It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
And, without constitutional government, freedom cannot endure. There will always be a "crisis" — which, as the president's chief of staff has said, cannot be allowed to "go to waste" as an opportunity to expand the government's power.
That power will of course not be confined to BP or to the particular period of crisis that gave rise to the use of that power, much less to the particular issues.
When Franklin D. Roosevelt arbitrarily took the United States off the gold standard, he cited a law passed during the First World War to prevent trading with the country's wartime enemies. But there was no war when FDR ended the gold standard's restrictions on the printing of money.
At about the same time, during the worldwide Great Depression, the German Reichstag passed a law "for the relief of the German people."
That law gave Hitler dictatorial powers that were used for things going far beyond the relief of the German people — indeed, powers that ultimately brought a rain of destruction down on the German people and on others.
If the agreement with BP was an isolated event, perhaps we might hope that it would not be a precedent. But there is nothing isolated about it.
The man appointed by President Obama to dispense BP's money as the administration sees fit, to whomever it sees fit, is only the latest in a long line of presidentially appointed "czars" controlling different parts of the economy, without even having to be confirmed by the Senate, as Cabinet members are.
Those who cannot see beyond the immediate events to the issues of arbitrary power — vs. the rule of law and the preservation of freedom — are the "useful idiots" of our time. But useful to whom?
Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
Tyranny?
I believe what you are talking about is called corporate fascism.
Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
Sorry , I see little difference in the agenda or actions of any POTUS their administrations , congress or Supreme Court in the last 60 years, republican or democrat. Their all puppets and the wealthy pull the strings.
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Maybe they should be more angry at BP for letting their stocks fall due to stupid decisions instaed of Obama for doing his job.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
Sorry , I see little difference in the agenda or actions of any POTUS their administrations , congress or Supreme Court in the last 60 years, republican or democrat. Their all puppets and the wealthy pull the strings.
You last sentence I agree with and for the most part, the first. Although this particular administration is going for a power grab that is unprecedented in the last 60 years of POTUS administrations.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Where exactly in the president's job description does it specify that he/she can demand that a foreign private corporation set up an escrow account?
Following the Valdez disaster and act was written into law requiring corporations to apportion funds for such cleanup efforts. So it seems Obama is not making them do this anyway, just accepting the credit for it.
Originally posted by mothershipzeta
Let me get this straight:
1. Obama is making an unprecedented power grab.
2. Except that he isn't.
So, you admit that the article in the OP is ridiculous before we're even done with the first page of comments. Do you also retract your other posts?
Originally posted by mothershipzeta
Really? Did you miss the PATRIOT Act? Warrantless wiretapping? Selective suspension of habeas corpus?
Yeah, THIS is the biggest power grab in 60 years.
Hyperbole is not your friend when it's so easily disproven.
Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
Jealous of their wealth , again my friend you assume too much, you don't know me, and that argument is sooooo old.
This is one of the biggest fear monger pieces I have seen in a long time...."OBAMA IS HITLER AND IS TAKING OVER THE USA WITH HIS CZARS (scary foreign word)".
1. Main Entry: czar Variant(s): also tsar or tzar \ˈzär, ˈ(t)sär\ Function: noun Etymology: New Latin czar, from Russian tsar', from Old Russian tsĭsarĭ, from Gothic kaisar, from Greek or Latin; Greek, from Latin Caesar — more at caesar Date: 1555
1 : emperor; specifically : the ruler of Russia until the 1917 revolution
2 : one having great power or authority
Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
House and senate commitee members have investements with the business they are suppose to regulate. Ever heard of a conflict of intrest? Look up the commitees the V.P. sat on before he became the V.P.( Banking for one).Do people have any idea how many ex-drug company employees work for the FDA ? Do people have any idea how many bank executives work for the Treasury Dept. And the Federal Reserve?Do people have any idea how many ex-oil executives work for the environmental protection agency and the bureau of land management?
Any idea how many judges including the supreme court have investments in drug companys, oil companys and military contractors, do you really think they are going to rule against their own investments ?
Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
Sorry , I see little difference in the agenda or actions of any POTUS their administrations , congress or Supreme Court in the last 60 years, republican or democrat. Their all puppets and the wealthy pull the strings.
Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
Like so many others you only see the current administration as the problem and threat.When the problem has existed for decades.
All presidents have been the scapegoat for the puppet master who rule from behind the curtain. Stop buying into the illusion of a two party system, it doesn't work !