Navigation

Tag Archives | Obama

I’m Disgusted with this President

By on June 17, 2010 in Big Brother, Liberty

The executive director of the ACLU, speaking for many on the left and among Americans who generally favor the Democratic Party, began an important talk last week saying, “I’m going to start provocatively … I’m disgusted with this president.”

Why? “It’s 18 months and, if not now, when? … Guantanamo is still not closed. Military commissions are still a mess. The administration still uses state secrets to shield themselves from litigation. There’s no prosecution for criminal acts of the Bush administration. Surveillance powers put in place under the Patriot Act have been renewed. If there has been change in the civil liberties context, I frankly don’t see it.”

It is crucial that Americans unblinded by partisanship recognize the abject failure of this administration to do anything on the civil liberties front other than cement and expand upon Bush power grabs.

cross-posted from Campaign for Liberty

1

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

Nullification is for the Out of Touch Right-Wing

By on April 9, 2010 in Nullification

Not really. But how is it the media, the university professors and the activists on the left can’t see this? All they have to do is realize that nullification is not exactly a complicated subject. It is basically a refusal to follow certain laws believed to be unjust or excessive. Basically, we “nullify” such laws and refuse to give them effect.

Well, has anyone ever heard of “signing statements?” This is the phrase coined for written statements that our Presidents have come to make when signing into law legislation passed by Congress. Sometimes, they feel the law steps on their toes, and so they make clear what they are going to do in that regard. Here is a signing statement by Obama:

However, provisions of this bill within sections 1110 to 1112 of title XI, and sections 1403and 1404 of title XIV, would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments, or by requiring consultation with the Congress prior to such negotiations or discussions. I will not treat these provisions as limiting my ability to engage in foreign diplomacy or negotiations.

BARACK OBAMA

How about that? Not only does our President proclaim to know a little something about Constitutional power and limits, but he considers such topics important. In fact, he considers Constitutional limits on power so important that he used nullification within his signing statement. Apparently, talk of the Constitution and nullification isn’t just for red-neck racists, after all.

1

Man who Threatend Pelosi in Jail. Obama remains free.

By on April 7, 2010 in Foreign Policy, Terrorism

The AP is reporting that the FBI has arrested a California man for making threatening phone calls to Nancy Pelosi.

Several federal officials say the man made dozens of calls to Pelosi’s homes in California and Washington, as well as to her husband’s business office, reciting her home address and saying if she wanted to see it again, she would not support the health care overhaul bill that was recently enacted.

Meanwhile back at the ranch….

Barack Obama has threatened the lives of millions of people in Iran, and he walks free. ABC News reports that Obama, in backing off the use of nuclear weapons, made “exceptions for Iran and North Korea or any other country which violates the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.”

In other words, Obama to people of Iran: Make sure your criminal leaders do what WE want them to do, or you’ll never see your home again.

The lone wolf is a criminal for threatening the criminal. Sure, I get that. But Obama is a far bigger criminal – and so is Pelosi too. And that’s not even getting into the previous administration’s crimes…

The criminals are running the “justice” system.

2

The President Assassinates US Citizens?

By on January 28, 2010 in Foreign Policy, Terrorism

A provocative piece, as usual, from Glenn Greenwald. Definitely worth looking at… (h/t Lew Rockwell)

Here’s an excerpt:

Just think about this for a minute. Barack Obama, like George Bush before him, has claimed the authority to order American citizens murdered based solely on the unverified, uncharged, unchecked claim that they are associated with Terrorism and pose “a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests.” They’re entitled to no charges, no trial, no ability to contest the accusations. Amazingly, the Bush administration’s policy of merely imprisoning foreign nationals (along with a couple of American citizens) without charges – based solely on the President’s claim that they were Terrorists – produced intense controversy for years. That, one will recall, was a grave assault on the Constitution. Shouldn’t Obama’s policy of ordering American citizens assassinated without any due process or checks of any kind – not imprisoned, but killed – produce at least as much controversy?

Click here to read the rest

1

Obama is not lying, but he thinks he is.

By on January 26, 2010 in Big Government, The Opposition

All the pundits are blasting Obama for his comments this week declaring similarities between the momentum that brought him the Presidency and the momentum that brought Scott Brown to the Senate.

Obama said: “Here’s my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts but the mood around the country: The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office, people are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years but what’s happened over the last eight years.”

Well, for once, I agree with the President. He may not know it, but for now he’s on to something. The similarities are significant, but not for the reasons Obama would have you believe. Obama is implicitly declaring that the “thing” that swept them into office was a massive mandate to centralize power at the federal level, or in Brown’s case public dissatisfaction with the rate at with Obama was able to centralize power. This could not be further from the truth. In fact, the “thing” that swept both into office was absolute disgust with Washington DC.

The centralization of power is the problem.

Both elections prove it. Obama won the election because he was “not Bush”. Brown won the election because he was “not Obama”. Both won the election because they were not “Washington DC”. Well, now they are both Washington DC, so who will the people send next to solve the problems sure to be endorsed by these champions. In other words, the game continues until “we the people” tell Washington to take a hike, we can solve our problems locally.

This battle is not about Republicans versus Democrats. It’s not even about left ideology versus right ideology. The battle is much more serious. It is about “we the people” versus an out of control federal government. Or more to the point, decentralized power versus centralized power.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE

4