Monday, May 3, 2010

More Nonsense: We're Only Doing What Republicans Have Done To Us First

What a crock the title thinking is! The "Republicans in Congress (ie, so do Republican citizens!) deserve what they're getting because they did it too" argument is total bull. Why you may ask?

Remember, as I have written before, in my 60+ years on this planet Democrats have held veto power in one or both(!) houses 30 years. How many times have Republicans have a veto-proof majority in EITHER house in my 60+ years? ZERO! Republicans haven't been pulling these kind of unconstitutional(!) shennanigans as Democrats actually(!) claim ... BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T! No matter how much Congressional Democrats prounounce it and no matter how much you want to believe The Media Kool-Aid, it CANNOT be true because Republicans haven't had the majority muscle by which to do it. PERIOD!

Republicans have never totally denied Democratic citizens of their representation in legislation the way Democrats did last year and are still trying to do without a veto-proof majority because they COULDN'T. Republicans have ALWAYS worked with Democrats on legislation for the simple reason that they had to. Maybe Republicans WOULD have done the same thing if they ever had a veto-proof majority but we have to judge it on what actually happened, not on made-up characterizations from The Media and current Democratic leadership.

The president and Congressional Democrats have a lot of nerve spreading untruths like this. In my day we called it dishonest, if not outright lying.

To Democrats, how do you actually feel about friends and relatives you love and respect having no voice in Congress ... about their being denied representation in legislation? (Yes, they were 'represented' in terms of having votes registered against bills last year but my point is that their interests aren't represented in the actual legislation which is the real point of the matter.) Is THAT fair? Is it even constitutional? How would YOU feel if Republicans did that to your representatives and, by extension, to you? I know you're STILL thinking Republicans DID it too because you believe (and want to believe?) the lies to the contrary but remember Republican congressional representatives could not and, therefore, have not done this. Sorry, but facts are facts.

What may be most important in this discussion is that it illustrates the key difference between a democracy and a republic. We, in fact, are operating like a democracy where the majority party may completely rule like this. But our founders made the distinction to call this a republic for a reason. They didn't want this form of majority rule that's possible under a democracy. Democrats love to brag about how our democracy has come a long way. What they're saying is they're glad we're no longer a republic. Do you think they'd think this was a good thing if Republicans ever had veto-proof majorities? Of course not. This kind of power in Congress is a good thing to Democrats only when they are in power. It's not right. In fact, it's not constitutional.

I was amazed (and somewhat appalled) by something President Obama told the U of Michigan graduating class last week. He quoted Ben Franklin who, when he was asked what he and the other congressional delegates had just created by signing the constitution, answered: "A Republic, if you can keep it". There IS a reason why Ben said "Republic" and not "Democracy"! After quoting that, President Obama then said we should be proud that we've been faithful to that by, indeed, preserving our "democracy". Taken at face value Obama appears to believe that the founders thought a Republic and a Democracy are the same thing (when, in fact, they went out of their way to make a distinction and preference between them!). We are left to conclude one of two things. Either President Obama is ignorant of the difference between a Republic and a Democracy or he does know and is purposely misleading gullible Americans (both about what the founders wanted and the fact that we don't have what they intended). Question: are you comfortable with either explanation?

Perhaps, because presidents come and go as will Obama, a more important question is, are you comfortable that we've strayed far from what the founders intended and established vis-a-vis the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? It's important to understand that we have diverged from them quite far(!) and then consciously(!) decide whether that's a good thing. That's what we in the Tea Party and related movements are in the process of illuminating. You're free to make your own choice about whether this is a good thing but please DO make a conscious choice based on knowing what is our actual history and what we are actually doing to our country.

No comments: