Options
Be Afraid, Very Afraid
· Friday, December 18, 2009
WASHINGTON -- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is Time magazine's "Person of the Year." Twelve months ago, the "honor" went to then-President-elect Barack Obama. Notably, the 1932 recipient was President-elect Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who asserted in his March 4, 1933, inaugural address, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
Mr. Roosevelt went on to describe the economic anxieties of millions left jobless in a deepening depression as "nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." He then served notice that if the "national emergency" required it, he would "ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis -- broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to (him) if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe."
Viewing the grainy black-and-white film of FDR's first of four inaugurals, it is easy to get caught up in his measured, articulate delivery. It is much like watching Mr. Obama before a teleprompter. Reading FDR's words today, more than 76 years after they were spoken, is very scary stuff.
Mr. Roosevelt's masterful exploitation of "fear" masks his blueprint for a vast expansion of federal control over the day-to-day lives of ordinary American citizens. It worked. Well before U.S. involvement in World War II, FDR was granted unprecedented power to preside over a federal bureaucracy that grew more than tenfold in size, expense and authority.
Apparently, Mr. Obama and his cronies in Congress have studied the FDR playbook carefully. Last week, the president admonished Republicans to "stop trying to frighten the American people." But a careful review of the record reveals that it isn't the GOP that has been sowing alarm. "Fear" has been the political staple of the O-Team since the 2008 presidential campaign -- and even more so since the election.
On Nov. 9, 2008, less than a week after the ballot, Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Obama's designee to be White House chief of staff, told us: "Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste. They are opportunities to do big things." It is a prescription that has been followed carefully to justify government intervention, e.g., the takeovers of private financial institutions, the auto industry, America's health care system and even global "climate control."
Nine days after his inaugural address, the president said: "These urgent dangers to our national and economic security are compounded by the long-term threat of climate change, which, if left unchecked, could result in violent conflict, terrible storms, shrinking coastlines and irreversible catastrophe."
On Feb. 4, speaking of the urgent need to "stimulate" the economy through massive government spending and debt, Mr. Obama told us: "We know that even if we do everything we should, this crisis was years in the making, and it will take more than weeks or months to turn things around. But make no mistake: A failure to act -- and act now -- will turn crisis into a catastrophe and guarantee a longer recession, a less robust recovery and a more uncertain future. Millions more jobs will be lost. More businesses will be shuttered. More dreams will be deferred."
Five days later, in Elkhart, Ind., he warned of dire damage if he was not given "the tools" he needs to "fix" our problems: "Economists from across the spectrum have warned that if we don't act immediately, millions of more jobs will be lost. The national unemployment rates will approach double digits, not just here in Elkhart, all across the country. More people will lose their homes and their health care. And our nation will sink into a crisis that at some point we may be unable to reverse."
By June 17, the president was hyping the catastrophic consequences of failing to enact more onerous government controls on the U.S. economy: "Millions of people have had their lives profoundly disrupted by developments in the financial system, most severely in our recent crisis. These aren't just numbers on a ledger. This is a child's chance to get an education. This is a family's ability to pay their bills or stay in their homes. This is the right of our seniors to retire with dignity and security and respect. These are American dreams, and we should not accept a system that consistently puts them in danger."
The presidential fright-mongering continues unabated. On Sept. 9, he boldly promised a joint session of Congress, "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits." He then threatened: If we do nothing, "our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it the most. And more will die as a result."
Evidently, it's even worse than he thought. On Dec. 16, Mr. Obama told a television audience that if his "health care bill" doesn't pass, "the federal government will go bankrupt" and that "health care costs are going to consume the entire federal budget."
Compared with Barack Obama, FDR was a piker in the panic and dread department. Time magazine needs a new category. "Person of the Year" is inadequate for a Nobel laureate with this kind of trepidation. Mr. Obama should be named "Man of the Fear."
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM
Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.
Options
Subscribe
Harvard Political Review notes: "The Patriot Post is leading a surprisingly well-organized charge into the world of Internet politics." It's Right. It's Free. Subscribe now!
The Right Opinion
- Peggy Noonan: Mitt Romney's Moment
- Argus Hamilton: From The Comedy Store
- Burt Prelutsky: Time to Start Playing Offense
- Rich Galen: Obama & Romney Tout Good News
- Edwin J. Feulner: 'Law of the Sea' Treaty: Sink It
- Arnold Ahlert: With Democrats, You're Either All In - or All Out
- Oliver North: Memorial Day 2012
- Ken Blackwell: Remarks on Religious Liberty
- L. Brent Bozell: Canada's 'Scientific' Museum of Smut
- Michelle Malkin: Obama's Land of the LOST
- Rebecca Hagelin: The 'Gay Marriage' Spin
- David Limbaugh: Obama and Leahy vs. Sir William Blackstone
Grassroots Commentary
Policy and Analysis
- Heritage Foundation Insider
- Heritage Foundation Research
- American Enterprise Institute
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- The Cato Institute
- Hoover Institution
- National Rifle Association
- Ludwig von Mises Institute
- Citizens Against Government Waste
- National Center for Policy Analysis
- The Heartland Institute
Our Mission
"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher
The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!























John Burtt
Obama's plans are not about health care or climate change, they are about CONTROL.
Posted December 18, 2009 at 11:29:53 AM
MichaelSSEC
How can any reasonable person fail to see through the transparent fear-mongering of this administration? The nonsense this man spews is not even remotely credible, yet his media lapdogs repeat it all as though he had uttered something profound.
The only thing bankrupting the country is this wild gallop into Socialism. Who's spending money faster than we can even keep track of it? Obama. Who's racking up new bureaucracies and entitlements at the speed of light? Whose Socialized medicine scheme will cost us trillions of dollars for no net gain in benefits (in fact, a serious loss of benefits as the realities of rationing come into play)? Whose deficits are larger than any in history? Who's promising Socialist countries hundreds of billions of dollars for "climate change" nonsense? Who's spending more time on television than any President in history, and less time doing anything resembling leadership?
The man isn't fit to lead a singalong, let alone the most powerful country on Earth.
Posted December 18, 2009 at 8:55:45 PM
veritaseequitas
BO and his despicable posse are like an XXX rated movie. Not fit for public viewing (or listening) and really, not fit for human consumption. As a nation, let us make sure in the 2012 election cycle that we put him back under the rock from which he crawled.
Posted December 19, 2009 at 8:40:03 AM
Ruth Ann Wilson
The "Office of the President" with all of it's bureaus that eat out our substance daily must be "DE FUNDED". Think about it, all of the powers that was supposed to be delegated to the different branches, Legislative, Judicial, & Executive are now, functioning under One Office, "The Office of the President." The Founders never gave that kind of "power to one office".
Senate Finance Committee writes the "check" for that "Monstrosity".
If the President had only a "cabinet" of say 100 people, (I don't believe George Washington who established the Country had that many) we would be a head of a lot of "mischief". Why does Rahm Emmanuel have the power to close down Military Installations with just a word??????? Senator Nelson labors under "threats" from the "Office of the President" and he is an "elected" Senator having to "bow" to the dictates of an "unelected bureaucrat"????!!!! Move to cut off the "Funding of the Office of the President", I doubt they will work for nothing. When the taxpayers of the United States are no longer "FUNDING" this bunch, the "monstrosity" will collapse.
Too much POWER concentrated in one OFFICE. DE FUND the Office, redefine EXECUTIVE ORDER back to what it was originally - "emptying wastebaskets at the White-house". Scope and size of this "Office of the President" is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Through all Administrations, and all have "added" to the bureaus, I have maintained that this "monstrosity" needed to be "reigned in."
The Constitution does not allow "a government within a government", an Office with this kind of POWER was never under the "sanction" of the Founders of this Beloved Nation.
For God & Country
Ruth Ann Wilson
Posted December 19, 2009 at 9:33:39 AM