Degeneration of Democracy

[Charlie Echo]

When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics. Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler's rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.

"Useful idiots" was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.

Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive. In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.

The president's poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.

Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.

And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP's oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated. But our government is supposed to be "a government of laws and not of men." If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion-- or $50 billion or $100 billion-- then so be it.

But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without "due process of law." Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.

With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.

If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don't believe in Constitutional government. And, without Constitutional government, freedom cannot endure. There will always be a "crisis"-- which, as the president's chief of staff has said, cannot be allowed to "go to waste" as an opportunity to expand the government's power.

That power will of course not be confined to BP or to the particular period of crisis that gave rise to the use of that power, much less to the particular issues.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt arbitrarily took the United States off the gold standard, he cited a law passed during the First World War to prevent trading with the country's wartime enemies. But there was no war when FDR ended the gold standard's restrictions on the printing of money.

At about the same time, during the worldwide Great Depression, the German Reichstag passed a law "for the relief of the German people." That law gave Hitler dictatorial powers that were used for things going far beyond the relief of the German people-- indeed, powers that ultimately brought a rain of destruction down on the German people and on others.

If the agreement with BP was an isolated event, perhaps we might hope that it would not be a precedent. But there is nothing isolated about it.

The man appointed by President Obama to dispense BP's money as the administration sees fit, to whomever it sees fit, is only the latest in a long line of presidentially appointed "czars" controlling different parts of the economy, without even having to be confirmed by the Senate, as Cabinet members are.

Those who cannot see beyond the immediate events to the issues of arbitrary power-- versus the rule of law and the preservation of freedom-- are the "useful idiots" of our time. But useful to whom?

By Thomas Sowell

[Jac]

An amazing post. If this is not SACRED FIRE I do not know what is.

Thank you, CharlieEcho!

God Bless America, her Constitution and her FREEDOM!

[ReturnToGod]

An amazing post. If this is not SACRED FIRE I do not know what is.

Thank you, ChalieEcho!

God Bless America, her Constitution and her FREEDOM!

I second these sentiments completely!

[Jac]

I second these sentiments completely!

Thank you.

"Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world." --Daniel Webster

[Traconesu02]

Thanks for the post Charlie Echo.

[markisuncfan]

Good Post!! Allow me to add this little tidbit as well. I am positive it is in the US Constitution that the Federal Gov't will guarantee the safety and sovernity of the States. So, with Obama reported to have stated he will NOT secure the borders unless he gets the support to do a total overhaul of the immigration law (aka....amnesty for the illegals), is this not in direct violation of the US Constitution??? Is it not also in direct violation in the US Constitution where Obama is supposively going to sue the state of AZ for the Immigration Law AZ enacted due to lack of action on the Federal Law that is not being enforced? This really sounds like the dog trying to spin around fast to catch it's tail. "I won't help you secure the borders, regardless of the US citizen safety, unless I get what I want with changing the Immigration law the way I see fit....Amnesty so we can guarantee us career politicians can stay in office due to the extra 10-15 million new voters" This obviously is not anyone's quote..but it is a basic summation of what has hit the news so far. This should...IMO.....be an impeachable offense.

[carlablum]

Thank you for the post!!

[Jac]

Good Post!! Allow me to add this little tidbit as well. I am positive it is in the US Constitution that the Federal Gov't will guarantee the safety and sovernity of the States. So, with Obama reported to have stated he will NOT secure the borders unless he gets the support to do a total overhaul of the immigration law (aka....amnesty for the illegals), is this not in direct violation of the US Constitution??? Is it not also in direct violation in the US Constitution where Obama is supposively going to sue the state of AZ for the Immigration Law AZ enacted due to lack of action on the Federal Law that is not being enforced? This really sounds like the dog trying to spin around fast to catch it's tail. "I won't help you secure the borders, regardless of the US citizen safety, unless I get what I want with changing the Immigration law the way I see fit....Amnesty so we can guarantee us career politicians can stay in office due to the extra 10-15 million new voters" This obviously is not anyone's quote..but it is a basic summation of what has hit the news so far. This should...IMO.....be an impeachable offense.

Yes and here is your proof..

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground:

That 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution,

nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the

people' (10th Amendment). To take a single step beyond the boundaries

thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take

possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible to any

definition." -John Adams

Of course, there are more then one impeachable offenses to consider here. There

is everything from the forced HealthCare Bill to a non existent birth record.

[nowhammies]

I second these sentiments completely!

I wonder what ol Lucky Lucy will have to say about this????

[powerpager]

YO, NO VIVA ADOLF HITLER !!!