Category Archives: Democracy

Meathead America Warming To BOCare

Barack Obama, Democracy, Democrats, Elections, Healthcare, IMMIGRATION

A GALLUP poll, taken one day after the H.R.4872 Reconciliation Act of 2010 received a majority of votes in the U.S. House of Representatives, shows that “Americans’ emotional responses to the bill’s passage are more positive than negative — with 50% enthusiastic or pleased versus 42% angry or disappointed.”

Bottom Line, conclude the authors, “Passage of healthcare reform was a clear political victory for President Obama and his allies in Congress. While it also pleases most of his Democratic base nationwide, it is met with greater ambivalence among independents and with considerable antipathy among Republicans.”

IF INDEED A MAJORITY OF Americans are beginning to thaw on Obamacare, what does it say about the changing face of this country? I do not believe that tea partiers will embrace this massive intervention into the economy anytime soon. What I do believe is that freedom-loving, small “r” republicans are in a shrinking minority. Mass immigration and the corrupting values of mass society—namely rampant democracy where property and liberty are forfeit—have rendered patriots aliens in their own country.

Update II: Waiting For The Weasel Vote (Baier Badgers Barack)

Democracy, Democrats, Healthcare, Media, Regulation, Republicans

“A procedural sleight of hand,” the Washington Post calls Pelosi’s putative plan to pass her hulking healthcare bill without having members vote on it.

Instead, Pelosi (D-Calif.) would rely on a procedural sleight of hand: The House would vote on a more popular package of fixes to the Senate bill; under the House rule for that vote, passage would signify that lawmakers “deem” the health-care bill to be passed.

The tactic — known as a “self-executing rule” or a “deem and pass” — has been commonly used, although never to pass legislation as momentous as the $875 billion health-care bill. It is one of three options that Pelosi said she is considering for a late-week House vote, but she added that she prefers it because it would politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the measure.

“It’s more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know,” the speaker said in a roundtable discussion with bloggers Monday. “But I like it,” she said, “because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill.”

This is not unusual; Republicans have resorted to “deem and pass” in the past, but will now make a big fuss, I hope. However, let this country not be lauded, as it often is, by the pundit peanut gallery for the great democracy it is. It is well-accepted that in a democracy the minority is thwarted. Less accepted is the fact that democracy bypasses the majority as well.

Update I: Via Glenn Beck a chart depicting the bypassing of democracy discussed in this post:

Update II (March 17): BAIER BADGERS BARACK. Bret has to be saluted for his valiant efforts to get this smooth operator of a president to answer a question instead of mouth agitprop, in this exclusive FoxNews interview. It’s worth watching Baier at work. He’s good. But, of course, the top propagandist had the upper hand in the end.

Devastating New Poll For Swing-State Dems About Obamacare

Democracy, Democrats, Elections, Government, Healthcare

Writes Robert Bidinotto:

This critical Wall Street Journal article may turn the tide on the ObamaCare vote:

The central argument used by Team Obama to line up wavering congressional Dem support for ObamaCare is: ‘You’ll pay a heavier price in November if we fail to pass ObamaCare, than if you vote for it.'”

This poll proves that this claim is a big lie. It’s the first survey to demonstrate conclusively that swing-district Democrats will pay a heavier price at the polls in November if they vote YES for ObamaCare, than if they vote NO. In fact, if they vote against it, voters are significantly more likely to cut them slack in the next election.

From the poll:

“Sixty percent of the voters surveyed will vote for a candidate who opposes the current [health-care] legislation and wants to start over.” But “the survey does provide a little good news for wavering Democrats. A congressman can buy himself a little grace if he had previously voted for health-care reform but now votes against it. Forty-nine percent of voters will feel more supportive of that member if he does so, 40% less supportive. More dramatically, 58% of voters say they will be more supportive of their congressman’s re-election if he votes against the bill a second time. However, for those members who voted against it in November and vote yes this time, 61% of voters say they will be less likely to support their re-election. Over a third of respondents say they will actively work against a candidate who votes the wrong way or for the candidate who votes the right way.”

[SNIP]

Bidinotto thinks “that it is critical that this survey receive the widest possible attention, especially among swing-district congressmen.” He has a request: “Please link to it on your websites and forward this message to others, including your representative. It may just tip the balance in the vote this week.”

I hope so.

Iraq Wants What … Saddam Provided

Bush, Democracy, Elections, Foreign Policy, Iraq, Neoconservatism, War

The poor Iraqis have bought what our crooked politicians and theirs have impressed upon them with the aid of smart bombs and a lot of suffering: If you brave bombs and ink a ballot, you’ve struck a blow for freedom.

Freedom is the exact opposite. “Casting a vote to give someone power does not make a man free; freedom is the knowledge that even if one abstains from that ritual, nobody can exercise power over one’s life, liberty, and property.”

In Iraq, ink and blood stains mingle, just like the Jacobins like it. Elections yesterday left Iraq 40 people short—they died for democracy by improvised bombs. “Authorities in Baghdad announced a curfew,” which Americans, the public and the pols, do not consider a limitation on liberty given the monumental importance of the act of voting.

AND LISTEN TO THIS:

About 6,200 candidates from more than 80 political entities are vying for seats. [Read: a steady income from the USA] At least a quarter of the positions — 82 — are guaranteed to go to women, and eight more have been allocated for minorities. [We’ve Americanized them: they abide by quotas; yippee.] They include five set aside for Christians and one each for the Shabak, Sabaeans (Mandaeans), and Yazidis.

With so many candidates fighting to get in on the political game, no wonder “the leading political parties are expected to take until late spring or even summer to strike the bargains needed to form a coalition government.“

STRONG CONTENDERS ARE “Maliki’s State of Law alliance, former prime minister Iyad Allawi’s Iraqiya party, or the Iraq National Alliance, which includes Ahmed Chalabi and radical Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr. … The two main Kurdish parties and a breakaway Kurdish group are expected to be a key part of any coalition.” [McClatchy]

Chalabi, right-hand man to the neoconservatives in their push for war in 2003, is striking another blow for freedom. He heads the “Justice and Accountability Commission, tasked with purging Baathists from political life.” It has “barred hundreds of candidates from running in these elections.” Way to go.

So what do The People want from the hordes of politicians they are electing?

CNN’s most excellent Arwa Damon took the popular pulse:

“We want basic services (like water and electricity) and jobs for our husbands and children,” Umm Rasha told CNN at a campaign rally in central Baghdad.
“And someone to deal with the displaced people, the retirees, and the widows,” her sister Umm Hassan chimes in. … “We want stability … security,” said a young man who didn’t want to be named. “Even now, there are still kidnappings and bombings.”

Essentially impoverished traumatized Iraqi’s, whom one can forgive for wanting so much from the state, crave what Americans extract from their social democracy—and what Saddam provided to a greater degree than the Obama/Bush approved goons.

If the state is going to provide, it must also control.
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:

Under the socialist Ba?th Party, the economy was dominated by the state, with strict bureaucratic controls and centralized planning. Between 1987 and 1990 the economy liberalized somewhat in an attempt to encourage private investment

Although Saddam’s judiciary was relatively independent, “The political system, however, operated with little reference to constitutional provisions, and from 1979 to 2003 President Saddam Hussein wielded virtually unlimited power.”

But before the radical G. I. Jacobins arrived in 2003, Iraq was undergoing slow, evolutionary progress, much like in Iran—:

In 1989 a committee was set up to draft a new, more democratic constitution, which would extend the power of the National Assembly and permit the formation of new political parties. A draft constitution was prepared and approved by the National Assembly in 1990 …

During Saddam HEALTH AND WELFARE were heaven on earth; it’s something Iraqis want but are now without:

Between 1958 and 1991 health care was free, welfare services were expanded, and considerable sums were invested in housing for the poor and for improvements to domestic water and electrical services. Almost all medical facilities were controlled by the government, and most physicians were (and still are) employed by the Ministry of Health. Shortages of medical personnel were felt only in rural areas. Cities and towns had good hospitals, and clinics and dispensaries served most rural areas. Still, Iraq had a high incidence of infectious diseases such as malaria and typhoid, caused by rural water supplies contaminated largely by periodic flooding. Substantial progress, however, was made in controlling malaria. … After 2003 the health care system relied heavily on donations from abroad and the efforts of international aid organizations.

What do you know? Saddam’s socialist Ba’ath regime had a little more than K to 12. Darn dem Arabs:

Britannica again: “The Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research have been responsible for the rapid expansion of education since the 1958 revolution. The number of qualified scientists, administrators, technicians, and skilled workers in Iraq traditionally has been among the highest in the Middle East. Education at all levels is funded by the state.”

* Iraq. (2008). Encyclopædia Britannica. Deluxe Edition. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica.