March 17th, 2010

Those “self-executing rules”

The Democratic meme of the moment is that the Slaughter solution is no biggie, it’s just a self-executing rule of a type that’s been employed many times before and which Republicans themselves use frequently (see also this and this).

Really! Isn’t it odd how we’ve never heard a thing about it before.

So what’s a self-executing rule, and when has the procedure been used in the past, and to what purpose? Take a look at this explanation and list of examples. Ah yes, very similar; a rule to ban smoking on flights longer than two hours corresponds very well to the health care reform bill.

Here’s more about how these rules have actually been employed previously:

Wolfensberger [a former Republican staff director of the House Rules Committee who now directs the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars,] said self-executing rules often have been employed at an earlier stage, rather than for final passage of a bill. He said he knows of four instances when a measure that was deemed to have been passed went directly to the White House. The first, in 1933 during the Great Depression, involved Senate amendments to legislation pertaining to the United States’ creditworthiness. The tactic was employed twice in the 1990s, by Democrats on a bill involving the Family Medical Leave Act, and by Republicans on a measure involving a line-item veto. Most recently, it was used a few weeks ago, when the House voted on both an increase in the debt ceiling and a pay-as-you-go budget provision.

Stanford’s McConnell [director of Stanford Law School’s Constitutional Law Center and a former appellate judge appointed by President George W. Bush] said that such a procedure would be unconstitutional in this case because, in passing both the Senate legislation and the changes in the reconciliation package in a single stroke, “no one bill will then have been passed by both the House and the Senate” because the Senate still would have to approve the changes added by the House.

And from Ace:

…[I]n the past, the self-executing “demonpass” dodge was used with regard to legislation that was going to pass anyway; Congress concocted itself a trivial dodge so they could say they hadn’t voted to raise the debt ceiling. But if that dodge had not been available, they would have voted for it.

In such circumstances, the Court can show a bit of restraint and say, basically, “No harm, no foul,” and show the restraint they prefer to show in keeping out of Congress’ internal affairs.

The Democrats are comparing apples to oranges—or perhaps a better analogy would be to swallowing a raisin vs. swallowing an elephant whole. To use the self-executing rule procedure to get around the enormous problems with HCR, which would be one of the most major and transformative and unpopular bills ever passed by Congress, and to act as though there is some equivalence, with previous uses of the rule, is absurd. However, the Democratic leadership and their followers count on most people to (a) not be paying attention to these boring procedural matters; and/or (2) if they are paying attention, to not be interested in the details, and therefore to be soothed by this “oh, it happens all the time in this way, nothing to see here, moving right along” placating, condescending, contemptuous lie.

Here’s lawyer Andy McCarthy on the ploy:

The key here is that in each instance, at issue [in the situations in which the self-executing rule was used] was something that was non-controversial or almost ministerial — not, as with heathcare, an unpopular, bitterly opposed, ragingly controversial socialization of the private economy.

I think Democrats are mistaking a customary short-cut for a substantive precedent.

Just now I happened to turn on Fox News, and caught a Megyn Kelly interview with Judge Michael McConnell (who mentioned that he was one of the people who recruited Obama to teach at the U. of Chicago Law School). He said that in their arguments for the self-executing rule the Democrats are trying, “To claim precedent for one thing and then to use it for a drastically different thing.”

One thing we do know is that, even if we are somehow saved from this travesty because they can’t get the votes even with all the sordid gymnastics, the present-day Democratic Party has shown its hand and let us know its disrespect for the rule of law and the traditions of Congress. Those who have been paying attention are unlikely to forget the lesson. The question is: how many are paying attention?

And how many care any more about the process by which we have remained a nation of liberty—of the people, by the people, and for the people?

25 Responses to “Those “self-executing rules””

  1. DirtyJobsGUy Says:

    The lefts commitment to democracy is necessarily very thin. When your goal is to compel people to do something you are already half way there to dispensing with democratic norms. Couple this with most Democrats being from big city machine/democratic only districts and the habit of the rule of law is not well entrenched.

    Most people are now aware that the process is broken. If this “passes” there will be a court challenge. I think Obama might regret dissing the Supremes in the SOU then. I see no reason the court would not simply require the House to go back and vote on the bill. This would not be a hardship or necessarily a delay so what foul would be done?

  2. SteveH Says:

    I remember when we all used to snicker at reports of off the wall shenanigans that occured in banana republic legislatures. I guess we just took for granted that civilized behavior and common decency would always be an American trait.

    I almost want to grieve that my three year old grandaughter will probably never know what that kind of inner security toward authority figures actually feels like.

  3. Steve G Says:

    The Texas School Book Commission is off to a good start. Only when we teach our children why our country IS EXCEPTIONAL and how important the Constitution is to preserving our liberty can we expect that they will understand how fortunate they are to be born here.

  4. Lee Merrick Says:

    How many are paying attention? No question Repubs and some Indies are very engaged. Dems know how bad this has has been so they are closing their ears, eyes & holding their noses and want it to be done SAP.

  5. USA Says:

    Obama now upside down in latest Gallup poll; and

    A Medicus Firm survey of physicians published on the New England Journal of Medicine web site finds that a whopping 46.3 percent of primary-care physicians “feel that the passing of health reform will either force them out of medicine or make them want to leave medicine.”

    I would say America is waking up….

  6. Assistant Village Idiot Says:

    This is expected, when you think of it. No matter how outrageous someone’s behavior is, if you press them for a reason they will provide one, no matter how threadbare or deceptive.

    So we should not necessarily be outraged that the Democrats provide an explanation. It’s what people do. OTOH, it is recognising that the excuse is poor, but pressing on anyway, with no attempt to rethink, that is immoral.

    This is part of the Knaves or Fools argument we have neglected, I think. What is originally just foolishness, stupidity, or nescience becomes something much more morally serious when you double down on it. Anyone can be weak or silly. It’s when we recognise we have been weak or silly, and refuse to even moderate or backpedal, that a truly moral fault comes in.

    And it is a very bad sign when that happens, because pretty much by definition, reason cannot penetrate, and guilt is inoperable.

  7. J.J. formerly Jimmy J. Says:

    I sent this to my Congress critters yesterday:

    “Dear Representative Larsen,
    I’ve passed my opinions and ideas about health care reform to you before and I’m sure you won’t be surprised when I say, “I don’t like this bill!” It does not reduce the cost of health care. It does many things that will have unintended consequences, most of which will be bad. It still provides tax payer money for abortions. If pro-abortion citizens want to help women have abortions they should collect donations from like-minded citizens. Citizens who are opposed to abortion should not have their tax money used to fund abortions. It is just plain wrong!

    This bill is just the last in a string of bills that have been rushed into the legislative hopper. The so-called Stimulus Bill, the Omnibus Spending Bill, the Waxman-Markey Bill, and the House HCR Bill – all done secretly, put up to votes before anyone had read them, with no transparency for the citizens that you ostensibly represent. And now it seems the Democrat Party wants to pass a Health Care Reform Bill with tactics that subvert the will of the majority of the citizens. This is not legislation done to improve the state of our nation. This is trying to turn new spending, more regulations, and more control over people’s lives into laws before anyone knows what has happened. I can only tell you that I object most strenuously to what is happening. I am extremely disappointed in you and your Democrat colleagues.”

    Let those people know what you think!! If you happen to have a Congress Critter(s) that is/are opposing the bill, write and praise them for their good judgment and willingness to stand up for what’s right. This ball game is in the last innings. Make yourself heard.

  8. Adrian Says:

    “How many care any more about the process by which we have remained a nation of liberty—of the people, by the people, and for the people?”

    The answer to that is probably not enough. This to me as been evident since the election of 2000. The most celebrated election in popular memory was certainly that of John f. Kennedy, and yet he won by the electoral college and not the popular vote. While Nixon would sadly be associated with one of the darkest days in political history, this to me has always been his shining moment, when he stepped aside for the good of a larger ideal. This new century has been inaugurated by an unprecedented self interest that is the zeitgeist of the age. Winning today is for most people more important than how one wins.

  9. physicsguy Says:

    This morning in David Limbaugh’s column on, he finally used the word ‘communist’ to describe the president, and the radical Dems in Congress. Glenn Beck is doing the same thing now.

    It sounds like heated rhetoric I’m sure to some, but I’m glad it’s finally being said. I find the evidence in their actions to point more and more to such a conclusion.

  10. Baklava Says:

    Communist is inaccurate as the HCR bill is written. Their intent or heart might be but their capability isn’t there.

