Robin of Berkeley: Will the real racist please stand up?

“Robin of Berkeley” reflects on the aftermath of the Oakland riots,. Read the whole thing, but this passage is particularly salient:

A colleague said this to me the other day. “That police officer should be found guilty. But if he’s not, they have every a right to riot.”

She was simply expressing the typical liberal view. But let’s pick this apart.

If thousands of Jews or Chinese or white males looted stores and burned cars, would the public be so tolerant? I don’t think so. Are we really talking tolerance here, or something else entirely — a colonialist, superior attitude?

Put bluntly, when liberals say that “they” have a right to riot, what’s the implication here? Is it that blacks are primitive, out-of-control Neanderthals? Those Jews, Chinese, and white males are expected to have self-control. No such expectations exist for designated victim groups like blacks and Latinos.
By treating blacks as a special class, liberals marginalize and infantilize. Liberals also set the bar insultingly low.

Obama and his handlers knew that white liberal guilt could be exploited to their advantage. They realized that Obama would be insulated from scrutiny.

But it’s not just guilt; it’s also a white feeling of superiority. Because you have to see yourself as on top to offer special treatment to those on bottom.

Obama has been the Teflon President because of the color of his skin. Liberals are giving him a free ride.

We see it every day when criticism of Obama evokes cries of racism. But who are the real racists here?
Are the racists those conservatives who hold everyone accountable to the same standards? Who believe that people should be judged by their character and their behavior, not their race, creed, or color?

Or are the racists those white liberals who treat Obama like some delicate flower? While liberals still eviscerate George W. Bush, any judgment of Obama is off limits.

It’s not just whites who are enabling Obama by acting like his protectors. Blacks voted en masse for Obama. Sadly, what has he offered them?

From the start, it was obvious that Obama, though half-black, had never done anything for the black community. In Chicago, his actions hurt blacks.

Obama was a huge supporter of Tony Rezko, a notorious slumlord, now a felon. When Obama served in the state senate, black residents picketed Rezko’s offices to protest their rat-infested, unheated apartments.

And what has Obama done to help blacks since he’s been president? One of Obama’s first actions as president was eliminating the DC school voucher program that offered poor black kids the chance for a better life.

Obama and the Democrats have created record debt and crushed the economy. A depressed economy hits minority groups especially hard.

And then there is Obama’s push for amnesty for illegals. How is giving jobs to millions of illegals going to help blacks, who have unconscionably high unemployment rates?

But there is one perk Obama has afforded the black underclass — the right to behave brutally. Obama’s Justice Department dropped charges for those New Black Panthers who allegedly threatened and harassed people at election sites.

This encouragement to act out is deeply cynical and manipulative. It’s designed to control racial minorities and promote social unrest.

Although Obama has only agitated, not uplifted, Americans, most liberals regard him as their icon. To them, Obama is the Great Black Hope.

Liberals handle Obama with kid gloves. In the meantime, they turn a blind eye to his dangerous policies, like flirting with radical Islam. Liberals make excuses for the plummeting economy, blaming their usual bogeyman: conservatives.

They refuse to see Obama without the rose-colored glasses. Why? Because when it comes to Obama, liberals see a black man deserving of special treatment.

Will the real racist please stand up?

One black intellectual, Thomas Sowell, saw through this liberal conceit decades ago. He refers to the minorities on which these extremely dubious (for ultimately toxic) blessings are bestowed as “mascots of the anointed”.

Thomas Sowell: Race and resentment

Thomas Sowell has a “read the whole thing” article on race and resentment. The salient grafs:

Recent stories out of both Philadelphia and San Francisco tell of black students beating up Asian American students. This is especially painful for those who expected that the election of Barack Obama would mark the beginning of a post-racial America.[…]

Those who explain racial antagonisms on some rationalistic basis will have a hard time demonstrating how Asian Americans have made blacks worse off. Certainly none of the historic wrongs done to blacks was done by the small Asian American population who, for most of their history in this country, have not had enough clout to prevent themselves from being discriminated against.[…]

Resentments and hostility toward people with higher achievements are one of the most widespread of human failings. Resentments of achievements are more deadly than envy of wealth.

The hatred of people who started at the bottom and worked their way up has far exceeded any hostility toward those who were simply born into wealth. None of the sultans who inherited extraordinary fortunes in Malaysia has been hated like the Chinese, who arrived there destitute and rose by their own efforts.

