Are the Elite Media a Cult?

Well, they're starting to sound like one as more and more of their foot soldiers are asking exactly the same questions of the GOP presidential candidates, i.e., "Is Mormonism a cult?" and "Is Mitt Romney a Christian?"

They are, of course, not interested at all in a theological discussion with each of the Republican candidates.  They are, however, very much interested in seeing those same candidates squirm before their cameras, and even more so in sowing discord within the GOP ranks.

In case you didn't know, they're using as pretense comments made by a Dallas mega-church pastor who introduced Texas Governor Rick Perry at the Values Voters Summit this past weekend.

My first thought is that when asked this question, the candidates ought immediately to ask in return whether the questioner was similarly interested in the comments of President Obama's pastor of 20 years during the last election cycle.

But that might seem a bit snippy for a candidate for the presidency.

So, might I recommend the following response instead:

"Cult" is a loaded word that carries with it all kinds of negative connotations that cannot and should not be associated with Mormonism.  I'm not a theologian, but as I understand it Mormonism is not consistent with orthodox Christianity.  But then neither is Judaism, Islam, or Hinduism, for example, and I would not call any of those faiths a cult.  But then I would not call any of them Christian either and, significantly, I would not imply any disrespect at all by saying as much.  But even more important is the fact that despite the differences, Mormon Americans share a common Judeo-Christian heritage with the overwhelming majority of their fellow citizens, a large and growing portion of whom are very disturbed by the secular drift and moral decay of our country.  With good people like that, with good people like Mitt Romney, I'm eager to make common cause.

Until the Sun Goes Down Over Santa Monica Boulevard, cont.

Remaining undistracted by the state's looming bankruptcy, the Democrat Party-controlled California legislature and Democrat Governor Jerry Brown displayed a remarkable measure of collective self-discipline as they boldly passed and signed into law a new measure that prohibits tanning bed use by anyone under the age of 18.

State Senator Ted Lieu, the bill's sponsor, remarked:  "If everyone knew the true dangers of tanning beds, they'd be shocked. Skin cancer is a rising epidemic and the leading cause of cancer death for women between 25 and 29."

Of course, that terrible contingency was already foreseen, at least in part, by the state government when it legalized the use of medical marijuana some years ago. 

However, as some observers have noted, the prospect of minors, young women mostly, smoking pot in order to control the pain of cancer caused by the tanning beds might make paying strict attention in class to the state-mandated teaching of homosexual history all the more difficult.  Hence, immediate passage of the new law became compelling.

When asked about the state's dire fiscal condition, one unnamed legislator reportedly said, "One crisis at a time, one crisis at a time."

"When you get caught between the moon and New York City"

Apparently, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has finally had enough of the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd:

"If the jobs they are trying to get rid of in this city -- the people that work in finance, which is a big part of our economy -- we're not going to have any money to pay our municipal employees or clean the blocks or anything else."

Sorry Mayor, but the ideological makeup of this menagerie constitutes a goodly portion of your base. You know, your anti-salt, anti-transfats, anti-liberty, howl-at-the-moon, base.  Instead of criticizing them, you need to pick up a sign and join in, or at least pass out ponchos like your Left Coast counterpart.

What the heck is the "Nuclear Option"?

Last night Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid exercised the "nuclear option" in order to forestall GOP efforts to use existing Senate rules to force the Democrat majority to make, for them, embarrassing votes against President Obama's latest "Jobs" bill.

The particulars of any exercise of a "nuclear option" are typically arcane and can get both confusing and boring fairly quickly.  As a result, I find that most news outlets don't take the time to explain it adequately.

"Nuclear option" is just shorthand for a change, any change, in the Senate rules by the majority of the Senate to make it easier for that majority to have its way.  There's nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it.  But it is a serious break with long-standing tradition and for that reason has come to be labeled "nuclear" in nature.

That long-standing tradition is based on our founders' theory of government and their logic went something like this:   

1.  The form of government best suited to secure individual and minority rights is government by consent of the governed, i.e., democracy.
2.  The problem with democracy, where by definition the majority rules, is that the majority can and sometimes does become tyrannical, using its power to rule to trample minority rights.
3.  In order to prevent or at least hamstring a tyrannical majority, constraining constitutional measures are necessary.
4.  The first measure is simply the formation of a representative versus a direct democracy.  The people only rule through their elected representatives.  If some issue excites a majority of the people into potential tyranny, they can only exercise their power through their representatives, men and women, hopefully, wiser than themselves, better able to withstand the pressure to act tyrannically, or do so at least until the next scheduled election by which time, again hopefully, intemperate passions will have cooled.
5.  Notice that I used the word "hopefully" twice.  Our framers did not assume that "enlightened statesmen" would always govern and therefore believed further constitutional protections of minority rights were necessary.
6.  Their strategy was to divide the power of government and make the divided powers jealous of each other prerogatives, instituting a system of checks and balances.  The first division of power is between the national and the individual state governments, or the principle of federalism.  The second is to divide the national government itself by splitting its powers between legislative, executive, and judicial branches, or the principle of separation of powers.
7.  But even that, they reasoned, was not security enough for individual or minority rights.  Hence, they provided for the further division of the legislative branch into two houses, each with different electoral schemes and modes of representation. 
8.  Representation in the House is proportional to population.  Populous states have many representatives and smaller states fewer.  Within the House the governing rules reflect precisely the straightforward principle of majority rule.  However, as a result of this, the possibility at least of the formation of a tyrannical majority within it exists.
9.  This is not, or at least less possible in the Senate.   First, because in the Senate each state, big or small, has exactly two representatives.
10.  Consistent with that mode of representation and with the framers' desire to be especially protective of individual and minority rights, the rules of the Senate, established within that body by simple majority vote, have always over-empowered the minority or, if you prefer, frustrated the majority.  Those rules, traditionally, have always required super- and not just simple-majorities for the passage of  legislation, especially controversial legislation like the President's latest "Jobs" bill.

So, when Senate Majority Leader Reid changes the rules of the Senate in order to facilitate his party's agenda at the expense of the minority party's, it's a very big deal.

One could even say it's "nuclear" big.

"For What It's Worth"

Cue that old Buffalo Springfield tune.

Trust me, it's worth a lot.

Despite the elite media's best attempts to sanitize, and that is the correct word, the Left's current determination to "Occupy Wall Street", a movement apparently outgrowing its name, this latest spasm of unruly, unseemly, untidy, and unsightly nostalgia for the 60s can only help the GOP recapture the White House and the US Congress in 2012.  Remember, it helped even Richard Milhous Nixon win a 49-state landslide in 1972

So sing along if you know the words:

"There's something happenin' here..."

Second City Double Standard

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is playing hardball with ne'er-do-well city employees.  Those with outstanding parking tickets and the like must pay them or risk losing their jobs.

How come when a liberal Democrat gets tough it's evidence of good government, but when a conservative Republican like former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani takes similar action he's heartless, cruel, racist, well, you know the litany?

Just wondering.

This is Embarrassing

I should probably wait until New Jersey Governor Chris Christie makes it official, but it appears that he'll eschew--once again--the many pleas of desperation coming from professional Republicans for him to run for the presidency in 2012.

Thank God!...and thank you too Governor Christie.

Don't misunderstand, he'd make, I'm confident, a very fine candidate.  But then I think our current slate of candidates, with all their annoying quirks, foibles, and obvious shortcomings, do so as well.  And even if they don't, they are still each in their own way an enormous improvement over the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

One of the BIG differences between us and them is that we don't pine for messiahs and aside from his name, Chris Christie is no messiah.  We, unlike them, believe the average man and woman can manage their own lives quite well, thank you very much.  And even if they can't, they ought to be forced to do so.  In the long run, it'll be better for them and for the republic. It'll serve to help restore their self-respect (I hate the phrase "self-esteem") and also give them a taste for genuine liberty after which they'll never again be satisfied with the government-issue swill they currently have to purchase with unearned food stamps.

The most important thing is to get behind whoever emerges as the GOP alternative to Barack Obama.