Many of the elected Left are seeking to make elections and elected officials somewhat unimportant in many ways. That is, they are continually seeking to impose greater restrictions on the American public not necessarily just through laws passed by Congress but also by seemingly infinite rules and regulations promulgated by unelected bureaucrats.
To evolve our country into a socialistic one with a large central government that has virtually total control over most of the activities of its citizenry. The population will be neutered with an ever increasing number becoming docile and agreeable dependents of the State. This further facilitates implementation of their far left ideological agenda.
These same politicians, who are acting like an elitist class akin to the politburo of former Soviet Union, will be rewarded with privilege, power and wealth. We have to look no further than Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel, Charlie Schumer and Barney Frank to see what is transpiring.
We must vociferously and staunchly oppose all these individuals and their policies and do whatever it takes to abrogate their actions and remove them from office.
Our Unelected Rulers
Investor’s Business Daily 04/15/2011
Administrative State: Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi says "elections shouldn't matter as much as they do." Maybe they don't even matter as much as she thinks they do. It seems that bureaucrats are making our laws.
Speaking last week at Tufts University, Pelosi suggested that until recently there was little difference between her party and the Republicans because of "shared values." In her mind, these shared values had rendered elections meaningless in the pre-Tea Party era. But now she fears a true grass-roots uprising has forced a bright line between the parties.
What she and most of the country are missing, though, is the impact of the administrative state. America has become a nation where unelected regulators make law. We should be alarmed.
Recently we learned from U.S. News & World Report that "just six pages" of the 907-page Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act have been turned "into 429 pages of new regulations." That is one page for "every page of (President) Obama's campaign book, 'The Audacity of Hope' — plus another 45 pages."
A few months earlier, the New York Times reported that federal rule makers "suddenly find themselves at the center of power as they scramble to work out details of hundreds of sweeping financial and health care regulations that will ultimately affect most Americans."
According to the Times, "More than 200 health regulators working on complicated insurance rules have taken over three floors of a suburban office building" in Bethesda, Md., "paying almost double the market rate for the space in their rush to get started."
Paul Dennett, senior vice president of the American Benefits Council, a trade group for large employers, is quoted as saying: "There has never been a period like what we are going through now, in terms of the sheer volume and complexity of rule-making."
Issues to be settled by regulators, not elected officials, the Times said, include:
• How much credit-card companies can charge shopkeepers for administrative fees when cards are swiped for purchases.
• Which types of financial companies are so "systemically important" to the economy that they should be subject to greater federal oversight.
• What services must be covered by all insurers as part of the "essential health benefits" package and at what point would premium increases be considered so "unreasonable" that regulators could step in.
This is not a sudden bump in rule making. Regulators have been busy for decades, particularly during Obama's first year in office — which wasn't even a full year. In 2009, the administration published a record-breaking 163,333 pages of rules that affect our daily lives, from the energy we use to the financial decisions we make to the health care we get.
If all this seems inconsistent with the Declaration of Independence's guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without state interference, there's good reason. As Heritage Foundation senior fellow Robert Moffat has written, Americans rightly "feel that they are increasingly being governed by administrators, not legislators. ... The rule of law is being supplanted" by rules and regulations.
The administrative state's disciples believe an army of experts is needed to organize society because they hold special knowledge. In his 1887 essay "Socialism and Democracy," Woodrow Wilson gave fuel to a radical agenda that gnaws at us yet today when he wrote that "men as communities are supreme over men as individuals."
The rise of the administrative state is oxygen for a political left that relishes control of civil society because its members believe they're too smart not to be obeyed. It has a chokehold not only on individual rights, but on the economy as well.
The Phoenix Center in Washington has found that on average, "eliminating the job of a single regulator grows the American economy by $6.2 million and nearly 100 private sector jobs annually."
This would strike most as evidence that the administrative state is counterproductive. Yet there's an absence of a strong effort to reverse it. This isn't inspiring. Elections should mean something, and deconstruction of the body of unelected rule makers would give even more meaning to the pivotal 2012 races.
We are nearing the precipice of a financial apocalypse in this country but you would never know it just by listening to the demagoguery of the Democrats. They can’t spend other people’s money fast enough (translated: the taxpayers). No pork project or expenditure to them is frivolous.
Despite massive increases in spending under Obama and Congress when both chambers were controlled by the Democrats, they refuse to agree to even a miniscule 1.7% reduction - $61 billion out of $3.6 trillion. Apparently, this figure has been reduced to about one half in order to avert a government shutdown. That would translate to around a 1.8% reduction in the spending deficit for just this one year!
This is essentially a rounding error – an unacceptable compromise which illustrates their total lack of responsibility and concern for America, our way of life and standard of living. It also confirms that their first interest is getting re-elected.
We should work to make sure that it doesn’t happen at their next election.
Shutdown? Why are we still discussing the 2011 budget?
Greg Richards April 01, 2011
The 2011 budget should have been passed by last year's Congress. The 1974 budget law requires that the budget for this fiscal year be passed by October 1 of last year.
The Democrats were in power last year. The entire government was under the control of the Democrat Party. In the Senate, the Democrats had a supermajority. In the House, the Democrats had a controlling majority. Their guy was in the White House.
Passing a budget could arguably be said to be Congress' primary duty apart from declaring war. But last year, we saw the contempt in which the Democrat Party holds the public. The Democrats ran away from their duty, a duty they accepted - indeed sought - by running for office.
But the Democrats did not want to run in the elections of November 2010 on their record, on their stewardship of the affairs of State. Instead they chose to be derelict in their duty to the country.
Now, under the goad of the Tea Party, the Republicans, having retaken control of the House, are insisting that the government institute a budget for fiscal 2011, which has already half gone. In the face of a $1.6 trillion deficit which is occurring, be it noted, in the absence of a national emergency even if in the context of poor economic performance, the Republicans are seeking to cut $61 billion in spending, a paltry 1.7% of the total budget and 3.8% of the deficit. And what do we find? We find the Democratic Majority Leader of the Senate Harry Reid attempting to marginalize the Tea Party, whose presence is the only reason that he is being forced to do his duty!
1. The Democrats, by abandoning their duty on the budget last year, have already shown that they have no respect for their responsibility to the country.
2. The Democrats certainly have no respect for Republicans and will not act in the interests of collegiality.
3. Therefore, the only thing that motivates Democrats in Congress is access to power. The only force that is going to move them is the fear of losing that power. What we know and they don't is that the citizenry is now aroused. It is fearful for the future of the country under the unmodulated profligacy of the Democrat Party in Washington.
So, let's treat the Harry Reids with the contempt they deserve. Reasonableness is not going to move the needle anyway. Let's do what is necessary to save the country and put the Dems to the test of public obloquy if they choose to continue their irresponsibility from last year and stand in the way of prudence and necessity.
During his two year tenure as “president”, Obama has unmasked his true intentions and character: an unrelenting arrogant, contemptuous, narcissistic, racist, elitist Progressive who intends to transform the American political, economic and social system in direct opposition to the wishes of an overwhelming majority of citizens in order to realize his ideological goals. His agenda is authoritarian control or, in essence, tyranny and has been accomplishing much of this through his czars and fellow Progressives with regulations and rules that often bypass Congress.
In isolation, Obama would have little success. Unfortunately, he and a cadre of Progressives in high places have worked to advance the far left causes which have been immensely aided by the fifth column press which is complicit in this revolution. We all know the names of some of these noxious Progressive politicians who are bent on undermining and destroying our country: Hillary Clinton, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Pete Stark. (See yesterday’s post : Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Outrageous Statements Made In An Arab Country Regarding the Tucson Shooter for just one example of the outrageous, destructive and irresponsible actions of Hillary Clinton)
We must vanquish this revolution being perpetrated by liberal Democrats and Progressives from within the government, doing whatever it takes to neutralize these individuals and their destructive actions. The November massacre of Democratic politicians at the voting booth is a start but we must continue on relentlessly. It is imperative that we fervently support the conservatives and Republicans in Congress in order to help regain our stolen rights and freedoms as well as reestablish sane fiscal policies.
Arrogant and Authoritarian: Barack Obama and the New Progressives
Chuck Rogér January 12, 2011
Blindness to physical reality, denial of human nature, and a consuming desire to use government force to impose fantasies on fellow human beings. Welcome to the mind of today's American "progressive."
Progressives veil sophomoric schemes in eloquent verbiage. Barack Obama's mastery of the technique got him elected president. Sixty-nine and a half million Americans would not have voted for Obama had he failed to conceal the differences between his campaign spiel and the contents of his heart.
Convinced of the goodness of their intentions, ideologues like Obama mistake tyranny for noble action. And to achieve their noble objectives, today's progressives bend the truth far more than did predecessors like John Dewey, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR. Yet Obama has increasingly adopted a more direct modus operandi since becoming president. The "centrist" disguise has disintegrated.
Progressivism initially appeared on the American scene in response to problems that cried for solutions. Peter Berkowitz describes the movement's birth.
The original progressivism arose in the 1880s and 1890s and flourished during the first two decades of the 20th century. It is associated with, among others, Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, scholars Fredrick Jackson Turner and Charles Beard, reformer Jane Addams, theologian Walter Rauschenbusch, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, philosopher and educator John Dewey, and journalist and New Republic founder Herbert Croly.
At their best, the original progressives responded to dramatic social and economic upheavals generated by the industrial revolution, opposed real Gilded Age abuses, and promoted salutary social and political reforms. They took the side of the exploited, the weak, and the wronged. They fought political corruption and sought to make political institutions more responsive to the will of the people. And they advanced programs and policies that, in a changing world, brought liberal democracy in America more in line with the Declaration of Independence's and the Constitution's original promise of freedom and equality for all.
So some original progressives had a positive influence on the country. But history shows that the ideas of zealots like Wilson, Croly, Dewey, and FDR had devastating effects. Government size and intrusion into business and private life have mushroomed. America's education system has decayed into a vehicle for infecting young people with pie-in-the-sky misconceptions of human nature and twisted versions of the American story.
Decades since the progressive movement began, a clear picture has developed of rabid ideologues like Margaret Sanger, whose racism incited her to conceive the eugenic "Negro Project" to reduce the "inferior" black population. Progressive minds like Sanger's, capable of spawning the depravity of Planned Parenthood, are dark places.
Today, the truth stares Americans in the face. While progressivism was born of an earnest desire to advance personal freedom, the ideology devolved into a collection of approaches that would lock people in the chains of a centrally planned society, with progressive elites withholding the keys to the locks. The elitists truly believe that legislative and regulatory shackles can remold human nature to conform to an impossibly perfect vision.
We need look no farther than our progressive-in-chief for the embodiment of the stubborn pseudo-intellectual who views himself as society's infallible guiding hand. Barack Obama wants government to "spread the wealth" by taking wealth from high earners who spread it more broadly and deeply than government ever could. Our president thinks that Americans who are concerned about decaying values and explosive federal spending are too "scared" to trust cherry-picked "facts and science." Obama believes that people are wasting valuable time "pushing away challenges, looking backwards" -- presumably focusing on really dreadful stuff like wholesome values, common sense, and facts evidenced by history. Barack the magic driver says that Republicans critical of his magic bus "can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."
