You are here: Home / Archives for Political Elites
Exposing the Ultimate Control System [Video]
Filed Under: Conservatism, Cultural Marxism, Libertarianism, Progressivism, Videos Tagged With: Campaign for Liberty, Cass Sunstein, Charlie McGrath, Conservatives, Control Through Confusion, Corruption, Cronies, Cultural Icons, Culture War, Democrat, Dialogue, Disinformation, Divide and Conquer, Glenn Beck, Global Elites, Harry Reid, Hollywood, Indoctrination, Insurgents, Liberals, Liberty Movement, Mainstream Media, Manipulation, Media Manipulation, Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Nancy Pelosi, Neo-Marxism, New Media, Nudge, Patriot Movement, Polarization, Political Correctness, Political Elites, Popular Culture, Power Elites, Progressives, Propaganda, Race War, Rand Paul, Republicans, Revolutionaries, Ron Paul, s Libertarians, Sarah Palin, Self-Evident, Social Control Mechanisms, Social Engineering, Social Icons, Social Media, Tax-Exempt Foundations, Tea Party, Television, Truth, Virtue, Wide Awake News
The Illusion of Free Choice [Cartoon]
Hat Tip: We Know Memes
Share this:
The Population Control Holocaust
By Robert Zubrin | Spring 2012 | The New Atlantis
Editor’s Note: The essay below is adapted from Robert Zubrin’s Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism, the latest in our New Atlantis Books series.
There is a single ideological current running through a seemingly disparate collection of noxious modern political and scientific movements, ranging from militarism, imperialism, racism, xenophobia, and radical environmentalism, to socialism, Nazism, and totalitarian communism. This is the ideology of antihumanism: the belief that the human race is a horde of vermin whose unconstrained aspirations and appetites endanger the natural order, and that tyrannical measures are necessary to constrain humanity. The founding prophet of modern antihumanism is Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), who offered a pseudoscientific basis for the idea that human reproduction always outruns available resources. Following this pessimistic and inaccurate assessment of the capacity of human ingenuity to develop new resources, Malthus advocated oppressive policies that led to the starvation of millions in India and Ireland.
Share this:
Filed Under: Progressivism Tagged With: Canada, China, CIA, Civil Servants, Club of Rome, Coercion, Cold War, Communism, Congress, Contraception, contraceptives, Deng Xiaoping, Depopulation, Dictatorship, DOD, Environmentalism, Eugenics, Europe, FDA, Food Aid, Forced Sterilizations, Ford Administration, Ford Foundation, Foreign Aid, Gendercide, Genocide, Germany, Henry Kissinger, Hindu, Hope, Human Rights, Humanity, Ideologues, IHS, India, Indian Health Service, Indira Gandhi, Indonesia, Infanticide, Intellectuals, Intellectuals and Society, Ireland, IUD, Japan, John D. Rockefeller III, John Holdren, Latin America, Lyndon Johnson, Malthusians, Margret Sanger, Marxism, Mass Abortions, Mass Detention, Mass Sterilization, Milbank Foundation, Militarism, National Security Council, Native-American Indians, Natural Resources, Nazism, Neo-Malthusianism, New York Times, Nixon Administration, Norplant, NSSM 200, Overpopulation, Paul Ehrlich, Peasants, Peru, Pharmaceutical Companies, Planned Parenthood, Political Elites, Population Control, Population Growth, Poverty, Pro-Choice, Proletariat, Puerto Rico, Quotas, Racism, Racist, Radicals, Rand Corporation, Reimert Thorolf Ravenholt, Richard Nixon, Robert McNamara, Robert Zubrin, Rockefeller Foundation, Sex-Selective Abortions, Slavery, Socialism, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Standard of Living, Starvation, State Department, Sterilization, Sterilization Camps, Tax-Exempt Foundations, The New Atlantis, Third-World, Thomas Malthus, Totalitarian State, Tyranny, Untouchables, USAID, Utopianism, Vietnam, Violence, Wall Street Journal, War, World Bank, Xenophobia
45 Signs That America Will Soon Be A Nation With A Very Tiny Elite And The Rest Of Us Will Be Poor
By Staff Report | April 2, 2012 | End of the American Dream
The middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence in the United States today. America is a nation with a very tiny elite that is rapidly becoming increasingly wealthy while everyone else is becoming poorer. So why is this happening? Well, it is actually very simple. Our institutions are designed to concentrate wealth in the hands of a very limited number of people. Throughout human history, almost all societies that have had a big centralized government have also had a very high concentration of wealth in the hands of the elite. Throughout human history, almost all societies that have allowed big business or big corporations to dominate the economy have also had a very high concentration of wealth in the hands of the elite. Well, the United States has allowed both big government and big corporations to grow wildly out of control. Those were huge mistakes. Our founding fathers attempted to establish a nation where the federal government would be greatly limited and where corporations would be greatly restricted. Unfortunately, we have turned our backs on those principles and now we are paying the price.
Share this:
Filed Under: American History, Progressivism Tagged With: Capitalism, Centralized Government Planning, Collectivism, Competition, Conservatives, Corporate Fascism, Corporate Welfare, Corporate-Financier Oligarchy, Corporations, Corporatism, Corporatocracy, Crony Capitalism, Decentralization, East India Company, Electric Bills, Elites, Federal Government, First Principles, Food Stamps, Founding Fathers, Free Martket, Free Trade, Gasoline Prices, GDP, Global Elite, Inflation, Joe Biden, Liberals, Limited Government, Media Elites, Median Income, Medicaid, Middle-Class, Monopolies, Obamacare, Political Contributions, Political Elites, Poor, Poverty, Progressives, Redistribution of Wealth, State Capitalism, State Government, Student Loans, Tax Code, Tax Reform, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Constitution, Underemployment, Unemployment, Wealthy, Welfare, Working Poor
Why Wright Matters: Obama’s on a Mission from God
By Tom Rowan | May 20, 2012 | American Thinker
When Elwood retrieved his brother Jake from Joliet prison, the two went on a pilgrimage to their childhood Catholic orphanage. Their pitiful orphanage was under siege from Chicago’s infamously oppressive tax regime and was being put out of business. For inspiration, the brothers were directed to a Chicago Baptist church. The church was filled with laughter and love, song and dance, and miraculous divine inspiration that set the Blues Brothers on their own mission with a purpose: keep hope alive for Chicago orphans by paying off the corrupt Chicago regime.
The movie rendition of an all-black Baptist church led by the charismatic James Brown preacher, thrilling his flock with high-spirited love and devotion, is what gave The Blues Brothers soul. This was what America imagined successful, loving black churches in Chicago looked like. No wonder, then, that Reverend Wright’s scream for God to damn America is so jarring even to this day.
Share this:
Filed Under: Cultural Marxism, Progressivism Tagged With: Capitalism, Chicago, Chicago Political Machine, Christians, Communism, Community Organizer, Critical Race Theory, Critical Theory, Democracy, Divide and Conquer, Dreams From My Father, Fair Share, Fairness, Forgiveness, Free Enterprise, Free Market, Fundamental Transformation, George Obama, God, Greed, Hate Speech, Hubris, Hypocrisy, Individualism, Iraq, Islam, Israel, Israelis, Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson, Jesus Christ, Kuwait, Mainstream Media, Marxism, Marxist Agitators, Middle East, Minorities, Mitt Romney, Mobs, Muslims, Neo-Marxism, Occupy Movement, Palestinians, Political Correctness, Political Elites, Race War, Racial Strife, Radicals, Reconciliation, Religion, Rules for Radicals, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Saul Alinsky, Social Justice, Socialism, Utopianism, Victim Groups, Victimology, White House, White People, White Supremacy, Worldview
The Left’s One-Percenter Problem
By Frank Salvato | May 17, 2012 | New Media Journal
In the aftermath of Vice President Joe Biden’s “Howard Dean” moment in Ohio this week, I was struck by the sheer magnitude of the Progressive-Democrat Left’s hypocrisy when it comes to their political attacks on the so-called “rich.” As the unwashed masses of the Occupy Movement – the overwhelming majority of which are anarchists, pseudo-Socialists, Progressive activists and union operatives – take to the streets of Chicago to protest the NATO summit, I really do have to wonder if they – the useful idiots of the new millennium – know that those who they follow are the one-percenters?
Among the leaders of the Progressive Movement and the Democrat Party, it is nearly impossible to identify anyone among them who isn’t in the one-percent, and that includes President Obama and, yes, Vice President Biden. Maybe that’s why his statement, “They just don’t get us,” made my head cock like a dog hearing a high-pitched noise. “Who’s us,” I thought to myself.
Share this:
Filed Under: Progressivism Tagged With: Campaign Finance Laws, Capitalism, Chicago, Class Warfare, Congress, David Axelrod, Democratic Party, Disclosure, Double Standards, Dreams From My Father, Envy, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Harry Reid, Health Insurance, Housing, Hypocrisy, Joe Biden, JP Morgan Chase, Labor Unions, Lower Class, Middle-Class, Nancy Pelosi, National Debt, NATO, Net Worth, Occupy Movement, OpenSecrets.org, Paul Ryan, Perks, Political Class, Political Elites, Progressives, Republicans, Rich, Richard Trumka, Royalties, SEIU, Silicon Valley, Special Interests, Tax Code, TheirNetWorth.com, Useful Idiots, Valerie Jarrett, Van Jones, Wall Street, Wealthy, Working Class
‘Princelings’ in China Use Family Ties to Gain Riches
By DAVID BARBOZA and SHARON LaFRANIERE | May 17, 2012 | New York Times
SHANGHAI — The Hollywood studio DreamWorks Animation recently announced a bold move to crack China’s tightly protected film industry: a $330 million deal to create a Shanghai animation studio that might one day rival the California shops that turn out hits like “Kung Fu Panda” and “The Incredibles.”
The younger Mr. Jiang’s coups have included ventures with Microsoft and Nokia and oversight of a clutch of state-backed investment vehicles that have major interests in telecommunications, semiconductors and construction projects.
That a dealmaker like Mr. Jiang would be included in an undertaking like that of DreamWorks is almost a given in today’s China. Analysts say this is how the Communist Party shares the spoils, allowing the relatives of senior leaders to cash in on one of the biggest economic booms in history.
Share this:
Filed Under: International Tagged With: China, Chinese Communist Party, Computing, Conflict of Interest, Corporate-Financier Oligarchy, Corruption, Crony Capitalism, Global Elite, Hollywood, Hong Kong, Microsoft, Multinational Corporations, Nepotism, New York Times, Politburo, Political Elites, Power Corrupts, Princelings, Red Nobility, Reform, State Capitalism, Technology, Telecommunications, Wealth, Wikileaks
Why Congress Must Confront the Administrative State
By Robert Moffit, Ph.D. | April 2, 2012 | Heritage Foundation
Abstract: The triumph of the administrative state has been made possible by the emasculation of the legislative power. Washington’s problem is not merely federal spending and debt; it is the arrogance of centralized power. The time is therefore ripe for a major national discussion not only about the size of government, but also about the processes of government. Americans have a choice: to be governed by the rule of law, as hammered out in open legislative debate carried on by elected representatives who are directly accountable to us, or the rule of administrators who are most certainly not accountable to us. The rule of regulators is arbitrary and unaccountable government—exactly what the Founders wished to prevent in crafting the Federal Constitution.
Steve Kroft of CBS recently interviewed President Barack Obama. In response to a question on his job performance, the President ranked himself fourth among America’s chief executives (behind Lyndon Johnson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln) in the production of policy initiatives.[1]
Critics quickly ridiculed his self-assessment as narcissistic nonsense. They’re wrong.
President Obama is transforming American government. Few Presidents have enjoyed more success in enacting such a large policy agenda in such a short period of time.
- Within weeks of his inauguration, the President signed into law a major expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and Medicaid.
- He quickly followed this up with the enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the “stimulus” bill), adding $831 billion to our deficits.
- In 2010, Congress passed the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd–Frank bill), providing for massive and far-reaching financial regulation.
- And on March 23, 2010, he signed into law the 2,800-page Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). It is the largest single piece of social legislation in American history, expanding federal control over one-sixth of the American economy and the personal lives of more than 300 million citizens.
Combine this massive legislative production with his zealous regulatory program. While Washington’s bureaucratic regime has been growing since the early 1900s, under President Obama its growth has exploded. In 2009 and 2010 alone, federal agencies issued 7,076 final rules.[2]
While the President insists that his regulatory output is less than that of President George W. Bush, a closer look reveals that his “major” regulations—those having an annual impact of at least $100 million each—were more numerous. Since President Obama took office in 2009, federal agencies have issued 75 major regulations with an annual additional cost to the economy of $38 billion.[3] Taken altogether, the Small Business Administration last year estimated that the total cost of America’s regulatory burden reached $1.75 trillion—more than twice what Americans pay in individual income taxes.[4]
The U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Treasury, and Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are at the center of this regulatory storm. They alone account for 43 percent of all rules in the federal pipeline.[5] Of the 43 major rules issued in 2010, 10 were based on EPA mandates.[6] With the President’s health and environmental initiatives alone, the Obama White House has dwarfed the regulatory agenda of its predecessors.
The national health law expands the administrative power of the HHS Secretary beyond anything previously attempted. The Secretary is required to act—indicated by the statutory language “shall”—1,563 times in the final language of the legislation, and 40 specific provisions of the law mandate or permit the issuance of regulations.[7] Senate Republican Policy Committee staff estimate that the new law creates 159 new agencies or entities, but the Congressional Research Service says that the exact number is “unknowable” inasmuch as certain powerful federal offices are created administratively without direct congressional authorization.
While the law’s schedule of implementation stretches out over eight years, the most far-reaching provisions—the mandates on individuals, employers, and states—take effect in 2014. Nonetheless, in less than two years, the national health law has already generated over 11,000 pages of rules, regulations, and guidelines and related paperwork in the Federal Register.
Just consider the law’s 15-member Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). The powerful board will make its initial recommendations for detailed and specific Medicare payment cuts in January 2015, and the Secretary is empowered to put them into effect unless Congress enacts an alternative set of payment cuts to meet statutory Medicare spending targets.[8] The board’s automatic recommendations are subject to neither administrative nor judicial review, and the law further requires a three-fifths Senate majority to block IPAB’s prescriptions.
Peter Orszag, President Obama’s former director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), has observed that the extraordinary power of this new board is “the largest yielding of sovereignty from the Congress since the creation of the Federal Reserve.”[9]
In 2010 alone, Congress enacted 217 bills that became law, but that same year, federal agencies issued 3,573 final rules covering a wide variety of economic activities.[10] Today, more than at any other time in our history, we are less and less governed by the rule of law, hammered out in legislative deliberations as the Founders intended, and more and more governed by the rule of regulation. We are subject to edicts promulgated by administrators—persons we do not know and will never know, persons protected by civil service law and tenure who are not accountable to us and will never be accountable to us. Nonetheless, the administrators’ detailed decisions have the force of law.
Regulation, as law, can and does directly affect whether or not we can start or run our businesses, determine how many persons we can or cannot afford to hire, how we may or may not use our land or dispose of our property. Not only do administrators publish thousands of pages of regulations, but our fellow citizens can sometimes also go to jail for violating them.
THE TRIUMPH OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE
Ladies and gentlemen, we are witnessing the triumph of the administrative state, but that conquest is only possible because of the emasculation of the legislative power. The Founders made Congress the lawgiver, as clarified in Article I, Section 1 of the Federal Constitution. So much of their focus, reflected in The Federalist and other writings, was on how to check and balance the predominant legislative power, to channel and contain personal ambition and factional interest, to restrain potentially tyrannical majorities and safeguard the rights of beleaguered minorities, to secure personal liberty and protect the rights of property.
Though federal power has grown steadily since President Washington took the oath of office, today the relationship between the individual and the government is changing in a qualitative way. Americans are increasingly the subjects of an administrative regime rather than the free citizens of a democratic republic with a limited government.
Picking Winners and Losers. This steady transfer of legislative power to administrators has another inescapable consequence: arbitrary rule. The champions of administrative power invariably couch their arguments in appeals to expertise. The more complex the economic sector to be planned or regulated, the more that strict uniformity in the application of the rules becomes problematic.
In broad congressional grants of power, lawmakers give administrators wide latitude in the development and enforcement of the rules, so those who make the rules can also unmake them by granting waivers and exemptions. In the case of the health care law, HHS has already granted over 1,722 temporary waivers to certain businesses, unions, and gourmet restaurants in San Francisco that don’t have to comply with national coverage rules that apply to other companies throughout the country.
Treating similarly situated Americans differently, either as individual citizens or as citizens of a particular state, amounts to arbitrary rule; and arbitrary rule is inherently unjust.
THE NEED FOR A HIGHER LEVEL OF PUBLIC DEBATE
Today’s debate over the powerful bureaucracy is usually framed in terms of economic impact: How will federal rules affect economic growth and job creation, the price of gasoline or electricity, the cost of health insurance or the quality of medical care? While this level of debate is necessary, it is insufficient. Yes, we cannot neglect the trees, but it is really the health of the forest that matters.
The big question is this: How does this bureaucratic ascendancy affect ordinary Americans? My answer: Our very civic life is at stake, not just our prosperity.
The current trend is an affront to our self-government. The tacit assumption: Millions of us are not smart enough to make our own decisions for ourselves. Rather, we need to be closely supervised by officials. They will prescribe for us, for example, what kind of light bulbs and washing machines we should use. The provision of nutritional or caloric information on restaurant menus, or food items dispensed through vending machines, is now a federal mandate under Section 4205 of the Affordable Care Act.
Our supervision, though distant and impersonal, becomes more precise and detailed. We are to become increasingly dependent on government for our well-being. Today, almost half of Americans (48.5 percent) live in households that are getting some form of government assistance, largely funded from federal revenues, but nearly half (49.5 percent) of our citizens pay no federal income taxes. But today’s Progressives are still dissatisfied. In their view, the many are to be even more dependent on the few, and the few (the hated “rich,” however they are defined) should be paying even more in taxes than they do today.
Over time, these dynamics will change the character of our people, with corrosive consequences for our political culture and our economic prosperity. America will have a progressively larger class of dependent citizens, and that spirit of freedom and independence for which the Founders risked their lives and fortunes will be broken.
It does not have to be this way. Our task is to paint the big picture, the overarching framework of American civic life. The great medieval philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas, the “First Whig,” defines law as an edict of reason, promulgated by the sovereign for the common good of the community.[11] The law instructs citizens in their rights and duties, and thus has a teaching function. That being the case, as lawmakers, you must become teachers of the Constitution, carriers of our rich political culture of republican government.
What must we do to preserve and protect the constitutional traditions of limited government, individual liberty, the separation of powers, and the unique advantages of federalism? James Madison, “the Father of The Constitution,” was not a lawyer, but he was a Congressman. And in that role, he was also a teacher: He routinely employed his formidable talents in the education of his colleagues and fellow citizens on the first principles of government.
In my reading of the public mood, you also have an eager audience. More and more Americans hunger for the wisdom of the Founders, are reading their biographies, and seek to understand their tightly reasoned arguments for the adoption of our Constitution. They are also becoming aware that there is something deeply wrong with the way in which they are being governed and that this process deviates from the intentions of the Founders. They correctly sense that modern government is ever more distant and disconnected from them. They are right.
HOW WE GOT HERE
President Obama, like President Woodrow Wilson, is a real “Progressive,” but what does that mean? In his recent speech at Osawatomie, Kansas, he recalled President Theodore Roosevelt’s “New Nationalism.”[12] A genuine Progressive, TR favored the imposition of inheritance taxes and the income tax and became the standard bearer of the Progressive Party in 1912.
Reflecting that tradition, President Obama and his ideological allies are also vigorous champions of aggressive executive power.[13] Commenting on President Obama’s governance, New York Times columnist David Brooks predicts, “When historians look back on this period, they will see it as another progressive era…. It’s a progressive era based on faith in government experts and their ability to use social science analysis to manage complex systems.”[14]
Welcome to the “100 Years War” of American politics. Progressivism, after all, was America’s dominant political movement from 1890 to 1920. While the Progressives are identified with social reform and the reining in of corporate interests and trusts, they focused intensely on structural reform of government, particularly civil service reform and the democratization of our politics.
No modern American political movement has been more successful. Within a relatively short span of time, progressives backed the adoption of four transformative amendments to the Constitution. They fostered the income tax (Sixteenth Amendment) and secured direct election of U.S. Senators (Seventeenth Amendment); many backed Prohibition (Eighteenth Amendment); and they allied with the suffragettes (Nineteenth Amendment). In the several states, they broke the power of the political bosses and enacted initiative and referenda and the recall of public officials.
Long before the New Deal of the 1930s, Progressives concentrated power in Washington. With the backing of the Progressives, Congress created the Federal Reserve System (1913) and the Federal Trade Commission (1914). Federal employment soared.[15] During the Great War, Congress (in the Overman Act of 1918) gave President Wilson enormous discretionary power to consolidate and rearrange executive offices and agencies. Meanwhile, dissent, especially criticism of America’s entry into the war, was suppressed.
“Permissiveness,” the hallmark of the Sixties, was never welcome among Progressives, old or new. Under the rule of the new Progressives, if you want to just “do your own thing,” you won’t. You will do what you are told. If you think you can just “turn on, tune in, and drop out,” think again. You will be forced, for example, to buy government-approved health benefits—including federally certified abortifacients—or pay a fine. You will behave. You will conform. You will comply. You will not march to a different drummer.
The old Progressives were earnest and well-intentioned—old-fashioned “do gooders.” They were also stern and sober social reformers. During the Progressive Era, Congress suppressed the lottery business and interstate prostitution. They enforced prohibition on the sale and manufacture of alcohol,[16] and they imposed taxes on narcotics. Personal vice had become a public enemy. Professor Charles Beard, a leading Progressive historian, wrote in 1930: “Perhaps no country in the world, except Russia, places so many restraints on what is called ‘personal liberty,’ the right to do as one pleases in personal conduct and on the use of property.”[17]
Because Progressivism is an old and recurrent stream in our public life, its influence on public policy is so immense that it is a given: part of our national landscape. Progressive intellectuals generally had—and still have—a profound faith in social science, a conviction that scientific expertise was the key to social progress, especially in a social and economic order that was increasingly complex. Administration was to be the change agent. Again, Beard: “Thus, in our day, a new social science is being staked out and developed—the science of administration in a ‘great society.’ If the ‘great society’ is to endure, then it must make itself master of administration.”[18]
For Progressives, true liberty was not merely freedom from, or “negative” liberty, meaning freedom from arbitrary rule or tyrannical coercion, as embodied in the venerable natural rights tradition of the American Revolution. True liberty was the freedom to be, to act, to grow personally and to fulfill one’s potential.
This was “positive” liberty. It was to be achieved by the removal of economic and customary restraints, creating fairness in social and economic relations, liberating all persons, regardless of class or condition, from the unwelcome vicissitudes of the market and providing child care, education, universal health care, and pensions: in short, security. Justification for government action would be grounded, as Beard argued, not in power, but in service. This new liberty would be secured through broad-scale central planning and social and economic regulation.
Positive liberty, therefore, was to be achieved through the positive state. Think personal “growth” in a straitjacket.
Such ideological assumptions justified a federal role in health care and a national system of social insurance (based on the German model) for pensions in the Progressive Party platform of 1912. They explain the passion for centralization of power, particularly in the executive branch of national government, where scientific expertise would be able to work its will. “Progressivism,” wrote Professor Ralph Gabriel of Yale University, “was an aspect of the rising cult of science.”[19]
But Progressivism carries within it the seeds of contradiction. While Progressives long championed the democratization of our institutions, sunlight in government, and the elimination of the baneful influence of corporate interests, they clung stubbornly to a faith that public problems could be effectively solved through bureaucratic decision-making: little bands of experts appointed to an expanding number of government boards, commissions, or panels. That is at the heart of the Progressive conception of modern government.[20]
Populist rhetoric notwithstanding, the reality of Progressive rule is profoundly undemocratic, precisely because it takes crucial decision-making that directly affects the lives of millions of citizens “out of politics.” Thus, you have the administrative state: the rule of administrators.
Read the full article here.
Related Articles
- Obama’s Second Term Transformation Plans (johnmalcolm.me)
- A New Declaration of Independence (johnmalcolm.me)
- White House Again Threatens SCOTUS on Obamacare (spectator.org)
- Dictator Obama Issues New Anti-American Decrees (gulagbound.com)
- Sen. Cornyn: Holder’s ‘arrogance knows no bounds’; Obama should force him to comply with Fast and Furious subpoena (dailycaller.com)
- How a bureaucratic dictate becomes a law (dailycaller.com)
- Obama Administration Regulatory Onslaught against American Energy Production Continues (canadafreepress.com)
- Obama administration heeds industry call to ease rail safety rules (kansascity.com)
- Romney’s EPA would look very familiar (politico.com)
- Making Regulation Smarter to Save Lives and Money (whitehouse.gov)
- Obama Gives Coal Miners the Shaft (gulagbound.com)
- Obama’s Narcissism: The Troops are Fighting for Me, Me, Me (wizbangblog.com)
- GOP attorneys general litigate, push back against Obama regulations (dailycaller.com)
- Federalizing fracking: a bad idea (dailycaller.com)
- Managing the Regulation Process will Define Barack Obama’s Success in Office (prweb.com)
- Conditional, Comprising, and Dereliction of Duty (onemorecup.wordpress.com)
- The Revolt Against the NDAA Hits Congress (mb50.wordpress.com)
- Dictator Obama Issues New Threat to Supreme Court over ObamaCare… (projectworldawareness.com)
- Obama’s Second Term Transformation Plans (mb50.wordpress.com)
- Will Obamas Refi Plan Be on Congresss To-Do List? (blogs.wsj.com)
- President Obama gives his wish list to Congress (fox6now.com)
Share this:
Filed Under: Progressivism, Technocracy Tagged With: Central Planning, Centralized Government Planning, Checks and Balances, Citizens, Civil Service, Civil Society, Class Warfare, Coercion, Comptroller General, Congress, Congressional Delegation, Congressional Research Service, Congressional Review Act of 1996, Consent of the Governed, Corporate Fascism, Corporatism, Culture Ware, Declaration of Independence, Democratic Republic, Department of Commerce, Dependency, Dodd-Frank, Economics, Economy, Eighteenth Amendment, Employers, EPA, Executive Fiat, Executive Power, Exemptions, FDR, Federal Income Tax, Federal Register, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Act, Federal Reserve System, Federal Trade Commission, Federalism, Federalist Papers, First Principles, Founders, Franklin Roosevelt, Free Market, Freedom, Friedrich von Hayek, FTC, Fundamental Transformation, General Welfare Clause, George W. Bush, George Washington, Government, Government Accountability Office, Guidelines, Herbert Croly, HHS, House of Representatives, i, Independence, Independent Payment Advisory Board, Individualism, Inheritance Tax, Jail, James Madison, John Dewey, Labor Unions, Laws, Legislative Branch, Legislative Power, Limited Government, Living Constitution, Lobbyists, Lyndon Johnson, Mandates, Medicaid, Medicare, Monopolies, Narcissism, Nationalism, Natural Law, Natural Rights, New Deal, Nineteenth Amendment, Oath of Office, Obamacare, Office of Management and Budget, OMB, Partisanship, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Personal Ambition, Personal Liberty, Peter Orszag, Political Class, Political Culture, Political Elites, Politics, Populism, Positive Law, Power Corrupts, Power of the Purse, Private Property, Progressive Era, Progressives, Progressivism, Property Rights, Public Policy, Regulations, Regulators, REINS Act, Representative Government, Robert Moffit, Rule of Administrators, Rule of Law, Rule of Men, Rule of Regulation, Rules, Russia, Sacred Oath, SCHIP, Self-Government, Senate, Senate Republican Policy Committee, Separation of Powers, Seventeenth Amendment, Sixteenth Amendment, Small Business, Small Business Administration, Small Government, Sovereignty, St. Thomas Aquinas, States, States' Rights, Statism, Status Quo, Sunlight Foundation, Tea Party, Teddy Roosevelt, Tenure, The Road to Serfdom, Transparency, Treasury Department, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, Unalienable Rights, Undemocratic, Unintended Consequences, United States, USDA, Usurpation, Vague Laws, Waivers, Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Woodrow Wilson, World War I