You see the source of our...erm...hesitancy when encountering what passes for conservative thought these days. However, whilst tubing the blogosphere the other day, we ran across this.
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) took it to a new level as he approvingly quoted an article by Thomas Sowell that likened the Obama administration's success in getting BP to set up a $20 billion escrow account to assist Gulf coast residents to something that Adolf Hitler would have done.Now, Louis Gohmert has appeared in this blog before, so at first we were skeptical. First because Gohmert is a weapons grade buffoon, and second because we couldn't believe that Hitler would have considered an escrow fund over, say shooting people, but we're not students of history or anything, so we thought we'd see what Mr. Sowell had to say.
When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics.Umm...did you expect him to "activate" the people who normally did pay attention to politics, Mr. Sowell? Not that we're political scientists or anything, and we certainly don't mean to suggest that we're talented, experienced, sought after national commentators such as yourself, but wouldn't any politician want to reach out to people who don't normally pay attention and get them on his or her side? Swing vote and all that. Oh, sorry for interrupting. Please continue.
Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.Ah, excuse us again Mr. Sowell. Sorry to interrupt. Just one quick comment. This was BP's idea and they've kicked it up to $50 billion.
And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without "due process of law." Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.Oh, sorry again. Sorry. A distinction is a difference, no? We mean, if something is distinct from something else, then it must be different somehow. Oh wait, oh wait. We get it. Technically Obama didn't confiscate BP's money but that doesn't matter because he's still like Hitler. Ok, we see the logic there. Go on.
With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.Whoa. When did we start talking about Bush?