1. If a previous president had doubled the national debt which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in just one year, would you have approved?
2. If a previous president had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
3. If a previous president would have spent nearly a trillion dollars in stimulus and guaranteed unemployment would not exceed 8%, would you have called him a liar?
4. If a previous president would have played golf for thirteen weekends in a row leaving it up to congressional leaders to deal with the greatest financial crisis since the great depression, would you have considered him disengaged and out of touch?
5. If a previous president had criticized a state law that he admitted to never even reading, would you have thought him an ignoramus?
6. If a previous president had passed an unconstitutional law that would have absorbed 1/6th of the America’s entire GDP, forced Americans to purchase a private product (in violation of the commerce clause), fined them if they didn’t, hired 16,000 new IRS agents to enforce it, and exempted 1400 organizations from having to abide by that new law, would you have thought him a mafia boss?
7. If a previous president joined the country of Mexico and sued a state in America to force that state to continue to allow illegal immigration, would you have questioned his patriotism and priorities and wonder who his allegiance was to?
8. If a previous president had pronounced Army Corpsman like you pronounce a dead corpse, would you have thought he was stupid?
9. If a previous president had put 87,000 people out of work by arbitrarily placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling on companies that have one of the best safety records because one foreign company had an accident, would you have agreed?
10. If a previous president had used a forged document as the basis of the moratorium that would render 87,000 American workers unemployed would you have supported him?
11. If a previous president had been the first president to need a teleprompter to get through a press conference, would you have thought this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and that he’s really controlled by smarter people behind the scenes?
12. If a previous president had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take his wife to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
13. If a previous president had reduced your retirement plan holdings of GM stock by 90%, given the unions a majority stake in the car maker and shut down 789 perfectly profitable Chrysler dealerships because they were were owned by registered republicans, would you have approved?
14. If a previous president had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
15. If a previous president had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs when Gordon Brown gave him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
16. If a previous president had given the Queen of England an iPod containing audios of his speeches, would you have thought it a proud moment for America, or that a narcissist occupied the White House?
17. If a previous president had bowed to Kings of third world countries while on an apologetic tour, would you have approved?
18. If a previous president had visited Austria and made reference to the nonexistent “Austrian language,” would you have thought it a minor slip?
19. If a previous president had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who don’t pay their own income taxes, would you have approved?
20. If a previous president had said there were 57 states in the United States, wouldn’t you have been shocked?
21. If a previous president would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out of his front door in his home town, would you not have thought him a conceited, egomaniac?
22. If a previous president had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have not been embarrassed?
23. If a previous president had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on “Earth Day,” would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?
24. If a previous presidents’ administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan that caused widespread panic, would you have thought him insensitive and clueless about what actually happened on 9/11?
25. If a previous president had created the position of 45 Czars who reported directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate and usurping the Constitution, would you have ever approved?
26. If a previous president had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
27. If a previous president had spent nearly $2 million dollars hiding his identity all the way back to his childhood, would you have been suspicious?
28. If a previous president had been raised a muslim, spent more time living abroad in Islamic countries than he did in the United States, hung out with terrorists, and attended a hate church for 20 years, would you have not thought him brainwashed?
29. If a previous president had received a Nobel Peace Prize for nothing more than out campaigning his competitors, would you have thought him the laughing stock of recipients?
30. If a previous president had ordered a botched illegal gun running operation that resulted in American arms winding up in the hands of foreign drug cartels who in turn murdered Americans, would he have not had blood on his hands and been ordered to resign?
31. If a previous president had released a fraudulent long form birth certificate and was factually proven ineligible to even be the president whether he was born on American soil or not, would you have not demanded impeachment? (Editor's Note: Obama is NOT and a natural-born citizen, as required by the Constitution, NO WAY-- NO HOW!)
In summary, when you ask Obama to “Barack Your World,” refer to this list and try not to hurl.
Until next time . . . Wake Up America!
Kevin A. Lehmann
http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blog/show?id=3355873%3ABlogPost%3A1123550&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post
Showing posts with label czar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label czar. Show all posts
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Why Obama Will Be Defeated in 2012
Posted by Alan Caruba on March 7, 2011
By Alan Caruba
To this observer, the likelihood of Barack Obama being reelected in 2012 is so remote that I can safely predict it will not happen. Of course, as is commonly said, two weeks, let alone two years, is a long time in politics and all manner of events could intervene, but if one follows the trends in place, he will be a one term president.
Recall that Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush were one term presidents for differing reasons. Despite a genuine victory when U.S. led forces drove Saddam Hussein’s army out of Kuwait, Bush 41 was savagely attacked by a hostile press throughout the campaign and his term in office. The former WWII hero was called a “wimp” and, when he did accede to raising taxes, he sealed his own fate. As to Carter, he was seen by all to have been a monumental failure.
Almost weekly the incompetence and sheer arrogance of President Obama has been manifest since he took the oath of office. I recall an interview in which he expressed the opinion that he might well be a one term president and I thought that odd at the time.
In retrospect, it seems to me now that he always knew that his radical socialist agenda would likely ensure his defeat for a second term. Obama was and is the "Manchurian candidate", put into the Oval Office to achieve as quickly as possible the completion of a Socialist/Communist agenda.
To put it another way, the destruction of the capitalist economic system that has been the foundation of America’s great wealth and power has always been the goal of the Left. To achieve this, Obama installed 32 “czars” in the White House, most of whom were not vetted by Congress, nor are answerable to it. They promulgate policies and regulations while by-passing congressional oversight. It's one thing to have advisor's and quite another to have co-conspirators.
One has to reach back to the Clinton years to recall how soundly rebuffed “Hillarycare” was as the initial attempt to take over the health care industry in America. One needs to recall how Hillary Clinton fought through the primaries until her only opponent was Barack Obama and how, after he had secured the Democratic Party nomination, the plum assignment of Secretary of State was given to her; two peas from the same Alinsky pod.
On top of the financial crisis that too conveniently began as the 2008 campaigns were coming to an end was the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—Obamacare—that was taken off the shelf and, this time, forced through a Democrat controlled Congress, often with bribes, often with a lot of brutal political arm twisting. And the response, even before it became law a year ago was the sudden rise of the Tea Party movement.
The next response came in the 2010 elections that returned political power in the House to Republicans and narrowed the Democrat majority in the Senate. And that is why Barack Obama will be defeated in 2012.
Another factor that will contribute to his defeat has been his support for the gangster tactics of public service unions in Wisconsin and the runaway members of its legislature. Opposition to the public sector unions has been on the rise in the nation as more voters became aware of how they have bankrupted virtually every State with salaries, pensions and healthcare plans that exceed those of taxpayers who are expected to pay for them.
Then there are the events in the Middle East and Obama’s uncertain response to them. The immediate impact will be a rise in the cost of gasoline at the pump and that is something that everyone can grasp. Add to that Obama’s attack on the nation’s energy industries, coal, oil, and natural gas, and you have the perfect storm for a president whose popularity is dropping.
In the past two years during which upwards of twenty million Americans lost their jobs, the unseemly and frequent vacations by the President or by his wife have not been well received by those less fortunate and, it should be said, less ostentatious. Dictating what Americans should eat while dining on spare ribs reminded many of the First Lady’s caloric hypocrisy.
Mostly, though, it has been the accumulation of lies about virtually all aspects of his political agenda that now comprises a record that will be mined by whoever is chosen to run against him in 2012.
There are still, however, two more years to go and Barack Hussein Obama and his “czars” can do a lot of damage if not thoroughly reined in by Republicans in Congress. Americans have little choice other than to survive Obama at this point in time. And we will.
© Alan Caruba, 2011
By Alan Caruba
To this observer, the likelihood of Barack Obama being reelected in 2012 is so remote that I can safely predict it will not happen. Of course, as is commonly said, two weeks, let alone two years, is a long time in politics and all manner of events could intervene, but if one follows the trends in place, he will be a one term president.
Recall that Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush were one term presidents for differing reasons. Despite a genuine victory when U.S. led forces drove Saddam Hussein’s army out of Kuwait, Bush 41 was savagely attacked by a hostile press throughout the campaign and his term in office. The former WWII hero was called a “wimp” and, when he did accede to raising taxes, he sealed his own fate. As to Carter, he was seen by all to have been a monumental failure.
Almost weekly the incompetence and sheer arrogance of President Obama has been manifest since he took the oath of office. I recall an interview in which he expressed the opinion that he might well be a one term president and I thought that odd at the time.
In retrospect, it seems to me now that he always knew that his radical socialist agenda would likely ensure his defeat for a second term. Obama was and is the "Manchurian candidate", put into the Oval Office to achieve as quickly as possible the completion of a Socialist/Communist agenda.
To put it another way, the destruction of the capitalist economic system that has been the foundation of America’s great wealth and power has always been the goal of the Left. To achieve this, Obama installed 32 “czars” in the White House, most of whom were not vetted by Congress, nor are answerable to it. They promulgate policies and regulations while by-passing congressional oversight. It's one thing to have advisor's and quite another to have co-conspirators.
One has to reach back to the Clinton years to recall how soundly rebuffed “Hillarycare” was as the initial attempt to take over the health care industry in America. One needs to recall how Hillary Clinton fought through the primaries until her only opponent was Barack Obama and how, after he had secured the Democratic Party nomination, the plum assignment of Secretary of State was given to her; two peas from the same Alinsky pod.
On top of the financial crisis that too conveniently began as the 2008 campaigns were coming to an end was the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—Obamacare—that was taken off the shelf and, this time, forced through a Democrat controlled Congress, often with bribes, often with a lot of brutal political arm twisting. And the response, even before it became law a year ago was the sudden rise of the Tea Party movement.
The next response came in the 2010 elections that returned political power in the House to Republicans and narrowed the Democrat majority in the Senate. And that is why Barack Obama will be defeated in 2012.
Another factor that will contribute to his defeat has been his support for the gangster tactics of public service unions in Wisconsin and the runaway members of its legislature. Opposition to the public sector unions has been on the rise in the nation as more voters became aware of how they have bankrupted virtually every State with salaries, pensions and healthcare plans that exceed those of taxpayers who are expected to pay for them.
Then there are the events in the Middle East and Obama’s uncertain response to them. The immediate impact will be a rise in the cost of gasoline at the pump and that is something that everyone can grasp. Add to that Obama’s attack on the nation’s energy industries, coal, oil, and natural gas, and you have the perfect storm for a president whose popularity is dropping.
In the past two years during which upwards of twenty million Americans lost their jobs, the unseemly and frequent vacations by the President or by his wife have not been well received by those less fortunate and, it should be said, less ostentatious. Dictating what Americans should eat while dining on spare ribs reminded many of the First Lady’s caloric hypocrisy.
Mostly, though, it has been the accumulation of lies about virtually all aspects of his political agenda that now comprises a record that will be mined by whoever is chosen to run against him in 2012.
There are still, however, two more years to go and Barack Hussein Obama and his “czars” can do a lot of damage if not thoroughly reined in by Republicans in Congress. Americans have little choice other than to survive Obama at this point in time. And we will.
© Alan Caruba, 2011
THE "POWERS" OF THIS PRESIDENT...... WILL THE U.S. SUPREME COURT EVER INTERVENE????
March 07, 2011
By Jack Curtis
Not all the powers President Obama has wielded or claimed seem clearly identifiable in the U.S. Constitution. Whether that is tolerable or even desirable appears to require consideration since the entire point of having a constitution is to limit government in the hope of fending off tyranny.
Our President wouldn't be the first to act extra-constitutionally; the pattern goes far back into U.S. history. The famous slippery slope describes that history; earlier events made smaller blips on the power horizon and later ones loom larger. Sometimes, the Supreme Court has stepped in, as exemplified by Presidents Roosevelt and Truman.
President Obama though, may have outdone any of his predecessors in exerting such powers and in avoiding much juridical or public reaction in so doing. In effect, if that observation is correct, the Constitution might be decreasingly interesting history.
Some of the actions we'll examine have occurred with the formal support of a compliant Democratic Congress; others have been done by the President or his officers on their own.
The Constitution provides the President these powers:
1.To command the military (but not to declare war).
2.With Senate consent, to appoint U.S. officials and judges.
3.To appoint officials created in law as the law provides and to commission officers.
4.With Senate ratification, to make treaties.
5.To fill vacancies during Senate recess and to receive ambassadors.
