Posted on 09/02/2010 10:30:26 AM PDT by jazusamo
Sowell sees the national equivalent of a "perfect storm," a gathering of "dangerous forces (that) have been building .. . for at least a half-century."
Yes, he says, our great nation has weathered many storms. But, he quickly notes, so did the Roman Empire before it collapsed. "Is that where America is headed?" Sowell asks upfront. "I believe it is. Our only saving grace is that we are not there yet - and that nothing is inevitable until it happens."......
The Obama administration "is not the root cause of the ominous dangers that face this country at home and aboard," Sowell says. But "it is the embodiment, the personification and the culmination of dangerous trends that began decades ago. Moreover, it has escalated those dangers to what may be a point of no return."
"The ruthless and corrupt way this bill was forced through Congress on a party-line vote, and in defiance of public opinion, provides a roadmap for how other "historic" changes can be imposed by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. What will it matter if Obama's current approval rating is below 50 percent among the current voting public, if he can ram through new legislation to create millions of new voters by granting citizenship to illegal immigrants? That could be enough to make him a two-term president, in which case he could appoint enough Supreme Court justices to rubber-stamp further extensions of his power."
"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's 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? ... ...Does any of this sound like America?"
"People ask me all the time, "Rush, you'll tell us when it's time to panic, right?" I say, "Yeah, and it's not time to panic." But I have just finished a column by Thomas Sowell that strikes me as somewhat remarkable. There should not be any doubt with Americans interested in the truth about who Barack Obama is and what he represents, it's become clear, surreal clear. Dr. Thomas Sowell, a brilliant, accomplished man, a distinguished gentleman. When distinguished gentlemen, distinguished Americans such as Thomas Sowell think and write as he has in his latest column, it's time to stop gathering evidence about Obama's character and do anything within the boundaries of the law to stop his agenda." [2]After the midterm elections, it will be absolutely crucial that the projected conservative majority in the House (and possibly the Senate) act on Rush's words and truly "do anything within the boundaries of the law to stop his [Obama's] agenda"; so that our country does not slip past the "point of no return."
I share Sowell’s despair about the current state of our country, but I’m not hopeless.
The new (God-willing) Republican congress will need to take decisive, drastic steps to combat Obama and his agenda from day 1. Then Obama must be defeated in 2012, and the subsequent administration must tear the progressive agenda and movement to shreds.
If we fail, or if Republicans do not stand for liberty then count me in with Dr. Sowell. Republicans would do well to remember and take to heart this quote by Barry Goldwater:
“Extemism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in defense of justice is no virtue”
Americans are amazing people.
That is exactly what tempers my optimism for the future of this nation.
Thus it is constitutionally sufficient if Congress "clearly delineates the general policy, the public agency which is to apply it, and the boundaries of this delegated authority." (Mistretta v. United States (1989))
In practice, this works better than one might expect. For example, the FDA, far better than Congress, can bring to bear scientific and technical expertise in a responsible fashion when it writes regulations and decides which drugs may come to market. Congress would make a hopeless mess of such a task. The members would shake lobbyists down for contributions and ask for a plant to be located in their district if they vote to approve a new drug.
In practice, administrative agencies are not autonomous. They are keenly alert to Congressional sentiment when they make final decisions. Agencies know that Congress can ultimately make its will felt. In addition, administrative procedures and judicial remedies can greatly affect what an agency does or is permitted to do.
And after the elections, trials for those who abused
their office! Yes, why wait?
I wish the malignant narcissist in the White House understood that.
That is the way of the world and we will persevere.
I understand that.
Again, I’m talking about confiscation of property and incarceration.
I don’t give a flying F*** what SCOTUS says, I shouldn’t be imprisoned because I violated a “rule” that some bureaucrat at the IRS wrote.
IOW Supreme Court case law is morally wrong if it says that is legal. And I don’t believe that the writers of the Constitution ever intended for this to be legal.
I have no regard for the IRS either.
Would advancing socialism be “abuse of office”?
Disagreement with the ruling party?
By all means, let us criminalize policy disagreements and hold kangaroo court trials for those who lose elections!
And then we can all sit around and wonder where our great American Republic went to, and why our President for Life doesn't want to hold elections.
But to some I guess they would LIKE such a system, so long as they liked our Presidente for Life.
I spit upon such a system.
Ok, what’s your solution?
Judges and the President get impeached, Congressmen get censured.
Should Bush have been impeached for refusing to enforce Federal Immigration law?
You seem to miss the point, politically motivated show trials accompanying electoral realignments that criminalize policy differences is the way of the banana republic that isn't really a republic.
Hell we couldn't even get Clinton on perjury and obstruction of justice trying to lie about having sex with a subordinate in the office during working hours to try to cover up a pattern of sexual harassment - and yet you dream of impeaching President 0bama for not doing what no other President has done - enforce immigration law?
Delusional is too kind of a word for such muddy thinking.
To hold people in elected office accountable for their crimes IRRESPECTIVE of who hold power or what party they belong to.
The entire ‘after November we need trials’ is what I heard from the idiots on the left. It is disconcerting to hear such reactionary talk from people who think themselves conservative.
An exchange of power in Congress should NOT, EVER be accompanied by massive trials of those who once held office. That is the way of banana republics, not our Republic.
Sleazy ethics of politicians aside, it's pretty straightforward when already written law has been violated by officeholders. That is not criminalizing "policy disagreements" and it does not make a kangaroo court.
Is it a policy disagreement when I ask justice department appointees why they refuse to pursue Black Panther voter intimidation, said refusal probably at the behest of the current administration? Do you think that just because Obama is no longer in office (assuming that were to be the case) that collusion in voter intimidation should be ignored?
There is a lot of patently illegal stuff going on and simply because the lawbreakers lose elections does not pardon them from these crimes. IOW, the statute of limitations expires upon vacating the office? I used to work at XYZ Corporation and I stole things and sold corporate secrets. Am I free of legal liability for these crimes after I get fired?
We are moving way past "policy disagreements", have been for a long time.
Oh, I’d settle for trials now but until november
they would go no where as you well know.
Remember in November.
I don't agree with the decision to not try these guys, but that is why it is important to win elections; so that we get people in office who take the law seriously - NOT so we can punish people, retroactively, who made policy decisions we disagreed with when THEY were in power.
If there were actual crimes, then yes, they should be prosecuted. Where are the actual crimes? Policy disagreements are not crimes.
You sound like the leftists who wanted to prosecute Bush and Cheney and their Justice Department for the “torture” of suspects in the War on Terror, with “torture” being retroactively redefined.
If it was the law, when Holder was in charge of enforcing the law, making it not the law after Holder only makes Holder subject to arrest and prosecution in A BANANA REPUBLIC!
Yes. Though in practice we know it couldn't happen. Executive Branch refusal to enforce laws has happened plenty in the past. And it is an impeachable offense as far as I know. Should have been enforced then as well as now.
We don't lock up impeached officials, we kick them out of office. And that is what should happen to members of the branch of government that is designated by the Constitution to enforce the laws passed by congress. Not simply the laws it happens to like.
In fact there are so many laws on the books, a great many of them unenforced, that enforcing them all would be highly unpopular, and if it were a crime to not enforce them we could arrest every officer of the law in the USA.
But I agree with you 100%! Here in America we impeach high officials, or censure them and remove them from office. We do not arrest them, or parade them through the streets suspended on a meat hook, or hold them in prison for decades until THEY become President. We kick them out of office, at the ballot box, or through our Constitutional systems.
THAT is the American way. Not ‘after November come the trials’!
You are right about Reagan. Even though his policies helped leftists too. Ironic.
They try to Alinsky people early and often, but the more we call them on that tactic the less power it has.
Ridicule ONLY works when you are shamed by it.
If someone calls you anything, you need to own it and turn it around. “Sarah Palin, you are FOLKSY!” “Yes, I, like many Americans, am a down home kind of person, and I like the way I am. Don’t you like diversity?” Bingo, epic fail for Alinsky!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.