“The longer we go in this presidency, the less relation MSM headlines have to reality.”

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right or below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

“The longer we go in this presidency, the less relation [mainstream media] headlines have to reality.”



  • JGL

    Talking about reality.

    I was thinking this morning about Abraham Lincoln and I imagined how a good deal of the American people must have felt about him in his time.

    In modern times we revere him and understand that he did what must have been done and applaud his efforts and accomplishments.

    All people, all human beings have value, have dreams to be fulfilled as best they can and most of all all Americans have civil rights and are equal before the law, no matter

    their race, religious beliefs or opinions, the Constitution is very clear on these issues.

    The decisions that Lincoln made were difficult related to the times, but the changes that the Constitution proscribed in time were accomplished.

    And so our country remained on its journey into the future, guided by the framework and mechanisms the Constitution clearly lays out.

    Then I contrasted that with our current president and I asked myself ” Am I in a mindset like some of the people of lincoln’s day and I can not see what must be done

    related to our country and our Constitution?”

    “Have I become blinded, am I too immersed in my time and I can not see ? “.

    I see Lincoln as having to have done what must be done as clearly laid out by the founders in the Constitution and it did not matter whether Lincoln personally liked or

    disliked what must be done, he accomplished it.

    I see the current president as ignoring the founders well thought out directions and violating the rules the founders laid out apparently in an attempt to install a new model not

    related to their carefully thought out directions.

    With or without good intentions, I don’t plainly know, since I see his actions as far off the founders plan I must assume it is for the worse not the better and it is to be resisted.

    I must say that when I look at, I would say the last five or so administrations I see similar attacks on the Constitution, regardless of party.

    Both party’s eroding the barriers that clearly separate the private citizens rights from the power of the government through laws signed in the middle of the night, changes to

    the peoples rights hidden in sentences burried in multi thousand page bills.

    Someone please check me on this, do I see what I see, do I see what the founders knew to design the Constitution against, and what would Mr. Lincoln think ?


  • You see what you see. For the past two decades politicians of both parties have been exceedingly irresponsible, and have routinely either ignored the Constitution or have actively worked to undermine it. I tend to criticize Democrats more than Republicans only because it seems the Democrats have been far more aggressive in trying to override the foundation this country was built upon, while the Republicans have a significant portion of their party fighting to protect that foundation.

    Nonetheless, both parties have been very good at behaving badly. The one good sign is that the Constitution does allow the citizenry to fight back, with the vote. I hope we shall see this push back come November, as we did in 2010.

  • Jim

    The genius of the founding fathers was the living-breathing document and framework they left behind. Just as they never saw the exact problems that President Lincoln would face (a potential break-up of the United States through a civil war!), they had no idea what problems and issues each of us would face in the 21st century- global economy, cyber terrorism, abortion, and on and on and on.

    Every President since Mr. Washington had a unique set of circumstances to deal with. And I would be willing to bet that each President’s policies were viewed by some at that particular time as un-constitutional- Roosevelt, Lincoln, Wilson, Bush, and now Obama. All the same.
    But we have survived very nicely, thank you very much. Have we not? Every President sees the envelope, and pushes. Every one. And the system pushes back. And the envelope survives intact. And it will do so again.

    The trick is to not take your own particular ideology, whatever that may be, and think that the founding fathers wanted to protect that. They did not. They wanted to protect the system. And the system survives. The side out of power ALWAYS thinks the other side will ruin the system. They won’t. Those that always scream about the other side being an existential threat to the constitution simply have no faith, but those people have been around for over 200 years. I have always imagined what it would be like if every President could get together once over a beer- they probably would all laugh that in their particular time, they were going to be the one who would ruin the Republic. Mr. Obama is just the latest iteration.

    As John Hiatt sang, have a little faith.

  • Garry

    I disagree; Obamacare pushes the envelope much farther than anything else to come by in a long time. Essentially, the legislative branch surrendered a lot of its power (and responsibilites) to the executive branch. I blame the legislative branch for this more than I blame the executive branch. Add the unprecedented number of czars, the handlng of GM’s bankruptcy, and many other instances, and we have a solid case that the Obama administration has made persistent attempts to grab power, of a breadth and depth far greater than any recent administration (certainly post FDR).

    The issue of the Catholic church and contraceptives compounds this, by attempting to usurp teh first amendment. And if Obamacare remains intact, it’s just the tip of the iceberg as far as usurping power goes.

  • Jim

    This has been the most serious usurpation of power?
    Here are a few you may want to consider along with that:
    1. Iran-Contra. President Reagan and his administration clearly violated the Boland Ammendment. Illegally selling arms to a supporter of terrorism and using the proceeds to illegally aid a foriegn group. And President Reagan himself took full responsibility for it.
    2. As one of the current Republican nominees continually reminds us, all the Presidents who have entered into war without a congressional declaration of war are violating the constitution. That would of course include Presidents Bush and Obama. And that same nominee says the Patriot Act enacted under President Bush violates the constitution.
    3. President Truman taking control of 86 steel mills by executive order.

    To me, each of these are much more serious attempts at a power grab than a health care law that was passed legally.

  • Garry

    Read crefully what I wrote; Obamacare is a component of an overall power grab that’s more serious than anything certainly since FDR, and possibly beyond. The various czars and the handling of GM’s bankruptcy are other components, but there are many more.

    All the power grabs you listed were certainly serious ones, but, for example, Reagan’s violation of the Boland Amendment (you can add other power grabs of his, such as his invasion of Grenada) was much smaller in breadth and depth than the totality of the power grab efforts of the Obama administration.

    Also consider that it’s been 3 years since we’ve had a budget (I hold the legislative branch mostly responsible for this), which itself is a fundamental violation of the constitution.

  • I find it sad and hilarious how left wing partisans like Jim like to side step the bad behavior of a Democratic President by bringing up irrelevant issues. No where on my blog will you find me defending any of the abuses of power by former Presidents, as noted by Jim. In fact, if you search for George Bush’s name I think you will far more negative comments than positive ones. And even if you don’t, trust me, I don’t have much positive to say about either Bush presidency.

    The point here is that Barack Obama is abusing his position as President. He is violating the Constitution. He is denying citizens their religious rights. And he is doing it consciously and against the will of the voting public. Just because other Presidents did bad things in the past changes none of this.

    We aren’t arguing about what past Presidents did. We are outlining what this President is doing now. Why are you so willing to put blinders on about this Democratic President? Or is it because he is a Democrat?

  • Jim

    Robert- if you read what I wrote carefully, you will note a few things:
    1. What I wrote was not a response to you, it was a response to JGL, and then Garry. I never said you defended Bush. No need to defend yourself.
    2. Please note that I did not give President Obama a pass- in fact I noted his usurpation of power in war. Also note my criticism of another Democratic President, that being Mr. Truman. No blinders on my eyes.
    3. We are in fact talking about past Presidents, at least JGL, Garry and I were. JGL mentioned President Lincoln, Garry spoke about Presidents since FDR, and I responded. In fact, the article you posted on HotAir mentions 4 other Democratic Presidents.
    4. And lastly, President Obama has not done anything against the will of the voting public, as you say. In fact, he was PUT INTO office by the voting public. Health care was passed by representatives of the voting public. And even on the most recent hysteria on contraception, what the Obama administration proposed was favorably viewed by the voting public
    He has not violated the constitution. You might think he has, but that does not mean its true.
    Which really is the original point I made to JGL- there always is hysteria from the party out of power about the party in power. Always has been, always will be.
    And we always survive. Its the genius of the founding fathers. I have faith in what they left us.

  • Garry

    I don’t take Bob as defending himself, he seems to be pointing out how you avoid the point of his original post by defending the indefensible.

    It’s immaterial whether the voting public approves or not, making a religious organization go against its long-held moral beliefs or face consequences goes against the Constitution. Our form of government is much more sophisticated than doing what the voting public wants at the moment, and therein lies its genius. I won’t even go into which other historical figures were put into office by the voting public and what they did afterwards; I mention this not to compare Obama to them, but to show how weak that argument is.

    The passage of Obamacare was very underhanded, and by doing so Congress ceded its power to the executive branch. Ceding this power required only 50% vote in the House and 60% in the Senate. Without the cooperation of the executive branch, regaining this power will take 2/3 in each house. Lesson learned: no branch should ever surrender its power, as doing so alters the nature of checks and balances. The 2010 election results speak of the public’s opinion of their representatives in passing this abomination. This summer we’ll see what the judicial branch thinks of all this, although I don’t pretend to believe they’ll get it right.

    It’s not what the founding fathers left us, it’s what we’ve done to preserve what they left us. No matter how great their genius, it does us no good if we don’t preserve what they created.

  • JGL

    Thank you all for your responses.

    I think about the Constitution all of the time, where did it come from, why was it written, what were the conditions that caused it to be created. To me it is a miracle of time

    and place.

    These are my conclusions:

    ( I see things in my mind in logic layers.)

    What does the Constitution rest upon, what lies at its foundation? What did the founders understand better than we understand today?

    My first conclusion is that the founders understood the nature of man.

    What is the nature of man? The nature of man is to abuse power, that understanding is at our foundation and what the Constitution lies upon.

    I further concluded that the founders lived closer to reality then we, and by that I mean that they lived in their tyranny and challenged it and knew if they were not successful

    they would have lost everything and the King would have had them hung. This condition causes clarity of though and this is the reason (to me anyway) that when in doubt

    about the direction our country should be going you must always default to their wisdom and the words they wrote. We are to touch the words of wisdom of the past in order

    to solve the problems of the present and the future, not assume that we know best because we live, for the most part removed many levels from the clarity of the reality

    in which they lived. That is their bonafieds, something we (and I mean modern politicians who desire and beleive they know how to design a better mouse trap) today can

    never expierience, we live immersed in our good, safe lives in our modern America. We all grew up fat, safe and happy for the most part.

    My second conclusion simply was that the Constitution is a framework of governance within which is contained the mechanisims to counter act the nature of man, there is

    power balance in the Constitution. I think at this point we must be reminded that government is a neccessary evil. Why is it an evil? Because government attempts to

    structure a workable system of human interaction and power which deals with the nature of man, there in lies the evil. Men having power over other men (and women).

    Most all of the founders wrote often about ” the depraved nature of man”.

    After I came to understand these motivations through my constant obsession with needing to understand the logic behind the Constitution I can “see” it and truely feel that I

    understand it and the challenges which it endevors to timelessly deal with.

    But when I try to reconsile the actions being taken in our government today and in recent years in our country I have to apply the same rules of logic to understand where we

    appear to be going. I again reference what has been going on in many previous administrations, I cite most recently the NMAA bill that the president uncerimoniusly signed

    on New Years while no one was watching, It says as I understand it, that the president can deem an American citizen an enemy and can have them removed indefinetly

    to prison (a viloation of Habius Corpus and the stripping of an American of their citizenship). I cite the Patriot Act. I cite the creation of the TSA, who appear to be training the

    people to be searched at their will (a vilotation of privacy). I cite NAFTA. I cite a rumored Drones over America bill to be considered by the congress. I cite the multi thousand

    paged bills that no human could possibly comprehend and the expectation by prominent politicains that we “can see whats in the bill after we pass the bill”. I can go on and

    on, both parties for at least the past fourty or so years are co-participants.

    Who here thinks that we are drifting too far from those wise words written two hundred and thirty six years ago, and who thinks that our frame work is being hollowed out to

    the point that when we look to it for the protections that its suppose to supply we will find something unrecognizable and ineffective against the nature of man.

    What is the nature of man?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *