In the June 10th Wall Street Journal, William J. Dobson wrote a good, comprehensive article on the state of modern tyranny. Gone, he suggests, are the days of overt bullying. The modern is more likely to use the political process and tools to destroy those who oppose him.
He cites Russia’s Vladimir Putin using tax collectors and health inspectors to shut down dissidents. He cites Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who will ensure laws are written overly broadly, and then use them against his foes.
Mr. Dobson’s piece is focused on dictators and tyrants around the globe. He points to Russia, Venezuela, China, and even Egypt. Conspicuously absent is our own Tyrant-in-Chief.
All the things, with the exception of sham elections, that other dictators do, Barack Obama does in spades. He may not yet have moved the IRS against his enemies, but he has a habit of naming them. From direct opposition against Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin to attempting to “name and shame” donors to Republican causes generally, such as the Koch brothers, or to Mitt Romney specifically, such as Frank Vandersloot, Mr. Obama brings the considerable weight of the presidency against those who oppose his political ideas and goals.
Indeed, he’s not above taking out his ire on whole states. My own home state of Texas has been the target of the President’s ill will. When we moved to exclude Planned Parenthood, who do not, themselves, actually provide women’s health services, from some State funding, the Federal Government decided to withhold its matching funds for that purpose. He has had his Department of Justice, under Eric Holder, sue Arizona for wanting to enforce Federal Immigration Law. He has had the Department of Justice sue Florida for wanting to purge its voter rolls of dead voters and illegal aliens. He has had them sue states who have attempted to implement Voter ID laws to ensure the validity of the vote, and ensure that no legal voter is disenfranchised by an illegal vote.
As with Mr. Chavez, he also relies on overly broad laws and “authorizations.” The American Relief and Recovery Act of 2009, better known as the Stimulus, or, in certain circles, Porkulus, was used as nothing less than a slush fund from which supporters of the President were paid. Using the supposed “general” authorization to combat the war on terror, he has involved us in more than one war –sorry, “Kinetic Military Action”- without actually seeking Congressional Approval. The list here is simply too long: the Health Care law, his continual appointing of “Czars,” subverting the normal Bankruptcy process to benefit the UAW over bond holders in the GM and Chrysler bail-out, forcing BP to pay for the Gulf Coast cleanup before any liability was discovered. I could continue, but I’m sure you get the point.
Indeed, more than once writers have shown where almost every particular offense given the Colonies by King George III has been repeated in modern times by Barack Obama. His offenses against Liberty are plentiful. His officers ignore or subvert the law. He opposes just laws, and supports unjust ones. With his fiat declaration of Amnesty, he has declared the Congress moot; a vestigial body. He has presumed to declare when Congress is in session, or not.
That Mr. Obama is at home and at ease with these tyrants and dictators is no surprise, then. After all, he is one of them. His view is so opposed to the view of Liberty and Justice that the Founders held, I’m relatively certain they would be in a certain New York pub plotting rebellion if their grievances were not addressed.
In November we will have a chance to overthrow a real-life, honest-to-goodness Tyrant. We will be faced with the choice between Liberty, with its equality of opportunity but not of outcome, and Tyranny, with its promise of equal outcomes at the cost of your Liberty. Mitt Romney is not a perfect candidate; he is not a perfect man. Indeed, he was not my first, second, or even third choice in the Republican Primary. However, he is not a Tyrant. He is not opposed to Liberty and opportunity. He would not rule by fiat; he would not simply ignore the Constitution when it was inconvenient to him.