Follow Me On Twitter!

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Obama Is Unconstitutional

And no this post has nothing to do with his birthplace, or his birth certificate. Both of which are huge question marks that he hasn't answered. (The fact he hasn't answered questions related to both things pretty much means he wasn't born in Hawaii as he claims.)

This post is about spending money in the federal budget, and what the constitution allows for, and what it does not. Remember, the founders were tired of oppressive taxation, and wanted to limit the power and size of the federal government.

The preamble of the constitution says:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Note the words "provide for the common defense". Now notice these two news stories:

Senate to Consider Removing Money For F-22s From Budget

Obama Won't Rule Out Health Surtax

WHAT?? So on one hand he doesn't want to fund fighter jets that protect us. But he wants draconian taxes to fund a socialized health plan??

This gets to the heart of Obama, and what is completely wrong with his outlook of our country, the world, and our constitution. Now he and other Marxists would argue that the language "promote the general welfare" gives them the constitutional freedom to set-up a public health care system.

But notice the difference in language: "provide for the common defense" and "promote the general welfare". Provide vs. promote.

provide: to supply or make available

promote: to contribute to the growth or prosperity of: further

See the distinction? No where does it say "provide for the general welfare". The language is clear: the federal government is to pay for and provide for the defense of the country, while it is supposed to encourage and not stand in the way of the country's general welfare.

Yet Obama is willing to spend big dollars on health care (general welfare) and cut out defense spending (common defense). As usual he has it backwards. And it is unconstitutional for him to do this. If he gets both of these things then someone, somewhere should sue his administration on constitutional grounds. If you are going to tax me and spend that money, then you should only be allowed to spend the money on things the constitution says you can spend it on.

Luckily it appears that people are willing to stand up against this socialization of our health care. We cannot lose this fight, it is paramount to whether we remain a free, capitalist society, or become an enslaved, Marxist society. It is time to turn the tide away from the latter and back to the former.

5 comments:

Dan said...

I have finally resigned myself to the realization that there really is no constitution. I can sense the yawns from most of the people that I talk to them about things like this. Our freedoms are being taken for granted, and are disappearing one by one. The response? What's for supper?

Writer X said...

We are melting the phone lines in Arizona with our reps and senators, many of whom realize they'll lose their seats in 2010 if they vote for this ridiculous health care bill. And President Obama is looking more unhinged by the day, wouldn't you say? It's not the time to give up, not by a long shot.

AndrewPrice said...

Steven,

On the F-22 issue, I don't have enough knowledge to KNOW if the F-22 is a good idea or not. I know that DOD is behind killing off the program.

BUT, I have to wonder if this isn't just wrong thinking? Sure, there is no Soviet Union right now, but what is wrong with keeping out advantage? Aren't we that much safer and better off if no one in the world can even come close to matching out military?

This whole thing strikes me as short sighted.

LoneWolfArcher said...

Andrew, was the DOD for removing it? I know the Secretary of Defense was. Still, it is going to cost jobs, and as you allude to, weaken our defenses.

I used it mainly as a juxtaposition regarding Obama's stance on social spending vs. defense spending. I'd gladly see my tax money go to building F-22s, but will fight my tax money going to socialized health care.

AndrewPrice said...

LoneWolfArcher, My understanding is that the DOD didn't want the planes because they're waiting for the Joint Strike Fighter instead, but I don't have any special knowledge on that point.

That said, your point in the article is well taken.