Parallels Between Mubarak and Obama: Part 2

Posted in Government Control Obama Political Cartoon with No Comments

More:

Parallels Between Mubarak and Obama

The parallels between what is happening in Egypt with Mubarak and how Americans feel about the despot-in-the making, Obama, are quite close. It is unfortunate that Obama "can't" be overthrown like the Middle East situation.

The extent of suppression and oppression legislated on Americans by the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats has not reached the levels endemic in Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab world but our rights and freedoms are increasingly being abridged while greater and outrageous amounts of our earnings are being confiscated by an ever enlarging government with an insatiable appetite for spending.

Posted in Congress Democrat Egypt Freedom Government Control Obama Political Cartoon Regulations with No Comments

More:

Obamacare Is A Health Care Dictatorship

Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, bluntly has stated that with full implementation of Obamacare, health care will be a government run dictatorship. He has identified 1968 new and expanded powers of the federal government in addition to 159 new federal agencies. At the top of this pyramid of power is the Secretary of Health and Human Services which at present is Kathleen Sibelius.

Do we really want a health care system that grants the federal government such immense power and control?

Of course not!

Each agency and rule further erodes our health care rights and freedoms.

Why does Obamacare require the hiring of 15,000 new IRS agents? What does this have to do with health care? Will they make our care less expensive? Will their presence make it more efficient?

You get the picture – and this is only a fraction of the abominable issues inherent in the Obamacare legislation.

This legislation needs complete repeal. Anything short of this will be a failure.

Gingrich: Country in danger of health dictatorship
Misty Williams The Atlanta Journal-Constitution  January 20, 2011

States should be given more control over how to run health care programs rather than broaden the federal government’s role in a system that’s already rife with problems, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Thursday.

“Maybe we would be better off having 50 parallel experiments,” Gingrich told reporters at the Center for Health Transformation, which was unveiling its latest review on the impact of the federal health care law.

The law grants the federal government 1,968 new and expanded powers -- most of which would fall under the purview of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius -- and 159 new federal offices, according to the center founded by Gingrich.

Those controls cover a range of issues from access to drugs and insurance coverage to how care is delivered and changes to Medicare, the group said.

America is in danger of a health dictatorship, Gingrich said.

“I think it means that the next time you need a health consultation, you may want to consult with your lobbyist rather than your doctor, because the fact is your doctor is not going to be able to make a whole range of decisions,” he said.

The former speaker, who said he will decide by the end of February whether to form an exploratory committee for a presidential run, described Wednesday’s vote to repeal health care reform as more than symbolic.

He said, “It is the beginning of a dialogue and the beginning of a process which I think over time is going to be very, very powerful.”

Proposed alternatives to the current health care law should have bills dealing with malpractice reform and fraud, which is especially prevalent in the Medicaid arena, Gingrich said. If the federal government can’t run Medicaid, it’s better for the states to take the helm, he said.

He added that states should develop their own health care exchanges instead of leaving it up to the federal government. The exchanges, which go into effect in 2014, would allow small businesses and individuals to form large pools to garner better insurance prices.

Each state is unique and faces different issues, Gingrich said.

http://www.ajc.com/health/gingrich-country-in-danger-810399.html

Posted in Government Control Healthcare Newt Gingrich ObamaCare with No Comments

More:

Obama, Through Dept. of Labor Regulations, Is Trying To Force Increased Unionizations

So you are thinking about starting up a new business in America? Why not? It is the land of opportunity. Immigrants risk their lives to come here for the chance to succeed free of an oppressive government. But this is not the America of old. This is Obama's America now and the rules have changed.

In an effort to satisfy the beast that is Big Labor, President Obama has transformed the Department of Labor from a non-partisan government agency into a muscle-flexing arm of labor unions. He is deliberately using the weight of the Dept. of Labor to harass, strong arm, and intimidate private businesses into unionizing their work force. With Obama and his fellow “Progressives” clearly adhering to and supporting failed policies of the 1940's, their oxymoronic name should be morphed to the “Regressives” or the “Oppressives”.

Union membership has been steadily declining since the 1950's and now comprises only 11% of the private work force. They are becoming a relic of the past but the Democrat Party keeps them alive because they strongly benefit both from the hundreds of millions of union dues dollars that flood their campaign war chests each election cycle and the union votes. So to satiate the Big Labor beast, Obama, through the current Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis is doing everything possible to make life miserable for countless small business owners in America (the same ones that can hire employees and reduce the unemployment rate).

So if you want to start up a new business in Obama's America, be prepared to be told who you can hire and fire, how much you can pay them, and what type of non-wage benefits they must receive. You are, in essence, just a manager of your business because Obama and Big Labor own you. And if they don't own you now, they will crush you later with government bureaucracy.

The “genius” in the oval office, our Community Organizer-in-Chief, wonders why the unemployment rate is still 9.5%. Perhaps he should stop congratulating himself on what he has done FOR small business owners over these past two years (virtually nothing positive!) and realize what he has done TO them.

But that would require a modicum of business knowledge from someone who has never so much as run a candy store; it would shatter his narcissistic infallibility as well as take time away from his countless golf or basketball outings.

Obama’s Department of Labor forces unionization
Matthew Boyle    The Daily Caller   01/18/2011

Labor unions give more money to the Democratic Party than any other source, and critics have long accused President Barack Obama’s administration of doing their bidding.  Now there is evidence that the White House has indeed put its thumb on the scale on behalf of unions. After saying that “union jobs are, by and large, good jobs,” the Department of Labor’s “strategic plan” for the next five years says: “many of the Department’s outcome goals are furthered by high rates of union membership.”

Don Todd, Americans for Limited Government’s head of research and a former DOL agency head under George W. Bush, told The Daily Caller that the Obama administration wants to “shame” companies into unionizing.

“In a worst-case scenario, your union organizer comes to you, offers you a deal to unionize, you say, ‘no,’ and, the next thing you know, OSHA’s [Occupational Safety and Health Administration] at your door,” Todd said in a phone interview. “Then, Wage and Hour show up, and they want to publicize it. They always find something wrong – it’s like with bed-checks in boot camp in the army.”

Todd said some companies will fight the DOL’s intimidation tactics, but many will give in to unionizing forces.

“It makes it the path of least resistance,” Todd said.

The current Solicitor of Labor, Patricia Smith, specialized in that kind of corporate intimidation when she served in a similar position in New York’s Department of Labor. Senate Republicans strongly opposed Smith’s appointment to her current post for that reason. In New York, Smith set up a neighborhood watch-style system for monitoring and investigating wage and hour violations by companies.

While that “sounds good,” Sen. Mike Enzi, Wyoming Republican, said during Smith’s Senate confirmation hearings, “Neighborhood Watch was set up so that people would notify law enforcement authorities of things they thought were strange and should be looked at. They did not have permission to go into people’s homes and investigate unannounced.”

Enzi pointed out that Smith’s announcement for her Wage and Hour Watch program lists six organizations, two of them unions and four of them “community organizing” groups, to take the lead on investigating violations.

Smith’s recommendations as the federal-level solicitor haven’t gone as far as Enzi feared, but they get close. Former union executives and confidants are leading almost every agency within the DOL, including, but not limited to, John Lund, who has deep ties to the AFL-CIO, Craig Becker, who has worked with the AFL-CIO and the SEIU, and Joe Main, who had worked for the United Mine Workers of America.

Smith and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis recently released the DOL’s “Strategic Plan” for 2011 through 2016, in which they link the recent economic recession and the recently high unemployment numbers with the decline in private sector union membership.

Holis has made the case publicly that unionization is a good thing as it is the only way workers get “higher wages,” “good jobs” and “flexibility and benefits like paid leave, childcare and education assistance.”

“It’s not enough to have fair wages and a safe workplace — workers also need a voice on the job! Some people say that, given the state of the economy, we can’t afford unions right now,” Holis said in a September 2009 speech to the AFL-CIO. “They’ve got it backwards. Today unions are more important than ever. Workers are facing unprecedented challenges, and they need the voice on the job that unions provide.”

