IN BIGGER GOVERNMENT WE TRUST

Remember when Progressives in Congress at least pretended to be accomplishing something for the greater good when they proposed another bill that restricted freedom or piled on more regulations?

With the Waxman-Weiner gold bill, Progressives have dropped the mask: the only entity helped is the Treasury Department. Oh, it does that the added benefit–for Progressives–of clamping down on companies that advertise on conservative talk radio and websites, but that’s just gravy.

Congressmen Weiner and Waxman Set Gold Hearing

Just as the government is trying to prevent people from investing in anything other than T-Bills by raising taxes on taxable interest and dividends to confiscatory levels, it’s also trying to prevent you from parking your wealth in assets, like gold, that compete with the paper dollars issued by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury. A press release from Rep. Anthony Weiner, Democrat of New York, not yet (as of this instant) posted on Mr. Weiner’s Web site, announces that a September 23 hearing of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection (a subcommittee of Rep. Henry Waxman’s Commerce Committee) will focus on “legislation that would regulate gold-selling companies, an industry who’s [sic] relentless advertising is now staple of cable television.”

From the press release: “Under Rep. Weiner’s bill, companies like Goldline would be required to disclose the reasonable resale value of items being sold.” That’s great. Are Mr. Weiner and Chairman Bernanke also going to agree to print on every dollar the reasonable expectation that its value will be eroded by inflation?

An excellent question–of which we already know the answer.

Waxman and Weiner will never require the government to do anything for which it might be held accountable.

It’s all about holding individuals and companies accountable for anything, everything and all that is considered important by Henry Waxman and Anthony Weiner.

The faceless agencies of the Executive branch? Nahhh.

Congress? Are you kidding?

The judiciary is already pretty much unaccountable–which is not always a bad thing.

Another bill to solve problems that only exist in the fevered Progressive minds of Henry Waxman, Anthony Weiner and the enclaves that continue to return such people to positions of power in Congress.

by Mondo Frazier
image: freedom in our time

Back to DBKP Front Page.

Your Ad Here

MICHAEL GERSON: THE SCARIEST THING IN THE WORLD IS THE TEA PARTY, SO LET ME OFFER MY USUAL STRONGLY PRO-REPUBLICAN ADVICE–BECAUSE I’M ALL ABOUT HELPING

Michael Gerson is a writer at the Washington Post and he wants to help Republicans by warning them about the scary badness that is the Tea Party.

For the GOP, a bittersweet brew from the Tea Party

But it is also possible that the Tea Party will define the hated “establishment” not just as moderate Republicans such as Mike Castle of Delaware but also as moderate conservatives of every stripe. Many Tea Party activists espouse a “constitutionalism” that amounts to an extreme libertarianism. Their goal is not just deficit reduction but the dismantling of the modern state. And they may prove harder to tame than some imagine.

A Republican Party propelled by Tea Party enthusiasm is headed toward victory. A Republican Party dominated by Tea Party ideology would be pure, disturbing — and small.

Is Michael Gerson really worried about a small Republican Party? Might he be more worried that something else might be downsized, such as the Big Government that is the lifeblood of his employer?

Gerson has reason to be scared.

The Tea Party is nothing if not the enemy of Big Government. The Post is the company paper for Washington DC; Big Government is the only business of Washington DC. If Big Government becomes small Government, Gerson’s employer would not only become less influential, it might even have to downsize.

That’s the downright scariest thing to anyone who works for the Washington Post.

Very similar to Madonna or Britney Spears up nights worried that Lady Gaga isn’t popular enough.

by Mondo Frazier
image: pew

Back to DBKP Front Page.

Your Ad Here

Newt Gingrich has been suffering a gender gap. Not among those with whom he wants to get married–he’s on number 3–but among the female punditry, for sure.

The latest is Authentically Newt-ered by Debra J. Saunders.

This year, Gingrich is playing to the tea party crowd. He and his wife are about to release a new movie, “America at Risk” on national security threats. As a tea party courtier, he rails against carbon taxes. His political action committee has raised $250,000 from an Oklahoma natural gas and oil producer, and $100,000 from Arch Coal of St. Louis, Politco.com reported.

Two years ago, however, the Newter was seated on a loveseat next to Speaker Nancy Pelosi starring in TV ads for Al Gore’s global warming campaign. Quoth Gingrich, “We do agree, our country must take action against climate change.” And: “If enough of us demand action from our leaders, we can spark the innovation we need.”

Consider Gingrich to be the right’s Jerry Brown. Like the former and would-be next California governor, Gingrich talks big, but has no loyalty to his ideas. He was for tax cuts before he was against them. He supported a $35,000 congressional pay raise and leaner government.

Like Brown, Gingrich’s real skill has been in seeing a trend early and jumping on it, unencumbered by any past positions.

Saunders gives her reasons for jumping bad on “the Newter” later in the piece, but it doesn’t affect her analysis.

“Like Brown, Gingrich’s real skill has been in seeing a trend early and jumping on it, unencumbered by any past positions” is as good an observation about Gingrich as I’ve seen in the past months.

But Saunders is not alone. In Newt Gingrich: Conservative Feminist Evaluates Mr. Speaker, Red State Gal effectively hit Gingrich for his less-than-exemplary behavior in private.

Red State Feminists are conservative, no doubt about it. But RSFs are not seduced by every conservative blowhard that thinks he should be president. Case in point? Newt Gingrich.

Yes, when we last met Newt, he was shutting down the government in a stand-off with Bill Clinton, then resigning his seat in disgrace under ethics charges which were upheld. Today he has resurrected himself as an eminence grise of the Republican Party, with bold ideas for a renaissance not only of the Party, but also of his own political career. He even has presidential aspirations.

But, oh, the baggage that man carries! We are all SO DARN TIRED of conservative leaders whose personal lives look like something from the nether regions of Dante’s Inferno. Newt has the unpleasant distinction of dumping two wives for young aides he charmed as their boss. UGH. Furthermore, his second wife, Marianne Gingrich, married to him for eighteen years, had just received a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis when she got word he wanted to divorce her. In fact, according to Marianne, “He’d already asked [his now-third wife] to marry him before he asked me for a divorce. Before he even asked.” Q: “He told you that?” “Yeah . . . ” Not only that, but while Marianne was away visiting relatives, the soon-to-be third wife “was in her apartment, eating off her plates, sleeping in her bed”!
–From Newt for President? Ask His Second Wife

Google “Newt Gingrich + divorce” and the search engine returns over 124,000 results, the great majority of them negative. Similar results await the searcher for info on “Newt Gingrich + wife’s cancer.”

Of course, Gingrich never did have many fans among the women on the Left, but now, it appears that he’s anathema to women on the other side of the political spectrum as well.

Which, after Newt’s performance on Al Gore’s infamous couch with Nancy Pelosi, is a perfectly-karmic punishment for the equally-infamous marital transgressions of Newt Gingrich.

Both events highlight that while Gingrich may be “an ideas man,” his character and rectitude–using Karl Rove’s description of Christine O’Donnell’s main flaw–have a certain among of malleable elasticity to them.

by Mondo Frazier
image: dbkp file

Back to DBKP Front Page.

Your Ad Here

KEVIN JENNINGS: WHO’S UP FOR SOME GRADE SCHOOL GAY SEX INSTRUCTION?

Got this via Pat Dollard: Obama’s Safe School Czar: Gay Issues in Curriculum is ‘Ultimate Goal’.

If this is such a well thought-out idea, why isn’t the Department of Education holding a presser on this?

Let’s get the word out on Kevin Jenning’s plans; isn’t this the new Age of Obama Transparency?

Apparently, gay sex issues are what’s happening in safe schools in 2010.

by Mondo Frazier
image: good as you

Back to DBKP Front Page.

Your Ad Here

Not sure whether to classify this under the label “Tough Love” or not.

But it’s great advice to the Establishment GOP–who is rapidly being identified by the people in the hinterlands as every bit as big a problem to reforming the corrupt DC power cesspit as Democrats and the Mainstream Media.

Memo to the GOP Establishment — Shut Up and Get to Work!

Christine O’Donnell’s win in Delaware on Tuesday night is meaningful, significant, and important. Whether anyone in the mainstream media wishes to believe it to be true is irrelevant. Christine O’Donnell’s win demonstrated that the establishment political party machine, and pundits pontifications were all wrong. It also demonstrates that 2010 is as truly a groundbreaking political year–a watershed even–that will likely leave incumbency in the skid marks of scorched earth once the journey is complete.

But the moment would be lost if some important observations were not made.

Kevin McCullough is just getting warmed up.

Republicans may not be as bad as the Democrats for two reasons.

1- Republicans have the break of conservatives’ distrust of big government at work.

2- Republicans are not currently in power.

McCullough nails the heart of the matter–at least with conservatives.

For far too many years conservatives within the Republican party have been lectured to time and again by party officials, talk show hosts, syndicated columnists, et al that conservatives had to perform their wifely duties as it related to voting for the choices left for them in general elections. For conservatives these have been bitter pills to swallow for the liberal republicans have far too often been far too similar to the liberal democrats they opposed to generate any real excitement about the distinction of their candidacy.

In election cycle after election cycle conservatives in northeastern states and along the Atlantic coast have had fingers wagged in our faces and been told to accept the fact that reelecting and putting up with candidates like Mike Castle in Delaware was somehow better than electing a Democrat. But after we’d sent them back to Washington we would watch as those same Republicans, the Susan Collins, the Olympia Snowes, the Arlen Specters of the world would proceed to vote for programs and spending that a Democrat would have voted for anyway.

It’s always good to read something that validates your thinking: Mike Castle: Obama and Biden Chat up Castle Tuesday Night. Ed Morrisey calls the Republican Establishment “The Sore Loser Party“–with good reason.

Suddenly, though, those rules don’t apply to the GOP establishment — or at least the establishment seemed ready to reject them yesterday. That’s precisely the same kind of elitist attitude that Americans get from Washington DC, and why the Tea Party exists in the first place. A day later, at least a few Republicans seemed to grasp that, including Senator John Cornyn and Michael Steele. If the rest don’t learn the lesson that DocZero gives in today’s post about bottom-up change instead of top-down diktats, the GOP establishment may be positioning itself for irrelevance in the long run.

It’s up to the GOP Establishment to convince the people that they can be trusted again–and then go about re-earning the trust they threw away when they controlled Congress from 1994-2006.

They’ll have 2-4 years to demonstrate their sincerity.

Otherwise, they’ll be as relevant, come 2016 as the Whigs.

by Mondo Frazier
image: dbkp file

Back to DBKP Front Page.

Your Ad Here

THOUGHTS ON CHRISTINE O’DONNELL’s WIN IN DELAWARE

* Most of the punditry who supported Mike Castle have rallied behind Christine O’Donnell’s candidacy now that she’s won. That’s heartening given the pre-election invective some of them spouted. Karl Rove is the exception.

* Mike Castle: Obama and Biden Chat up Castle Tuesday Night. What was Mike Castle talking to Barack Obama and Joe Biden about after his defeat Tuesday night? It probably wasn’t about how best to support the new GOP nominee.

* GOP moans about losing chance to take control of Senate with Castle defeat. That would be the same GOP whose Castle-like policies lost them the Senate, right?

* Rush: Maybe Rove should have gotten this excited about Democrats. More good thoughts from Hot Air. The video of Rush Limbaugh’s remarks below.

The takeaway?

Rush: “It really is Washington vs the rest of the country, isn’t it?”

Bingo!

* Cassy Fiano with a Great point: Lessons from Delaware: Establishment Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats

* The NRCC belatedly comes to its political senses–Cornyn: NRSC fully backing O’Donnell, giving maximum donation.

* The usually-insightful Turku V hits unusual heights of stridency A Suicidal Vote for Purity. It will be interesting to look at the results vs. what these guys said pre-election. It’d be interesting to do it now, but who has the time? Maybe that’s why there are such low expectations that pundits will get it most all of the time?

* Patterico has a pretty good piece, all things considered. Dems, Tea Partiers Celebrate While Sarah Palin Calls for an Elusive “Unity”. It’s tinged with a hint of bitterness, but hey! It was written very soon after Mike Castle was repudiated by a healthy majority of Delaware’s Republicans.

* Video: Rove doubles down against O’Donnell. Rove is destroying his audience for his future books by the day. Maybe he plans to make up for it with buys by moderates? And some young Turks have scheduled a DC burning of Rove’s book for Friday.

* Christine O’Donnell has convinced Don Surber to readjust his prediction chart for the U.S. Senate: O’Donnell likely wins

* Michael Steele: The RNC supports O’Donnell “without hesitation”. Lot of Hot Air tabs open today.

* GREAT ADVICE! Memo to the GOP Establishment — Shut Up and Get to Work!

* Finally, (and the last Hot Air link!) Ed Morrissey has the last word on postmortems: The Sore Loser Party..

That’s about it for reactions to Christine O’Donnell’s historic win in Delaware.

by Mondo Frazier
image: dbkp file

Back to DBKP Front Page.

Your Ad Here

JACK CASHILL DISSENTS FROM DINESH D’SOUZA’s THEORY ON OBAMA’s WORLDVIEW–SOMEWHAT

A few days ago, we published D’Souza: Barack Obama’s Anticolonial Mindset, which commented on the Forbes article by Dinesh D’Souza on Obama’s anti-colonial mindset.

Now there’s more discussion on the point by Jack Cashill, who does good work.

What D’Souza Doesn’t Get Quite Right

Dinesh D’Souza has long been one of America’s shrewdest and bravest political observers. His much discussed Forbes article “How Obama Thinks,” a prelude to his forthcoming book, The Roots of Obama’s Rage, burnishes that reputation. Indeed, Newt Gingrich describes D’Souza’s thesis as the “most profound insight I have read in the last six years about Barack Obama.”

As much as I admire D’Souza, however, I must take issue with his argument. Yes, Obama does seem to espouse a certain inchoate anticolonialism, but the “dreams” do not come so much from his father as from his mother, and they have been given voice by Obama’s muse, terrorist emeritus Bill Ayers. As a result, Obama’s ideology is less coherent and more malleable than D’Souza would have the reader believe.

Having read all of Jack Cashill’s pieces at American Thinker, I think his case is persuasive. But, perhaps this is just the thought of one of Cashill’s converts?

Jack Cashill makes a persuasive case, however.

We’ll call it the “Cashill Corollary to the D’Souza Theory of Obama’s Worldview.”

MORE: Ayers is a Violent, Revolutionary Communist. What is Obama? Probably the gentler, friendlier face on Ayer’s philosophy. Except for Obama’s “get in their face” comment, he doesn’t appear to be violent.

STILL MORE: Neocolonial Dreams from Obama’s Mother. When your mother is a product of the 60s, what are you to expect from the son? A fusion of sorts of D’Souza and Cashill and others by George Neumayr of American Spectator.

by Mondo Frazier
image: dbkp file

Back to DBKP Front Page.

Your Ad Here