UPDATED: Obama And Bush: Partners In Government Giganticism

Barack Obama, Bush, Economy, Fascism, Foreign Policy, Government, IMMIGRATION, Justice, Law, Political Economy, Regulation, Republicans, States' Rights

The following is from “Obama And Bush: Partners In Government Giganticism,” now on WND.Com:

“Sean Hannity wants to know how Arlen Specter could go from ‘supporting George Bush, in some years 80-90 percent of the time, to supporting Barack Obama 96 percent of the time, considering the two men’s principles – their core values, their belief system – are in diametrical opposition.’

They are? How so? …

Bush pursued wars that have contributed to the bankrupting of this country and the death of thousands of innocents. Obama has sustained the same momentum in those far-flung occupied lands. The gabbers on television who coo and kvetch nostalgic about Bush’s virtues should console themselves thus: Yes, The Decider was the originator; Obama nothing but a second-hander. But give Barack a break. The 44th president may not be as blessed with killer core values as the 43rd. But he’s doing his best. Has he not expanded the one theatre (Afghanistan) to compensate for drawing down in the other (Iraq)? …

Moocher Obama has pulled ahead of Looter Bush with respect to deficits and debt. The Bush budget for 2009 was a trivial $3 trillion, while Obama’s 2010 budget was a respectable $3.5 trillion. According to “Bankrupting America,” “Bush doubled the debt to almost $6 trillion and Obama’s plans would leave us with an IOU of an additional $8.5 trillion by 2020.”

C’mon. Six trillion; 8 trillion: the act of racking up such financial liabilities exists on a continuum of criminality ? it does not constitute a difference in kind (or in “core values”).” …

Barack’s tidal wave of regulation is hard to beat … But a second-best to BHO The Regulator is not to be sneezed at. The Decider is still in the running for America’s Best Enforcer (a very bad thing indeed). …”

The complete column is “Obama And Bush: Partners In Government Giganticism.

Read my libertarian manifesto, Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Society.

The Second Edition features bonus material and reviews. Get your copy (or copies) now!

UPDATE (Aug. 6): DICK’S DOCTOR. I mentioned Dick Cheney in the column:

“Barack’s tidal wave of regulation is hard to beat – in particular the financial-reform bill, which goes beyond Dick Cheney’s wildest dreams in increasing the overweening powers of the executive branch. (Barack will be able to seize a firm he designates as systemically risky.)”

Even Dick’s doctor is a mini-dictator. My ears perked up. I heard someone talk about federal law preempting state law. No, this was not a discussion of Arizona’s SB 1070. There was more muttering about compelling drug stores, at the pains of punishment (for that is what a new law means) to carry defibrillators. I was, in fact, listening to a snippet from an interview cardiac surgeon to Mr. Cheney was giving to Liz, daughter to the dictator. In case Dick dropped while shopping in their aisles, the good doctor wanted the feds to compel certain outlets (not sure which) to carry the life-saving defibrillator.

Liz nodded.

UPDATE II: Bill Getting Brave

Barack Obama, Conservatism, Government, Healthcare, Intelligence, Private Property, Race, Racism, The State, Welfare

Black and white Americans are divided over President Obama, says Bill O’Reilly, pointing to a Gallop poll according to which 88% of Black Americans support Obama; but only 38% of whites.

“A fifty point differential.”

Whites, of course, are barred from expressing racial affinities; but not blacks. Although O’Reilly neglects the black-racism element (he knows that very many blacks are racists), he nevertheless zeroes in on another important reason blacks go with Obama. White Americans fear the expansion of government and the bankrupting of the nation. [I’m not so sure of the first.] This attitude was on display, says O’Reilly, in Missouri, where 71% of the voters rejected the individual mandate to purchase insurance that ObamaCare would have imposed on them.

O’Reilly goes on to clearly state that black America has a different view of politics, in particular, blacks want a bigger federal government for the purpose of imposing social justice and carrying out distributive policies.

Blacks want a central authority “to redistribute income from the white establishment to their precincts” is how O’Reilly, rather directly, describes what black support for “what BHO is doing” is all about.

Fifty four percent of Hispanics support Obama, down 9 points since April. Here too the social justice issue is in operation, says O’Reilly.

O’Reilly recognizes that there are two Americas. It’s hard to decipher his solution—not when he says he support “strict oversight and fair rules,” but not the imposition of entitlements. Oversight over what? To whom a private property owner rents, sells; and who he hires and fires?

And whose property is it anyway to dispense with?

And what about “Thou Shall Not Covet”?

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbor’s.” (THE 10th COMMANDMENT, Exodus 20:17)

UPDATE I (Aug. 6): We doffed a hat to Bill’s first show of whatever it was that rolled off Sarah’s word-salad producing tongue, HERE.

UPDATE II: With Bill it’s one step forward, two steps back. Why do African-Americans lag so far behind, asked one of O’Reilly’s viewers in a letter to The Factor today. Because of 100 years of slavery, replied The Sage. Pray tell, Bill, what is the reason Africa is centuries behind the West, China, Singapore, etc?

UPDATED: 'Justice Brennan's Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies'

Ann Coulter, Constitution, IMMIGRATION, Welfare

ANN COULTER is ever the ace on matters of law: “Democrats act as if the right to run across the border when you’re eight and a half months pregnant, give birth in a U.S. hospital and then immediately start collecting welfare was exactly what our forebears had in mind, a sacred constitutional right, as old as the 14th Amendment itself.

The louder liberals talk about some ancient constitutional right, the surer you should be that it was invented in the last few decades.

In fact, this alleged right derives only from a footnote slyly slipped into a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Brennan in 1982. You might say it sneaked in when no one was looking, and now we have to let it stay.

The 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War to overrule the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision, which had held that black slaves were not citizens of the United States. …

The drafters of the 14th Amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born in the U.S. (For my younger readers, back in those days, people cleaned their own houses and raised their own kids.) …

… And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that “no plausible distinction with respect to 14th Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)”

A must read by ANN COULTER. …

UPDATE (Aug. 6): In reply to “Patriot”:

Here on BAB we are a little more circumspect about chief cheerleader for Bush during his reign of terror, who piped up mostly about, safe, small issues, and is a reliable Republican water carrier. We recommend you read through the Coulter Archive on BAB, and the same archive in the Articles Archive for a realistic reappraisal.

UPDATED: ‘Justice Brennan’s Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies’

Ann Coulter, Constitution, IMMIGRATION, Welfare

ANN COULTER is ever the ace on matters of law: “Democrats act as if the right to run across the border when you’re eight and a half months pregnant, give birth in a U.S. hospital and then immediately start collecting welfare was exactly what our forebears had in mind, a sacred constitutional right, as old as the 14th Amendment itself.

The louder liberals talk about some ancient constitutional right, the surer you should be that it was invented in the last few decades.

In fact, this alleged right derives only from a footnote slyly slipped into a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Brennan in 1982. You might say it sneaked in when no one was looking, and now we have to let it stay.

The 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War to overrule the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision, which had held that black slaves were not citizens of the United States. …

The drafters of the 14th Amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born in the U.S. (For my younger readers, back in those days, people cleaned their own houses and raised their own kids.) …

… And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that “no plausible distinction with respect to 14th Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)”

A must read by ANN COULTER. …

UPDATE (Aug. 6): In reply to “Patriot”:

Here on BAB we are a little more circumspect about chief cheerleader for Bush during his reign of terror, who piped up mostly about, safe, small issues, and is a reliable Republican water carrier. We recommend you read through the Coulter Archive on BAB, and the same archive in the Articles Archive for a realistic reappraisal.