Obama wants to define “Patriot” corporations? Updated
posted at 2:40 pm on February 12, 2008 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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 Next »
You mean Obama isn’t the great uniter? He wants to divide us into patriotic corporations and non-patriotic ones?
Where’s the HOPE and CHANGE in that?
All I see is Barack’s third canned campaign answer here: GOVERNMENT.
BKennedy on February 12, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Stinks more and more of centralized economy…
MadisonConservative on February 12, 2008 at 2:45 PM
So much for that market-driven concept that has saved the world.
Damned commies, keep your loser tactics out of my business!
bbz123 on February 12, 2008 at 2:46 PM
Did you see this part. One of the requirements?
“(4) if such taxpayer employs at least 50 employees on average during the taxable year”
Doesn’t seem like this is a “benefit” to the small businesses…since they’re not going to qualify. Whatever happened to the Democrats fighting for Joe the business owner?
StoutRepublican on February 12, 2008 at 2:46 PM
The idea that el Presidente thinks gives him the right to stomp on the Constitution and sell out the US to Mexico. The real issue is that Bush is attacking the foundation from one angle (with McCain and the rest of the lukewarm “conservatives”) and the DEMS are attacking form another angle.
TOPV on February 12, 2008 at 2:46 PM
Question asked:
What gives people like Obama and Brown the idea that they have the right to do this?
Question answered:
It has Hugo Chavez statist anti-freedom tactics written all over it. [Che Marxism - I love that poster in his campaign headquarters].
Communsits don’t give a damn about what grants them the authority – they ARE the authority – and need nothing granted to them.
OhEssYouCowboys on February 12, 2008 at 2:49 PM
It seems to me the segmenting of the bill is going to give corporations the easy workaround financially, while the “less than 50″ employees is going to put a big burden of proof (read extra work and money) on companies where the capital is probably much less, and therefore, much more precious.
StoutRepublican on February 12, 2008 at 2:49 PM
Democrats have never liked Joe the business owner. They like Joe’s vote and tax dollars.
amerpundit on February 12, 2008 at 2:50 PM
They keep using this word, “patriot”. I do not think they know what it means.
bbz123 on February 12, 2008 at 2:51 PM
We should start a post the “road to fascism” … This can be a point of interest along the way. This is how the journey begins.
tarpon on February 12, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Well, that helps explain the flag with Che on it.
boomer on February 12, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Oppose the war=Patriotic
Oppose Unions=Unpatriotic
Lot’s of job opportunities for Apparatchiks in an Obama Administration!
Buy Danish on February 12, 2008 at 2:52 PM
No doubt that non-union shops will be designated “non-patriotic.”
Rod on February 12, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Boy, we have GOT to get congress back.
boomer on February 12, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Wow, forget about the “Patriot” tag. Whatever you call it, on substance alone that’s probably the single most blatantly fascistic economic policy I’ve heard openly espoused in this country. Please the State and be rewarded, defy the State and be taxed.
Charismatic leaders, socialism, and the demand for “change” aren’t all they’re cracked up to be. Just ask 1930’s and ’40’s Europe.
Blacklake on February 12, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Its the very definiton of “National Socialism”
William Amos on February 12, 2008 at 2:58 PM
It is becoming hard not to invoke Godwin’s anymore.Every step they take…..
bbz123 on February 12, 2008 at 3:00 PM
YUP. But sadly, to vote for McCain will delay that because folks will stay complacent (and accept more elitists with an “R” behind their name and no substance to back it up, even for the congressional elections. What’s to stop them from running, you voted for McCain he must be good, is what they will say and think).
Depressing as it may be, most folks don’t get motivated until they hit rock bottom (especially those of a conservative mindset… liberals just stay at rock bottom and beg for handouts).
TOPV on February 12, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Great, so now a company’s patriotism is defined by whether it prostrates itself before the unions. If anybody is paying attention to the details of the Obama candidacy, he will go down in the general election. Unfortunately, I’m not sure enough people will get beyond the aura that’s being created for him right now.
Dudley Smith on February 12, 2008 at 3:02 PM
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
Obama is an onion that needs to be pealed back.
bnelson44 on February 12, 2008 at 3:03 PM
“Obamination” , did you coin that Bryan? That is a good one!
abinitioadinfinitum on February 12, 2008 at 3:04 PM
http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv2ch12.html
William Amos on February 12, 2008 at 3:05 PM
ok, non-adversarial hypo: if this were called the “Nice Corporation Act,” what would be the big problems?
i ask not to argue that the language of the act is a good idea, but to argue we need to come up with better opposition than just it’s title.
locke on February 12, 2008 at 3:08 PM
McCain is a liberal so why not elect Obama? Might as well sit this out and get the guaranteed conservative win in 2012? How bad could Obama mess things up in 4 years?
This is just the start.
Maybe once Hillary loses in a couple of weeks, Coulter will consider supporting McCain over Obama.
dedalus on February 12, 2008 at 3:09 PM
The, “Kiss the Ass of Powerful Democrats in Congress Act”
or the “Contribute Massive Funds to the Democratic Party During Campaign Season or Risk Being Labeled Unpatriotic Act“
Jimmy the Dhimmi on February 12, 2008 at 3:09 PM
So what’s the eventual inevitable next stage after the “non-patriotic” companies don’t fall in lock step with the “patriotic” companies who kow-tow to the narcissistic egomaniacal Democrats? Sieze them there companies and put them under government control?
It’s ironic how all the MoveOn hippy types and code pinko’s and the like all call the Republicans and Republican leaders fascists, when all they’ve done is empower and embolden the true blue fascists. The socialist-communist Dems. This is as blatant a case of fascist wrist twisting as I’ve ever seen.
They even have Che Guevera on Cuban flags in their campaign offices. All hail the Hugo Chavez Jr’s! …whether you like it or not, or you’ll pay dearly
SilverStar830 on February 12, 2008 at 3:10 PM
By “decent wage”, I assume they means that you have to hire a comrade whose only job is to report you to the Committee on Unpatriotic Business Practices.
Being unpatriotic is totally different from being a counter-revolutionary. Anyone who disagrees with that has to attend mandatory sensitivity training at their own expense.
pedestrian on February 12, 2008 at 3:10 PM
This is completely asinine.
NeoconNews.com on February 12, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Under that first layer you’ll find a mean and bitter woman he commonly refers to as “wife”.
SilverStar830 on February 12, 2008 at 3:13 PM
WTF?
pedestrian on February 12, 2008 at 3:13 PM
We’re not going to have a temporary Misery Index like we did during the Carter years.
We’re going to have one in perpetuity.
BowHuntingTexas on February 12, 2008 at 3:14 PM
Why are the democrats opposed to confidential voting on a sealed ballot when it comes to unions?
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on February 12, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Only one step away from designating citizens as “patriotic” or “unpatriotic.”
And so far all anyone has done is scratch the surface of what Obama wants to do. I’m certain worse lies ahead.
MrScribbler on February 12, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Scary.
And the libs accuse US of being totalitarian fascists?
Gimme a break.
Shirotayama on February 12, 2008 at 3:22 PM
I’d say circus dog.
abinitioadinfinitum on February 12, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Isn’t this against the law??? Didn’t Bill Clinton try this with Smith and Wesson, telling them if they supported him and his gun control push he would give them government contracts??
Yes, wonderful, charismatic make the ladies cry Obama who just wants us all to get along, as long we all just agree that being a Socialist/Fascist is patriotic,, then it’ll all be OK!
And the ladies cried and screamed with tears, as he tenderly crushes their liberty with his feet, “We love you!”
JellyToast on February 12, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Liberals demand patriotism from corporations while they themselves do all they can to ensure our defeat in the GWOT.
Now that’s audacity!
CliffHanger on February 12, 2008 at 3:23 PM
So, I mean, in strict, actual economic terms, that’s facism. Corporations are privately owned, but operated on a state approved list of resources, giving preference to the most goodthinkful organizations. It’s so outright that it’s creepy. I wonder if the benefits of Patriot branding are enough to make it a stranglehold. It’s a free-market, so long as everyone in it does exactly what the government tells them, and they expect it to resurrect the economy?!
Spc Steve on February 12, 2008 at 3:23 PM
So if they changed the name, we’d be ok with it? Or are there more problems with it? That’s all I’m asking.
I made a C in Econ 101, I’m just trying to learn.
locke on February 12, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Keep swooning over the suave, flannel-mouth uniter and pay no attention to the stuttering, stumbling, angry, liberal fascist behind the curtain.
I wonder if the Drive-Bys will ever draw back that curtain and take away this fraud’s teleprompter.
NemoParticularis on February 12, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Where does the newly minted Leader of the Republican Party, John McCain, stand on this?
RushBaby on February 12, 2008 at 3:29 PM
I hear on the radio someone ask, “If Barack gets elected president, does that make this country an Obama Nation“
AverageJoe on February 12, 2008 at 3:29 PM
If only the wrong people were not pushing this idea, because this idea is a damn good one. I can think of at least one set of corporations that need to bend over backwards to prove their loyalty: the oil companies that are friendly with the wretched kingdom and all the other nations of OPEC.
mram on February 12, 2008 at 3:30 PM
We’re Skrood, folks. No matter who wins, this is the type of thing we’ll be seeing for at least four years.
jdawg on February 12, 2008 at 3:31 PM
It’s really simple. There are two points to this: Intimidation and contributions.
Contributions: Unions are huge contributors to the US Democrat party. More union members = more contributions.
Intimidation: Why are votes for public office done in private these days? To keep thugs and bullies from seeing what you are doing and exacting retribution. Open non secret union ballots mean the bullies (unions) can/will extract retribution on those who don’t vote union.
Ive been a forced member of a union twice in my life, all they did is collect my dies and confiscate half of my raises to pay for their increased expenses.
Duncan Khuver on February 12, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Dang that should have been dues not does.
Duncan Khuver on February 12, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Horror.
Why can’t congresscritters be impeached for such a blatant attempt at corrupting the US government?
Where the hell would we start? Many wheels would fall off, and many balls of string would unravel.
LimeyGeek on February 12, 2008 at 3:33 PM
I don’t have a better quote handy, but a passage from wiki should indicate what John Locke was famous for:
In addition, property precedes government and government cannot “dispose of the estates of the subjects arbitrarily.”
Obama wants to legislate giving selective tax breaks and government contracts to those whose private behavior best benefits the preferences of the supporters of the party in power. That type of corruption is age old and is well known regardless of what name is given to it.
pedestrian on February 12, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Credit where it’ due, I caught “Obamination” on Laura Ingraham this morning. I don’t think she coined it either. Doesn’t matter. It deserves the widest possible use and broadcast.
Bryan on February 12, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Quite right. So why can’t we fire their asses for such attempts to subvert the government?
LimeyGeek on February 12, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Off topic a little but check out the picture of Obama for this thread on HA’s home page. Really LOOK at it. Anybody else think he looks like a teletubby?
kcd on February 12, 2008 at 3:39 PM
A must-read to understand this mindset is Jonah Goldberg’s new book, “Liberal Fascism”
He nailed it.
iurockhead on February 12, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Moe like an Oompa Loompa. Pass the chocolate.
iurockhead on February 12, 2008 at 3:41 PM
So, let’s see…they’re going to *gasp* question people’s patriotism!?! I thought that was…was…beyond the pale! I guess I forgot about the Democrat exclusion clause.
CP on February 12, 2008 at 3:42 PM
So it begins….
Techie on February 12, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Take the money you would send to McCain and give it to your local Republican ticket provided they aren’t contaminated with the RINO virus.
ronsfi on February 12, 2008 at 3:46 PM
Gosh, I wonder if this got the stamped approval of Oprah?
moonsbreath on February 12, 2008 at 3:46 PM
1.) Stop drinking the National Socialist Kool-Aid.
2.) Wash your mouth out with soap.
3.) Read some damn books.
4.) Get back to us when you have some rational perspective on economics and history.
*All prescriptions offered here may be taken to apply equally to McCain.
Deety on February 12, 2008 at 3:46 PM
my own namesake used to educate me, well done.
seriously, thank your for elaborating. i guess i was under the assumption that selective tax breaks / deductions were more common. or maybe they are, but this is just taking things way too far.
locke on February 12, 2008 at 3:50 PM
Im pretty sure this is unconstitutional. One of the few Presidential Executive Orders that was ruled unconstitutional was Billy Jeff’s attempt to refuse to give govt contracts to companies that used strikebusters.
Chuck Schick on February 12, 2008 at 3:50 PM
If we would let oil companies research and drill without all the restrictions, they wouldn’t have to be so friendly with OPEC. My father used to work R&D for a major oil company; they could get lots more oil right here in the US if the gov’t would allow it. Oil companies are not evil incarnate.
TX Mom on February 12, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Bush was pretty sure that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional and he had a veto pen if that gives you any comfort.
Deety on February 12, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Oh, and I suppose you want to start drilling for oil in the Everglades and the Grand Canyon now too, do ya?
Despoiler.
;)
Deety on February 12, 2008 at 4:02 PM
Yes.
davod on February 12, 2008 at 4:04 PM
Looks like McCain isn’t going to be the only candidate in November who needs to be educated about how economies work.
AZCoyote on February 12, 2008 at 4:07 PM
What suprised me most about Dean Barnett’s piece on Obama’s telecrutch is that he said Obama eschewed sloganeering. This from Mr. CHANGE! HOPE! YES WE CAN? Yeah right.
Obama is just a darker skinned Ron Burgandy. He’ll read ANYTHING the teleprompter puts up because he has no skill articulating his own beliefs and positions. Obama is an angry statist nightmare, the guy who fills his teleprompter just writes his speeches.
BKennedy on February 12, 2008 at 4:08 PM
I’m always struck by the irony of how liberals cling to their individual freedom of choice while demanding that the freedom of others be taken away. So glad I’ve got them to think for me — it makes it so much easier. Four legs good, two legs baaaad…
Why do I get the feeling that should Obama become President he would like to “revise” the Constitution? After all, what could some old white guys in wigs 232 years ago really know about our global consciousness today?
Somebody take that Grammy away from him before he hurts someone with it.
Numenorean on February 12, 2008 at 4:09 PM
I’m telling you…
This guy is drinking his own Kool-Aid. The more the crowds adore him the more he exists in his own little rockstar world and forgets he has to win an election in the United States.
I’m beginning to want him to ascend to the nomination on the golden wings of a million dreams of his delerious acolytes.
What happens to the “wall of separation” between church and state when the candidate is the religion?
Typhoon on February 12, 2008 at 4:09 PM
The politics of the left has BEEN their religion for decades. That’s why they want God out of the public square and why they are trying to rewrite our history and remove any Judeo-Christian roots.
ihasurnominashun on February 12, 2008 at 4:15 PM
This is some scary stuff…
Priscilla on February 12, 2008 at 4:18 PM
This.
Keep your weekends free.
Deety on February 12, 2008 at 4:26 PM
This capitalist is about to get queasy…planned economies are NOT American.
FLcapitalistthug on February 12, 2008 at 4:28 PM
Liberalism is a disease. An illness that creeps in to the brain and begins to rot it.
kcd on February 12, 2008 at 4:33 PM
manwithblackhat on February 12, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Do you think we would become “Obama Nation” instead?
Seriously, I need some guidance here. If one can vote in the Democratic primaries in Virginia, would a vote for Obama help our common cause by being a vote AGAINST Hillary?
manwithblackhat on February 12, 2008 at 4:36 PM
manwithblackhat on February 12, 2008 at 4:36 PM
FWIW I think it would be easier to fight the slide into a “progressive” state without the warmening factor of Obama’s charisma.
Deety on February 12, 2008 at 4:45 PM
Tax breaks for one side will = fines for the other. It’s a nice friendly way to package socialism.
- The Cat
MirCat on February 12, 2008 at 4:46 PM
For those of you who have read Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged–any of this ring a bell?
For those of you haven’t read Atlas Shrugged, please do so! Just ignore the sappy romance sections…
Montana on February 12, 2008 at 4:49 PM
So, a vote for Obama just to diss Hillary is out, then. It just crossed my mind for a bit. I can’t imagine Obama knowing enough to be dangerous, on the other hand I know what Hillary is capable of doing. I can’t see the GOP being much help if McCain is as conservative a candidate as we can come up with.
manwithblackhat on February 12, 2008 at 4:49 PM
I know, and…
I hear ya…
But I watched the speech Barnett wrote about and I was struck by the very same things.
The more Barry exists in his echo chamber the more he thinks that the adoring left is all there is.
It isn’t. There’s a whole, huge most-of-the-country-that-isn’t-political-junkies-like-us out there, and this kind of nonsense; The Messiah laying on of hands at tent meetings and taking away profits and setting up one kind of corporation as special…they’re going to tune in one day and see all that and wonder if the Obamaphiles have lost their freaking minds.
Go, Barry.
Go.
Typhoon on February 12, 2008 at 4:50 PM
This is prefect. This is exactly the stuff needed to skewer Obama.
Let’s have more of these ideas, Senator!
drjohn on February 12, 2008 at 4:52 PM
heh, that should cut it down to about 800 pages.
12thman on February 12, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Umm how does
equal
?
Usually a politician “talks” with another not because they agree with the other but just to acknowledge the other person’s existence. Showing that: I am listening to you, give me your super delegate support (and even if this Senator isn’t a super delegate, their support is still welcomed – no doubt).
I would say that this mischaracterization constitues erroneous reporting, but then again this is a blog…
Furthermore the line that Obama isn’t the greatest orator of them all without his tele’crunch’ is very true. However I would say that their are three sides to Obama, all of which should be taken together to speak to who Obama is.
The first being with the teleprompter he gives a well crafted speech, but I think it only plays to his relevant audience where he doesn’t interject hate, but rather elevates. The second would be when he is answering a question, Obama tends to fumble his words, I would argue that this is because he is actually thinking of the answer in real time instead of answering with crafted remarks. I say that he is thinking because the answers that do come out of his mouth, eventualy, don’t seem to be erroneous but instead taken together – well thought out. The third would be the Obama with the index card, here he is much more inclined to deviate from elevation and fly more toward humor as his oratory moniker. Using humor only implies hate, and is sufficient enough for everybody of the regular mind to still like you.
PresidenToor on February 12, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Obama is a cosponsor of the bill.
Deety on February 12, 2008 at 5:29 PM
No surprise, the left has always had a love-hate relationship with thug rule and fascism. Well, more love than hate.
This bill is just Congress’ way of legislatively taking a seat in corporate boardrooms. “Do as we say or suffer.”
I’ll bet they made an easy-to-revise set of rules corporations have to follow. Maybe they’ll make it an independent (heh) commission.
Spc Steve had it right, this is textbook fascism.
The Dems have Godwinized themselves. Will the MSM object? OF COURSE NOT! They crave fascism as much as the Dems do.
Go ahead and try to defend this crap, lefties. We’ve got your number.
Merovign on February 12, 2008 at 5:32 PM
PresidenToor on February 12, 2008 at 5:33 PM
Maybe, Brian just assumed that the Hotties here would actually follow the link he provided straight to the red-meat.
Deety on February 12, 2008 at 5:39 PM
You Know, when a candidate shows up at a venue in front of voters and the attendees need to be asked not to boo him or her, well, you know, usually that candidate is worried.
John doesn’t seem worried at all.
Now you know why, my friends.
Fall. In. Line.
Dorvillian on February 12, 2008 at 5:50 PM
Obama is the cure.
Unfortunately he thinks the illness is freedom.
profitsbeard on February 12, 2008 at 6:11 PM
Bryan-
Join the Obama-Nation!
has a good, judo-twist ring to it.
And the subtitle could be:
Empty suits in every pot.
profitsbeard on February 12, 2008 at 6:14 PM
Anyone want to take dibs on what will be the first corporation to be labeled “unpatriotic?” I call Wal-Mart!!
artlover on February 12, 2008 at 6:15 PM
Is that graphic on the HotAir front page link to this article a real (’official’) Obama campaign image?
I’d really like to know if it is real, or something ‘our side’ cooked up.
Because, somehow, I find that image much more frightening than the Che / Cuba flag in one of his campaign offices.
LegendHasIt on February 12, 2008 at 6:21 PM
I think it’s something his supporters cooked up.
Bryan on February 12, 2008 at 6:27 PM
Nah; Haliburton, followed by Blackwater.
While regular liberal idiots amongst us commoners hate Wal-Mart, the liberal politicians secretly love it.
Without Wal-Mart, Communist China would be be in trouble financially, and the Democrat party, top to bottom, and all the branches of it are beholden to the ChiComs.
LegendHasIt on February 12, 2008 at 6:29 PM
Thanks Bryan; I appreciate the direct response.
Somehow that graphic creeps me out, even though Power FROM the people is an idea that I agree with in the proper context.
The image itself is like something out of 1984 ….Fahrenheit 451…..or V. (The old series, OR the Natalie Portman movie ;-)
Or 1938 Germany or 1917 Russia if real world examples are more apropos.
LegendHasIt on February 12, 2008 at 6:39 PM
“Are you now, or have you ever been, a McCarthyite?”
Tzetzes on February 12, 2008 at 8:24 PM
I’m going to commit the double sin of not reading the preceding comments (no time, in a rush) AND for thinking that I kinda like the idea. Not the implementation, which is asinine, but the idea of rewarding companies who make a point of keeping their business within US boundaries and law. I am not a protectionist, but neither am I an open borders free trade type. Business is the life blood of the American economy, but if we outsource all of the production end so that all we are is a market for consumption, it becomes a drain as well. By offering incentives to companies who remain within the US, we can offset the tax burden that might otherwise drive them from our shores. The part of globalization I dislike the most is that companies feel the need to go to the third world and pay slave wages to offset losses from taxes etc. If there is a way to reduce that burden and keep them and the jobs they provide within these borders, I think it should be explored.
Preferably without the loaded language, though.
Militant Bibliophile on February 12, 2008 at 8:44 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »