Sunday, April 18, 2010

Obama, Bill Clinton Bitter Over Governing A Free People

"Former President Bill Clinton warned of a slippery slope from angry anti-government rhetoric to violence like the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing"

The latest rounds of misgivings espoused by former President Bill Clinton, and echoed in the recent comments of current President Obama, underscore both men's lack of confidence in free societies and their discomfort at having the public question the direction their leadership is taking the country.
“I've been a little amused over the last couple of days where people have been having these rallies, about taxes. You would think they would be saying, "Thank you!" That's what you'd think!"

Well, perhaps that is what you might think, Mr. President. It is not what I would think.

The right to peacefully assemble and petition the government is an essential aspect of our heritage. It is the clearest expression of the idea that a nation should be governed by the people themselves. Governing against the will of the people is anathema to our shared American traditions. Never has it been more clear that our current president holds none of those great ideas in regard than when he scoffed at the Tea Party movement in his comments in Florida.

The Constitution of the United States is a remarkable document, for it lays out the general ideas of government that resulted in the freest, most inventive and industrious people that the world has ever known. This great nation has served as a beacon of freedom, and has been the refuge and hope of all the world.

The right to peacefully assemble and petition the government is constitutionally guaranteed to the people in our First Amendment. This, the first of ten amendments promised at the constitutional convention, are commonly referred to as our Bill of Rights. They are the essential building blocks of freedom, as they define that the powers of the government are limited, and subject to the people governed.

The lack of comfort shown by both men, despite the considerable time they spent training in the law, underscores a deeply held misgiving and lack of trust they hold toward the core principles in the nations founding. If we are to listen to Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama, we must elevate these men as not only our betters, but the betters of the men who founded this country.

Can we in good faith do that? Can we disregard the insight, wisdom and commitment to freedom and personal liberty held by such men as Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington? Could it be that a man commonly referred to as 'slick willy', who lied before Congress and a Grand Jury, who was disbarred from the practice of law for the disrespect he demonstrated for the law, should be held up as a wiser man and a man of better character and understanding then the founders of the great nation that we all live in today? And do we really believe that the disdain that Barrack Obama holds for those in this nation that disagree with him elevate Barrack to a more lofty position than our first president, who lead this nations fighting men for seven years, weathering great deprivation, hardship and doubt?

We are a nation founded under the idea that the people should be free, and with the understanding that the greatest threat to that freedom is the nation's own government.

This never was more true than it is today.


  1. When Clinton was President-Elect (*) he made reference to his intended policies for his up-coming administration as, “during my reign.” I read this at the time, as quoted by his fans in the media. I’ve not been able to find a link to it. But, can you imagine if Bush had referred to his administration as “my reign?”

    (*) And to think, even he, with his consummate narcissism, never thought to invent the Office of the President-Elect.

  2. I don't remember that but I am not surprised to hear of it. It fits Bill's general notion that he should be serviced, and his attitude that anything good for Bill was good for the country. Both President Clinton and President Obama have been admirers of totalitarian despots like Fidel Castro, and have been envious of the ease in which such men are able to enact change. The left is very much enamored of and trusting in Big Government, unless of course it is a republican administration that is attempting to enact its policies.

  3. *gasp* Are you saying that the "liberals" are hypocrites? *gasp*

  4. Well, it is shocking the blind faith these people have that government will do it better, and this idea holds sway with them, despite ALL evidence to the contrary. The only time you see the left suspicious of government is when a republican is in charge. Then you find they are concerned that a multinational corporation like Haliburton receives a building contract in Iraq. They wonder at the constitutionality of tapping the cell phone communications of known terrorists, and ponder the cruelty of detaining captured terrorists who have of their own volition declared war on this country. However, change the administration, and suddenly all these items aren't really worth discussing anymore. "Oh well, yesterdays news." The inconsistency reveals the fact that they never had any true investment in the argument they were making in the first place. It was all politically expedient then, just as it is not politically expedient now.

  5. Alleged-President Obama is living proof that not all men (even if they do happen to be citizens) are fitted to be US President. Presidents Clinton and Carter are also proof of that ... but further, these two are living proof that not all men are fitted to be ex-presidents.

  6. "... but further, these two are living proof that not all men are fitted to be ex-presidents."

    Well said. Carter! Would the guy just shut it? Pipe down you little yapping lap dog! And Clinton. Still spreading that thick layer of schmooze all over the place. But can you believe anything the man is saying?

    Didn't think so.

  7. Ilion, I have to chime in--

    not all men are fitted to be ex-presidents

    What a great line!

  8. "What a great line!"

    While I may not have cribbed the exact wording, I'm fairly sure I've encountered the idea in someone else's writing, possibly (national-treasure-in-training) Jonah Goldberg, or Steyn.

  9. Gosh, I haven't even kept up with Steyn the last couple of weeks, but Goldberg is clearly a big favorite in these parts, I should read his stuff more regularly. I like that "national-treasure-in-training" -- it conjures up the funniest image. Sort of a School of Athens setting, but everybody wearing suits, with PRESS cards in their hats.

  10. If I don't get this sleep thing sorted out, I, am going, to lose, my, mind.

  11. Well, Thomas Sowell is the national-treasure, so Jonah Goldberg has to settle for -in-training.

    I've missed something. I didn't realize you were having problems sleeping. Are we all keeping you awake? (I suppose that's much better than putting you to sleep!)

  12. Are we all keeping you awake?

    No, no, it's just the voices in my head. :)

    (Sometimes a spot of karmic congestion coincides with some external disruption, like traveling, and I end up with unusually drastic insomnia. Which feeds on itself, as the more tired I get, the more emotional I get. Plus I tend to say loopy things to my friends, which makes me realize just how bad it's getting!)