I just read the punditry of Robert B. Reich on the Huffington Post. Perhaps it’s because I never attended an Ivy-League school that I didn’t develop the proper cranial density necessary to remain impervious to logic, but Reich completely misses the mark. As usual. His thesis is that Republicans are in favor of social Darwinism. I’m not a Republican, but I play one on Election Day. Here are a few tidbits:

Reich: “In the late 19th century it was called Social Darwinism. Only the fittest should survive, and any effort to save the less fit will undermine the moral fiber of society.”

Read More →

I see that CNN’s David Gergen writes today in “Mr. President, take command” that he is unhappy with the efforts of BP and the government, and wants to have President Obama take command of the efforts to stop the oil flowing into the gulf. But Gergen pines for something that President Obama is incapable of doing: taking charge.

While Obama is described by some as an effective organizer, lecturer, teacher, and politician, he was never credibly described, in my opinion, as an effective leader.

Read More →

A confluence of posts has caused me to write this diary. I am astounded and somewhat chastened that I only now really understand the wisdom behind a philosophy I learned long ago in college: namely, that our entire American Experiment rests on 4 little boxes.

The first box is the one we all treasure here at Red State so much: The Soap Box. In our country, at least at present, it is possible to have your say without fear of reprisals from government. (Nighttwister’s blog entry not withstanding ) The expression of one’s opinions in public leads, as it ought, to debates and discussions. Sound opinions, based on reason, logic, and virtue generally prevail, and the ability of those who dissent from prevailing orthodoxy to present their opinions, unimpeded by government, acts as both a safety valve to relieve the burden of perceived injustice, and as a prod to all participants to both think through issues and positions, and refrain from impeding the free exchange of ideas.

And now that we’ve all had our say, it’s time to take this to the second of those boxes: The Ballot Box. This is where the majority rules, but the majority must always respect the rights of the minority. The idea is that having run the gauntlet of The Soap Box, only the best and most essential ideas will emerge to make it to the ballot box. The same goes for those involved in the legislative process, although as has always been the case, talented orators can conceal their true motives and ideals and occasionally prevail. It is for this reason that the founders of this nation structured the government in such a fashion as to make the process of change slow and deliberate. Otherwise, a handful of talented orators may be empowered, and do lasting damage to the republic. Because this box is foundational to the republic, you would think that the penalties for cheating or gaming the Ballot Box would be severe. Best to beware of those talented orators that eschew integrity of the Ballot Box on specious grounds, for it may be the case that they and their minions derive benefits in an inverse proportion to the Ballot Box’s integrity.

It is integrity that strives to make itself plain when we come to the third box: The Jury Box. It is here that average citizens are charged with judging the actions and intents of those accused of damaging others, breaching the peace, or breaching contracts. Virtually all who serve take the responsibility seriously, to deal with the law and the facts as they are presented, and to make determinations that deprive other citizens of money, property, freedom, or even life. Occasionally, juries may hear the evidence, read the law, and determine that irrespective of the direction a verdict should be rendered, they may find in the opposite direction. This is known as Jury Nullification, and legislators ignore these types of rulings at great peril. Juries rarely make such determinations; if they do, it is a message to the legislators that there is a basic unfairness in the writing or application of the law. Too much offending the sensibilities of the people leads to the last of the four boxes…

The Ammo Box. Although most of us would prefer to leave The Ammo Box in the closet, gathering dust, not seeing the light of day, The Ammo Box exists as both deterrent and offensive weapon. (Note to all liberals, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sport shooting. The intent is to keep the government in its proper place, and to remind the government who is really in charge. Although governments possess well equipped armies, they are very reluctant to open fire on their fellow citizens.) The Ammo Box exists, at least at present, to remind government that the people retain the power “…, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” And also “…that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.” The Ammo Box is not to be trifled with, for it means business whenever it appears. Care needs to be exercised in the dealings with all other boxes, for although rarely used, The Ammo Box backs up each and is the sturdiest of all. Additionally, it contains within itself an additional box that is best left alone. That is the box of Pandora.

And so fellow denizens, we must rise whenever necessary in support of The Four Boxes of the Republic, “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.” Our posterity will be thankful that we did nothing less.

I have been thinking much lately about the prospect of a President Obama. Having read excellent pieces by Mark Steyn(does he write any other kind?) and listening to my usual spate of talk radio, I find that there is one alarming portent of an Obama administration that I had not yet considered: that being the elimination of criticism of The One, were he to become President.

There was a time, some months ago, when Hillary Clinton screeched that we had the …“right to debate or disagree with any administration!” But I see the day coming, in a fashion similar to Michael Barone, where criticism of The One will not be allowed. It is already “racist!” to disagree with Candidate Obama. And if you can’t criticize Candidate Obama, how on earth will you be allowed to criticize President Obama? The answer of course is that you can won’t. Will Hillary Clinton ride to the defense of those with differing views? Not likely. Does anyone out there actually believe that if Obama were to be elected President, all the grievance mongers and race-card dealers will stop and pronounce the end of racism? That America will be finally and fully healed? Of course not. Those taking positions against Obama will be tarred and feathered as racist, at least initially. Never mind that those of us with genuine disagreements with Obama over his policies and experience (who did he work for as a “Community Organizer” anyway?) would like to be heard. We’ll all be racists, you see, and they may have to shut down that hate-filled talk radio that keeps egging us on, so that they can spare the rest of the populace from our “hate-filled rhetoric”.

When Michelle Obama told us :

“Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed”.

That was the mask slipping off. This is but a short list of the things that Barack will not allow, especially the going –back-to-your-lives-as-usual part. This brings to mind a particular scene from the movie “When Harry Met Sally”, wherein Sally vividly re-enacts her ability to fake it. Except this time, it’ll be real. The new movie is “When Harry Met Nancy”. With margins in the Senate and the House that will allow the passage of whatever Harry & Nancy want, it will be liberalism on parade, with Nancy squealing with delight after the passage of each previously-only-dreamt-of bill. And unfortunately for Obama, he will no longer be able to take each side of the fence on every issue; he will actually have to do something. Sign or don’t sign. Support or don’t support. Harry and Nancy will lead him in whatever direction they choose, which is mostly whatever direction Nancy chooses. He will gather an actual record, and it might even be subject to public scrutiny (Well, not by the MSM). If he supports a bill and you oppose it, you’re a racist, or not enlightened, or a member of the VRWC. Or all of the above. It won’t really matter.

Liberals have already been practicing the art of squelching debate and disagreement for years on college campuses, in public discourse, and so on. The transition to squelching debate on President Obama would be a natural progression. If Obama were to become President, he’ll likely have the highest approval rating of any President, ever.

No other situation could possibly be allowed.