Pres. Obama Tells Students to Reject Voices Warning of Tyrannical Government

[Kyle Jacob Biodrowski]

The title says it all...

Who is this guy trying to fool?

His once unfailing charisma is quickly eroding at this point. The layers are being pulled back, and the truth is becoming clearer and clearer with every word he speaks.

The curtains have fallen from the rings to reveal a plotting, would-be, king.

Also, could this guy be more condescending? Telling people what to do as if they wouldn't know what to do if not for his guidance. Is this the mind-set of a benevolent-dictator? Is Obama benevolent?

Sure, just ask his boot. Y'know the boot pressed firmly on a few million throats.

(I'm starting to think I should have placed this in the "Rants" section...)

[Selene]

Lol...

He is a hostile marxist with huge father issues.

He is an angry, and, a basically malignant individual.

The scary part is that he was re-elected by a voting populace that will get what they deserve by re-electing him.

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

To hear Obama say it like that brings me comfort.

He's losing the ideological war and it just dawned on him why. He totally left the "man can govern himself" debate to the religious people.

Now his argument sounds like (and I paraphrase the subtext). "Man can govern himself, thus government is good, and if you swallow that, I can keep and expand my own power. It's hard as hell to rule with all the freedom shit being kicked around. Let it go, people! You don't need that much freedom. For God's sake, let me rule without checks or balances! I know better than you or anyone what We The People wants."

(To himself: "They want me... Obviously...")

I predict Obama is going to get clearer and clearer on his big government collectivist message, and it will become more and more strident. And this will turn more and more Americans off.

So good things should be coming... that is unless some big government conservative people get in and screw things up again.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Lol...

He is a hostile marxist with huge father issues.

He is an angry, and, a basically malignant individual.

The scary part is that he was re-elected by a voting populace that will get what they deserve by re-electing him.

A...

Vote fraud.

--Brant

[Kyle Jacob Biodrowski]

"Man can govern himself..."

Do you mean "can't"?

So good things should be coming... that is unless some big government conservative people get in and screw things up again.

This is one of my primary worries. Flip-flopping between parties to see which is better at running "the economy" (I'm really channeling Fred right today...). I'm hopeful, however, that more and more Americans are grasping the fact that government (our current one) is the problem, not any particular party.

"...I know better than you or anyone what We The People wants."

We want this. We want that.

Mr. President who do you mean by "we".

Certainly, you do not mean me.

Barry the diviner.

Preferably, six feet under.

[KacyRay]

To hear Obama say it like that brings me comfort.

He's losing the ideological war and it just dawned on him why. He totally left the "man can govern himself" debate to the religious people.

Now his argument sounds like (and I paraphrase the subtext). "Man can govern himself, thus government is good, and if you swallow that, I can keep and expand my own power. It's hard as hell to rule with all the freedom shit being kicked around. Let it go, people! You don't need that much freedom. For God's sake, let me rule without checks or balances! I know better than you or anyone what We The People wants."

(To himself: "They want me... Obviously...")

I predict Obama is going to get clearer and clearer on his big government collectivist message, and it will become more and more strident. And this will turn more and more Americans off.

So good things should be coming... that is unless some big government conservative people get in and screw things up again.

Michael

I find something you said here interesting.... "I can keep and expand my own power".... this seems to be a pretty well accepted theme here, and I wonder if you could lay it out for me explicitly.

Do you believe that Obama intends to somehow extend his executive authority past his presidential term? Either by somehow geting another term, changing the rules so that he stays in power, or somehow usurping the next president? Or by getting a sockpuppet elected in order to advance his agenda?

Is that what you think he's going to do?

Next question - would this move in any way resemble Dubya's inexplicable ascent to the throne and subsequent attack of a country that was not attacking us - a country that *just happened* to be the same country, with the same guy in charge, that his father failed to defeat in 1992 - under the ruse of having found WMD's there?

Or would this be different?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Man can govern himself..."

Do you mean "can't"?

Kyle,

The American experiment was in whether man can govern himself, i.e., without a king, without appointment from the Divine, etc.

The very fact that you ask this question shows how far the educational system dropped the ball on this.

But you will find this discussed often in religious places where they prize the Constitution.

The Tea Party and those who circle around it have been popularizing this notion. It's the antidote to big government, too.

Obama, The Knucklehead Supreme (at least in that video), now wants it to be the justification of big government. That's Orwell-land. Doublethink.

One of my favorite quotes from the Founding Fathers is in Thomas Paine's Common Sense:

Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first a patron, the last a punisher.

Try to square that with what Obama is talking about. It doesn't. Hell, he even complains about negative rights being the foundation of the Constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court. Here's an exact quote from 2001 (my bold):

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted.

I don't believe his disapproval of that has shifted, either. He toned it down a bit once he started running for President and after he was elected, but that's all.

If the American experiment is whether man can rule himself. and if you take Paine's word for it, you get "whether man can rule his own wickedness."

Obama doesn't want you to be good. It's OK for you to be bad. That gives him the moral justification to say he has to rule over you, using "We The People," as his spoken reason, but raw power as his true intent. (When I say Obama, I mean those who think like him, too.)

Michael

[Kyle Jacob Biodrowski]

Man can govern himself..."

Do you mean "can't"?

Kyle,

The American experiment was in whether man can govern himself, i.e., without a king, without appointment from the Divine, etc.

The very fact that you ask this question shows how far the educational system dropped the ball on this.

But you will find this discussed often in religious places where they prize the Constitution.

The Tea Party and those who circle around it have been popularizing this notion. It's the antidote to big government, too.

Obama, The Knucklehead Supreme (at least in that video), now wants it to be the justification of big government. That's Orwell-land. Doublethink.

One of my favorite quotes from the Founding Fathers is in Thomas Paine's Common Sense:

>Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first a patron, the last a punisher.

Try to square that with what Obama is talking about. It doesn't. Hell, he even complains about negative rights being the foundation of the Constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court. Here's an exact quote from 2001 (my bold):

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted.

I don't believe his disapproval of that has shifted, either. He toned it down a bit once he started running for President and after he was elected, but that's all.

If the American experiment is whether man can rule himself. and if you take Paine's word for it, you get "whether man can rule his own wickedness."

Obama doesn't want you to be good. It's OK for you to be bad. That gives him the moral justification to say he has to rule over you, using "We The People," as his spoken reason, but raw power as his true intent. (When I say Obama, I mean those who think like him, too.)

Michael

Michael,

I believe you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that man can't govern himself (this isn't my belief or position). I was correcting your interpretation of Obama's argument since it didn't square with the rest of your interpretation.

Your interpretation was as follows:

"Man can govern himself, thus government is good, and if you swallow that, I can keep and expand my own power. It's hard as hell to rule with all the freedom shit being kicked around. Let it go, people! You don't need that much freedom. For God's sake, let me rule without checks or balances! I know better than you or anyone what We The People wants."

I corrected the second word (by changing can to can't) since it didn't make sense given the rest of your interpretation of Obama's argument.

Nice monologue, though.

And the educational system still isn't in possession of the ball.

But you will find this discussed often in religious places where they prize the Constitution.

I was in church the other day and I could swear the priest was channeling Obama. I was waiting for him to say: "we're all in this together". LOL.

This isn't to say you are wrong in the above quote. Most religious folk do have a firm respect for liberty, at least, in my experience.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Kacy,

As I said in my post above, when I mention Obama in discussing something broad like liberty, I also mean those who think like he does.

To answer you question specifically about him, would he like to expand his power, do a third term, etc., etc. etc.? Of course he would. Is the Pope Catholic? Does a bear shit in the woods? (You know,,, )

He's already exceeded his powers a few times and he's famous for getting his advisers to tell him where he can push the envelope, circumvent Congress, circumvent the Constitution, etc. But he's a Progressive, not a revolutionary. He pushes a little, not a lot.

How far will he go? I believe he will go as far as thinks he can get away with. He knows there are checks holding him if he pushes too hard, and they could remove him from office. So he takes whatever baby-steps he can dream up.

Regarding power, I don't see Obama as a George Washington who would step down after two terms to prove the American experiment works.

But his personal ambitions are not all that important when gauged against the people who think like him. The process is that first you have to have precedents to cut freedoms, and a strong power structure to replace them, then all those people who think like he does will scramble to find their place in the sun ruling over the masses. So it doesn't matter whether it's Obama, Bush, or anyone else--just so long as the restrictions on supreme power of a ruler finally get cut.

To them, man cannot rule himself--only a supreme ruler can. The form of "supreme ruler" they have in mind at this moment looks more like a junta of technocrats than a strongman dictator. But that's the end game.

About Bush, I've already said he's a Progressive. He and Obama are the same animal, just different breed.

When you ask me about him in dichotomy mode, it comes off to me like someone asking which is the doggier dog, a German Shepherd or a Dalmatian.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Kyle,

Here's a quote from the video:

Still, you'll hear voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's the root of all our problems, even as they do their best to gum up the works; or that tyranny always lurks just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, creative, unique experiment in self-rule is just a sham with which we can't be trusted.

Obama does not argue that man can't rule himself. On the contrary, he is saying man can rule himself.

And that this "brave, creative, unique experiment in self-rule" is not a sham.

He argues that those who distrust government are really the ones who think man cannot rule himself.

My point is that he got on this bandwagon really, really late.

His interpretation is wrong and upside-down, of course, which is why I quoted Paine, but that is not relevant to his stated position. He clearly states that man can rule himself and that this is the American experiment.

In other words, he got that part right. He's just late and wrong about what it means.

Michael

[Kyle Jacob Biodrowski]

Michael,

I'm sorry if I'm frustrating you.

I don't understand what went wrong in our communication.

I'm trying to figure it out; I think I'm slowly getting it.

I misunderstood your interpretation (I thought you made a mistake). And I misunderstood your post #7.

[KacyRay]

I see.. "Obama" is an archetype.

That makes a bit more sense.

"Regarding power, I don't see Obama as a George Washington who would step down after two terms to prove the American experiment works."

That makes him no different than almost every other President.

"To them, man cannot rule himself--only a supreme ruler can. The form of "supreme ruler" they have in mind at this moment looks more like a junta of technocrats than a strongman dictator. But that's the end game."

I just don't see this in Obama. I almost feel like, where I see a puppy dog, you see a ravenous wolf. I'm not saying you're wrong... I'm just not seeing it.

I'm not even arguing that he isn't a progressive. I will cede that point without argument. I'm just saying I don't see his endgame the way you do. I see him as a guy who sees government as the solution to a lot of problems - not as a guy who sees a supreme ruler as the only proper destiny for this country.

"About Bush, I've already said he's a Progressive. He and Obama are the same animal, just different breed.

When you ask me about him in dichotomy mode, it comes off to me like someone asking which is the doggier dog, a German Shepherd or a Dalmatian."

Now, Bush was a guy (and when i say Bush, I mean the puppet that danced on Dick Cheney's strings) who seemed intent on not just executive domination of the USA, but military domination of the entire world. Different topic I realize, but ... I just saw Bush as being a whole lot more dangerous.

As a guy who is currently floating around in the Middle East, I'm pretty happy to have a guy in power who is not looking for reasons to send boots into the sands of Syria. To me, that makes Obama much safer. You guys are worried about the economy... I look out the window of the Debark Control tower and worry about much different things.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Kacy,

Regardless of what we may say on different topics, I hope, in the bottom of my heart, that you stay safe.

If I were religious, I would pray for your safety.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Kyle,

No biggie.

The important thing is to understand the idea and how Obama is clever at twisting it.

But, to repeat, I think he's too late on this one. I think he put it in the "clinging to their guns and Bibles" category in his mind and simply ignored it as a serious thought.

Now he's addressing it, but I think his moment passed long ago. Too many good solid stories have been told and are now in people's minds for some boneheaded Ivy League cool doublethink to make a dent.

Michael

[KacyRay]

I wish I could see the video!

[Robert Baratheon]

That makes him no different than almost every other President.

Well, not quite. No president held more than two terms for the first 150 years of its history. FDR, one of Obama's personal heroes, was the one who ended that century-and-a-half era of self-restraint, and it's no coincidence FDR presided over the largest expansion of federal power in history.

Now, Bush was a guy (and when i say Bush, I mean the puppet that danced on Dick Cheney's strings) who seemed intent on not just executive domination of the USA, but military domination of the entire world. Different topic I realize, but ... I just saw Bush as being a whole lot more dangerous.

As a guy who is currently floating around in the Middle East, I'm pretty happy to have a guy in power who is not looking for reasons to send boots into the sands of Syria. To me, that makes Obama much safer. You guys are worried about the economy... I look out the window of the Debark Control tower and worry about much different things.

The Bush wars were terrible mistakes, but I don't see them as a significant threat to the future of the United States per se. Globalism has essentially moved us past the age of conventional warfare between nation states. What exists now is a coalition of nations against scattered forces of international terrorism and rogue nations that pose our mainland no real danger. Restructuring the economy toward central planning and racking up gargantuan debt levels to fund social programs, on the other hand, is something that has a very real chance of wrecking our economy and culture for the very long-term future. We're much more likely to destroy ourselves economically than be militarily destroyed by another nation at this point.

[KacyRay]

Kacy,

Regardless of what we may say on different topics, I hope, in the bottom of my heart, that you stay safe.

If I were religious, I would pray for your safety.

Michael

Thanks Michael. I hope to survive to once again see the day when I can watch streaming video on my monitor.

[Brant Gaede]

That makes him no different than almost every other President.

Well, not quite. No president held more than two terms for the first 150 years of its history. FDR, one of Obama's personal heroes, was the one who ended that century-and-a-half era of self-restraint, and it's no coincidence FDR presided over the largest expansion of federal power in history.

>>Now, Bush was a guy (and when i say Bush, I mean the puppet that danced on Dick Cheney's strings) who seemed intent on not just executive domination of the USA, but military domination of the entire world. Different topic I realize, but ... I just saw Bush as being a whole lot more dangerous.

As a guy who is currently floating around in the Middle East, I'm pretty happy to have a guy in power who is not looking for reasons to send boots into the sands of Syria. To me, that makes Obama much safer. You guys are worried about the economy... I look out the window of the Debark Control tower and worry about much different things.

The Bush wars were terrible mistakes, but I don't see them as a significant threat to the future of the United States per se. Globalism has essentially moved us past the age of conventional warfare between nation states. What exists now is a coalition of nations against scattered forces of international terrorism and rogue nations that pose our mainland no real danger. Restructuring the economy toward central planning and racking up gargantuan debt levels to fund social programs, on the other hand, is something that has a very real chance of wrecking our economy and culture for the very long-term future. We're much more likely to destroy ourselves economically than be militarily destroyed by another nation at this point.

The next point? Syria-Iran, China, Japan, Korea, the South China Sea. Globalism will crash and burn then be reborn over the next few decades = actual wars and conflicts therefore and thereby. NE Asia is the undisengageable biggie, not the Middle East, but Kacy can come to unlike Obama the same time he'll no longer have time to talk to us.

--Brant

"Skate to where the puck will be, not to where it is"

[BaalChatzaf]

Jack Kennedy spouted that same bullshit: Aaahhhhsk not what your country can do for you, aaaahhhsk what you can do for your country.

Crap. Shit. Manure. Lies!!!!!

[GALTGULCH8]

I wonder if anyone else besides me is disturbed by the fact that Obama keeps saying our "Democracy" rather than our "Republic?"

Benjamin Franklin's words "A Republic, if you can keep it!" come to mind.

As I understand it the Founders rejected democracy as a desirable form of government because of its history and the word democracy is not mentioned once in any of the founding documents.

