The Idolatry of Statism

Sometimes I feel like a lonely voice crying in the wilderness when I denounce statism, especially socialism, as idolatry.

But then I come across Timothy Fountain stating that statism is idolatry for both right and left, and I do not feel so alone.  Do go read his thoughtful piece.

And statism is an idolatrous tendency that transcends the usual categories of left and right.  A big reason our nation is in a bad way is not only the Democrat Party, but also the Republican establishment is wedded to statist big government.  Yeah, maybe they want to grow it more slowly than Democrats, but mainly they just want to run it instead of Democrats.

And that statist tendency of the Establishment Republicans who now control Congress has greatly undermined the Consent of the Governed.  How many elections have we had in my lifetime that have said “NO!” to big government?  I would say 1966, 1978, 1980, 1984, perhaps 1988, 1994, 2004, 2010, and 2014.  Yet the federal government has gotten bigger and bigger, and more and more intrusive.  The disregard both parties have shown for the 2010 and 2014 elections has been particularly marked.

How long can a government get more powerful in defiance of the consent of the governed, with even the supposed opposition party ignoring the votes of the people, without ugly consequences?

I pray that the 2016 election is such a repudiation of big government statism that the winners finally get it and bow to the Consent of the Governed by putting the federal government in its place.  For the alternatives I see would not bode well for either freedom or civil peace.

But I know too well that politicians rarely reduce their own power.  It usually has to be taken from them.  Therefore, I fear the near future of the United States and of both its major parties will not be a pleasant one.

The Supreme Court Tells Voters to Get Lost

I’ve held my fire on the Prop 8 ruling yesterday.  After all, the Supreme Court did not rule directly on Prop 8, and Justice Scalia, whom I highly respect, concurred with the decision.  I respect him so much that I still wonder if I am missing something.

But let me try to get the ruling straight anyway.  Voters approve Prop 8 through a referendum process designed to enable the people to exhert some power when politicians refuse to listen.  The politicians predictably refuse to defend the new law when it is challenged in court.  So supporters step in and defend it.  (Who else will?)  A federal judge who cannot keep his gay activism in his pants rules against Prop 8.  The 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals whose method of jurisprudence is “If it’s Leftist, we like it” rules against Prop 8.  And then at the Supreme Court, a majority of justices says the voters did not have standing to defend their law once the gay federal judge ruled from on high?  Voters whose votes are being nullified by politicians and judge-politicians have no standing to say their votes cannot be nullified? 

Can you say kangaroo court?

This is yet another successful attack on Constitutional democracy from the Feds and their courts.  I am beginning to understand why certain friends who stay informed chose not to vote.

Bill Jurkovich, a voter in Citrus Heights, Calif., says: “Apparently, we the people do not have the right to create a law that the political elite disagree with. Is it any wonder that people are becoming radicalized, have lost faith with the political process, distrust government, and do not vote?”

And if you think just us knuckle dragging right-wingers are concerned with this attack on democracy, think again.

Justice Kennedy, in his dissent from the majority, warned that “the Court’s decision also has implications for the 26 other states that have an initiative or popular referendum system, and which, like California, may choose to have initiative proponents stand in for the State when public officials decline to defend an initiative in litigation.” Kevin Drum, a blogger for the liberal Mother Jones magazine, notes that he is in favor of gay marriage, but that the Supreme Court’s “gutting” of the people’s right to defend their own initiatives “has neither the flavor of justice nor of democratic governance.”

I am hesitant to say much more with the NSA watching and all.  But it is past time for the ruling class to think long and hard about what can happen to a society when the people sense that their voices and votes do not count.  And with election fraud, a tyrannical President, judges who nullify the results of elections, etc. more and more people are sensing just that.

The alternatives to the Consent of the Governed can be unpleasant.

Obama’s “Climate Change” Speech - More Contempt for Consent of the Governed

I could rake Obama’s “Climate Change” speech over the coals (No pun intended.) for its questionable science and destructive economics.  If Obama gets his way, he’ll be hurting our economy while China cheerfully keeps polluting at full tilt.  A lot of good that would do.

But what may be even worse about the speech is his utter disregard for the consent of the governed.  If Obama wants all these so-called green policies, which will be red for the economy, then let him campaign on them before an election and work with Congress to pass them.

Instead, he threatens to go close to full tyrant, using executive orders and his pet EPA to slow down and even shut down much of the economy (e. g. power plants and the coal industry) for the sake of somehow stopping climate change.  The Wall Street Journal puts it well:

Most striking about this Obama legacy project is its contempt for democratic consent. Congress has consistently rejected an Obama-style "comprehensive" anticarbon energy plan. That was true even when Democrats ran the Senate with a filibuster-proof majority in 2009-2010 and killed his cap-and-trade energy bill. The only legislative justification for Mr. Obama's new plan is an abusive interpretation of the Clean Air Act, which was last revised in 1990 and never mentions carbon as a pollutant.

So instead Mr. Obama will impose these inherently political policy choices via unaccountable bureaucracies, with little or no debate. Mr. Obama might have at least announced his war on carbon before the election and let voters have a say. Instead he posed as the John the Baptist of fossil fuels in locales such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia—taking credit for the shale fracking boom he had nothing to do with and running ads attacking Mitt Romney as anticoal.

Now safely re-elected, Mr. Obama figures he can do what he pleases. The Americans who will be harmed will have to console themselves with 99 weeks of jobless benefits, food stamps and ObamaCare.

Chavez and Congressional Democrats Hate Democracy UPDATED

I have said before that Leftists only like democracy when it serves their agenda. When it does not serve their designs, Leftists undermine constitutional democracy with all the power they can muster.

Hugo Chavez and Harry Reid and friends are giving us yet more demonstrations of that. In the last elections, both lost some power. So both are seeking to undermine said elections.

Hugo Chavez has already rigged Venezuelan democracy. But not enough for his taste. Before more opposition lawmakers take their seats, Chavez is asking for power to rule by decree for one year.

What could possibly go wrong with such a “temporary” enabling act? Power to the People! . . . unless they vote wrong, of course. Then power to me!

As for Harry Reid, November’s elections were, if anything, a repudiation of profligate spending and of Obamacare. So what are Democrats trying to pass before many of them leave office? An omnibus spending bill that increases already bloated spending and funds Obamacare. Not to mention lots of lovely earmarks.

Election? What election? If the Democrats really were democrats they would pass a simple continuing resolution to fund the government past Saturday’s deadline (when current funding authority expires) and let the next just elected Congress deal with spending in more detail. But no. The Democrats are trying to use that deadline to subvert the will of the people and of their just elected representatives.

I’d rather shut the feds down myself.

A few RINOs share the blame for this monster as well. Defeated Senator Bob Bennett is among these.

By the way, I do not like UK parliamentary government as it concentrates power too much. But I do like that, as soon as the election is over and you form a government, you go have tea with The Queen and, presto, you are in power, not those who lost the election. Giving power for a time to those who are defeated or retiring, as in the U. S. and in Venezuela, and are therefore past being held accountable is a recipe for subversion of democracy. And we are most certainly seeing that now in this lamest of lame duck congresses.

UPDATE: Facing a firestorm of opposition from even John McCain, Reid has backed down and pulled the Omnibus spending bill. Thanks be to God.

Faking the Hate (or I told you so)

I mentioned earlier this week that a common tactic of the Left is to provoke outrage from the Right, then to use that outrage against them. “And if the Left doesn’t find some outrage from the Center/Right that is juicy enough, it will invent it.”

Well, sure enough, we’ve seen that tactic in action this week. For example, there have been claims that tea party protesters shouted racial slurs at congressmen in Washington. But although the protests were abundantly videotaped, the evidence for such is non-existent. And that even though Jesse Jackson and company certainly tried to taunt and provoke the protesters.

Now, do I assert that every tea party protester was immaculate in his conduct? Of course not. If you find any protest where that is the case, let me know.

Nevertheless, exaggerating and even inventing “hate” from the right while also ignoring it from the Left is nothing new, as Michelle Malkin reminds us.

And if our friends on the Left were really that concerned about civility in politics, then they would be more concerned about the consent of the governed necessary to civil politics.

I’m not holding my breath on that.

No, the Democrats’ real purpose in crying crocodile tears over alleged slurs and violence is to demonize those standing up against their attacks on freedom.

About Anti-Obamacare “Ugliness”

I was intending to go non-political today – I really was – but this is an instructive moment I cannot let pass.

There are many crocodile tears being shed over the “ugliness” of some of the opposition to Obamacare the past few days. For a good sample of that, go here.

First, it is doubtful whether at least some that is alleged to have happened really happened. Second, the Democrat whining is not unlike kicking someone in the shin and then being shocked, shocked when your victim says some naughty words. At the risk of repeating myself, when you trash the consent of the governed, yes, the reaction will get ugly and worse.

But, third, and this is most important, to provoke outrage from one’s targets and then use that outrage against the targets is an old tactic of the Left. I remember being personally suckered by that tactic in my Duke days. And if the Left doesn’t find some outrage from the Center/Right that is juicy enough, it will invent it. It’s wrong, but we are talking about Leftists. That is the sort of thing Leftists do.

So that makes it all the more important that we who oppose the Leftists and their agendas keep our opposition above reproach. Yes, Biblical admonitions work well in politics, too. We should be careful not to give the Leftists ammunition to use against us. When the Left tries to defame us who fight for freedom, let it be because they are lying, not because we are being stupid.

Like I said yesterday, fight hard but fight clean.


Housekeeping: For the remainder of Passion Week and Holy Week I will try to lay off the politics and Obamacare. I know – if I keep talking about Obamacare day after day, I will become tiresome like . . . Obama.

On the Verge of Gulag Obama

After reading of yet another defection to Obamacare, I have now come to the sickening expectation that Obamacare will pass the House and become law, even if law at its worst and most arbitrary.

I find it sickening because we will have come to the point where Congress can so Slaughter the Constitution that it thinks it can pass such a monstrosity without actually voting on it. It sickens me because once a nation burdens itself with socialized medicine, untold generations will suffer under that burden.

It sickens me because the very basics that our founding fathers fought for – consent of the governed, no taxation without representation, and our wonderful Constitution – will have been gutted in order to greatly increase the power of the Almighty State over our lives.

There is still hope. The manner in which Obamacare is about to be passed has so enraged Americans that the November elections may make 1994 and 1974 look like picnics. Such a historic repudiation may make it possible to restore freedom. And rest assured that I will be among those fighting (non-violently - Yes, I think it is needful to say that.) for freedom and against Obamacare.

Nevertheless, this is a dark day.

Pelosi House on Verge of Slaughtering the Constitution

How important is Obamacare to Obama, Pelosi, and other Demorats? A heck lot more important than the Constitution.

For Pelosi and allies are considering a maneuver of passing the Senate Obamacare bill without actually voting on it. Rules Committee Chair Rep. Louise Slaughter is behind this, hence the maneuver has been well dubbed “the Slaughter Solution.” And it would slaughter the Constitution’s explicit provision that Congress has to actually vote in order to pass bills. (Article I, Section VII, Clause II)

At the risk of repeating myself, Leftists only like Constitutional democracy when it serves their agenda. But when it doesn’t, then they have no qualms about tearing up the Constitution and overturning American democracy.

I hesitate to say what would be appropriate opposition should Obamacare be shoved through in such an unconstitutional manner. But it would most certainly be taxation without representation. And my educated readers know well what our forefathers did about that.

Much better we stop this NOW. Call your Congressmen and give them . . . godly admonitions.


MORE: Former Appeals Court Judge Michael W. McConnell speaks out.

“Just How Angry Are Some Americans?”

The Anchoress is at least as concerned as I am about the anger being provoked by Obama’s disregard for the consent of the governed, particularly when it comes to Obamacare.

Get thee hence!

Obamacare, Reconciliation, and Consent of the Governed

A week ago, I expressed my alarm that barely a fifth of Americans think the current federal government has “the consent of the governed.” Well, the situation may be about to get even worse and fast.

For the word is Obama and company are intent on jamming Obamacare through the Senate using the reconciliation process.

Leaving aside what horrendous policy Obamacare would be, look at the horrendous politics of the course Democrats are considering.

Any number of polls indicate a majority of Americans oppose Obamacare. And it has been that way for months despite Obama again and again pushing his health care agenda. He even used the Super Bowl for that! What part of “NO!” does he not understand?

Polls also indicate a majority oppose using the reconciliation process to pass Obamacare.

The reconciliation process was never intended to pass major social programs but to deal with budgetary matters.

If the Senate passes Obamacare with a bare 50+1 majority, it will do so with the votes of Senators whose very presence in the Senate is of questionable legitimacy due to election fraud. Al Franken stands out in that regard.

In short, using reconciliation to pass Obamacare would be such an abuse of power that it would greatly inflame the consensus that this government lacks the consent of the governed. And that is because this raw power play would lack the consent of the governed as Rep. Paul Broun and others have stated.

But then, Leftists as a whole do not care about trivialities like the consent of the governed. They want their agenda passed, period. See their abuse of the federal courts to get a flavor of that.

Again, this lack of the consent of the governed – and Obama’s brazen disregard for it – is a profoundly volatile and unhealthy situation for the U. S.

Pray. (And give your Senators and Congressmen an ear full while you're at it.)

A Disturbing Poll on “the Consent of the Governed”

Rasmussen released a poll the other day that I find disturbing. In it, only 21% believe the federal government today has the consent of the governed. 61% say the federal government does not have that consent.

Think about that. Barely a fifth of Americans think our national government has our consent. A full three-fifths think it does not. I am certainly not naïve concerning the anger at the Obama regime and at the Demorat Congress, anger that I most certainly share. But this poll floored me.

Now, I’ll be honest. Part of me thinks, “Yea! Those Demorats are going to get it!” But I know this situation is profoundly unhealthy and volatile. Civil wars, rebellions, and revolutions have been fought over less.

At the risk of repeating myself, one reason adhering to the Constitution is so important is there must be agreed upon political avenues for grievances. And those avenues must be respected. When those avenues are closed off or when democratic decisions taken through those avenues are voided – as both have been done by federal courts – or when the feds take upon themselves powers outside those avenues – as all three branches of the federal government have done time and time again – then people, seeing that their democratic rights are subverted, will take their grievances outside those political avenues. In short when constitutional democracy is subverted, at least some people will address their grievances through non-democratic means. And some of those means will be violent. We’ve seen this on a small scale after Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Political disagreement is one thing. But today’s consensus that government is acting outside the consent of the governed is quite another. A government that lacks the consent of almost 4/5s of the people is a government that invites violent opposition.

(Just to be clear, I do not yet think violence is appropriate or acceptable. I think consent of the governed can and must be restored through peaceful democratic means.)

My hope is that the next two elections are such a repudiation of big government statism that we return much closer to constitutional democratic governance. The people must feel they can address their grievances through constitutional democratic means. Otherwise, some of those who feel government lacks their consent will go beyond civil means in their opposition. Frankly, I doubt we can avoid an increase in violence in any case.

Yes, I find this poll that disturbing.