Vote for the Values Party!

After writing my previous post about how the vast majority of Democratic ads I have seen this election cycle have been about abortion, I came across this article from Politico affirming that my observations do indeed reflect a clear nationwide strategy by Democrats.  They have decided to "go all in for abortion rights."  Here is more from the (typically slanted) Politico article:

Democrats have gone all in for abortion rights, with none of the hedging or defensiveness they’ve shown in recent years — a subtle but striking repositioning with political consequences that extend far beyond Nov. 6.

The evidence of it is impossible to miss. The airwaves are choked with messaging about women’s reproductive health. Abortion rights advocates had prime speaking roles at the Democratic convention. Contraception advocate Sandra Fluke is a prominent campaign trail surrogate. Cecile Richards, head of Planned Parenthood, recently introduced President Barack Obama at a Virginia campaign rally.

While Democrats have long supported a woman’s right to choose, this year’s full-throated embrace of abortion rights — from the president down to the most obscure House candidate — marks a historic departure that now places the party as firmly and unyieldingly in support of abortion rights as the GOP is in opposition.
 

There you go, America!  You wanted a plan and a vision for the future.  You got one.  And people blame Republicans for the culture wars....

Just in case there are a few people who hold to traditional values who might still be planning to vote for Obama despite his non-stop celebration of abortion, he made sure to stick his finger even deeper into the eye of Middle America with this YouTube ad, created directly by the Obama campaign:



Yes, ladies and gentleman, the U.S. President is running an ad in which an actress compares voting for Obama for the first time with losing one's virginity.  I've never seen anything in American politics to rival this in sheer creepiness and disgustingness.  Does Obama think real women are like this?  Even more unthinkable, do his supporters really think like this?

The Democratic Party is a values party.  It's just that the values they hold are completely opposite of everything I believe in.  I would never associate myself with this party.  Ever.

"The Obama Democrats"

 

NOTE: As Some Dude pointed out in the comments section, this is a doctored photo.  But I think it effectively mocks the Democrats for their celebration of abortion at their convention, and therefore I would describe it as "fake but accurate."

Overheard at the Democratic Convention

I don't think I've ever watched more than 5 minutes or so of any Democratic Convention prior to this year.  But I decided to make a conscious effort to watch at least some of the speeches this time, because I wanted to be able to comment intelligently on the convention and I didn't think I could do that fairly without watching at least some of it.  And I honestly wanted to be able to compare the two conventions without depending solely on the opinions of others.  It was tough but I managed it.  I watched more than an hour of speeches each of the first two nights of the convention, although I missed both Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton.  They were both speaking quite late, and I knew I would read and hear plenty about their speeches the next day.  I was more interested in hearing the speeches outside of the 10:00 hour anyway, because those are the ones that often slip under the public radar and give a more honest impression of what is really going on at the convention.  I found much of what I saw to be disgusting, even sickening.  The thought that close to half of Americans identify themselves with this political party leads me to the inevitable conclusion that we are doomed as a country.
 

1. Celebration of Abortion & Homosexuality 
One of the complaints often leveled against conservatives is that they are obsessed with abortion and homosexuality.  Well.  I watched most of the speeches at the Republican Convention -- and not just the 10:00 prime time speeches either -- and I barely heard anything about either abortion or homosexuality the entire time.  The ONLY speakers I heard who made more than a passing mention of either topic were Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee.  (Actually, they didn't say anything about homosexuality, but did defend traditional marriage and the family.)  By the way, I am not criticizing them for this -- I was truly glad to hear at least a couple of speakers willing to defend the party's positions on these issues!  But I hardly see how Republicans can be accused of being obsessed with these topics.  However, I did find out this week that there is one political party that is obsessed with abortion and homosexuality -- the Democratic Party.  As one pundit quipped, the Democrats only moved the venue for their Dead Baby Fiesta out of the Planned Parenthood clinic up the street because it wasn't big enough to accommodate the crowds.  Of course, they use clever euphemisms for abortion like "women's rights to control their own bodies" and "reproductive choice" and make veiled references to same-sex marriage with phrases like "being free to love whomever you choose."  Nancy Keenan of NARAL Pro-Choice America gave a strident speech entirely about abortion.  She said every woman should be able to abort her child "with dignity," noted that pro-abortion Obama "cares deeply about the next generation of women" (the irony of that statement is entirely lost on her I'm sure), and ended up with "a rousing encouragement to talk to strangers about reproductive rights. That should go smoothly" (thanks, Daniel Foster of NRO!).   

Same-sex marriage (couched in language like "being free to love whomever you choose") was also front and center, led by gay Representative Jared Polis who spoke repeatedly of the son he and his partner are raising.  In fact, every speech and major video presentation I watched over an hour and 15 minute period on the first night, with one or two exceptions, included a prominent mention or discussion of both abortion and same-sex marriage, as well as most of the later speeches that I did not watch.  (The moral preening by the Democrats on the same-sex marriage issue is especially amusing, given the fact that Obama only switched his position on this issue a few short months ago.)  Abortion and contraception remained a big focus of the convention on the second night, which featured the president of Planned Parenthood, Sandra Fluke (more on her later), and the "women of the Senate."

 

Something that especially stood out to me from the convention is that when Democrats refer to "individual freedom/choice" or "getting the government out of people's lives" they are talking about abortion and gay marriage -- exclusively.  Keenan was introduced by one Maria Ciano ("a stay-at-home mom and former Republican voter"!) who wailed that Romney & Ryan don't believe in small government because they "want the government to have a say in [her] family planning" and "want to deny [her] the power to make the most personal decisions about [her] life."  Former Republican Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island gave a speech saying Obama is the right choice for "conservatives" (apparently he delusionally imagines himself to be one) because he believes in individual freedom.  You guessed it -- his two individual freedom examples consisted of abortion on demand and same-sex marriage.  Choice, freedom, and small government apparently do not extend to health care or education or conscience protections for religious employers or union membership or taxation or energy policy or regulations on small business or nanny state regulations on junk food.  Conservatives, on the other hand, want choice and freedom in all these areas and many more.  We just do not think choice and personal freedom justify killing a human life or redefining an ancient social institution critical to the wellbeing of our children.  Reason TV has a great video demonstrating the extent to which Democratic Convention delegates actually believe in "choice":

 

  

2. "War on Women" Theme 
There was a huge emphasis on appealing to women at the Democratic convention, at least the portions of it that I watched.  I admit I saw a little of this at the GOP convention as well, especially from Mitt and Ann Romney.  But the Democrats were trying to develop this major theme that Republicans are waging a war on women and want to take away all their rights.  Bizarrely, actress Kerry Washington claimed that Republicans were trying to take away women's rights to vote, to get an education, to access health care, and to receive equal pay (and was wildly applauded for it too).  Ironically, a video clip of an Obama speech shown early in the convention warned that women "are not an interest group."  Yet, throughout the entire convention, women were treated like an interest group.  They were assumed to be a monolithic group whose chief concerns are abortion on demand and free contraception guaranteed by the government.  Karol Markowicz has a great piece in the New York Post in which she notes the condescension in all of this "painful pandering."  Yet, the Party of Women did a lengthy tribute video showcasing the late Senator Ted Kennedy, who drunkenly drove a woman into the bay and then left her to drown.  And they chose noted respecter-of-women Bill Clinton to give the keynote address for the second evening of the convention.  Do they think women don't care about this kind of behavior from their politicians as long as those politicians hold the right position on abortion?

3. Class Warfare
And then there was a heaping dose of class warfare.  I heard repeated attacks on Mitt Romney's personal wealth from several different speakers.  One of the worst offenders was former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, who claimed that Romney was unpatriotic for earning overseas profits and having overseas investments and who made nasty and completely unfounded accusations about what Romney was hiding in his unreleased tax returns.  He also lied by claiming that Romney's tax plan would eliminate capital gains taxes on Romney's own income.  Michelle Obama spoke later that evening and assured everyone that she and her husband have never resented wealth.  OKKKK...she must have missed the rest of the convention.  On the second night, three former Bain Capital employees spoke and talked about how cruel and heartless Romney was for taking over their companies and then laying them off.  (Fact-checkers discovered that one of the three was a union negotiator who never even worked for Bain.)  Ironically, they kept saying that they understood that in the real world there are winners and losers and that sometimes it is inevitable that unprofitable companies must shut down, but they turned around and attacked Romney in the next breath for participating in such capitalist activities. and "fiscal responsibility."  Throughout the convention there were allusions to "fairness" and Republican attacks on the "working class" (by such luminaries as the presidents of the UAW and the AFL-CIO) and claims that the "system was rigged" against those working class people (Elizabeth Warren).  It was grievance politics at its finest.

4. Controversy Over God and Jerusalem
One thing that deservedly got a lot of attention was the brouhaha at the convention over changes to the party platform.  It came out on the first day of the convention that Democrats had removed the only remaining reference to God in the party platform (it was a reference to people realizing their "God-given potential" and they took out the word "God-given") and had also removed language in the platform that recognized Jerusalem as the legitimate capital of Israel, called for the increasing isolation of terrorist group Hamas, and acknowledged the right of Israel to exist as a nation.  The platform also inserted wording that said the Democrats support legal and taxpayer-funded third-trimester abortion.  The removal of God and Jerusalem from the platform, in particular, garnered a lot of attention.  Senator Richard Durbin flipped out when asked about these changes on Fox News and started ranting about how people were trying to claim the Democratic Party was "godless."  Realizing that these changes made their party look extreme, the Democratic leadership decided to call for a voice vote to reinsert the God and Jerusalem references into the platform.  The vote required a two-thirds majority vote of "yes" for the motion to pass, but the delegates on the convention floor appeared to be equally divided between yes and no.  The presiding officer seemed startled and unsure of what to do so he tried the vote again two more times, with the exact same results.  After the third time, he summarily announced that two-thirds of the delegates had voted yes and claimed the motion had passed, and the crowd booed loudly in response.  This resulted in the headline "Democrats boo God, Jerusalem."  Of course, it's one of the worst-kept secrets in politics that many liberal activists are hostile toward the state of Israel.  Hadley Arkes pointed out on National Review Online that "God-given" rights are a key component of the Declaration of Independence and one of the most fundamental beliefs underlying the American republic.  If we give ourselves rights or if those rights are granted to us by leaders or governments, they can just as easily be taken away.  The reason our rights are unalienable and permanent is that they are given to us by our Creator God.  Once we lose that notion of human dignity and worth due to the image of God, our rights are in grave danger.    　 

Here is a video of the floor vote and reaction of the delegates:


 

 

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/09/04/4787078/2012-democratic-national-convention.html#storylink=cpy

5. Sandra Fluke

I watched Sandra Fluke's speech on the second night of the convention.  I was stunned that this woman was given not just a speaking slot, but a coveted prime-time speaking slot during the 10:00 hour, just a few minutes before keynoter Bill Clinton.  What is her qualification for being a prime-time speaker?  She's a 30-year-old graduate student and "activist" with no major accomplishments or life experiences other than law school.  She's only famous because she gave laughable testimony before a few Democratic congressmen about the financial hardships she and her rich friends faced because the health insurance provided for them by their Catholic law school did not cover their birth control, and she was turned into a sympathetic victim because Rush Limbaugh insulted her.  All this happened months ago, and the Democratic Party is still trying to use her as a tool in their "war on women" meme.  Her speech seemed angry to me and she continued to milk her victim status, complaining about how she was "verbally attacked" and attacking Romney for not defending her.  The whole spectacle sickened me to my stomach...it all seemed so silly and childish and unserious.  I was glad to see I was not the only one who felt this way about her speech.  Jay Nordlinger expressed so many of my feelings in his excellent NRO post about her.  And I was surprised to read these strong words from usually mild-mannered Peggy Noonan:
 

What a fabulously confident and ingenuous-seeming political narcissist Ms. Fluke is. She really does think—and her party apparently thinks—that in a spending crisis with trillions in debt and many in need, in a nation in existential doubt as to its standing and purpose, in a time when parents struggle to buy the good sneakers for the kids so they're not embarrassed at school . . . that in that nation the great issue of the day, and the appropriate focus of our concern, is making other people pay for her birth-control pills. That's not a stand, it's a non sequitur. She is not, as Rush Limbaugh oafishly, bullyingly said, a slut. She is a ninny, a narcissist and a fool. And she was one of the great faces of the party in Charlotte. That is extreme. Childish, too.
 

6. Other Observations

Lincoln Chafee, former Republican, said he left the GOP and now supports Obama because he believes in "fiscal responsibility"!  I'm really curious about what his definition of "fiscal responsibility is . . . . The DNC showed a video the first night of the convention that had this priceless line: "Government is the only thing we all belong to."  Who knew we were all owned by the government? . . . . Several speakers, including first night keynote speaker Julian Castro, claimed that Americans are better off now than they were four years ago.  I can't believe they think this is a winning message . . . .  The sheer nastiness and pettiness of the repeated and sometimes personal attacks on Romney really struck me and stood in sharp contrast to the Republican Convention last week.  Several of the GOP speakers went out of their way to say that Obama was not a bad person and all attacks on Obama stayed focused on his record.  By contrast, Democratic speakers accused Romney and the Republicans of all sorts of ridiculous things.  They even used their tribute video of Ted Kennedy to make fun of Romney.  And even Obama in his acceptance speech took cheap shots against Romney such as attacking a relatively minor gaffe he made during a trip to London.  Democrats clearly demonstrated they have no class . . . . Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the DNC, managed to demonstrate once again her extreme dishonesty and lack of class.  During the convention, she claimed in an interview that the Israeli ambassador had told her that Republican attitudes toward Israel were dangerous.  When the Israeli ambassador angrily denied ever saying such a thing, Wasserman Schultz subsequently denied ever saying that he had - until an audio tape of her initial claim surfaced.  When confronted with her two blatant lies, she refused to apologize . . . . And then there were all the extreme comments made by top delegates.  The Palm Beach County Democratic Party Chairman said that fundamentalist Christians want Jews to die.  The South Carolina Democratic Party Chairman compared the state's GOP governor Nikki Haley to Hitler's mistress Eva Braun.  The chairman of the California delegation compared Paul Ryan to Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels.

