Democrats Abandon Democracy

Democrats Abandon Democracy.  That’s the title of a column that appeared yesterday.  It’s not the first time we’ve seen evidence that democracy, as a political system, isn’t something the libs and dems want.  There’s too much chance they’ll be opposed and won’t get their way.  No, they’d much rather be in a position to dictate to everyone, to impose their theories, their viewpoints, their agenda on everyone regardless whether those theories, viewpoints and agendas actually work or are in the best interest of the public and the country.  No, what the libs and dems want is power with themselves in the driver’s seat.

We’ve seen recently two very public examples.  First on September 14th, 2011, we have Obama’s former Director of the OMB saying that we should “curtail” democracy just a bit to prevent the gridlock in Congress.In other words, radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic.”  

That bit of political sagacy was followed on September 27, 2001 when North Carolina Governor, Beverly Perdue suggested that Federal elections be suspended and the existing folks be allowed another term…or more.  Those pesky elections!  Just imagine, why we, the Powers-That-Be, may be kicked out of office if we allowed elections!

I think Governor Perdue just committed political suicide.

Yesterday, the column below appeared.  It investigates this trend that is appearing throughout the democrat leadership.  The two earlier examples are not flukes

Democrats slowly abandon democracy

We’re a people too stupid to govern ourselves without liberal leadership

Recent pronouncements from the fever swamps of the left are enough to convince one that even the paranoid have enemies.
In recent years, some have given voice to a growing fear among conservatives that the American left is more committed to achieving its policy goals than to working within the confines of the U.S. democratic system. This fear has always been dismissed by just about everyone else as paranoid because in a free, democratic society the ends never justify the means.
Since the founding, this political consensus has underpinned the stability and political success of the American experiment. Democrats and Republicans may disagree, but, with one tragic exception, neither has been willing to suspend the Constitution, take up arms or call for a revolution because the other prevailed at the ballot box.
But that consensus seems to be fraying. As the polls have turned against them, many Democratic liberals are beginning to doubt the wisdom not only of allowing people to make their own decisions, but of letting voters have anything approaching a free hand in electing those who will lead them. Most people, after all, can’t be expected to know what or who is good for them. They make mistakes, and mistakes are not easily tolerated by an elite convinced that it knows best.
Oh, elections are good enough when they turn out right, but that isn’t always the case. Thus, three years ago, when the electorate was getting downright tired of an incumbent president who seemed to be messing things up, Democrats characterized themselves as, well, democrats. They couldn’t wait for the elections of 2006 and 2008 because they knew they were on a roll. Their presidential candidate was talented, articulate and an ideologue of the first rank. It seemed that the millennium was at hand with a committed liberal in the White House and soul mates at the helm of both the House and Senate.
Those first days after the 2008 elections were heady. James Carville for one declared in essence that we had reached the end of political history and that folks had better get used to the fact not only that happy days were here again, but that the evil Republicans had been vanquished and might not be seen knocking at the gate again for at least a generation. But things haven’t turned out the way the liberals assumed they would.
After a few initial successes in Congress, the ideological overreach and arrogance of the rookie president and his allies on the Hill spawned the tea party and cost the president’s party the House. Now he faces what everyone acknowledges will be a tough re-election campaign that could, even if the president prevails, leave the Republicans in control of both houses. It seems that it has taken not a generation, but a mere three years for the Republicans to be not just knocking at the gate, but threatening to knock it down.
The result has been a retreat from the rhetorical belief in democracy that has characterized both parties in the past. It has popped up just about everywhere on the left. President Obama himself has moaned about the difficulty of working within the confines of the constitutional system and particularly being forced to work with Congress. He has said, in fact, that it is “tempting” to simply go it alone. A Democratic governor has gone further, suggesting that it might be a good idea simply to suspend the next congressional election for a couple of years so the president and his party can focus on solving the problems facing the nation rather than having to worry about winning elections.

No, democracy, especially our republican form of government, is just too…unwieldy to be allowed to continue, so thinks the dem/lib leadership.  From the evidence we seen this week with the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd, they would be more in favor of government as imposed by their favorite theorists, Lenin and Stalin.  No unruly opposition there.  Ol’ Joe Stalin knew how to handle them!

The column continues…

The governor, Bev. Perdue of North Carolina, said very specifically, “I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years” and added, “I really hope someone can agree with me on that.” Without specifically agreeing that suspending the next election is viable, a lot of Mr. Obama’s “progressive” followers are of a mind with Ms. Perdue. Peter Orszag, Mr. Obama’s former head of the Office of Management and Budget, for example, has criticized what he calls the “Civics 101 fairy tale about pure representative democracy” and said he thinks something should be done to develop a “new set of rules that would make legislative inertia less detrimental to our nation’s long-term health.”
Other progressives are suggesting that we do away with the Electoral College, and just last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid exercised what became known when it was threatened a couple of years back as the “nuclear option” because resorting to it will change the way the Senate does business in the future, strip the minority of its rights and allow the ruling party to run roughshod over its critics. The GOP backed off, but Mr. Reid went right ahead with little regard for history, the rights of the minority or concerns about the future.
This week, the president and his allies are openly praising the so-called “Occupy Wall Street” movement and the minimobs it has spawned across the country demanding a political revolution and an end to democracy as we know it. These are not like the tea partyers, who revere the founders and the Constitution, but the ideological offspring of Robespierre, Marx and Lenin who know exactly what they’d like to do to those who stand up to them. These Obama allies view Cuba and Venezuela as examples of nations that are well-run.
The first president to openly attack the Constitution was progressive hero Woodrow Wilson. Today’s Democrats are proving by word and deed that they are indeed the inheritors of Wilson’s “progressive” disdain for democracy and individual rights. They are, in fact, the kind of people who should worry even the least paranoid among us.

We must never forget whom our real enemies are, for be assured, they know we are theirs.

Us vs. Them

The “Occupy Wall Street” idiots have made themselves a laughing stock. The libs and dems hoped they’d be a force on the streets.  After all, they paid for it.  Some were union goons who “volunteered” to join the protest.  Others were paid by George Soros. And still others by the DC Tenants Advocacy Coalition, an ACORN affiliate.

These protesters aren’t like the Tea Parties.  The Tea Parties were clean, cleaned up after them selves, were lawful and peaceful.  The exact opposite of the mob gathered by the lefties.

Smelly: Trash builds up at the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations

I’m not sure what the libs and dems hoped to gain from these protests. They didn’t impress the voters. Nor did they frighten Wall Street.  The mob has made threats, some of them death threats, threatened to hack into the Wall Street Exchange network and shut them down.


Compare these brain-fried idiots to the Moms, Dads, Kids, complete families that attended the 9-23 Rally in DC in 2009.  A world of difference.  The main one is that the Occupy Wall Street protesters are mostly parasites, bought and paid for by the left.  The Tea Party attendees, in contrast, paid their own way to DC, paid for their housing, and cleaned up after themselves leaving the Mall, the parks and streets cleaner than when they arrived.

The photo below is after a socialist/liberal protest.

Then compare that photo with the video of the DC Mall after the 9-23 Rally.  Note the cleanliness.  Note the full trashbags stacked next to a trash barrel.

Complete opposite worlds, the parasites vs. the real, productive people of the nation.  I know which side I’m on and it isn’t that of the parasites.

Awww. Sniff, sniff—NOT!

It seems that William Ayers, Obama’s butt-boy and political mentor, won’t be getting Emeritus status from the University of Illinois.  Ayers joined the University of Illinois-Chicago faculty in 1987 and retired last month.  The Emeritus status is largely honorary and has a few privileges such as library access.  

But Ayers forgot one thing—who sits on the committee that grants Emeritus status.

In a very unusual move, University of Illinois trustees Thursday denied giving emeritus status to controversial retired professor William Ayers.

The vote, at a U. of I. board meeting in Urbana, was unanimous and came after a passionate speech by board chair Christopher Kennedy, who invoked the 1968 assassination of his father, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, in saying that he was voting his conscience.

The other trustees, without comment, also voted against the appointment.

It seems that Ayers wrote a book praising Sirhan Sirhan calling him a “political prisoner.”  Ayers may have forgotten the connection but Christopher Kennedy didn’t.

But in an emotional statement, Kennedy discussed his reasons for voting against Ayers’ request.

“I am guided by my conscience and one which has been formed by a series of experiences, many of which have been shared with the people of our country and mark each of us in a profound way,” Kennedy said.

He said he could not confer the title “to a man whose body of work includes a book dedicated in part to the man who murdered my father.”

Kennedy was referring to a 1974 book co-authored by Ayers, “Prairie Fire,” which was dedicated to a long list of people including Robert Kennedy assassin Sirhan Sirhan and “all political prisoners in the U.S.”

Too bad, Ayers.  It couldn’t happen to a better person.

Truth! Cartoon of the Day: Bob Gorrell

Says it all.

The democrat party is our version of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

Soviet: A Definition

Aepilot_Jim has an excellent post on the definition of Soviet; how it came to be used by the early Marxists in Russia. That definition fits our situation today. Follow this link, read and contemplate the occurrences happening now in Washington, DC.

A matter of definitions.

Pelosi’s Record on Employment and Job Growth

Over the Holidays, Nancy Pelosi discussed her achievements since taking the position of Speaker of the House. For the country, it’s tragic. Nancy Pelosi doesn’t think so. Here’s an analysis from the Heritage Foundation.

Speaker Pelosi’s Job-Killing Agenda

After a three-week holiday break, the House of Representatives returned to session yesterday, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) marked the occasion with an op-ed detailing her “record of achievement” and outlining her agenda for the rest of the 111th Congress. Pelosi writes: “At the halfway mark in this Congress, our priorities are clear: strengthening the security of the American people and building a new economy that offers our families lasting prosperity.” But the 111th Congress is not the first Congress Speaker Pelosi has presided over. When Pelosi was first handed the gavel in January 2007, the U.S. economy employed 137.3 million people and our nation’s unemployment rate stood at 4.6%. According to the Labor Department’s most recent report, the U.S. economy has shed 6.3 million jobs since then, and 10% of our workforce is now unemployed.

Speaker Pelosi goes on to claim that President Barack Obama’s failed stimulus has “created or saved” 1.6 million jobs so far, but even the White House has abandoned its controversial “saved or created” jobs accounting scheme after more than 90,000 of the 640,000 jobs it claimed to create were found to be completely fraudulent. Pelosi then touts the Cash for Clunkers program as another success despite the fact the program did nothing to create auto sector jobs, led to a crash in auto sales, and did nothing to help the environment. Pelosi also celebrated the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which only further bankrupts our states and inched us ever closer to government-run health care.

Even worse then her past “accomplishments” is Speaker Pelosi’s future agenda, which basically calls for super-sizing the policy failures mentioned above. First on the agenda is President Obama’s health care plan which, like SCHIP, expands health insurance coverage through the welfare state. Both the House and Senate bills achieve over half of their health insurance expansion through Medicaid, which is a welfare program. The taxes and employer mandates used to pay for the expanded coverage are going to hit small businesses hard at a time when we desperately need them to be creating new jobs to move us out of recession.

After health care, Speaker Pelosi is promising continued action on the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation, which is built on the same failed policy ideas behind Cash for Clunkers. A Heritage Foundation analysis of the Waxman-Markey energy legislation found that for a household of four, energy costs (electric, natural gas, gasoline expenses) would rise by $436 in 2012 and by $1,241 by 2035, averaging $829 over that period. Higher energy costs would also increase the cost of many other products and services. Overall, Waxman-Markey would reduce gross domestic product by $393 billion annually and by a total of $9.4 trillion by 2035.

Finally, Pelosi promises “the most sweeping reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression.” But as Heritage fellow James Gattuso has previously demonstrated, the House financial overhaul bill would give financial regulators sweeping powers to control firms deemed “too big to fail” and establish a fund for FDIC to use to resolve the affairs of firms it takes over. The real-life effect of the new powers would be to signal to markets that firms are supported by the federal government and guaranteed against failure — thus leading them to take more undue risks, not less. Pelosi will have essentially created a permanent TARP.

We share Speaker Pelosi’s vision for “swift action to restore accountability to Washington and opportunity for the middle class, to create good-paying jobs for our workers, to use innovation to power America in a global economy and build a strong and smart national defense.” But as business owners, small and large, across the country are saying, Speaker Pelosi’s big government solutions are not the answer.

The Statists Next Attack on the Nation

The actions by Pelosi on Obamacare and Boxer in the Senate on Cap ‘n Tax have drawn eyes away from another attack by Charlie Rangel on the financial institutions of the country. Rangel is preparing legislation that would allow the government to seize any institution deemed “critical” to the nation. In other words, to arbitrarily seize any bank or institution they want, when they want, and give no reason for doing so.

The dems are taking advantage of the temporary control they have in congress to pass every bit of Marxists schemes to change the country to their idealized vision of a Marxist state. With control of all areas of society from beginning to end.

Here’s a column from IBD and what Rangel is planning.

Regulation: Washington is quietly preparing a hostile takeover of Wall Street with a new bill that would put regulators in control of managing asset prices.

While all eyes are fixed on the cobra poised to strike the health care industry, a python is wending its way through Hill banking panels that would squeeze the life from the whole economy.

By Christmas, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank hopes to pass legislation that would create an uber-regulatory body called the Financial Services Oversight Council.

It would give the Treasury secretary power to pick which large finance firms are “systemically critical,” or too big to fail. He’d have the final call when the government steps in to save or unwind a troubled firm.

The bill would “essentially turn over control of the financial system to the government and seriously impair competition in all areas of finance,” says former Treasury official Peter J. Wallison. It would put the government permanently in the business of picking winners and losers, he adds, creating a kind of permanent TARP.

The Kansas City Fed agrees. In a rare public rebuke, the branch issued a study concluding the bill “could lead to greater political interference.” Indeed, such heavy-handed regulation would breed corruption, loopholes, lobbying and the very kind of perverse incentives and distortions in the market that led to Fannie and Freddie securitizing $1 trillion in bad social loans. “It’s Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac all over again,” said Wallison.

The new regulatory agency can regulate banks, bank holding companies, insurance companies, hedge funds, finance companies and any other kind of company that might be designated too big to fail.

“The existence of these designated companies will impair competition in every market they are allowed to enter,” says Wallison, “and will force the consolidation of competitors so that markets become dominated by government-backed giants like themselves.”

Under the new regime, designated companies will not be able to finance their affiliates’ sales, putting them at a severe disadvantage against foreign competitors. GE Capital, for example, would not be able to finance GE sales of aircraft engines.

In effect, designated companies will fall under the control of the feds, unable to start new activities or enter new markets or perhaps even open new offices without federal approval. “This is a degree of political control of business that has never been attempted before,” Wallison says.

And with politics comes favoritism. Bailouts and preferences will go to favored firms, and healthy companies will pay for the cost of propping up their sick competitors. Bad decisions will be rewarded, draining taxpayers. And once the market comes to expect that government takeovers and bailouts will occur, they will have to go forward, lest surprises trigger market crashes.