Undoctrination.org

For the last year, Americans have been screaming at the top of their lungs that they don’t like what our country has become.  If the massive popularity of the Tea Party wasn’t proof enough, the November donkey bloodbath of 63 Congressional seats says it all.  Or rather, that’s what it says to those who were listening.

I regularly discuss the legislative and political process with my four-year-old son, and shared my elation with him after Harry Reid pulled the $1.1 Trillion omnibus bill.  When I explained that the people voting on the bill had nothing to lose because the election had already passed, he paused for a moment before asking, “But Mommy, if they got fired, why do they still get to do their job?” I think most of us have the same question.

There is nothing that has been voted on during the lame duck session that couldn’t have either been done months ago or waited until the newly elected Congressmen and Senators were seated.  The extension of the Bush-era tax rates (They are not “cuts”, as prevention of a tax hike is simply that, prevention.  If one doesn’t gain weight over the holidays, that’s not equivalent to losing weight.) should have been included in the FY2011 budget—which still hasn’t been done, in spite of the fiscal year having begun in October.  In fact, had it been included as a budgetary item instead of a stand-alone bill, the ridiculous and insulting earmarks that were tacked on could have actually made sense.

If there was legitimate urgency in passing the bill now instead of passing it retroactively in January, the bill should have addressed taxes and nothing else.  The inclusion of social programs and subsidies is a slap in the face to the many families whose ability to stay in the black depended upon its passing. 

Most glaringly offensive of the many earmarks included in the bill were the ethanol subsidies—which even Al Gore admits are a sham.  ClimateGate confirmed months ago what most of us have known for years; global warming and climate change are not scientifically established scientific fact, and have more to do with international wealth redistribution.  The only state containing enough fools to still buy into this nonsense is California, yet all of us had our taxes held hostage to have (ironically enough) our tax dollars funneled into the ethanol industry.

Obama claimed that he would fight the tax cuts for the hiring class in 2012, and that the Republicans would fight against continuing them for the middle class.  Even by the standard we’ve come to expect from him, that’s an impressive amount of lies for just one sentence.  Firstly, he of course did not refer to the “hiring class”.  In spite of the most affluent Americans tending to overwhelmingly vote Democrat, he won’t give up on his class warfare approach of talking about the rich boogeyman.

Even more odd is the insinuation that even a small fringe branch of the Republicans opposed tax rate stability for the middle class. If anything, the right-wing debate on the tax compromise was whether the Bush-era rates should be extended for only the middle class or for everyone.  Rep. Paul Ryan has long been the darling of fiscal conservatives thanks to his Roadmap for America and excellent performance in the bipartisan ObamaCare summit, and even he was subject to a RINO branding over saying that the compromise bill was the best deal we were likely to ever get.  If Obama claimed that he would fight for raising the taxes of top earners, that would most definitely be believable.  However, a solid fight from the GOP over this attempt would certainly not equate to right-wing distain for the blue- and white-collar workers that make up their base.

It appears that Obama’s counter-intuitive plan for winning a second term so far consists of trying to out-Bush Dubya on tax-related issues, and make all the mistakes whose absence allowed the public to reelect Clinton.  Namely, going all the way with healthcare reform, and throwing out the crowning jewel in Clinton’s progressive presidency—Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

The argument that DADT is a violation of civil rights akin to racial segregation is faulty on a number of points.  It borders on ridiculous that the left takes such exception to a policy which was at one point considered extraordinarily progressive and calls it akin to “whites only” restaurants when actual rights are taken from servicemen once they put on that uniform.  When one joins the military, they forfeit a number of their Constitutional rights and are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  While warriors are better acquainted with their weapons than most American gun-owners, the 2^nd Amendment does not apply to them, and personal weapons are prohibited on base. 

It’s not surprising that the left would rather scrutinize a fictitious attack on the fictitious “right” to go to war than pass legislature defending the rights endowed by our Creator and recognized in our founding document.

DADT repeal, and the debate leading up to it, has allowed us to completely lose perspective as to what the purpose of it was.  It wasn’t a ban on gays serving in the military.  On the contrary, it was the first time in American history where gays were allowed to serve. 

Every policy prior, from the Revolutionary War onward, have in one way or another prohibited gays from enlisting and instructed for discharge if a serviceman were discovered to have engaged in homosexual acts.  If prohibiting banning gays from the military qualified as a “human rights violation”, then technically Clinton’s passage of DADT was an end to 215 years of it.  No need to bother with facts like those, apparently—Clinton’s presidency only matters when he can be trotted out to do press conferences for the current president.

The problem with the lame duck repeal of DADT does not lie in the repeal itself.  Instead, the issue is that this epitomizes what the lame duck session stands for: an opportunity to pile on the promises during campaign season in hopes of winning a few votes, and to pass bills that elected officials lack the bravery to face when they can be held accountable. 

If DADT repeal was achievable now, it was achievable any time in the last two years—it was a conscious choice not to.  Whether Democrats shied away from it because it was not politically expedient or because they wanted to stop the wave of gay voters trending Republican is up for debate.  What’s clear is that this had nothing to do with “doing what is just and right” as they would argue, and everything to do with politics as usual in the corrupt Beltway.

The same despicable tactics were clear in the DREAM Act vote, which thankfully failed.  Like DADT, the bill was misrepresented in a way to make it more palatable to Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Taxpayer.  We were told that it was going to help the children of illegal immigrants who, after all, are just helpless victims of their parents’ crimes.  Americans knew this to be false, especially after a string of fantastic exposes like the following by NumbersUSA.

    Sen. Sessions outlined 10 reasons why the Senate should reject the DREAM Act:

• The DREAM Act Is NOT Limited to Children — Applicants can be up to the age of 29
• The DREAM Act Will Be Funded On the Backs Of Hard Working, Law-Abiding Americans — CBO failed to assess costs for education, increased levels of unemployment due to the addition of workers to the workforce, and increases in potential applicants because of loopholes.
• The DREAM Act PROVIDES SAFE HARBOR FOR ANY ALIEN, Including Criminals, From Being Removed or Deported If They Simply Submit An Application — Burden of proving inaccurate information on a DREAM Act application is on the Department of Homeland Security.
• Certain Inadmissible Aliens, including those from high-risk regions, Will Be Eligible For Amnesty Under The DREAM Act
• Certain Criminal Aliens—including drunk drivers—Will Be Eligible For Amnesty Under The DREAM Act — The DREAM Act allows applicants be convicted of 1 felony or up to 3 misdemeanors.
• Conservative Estimates Suggest That At Least 1.3 Million Illegal Aliens Will Be Eligible For the DREAM Act Amnesty. In Reality, We Have No Idea How Many Illegal Aliens Will Apply
• The DREAM Act Does Not Require That An Illegal Alien Finish Any Type of Degree (Vocational, Two-Year, or Bachelor’s Degree) As A Condition of Amnesty — The applicant only has to complete the equivalent of two years of college.
• The DREAM Act Does Not Require That an Illegal Alien Complete Military Service As A Condition For Amnesty, and There Is already A Legal Process In Place For Illegal Aliens to Obtain U.S. Citizenship Through Military Service
• Despite Their Current Illegal Status, DREAM Act Aliens Will Be Given All The Rights That Legal Immigrants Receive—Including The Legal Right To Sponsor Their Parents and Extended Family Members For Immigration

Current Illegal Aliens Will Get Federal Student Loans, Federal Work Study Programs, and Other Forms of Federal Financial Aid

The Tea Party fever hasn’t faded, and angry Americans lit up the phones of their respective Senators and drove a stake through the heart of this monstrosity.   Harry Reid’s thank you to the La Raza types who got him reelected was not surprising.  What was surprising was just how close the vote was.

Another disturbing reminder of just how corrupt our current batch of elected officials is was the unanimous consent granted by the Senate in passing the Food Safety Modernization Act (S.510).  NaturalNews.com featured a succinct explaination of the bill:

(NaturalNews) Senate Bill 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act, has been called “the most dangerous bill in the history of the United States of America.” It would grant the U.S. government new authority over the public’s right to grow, trade and transport any foods. This would give Big brother the power to regulate the tomato plants in your backyard. It would grant them the power to arrest and imprison people selling cucumbers at farmer’s markets. It would criminalize the transporting of organic produce if you don’t comply with the authoritarian rules of the federal government.

“It will become the most offensive authority against the cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products of one’s choice. It will be unconstitutional and contrary to natural law or, if you like, the will of God.” – Dr. Shiv Chopra

This tyrannical law puts all food production (yes, even food produced in your own garden) under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security. Yep — the very same people running the TSA and its naked body scanner / passenger groping programs.

It is not a coincidence that this is the least well-known of the bills on the lame duck’s agenda and that it passed.  The bill was previously attached to the omnibus package, and this was the first opportunity for it to have stood alone for a vote. 

Though the danger in a lame duck session stems from so many having nothing left to lose, an even more dangerous combination is that of an outgoing representative’s angst and a safe one’s apathy.  Only 37 of the 100 Senate seats were up for reelection in 2010, compared to all of the congressional seats.  This translates to far more senatorial elected officials who don’t have to re-earn that title for another two years. 

Americans weren’t angrily emailing and calling over this like they were over mini-amnesty or the tax rate bill—so many fence-sitting Senators shrugged and allowed this one to pass.  Passage by unanimous consent means that no roll call would be necessary as the bill was only “deemed” passed, and was not confirmed by an actual unanimous vote.  It’s a cowardly move ordinarily only used for budgetary measures such as raising the debt ceiling, where an unpopular bill is likely to pass, and those voting are spared the embarrassment of their name on the roll call. 

What this suggests is that although we weren’t on them enough about this issue in particular, the sleeping giant has awoken and they won’t be able to go against our wishes much longer.

Every action taken by Congress and the Senate during the lame duck session has been a slap in the face of the voters who went to the polls in November.  That not all of them were voted out, or that not all were up for reelection, does not mean that any of them were permitted to pursue an agenda in the interim before the newly elected could be seated.  The recent election, more than any other, signified the American people shouting “No more!” 

No more to their votes not reflecting the motivation behind ours.  No more to an overreaching agenda that defies the Constitution at every turn.  No more to such a drastic difference between the Constitution and our laws. 

The defiance of our elected officials during the lame duck will hopefully not be echoed by the newly elected when they are sworn in.  However, if it does, the American people have not lost our voices.  If they haven’t heard us yet, I assure you, they will.