The End Justifies The Means: The Words "Lie" Or "Failed" Aren't In Their Dictionary. It's All Just 'Relative' After All.

Politicians are increasingly living in a world where everything is 'relative'. It's convenient because it allows them to avoid the inconvenience of being wrong about ... or accountable for ... anything they say or do. In that world there's no such thing as a 'lie' because behind whatever they actually lied about is some moral or other superior relativistic notion.

In their bizzaro world there's no such thing as "lie", "failed", "truth", "wrong", or "fact (historical or otherwise)". How convenient, huh?

Politicians in both major parties are increasingly inclined to think and talk in relative terms but there's an essence about it that is fundamental to progressive thinking. Theory often trumps human nature, historical facts, and honest data analysis. It trumps reality. To progressives among our political elite, their claimed superior end justifies whatever becomes screwed up getting there. And justifies it to such an extent that even debate about problems and failures is irrelevant. As if we can't learn from mistakes? As if fixing whatever got screwed up has no value ... especially if fixing it requires undoing it?

Engaging in debate before taking a vote on a progressive bill requires defending one's position which is very difficult when common sense and/or even actual history are against one. Which explains why congressional progressives keep doing end-runs around any process that requires honest debate. End runs around the constitution become not only necessary but justifiable. The end justifies the means after all.

Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, routinely keeps Republican proposals from even reaching the senate floor for debate because defending his position against them using logic and common sense would be extremely difficult if not impossible. Besides, debate would expose the negatives contained in a progressive's bill; would expose the lack of common sense or even wisdom. Which is why over a hundred jobs bills from the House sit in his in-basket rather than being advanced in the legislative process for consideration or debate. Which is why Democrats feel justified in claiming untruthfully(!) that Republicans never proposed health care reform. Not doing it their way = blocking them. Whatever happened to compromise? Those Republican bills never got to debate; therefore, they never existed ... in Harry Reid's mind. Therefore, he has a convenient (but completely false) rationalization (everything's relative, remember) for his claims that Republicans haven't done anything about health care, jobs or anything else he's of a mind to criticize them about.

It explains why it has become unnecessary for Harry Reid's senate to even consider some legislation. He can hide behind claiming untruthfully(!) that Republicans are blocking him (not doing it his way = blocking him) and then let President Obama implement what progressives want via executive order. Honest debate is an inconvenient thing that would get in the way of the progressive vision for America. So they use chicanery (to circumvent the constitution and its processes) and thuggery (to bully Republicans) to avoid an honest debate and make Republicans look like the bad guys when honest analysis proves the opposite. It's congress' progressive political elites who are the bullies. Who appointed them the deciders of what's right or wrong? Who appointed them deciders of what parts of the constitution should be ignored or what legislation should even be debated?

How many Americans even understand the constitutional process that's being hijacked by progressives? The House or Senate passes a bill and sends it to the other body. That other body either passes it too, modifies it and sends it back to the originating body for signing or both sides make their own proposals that are debated in conference that produces a compromise which both sign. That's messy though. It takes time and effort. Oh, and one must defend one's position/proposals logically(!) in debate. When what one proposes is based on relativistic and theoretical arguments that completely ignore things like human nature and historical fact, common sense and logic go out the window. The proposal becomes indefensible in debate so debate must be avoided at all costs. After all, the end justifies the means (including throwing away the constitution).

Why isn't congress debating major issues/legislation? Because both sides, especially progressives, are becoming averse to honest debate or for that matter honesty in general. It's too hard to get your way when your way fails against common sense and/or true(!) facts.

Here's an article by Victor Davis Hanson that adds further analysis to this. As I said, one can find Republican attitudes and thinking that are similar in some ways but it's clearly more fundamental to the thinking of progressive political elites.

Joe Biden Boosts Voting Rights ... As If Historical Democrat Opposition To Voting And Other Minority Constitutional Civil Rights Never Happened

I was amused by the MSNBC article today, "On MLK Day, Biden Boosts Voting Rights", for two reasons.

First, Democrats historically opposed(!) voting rights for minorities and it was Republicans who historically created and passed such legislation close to 100%. Democrats were still voting in big numbers against voting rights acts less than 60 years ago ... on the 1957 Voting Rights Act for example. It wasn't until the 1960's that Democrats began supporting voting rights in a significant way. And it wasn't until the 2007 Voting Rights Act that Democrats finally caught up with Republicans in the percentage of votes supporting it. Now they talk as if they're the ones who invented this civil right (and others). Go figure.

Second, what far too many uninformed Americans don't know is that Democrat opposition to minorities' constitutional civil rights wasn't limited to the area of voting rights. Contrary to their 'leadership' claim on the party website history page they historically opposed all major constitutional minority rights efforts. It was Republicans who created and passed the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments to the Constitution. Democrats opposed them all, nearly 100% in most cases. They defeated Women's Voting Rights bills three times until the 19th Amendment was finally passed by a Republican-controlled congress. And it was Democrats who filibustered(!) against and had twice the percentage of no votes (as Republicans) on MLK's landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. Which makes Vice President Biden's support of voting rights on MLK day as ironic as it is welcome.

Here are a couple of references regarding the truth of this matter if you're interested:
Kevin Williamson's 2012 article.
My historical summary.

A President And Government Of ALL The People? Hardly!

A "Special Briefing" on Benghazi was held just before yesterday's press briefing. For "select" members of The Media. I'm sure the liberal attendees did indeed feel "special" but what about the concept of freedom of the press? Doesn't the concept of a free press have as a fundamental precept openness by administrations to ALL 'The Press', not just the ones that find themselves on the good side of a president?

What kind of message does that deliver? Better be nice to us if you want to get the inside scoop on things. If you print something that makes us look bad you run the risk of not being invited back. We'll send you to a 'time out' if you misbehave. That's CONTROL (by exclusion) of the press, not freedom of the press.

Adding emphasis to this administration's hostility toward all things conservative is the other news yesterday that the IRS targeted conservative groups for 'special' investigation if the terms "Tea Party" or "Patriot" are in any way connected with a group claiming tax-exempt status. Hmmmmm. You don't suppose they'd do that with their counterpart groups on the left end of the political spectrum that dare call themselves progressive do you? That would be fair and balanced would it not?

What kind of message does that deliver? Better not create a group like that or promote yourself that way on our watch or you'll get 'special treatment' by the IRS. Isn't that nice? How special, huh? Everyone knows how much fun it is to get 'special treatment' by the IRS.

And what if one happens to be an officer in such groups? By definition, they'd be getting extra scrutiny by the IRS as they dig into what the group may or may not be doing. Having been on the executive committee of one I'm no doubt on the IRS watch list.

What do you suppose will be the IRS' reaction to this news being made public? Will they simply stop doing that or will they simply do it more surreptitiously?

Also, if the IRS is giving extra attention to Tea Party and Patriot groups, doesn't that imply it's most likely true that other government departments are also giving 'special treatment' to them AND their membership too?

Understand that this is coercive action by the government. It's a more passive-aggressive form of it but that's what it is, plain and simple. By definition it is the antithesis of freedom and constitutional principles.

Oh, it feels SO good to receive such special treatment by my government. Media representing my interests cannot get into White House briefings and groups with which I associate come under special investigation by agents of the government simply because we have an opposing political view. Never mind that we do things peacefully compared with the likes of the left's "Occupy" movement.

Thank you Mr. President. You make me feel SO SPECIAL!

President Obama Once Again Proves(!) He Doesn't Understand Our Founding Or Our Constitution

President Obama doesn't understand what the founding of this country was all about any more than he understands the constitution (as I explained a couple of blogs ago)

Regarding the constitution, just because he taught constitutional law doesn't mean he understands the constitution. One can attempt to teach something without truly understanding it. Just because you teach a subject doesn't mean you understand it correctly.

What he was teaching is the progressive view of constitutional law that what's lawful is not what the constitution says or was intended to mean. He was NOT teaching the constitution; rather how to change it!!! Hello People! What he was teaching is the progressive view that legal precedence trumps(!) the constitution. By that vehicle, therefore, the Supreme Court could have the power to change the constitution (the way progressives want) instead of defending its principles. Once they say something is constitutional, that makes it so ... whether either the founders or the constitution itself said so in the beginning. In effect, they can choose to define something as lawful that the founders tried mightily to prevent. It is they who can say what they want the constitution to support now whether that was supported originally or not. That is NOT what the founders intended ... AT ALL!

Now President Obama has the audacity to claim he's actually in sync with the founders. What a crazy idea that is! In a 4/19/12 article titled "The Governing Class and Us" the Heritage editors described his disconnect as follows: "President Barack Obama delivered a politically charged speech (on 4/18/12 in Elyria, OH) in which he hearkened back to the country's roots, saying that his opponents "don't seem to remember how America was built." In his view, taxpayers want their money spent in ways that will help further "the larger project we call America." In other words, more spending and bigger government paid for with higher taxes."

