Obama wants to define “Patriot” corporations? Updated

posted at 2:40 pm on February 12, 2008 by Bryan

So the Democrats who constantly carp that their patriotism isn’t to be questioned because they’re consistently making it easier for terrorists to plan and carry out attacks against us, want to have the legal right and authority to question the patriotism of US corporations now? Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) says that he and Barack Obama want to do exactly that.

I’ve talked to Barack a lot about his Patriot Corporation Act, which is not trade per se, but it’s certainly part of the economic package around globalization. The Patriot Corporation Act has not gotten the attention that I would hope it would. But, basically it says that if you play by the rules, if you pay decent wages, health benefits, pension; do your production here; don’t resist unionization on neutral card check, then you will be designated a “Patriot Corporation” and you will get tax advantages and some [preference] on government contracts.

Here’s the bill, S.1945. Set aside the fact that so many big Democrats, including the Kennedy clan with their offshore accounts, are total hypocrites on this. They’re total hypocrites on this. And obviously they’ll exempt themselves from this as Congresscritters always do.

Setting that aside, by defining some corporations as patriotic, you’re necessarily defining others as unpatriotic, and based on economic decisions they’re making and often being forced into making by the tax and legal environment that’s forced on them by the idiots in Washington.

What gives people like Obama and Brown the idea that they have the right to do this? Certainly not the Constitution.

As the post over at the NAM says, this is a terrible, terrible idea. It has Hugo Chavez statist anti-freedom tactics written all over it.

Update: So Obama is a liberal fascist statist and a terrible speaker if he doesn’t have his telecrutch?

Update: The telecoms who helped the US monitor international terrorist communications that happened to go through switches physically located in the US apparently don’t qualify as “Patriot” corporations.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Oh, almost forgot, the enforcement would have to be a) nonpolitical and b) across the board by a series of neutral benchmarks (i.e. percent of workforce within the US. That way, small business benefits first), preferrably set up by folks not in congress (maybe the Fed or an independent panel of economists. Above my pay grade, at any rate). I know I’m dreaming, but I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad dream.

Again, the plan as put forth by Obama et al is ridiculous, but the idea has some small glimmer of merit, if properly executed.

Militant Bibliophile on February 12, 2008 at 8:52 PM

“pension”

This is an interesting word of choice. Fewer companies offer pensions these days. Seems these dolts are going to mandate it for Patriotic purposes.

Brace yourself folks, this is a horrible sign.

swami on February 12, 2008 at 8:53 PM

Wow, this is the NRA all over again. Will they require “Blue Eagles” in every window? Will they put a fascist in charge of compliance?

NNtrancer on February 12, 2008 at 9:29 PM

Congresscritterstraitors

fixed

Anyway, … Go-bama! ’08!

(Maybe the US will hit bottom hard and bounce back to neo-Reagan in 2012! /wishful thinking)

urbancenturion on February 12, 2008 at 10:05 PM

Again, the plan as put forth by Obama et al is ridiculous, but the idea has some small glimmer of merit, if properly executed.

Militant Bibliophile on February 12, 2008 at 8:52 PM

And then you snap out of your drug-induced high and remember that it is Barack Obama and the Democrats who will implement it. The same people who tried to shut you up with the “Fairness Doctrine,” and by the same leader who needs a teleprompter to have any speaking proficiency.

BKennedy on February 13, 2008 at 2:01 AM

All you people that intend to “stay at home” and not vote had better hope that the rest of us have the voting power to save the country from these neo-Fascists.

rplat on February 12, 2008 at 3:03 PM

That’s funny. With his record on amnesty, blocking conservative judges and restricting free speech by pushing the unconstitutional McCain/Feingold law, I consider McCain to BE a neo-Fascist.

You’re telling me to vote for the poison in my coffee than the gun to my head. But if the gun to my head will motivate the base (since it is a readily visible threat), then I will choose that one.

dominigan on February 13, 2008 at 6:41 AM

In one way, this is a good idea. You want to give businesses incentives to treat their employees well, and be a constructive part of the economy. However, using the “patriotic” designation is abominable.

Get back to me when Obama puts “does not hire illegal immigrants” into the bill as a qualification, then maybe we’ll talk.

Seixon on February 13, 2008 at 4:58 PM

Comment pages: 1 2