Posted by: Debby Durkee | February 23, 2010

Obama doesn’t have “consent of the governed”

Debby's Web Finds
Obama doesn’t have “consent of the governed.”

In a recent Rasmussen poll, it was revealed that only 21% of the respondents believe the government has the “consent of the governed.” This is a startling statistic, but not a surprising one. All one has to do is to look at a few stories I’ve collected over the past couple of days to understand why the governed don’t give their consent. The arrogance and (dare I say it) the audacity of this administration just ticks people off. Obama and the congressional Democrats really don’t care whether they have our consent. They’ll do what they please. Have we ever had an administration this blatantly opposed to the American people’s desires? This is from Rasmussen Reports:

The founding document of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, states that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Today, however, just 21% of voters nationwide believe that the federal government enjoys the consent of the governed.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 61% disagree and say the government does not have the necessary consent. Eighteen percent (18%) of voters are not sure.

However, 63% of the Political Class think the government has the consent of the governed, but only six percent (6%) of those with Mainstream views agree.

Seventy-one percent (71%) of all voters now view the federal government as a special interest group, and 70% believe that the government and big business typically work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors.

You can read the entire article here: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2010/only_21_say_u_s_government_has_consent_of_the_governed

With the Democrats saying that they will pass Obamacare via “reconciliation” (also known as the Nuclear Option) which requires just 51 votes in the Senate, it is apparent that they will overrule the “governed.” This is from Jeffrey H. Anderson at National Review Online:

The Obama administration’s apparent intention to use the “budget reconciliation” process to try to advance its proposed health-care overhaul has shined the spotlight on why it, and the federal government as a whole, should not control what will soon be one-fifth of our economy. Simply put, the president has repeatedly emphasized three problems that must be addressed, while pursuing a course of action that would exacerbate all three. 

The three he highlights are the lack of bipartisanship, political cronyism (in the form of buying off Senator Landrieu of Louisiana and Senator Nelson of Nebraska), and the growing costs of health care. None of these are taken seriously by this administration; they just talk a good game while the rest of the country wonders if they can ever believe anything this president has to say.

…His “health-care summit” is supposedly an attempt to bring Republicans and Democrats together. The president has said, “Well I think that what I want to do is to look at the Republican ideas that are out there.” “Bipartisanship” has been a theme of nearly all of his recent health-care remarks.

Now, Politico reports that the president, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Sen. Harry Reid plan to try to use the “budget reconciliation” process after next week’s bipartisan summit to jam through elements of their proposed health-care overhaul over widespread opposition. Politico quotes one Democratic insider as saying, “They are coming out of the summit guns-a-blazing, and they’re committed to reconciliation.” 

“Budget reconciliation” prevents use of the filibuster, a feature of the Senate since the early 19th century. The arcane process is designed to help the Senate pass bills that would balance the budget. President Obama would use it to try to pass portions of a $2.5 trillion health-care overhaul without having to get any Republican (or even all Democratic) votes. This is the new era of bipartisanship? Snip –

…Americans have made it abundantly clear that they don’t want Obamacare. President Obama has made it abundantly clear that he doesn’t care.

I truly don’t remember, except maybe during the Clinton era, looking at the president and knowing all you’re going to get is a bold-faced lie. Americans (except for those who have drunk the Kool Aid) do not trust this president. He has given us absolutely no reason to do so. You can read more from Anderson about political cronyism and the costs of health care here: http://healthcare.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmVhNjk0OGIwY2Q5MjU2ZGY0NmVkNDU2ZjRjYTU2NTQ=

Here’s a good example of why Americans, and that now includes many who actually voted for the guy, do not trust this president. This is from Charles Hunt of the New York Post who says Obama simply outlaws reality:

Included in President Obama’s latest stab at health-care reform released yesterday is one of the more astonishing admissions of political deception in recent memory.

After months of swearing that his health legislation would lower the skyrocketing costs of insurance premiums, Obama finally acknowledged that actually it would not.

So, instead, he has included a new provision that can simply outlaw premium increases his administration deems “unreasonable and unjustified.”

 This, in lieu of literally years of promises and proclamations about transforming the American hospital-industrial complex in a way that would drastically lower the cost of medicine in this country and leave insurance companies scrambling to lower the premiums they charge customers. Snip –

The Democratic health-care bill — which deserves a cameo in the next “Night of the Living Dead” movie for its unkillable quality — actually causes insurance premiums to rise?

Well, then, we’ll just pass a law! Let’s pass a law to outlaw reality!

It does sometimes feel like we’re living in a bad movie or a nightmare that we can’t awaken from. Every logical, practical thing normal Americans know in their heads and hearts is being bypassed and attacked, and the current administration is doing the opposite of logic. Read it all while shaking your head (or punching your computer screen), here: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/prez_newest_idea_simply_outlaw_reality_A9lsWAXwaEQj2UheOJojIK#ixzz0gN4pJNnd

Then there are the lawyers that Eric Holder’s Justice Department has hired. Many have worked on the terrorists’ side of the aisle and now are supposedly working for their new client: The United States. Now, do you believe that? Charles Grassley might be a pain in the wazoo on many things, but he is asking questions that need to be answered about these people while Holder stonewalls. Like I said, this administration does things that just don’t logically make sense to most Americans. This is from Byron York over at the Washington Examiner:

A number of lawyers who work on terrorist issues at the Justice Department represented terrorist detainees before joining the Obama administration. At a hearing three months ago, Sen. Charles Grassley raised the possibility of a conflict with Attorney General Eric Holder.

Grassley, a senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, posed three simple questions: Who are they, who did they represent, and what are their duties at the Justice Department today? Snip –

“This prior representation, I think, creates a conflict of interest problem for these individuals,” Grassley said, asking Holder to supply the names of all political appointees who had represented or advocated for detainees, the cases they worked on, and their terror-related responsibilities in the Justice Department.

It took three months, but Grassley finally got a number – nine Justice Department lawyers used to work on the terrorists’ side of the aisle (that’s not counting Holder himself.)  Holder, however, wouldn’t release the names of those lawyers. Now why is that?

…Republicans reading the letter (from Holder) sensed an underlying tone of dismissiveness; they felt Holder was telling Grassley what he could do with his questions.  Snip –

Some of the department’s critics see things this way: There are lawyers who specialize in defending organized crime figures. That’s fine; mafia dons have a right to legal representation. But should the attorney general hire a bunch of those lawyers to staff the department’s organized crime section? And if he does, shouldn’t we know about it?

Yes, logically, this is a matter of national security. Congress should be looking over their shoulders. And, why won’t he reveal the names? You can read it all here:  http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Eric-Holder-stonewalls-Congress-on-terror-lawyers-85000577.html

Hat Tip: http://instapundit.com/

The left just wants to run our lives. The latest? Takeover of the Internet and as Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit says: “Let’s be clear: The apparatchiks want a system where taxpayers subsidize their views, and also pay for the apparatus that suppresses views they don’t like.” This is from http://www.digitalsociety.org

The panelists — Robert McChesney and John Nichols of Free Press, Jane Hamsher of the blog Firedoglake, and Ivan Roman of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists — all said their ideas for media reform depend first and foremost upon winning a fight for control of the Internet. Their idea of victory is government oversight and massive federal spending.  Snip —

… In defending the kind of spending (McChesney) and Nichols advocate, (McChesney) accused the government of giving “enormous subsidies to support commercial media” in the form of broadcast spectrum and “monopoly licenses to telephone and cable companies that they could build these Internet empires on.”

McChesney, whose group is part of a coalition that this week called on the FCC to impose sweeping regulations as part of a national broadband plan, national broadband plan, said communications firms are among “the most hated companies in America,” not just by consumers but also by businesses that he said would benefit from such a broadband plan. Snip —

Free Press is subsidized by the deep pockets of billionaire George Soros and the current FCC is friendly toward the Free Press agenda of government interference in the Internet space

These people will not leave anyone alone. They want to control the Internet, the medical field, the economy, banks, and real estate loans. They want to tell you what to do, when to do it, and they want to steal your money in order to do it. They will not stop until we stop them.

Read it all here: http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/02/a-monstrous-vision-for-media-reform/

This is what Obama and the leftists in Congress want for our country. Pick a story, any story, and you will see that they care nothing about what you or I or the guy down the street wants. They know what’s best. They want your money so they can control you and the country. What must it be like to be them? Liberalism truly is a mental disease, and we must not let these insane people stay in charge.

//

Bookmark and Share

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: