His Sight is Worse Than His Snark

"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,"  

"And I'd just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law."   - President Obama

I'm glad to know that the Attorney General of the United States seems to have heard of Marbury v. Madison.  I find it slightly disingenuous that he herein extols the virtues of each branch of government having to uphold the same Constitution when his response was prompted by the Commander in Chief publicly chiding the judicial branch (above) and when members of the U.S. Legislature scoff at having to determine whether or not their proposed laws fall within the power of the Constitution.

Barack Obama is a duly elected charismatic thug heading a group of duly elected lap dogs willing to do his unprincipled bidding at the expense of our individual liberty and justice.

Why we continue not only to elect these power whores, but inexplicably to call for more tyrannical restrictions over the freedom of our actions from an ever-growing, overbearing government is what I just can't figure out.

As voters, is our collective head so far up our metaphorical ass that we can no longer see the light of wisdom in a government limited to the protection of individual life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or that we can't even recognize an existent threat to that liberty as promised by a limited government?

Has the extraordinary enshrinement of individual rights in our government's founding been so comfortably buried beneath centuries of individual achievement that we've forgotten why it had been enshrined in the first place and what it means to now have a government which frequently violates actual individual rights in favor of imagined collective rights? More basically, does rights mean the right to have food, houses, healthcare, cars, cell phones, internet access -- the goods and services produced by others -- provided for us by an omnipotent government, or does it mean the freedom to act in one's own best interest in seeking our own values? Free from force and fraud.

Is the enticement of equal outcomes, egalitarianism, so deeply twisted into the core of our culture that we have lost the ability to understand that it is each individual's freedom to act -- equal under the law -- which is the critical component of justice? That a person's freedom to act, not how that individual chooses to act, is what the government must protect and enforce?

Has the fear of being labeled inhumane caused us to embrace anecdotal emotional arguments to the very point of turning away from principle and reason? What is humane, let alone just, about government forcing individuals to act against their own best interests?

These are the things I just can't understand.

Why anyone thinks that the government -- both those elected officials and the countless bureaucratic spawn -- will do a better job making decisions about my life than I would, or that government should make decisions about how you live your life makes me wonder what Utopian government he is thinking about. I am looking at the United States government. You know, the one founded on the principles of individual rights which is now so bloated that it is suffocating its own principles with the consent of its governed?

The vision of our nation, as seen through the actions of our duly elected leadership, seems to be that in order to protect our rights we must be relieved of much of the burden of thinking and acting for ourselves.