A friend of mine sent me to The Wall Street Journal’s Editorial, “The Carbonated President.” It paints a dire picture of huge spikes in energy costs perpetrated on the American people in the midst of a fake recovery. In the midst of economic pain Obama has now declared economic war on Americans. Calling it “war on coal” is not sufficient. He is doing all he can to increase the cost of electricity. This will not only raise energy bills for people’s homes, but it will increase the cost of everything else. Food prices and the prices of all other necessities will have to rise as businesses pass on their new costs to consumers.
But the most telling part of the editorial is the silent admission that we live under a fascist regime. I don’t think I’m at all exaggerating. Here is what the editorial claims:
“Most striking about this Obama legacy project is its contempt for democratic consent. Congress has consistently rejected an Obama-style ‘comprehensive’ anticarbon energy plan. That was true even when Democrats ran the Senate with a filibuster-proof majority in 2009-2010 and killed his cap-and-trade energy bill. The only legislative justification for Mr. Obama’s new plan is an abusive interpretation of the Clean Air Act, which was last revised in 1990 and never mentions carbon as a pollutant. So instead Mr. Obama will impose these inherently political policy choices via unaccountable bureaucracies, with little or no debate. Mr. Obama might have at least announced his war on carbon before the election and let voters have a say. Instead he posed as the John the Baptist of fossil fuels in locales such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia—taking credit for the shale fracking boom he had nothing to do with and running ads attacking Mitt Romney as anticoal. Now safely re-elected, Mr. Obama figures he can do what he pleases.”
No! Stop whining! The “most striking” thing is not Obama’s “contempt for democratic consent.”
What is most striking about this is that Obama has the power to do what he wants despite a complete lack of justification for it in the Constitution. This editorial makes it sound as if the President is supposed to restrain himself and allow Congress to limit him rather than show “contempt” for democracy. No, the President is supposed to be restrained by Congress so that he doesn’t have the power to simply pass his own laws.
Obama reveals that the Presidency is now the legal dictator of the nation. And this has been true for awhile. What has kept us looking like a democratic republic is the President’s willingness not to show what he can do without any constitutional legislative process.
All those Czars and all those departments (EPA, Energy, OSHA, and all the other “unaccountable bureaucracies”) have always been the President’s means to simply rule over the country by his own diktats (i.e. “executive orders”). Obama didn’t create this. From FDR through both Bushes we have seen the power of the executive turn into an unconstitutional monster. Obama just inherited it, and decided it was time to finally use it.
He just slipped the leash.
Until Congress tries, convicts, and imprisons a President for treason against the Constitution due to his usurping powers that don’t belong to him, the government will only get worse. Or perhaps Congress merely needs to permanently defund these departments. But begging for a President who shows less contempt for what has become a de facto polling group—Congress!—will never fix anything.
Whining that he lied on the campaign trail, instead of actually standing up to the usurper, is just pathetic.