Nero's New Palace Underway

IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind):  Gadfly, Nero waited for the fire in Rome to subside before starting work on his new palace.  Our American Nero is not as patient.  (See previous discussions here and here).

Old Gadfly:  Why do you say this?

IM:  As challenges to his Obamacare mandates play out, it is becoming obvious that President Obama has already started work on his palace.  But, unlike Nero, Obama is not circumventing the Senate, he uses it as his Palace contractor.

AM (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  OK, IM, you’re teasing us.  Give us some details.

IM:  The news cycles are already talking about two federal courts ruling in opposite ways regarding the legality of subsidies for federal versus state exchanges.  The one in Virginia, with a Democrat majority, ruled in favor of the provision.  The District of Columbia (DC) Circuit Court of Appeals, represented by a three-judge panel with two Republicans and one Democrat, ruled against.  Now, Obama will request the full DC court review the decision and update it as deemed appropriate.  The full court has four Republicans and seven Democrats.

AM:  This does not look good.

Old Gadfly:  Until recently, didn’t the DC court have only eight members, four Republican and four Democrat?

IM:  Until last November, yes.

AM:  What happened in November?

IM:  Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, unilaterally changed a long-standing rule regarding filibusters and Presidential nominations—commonly referred to as the “nuclear option”.  In other words, he changed the rule to allow nominees to be confirmed by a simple majority vote, strictly along Party lines. 

Old Gadfly:  This opened the door for three very left leaning judges to stack the court:  Patricia Millett, Cornelia Thayer Livingston “Nina” Pillard, and Robert Leon Wilkins.  Now, legitimate constitutional challenges to laws and rules will be adjudicated through the lens of political ideology.

AM:  You claimed the US Senate is Obama’s palace contractor.  Why do you say this?

IM:  The Republican-controlled House of Representatives have passed over 300 bills that have gone nowhere in the Democrat-controlled Senate.  Forty of these bills are jobs related.  Since Reid and his fellow Democrat cohort can count on a left-leaning complicit media, they can broadcast a “do nothing Congress” through the media’s bull horn.  A “do nothing Congress” is code for Republican obstructionism, which is happily amplified in the press.  This in turn serves as justification for executive action.  As Obama loves to unabashedly proclaim, if Congress insists on doing nothing, then I have a phone and a pen.

Old Gadfly:  Don’t forget the Democrat and left-leaning media’s success in blaming last fall’s government shutdown on Republicans.

AM:  Yet, in 2010, the majority of American citizens expressed their disapproval of federal overreach by electing a significant majority of Republicans in the House (and reduced the magnitude of the Democrat majority in the Senate).  The bills a Republican-controlled House have already passed reflect the will of the people.  Yet, the Senate defies the will of the people by blocking these bills.  And by Senator Reid not bringing these bills to the floor for an up or down vote, he successfully shields obstructionist Democrats from accountability.

IM:  To whom do you think the Democrats in the Senate owe their allegiance?

AM:  Obama.

Old Gadfly:  Why Obama?

AM:  Obama is a symbol of the progressive movement that believes in a large, central government.  As part of the “sacred state” palace, they have deliberately created a large indentured class of Americans who by choice or through coercion are becoming dependent upon the “benevolent” state.  Less than 50% of Americans pay 100% of taxes.  The majority are now dependent upon government largess.  Does “Obama phones” sound familiar?  The following graphic shows the percentage of Americans participating in the labor force.

Old Gadfly:  Notice the sharp decline began in 2007, the year Democrats enjoyed large majorities in both houses of Congress.  Then, as we know, President Obama took command in 2009.  The implications of this graphic are that more Americans have had to start drawing Social Security benefits earlier than they might otherwise, and millions are having to draw from savings accounts, 401Ks, and IRAs earlier than expected to make ends meet, which does nothing to create wealth.  Combine this dynamic with the increased demand for taxpayer funded subsidies (food stamps, housing, health, income subsidies), the economy cannot keep up with government spending.  This is why for the first time in the history of the United States, public debt now exceeds Gross Domestic Product. 

AM:  And while very subtle, the subliminal message being transmitted to Americans is that Obama is providing for them.  The following ad is from a mortgage company’s internet website.  Check out the verbiage in item 2.

 

IM:  And, as the US and the world burn, Obama is out campaigning for more resources to complete his palace.

Old Gadfly:  Interesting.  I have been doing some polling of Americans: friends, family members, and casual bystanders.  I tell them I am going to ask a question, to not give it a lot of thought, to answer instinctively and honestly:  do you feel ruled or served?

IM:  Is it 50-50?

Old Gadfly:  No.  One hundred percent responded, “ruled.”

AM:  Were they all content to be ruled?

Old Gadfly:  I asked, and all said no.

IM:  If the “sacred state” chooses to really turn on dissenting Americans

AM:  Such as the IRS’s strong-arm censoring of conservative groups?

IM:  Yes, but I’m referring to broader measures such as the law enforcement army within the Department of Homeland Security and even military members within the Department of Defense.  Would fellow government-employed Americans use force on fellow Americans?

AM:  As a former military member, I’d have to say that some government employees prefer the security of their job over protecting liberty for Americans.

IM:  Why do we not see Americans in senior leadership roles in our government speaking out?

AM:  For military members, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 88, prohibits contemptuous speech toward the President, Vice President, and Members of Congress.  So, how can senior members speak out?

Old Gadfly:  Is criticism based on an understanding of the Constitution considered contempt?

IM:  Good question.

Old Gadfly:  Members of our armed forces swear an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.”  If these members see actions that threaten our Constitution and do nothing, then what good is the oath?  Further, the allegiance expressed in the oath is to the Constitution and the sovereign people it represents, not elected officials or government bureaucracies.  Further, I believe Article 88 presumes honorable character and, as such, is a logical condition for prohibiting contemptuous speech.  But what if the actions are not honorable?  What if actions are in defiance of the will and intent of the people?

IM:  Unfortunately, Gadfly, as you indicated in August 2012, our nation appears to be populated with an increasing faction of Copernican drones.

AM:  Our founding fathers dissented against the dishonorable and tyrannical behavior of King George.  Why would that same sense of honor not be needed today?

Old Gadfly:  It is needed.  Let’s see what kind of heat US Marine Corps Commandant General James Amos receives for his recent, honest criticism.  Are there enough Americans, like General Amos, with the courage to do something about the erection of a “sacred state” palace?