In his eulogy, President Obama said that Teddy Kennedy was “the soul of the Democratic party.”
Not for nothing, but that explains a lot.
In his eulogy, President Obama said that Teddy Kennedy was “the soul of the Democratic party.”
Not for nothing, but that explains a lot.
Leave a Comment » |
Politics | Tagged: Barack Obama, Ted Kennedy |
Permalink
Posted by Blaknsam
One of the most disturbing elements of the Obama Administration is a desire to focus more and more power into the Executive Branch. The Left (and many Libertarians) are still moaning about the Patriot Act that was passed in the months following 9/11 because they saw it as a ruthless power grab from a madman in waiting. It was no such thing, of course, but try pointing that out to people who begin and end their debates with cries of “Halliburton!” or “Cheney!” as if they were magic words that somehow made everything clearly understood and swept away all doubts.
But George W. was a piker in comparison to Barack Obama. The centralizing of power in the Oval Office, aided and abetted by a Congress too stupid to realize that they’re being marginalized by The One, is proceeding at an astounding pace.
The amount of Czars Obama has appointed (none of whom were approved by Congress, and all of whom have positions of real authority and influence) has dwarfed the number of these positions created by all previous Presidents.
And make no mistake, these people really do have power and influence. Obama’s original “Car Czar,” Steven Rattner, fired the CEO of General Motors. Where on Earth did he get that authority? (It should also be noted that Rattner resigned his position very abruptly, after it was announced that the NY Attorney General’s office started looking into some shady dealings.) Van Jones, the “Green Jobs Czar,” is a radical, self-avowed Communist who is a longtime board member of a group called the Apollo Alliance. The Apollo Alliance wrote the stimulus bill. There’s nothing quite like turning over the economy to Communists, is there?
Aside from these unelected, unvetted, and unapproved czars, the Obama Administration has taken charge of auto companies and banks. They are currently determined to take over the health care industry. The FCC Diversity Chief Mark Lloyd has openly admired Hugo Chavez’s revolution and is currently seeking to impose speech restrictions on radio via the back door. The White House set up an email address where you could tattle on your neighbors who opposed health care reform. Now they’re using the National Endowment For The Arts to gather artists of all stripes to use their art for the good of the state. Also recall that this is a President that wants to set up a “civilian security force” in order to achieve his national security objectives…a civilian security force that is as well-funded as the United States military.
What we have here is a clear pattern of an Administration that is seeking to take control over the free market and to stifle dissent wherever possible. Thank God the Internet is free and dissenting voices can still be heard.
Not so fast, partner.
Now comes word that Senators Jay Rockefeller and the always reliable RINO Olympia Snowe have a bill that would allow the President to declare a “cybersecurity emergency” and effectively seize control of the Internet.
I can actually see the rationale for something like this. The comparison is made to President Bush ordering all air traffic grounded on 9/11, and the question about how we defend ourselves against a serious cyber attack needs to be answered. The problem here is that the bill is written very vaguely, and we all know where vague language can lead us. For example, the call as to whether or not a cybersecurity emergency exists lies in the hands of one man: the President. There doesn’t seem to be anything in the bill (at least not in the brief excerpt I read) that limits this Federal power over the Internet. Once an emergency is over, will the Feds turn back control over the Internet? Or will it continue to control it “in order to prevent something like this from happening again.” The bill grants much power to the Executive branch, but where are the limits of that power enumerated?
During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the use of “Emergency Powers” was discussed. The question before Congress was: Should we allow the President to declare an emergency and take more responsibility over the handling of the crisis? Those in favor argued that in the event of an emergency or crisis, giving the President these powers would save precious time. Those opposed saw the tyranny of George III in the background and were aware of English history when Charles I disbanded Parliament. They recognized that an unscrupulous or evil man may get elected President someday, and that a President with the ability to both define and control a crisis was the first cousin to a monarch asserting the Divine Right of Kings. Such a man might use these Emergency powers to consolidate his own power. The use of Emergency powers was not allowed in the Constitution.
While I agree that the issue of cybersecurity is serious, I cringe at the concept of giving the President of the United States the kind of power that would allow him to 1) declare an emergency; and 2) seize control of private enterprises in the event of an emergency.
Rockefeller and Snowe’s bill needs to be written in clear language, detailing what the President can do and, most importantly, what the President can not do. Limits need to be specifically enumerated, including limits on how long the President can maintain control. For starters, I would suggest that the President’s powers can be enforced for no more than 72 hours before a continuation of them is voted on by Congress, with all continuations lasting no more than two months, and can never be extended beyond two month intervals without subsequent Congressional votes. I would also insist that the President not have the power to use this opportunity to impose any kind of permanent regulations on the Internet. Only by stripping away the vague language and inserting strict limitations on the use of this type of power will the bill be properly analyzed and debated.
Remember these words from Barack Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel:
Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.
Is this who we want to give unstructured, unlimited national security emergency powers to? As it stands now, this bill is just another power hand off from Congress to a President who’s more than willing to take control whenever and wherever he can.
3 Comments |
Politics | Tagged: Barack Obama, cybersecurity, emergency powers, internet, Jay Rockefeller, Olympia Snowe, regulating the internet |
Permalink
Posted by Blaknsam
White House budget director Peter Orszag admits that a $9 trillion dollar deficit, a national debt 3/4 the size of the United States economy, and a 10 percent unemployment rate are “higher than desirable.”
Ya think?
The scrupulously fair and balanced AP article also features this line:
For now, while the country tries to come out of a recession, neither spending cuts nor broad tax increases would be prudent deficit-fighting measures.
Really, now, would somebody please explain to me how spending cuts wouldn’t be a deficit-fighting measure? But Orszag really steps into Bizarro World with this gem:
“I know there are going to be some who say that this report proves that we can’t afford health reform,” he said. “I think that has it backwards.”
Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt, Pete.
Leave a Comment » |
Politics | Tagged: Barack Obama, budget deficits, Peter Orszag |
Permalink
Posted by Blaknsam
Today marks the final day of the “Cash For Clunkers” program. The program has been touted as being wildly successful, popular, a brilliant example of the government stimulating the economy, etc. Let’s really look at these claims.
Was it successful? Yes, in the sense that something along the line of half a million new cars were sold (I’ve also seen estimates up to 700,000). But is that really the measure of success?
The program was a government giveaway of taxpayer dollars. The essence of the program was simply this: trade in your old car and the taxpayers of the United States will give you up to $4500 dollars towards the purchase of a new car. The fact that people took advantage of this is about as surprising as the fact that children scrambled to pick up nickels thrown by John D. Rockefeller, and that’s actually one of the pernicious aspects of the program: it treats adults like children being rewarded for cleaning out their garages. The program was popular with those who took advantage of it (and took advantage of other taxpayers, by the way). Why wouldn’t it be? They got free money…and a lot of it. Was it popular with the millions of people who did not participate? I haven’t done surveys, but I’ve asked around. A few people I know think it’s a good idea, but the overwhelming majority of people I’ve spoken with are appalled at the entire concept. Judging the popularity of a money giveaway by the smiling faces of those who received the money is not exactly a fair yardstick.
One of the main reasons for the program was to give a shot in the arm to the failing automakers (GM, Chrysler, Ford) and also promote “green” automobiles, but most of the cars sold were foreign cars and standard internal combustion vehicles, so the program failed on both counts. As far as the environment is concerned, the program was, if anything, anti-environmental.
For starters, the program only applied if you bought a new car. Used cars were not allowed. From an environmental standpoint, the cost of producing a new car is considerably higher than the cost of an existing car in the amounts of energy required. A truly environmental agenda here would have required the participant to buy a pre-existing car. Secondly, the law forced the dealership to destroy the turned-in clunker within 48 hours, despite the fact that these cars could have been sold overseas in developing countries and in places like China where people are desperate for cars. The destruction of the cars uses energy, as well. And since the cars were destroyed, and not even allowed to be dismantled and sold for parts, they deprived the auto dealers of a potentially lucrative source of income. There are also many lower-income people in this country who might have jumped at the opportunity of replacing their clunker with a somewhat better clunker.
You also have what I call the “mortgage paradigm” at work. How many lower income people traded in their clunkers for cars they could not afford because the government was willing to give them so much money? Many considerations go into buying a car: the cost of the car, the cost of insurance, the cost of gas, the mileage, etc. Were there people who bought more car than they needed because the government gave them money? This was what happened with the housing crisis…too many people buying more house than they could afford because interest rates were so low. My guess is that the number of recently purchased cars that end up for sale a year from now will be somewhat higher than normal as people sell off their shiny new Camrys and replace them with…used clunkers.
Then there’s this: the program was announced with great fanfare and was going to cost $1 billion dollars and run from August until November. At the end of the day, the program cost at least $3 billion and ran from August until August. There are other additional costs as well. The government has had to hire people and outsource paperwork. The dealers have been working around the clock to try to keep up with the paperwork on their end (and only about 2% of dealers have gotten their money back). Destroying the cars costs money. Being unable to sell the used clunkers either as cars or as parts is a loss of potential revenue. This program has cost at least three times what the government estimated and has ended two months early even as dealers are starting to pull out of the program on their own.
This “wildly successful” program has been an absolute debacle, a shining example of government causing problems and not solving problems.And when it comes to putting our nation’s health care system into the same hands that brought us this sham of a program, Barack Obama smiles and says, “Trust me.”
Spoken like a used car salesman.
Further reading: Michelle Malkin has additional info here, and news about the next one: Cash For Appliances. Hot Air has the goods on Federal workers being reassigned from the FAA’s air traffic control unit to deal with this program. Over at Liberty Log, J.P. Muhlenberg brings up some of the same concerns.
1 Comment |
Politics | Tagged: Barack Obama, Cash For Clunkers |
Permalink
Posted by Blaknsam
President Obama has reached out via a conference call to thousands of religious leaders of many faiths to enlist their support for health care reform. The phone call apparently unearthed a secret, 11th Commandment that had been mysteriously missing from The Torah: Thou Shalt Support Socialized Medicine.
Obama accused those who are protesting health care reform with “bearing false witness” and that we have a “core ethical and moral obligation…that we look out for one another.”
Most of the people on the call were already on Obama’s side and all too willing to abnegate the role of their churches and synagogues and replace them with government bureaucracies. Father Bob Amundsen, a Catholic priest, said: “For us as Catholic Christians, we see this as a moral issue in which we carry on the healing ministry of Jesus.” Father, I am a Catholic Christian and would like to remind you that your statement is a political one, not a theological one. In that way, the fact that you have a white collar is interesting, but not of any theological (or moral) importance.
White House policy chief Melody Barnes claimed that health care reform was “at the crux of being a faithful steward of our resources.” I’m not even sure what that means, but I know it’s stupid. Is she telling the assembled religious leaders that health care reform is “a cross” that is necessary for being a steward (“shepherd”) of resources (parishioners or other congregants)? That’s the only meaning I can pull from this: you need to support this in order to be good leaders for your people.
We do have a moral obligation to look after those who need our help. “Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, you do unto me,” said Jesus. So go: volunteer at your church or hospital, donate money to charities, open a shelter for battered women, buy a sandwich for that homeless man on the street. Do what you want to do as dictated by your own conscience. Do what you can do as dictated by your own means. Take the responsibility of being a good Catholic or Christian or Jew or Muslim.
What we most emphatically do not have is a moral obligation to support a massive government program that will certainly make health care more expensive, ration care, drive up deficits, take money from taxpayers, and put faceless bureaucrats into the middle of decision-making processes. To suggest that it is somehow immoral to oppose Obamacare is another shining example of the megalomania that lives in our President like a tapeworm, hungry for ever increasing amounts of power and glory. Supporting a government takeover of health care is not being moral, it is abdicating personal responsibility. The idea that good Christians, Jews and Muslims must support Obamacare on moral grounds is extremely repulsive. It assumes that a man who spent 20 years attending a church led by a radical racist who Obama called “the best of what the black church has to offer,” a man who is right now looking for a new church to attend in Washington D.C. with the same dogged intensity with which O.J. searched for the real killers, a man who voted to allow infant survivors of abortion to be starved to death post-utero, and a man who counts terrorists and communists among his friends is in any kind of position to tell the rest of the nation the difference between moral and immoral.
While he’s adding new Commandments, Barack Obama should refresh himself with the ones already in place. “Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me” would be a good one to remember the next time he decides that his Big Government proposals are the moral thing to do.
UPDATED to include a link to Hot Air’s video of Barack Obama extolling the virtues of Jeremiah Wright and lamenting the fact that people look for scapegoats in tough economic times. You know, like evil insurance companies or organized mobs of right-wing false witness bearers.
Leave a Comment » |
Health Care Reform, Politics | Tagged: Barack Obama, health care reform, religious leaders conference call |
Permalink
Posted by Blaknsam