Category: Politics

1.) Goodbye 1st Amendment

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0209/Sen_Stabenow_wants_hearings_on_radio_accountability_talks_fairness_doctrine.html?showall

BILL PRESS: Yeah, I mean look: They have a right to say that. They’ve got a right to express that. But, they should not be the only voices heard. So, is it time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine?

SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else – I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.

2.) Goodbye 2nd Amendment

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=4405

Here’s what Mr. Clinton had to say:

“[W]e will not go forward anymore, I don’t think, with the kind of politics of division and destruction that drug us down for too long. That’s essentially what is different, and what creates this great moment of opportunity . . . . to have conversations with people, instead of screaming matches, over things like what former Mayor [now Brady Campaign president Paul] Helmke works on so much—over what is the best way to keep the American people safe. Nobody wants to repeal the Second Amendment, and nobody wants to keep you out of the deer woods, but wouldn’t it be nice if your children didn’t have to worry about being mowed down by an assault weapon when they turn the corner?”

…Clinton continued, this time speaking more broadly than in reference to gun control alone. “[W]e’re now in a position to begin again,” he said. “It’s not a leftward movement. It’s a forward, communitarian movement.” Communitarianism is a movement that considers individualism an impediment to society uniformly adopting values the movement considers appropriate, including authoritarian gun control. For example, the Communitarian Network platform states “there is little sense in gun registration. What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament of the kind that exists in practically all democracies.”

3.) Goodbye Jurisdictional Sphere of the Family

http://www.redstate.com/warner_todd_huston/2009/02/07/boxer-urges-quick-handover-of-us-power-to-un/

The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which opponents say could destroy American sovereignty by imposing international rulings on American law, could reach the Senate within 60 days. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) says she wants a 60-day timeframe for the State Department to complete its review so the Senate can move toward ratification of the UNCRC. During the Senate Confirmation hearing between Boxer and UN Ambassador-designate Susan Rice held on January 15, 2009, Boxer told Rice the UNCRC would protect “the most vulnerable people of society.”

Opponents vehemently disagree. Under the Supremacy Clause (Article VI) of the U.S. Constitution, ratified treaties preempt state law. Since virtually all laws in the U.S. regarding children are state laws, this treaty would negate nearly 100% of existing American family law. Moreover, it would grant the government authority to override parental decisions by applying even to good parents a standard now only used against those convicted of abuse or neglect.

“A lot of conservatives were really worried about Obama, even though they were not great fans of the Republicans, because they preferred the devil they knew to the devil they didn’t know. But it is time for them to relax. Turns out Obama is the devil we know.”

Doug Wilson
Blog Mablog

In a brief article at Doug Wilson’s site Doug tries to convince his readers that Obama is not really a drastic leftist but just another politician just like the other politicians that have held the office of President.

I have found Doug tends to get ahead of himself especially on the subject of National politics. This is no exception. First, some of the nominations of Obama (Solicitor General, Assistant Attorney General, Global Warming Czar) are clear indicators that Obama is not, in Doug’s words, “just the devil we know.” He is a Devil far worst than the Devil we have known. Second, Obama has been President for two weeks. It is waaaaaaaaay to earlier for Doug or any leader in the Church to be telling Christians that they don’t have to be concerned because Obama is just another garden variety wicked politician. I think we need to wait a solid year to see whether or not Obama turns out to be the devil we know.

Contrary to Doug Wilson, my advice is to keep your powder dry and to wait and continue to evaluate.

On a vote completely along party lines the Democrats shoved through the “Slavery Stimulus Program.” As this monstrosity goes to the Senate it is sure to garner some RINO (“Republican in Name Only”) votes.

Still, if the House Republicans hold true after this bill is returned from the House Senate committee what will have been successfully accomplished is forcing the Democratic party to take complete ownership of this “Slavery Stimulus Program.” While conceding that there is a long time before the 2010 mid-term elections, this forcing of the Democrats to be completely and uniquely identified with this legislation will give Republicans the opportunity to do in 2010 what they did in 1994 and that is to Nationalize the mid-term elections. Mid-term elections traditionally means losses for the party in power and Republicans will have the added benefit of being able to run against a dismal economy that can be hung around the necks of the Democrats. The Democrats, sed contra, will try to run in 2010 against George W. Bush and the failed Republican economy.

However, keep in mind that we are talking about the Stupid Party here so anything can happen.

Here is a good article that quickly summarizes what is in the “Slavery Stimulus Bill.”

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/01/28/good-morning-suckers

“Whenever a new majority coalition comes into dominance, as the Democrats in toppling the old Republican ascendancy, it brings with it a distinctively different orbit of political conflict. This orbit also governs the movement of struggle within the minority party.”

Samuel Lubell
Future Of American Politics

Lubell wrote this book in 1951 and the insights that Lubell offered in that book are as fresh today as they were when he offered them in 1951. If you are interested in the way that political parties shift and recast themselves and if you can find an old copy of Lubell’s book you would do well to read and absorb it. I had to read it in my undergraduate work and have referred to it often since then.

The essence of what Lubell is getting at above is both profoundly simple and yet simply profound. What Lubell was contending is that when a political party has strung together a series of victories that establish it as the majority party what inevitably must happen, in order for the minority party to survive and compete is that it must, in significant ways, take on the visage of its competition. In short it must become a “me too” political party.

This can be seen time and time again in history. In 1840 the Whigs ran General Wm. Henry Harrison and sold him as a populist and as a man of the people. This was a candidate and a page right out of the Democrats book when they ran General Andy Jackson. The Whigs realized that if they wanted to win that they had to mimic the Democrats and so they came up with the Log Cabins and Hard Cider campaign that put Harrison over the top.

In the 1960’s Senator Barry Goldwater complained publicly about how the Republican leadership had become a “Dime Store New Dealism.” Goldwater’s complaint was that Republicans had basically embraced the Democratic New Deal paradigm and only dissented from New Dealism by insisting that Republicans could be more efficient Democrats then the Democrats of the Democratic party.

These are but two examples of others that might be offered. As interesting as this is though I am not primarily concerned about teaching a History lesson here. What I want to examine is how the Obama election, combined with the successes of Democrats in the 2006, and 2008 election cycles might change the Republicans. This is important to consider for if the Republican leadership believes that the Democrats, in the last two election cycles, have achieved political re-alignment then inevitably we can look for the Republican party to become even more of a “me too” party then it already is. If the Republican leadership believes this then Obama will have very little resistance as Republicans look to support his policies so that they may return to their constituencies to run in 2010 as “me too” Republicans.

There is much to argue for the possibility that Democrats have achieved a political realignment in the last two election cycles. One must consider the inroads that Democrats made in traditionally Republican states. Further, one must consider the impact of minority voting patterns for Democrats. This is especially important if the percentage of the minority population continues to rise significantly.

However, in my estimation it is still to early for the Republicans to concede Democratic hegemony and so begin recasting themselves into an image of the Democratic party light. The Goldwater / Reagan wing of the Republican party still can salvage the party and avoid political realignment but it must act quickly and decisively.

First, it must publicly disassociate itself from the Republicanism of the Bushes and of its most recent standard bearer Sen. John McCain. The Republican party, in the last six Presidential election cycles, have offered the electorate inside the beltway type Republicans. In these candidacies Republicans have had precious little in the way of campaigns that have emphasized limited Government, fiscal responsibility, humble foreign policy, sound money, social conservativism, and the integrity of our borders.

Second, if the Republican party wants to continue as something distinct from the Democratic party then in the next two years it must resist, resist, and resist. It must draw the sharpest of lines between itself and the current Democratic regime. Now is an excellent time to resist, because the Democrats in charge are not moderate Democrats but Democrats who embrace some of the most radical leftism that we have seen in a very long time. Democrats have majorities and the Republicans ought to make them use those majorities to accomplish their agenda. Let the Democrats be Democrats and let the Republicans lose seeking to stop their policies. This is all with a view of being able to run against the mess that these policies are going to create.

Third, the Republicans have to hang this current and coming recession on the Democrats. There is plenty of evidence to make that case but they have to be willing to do so.

Fourth, the Republicans have to, very loudly and very often, make the case that the Democratic party is actually the Socialist Party. They should use the word “Socialist” often when referring to Democrats and they should explain precisely what they mean by that in simple terms that the American public can understand.

Fifth, the Republican party cannot win solely by merely being negative but also must offer substantive alternatives. They ought to cast a vision that is both workable and stands in contrast to socialism.

Sixth, if the Republicans wish to survive as a real viable party they must, above all, stop amnesty for illegal immigrants. Should illegal immigrants be given amnesty the Republican party will disappear by weight of sheer numbers.

Were I a betting man I would bet that the current Republicans will not resist and so will become more of what they have been for quite some time and that is just a mere reflection of the Democratic Party.

I am doing my best to ignore the Obama orgasm, and yet it is almost impossible to get completely away from the “never met a lie we wouldn’t tell” media. Consequently, I have heard that Obama is going to extensive lengths to invoke the specter of Abraham Lincoln. Obama is using the Bible to be sworn in that was used by Lincoln when he took the oath of office. Also there is the reality that he took a Lincolnesque train trip from Illinois to Washington DC. There is even word that at one of the festivities after the inauguration they are going to eat the same type of food served after Lincoln was inaugurated on China that is a replica of that used in 1861.

Now, I know I am cynical to a fault but I find myself asking what is the meaning of this Lincoln parroting. Is Obama cleverly signaling that he, like Lincoln’s dispossessing of the South in favor of Northern industrialists, is intent on dispossessing one part of the population in the interest of another? Is Obama signaling that he, like Lincoln before him, is intent of trampling on the civil rights of Americans who oppose his policies? Is Obama signaling that he, like Lincoln before him, is going to grow the power and authority of the centralized state? Is Obama signaling that he, like Lincoln before him, is going to institute the draft? Is Obama signaling that he, like Lincoln before him, is intent on spending outrageous sums of money on internal improvements?

There are other similarities between Lincoln and Obama. The rhetoric of each is (was) mesmerizing. They were (are) both inexperienced lawyers from Illinois upon taking office. They each had (have) a cursory attachment to Christianity all the while explicitly denying its essence. They each had remote relationships with their Fathers.

Lincoln was great for America if you belonged to the special interest group that he represented. If you weren’t part of that group then Lincoln was death.

Or maybe Obama just likes stovepipe hats.