PDA

View Full Version : Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?



Ares
21st June 2010, 08:18 PM
By THOMAS SOWELL
Posted 06:13 PM ET

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.


http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/537967/201006211813/Is-US-Now-On-Slippery-Slope-To-Tyranny-.aspx

Defender
21st June 2010, 09:50 PM
Kinda reminds me of this story: http://members.cox.net/polincorr1/pol1.htm

Apparition
21st June 2010, 09:58 PM
The Constitution means nothing (or whatever can be twisted) to 99.9% of the politicians.

Tyranny, on the other hand, is just a corner away.

When SHTF, what are the odds that the government will suddenly grant itself absolutely limitless power to do anything in the name of "security"?

If they can do so after 9/11 you can be assured that the bureaucrats are ready to seize even more power after the real financial crisis occurs.

wildcard
21st June 2010, 10:18 PM
This is a joke right?

Quantum
22nd June 2010, 05:17 AM
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."


Sowell is arguing that BP crimes should not be punished. Using his "due process of law" nonsense, punishing BP according to their malice and negligence would be "ex post facto," and therefore, impossible.

He is using "the Constitution" as a shield for the Corporate State.

Extending natural, God-given rights to corporations was never the intent of James Madison, et. al. Corporations have no "due process of law" rights. Corporations exist by the fact they ask the government permission to exist.

Before anyone claims that Sowell is merely a "defender of the Constitution," it should be understood that Uncle Tom Sowell is, or at least was, <a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2007/07/17/after_iraq">a supporter of the anti-Constitutional Iraq War</a>. So much for that theory...

RJB
22nd June 2010, 06:07 AM
Sowell is arguing that BP crimes should not be punished. Using his "due process of law" nonsense, punishing BP according to their malice and negligence would be "ex post facto," and therefore, impossible.

He is using "the Constitution" as a shield for the Corporate State.


It is funny how they never seem to worry about tyranny until it affects foreign corporations.

It's a slippery slope if you are a foreign corporation who breaks state and federal law, and acts in an reckless way to destroy the entire Gulf region-- That's the only time the "conservatives" in the MSM worry about the slippery slope.



Otherwise if one of us gets caught spillilling a quart of oil in our back yard... Tyranny is here...