Archive for January, 2010

Subsidiarity In 2010

Posted in 2010 Election, Politics on January 27th, 2010

As America truly enters into the 2010 midterm Congressional Election cycle the one word that Americans, especially Conservatives of all varieties, should keep in the font of their minds is subsidiarity.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition:

Pronunciation: \,s?b-si-d?-‘er-?-t?, s?b-,si-\
Function: noun
Date: 1936


  1. a the quality or state of being subsidiary
  2. a principle in social organization: functions which subordinate or local organizations perform effectively belong more properly to them than to a dominant central organization

Simply put, subsidiarity is the idea that a central authority should have a subsidiary, or secondary and lesser, function and perform only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level. Among other things it is the foundational concept underlying the 10th Amendment to US Constitution.

This concept should be a touchstone for Americans in the 2010 Congressional elections and in any state and local elections that may arise in the upcoming months. While not the only issue that Americans should consider when choosing a political candidate, subsidiarity should be one of the key issues analyzed when making those choices.

At the local, district, and state levels Americans need to look for candidates that will “step up to the plate” and take action and responsibility, one’s willing to fight to take power back from higher, more centralized authority and hold it in trust for the People that they serve. At the federal level Americans need to look for candidates that will relinquish those improper powers currently co-opted and/or seized by the federal government back to the states.

Frankly, most of the current ills inflicted upon America are because we, the People, have allowed the federal government to take too much power unto itself, power that rightly belongs to the the people of states and the local municipalities. That can be corrected, but it will take work – and the upcoming elections are a good place to start.

Subsidiarity In 2010 – learn it, love it, vote for it.

Olbermann’s Hypocrisy

Posted in Politics on January 24th, 2010

Admittedly, the partisanship, Leftist agenda, anti-Americanism, and rank hypocrisy of MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann is infamous but this latest rant takes it to a whole new level.

In his latest rant at Daily Kos, he had much to spew about the recent Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision by the SCOTUS.

Below is an excerpt from Olbermann’s hypocritical rant:

In short, there are now no checks on the ability of corporations or unions or other giant aggregations of power… to decide our elections.


They can spend all the money they want.

And if they can spend all the money they want — sooner, rather than later — they will implant the legislators of their choice in every office from President to head of the Visiting Nurse Service.

And if Senators and Congressmen and Governors and Mayors and Councilmen and everyone in between are entirely beholden to the corporations for election and re-election to office, soon they will erase whatever checks there might still exist to just slow down the ability of corporations to decide… the laws.

It is almost literally true that any political science fiction nightmare you can now dream up — no matter whether you are conservative or liberal — it is now legal. Because the people who can make it legal, can now be entirely bought and sold — no actual citizens required in the process.

And the entirely bought and sold politicians, can change any laws. And any legal defense you can structure now, can be undone by the politicians who will be bought and sold into office this November, or two years from now. And any legal defense which honest politicians can somehow wedge up against them this November, or two years from now, can be undone by the next even larger set of politicians who will be bought and sold into office in 2014, or 2016, or 2018.

Mentioning Lincoln’s supposed ruminations about arresting Roger B. Taney… he didn’t say the original of this, but what the hell:
Right now, you can prostitute all of the politicians some of the time, and prostitute some of the politicians all the time, but you cannot prostitute all the politicians all the time.

Thanks to Chief Justice Roberts this will change.

— Keith Olbermann
Daily Kos – Keith Olbermann’s Diary

The rank hypocrisy of Olbermann’s rant defies proper definition or description; American Standard English just doesn’t possess the nuance necessary to convey the depths to which Olbermann – albeit unsurprisingly – has, with great apparent passion and eagerness, sunk.

He has chosen to stridently complain about about Corporations being now permitted to make private expenditures of the wealth the have amassed by the special advantages which go with the corporate form to fund, create, and/or publish political advertisements during the various elections cycles. Yet Keith Olbermann earns his quite considerable salary by starring in political advertisements (Liberal infomercials, as it were) throughout the various election cycles – up to and including during the elections themselves – and is paid by a corporation through private expenditure of some part of its immense aggregations of wealth it has amassed by the special advantages which go with the corporate form.

Olbermann also conveniently “forgets” to mention that the Labor Unions also had their restrictions lifted and can also air political ads during the election cycles.

Whether you’re you agree with, are opposed to, or are, as I am, truly ambivalent towards the US Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision on Citizens United, the level Keith Olbermann’s hypocrisy should be shocking, galling, and cause for some form of punitive action.

An Inconvenient Liberty

Posted in Politics on January 23rd, 2010

There are those times when America’s, and probably the whole of Mankind’s, highest, noblest, and most singularly important document, the Constitution, is a suicide letter for America’s democracy. The US Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is one of those times.

Sometimes maintaining liberty carries with it a great weight of inconvenience to the sensibilities of the individual members of the populace who cannot see the benefit to upholding the guiding principles of our great nation when doing so places, or seems to place, our way of life in jeopardy.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

— Thomas Jefferson
Letter to Archibald Stuart, Dec 23, 1791

The SCOTUS’ decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overruled and struck down most of the federal laws limiting corporations and labor unions from using their own wealth to fund or create and disseminate political messages and/or ads during elections as being unconstitutional and in contravention of the 1st Amendment thereof.  The effects of this decision, given human nature, are very likely to be an “inconvenience” brought on the common man by too much liberty.

I, for one, certainly do not relish the thought of the media being inundated by political ads by corporations during each and every election cycle. Nor am I in any way sanguine about how that could effect the outcomes of those elections. Even more so, I  do not relish experiencing the same thing from the labor unions and believe such electioneering ads would be far more likely to come from them than from corporations.

Yet, after reading the Courts decision and opinion, those of the previous cases they cited, and the body of law in question (US Code Title 2, Chapter 14, Subchapter I , § 441b), I am forced to agree with them. Removing the ban on both corporations and labor unions was the only constitutionally correct decision that the SCOTUS could render. The issues that may arise from maintaining Freedom of Speech are far less detrimental than those that would certainly arise from hampering or chilling it.

Obama Almost Gets It

Posted in Politics on January 21st, 2010

I knew full well that Scott Brown’s solid defeat of Martha Coakley in the deep blue liberal stronghold of Massachusetts was a watershed moment in modern American politics. I did not, however, expect its repercussions to be felt quite this swiftly or to effect the attitudes of the White House so significantly in so short of order. President Obama almost gets it; he almost understands how things have suddenly changed.

People Are Angry, and They’re Frustrated

President Obama, in a complete reversal of his previous desire to rush forward, warned congressional Democrats today not to “jam” a health care reform bill through the reconciliation process in the wake of their loss of their super-majority in the Senate. The POTUS also said they must wait for newly elected Massachusetts Republican, Scott Brown to be sworn into office before holding any debates or votes.

Here’s my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country. The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry, and they’re frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.

Here’s one thing I know and I just want to make sure that this is off the table: The Senate certainly shouldn’t try to jam anything through until Scott Brown is seated People in Massachusetts spoken. He’s got to be part of that process.

— President Obama
Interview with George Stephanopoulos, January 20, 2010

The President almost gets it; he almost understands the anger and frustration of the American people. If he could just “man up” and accept his responsibility for it instead of – yet once again – blaming President George W. Bush for everything, he’d probably get it and just might be able to adapt more fully to it and the will of we, the People.

The anger that Scott Brown tapped into to reach his victory is very similar to, but not quite the same, as the anger that Obama tapped into in 2008 and trying to blame President Bush for it isn’t going to change that.

Still, it’s a step in the right direction. President Obama, much like some other Liberals, can at least finally recognize the people’s anger and even if he doesn’t understand or care for America, he does understand fear and will respond to threats if they’re made bluntly enough.

Brown: The Aftermath

Posted in Politics on January 20th, 2010

Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) aka Lt. Colonel Brown, MA State National GuardNow that Republican Scott Brown has won the election to fill Massachusetts’ US Senate seat left empty by Sen. Ted Kennedy’s long overdue yet far too quick death, what will be the response from President Obama and his Liberals who currently rule Congress?

Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) breaks the Dems super-majority in the Senate and, theoretically puts the Liberals’ entire destructive, neo-Socialist agenda at immediate and significant risk.

Worse for the traitorous Left, Brown’s campaign was centered on opposition to President Obama visions for a 2nd Reconstruction of- or replacement for America – especially ObamaCare.

I’m ambivalent about how Brown ran his campaign largely as a referendum against Obama. It’s too similar to Obama’s presidential campaign, which was against Bush rather than McCain.

While I’m very happy that it worked for Brown and, by extension, Americans as a whole, I didn’t like it when Obama ran his campaign that way and I don’t like it that Brown followed suit. In my rarely humble opinion campaigns should be ran against one’s opponent, not a third party.

What exactly President Obama and his Liberals’ immediate response will be to Sen. Brown’s somewhat shocking defeat of Martha Coakley is a matter of some discussion and seems to be fraught with great deal contradictory evidence and statements by Democrat politicians.

Read the rest of this entry »