Friday, February 27, 2009

Opposing the Tyranny On the Plaza

In less than ten minutes from now, citizens will gather at the Legislative Plaza in Nashville for a "Tea Party" to oppose the federal government's endless set of "bailouts" which began under the last Administration, and are careening toward the dangerous path of nationalization under the present one:

Struggling banking giant Citigroup Inc., moving aggressively to shore up its equity base, announced a stock swap Friday that if successful will leave the government owning more than a third of the company and wipe out nearly three-quarters of existing shareholders' stake.

Under the deal, Citigroup said it will offer to convert nearly $27.5 billion in preferred stock sold to private investors and the public and up to $25 billion in preferred stock bought by the government into common stock. The exchange, if fully executed, would leave the U.S. government with 36% of the bank's shares. Existing shareholders' stake would be cut to 26%. Shareholders will have to approve much of the common stock issuance.

The agreement marks the third time since October that Washington has come to Citigroup's rescue. Since then, the government has pressured Citigroup to partially break itself up by selling big chunks of its businesses and to overhaul its board. But U.S. ownership has also created a murky situation in which it's unclear who's in charge, leaving Citigroup executives often groping for guidance.

The founders of this federal Republic did not risk their lives, fortunes, and honor for this country to have a nationalized business sector. What is most frightening about what is presently occurring is that President Obama's most ardent supporters know that they are literally about to destroy the federal Constitution, and those young people who supported Obama in the name of such vague slogans as "hope" and "change" do not understand what is happening, and hence do not care (they will care when their Savior destroys their country and their lives with it).

Barack Obama's disrespect for the Constitution goes well beyond anything that occurred during the Bush Administration, bad as some of Bush's policies were. In the case of Obama, he may as well just have a public ceremony and torch the Constitution, since he now demonstrates by the minute that it will mean nothing.

Our economy will be run by a series of czars (how appropriate in this new despotism) of which the Vice President appears to be the leader. The blind lead the blind and they shall all fall in the ditch.

The worst offenders for Tennesseans are the members of a certain political party who have used the floor of our State House of Representatives this week as a platform to announce that they would like to lead in sucking from the teet of the federal swine, while having the unmitigated gall to threaten to remove the swine's money from the districts of members who oppose it. Of course, the people of the opposing districts still have to pay for their freedom to be slowly sucked away. Meanwhile, those who think it is fine that the federal government should take away even the authority of the State of Tennessee to determine how it is governed shall crouch down and lick the hand that feeds them. As Samual Adams said of those too afraid to stand up to tyranny in an earlier time, "may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

Labels: , , , ,


At Friday, February 27, 2009 4:43:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please elaborate how this President has shown more disrespect for the Constitution moreso than the
previous President. Is it the use of "czars" for overseeing certain policy areas? Bush had a War Czar, a Drug Czar, a Manufacturing Czar, an Intel Czar, an Education Czar, a Cyber Security Czar, a Latin America Czar, an AIDS Czar, a Copyright Czar and an IP Czar (whatever that is) and that's just the first 3 pages of a Google search. Bush completely ignored the Constitution by spying on American citizens, suspended the right of Habeus Corpus for certain American citizens, went to war illegally and on dubious grounds, violated international treaties the he was Constitutionally bound to uphold, defied Congress and the Courts, etc., etc., etc...

Pray tell, what has President Obama done in 4 short weeks that could even compare to the previous occupant of the White House?

BTW, why are you a Republican anyway? It does not appear the republican party in any way reflects your personal agenda. The republican party is not fiscally conservative, it only pays lip service to social issues (think about it - the Republicans controlled the White House, Congress and the Courts for the great bulk of the Bush years and never made any serious effort to act on abortion issues or any other social issue of any importance), they are supportive of government control of personal choices and intrusions into the personal lives of American citizens. Don't you just feel like you are being used as a foot soldier for the sole purpose of decreasing the tax rates and regulations for the richest 2% of Americans?

Got a good answer?

At Saturday, February 28, 2009 1:24:00 AM, Blogger Sharon Cobb said...

Bush nationalized the banks.
Bush spent more money than any democrat.

Obama has to try to get us out of this mess, but sadly, he can't just walk away. He can't just walk out of Iraq, and that's what it would be like if he walked away from the crap Bush got us into. Clinton too, but mainly Bush.

We're coming off the worst president in American history, and dems and republicans better pull together or all Americans are going to be in big trouble.

At Saturday, February 28, 2009 9:00:00 AM, Blogger Steve Mule said...

You're hyperventillating. Get a brown paper bag, put it over you head and breathe, in, out, in, out in and out until you can think clearly.
What is being hysterically called "Nationalization" is called "Receivership" (google it) in business circles. It happens fairly frequently when a business is poorly led, poorly managed and is about to fail.
The federal government won't own CitiBank forever; only long enough to get rid of the duds currently running it and get it back on its feet. Then the federal government will sell it off.
It's nothing to get all hysterical over and it's not a Constitutional crisis. Your "gloom and doom" is making you sound like an idiot and you're better than that.


At Saturday, February 28, 2009 11:53:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Barack Obama's disrespect for the Constitution goes well beyond anything that occurred during the Bush Administration, bad as some of Bush's policies were.

Seriously? During Dubya's tenure, Dick Cheney talked the Office of V.P. into a new hybrid branch of the Federal Government that floated between Executive and Legislative whenever he said it did to avoid any sort of transparency requirements. Don't forget the extreme number of presidential signing statements that Dubya put into law which effectively nullified portions of Legislative law that he didn't like. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS Report RL33667) the following is a breakdown of his and previous admins use of this controversial technique:

34% of President Reagan's signing statements raised constitutional objections

47% of President George H. W. Bush's signing statements raised constitutional objections

18% of President Clinton's signing statements raised constitutional objections

78% of President George W. Bush's signing statements raised constitutional objections

What about the outright refusal of Karl Rove and other Bush cronies to testify before Congress? Also, who could forget the coercion of TeleComs into spying on innocent American civilians? The list goes on and on...Your comparison is at best premature. At least give this administration some time to dip into an under 20% approval rating before trying to compare the two.

At Saturday, February 28, 2009 12:07:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not sure, but is the spewing of venomous vitriol and consuming of Republican red meat talking points in tune with your renewed interest in strengthening your bond with Christ this Lent? Honestly, was there any factual point in your post?

At Sunday, March 01, 2009 7:59:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Would you be so kind as to point out which part of the Constitution you believe Obama is disregarding?

At Wednesday, March 04, 2009 3:30:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not sure what to conclude from your non-response. Are you unable to figure out which part of the Constitution you think Obama is violating? Are you unkind? Don't read comments on your own blog?


Post a Comment

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page
Profile Visitor Map - Click to view visits
Create your own visitor map