I was struck by the crowd at the convention.  They seemed so easily manipulated, wildly cheering even the most extreme statements made by the speakers (such as the Republicans wanting to take away women's right to vote).  When Nancy Keenan gave a strident, sharp-toned, and flatly prosaic and unemotional speech on abortion, the cameras showed women in the audience crying.  I couldn't help but ask myself what was wrong with these people.  Daniel Foster of NRO summed up my thoughts this way: "Republicans don’t love Mitt Romney the way Democrats love Barack Obama. And thank God. Interacting with the delegates in Charlotte and watching them on the floor was scary. Not in a I’m-going-to-be-jumped way — they seem like good and decent folks — but in a holy-crap-these-people-worship-this-guy way. I’m pretty Hamiltonian, but I’m constitutionally incapable of revering a politician the way some of these folks revere Obama."  

 

Bottom line: this was a stridently left-wing convention that reflects the extreme beliefs of the leadership and the base of the Democratic Party.  On everything from abortion to health care to illegal immigration to welfare to taxes to same-sex marriage to our free market capitalistic economic system to the power of unions to the role of government to welfare, the party doubled down on left-wing ideology.  David Harsanyi summed up the convention pretty well in his column in the New Hampshire Union-Leader.  I also liked Peggy Noonan's description of "the Democrats' soft extremism" in her Wall Street Journal column.  I will never for the life of me understand how anyone with Christian values or traditional American values would want to be associated with the Democratic Party I saw on display this week in Charlotte.　

Elitism and the Democratic Party, Part II

Last week, I explained how the policy positions of the Democratic party are largely elitist. I also want to point out the incredible arrogance and elitism that many elected Democrats exhibit in their words and behavior. Here are a few examples:

1. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House. She referred to townhall participants protesting the health care bill as "people carrying swastikas." In a speech early in the year, she told her audience that "we have to pass the health care bill so you can find out what's in it." And of course, most recently, she called for an investigation into the source of funds for those opposing the Ground Zero mosque. This San Francisco radical is the person chosen by Democrats in the House of Representatives to be their leader.

2. Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader. He has a long history of making outrageous statements (when Bush was president he called him a "loser" in front of schoolchildren and said that the War in Iraq was "lost" while our troops were still in harm's way fighting). Most recently, Reid called townhall participants protesting the health care bill "evilmongers." In a speech on the Senate floor, he compared opponents of the Democrats' unpopular health care bill to racists who opposed desegregation and civil rights for blacks in the 1960's. He demonstrated racial insensitivity himself as well as tacitly accusing the American people of racism when he said that Obama would be acceptable to voters because he was a "light-skinned Negro" without an accent. Just last week, he said in a speech that he couldn't believe that any Hispanics could be Republicans. This hateful man, deeply disliked by voters in his own state, is the person chosen by Democrats in the Senate to be their leader.

3. Baron Hill, Indiana Congressman. The esteemed congressman held a town hall meeting in his district last year regarding the health care debate, and a college student respectfully asked why she couldn't videotape the proceedings for her school project. The congressman's reply? "This is my town hall meeting. I set the rules. [waits for boos from crowd to die down.] Let me say that again. This is my town hall meeting for you. You're not going to tell me how to run my congressional office." (What a tremendous favor the congressman did to condescend to spend a couple of hours of his valuable time with the little people! How dare they be so ungrateful?) He goes onto to add that he doesn't want a video to end up on YouTube in a "compromising position." Check out the video here!

4. Phil Hare, Illinois Congressman. This venerable congressman was asked by some of his constituents where in the Constitution the federal government has the authority to require people to purchase private health insurance under ObamaCare. The congressman's incredible reply? "I don't worry about the Constitution on this, to be honest. I care more about the people who are dying every day because they don't have health insurance." He then goes on to say that the Constitution affirms our "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." After his astute constituents remind him that he is actually quoting the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, he looks annoyed and says, "It doesn't matter to me." (The Constitution? What's that?) When he is once again asked about the constitutionality of ObamaCare, he replies "I don't know." Check out the video here.