Inheritors of the Rockefeller fortune have been elected as popular governors in three states, attracting nothing like the hostility toward the Jewish immigrants who rose from poverty on Manhattan’s Lower East Side to prosperity in a variety of fields.

Others who started at the bottom and rose to prosperity– the Lebanese in West Africa, the Indians in Fiji, the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, for example– have likewise been hated for their achievements. Being born a sultan or a Rockefeller is not an achievement.

Achievements are a reflection on others who may have had similar, and sometimes better, chances but who did not make the most of their chances. Achievements are like a slap across the face to those who are not achieving, and many people react with the same kind of anger that such an insult would provoke.

In our own times, especially, this is not just a spontaneous reaction. Many of our educators, our intelligentsia and our media — not to mention our politicians– promote an attitude that other people’s achievements are grievances, rather than examples.

When black school children who are working hard in school and succeeding academically are attacked and beaten up by black classmates for “acting white,” why is it surprising that similar hostility is turned against Asian Americans, who are often achieving academically more so than whites?

This attitude is not peculiar to some in the black community or to the United States. The same phenomenon is found among lower-class whites in Britain, where academically achieving white students have been beaten up badly enough by their white classmates to require hospital treatment.

These are poisonous and self-destructive consequences of a steady drumbeat of ideological hype about differences that are translated into “disparities” and “inequities,” provoking envy and resentments under their more prettied-up name of “social justice.”

Asian American school children who are beaten up are just some of the victims of these resentments that are whipped up. Young people who are seething with resentments, instead of seizing educational and other opportunities around them, are bigger victims in the long run, whether they are blacks in the US or lower-class whites in the UK. […]

People who call differences “inequities” and achievements “privilege” leave social havoc in their wake, while feeling noble about siding with the less fortunate. It would never occur to them that they have any responsibility for the harm done to both blacks and Asian Americans.

I have for a long time wondered why the Tenth Commandment is “thou shalt not covet” (לא תחמוד), as “coveting” something is not an act but an intent. However, it is covetousness that will lead to violating all of the others.

Is 0bamacare constitutional?

JCM on C2 addresses the (un)constitutionality of 0bamacare:

In my wanderings through the innerwebz in pursuit of opinions regarding the Constitutionality of Health Care Reform (HRC), I came across a lot of stuff. And instead of doing a massive link dump, I’ve chosen to bore you with with my own take on all those opinions and add my own to the cacophony.

The ORP (Obama – Reid – Pelosi) Troika is basing HRC on three legs to make their argument for the Constitutionality of the bill. Presuming they care about such esoteric notions as Constitutionality.

1 – The General Welfare clause.

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.

2 – The Interstate Commerce Clause

Article 1 Section 8

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

3 – The taxing power granted in the 16th Amendment.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Summarizing as briefly as possibile the objections to bringing HRC under one or all of this clauses. The objections will be as insofar as possible from the postion of an Constitutional Originalist. I will not be considering the shift away from original intent, especially since the FDR and the New Deal courts.

General Welfare

This clause has two limitations in original intent. The first is it is constrained by enumerated powers of Article 1 Section 8. Second is that it is GENERAL not INDIVIDUAL.

Health Care especially the provision of health care is not an enumerated power of Congress. Madison was quite clear, the General Welfare Clause is constrained by the enumeration of powers. Note the specific language used in Article 1 Section 8. . . . and general Welfare of the United State; . . .

Could Health Care be construed in some manner as General Welfare of the United States? The answer would [s]till be no. General, means just that. The “welfare” the action provides is for the General public that benefits The United States, everyone equally and simultaneously. General Warfare would by no means consider diminishing one person, to benefit another. Even at [its] best HRC is still individual welfare. The difference is having a military to protect all of us, and a soldier assigned as a personal bodyguard.

Commerce Clause

Congress is empowered to regulate commerce. In [its] original intent, it was the commerce, not industry and production that was regulated. Again note the language, to regulate Commerce with . . . , and among the several States, . . . the purpose of the commerce clause was to keep trade and business, especially between states, free and open. They expressly did not want tariffs and disparate rules making trade between the states more difficult. The commerce clause restricts the states, not businesses and industry from operating.

This clause is the singularly […] most abused, it has become the way to regulate business in the United States. Not only business, but the lack of business. In Wickard the court ruled individual production[,] of a product for individual consumption, was interstate commerce and therefore subject to regulation. HRC takes that concept to the final stage, that the lack of commerce, i.e. choosing not to buy health insurance is interstate commerce.

Taxing Powers

This why the IRS is being included in HRC as the revenue generating and enforcement authority. This amendment give the power to tax to Congress, it doesn’t give Congress the power to provide a service to the people, and most definitely not the power to use the coercive power to government to require individuals accept a service provided.

I am certain HRC will be challenged on all three legs, as well as other points. From an originalist perspective the decisions should be clear cut, HRC doesn’t have a Constitutional leg to stand on. How will the courts rule with the more contemporary interpretations, whether or not originalist interpretations will hold that is the trillion dollar question.

The ORP Troika also throw another thing on that the table, hoping to confuse the issue.

Health Care is a Right.

Umm, no. Health Care is NOT a Right. Yes, I know, I’m a mean, evil bitter clingy right winger. This is where subtitles of language are very, very important. To be clear, you do have a right to health care, but health care is not a right. There is a world of difference between the two phrases.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Rights are intrinsic, not extrinsic. The individual is endowed with rights. These rights are a component a condition of being an individual. Theses intrinsic, endowed, inalienable rights can be abridged, denied, suppressed, oppressed by men and governments. That doesn’t mean they still don’t existed [sic], just that these rights are being unjustly denied.

Rights are not extrinsic, they are not provided by external sources. The same forces that can deny them can protect them but not grant them. The founding of this country is based on the premis[e] that government deriving [its] just powers from the consent of the governed would protect those rights. Government is not the source, cannot provide a right. Government can merely can be a protector.

Access to health care has on impact on life, of that there is no doubt. Access to air also has and impact on life. It would be untrue to say, air is a right. You have a right to air, to maintain life. No one, can legally, morally or justly deny you air, generally that would be called murder. When air, or anything external is the right is where things run amok. When air is a right, it implies that air should, no must, be provided the individual. That someone else must breath for the individual. When something, air or health care is the right, it places demands on someone else to provide it for the individual. Not that the right to that “thing” be protected, but that, that “thing” be provided.

Placing this demand on another individual is an just denial of their rights. This is why rights are intrinsic, operating out from, exercised by the individual. Not provided to the individual. The individual can exercise his rights, unencumbered to go out and obtain health care. The right to health care.

This extrinsic vs. intrinsic view of rights is the core of Obama’s 2001 comments in an interview that the Constitution is flawed in that is a document of negative rights for government, instead of positive rights. When rights are intrinsic then government must be constrained from denying and abridging those rights, government must be limited in its power. With the positive rights model, government must be empowered to provide not only grant and provide rights, but provide the substance of those rights as well.

HRC is fatally flawed when viewed from an Originalists Constitution point of view but also from an the perspective of individual rights in the classical liberal point of view.

0bama arguing for positive instead of negative rights cuts to the heart of the difference between the American and French revolutions, with 0bama taking the French side, and classical liberalism the American side. At heart, it emanates from what Thomas Sowell calls the “constrained” vs. “unconstrained” visions of human nature.

In the unconstrained vision, all human problems are evntually amenable to solution if only the wisest men (the “anointed”) get the power to do so and guarantee every individual his/her every need, with the aid of a large government apparatus. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is a classic expression of the unconstrained vision. (A physicist might say it presupposes a Newtonian, deterministic universe.) The unconstrained vision naturally leads to expansive government and “positive rights” of individuals (such as putative rights to a job, to a minimum level of income, to “free” education and “free” healthcare,…) Communism, Nazism, and Islamism are extreme “unconstrained” ideologies: more moderate examples are Euro-style social democracy and the clericalist welfare statism that goes by the name of “Christian democracy” in many European countries. American left-liberalism is likewise in the “unconstrained” camp.

In the constrained vision, the human power to solve human problems is limited by practical constraints, by the “law of unintended consequences”, and by the limits of human intellect —  be it an individual’s or the collective one of an oligarchy. (A physicist might think of a nondeterministic universe — quantum, chaotic, or both). As the constrained vision is inherently pessimistic about the ability of government (or any human endeavor) to cure all social ills, it tends to err on the side of caution where it comes to government power, and naturally leads to limited government constrained by negative rights (things government is not allowed to do to you or cannot force you to do). Classical liberalism and libertarianism are typical expressions of the “constrained” vision.

Note finally that the above discussion has not directly raised the Tenth Amendment and the limits it places on Federal power (although the Commerce Clause indirectly references it): “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In this context, “the United States” refers to “the Federal government”. Obviously, neither the Constitution nor the Amendments delegate the power to impose a healthcare mandate on citizens to the Federal government…