The Obama administration has decided to refer to terrorist attacks as "man made disasters."  I prefer to think of such attacks as "enemy action."   A man made disaster occurred on November 4, 2008, when the American people elected Barack Obama president of the United States.   The event has every prospect of being the greatest man made disaster in American history.

_________________________________________________

The administration wants Congress to enact legislation to allow the secretary of the Treasury to seize control of a business entity whose failure would pose a systemic risk to the nation's financial system.  So if Wal-Mart's sales fall and its stock declines is the financial system at risk?  Have the American people become completely comatose?   The Congress is being asked to empower the executive to SEIZE CONTROL of any American business whose failure the executive deems poses a risk to the financial system.   Do not believe for a second that this would be the end.  The Federal government will not stop with business failures that discomfort the financial system.   In fact, it has already disregarded that limitation in propping up General Motors and Chrysler, and in this past week, auto parts suppliers.  Certainly the failure of GM or Chrysler, or parts companies, while distressful to the folks employed by these companies, would not pose a risk to the financial system of the country.   What would follow in short order from Congress passing the requested legislation is the government asserting the obligation to interfere into any aspect of the economy the president, acting through the secretary of the Treasury, deemed to be in the "national" interest. 

In 1933 a leader took office during troubled economic times.  The new leader was a charismatic politician who argued that the national ills could be more effectively addressed by concentrating power in the national executive.   His legislative program, however, was encountering opposition in the national assembly.  Then "something" happened that aroused and angered the public, an event which the charismatic leader used to bulldoze the opposition and secure the passage of the signature piece of legislation, called the "Enabling Act."  This legislation served as the legal basis for the leader to concentrate every growing power in his office and person, until, in a few short months, he had eliminated all organized opposition and had established an absolute dictatorship.   This charismatic leader was Adolf Hitler.   The legislation that he wants Congress to enact is the modern equivalent of the Enabling Act the German Reichstag passed at Hitler's demand.    It can't happen here you say?   Civilized Germans believed the same thing.   The logic of the liberalism is tyranny.  Liberalism never succeeds but liberals never accept its failure.  Instead, failure must be the fault of them, i.e., conservatives, Federalists, Christians, the "rich."   If only liberals had the power to move "them" out of the way, then the success of the liberal agenda would be assured.   If, in moving them out of the way, some people get hurt, well, they had it coming.  My friends, Obama is a leftist fanatic who thinks this way.  I know it is hard to believe that we have a president whose every instinct is contrary to the spirit of liberty which founded and guided this nation since its founding, but to close our eyes to the truth is to invite destruction.   Giving Obama power is like giving a Islamic terrorist the pilot seat in a passenger jet.   You can call it a "man made disaster."

______________________________________________________________

Here are some questions to ponder:  What if we have come to the point that a majority of the American people want socialism?  What if the majority embraces statism?  What is the majority favors the creation of a European nanny state, with the massive taxation and governmental bureaucracy needed to run it?   In other words, what if  Obama's election represents not just a terrible mistake by the American people, but the decisive defeat of principled conservatism, a rejection of the original Constitutional framework of federalism, and of the free market?   The reader can think of more, but these will do for a start.