6.To pardon convicts and convene or adjourn Congress in certain cases.
7.To demand formal opinions from department heads.
8.To faithfully execute the laws.
So, what has this President done to merit our attention? Here are a few examples:
•He orders the killing of selected individuals (and any others nearby) located in foreign countries at will, usually using drone aircraft. In a lawsuit by the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Government challenging this, The federal attorney told the court that the Administration has the power to kill, without review, any American it decides is a threat, per the Center for Constitutional Government's November, 8th, 2010 news release.
•The President has appointed Czars in charge of a number of important functions. The questionable offices are those not established in law, causing critics to question the legality of both their considerable authority and their invisibility to Congress.
•Presidential and Congressional actions assuming control of GM and Chrysler and providing a pre-designed, non-standard bankruptcy that arbitrarily favored the auto unions at the expense of share and bondholders are considered by many to violate the Constitutional protections of property as well as Presidential authority.
•The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) assumed regulatory authority over the internet and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assumed regulatory authority over greenhouse gases though Congress had not empowered either to do so.
Other examples are available but these will support discussion. Killing citizens at presidential will without review seems pretty far from constitutionally limited government; that claim appears absolutely scary. The fact that it originated with killings mostly located in the backwoods of Pakistan offers no assurance of future locations. This court case bears watching (and has received remarkably little news coverage). Is this power on the list above?
Czars have been appointed without Senate approval and provided substantial authority over large segments of the economy. Car Czar Steven Rattner was appointed in the Treasury, set up the disposal of GM and Chrysler in a few months before resigning ahead of the sheriff in a corruption investigation and was replaced by a career union representative. Critics say the empowerment of czars obscures government operation since they aren't vetted by the Senate nor must they report to Congress. A number of them hold positions created by the Obama Administration, not by Congress in law, so it's argued that those are extra-constitutional.
Various Presidents have seized businesses and industries during emergencies; President Truman intervened with the railroads and meat packers to maintain production during the Korean War. His nationalization of the steel industry for the same reason however, was ruled out by the Supreme Court as beyond his authority. Historically, such interventions have been very short term. The Obama Administration's intervention with GM and Chrysler arbitrarily nationalized the businesses then repeatedly changed the management, stiffed the bondholders who were owed money and essentially used the assets to protect the unions. The government maintains its influence two years later. Whether this falls under the: nor be deprived of ... property without due process of law and nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation of the Constitution is part of this issue along with presidential power. Is this on the list above?
Finally, it seems inarguable that the regulatory departments of the Obama Administration are in practice going well beyond existing authority by expanding their regulatory reach into fields that didn't exist when the laws authorizing regulation were passed. Some in Congress evidently share this view; legislative moves to block these actions are under way.
Until the Supreme Court speaks to these issues, we will have to form our own opinions of the constitutionality of the Obama Administration's various actions. The ObamaCare legislation demanded by the President and passed by Congress appears to be headed toward that disposition at the moment. President Truman was more popular during his railroad and meat packers actions; much less so when he reached for the steel industry. Often, that factor has done more to determine the level of opposition aroused by a presidential power grab than has its conformance to the Constitution.
Much of what is today accepted Presidential activity might horrify the Founders, particularly in Presidential use of the military. It's safe to say that many presidents have enlarged presidential power during their terms of office and halfway through his first term, President Obama may be headed toward leadership among them. Power being a zero-sum game, increases in Presidential power are losses to somebody and ultimately per the Constitution, to the citizens. In the end, it takes the citizens to reverse them.
http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/forum/topic/show?id=2600775%3ATopic%3A3334600&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic
By Jack Curtis
Not all the powers President Obama has wielded or claimed seem clearly identifiable in the U.S. Constitution. Whether that is tolerable or even desirable appears to require consideration since the entire point of having a constitution is to limit government in the hope of fending off tyranny.
Our President wouldn't be the first to act extra-constitutionally; the pattern goes far back into U.S. history. The famous slippery slope describes that history; earlier events made smaller blips on the power horizon and later ones loom larger. Sometimes, the Supreme Court has stepped in, as exemplified by Presidents Roosevelt and Truman.
President Obama though, may have outdone any of his predecessors in exerting such powers and in avoiding much juridical or public reaction in so doing. In effect, if that observation is correct, the Constitution might be decreasingly interesting history.
Some of the actions we'll examine have occurred with the formal support of a compliant Democratic Congress; others have been done by the President or his officers on their own.
The Constitution provides the President these powers:
1.To command the military (but not to declare war).
2.With Senate consent, to appoint U.S. officials and judges.
3.To appoint officials created in law as the law provides and to commission officers.
4.With Senate ratification, to make treaties.
5.To fill vacancies during Senate recess and to receive ambassadors.
6.To pardon convicts and convene or adjourn Congress in certain cases.
7.To demand formal opinions from department heads.
8.To faithfully execute the laws.
So, what has this President done to merit our attention? Here are a few examples:
•He orders the killing of selected individuals (and any others nearby) located in foreign countries at will, usually using drone aircraft. In a lawsuit by the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Government challenging this, The federal attorney told the court that the Administration has the power to kill, without review, any American it decides is a threat, per the Center for Constitutional Government's November, 8th, 2010 news release.
•The President has appointed Czars in charge of a number of important functions. The questionable offices are those not established in law, causing critics to question the legality of both their considerable authority and their invisibility to Congress.
•Presidential and Congressional actions assuming control of GM and Chrysler and providing a pre-designed, non-standard bankruptcy that arbitrarily favored the auto unions at the expense of share and bondholders are considered by many to violate the Constitutional protections of property as well as Presidential authority.
•The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) assumed regulatory authority over the internet and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assumed regulatory authority over greenhouse gases though Congress had not empowered either to do so.
Other examples are available but these will support discussion. Killing citizens at presidential will without review seems pretty far from constitutionally limited government; that claim appears absolutely scary. The fact that it originated with killings mostly located in the backwoods of Pakistan offers no assurance of future locations. This court case bears watching (and has received remarkably little news coverage). Is this power on the list above?
Czars have been appointed without Senate approval and provided substantial authority over large segments of the economy. Car Czar Steven Rattner was appointed in the Treasury, set up the disposal of GM and Chrysler in a few months before resigning ahead of the sheriff in a corruption investigation and was replaced by a career union representative. Critics say the empowerment of czars obscures government operation since they aren't vetted by the Senate nor must they report to Congress. A number of them hold positions created by the Obama Administration, not by Congress in law, so it's argued that those are extra-constitutional.
Various Presidents have seized businesses and industries during emergencies; President Truman intervened with the railroads and meat packers to maintain production during the Korean War. His nationalization of the steel industry for the same reason however, was ruled out by the Supreme Court as beyond his authority. Historically, such interventions have been very short term. The Obama Administration's intervention with GM and Chrysler arbitrarily nationalized the businesses then repeatedly changed the management, stiffed the bondholders who were owed money and essentially used the assets to protect the unions. The government maintains its influence two years later. Whether this falls under the: nor be deprived of ... property without due process of law and nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation of the Constitution is part of this issue along with presidential power. Is this on the list above?
Finally, it seems inarguable that the regulatory departments of the Obama Administration are in practice going well beyond existing authority by expanding their regulatory reach into fields that didn't exist when the laws authorizing regulation were passed. Some in Congress evidently share this view; legislative moves to block these actions are under way.
Until the Supreme Court speaks to these issues, we will have to form our own opinions of the constitutionality of the Obama Administration's various actions. The ObamaCare legislation demanded by the President and passed by Congress appears to be headed toward that disposition at the moment. President Truman was more popular during his railroad and meat packers actions; much less so when he reached for the steel industry. Often, that factor has done more to determine the level of opposition aroused by a presidential power grab than has its conformance to the Constitution.
Much of what is today accepted Presidential activity might horrify the Founders, particularly in Presidential use of the military. It's safe to say that many presidents have enlarged presidential power during their terms of office and halfway through his first term, President Obama may be headed toward leadership among them. Power being a zero-sum game, increases in Presidential power are losses to somebody and ultimately per the Constitution, to the citizens. In the end, it takes the citizens to reverse them.
http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/forum/topic/show?id=2600775%3ATopic%3A3334600&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic
Thursday, December 2, 2010
H.R.3226: Czar Accountability and Reform (CZAR) Act of 2009
In an attempt to reign in out-of-control powers imposed by UN-elected and UN-accountable Obama appointed special advisers (Czars) both the House and Senate have introduced bills to hold accountable and limit which funds may be used to finance exorbitant salaries and budgets for the so-called Czars. These Czars are imposing draconian regulations upon businesses and individuals that will surely cripple any hope of economic recovery and restoration of a sane spending and taxation policies.
H.R.3226: Czar Accountability and Reform (CZAR) Act of 2009 was introduced to the House by Representative Jack Kingston, Georgia Republican. There was also a bill (S. 3734 .IS) introduced by defeated left-wing Senator Mark Feingold. The Feingold bill is in committee while the House bill is in sub-committee.
The passage of these two bills may very well become one the the most necessary bills introduced by Congress. Though it may be guaranteed that the Progressive, left-wing Obama would veto such a bill, it is important that it be brought before him to do so. The Presidential abuse of Czars by this administration properly brings upon itself strong criticism of a "Shadow Government" led by radical left-wing extremist billionaire George Soros. This bill has garnered support by centrist democrats but whether it is enough to override a presidential veto is yet to be seen. Nonetheless, it must still go to the desk of Obama for his signature into law or veto. That plus many other vetoed bills MUST be on record, especially if Obama wins his party nomination for a second term in 2012. It appears that 2011 is shaping up to be quite a year for the US Congress and Obama.
Read the NewsMax CZAR story: http://w3.newsmax.com/a/dec09/?s=al&promo_code=B301-1
H.R.3226: Czar Accountability and Reform (CZAR) Act of 2009 was introduced to the House by Representative Jack Kingston, Georgia Republican. There was also a bill (S. 3734 .IS) introduced by defeated left-wing Senator Mark Feingold. The Feingold bill is in committee while the House bill is in sub-committee.
The passage of these two bills may very well become one the the most necessary bills introduced by Congress. Though it may be guaranteed that the Progressive, left-wing Obama would veto such a bill, it is important that it be brought before him to do so. The Presidential abuse of Czars by this administration properly brings upon itself strong criticism of a "Shadow Government" led by radical left-wing extremist billionaire George Soros. This bill has garnered support by centrist democrats but whether it is enough to override a presidential veto is yet to be seen. Nonetheless, it must still go to the desk of Obama for his signature into law or veto. That plus many other vetoed bills MUST be on record, especially if Obama wins his party nomination for a second term in 2012. It appears that 2011 is shaping up to be quite a year for the US Congress and Obama.
Read the NewsMax CZAR story: http://w3.newsmax.com/a/dec09/?s=al&promo_code=B301-1
Saturday, November 13, 2010
New Czar Alert? WH Looks to Tackle Internet Privacy
According to the Wall Street Journal, the Obama administration is planning to take steps in the coming weeks to step up efforts to police internet privacy, including new laws and possibly a new executive branch “czar”-type position to oversee the effort.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-czar-alert-wh-looks-to-tackle-internet-privacy/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-czar-alert-wh-looks-to-tackle-internet-privacy/
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Dismantling America
Thomas Sowell: Dismantling America
Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent?
Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers-- that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would depend on the government liking what they publish?
Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called "experts" deciding who could and could not get life-saving medical treatments?
Scary as that is from a medical standpoint, it is also chilling from the standpoint of freedom. If you have a mother who needs a heart operation or a child with some dire medical condition, how free would you feel to speak out against an administration that has the power to make life and death decisions about your loved ones?
Does any of this sound like America?
How about a federal agency giving school children material to enlist them on the side of the president? Merely being assigned to sing his praises in class is apparently not enough.
How much of America would be left if the federal government continued on this path? President Obama has already floated the idea of a national police force, something we have done without for more than two centuries.
We already have local police forces all across the country and military forces for national defense, as well as the FBI for federal crimes and the National Guard for local emergencies. What would be the role of a national police force created by Barack Obama, with all its leaders appointed by him? It would seem more like the brown shirts of dictators than like anything American.
How far the President will go depends of course on how much resistance he meets. But the direction in which he is trying to go tells us more than all his rhetoric or media spin.
Barack Obama has not only said that he is out to "change the United States of America," the people he has been associated with for years have expressed in words and deeds their hostility to the values, the principles and the people of this country.
Jeremiah Wright said it with words: "God damn America!" Bill Ayers said it with bombs that he planted. Community activist goons have said it with their contempt for the rights of other people.
Among the people appointed as czars by President Obama have been people who have praised enemy dictators like Mao, who have seen the public schools as places to promote sexual practices contrary to the values of most Americans, to a captive audience of children.
Those who say that the Obama administration should have investigated those people more thoroughly before appointing them are missing the point completely. Why should we assume that Barack Obama didn't know what such people were like, when he has been associating with precisely these kinds of people for decades before he reached the White House?
Nothing is more consistent with his lifelong patterns than putting such people in government-- people who reject American values, resent Americans in general and successful Americans in particular, as well as resenting America's influence in the world.
Any miscalculation on his part would be in not thinking that others would discover what these stealth appointees were like. Had it not been for the Fox News Channel, these stealth appointees might have remained unexposed for what they are. Fox News is now high on the administration's enemies list.
Nothing so epitomizes President Obama's own contempt for American values and traditions like trying to ram two bills through Congress in his first year-- each bill more than a thousand pages long-- too fast for either of them to be read, much less discussed. That he succeeded only the first time says that some people are starting to wake up. Whether enough people will wake up in time to keep America from being dismantled, piece by piece, is another question-- and the biggest question for this generation.
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/10/27/dismantling_america/page/full#
Thomas Sowell's Biography Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Thomas Sowell and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
©Creators Syndicate
Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent?
Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers-- that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would depend on the government liking what they publish?
Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called "experts" deciding who could and could not get life-saving medical treatments?
Scary as that is from a medical standpoint, it is also chilling from the standpoint of freedom. If you have a mother who needs a heart operation or a child with some dire medical condition, how free would you feel to speak out against an administration that has the power to make life and death decisions about your loved ones?
Does any of this sound like America?
How about a federal agency giving school children material to enlist them on the side of the president? Merely being assigned to sing his praises in class is apparently not enough.
How much of America would be left if the federal government continued on this path? President Obama has already floated the idea of a national police force, something we have done without for more than two centuries.
We already have local police forces all across the country and military forces for national defense, as well as the FBI for federal crimes and the National Guard for local emergencies. What would be the role of a national police force created by Barack Obama, with all its leaders appointed by him? It would seem more like the brown shirts of dictators than like anything American.
How far the President will go depends of course on how much resistance he meets. But the direction in which he is trying to go tells us more than all his rhetoric or media spin.
Barack Obama has not only said that he is out to "change the United States of America," the people he has been associated with for years have expressed in words and deeds their hostility to the values, the principles and the people of this country.
Jeremiah Wright said it with words: "God damn America!" Bill Ayers said it with bombs that he planted. Community activist goons have said it with their contempt for the rights of other people.
Among the people appointed as czars by President Obama have been people who have praised enemy dictators like Mao, who have seen the public schools as places to promote sexual practices contrary to the values of most Americans, to a captive audience of children.
Those who say that the Obama administration should have investigated those people more thoroughly before appointing them are missing the point completely. Why should we assume that Barack Obama didn't know what such people were like, when he has been associating with precisely these kinds of people for decades before he reached the White House?
Nothing is more consistent with his lifelong patterns than putting such people in government-- people who reject American values, resent Americans in general and successful Americans in particular, as well as resenting America's influence in the world.
Any miscalculation on his part would be in not thinking that others would discover what these stealth appointees were like. Had it not been for the Fox News Channel, these stealth appointees might have remained unexposed for what they are. Fox News is now high on the administration's enemies list.
Nothing so epitomizes President Obama's own contempt for American values and traditions like trying to ram two bills through Congress in his first year-- each bill more than a thousand pages long-- too fast for either of them to be read, much less discussed. That he succeeded only the first time says that some people are starting to wake up. Whether enough people will wake up in time to keep America from being dismantled, piece by piece, is another question-- and the biggest question for this generation.
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/10/27/dismantling_america/page/full#
Thomas Sowell's Biography Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Thomas Sowell and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
©Creators Syndicate
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
