Meet Congressman Pete Stark (D-Oligarchy)

August 2, 2010

What is it with Democrat politicians, lately? They’re not even trying to pretend they’re public servants anymore; challenge them, and you get some variant of “How dare you, peasant?” A few weeks ago it was Representative Bob Etheridge (D-NC) taking offense at a young man who dared to ask him a question; Etheridge assaulted him in return. Then there was Texas Democrat Ciro Rodriguez, who was so angry at being challenged by a constituent that he smacked a newspaper on the table. (Was he going to swat her on the nose for being a bad doggy, next?) Here in California, our Democrat-dominated palace of the mandarins legislature is trying to slip past the voters a ballot measure that would reclaim for the legislature power the voters took from it just two years ago. Time and again, when talking about citizens expressing their grievances at tea parties or directly to them at town-hall meetings, Democrat politicians have revealed utter contempt for the voters.

Now it’s contempt for the Constitution and the foundational principles of our government, too, as “Representative” Pete Stark (D-CA) proclaims in response to a citizen’s question about how the Federal government can declare health care a “right:”

The federal government can do most anything in this country.

Watch and learn as an oligarch, not a representative of the people in a constitutional republic, bares his soul:

Wrong Pete, dead wrong. The Constitutional Convention, in its creation of a general government, agreed that it would be a limited government of specifically enumerated powers.  The Founders certainly did not create one that can ignore the Constitution at will and do whatever the Hell it wants. That, “Representative” Stark, is called “tyranny.” Please reread (or read for the first time) Article 1, section 8 for your job description. Note that nowhere does it give Congress the power to declare something a “right” in the way Americans understand rights, because natural rights are something we are born with, you moron.

And here, folks, we see crystallized in a moment of time, like an insect (or a congressman) trapped in amber, much of what is wrong with the American polity: representatives who do not represent, but instead rule; who have a greater connection to each other and to their big donors than to the people who elect them; and who see the greatest, most successful governing document ever devised by Man as something to which one just pays lip service, something that’s outdated.

It’s time to throw them out, folks, any and all who harbor the same kind of ignorance or disdain for the Constitution and the citizen as Pete Stark or Ciro Rodriguez. They may act like an oligarchy, they may think of themselves as a ruling elite, but they still need us to keep their jobs. Did they vote for ObamaCare? Then you have your answer. Are they in favor of card-check, which will take away the right to a secret ballot in union elections? There’s another clue for you.  Look your representative and senator over, check their record, their words. They can’t hide their attitudes anymore. You have the power to throw them out and put better men and women in their places.

I’ll leave you with the wise words of James Garfield, spoken in a speech he gave years before he became President:

Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. …

If the next centennial [of the Declaration of Independence] does not find us a great nation … it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.

Let’s send the oligarchs home.

LINKS: Blue Crab Boulevard and Big Journalism.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Advertisements

When crooks no longer fear the cops

August 2, 2010

President Obama’s hometown of Chicago has a problem: a declining clearance rate for violent crime has lead to an increase in crimes such as robbery and murder, which is further fed by declining morale in an underfunded, undermanned police department. The situation is so bad, even the cops themselves are being gunned down in the streets:

And it gets worse. Three Chicago police officers have been murdered in the last two months, the most recent of whom was Michael Bailey, who at age 62 was only weeks away from retirement. On the morning of July 18, Bailey had finished an overnight shift guarding the home of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and was in front of his own home cleaning his new car, which he had bought as an early retirement gift to himself. He was still dressed in his police uniform when someone tried to rob him. Police officers everywhere accept the risks to life and limb attendant to the job, but it’s generally taken for granted among cops that the uniform will serve as a deterrent against being robbed on the street. What level of depravity has a city reached when a uniformed police officer is no safer from a street robbery than anyone else? More important, what is to be done about it?

Other problems come to mind besides the lack of money and competent leadership that Dunphy talks about in his article: Chicago is a city with an absolute ban on handgun ownership, though that’s now been overturned in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in McDonald v. Chicago. Criminals know that their victims are likely to be unarmed and that itself makes violent crime a less risky proposition for the criminal. In effect, gun control increases crime. Perhaps if the City of Chicago would stop fighting its residents rights under the Constitution, violent crime rates would drop.

The other problem that comes to mind is the notorious corruption of Chicago, itself. It’s not surprising that the cities Dunphy mentions as having worse murder rates than Chicago, New Orleans and Detroit, both also have serious problems with corruption. Corruption not only steals the public’s money and cheats them of the services for which they’ve paid, but it also saps morale among those who serve the public and aren’t corrupt themselves, inevitably making problems such a city’s crime rate worse.

To turn back to Chicago, how bad must the decline of law and order be, when criminals don’t fear even the police? Bad enough that one of its own cops says the city is on the fast track to anarchy.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)