Obama vs. Reagan: No contest
Can there be a greater contrast between two concepts of the United States of America than to juxtapose Ronald Reagan's vision with that of Barack Obama?
"Somewhere a perversion has taken place, our natural and unalienable rights now are considered to be dispensation of government." Ronald Reagan
"Outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy." Ronald Reagan
Obama in a 2001 interview, with the federally funded NPR.
"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth...and more basic issues of economic and political justice."
"...it (the Supreme Court) didn't break loose from the essential constraints placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution." Barack Obama
"Generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the States cant do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, doesn't say what the State of Federal government must do on your behalf." Barack Obama
"...lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power that bring about redistributive change." Barack Obama
One would be hard pressed to find a Democrat from the 20th century that aligned with Obama's ideas. Not Kennedy who instructed us to not ask of the government. Not McGovern who saw the benefits of the capitalistic engine. Not even Clinton who realized budgets must be balanced, that compromise must be struck.

The great Obama seems to be confused about the Constitution of which he allegedly is an expert. How can anyone remotely familiar with the Constitution suggest the Judicial Branch had wealth redistributive capabilities, much less the power to do so?
Obama also seems unfamiliar with terms such as "negative liberty" which has quite a different meaning than the manner in which he attempted.
"Negative liberty is the absence of obstacles, barriers or constraints. One has negative liberty to the extent that actions are available to one in this negative sense." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Obama uses the term to describe the Constitution's protections of the citizen and limits of Federal power. Clearly, Mr. Obama misuses the term. What grade did he get in that class we wonder?
Bruce Johnson
FOLLOW US ON
Recent Articles
- A Multi-Point Attack on the National Debt
- Nearing the Final Battle Against the Deep State
- Now’s the Time to Buy a Nuke (Nuclear Power Plant, That Is)
- The Fall and Fall of the Associated Press
- Bill Gates and the AI Delusion
- New York Greenlights Quarantine Camps
- Reality Check for Democrats
- A MAGA Siege of the Democrats’ Deep State
- Why Incel and 4B Culture Matter
- Defending Donald Trump: A Response to Jeffrey Goldberg and The Atlantic on the Signal Leak
Blog Posts
- We remember those who served in Vietnam
- A curiosity about the DC District Court’s judges
- A Ph.D. in ‘Molecular and Cell Biology’ shows the difference between credentials and knowledge
- Nasty Venezuelan migrant who flashed taxpayer dollars and urged squatting, gets thrown out
- Watch white leftist women’s brains breaking—and repairing—in real-time
- The last, best hope ...
- In Pennsylvania, are Democrats stealing votes again?
- Knife control comes to the U.K.: Prime Minister Starmer bans Ninja swords
- This Tuesday, Wisconsonites must vote for Brad Schimel for the State Supreme Court
- Was Vietnam worth the cost?
- Democrats should get a clue from the Palestinians who are now marching against Hamas
- Trump takes on Fauxahontas's brainchild
- Consumer Sentiment Survey: This too shall pass
- If they only had knife control....
- Newsom and Walz struggle to appear normal