DOL is pushing unionization by turning the fraud investigation arms of the Department of Labor into intimidation tools. Todd said DOL’s enforcement arms repeatedly audit and investigate businesses that refuse to unionize. They demand records of everything from Wage and Hour compliance to health and safety regulations, and won’t stop until the business they’re targeting unionizes.

Another way the Obama administration helps unions is by overloading the arms of the DOL that normally fight union fraud. The Obama administration, for instance, doubled the duties of the Office of Labor and Management Standards (OLMS). OLMS historically has been used primarily for investigating labor union fraud, but since Obama took office, OLMS is also charged with dealing with “whistleblower” complaints, or complaints from employees all over the country about companies that aren’t following safety requirements. That used to be handled by OSHA.

OLMS is the agency Todd used to lead, and as he put it, pushing companies to unionize is “life and death for these people,” meaning that unions need to get more members quickly or they’ll face bankruptcy as they’ve spent much more than they’ve taken in during recent elections.

Another thing the DOL is doing in what appears to be an effort to weaken union investigations is shifting many career employees out of OLMS and into other, non-investigative agencies that pose no immediate threat to union survival. Todd said that’s the only explanation for shifting the employees he and previous administrations spent years training to different jobs.

“They’re moving people out of OLMS over to places like Wage and Hour, which is a waste of all the training they received in prosecuting and investigating union misconduct,” Todd said in a phone interview. “In the time that I was there, we convicted close to 1,000 union officers and employees. That was not for unfair practices – that was for stealing from members.”

Todd said he thinks it’s more likely that union leadership would rather “suffer from the thefts than from the bad publicity they’d get from investigations and convictions” of union members and leaders.

“The Obama Department of Labor is being organized to push a pro-union agenda without regard to the welfare of the worker,” Rick Manning, a spokesman for Americans for Limited Government, told TheDC.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/18/obama%E2%80%99s-department-of-labor-encourages-forces-unionization/

Posted in Democrat Dept. of Labor Government Control Labor Unions Obama with No Comments

More:

Obama Administration Attempting Backdoor Approach To Impose the Rejected “Card Check” Union Friendly Legislation

To satisfy Big Labor (the single largest source of campaign funding for the Democratic party), Democrats have been pushing hard since taking control of congress in 2006 to pass a law that would circumvent the secret ballot process to unionize private businesses. Even with large majorities in both Houses and a “president” Obama eager to please his cash cow, Democrats have been unable to wrangle up enough votes to pass such a measure.

What to do now? Just as the Obama Administration is using the EPA to regulate carbon emissions because of the inability to pass Cap and Trade in Congress, it is now using the National Labor Relations Board to also do an end run around the legislative branch and impose regulations that are quite unpopular with the public and would not garner enough support as legislation in Congress. This bypassing of the electoral system and the imposing of rights denying rules is characteristic of a cynical, arrogant, authoritarian styled politician who is not looking out for the welfare, rights and freedoms of the citizens of this country.

As it stands right now, private business owners are obligated by law to allow union officials access to their workforce. The union representatives hand out "cards" to each employee to fill out - including their name - to see if there is sufficient interest to move to the next phase of unionizing - a secret ballot. Big Labor and the Democrats want to eliminate the secret ballot part of the process - a time honored American institution to protect voters from the reprisal of adversaries. They, instead, prefer the "card check" part of the process which does not allow anonymity.

This allows the Union bosses to learn the identities of those who voted against considering unionizing which will subject these employees to the bare knuckle tactics for which unions are famous in controlling dissent – both before and after the vote. Without a secret ballot, the unions have the upper hand at the expense of the employees (and employers).

If we elected our public officials in the same manner that Big Labor and Democrats want to determine the establishment of a unionized workforce in a private business, we all be exposed to the type of intimidation that we saw in 2008 when members of the New Black Panther Party harassed white voters as they approached a polling site in Philadelphia.

This is the stuff of Third World countries. Then again, Obama’s incompetence, arrogance, imposition of failed policies and ruling essentially by fiat, would qualify him to become the leader of a Banana Republic (where we seem to be heading under his rule).

