Obama versus the Constitution

Besides the fact that there is a wide-spread feeling that both the foreign and domestic policies of the Obama administration are ineffective, there are also a lot of rumors that these policies are unconstitutional. In order to test the constitutionality of these policies, it is necessary to investigate why the Constitution was written the way it was written and to take a closer look at the Constitution itself.

When the Americans declared independence on July 4, 1776, they had to create a Constitution. With European collectivism in mind, the Framers of the Constitution saw an opportunity to become the first nation with a Constitution that protected individual freedom against almighty governmental power instead of providing the government with certain powers. Though there are more, two of the most clear examples of the fact that the US Constitution guarantees its citizens more freedom than the European Constitutions do, are the First and the Second Amendment. The First Amendment of the Constitution gives people the right to say what they want to say and to believe in whatever they want to believe in. It is hard to imagine that Dutch parliamentarian Wilders, though acquitted of all charges, would ever have to face trial in the US for just stating his opinion about Islam, no matter how insulting that opinion might be. The Second Amendment gives people the right to defend themselves by bearing arms. We all know that European history has shown the horrible effects of the power imbalance between armed government and disarmed people.

It may be clear that the core of the US Constitution is individual freedom, limited government and the protection of the people against the almighty government. Land of the free, home of the brave, right? Let’s move on then and investigate the constitutionality of a few of Obama’s most well-known policies. We’ll start with the multi-billion dollar stimulus spending, followed by the collectivization of health insurance and the war in Libya. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Gitmo and the Patriot Act will not be addressed because, though extended by the Obama administration, these policies were being started prior to Obama’s entry into the White House.

First, we’ll have a look at the stimulus spending that only stimulated the debt instead of economic recovery. The Tenth Amendment states that ‘’The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people’’. So one of the core features of the US Constitution is the principle of limited government. The federal government has no right to put every American, and generations to come, into huge debt. The Constitution was written in order to protect the freedom of people against almighty government, yet almighty government gave them debt instead of liberty. The Constitution enumerates only the powers that the federal government does have, thus anything that is not being named in the Constitution is unconstitutional. Besides, the Constitution allows the federal government to raise taxes to pay off debts and not to increase debts.

Second, the collectivization of health insurance, a.k.a. ObamaCare. With millions of Americans uninsured for health care, Obama was determined to change this situation and make it the magnus opus of his Presidency. However, the only individual rights being given by the Constitution are the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. These are rights to action, not to impose obligations to other people. But, says Obama, Americans are entitled to health care simply because they need it. But, says the Constitution, health care costs money and therefore a right to health care means a right to impose obligations to other people. The government has nothing, it has to tax hard-working Americans in order to spend. Therefore, calling for a right to health care means calling for the right to let your fellow country men work for you. Not exactly what you would call individual freedom as named in the Constitution, right? Fortunately, Judge Roger Vinson (Pensacola, Florida) agreed and declared Obamacare unconstitutional.

Third, Obama’s response to the civil war in Libya. Besides the fact that troops were being sent to invade a country that never harmed our homeland, Obama has also failed to seek Congressional approval. The Constitution states that this approval is required for declarations of war. As stated in  the War Powers Resolution of 1973, except in cases of an attack on the U.S. or its armed forces, the President must seek prior approval from Congress. Obama did not and therefore it may be obvious that we’ve yet got President Obama’s third unconstitutionality.

These are just three examples. The Obama administration has turned its back on the Constitution far more often. Now you may think, why bother? It’s just an old piece of paper written more than 200 years ago, right? Wrong. The Constitution made the US the greatest and most prosperous nation on earth. All your freedom and prosperity are based on that piece of paper. It is unique and morally superior to all other Constitutions in the world, because it guarantees individuals the right to action instead of the right to impose obligations to other people. It places the people above the government instead of the government above the people. But, supported by the last three administrations, the federal government has grown into a fat octopus with its tentacles spread all over the country – and even the world. Now it’s time for the people to fight back and reclaim their freedom before it’s too late.

Collectivism: the cause of the economic crisis

The economic crisis showed the instability of banks, financial markets and governments. It also showed the willingness of governments to make sure the bills of their behavior are being paid for by the people. But what exactly caused the crisis? Was it capitalism, like many Europeans claim? And who is responsible? And how could we prevent a next crisis?

Let’s have a look first at what it is that exactly caused the crisis. According to socialists it’s greed. But is greed really something negative? What would the world be like if no one was greedy? Isn’t it the desire to have more purchasing power or more comfort, that has been fundamental to our current welfare? And even if our policies aim to ban greed, would it be possible? No, of course not, because human nature is based on pursuing high performance and achieving higher accomplishments every single day.

The real cause of the crisis has been with us for decades, though it came to the surface in the first decade of this century. Central banks like the FED and the European national banks, and since 1998 the ECB, have been manipulating money for decades. Money wasn’t based on a ‘hard’ standard, like gold, so that central banks had the opportunity to print money endlessly. Alan Greenspan for example, called for a gold standard in Ayn Rand’s book ‘Capitalism: the unknown Ideal’, but started manipulating and printing when he became chairman of the FED. We all can realize that every dollar or euro that is being printed brings down the value of the dollars or euros that already exist. Therefore, printing money causes inflation and inflation is theft.

The policy of the central banks came hand in hand with overspending by most Western governments. Most of them spend billions of euros more than they receive, every single year. Well, if I borrow the money to buy an expensive car and I can’t pay it back, I’m in serious trouble. The car will be seized first, then my belongings and if necessary my house and I will end up in jail. But what about those in power? What about those who tax half of our incomes to spend it on whatever they like and are still able to create massive debts? Will they end up in jail?

Decades of money manipulations and overspending really came to the surface when Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people. Former U.S. President George W. Bush continued Clintons policy by signing the American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003. When signing this Act, he stated: ''One of the biggest hurdles to homeownership is getting money for a down payment. This administration has recognized that, and so today I'm honored to be here to sign a law that will help many low-income buyers to overcome that hurdle, and to achieve an important part of the American Dream. ''From that moment, many people with a lower income that could never pay the value of their house back, bought a house with a mortgage at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bubble would burst at 2007.

Well, after learning such a hard lesson, what would be your solution? Financial responsibility right? Taking the losses you caused and move on by never spending more than you receive. Well, the European political elite doesn’t agree with you. They keep spending billions more than they receive. Their solution is more rules and regulations for financial markets and banks, and, of course, not taking their losses but financing those losses by borrowing even more money! And current U.S. President Obama? He doesn’t agree with you either. In a response to the outcomes of the crisis, like high unemployment, President Obama decided to 'stimulate' the economy by borrowing even more money as well. Well, unemployment remained high and the only thing that got stimulated was the public debt: more than 14 trillion dollars.

Would you call overspending governments and overprinting central banks capitalism? Would you call a President who promises a house to those who can't afford it capitalist? Would this crisis be possible if governments didn’t have the right to spend more than they receive and if central banks didn’t exist? No, of course not. Only individualism would not let those who are not responsible pay for someone elses irresponsible behavior. If you overspend, it’s your problem and it’s you who will face the consequences. Individual hard working tax payers should oppose collectivism and refuse to pay the bills for irresponsible behavior of their elite.

Increasing happiness is not a task of government

Happiness is a subjective term which differs between different persons and between different moments in time (Miller, 2008). Von Mises also came to the conclusion in Human Action (1949) that there is no possibility to measure the happiness between different people or between different moments in time. But Kahneman & Tsversky (2000) were able to relate happiness to brain activity and Layard (2005) also concluded that happiness can be measured. Let's just assume that happiness can indeed be measured. Would it be favourable? And what would happen to society if governments adapt their policies to the maximalization of happiness? To answer these questions, I will use three ideas by happiness guru Richard Layard by which he thinks happiness can be increased.

Rat race

According to Layard, status competition is a 'rat race' that produces always someone who loses who becomes very unhappy because of his loss. Therefore, Layard pleads for taxation on all kinds of advertising that could lead to status competition. He also pleads for progressive taxation, which could decrease the race to achieve a higher income. So when the goverment wants to maximalize happiness, it has to discourage status competition by taxing advertising and by introducing higher taxes for higher incomes. But isn't it competition that leads to welfare? And if happiness is relative, isn't it competition that makes people perform better? And if so, doesn't discouragement of competition lead to economic downfall? It is clear that Layard thinks that economic growth is inferior to happiness growth, which he even confirmed in his book Happiness (2005).

Happiness is relative

According to Layard, a persons happiness depends on his relative income compared to that of the people in his or her social environment. Person A could become very unhappy when his neighbour, person B, buys a car that is more expensive than he could ever afford. When the government wants to maximalize happiness, person A can ask the government to prevent person B from buying that car, because it would make person A very unhappy. There is no doubt about the immorality of these kind of situations. It is not the prohibition of the expensive car that should increase the happiness of person A, but his right to the freedom to work for a similar car.

Leisure time

Layard divides the time in a persons life into two categories: labour time and leisure time. Because leisure time makes people happy, Layard pleads for a higher taxation on income to make leasure time cheaper when compared to labour time. But where labour leads to productivity and productivity leads to welfare, discouraging labour will lead to economic downfall, just like Layards previous argument. Besides, most forms of leisure time do have costs. Costs that could only be financed, indeed, by labour.

Conclusion

It is ironical that all policies that Layard pleads for to increase happiness lead to a very unhappy society. Happiness should be increased by higher taxes and discouragement of labour and competition. To introduce these kinds of policies, government should be extremely active in following peoples daily activities. More control is needed to see if people don't work too much. More control is needed to measure how happy people are. More control is needed to judge if advertisements don't increase status competition. More control is needed to detect undeclared employment. Therefore, quite rightly, Steele (2006) calls Layard a socialist utilitarian that tries to introduce his ideology by calling it social science. Of course, all these freedom limitations do not increase happiness. Veenhoven (2000) found that more correlates positively with more happiness.

Layards ideas, in which he wants to discourage labour and competition, are harmful to economic growth. Despite the fact that Layard thinks that economic growth is inferior to happiness growth, it is economic growth that léads to more happiness (Wolfers & Stevenson, 2008). Friedman (2005) also concluded that happiness can only be increased by economic growth because people judge their own happiness by comparing themselves to the generation before them.

Examining Layards view on happiness leads to the conclusion that only a free society without a big controlling government can lead to more happiness. Barrotta (2008) confirms this conclusion by claiming that only autonomous individuals have the knowledge to decide what makes them happy and that policy should therefore focus on individual freedom because freedom leads to happiness, like Veenhoven (2000) said too. It is not a coinsidence that the American Constitution gives a right to the pursuit of happiness instead of the right to happiness itself. Therefore, increasing happiness is not governmental task.

　

References:

Barrotta, P. (2008). Why economists should be unhappy with the economics of happiness. Economics and Philosophy, 24, 145-165.

Eberling, R.M. (2007). The new happiness economics: an Austrian critique. Beschikbaar:

http://mises.org/journals/scholar/ebeling2.pdf

Friedman, B.M. & Myers, J.J. (2005). The moral consequences of economic growth. Knopf.

Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (2000). Choices, values and frames. Cambridge University Press,

673-692.

Layard, R. (2005). Happiness: Lessons from a new science. Penguin Books.

Miller, A. (2008). A critique of positive psychology-or ‘the new science of happiness’. Journal of Philosophy Education, 42, 591-608.

Steele, G.R. (2006). Richard Layard’s happiness: Worn philosophy, weak psychology, wrong method and just plain bad economics! Political Quarterly, 77, 485-492.

Stevenson, B. & Wolfers, J. (2008). Economic growth and subjective well-being: Reassessing the Easterlin paradox. Brookings Paper on Economic Activity, 1, 1-102.

Veenhoven, R. (2000). Freedom and happiness. A comparative study in 46 nations in the early 1990’s. MIT Press, Cambridge, 257-288.

Von Mises, L. (1949). Human Action. Yale University Press. 621.

　

Is de PVV de oplossing voor ons integratievraagstuk?

Geert Wilders domineerde het politieke toneel in 2010. Waardoor wordt het succes van de PVV verklaard? En waarom leidt massa-immigratie in Nederland tot een ongekend drama, terwijl een wereldstad als New York juist is gebouwd op immigranten? Door een blik te werpen op de ontwikkelingen in de tijd van de problemen rondom integratie in Nederland zal blijken dat het succes van Wilders is gebaseerd op het falen van zijn politieke opponenten. Echter zal ook blijken dat de oplossing van Neerlands integratievraagstuk recht tegenover de ideologie van de PVV staat.

Nederland, jaren ’60: Nederland kent een enorme vraag naar arbeidskrachten. De politieke elite start met wervingsacties in met name Turkije en Marokko. Vanwege het feit dat de vraag vooral komt vanuit de industrie worden deze wervingsacties specifiek gericht op laagopgeleiden. De immigranten krijgen het stempel ‘gastarbeider’ opgedrukt: hun verblijf zal immers tijdelijk zijn. Mede daardoor loopt de politieke elite niet warm voor integratiebeleid.

Nederland, jaren ’80: Mede door de economische crisis wordt Nederland geconfronteerd met hoge werkloosheidscijfers. Door de eenvoudige toegang tot sociale zekerheid heeft het leeuwendeel van de immigranten van de zestiger jaren het inmiddels dermate goed dat terugkeer wordt uitgesloten. Echter, de meeste immigranten komen in een vicieuze cirkel terecht: door een gebrek aan opleiding en integratie blijkt toegang tot de arbeidsmarkt buitengewoon ingewikkeld. Daardoor is contact met Nederlanders op bijvoorbeeld de werkvloer nauwelijks aan de orde, terwijl juist dit contact van essentieel belang is voor hun integratie. Daardoor treedt er een proces van segregatie op: immigranten worden afhankelijk van landgenoten, gaan daarom bij elkaar wonen en daardoor ontstaan er complete wijken waar geen woord Nederlands wordt gesproken.

Nederland, jaren ’90: De zegeningen van de tweede en derde generatie immigranten lijken zich te openbaren. Op een paar uitzonderingen na zit het leeuwendeel in de sociale zekerheid en een aanzienlijk deel klust bij in het criminele circuit. De politiek is inmiddels bij monde van politici als Bolkestein enigszins wakker geschud maar daadkracht is ver te zoeken. De werkende klasse in Nederland wordt inmiddels dus geconfronteerd met twee problemen: men mag de rekening betalen van zowel de sociale zekerheid als van de toenemende criminaliteit. De onvrede onder de werkende klasse is dan ook niet meer dan terecht.

Nederland, vanaf 2000: Pim Fortuyn is de eerste politicus die middels een geweldig charisma handig weet in te spelen op deze onvrede. Nadat hem de mond wordt gesnoerd blijft het integratieprobleem groeien en de daarbijbehorende onvrede bestaan: Geert Wilders wordt haar spreekbuis. Daar waar een partij als de Pvda geen oplossing durft te noemen voor het integratievraagstuk en inmiddels zelfs in het flinke gat in de markt, de vertegenwoordiging van de allochtone kiezer, duikt, roept Wilders op tot behoud van de sociale zekerheid en het sluiten van de grenzen. Echter, de oplossing ligt juist in het tegenovergestelde.

De Verenigde Staten kennen een veel minder genereus stelsel van sociale zekerheid dan Nederland. Immigranten weten dan ook wanneer zij in de VS aankomen, dat ze hun handen niet hoeven op te houden, maar uit de mouwen moeten steken. Men dient te werken voor een bestaan. Daardoor is New York gebouwd op immigranten terwijl Amsterdam zucht onder massa’s werkloze onaangepaste immigranten. Het integratievraagstuk in Nederland kent dus maar een oplossing: zet het mes in het vlees der sociale zekerheid en trek dat mes door tot op het bot. Immigranten zullen moeten werken om hun levensbehoeften te bekostigen, immigranten die niet willen werken zullen niet eens meer de moeite nemen hierheen te komen omdat ze geen toegang meer hebben tot sociale zekerheid. Dat zal leiden tot fors lagere werkloosheid onder immigranten en het als sneeuw voor de zon verdwijnen van het onderscheid tussen immigranten en de werkende klasse: immigranten worden namelijk onderdeel van de werkende klasse. Ze zullen moeten samenwerken met autochtone werknemers, hetgeen hen perfecte integratie biedt. Daardoor zullen de voormalige spanningen sterk verminderen en zal dit leiden tot een welvarende en harmonieuze samenleving.

War is business

The Dutch government gave political support to the American/British invasion in Iraq in 2003. Was this invasion based on the battle against international terrorism or because Saddam Hussein was such a terrible dictator and had weapons of mass destruction? Or was this invasion based on completely different interests?

Bush is known as the President who started the 'war on terror' in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Dick Cheney was vice-President during both Bush-administrations. Before the invasion of Iraq, Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, a big supplying company in the energy industry. This organization received numerous governmental contracts in Iraq. Cheney's wife is a former board member of Lockheed and his son-in-law worked as a lobbyist for Lockheed. Lockheed produces warplanes.

In the Netherlands it was Prince Bernhard who had his interest in warfare, due to his memberships of the 'Sturmabteilung' of the Nazi Party in Germany and his position as inspector-general of the Dutch battle forces. This interest became clear when he accepted more than one million dollar in bribes from Lockheed to force the Dutch government to buy planes that were produced by Lockheed.

Decisions about such invasions aren't only being taken by democratic ways, but there's also negotiation about it in the Bilderberg conferences. These are secret meetings, attended by those who lead our world, both political and economical. Attendants are people like Bush, Rumsfeld, top bankers like Rockefeller, and several influential people from multinationals like Shell. Examples of Dutch attendants are former prime-minister Balkenende, Queen Beatrix and Prince Bernhard. Accidentally, Prince Bernhard has been chairman of these Bilderberg meetings for more several decades.

The 'war on terror' is today being used in the United States to increase the power of the federal government on its citizens. In 2003, the Patriot Act was introduced as an act against terror. It gave the federal government access to telephone data, email data and banking data. The in Europe worshipped Obama continued this Patriot Act and intensified the war in Afghanistan by sending 30.000 extra soldiers.

That the hunderds of thousands of innocent citizens that got killed and the 6000 soldiers that returned home in a bodybag, where not a reason to withdraw troops, shows how enormous the interests of this war are by those in Power in Washington en The Hague. A popular verb among soldiers and conservatives is 'freedom is not free'. That is correct: our freedom is being threatened by those who have an interest in warfare. It is time that WikiLeaks shows us the interest of all those in power who supported the invasion, so that we the people can judge it. Or do you really believe that Osama is still in Afghanistan?

Socialism: the cause of the failure of European mass-immigration

The combination of socialism and mass-immigration has proven to be unaffordable. Predictable. Imagine you're an immigrant. You come to the Netherlands and some government official tells you that you can get a payment every month from the State to feed your family, pay your house and your children's education*.

Well, is there anyone here who blaims an immigrant for accepting what he's being offered? No? Right, let's go on then.

As we all know, a state can't give things away for free because it has nothing so it has to tax people in order to spend money. You can imagine now what happens to the working class when huge amounts of immigrants come to a socialist country. Indeed, they'll be taxed to death in order to pay all those social security.

So, imagine you're a hard working Dutch man (they still exist). You work 40 hours a week, pay 50% in taxes so you work 20 hours a week to feed someone else. You read about failed immigration, about the majority of immigrants that is jobless and who have almost the same income as you do, on your costs.

Well, is there anyone here who blaims the working class for being angry at the immigrants for this fact? No? Right, let's go on then.

As you can imagine, this results in tensions between the working class and the immigrants. Those tensions result in politicians who misuse these tensions in order to get their votes. On one hand, you have the party that represents the angry working class who wish the immigrants to get the hell out of their country. On the other side, there will be the party that misuses immigrants in order to get their votes.

That means you're left with two choices: voting against the working class or voting against the immigrants. A vote for a party is a vote against a huge amount of people. As you can imagine, tensions keep on growing like a weed. 

Now who are you going to blame? The immigrants or the working class?

I'd blame the State. I'd blame the State for being too generous for immigrants at the expense of the working class and therefore producing a deadly combination that is able to result in a civil war between immigrants and the working class.

As you might guess, that means we're left with only one solution: cut State spending down to the bone. Immigrants will have to work in order to make a living, immigrants who refuse to work won't come anymore because they have no longer access to social security. That will lead to maximalization of welfare and the disappearance of the distinction between immigrants and the working class: immigrants will be part of the working class. Being part of the working class will give them the perfect integration into society which will break down all previous tensions between immigrants and the working class and therefore create a prosperous and harmonious nation.