Just POlitics

Clinton report

Drudge is reporting damaging quotes from Washington Post reporter John Harris’ book, "The Survivor." The book is just one more look at the raw grab for power that makes up the marriage of convenience that motivates Bill and Hillary and their search for a place in infamy.

Harris, who highlights Hillary Clinton and her ambition for the Presidency in 2008, has excerpts of the book in the Washington Post.

And another author has offered a look at the Clintons: Candice E. Jackson, author of "Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine," offers a misogynist view of the Clintons. She documents that Bill Clinton was not above the crime of rape. She further reports on Hillary’s attacks on women who Bill abused in order to hold on to power.

DeLay approach

In what is possibly a sneak look at Democrats' use of Majority Leader Tom DeLay as a whipping boy, the Democrat group Campaign for Congress is rolling out negative ads as Iowa Republican Jim Nussle announces for governor. The ads paint Nussle with having received $15,000 in contributions from DeLay’s PAC.

Gordon Fischer, former Iowa Democrat Party Chair, said, "We want Jim Nussle and all of our congressional delegation to bring Iowa values to Congress not the current congressional values back to Iowa."

Middle Class Republicans

The Washington Times reports on the Democrats’ crisis of support by the middle class. Democrats lost the middle class by six percentage points in the last election. Among white middle-class voters, the gap was 22 percentage points. Middle class was defined as voters living in households with incomes between $30,000 and $75,000. This demographic group made up 45 percent of 2004 presidential voters.

The report was released by the Democrat group The Third Way, according to the Times:

"Middle-class voters think Democrats care about issues they care about, but they don't care about the middle-class voter as much as they care about other voters -- that they're No. 4 or 5 on the priority list," Mr. Kessler said. Put another way, he said, "they think Democrats care about somebody else's schools, health care, jobs."

FEC rules for Internet

The Federal Election Commission continues to try and define what rules they will impose on the Internet. Those who are interested should read the following release from the FEC:

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is seeking comment on proposed rules regarding Internet communications. This rulemaking was prompted by the recent decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Shays v. FEC which held that the current FEC definition of "public communication" impermissibly excludes all Internet communications.

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which can be found at http://www.fec.gov/law/law_rulemakings.shtml#internet05 was published in the Federal Register on April 4, 2005. Comments on this rulemaking should be submitted on or before June 3, 2005. The FEC plans to hold a hearing on the proposed rules on June 28th and 29th, 2005.

Comment is being sought on the following proposed rules to:

·        exclude all Internet communications from the definition of "public communication," except for announcements placed for a fee on another person's website;

·        exempt from regulation Internet communications made by uncompensated individuals, acting independently or as a volunteer, using their own or publicly available computer equipment and services;

·        extend the media exemption to cover media entities that are solely on-line;

·        extend the "safe harbor" available to corporate and union personnel using corporate or union resources to include computer equipment and Internet services.

In addition, the FEC seeks comment on:

·        whether bloggers are entitled to the media exemption; and

·        whether bloggers could or should be required to disclose payments made to them by campaigns or political committees.

No final decisions have been made by the FEC on any of the proposed changes in this NPRM.

Commenters are strongly encouraged to submit comments electronically to ensure timely receipt and consideration. Electronic comments on this rulemaking should be addressed to Mr. Brad C. Deutsch, Assistant General Counsel, and sent to internet@fec.gov or through the Federal eRegulations Portal at www.regulations.gov. Comments must include the full name, electronic mail address, and postal service address of the commenter. Any commenters who submit electronic comments and wish to testify at the hearing on this rulemaking must submit their request to do so along with a copy of their comments to internettestify@fec.gov. Any attachments must be in the Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) or Microsoft Word (.doc) format. Faxed comments should be sent to (202) 219-3923 with hard copy follow-up to ensure legibility. Hard copy comments should be sent to the Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street, NW, Washington DC 20463.

Tyranny of the minority

The unimagined fear

It is well established that the Founding Fathers in creating American government were greatly swayed by two fears. The first being that they did not want another King George; and the second, being their fear of tyranny by a majority. In fact, they required ten amendments to the constitution that guarantee minority rights before adopting the genius of our American Constitution.

It is not clear when America began to be subject to the tyranny of the minority but in 1982 John Naisbitt authored a book, "Megatrends." In that book, a reference was made to the federal government and Congress as a case of dinosaurs mating. What was being stated more than the endemic aspect of the inability of large organizations to function well, was the fact that the American government had created a systemic problem where the minority was imposing tyranny on the majority.

Not only had the Founding Fathers purposefully created a cumbersome large government, but they also had unintentionally created the possibility of tyranny by the minority. A tyranny having the effect of bringing government to a standstill.

The government of America is a Republic. It is not a Democracy. The framers of our government created a unique institution in the Senate -- the Senate being an institution that represented the states. The Founding Fathers also posted their hopes in the fact that the Senate would continue to be represented by the more elite among our population. They did not even allow in the original Constitution the direct election of Senators. The change to a populous election of Senators has currently resulted in the Senate becoming divided by red and blue viewpoints. It is in this institution that the American people are witnessing the effects of the tyranny of the minority.

The problem with the architecture of the American government is that it does not provide for the resolution of strongly held opposing values. The conflict of slavery provided all the evidence that is needed for proof of that fact.

What has erroneously been assumed is that the Civil War and the subsuming of states’ rights solved the problem. It did not. Their still exists the ability of tyranny by the minority.

The Founding Fathers’ fear that a minority’s rights must be protected was clearly valid. What was not understood was the effect of what reductionist democratic practices would achieve. The effects of reductionist democracy is nowhere felt more strongly than in rulings from the judicial bench.

The Religious Right was activated when the court ruled to prohibit prayer in school. When the court reduced the law to the lowest common denominator of famed atheist Madeline O’Hara’s viewpoint, the tyranny of the minority was felt at the core of American’s values.

It would be my argument that the implementation of a socialist state was nowhere in the principles of the Founding Fathers.

At a recent legal conference at Yale, lawyers sought to divine a new Bill of Rights that would offer equal results. The regulated free enterprise system as we know it would be gone. It would be replaced with positive welfare rights. A concept that everyone should be born with $80,000 in their account was advanced. I am sure that it would also include a cost of living adjustment.

For those who do not understand the progression of the tyranny of a minority, we only have to look at the experience of John Hinderaker who wrote in the Weekly Standard about the Yale conference, Constitution in 2020:

IF THE IDEA OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to government-funded child care, "adequate" recreation, and $80,000 in cash seems outlandish, remember that these concepts are no more eccentric than the idea of a right to abortion was, prior to Roe v. Wade. As a law school exercise in 1972, my class was charged with trying to formulate an argument for a constitutional right to abortion. We were stumped. None of us could think of one. A few months later, the "right" to abortion was born.

It is the slide into tyranny by the minority that we must guard against. We as a nation now realize the fear that the Founding Fathers did not imagine. The fear that is meant to enable a nation to survive can be changed into the power of the state to rob individual initiative, property, faith and family. How we stop this intrusion and transformation to a socialist state is by winning and controlling the process of nominating judges. It is also important to institute law schools where there is taught the fundamental knowledge that the law is not instituted to reduce individuals into a socialist state.

The concept of Montesque’s balance of power by instituting competing bodies needs to be supplemented with anchoring binding principles. Otherwise, freedom’s responsibilities can drift into the tyranny of rights.