John Podesta, who runs the Center for American Progress, is not a happy man. His party just took a major beatdown at the hands of an enraged public. Come January 2011 the House will be in Republican hands and the Senate will be a much more conservative place. But should that stop Obama from implementing his transformation of America.? If you are a Socialist/Leftist/Communist/Democrat the answer is a resounding nyet!!!
The George Soros-funded Center for American Progress has released a report this week that, among other things, suggested that Obama can use the US Military to push the president's radical totalitarian agenda by bypassing Congress to accomplish a progressive agenda, and it cites the president's power as commander-in-chief to make its point.
John Podesta to the Daily Caller: "I think most of the conversation since the election has been about how President Obama adjusts to the new situation on Capitol Hill. While that's an important conversation, it simply ignores the president's ability to use all levels of his power and authority to move the country forward."
In the center's report, Podesta explains that Obama can use executive orders, rulemaking, and even the armed forces "to accomplish important change" and that such means "should not be underestimated."
The report cites specific goals such as mitigating the effects of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, supporting a Palestinian state, and reducing greenhouse gasses by 17 percent by 2020.
Is Podesta suggesting military force to accomplish the leftist utopia. Force on whom…the U.S. population. Has Podesta heard of "posse comatatis" and all of the legal implications of deploying the Army on U.S. soil?
Last October we at Neville wrote of the our Fraudinator-in-Chief's intention to bypass Congress by governing through executive order.
Podesta's most lasting contribution to the leftist cause came through his promotion of a strategy that White House aides dubbed "Project Podesta." This was a system that enabled the Clintons to push through unpopular policies that neither Congress nor the American people wanted. Its implementation marked a dramatic tilt in the balance of power, giving the executive branch an unprecedented ability to force its will on the legislative branch.
Project Podesta enabled the President to bypass Congress through the use of executive orders, presidential decision directives, White-House-sponsored lawsuits, vacancy appointments to high federal office, selective regulatory actions against targeted corporations, and a host of other extra-constitutional tactics.
In short, Podesta showed the Clintons that they could gain by force what they might fail to achieve through legislation. "Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kind of cool," quipped White House aide Paul Begala to The New York Times on July 5, 1998, in response to questions about the Clintons' growing disdain for the will of Congress.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller isn't happy either. He wants the FCC to ban Fox News...oh and MSNBC (in an attempt to be fair and balanced).
Rockefeller : "We need new catalysts for quality news and entertainment programming. I hunger for quality news. I'm tired of the right and the left. [He's really just tired of the right] There's a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to Fox and to MSNBC, 'Out. Off. End. Goodbye. It would be a big favor to political discourse; to our ability to do our work here in Congress; and to the American people, to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and, more importantly, in their future."
Rockefeller didn't seem to realize that the FCC only regulates broadcast airwaves, not cable. Too bad Jay. Your liberal wet dream of going back to the days of three state-controlled networks and newspapers, and Walter Cronkite thundering "and that's the way it is!!!!!!!" will have to wait a little bit longer.
And from the free-speech-isn't-free department the lame duck Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously voted to move forward with net neutrality via the COICA bill -- despite a gaggle of law professors explaining to them how this law is a clear violation of the First Amendment. What is truly hypocritical is that many of the same Senators have been speaking out against internet censorship in other countries, yet they happily vote to approve it here because it's seen as a way to make many of their largest campaign contributors happy. There's very little chance that the bill will actually get passed by the end of the term but, in the meantime, we figured it might be useful to highlight the 19 Senators who voted for net neutrality:
Patrick J. Leahy - (D) Vermont
Herb Kohl -- (D) Wisconsin
Jeff Sessions -- (R) Alabama
Dianne Feinstein -- (D) California
Orrin G. Hatch - (R) Utah
Russ Feingold -- (D) Wisconsin
Chuck Grassley -- (R) Iowa
Arlen Specter -- (D) Pennsylvania
Jon Kyl -- (R) Arizona
Chuck Schumer -- (D) New York
Lindsey Graham -- (R) South Carolina
Dick Durbin -- (D) Illinois
John Cornyn -- (R) Texas
Benjamin L. Cardin -- (D) Maryland
Tom Coburn -- (R) Oklahoma
Sheldon Whitehouse -- (D) Rhode Island
Amy Klobuchar -- (D) Minnesota
Al Franken -- (D) Minnesota
Chris Coons -- (D) Delaware
These shameful and ignorant legislators, particularly the seven Republican RINOs, have no problem turning the U.S. into one of the small list of authoritarian countries that censors internet content. There are already plenty of laws in place to deal with content infringment, so the excuse that this law is about curbing copyright infringement is a canard.. Like Obamacare, net neutrality is more government framework to be put in place and activated in the wake of some trumped up emergency. The regulations have yet to be written. Can anyone say Ahmadinejad?
The fascist tendencies of the Left are now on full display in the wake of the mid-terms. They either don't realize the ice is melting or they don't care. In any case time is running out on the Soros-funded Obama transformation. They are exposed and cornered, and that is when the wild animal is most dangerous.