More:Print This Post
More:Print This Post
We have seen countless instances of Obama puerile, vindictive, and indefensible behavior and actions in his treatment of individuals, politicians and even States that he doesn’t like for any of a variety of political reasons. Many dismiss such occurrences as just the “Chicago way” when, in fact, such behavior is not merely just un-Presidential but may violate the law.
Such arrogance and abuse of power by Obama is his essence.
Being and acting Presidential for all the States and citizens is a foreign concept to him so to speak.
Messing With Texas, Chicago Way
Investor’s Business Daily 04/27/2011
Politics: Asked last week why he's so unpopular in Texas, the only thing our president could say was "Republicans." Now that Texas has been lashed by tornadoes, his curious refusal to aid the state suggests the depth of his dislike.
Two weeks ago, Texas Gov. Rick Perry pleaded with the president in a 16-page letter to declare a large number of Texas counties disaster areas after historic wildfires ravaged over a million acres across the state, burning 350 homes and killing three.
A bad combination of hurricane rains, freezing weather and subsequent drought have made ideal conditions for the inferno during this tornado season.
Perry's request was a routine effort to free up federal disaster funds so the state wouldn't have to fight the fires alone. Texas should have been granted it easily.
But to date, nobody's gotten back to him — though other states with natural disasters, such as Oklahoma next door, got the declarations they needed. North Carolina got its declaration a mere four days after it made its request. So far, the White House seems to be saying Texas can burn.
This is no isolated incident. In the aftermath of the September 2010 killing of a U.S. citizen by Mexico's Zeta cartel in Texas waters, Perry pleaded in another letter to the president to send 1,000 extra National Guard troops to the border, warning of a "dire threat amassing on our southern border."
The response he got was little more than pablum from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano assuring that all was well on the border.
Since then, mass graves have been found on the Mexican side of the border, and they aren't done digging.
This Monday, Perry announced that Texas would finally get its $830 million in promised federal funding for education from the Department of Education after a nine-month delay. Texas alone of all 50 states had been denied its share of the funds as a result of an amendment from an Obama ally, Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Austin, who wrote a special provision into the 2010 federal education jobs bill to require Texas alone to "supplement and not supplant" state education financing through 2013. Perry called it unconstitutional, and it was reversed in the 2011 budget.
If this isn't a pattern, what is? In Texas, it's been one thing after another since the president told WFAA-TV in Dallas last week that he's unpopular in the state because it's full of conservatives.
What's more, he suggested they weren't sufficiently grateful to him. "Gov. Perry helped balance his budget with about $6 billion worth of federal help — which he happily took — and then started blaming the members of Congress who had offered that help," Obama told a TV interviewer.
Seems the president considers federal funding "his" money — rather than a round trip of cash from the states — deserving of gratitude, and any state that thinks otherwise gets payback, the Chicago Way.
Arizona, Wisconsin and Louisiana have felt similar stings for defying Washington.
This kind of ward-heeling behavior may seem logical to Obama, but it's quite beneath the office of a president who is presumed to govern all the country.
Texas, and the rest of the U.S. for that matter, desperately needs a leader, not a partisan politician whose only fealty is to his political cronies.
More:Print This Post
In the following call to arms, conservative Lloyd Marcus exhorts all of us to vociferously oppose Obama, Progressives and their anti-American, anti-freedom and big government agenda. Being politically correct or silent will not allow us to obtain our goals. We must be fearless and relentless in our attempts to oust Obama and the Democrats in Congress (and elsewhere).
Tea Party David Vs. Two-Headed Goliath
Lloyd Marcus April 23, 2011
On the O'Reilly Factor TV show, Dennis Miller was asked his thoughts regarding the media's response to Obama's numerous flip flops. Miller said the media will report whatever Obama does in a positive light.
We patriots are well aware of the liberal media's love affair with Obama. And yet, for some reason, the reality of Miller's comment hit me hard right between the eyes. I thought, "Oh my gosh. This is not funny. Our country is in serious trouble."
Not only must we defeat the Obama administration, we must take on and defeat the liberal mainstream media as well; take on the two powerful well-funded entities committed to the fundamental transformation of America. Lord, help us!
Patriots, we can, will and must defeat this two headed evil Goliath. Despite the left's shock and awe public relations slanderous attacks on the tea party and our candidates, we took the House of Representatives. Thus proving, they can be beaten!
I am so sick of advisors cautioning us conservatives to walk on eggshells when dealing with the liberal media. It has even been suggested that we stop using the term "tea party" due to the negative image created by the media.
Patriots, even if we change our name to the "Happy Go Lucky Nice People Movement," we will still be targeted for destruction by the media. What part of they hate us and want us to fail do our advisors not understand? The liberal media is going to put a negative spin on whatever we say.
Now, am I advocating saying stupid provocative things? Of course not. I am advocating fearlessly and aggressively attacking Obama's horrific record. Call out the liberal media on their biased reporting. Stop allowing the Democrats and their media minions to set the rules of engagement. Patriots, the stakes are far too high to wimp out foolishly seeking approval from those actively pursuing our total destruction.
Again, I say, what do we have to lose by confronting the democrats and the liberal media? They are going to trash us regardless.
Yes, they will call you a racist. I say this in love: "Get over it." Throughout U.S. history many have suffered far greater and paid the ultimate sacrifice. Why? Because America is worth it.
Tons of articles have been written calling me a stupid self loathing n****r, an Uncle Tom, a tea party minstrel, a traitor, a sellout, and a clown. It all rolls off my back. I know I am on the right side. So, why should I care what evil stupid people say or think of me? But most of all, my strength and peace comes through knowing God is with us and America is worth it.
Like little David in the Bible, we must boldly confront the two headed Goliath, Obama administration/liberal media.
Why do you think Trump and Palin are doing so well in the polls? Both are boldly and unapologetically takin' it to Obama and are not kowtowing to the liberal media. Patriots are frustrated with Republicans pandering and trying to "play nice" with a Democratic Party and liberal media who are relentlessly and viciously attempting to kill us politically. The Democrats and the liberal media take no prisoners.
Rush Limbaugh says the Democrats and liberal media will tell you who they fear most by the intensity of their attacks. Who have been numbers one, two, and three on the Democrats' and liberal media's list? Answer: Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, and the Tea Party. Brothers and sisters, we can beat them!
How do we defeat them? In addition to ceasing to fear Obama and his liberal media co-conspirators, we must continue doing what we have been doing. Patriots must continue following their passion and using their gifts and talents wherever needed in our extraordinary divinely inspired Tea Party Movement.
We are blessed with great minds on our side; patriots are writing books, organizing and conceiving various strategies to take back our country.
While some lament that we lack a central leadership organization or charismatic leader, I am grateful for all of our numerous patriot groups and committed individuals. Each is driven to politically defeat Obama in its own way. Their spirit is the tea party.
Just as God's grace guided David's stone to topple Goliath, our stone of truth, honor, and freedom will hit its mark and bring down the two headed evil Goliath of the liberal media and the Obama regime in 2012.
More:Print This Post
Obama is using the power of government, effectiveness of demagoguery and the obvious power or wealth redistribution in order to stack the deck in his favor for re-election.
As clearly stated in the article below:
Obama's potential for a "near lock" in the Electoral College shows the political power of "income redistribution" in combination with an ever-larger, all-pervasive government that (including state and local) controls and spends nearly 40% of GDP in a discriminatory manner …
Members of Obama's potential coalition receive disproportionately large amounts from government but pay little of the cost of government.
With the help of fellow Progressives in government and an irresponsible fawning far left news media … combined with our money stolen away in usurious taxation, he is close to achieving a stolen and manipulated election victory.
Riding Income Redistribution Back To White House In 2012
Ernest S. Christian and Gary A Robbins 04/20/2011
How can Barack Obama be about the worst president in history — and at the same time the "best politician" in America, according to some experts?
Simple answer: Being president is about substance; being a politician is about theatrics. Sometimes, the twain meet and — as in the case of Ronald Reagan and others — produce a statesman.
But not in Obama's case. Just the opposite!
Being a good president involves competence, integrity and making Americans better off, often by stopping government from doing things that make people worse off. (Rep. Paul Ryan's trailblazing blueprint for reducing the deficit and downsizing government is a prime example.)
To Obama, politics is about bamboozling people into thinking that he's making them better off when he's making them worse off.
The trick is to expropriate money from people who work hard and pay their taxes — and use the loot to scatter around enough political lagniappe to piece together a majority of bought-and-paid for votes strategically placed in the right locations to yield an Electoral College victory.
Obama never lets a cynical political ploy go unexploited. He blares away about raising taxes on the "rich." He knows that high taxes ruin the economy and hurt everyone who depends on a nongovernment job for a living.
But so what?
The sotto voce Obama plan: Get rid of pesky Republicans; get re-elected; raise taxes through the roof starting in 2013; knock smug middle-class Americans off their high-earning perch; crash the economy; catch everyone in a new "safety net" where all have the same modest government-controlled income and live under federal supervision.
In his "now you see it, now you don't" speech at George Washington University on April 13, the president of the United States declared war on mainstream America and common sense.
Obama insulted Rep. Ryan for trying to save and reform Medicare. How dare Ryan defy King Barack and stand in the way of ObamaCare and the government-run health care rationing that Americans hate?
Among other cost-cutting priorities, repeal of ObamaCare should be a condition for any increase in the federal debt limit.
Obama's latest phony "solution" to the Obama debt crisis is to appoint a committee to run in circles and gum up Congress sufficiently to delay a Budget Resolution that cuts spending.
Obama is funding a new political imperium built upon a massive voter turnout of government-oriented constituencies. These include government employees (about 17% of total employees); the roughly 60 million people who depend significantly on government assistance; and a large portion of the three rapidly growing "minority" groups who, according to census data, will soon constitute an arithmetic majority in America.
In 2008, African-Americans favored Obama by 95%. Overall, he got 67% of the Hispanic vote and 62% of Asians. In key locations, his percentages were sufficiently enormous and concentrated to tilt the electoral vote count. Obama got 67% of the electoral vote with 53% of the popular vote.
Members of unions vote heavily (60%) for Obama in exchange for favors. So do abortion supporters (73%) and members of the GLBT community (70%).
Obama will get the "kiddie" vote on campuses, the anti-American left, the hard-core environmentalists, the brass-collar Democrats and a lot of nice people who cannot bring themselves to vote against America's first black president.
Obama's potential for a "near lock" in the Electoral College shows the political power of "income redistribution" in combination with an ever-larger, all-pervasive government that (including state and local) controls and spends nearly 40% of GDP in a discriminatory manner among an increasingly diverse and balkanized population.
Members of Obama's potential coalition receive disproportionately large amounts from government but pay little of the cost of government.
A small minority of Americans (roughly one-third of eligible voters) already pay nearly all the personal income tax — and Obama will whip the "tax slaves" into paying more and more until they collapse.
Originally, the disparity in treatment between "net payers" and "net takers" was to help people who were actually poor (instead of merely less well-off than someone else) — but Obama and other levelers have made broad scale "redistribution" the main mission of government.
Jeffrey Miron at Harvard points out that in 2007 — before the recession — Washington was already spending about 50% of the budget on programs designed to redistribute money from the better-off to the less well-off.
The Heritage Foundation's Index of Dependency shows that dependency on government has increased by about 15% since 2007.
In Obama's un-American America, a modest standard of living will become both the minimum and the maximum.
Thanks, but no thanks.
• Christian, an attorney, was a deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Ford administration.
• Robbins, an economist, served at the Treasury Department in the Reagan administration.
More:Print This Post
Though Democrats don’t have a monopoly on tax cheats, it sure seems that way – particularly recently. Of course this behavior comports quite well with the arrogance and contemptuousness that they displayed for the American people when they had unopposed control of the federal government – both the House and Senate in Congress and the White House.
Why should they care very much if they raise taxes? After all, many are so wealthy that it affects them little. And besides, for those Democratic politicians who do actually pay their taxes, many have found loopholes and other stratagems in order not to pay their “fair share”.
Also by using this taxation power, they are in effect, “buying” voters (those that pay little or no taxes) who will keep them in office.
We, the productive citizens who are bearing an ever increasing tax burden to support these Democratic politicians and their “entitled” minions, need to assiduously work to make sure that they don’t get re-elected.
Investor's Business Daily 03/22/2011
Hypocrisy: A Missouri senator up for re-election is the latest administration crony to overlook or avoid paying all her taxes. Funny, they have no problem raising them on or collecting them from the rest of us.
If you ever wonder how we could find ourselves $14 trillion in debt and sinking fast, consider how fast and loose the mythical guardians of the public purse are with keeping their own finances in order and meeting their own tax obligations.
As Politico has reported, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said Monday that she will sell her private plane and pay $287,273 in back Missouri property taxes that somehow slipped her mind while she was supporting ObamaCare and spending the rest of us into oblivion.
"This is not good," McCaskill said during a conference call with reporters on Monday as she detailed the Missouri property taxes she owed: $72,790 in 2007, $74,699 in 2008, $69,394 in 2009 and $70,401 in 2010. Meanwhile, other Missouri property owners struggled to keep up with far lesser means.
The property taxes are owed on a plane — a 2001 single-engine, turbo-prop Pilatius PC-12 valued at $2.2 million — acquired in July 2006 during McCaskill's Senate run against Republican incumbent Jim Talent. It had been registered in Delaware, where no taxes were imposed. Then it was moved to Illinois, which imposes no personal property taxes on private aircraft.
Because planes are not licensed in Missouri, the state has no record of who owns them, so local governments — which levy property taxes — send no bills. As a result, McCaskill said, her husband and the company owning the plane had no knowledge that the property taxes were owed. Ignorance of the law, it is said, is no excuse, especially if you're the state's U.S. senator.
McCaskill's family opted to move it in 2007 to Spirit of St. Louis Airport in St. Louis County. As a senator, McCaskill has flown at least 89 flights chartered by Sunset Cove Associates LLC — a company incorporated in 2002 by her husband, St. Louis businessman Joe Shepard, according to records kept by the Missouri secretary of state's office.
The senator had used the plane she co-owns with her husband and other investors for political purposes, paying for the travel with taxpayer money from her Senate office, which she now calls a "mistake," for which she will reimburse the government nearly $89,000.
McCaskill recently co-sponsored a bill in the Senate that would send pink slips to federal employees who are found to have unpaid taxes. This was the situation Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was found in during his confirmation hearings in which he was touted as the only person on the planet capable of leading us back to financial stability.
It was revealed that Geithner had since 2001 failed to pay nearly $40,000 in Social Security and Medicare taxes because he worked for the International Monetary Fund, which conveniently failed to withhold those taxes as U.S. firms do. Like McCaskill, Geithner forgot to check.
Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., lost his post as chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee after it became known that he failed to pay 20 years of back taxes on a Caribbean villa, on top of tax issues related to four rent-controlled apartments in Harlem used by his campaign.
Then there's Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, who docked his family's new $7 million yacht in neighboring Rhode Island, letting him avoid paying roughly $500,000 in taxes to his cash-strapped home state, where honest taxpayers were struggling to put ketchup on the table.
The power to tax is the power to destroy. It also is an opportunity for hypocrites to benefit at taxpayers' expense, an act that calls for removal from areas of control over the public purse.
If they can't run their own affairs cleanly and openly, they shouldn't run ours.
More:Print This Post
The outcome was preordained. Predicted. Completely comporting with the arrogant and corrupt ways of the Obama Administration and Attorney Holder’s Justice Dept.
The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), a section within the Dept. of Justice and under the jurisdiction of Holder, came to the (pre-written before the investigation) conclusion in their investigation of the voter intimidation case of the New Black Panther Party and its handling by that very same DOJ that “Justice Department attorneys "did not commit professional misconduct or exercise poor judgment, but rather acted appropriately, in the exercise of their supervisory duties in connection with the dismissal of the three defendants in the NBPP case.”
There couldn’t have been any conflict of interest, could have there been?
A slight lack of true “independence” of the OPR? And, of course, no implicit intimidation by Holder regarding the expected outcome!
This whole situation has been a travesty and needs to be sedulously investigated by Congress.
DOJ Ethics Office: No Evidence That Politics, Race Influenced New Black Panther Party Case
Ryan J. Reilly March 29, 2011
Members of the New Black Panthers Party outside a polling place in Philadelphia, PA during the 2008 elections.
The Obama Justice Department did not improperly let politics or the race of the defendants affect the handling of a high-profile civil voter intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party, a probe by DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) concluded after an extensive investigation.
Justice Department attorneys "did not commit professional misconduct or exercise poor judgment, but rather acted appropriately, in the exercise of their supervisory duties in connection with the dismissal of the three defendants in the NBPP case," the head of OPR wrote in a letter to Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) obtained by TPM.
OPR's investigation began in the summer of 2009. After an extensive investigation which included reviews of the New Black Panther Party file, "thousands of pages of internal Department e-mails, memoranda, and notes" and interviews with 44 current and former Department employees, OPR "found no evidence that the decision to dismiss the case against three of the four defendants was predicated on political considerations," wrote DOJ's Robin Ashton.
"We found that the decision by the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, a career Department employee, was made following appropriate consultation with, or notification to, career attorneys and supervisors, and Department leadership," Ashton wrote.
"We found no evidence of improper political interference or influence from within or outside the Department in connection with the decision in the case," she wrote. "In sum, we concluded that the decision to dismiss three of the four defendants and to seek more narrowly-tailored injunctive relief against King Samir Shabazz was predicated on a good faith assessment of the law and the facts of the case and had a reasonable basis."
"We found no evidence that political considerations were a motivating factor in reaching the decision. We also concluded that the decision to initiate the NBPP case was based upon a good faith assessment of the facts and the law. We found no evidence that political considerations were a motivating factor in authorizing the civil action against the four defendants," Ashton wrote.
"Finally, we found no evidence to support allegations (which were raised during the course of our investigation) that the decision makers, either in bringing or dismissing the claims, were influenced by the race of the defendants, or any considerations other than an assessment of the evidence and the applicable law," Ashton wrote.
"In sum, we examined only whether any of the individuals involved in the decision-making process - with respect to either the initiation or dismissal of claims in the NBPP case - committed professional misconduct in the performance of their official duties," Ashton wrote.
"We determined that the attorneys involved in the NBPP case made good faith, reasonable assessments of the facts and the law," Ashton wrote. "We did not attempt to evaluate the relative merits of their differing positions."
More:Print This Post
Irrefutably, Obama is not what he was purported to be or was constructed and marketed by committee to be. His personal history before the election had been largely shrouded in an assiduously suppressed mystery.
He was an enigma but as it turns out, also a habitual lie.
Obama is a construction by the radical left but now is in a state of free fall and deconstruction. Even his most ardent supporters and purveyors of his factitious persona are losing patience with him.
Louis Farakhan. Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Bill Ayers. And so on.
