Category Archives: Republicans

Sundering What’s Left Of The Founder’s Senate

Constitution, Democrats, Federalism, Founding Fathers, Republicans

Today, Senate Democrats “effectively overturned more than 200 years of Senate precedent, not only on the judicial filibuster, as the Washington Post notes, but by moving to change the chamber’s rules without the traditional two-thirds majority in support, something previously done only to alter relatively minor rules.” (Reason.com.)

Say bye-bye to the legislation-stalling filibuster.

The filibuster is a powerful parliamentary device in the United States Senate, which in recent years has meant that most major legislation (apart from budgets and confirmations) requires a 60% majority to head off a filibuster. In recent years the majority has preferred to avoid filibusters by moving to other business when a filibuster is threatened …

Harry Reid and Barack Obama once shouted from the rooftops in support of these venerated Senate rules that have enabled “a minority to thwart the agenda and will of the party in power. …”

President Pinocchio lied. Again. But who’s counting?!

Reminds Reason.com: “The ability of a minority to thwart the agenda and will of the party in power is a feature, not a bug, of the constitutional order, but ‘majority rules’ is, unsurprisingly, popular with the majority.”

Liz Cheney: Like Father, Like Daughter

Ann Coulter, Family, Homosexuality, Neoconservatism, Paleolibertarianism, Republicans

Liz Cheney is a snake like her father, Dick, whom Fox News continues to dust off periodically and present as a voice of wisdom. Even though she hangs out with her gay sister and sister’s partner and expresses support for the couple in private, the opportunistic Liz—who is running for office—disses her sister’s life in public:

It’s a good thing Mary Cheney can’t vote in Wyoming.

After an appearance on Fox News Sunday in which Wyoming Senate candidate Liz Cheney said she and her married gay sister “just disagree” on the subject of marriage equality, Mary Cheney posted a sharp rebuke to her Facebook page. “Liz – this isn’t just an issue on which we disagree, you’re just wrong – and on the wrong side of history,” she wrote.

Mary Cheney’s wife, Heather Poe, also took to Facebook to sound off. “Liz has been a guest in our home, has spent time and shared holidays with our children, and when Mary and I got married in 2012 – she didn’t hesitate to tell us how happy she was for us. To have her say she doesn’t support our right to marry is offensive to say the least.”

Their comments came after Liz Cheney, who is struggling in the polls against Rebublican [sic] incumbent Senator Mike Enzi, tried to explain to host Chris Wallace that her support of a State Department policy that grants benefits to same sex couples is not inconsistent with her broader opposition to allowing those couples to get married.

Ann Coulter had some fighting words for Liz (in defending the indefensible: the GOP):

“The problem is we have hucksters, shysters, people ripping off the Republican Party for their own self-aggrandizement, for their own egos, to make money,” Coulter said on Fox News’s “Hannity.”

“I would put Todd Akin, Newt Gingrich, Liz Cheney, Mark Sanford all in the same boat, and the consultants who persuaded Linda McMahon and John Raese to run,” she added.

Republicans just can’t stop mentioning issues that win them no support from most Americans. Most people think that a person’s sexual life is his or her business. What’s wrong with saying, “I have very many positions on policy, gay marriage is not one of them.” It’s hardly a make-or-break matter. Or simply echo this paleolibertarianism position:

In furtherance of liberty, Uncle Sam’s purview must be curtailed, not expanded. On this score, let our gay friends and family members lead the way. Let them solemnize their commitment in contract and through church, synagogue and mosque (that will be the day!). Once interesting and iconoclastic, gays have become colossal bores who crave nothing more than the state’s seal of approval. Go back to the days of the Stonewall Riots, when the police’s violations of privacy and private property were the object of gay anger and activism.

*Image credit

 

Definitive Text On Democratic South Africa Reviewed @ Townhall.com

Conservatism, Democracy, Republicans, South-Africa

Why is Jack Kerwick’s review of “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa,” at Townhall.com, so extraordinary? Here’s why (excerpted from the book under review):

South Africa was just one more issue on which Republicans had slipped between the sheets with the fashionable left. Members of America’s delinquent duopoly stood against the gradualism of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, vis-à-vis South Africa. Pushing revolutionary radicalism on the Old South Africa was the goal not only in high diplomatic circles, but among most Republicans. With a few exceptions. As is documented in “Into the Cannibal’s Pot”:

“For advocating ‘constructive engagement’ with South Africa, members of his Republican Party issued a coruscating attack on Ronald Reagan. … Senator Lowell P. Weicker Jr., in particular, stated: ‘For this moment, at least, President Reagan has become an irrelevancy to the ideals, heartfelt and spoken, of America.'”

AND, who other than the extraordinary Jack Kerwick could pull off such a review? Jack is not only brilliant; he actually cares—this deep thinker cares deeply about the fate of the imperiled minority of South Africa and about the implications for his country and countrymen. Writes Dr. Kerwick:

“… But it would be a grave mistake to think that Cannibal is only about South Africa. It is not. As its author describes it, and as its subtitle makes clear, it is a ‘labor of love’ to her homelands old and new. Mercer is determined to spare America the same fate that befell South Africa. Furthermore, it would be as equally egregious a mistake to think that Cannibal is only, or even primarily, about race. There are larger issues to which Mercer speaks, issues with which conservatives have grappled from at least the time that their ‘patron saint,’ Edmund Burke, first articulated them.

“Though Mercer insists that she is no conservative, there are similarities, striking similarities, between her and Burke. The latter made an impassioned defense of his 18th century England against the radicalism of the French Revolution that he feared would soon enough ravage his country. It was in response to these ideological excesses that conservatism first emerged as a distinctive tradition of thought. Mercer carries on this estimable tradition inasmuch as she seeks to defend her new country, America, against the ravenous radicalisms that threaten it.”

“The forces that imperiled France and England in Burke’s day are the same forces that consumed South Africa and that imperil America in our own. These forces boil down to a lust, an insatiable lust, for revolutionary change and the ideological abstractions that inspire it. …”

“… However, it isn’t just the usual suspects—leftists or Democrats—who have an ardent affection for radical change and abstract ideals. The GOP and ‘the conservative press’ have had more than their share of true believers as well.”

“It was, after all, ‘conservatives’—or, more accurately, neoconservatives—that most rigorously supported George W. Bush’s campaign to ‘fundamentally transform’ the Middle East into an oasis of ‘Democracy.’ Noting that abstract ideals like Democracy are not timeless principles written in ‘human nature’ but the hard-earned gains of a civilization that has been millennia in the making, Mercer was among those who argued mightily against this fool’s errand from the outset. Though she fell out of favor with some notable ‘conservative’ media personalities for doing so, time has vindicated her while indicting her critics.”

“Like Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France, Ilana Mercer’s “Into the Cannibal’s Pot” is at once timeless and all so timely. …”

Read on. “The Future of the Conservative Movement” is on Townhall.com.

(“The Cannibal” is available from Amazon. More editorial reviews are here. Please Like “The Cannibal”—and further its cause—on Facebook.)

BHOCare: Wealth Distribution From Red States To Blue

Barack Obama, Healthcare, Republicans, Socialism

We know that Obamacare aims to distribute wealth from young to old, from healthy to sick, from men to women and from rural, less-populated regions in the country to urban centers. Now we learn that this awful, awful man has packed another kind of wealth distribution into this legislative monstrosity: from red states to blue states.

Reports Fox News:

according to price data compiled by the Heritage Foundation … In red states, premiums for 27-year-olds rose an average of 78% on ObamaCare exchanges, whereas in “blue states” that voted for Obama, premiums rose a smaller 50%. …

The reason?

… if you’re in a lightly regulated state today, all of a sudden it’s going from a lightly regulated system to a heavily regulated system, and that drives up a lot of the costs,” Avik Roy, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute who specializes in health policy, told FoxNews.com.

MORE.