Posts Tagged ‘Republican’

the Next New Big Thing

March 6, 2019



When it comes to politics, I am not the sharpest tool in the shed and I freely admit it.

Yes, I personally thought Trump was campaigning in the same way that Ross Perot did in 1992 and for the same reason: to put a Clinton in the White House.

And I am still wiping that egg off my face.

Now, I have an insight to share about the new class of Democratic members of Congress, specifically freshman Congresswomen Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

These two women are spunky and edgy in their opinions and viewed by many people as “offensive” and “out there”, but isn’t that sort of how Trump was described when he began his campaign?

So, I was thinking, what if these two are nothing more than prototypes of a new wave of Democratic candidate to ignite the voters in a manner similar to how Trump ignited the Republicans?

Neither of these two may appear in the final product line-up but doesn’t the experience as a whole simply scream “test marketing” to you?

It certainly seems that way to me.






Advertisements

the Need for a Revolution

March 10, 2010

“A little revolution, every now and then, is a good thing.” — Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States 1801-1809

When you mention the word “revolution”, people think of armed mobs storming government buildings, like the French did to the Bastille. And when people hear Jefferson’s quote (above), they think he was speaking of armed insurrection.

Both ideas could not be further from the truth. I figure if Jefferson meant to say “an armed insurrection is a good thing” he would have said it. What he meant was that abrupt changes are sometimes needed in a government.

Before you think that we’ve already had such change, remember most changes we have had over the past 225 or so years is “evolutionary” rather than revolutionary. The government has changed and modified slowly, in very small increments, from what it originally was to what we have today. Some of the changes have been good, most have not.

There were so many things that have happened through the years that the founding fathers could not have foreseen, could not have anticipated have happened to the nation they founded. So change was anticipated and allowed for in the Constitution itself, especially the portion relating to amendment. They saw that problems with the operations of government would naturally bring about changes for making the whole continue operating efficiently. But they would never have foreseen a time when the people would cause the document itself to be shredded or disregarded for some expediency. The underlying features of the document are still workable today, though it is not longer being used as it should.

“Executive Orders” can become law and “signing statements” can have the force of law and yet neither of the two are to be found in the Constitution nor in any Amendment to the document. Some laws passed by Congress have allowed Executive Orders to become law by their inactions… just like their inaction gives them a raise every year.

It is time to strip all the chaff away and return to the basics of the document itself. Congress is the body that is supposed to issue legislation, not the Executive branch or bureaucrats within the various Executive Departments. Congress proclaimed the Executive branch had breached the balance of powers clause in the Constitution when the FBI raided an office there with a search warrant. That kind of slipshod interpretation of the Constitution has got to be stopped. The Founding Fathers would not have liked to see such a ludicrous debate: the Constitution being used to circumvent due process of investigation in a criminal case.

Perhaps the Congress would be better off if these worthies would bother to read and understand the document which each of them has sworn to uphold.

Balance of Powers (revisited)

January 19, 2010

A couple of years ago, Congressmen were being investigated by the FBI.

It was strange how long the fit thrown by Congress continued. Both parties stood united as one against what they call “unconstitutional” actions by the FBI.

The situation was laughable.

And the wording they used was almost humorous. First they claimed that they were not above the law (although how that jibes with the rest of their case is not connected by any dots I could find). Rather than objecting to the “FBI” or the “Justice Department”, they called it “the Executive Branch”, thereby attempting to polarize their position. They claimed the balance of powers clause in the Constitution prohibited the search of their offices by “the Executive Branch”. They claim “the Executive Branch” is attempting to intimidate them.

They seem to overlook the fact that it was a Federal Judge (a.k.a. “the Judicial Branch”) had to sign the search warrant. So, why weren’t they complaining that TWO branches of the government are ganging up on them?

Obviously, they did not have a beef with the Judicial Branch, who was obviously complicit in the “illegal action”.

As usual, there is more here than meets the eye. In other words, they were looking out for their own interests rather than those of the country or their constituencies.

As far as being intimidated by “the Executive Branch”, I can see no reason for any such intimidation. Congress had been little more than a “rubber stamp” for the Bush administration, no more than a supportive organ of the Executive Branch, failing at stopping any of the initiatives the President and his “support base” (translation: the very, very rich) have shoved down our throats.

If someone is so willing to bow to the will of the President and “the Executive Branch” at all turns, why would they need to be intimidated?

Perhaps it was only their attempt late in the game to separate themselves from the cancer at the head of the government that they have so supported for so long. If that be the case, why didn’t they stand up to the Executive Branch where it would be better served, like doing something for the American people? Personally, I think that not only should we have impeached the President but the Congress as well. Every one of them. And put the balance of power back where it belongs: to the electorate.

Divide and Conquer

January 11, 2010

Joe Lieberman had lost his place in the race for the Senate. The Democrats had chosen his opponent, Ned Lamont. So, did Lieberman bow out gracefully? Hell, no! He was going to remain in the running “for the good of the people of the great state of Connecticut”.

Who the heck does he think he’s kidding?

Let’s journey back in time for a moment, back to 1992. The free-wheeling billionaire, Ross Perot, throws his hat in the ring and runs for President as an “independent”. Not that anyone noticed, but Ross ran hot and heavy in the beginning, when George Bush was ahead in the polls, but when Clinton closed the gap… well, Ross had to take a little ‘family time’. And he was not heard from again until about two weeks before the election when Bush pulled ahead in the polls again. Suddenly, Ross was back in the fray slugging it out at every opportunity.

What was happening was clear to see, although I don’t recall any news organization mentioning the fact: Perot appealed to Republicans more than Democrats and was able to ‘draw off’ Bush supporters, so Clinton could win.

One of Clinton’s first acts was to invite Perot to the White House for a celebratory dinner.

So, Lieberman will draw Democratic votes away from Lamont in the general election and give another Senate seat to a Republican. (I am surprised the Democratic Party leadership has not stepped in to prevent such a thing.)

I knew Lieberman was a staunch supporter of the Republican Administration, but didn’t that make it a little too obvious? Today he is sort of a parttime Democrat and parttime Republican. It does rather blur the whole concept of it being a two-party system anymore, doesn’t it?

(As if it ever was.)

Another Illegal Administration

January 7, 2010

I heard a lot of groans about how the 2004 election was “stolen”. After looking over the evidence, it is obvious it was stolen. But so what? That is only the tip of the iceberg in the illegal actions taken by the previous administration… and condoned by a Democrat-controlled Congress. And five years after that travesty of a mock election, the now Democratic White House does not seem to be anxious to change anything.

America has proudly been the staunch defender of human rights worldwide, for generations… until now.

We have steadfastly denounced offensive military actions by the dictators of the world… until now.

Torture of captives and political prisoners has always been denounced by our leaders… until now.

Detaining political prisoners without due process has been declaimed from on high… until now.

The President swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, and pays dearly when he slips… until now.

And the American people, as guaranteed, have always been the ultimate decider… until now.

Practically any one of these should have been enough to have Bush removed, and yet he continued his blithe captaincy of the ship of state in very rocky and shark-infested waters until the bitter end of his term. And it is sad that the Democrats under the questionable abilities of Speaker Pelosi have fought off all attempts to have the man impeached (why? I suppose so their man could continue the same abuse off powers when he came to the office in 2008). But the saddest part of all, perhaps the most frightening of all, is that these huge crimes are only the tip of the iceberg, and I am certain we will be discovering for years to come the crimes George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have committed while in office.

And how has this been allowed to happen? Fear! When 9/11 occurred, our wonderful leaders pointed the finger and claimed Al Qaeda done it! Bin Laden denied any involvement in the action (and further investigations point the finger more squarely on this administration having done it themselves!), but we declared “war on terror” and advanced into Afghanistan to grab Bin Laden. Now we have gone into Iraq to fight terror but have succeeded only in spreading it further!

Whenever Bush needed something more from the American people, we heard more of the fear message. And the will of Congress and the people bow before the fear. One by one, we allowed the government (Republican President and Democratic Congress) to infringe on our freedoms. Once the power has been given away, do we really expect these people to give us back the power? Are you nuts?! Of course they won’t!

Human Rights commissions in Europe and those attached to the U.N. have denounced the governments of two countries in recent months for “war crimes”, “crimes against humanity”, and “human rights violations”: the United States and Israel. And that does not bode well for a universal form of democracy, does it? It seems more like a highly polarized political agenda. (The announcement of either should not surprise anyone. For more on Israel, see my previous post… same ol’ same ol’.)

Just like Lincoln’s goal of “ending slavery” only expanded it, Bush’s reported goal of “spreading democracy” will in actuality end it. I’m afraid that establishing “puppet governments” in the Middle East and refusing to recognize democratically elected governments (like Hamas) points to the extinction of democracy rather than its spreading.

Telling others how to govern is not democracy. It is creating a “territorial status” for these foreign nations under the guise of independent operations.

Its time for this nation to wake up, don’t you think?

Or our grandchildren will have to live without the freedoms we have so easily relinquished. Future generations will pay for our crimes of omission.