Though revealed through research by Jack Cashill and others that his acclaimed autobiography “Dreams From My Father” was actually penned by the erstwhile Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers, it wasn’t until just now that the latter actually admitted this fact publicly. Thus, the plaudits that Obama received for his intellectual brilliance and writing skills on this work were wholly undeserved and his acceptance and dishonesty regarding the matter - egregious. The effusive praise continually expressed by the Left and media regarding Obama and this autobiography which clearly helped supercharge his Presidential campaign, was therefore completely undeserved. This recent admission by Ayers of his authorship also repudiates Obama’s specious claims that he knew little of him and that Ayers was “just someone living in the neighborhood”.
Obama, himself an inveterate liar, is a manipulated and manufactured lie who is now disintegrating.
Obama has truly become the “Emperor without clothes”.
Ayers affirms he wrote Dreams from my Father
Jack Cashill March 27, 2011
Last Thursday evening at Montclair State University, with a video camera rolling, Bill Ayers volunteered that yes indeed he had written the acclaimed Barack Obama memoir, Dreams from My Father.
Unprompted, Ayers also noted that while Dreams deserves its praise, Obama's second opus, Audacity of Hope, is "more of a political hack book."
Not surprisingly, Ayers retreated into irony as he ended the session. "Yeah, yeah," he said after confirming again that he wrote Dreams, "And if you help me prove it, I'll split the royalties with you. Thank you very much."
With his final comment, the Ayers-friendly audience laughed in relief. The media will laugh nervously upon seeing the video as well. The White House will not.
Barack Obama knows what I know and what the people who have read my book, "Deconstructing Obama," know: Bill Ayers is the principal craftsman behind Dreams. The evidence is overwhelming.
Ayers also established, as I have contended from the beginning, that he is not the author of Audacity of Hope. Although Obama claims unique authorship of this book too, it was, as Ayers suggests, a disingenuous feint to the center written by committee.
Worse for Obama still, Ayers knows that the story he and Obama contrived in Dreams is false in many key details. The fact that Donald Trump has proved willing to challenge that story has got to make the White House even more apprehensive.
As was obvious in his speech at Montclair, Ayers does not like the application of force in Libya, and this may have been his own way of retaliating. Consider it a shot across Obama's bow. The White House will.
More:Print This Post
For the 2 years that the Democrats had complete control of the House, Senate as well as the Presidency, they have held the American public hostage. They attempted and in a few cases, such as in Obamacare, succeeded in passing legislation that was vehemently opposed by the majority of voters. Their reaction: dismissive and contemptuous.
The arrogance of Democratic politicians for the will of the voter has become a contagion in the state legislatures now, as first evidenced by their absconding from their legislative responsibilities in Wisconsin, going over the border to Illinois to avoid a vote being able to be taken on an issue that they opposed but was supported by the majority of the state’s voters. The Democrats in Indiana have now followed this same modus operandi.
These puerile, irresponsible and haughty actions, which have become part of the Democrat Party DNA, are now, in effect, robbing the voters of their rights and in many way, indirectly disenfranchising the voters. Such actions MUST stop.
Democrats' Tyranny of the Minority
Peter Heck March 24, 2011
Talk radio kingpin Rush Limbaugh has repeated for years his belief that as a political party, the Democrats feel entitled to power. When they are denied it by the results of an election, they react as though they are the victims of a grave injustice, thereby at liberty to engage in whatever tactic is necessary to retrieve what is rightfully theirs. Beginning with the Wisconsin walkout and now embodied in the temper tantrum of Indiana Democrats, the self-professed Doctor of Democracy has once again been proven right.
Statehouse walkouts are not without precedent. In fact, they are a reasonably common occurrence. But they are largely symbolic gestures -- an attempt to demonstrate the minority's outraged disapproval of the majority's agenda. Seldom do they go on for days, and until now, never have they been legitimate attempts to undermine the entire democratic process by grinding the operation of government to a halt.
Yet that is exactly what the Wisconsin Democrats attempted, and what their Indiana counterparts are still shamefully perpetrating. What is taking place in the Indiana Statehouse is far from a mere regional or petty statewide issue; it is a direct assault on the democratic process that deserves national attention and collective, bipartisan scorn. For while the Wisconsin constitution allowed the Republicans a procedural recourse to rectify the stalemate (something they employed when it became apparent the Democrats could not be lured back by compromise), Indiana Republicans have no such option.
For those who may be unaware, Indiana Statehouse Democrats staged a walkout a month ago to deny the large Republican majority the ability to enact legislation opposed by public and private union bosses - specifically right-to-work and public education reform laws. The Democrat caucus fled across state lines to Illinois (where else?), and have been holed up in a hotel demanding concession after concession to earn their return. But even after capitulating to their juvenile fit and pulling the right-to-work law off the table, Republican leaders have been unsuccessful in luring the Democrats back to work.
Indiana House Speaker, Republican Brian Bosma, acknowledged as much when he lamented, "We can't do the Madison shuffle that Wisconsin legislators were able to accomplish." The consequence of that reality? Given that Indiana has a part-time legislature, the stalemate will most likely cease only when the session adjourns and Governor Mitch Daniels calls the Assembly back into special session to pass a budget and new redistricting maps - the only items the legislature is required by law to pass. This special session may give Republicans some wiggle room, but the likelihood is that the Democrat temper-tantrum will have killed the passage of virtually every bill introduced this year.
There's a phrase for what is occurring in Indiana; it's called the "tyranny of the minority." In Federalist #10, James Madison warned against the tyranny of the majority by proposing that a republican form of representative democracy would best protect the rights of the minority. What he apparently didn't count on was that in an effort to appease their union masters, the minority would one day use those protections to obliterate the democratic process. And that is precisely what is unfolding.
It's telling that the phrase "tyranny of the minority" has been employed in recent years by Democrat apologists angry at the Republican Party's use of the filibuster to stall Democrat-sponsored legislation. Watching Republicans require a supermajority of 60 Senators to pass some of Barack Obama's most controversial policies (thereby slowing his left-wing revolution of government), Democrat consultant Peter Fenn thundered, "This is the tyranny of the minority...This acceptance of a supermajority to get anything done in America has gotten way out of hand...There is a place for a supermajority: impeachment, eviction of members, veto overrides, votes on treaties and constitutional amendments. But we should not have such requirements for the regular conduct of legislative business, especially at times like these, when action is required to move the country forward."
One must wonder where Mr. Fenn and his counterparts are now. After all, while both parties' overuse of the filibuster to obstruct legislation is a fair topic of conversation, it pales in comparison to the unseemly tactic of a group of lawmakers who hold representative democracy itself hostage by refusing to show up for work. Because while a filibuster is levied to obtain critical changes and adjustments to pending legislation, these walkouts are a brazen attempt to thwart the will of the people expressed in an election.
As Bosma explained, "We've offered a number of concessions on substitutive matters on issues of concern to the Democrats. What we have not agreed to do is to meet their demand to remove issues for the remainder of the legislative session in both chambers, which is their continued demand, that these issues just go away, really nullifying the election results of November 2."
And that's why reasonable and fair minded individuals from around the country and from both sides of the aisle should be outraged at this stunt. The dangerous precedent being set here is that whatever party loses the election should just flee the state to prevent the winners from passing any laws. This un-statesmanlike chicanery annihilates the very republican form of government our Constitution guarantees.
In his article, Fenn complained, "We have seen the rapid evolution of a nation that covets the concept of majority rule to one where the tyranny of the minority threatens to paralyze the country." Indeed it does. Nothing less than the democratic process is at stake. And ironically, it's the group of folks who euphemistically and now wholly inappropriately refer to themselves as the Democratic Party who have the gun to its head.
More:Print This Post