Feds threaten to sue states over union laws
Sam Hananel  Associated Press    Jan 14, 2011

WASHINGTON – The National Labor Relations Board on Friday threatened to sue Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah over constitutional amendments guaranteeing workers the right to a secret ballot in union elections.

The agency's acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, said the amendments conflict with federal law, which gives employers the option of recognizing a union if a majority of workers sign cards that support unionizing.

The amendments, approved Nov. 2, have taken effect in South Dakota and Utah, and will do so soon in Arizona and South Carolina.
Business and anti-union groups sought the amendments, arguing that such secrecy is necessary to protect workers against union intimidation. They are concerned that Congress might enact legislation requiring employers to allow the "card check" process for forming unions instead of secret ballot elections.

In letters to the attorney general of each state, Solomon says the amendments are pre-empted by the supremacy clause of the Constitution because they conflict with employee rights laid out in the National Labor Relations Act. That clause says that when state and federal laws are at odds, federal law prevails.

Solomon is asking the attorneys general in South Dakota and Utah for official statements agreeing that their amendments are unconstitutional "to conserve state and federal resources."

In his letter to South Carolina's attorney general, Solomon asks the state to take measures that would prevent the Legislature from ratifying the amendment. Solomon requested that Arizona's governor decline to make the amendment official.

Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said he believes the state is on solid ground. He plans to coordinate a response with the other three states.

"If they want to bring a lawsuit, then bring it," Shurtleff said. "We believe that a secret ballot is as fundamental a right as any American has had since the beginning of this country. We want to protect the constitutional rights of our citizens."

South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley also promised to "vigorously defend our South Dakota Constitution" against any federal lawsuit.

Unions long have pushed for the card-check legislation, but the effort hasn't won enough support in Congress. Union officials say companies often use aggressive tactics — borderline illegal, they contend — to discourage workers from organizing unions.

Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group that spent millions to back congressional Republicans in last year's elections, was among the groups that pushed for passage of the state amendments. Phil Kerpen, the group's vice president for policy, said the NLRB's action "shows how determined the board is to accomplish card check by backdoor means against the wishes of the American people and Congress."

Kimberly Freeman Brown, executive director of the pro-union group American Rights at Work, said the board was confirming that "these initiatives were intended to restrict workers' rights to determine how they choose a union, disingenuously cloaked in the language of worker protection."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110114/ap_on_re_us/us_unions_secret_ballots

Posted in Arrogance Congress Democrat Government Control Labor Unions Obama Regulations with No Comments

More:

State Dept. Removing Gender Terms Father and Mother from Passport Applications and Replacing it With Progressive Approved Parent 1 and Parent 2

In another outrageous maneuver by Progressives in the federal government, the State Dept. has mandated changes on U.S. passport applications that removes the terms “mother” and “father” and replaces them with the gender neutral terms “parent one” and “parent two”. It also denies that this was motivated by political correctness.

We beg to differ on this. It is clear that not everyone has the traditional mother and father scenario though it would be the overwhelming majority. By not listing “father” and “mother” on the application, this conforms to and advances the Progressive ideology of gender neutral language. It also serves to appease the immeasurably few (radical gay and lesbian rights groups).

Actually, by limiting it to two parents, not every situation is included and there still may be some offended individuals.

We can’t allow this to happen - now can we?

What about children born using a surrogate mother?  Was the State Department negligent and insensitive in not providing the affected individual to list this third parent?

If it is really imperative that such a change be made, a simpler solution could have been to list the parents as “Father or Parent 1” and Mother or “Parent 2” – but that would not be in full compliance with Progressive doctrine.

'Mother,' 'Father' Changing to 'Parent One,' 'Parent Two' on Passport Applications
Todd Starnes  January 07, 2011  FoxNews.com

The words “mother” and “father” will be removed from U.S. passport applications and replaced with gender neutral terminology, the State Department says.

“The words in the old form were ‘mother’ and ‘father,’” said Brenda Sprague, deputy assistant Secretary of State for Passport Services. "They are now ‘parent one’ and ‘parent two.’"

