3 Responses to Happy Halloween!

Democrats Trying to Win Election in Traditional Manner

Friday, October 7, AD 2016

 

Democrats never change.  News from the Illinois county to my east:

 

 

Voter ID laws are racist. Asking questions about people during the voter registration process is xenophobia. If you reduce early voting periods you’re suppressing minorities. All in all, Democrats know that voter fraud is essentially an illusion created by Republicans in an effort to ensure that only rich white people get to vote. That’s why I’m sure that this story out of the Land of Lincoln can’t possibly be correct. (USA Politics)

The Kankakee County Attorney’s office is investigating at least three cases of voter fraud where people were offered bribes for voting.

In addition, State’s Attorney Jamie Boyd said, “several” vote-by-mail applications have been mailed in from people who live outside the county, The Daily Journal is reporting.

“This unprecedented action was taken in response to reports of individuals from Chicago offering gifts to potential voters in exchange for a vote for Kate Cloonen, Hillary Clinton and others,” Boyd said in the news release. “Our office takes seriously the obligation to protect the rights of citizens to vote for the candidate of their choice, and to do so without undue influence from special interest groups.

There was a time (back in the bad old days) in Milwaukee, Wisconsin when unscrupulous politicians would literally drive around and round up homeless people or those who were simply down on their luck and offer them a few bucks to go register to vote and cast a ballot for the politician looking to make the deal. In some cases it wasn’t even cash, but packs of cigarettes. You’re probably thinking that we’re talking about the Great Depression here (and I’m sure that went on, particularly in New York City) but we’re actually talking about two elections ago.

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Democrats Trying to Win Election in Traditional Manner

  • There is the story`that an election was going poorly for the Democrats by late election day. A boss was asked if he was worried. He responded “No, the outlying cemeteries have not reported yet.”

  • As a general rule, almost everything Democrats say they are for, they are actually against. Conversely, almost everything they say they are against, they are actually for. As an example, honesty is not something they are actually for, except in rare circumstances. Listening to a Democrat in one of those brief moments of honesty reminds me of the scene in the original version of Bedazzled where the devil tells Dudley Moore that everything he’s ever said is a lie, including that. Dudley asks, “Including what?” The devil responds: “Including that everything I’ve ever said is a lie. Believe me.”

  • It’s what they do. what are you prepared to do?

  • It’s all part of the fundamental corruption in the Democrat Party. Free stuff and voter fraud is the beginning and end of their strategy. And since most Democrats pay no taxes it is our “privilege” to make this all possible. It is a better racket that the mafia. Just another reason for Trump’s popularity. And to make matters even worse this is the primary party of the Catholic clergy.

  • The problem now is that the intramural culture of the Democratic Party is such that there is no internal resistance to vote fraud. ACORN types can appear at polling places impersonating people they know from their canvassing have moved, can register fictitious individuals, and can mail in absentee ballots for people they know have moved or who are fictitious. Now we’re facing the problem of hacked and rigged tabulations due to the witless application of technology. Years ago, I read an article in an academic journal by a computer science professor making the case that you cannot improve on paper ballots, but his argument was lost on our technofetishist politicians (who also gave you electronic medical records, another problematic application).

    A dozen years ago, I’d have told you that tabulation fraud of the sort Mark Crispin Miller was writing about was nonsense (and John Kerry thought Miller was hawking nonsense). It would require collusion by hundreds of local elected officials in New York, working across party lines. All this (wholly unnecessary) postal voting makes fraud something you can readily accomplish. And the neuralgic reaction of Democratic pols to voter ID laws (replicated by their seals in comboxes) strongly suggests that such would interfere with the modus operandi of street level activists. The reaction has consisted entirely of status games and the impugning of motives, so you know they’ve been up to no good.

  • I meant to say that ACORN types can undertake the fraud, and the media will ignore it or propagate DNC pr. Rank-and-file Democrats will just say it’s the ‘right wing noise machine’ complaining. The culture of the Democratic Party does not admit of fixed rules of competition and impartial referees. What’s ‘fair’ is what gets us what we want.

  • Oh good grief, you are not kidding! My friends in the nursing homes told me they voted for Obama because the “other guy” would take away their social security. I wish I had enough $ to take out a TV ad “Hey senior citizens, the other guy will NOT take away your social security check!!!!”

    And I thought the citizens of NC “voted” for voter ID but it was squashed. I was just asked to verify what was on the books, but not a single request for identification.

  • A friendly reminder to all that the Republican party is banned from doing anything about voter fraud by a consent decree which was upheld in 2013.

    Yeah, think about that.

  • Interesting is the role played by the renowned Knights of Malta (The Sovereign Military and Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta).

    Lepanto was fought only 16 years after the Knights had victoriously withstood the sultans’ massive, well-armed, well-supplied armies in the Famous Siege of Malta.

    The knights deployed but three galleys in the action, having recently suffered a grave defeat. Those three galleys (oared warships, the Christians had 212 galleys, six galleasses, and 24 large sail transports; the Turks had 250 galleys) were granted the honor due the Knights by being placed at the extreme right of the Christian formation. They were attacked by a squadron of Turks. One Knight’s ship, after a hard fight, was captured and being towed away when it was recovered in a fierce counterattack. Only three Christians/Knights survived and they were senseless from their wounds. Over 300 dead Turks were on board.
    .
    The Christians won through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary and their skillful courageous aggressiveness.
    .
    The combination of the victories at Malta and Lepanto spelled the end of the Muslim threat to the central and western Med. Our Lady of Victory, pray for us.

    The knights’ galleys were always well maintained, well-armed, and manned with knights whose vows caused them to fight to the death the infidel wherever and whenever found. Their courage and efficiency were rightly renowned by both Christians and the ever-expansive Turk.
    .
    Our Lady of the Rosary pray for us.
    .
    A prayer (I say) before the Rosary. “O Queen of the Holy Rosary, you have deigned to come to Fatima to reveal to the three shepherd children the treasures of grace hidden in the Rosary. Inspire my heart with a sincere love of this devotion, in order that by meditating on the Mysteries of our Redemption which are recalled in it, I may be enriched with its fruits and obtain peace for the World; the conversion of sinners and of America; and the favor which I ask of you in this Rosary. […] I ask it for the greater glory of God; for your own honor and for the good of souls, especially for my own. Amen.”
    .
    “O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.”

  • T. Shaw.

    Right On!

  • Arghhhh This comment was intended to be for the Lepanto post, and Lepanto was 6 years (not 16) after the famous Siege of Malta, which saved all of Europe from the Turk. If Malta fell, then Sicily fell, then the Turk would invade Italy from the north and the south from Sicily, the gateway to Italy.

  • Well, it’s a good comment, anyway, T. Shaw. Thanks very much.

  • The muslim of Turkish decent who shot up the mall in Washington State was not a citizen, but voted in 3 elections.
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/29/accused-washington-mall-shooter-voted-in-3-federal-elections-as-non-citizen/

One Response to Bob Hope Present For Halloween and the Election

  • In a movie with some great one, two, and three liners, that line is probably my favorite. The Ghost Breakers and The Paleface were my two favorite Bob Hope movies.

How Many Elections Will the Democrats Steal Next Week?

Wednesday, October 29, AD 2014

 

Steven Hayward over at Power Line reminds us of why Democrats fight voter ID tooth and nail:  because they benefit from vote fraud:

 

 

How extensive is voter-fraud, especially among non-citizens? Just bring up the question, or suggest we need to have voter-ID at the polls like every other advanced democracy, and the answer will be instantly supplied: You’re a racist. But as Dan McLaughlin points out over at The Federalist, Democrats seem to win a suspiciously high number of close elections, well beyond what a random statistical trial would suggest.

There’s a bombshell academic study out on this issue right now that the media is mostly ignoring (the only exception being the Washington Post’s very fine wonky MonkeyCage blog), in part because it appears in an obscure academic journal, Electoral Studies, that is behind an expensive subscription paywall, and in part because any reporter who does a story about it will be called a racist. Since I’m an academic these days, I’ve got access to the article, “Do Non-Citizens Vote in U.S. Elections?”, by Jesse T. Richman and Gulshan A. Chattha of Old Dominion University and David C. Earnest of George Mason University.

The conclusion of the abstract alone ought to set off alarm bells:

We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections. Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.

Using data from the Cooperate Congressional Election Study, which sampled 32,000 voters in 2008 and over 50,000 voters in 2010, the authors conclude that as many as 14 percent of non-citizens—potentially as high as 2.8 million—are registered to vote. The authors conclude that a mid-point estimate of 1.2 million non-citizens cast votes in 2008:

Continue reading...

17 Responses to How Many Elections Will the Democrats Steal Next Week?

  • Their voting machines notably in Wi and MD are “set” to count GOP votes as Dem votes. And, some dem voters are 125 years old.
    .

    You know the “fix is in” in WI when Obama showes up to push the commie candidate against Governor Walker. FYI 99% of the voters in that precinct voted for the zero in 2012.
    .

    Poor, black people have voted Dem for at least 50 years. They are poorer for it.
    .

    It’s the dawn of the idiotocracy: Scientific detachment and the free exchange of ideas are dead.
    .

    “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.” – George Bernard Shaw
    .

    At some point, these and other (judicuial overreach, exec orders, regulations, politicized government agnecies, etc.) deprivations/overrides of Constitutional mechanisms will lead to . . . Of course, cynicism. Conspiracies? Rebellion? I think it’s why they are intent on confiscating the people’s (Second Amendment) arms.

  • What if the Dems remain in control of the Senate and take the House next week? What if the game is already so rigged that nothing can stop it except the very thing none of us want? Personally, being a pessimist, I think the game is already rigged. And we’ll see Hillary in 2016. God have mercy!

  • Paul Primavera said: “Personally being a pessimist, I think the game is already rigged.”

    Isn’t that what “they” want?
    …why even vote then?
    I was having dinner with my eldest brother Sunday evening. He said exactly the same thing as Mr. Primavera.

    Never give up, or better yet never cave into defeatism. If the Liar’s Party gets their bitch into office it might be due to good people throwing their hands up and saying “game over.”

    T. Shaw said in earlier posts days ago; “Stock up on ammo…”

    If it was said in sarcasm or not, the reality is the future of a free America is slipping away. I for one will not sit idle as the traitor’s work feverishly to erode our Constitutional rights.

    Never give up. Never.

  • Philip,

    Just don’t let anybody know you have them.

    I have a sufficient number of .223 cal and 5.56 mm FMJ cartridges to commence a minor insurrection.

    And, it is not merely for a fight for liberty. When the economy and government simultaneously collapse, it will be valuable for both for protection and for barter.

  • I’m currently packing my gear for deer camp. Nov. 15th opener. Many associates have been making it difficult for the consumer to purchase ammo.
    They are hording bricks of ammo.
    It’s not difficult to understand when Homeland Security (oxymoron) has purchased millions of rounds for..wink wink nod nod “target practice.”

    Many Americans are hoping for the best yet preparing for the worse.

    Concealed weapons licenced Americans may be putting the fear of God into liberal traitors…so be it.

  • philip!

    Small world.
    .

    We go into Adirondack deer camp the morning after Election Day! Northern zone NY is way earlier than southern zone big game opener, November 15.
    .

    The great escape!

  • There is a different standard of morality operating now for liberal ideologues… the ends justify the means, and if someone in their party gets a little twinge of conscience, he can be brought to his senses knowing that this (questionable) action is not about him but about the ultimate greater good for Humanity. After all they are fighting the Big Evils of the world- defending the helpless: women and (other different genders) all the races, and all the poor and even Mother Earth against the evil conservatives. Truth in elections can be expendable.

  • T. Shaw.

    Good Luck & Good Hunting!

    I live on a peninsula where my great great grand parents made a new home, persecuted by religious indifference. How time is ever changing ever the same.
    Anyway, it’s been a tradition in our clan to gather the boys, young & old, and learn the beauty of silence / woods / hunting. My great grandfather who help to build the first Catholic Church with his dad in the area, St. Josephs, tells the story of walking through the woods on the way to Mass carrying guns to bag a deer for subsistence. They would be successful on the way back home….how providential.

  • We can’t place our ultimate trust in politics or particular people.

    But we still ought to fight like hell to keep Dems. and Rinos OUT.

  • T. Shaw and Philip, you might be interested in the story of how Cornell University tried to solve their deer problem? http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/10/cornell-gives-deer-tubal-ligations-everything-goes-wrong/
    .
    “Bambi is a rat with long legs and good P.R.”

  • Either “as many as they can get away with” or “Enough.” Perhaps both even.

  • Tamsin-
    I wouldn’t of believed it, but then again it is 2014. The age of sophisticated politically correct hooligans waisting money.
    I’m shocked that they didn’t try to fit condoms on bucks or transport the doe’s to Planned Parenthood for a free abortion.

    The story in your link should of been out of the Onion…unfortunately it’s not.
    Unreal!

    Thanks for the laugh.

  • …btw; free abortion because of Obambicare.

  • Voter fraud is a direct attack on the American way, and on me as an American citizen. Those who commit such crimes should be stripped of their United States citizenship, be deported, and never be allowed back into the United States again.

  • “suggest we need to have voter-ID at the polls like every other advanced democracy…”

    Not in the UK, where we rely on the Electoral Register, compiled annually.

  • James,
    .
    Far too much “red tape.”

    .

    With apologies to Shakespeare, First thing we do is kill all the liberals.
    .

  • If memory serves me correctly, the first time Osama won the office of president, there was an almost state wide late mailing of military absentee ballots to military personnel from Virginia. The county clerks (most of whom were Democrats) of that state did not follow time requirements in the law–thereby making it impossible for military personnel to complete & return the ballots to VA for proper counting. Basically, their votes were simply not counted b/c of arriving to late to their home precincts to be counted. It was in the news at the time & was never addressed in any proper or legal manner. IMHO the county clerks should have been criminally charged –however WE KNOW prosecutors would not do that. Then folks were amazed that Osama won the state of VA. Well, duh! Osama would not have won that race without states like VA. And the state was stolen.

    There have been so many different types of election fraud in my home state that I could write a book about it.

2 Responses to A Halloween Favorite at My House

  • Pingback: All Hallows Eve - BigPulpit.com
  • The wife and I watched it on Halloween night, as we do on every Halloween night. It is one of my favorite lines in the whole movie. Another one is : “I think I will start with an Old Fashioned, and bring it up to date.” The Ghost Breakers is my favorite Bob Hope movie.

The Wisconsin Recall Vote

Monday, May 14, AD 2012

I haven’t discussed the Wisconsin recall vote.  It should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with my disdain for populism that I find recall elections to be complete shams, and this goes whether the affected officeholder(s) are Democrats or Republicans.  Had I been blogging in 2003 I would have said the same for the recall vote that ousted Gray Davis in California.  Voters know going into an election that they are voting people into office for a certain amount of time, and they have to live with the consequences of said vote.  Barring glaring corruption or malfeasance, elected officials should remain in office for the duration of their terms.  If recalls became regular features of the democratic process, elected leaders would never enact meaningful change lest they be booted out of office at the drop of a hat.  And while as a society we have grown cynical and jaded regarding politicians, there is something to be said about stability in office.  After all, we can vote the bums out every two, four, or six years depending on the office – as the voters in Indiana have done with Senator Richard Lugar, who I believe was first elected shortly after New Hampshire ratified the Constitution.

In the specific case of Wisconsin, the unions have led the effort to boot Governor Scott Walker out of office.  It is looking more and more like this will be a futile effort.  What’s more, it looks like the DNC has rebuffed requests by the Wisconsin Democrats for help with the election next  month.  The local Dems asked for $500,000, and so far the DNC has sayed, “NYET!”

Leaving aside your feelings about this recall effort, is this a smart move by the DNC?  Yes, there is this little election coming up in November, and the party’s fundraising hasn’t gone as spectacularly as hoped.  And even though the polls have been close, it is a better than 50/50 proposition that Scott Walker holds onto his seat.  It would arguably be better for the Democrats to funnel their resources where they are needed, like potentially closer than originally thought House elections in Maryland’s 8th Congressional District.*

*Okay, that might be the thing of fevered fantasies, but you never know.

That being said, a Democratic victory in June would be a colossal shot in the arm for the party.  Polls indicate that President Obama has a very narrow lead over Mitt Romney in Wisconsin, and this is certainly a state that Republicans could capture in November.  I wouldn’t suggest that there is a direct correlation between the recall election in June and the general election in November, but it doesn’t hurt (usually) to have the incumbent governor campaigning for the presidential candidate.  By bypassing this election the Democrats could be hurting Obama’s chances in the state later on in the year.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to The Wisconsin Recall Vote

  • Paul, you are absolutely right. Recalls solely should be reserved for the most egregious violations of the public trust. Aside from the millions of dollars in unnecessary costs, the recalls of Walker and several legislators by those unhappy with new policies and budget restraints put the so-called democratic process to shame.

    Before the election, Scott Walker made it crystal clear what he was going to do and then proceeded to keep his promises, which included balancing the budget and restoring fiscal sanity to Wisconsin by reigning in public unions’ greed. As a Wisconsinite, I and thousands of others who supported him applaud him for doing precisely what he said he would do.

    I’ve no doubt that come June 5, Walker will once again handily defeat Milwaukee Mayor, union stooge and political hack Tom Barrett handily. The latest polls show Scott leading by about 5 points, a gap that will grow as Barrett’s liabilities are once again revealed despite millions in laundered union dues flowing into Democrat coffers.

  • It should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with my disdain for populism that I find recall elections to be complete shams

    Don’t you mean ‘inadvisable’? ‘Sham’ suggests a pantomime along the lines of elections to the New York State Legislature (an exercise I certainly hope is rare elsewhere).

  • Don’t you mean ‘inadvisable’?

    I stand by my word choice.

  • yes they should be rare, and I think Walker is great
    ..At least when the other side is trying to do a recall I don’t like…I think that way.
    But when my side (the right side, the good guys) wants to recall ( or impeach) maybe we should look at it. : )

  • I agree, recalls should not be part of the process, unless correcuption is proven. Gray Davis’ recall was expensive and Arnie was no better. In fact, Arnie lied during his run for the short term election. He said he was NOT a politician and NOT going to run for the second term. He did and proved during his second term how much he was a politician; ineffective, a bigot and a lying cheat to his family…I guess there’s cause for all the cynicism and jadedness.

  • I agree. How many elections have happened in which the candidate that won went against every ounce of my belief’s. We would be in recall mode non stop. The whole thing here in Wi is so wrong and I think it borders on the diabolical. I know it does. Gov Walker has only done what he said he would do and this group of in house and out house rabble rousers has cost our state millions of dollars in wasted time and energy. I pray that Gov Walker wins and I hope this bunch of malcontents goes home and does whatever they do when they are not agitating the heck out of everyone they come in contact with. If we Catholics or pro-lifers had done the types of things these people have done to get their way we would be sitting in jail, or under the litigation from RICO.

The Left Suddenly Uncomfortable with Concept of Judicial Review

Wednesday, April 4, AD 2012

Don has covered President Obama’s not too subtle threat to the Court that it not dare strike down all or even part of Obamacare.  Yesterday he somewhat toned down his remarks, but still managed to step in it.

At an appearance this afternoon, a reporter asked Obama a question following up on yesterday’s comments: “Mr. President, you said yesterday that it would be ‘unprecedented’ for a Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by an elected Congress. But that is exactly what the court’s done during its entire existence. If the court were to overturn the individual mandate, what would you do, or propose to do, for the 30 million people who wouldn’t have health care after that ruling?”

Obama’s answer to the question was that he expects to win in court, and “as a consequence, we’re not spending a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies.” He went on to talk at some length about the “human element”–that is, people who would supposedly suffer in the absence of ObamaCare. Message: Obama cares, though not enough to spend “a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies.”

But the most interesting part of his answer was the beginning, in which he tried to walk back, or at least clarify, his statement from yesterday. He spoke slowly, with long pauses, giving the sense that he was speaking with great thought and precision: “Well, first of all, let me be very specific. Um [pause], we have not seen a court overturn [pause] a [pause] law that was passed [pause] by Congress on [pause] a [pause] economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce. A law like that has not been overturned [pause] at least since Lochner,right? So we’re going back to the ’30s, pre-New Deal.”

As James Taranto points out, this response is wrong on multiple levels.  The case that Obama cites in fact pre-dates the New Deal by a good thirty year.  Second, the full title of the case – Lochner vs. New York – tells us that this was a case involving state law, not federal legislation.  As Taranto further explains, there have been plenty of Supreme Court cases in which the high court struck down state laws, some dealing with economic matters.  And there of course have been plenty of cases where the Court has in fact declared federal statutes unconstitutional.  In fact two cases in the late 90s – US v. Lopez and US v. Morrison – directly implicated the commerce clause, and in both cases the Court rendered a 5-4 decision overturning acts of Congress which relied upon the commerce clause for their justification.

But other than that, I guess Obama was spot on.

The broader issue, other than Obama’s seeming ignorance of constitutional law, is that the left has suddenly decided that they don’t much care for this concept of judicial review.

Continue reading...

36 Responses to The Left Suddenly Uncomfortable with Concept of Judicial Review

  • Much of the Left is going through a collective melt down that is a pure joy to behold. They really did buy into the malarkey that Obama was going to be FDR II. Now that he has turned out to be, on his good days, Jimmy Carter II, they are left to rant against the Supreme Court to attempt to save the miserable ObamaCare, the sole accomplishment of the Obama administration, unless they consider an accomplishment the amassing in three years of the amount of debt it took the Bush administration eight years to run up.

  • I rarely disagree with Don (or Paul for that matter), but my take on Obama’s commentary differs. I don’t think he is registering any discomfort with the concept of judicial review. He is simply claiming that the Court should be deferential to the legislature rather than activist in its own understanding of its role. And he is pointing out that this is a conservative principle that should be embraced by a conservative Court, implying that to do otherwise would be hypocrisy. Of course, the real hypocrisy rests with Obama et al who normally have no problem with judicial activism trumping state or federal legislation that they find disagreeable.

    I think the claims that the administration is somehow suggesting that an adverse ruling by the Court would be invalid or illegitimate are over the top and largely just grandstanding attempts to score rhetorical points. When he suggests that the Court would be over-stepping its powers to strike down the mandate Obama is saying exactly the same thing that we conservative said, and quite correctly, with respect to the Court’s decision in Lawrence. We were making a claim on the merits, as is he. No one is suggesting that the Court is without the legal power to render a decision with which many will disagree and honestly believe is wrong and therefore an inappropriate exercise of authority.

    With respect to judicial activism, this case presents a clash of two conservative principles. First, courts should be uphold laws even if they disagree with them, as long as they are constitutional. In other words, courts should not confuse their policy preferences with constitutional boundaries. Second, courts should respect the fact that the Constitution allocates only limited powers to the federal government, with those unallocated (including general police powers) resting with the states, subject to the Bill of Rights. Opponents of Obamacare are relying on the second principle to trump the first. Obama and other proponents are citing the first principle as a tactic to convince the Court and the American public that the mandate is constitutional, even from a conservative perspective — nothing out of bounds about that really.

    Finally, I don’t think that Obama’s inference of hypocrisy misses the mark completely. The mandate issue is not an easy one. On the one hand, plainly it is an attempt to regulate interstate commerce. But doing so by requiring people to purchase a product whether they want to or not was almost certainly beyond the comprehension of the Framers and also without precedent. But nor is their precedent to the contrary. As odious as this legislation is to me, I do not consider its constitutionality an easy question. just because the Framers may not have envisioned an expansive federal government does not mean they didn’t give us the architecture to allow for it.

    Obama is a terrible President for a host of reasons. We hardly need to manufacture any phony ones — and I think this one really is phony.

  • Perhaps it’s not a direct refutation of the concept of judicial review (though in the case of Dowd, she is certainly implying as much). What Obama is doing is casting doubt on the legitimacy of the Court’s decision, and I suspect we’ll see a lot more of this in various corners on the left over the coming months. I do honestly think that his original comments were made in attempt to sway the Court. Plan B is to convince the public that the Court is usurping its legitimate authority.

    Do I put it beyond Obama to try and make an end-run around the Court? No. At least, there is greater than zero chance that he would try and pull an Andrew Jackson. I’m not saying it’s likely, but sadly there is a chance.

    As odious as this legislation is to me, I do not consider its constitutionality an easy question.

    I do, but we’ll have to agree to disagree on that question.

    We hardly need to manufacture any phony ones — and I think this one really is phony.

    I’m not sure it’s phony to point out that Obama is attempting – as usual – to demagogue an issue in order to cover his ass.

  • Obama’s minions are taking up the cudgels in support of his bullying of the Court. David R. Dow, Cullen Professor at the University of Houston Law Center, calls for the impeachment of Justices who vote against ObamaCare if they strike down ObamaCare.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/03/impeach-the-supreme-court-justices-if-they-overturn-health-care-law.html

    What makes this hilarious is that Dow wrote a book called America’s Prophets: How Judicial Activism Makes America Great.

    http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Prophets-Judicial-Activism-America/dp/0313377081/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_4

    Mike, I have a huge amount of respect for you, as you know, but there is nothing phony about this issue. Obama knew precisely what he was doing when he picked this fight with the Court. This may well become the major issue this year, after the economy.

  • In 2008, it was “Hope and Change!”

    In 2012, it’s “Obey me!”

    They don’t know how to think. They only know what to think.

    Don,

    Plus, clueless Prof. Dow ain’t too smart. He apparently confused which SCOTUS impeachee he was ranting over.

    From an Instapundit commenter.

    “He’s not even writing about the right justice.

    “Samuel Chase is the justice who was impeached in 1805. Salmon Chase was the chief justice appointed by Abraham Lincoln in 1864.”

  • If they can make you buy health insurance, what else can they make you buy or make you do, or . . . ?

    The New York Sun: “Ex Parte Obama”

    “It’s been a long time since we’ve heard a presidential demarche as outrageous as President Obama’s warning to the Supreme Court not to overturn Obamacare. T he president made the remarks at a press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada. It was an attack on the court’s standing and even its integrity in a backhanded way that is typically Obamanian. For starters the president expressed confidence that the Court would “not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” . . .

    “It is outrageous enough that the president’s protest was inaccurate. What in the world is he talking about when he asserts the law was passed by “a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”? T he Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act barely squeaked through the Congress. In the Senate it escaped a filibuster by but a hair. T he vote was so tight in the house — 219 to 212 — that the leadership went through byzantine maneuvers to get the measure to the president’s desk. No Republicans voted for it when it came up in the House, and the drive to repeal the measure began the day after Mr. Obama signed the measure.

    “It is the aspersions the President cast on the Supreme Court, though, that take the cake. We speak of the libel about the court being an “unelected group of people” who might “somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.” This libel was dealt with more than two centuries ago in the newspaper column known as 78 Federalist and written by Alexander Hamilton.”

  • For the record, Dowd is an idiot shill. Who cares what she thinks. Dow is also a shill, if not an idiot. He, like many college profs, doesn’t have a bone of academic integrity in him. It may be that these fools are doing Obama’s bidding, but I don’t think one can fairly tease that from the words that Obama has actually spoken. Obama is not attacking judicial review — he is asserting that his legislation is constitutional if considered under a conservative lens. It is not a silly argument, even if hypocritical. Moreover, while Obama failed to mention Lopez and Morrison those cases really don’t help opponents of Obamacare aside from the fact that they stand for the proposition that the commerce clause is not a blank check.

    Finally, regarding impeachment of judges for rendering disagreeable decisions, Dow’s position is silly beyond measure. The mandate question is unprecedented and the commerce clauses reach in that context cannot be easily discerned from the words. Unlike Paul, I can see merit in both arguments. Roe and progeny, however, not so. The Court just fabricated law to suit its policy preferences and in so doing truly did act outside the scope of its power. But even the most conservative jurists did not call for impeachment or governmental disobedience of the decision, although the case for such would at least be tenable. Professors like Dow are whores.

  • “Professors like Dow are whores.”

    Now that we agree on Mike! 🙂

  • Was the DOMA subject to “executive” judicial review when the DOJ, I believe, as ordered/requested by Mr. Obama publicly announced that it would no longer defend that piece of legislation passed by both houses of congress or was that merely an act in contempt of congress, which is ok when the executive branch has “issues” with legislation but is not ok when the, constituionally mandated, judicial branch has problems of its own with legislation it is required to review?

    Why has this man not been removed from office? Oops, I forgot, he is demagogue
    and they control the senate.

  • Speaking of lousy law professors, how bad must Obama have been?

  • Pinky, I can only imagine. The guy thinks Lochner was a commerce clause case involving the scope of Congress’s commerce clause powers. Yikes. What a dope.

  • Well, I certainly didn’t mean any disrespect. And I’m sure he’s an excellent law professor, when he’s in his comfort zone. But apparently making precise public statements about the most basic elements of Constitutional law is outside that zone. See, I’m not a lawyer, so I would’ve thought that ability was important. That shows how little us non-lawyers really understand.

  • Gee, where was Maureen Dowd after Roe V. Wade?

    AMDG,
    Janet

  • Rush suspects that Obama is playing dumb, to some extent, and is playing to the lowest common denominator. I suspect there is something to that. That said, yeesh, I pity any future lawyers trapped in a classroom with him.

  • Late in commenting. Just my typical hell fire and brimstone. I don’t expect there to be any justice on this earth.

    Every single one of us mortal human beings are going to be subject to Judicial Review. We will on that Great and Terrible Day be judged by the Supreme Justice Himself, and that judgment will be based on our deeds. Those who today call the murder of the unborn the right to choose, and the filth of homosexual sodomy civil rights will stand before the Great White Throne with no excuse, facing eye ball to eye ball the Almighty Himself. May God have mercy on their souls, and on ours for no one is exempt. God, being perfect Love, is absolute Justice, and He will NOT let the murder of the unborn or the filth of homosexual sodomy go unavenged.

    Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. Matthew 7:13-14

  • The Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act. It’s name is tenuous. The words “protection” and “affordable” are vague and subject to changes over time, meaning to say that coverage of what for whom is not set in stone. Since the government has no money to pay for anything, the administrators of the insurance can change and eventually deny coverage. There’s an issue in Massachusetts with limiting the dental procedures of MassHealth. And, he’s talking about the people, ‘human element’, that would suffer without this – call it an etch a sketch act because, I think, it applies more to the 2700 pgs. of HHS Admin (and not Gov. Romney). Considering the way this administration cannot budget after years on the job, I doubt that it would happen with health insurance.

  • From what I understand, Obama was not a Law professor, just a lecturer.

    “Obama is attempting – as usual – to demagogue an issue in order to cover his ass.”

    Yes, that’s his M.O., but although Barry is certainly a gifted demagogue, how do you get people angry because a law they never liked or approved of in the first place has been struck down? Two years ago, when this monstrosity was forced through Congress, I recall libs pooh-poohing the polls which showed Obamacare was despised by a majority of Americans. The conventional wisdom among leftists was that although the dumb American public (so inferior to those progressive Europeans) would initially resist the change, Old Silver Tongue would explain the goodness and necessity of the law so eloquently that our hard hearts would melt and we’d all be foursquare behind Obamacare by the time 2012 rolled around. Well, here it is, election year, and most Americans still think Obamacare stinks on ice. That wasn’t in the Dem script.

    Demagoging the issue will certainly motivate the Dem base. But the rest of us, who didn’t like the law then and don’t like it now? It’ll be a very tough sell, she said with a smile on her face.

  • Does anyone else think it’s ridiculously funny when Leftists whine about priests in ages past getting paid 10% tax which actually went to feeding people whereas now people have to pay something like 50% tax to the government and you don’t know what the hell most of it is funding. As far as health insurance goes if we had a monastary near every town and city the poor man could get free health care from monks. As far as I can tell Obama is a sneaky bastard who can’t be trusted as president, he is inconsiderate of the supreme court simply because of his acutely obvious overconfidence in his statements.

  • Someone compiled a list of why Obama can’t run on his record. Any other “firsts”?

    • First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.

    • First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.

    • First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States

    • First President to violate the War Powers Act. .

    • First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico .

    • First President to defy a Federal Judge’s court order to cease implementing the Health Care Reform Law.

    • First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.

    • First President to spend a trillion dollars on ‘shovel-ready’ jobs when there was no such thing as ‘shovel-ready’ jobs.

    • First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.

    • First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat. .

    • First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S. , including those with criminal convictions.

    • First President to demand a company hand over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.

    • First President to terminate America ’s ability to put a man in space.

    • First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.

    • First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.

    • First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke out on the reasons for their rate increases.

    • First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.

    • First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).

    • First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.

    • First President to fire an inspector general of Ameri-corps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.

    • First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office. .

    • First President to golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years in office, 90 to date.

    • First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records.

    • First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.

    • First President to go on multiple global ‘apology tours’.

    • First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends; paid for by the taxpayer.

    • First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.

    • First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.

    • First President to assets the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.

    • First President to take a 17 day vacation.

  • Dow, Dowd, Holder, Obama, et al are children of Satan. They do their father’s bidding.

    They were never on the side of truth.

    There is no truth in them.

    They do what is natural to them. They lie.

    Their father is the father of all lies.

  • I’m confused. So what’s the big deal? Obama says that Lochner was the last time that the court struck down a legislative measure. But conservatives are saying “Ha! That was only state legislation, not federal legislation!!”. What’s the point? Obama is not wrong about it – and you’re all agreeing with him: Lochner was struck down regardless if it’s state or federal.

  • What’s the point? Obama is not wrong about it – and you’re all agreeing with him: Lochner was struck down regardless if it’s state or federal.

    Let’s see:

    He was wrong about it being federal legislation.
    He was wrong about the time period.
    He was wrong about the Court not having struck down major federal legislation since the New Deal era.

    So he was wrong about every single element, but somehow he was right?

    And the state/federal difference is not some minor distinction.

  • Has anyone put together a list of decisions that the average liberal supports where the Court struck down federal law? Roe, Griswold, and that Texas sodomy law were all cases where the Court overturned state law, yielding results that liberals wanted. I can’t think of any federal examples though.

  • Pinky,

    Off the top of my head, I would guess New York v. Clinton, which struck down the line item veto.

  • Pinky raises a very important point. Libs favor an expansive understanding of various “rights” hidden deep inside the creases of the constitution. Because these rights almost always serve to limit police powers and because police powers generally rest with the states, Libs tend to favor activist judges vis-a-vis state legislation. Because libs disfavor economic liberty and instead favor sweeping regulation of commerce, they support an expansive understanding of federal power via the commerce clause.

  • Wrong about the time period? The New Deal was from 1933 to 1936.
    Lochner v New York was from 1905.
    Obama said that it was pre-New Deal.

  • I just found a .pdf from the Government Printing Office listing Congressional acts that the Supreme Court overturned. Pretty interesting stuff. Congress keeps violating the commerce clause, and keeps getting called out for it. I also noticed that the Supreme Court really likes protecting obscenity and anything that can loosely be called free speech (such as flag burning).

  • Student – He said ’30’s, pre-New Deal.

  • What law cannot Congress pass that would not be legit by the lib interpretations of the “commerce clause”?

    Plus, Student’s right.

    Obama is never in error.

    Whatever he says is correct because it supports the agenda.

    For all such sons of Satan, the truth is that which serves their purposes.

    Obama is never wrong. He is ever lying.

  • Hey, I’m not saying that Obama’s never wrong.
    I was just about to comment that Zummo proved me wrong.

  • Has anyone put together a list of decisions that the average liberal supports where the Court struck down federal law?

    There was also United States v. Eichman where the Supreme Court struck down a federal statute against desecration of the US flag.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Eichman

    Just to agree with Mike Petrik: when liberals fund expansive federal programs with tax dollars, it is difficult to show standing as a plantiff to bring suit.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)#Taxpayer_standing

  • Thanks Joe Green for listing many of Obama’s presidental actions to date. The list gives me pause on this Holy Saturday. The impulse to drop to my knees and implore God’s Mercy upon this nation whose leadership is so corrupt and the hearts of the citizens so ignorant and apathetic is great. Many are like sheep without a Shepherd; unable to recognize His Voice which beckons them to follow Truth and to receive life in abundance. Pontificating about the interior motives of the Presidents’ heart is speculation and generally a useless waste of energy.

  • I’m not law savvy…. but what is the big deal with the Commerce Clause and why do people feel that the courts should not strike down legislation when it pertains to the commerce clause? I get what commerce is, but what is it that makes it such a big deal for courts to strike down laws that fall under that banner of Commerce Clause.

    I’m liberal, but if Obamacare is wrong then it’s wrong. I’ve spoke to friends who are also liberal and I’ll ask “why is it wrong for the courts to strike down Obamacare?” and I just get the response “because it falls under the Commerce Clause”. Then I will ask “what about the Commerce Clause prevents legislation related to that clause from being stuck down by a court” and the response will be “Courts just shouldn’t do that.”

    It makes no flippin’ sense to me. Please help

  • Student,
    Our constitution grants Congress only limited powers, and each law Congress enacts must come within the ambit of those powers. The constitution grants Congress to power to regulate commerce among the states. The question is whether Obamacare (particularly the mandate) comes within the ambit of that power or is outside it. If the former, then the legislation is within Congress’s power to enact and the Court should uphold it; if the latter, then the legislation is outside of Congress’s power and the Court should strike it down.

  • Thank you for that answer, Mike.

    So then if it would be the former the courts do indeed have no right to strike down that type of legislation.

  • Yes, exactly. What the Court must do is discern whether the power to regulate commerce among the states inludes the power to require citizens to purchase health insurance. If it concludes that it does, then it should uphold the law. The question is not an easy one in my view. While the constitution does not generally limit *state* legislative powers outside the Bill of Rights (which is why the Massachusetts insurance mandate is almost certainly constititional), there must be a warrant for Congressional legislation. Congress’s commerce clause power has been construed broadly by federal courts, but it is not without limit. The idea that this power can be used to require each citizen to purchase a product he may not want would be almost certainly regarded as unthinkable by the Framers; yet, the language employed in the commerce clause seems broad on its face, and just because the Framers may not have intended to grant Congress such sweeping power does not mean that it did not do so nonetheless. Words can have meaning, and therefore effect, outside their intent. Nonetheless, critics have a powerful point in noting that such a power to compel an affirmative act dramatically alters our historic understanding between the relationship between our supposedly limited federal government and its individual citizens. While it is that alteration that supplies the disturbing subtext, the precise legal question many be more mundane, such as does the power to regulate interstate commerce include the power to require a person to engage in commerce who wishes not to. This is interesting stuff and reasonable people can come out differently in my view, though I realize that most of my fellow conservative commentators disagree with me on that.

Thanks For Proving Our Point

Friday, March 2, AD 2012

Rush Limbaugh is famous for “demonstrating absurdity by being absurd.”  His satire works because it usually exposes the ridiculousness of the thing being satired.  Unfortunately for Missouri Democrat Stacey Newman, she doesn’t quite understand that satire doesn’t really work when it highlights your side’s stupidity.

A Missouri House member frustrated with recent legislative debates over birth control and reproductive health is proposing to restrict vasectomies.

Legislation sponsored by Democrat Stacey Newman would allow vasectomies only when necessary to protect a man from serious injury or death. Vasectomies would have to be performed in a hospital, ambulatory surgery center or health facility licensed by the state Department of Health and Senior Services.

The Missouri House last week approved a resolution objecting to the federal health care law and a requirement that most employers or insurers cover contraceptives.

Newman, who’s from St. Louis County, says that such issues affect women the most. She says men also must make family planning decisions.

This is priceless, and for a number of reasons, but three spring immediately to mind.

On the obvious level this doesn’t work because her bill doesn’t mirror the debate that is taking place.  Just about no person is actually seeking to ban contraceptives; rather we are simply fighting attempts to mandate that all employers grant insurance coverage for contraceptives, even when they have moral objections to contraception.  So it fails on a literal level.

Second, to the extent that there would be people interested in restricting access to birth control for moral reasons, they almost certainly would also support a ban on vasectomies.  Guess what Ms. Newman, the Catholic Church is no keener on vasectomies than it is on artificial birth control.  So if you were hoping to shame people into dropping their opposition to birth control, they would only hop aboard your bandwagon.  So that’s your second fail.

Finally, the legislation itself highlights the fundamental problem with the HHS mandate.  Leaving aside the issue of religious liberty, what is disturbing about the mandate is that the federal government is decreeing what is and, by logical extension, what is not to be covered by health insurance.  Who is the government to dictate to insurers what they cover?  A government big and powerful enough to make these decisions is certainly powerful enough to restrict access to certain procedures.  So by introducing this bill, you’re actually proving the fundamental point that opponents of the HHS mandate specifically, and Obamacare in general, have been making.  Yet another fail for you.  But your failure is our success, so thanks.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Thanks For Proving Our Point

  • It’s not just stupid. It’s dishonest. It’s distraction.

    But, this is the same as the stunt pulled off by to Miss Flake of GU Law and the Dem Lib Trashocracy.

    From JammyWearingFool/Gateway Pundit:

    “I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was described as a Georgetown law student. It was then revealed that prior to attending Georgetown she was an active women’s right advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old, NOT the 23 that had been reported all along.

    In other words, folks, you are being played. She has been an activist all along and the Dems were just waiting for the appropriate time to play her.”

    “Unreal. This was all just a big dishonest Democrat ploy to take the attention off of Barack Obama’s assault on religious freedom.”

    Liberals or liberty. You cannot have both.

  • It is my understanding that vasectomies, since they are a medical procedure without a lobby group to protect it (unlike abortion), are already performed under good medical conditions. I mean, I’ve never heard of a back alley vasectomy and I don’t think anyone has ever successfully pulled off an exposee of the deplorable conditions under with they (supposedly) occur. Such conditions probably don’t exist. I also think it was fairly common practice for the surgeon who was performing the vasectomy to get the wife’s permission, at least until recently. I’ve heard that several times.

  • Pingback: SATURDAY EXTRA: U.S. CULTURE WARS | ThePulp.it

4 Responses to In Honor of National Zombie Day: October 8, 2011

  • Well, I don’t find any of the current GOP contenders very compelling so I’d be glad to vote for Reagan.

    BUT isn’t he ineligible under the 22nd Amendment? I suppose a lawyer (which I am not) might claim that the zombie is a different person (entity?) than the original RR to get around that. In which case how old is he/it? Surely not thirty-five?

  • “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”

    I would argue Thomas, with a very straight face since we lawyers are good at that sort of thing, that the amendment was not applicable since Zombie Reagan was not a person. Then if his political adversaries succeeded in proving before the Supreme Court that Zombie Reagan was a person, I would use the precedent in a full frontal assault on Roe!

  • The resurrected Reagan sounds so much more articulate than the others.

  • “National Zombie Day” was first celebrated on election day 1976 and it was resurrected election day 2008.

    Now, I remember why I sleep with a khukri under my pillow, and my wife between me and the door.

The Budget Deal, or Why Elections Have Consequences

Monday, April 11, AD 2011

Unsurprisingly the last minute budget deal was the talk of much of the blogosphere over the weekend.  Some think it’s a big Republican victory.  Others are less inclined to see this as something to celebrate, to say the least.  Ed Morrissey strikes a more middle-ground approach, but says something that I think we should all keep in mind.

We’ll see who won in September, but Republicans have achieved one major accomplishment.  Not only did they force the first actual reductions in government spending in ages, but they have changed the political paradigm from whether to cut to how much and where to cut.  That’s a pretty impressive victory for a party that only controls one chamber of Congress.

To me we’re in round two of a twelve round heavyweight fight.  The real battles will be over the FY 2012 budget and the 2012 elections.  This was but a skirmish.

As for me, I agree with Gabriel Malor at Ace (linked above) that this is a good first step.  I completely understand the frustration some have expressed, especially over the inability to de-fund Murder Inc, aka Planned Parenthood.  But the fact remains that the Republicans control only one of the three democratic elements of the budget battle.*

* Slight tangential note, but I do think the talking point that Republicans only control one-half of one chamber to be a bit overdone.  First of all it’s more than half, and if we’re going to be consistent then we should say the Republicans have almost half of another chamberthe Senate.  After all, Republicans have a greater share of votes in the House than Democrats do in the Senate.  Moreover, because it lacks a filibuster rule, majority control in the House – even a small majority – is more significant than majority control in the Senate.  The minority is all but powerless in the House, less so in the Senate, especially if it has at least 41 votes.

The Republicans won big in the 2010 elections, but the Democrats won just as big as 2006 and 2008.  Therefore we are at a stalemate.  It was unreasonable to think that with control of just the House that Republicans could have completely reversed the tide of the previous two years.  At best it seemed that the Republicans could at least put a halt to further advances for Obama’s agenda, and so the relatively puny amount of real spending cuts is not an insignificant victory.

The Planned Parenthood de-funding is another matter.  Could Republican leadership have done more than merely secure an up-or-down vote on it?  Perhaps, but I just don’t see it.  It would have satisfied our sense of outrage if they had huffed and puffed and threatened to go the mattresses on it, but they would likely have been as successful in achieving their ultimate aim as we are in blowing hot air on a blog.

And again, elections have consequences.  Rick Santorum was defeated in his re-election bid in 2006, and many pro-lifers seemed to be gleeful at his defeat.  Santorum had the temerity to endorse Arlen Specter in the 2004 Republican primary in Pennsylvania, and so many suggested that one act over-rode anything else he may have done as a Senator.  He was replaced by Bob Casey, Jr., a “pro-life” Democrat who has proven that the apple falls very far from the tree.  While his dad was the defendant in the Supreme Court case Planned Parenthood v. Casey (my selection for the worst Supreme Court decision of all-time) and was a true defender of the unborn, the son has been a bit of a weasel where life issues are concerned, and has not indicated one way or the other whether he would vote to de-fund Planned Parenthood.  I predict he won’t, and yet the purists who celebrated Santorum’s defeat will bemoan the Republican Party’s unwillingness to do anything with regards to this matter.

We have a very long way to go, and it was unlikely that anything of consequence would be settled in the recent budget battle.  I just can’t wait for September.

Continue reading...

11 Responses to The Budget Deal, or Why Elections Have Consequences

  • Other than thinking that it’s important to emphasize that the Republicans only control one chamber of Congress, and Dems control the other, that’s more because so many people think Republicans control “all of congress.” (it’s been pushed by the folks who don’t want blame for congress’ screw ups)

    It’s sad, but it seems to be very true: pro-life democratic pols don’t exist when the going gets though. Pro-life republicans are a bit more likely, and get more likely the more conservative they are; RINOs aren’t any better than dems, and they weaken the republican side.

    I think that the mourning about not cutting PP is a little early, since the budget hasn’t been submitted yet– we’ll see.

  • As a liberal, I don’t have a big problem with any of the cuts that have been announced so far or in the earlier CRs. I think it shows that savings can be found when both sides get serious.

    Of course, the PP amendment was as phony from day one as it was unconstitutional.

  • Of course, the PP amendment was as phony from day one as it was unconstitutional.

    How on Earth was it unconstitutional?

  • How on Earth was it unconstitutional?

    Once again, the GOP has taken the pro-life rank and file for a ride. Congress can’t ban a particular organization by name from bidding on federal contracts. (Article I, sec. 9).

    The GOP knew this and wrote the amendment to be rhetorical, not legislative. They could have at least tried something that might legally stand up like the proposed Maryland Big Box Retailer Medicaid Recovery bill. — written to apply to Wal-Mart without actually naming it.

    But why take the trouble when you are not serious?

  • Okay, there was a very profound and insightful conservative commentary on the President atfter Paul Zummo’s 11:24 post. I had copied it and sent it to some friends as an example of conservative thought and opinion. Now that the Moderator have deleted it, I need to recall it from my friends and let them know thinking conservatives really don’t share these views.

    This is cutting into my time for setting up the union hall for tonight’s kielbasa and kraut social.

  • Once again, the GOP has taken the pro-life rank and file for a ride. Congress can’t ban a particular organization by name from bidding on federal contracts. (Article I, sec. 9).

    Umm, there is nothing remotely in Article 1, Section 9 that touches upon this issue. Next time you want to blow smoke, try running it by someone else.

  • The bill of attainder argument is total rubbish Kurt. The same worthless argument was raised in the cutting off of funding for Acorn and rejected by the Second Circuit last year.

    http://www.law.com/jsp/law/LawArticleFriendly.jsp?id=1202469732573

    The idea that Congress cannot decide not to fund a particular organization because such a funding decision is a bill of attainder is simply ludicrous.

  • Bill of Attainder? That’s what Kurt was getting at? It’s so ridiculous that it didn’t even occur to me that he was referring to that provision. I know leftists like to stretch the meaning of the Constitution, but man that’s not even in the ballpark.

  • Okay, there was a very profound and insightful conservative commentary on the President atfter Paul Zummo’s 11:24 post. I had copied it and sent it to some friends as an example of conservative thought and opinion. Now that the Moderator have deleted it, I need to recall it from my friends and let them know thinking conservatives really don’t share these views.

    I hesitate to dictate how someone spends their non-kielbasa and kraut time, but one solution would be not to send out “Oh my gosh, would you believe how crazy these guys are?!?!” emails… 😉

  • For those who don’t have one of those cool pocket constitutions. (Mine, sadly, cannot co-exist with a toddler who knows how to climb chairs, and move them.)

    Allow me to agree that removing funding from an organization does not equal either issuing a legal statement that they are wrong without a trial, nor to imprisonment without trial, nor is Planned Parenthood a ship or port or business of a specific state. (Just to cover all grounds.)

    Darwin- my goodness! What kind of crazy suggestion is that? Next thing you know, you’ll suggest that Wikipedia isn’t a better reference than original texts!

  • “Once again, the GOP has taken the pro-life rank and file for a ride. ”

    The old tired lie straight from the devils mouth. Meanwhile his fellow Democraps vote 0-100 against pro-life legislation..

Elections Have Consequences – Tax Cut Edition

Thursday, December 9, AD 2010

I’ll leave it up to others on the blog to discuss the merits of the compromise on taxes and unemployment benefits recently reached between President Obama and Congressional Republicans.  For what it’s worth, I’d probably vote for it were I a member of Congress (shudder), but I do think that the Republicans could have pushed a little harder on certain measures.

What fascinates me as a student of American history are some of the reactions, and also some of the reactions to the reactions.  First of all,  Congressional Democrats have rejected the measure in a non-binding caucus vote.  This has caused Jim Geraghty to ponder:

I understand the White House line is that today’s rejection is part of the “normal process.” Really? Is it normal for a majority of the president’s own party to vote against deals he makes?

Normal?  No.  But I think this is a positive development in a way.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Elections Have Consequences – Tax Cut Edition

  • Actually, I do have one idea: Bring ALL the troops home, cut military spending in half, close 700 bases around the world and raise the draw bridges.

    Without getting into the merits of this idea, do you really believe that this would save $5 trillion?

  • Paul, “compromise” may be de riguer in politics and “another example of the Constitution in action,” as you put it, but in other spheres of life it is an ugly word.

    The Irish poet Yates once wrote, “You know what the Englishman’s idea of compromise is? He says, Some people say there is a God. Some people say there is no God. The truth probably lies somewhere between these two statements.”

    And, from George Jean Nathan: “A man’s wife is his compromise with the illusion of his first sweetheart.”

  • Well Joe, we can go on pretending that the President of the United States is not a Democrat, and therefore the GOP would be free to push whatever policies it so chooses, or we can wake up and smell reality. The tax cuts are going to expire in 21 days, and do you have another means by which to convince a President I’m willing to bet you’d consider a socialist to allow the tax cuts to continue?

  • I am apolitical, Paul. I have no love for either party. These fiscal bookkeeping games are beyond my ability to grasp, nor anyone else’s. Administrations for decades have been fine-tuning tax policy and the result is always the same: the haves get more, the have-nots less. I have no solution, of course, and I don’t think it lies in any one philosophy, left or right. As a collector of Social Security solely, it has no effect on me either way and I have no inheritance to leave upon my demise.

    Actually, I do have one idea: Bring ALL the troops home, cut military spending in half, close 700 bases around the world and raise the draw bridges. We’d save $5 trillion and could have universal health care, buy a new car for everyone who didn’t get one from Oprah and still have enough left over for a pretty good weekend in Vegas.

Senator Kay Hagan Just Does Not Get It

Saturday, August 21, AD 2010

Miss Kay Hagan is doing a poor job of defending the “merits” of ObamaCare to a mother who has sick children.  In addition to her sick children, her and her husbands benefits have been cut down or eliminated in order to comply with ObamaCare.

Yet Miss Hagan insists on pushing for more European style socialism.

(Hat Tip:  Culture War Notes)

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Senator Kay Hagan Just Does Not Get It

  • She had to pass the bill so we could see what was in it.

    Remember in November.

  • I have just returned from a week’s vacation, staying with long-time friends in Switzerland.

    Here is what I know about their healthcare system: (My friends are, BTW, very happy with their health care).

    First-of-all, health insurance in Switzerland is absolutely mandatory! Virtually no exceptions!

    And, no, it’s not “Socialized Medicine”.

    You buy health insurance from private insurance companies and you go to your own private physician/health care provider. Your monthly premium can vary based on deductibles which you choose.

    Insurance companies cannot by law make a profit on the basic coverage which they must offer to all. And applicants cannot be rejected based on prior medical conditions.

    Where insurers can make a profit is on supplementary coverage, such as
    private rooms, etc.

    And, yes, there are co-pays.

    In Switzerland there is no Medicare.

    My friends are both in their late sixties and they participate in the mandatory insurance to the tune of what we here in the USA pay, about $13K per year. This includes their daughter who lives in Africa, three people.

    For the most part employers do not provide tax-favored medical insurance coverage to employees unlike here in the USA.

    One more thing: There is a government subsidy to those people whose insurance costs more than 8% of their income.

    Would this work in the USA?

Anne Rice Breaks Up With Christianity

Thursday, July 29, AD 2010

I quit being a Christian. I’m out. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of …Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.

And with that announcement, Anne Rice publicly renounced her identity as a Christian on Facebook.

I’m compelled to wonder, however — who is the more preferable and honest of the two?

  • The “Anne Rice”‘s of the world — who recognize their open disagreement with traditional [Catholic / Orthodox] Christianity, and agree that they can no longer identify themselves as such because the moral positions they hold are fundamentally incompatible?
  • The “Nancy Pelosi”‘s of the world, who publicly repudiate various traditional moral positions of [Catholic / Orthodox] Christianity, yet simultaneously proclaim themselves “practicing Catholics” (up and including the reception of the Eucharist), and yet relegate their disagreements as “differences of opinion”?
Continue reading...

39 Responses to Anne Rice Breaks Up With Christianity

  • Anne Rice hands down.

    She may not know a lot about Catholicism, she is at least honest in her beliefs.

    Madame Speaker on the other hand knows her faith very well and purposely and consciously goes against the teachings of God.

  • Wow. I know the sexual abuse scandal really bothered her but didn’t expect this.

    I think I would probably still prefer an Andrew Sullivan Catholic than the new Anne Rice though. Her lost of faith in the leadership combined with all the time she spends online being both urged by Maureen Dowd Catholics and attacked by Catholic Answers Catholics may have pushed her over the edge.

  • I don’t think that anyone ever accused Nancy Pelosi of being able to write, either.

  • “may have pushed her over the edge.”

    I think this loon has been over the edge for a long, long time.

    http://www.boundlessline.org/2007/08/anne-rices-mean.html

  • Liberal political commitments are more popular and easier to understand than orthodoxy.

    Interesting, though, it sounds like she still thinks of herself as a disciple of Christ? “In the name of…”

  • “…Obama, peace be upon him.”

  • “I’m compelled to wonder, however — who is the more preferable and honest of the two?”

    Ann Rice.

  • I like how you phrased the post so as to minimize negative comments about Ms. Rice, Chris. It highlights that she is – and has been – honest and upfront about her differences with traditional Christianity. The tone of her post suggests frustration and anger; it’s not clear exactly what the source for these are (and what is ‘anti-life’ about Christianity?), but whatever her difficulties are, it would be best to treat her with kindness and charity.

  • It is a complex question. As far as ecumenical efforts go, Pope Benedict has clearly stated that disagreements should be worked out within the context of communion. Ms. Rice’s list of grievances do not strike me as good reasons for leaving communion.

    As far as Nancy Pelosi goes, a lay person disagreeing with the bishops should not a public scandal make. She is a symptom of the larger catholic culture and not its cause. Does anyone doubt that if she resigned her House seat tomorrow that someone just as bad if not worse would take her place?

  • I find the post to be a little rambling. Ok, she likes gays, feminism, and birth control. Not surprising even if it is disappointing. But then she gets kinda weird.

    “Anti-Democrat?” I mean, some would argue but I think it’s weird she thinks Catholics must be Republicans (or can’t be Dems). I mean, many pro-lifers think that (with some good reason) but why she thinks that is odd.

    “Anti-secular humanism” I don’t know what that means; I’m not sure any religion accomodates pure secular humanism. What is she talking about?

    And finally, “anti-science?” How on earth is a Catholic anti-science? That one really confuses me.

    It makes me wonder whether she ever took the time to examine the beliefs she once claimed and are now rejecting. While I think she’s right to not claim Catholicism if she disagrees with it, I wonder what would have happened if she had actually challenged herself with the teachings of the Church.

  • It’s functionally impossible to be a Democrat if you’re pro-life. Besides, being a lib these days means believing in the pseudo-religion of government anyway. It necessarily crowds out other competing beliefs. Libs have made government into their new God.

  • I am praying this is a person that had a very bad day and like a lot of us hit the submit button too soon.

    I have a hard time thinking she will really leave her Christian faith.

  • I would expect that to the extent the tone of her tweet is angry, it’s because the process into and then out of organized Christianity has been difficult for her, and when we are dealing with difficult situations we often resort to anger as a way of reaching a decision — not unlike ending a relationship, where it becomes necessary to convince oneself that the other is bad.

    There are two ways of looking at such things, but I tend to lean towards thinking it’s more honest to renounce a religion if one seriously thinks it false on major issues, rather than claiming to know it better than it does itself.

  • We all know it already, but for the sake of the uninitiated who will probably find their way here to troll:

    * “I refuse to be anti-gay.”

    She refuses to defend the sanctity and true purpose of marriage and sexuality. She aligns herself with perversion.

    * “I refuse to be anti-feminist.”

    She refuses to accept that the political arguments for women’s equality, which have only ever been accepted and integrate en masse in Western Christian societies, do not automatically transpose themselves into a radicalized theology.

    * “I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control.”

    Again, perversion over the true purpose of sexuality.

    * “I refuse to be anti-Democrat.”

    I can’t blame her on that one. The current make-up of the Democrat party means that only those of the most agile and subtle intelligence can reconcile their faith with allegiance to it.

    *”I refuse to be anti-secular humanism.”

    Then she had no business ever being a Catholic. It was because I refused to be a secular humanist that I could become a Catholic again.

    * “I refuse to be anti-science.”

    She refuses to read a history book or the Church’s modern interaction with the sciences and understand the complete bankruptcy of this claim.

    * “I refuse to be anti-life.”

    Secular humanism IS anti-life.

    * “In the name of …Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.”

    No comment.

  • Yes, I changed what I said and removed the comments. I went too far, as I sometimes do, and I won’t try to rationalize it.

  • Wow, this is a real bummer because the book she wrote about her reversion to the faith, “Called Out of Darkness,” was a pretty good book and I found it kind of inspiring.

    She sounded genuine in it, and admitted she had difficulties with certain Church teachings but figured that faith was more a matter of trusting that the popes, saints, Doctors of the Church, etc. knew what they were doing, than a matter of having 100 percent perfect personal understanding and agreement with EVERY point of Church doctrine and morals.

    Now I thought that was a good way to look at it… to realize that faith does NOT mean you have to know exactly where every nut and bolt on the Barque of Peter is located, and understand how every single part operates, it means you get on the boat, and stay on it, once you have determined that it is seaworthy, will get you where you need to go (heaven) and the captain knows what he’s doing. (That’s my metaphor, not hers, just to be clear)

    Her comment about being “anti-gay” probably has more to do with the fact that her son (her only surviving child) is gay than with any conscious “alignment with perversion”.

    Also, I have a book of interviews with her that was published in the mid-1990s, not too long before she returned to the Church. In it she makes some interesting comments about how disillusioned she had become with leftist/feminist “orthodoxy” and how in many ways it was far more repressive and anti-human than even the old fashioned, pre-Vatican II Catholicism she had grown up with. So I don’t know that she’s all that big a fan of secular humanism either.

    I agree with John Henry that she needs charity and understanding more than condemnation at this point, and that we should give her credit for being honest about her convictions.

  • “There are two ways of looking at such things, but I tend to lean towards thinking it’s more honest to renounce a religion if one seriously thinks it false on major issues, rather than claiming to know it better than it does itself.”

    What is interesting is she is not just Catholicism but all Christianity

    She is not announcing she is joning the TEC or some other progressive Christian body where her views would be welcomed.

    So does she see well if Catholcism is wrong then all Christianity is wrong.

    Again I will keep her in my prayers. Something has set her off and people need to reach out to her.

    I think her reconversion was very genuine.

    Oh a side note I would say from what I can tell from the general Christian population and indeed the Catholic population they were respectful of her conversion. In fact I an think of several conservative traditional Catholic blogs right off the bat that were very gracious and Christian to her.

    Again she needs our prayers and I hope Catholics and Christians near her reach out to her

  • She had to choose between the ways of Christ and the ways of the world, and the world won. I pray that this is only one battle, and that she will come to understand that the teachings of the Church are born of love, not hate.

  • Pingback: The Anchoress | A First Things Blog
  • “I’m compelled to wonder, however — who is the more preferable and honest of the two?”

    Whichever will throw herself on the mercy of God on her deathbed.

    Honesty is merely a natural virtue, yes? Should we really prefer the honest apostate to the liar who has faith?

    Pelosi could be piously following the teachings of some dissenting priest or religious sister she encountered in her formative years and mistook for Catholic orthodoxy.

    For her part, Rice has a gay son, so family loyalty is possibly trumping loyalty to her faith.

    Neither should be religious ed teachers, and like the rest of us both deserve correction through competent personal contact when necessary. But why prefer the “noble pagan” to the crooked Christian?

  • It’s not like she’s doing anything groundbreaking here. Lots of people decide that the ‘real Jesus’ just happens to agree with their own stances on .. pretty much everything. Amazing coincidence.

  • “Why prefer the ‘noble pagan’ to the crooked Christian?”

    Remember the parable Christ told of the two sons whose father asked them to work in his vineyard… one said “Yes, I’ll go,” but never did, while the other said “No” but later changed his mind and went. “Which one did what the father wanted?” Christ asked.

  • Should we really prefer the honest apostate to the liar who has faith?

    That does presuppose the liar has faith. The other possibility is the liar is simply a liar and has no faith. But since she is a liar, you never can tell (though it would seem to be rather odd that a simpleton like me can understand the big points of Catholic moral teaching, but the third in line for the Presidency of the US cannot – and my teachers were no better than hers).

    That parable is a bit confusing here. It seem neither is doing the work in the vineyard at this point. Here, one says yes (Pelosi?) but does nothing (in fact, goes out of her way to ruin the vineyard), and the other (Rice) says “no” and….does nothing?

    Anyway, Rice probably just needs time alone to think things out. Pelosi needs a road to Damascus whooping, a divine 2×4 upside the head.

  • The blame falls squarely on the catechists, us included. We’ve failed to persuade her that (a) our intentions are good, and (b) our doctrines are right.

    For example, the Church isn’t anti-gay. It puts forward a holy but tough alternative to the gay lifestyle. We need to demonstrate that we’re not “anti”. Aristotle said that the first step toward persuading someone is to convince him of your good character. There’s a lot of hope for Rice because she seems to strongly believe in Christ’s good character.

  • I agree wholeheartedly with Anne’s decision to disassciate with organized Christianity. So much of the modern message has become anathema to the gospel, and the Church has historically demonstrated a reluctance to discipline itself in ways that reflect the true teachings of Jesus. Did Jesus bash gays as he traveled about in the company of men. Did he rant against making love except for the express purpose of procreation? Did Jesus tell us that women are somehow different and lesser in the eyes of God.

    Could Anne have rejected Catholicism but then wrapped herself in one of the “feel good” versions that preache the virtues of accumulated wealth and evangelical superiority?

    Must you belong to a Christian church, or start yet another dissatified sect, in order to identify and align yourself with the message of Jesus?

    Jesus did not charge us to go out and build an edifice, he didn’t lay out the design for the Vatican, and he never extolled us to jihad (Crusades). He never defended religious persecution (The Inquisition). He didn’t charge us to believe the Earth was the center and only relevant corner of creation (anti-science). And he never told us to place blind faith in religious leaders (Pharisees.papists and Swaggertites).

    Jesus told us to love one another. He told us to give to the poor and the needy. He told us to trust in His message and all would be revealed by the Spirit of God.

    I am a baptised Catholic that utterly rejects Catholicism and both organized and disorganized Christianity. I prefer to get my doctrine unfiltered by men with a selfish or heretical agenda. I prefer the simple uncomplicated truths that Jesus taught.

  • I am a baptised Catholic that utterly rejects Catholicism and both organized and disorganized Christianity. I prefer to get my doctrine unfiltered by men with a selfish or heretical agenda. I prefer the simple uncomplicated truths that Jesus taught.

    In the end the rejection of historical Christianity is a rejection of Christ. It is rather shallow and immature to think that your personal recreation of Christianity is ‘unfiltered by…a selfish or heretical agenda.’ At best you have replaced the selfish or heretical agendas of others with one of your own creation. Chesterton wrote that joining the Church freed him from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age; your comment is childish both in this sense and in the sense that only naivete could account for your uncritical self-confidence.

  • Pinky,
    I think you are too easy on her. I happen to know for a fact that folks have tried to catechise her and reason with her on Church issues, but she is exceedingly stubborn. In particular, when Sister McBride was excommunicated Rice went ballistic. When Church teaching was meticulously explicated re the intentional taking of an innocent human life she simply ignored all reasoning that disturbed her comfortable consequentialist views. And I do mean ignore. No engagement; no effort; just blind outrage. Did I say blind?

  • And tell us, Marc, how it is that you know of the “simple uncomplicated truths that Jesus taught”? Did He mystically appear to you in a dream and teach you these truths? Did a book containing these truths miraculously fall out of the sky and into your possession one day?

    The Bible didn’t just write itself. To the extent we know anything about Christ and the “simple uncomplicated truths” that He taught (and, in fact, some of Christ’s teachings are ANYTHING BUT “simple” or “uncomplicated” – see, e.g., divorce, remarriage, and adultery), it is because of the work of the Church. Some people may like to pick and choose which teachings of the Church they want to follow, but they should at least admit that that is what they are doing, and not pretend that they have some special insight into the “simple uncomplicated truths” of Christ apart from what the Church has taught for 2000 years.

  • I will pray that Anne Rice sees the error of her ways, along with those who agree with her. Earlier this year I wrote an article on this site entitled; “The Coming Open Rebellion Against God.” I believe this is another step in that direction. Anne’s ego, along with those who defend her, seems to suggest that they know better than the Church. How ridiculous, Jesus Himself said to the Apostles; He who Hears You Hears Me, He who Rejects You Rejects Me (Luke 10:16.)

    We fail to remember that even before Calvary many of Jesus’ followers left Him. It started with John 6 when most of His followers rejected Jesus after His disocourse (the longest in the Bible) on the Eucharist. Judas’ biggest sin was pride, thinking he knew better than everyone. We might recall that Judas got upset with Jesus when the pentient woman poured the expensive perfume over Him. Judas thinking because he hung around in the most well to do circles, he was naturally smarter than everyone. Sadly the sin of pride remains very alluring to many, especially today. Jesus gave us the Magesterium and popes (the Teaching Authority of the Church) which is unsettling those whose sin of pride tells them, they are so smart. I hope and pray that this sin is eradicated so the likes of Anne Rice and her defenders can truly see the wisdom of God and His ways.

  • I am a baptised Catholic that utterly rejects Catholicism and both organized and disorganized Christianity. I prefer to get my doctrine unfiltered by men with a selfish or heretical agenda. I prefer the simple uncomplicated truths that Jesus taught.

    Except that your declaration is manifestly untrue. As with every person I’ve seen issue encyclicals like yours, you haven’t abandoned organized religion, you’ve simply chosen to shrink it to a membership of one–yourself. You are simply the Pope of the Church of Marc Stephens, and you thunder with even more magisterial self-assurance than the Syllabus of Errors. Yours isn’t a declaration of liberation from organized religion–it’s a proclamation of your own infallibility.

  • Both are headed to the same place.

    Ms. Rice is, at least, open and candid; and not dangerous to our country and our way of life.

  • Her most recent post: ” My faith in Christ is central to my life. My conversion from a pessimistic atheist lost in a world I didn’t understand, to an optimistic believer in a universe created and sustained by a loving God is crucial to me. But following Christ does not mean following His followers. Christ is infinitely more important than C…hristianity and always will be, no matter what Christianity is, has been, or might become.”

    and personally I think she has a point. Christ is more important than Christianity in terms of an organization. We should all strive to be followers of Christ more than adherents to a system.

  • Also, we’re not to judge either Anne Rice or Nancy Pelosi or anyone else. Faith or lack therof is between that person and God.

  • Mike, yeah, I probably am going too easy on her. It was a visceral reaction. Any time the question “who’s the worst Catholic” is asked, the answer is supposed to be “me”.

  • No, we have every right to condemn public attacks on the Church.

    We’re not to judge a person’s SOUL. Their ARGUMENTS should be laid to waste with all of the terrible judgment we can muster.

  • IMAO, most writers don’t understand religion enough to talk about it sensibly. They seem to reduce everything to words. So to many of them, leaving a religion is more like throwing away old clothes or deciding you’re sick and tired of the color red. Of course, those decisions can be over dramatized with the right words as well.

  • Ms. Rice’s diatribe angers me. She reaches an immense audience from her pulpit and the opinions of many people are formed by what she preaches. Many souls were edified and brought back to the Church through her beautifully-written books about Jesus. How is she going to make reparations to the sheep that she formerly nourished with her writings about Jesus? Has the Rosary she brandished in many photographs been relegated to a bureau drawer? Had she been faithful in reciting the Rosary, it would have been a shield against the corruption she spoke about Christianity, thereby diminishing not only the Church, but Our Lord Jesus. This isn’t just about Ms. Rice’s soul. I think her diatribe was evil and self-centered and has the potential to kill the very souls that she was attempting to save. It’s just despicable.

  • Agreed Moe. She deserves rebuke, not coddling.

  • “Behold, there went out a sower to sow: And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the birds of the air came and devoured it up. And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth: But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away. And some fell among thorns, the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit. And other fell on good ground, did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, some a hundred. He said unto them, He that has ears to hear, let him hear.

    “And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable…. And he said unto them, The sower soweth the word. And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts. And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness; And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word’s sake, immediately they are offended.”

    It seemed apropos.

Political Miscellania 6/24/10

Thursday, June 24, AD 2010

A roundup of recent political news.

1.  Nikki Haley, see the above video, crushed her opponent in the runoff 65-35.  She survived bizzare accusations of infidelity, attacks on whether she is a Christian, her parents are Sikh immigrants, and outright racism.  She is only 38 years old, her youth being something she has in common with the new generation of conservatives running and winning this year.  She has a 20 point lead on her opponent in the general election and is the odds on favorite to win in the fall and be the next governor of South Carolina.

2.  Tim Scott handily won his runoff against Paul Thurmond for the Republican nomination for Congress from South Carolina 1.  This is a heavily Republican district, so Mr. Scott, who many consider to be the most conservative member of the South Carolina legislature, will now almost certainly be the first black Republican congressman from South Carolina since Reconstruction.

3.  The bad news for the Democrats for November just will not stop.  Gallup released a poll this week which shows a huge enthusiasm gap in favor of the GOP.

The current average is based on four measures of this enthusiasm question since February, including the recent June 11-13 USA Today/Gallup poll. In that poll, 53% of Republicans said they were more enthusiastic than usual about voting and 39% were less enthusiastic, while 35% of Democrats said they were more enthusiastic about voting and 56% were less enthusiastic.

Republicans’ net score of +14 more enthusiastic in the latest poll compared with the Democrats’ net score of -21 represents the largest relative party advantage Gallup has measured in a single midterm election-year poll. More generally, Republicans have shown a decided relative advantage in enthusiasm throughout 2010, averaging a net score of +28, compared with Democrats’ net score of 0.

(Gallup instituted a separate enthusiasm question in March on its Daily tracking survey, which asks voters to say how enthusiastic they are about voting this year as opposed to comparing their current enthusiasm to their enthusiasm in prior elections. This new enthusiasm question lacks a historical trend but has also shown a consistent Republican advantage throughout the year.)

The 28 percentage-point party difference in net scores on the “more enthusiastic than usual” question in 2010 is the highest Gallup has measured in a midterm election year, with 1994’s 17-point Republican advantage the only other midterm election-year gap coming close. (See the table at the end of the article for full data by party.)

Continue reading...

One Response to Political Miscellania 6/24/10

  • Re: Patty Murray’s challengers… Akers is solid, but he just doesn’t have much of a following among folks here in WA. He’s a businessman from Bellingham, who intends to streamline or LEAN out the bureaucracy.

    Rossi is (in my mind) a Johnny-come-lately to the race, and is the supposed establishment choice. He has name recognition, but he has yet to win a statewide race. In my time here, he’s the guy that lost to Christine Gregoire (governor) twice.

    Clint Didier is the man who has won my support. He’s a former tight end for the Redskins, and even caught a TD pass in the Superbowl. He’s a farmer, and a football coach back in Easter WA. By no means is he a polished politician, he admits quite frankly that he is not a polished politician.

    The Washington State Republican Party recently held their convention. Terra Mork, a local activist and pro-life conservative gives her take on the convention here and here. Additionally, Michelle at “Life of the Party”, another local local activist and pro-life conservative gives her endorsement to Didier as well.

    Anecdotally, the signs you see around town for Senate candidates are primarily for Didier. I have not seen one for Rossi. I’ve only seen one for Akers and one for Murray. WA is typically a blue state, but the enthusiasm seems to be falling mostly behind Didier, as Terra’s report of the straw poll seems to indicate. It should be interesting to see how the top two primary plays out to see who really will be on the ballot in the general.

8 Responses to Republicans Enjoy Largest Lead Ever in Gallup Generic Congressional Ballot

  • I think that speaks to the fact, that’s gotten out even despite left wing media censorship, that Obama is even worse than Carter, the erstwhile worst POTUS in history.

    He is incompetent and totally unprepared for the job, as is the sum total the elitist, liberal governing class.

    Or, all is going according to the plan: destruction of the evil, racist Gulf Coast.

  • Blago’s Circus (the Rod Blagojevich corruption trial now beginning in Chicago) probably won’t help Dems’ image either. I believe Politico rated it as one of five potential or developing stories this summer that could significantly impact the November elections.

    If Rahm Emanuel, Valerie Jarrett, Roland Burris, Harry Reid and others get called upon to testify in Blago’s defense (and that’s still a VERY big if), even if they themselves did nothing wrong, the sound bites/video clips of them marching to and from the courthouse can only leave a bad impression on voters.

    Due to the embarrassment this will cause Illinois residents for the next 4 months or so, I may just pretend to be from another state for the duration 🙂

  • “Due to the embarrassment this will cause Illinois residents for the next 4 months or so, I may just pretend to be from another state for the duration.”

    I agree Elaine. I will be Indiana Don for the duration! 🙂

  • Good one Don.

    Goes well with Indiana Jones 🙂

  • And I’m not afraid of snakes Don! 🙂

  • Elaine and Donald, whenever I am tempted to feel even slightly superior toward my Land of Lincoln neighbors, I remember my Congresscritter – and cringe:

    http://www.rightsideoftheroad.com/2006/01/gwen-moores-criminal-family.html

    Really, though, I think that if Old Abe is in Heaven right now, he is blissfully content – and thus knows nothing of current Springfield and Chicago goings-on. If he’s in Purgatory for reasons we do not know, well, his penance is that he gets filled in on Blago and Company from time to time. 😉 Knowledge of the current political goings-on in his beloved state would, I believe, be more painful for Lincoln than any of the torments described by Dante!

  • I wonder if the maximum sentence of 415 years which Blago could (theoretically) receive if found guilty on all 24 counts, includes projected time in purgatory? 😉 That would be far preferable, of course, to the fate Dante assigned to corrupt politicians in The Inferno — spending eternity immersed in a river of boiling tar.

  • Michael Voris should name the enemies within and without the Church. What criteria does he use to determine who is and who is not the enemy of the People of God?

2 Responses to Bribe, What Bribe?

When You Vote Democrat, Your Taxes Get Raised

Monday, May 31, AD 2010

The Governors office and both chambers of the Washington State legislature are currently under Democratic control. Years of spending on European style socialist programs have created a budget deficit. The Democrats have decided instead of cutting or trimming their state programs whey will instead add a beer tax (and more) to compensate for the budget shortfall.

Republicans don’t have all the answers either.  But you know (most times) it won’t be taxes that they turn to to solve a budget deficit.

Continue reading...

13 Responses to When You Vote Democrat, Your Taxes Get Raised

  • If taxes were raised to 90% but abortion would be entirely stopped, would you support the tax party or the anti-abortion party?

  • That’s a big “if”.

    But that in most likelihood not ever happen.

  • Plus, I’m pretty sure if you vote democrat you won’t get into Heaven.

  • We need to return to the good ol days of fiscal responsibility we had under Bush.

  • In 15 glorious months, President Quis Ut Deus has achieved: one-in-six Americans unemployed or underemployed. One-in-ten mortgages delinquent. One-in-four mortgage balances higher than the home value. One-in-ten mortgaged homes will be repossessed after the Obaguvmint cuts the loan modification masquerades. One-in-four credit card balances being written off. ETC.

    All this economic achhievement through $800 billion in federal fiscal stimulus (the Chineses fiscal stimulus worked, the dems’ went to pay dem voters/prop bankrupt blue states) and $1.25 trillion in worthless mortgage securities bought by the Fed – that has just ended. Not to mention destructive (same as the bubble run-up) monetary policy actions . . . When the “chickens come home to roost”, we will hold responsible the Dems.

    Next year the Dem powers (controlled congress 39 months) will solve all of the above. The president and Pelosi/Reid will end the evil tax cuts for the rich: Look out below!

    And, in 2013 they’ll add 30 million to government health care entitlement programs and save $$$ billions (ya’ think?). And, generate all the electricity people need with sunbeams and zephyrs. So, they can tax the crap out of oil and gas.

    While he was saving the economy, Obama found the ten minutes he needed to save the Gulf Coast from oil spill devastation – 40+ days and nothing.

    All according to plan objectives: destroy the unjust, racist private sector and reduce citizens to an equal level of poverty and dependency.

    I have the answer: raise taxes!!!!!

  • I’m glad there is an admission that the political right doesn’t have all the answers either.

    To the point — with a Republican President and a Republican Congress there was an increase of public funding of abortion, an increase in the size of government, and a budget-busting foreign policy agenda. Has President Obama and the Democrats done anything to slow this train wreck? No. Will they? Probably not. Do they deserve criticism? Most certainly.

    But this is not merely a Democratic problem. A great number of the same Republican politicians that would be re-elected this November and many of whom would become national leaders are the same figures who were supporters of the Bush Administration, supporters of deficit-spending, and a number of which who voted for 8 years for massive funding of Planned Parenthood without any pro-life amendments through Title X and other programs — and, of course, the National Right to Life’s legislative hawks were out playing cards somewhere, surely only concerned with what the Democrats are doing.

    Every social program has its lobbyists and defenders. Some programs are legitimate and I don’t oppose them at all; others are not. Some I think should be consolidated, others terminated, and some continued. But it is the demand for social programs but a love for low taxation (no revenue) that has created the budget crisis — not just the spending.

    In California where voters tend not to oppose, in principle, social spending, there is also a law — passed by an amendment on the ballot — that does not allow taxes to be raised unless there is a 2/3 majority in both chambers of the California congressional legislature which is terribly difficult. In other words, this is a two-sided problem. So with a number points of distinctions, I do agree with this post.

    Though I do pray that those concerned about fiscal matters will join me when there is a Republican majority in Congress and a Republican president and oppose the growth and massive spending of American imperialism.

    – We spend more on defense than the next 10 nations combined.
    – Our Navy exceeds in firepower the next 13 navies combined. We have 100,000 troops in Iraq, 100,000 (with the arrival of additional troops in Afghanistan), 28,000 in Korea, 35,000 in Japan, and 50,000 Germany. Do we actually need a presence with such great number in the last three countries mentioned?
    – According to the DOD, there are 716 (or more — some may not be counted because they are secret facilities) U.S. bases in 38 countries.
    – According to the DOD’s “Active Duty Military Personnel Strengths by Regional Area and by Country” there are U.S. troops in 148 countries and 11 territories.
    – We spend $1 trillion dollars a year for the Pentagon, two wars, foreign aid to allies, 16 intelligence agencies, scores of thousands of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our embassies. Much of this spending is on “the credit card” and we are currently building a $1 billion dollar embassy in London, England in the midst of this economic downturn. Do all of these efforts, all of these facilities, et al, constitute something — every measure of it — that is essential to our security?

    So here’s an idea — it is not a new one — but it is a good one. Republicans will fight new taxes and Democrats will fight to save social programs. So why don’t we gut the American empire?

    Does it make sense that we borrow billions and billions from Europe, Japan, and the Gulf states to defend those same countries? Why borrow billions from China to defend the rest of Asia from China? It is absurd to borrow from all over the world to be defenders of the world.

    Accuse Democrats until you’re blue of being socialist utopians that want to rob Peter to pay Paul. You might be able to make that claim with credibility if you are too alarmed that the Republicans now are on a war-without-end Wilsonian crusade with great budget-busting spending that has as its declared utopian goal of “ending tyranny” in our world and “promoting freedom” — an objective that obviously cannot be achieved in its totality in a world with sin and must surely it won’t be achieved through external force or solely through the use of arms.

    In short, vote Republican and you too will see a budget deficit and war without end. So let’s band together behind a coherent position and reform the parties from within.

  • …and war without end…

    How very silly – in addition to being historically inaccurate.

  • daledog,

    The point was meant to be hyperbolic — and I was not referring to historical precedent (Democratic presidents have launched more wars, surely) but the current political reality underscored by exaggeration. Objectives such as “defeating terrorism,” “fighting tyranny,” and “promoting freedom” are concepts not too far apart from that of “fighting poverty” and “combating racism.” In other words, these long-term objectives are not tangible, feasible goals (versus short-term goals such as “stabilize Iraq and withdraw”) and if the use of arms is an integral strategy in our foreign policy on such matters, then the Republicans will give us more war. If the terrorists move from Afghanistan into Pakistan or we catch them Iran, then we will have to follow them there and wage war against them and in the process nation-build where we’ve wrecked havoc — and this is a costly endeavor and it certainly has its advocates, McCain and Lieberman particularly.

    That was my point.

  • with a Republican President and a Republican Congress there was an increase of public funding of abortion

    ??

  • No Public Funding of Abortion: Myth or Status Quo?:

    In recent months, primarily due to the health care debate, much attention has been given to the contentious issue of public funding of abortion. Though it is true that the status quo, for the most part, has been not to directly subsidize abortion, Americans have been both directly and indirectly subsidizing abortion in a number of ways virtually since its legalization in 1973…

    …During the nominally pro-life Bush Administration, there was considerable federal funding of abortion. Planned Parenthood received funding through the Title XIX (Medicaid) and Title X appropriations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, gaining over $50 million per year through each program.

    The Title X appropriation which funds a “comprehensive” sex education and contraception program is particularly alarming. Its prime recipients are Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion organizations and facilities. While Title X monies cannot be used directly to fund abortions by organizations such as Planned Parenthood who provide abortions, the increase of available funds can be used to offset operational costs and free up resources that can be used to promote and expand abortion services. For the fiscal year 2008, the tax-exempt “non-profit” abortion provider Planned Parenthood reported taking in $1.0381 billion dollars in revenues. More than a third of Planned Parenthood’s budget (roughly $350 million) came from grants from the federal government. In other words, taxpayers directly underwrite abortion by underwriting abortion providers.

    Despite this obvious problem, President Bush signed the appropriations bill increasing the Title X funding level to $265 million, a total of $11 million more than it had been in the last year of the Clinton Administration. In 2004 President Bush signed the annual appropriations bill increasing Title X funding to $280 million, a $26 million increase over his first term. After the election of a Democratic Congress in 2006, Title X received its largest funding increase in 35 years, totaling $310 million with the signature of the then-Republican president.

    In the 1980s, President Reagan issued an executive order clarifying the statute prohibiting Title X funds cannot subsidize abortions to also mean “that Title X recipients may not refer for abortion or combine family planning services with abortion services.” Thus, under the Reagan Administration, health care professionals working in Title X-funded clinics were prohibiting from providing any abortion-related information or referrals. This policy was continued by President George H.W. Bush and was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1991. The executive order, however, was rescinded by President Clinton.

    This regulation was surprisingly never reinstated by President Bush; federal appropriations to the Title X program increased every year underwriting the abortion business with taxpayer dollars, with the majority of those increases occurring with a Republican (and an allegedly pro-life) majority in Congress and all on the watch of a nominally pro-life Republican president.

    By no stretch of the imagination could one imagine any of this changing during the Obama Administration. The current trend has continued, with the 2009 and 2010 Title X appropriations totaling $312 million and $317 million, respectively. President Obama in his 2011 budget proposal has suggested a $10 million increase in Title X spending, a total of $327 million.

    It is worth noting that Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) introduced an amendment to the 2009 HHS Appropriations bill intended to de-fund Planned Parenthood. The amendment read: “None of the funds made available under this Act shall be available to Planned Parenthood for any purpose under Title X of the Public Health Services Act.” The amendment (surprisingly) passed out of committee but failed on a floor vote.

    Unfortunately a few pro-life Democrats did not vote in favor of the Pence amendment, though many did. This issue—disunity in terms of congressional pro-life votes—has become quite a stumbling block for pro-life unity that must seriously and immediately addressed. This need not be downplayed nor need it be exaggerated—there are both wavering as well as courageous pro-life Democrats in Congress.

    In the same instance, one must wonder why is it that the Pence amendment or another equally pro-life measure was not enacted in the six years of a Republican majority to ensure that organizations that provide or refer for abortions did not receive Title X funding? It is almost certain there were a sufficient number of yes-votes. This might be a cynical point (as well as true one) but it seems that the Republicans have gotten too comfortable not forcing the abortion issue by avoiding “showdowns” or any sort of direct confrontation that does not seem to carry with it any sort of political capital that benefit’s the party. In other words, it is not surprising (to a skeptical mind like my own) that Rep. Mike Pence, no matter how sincerely pro-life he may be, would offer such an amendment with a pro-abortion majority in Congress. There is political capital in the amendment’s victory as well as its failure—it is but another issue that the GOP can use against the Democrats. At the very least, the amendment distracts from the enormous sums that Planned Parenthood was receiving under a Republican President and congressional majority. If this is true, there is nothing particularly heroic about the amendment; it is nothing more than bait for pro-life voters.

  • So why don’t we gut the American empire?

    Because there is no American empire.

  • I obviously don’t mean “American empire” in a strictly historical use of the term “empire.”

    Though I’m not sure if you insist on nit-picking my arguments with distinctions instead of substantially undermining it — unless my argument is, for the most part, reasonable.

  • I am not nitpicking over your terminology, Eric. There is a good deal of blatherskite in ‘palaeo-conservative’, libertarian, and social antiquarian discourse (see ‘Front Porch Republic’) about ’empire’ and ‘resistance to empire’. They are not contending with anything outside their own heads. You use their words.

    If I recall correctly, our balance of payments deficit on current account has, since 1982, usually run to about 4% of gross domestic product. That is a measure of the extent to which we are borrowing abroad for our various objects – private consumption, investment, and public consumption.

    Public expenditure is a compound of government purchases of goods and services and transfer payments. Private consumption amounts generally to around two-thirds of gross domestic product. Expenditure on the military and the intelligence services has varied between 3.5% and 8% since 1982, and now stands at around 5%. Military expenditure makes but a modest contribution as to why you are ‘living beyond your means’. There is, however, no secular trend in living memory with regard to the devotion of productive resources to the military. About 10% of domestic product was devoted to the military in 1955. By contrast, the medical-industrial complex accounted for 5% of domestic product in 1960 and 16% today. You made a complaint about the size of our Navy. The personnel strength of the U.S. Navy is the smallest it has been since 1941.

    Bringing ends and means in balance requires financing your public consumption and transfer payments from tax revenues and penalizing private consumption with the tax code. Right now, we face acute problems with fiscal imbalances brought on by an exceptional situation in the economy, so the military budget is an inviting target. The thing is, you only have banking crises once every fifty or sixty years or so in this country. As a rule, the level of military expenditure we have had over the last decade is quite sustainable. The economic arguments against ’empire’, such as it is, are bogus.