An article you need to read
By ATWadmin On June 24th, 2010Posted in it’s entirety because it sums up the American disaster in accurate plain terms.
Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?
By THOMAS SOWELL Posted 06/21/2010 06:13 PM ET
When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics.
Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler’s rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.
“Useful idiots” was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.
Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive.
In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.
The president’s poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.
Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.
And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP’s oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated.
But our government is supposed to be “a government of laws and not of men.”
If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion — or $50 billion or $100 billion — then so be it.
But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without “due process of law.”
Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.
With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.
If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don’t believe in constitutional government.
And, without constitutional government, freedom cannot endure. There will always be a “crisis” — which, as the president’s chief of staff has said, cannot be allowed to “go to waste” as an opportunity to expand the government’s power.
That power will of course not be confined to BP or to the particular period of crisis that gave rise to the use of that power, much less to the particular issues.
When Franklin D. Roosevelt arbitrarily took the United States off the gold standard, he cited a law passed during the First World War to prevent trading with the country’s wartime enemies. But there was no war when FDR ended the gold standard’s restrictions on the printing of money.
At about the same time, during the worldwide Great Depression, the German Reichstag passed a law “for the relief of the German people.”
That law gave Hitler dictatorial powers that were used for things going far beyond the relief of the German people — indeed, powers that ultimately brought a rain of destruction down on the German people and on others.
If the agreement with BP was an isolated event, perhaps we might hope that it would not be a precedent. But there is nothing isolated about it.
The man appointed by President Obama to dispense BP’s money as the administration sees fit, to whomever it sees fit, is only the latest in a long line of presidentially appointed “czars” controlling different parts of the economy, without even having to be confirmed by the Senate, as Cabinet members are.
Those who cannot see beyond the immediate events to the issues of arbitrary power — vs. the rule of law and the preservation of freedom — are the “useful idiots” of our time. But useful to whom?
"Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference."
Well there you go. The Government hasn’t confiscated any money. It has no legal ability to do so. It hasn’t done so. BP were all too willing to set up that fund.
"There will always be a "crisis" — which, as the president’s chief of staff has said, cannot be allowed to "go to waste" as an opportunity to expand the government’s power."
Here is my problem with freedomniks. They seem to think that Government operates in a vacuum. I quote Lincoln. The US, and most democracies, has "government of the people, by the people, for the people". Why is the United States Government getting heavily involved in the healthcare of its citizenry? Because it was demanded by the people. Healthcare was the third largest issue in the 2008 elections (only behind the Economy and Iraq). The people were given a clear difference between the two parties and voted for the one who campaigned for greater healthcare reform. The State grows as the people demand it. Similarly the State shrinks as the people demand it. If people don’t want Obama’s reforms or feel the State is growing too big then there is a Presidential election in 2012.
Also, someone should tell Mr Sowell that if he is going to quote things (in order to give them more force) he should quote them properly. Type (including the quatation marks) "for the relief of the German people" into Google and the only article it will bring up is Mr Sowell’s. Hitler used two major laws to seize dictatorial power. The first was the "Order of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State", otherwise known as the Reichstag Fire Decree, and the second was the "Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Nation", otherwise known as the Enabling Act. Sowell’s inability to get even the facts of his own argument right show how seriously his argument should be taken.
My God – Sharia Law being imposed in the US, mass illegal immigrants ending its English-speaking majority, a Nazi-like dictatorship emerging, oil being allowed continually pump into the sea, now even those responsible for that oil leak having to pay compensation …(and that’s only the last 5 posts)..
Look, if this goes on much more I’ll be a full time paranoiac.
70% of the american people were against this health care bill, The point of the article which you miss is the President did not and does not have the authority under the law to do so, He is acting as a dictator.
As for elections the ones in november will cripple Obamas ability to get things passed.
Seamus your points from your view are good, but they show a complete lack of understanding of how the american system of government is supposed to work.
"As for elections the ones in november will cripple Obamas ability to get things passed. "
I severly doubt it. The 39 seat swing needed to remove the Democrat majority in the House is unlikely to be met, whilst it is even more unlikely that the Republicans will win back the Senate.
"Seamus your points from your view are good, but they show a complete lack of understanding of how the american system of government is supposed to work."
No one gets to decide how a system is supposed to work. The people decide how it will work. All I am saying is that Healthcare was the third most important issue of the campaign (according to the people) and they overwhelmingly elected a pro Healthcare reform President, Senate and House. Whilst 70% of the people are against the current incarnation of the Health Care bill it doesn’t mean that people aren’t in favour of universal healthcare coverage.
Godwin’s Law, right in the first sentence.
People do want a healthcare solution, indeed – - they despise the current corruptly implemented bill, and rightly so.
The problem now is the the Palinite know nothings have idioted up the debate so much that intelligent discussion becomes very difficult.
Excellent article, Troll.
"People", Phantom, were never and are not now in agreement as to the necessity of a centrally controlled health care system. You were in agreement…but "people" were not.
It is not the way the socialists in office implemented their plan, it is the Socialism itself.
I suspect the ‘Palinite know nothings’ know a great deal more than you.
Slogans will get you nowhere.
Why is the United States Government getting heavily involved in the healthcare of its citizenry? Because it was demanded by the people.
Even if true, so what? The Constitution severely restricts the writ of government and rules most areas of life out of bounds to it, including the right to confiscate private wealth because someone demands it.
That was the very point of the Constitution, laughable though it now is to see these crooks pop up every few years and solemnly vow to defend it.
The federal government is merely a creature of the law and wholly subordinate to it. The federal government cannot do anything it likes – really, this is true – no matter what people demand of it.
Meanwhile, back in the real world
Phantom: this is the essence of your counter argument:
1. "everybody" wanted government (comprehensive) healthcare (not true but no matter to you)
2. your opponents argue with slogans (not true of course but no matter to you)
3. youe opponents are simpletons (not true of course but no matter to you)
Pathetic.
The majority of Americans (please google the polls and check this for yourself if you doubt me) did not want any form of comprehensive government mandated reform of the healthcare system. The majority of Americans wanted free market solutions to lower the cost of their healthcare which the majority of Americans did not want to otherwise change.
The reason Obama and the Dems had to cram the healthcare bill down the throats of Americans with lies, briberies and threats was because the Americans did not want the bill.
Americans are unhappy now because the bill – that they never wanted – is now law, not just because the Dems used thuggish means to get their way.
Please quote for me a "slogan" as you are so apt to write – that along with the "you are stupid" talking point is shop worn and you should retire it.
Pete: Heavy government involvement in healthcare was not demanded by the people. The majority did not want comprehensive, government reform. This was shown in the polls all last summer.
People wanted free market solutions to lower the cost of the policies. But they did not want what they got. That is why Obama and the Dems – despite clear majorities in both houses of Congress – had to bribe, threaten, and lie to the AMerican people in order to pass ObamaCare which is incredibly unpopular.
It’s not the thuggishness that made people mad — it is the premise itself, the bill itself.
Phantom either can’t understand this because it doesn’t jive with his own desires, or he likes to mischaracterize in order to make the government takeover a ‘fait accompli’ — but polls show the contrary and at the present moment work in over 40 states is underway to void the bill,
Hey Patty
You never responded to my T Boone Pickens comment.
I can sent it again if you want
As Seamus pointed out, there was a poll called the Presidential election. Some guy named Obama won.
Phantom — no thanks. Your comment was too stupid and boring to even address. You are as thick as a board and it makes my head hurt.
So you said that no oilman thinks the easy oil is all gone. I pointed out that one of the most successful oilmen in the history of the United States says the exact opposite in a very public way.
Faced with the facts, you pull and ostrich act and say that the rebuttal to your lazy argument is " stupid and boring "
Obama didn’t absolutely FORCE BP to lay aside that £13bn fund, if we want to be technical about it. Obama put immense political pressure on BP to do so, and BP realised that it would be public relations suicide to argue about it, so they complied.
It would have been far better if BP had taken the initiative by themselves, without any coersion, and put that money aside of their own free volition. That would have done their "public image" far more good than spending money on some advertising campaign. I think BP read the public mood wrong.
Having said that, the way Obama has been lambasting BP, you would almost think that BP set this spill off deliberately! It was an ACCIDENT. They do happen. And those shrimping companies would be nowhere without diesel to power their boats in the first place, let us remember. Just as BP would have less money if there were no boats which relied on their oil. So this whole "BP is to blame, boo hiss raspberry" carry-on is a load of nonsense. All sectors of the economy are interdependant.
You pointed to one oilman, Phantom. Not all. Not most. Not even a couple. THere are many who claim the opposite.
Do we know if your oilman has significant investment in alternate sources of energy?
Please name the oilmen who agree with you.
Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin are not in the oil business, and know nothing about it.
You said that no oilmen took this position, and I named a highly prominent one in two seconds time.
You now say that many disagree with the assertion that the easy oil is gone. Well if that is true, then you’ll surely have no trouble in naming two or three of them in the next hour