A statement on the State Department website noted: “These improvements are being made to provide a gender neutral description of a child’s parents and in recognition of different types of families.” The statement didn't note if it was for child applications only.
The State Department said the new passport applications, not yet available to the public, will be available online soon.
Sprague said the decision to remove the traditional parenting names was not an act of political correctness.

“We find that with changes in medical science and reproductive technology that we are confronting situations now that we would not have anticipated 10 or 15 years ago,” she said.

Gay rights groups are applauding the decision.

“Changing the term mother and father to the more global term of parent allows many different types of families to be able to go and apply for a passport for their child without feeling like the government doesn’t recognize their family,” said Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of Family Equality Council.

Her organization lobbied the government for several years to remove the words from passport applications.

“Our government needs to recognize that the family structure is changing,” Chrisler said. “The best thing that we can do is support people who are raising kids in loving, stable families.”

But some conservative Christians are outraged over the decision.

“Only in the topsy-turvy world of left-wing political correctness could it be considered an ‘improvement’ for a birth-related document to provide less information about the circumstances of that birth,” Family Research Council president Tony Perkins wrote in a statement to Fox News Radio. “This is clearly designed to advance the causes of same-sex ‘marriage’ and homosexual parenting without statutory authority, and violates the spirit if not the letter of the Defense of Marriage Act.”

Robert Jeffress, pastor of the First Baptist Church in Dallas, agreed. “It’s part of an overall attempt at political correctness to diminish the distinction between men and women and to somehow suggest you don’t need both a father and a mother to raise a child successfully,” said Jeffress. “(This decision) was made to make homosexual couples feel more comfortable in rearing children.”

Chrisler recounted the day she and her female partner tried to get her twin sons passports.

“Even though my partner was their legal mother, had adopted them after I gave birth to them, she still had to put her name in the father field, and that is both discriminatory and makes us feel like second-class citizens,” she said.

Sprague said she would not use the word discriminatory to describe the old passport form.

“I would prefer to use the word imprecise,” she said. “It just didn’t capture the reality of their situation. Clearly, we want to be sensitive to the feelings of other people, but we are also very conscious of our need to introduce the greatest degree of precision to the process.”

Perkins, meanwhile, accused the State Department of disrespecting the law and called on Congress to “take their oversight rule very seriously and intervene in both these circumstances.”

The new gender-neutral passport application will be rolled out in February.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/07/passport-applications-soon-gender-neutral/

Posted in Diversity policies Ideology Progressives Regulations with No Comments

More:

Obama and the Progressives: Arrogant, Authoritarian, Malevolent and Dishonest

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 swampcactus@chuckroger.com.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/arrogant_and_authoritarian_bar.html

Posted in Anti-American Arrogance Barney Frank Czar Government Control Harry Reid Hillary Clinton Ideology Media - Far Left Nancy Pelosi Obama Personal rights Pete Stark Progressives Regulations Republican with No Comments

More:

FCC’s Illegal “Net Neutrality” Edict is Small Part of Obama Plan For Complete Government Control of People and Businesses

The FCC's recently approved "net neutrality" regulation was known by its voting members to truly be outside its jurisdiction, probably unconstitutional and could be easily overturned by Congress yet they were unrelenting in pursuing control over people and businesses. This arrogant and tyrannical attitude is suffused through the Obama Administration with its myriad socialists and communists and other "radicals".

A Massive, Strong and Controlling Central Government is at the core of their ideologies. This new regulation is just one step...

Obama, his Administration and czars must be stopped cold in their attempts to seize further control of our country from us.

Posted in Arrogance Communism Constitution FCC Government Control Ideology Obama Political Cartoon Regulations Socialism with No Comments

More:

Washington’s Hot Air May Finally Pay Dividends

Of course, the liberal and Progressive ideologues in Washington may never accept the data and self evident findings. After all, it is not about climate control.

It has always been about government control.

Posted in Global warming Government Control Political Cartoon with No Comments

More:

EPA Power Grab Is Unconstitutional and Must Be Challenged

Obama is using the EPA as a proxy to implement his radical, corrupt, and power confiscating ideologies.

Posted in EPA Obama Political Cartoon Regulations with No Comments

More: