7 Comments

  1. Orlando’s Rep. Adams fears Obama power grab

    8:09 p.m. EST, April 7, 2012|By Mark K. Matthews, Washington Bureau

    WASHINGTON — A White House order updating federal emergency powers has raised alarm among some conservative commentators, and U.S. Rep. Sandy Adams, that President Barack Obama is attempting to grab unconstitutional powers.

    A columnist with The Washington Times declared the mid-March order — an update of a 60-year-old document outlining the president’s authority in a national emergency — “stunning in its audacity and a flagrant violation of the Constitution.” The conservative Drudge Report website linked to it with the headline, “Martial Law?”

    And Adams, R-Orlando, said it “leaves the door open for the president to give himself control over American resources during both times of peace, and national crisis.”

    So Adams filed a nonbinding resolution specifying what Obama cannot do with the order — including institute a draft, confiscate personal property and “force civilians to engage in labor against their will or without compensation.”

    But legal experts from both ends of the political spectrum said it’s a stretch — at best — to believe the order allows any of those powers.

    As written, the executive order outlines the powers the president can exercise “in the event of a potential threat,” such as mobilizing for war. These range from the mundane, such as preparing disaster plans, to more robust authority that includes taking control of civil transportation and forcing U.S. companies to prioritize defense contracts.

    All this has been on the books for decades. Experts on national-security law say the big difference between what Obama signed and the version in place since President Bill Clinton was in office is reference to the Department of Homeland Security, which wasn’t around then.

    “It’s valid to be concerned that the president has too many powers that are justified by national-defense needs,” said Benjamin Friedman, a defense expert with the libertarian Cato Institute. “But this executive order doesn’t change much compared to prior executive orders that Republican and Democratic presidents have put in place.”

    The last time the order was invoked in a major way was in January 2001, when Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush both utilized it to direct emergency supplies of electricity and natural gas to California in order to prevent blackouts.

    “No one hollered dictator then,” said Peter Raven-Hansen, who teaches national-security law at George Washington University.

    Adams, in a brief interview, said Obama’s order could unconstitutionally expand the president’s authority and cited as an example its inclusion of a section of the Stafford Act, which defines the government’s role in dealing with disasters.

    “It is my first [term] in Congress. I know we are responsible for oversight,” she said.

    But the section of the Stafford Act deals primarily with disaster preparation and training. In regard to civilian labor, it requires workers on construction projects be paid fair market wages and overtime if they work more than 40 hours in a week.

    When asked how this could equate to civilians being forced into labor, an Adams spokeswoman said the congresswoman was trying to ensure there was “no misunderstanding as to the powers of the executive.”

    Adams’ resolution has at least 37 co-sponsors, including six Florida Republicans: Gus Bilirakis, Jeff Miller, Richard Nugent, Dennis Ross, Steve Southerland and Allen West. It has yet to receive a committee hearing.

    The bill is in line with her previous support of causes embraced by some hard-core conservatives. Last year, she introduced a bill to prohibit the use of foreign law in U.S. courts, though there is little evidence that’s happening. And Adams supports the indefinite detention of immigrant criminals who can’t be deported, despite objections of human-rights groups.

    “Congresswoman Adams is doing what the GOP does best: pandering to tea-party extremists instead of helping businesses create jobs and grow our economy,” said David Bergstein, a spokesman for the Florida Democratic Party.

    Adams denies any political motivation and said she was doing her duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Still, she is running in a tough Republican primary against veteran U.S. Rep. John Mica of Winter Park and is positioning herself as the hard-line conservative in that race.

    Dropping a bill that feeds into the “existing narrative that he [Obama] is trying to expand government and take away people’s rights” is one way to do that, said Aubrey Jewett, a political scientist from the University of Central Florida.

    mkmatthews@tribune.com or 202-824-8222

    http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-07/news/os-sandy-adams-obama-martial-law-20120407_1_order-powers-barack-obama

  2. Yorkshire, all, or virtually all, leftists are totalitarian. Socialism as I was told by an advocating Marxist, and as I have repeated many times before on here, is “an all-society proposition”; meaning that everyone without exception must be brought into the universal system of production and subject to collective management, without restriction, or impediment, introduced by such concepts as natural rights.

    Perry has himself admitted that in the final reduction there is no principle recognized by leftists which places absolute limits to the demands they feel they may make on their “fellow” men. That right there, is the quintessence of totalitarianism, and the core belief of all fascists both left and right.

    This then represents another aspect of the non-parallel, non-reciprocal, nature of the conservative or libertarian moral schema on the one hand and the “progressive leftist on the other hand. The socialist ideal, per definition, and with all of its informing and shaping metaphysical assumptions, is at the core, totalitarian.

    What mystifies me is that some people find this to be news, or imagine that there is any doubt about it.

    Don’t they read what these leftist miscreants themselves say?

  3. DNW, when you say “miscreant”, is this what you’re talking about? Because if it is, I would suggest you’re right about the DNC and MSM, but that Wagonwheel is a terribly informed, brainwashed lackey for the miscreants.

  4. On a couple of occasions I have started to post on the Truth Before Dishonor site about what constitutes the really radical and fundamental divergences, or even antitheses which separate the ardent left from the non-left.

    And after a time, after marshaling all the oppositional world-views, all the pseudo-science doctrines that were historically used in support of totalitarianism, and all the evolutionary psychology arguments that I was familiar with, I came to the conclusion that something truly explanatory was still missing.

    Is the “Chimp Attack” impulse so obviously part of the reflex behavior in most progressives, a logical necessity as well? For example is there any logical reason why atheism should lead to political progressivism? Actually there is not, although atheist values nihilists like Alex Rosenberg seem to believe that such is the natural tendency.

    There are some, not many comparatively speaking, but some, atheist and evolutionist conservatives. We’ll grant that a disbelief in intrinsic or natural laws, teleological tendencies, and supernaturally grounded boundaries might make interpersonal transgressions less of a worrying matter for the political progressive, but that would not logically impel one toward totalitarian values in a positive sense.

    What was missing was a distinctively human motivation of the leftist as it sought to realize this state of affairs. The angry Gombe chimp attacks which liberals level against those who would shrug the dust of liberal dysfunction off their shoes, is an explanation for their behavior, but not one that explains or lays out the intersection in their psyches where their urge-lives meet their rationales.

    Conservatives accuse liberals of naive utopianism; but I think that this is only party correct. It’s not a utopia of human fulfillment they are after, though at a glance it may seem to be.

    But it can’t be logically. This is because in the progressive view, there is no set human nature to be fulfilled; or, if there is a human nature at all it is merely an evolutionary artifact in transition, only one step removed from a more radical Meadian relativism, but just as meaningless in “cosmic” terms.

    The reason this human motivation is missing, then, is because ultimately in leftism, the distinctively human dissolves away.

    The progressive motive force is per definition a non-human or prehuman drive or wanting.

    The liberal cannot explain what it is acting in aid of in a way consonant with its own principles of cosmic and anthropological interpretation which dissolve away not only a distinctively human and ostensibly intrinsic teleology, but dissolves away also the meaning of the word “purpose” itself. The human is replaced in progressive planning terms by the “as yet to be seen”. And this replacement takes place for the sake of and in the name of the “for reasons ultimately unknown”.

    Now, liberals like to assert that the reasons offered in argument, are post hoc rationalizations of already made choices, and dredged up in support of preferences, rather than something that shapes them.

    Yet if we apply the same interpretive principle to the progressive, and I have been doing that to some extent for some time, what we see is that progressivism itself finally reduces to not much more than an almost disembodied appetite’s cry for power.

    Centralized and political distribution of satisfactions is its way of gaining that power. But again, in the name of what? And for what end? The progressive doesn’t know. It cannot “know” in the classical sense, and what it can know becomes ultimately meaningless under its own evaluative schema. It only knows what it wants. Or better, it feels its urges, which are under its own system of interpretation urges that well up from an unconscious which has been shaped by random evolutionary pressures; with both shaping and shaped ultimately pointless in themselves and doomed to dissipate and irrecoverably disappear in either an eternal heat death or a collapse toward an obliterating singularity.

    Here, then, we can introduce some of those progressive metaphysical principles which in constellation, form their worldview and philosophical anthropology.

    We start in no particular order with the inescapable cosmic egg, and the dialectical evolution of matter; the epiphenomenon of consciousness considered as an attribute of human matter; the pure instrumentality of the faculty of reason; the “illusion” of the enduring self; the intrinsic pointlessness of existence; human motivation as an unfolding of evolutionarily shaped but largely unconscious and intrinsically pre-moral or amoral urges …

    Thus ideologies based on or incorporating Freudianism, Darwinism, Marxism, Secular Humanism are all war cries shouted in the name of a “that which we do not really know”.

    It’s almost as if the liberals themselves, in their ardor to deconstruct not only humanity, but also the universe and being itself, have reopened with their curiously goalless and mindless planning, something akin to a door to the supernatural, or to what once was understood as such.

  5. And, DNW, that comment in and of itself is worthy of being an article. And I wholly support your postings of your intellectual meanderings as it relates to the political sphere (and practically any other sphere) on TBD, as I’m sure Foxfier, Yorkshire, Hube, some other amorphously blog-named and androgynously (in real life) named dude would agree.

  6. Y

    orkshire says:
    April 9, 2012 at 15:18

    DNW:
    On a cou ……………………. d as such.

    In other words, Blindly Power Hungry, and suppressive.”

    Take what progressives in general insist is so about man and nature. Assemble the worldview that results from these axioms; and try and find a “person” intrinsically, not instrumentally, not for its relative or comparative utility, deserving of respect there somewhere.

    Then, these dumb leftist son-of-bitches delude themselves that circular blubbering about “sentience”, and marching around in the moral rubble while holding up “solidarity” placards, will somehow make them seem more deserving of the solicitude and caring they have just demonstrated they are not objectively entitled to.

    You don’t have it seems, to believe in God and in heaven to know that there exists a suffocating hell with its raving denizens. It’s found wherever two or more progressives are gathered together in their own names.

Comments are closed.