Originally Posted by eric84
While I don't care much for Obama, I think this guy is stretching it a bit. I do think we need to worry about things, but it's obvious this guy is very biased and trying to make it look as worst case scenario as possible. While that may be good to "expect the worst", we also have to be realistic, so I think he is taking it a bit far with some of his comments. But we should all get out there and make an impact if we want something to change.
The first point in the article is the most important...that authority is being given to unelected officials for powers that are not constitutional. We're in a free-for-all of "everything that can be done to undermine constitutional limitations will, no, MUST be done."
I agree about his bias. While he's from JBS, he's more GOP instead of being as independent as he would need to be. While he is stretching it, we have suffered from a history of ignoring the "unlikely" (my word) scenarios that later become someones opportunity for power, sometimes as was the objective in the first place. When we say/think "be realistic" as you said, the unfortunate effect of telling people that is that they stop expecting the worst, which you also said it may be good to do. We need to understand that a worst case scenario IS
possible, while not happening now, but being created now. Solution? DOn't allow the possibilities. Law is supposed to be written narrowly, not broadly. The real problem is in what is able to be done by certain administration, not whether or not they're already practicing it. The solution is to not open loopholes in the first place. I think that's why he goes to the extreme.
SO think about Congress passing an unconstitutional bill. Their job is not to do so, but they do so anyway and it gets enforced as law (which local law enforcement is not required to do, but does out of ignorance) and the courts neglect to clean up the problem. That's where we are now. So worse yet, along the same lines, we write laws that are not precisely defined and leave elbow room for power expansion. That's how the UN charter was written, and deliberately so, which is why they keep declaring jurisdiction over one thing after another (see ICC).
I think this guy is trying to scare people into understanding a simpler idea. We need to stop accepting the excuse of "no one will ever do that" (where that = exercise a particular loophole or weakness in a system). In fact, years later, "that" is what ends up happening (e.g. removal of the Glass-Stiegal act, spelling?). If not years....remember the bailout money last octobre that instantly disappeared with Bernankie and Ketchakari (sp?) saying "what [issues]?" only months later. That was just theft. Now they're in charge.
(Side note, don't forget the summer '08 kidnapping of Obama's press corps? That was a federal crime that went unpunished. Why give these people any elbow room?)