These Democrats keep talking about unity, about it being 'our time' to close the divide in the American polity, to finally unite Americans behind an America of which we can all be proud.

Most Democrats are probably just not thinking very hard about this premise, but it's kind of the point behind politics in general. If everyone agreed on what this 'pride-worthy' America is, we wouldn't really have much opposition. In a certain ironic way, it illustrates the Democrat party mindset that the struggle really is about power, influence, money. If that is your chief focus, the notion of a worthwhile opposition fades into the background. What is all this disunity about when we can all partake of the patronage equally?

Liberals want constant Federal buzzing, conservatives want a special few activities as authorized by the Constitution. Liberals want a unified movement behind the eco-theological environmentalism, conservatives believe in actual science as part of a proud and long heritage of intellectually honest inquiry. Liberals view income as incidental and luck-based, and therefore available to governments for whatever little project is at hand; conservatives believe that what you legitimately receive is yours to keep, that you have a right to the fruits of your industry. Human self-reliance vs. the need for transcendence in the lives of individuals; fad-given rights of self-styled classes of people vs. inalienable God-given rights of individuals, first among them innocent life, the list continues.

Utopian dreams of a world united collide head on with dystopian fears of an America dissolved into a mish-mash of incoherent humanism, the final manifestation of the dangerous rationalism that gave us such magnificent political projects as the French Revolution, the Soviet Union, Cuba, and the United Nations.

There is no unifying these two world views. Most Americans align with the conservative positions above - the 'progressive' project is one of re-education, and it's frighteningly totalitarian. Diversity is only skin deep - no actual diversity, that is our legacy of diverse opinion, is required. Certain social truths hold, as determined by civilized, educated classes, and behind these lies America should unite. In a way, it's very Luciferian, this notion of independence, of casting off our reliance on things greater than ourselves, namely God, tradition and heritage, the wisdom of the ages.

There is an interesting parallel here with the 'peace' movement: just as all nations want a peace that is suitable to them, so do all factions want a unity that is suitable to them. The old-fashioned way of getting about that was called leadership, maybe even campaigning. Apparently, the Dems would rather proclaim hysterically that unity is such a virtue that it must be built atop the sternest disagreements (some of them between reasonable parties), and crafted of some barely tenable web of belief.

And in case there is any question, let me tell you the America of which I would be most proud: it is the America with the Constitutional Federal government, which maintains a powerful military, controls monetary policy (not economic policy, mind you), protects interstate commerce, and conducts diplomacy abroad. This is a feudal America in which the decisions of the town council had the most effect on my life as a private citizen, the courts decide only cases and controversies as filed by citizens, and in which the several states actively asserted their domains against the Federal government. In this America, Congress abides by its oath to the Constitution and will not act unless the Constitution authorizes them to do so, and in such cases where it is necessary, they amend the Constitution, rather than the current approach, which is to just do it anyway.

So, Obama, Clinton, whoever, McCain even, if you want unity, let's get everyone behind this America, eh?
Opinions expressed by News Buckit writers are expressly their own and may not represent the opinions of The News Buckit, its staff members, or its editors.

House Dems are proposing a tax surcharge on individuals with an income exceeding $500,000 and couples who exceed $1 million, the AP reports. The purpose is to fund an increase in educational services for veterans, a noble goal. However, the sheer arrogance of some who back this proposal is astounding:

"What we're talking about is a one-half percent income tax surcharge on incomes above $1 million," said Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., a leader of the Blue Dog group. "So someone who earns $2 million a year would pay $5,000. ... They're not going to miss it."

Always a good reason for raising taxes.
Opinions expressed by News Buckit writers are expressly their own and may not represent the opinions of The News Buckit, its staff members, or its editors.

With hundreds of thousands dead, millions at risk, and an inflexible dictatorship that's willfully presiding over the carnage -- all the while using international aide for their own propogandistic and personally aggrandizing purposes --

Time Magazine asks the tough question: "Is it time to invade Iraq?"

Pardon. I mean, "Is it time to invade Sudan?"

Excuse me. I mean, "Is it time to invade... Burma?"

The trouble is that the Burmese haven't shown the ability or willingness to deploy the kind of assets needed to deal with a calamity of this scale — and the longer Burma resists offers of help, the more likely it is that the disaster will devolve beyond anyone's control. "We're in 2008, not 1908," says Jan Egeland, the former U.N. emergency relief coordinator. "A lot is at stake here. If we let them get away with murder we may set a very dangerous precedent."

That's why it's time to consider a more serious option: invading Burma. Some observers, including former USAID director Andrew Natsios, have called on the U.S. to unilaterally begin air drops to the Burmese people regardless of what the junta says. The Bush Administration has so far rejected the idea — "I can't imagine us going in without the permission of the Myanmar government," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday — but it's not without precedent: as Natsios pointed out to the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. has facilitated the delivery of humanitarian aid without the host government's consent in places like Bosnia and Sudan.

The last two lines are priceless.

As the response to the 2004 tsunami proved, the world's capacity for mercy is limitless. But we still haven't figured out when to give war a chance.

And in case you were wondering, the Iraq War wasn't mentioned once.

Labels: Burma

Opinions expressed by News Buckit writers are expressly their own and may not represent the opinions of The News Buckit, its staff members, or its editors.

Looks like he's having a senior moment (again, Hot Air, founder of so many of our feasts.)

Labels: Barack Obama, John McCain

Opinions expressed by News Buckit writers are expressly their own and may not represent the opinions of The News Buckit, its staff members, or its editors.

So, so stupid.

Obama should choose a running mate who "is in tune with his appeal for the nobler aspirations of the American people," Kennedy said. "If we had real leadership — as we do with Barack Obama — in the No. 2 spot as well, it'd be enormously helpful."

Sour grapes? Maybe, which is bad news for party unity. Wait 'til Hillary's supporters catch wind of this.

But if it's not sour grapes and is a presumably objective assessment of her credentials to be a breath away from the Presidency, then... Kennedy's indictment of Hillary is an equal indictment of Obama; after all, what sort of distinguishable leadership experience does Obama have that Hillary doesn't? (h/t Hot Air)

Labels: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Teddy Kennedy

Opinions expressed by News Buckit writers are expressly their own and may not represent the opinions of The News Buckit, its staff members, or its editors.