I wonder if the students to whom he is speaking are aware of the distinction or whether there are other notions he expresses which they find disturbing. For example his contention that great things can never come from each of us acting on our own and pursuing our own interests rather that great things can only come from all of acting together ala collectivism?

I wish someone present at the speech would interview the students and put it up on youtube for all to see.

Today was a good day. I met someone new at work who never heard of Ayn Rand and is intelligent and enjoys discussing ideas. We will see.

[syrakusos]

I hate Obama, therefore whatever he says, I will disagree with because I call myself an "Objectivist" (even though I am a folksy, cracker barrel conservative.)

We, the People, chose to do these things together because we know that this country cannot accomplish great things if we pursue nothing greater than our own individual ambition. Unfortunately, you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices do their best to gum up the works. They'll warn that tyranny is always just lurking around the corner. You should reject these voices because what they suggest is that our brave and creative and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we cannot be trusted. We have never been a people to place all of our faith in government to solve all of our problems - we shouldn't want to - but we don't think that government is the source of all our problems, either, because we understand that this democracy is ours; and that as citizens we understand that it is not about what America can do for us, but what can be done by us together by the hard and frustrating but absolutely necessary work of self-government and Class of 2013 you have to be involved in that process.

About a thousand years ago, I read about a study where the researchers showed a paragraph or two of politically neutral writing. Self-identified "liberals" found it "conservative" and vice versa.

Another validation of that thesis approaches the problem from another perspective. "Why Evidence is Not Enough" on my blog here is based on this paper, available from our comrades at Mother Jones ("Cultural Cognition of Consensus.") Basically, we make up our minds first, then when someone agrees with us, we boost their credibility; and when they disagree with us, we denigrate their credentials.

You know what was really funny? When I posted that to RoR, one of the regulars tore the study apart for its liberal bias.

[Kyle Jacob Biodrowski]

I hate Obama, therefore whatever he says, I will disagree with because I call myself an "Objectivist" (even though I am a folksy, cracker barrel conservative.)

Why is that?

[syrakusos]

KJB -- sorry to confuse you. I was being facetious. Read the entire article; and then consider the whole thing in context. The second half refutes the first and states my case.

[Dglgmut]

So you think what Obama said in the video was politically neutral?

His main point was, "Trust the government because you have control of it." That is what democracy is about, convincing people that the government represents them even though they have no actual leverage to influence what the government does with its powers.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe compares democracies to monarchies in Democracy: The God That Failed. People would tolerate much less government expansion in monarchies because the separation between the state and the people was clear. Also, Kings and Queens thought of government property as theirs, so they actually took care of it.

[KacyRay]

We, the People, chose to do these things together because we know that this country cannot accomplish great things if we pursue nothing greater than our own individual ambition. Unfortunately, you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices do their best to gum up the works. They'll warn that tyranny is always just lurking around the corner. You should reject these voices because what they suggest is that our brave and creative and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we cannot be trusted. We have never been a people to place all of our faith in government to solve all of our problems - we shouldn't want to - but we don't think that government is the source of all our problems, either, because we understand that this democracy is ours; and that as citizens we understand that it is not about what America can do for us, but what can be done by us together by the hard and frustrating but absolutely necessary work of self-government and Class of 2013 you have to be involved in that process.

Is this the text of the video that the OP was about???

This is what the kerfluffel was about???

I hate Obama, therefore whatever he says, I will disagree with because I call myself an "Objectivist" (even though I am a folksy, cracker barrel conservative.)

Fo' real!

About a thousand years ago, I read about a study where the researchers showed a paragraph or two of politically neutral writing. Self-identified "liberals" found it "conservative" and vice versa.

That's funny... if you knew how many times I've been called a rabid right-wing-nut fascist in liberal blog comment section, you'd be amazed.

Actually - you probably wouldn't be, but a more than a couple folks in here probably would.

You know what was really funny? When I posted that to RoR, one of the regulars tore the study apart for its liberal bias.

Right on, Michael! Liberals unite! <holding up a modified peace sign>