*Writing in the New Republic, former Obama director of the Office of Management and Budget Peter Orszag said in an article called ‘Too much of a good thing - Why we need less democracy’
‘To solve the serious problems facing our country, we need to minimize the harm from legislative inertia by relying more on automatic policies and depoliticized commissions for certain policy decisions. In other words, radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic.’
*Democrat North Carolina governor Beverly Perdue said in a speech recently:
"I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that," Perdue said. "You want people who don't worry about the next election."
*Rush Limbaugh has suggested that the increasing power of the federal government could lead to the end of free elections. After passage of the health-care bill in March 2010, Limbaugh said:
"The next big push will be amnesty for ... millions of illegal immigrants who are here. Obama's gonna need their votes in 2012. The Democrats are going to need their votes in every election from now on – if we have elections, and I'm not joking. The Constitution has just been ripped to shreds, so why is anything safe?"
So which one of these comments is closest to being an accurate reflection of reality?
They all are. And Limbaugh’s charge is backed up by two high Democrat officials today and by many, many past examples of known election corruption by the Democrats that indeed represented a suspension of the electoral process.
And don’t think that Orszag and Perdue were speaking off the cuff. Remember that these are serious people in high places who are “floating” an idea that certainly sounds preposterous today - that elections could someday end up being moot. Then again, who would have thought just a few years ago that Obama corruption would engulf the entire federal government. And corruption is the first step toward tyranny.
This, of course, would come out of the tyrannical left of the Democrat party that has been seeking to corner the political market for decades using every tactic in the book.
For instance, right now there is a panel of 12 US senators and congresspeople (the ‘debt supercommittee’) that Orszag was referring to – ‘relying more on automatic policies and depoliticized commissions for certain policy decisions’ - that is going to make recommendations rather than simply allowing the full US congress to do it all.
This means that power is concentrating in fewer and fewer hands. After a while, might we simply see elections being effectively nullified as small groups of people make the laws directly?
Indeed that is what Limbaugh is suggesting. And the debt panel proves it, along with ObamaCare, along with Orszag’s column and Perdue’s comment. Etc., etc.
After all, Democrats have been stealing elections and political power for the last century and more. And now they are using provocative language to nudge Americans closer to the idea that fewer and fewer people could make the decisions. Look at all of Obama’s unelected “czars”. That is a good term for them. The word “czar” comes from Emperor Caesar.
Oh, no, that is not true! say the same Democrats who will never admit the deep, profound and widespread voter fraud and legal manipulations that keep them in power in many, many elected offices.
Perdue was just talking philosophically! they say. ‘Hyperbolically! Sarcastically! Her press spokesman cleared that up!
No, Perdue was saying what was in her mind. Listen to the audio. She was not joking. And this idea has been implanted in many minds by the anti-democratic left over the last 100 years. And it takes many, many forms. Remember how Democrat FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court? Remember how one liberal judge in Wisconsin in Spring 2011 overturned the law curbing unions, saying that the Republicans had not used the proper legal protocol in passing the law?
That was a left-wing Democrat operative outright lying in order to derail legitimately passed legislation. All proper procedures were used. In other words, she sought to “cancel” the election of those Republicans by simply declaring something that was untrue.
Fortunately she was overruled by the Wisconsin supreme court. If she had not been, however, she would have been successful in “canceling democracy” right under our noses. And there would not have been anything we could do about it.
What about the 2008 US senate election in Alaska in which incumbent Republican Ted Stevens was indicted by a very liberal Washington, DC grand jury before the election, lost the election by a slim margin and then had the charges dropped after the election.
This is called “canceling an election”. And it reveals another of the variety of techniques Democrats use.
And of course who could forget the most egregious case of all time - the 1960 presidential election which was outright stolen by the Chicago mafia on behalf of Democrat John F. Kennedy. All rational Americans know this happened. But heck, that was just to usher in a dashing new president!
Yes, a Democrat, of course.
These are the types of techniques that Democrats are using to narrow freedom and to concentrate power in their own hands. Limbaugh was right. We should be afraid.
That is why the Tea Parties exist. And that is why the Tea Parties are going to fight this Democrat fraud forever on every level. And that is how law-abiding people will take back our freedom, step by step by step, using truth and honesty as our shield.
Please visit my blog at www.nikitas3.com for more conservative insights.