices concluded the dual definition of the tax argument, to say…” the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling….[we] have no doubt that Congress knew precisely what it was doing when it rejected an earlier version of this legislation that imposed a tax instead of a requirement-with-penalty…Imposing a tax through judicial legislation inverts the constitutional scheme, and places the power to tax in the branch [Judicial/Supreme Court] least accountable to the citizenry… That carries verbal wizardry too far, deep into the forbidden land of the sophists."

Roberts weakly supported his decision by stating in his opinion: “a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the nation’s elected leaders,” and “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” Hardly comforting words to rally around.

Sorting Through the Flotsam and Jetsam

The commerce clause is now off the table.

The states can chose not to participate without Medicare payments being halted.

The IRS now has all the enforcement power on the individual mandate with 17,000 new agents.

It becomes a purely political battle from this point forward.

We Haven’t Crossed the Rubicon Yet

November’s election will determine if the ship reaches the other shore.

Lots to consider: rampant exercise of executive privilege to prevent border protection and protect gun running, charged AG, failed economy, security leaks to boost the president’s weak international image, aggressive socialist agenda, and on and on.

Our eloquent and articulate president tweeted after the SCOTUS decision:

Barack Obama‏@BarackObama

Still a BFD.

Yes it is, and we’ll see just how big in November.