America was built on the principle of a small federal government with very limited power. President Obama's goal is to increase the scope, size and control of the federal government, period! As a progressive he believes there is no ill in our land that the federal government cannot fix ... if we give it sufficient money and bureaucratic power. That is what the founders worked hard to prevent!!! Even the liberals of those founding days ('old' liberalism per Herbert Hoover) understood the evils of big, powerful and controlling government. After all, they had just fought for our freedom from England over that very thing.

President Obama thinks his Republican opponents don't remember how America was built? Good grief! It is he who doesn't know our history! It's a good thing he never taught that subject ... progressives are terrible at teaching it but revising history is what they do best!!!

Learn from the evils in history or you'll be doomed to repeat them. Our founders knew that. They knew from history and their own experience with King George the inevitable results of big and powerful government. They did their best to prevent it here and they succeeded for about 200 years. Now this knucklehead of a president wants us to believe his revision of our own history. He must think we're stupid!

It's Ironic That President Obama Is Accusing The Supreme Court Of Activism

So, the Prez is accusing the Supreme Court of judicial activism should it overturn part/all of ObamaCare. That's ironic because creating ObamaCare was an act of progressive activism and of executive activism. Actually, I guess the Prez ought to know what activism is since he's the most practiced president of it in our entire history. Who better to judge what is or is not activism? ;-)

Well, if it is judicial activism, I say so be it. Sometimes it takes an act of activism to counter an activist action. One can accurately say, however, that it's not the Supreme Court that would be activist in this case. The real activism in this case was the Prez's health care law. Overturning it would be an act of patriotism and constitutional support/enforcement. It would be honoring, y'know, that pesky oath they ALL take to uphold, preserve and protect the constitution of the United States.

The Prez, by that legislation and his threats(!) toward the Supreme Court, has proved once again the irrationality of his claim that he understands the constitution. It proves his claim to knowledge based on having taught constitutional law is invalid. Just because you teach something doesn't mean you understand it correctly and he's proving that he doesn't by actions he takes nearly every day he's in office. The only thing he really understands about the constitution is the progressive agenda for changing it into something it was never intended to be.

Four Articles Dealing With Fundamental Issues Dividing Left From Right In America

There seems to be little necessity to add my own commentary to the following articles. They do much to describe and illuminate the divisiveness that's growing rapidly and, too often, rabidly in America. These aspects of the problem are important for us to consider for the sake of our future. We need to care about understanding what divides us and why it does. We can't make much progress turning away from this unfortunate trajectory on which the political left has set us until we begin to care about our country, indeed our constitution.

They (Liberals) Don't (Can't!) Know Us by Dennis Prager.

Saving Sovereignty by John Fonte.

Argument From Disparity by Thomas Sowell.

The Constitution's Comeback by Michael Barone.

A President Of The USA Who Doesn't Know The Role Or Authority Of The Supreme Court Doesn't Know Squat About The Constitution Or Maybe He Just Doesn't Care

Per President Obama: "Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress". And he said that it would be an act of "judicial activism" to overturn his health care legislation.

There are so many things wrong with those knuckle-headed statements that I hardly know where to begin. Basically, he doesn't understand the constitutional principle of separation of powers. Nor does he understand either the authority or role of the Supreme Court.

First, ObamaCare did NOT pass by "a strong majority". In the House it passed 219 to 212 ... by 4 votes out of 431 (4 yea votes going the other way would have defeated it 216 to 215). Even 34 Democrats voted against it! To call it "a strong majority" and to claim it would be "unprecedented" are nothing short of lies as Thomas Sowell had the courage to say. Sowell also exposed the deceptive nature of so much that President Obama does/says. He's expertly adept at distortion and at cover-ups when his deceptions are exposed.

Second, it is nowhere near unprecedented of the Supreme Court to strike down a law of economic or any other importance. It's what they do! Hello!

Third, to say that the Supreme Court isn't paying attention to the 'will' of the majority in the legislature President Obama is demonstrating his complete lack of understanding that the Supreme Court's job is to NOT rule based on any will of any majority. Their job is to determine whether the expressed will of Congress' majority is constitutional. It doesn't and, constitutionally, ought not matter to the Supreme Court justices how popular a piece of legislation is. OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT (IE, OUR VERY FREEDOM AND LIBERTY) IS, IN FACT, DEPENDENT ON THE SUPREME COURT NOT BENDING TO THE WILL OF EITHER OF THE OTHER TWO BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT!!!

And to hear President Obama claim "judicial activism" is laughable! His policies and actions comprise the very definition of (progressive) activism in a major branch of government!!! He only needs to look into a mirror to see who's practicing 'activism' in our federal government ... executive activism in his case.

He is SOOOOOOO off-base with his comments directed at the Supreme Court that I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Laugh about how ridiculous his thinking is. Cry about what his approach to national governance means to our constitution and our freedom.

John Fund's article covers all the various aspects of President Obama's 'warning' to the Supreme Court is the best of many I've seen.

GADS PEOPLE! DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW SERIOUS A PROBLEM THIS IS? HOW SERIOUS A RISK IT IS TO OUR REPUBLIC?

This White House Believes It's Own Lies And Nonsense Spinning

Jack Lew, the White House chief of staff, made the rounds on Sunday talk shows to begin spinning President Obama's upcoming 2013 budget. Y'know that inconvenient constitutional requirement that led Obama to produce a budget last year that got no yes votes at all in the Democratic(!) Senate. I guess the White House figured that insufficient spin was the reason it wasn't passed last year when in fact it was due to outrageous spending that even Democrats couldn't swallow.

When asked why the senate, controlled by the president's own party, hasn't passed a budget in 1,019 days, Mr. Lew trotted out the standard spin line, "You can't pass a budget in the Senate of the United States without 60 votes." Only problem with that is a budget only needs a majority of 51 votes to pass in the Senate and they have enough Democrats there to pass it without a single Republican vote. By the way, Mr. Lew, President Obama couldn't create a budget last year that could get a single supporting vote from his own party so good luck with that spin thing.

President Obama and his administration are so sold out to spin and twisting truth that they seem to think that just because they think and/or say something it must be true because they thought it. If these guys aren't competent enough to get basic constitution-based requirements right, they're not competent to do something as complex as running the country.

It's interesting that the White House is sending out their spin doctors in advance(!) of the president's budget this year. I guess they think the reason it didn't get a single vote last year is because they didn't explain it well enough. Ms. Pelosi's rule for getting things passed, "we have to pass it so we can see what's in it", isn't going to work any more so they just need to spin it better to fix that problem. Two problems with that President Obama.

First, a fundamentally flawed (ie, far too expensive) budget won't pass regardless of spin. Second, you guys don't know what you're talking about. So stop talking and just do your stinking job. Better than you have for the previous three years please!

Pay Attention To President Obama's Progressive Instincts Because A President's Instincts Matter

Heed Obama's instincts because they'll matter far more if he's re-elected!

ALL Liberty Is Under Assault By This Progressive Agenda, Not Just Religious Liberty!

We didn't need this current issue of HHS forcing religious organizations to provide contraceptives and the morning after abortion pill to know about President Obama's progressive instincts. But it surely provides added clarity for those of you who still don't get it or what's at stake because of it.

Three years ago he and a Democratic congress rammed ObamaCare down our throats, going out of their way to ignore(!) pleas by Congressional Republicans to at least debate the legislation. By unilaterally forcing it on Americans they put us on notice that they ARE(!) determined to do whatever they want, arrogantly refusing(!) to debate important legislation and thereby patently refusing to compromise. That they dare to claim high ground on compromise and blame lack of it on Republicans demonstrates both their arrogance and commitment to implementing a progressive agenda no matter what. That action on one of the most important pieces of legislation in our country's history proves clearly what their basic and default instincts are: No compromise! In fact, take no prisoners ... no mercy!

So, here we go again this week with their affirmation(!) that ObamaCare requires religious institutions to provide the forementioned 'medical' coverage. That they could utter those words in total defiance of constitutional principles ought to alarm everyone. That they subsequently capitulated to an outcry and backed off that requirement isn't the important news.

They do not deserve credit for being magnanimous or fair by changing their minds. If they were those things they wouldn't have implemented or later affirmed the requirement in the first place. They didn't change their minds because they saw the error in requiring such a thing. What's important is their arrogance even daring to make it a requirement in the first place and then in the face of strong opposition reaffirming it! The possibility of losing the Catholic vote is what made them change their minds, not an understanding(!) how wrong they were in the first place. The important lesson for us is that it demonstrates their instincts favoring(!) unilateral force (Compromise? What's that?), progessive agenda trumps all considerations and ignoring constitutional principles and laws that stand in their way. Have they apologized for going too far? Heck no! What they're sorry about is not getting what they still(!) want.

Why this is so important:
Their instincts have mattered these past three years. They will matter even more should they get another four years to push their progressive agenda. If you think the arrogance of this administration has been excessive his first term, just wait to see what a second term will bring when he's not constrained by re-election worries! And if Democrats should gain control of the House and Senate you will see a progressive assault on liberty, free enterprise and constitutional principles and freedoms that you or our founders never imagined possible in Our Republic.