5. Bob Etheridge, North Carolina Congressman. This fine, upstanding congressman was accosted by two college students and asked whether he supported the Obama agenda. Etheridge went nuts, as anyone with his sense of entitlement doubtless would. He asked "Who are you" about 12 times, tried to knock the camera out of the one of the student's hands, grabbed the other student's wrist and wouldn't let go, then grabbed the student around the back of the neck. (How dare you question me! I've been in Congress 14 years and I'm not accountable to anyone!) The entire assault was captured on video here.

6. Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Congresswoman. This caring congresswoman had to take a couple hours out of her busy schedule to talk to the little people at a town hall meeting, so you can't really blame her for being on her cell phone in the middle of the meeting while a constituent is asking her a question. This unbelievably disrespectful behavior was captured on video here.

7. Alcee Hastings, Florida Congressman. Back in March, the Democratic Congress was trying everything in its power to muscle ObamaCare through against the wishes of the American people, and one of the clever ideas they came up with was the "deem-and-pass" rule. This rule would have allowed the House to vote on a parliamentary procedure to "deem" ObamaCare passed without ever actually voting to pass ObamaCare directly. (The American people are way too stupid to figure out what we're doing!) Of course, some of the usual suspects had to bring up concerns about "transparency" and "rules" and all that rot, but a Florida congressman and impeached federal judge Alcee Hastings had a response for that! Quoting in part from Thomas Edison, he says, "There ain't no rules around here. We're trying to accomplish something. And therefore, when the deal goes down, all this talk about rules, we make 'em up as we go along." See the video here.

8. Pete Stark, California Congressman. Congressman Stark has been one of the most outrageous members of Congress for a long time (38 years to be precise). A few years ago, he said that U.S. soldiers in Iraq were blowing up innocent people for the President's amusement. Last year, at a town hall meeting, a senior citizen spoke and lit into ObamaCare, concluding with the statement "Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining." Stark's reply: "I wouldn’t dignify you by peeing on your leg. It wouldn’t be worth wasting the urine.” This exchange occurred in the first two minutes of this video. Just a few weeks ago at another town hall meeting, a constituent asked Stark how ObamaCare was consistent with the Constitution, and asked if Stark believed there were any constitutional limits whatsoever on the federal government. Stark's reply? "The federal government can do most anything in this country." The questioner replied, "You sir, and people who think like you, are destroying this nation." The video is well worth watching.

9. Ciro Rodriguez, Texas Congressman. While talking to his constituents, Congressman Rodriguez recites standard Democratic talking points about the CBO numbers and the deficit, and then when a constituent challenges him by pointing out the CBO numbers are now being revised downward, he gets angry, slams his papers down on the table, and yells at the constituent. See the video here.

These are just some of the most outrageous examples, but are far from the only ones. It is sickening to me to see the arrogance, the sense of entitlement, the condescending attitude toward constituents that ooze from these elected Democratic officials, and many others like them. And of course, I haven't even brought up New York Congressman Charlie Rangel, until recently the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, who has been charged with 13 serious crimes, including tax evasion and abuse of power. Or California Congresswoman Maxine Waters, who is accused of violating ethics rules by intervening with federal regulators to get bailout money for a bank in which she and her husband had significant ownership. These congresspeople really seem to think the taxpayers' money is their own personal slush fund to use for their own enrichment. Then, of course, there is Democratic multi-millionaire Senator John Kerry (and recent Democratic presidential candidate), who never misses an opportunity to raise taxes on the rich, yet docks his multi-million dollar yacht in Rhode Island to avoid a six-figure Massachusetts tax. There is Obama's political team using job offers to try to coax Democrats out of Senate races in Pennsylvania and Colorado.

There is elitism and a sense of entitlement on both sides of the political aisle, no doubt, but right now it's the worst among the Democrats that I've ever seen. I don't think Congress has ever created a major new entitlement like health care that has been so strongly opposed by a majority of the American people. I can't say how important I think it is that voters send the strongest possible message to the Democratic party in November. These out-of-touch politicians need to learn that they cannot openly ignore or ridicule our concerns, ignore the Constitution, and misuse our tax dollars without serious consequences. Many, many of our elected officials think their job is to be our master, not our servant -- to tell us what to do rather than listen to us and represent us. They only serve at our pleasure, and hopefully many of the people mentioned in this article will no longer be in Congress after the election. For the sake of our country, let's pray that is the case.

Elitism and the Democratic Party, Part I

If you were to ask me to describe today's Democratic Party in one word, one of the words at the top of my list would be "elitist." The online dictionary describes elitism as "consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group" (often described as a ruling class). My own definition of elitism would be "the arrogance of power." Elitist people think that their superior education and position of authority give them the right to look down their noses at the "little people." Law is simply what they dictate to the common rabble in their infinite wisdom; such ordinary laws, of course, do not apply to them. The little people, not having receiving Ivy League college educations, are generally ignorant, prejudiced, and intolerant; fortunately they are also easily led, which explains why elitists assume the public will let them get away with the most outrageous words and behavior. Because elitists think they know better than the masses, they are constantly trying to take more power and control away from the individual and wield it themselves.

Now, elitism exists in many places. There is a significant amount of elitism in Hollywood, the academic community, and Wall Street, for example. However, I think the modern Democratic Party's elitism is incredibly flagrant, because unlike Hollywood, academic, and Wall Street elites, Democratic politicians are actually holding public office and are serving only at the pleasure of the voters. This means that we have a unique opportunity to end the elitism in Washington by showing up at the polls in November.

Much could be written about the elitism of Democratic ideology. In almost every area of public policy, the Democrats stand for taking rights and control away from individual people and private businesses and centralizing that control in the hands of an increasingly powerful federal government. Here are some examples:

1. Health care. Most Democrats in Congress want government-run, single-payer health care. This inevitably takes power away from individual patients, doctors, and health insurers and centralizes it in the hands of government bureaucrats and agencies. In a true government-run system like the British system, all major decisions about who gets care, who gives care, when they get care, how much the care costs, and what types of care will be approved are made by the government. ObamaCare is a major step in that direction, as it authorized the creation of over 100 new government boards and agencies.

2. Environment. Most Democrats in Congress support cap-and-trade legislation, which essentially subsidizes unprofitable alternative energy sources by increasing costs (and thus consumer prices) on traditional energy sources. The effect of such legislation vastly increases government control over the energy producing sector of our economy at the expense of businesses and consumers. Democrats also favor many other types of environmental legislation, most of which involves increased regulation of the private sector, harsh and unnecessary mandates on businesses, and decreased individual property rights.

3. Judicial System. Most Democrats favor bringing about social change by nominating activist judges who declare laws unconstitutional based on their opinions about justice rather than the actual words of the Constitution (essentially legislating from the bench). Obama's recent nominees to the Supreme Court follow this philosophy. This approach to the courts takes power away from the people to enact laws through their elected representatives and centralizes power in a few judges who are appointed for life and have no accountability to the people for their decisions. It also diminishes the rule of law in our society by allowing judges to ignore the original intent and the plain meaning of the Constitution and interpret certain clauses so broadly that they become meaningless.

4. Taxes and Spending. By and large, Democrats tend to favor increased taxation and higher spending. Generally, these two things go together, as increased spending requires increased taxation in order to pay for it. Since Obama took office, he and his allies in Congress spent $800 billion on an economic stimulus bill that had more to do with earmarks and payoffs to special interests than it did with stimulating the economy. They also spent nearly a trillion on a new health care entitlement, and billions and billions more in various bailout packages and "reforms" of various industries. This spending tripled our deficit in Obama's first year alone, and adds to our already crippling national debt which is projected to reach almost unsustainable levels in just a few years. Of course, these bills also included many new taxes, fees, and mandates for individuals and businesses, and the Democrats have also proposed eliminating the Bush tax cuts. The upshot of these tax-and-spend economic policies is to move control over more and more of the dollars in our economy out of the hands of individuals and into the hands of the federal government. More taxation and spending by the government means less spending, decisions, and freedoms for individuals and private businesses.

5. Education. Most Democratic politicians oppose commonsense education ideas like merit pay for teachers and school vouchers. Although such policies would likely improve the quality of education and increase the power of parents to make choices about their children's education, they are opposed by teacher's unions which oppose any challenge to the government monopoly on education.

6. Gun Control. Many Democratic politicians want increased government restrictions on gun ownership and gun rights, with some liberal cities going as far as banning handguns altogether. Such policies restrict individual rights and increase government power (not to mention violating the Constitution).

These are just a few examples of how the elitism of the Democratic Party manifests itself through legislation. However, perhaps the thing that is most striking to me is how vocal many Democratic politicians are in expressing their contempt for the little people and the rule of law. That will be the subject of Part II of this post, coming soon.

The Party of Corruption

I know that a lot of people think I'm excessively partisan. But frankly, I only consider myself "one half" partisan. I do not believe I am excessively pro-Republican. In fact, one of my posts a couple months ago had some very harsh things to say about the Republican party establishment. I consider myself to be a Republican, but there are plenty of Republicans that I don't like very much and I don't blindly vote the party line. My loyalty is to specific (mostly conservative) principles, not to the Republican party. However, it is true that I am partisan when it comes to Democrats. I am passionately anti-Democrat, especially the Democratic party as it exists today. Here are a few reasons why I think the Democratic party deserves to be known as The Party of Corruption:

1. I am amazed at the way the Democratic party and black leaders have rallied in support of Harry Reid. Reid made an inexcusable statement -- one that is demeaning and insulting to all blacks and also insulting to the American people as a whole. I can't even find a leading Democrat who will condemn Reid's comment at all. Everyone from Obama to Democratic senators to the NAACP keeps saying Reid made a "mistake" or he "misspoke," and then rushes on to say how great Reid is on "civil rights issues," whatever that means. That is not condemning him. It's excusing him. I heard a clip on the radio of Al Sharpton speaking out to defend Harry Reid, and he was laughing and cracking up with people around him while he was speaking. Apparently Al Sharpton thinks it's funny that the Democratic leader in the Senate makes racially insulting comments.

One of the worst hypocrites in the bunch is Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, who back in 2002 said this about Trent Lott's racially insensitive comments: "If a Democratic leader said such a thing, they would not be allowed to keep their position." Of course, Senator Landrieu has no comment about Reid and thus is implicitly supporting him, just like every other Democrat in the Senate. This tells you all you need to know about the Democratic party. They don't care if their leader demeans African-Americans. They act principled when a Republican makes an inappropriate comment, but when one of their own does it they prove that they don't really believe those principles. All they care about is getting their agenda passed. And since Reid is necessary to get health care passed, they will support him no matter what he says.

(Let me a make a side comment about the comparison of Reid to Trent Lott, who was forced to resign as Senate Minority Leader in 2002 after making comments about how our country would have been better off if Strom Thurmond -- who at the time was a segregationist -- had been elected president in 1948. Despite what some are claiming, I think Reid's comments were significantly worse than Lott's. Lott was joking around at Thurmond's 100th birthday party. He had probably had a few beers and wanted to flatter his friend. He never said anything about race or segregation at all, and there's no reason to think it was on his mind. The only way you can find Lott's comments racist is to read into them some sinister intent that was not stated. Reid's comments, on the other hand, were explicitly racial and were in the context of a serious private discussion. If anyone "misspoke," it was Lott, not Reid. But I would note that most Republicans made no real effort to defend Lott, and their lack of support forced him to resign. Note the contrast between how the two parties handled the situation.)

2. Harry Reid is not the only person in a position of Democratic leadership in Congress who is a disgrace. Charlie Rangel has been under investigation for years for various types of corruption, including flagrant tax violations. Rangel is one of the key leaders in the House of Representatives, chairing the powerful Ways and Means Committee. Of course, Democrats rallied around him and allowed him to keep his chairmanship, refusing even to censure him. (Even though they voted to censure Republican congressman Joe Wilson for a much lesser offense of violating congressional decorum.) Again, Democrats don't care what their members do. They can be frauds, cheats, and lawbreakers; as long as they help "advance the agenda" they are welcomed as top Democratic leaders. It is the ultimate "end justifies the means" mentality.

3. Tim Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury, was nominated by Obama and confirmed by Democrats in the Senate, despite owing $34,000 in backtaxes that he failed to pay (until after he was nominated!). Obama also nominated two other people to Cabinet-level positions who were guilty of tax evasion. Again, for the Democrats this is no big deal. It doesn't matter how you break the law, as long as you can advance the agenda.

4. The health care debacle in Congress really shines a spotlight on the Democrats' corruption. As the debate has unfolded, it has become clear that the Democrats will stop at nothing to pass their bill. They paid off various senators for hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in order to secure their votes, and flagrantly violated their pledge of transparency by excluding cameras from the conference deliberations. They showed shocking indifference for the actual content of the bill, forcing quick votes before senators had even had time to read the entire bill, and inserting and deleting provisions at will. They refused any attempt at bipartisanship and displayed complete contempt for the concerns of the American people (as illustrated by townhall meetings and polls). Again, this shows that to Democrats, principles, promises, and even voters don't matter. The only thing that matters is keeping their power and passing their agenda.

Democrats vs. Americans

I have been following the ObamaCare debate for several months now, but have not posted anything about it on this blog up till now. That is largely because, being a productive American with a job and a family, I don't really have time to figure out what provision is in which House or Senate bill at any given instant. I mean, let's be honest here. Obama has been talking about his "plan" for months now, but he really has no plan. He has not presented any plan to Congress, and there have been numerous different Democratic plans circulating through various House & Senate committees for months (there are Republican plans too, but not one of them has gotten the time of day from any of the Democratic-controlled committees). I have plenty to say about many of the ideas and provisions in these plans, but what's the point? Because who's to say that any of those provisions will be in the final bill anyway? Why bother to waste time researching a bill that is likely to change dramatically in just a few days or weeks?

I mean, I hope none of you readers have bet any money on whether or not Congress will pass a bill with a "public option" in it. Because if so, I'm sure it's been quite a roller-coaster ride over the past few months. First the public option is a requirement, then everyone says it won't happen, then Obama says he supports it, then he says it's not essential for reform, then we hear that Pelosi insists on it, then we hear that Reid doesn't want it, then we hear that a Senate committee has passed a bill without it, and now lo and behold Reid has re-written the bill and voila! The public option is back! And of course, there are no end of qualifications to a "robust" public option such as triggers and opt-outs for states. And by the way, am I the only one who wonders why Senate committees even bother to go to all the trouble to hold hearings, reach a consensus, and vote a bill out of committee when the Senate majority leader is going to completely rewrite the bill afterwards anyway?

I wish I could say that this whole dog-and-pony show is all in good faith. But tragically, it's not. It's a deliberate attempt to confuse and deceive the American public. Let's cut through all the distraction about the public option and triggers and opt-outs and co-ops. The Democrats are up against two brick walls when it comes to health care reform. The first brick wall is that polls show that 80-85% of Americans are generally satisfied with the current quality of their health care. Yes, they think that some changes can and should be made to reduce costs and increase accessibility to health insurance, but they do not want fundamental changes to a system that already provides first-class quality of care. The second brick wall is that a majority of voters are not stupid, and they do not believe for a minute the Democrats' rhetoric that the government can create a huge new $1 trillion entitlement program without significantly increasing the deficit or significantly increasing taxes. They also do not believe that putting the government in control of health care will either lead to lower costs or higher-quality care. Of course, they're right, and simple logic and some basic knowledge of history confirms that they're right.

So the Democrats have a conundrum on their hands. Given the fact that they are agitating for a huge new government program that most Americans oppose, it would seem they have two options: listen to the American people and back off, or move forward with their agenda against the will of their constituents. Clearly, Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress have chosen the latter option. And their way of pushing this bill through is to muddle the issue as much as possible and tell as many lies and deceptions as possible to keep the American people guessing. Is there any other way to explain why a Democratic committee in the Senate voted down an amendment that would simply require that a final version of the bill be posted on the Internet for 72 hours prior to a final vote in order to make sure that voters know exactly what is in the final bill? If their intentions were honorable and their determination was to serve their constituents, why would they do this? Why has there been this push, push, push to pass some bill --any bill! -- as quickly as possible? Obama says it is urgent, but the provisions in most of these bills do not even begin to take effect until 2013! So you tell me why it has to be passed the day before yesterday. You tell me why members of Congress are being arm-twisted to vote in favor of a 1,000+ page bill they have barely even had time to look at.

Look at the bait-and-switch that is going on. The Senate Finance Committee comes up with a conceptual "bi-partisan" plan that has no numbers in it at all and is completely vague about all the details. They get the Congressional Budget Office to look at it and declare that this new government program will save our country $81 billion over 10 years, mostly because the costs are paid for up-front but the benefits do not take effect until 3 years later. Touting this bill as a moderate approach that doesn't increase the deficit and doesn't include a public option, the bill passes committee with all Democrats and one Republican voting for it. And then, a week or so later, suddenly we find out that Senate majority leader Harry Reid has completely rewritten the bill and it now includes the public option! (And by the way, the "opt-out" provision for states is a complete joke. Every state's taxpayers have to pay for this public option, so what state is going to deny them the benefits of it by opting out? I assure you, the taxes to pay for this option will not be optional.) So first you get the CBO to certify that the bill won't increase the deficit, and then you completely rewrite it to include an extremely expensive public option. And now I'm sure we'll see a big push to get "consensus" and push this bill through as quickly as possible. What a pathetic attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of American voters.

The way that Obama and congressional Democrats have tried to bully Americans into accepting their health care plan is truly disgraceful. When American citizens turned out in large numbers at townhall meetings to exercise their constitutional rights to petition their government and participate in democracy, they were villified and accused of being Nazis, "evilmongers," brownshirts, and thugs by leading Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. When health insurer Humana sent out a letter warning its Medicare customers of potential effects of ObamaCare legislation, the Obama administration gave them a gag order and opened an investigation into their company. And of course, Obama has especially targeted news organizations like Fox that have not properly fallen into line behind the president.

These are not the tactics of statesmen who want to be transparent and accountable to their constituents. These are the tactics of deceitful demagogues and power-hungry politicians who are determined to get their way and increase their power, regardless of what their constituents want. They think they can get away with it. I hope that the American people will prove them wrong, both by mobilizing now to oppose this bill and by voting all these bums out in the 2010 elections, starting with Harry Reid.