John Hinderaker thinks so:
If the Pelosi bill is actually enacted into law (which I still think is doubtful) and upheld by the courts, there is no limit to the arbitrary power of Congress. In that event, we have no property rights and there is no Constitution–no equal protection clause, no due process clause, no impairment of contracts clause, no bill of attainder/ex post facto law clause. Instead, we are living in a majoritarian tyranny. As I explained here, there is nothing wrong with the AIG bonuses and no reason why they should be repaid. But even if you think it was wrong for AIG to pay them, Pelosi’s proposed confiscatory tax–total taxes would exceed 100 percent in some jurisdictions–is an outrage. If Congress can appease a howling mob of demagogues by enacting discriminatory tax legislation against a group of people who are, for the moment, politically unpopular, even though the vast majority of them have nothing to do with the supposed problems that have given rise to popular outcry–imagine, say, Congress enacting a surtax on the incomes of all homosexuals in response to a notorious case of homosexual molestation–then the idea that the Constitution affords us any sort of protection against arbitrary government power is an illusion.
Peter Robinson agrees:
The emergence of misrule, corruption and economic stagnation in Latin American nations follows a particular sequence or progression. Now the sequence was unfolding in the United States.
“It starts with a cult of personality,” the Cuban explained. “One man declares himself the jefe, the caudillo, the big leader.”
Had Obama attempted to instigate something like a cult of personality? The American found the charge impossible to refute. During the campaign, Obama had failed to advance a genuine agenda, instead campaigning on “hope” and “change.” In effect, he had asked Americans to turn the nation over to him on blind faith….
Let George W. Bush mispronounce a word, and the press would howl for a month. Let Barack Obama offend against language itself–let him suggest that he signed perhaps the most reckless fiscal act in American history as an instance of “fiscal responsibility,” engaging in an almost Orwellian example of doublespeak–and the press utters scarcely a murmur.
“After the cult of personality,” the Colombian explained, “what comes next is nationalization.” Fidel had nationalized the Cuban sugar mills, Chavez the Banco de Venezuela, Morales the Bolivian oil and gas industries.
Obama? He may not have been issuing sweeping diktats. But as the American had to admit, he had already presided over a vast expansion of the federal stake in banks, in the automobile industry and in the mortgage markets. And in his address before Congress, he had proposed a new federal presence in health care, an industry that accounts for a full one-seventh of the economy.
“The last step?” asked the Cuban. “Censorship. It won’t be obvious at first–they’re always too smart for that. But it will come.”
My fears during the election campaign are being reignited. “What evidence do we have,” I asked people, “that Obama is not an American Hugo Chavez?” All his associations, all his statements, all his actions, seemed pointed in that direction. They still do. What startles me is that the Democratic Party—not just the fringe, but the mainstream—seems cool with it. Was concern with civil rights just an act? Has the Democratic Party really become ideologically indistinguishable from the CPUSA?
Can this really be happening? Surely, it’s an exaggeration? I hope so. But look at this morning’s Drudge headlines:
REGULATE! Obama will call for increased oversight of ‘executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies’ as part of sweeping plan to ‘overhaul financial regulation’, NY TIMES reporting Sunday, newsroom sources tell DRUDGE… Developing…