Inside two sides of the GOP

The most fascinating thing in politics right now is the infighting int he GOP as they try to find themselves and regroup after being rebuked by voters in 2012. It wasn't exactly a landslide election for the Dems, but considering the state of the economy and mood of the country, the failure to unseat Obama was massive one.
Now we see two different approaches moving forward. One, best exemplified by Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey is to moderate extreme stances on social issues and relent on the manaical assault on the credibility of government as a whole. Make no mistake, CC is still conservative, but he is strategic and effective as a con governing a very blue state. He has established great cross party cred and is well liked across the political spectrum, something few others in the GOP can say.
The 2nd approach to being rebuffed is best shown by Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. The js from the bluegrass state and scion of the biggest name in libertarian circles has lead the charge from the teaparty/isolationist wing of the GOP base. In contrast to "establishment" pols like Christie, Paul sees government and corporate synergy as a huge problem and has launched a zealous crusade against the growth of big government and big business in the name of individual liberty. His support is more fevereant than Christie, but unless he can expand his message beyond the older, predominatly white, fox news watching crowd, his method of doubling down on isolationist conservatism is doomed to fail at the pols.
And that is not just my idealogical opinion, it is a demographic certainty in 21st Century America.
Unless they can broaden their tent to draw in more young people, the lgbt community, and minorities, who are currently shunning the GOP in astonishing numbers, the 2010 midterms will stand as the highwater mark of Paul's brand of libertarian conservatism. The Tea Party will surely be remembered fondly for generations by those politically left behind, similar in a manner as Pickett's charge was (and is) viewed by those with confederate sympathies after the civil war. The high water mark of a glorius lost cause for a demographic out of time, out of power, and out of new ideas.

No Debate on PATRIOT ACT in Senate

The US Senate did something it rarely does today. Both parties agreed to swiftly end debate and bring a bill up for a yes/no vote without getting wrapped up in deliberation and amendments. Cloture was brought to end debate on a bill to extend provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act (including the portion that authorizes roaming wiretaps) that were set to expire if no action was taken by Friday.

In a 74-8 vote; with 18 being too afraid, lazy, or corrupt to participate, a bipartisan supermajority with the support of leadership in both parties voted to extend the all out assault on privacy and civil liberties that has been going on in this Country for nearly a decade.

I would like to take the time to personally extend my thanks and gratitude to the 8 brave Senators who stood up to power and party in boldly voting no, the rest of the lot today acted like traitors and cowards.

The 8 NO Votes:

Max Baucus and Jon Tester of Montana

Rand Paul of Kentucky

Mark Begich and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska

Dean Heller of Nevada

Jeff Merkley of Oregon

Bernie Sanders of Vermont

These men and women, 4 Democrats, 3 Republicans, and 1 Socialist deserve our support and admiration. And of course we must also take the time to remember former Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who voted against the original heinous bill and no doubt would have once again authentically stood up for liberty if he hadn’t been so unfairly smeared and steamrolled out of the Senate in the 2010 Wave.

This Flag Bows Before No Earthly King

In case you didn’t hear, they had a little wedding over in England this morning.
If you are one of the millions in the States who are enthralled, enamored, and all wrapped up in this farcical fairy tale, you probably should bail out on this column right now.

You’re still with me? Good.

I do not understand why we in this Country are so smitten with a Monarchy we cast off over 200 years ago. It truly befuddles me. I take pride in our Flag, our Constitution, and our Democratic Republic. Not in some ancient regime which we discarded any allegiance to on the Concord Bridge and in the hallowed Halls of Independence.

This is nothing against the British people, but I despise the very concept of Monarchy, Nobility, and Royalty. The arcane and archaic espousal of power into a familial lineage regardless of their character or qualifications is no legitimate way to determine a Head of State. Who gives them this authority? Is it still some divine right?

At least in modern times they have had the good sense to put a limit upon the powers of this Aristocratic lunacy and the Monarchs whim is no longer the absolute law of the land. The real power is invested in their representative Parliament, and the Monarch in almost all circumstances performs only ceremonial power within the Realm. And if they choose to continue to prop up these antiquated institutions of heralded heredity, then I guess that is their endowed right to do so. Over there. Far away from me.

So why, oh why, do I ask, does the media from the United States cover this outlandish and garish event like it is our own crowning achievement? Are we so starved off from pomp, circumstance and glitterous, glorified extravagance that we need to somehow collectively tap into our obedient collective colonial roots to fixate our infatuation for foppish foolery? I, for one, am sick and tired of being bombastically bombarded with the Royal hullabaloo.

For on July 4th, 235 years gone by, we cast off these tired customs of rulership through arbitrary marriage, life, and death of far off Kings and Queens. We stood up as a nation of Free and Independent People declaring: “enough with your ancient and capricious lordship, our ennobled powers of State shall be invested in the Common Man!”

Our sacred artifacts are not those of Crowns, Carriages, and Trappings of Lordship. They are documents of ink and parchment declaring our Freedoms and Protections from obtrusive intervention by a whimsical Governing Authority. Why can we not celebrate these Freedoms, which are our sacred birthright, as extravagantly as we commemorate far-off nuptials betwixt those whom would station and allot themselves above us in life?

I say what makes our nation great is that we do not sit by and watch as subjects, but instead we take action as free and independent Citizens.

God Save the Common Man

Free Speech and Manners of Life and Death

This will be the first, and I sincerely hope the only, time I mention the Westboro Baptist Church on this blog. They are a despicable "church" group that travels around the Country protesting funerals of Armed Service Members who have been killed in the line of duty. Their message, as far as I understand it, is that these brave men and women have died because God is punishing our country for our tolerance of homosexual lifestyles. The logical, moral, and tactful gap in their argument is so enormously wide that I will not even bother to go into further discussion in regards to their 'message'. These folks, to me, are the scum of the earth. My primal reaction, if I would encounter these folks at the funeral of someone close to me, would be to take a ballbat to their knees and kick them a few more times for good measure. This emotional response is exactly why an impartial Judiciary is such a crucial part of our free country.
The Supreme Court today upheld the Free Speech rights of this extremely unpopular minority view. Did it hurt to see those bastards 'win' a victory in the Highest Court in the Land? Of course it did. As I mulled it over however, I came to a recognition that it was the right decision. The Courts are not there to protect popular people saying popular things, they don't need the help. The Courts are there to protect the rights of unpopular people who do not violate any laws. As much as I despise their point of view, the church protestors have been very careful not to violate any established laws while making their obnoxious and rancid statement at the worst possible time and place. The right to free speech supersedes good taste.
The importance of this point was really driven home by another event half way around the world in Pakistan, where Shabaz Bhatti, the Government Minister for Religious Minorities, and the only Christian in the Government was brazenly gunned down and murdered for his vocal opposition to the countries harsh blasphemy laws. Here was someone who willingly forfeited his life over a manner of speech. It is obvious from what happened to him that his message made him extremely unpopular with some in his homeland. But he was willing to take a stand and die for his deeply held convictions in the power of free speech. That we all could be so bold.