  11. Thomas Says:

    Done before only counts for so much. Done before and upheld in court means much much more.

  12. Thomas Says:

    Might also be carrot time… if you vote against the bill and ask for cross over support I’ll vote for you even though I didn’t last time.

  13. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    They certainly have revealed their hand and if they do use the Slaughter Rule it will prove to be highly counter-productive in the long-run.

  14. Artfldgr Says:

    One war changed the world. Linking such a conclusion to a war which occurred one time in a limited area and which only lasted 42 days seems like something of an exaggeration. However, that is indeed what the facts are, and there is no need to enumerate one by one all the new words that began to appear after 17 January 1991. It is only necessary to cite the former Soviet Union, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, cloning, Microsoft, hackers, the Internet, the Southeast Asian financial crisis, the euro, as well as the world’s final and only superpower — the United States. These are sufficient. They pretty much constitute the main subjects on this planet for the past decade.


    At present it is still hard to see if this age will lead to the unemployment of large numbers of military personnel, nor will it cause war to vanish from this world. All these are still undetermined. The only point which is certain is that, from this point on, war will no longer be what it was originally. Which is to say that, if in the days to come mankind has no choice but to engage in war, it can no longer be carried out in the ways with which we are familiar. It is impossible for us to deny the impact on human society and its soul of the new motivations represented by economic freedom, the concept of human rights, and the awareness of environmental protection, but it is certain that the metamorphosis of warfare will have a more complex backdrop. Otherwise, the immortal bird of warfare will not be able to attain nirvana when it is on the verge of decline: When people begin to lean toward and rejoice in the reduced use of military force to resolve conflicts, war will be reborn in another form and in another arena, becoming an instrument of enormous power in the hands of all those who harbor intentions of controlling other countries or regions. In this sense, there is reason for us to maintain that the financial attack by George Soros on East Asia, the terrorist attack on the U.S. embassy by Usama Bin Laden, the gas attack on the Tokyo subway by the disciples of the Aum Shinri Kyo, and the havoc wreaked by the likes of Morris Jr. on the Internet, in which the degree of destruction is by no means second to that of a war, represent semi-warfare, quasi-warfare, and sub-warfare, that is, the embryonic form of another kind of warfare.


    But whatever you call them, they cannot make us more optimistic than in the past. We have no reason for optimism. This is because the reduction of the functions of warfare in a pure sense does not mean at all that war has ended. Even in the so-called post-modern, post-industrial age, warfare will not be totally dismantled. It has only re-invaded human society in a more complex, more extensive, more concealed, and more subtle manner.

    It is as Byron said in his poem mourning Shelley, “Nothing has happened, he has only undergone a sea change.”

    War which has undergone the changes of modern technology and the market system will be launched even more in atypical forms. In other words, while we are seeing a relative reduction in military violence, at the same time we definitely are seeing an increase in political, economic, and technological violence. However, regardless of the form the violence takes, war is war, and a change in the external appearance does not keep any war from abiding by the principles of war.

    If we acknowledge that the new principles of war are no longer “using armed force to compel the enemy to submit to one’s will,” but rather are “using all means, including armed force or non-armed force, military and non-military, and lethal and non-lethal means to compel the enemy to accept one’s interests.”

    This represents change.

    A change in war and a change in the mode of war occasioned by this.

    So, just what has led to the change?

    What kind of changes are they?

    Where are the changes headed?

    How does one face these changes?


    Over the past 300 years, people have long since become accustomed to blindly falling in love with the new and discarding the old in the realm of technology, and the endless pursuit of new technology has become a panacea to resolve all the difficult questions of existence. Infatuated with it, people have gradually gone astray. Just as one will often commit ten other mistakes to cover up one, to solve one difficult problem people do not hesitate to bring ten more on themselves


    War in the age of technological integration and globalization has eliminated the right of weapons to label war and, with regard to the new starting point, has realigned the relationship of weapons to war, while the appearance of weapons of new concepts, and particularly new concepts of weapons, has gradually blurred the face of war

    Does a single attack count as a hostile act or not?

    Can using financial instruments to destroy a country’s economy be seen as a battle?

    Did CNN’s broadcast of an exposed corpse of a U.S. soldier in the streets of Mogadishu shake the determination of the Americans to act as the world’s policeman, thereby altering the world’s strategic situation?

    And should an assessment of wartime actions look at the means or the results?

    Obviously, proceeding with the traditional definition of war in mind, there is no longer any way to answer the above questions. When we suddenly realize that all these non-war actions may be the new factors constituting future warfare, we have to come up with a new name for this new form of war: Warfare which transcends all boundaries and limits, in short: unrestricted warfare.


    Ever since early man went from hunting animals to slaughtering his own kind, people have been equipping the giant war beast for action, and the desire to attain various goals has prompted soldiers to become locked in bloody conflict. It has become universally accepted that warfare is a matter for soldiers. For several thousand years, the three indispensable “hardware” elements of any war have been soldiers, weapons and a battlefield. Running through them all has been the “software” element of warfare: its purposefulness. Before now, nobody has ever questioned that these are the basic elements of warfare. The problem comes when people discover that all of these basic elements, which seemingly were hard and fast, have changed so that it is impossible to get a firm grip on them.

    When that day comes, is the war god’s face still distinct?


    As far as their aims, the wars prosecuted by our ancestors were relatively simple in terms of the goals to be achieved, with no complexity to speak of. This was because our ancestors had limited horizons, their spheres of activity were narrow, they had modest requirements for existence, and their weapons were not lethal enough. Only if something could not be obtained by normal means would our ancestors generally resort to extraordinary measures to obtain it, and then without the least hesitation. Just so, Clausewitz wrote his famous saying, which has been an article of faith for several generations of soldiers and statesmen: “War is a continuation of politics.” Our ancestors would fight perhaps for the orthodox status of a religious sect, or perhaps for an expanse of pastureland with plenty of water and lush grass. They would not even have scruples about going to war over, say, spices, liquor or a love affair between a king and queen. The stories of wars over spices and sweethearts, and rebellions over things like rum, are recorded in the pages of history–stories that leave us not knowing whether to laugh or cry. Then there is the war that the English launched against the Qing monarchy for the sake of the opium trade. This was national drug trafficking activity on probably the grandest scale in recorded history. It is clear from these examples that, prior to recent times, there was just one kind of warfare in terms of the kind of motive and the kind of subsequent actions taken. Moving to later times, Hitler expounded his slogan of “obtaining living space for the German people,” and the Japanese expounded their slogan of building the so called “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.” While a cursory look at these slogans would suggest that the goals must have been somewhat more complex than the goals of any previous wars, nevertheless the substance behind the slogans was simply that the new great powers intended to once again carve up the spheres of influence of the old great powers and to reap the benefits of seizing their colonies.

    To assess why people fight is not so easy today, however. In former times, the ideal of “exporting revolution” and the slogan of “checking the expansion of communism” were calls to action that elicited countless responses. But especially after the conclusion of the Cold War, when the Iron Curtain running all along the divide between the two great camps suddenly collapsed, these calls have lost their effectiveness.

    The times of clearly drawn sides are over.


    MOOTW, may be considered simply an explicit label for missions and operations by armed forces that are carried out when there is no state of war. The former concept, “non-military war operations,” extends our understanding of exactly what constitutes a state of war to each and every field of human endeavor, far beyond what can be embraced by the term “military operations.” This type of extension is the natural result of the fact that human beings will use every conceivable means to achieve their goals. While it seems that the Americans are in the lead in every field of military theory, they were not able to take the lead in proposing this new concept of war. However, we cannot fail to recognize that the flood of U.S.-style pragmatism around the world, and the unlimited possibilities offered by new, high technology, were nevertheless powerful forces behind the emergence of this concept.

    So, which [of many kinds of unconventional] means, which seem totally unrelated to war, will ultimately become the favored minions of this new type of war–“the non-military war operation”–which is being waged with greater and greater frequency all around the world?

    Trade War

    New Terror War in Contrast to Traditional Terror War

    Ecological War

    Financial War: Now that Asians have experienced the financial crisis in Southeast Asia, no one could be more affected by “financial war” than they have been. No, they have not just been affected; they have simply been cut to the very quick! A surprise financial war attack that was deliberately planned and initiated by the owners of international mobile capital ultimately served to pin one nation after another to the ground–nations that not long ago were hailed as “little tigers” and “little dragons.”

    Economic prosperity that once excited the constant admiration of the Western world changed to a depression, like the leaves of a tree that are blown away in a single night by the autumn wind. After just one round of fighting, the economies of a number of countries had fallen back ten years.

    What is more, such a defeat on the economic front precipitates a near collapse of the social and political order. The casualties resulting from the constant chaos are no less than those resulting from a regional war, and the injury done to the living social organism even exceeds the injury inflicted by a regional war.

    Non-state organizations, in this their first war without the use of military force, are using non-military means to engage sovereign nations.

    Thus, financial war is a form of non-military warfare which is just as terribly destructive as a bloody war, but in which no blood is actually shed.

    Financial warfare has now officially come to war’s center stage–a stage that for thousands of years has been occupied only by soldiers and weapons, with blood and death everywhere. We believe that before long, “financial warfare” will undoubtedly be an entry in the various types of dictionaries of official military jargon. Moreover, when people revise the history books on twentieth-century warfare in the early 21st century, the section on financial warfare will command the reader’s utmost attention.

    The main protagonist in this section of the history book will not be a statesman or a military strategist; rather, it will be George Soros.

    Of course, Soros does not have an exclusive monopoly on using the financial weapon for fighting wars. B

    efore Soros, Helmut Kohl used the deutsche mark to breach the Berlin Wall–a wall that no one had ever been able to knock down using artillery shells.

    After Soros began his activities, Li Denghui [Li Teng-hui 2621 4098 6540] used the financial crisis in Southeast Asia to devalue the New Taiwan dollar, so as to launch an attack on the Hong Kong dollar and Hong Kong stocks, especially the “red-chip stocks.” [Translator’s note: “red-chip stocks” refers to stocks of companies listed on the Hong Kong stock market but controlled by mainland interests.]

    In addition, we have yet to mention the crowd of large and small speculators who have come en masse to this huge dinner party for money gluttons, including Morgan Stanley and Moody’s, which are famous for the credit rating reports that they issue, and which point out promising targets of attack for the benefit of the big fish in the financial world.

    These two companies are typical of those entities that participate indirectly in the great feast and reap the benefits.

    In the summer of 1998, after the fighting in the financial war had been going on for a full year, the war’s second round of battles began to unfold on an even more extensive battlefield, and this round of battles continues to this day.

    This time, it was not just the countries of Southeast Asia, (which had suffered such a crushing defeat during the previous year), that were drawn into the war.

    Two titans were also drawn in–Japan and Russia.
    It is reported that Soros and his “Quantum Fund” lost not less than several billion dollars in Russia and Hong Kong alone. Thus we can get at least an inkling of the magnitude of financial war’s destructive power.

    Today, when nuclear weapons have already become frightening mantlepiece decorations that are losing their real operational value with each passing day, financial war has become a “hyperstrategic” weapon that is attracting the attention of the world.

    This is because financial war is easily manipulated and allows for concealed actions, and is also highly destructive.

    By analyzing the chaos in Albania not long ago, we can clearly see the role played by various types of foundations that were set up by transnational groups and millionaires with riches rivaling the wealth of nation states.

    These foundations control the media, control subsidies to political organizations, and limit any resistance from the authorities, resulting in a collapse of national order and the downfall of the legally authorized government.

    Perhaps we could dub this type of war “foundation-style” financial war.

    The greater and greater frequency and intensity of this type of war, and the fact that more and more countries and non-state organizations are deliberately using it, are causes for concern and are facts that we must face squarely.


    perhaps reading the kinds of things your opponents read might give you a clue into how they think, what their goals are, and such.

    note the above was written by Qiao Liang Qiao Liang, senior Colonel in the People’s Liberation Army and

    Wang Xiangsui (王湘穗) is a senior Colonel in the People’s Liberation Army.

    Unrestricted warfare dictates that no country is capable of defeating a superpower such as the United States on its own terms, but outlines that such superpowers could be weakened through unconventional means, including manipulation of banking systems, control of the media, and control of natural resources.

    sound familiar?

    by the way… they are now monopoly suppliers of mercury for our bulbs, supplier of rare earth metals, and right now, we have no other source for much of the manufactured things we depend on…

    Its interesting how much Mr Soros is a part of things.

    as i have said, this is a lot bigger than just pelosi, and obama and barney

  15. Occam's Beard Says:

    OT. Holder Death Watch, part 94: Is Eric Holder a dope?

  16. betsybounds Says:

    Actually, all presidents win by the Electoral College and not by the popular vote. That’s a good thing, although many would try to persuade us that it’s anti-democratic. Were it otherwise, the large population centers would control presidential elections, and the less-populous states would be strictly marginal. The best analogy I’ve ever heard for the Electoral College is to the World Series: The winner is determined by whichever team wins the best of 7 of the Series games. It is not determined by whichever team scores the higher number of total points in all 7 games.

    I’ve been thinking for some time now that Obama and his Congressional cohorts are communists. It’s frightening that they are now this close to pulling off their coup, their revolution. And I mean that to be mincing no words.

  17. JKB Says:

    I’m still trying to figure out what this is suppose to accomplish. Is it so that those who vote for the self-executing rule can fool themselves into thinking they didn’t vote for the healthcare bill? Is is so they don’t take that first step on the slippery slope of a politician being untruthful?

    In exporting, they have something called “deemed” export. Where a foreign national gains access in a lab or company to technology that can’t be exported to their country. Now, if your found to have “deemed” exported, well, the fines and jail time are just as real as if you’d exported the item.

  18. grackle Says:

    I believe they will pass the bill with a vote and not have to resort to the Slaughter solution. They run the risk of an adverse SCOTUS ruling with the Slaughter solution.

    I just emailed my Congressperson(a Democrat) outlining the major reasons why I think the bill should not be passed. This follows a letter mailed last week.

  19. J.J. formerly Jimmy J. Says:

    Way to go grackle!!

  20. sofa Says:

    “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”
    -T. Jefferson, et al, Declaration of Independence, 1776

  21. Bill Says:

    It was also used by Republicans in the Lobbying and Government Transparency Act of 2006 by Republicans to essentially gut any ethics reform from the bill. HR 4975.

    Why would the GOP want to shut that lucrative revolving door and the lobby campaign cash gravy train.

  22. Bill Says:

    You know even your top Borgs are admitting that they have done this on several occasions. All it means is that when they vote on the reconciliation bill, they are also voting on the Senate bill. That’s it. Allowed by the rules of the House going back as far as 1933. In fact the last two Congresses that were dominated by the GOP used this rule 25% to 35% of the time.

    But NOW it’s unconstitutional.

    You want double digit increases in premiums year after year? You want to keep the increases in your deductibles, and out of pockets? You want your newborn with a cleft palate to be be deemed as a pre-existing condition? You want your newly graduated child who can’t get work to be without coverage? Do you want grandma (who’s not yet a Medicare socialist) to get rescinded because her chemo is too expensive?
    Then by all means oppose the bill

  23. Bill Says:


    The consent of the governed was given.

    We call it an election.

  24. Bill Says:


    What freedom have you lost?
    What liberty have you lost?

    Your side lost an election, PERIOD. There is no communism. Prove it. Or are you just parroting the fat drug addict?

  25. Artfldgr Says:

    Bill: There is no communism. Prove it.

    Here’s how the East Bay Express described the “Green Jobs Czar’s” background:

    Jones had planned to move to Washington, DC, and had already landed a job and an apartment there. But in jail, he said, “I met all these young radical people of color — I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’” Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. “I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary.” In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. “I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th,” he said. “By August, I was a communist.”


    “The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted.” Obama


    “The third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse-tung and Mother Theresa — not often coupled with each other, but the two people I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point which is ‘you’re going to make choices; you’re going to challenge; you’re going to say why not; you’re going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before.” Dunn

    “The Mao quote is one I picked up from the late Republican strategist Lee Atwater from something I read in the late 1980s, so I hope I don’t get my progressive friends mad at me,” Dunn


    and i can pull up more.. including obama talking to the progressive friends..

    progressive, communist, fascist, socialism, feminism, marxism, maoism, castroism, etc.

    ALL are derivatives of Marx
    ALL are socialism leading to communism
    (even the communists didnt reach communism, they only got as far as socialism).

    ALL are the antithesis to the age of enlightment

    ALL lead to totalitarian state government eventually

    people have been saying that sociualism in the US will lead to communism.

    for 70 years saying no

    now we are on the verge of becoming communist

    anyone realize those guys they ad hominemed into cranks werent cranks?

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.

Monthly Archives


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge