Autocracy In Progress

David Limbaugh had an excellent recap of Chairman Zero's last three years, just in case we on the Right forget, and in the very likely case that the Left never heard it.

"We can endlessly debate whether he is such a devoted ideologue that he's blind to his policy failures, whether he's willing to sacrifice the economy and the fiscal integrity of the United States for his perceived higher good of radical redistribution, or whether he really intends to do harm, but these are moot questions anymore. Under any of these possibilities, the fact remains that he is hellbent on accelerating his present course, not reversing it, on dictating, not working within his constitutional constraints, much less building a bipartisan consensus."

One of the problems with Øbamacare, certainly the one that has received the most press in the last year, has been the constitutionality of the individual mandate.  Mona Charen goes into detail about another:  the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).

"IPAB is a new thing in American government. Unlike most other boards and commissions, the panel’s 15 members (appointed by the president and approved by the Senate) need not be bipartisan. Also unlike other boards, commissions, and federal agencies, the IPAB’s decisions are virtually unreviewable. IPAB doesn’t have to adhere to the notice and comment rules of federal agencies, which permit citizens to respond to proposed rule-makings. IPAB dictates automatically become law unless Congress itself intervenes. Ah, but they’ve thought of that and made it virtually impossible. The law prescribes that Congress has a limited period of time in which it can modify IPAB rulings and then it must do so by a three-fifths majority. Even ratifying treaties and proposing amendments to the Constitution require only two-thirds majorities. As for the courts, forget it. The judiciary is forbidden to review IPAB decisions."

Furthermore, abolition of IPAB is only possible in a narrow time window.

Way to stick it to the people, Dems!

So, He Wants to be Like Teddy, Eh?

I'm reading through Andrew Breitbart's Righteous Indignation, and am very much enjoying his tale of everything he has seen since his political awakening and re-education in the 1990s.  Mostly because he's only nine months older than I, and I well remember everything he recalls from then until now.

He gives a little history lesson on the development of progtardianism, starting with Marx's materialistic dialectic, and going on to other major figures in proglodytianism as they have affected our country.  I am now at the point where he discusses Teddy Roosevelt, who was not a Conservative, but a Progressive.

Breitbart relates two quotes.  One, the famous "We grudge no man a fortune in civil life" line which morphs into "only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community."

The second quote is far more ominous:  "To hell with the Constitution when the people want coal!"  The link leads to The Mises Institute's book review on Thomas Woods' 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask.  In the review, the article's author states:

"But who bears responsibility for this 'imperial presidency'? Woods places much of the blame on Theodore Roosevelt, who 'loathed inactivity' (p. 136). Though highly intelligent — my late friend Mel Bradford rated him the brightest of all the presidents — he was dominated by passions he made little effort to control."

Such passions led him to hold the Constitution in contempt every so often.

So, Obama's speech in Kansas two weeks ago, with his attempt to invoke the ghost of TR, should have prompted more foreboding about how worse things can get if this type of mentality occupies the Oval Office for another four years.

It is Good to be the King?

Sometime between Øbama's election and inauguration, I remember this cartoon being featured on the Op-Ed page of Newsweek:

Now we understand why that rag was sold for $1, and is a shade of its former self (but a more honest shade, admittedly.  Beforehand, they pretended to be a collection of objective journalists.  Now it's more hard-left Op-Ed).  They didn't realize that "Hope & Change" was a euphemism for "Bait & Switch."

This, however, is a more fitting caricature:

And it just happens to dovetail nicely with an IBD Editorial podcast I was listening to today:  Acting Like a King Isn't Among the President's Duties (article).

"In Wednesday's Cleveland speech when he announced the CFPB and NLRB appointments, Obama said anyone who 'plays by the rules can get ahead.' Yet the president is playing outside the rules and pretending he's doing it as a favor for the country. His motives, though, are clear. He wants to wield power that exceeds what the Constitution delegated to the president.

"Maybe First Lady Michelle Obama wasn't acting when she said on a kids television sitcom that she enjoyed being called 'your excellency.' Maybe she was speaking for her husband, too."

 In a more recent TownHall article (Steven Chapman:  Czar Barack), Øbama's own words get turned against him, as his executive overreaches extend, even overshadow, those he criticized of the last administration, giving more credence that Øbama actually prefers the idea of an Imperial President than is opposed to it:

"as a candidate, [Øbama] suggested that emperors are for other countries. 'The president,' he insisted, 'does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.'"

I know Lefties are notoriously weak in the history department, but come on, it's only been three years!

And Michelle Malkin catalogues a veritable rogues' gallery of the Obama solution to Rule of Law:  Executive Orders and Czars:

"Can’t delude legislators into adopting a $1.5 billion Kabuki summer-jobs makework boondoggle? Create an unfunded program through executive fiat.

"Can’t muster up a filibuster-proof majority for radical nominees? Czar-ify ‘em.

"Can’t get Congress to approve vast wild lands designations? Grab them under cover of a holiday lame-duck session.

"Can’t get the illegal alien bailout DREAM Act passed on Capitol Hill? Executive-order it.

“'So let it be written, so let it be done!'”

Autocracy in Education

You know, it seems to me that the Democrats Autocrats' slogan "Yes We Can" is morphing into "Yes You Will."


Fox News:  DC Lawmakers Propose Requiring Students to Apply to College

This law will require students to attend workshops on admissions processes and will require students to take the SAT or ACT.  Whether or not the student has any interest in pursuing college will be irrelevant.

The article doesn't mention DC Councilman Kwame Brown's political affiliation.  I had to do a little extra digging to confirm my suspicions myself.

Yep, a Democrat Autocrat.  Quelle surprise.  If there's a piece of legislation requiring you to do anything (you must buy THIS lightbulb!  You must buy THIS health insurance!), chances are, it was crafted by the jackass party.

In Soviet Russia, Jackass Drives You!  Jackass Beats You!  Jackass Puts Burden On You!

Excuse me, did anyone inform him that these tests are not offered for free?  According to the private company that creates the SAT, the current fee is $49.  An unnecessary expense for those who might not be interested in college.  Especially if you're poor.

Speaking of poor, you're required to bring a photo ID to the test.  Kwame, your racism is showing.  I'm surprised AG "Why is everyone hung up on race except me" Holder isn't all over your hiney on this one.

But another thing this screams to me is a closer relationship between State and School, something that really ought not to be in a free society.

But of course, liberty is inimical to autocracy.

Appointment By Autocracy

In case you haven't already heard it, Chairman Zero's speech naming the Director of yet another government-bloating executive agency tips his hand over his contempt for Rule of Law.

"Now, every day that Richard waited to be confirmed -- and we were pretty patient.  I mean, we kept on saying to Mitch McConnell and the other folks, let’s go ahead and confirm him. Why isn’t he being called up?  Let’s go.  Every day that we waited was another day when millions of Americans were left unprotected.  Because without a director in place, the consumer watchdog agency that we’ve set up doesn’t have all the tools it needs to protect consumers against dishonest mortgage brokers or payday lenders and debt collectors who are taking advantage of consumers.  And that’s inexcusable.  It’s wrong.  And I refuse to take no for an answer"

Well, it seems like you're dealing with that question now, Chairman.  The real question is, what are you going to do about it?

"So I’ve said before that I want to look for every possible opportunity to work with Congress to move this country forward and create jobs.  I’m going to look for every opportunity to try to bridge the partisan divide and get things done."

Yeah, just like you all did with the stimulus bill?  Like you did with Obamacare?  I recall a lot of closed-door sessions effectively locking out certain elected Representatives and Senators along party lines.

But since you lost control of the House in 2010, it seems you are intent on cutting the House out of the process.  Problem is, the Constitution doesn't allow for it.  You'd think a "Constitutional Scholar" would know that.

Apparently not:

"But when Congress refuses to act, and as a result, hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, then I have an obligation as President to do what I can without them." 

I kind of wonder what Obama means by "our people," especially in light of attempts to circumvent Congress over illegal immigration policy.  I tend to think he means Democrats Autocrats, and their potential enablers.

And is the GOP really to blame?  Over at The Daily Caller, it seems that the narrative regarding Obama appointees being obstructed by GOP Senators doesn't hold up.  In the case of two NRLB appointees, it seems an attempt was made to squeak them in between gavels--so fast, in fact, that they couldn't clear background and criminal checks.  Much less giving them time to be vetted by the Senate.

Audrey Hudson over at Human Events also shoots down Obama's "I'm always trying to be bipartisan" rhetoric in this matter:  “Apparently, advise and consent called for in the Constitution doesn’t apply to this Chicago-style politician. He’s more interested in rewarding his friends than living under the law Americans need to abide by,” [WY Senator John] Barrasso said.

But do you really want to enjoy a Keystone Cops moment?  Cordray apparently can't be appointed outside formal Senate approval.  The law establishing the agency, drafted in 2010, calls for it.  Obama's drive for his agenda, regardless of Constitutional restraints, has left him with his pants around his knees.