Obama wishes his policies were easier to mandate.

I have known for quite some time that Obama takes issue with the fact that laws limit our government. I just never thought that he would come out and say as much.

Obama Would Radically Rework the Constitution

A 2001 interview of Sen. Barack Obama saying some pretty remarkable things about what he sees as the inadequacy of our Constitution has recently come to light. They go to the core of what this election is about and, even more fundamentally, what America is and may be.

Obama in his interview disparages the Constitution as merely "a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf." He believes—and he's right—that changing this is the way to bring about "redistributive change."

But the founders were deeply purposeful and intellectually coherent in their definition of rights. Classically, rights are the lowest, most basic universal claims. Think of them as the ground rules for everyone, weak and strong, to respect each other and get on.

This way of thinking might be confusing to some people, but you have to understand Obama's frame of mind. He doesn't look a The Constitution as a document from the aspect of We The People, he looks at it from the aspect of the government ruling its subjects. That's where the disconnect is. The left has no respect for The Constitution, because it does exactly what it's supposed to do, LIMIT THEIR POWER.

Many people disregard these things and just claim it's a wish list for Obama or whatever leftist is in power. What they don't understand is that this is the core belief of ALL LEFTISTS. This belief doesn't go away with the person at the time. The next leftist person will be working towards the same goal, and so on.

These beliefs were again echoed by Obama on the subject of immigration reform.

America's immigration system is broken, but only a bipartisan political movement can fix it, President Barack Obama said Monday.

"The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting, I promise you, not just on immigration reform. But that's not how our system works. That's not how our democracy functions," Obama told the National Council of La Raza.

Speaking at the organization's annual conference in Washington, Obama said passing immigration reform measures will require support from both sides of the aisle in Congress.

"Let's be honest, I need a dance partner here, and the floor is empty," he said.

The President of The United States recites an oath to uphold the Constitution of The United States.

Each president recites the following oath, in accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Why would Obama take an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" if he takes issue with it? Obama and the Democrats have been openly at odds with the US Constitution ever since Obama took the oath of office. Most of the major legislation to be passed as part of Obama's agenda had to be structured to circumvent the US Constitution, not abide by it.

The first oath administered on January 20, 2009 was administered incorrectly. The oath was again administered on January 21, 2009 in the Map Room at the White House. The second time there was no Bible present.

After constitutional law experts questioned the validity of his swearing-in because of a fluffed line in the oath of office, Mr Obama moved quickly to quash speculation that his presidency was in any way illegitimate.

John Roberts, the Chief Justice charged who helped bungle the oath on Tuesday, was summoned to the White House and, in front of a small pool of reporters, Mr Obama carefully and accurately repeated the 35-word oath prescribed by Article 2 of the Constitution.

The problem was, no-one thought to bring a Bible and Mr Obama decided to go ahead without one.

Maybe it's just me, but I would have waited for a Bible to be brought in.

Only history will tell if the oath was taken seriously by Obama.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

The government is thinking of turning foreclosed homes into rental properties.

The Obama administration is examining ways to pull foreclosed properties off the market and rent them to help stabilize the housing market, according to people familiar with the matter.

While the plans may not advance beyond the concept phase, they are under serious consideration by senior administration officials because rents are rising even as home prices in many hard-hit markets continue to fall due to high foreclosure levels.

When will these people learn? How can someone look at this and take it seriously. We have to do something to bring down the cost of rent, I know, let's flood the market with rental properties. I thought that the idea was for everyone in America to own a home? How are we going to do that through rental properties?

The housing prices in the government rental areas are going to increase to ridiculous levels, because it will create a shortage of homes for sale in that market. It will be no different than the First-Time Homebuyer Credit.

Feb. 25, 2009

Buyers can claim 10% of the purchase price, up to $8,000, or $4,000 for married individuals filing separately, according to the IRS' Web site. The credit starts to phase out for those whose adjusted gross income exceeds $75,000, or $150,000 for joint filers.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development also announced on Wednesday that it will temporarily increase loan limits for Federal Housing Administration-backed mortgages, also in accordance with provisions in the stimulus. The new FHA limits now go up to $729,750 in high-cost areas. The new limit on FHA's reverse mortgage product also has been raised to $625,500.

The higher limits are in effect until the end of the year.

The First-Time Homebuyer Credit kept housing prices artificially high because sellers knew that most buyers had an extra 8,000 dollars on hand. The truth is; people paid more money for less house, but taxpayers supplied 10% of the inflated price (up to 8,000 dollars). Then when the credit expired; the housing market dipped again.

Most of these government housing programs only cause changes in the market for a short period, but the unintended negative effects are long lasting. The housing market will not stabilize until the government gets out of the market. Once the real bottom of the housing market is reached it will stabilize, but the government keeps stepping in and propping it up.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

If you thought that Social Security is solvent; check this out.

Factcheck.org

Some senior Democrats are claiming that Social Security does not contribute "one penny" to the federal deficit. That’s not true. The fact is, the federal government had to borrow $37 billion last year to finance Social Security, and will need to borrow more this year. The red ink is projected to total well over half a trillion dollars in the coming decade.

Factcheck.org is not exactly what you would call a Conservative website, but when it comes down to numbers, the numbers don't lie.

I thought there was a Social Security Trust Fund. We have been told on many Democrats (including Harry Reid) on multiple occasions that Social Security is solvent and doesn't need to be addressed right now. If social security were solvent then why must the government borrow money to support it? Social Security is more than just a Ponzi scheme. It's a Ponzi scheme that runs, in part, on borrowed money. Obama let the cat out of the bag and it can't be put back in.

President Obama on Tuesday said he cannot guarantee that retirees will receive their Social Security checks August 3 if Democrats and Republicans in Washington do not reach an agreement on reducing the deficit in the coming weeks.

"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it," Mr. Obama said in an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley, according to excerpts released by CBS News.

Perhaps now that people can see the truth, that they have been given false information for a period over 30 years, they will start to pay closer attention to Washington and how it effects their lives. I wonder how open the public would have been to the idea of Social Security privatization, had they known this in 2006 when it was proposed by Bush?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

There are many things in life that through me for a loop, but none more than Rahm Emanuel. Why in the world would someone put themselves up for the position of Mayor, and expect not to be asked personal questions?

Rahm Emanuel is the perfect example of liberal hypocrisy. Listen to his reply when asked by reporter Mary Ann Ahern about where he would be sending his three children to school.

Similar to his former boss, Emanuel said it's a private decision.

While I appreciate the desire for privacy, I tried to explain that the Mayor’s family is now in the public eye as Chicago's First Family, and that the public would want to know whether Emanuel is confident enough in the public/government school system to send his own children there. But Emanuel broke in.

“Mary Ann, let me break the news to you. My children are not in a public position,” he said, curtly. “I am. You’re asking me a value statement and not a policy. … No, no, you have to appreciate this. My children are not an instrument of me being mayor. My children are my children, and that may be news to you, and that may be new to you, Mary Ann, but you have to understand that I’m making this decision as a father.”

The mayor stood up to leave.

“I look forward to our future interview,” he said before unclipping his lanyard microphone and dropping it to the floor, and walking out of his office. I asked my camera man to stop rolling.

As I tried to explain further, Emanuel doubled back. He looked directly at my two college interns, and said, "You are my witnesses."

Then, the Mayor of Chicago positioned himself inches from my face and pointed his finger directly at my head. He raised his voice and admonished me. How dare I ask where his children would go to school!

"You've done this before," he said.

This was the Emanuel we had heard about, and it was one of the oddest moments in my 29 years of reporting.

This speaks volumes of who Rahm Emanuel really is. He was not mad that he had to answer the question, he was mad that the question was posed --period. Rahm Emanuel is not a good enough politician/liar to come up with a nice sounding answer as to why his children will not be going to public school, but will be attending a private school. He was angry because in reality there is no way to answer that question without making obvious his lack of faith in the public school system.

Later Mary Ann Ahern called Emanuel directly to discuss what had happened in the interview. Again he was angry and rude, how dare someone ask him to speak the truth!

I tried to explain he had a point, but their parents too had to answer the question of what school they would attend. No one is trying to have lunch with the first children.

I also let him know that I felt wronged and bullied during his earlier tirade.

“You are wrong and a bully," Emanuel fired back. "I care deeply for my family. I don't care about you."

This is what brings me to "why"? Why would anyone want someone like this as a representative? Emanuel shows through his actions and words that he just doesn't care. That was the real Rahm Emanuel. He doesn't care that other people's kids have to go to a public school to receive a second-class education. But he will provide a first-class education for his children.

Someone might look at this situation and say, "So what, isn't that what you would do? Take care of your own family first." I would take care of my own family first. At the same time I would not lie about why I was sending my kids to a private school.

Public schools are failing because they have absolutely no accountability. The schools will continue to run, the teachers will continue to get paid and none of it has to do with the quality of education. Testing is not accountability. The government can't hold itself or its institutions accountable, only the public can do that. The problem with public education is that the public is far removed from the system. Schools should all be private --end of story. The parents should be making the decision of what schools to send their children to. Government money could still be used in cases where people can't afford schooling on their own, but the parents would still be able to choose where to send their kids. Look at what happened in Atlanta Georgia, the teachers were helping the kids cheat on tests to make it appear as if they were improving the quality of education.

Across Atlanta Public Schools, staff worked feverishly in secret to transform testing failures into successes.

Teachers and principals erased and corrected mistakes on students’ answer sheets.

Area superintendents silenced whistle-blowers and rewarded subordinates who met academic goals by any means possible.

Superintendent Beverly Hall and her top aides ignored, buried, destroyed or altered complaints about misconduct, claimed ignorance of wrongdoing and accused naysayers of failing to believe in poor children’s ability to learn.

For years — as long as a decade — this was how the Atlanta school district produced gains on state curriculum tests. The scores soared so dramatically they brought national acclaim to Hall and the district, according to an investigative report released Tuesday by Gov. Nathan Deal.

The bottom line is that competition based systems work better than government systems. People like Rahm Emanuel know this, why else would he send his own kids to private schools. The public school system will never improve so long as politicians, like Rahm Emanuel, are too scared to tell the truth for fear of a political backlash. The public school system in Chicago is Rahm Emanuel's business, he's the boss. If Rahm Emanuel won't hold the Chicago public school system accountable; who will?

But hey, Rahm Emanuel will sure stand up and get in the face of a female reporter.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

Many things can pass as art these days, even things that the artists themselves can't explain. Then there are some works of art which just make you smile.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!