When Our Government Has No Boundaries

We may be at a stage in our government when as much as half the population in this country will have no voice. That's because, in January, the reins of government might be completely in the control of the Democrats. When I say completely, I mean it. There is a distinct possibility that we will not only have a Democratic President and Democratically controlled Congress, but, also, the upper chamber of our Congress, the United States Senate, may have enough control to be both veto-proof and, more importantly, filibuster-proof. Not since 1977 and the Carter Administration has this country been in a similar situation and one could hardly point to those years following that fact as being the bright spot in this country's history.

What does this mean to America? Basically, it means that the loyal opposition, the Republicans, have no means at their disposal to stop the steamrolling of liberal policies through our government. The best that they could hope for is that a few centrist Democrats (like the Blue Dogs) that will help protect this country by standing with the Republicans in what could be the greatest and farthest left-wing agenda that this country has every seen.

Our Constitution is unique in that it was intentionally designed to, normally, protect us from dominant control. The entire constitution was designed with "representation" in mind and with a concern over checks and balances by having separate and distinct branches of government. If you recall, the rallying cry for the independence movement from England was "taxation without representation". So, the concept of representation was paramount in the creation of our unique form of government.

However, at the time our Constitution was drafted, the concept of two strong political parties was not considered a possibility. At that time, the closest thing to a political party were the Whigs (also called the Patriot Whigs) that were, in essence, our American Revolutionaries. These Whigs were in contrast with the loyalists who had no objection to British rule.

When our government and Constitution was establish, I am sure that no one would have thought that there would be such a thing as a "solid voting" block of ideology that we now call a political party. I am sure that our founders believed that any Congressman or Senator would only vote to best serve their specific constituencies (their districts and their states) and would not be serving the broader wishes of some political movement like a political party.

My guess is that this future Democratically controlled government of Obama/Pelosi/Reid will overstep their powers and their complete control will be as short-lived as was the Congress of 1977. If so, expect that the election of 2010 will undo much of what may be about to be done in this year's election. In essence, expect our country to "Vote the bums out" by electing some Republicans to minimize the control by the Democrats. Also, if history does repeat itself, Barack Obama is probably doomed to just one term; just as Jimmy Carter was.

Unfortunately, there could be a lot of damage done to this country if we have one political party in control and that party has no boundaries. Laws could be enacted like the Fairness Doctrine and the Union Card Check System that could have a massive effect on the long term direction of true democracy in this country. Tax credits can be given that can never be taken away. Tax increases could be enacted that could have disastrous effects on our currently fragile economy. Our military could be weakened to the extent that we are at risk when Russia and China are strengthening their own military complexes. The effect on our Judicial System with the appointment of Federal Judges and Supreme Court Judges may further erode the purpose of our Judiciary as being a separate check against the Legislative and Executive branches of our government. If too many "activist" judges (which are appointments for life) infiltrate the Judiciary, we could have a continuance of Democratic rule because progressive-minded and liberal-minded Judges would literally legislate from the "benches" of our court system.

The extent of liberal/progressive/socialistic programs that can be imposed on this country can almost be limitless. Don't expect a President Barack Obama to make the tough decisions to veto any of that. My opinion is that he will just continue to do what he has done in the past. He will sign his party's legislation and, like all those times he voted "present" in the Illinois Senate, he will never want to rock the boat on tough issues that might not be right for this country. There will be absolutely no working across the aisle with the Republicans because he won't need to. Just mark my words.

The Fairness Doctrine: Unintended Consequences

It might just be a totally false belief by the Democrats that the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine (See definition) will benefit them by getting a nemesis like Rush Limbaugh off the air. Take note of these comments by an FCC Commissioner (See Full Story). It just might be the popular Huffington Post and the Daily KOS who gets whacked under that law, too.

Another couple of fat targets for the Fairness Doctrine will be the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR). For years, these taxpayer supported radio and television networks have had unimpeded left-wing slants to their broadcasting. These bastions of liberal voice might just have to become a lot more conservative in their programming. You've got to know that every conservative watchdog group in America will be itemizing every time a liberal like Bill Moyers gets airtime and there isn't any offsetting conservative programming. PBS and NPR will ultimately be forced, by the courts, to provide conservative alternatives. Can you picture Nancy Pelosi's face when someone like Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter is forced to get their own show on PBS or NPR! There won't be enough porcelain receptacles on Capital Hill to handle all the nausea and vomiting from the Democratic lawmakers. TUMS will be in short supply for all the heartburn.

ABC, CBS, and NBC will have to watch it, too. There just might have to be a "This Week with Rush Limbaugh" to offset that Clinton guy, George Stephanopoulos. Then, let's not forget about the Chris Matthews Show on NBC. How about an NBC show titled: "The Laura Ingram Show". "60 Minutes" might have to dedicate a few more minutes to conservative viewpoints to offset their liberal pablum. Maybe they will have to call it "90 Minutes" to be fair. Maybe a separate show called "60 Minutes Too!"

I just think the left of the left like Senators Durbin, Kerry, Boxer, and Feinstein and our dear Speaker of the House, little miss Pelosi, haven't really thought through the consequences of reimplementing the Fairness Doctrine. But, "thinking things through" has never been a Democrat's or, for that matter, any politician's long suit. That's why history is littered with so many bad laws that had to be repealed. They are being so blinded by the hatred for Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk radio personalities that they don't realize that they might be shooting themselves in the foot.

My guess is that, if a Barack Obama is elected, we will the see the ugly face of the Fairness Doctrine. It will become another law that sees too much time in the courts; both in defending it and using it for some biased advantage. Ultimately, it will be rescinded. As for Rush Limbaugh. He will probably keep hammering the Democrats for many years to come and will be untouched by the Fairness Doctrine. Others like Sean Hannity or Laura Ingram might not fare as well but will eventually return to talk radio when the "Doctrine" dies another death. That's just my viewpoint.


Image by Joe Gratz's photostream on Flickr with Creative Commons Licensing. All rights retained. (Click to View Other Works).

Muzzling the Right

Rush Limbaugh just reportedly signed an 8-year, $400 million contract. His twenty plus million daily listeners have essentially "voted" and they have made his new contract so. The only problem is that 51+ Democrats in the Senate, along with a new Democratic President, may try and take it all away. That's because the left of the Left in our Congress is all for imposing (once again) the "Fairness Doctrine" (See History and Definition) to try and get conservatives off of the "talk radio" airways.

Acting more like the Politburo in Communist Russia, our Democrats (sans any essence of Democracy) aren't just satisfied with having control of the national television broadcasters, the national print media, public radio and television, and our education system. They want complete "thought control". It is almost like Cuba trying to block "Radio Free America" from being beamed into their country. If you are a Democrat, silence (at least when it comes to Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives on talk radio) is golden.

Of course, this is right out of the Left's play book. Every time John McCain tries to speak in public, he gets heckled by the anti-war left (usually Code Pink). Ann Coulter has be "pie-d" while she tried to speak. Recently, George Bush was attempted to be screamed and shouted down at a 4th of July speech at Jefferson's home. Numerous guest conservatives, speaking at colleges and universities throughout the United States, have been shouted over and disrupted while speaking. Condolezza Rica was nearly physically confronted. Apparently, the liberals believe that "Left speech" is the "only" protected speech in our Constitution and in this country. It reminds me of a little kid who is kicking and screaming and "holding his hands over his ears" so he can't hear what his parents are saying. It is as if there is this extreme "fear" that what the Right might be saying will be accepted as both "logic" and "truth" by those that hear those words. To me, only a person who wasn't"confident in their own beliefs" would act that way.

For now, the Fairness Doctrine is the Left's only way to make headway into the Talk Radio market. Their attempts in the past have failed miserably with glaring "flops" like the original "Air America." That was a failure because thought that having "angry" commentators and so-so comedians like Jeanine Garofalo and Al Franken were the way to go. They thought by verbally painting "swastikas" on Bush and Chaney, everyday, was the way to hold the attention of listeners. What they didn't seem to understand is that the conservatives like Rush Limbaugh present thought provocation and logical arguments against what the "Left" is doing or proposing. That type of "thinking" is totally vacant on the left. Even today, if look at Alan Colmes, his typical way of defending any missteps by Democrats like Obama or our Congress is to play the kid's game of "Bobby did it, first!" For example, if Obama "flips" on an issue, Colmes will immediately use the defense that McCain, "too", flipped when he was against the Bush tax cuts; and, now he's for them. Totally missing in this dishonest argument is the fact that McCain was against the tax cuts "because" there were no corresponding reductions in spending. This "diversion" technique gets tiring because it doesn't really justify the actions of the Democrats. It only tries to make that case that one mistake justifies (even certifies) another. It is a typical tactic of a "small-time" lawyer.

If Obama is elected, I think the Democrats will probably implement their Fairness Doctrine. While he said he is against it, the majority in both House of Congress and the support by left-wing groups like MoveOn.org will force him to abide by the Left's wishes. However, if it can be contested in the Supreme Court before Obama has a chance to flip that judicial body to the left, I think it will be ultimately thrown out as being a violation of "Free Speech." We'll have to see!

image by Cranky George