Tag: politics

In fairness, he probably wasn’t even eligible for that one-term anyhow:

Contrary to pretty much every projection until now, Democratic control of the Senate is also starting to coming into question. While Mr Obama’s approval ratings have continued to fall, and now hover at dangerously close to 40 per cent according an ABC-Washington Post poll published on Tuesday, the fate of his former colleagues in the Senate looks even worse.

In the past few days polls have shown Republican challengers taking the lead over previously safe Democratic incumbents, such as Barbara Boxer in California and Russ Feingold in Wisconsin. Indeed, given the uniformly negative direction in the numbers, it is now quite possible the Republicans could win the Senate seats formerly held by both President Obama in Illinois, and Joe Biden, vice-president, in Delaware.

Add to that the continuing woes of Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic majority leader, in Nevada, where the Republican party’s recent nomination of Sharron Angle, a far-right and highly eccentric Tea Party supporter, appear to have had no positive effect on Mr Reid’s prospects, and the Grand Old party has a good shot at taking control of both houses of Congress. Worse for Mr Obama, political scientists say that at this stage in the calendar, there is almost nothing he can do about it.

Forget re-election, I don’t think Obama is even going to be on the ballot in 2012 regardless of whether Democrats lose the House or both the House and Senate. And this doesn’t have anything to do with various state efforts to force presidential candidates to prove their natural-born citizenship, I think that he’s going to face multiple challengers in the Democratic primary and end up withdrawing ala LBJ.

If you’re a Democratic politician, you have to be terrified right now. As bad as Obama has been for the country, he has been even worse for his political party. They’re facing a difficult choice between internecine insurrection and total obliteration in 2012.

It only looks like you’re going onward and upward until you go over the cliff’s edge:

Who has driven America to this precipice? Certainly part of the blame belongs to the politicians, primarily Democrats, who created and enlarged these entitlements without imposing taxes anywhere near sufficient to sustain them, and otherwise seriously mismanaged the programs’ finances. On a deeper level, however, the blame belongs to the late-19th- and early-20th-century Progressive movement. Despite recent claims that the Progressives had little impact upon the development of liberalism in the New Deal and beyond, including in the realm of social insurance, the Progressives were in fact the founding fathers of social insurance in America. Far from making a break with Progressivism, accordingly, the enactment of these programs during the New Deal and Great Society represents the clear policy fruit of the philosophical revolution as to the end of government, and the fundamental conception of morality underlying it, that the Progressives fought so vigorously to effect.

Of course, persuading many Americans that Progressivism initiated a struggle over the soul of America is a hard sell. For decades, liberal scholars and politicians have attributed the 20th-century growth of government to changes in the mere material circumstances of American life. The Progressive era’s progressive reforms, we have been told, were the necessary and inevitable response to problems created by the closing of the frontier, the rise of huge corporations and a transition to large-scale factory production, population shifts out of the countryside and into the city, large waves of immigration, etc. The New Deal, in turn, was simply a response to the economic hardships caused by the Great Depression. By attributing these periods’ reforms to America’s changing material circumstances, the orthodox view implies that there was no change of philosophical or moral import likewise under way. More to the point, it implies that the Progressives’ reforms were guided by the principles of the American Founding.

And yet this is demonstrably false.

How I love those two words. “Demonstrably false”. That, all ye of the Dread Ilk, is the hallmark of a writer who knows what she is talking about and is calling her shot. It’s a very good article showing how Progressivism is intrinsically hostile to natural and individual rights and has replaced them with government-granted, situational privileges. And she even shows how it is ultimately self-limiting given the inexorable requirements of increasing debt involved.

I find it remarkable that so many Americans still believe they live in a Constitutional democratic republic when it’s quite clear that it is neither Constitutional nor democratic, nor is it even a republic any longer.

Last night, as part of a procedural vote on the emergency war supplemental bill, House Democrats attached a document that “deemed as passed” a non-existent $1.12 trillion budget. The execution of the “deeming” document allows Democrats to start spending money for Fiscal Year 2011 without the pesky constraints of a budget. The procedural vote passed 215-210 with no Republicans voting in favor and 38 Democrats crossing the aisle to vote against deeming the faux budget resolution passed.

Never before — since the creation of the Congressional budget process — has the House failed to pass a budget, failed to propose a budget then deemed the non-existent budget as passed as a means to avoid a direct, recorded vote on a budget, but still allow Congress to spend taxpayer money.

I mean, Congress isn’t even seriously trying to make things look legitimate anymore. They’re barely bothering to go through the motions and they’re certainly not concerned about whatever the will of the People might happen to be. But please don’t let that get in the way of enjoying your Department of Public Safety-regulated, Division of Fire Safety-approved, U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms-licensed pyrotechnics celebrating liberty today.

So saith the Supreme Court:

OKAY, having quickly skimmed the McDonald opinion, a few thoughts.

First, it’s 5-4. Though a pro-gun-rights opinion may pacify the gun-rights crowd to a degree, the closeness of these decisions is likely to keep them active in upcoming elections.

Second, it shows how little influence legal academics have. Virtually all of us have been saying that Slaughter House is lousy and that privileges and immunities should be far more significant, but only Justice Thomas was willing to go that far.

Third, it really is interesting how much emphasis the majority, and Justice Thomas’s concurrence, put on the racist roots of gun control. See this article and this one by Bob Cottrol and Ray Diamond for more background. And isn’t it interesting that this is happening on the same day the Senate’s last Klansman went to his reward?

On the one hand, I am all for whatever puts more guns in the hands of individuals. Or tactical nukes, for that matter. I will never understand why people who understand the many and manifest evils of the DMV think that only government employees should have weapons of mass destruction. Today’s decision didn’t go nearly far enough to return the many laws of the land on the matter to a reasonably Constitutional state.

On the other, I am opposed to increased federalization even in a good cause. Although since the States haven’t been sovereign since the political debate was settled by mass slaughter, I suppose it’s a bit late to worry about that now. And since the federal government isn’t about to stop ruling over the state and local governments with an iron hand, this is a better decision than the most likely alternative.

And much respect to the liberal law professors whose intellectual integrity played a major role in this case. Remember them when you find yourself tempted to think all liberals are inconsistent and hypocritical charlatans. Integrity and honesty are not part of the political spectrum.

I’m not sure, but I think the rabbis just called her a pig:

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is “not kosher” — meaning she is not fit to serve on the court — according to more than 850 Orthodox members of the Rabbinical Alliance of America. That’s the term the rabbis used about Kagan in a press release issued Thursday, saying “Elena Kagan is not kosher. She is not fit to sit on this Court — or any court.”

Rabbi Yehuda Levin, spokesman for the alliance, told CNSNews.com on Thursday that “a great deal has been made about the fact that she would be the second Jewish woman on the court, and we want to signal to people across the country that we take no pride in this.”

I can’t muster much concern about Kagan one way or the other. I mean, the only surprise was that she wasn’t black. I was expecting Obama to appoint a black Marxist lesbian, so the fact that he went with a Jewish one instead doesn’t fill me with alarm. It’s not like the Supreme Court matters anymore, it’s about as relevant as the Imperial Roman Senate.

Two things. First, this proves that Democrats are children who are inherently incapable of taking responsibility for anything. Blaming Republicans because 100,000 Democrats voted for an unemployed man with no apparent interest in politics marks a new high-water point for their whining. Second, ALVIN GREENE FOR PRESIDENT! I would totally vote for the man.

There are suggestions that George Stephanopoulis may have spoken a little too quickly in correcting Obama about “my Muslim faith”:

In the [Israel Today] report, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit was quoted as saying during an appearance on Nile TV that, “The American president told me in confidence that he is a Muslim.”

The White House remained silent on the comment, declining to respond to a WND request for comment.

Curiouser and curiouser… but the question is if this is simply Israeli disinformation being released due to their obvious displeasure with the Obama administration or a genuine statement from an Egyptian official who is confirmed to have met at least twice with Obama in the last two years. Perhaps someone at Fox should get Mr. Gheit on the line and ask him a few pertinent questions.

Given what we know of Obama, it wouldn’t surprise me if he intentionally misspoke. Even the most deceptive individuals can’t seem to resist advertising the truth about themselves to those who are paying attention.