I live in Virginia, about 30 miles from Washington, D.C., and have not even seen the movie advertised yet. I saw Part 1 and am eagerly awaiting Part 2.
I saw Part 1 in D.C., no less, but perhaps the current Administration has banned the film! After all, Atlas Shrugged is almost a blueprint of current federal government thinking: vilification of society's producers, deification of society's takers, rising taxes on the producers, Marxism as the philosophy of choice throughout government, and so on.
In fact, I read an article in the American Spectator last week by former Reagan Administration employee Jeffrey Lord. He wrote that the current president's goal is to move this country as far towards the Left as Reagan moved it to the Right. Mr. Lord is completely correct in my opinion.
Gee, you mean to say that winning elections matters? Other than the fact that it's inherently evil (although at least some of them probably don't see that, so I tend to make allowances), I'd say it's the Democrats' and Obama's right to take the federal government as far to the left as they can manage, just as it was Reagan's and the Republicans to take it as far to the right (towards freedom) as they were able when they held the reins!
Thank goodness for the Tea Party uprising of 2010 that turned the House Republican!
I grudgingly have to admit that you are correct. Before the November election, I was reading too many blog comments around the Internet where repondents were writing, "I'm not voting. Romney and Obama are the same person."
Lazy electorate=bad government. Obviously, whoever wins gets the power. And with that comes the right to push government whichever way he/she chooses.
Nope, I haven't seen the new Atlas Shugged yet. It will be released on DVD the 19th of February and I am going to pre-order a copy. A group of us are planning to spend an evening watching both parts I & II. Really looking forward to it.
-- Edited by FOTH on Thursday 31st of January 2013 03:55:06 AM
Obama and the Democrats do not have the right to take the Country as far left as they can. This is a republic not a democracy. Obama’s agenda, and the process he is using to advance it is contrary to the intent and purposes of the United States Constitution. It matters not one wit how many people voted for him he has no right to do that. Why a majority of voters supported him in two back-to-back elections can be debated all day but it doesn’t really matter. If everyone who voted for him fully understood his agenda and supported it, that would simply mean that a majority of Americans want him to do what he is determined to do. In a democracy that would give the president legitimate authority to pursue his agenda. In a constitutional republic the president’s authority is limited by the Supreme Law of the Land regardless of what the people want or think they want. Something Obama is loath to accept.
President Reagan’s right-leaning agenda, was consistent with the Constitution and he did, therefore, have legitimate authority to pursue it.
Yes, elections do matter. In the current case it meant the difference between having a president that would attempt to uphold the Constitution and one who would do his best do get around it.
That said, any American Citizen, including Obama, has the right to attempt to “fundamentally change the American government” by petitioning Congress to either amend or even abolish the Constitution. None have the right to do it by being elected to the presidency and doing it through executive orders.
FOTH, while I fully agree with what you say, I think it's only our opinion. I suspect that Obama believes, and many of his followers certainly believe, that what they want is consistent with the intent of the framers. If Chief Justice Roberts, no friend of the Left, says that the penalties for not carrying approved medical insurance under "Obamacare" are a tax and therefore constitutional, it seems that we have to argue right and wrong, not constitutional vs unconstitutional, in fighting those moves to the left.
Steve, I wish it was just my opinion. I could change that. LOL. But in reality it is a conclusion drawn from the facts.
In an interview prior to his election in 2008, Obama explained how he differs with the Founders intent as relates to the Constitution. The foremost problem with the Constitution in his view is that it spells out “what the government must not do to the people but does not set out what the government must do for the people”. [Not a direct quote]. It is not logical to conclude that Obama knows that wealth redistribution by the government is not provided for by the Constitution and that he also believes that governmental wealth redistribution is provided for by the Constitution. He and his followers know that what they want is to do is not consistent with the Constitution and the intent of the framers.
The fact that Chief Justice Roberts ruled that Congress could levy a tax specifically to fund health care programs cannot be taken as Constitutional validation for other elements of Obama’s agenda. The Court may yet invalidate Obamacare on other challenges coming before it.
"[N]ot provided for in the Constitution" and "against the intent of the framers" are, IMHO, not the same thing. The Constitution does not provide for the US military's deployment of drones but, since it provides for provision of national defense, deploying drones is not (necessarily) inconsistent with the intent of the framers. Obama may or may not believe that his proposals violate the Constitution but I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt until he shows pretty much beyond doubt that he knows they are but doesn't care. And I'm 99.999% certain that there are those that support him who do not know enough about the Constitution to realize that the proposals violate it (or, knowing it, understand what is wrong with doing so).
Sorry if what I said was confusing; I did not intend to suggest that the Supreme Court upholding of "ObamaCare" penalties should "be taken as Constitutional validation for other elements of Obama’s agenda," only that if even Justice Roberts could join that opinion, nearly anything might be ruled, even by jurists considered to be very conservative, as Constitutional, as distinct from the judgment you and I would make (our opinions).
My strong suspicion is that we're unlikely to get very far arguing that what we're against violates the Constitution and stopping there. Following the Constitution is not the end, it's the means, of reaching what is right (I mean as distinct from wrong, not as distinct from the left of the political spectrum ).
At this point I am 99.999% sure that you and I are of the same mind as to the right vs wrong judgment of Obama’s agenda. But as to the level of doubt he should be given regarding his willingness to stay within the confines of the Constitution you are much more generous toward him than I am. You are right that evidence beyond doubt, the requirement for impeachment, does not exist. But I am satisfied that the preponderance of evidence, which does exist, is sufficient for challenging him in the court of public opinion. It is in that court that we have the best chance of uniting the voting public against not only Obama, who will not be running for election again, but more importantly, against his cohorts in Congress, whose support he needs to enact most elements of his agenda, and who will be running again.
You are right that we should not argue that what we are against violates the Constitution and stop there. We need to make the case that what we are against is wrong on its own merits. But if it does violate the Constitution then we should make that case as well
Yes, I agree we are very close all around. The preponderance of information (or at least what information we would tend to accept as evidence, which Obama and his supporters might in all good conscience not accept, by the way) does seem to suggest that Obama and his congressional cohort are indeed trying to accomplish ends that are contrary to what the US is/ should be and absolutely that we should challenge it. I also agree that both the violations of the Constitution themselves as well as the reasons they are wrong should be presented.
Other than the fact that it's inherently evil (although at least some of them probably don't see that, so I tend to make allowances), I'd say it's the Democrats' and Obama's right to take the federal government as far to the left as they can manage, just as it was Reagan's and the Republicans to take it as far to the right (towards freedom) as they were able when they held the reins!