The Baystate Objectivist

The Baystate Objectivist

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Democrat Civil War

Party Eating Its Own

I belong to political groups from across the political spectrum, if only so I can keep on top of what everybody is up to. One of the groups I'm a member of is which is one of the largest and most powerful lefty organizations around. Today I received a request from them to donate money to a campaign to destroy the Senator who represents our neighbors in Connecticut - Joe Lieberman. Although technically an independent, Lieberman is part of the Democrat caucus and has all the rights and privileges of a full-fledged Democrat. Why is raising money to attack one of their own? Here's what it says in the email they sent me:

First, Joe Lieberman helped President Bush invade Iraq, and the Democrats in Washington forgave him. Then, he endorsed John McCain, and they forgave him again. Then, he personally attacked Barack Obama at the Republican National Convention, and still the Democrats forgave him.

Now, Joe Lieberman is single-handedly gutting health care reform. The time for forgiveness is over. It's time to hold Senator Lieberman accountable.

First, we're going to launch a huge ad campaign to make sure every last Connecticut voter knows that Senator Lieberman is blocking strong reforms. Then, we'll push Senate leaders to strip him of his chairmanship and seniority. Finally, we'll work to defeat him in his next election.

Our goal is to raise $400,000 in the next 24 hours, to send a deafeningly loud message that we've had enough of Joe Lieberman. That'll take at least 9 donations from Amherst—can you chip in $5?

Oh my, what a turn of events! With the Obama Administration less than a year old the Democrats are already at each other's throats, with litmus tests and banishment into political exile for those who don't pass. Ten months ago Democrats were talking about a new renaissance of the Left, but with the Bush foreign policy now fully endorsed by Obama in his Nobel Prize speech, the economy in shambles and an electoral bloodbath shaping up for the Democrats next year, instead of a renaissance the American Left appears to be entering the era of its final collapse.

Bill of Rights Day

Today is Bill of Rights Day, as officially declared by Congress in 1941. Sadly, surveys show that most people are very ignorant about the Bill of Rights. An American Bar Association poll showed that only 33% of Americans even know what the Bill of Rights is and 70% couldn't say what the First Amendment protects. Great job, government schools! For those who don't know, this is the Bill of Rights:

1. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, right to assemble peaceably, right to petition the government about grievances.
2. Right to keep and bear arms.
3. Citizens do not have to quarter soldiers during peacetime.
4. No unreasonable searches and seizures.
5. Rights of the accused.
6. Right to a fair trial.
7. Right to a trial by jury in civil cases also.
8. No cruel and unusual punishments.
9. Unenumerated rights go to the people.
10. Reserves all powers not given to the national government to the states or the people.

As you can see, one of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights is freedom of religion. But is the Christmas tree and Chanuka lights in Northampton's Pulaski Park a proper expression of that right?

Amherst too has a Chanuka display.

Most of us think that it's okay for Christians and Jews to put up these displays, but what if Muslims wanted to put up a display honoring Islam?

Or what if atheists wanted to put up a banner reading THERE IS NO GOD across Pulaski Park or the Amherst Common? Is that cool? Why do we put religious displays in public places anyway? It's not as if there are no displays on private property, in fact nearly every storefront in downtown Hamp has a Christmas theme.

Chestnuts roasting on the cathode ray tube.

So why do we need religious displays on public property? What sort of God needs that kind of homage anyway? God is everywhere, and doesn't need to be put on display in the public square. The best way to respect the religious rights of all people is to show favoritism to none and do nothing that appears to publicly endorse one religion over another - or any religion at all. Atheists have rights too! Next year, for God's sake let's do the enlightened thing and discontinue these religious displays on public property.

Political People

Neal challenger Dr. Jay Fleitman greets his female fans at a Springfield fundraiser last weekend.

Neal challenger Tom Wesley campaigning last night at a Holyoke American Legion.

Photo of Northampton City Councilor Jesse Adams by Bill Dwight.

Around Amherst

Looking out of Starbucks with a snowflake sticker on the window.

Captain Candy has moved in where the Gypsy Dog Gallery used to be. Sure to be a hit with the after-school crowd.

On the wall outside Raos Coffee Shop.

Today's Music Video

Trevor Hall may be the latest psychedelic reggae-jamband sensation, but babies get down to him too.

I hope I don't get death threats from the tribes for saying this, but I think most reggae is repetitious. I mean I like it, but it all sounds sorta the same to me, like a song that never ends. I never quite got the religious trip that goes along with it either, although all music that praises God has virtue. I guess it just takes a white kid from South Carolina getting painted by an elephant to make it fresh.


Jeff Hobbs said...

Joe L is the pits. Google it to find out why anyone with half of a brain has had it with that guy.

Tom said...

The Democrats face a real crisis. If they drive Joe out of the party they lose their 60th vote, killing their whole agenda. They may hate him, but the Democrats can't do anything without him.

jim said...

Next year, for God's sake let's do the enlightened thing and discontinue gay rights parades on public property.

Tom said...

You are comparing apples to oranges. A parade is a fleeting event that allows anyone to make a brief statement about anything and then vanish. A display that lasts for weeks and is made available to some but not others is a whole other matter.

Also, the constitution expressly forbids the government from promoting any religion whatsoever, so get that religious stuff off the government owned and controlled land.

Anonymous said...

"Also, the constitution expressly forbids the government from promoting any religion whatsoever, so get that religious stuff off the government owned and controlled land."

Malarkey. The stablishment clause has been stretched to the point of absurdity, essentially creating a religion police to search and destroy any semblance of religion anywhere near the public square. The clause prohibits the ESTABLISHMENT of a religion. It also protects the free exercise thereof, which is the part of the amendment most threatened. Mostly by secularists, homosexuals, atheists, and various other people who hate and fear the beliefs of others.

The Constitution doesn't REQUIRE these displays, but it doesn't prohibit them either. It's a free country...or at least it used to be.


Anonymous said...

Funny about Joe Lieberman too. He's still too liberal for me. I wouldn't vote for him to walk my dog. Still, I find it funny that he isn't liberal ENOUGH for some people.

And they call themselves the Big Tent Party.

Don't get me wrong--I'm a very stubborn voter who doesn't usually vote for the "lesser evil". A few issues are so important to me that there is essentially no compromise. Either you agree with me or you don't. If you don't, then don't expect my vote.

But to hear these (liberal) talking heads talk, you'd think I was a very narrow-minded person who applies "purity tests" to candidates. There is a very negative connotation to this. Republicans are not supposed to be this way. Republicans are supposed to allow anyone into their party, regardless of where they stand on the issues. Dede Scozzafava, anyone?

I vote based on issues. Is there something wrong with that? What kind of soulless party hack would I be if I just voted for the guy with the "R" after his name, even if he was wrong on half the issues?

I think that Republicans, as a party, should stand for certain things. As a necessary implication, they must stand AGAINST other things. It's impossible to stand for some things (and against other things) if the party has a philosophy of "whatever you believe, we do too".

Democrats apply the same "purity tests", except it's not bad when they do it. Republicans are supposed to tolerate flaming liberals in our party, but Democrats won't tolerate the slighest amount of moderation in theirs.


Tom said...

Ben, you are interpreting the word "establishment" too narrowly. The founding fathers (and mothers) were very aware of the way the governments of Europe had favored one religion over the other. They clearly wanted no such role to be played by our government, officially or by example.

When some religions, but not others, are allowed to use government property to promote their religion, indeed when ANY religion is allowed to promote itself on government property, the government is indeed "establishing" that religion as one receiving government approval. Clearly that is precisely what the founders wantd to avoid.

Be honest Ben, what you really want to do is to force your religion on others by using community property to advertise your church and its prophet. You are frustrated because the principles of freedom, fairness and the constiturion itself does not allow you to do so. The fact that these principles have been violated in the past does not justify continuing to do so in the future.

On the other hand, you are right about the double standard in the Lieberman matter. Just last month some GOP official (I forget who) suggested there ought to be a list of things you had to believe to be a Republican. The mainstream media screamed that this was proof of Republican intolerance and that the party was "tearing itself apart." The Democrats are now doing much worse to Lieberman, but the mainstream media somehow doesn't see this as evidence that the Democrats are intolerant.

Ofcourse both the Democrat and Republican parties have completely discredited themselves in recent years, which is why I am a libertarian - and why a majority of the country will also be libertarian in a very short time.