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.

Their goal?

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.

The solution?

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.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/569370/201104151858/Our-Unelected-Rulers.aspx

Posted in Anti-American Democrat Far Left Government Control Ideology Liberal Nancy Pelosi Obama Personal rights Progressives Regulations Socialism with No Comments

More:

Jobs and Revolution and the Vote

The following is a chatty, light but very educational exposure of the real “labor” statistics, the causations and what we as Americans can do about this situation. This comparison of both the employment level and the labor force over time lucidly explains what is going on right now (or not going on!) and is something that you won’t read or hear through most forms of news media, that is, those leaning Left.

We do have recourses, however. A further supporting of the Tea Parties and conservative values and the vote in November 2012.

Jobs and Revolution
Christopher Chantrill     February 12, 2011

Since I know nothing about Egypt beyond what I read in the papers, I won't comment on the Egyptian revolution.  All I can say is that I agree with the pundits.  When you have an autocratic regime then you get rigidities in the economy and society that strain and stress it until something breaks.  The only thing these thug dictators understand is spoils for their supporters and thuggery for the rest.  Freedom? Schmeedom.

So instead of solving Egypt's problems let's talk about America's jobs problem.  No doubt you've heard the mainstream media anguish about the mixed job numbers released on Friday.  Here they are in chart form, direct from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Household Survey website.  First of all, let's look at the employment situation.

Not good.  If there ever was a jobless recovery, of the kind that Nancy Pelosi used to rage about back in 2003, this is it.  Eight million jobs lost since the peak in 2006, and no net jobs for the last year, in spite of a trillion or so in "stimulus."  But the really shocking numbers are in the labor force, the total of people actually working or actively looking for work.

The labor force has been flat for three years.  Notice that even in Nancy Pelosi's nightmare years, the Bush jobless recovery in 2002-2003, the labor force was increasing smartly as people entered the labor force looking for work.  Not now, not with the mixed economic news of the Obama jobless recovery.

Of course, the sluggishness in the labor market is hardly surprising.  The Obama administration and its willing accomplices in the Congress just spent two years rewarding their supporters with new economic rigidities like ObamaCare, stimulus spending for government workers, new environmental penalties like the EPA effort to regulate carbon dioxide, slowdowns and outright bans on energy production, meddling in the housing market, and billions in subsidies to its supporters in the crony capitalist green energy business.  It seems that the only thing our politicians know is to reward their supporters and send their thugs out to beat the economy into submission.

Pretty soon the voters will be ready to throw the bums out and vote for hope and change.  After all, there are millions of jobless out there, and sooner or later they are going to get desperate.  But let me make it clear.  The situation in the US is nothing like the situation in Egypt.  For instance, we don't have millions of people in the streets.

We do?  You are saying that the American people the Tea Party movement have been in the streets peacefully protesting ever since the winter of 2009?  Well, I suppose you have a point.  And based on his State of the Union speech, the President still thinks that the answer to our problems is more government, a program described by the divine Sarah as "a bullet train to bankruptcy."

Anyway, violence never solved anything.  War is not the answer. That is what those nice silver-haired liberal ladies tell us from the bumpers of their Toyota Priuses.

Excuse me, lady.  What do you think that the individual mandate is all about?  It says: go get health insurance or else.  What do you think that universal compulsory education is all about?  It says: send your kid to school or government may take her away.  What do you think that taxation is all about?  Pay your taxes or go to jail.  So you see that it's not just thug dictators that believe in force and violence; nice educated liberal ladies of a certain age believe in force too.

We conservatives are different.  We believe in dialing down the level of force in society, starting with government force.  We believe that the way to get America back to work is not with crony capitalist green energy and bullet trains to bankruptcy.  We believe it starts with lower tax rates and lower government spending.  We believe, with Deirdre McCloskey, in the great middle class, a bourgeoisie dignified and free: free to innovate and free to experiment.

In that city on a hill, where you and I have a rendezvous with destiny, there is a slow, steady evolution every day as new ideas in the economy drive out old ideas, as a few people every day lose their jobs and a few people find new jobs, so there is never a need to take to the streets.  In the culmination of this incandescent vision, the last best hope of mankind on earth, government is limited and greedy bankers don't take home the big bucks.

It's not asking much.  Limited government, a middle class that's innovative and free, jobs, jobs, jobs, and everyone trying to make the world immediately around them a better place for them and their children.  Call it American exceptionalism, the middle class alternative to bloody revolution in the streets of Cairo.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/jobs_and_revolution.html

Posted in Corruption Obama Regulations Tea Parties Unemployment 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:

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:

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:

Obama Implementing His Ideologies Through Regulations That Conflict With the Constitution

Posted in Constitution Obama Political Cartoon Regulations with 1 Comment

More: