A Tale of Two Democrat Presidents: How Bill Clinton's Second Inaugural Address Shows the Radical Nature of Barack Obama's Second Inaugural

September 5th, 2012. Two Democrat presidents: one successful for the American economy, the other a failure, but both appearing to be of the same fabric, embraced each other on the stage of the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, to celebrate their partnership in Barack Obama's bid for re-election. The embraced commanders-in-chief were Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, himself.

January 21st, 2013. A triumphantly re-elected President Obama delivered an inaugural address more striking for the difference in ideology and purpose it highlighted between himself and President Clinton than for the similar mind and resolve projected in Charlotte, last fall. The key difference was no less than a fundamental contradiction between these two presidents' beliefs about the proper role of government in relation to the people - and by extension - the responsibility of the community to ensure a fair standard of living for every single citizen.

January 20th, 1997.  A victoriously re-elected Bill Clinton gave an inaugural address more comfortable with the sentiments of Ronald Reagan than with Barack Obama. Clinton declared, "We need a new government for a new century - humble enough not to try to solve all our problems for us, but strong enough to give us the tools to solve our problems for ourselves; a government that is smaller, lives within its means, and does more with less." 

To make his point clearer, Clinton emphasized that our government must "give all Americans an opportunity - not a guarantee, but a real opportunity - to build better lives...Beyond that, the future is up to us. Our founders taught us that the preservation of our liberty and our union depends upon responsible citizenship."

The 42nd president did call for collective action in his second inaugural, but it was focused on healthy avenues for social responsibility, for example, working together to make further progress in burying the racism and other prejudices continuing from the past. Nowhere in his speech did President Clinton apply collective action toward a guaranteed standard of living for all Americans. Instead, the Clintonesque government would ensure, "Everyone who can work will work, with today's permanent underclass part of tomorrow's growing middle class." 

All such messages shifting responsibility for individual prosperity from the government's shoulders to the individual's hands were a nod to President Clinton's proudest first-term achievement: the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. This legislation implemented a program of moving unprecedented numbers of welfare recipients off the rolls and into work training programs in which they would receive aid until they became established in an employment situation sustaining their economic needs.

In July 2012, clothed in the executive powers of the presidency, Barack Obama purposefully undermined the signature social policy accomplishment of the man he embraced in Charlotte. Through executive order, President Obama announced his administration would no longer honor the work requirements of Clinton's welfare reform.  

Today, standing before throngs of spectators in the nation's capital, President Obama declared an unconditional guarantee that collective action be responsible to provide a standard of living for every individual. The president promised, "Our purpose endures: a nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single American." Later in the speech, he returned to this theme of guaranteed economic outcomes and applied it to America's women, "For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts."

Wouldn't we all love to earn a living equal to our efforts? Wouldn't any teacher, firefighter, or policemen, want to earn a living equal to his or her efforts? Wouldn't any soldier want to earn a living equal to his or her sacrifices in the name of service to family, community, and country? 

Sadly, none of us are qualified to measure what amount of effort is deserving of what amount of compensation. How can the collective body of the nation know how much effort a certain grocery store clerk is putting into her job performance? Are we all watching her, all day long, measuring how many customers she helps in an eight-hour period? Is the collective body alerted every time she arrives late to work, or leaves early?

In contrast to President Clinton, President Obama curiously avoided use of the word government when calling for action on individual prosperity in his second inaugural. Instead, he used the words: "our nation...a great nation...collective action...we must do these things together, as one nation...one people."

Government was primarily invoked when the president said it should be transformed, "We must harness new ideas and technology to remake our government..." For a president who just took another oath to preserve and uphold the U.S. Constitution, it appears a conflict of interest for him to advocate a remake of our government. 

Taken together, the strands of President Obama's second inaugural address show a chief executive with radical goals for his second term, and that these ambitions depart from his predecessors, Democratic as well as Republican. For never has it been America's founding creed that collective action is responsible for the standard of living enjoyed by every single citizen. For such inspiration, one must consult the works of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.

Patriot Thought  

More Than About Guns: What President Obama's 23 Executive Orders on Guns Admits About Obamacare

In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, gun control advocates have been hoping for, and gun rights activists have been fearing, an assault on the 2nd Amendment. President Obama made clear in his tearful December 14th press conference that he would move the federal government forcefully to prevent such atrocities from ever happening again. Coming from a president accustomed to making sweeping, utopian promises resulting in an increased sphere of government power at the expense of individual freedom of action and responsibility, the heightened hopes and fears have been justified on both sides.

At the White House on Wednesday, January 16th, flanked by a company of children on whose behalf he was acting, the president signed twenty-three executive orders promising to make American society safe from gun violence. Yet, a close examination of the executive orders reveals dull teeth in the president's promise for bold action against gun violence. 

Instead, the executive actions are heavy on issuing memorandums, proposing rules, reviewing safety standards, publishing letters, launching national dialogues, releasing reports, nominating directors, finalizing regulations, providing incentives for schools to hire more officers, providing training for handling shooter situations -in short- more bureaucracy, red tape, and big spending. (See all 23 executive orders below, with bold emphasis added.)

However much these executive orders cost the American people in coin and whatever burdensome regulations they impose on law enforcement and other public and private actors, they do not come close to vindicating the hopes and fears of activists on both sides of 2nd Amendment rights. On the other hand, what these executive orders reveal has less to do with guns and more to do with the constitutionality of Obamacare.  

The sixteenth order, stating that the administration will "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes" is the only item on the list that stands out from the rest, because of its vast social implications and offense to the Bill of Rights.

To make doctors liable for "asking their patients about guns in their homes" shreds patient confidentiality and jeopardizes the Ninth Amendment rights of health care providers at a stroke. Collective responsibility for crimes committed by individuals is a hallmark of totalitarian systems. The Bill of Rights was partly designed to prevent collectivist tyranny.

Furthermore, the sixteenth executive order may provide the best Tenth Amendment case against the constitutionality of Obamacare yet put forth. For the president to admit the Affordable Care Act compels health care providers to violate patient confidentiality is an admission that Obamacare runs roughshod over any state or local laws protecting doctors and patients in regards to confidentiality.

The president may hope Congress will issue bolder action against gun violence than his executive orders promise, but his twenty-three edicts (possibly designed as theater to pacify the Left among his supporters) has illuminated a glaring vulnerability in his health care legacy than any to be exploited thus far. 

Patriot Thought


President Obama's 23 Executive Orders to Curb Gun Violence, Issued Wednesday, Jan 16, 2013:
1. "Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system."
2. "Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system."
3. "Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system."
4. "Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks." 5. "Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun."
6. "Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers."
7. "Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign."
8. "Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission)."
9. "Issue a presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations."
10. "Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement."
11. "Nominate an ATF director."
12. "Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations."
13. "Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime."
14. "Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."
15. "Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies."
16. "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."
17. "Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities."
18. "Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers."
19. "Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education."
20. "Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover."
21. "Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges."
22. "Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations."
23. "Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health."
 

 

An Obama Third Term?

The 22nd Amendment (1951) to the U.S. Constitution declares, "No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice, and no person who has acted as President for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once." The amendment goes on to make certain specified exemptions for the person holding the office during the time the amendment was proposed by Congress.

This amendment, limiting the terms of a U.S. president to two, was ratified six years after the death of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (32nd president 1933-1945), the only president in American history to have served for more than two terms. 

Following Barack Obama's re-election last November, Porter Stansberry of S&A Investment Research claimed Obama has his eyes on a third term. Stansberry's thesis rests on the hypothesis that oil production, through a fracking revolution, will set America on an economic boom, which will carry President Obama's popularity to new heights, and will have the public clamoring for the anointed one to be constitutionally permitted to seek a third term. See Stansberry's argument here:

http://pro.stansberryresearch.com/1210THIRDLIA/MPSINB09/Full

Stansberry boasts of being an authority on predictions of major events because he predicted the financial crisis of 2008, but his thesis about President Obama's chances of winning a third term is problematic on a few fronts. Firstly, in his first term, the president opposed the sort of energy independence that would have fueled an economic boom on the scale of a fracking revolution (the Keystone veto) because his ideology informed him that big oil is bad for the country. Secondly, assuming the president could get a new amendment permitting unlimited presidential terms through Congress, said amendment would need to be ratified by three-fourths of the states to become the law of the land. Considering thirty governorships are in Republican hands, it is doubtful ratification of a third Obama term stands a chance.

A more realistic question is, Who comes after Obama? We can bet the liberal media and Democratic party are already scouting the sea for the next Obama. Hillary Clinton will not do. She is an elderly, white woman, who has a dedicated following, but lacks the rock star charisma of Barack Obama. 98% of African-American voters are Obama voters, and so are more than 70% of Latino voters. Could Hillary Clinton turn out comparable minority votes? Not likely, but the search must be on. After all, who had heard of Barack Obama prior to his splash at the 2004 DNC? Not many. Charlatans rise quickly.

Patriot Thought

The State of the House

New Year's night, 2013. The House of Representatives gave the Obama administration what it had been stalling a fiscal cliff deal for, for the last year and a half: tax hikes on higher income earners. Before we middling income earners realized our own taxes went up with the deal, a new House was inaugurated (the next day) and Speaker Boehner was re-elected. We are now six weeks away from the third battle of the Fiscal Cliff and the House of Representatives finds itself a dispirited, divided, and tormented bunch. Having caved on tax hikes, what options will the House have going into Fiscal Cliff Part 3?

The options will depend on the House's sense of itself as part of a co-equal branch of government in respect to the executive. During Fiscal Cliff 2, the House leadership narrowed its own horizons because it viewed itself in the shadow of a triumphantly re-elected president. Therefore, it compromised and gave up bits of ground until -in the end- its members threw up their hands and gave the president his demands, shockingly, with nothing in return other than the preservation of the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, cuts which meant less with the expiration of the temporary Social Security tax reduction. 

On the New Year's deal, 151 House Republicans held firm to a pledge not to raise anyone's taxes under any circumstances. In the last round, Speaker Boehner offered them two choices: (1) he would back a bill that included meaningful spending cuts along with the Obama tax hikes if he received 90% support from House Republicans or (2) he would throw up his hands and back the Democrat plan of tax hikes and no cuts. Boehner failed to secure the support he wanted for option (1) and went with option (2) so as to get the tax hikes off the table in preparation for February's fight over spending. This may give us a clue about what he may be up to.

In 1994, faced with a massive defeat of his party in both houses of Congress, President Clinton went to consultant Dick Morris for advice. Morris told Clinton he needed to give in to the parts of the Republican agenda that were most popular with the voters (i.e. welfare reform and a balanced federal budget) so that he could strengthen his hand in getting what he wanted (mainly, re-elected). The result was a Democrat president governing fiscally along Republican lines. This strategy came to be known as triangulation. 

Morris now senses the Boehner leadership may be trying its own hand at triangulation by strategically giving up some of its cherished goals (no tax hikes) in return for a better hand when dealing with the president on spending, going forward. For his part, President Obama will be at the mercy of Congress because the government is running out of money and will soon need Congressional authorization to raise the debt ceiling.

This of course is the most optimistic appraisal of the House's sense of its cards at present. Reality is muddier, with a majority Republican leadership which (by and large) refuses to follow the lead of its speaker, yet re-elects him to carry the standard into the next battle with the president. This is a confusing state of affairs of which no one can predict its forward trajectory. Nonetheless, the ball is in the House's court. The next move will be theirs, will they seize the day, or drop the ball? The president has vulnerabilities. He's had them all along. The House must first recognize them, and then have the will to stand up to him. Only then, will they resurrect their institution to the status of co-equal branch of government.

Patriot Thought

The Amateur Becomes the Ace: President Obama Begins a Second Term and Sets the Stage for 2014

The inaugural swearing-in will take place on January 21, but Obama's second term effectively began the morning after election night 2012. In the following days and weeks, he came out swinging, took the measure of his Congressional opponents, and correctly calculated they lacked the will to put up another fight over the nation's staggering fiscal problems. New Year's night, they gave him the bulk of his demands: a huge tax increase for those making over $200,000 a year without even a meager commitment to cut government spending. The bluff was Obama's and it went uncalled. He has therefore surpassed the status of "amateur" Ed Klein and others dubbed him in his first term and has emerged the "ace" in my reckoning, as he cleared the first battle of the new term.

Yet, the president's well-played victory in the second battle of the fiscal cliff may prove his administration's high water mark. There is simply no place for him to go now. His "the rich don't pay their fair share" rhetoric has accomplished a cherished goal, perhaps one in which he wasn't sure he could reach. As a result of the deal worked out with House Speaker Boehner, 172 Congressional Democrats, and 85 Congressional Republicans, the Bush tax cuts for individuals earning less than $400,000 per year and couples earning less than $450,000 will continue. For those making more, tax rates will go up from 35% to 39.6%. In addition, a new 3.8% tax on investment income for everyone earning above $200,000 is part of the plan.

All these concessions and the House bill does not even address spending. Indeed, the plan grows government spending with an extension of unemployment insurance and new credits for child care, tuition, and research and development. With a 16.4 trillion-dollar national debt hanging on our shoulders we find our nation lurching closer to the real fiscal cliff Tuesday's plan kicked down the road. China does not even lend us money anymore. When will they call in the bill?

President Obama will not have long to celebrate his big win. The automatic spending cuts that would have gone into effect Wednesday (had no agreement been reached by New Year's) have been postponed another two months. What card will the president play when he and Congress argue over that battle in February? He has already played his ace (class warfare). The next battle will be all about spending; he can go no further on tax hikes.

Meanwhile, the president's list of discontents swells and will continue to. Taxes are set to rise even for those of us qualifying for the Bush tax cut extension. A new Social Security payroll tax will shrink our paychecks. Worse, the Federal Reserve has already announced it will keep short term interest rates low until 2015 because it foresees high unemployment for the next few years. With higher taxes and new health care costs growing for those with money to invest in job creation, how could the forecast be otherwise?

Perhaps the most ominous consequence of Tuesday's House bill the administration will face is the reality that nothing remains of John Boehner's credibility with the Republican party and every voter for whom fiscal responsibility is a major goal. Tea Party Patriots may damn Tuesday's betrayal a Republican cave, but I hope they do not. 151 House Republicans voted no on the deal. The final vote makes this look more like a Democrat House bill with enough Republican yeas (85), and Speaker Boehner's blessing, to have it pass.

Speaker Boehner has already heard grumblings that he step down. He will likely face growing pressure to do so. If the House selects a less compromising conservative to replace Boehner, President Obama's second term agenda will be in jeopardy. This is not to mention the concerns of the twenty restive Democrats in the U.S. Senate who will be up for re-election in 2014. Some of them (Al Franken of Minnesota, for one) have petitioned the administration to allow their state to qualify for an Obamacare exemption, despite having voted for the reform in 2010. Could the Obama legacy already be unraveling as the Ace takes another victory lap?

Patriot Thought