Posted on 01/03/2015 5:02:11 AM PST by rktman
21,000 new regulations have been enacted under Obama, and 2,375 are scheduled so far for 2015. Congress does not have the power to stop this avalanche, and can do very little to slow it down.
The sad and frustrating part of this “government gone wild” scenario is that it is highly doubtful any of these regulations can be rescinded or fixed before they potentially cause significant permanent damage to our individual freedoms, to say nothing of how they will negatively impact our day-to-day lives. This is how Obama’s “fundamental change” of America is accomplished.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Does anybody else find this statement to be total BS like I do?
And just like in Brazil, those regulations will be selectively and politically enforced.
Most of the municipal police in Brazil just want to collect their paychecks and go home. Brazil has a federal police force, Policia Militar, and they’re the real enforcers.
LOL! Yeah, I did consider the statement and and it should probably have read “congress has the power but won’t do anything to stop this avalanche.” Unless the decide to regulate avalanches that is. All I know is that everytime one of these new regs pops, it costs consumers more money.
This is how Obama’s “fundamental change” of America is accomplished.
Anddddd.....
The real thing is that he knows that he knows that he is doing the correct thing in spite of and over the screams. Please excuse the msm double talk but sometimes it takes idiot talk to expound on idiocracy.
The simple solution is to just ignore a new regulation you don’t like
The president has shown us that ignoring the law is ok ditto the attorney general
It’s called regulatorial discretion
All I know is that every time one of these new regs pops, it costs consumers more money.
I can make more money...
...before they potentially cause significant permanent damage to our individual freedoms...
...I can't make more freedoms.
<>Does anybody else find this statement to be total BS like I do?<>
In theory, yes. In practice, no.
For practical purposes, Article I Section 1 has been repealed. No amendment convention, no state ratification debates, . . . it is gone.
Just keep voting.
“I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”
RAH
I will, just as soon as politicians (notice I don't call them statesmen) start referring to America consistently as a Republic instead of a democracy. (one time out of twenty five doesn't count)
When do you expect that to happen? That's when I'll vote.
“I can make more money... “ LOL! My printer isn’t good enough for that. I DO know what you mean though. My conern is that with all the gop-e senate seats coming up in ‘16 the “new” congress may not want to do too much to alienate supporters of either side between now and those (s)elections.
For practical purposes the WHOLE CONSTITUTION has been declared null and void. If there was anything left in effect the decision declaring the Patient Correction and Unaffordable Don’t Care Act to be constitutionally protected because the penalty for not having insurance is a tax when the administration swore it was NOT a tax essentially says that the government can require you to stand on your head and whistle Malaguena if they feel like it. This is like the QC inspector who accepts the parts he inspects even though they don’t match the blueprint and rejects the blueprint. They have essentially said that all these abominable laws and regulations are OK but the constitution itself is unconstitutional.
Neither is mine. My clock though...
Pols hate the word republic because is denotes diffused and controlled power. They hate that concept because they are trying to be all things to all people.
Why did you believe the obvious lie instead of following the debate going on in Congress through the Congressional Record? It's all right there.
Time constraints? Trust in Congress or the administration?
I think the best way of dealing with a lot of this nonsense comes in two ways.
The first is, of course, massive cutbacks in the size and authority of the federal government. This is obvious.
But the next is to somewhat sever the direct connection imposed on people by the federal government. That is, if the federal government wants to interact with individual citizens it should have to go through their state.
This should include any federal taxes. If, for example, there is still the income tax, it should be up to the state to take on the role of the IRS, as it sees fit, and then provide the money it has collected to the federal government.
That is, the feds create the tax rules for individuals, but the states are who enforces them, or not, as the case may be. This divides the power of taxation, creating a balance of power.
Then the real zinger comes in the form of an “Individual Liberty Act”, in which citizens can permanently “opt out” of anything the federal government does, except for only an “actual enumeration” of them as a person in the census, and the keeping of federal criminal records.
This means a person could exempt themselves from Social Security and Medicare, Obamacare, any form of federal identification, and even be deleted from federal databases by dozens of federal agencies. By doing so, they no longer have to pay any taxes, fees, fines or penalties for these things. So, no FICA tax, and no Obamacare tax.
A provision of this would reinforce the idea that even military draft boards are run by the states, not directly by the federal government.
This would strip over a hundred years of oppressive “progressivism” from the lives of all the people who rejected it. And return our nation to one where the individual is greater than the government.
Having been to the country, there is some similarity. But, that's not the point he is making.
Chalk that up to another Emily Litella moment.
:)
I’ve been to Brazil 6 times. USSA is no Brazil. For one, the women in Brazil are far, far prettier.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.