The Lois Lerner State Of Oppression

Rich Lowry provides an opinion piece over at The Politico on the real problem with Big Government, entitled The Lois Lerner State

It is appropriate that the worst scandal of the Obama administration— the IRS targeting of conservatives — is a scandal of administrators and bureaucrats, of otherwise faceless people endowed with immense power over their fellow citizens and running free of serious oversight from elected officials.

They are the shock troops of the vast bureaucratic apparatus of the federal government. Its growth has been one of President Obama’s chief goals, and the one he has had the most success in achieving. He has greatly enhanced the reach and power of regulatory agencies that are an inherent offense against self-government, even when they aren’t enforcing the law in a biased way.

The administration’s corruption isn’t bags of cash or lies about interns; it is the distortion of our form of government by sidestepping democratic procedures and accountability and vesting authority in bureaucrats. The administrative state is, fundamentally, the Lois Lerner state.

What have we seen? Officials pleading the 5th along with seemingly having no knowledge as to what is going on in their federal agencies. Spying on the news media as harassment and an attempt to chill freedom of the press. Unaccountable bureaucrats targeting Conservative groups while giving Liberal groups a free pass. Homeland Security Police monitoring, harassing, and attempting to intimidate citizens using their First Amendment rights to free speech, demonstrate peaceably, and asking for redress of grievance. The EPA instituting regulations going well beyond what the legislative branch authorizes, and harming individuals, companies, and the economy.

Let’s further not forget that Congress, in some cases, such as Obamacare and Dodd/Frank, gave and gives federal agencies massive amounts of power, latitude, and discretion. Obamacare is chock full of mentions that the head of HHS “shall do” and “can do”, leaving it in the hands of bureaucrats to make most of the rules as they see fit. Lowry mentions that in the piece, as well.

Currently, it is the Gang of 8 immigration bill. Its architects want to do for immigration what Obamacare does for health care and Dodd-Frank does for the financial sector — invest an administrator (in this case the secretary of the department of Homeland Security) with extraordinary discretion, and entrust a bureaucracy with an enormous task beyond its capacities (the orderly, rapid processing of 11 million illegal aliens).

We can’t blame this solely on Obama: it’s occurred under most presidents. Under Bush we saw the creation of DHS, though they were never used as a STASI like apparatus federal police force. The creation of the TSA. Though we never saw the overreach and personal violations as they instituted very intrusive full body patdowns. Under Obama, an unengaged POTUS who has used his bully pulpit to attack private citizens and entities that have different political points of view..a violation of the spirit of the 1st…, the power and abuses by federal agencies has grown tremendously. And seemingly unaccountable to The People. Let’s see you give the answer to your bosses that people like Holder and the IRS officials gave, see what they think of your performance. Or, try doing the same with the IRS if they come calling.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

10 Responses to “The Lois Lerner State Of Oppression”

  1. john says:

    The total number of Federal employees (civilian) was 2.6 million in 2000. Since then there has been a slow but pretty steady growth and in 2011 had grown to 2.7 million. and increase of .1 million in 10 years.
    And Teach please remember that Lois Lerner was appointed to Head the Tax Exempt Division of the IRS in 2006 by then President George Bush.
    Sigh…. Teach. you GOTTA go back to primary sources don’t trust t The Daily Mail or Rush or Glen Beck or even apparently Lowry.

  2. david7134 says:

    john,
    What is your deal with Bush? He was a liberal, you should love him. Yet you and the other liberals constantly go on about the man, not understanding that they are critizing their own political standing.

    In my experiences, the issue with have with the government is an overwhelming tyranny by employees and not necessarily the politicians. When the civil war comes, those government employees need to be targeted.

  3. Balls_of_Bureacracy says:

    John, you gotta quit listening to the stoned pro-drug anti-american jihadists. You have to go to the source like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I know you have not heard of those, but you can find them in the library or the internet. Just do a search or ask someone who is not stoned.

    Right David. And guys, don’t forget that Pres Bush ignored what the DOJ and Border Security were doing to their personnel? Bush ignored the pleas of the 2 agents sent to jail for shooting and trying to arrest a illegal drug running felon. The DOJ ended up giving that illegal drug running felon amnesty and free medical care.

    PRes Bush also helped push for the seizure of private lands for a business that a city wants. Pres Bush also signed the campaign finance bill in to law that helped expand the democrat party and limited the tracking of funding. (I think that is right, am sure GC will correct me if not)

    Pres Bush was a RINO much like Sen Snow is a republican.

    There are now republicans in Arizona, and Gov Brewer, who are now DEMANDING that Obamacare be implemented NOW and grown immensely.

    Repubs make me sick.

    Now Sen McShamnesty is chumming up to Syrian jihadists. He demands America remain slubs in the war on terror by limiting water boarding, but he wants us to give heavy ARMS to Syrian Islamic Jihadists. McCain wont harm terrorists, but he’ll give the gun to them to kill Americans.

  4. Bob Agard says:

    Good examples. You and Rich Lowry are on the right track. Linked here: http://bobagard.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-power-of-bureaucrats-run-amok.html

  5. gitarcarver says:

    Gumball,

    Bush ignored the pleas of the 2 agents sent to jail for shooting and trying to arrest a illegal drug running felon.

    No he didn’t. Bush could not intervene in the legal process (nor would I want him to) and had to wait until the trials were over. At that point he commuted the sentence of the 2 border patrol agents.

    PRes Bush also helped push for the seizure of private lands for a business that a city wants.

    Bush opposed the Kelo decision and issued an executive order restricting Federal seizures of land under the same premise as the City of New London had. (alleged economic tax gain vs community use.)

    It seems unfair to me to say we want the Feds out of local and state governments and then say he needed to do something in what was a local government decision. That’s my opinion though but the fact is Bush was opposed to Kelo and did something about it.

    Pres Bush also signed the campaign finance bill

    Yes he did, but there are some good parts in the bill. His veto of the bill would not have survived so instead he picked the idea to fight the bill in the Courts as being unConstitutional and supported any and all legal challenges against it.

    I am not willing to say Bush was a RINO because I don’t think the moniker fits. I think there are people who believe that he did not go as far to the right as they would like, and that’s fine. That doesn’t mean he didn’t lean to the right and support conservative thought.

    There are some decisions that Bush made that I disagree with, but no president is ever going to make decisions that we all agree with. That’s the nature of leadership and not a failing of the person.

  6. Balls_of_Chlorine says:

    As always, leave it to GC to clear away the chafe and bring in some knowledge.

    Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, praised President Bush’s order, but the senator pointed out the federal government has a limited role in such projects. He has introduced legislation to block federal funding for any state or local projects in which land was taken through eminent domain.

    So, Bush did issue an EO, but was for Federal seizures of land. I’m not aware if they do much seizing of private lands. Granted, there’s not much he as prez can do against local gov’ts pushing the 5th amendment harder than it was intended. I just don’t recall him coming out against it. I’ll go ahead and stand corrected on this, but am still pissed at the abuse of judicial power in allowing this practice to continue. At least, it did lead to a majority of states to pass laws to limit the I.D. usage.

    It seems unfair to me to say we want the Feds out of local and state governments and then say he needed to do something in what was a local government decision.

    Granted, but I look at it this way: when it was adjudicated at the lower courts, then it was a local issue. When its adjudicated at the USSCOTUS level, then it is national issue, that potentially can affect the lives of everyone and the decisions of all gov’ts.

    Pres Bush also signed the campaign finance bill

    Yes he did, but there are some good parts in the bill. His veto of the bill would not have survived so instead he picked the idea to fight the bill in the Courts as being unConstitutional and supported any and all legal challenges against it.

    Gonna have to still disagree on this one. I don’t care if a bill would not survive a veto. It’s called “principle”. If he disagreed with a law, he should not sign it. Wasn’t Bush famous for signing statements about not following certain parts of bills he signed? Not saying it is right, but it is to me, criminal to sign a law that you disagree with and then hope.. HOPE.. that another branch of gov’t will take up the slack. If he disagreed with it, he should have vetoed it and then make Congress work to fix it or undo his veto. By signing the bill, he agreed with it.

    The main thing he was conservative in was his defense of the country militarily and in words. He helped pass an ever increasing budget, helped support Sen Kennedy’s wet dreams of legislation, helped push for amnesty for illegals, and I’m betting that based on his “compassion” he would have supported ObamaCare as well.

    Remember too, it was under his admin that Pelosi and the democrats took over.

  7. gitarcarver says:

    Gumball,

    So, Bush did issue an EO, but was for Federal seizures of land.

    Right. Which is what HE could do on the issue. The bill introduced was a good idea because it is within the legislative power to issue funding. That is not within the Executive branch’s authority.

    Granted, but I look at it this way: when it was adjudicated at the lower courts, then it was a local issue. When its adjudicated at the USSCOTUS level, then it is national issue, that potentially can affect the lives of everyone and the decisions of all gov’ts.

    Maybe. But the fact remains that Bush can (and should) only work at the Federal level. We chomp all the time at mandates from Washington or overreaching Federal laws for states that seem to violate the 10th Amendment. I am just not willing to say Bush supported the Kelo decision and did nothing about it. I think he worked within his Executive powers.

    By signing the bill, he agreed with it.

    That’s one interpretation, but I don’t think it is accurate. Heck, Washington signed bills with which he disagreed.

    I once had a boss tell me that you “don’t always go to the mat all the time.”

    A lot of people wanted McCain-Feingold passed (and I am talking about citizens) as well as a good hunk of the Congress. When it is you against the world, bet on the world.

    As I said, I am not saying that Bush was a perfect president. But I don’t think it is fair to say he was a liberal and I don’t think it is accurate to say he was a RINO. I think if anything, he was too much of a pragmatist in that he looked for compromise in doing so, did was not as far right as many wanted.

    However, compared to Obama, Bush was so far on the right that you can’t see him from where Obama is standing.

  8. Balls_of_Bureacracy says:

    heh

  9. david7134 says:

    Bush created homeland security and the TSA, that is enough to send him to RINO hell.

  10. gitarcarver says:

    Bush created homeland security and the TSA, that is enough to send him to RINO hell.

    Interesting. I thought for sure Congress did that.

Bad Behavior has blocked 6197 access attempts in the last 7 days.

%d bloggers like this: