Do We Want Obama to “Reorganize the Federal Government”?

by Ben Johnson

As Egyptians half a world away ponder what kind of government they want to live under, Americans must also ask themselves the same question in the wake of Barack Obama’s latest State of the Union Address. Although his salmon joke got a few (undeserved) laughs, few commented that it came just after President Obama “proposed a “major reorganization of the government.” Although he promised to make America “more competitive,” he provided astoundingly few details about what this would look like. So, Americans must ask ourselves: Do we really want to see a major restructuring of the government under Barack Obama?

We Do Big Things Government

As part of his theme that “We do big things,” Obama told the little people they “need to think bigger. In the coming months, my administration will develop a proposal to merge, consolidate, and reorganize the federal government in a way that best serves the goal of a more competitive America.”

He began by getting his history wrong. “We live and do business in the information age, but the last major reorganization of the government happened in the age of black and white TV,” he claimed. Actually, the last major reorganization of the government was in 2002, with the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, which consolidated 22 separate agencies. Yet federal bureaus told to work together after 9/11 continue to wage turf battles nine years later.

Richard Nixon, too, reorganized government. Casper Weinberger, Nixon’s budget director, told The Washington Post, “Nixon sort of thought that by the stroke of a pen he could do it, but then Watergate came and destroyed his leverage.” Obama, too, is determined to make law with the stroke of a pen. He claimed in his address, “I will submit that proposal to Congress for a vote – and we will push to get it passed.” But if it does not, much of it may be eligible to be implemented by executive order. After all, it has been done before. Leaving aside the objectionable nature of his (likely) means, what ends will they secure?

Obama’s Idea of Success: Prying Into Your Medical Records

Obama gave some indication by praising the federal government’s role in promoting electronic medical records. “Now, we have made great strides over the last two years in using technology and getting rid of waste,” he said. “Veterans can now download their electronic medical records with a click of the mouse.” However, electronic health records open patients to the threat of hackers. More disturbing, a vast array of organizations already have access to patients’ “private” medical information. The greater fear is that ObamaCare may one day use these records to deny coverage to the unfit.

As this author has noted, the process usually begins with the government constricting individuals’ private health choices over what they eat or drink. The USDA recently tested a new program giving food stamp recipients an extra 30 cents for every dollar they spend on fruits and vegetables, while others have tried to ban recipients from purchasing soft drinks.

The government has already begun to hector potential health care liabilities for being out of shape. Last November, the Flagstaff Unified School District in Arizona weighed and measured schoolchildren, sending home letters to the parents of the overweight or obese in an effort to shame them into whipping their children into shape. The Associated Press reported, “School district Superintendent Barbara Hickman said the educators will recommend good nutrition, exercise and a visit to a physician, but it’s up to parents to decide what they want to do.”

But when dealing with state force, what begins with a nudge often ends with the cat o’ nine tails.

The Obama administration has stated “preventative medicine” will play a substantive role in reducing the costs of ObamaCare. What if these parents do not take action? Can the school district place children who eat in the cafeteria on a special diet heavy on greens and devoid of desserts? Can it enroll them students in extra, compulsory physical education? If the children continue to lose the battle of the bulge, can children’s services remove them from their parents’ homes on the grounds their families are endangering their health? In fact, that has already happened – here and around the world.

Japan has already taking punitive measures against adults who do not lose weight. In April 2008, Japan passed a law requiring doctors to measure the waistlines of all citizens aged 40-74 who are covered by public health care. The New York Times reported, “the government will impose financial penalties on companies and local governments that fail to meet specific targets” for their employees’ weight loss. Private companies “must get 10 percent of those deemed metabolic [overweight] to lose weight by 2012, and 25 percent of them to lose weight by 2015.” For instance, computer maker NEC alone faces $19 million in fines if it fails to meet its fitness check-up. Companies are thus leaning on their employees to lose weight – or take medication. Those deemed over the limit “will be given dieting guidance if after three months they do not lose weight.” If they are still overweight after another six months, “those people will be steered toward further re-education.” Of they may be medicated. In 2007, “Akio Inoue, 30, an engineer carrying 238 pounds on a 5-foot-7 frame, was told by a company doctor to lose weight or take medication for his high blood pressure.” The government turned a deaf ear to medical experts’ concerns about overmedication.

How would this play itself out in America? Could doctors (who become government employees under a single-payer health care system) have their Medicare payments cut for every overweight patient in their care? Could the feds sue McDonald’s or Pizza Hut employees for selling pizzas to the obese, rather than cutting off the corpulent like a rummy at last call?

Lest this sound too far-fetched, remember Science Czar John Holdren, who advises President Obama on a wide range of issues, wrote in his book Ecoscience, “it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society…If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility.” (Emphasis added.)

As C.S. Lewis wrote in his essay The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment, “Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

TSA Scanners and Pat-Downs

Obama gave an insight to his ideas of government intrusion with another (unfunny) joke in his address. He claimed significant “investment” in “high-speed rail” could “allow you go places in half the time it takes to travel by car.” Obama quipped, “For some trips, it will be faster than flying – without the pat-down.” That the president chose to crack wise about a process legal scholars believe should be considered a form of sexual assault – and over which Jesse Ventura is suing the government – is disquieting. Moreover, Obama’s TSA brought scanners into bus stations late last year; pat-downs will not be far behind.

A Microchip in Every Dustbin and an Internet ID in Every Computer

Obama’s other innovations give reason for pause. As this author has noted, part of the stimulus funds went to placing microchips in trash bins in Dayton, Ohio. Obama administration officials have also discussed creating an internet ID that could log every website readers visit. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke explained the government is taking this measure to “enhance privacy.”

(More) Government Propaganda

The president provided one concrete detail in his speech: “Because you deserve to know exactly how and where your tax dollars are being spent, you will be able to go to a website and get that information for the very first time in history.” This promise sounds dubious coming from the same candidate who promised he “will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.” That became his first broken promise, only nine days into his presidency.

In fact, his proposed website could be worse than nothing at all. Just last year, Obama made the same promise about stimulus spending, and he did in fact create a web portal. Last year, Rep. Darrell Issa released a 36-page report which documented how that website,, “became a taxpayer-funded tool to promote false and misleading propaganda to support the Democrat-backed stimulus.”

Only in our present media environment could a president discuss freezing government spending at their highest levels in generations, reorganizing our American system of government, undermining the privacy of our medical records, and setting up another government propaganda website while being hailed as an increasingly pro-business “centrist.”

Although the president is promising a massive reorganization of the entire government, the media seem remarkably incurious about the details. It seems clear no one involved in the invasion of privacy and heavy-handed tactics described in this essay – let alone the many abuses not covered – should be given carte blanche to rejigger the structures of governance. Neither should a man with such contempt for this nation’s unique history. Insisting his subjects continue the regime of hope-and-change, he claimed, “That’s what Americans have done for over two hundred years: reinvented ourselves.” On the contrary, for two centuries Americans have harkened back to their founding, and revered and revived the wisdom contained in its founding documents.

That process is underway again today with the Tea Party movement. And it is the greatest obstacle to the government Obama hopes to erect – and the greatest advocate for the one he hopes to erase.

About Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is the editor of several conservative websites. A seasoned journalist, he has broken a host of news stories of national importance and written sizzling editorials that started the nation talking. A former talk show host, he has been a guest on The Michael Savage Show, Nothing But Truth with Crane Durham, Crosstalk on VCY America, The G. Gordon Liddy Show, The Bob Dutko Show, and scores of local programs. The Managing Editor of FrontPage Magazine (2004-2010) and previously its Associate Editor (2003-2004), he is the author of three books. He maintains his own website,, which you can view here. You can contact him here.
This entry was posted in Floyd Reports, News Reports, Opinion and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Do We Want Obama to “Reorganize the Federal Government”?

  1. murmandamus says:

    Yeah, yeah, yeah. Impeach Obama. What BS. Everybody talks about it, but nobody does it. If we're not going to do it why are we making all these empty threats? It only serve to destroy our credibility. Impeachment would be great, but I don't want to hear any more about it until someone is ready to really do it..

  2. Baker1036 says:

    Obama is what happens when we let a Kenyan be president instead of an American!! The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing. When are we going to set this right?

  3. bearone7777 says:

    I want him to re-organize his sch. of travel to get ready to take him back to Chicago to stay for good. as it is time for him to be impeached, and ran quickly out of the office of the Presidency.

  4. psutopgun1 says:

    bearone7777: I believe his actions and those of his appointees deserve charges of treason.

    • JacktheFAC says:

      You can't really charge a man, like this Kenya born usurper, THE LEADER Obamanation, who is not even a citizen, with treason. We can charge him with espionage and terrorism.

  5. Raymond says:

    If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13

    Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts oftheir own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them upunto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. Romans 1: 24, 25, 26, 27.

    The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: forall that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. Deuteronomy 22:5.

    Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner,giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forthfor an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 7

    Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, noridolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. 1 Corinthians 6: 9.

    Knowing this, that the law is not madefor a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and forsinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselveswith mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine. 1 Timothy 1:9,10.

    And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put todeath: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast,and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surelybe put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Lev 20: 15, 16.

    Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. Leviticus 18: 22, 23.

  6. Raymond says:

    "You cannot help the poor
    by destroying the rich.
    You cannot strengthen the weak
    by weakening the strong.
    You cannot bring about prosperity
    by discouraging thrift.
    You cannot lift the wage earner up
    by pulling the wage payer down.
    You cannot further the brotherhood of man
    by inciting class hatred.
    You cannot build character and courage
    by taking away people's initiative and independence.
    You cannot help people permanently
    by doing for them,
    what they could and
    should do for themselves."

    Abraham Lincoln

  7. Raymond says:


    Recently I received a warning about the use of this
    politically incorrect term, so please note: We all
    need to be more sensitive in our choice of words.
    I have been informed that the muslim terrorists,
    who hate our guts and want to kill us, do not like
    to be called "Towel Heads" since the item on their
    head is not actually a towel, but in fact a diaper.
    Therefore, from this point forward, please refer
    to them as "Diaper Heads." Thank you for your
    support and compliance in this delicate matter.

  8. TaterSalad says:

    Allen West needs your support and we need his knowledge because Congressman West will become our next President of the United States: Please become a member and sign up on the website:; target=_blank&gt; <a href="http://;” target=”_blank”>;

  9. GenEarly says:

    Yes! Allen West for President! Get to know him via YouTube or surely you'll get Romney Progressive-ism in 2012.

  10. Pingback: Obama Proposes New Dept. of Corporate Welfare | Western

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>