Navigation

Tag Archives | Fascism

Of Socialism, Fascism, Liberalism, And Obama

By on April 14, 2010 in Big Government, The Opposition

A lot of talk went on early in Obama’s presidency, calling him alternately- fascist, communist/socialist, or liberal.  But what do these terms really mean?  It’s easy to simply name call, but in reality these terms have meaning beyond what people realize.  Some of them are correctly attributed, but the truth is more complicated to discern.

Fascism

Fascism is defined in answers.com as:

  1. often Fascism
    1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
    2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
  2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

[Italian fascismo, from fascio, group, from Late

The thing that sticks out as relating to Obama is the socioeconomic controls, i.e., AIG, GM, Chrysler, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, etc. Now to be fair, Obama was no different than Bush in this regard. When Bush signed TARP into law the nation took a large step toward Fascism. Obama seems to have amplified this economic policy in continuing bailout stimulis, and continuing the TARP program to control the financial sector.   The control exerted on the “private” economy by this act was/is breathtaking.  But by the government’s influence over large parts of our economy (you can add private health insurers to that list now) we have entered the realm of a Fascist economic model.  The health insurers will get 40 million new customers by Government fiat, and in exchange they must give up control of their companies and be relegated to the role of a Government pensioner- but in this way fascism is little different than socialism in that if you no longer control your property, is it really yours?  What good is it to own a car if you are not allowed to drive?  How about the other aspects of fascism- how does Obama measure up there?  Well, we do have a large degree of centralization under the President’s authority and that of his Czars, but there are no acts of violence yet aimed at the opposition- so AS of yet, he has not fulfilled the fascist mold, entirely.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE

2

Big Business and Big Government vs State Sovereignty

By on October 1, 2009 in Big Government

As usual in this fascist-lite America, big business is on the attack – doing their best to prevent people in their own states from dealing with issues as they see fit.

This time? Environmental regulations. From a Wall Street Journal Report:

Auto dealers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have gone to federal court challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to let California and other states regulate automobile greenhouse-gas emissions.

The two industry groups fear that the EPA’s decision will set a precedent for California to set stricter emission standards for a raft of different emitting sectors.

Near failure and seeking billions of dollars in federal stimulus funding to stay afloat, auto manufacturers earlier this year agreed to not fight against a national emission standard the Obama administration vowed to implement.

In this WSJ story, I see two major issues.

1. The EPA. For years, they’ve been opposed to the People, through their state governments, making their own decisions on these issues. In fact, they’ve often worked to prevent stricter environmental regulations in states like CA to ensure that they remain in control. Constitutionally-speaking, “Granting permission” to California is not something they’re authorized to do. The same goes for denying permission. They have no constitutional authority to be involved either way in this area.

2. The US Chamber of Commerce. They’ll gladly work with the federal government to prevent anything that might affect their business. Lobbying the federal government to use force to prevent California or other states from making their own decisions on this issue – lobbying them to violate the Constitution – is not something that endears them to me, for instance.

The bottom line? The concern from these people obviously isn’t the environment. It isn’t the economy. It isn’t for anything the bureaucrats or their corporate buddies tell you. The only thing they’re concerned with – is their own power.

The EPA wants to retain the power to decide who can and cannot have stricter or looser standards. And, business will gladly use regulations, fines and force from government to keep from having to innovate and/or face more competition. Neither side seems to show any respect for the Constitution. I’d prefer that they all just butt out.

3