A hundred years ago, Herbert Croly foretold the Obama mindset, declaring that "the average American individual is morally and intellectually inadequate to a serious and consistent conception of his responsibilities as a democrat1." Peter Berkowitz suggests that today's progressives probably find Croly's declaration "mortifying." I think Berkowitz misses the mark. Hillary Clinton, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Time's Joe Klein, U.C. Berkley linguist George Lakoff, Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank, and countless other progressives routinely make an exhibition of their insufferably arrogant elitism. Obama's superior manner and California Representative Pete Stark's outrageous impudence typify the demeanor of today's enlightened ones.
With a smugness celebrated by soul mates in the media, Barack Obama inspires American progressives to flaunt their haughtiness. Describing the posturing that accompanies the haughtiness, Berkowitz observes that Obama's techniques constitute an "effort to push dramatic transformation under the cover of moderation, pragmatism, and post-partisanship."
My characterization is more straightforward. The media actively sell Obama's phony "moderation, pragmatism, and post-partisanship" to "cover" actions that are immoderate, impractical, and entirely partisan. Obama purveys doublespeak to convince people of one thing while the illusionist-in-chief does another. Millions of Americans voted for a package of illusions in 2008.
Obamaesque deceit and conceit are easily summarized: progressives sanctify pretty theory as obviously true and condemn ugly reality as necessarily false. Progressives see themselves as incapable of error and believe that rejection of their high-mindedness could be undertaken only by commoners too dim to comprehend what's best.
During the two years after Barack Obama moved to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and Democrats increased their stranglehold on Congress, something became crystal-clear. A hideous infestation called progressivism has uglified the White House and the Democrat Party. The tyrannous legislative and regulatory rampages that Obama and the Democrats undertook made something else clear. Until progressivism is flushed from the party, Democrats must never again be entrusted with substantial influence in government.
A writer, physicist, and former high tech executive, Chuck Rogér invites you to visit his website, www.chuckroger.com. E-mail Chuck at email@example.com.
Don't you wish that you were in incoming Speaker of the House Rep. John Boehner's shoes right about now?
Most of us probably would have wanted to or actually would have clobbered Pelosi over the head again, and again and again. Boehner displayed unbelievable restraint despite appearing as if he were considering doing some hammering.
This is the new and quintessential picture of self-control.
This bodes well for the Republican controlled House and, therefore, for freedom loving and hard working Americans.
During a Senate committee hearing that dealt with television retransmission, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (Dem. – West Virginia) had the temerity and despicable hauteur to state that he wished that he could just have the existence of FOX News and MSNBC terminated by the F.C.C. It seems that the news media is “interfering” with the running of government and their ability to govern by providing information to the public which they do not find helpful.
An informed public is a “dangerous” one according to this philosophy. After all, we actually can attempt to track their legislation, activities, corruption and attempts to deprive us of our rights and liberties (Obamacare, Cap and Trade, etc.) and act on these. We would be a nuisance to their privileged and powerful positions and lifestyles as politicians.
This pronouncement is not surprising and is consonant with the elitism and arrogance that the Congressional Democrats habitually exude and which has become part of their genetic/ideological makeup. A few prime examples:
Of course, Obama is a high profile a paragon of this pernicious comportment.
This attitude is one that is a precursor to tyranny and an autocratic government and is why we must remain ever vigilant of their threats and actions.
We must also vanquish this attitude and have these “representatives of the people” removed from office.
Senator Jay Rockefeller Wishes FOX News and MSNBC Would Just Stop Existing
Posted in Liberaland by Alan • November 17, 2010,
Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia somehow believes that free speech exercised on FOX News and MSNBC makes his job harder, and in his heart of hearts he wishes the government could shut them up.
At a Senate committee hearing about television retransmission consent on Wednesday, Mr. Rockefeller spoke broadly about the ways he believes television is ailing, and in doing so he singled out the “endless barking” of cable news.
He said: “There’s a little bug inside of me which wants to get the F.C.C. to say to Fox and to MSNBC, ‘Out. Off. End. Goodbye.’ It would be a big favor to political discourse; to our ability to do our work here in Congress; and to the American people, to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and, more importantly, in their future.”
Sadly for Senator Rockefeller, the FCC doesn’t have authority over cable television.
The arrogance, disdain for the average American, limitless deception, elitism and egregious naked power grab of Obama, Pelosi and the Congressional Democrats in the formulation and corrupt passage of government controlled health care exceeded a level of reprehensibility unparalleled in Washington politics. It irrefutably demonstrates an intention and method for stealing our personal rights and liberties away and providing an irreversible way for the federal government to rule us – not represent us.
This is government by fiat as in many Third World countries – not by legal, Constitutional means. As enumerated below, the Democrats sought to shield this legislation from attempts to change or nullify it and did so in ways that were blatantly unconstitutional and depraved.
The Goldwater Institute is attempting to block a crucial provision of Obamacare: the creation of the Independent Payment Advisory Board which is charged with creating Medicare policies and health care payments. It is an autonomous commission with members appointed by the President that is designed to have no Congressional oversight or be subject to judicial review.
This arrangement wreaks tyranny – and was just what Obama and Pelosi wanted.
The election was one payback for the public’s rebuking of this pernicious legislation. We strongly recommend that the soon to be Republican dominated House impose condign retribution for the depraved actions of these two despicable politicians. It can start, for example, by severely curtailing Obama and Michelle’s White House budgets including for parties, trips, etc.
Keep them on a short leash and punish them financially when possible!
Goldwater Institute Asks Court To Block Key Provision of Federal Health Care Law
Health care bill created ‘untouchable’ Independent Payment Advisory Board
Goldwater Institute News Release
November 16, 2010
PHOENIX – The Goldwater Institute has requested an injunction  to block a provision of the federal health care law that prevents Congress from repealing a new agency that would control health care payments. A preliminary injunction is needed so Congress can consider revoking the Independent Payment Advisory Board before the agency has been established.
Among other measures, the federal health care law orders the creation by 2012 of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, an unelected commission that will be free to set Medicare policy and health care payment rates with no meaningful congressional oversight and without the possibility of judicial review. The law also prohibits Congress from acting to repeal the agency in perpetuity, except for a narrow window in 2017.
“Protecting any new federal agency from being repealed by Congress appears to be unprecedented in the history of the United States,” said Diane Cohen, the Goldwater Institute’s lead attorney in this case.
The motion for preliminary injunction has been filed as part of Coons v. Geithner , one of nearly two dozen lawsuits around the country challenging the health care law. If granted by U.S. District Judge Murray Snow, the injunction will be the first time that any part of the law has been blocked, said Clint Bolick, litigation director at the Goldwater Institute.
“This injunction would restore power to our elected representatives to repeal an agency with new sweeping powers that are removed from any semblance of legislative, executive, or judicial review,” Mr. Bolick said.
The Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation represents a number of clients in this lawsuit including U.S. Representatives Jeff Flake, Trent Franks, and John Shadegg of Arizona. The congressmen have supported repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a 15-member commission appointed by the president that will have far-reaching and uncontrollable powers, Ms Cohen said.
Unlike any other federal commission, the Independent Payment Advisory Board won’t have to follow the basic steps for adopting and enforcing administrative rules. The board’s annual payment schedules and policy proposals can’t be examined by the courts and automatically will become law unless amended by Congress through a difficult and complex procedure.
Finally, even if Congress were to approve a repeal of the board in 2017, following the complex process allowed in the health care law, that repeal automatically would be delayed until 2020.
“No possible reading of the Constitution supports the idea of an unelected, standalone federal board that’s untouchable by both Congress and the courts,” Mr. Bolick said.
We may all remember the incident during Congressional hearings when Sen. Barbara Boxer demanded to be called “Senator” because she “worked so hard to earn the title”. This same haughty attitude seems to be genetically programmed in numerous other Democratic politicians such as Barney Frank, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Schumer, Alan Grayson, Charlie Rangel, and Maxine Waters.
America needs to be vaccinated against these despicable politicians.