The House was said to have approved the continuing resolution to keep the government from “shutting down” (oh. my. god.), and was set to approve the full version of the bill, which would have included:

• $8.4 billion for EPA, a $223 million cut over last year

• $518 billion for the Pentagon, an increase of $5 billion over last year

• $850 million for counterinsurgency aid in Pakistan

• $5 billion for AIDS

• $32 billion for energy and water programs

• $21 billion for agencies that regulate banking

• $12 billion for Treasury, a cut of $882 million over last year

• $71 billion for Education, a $153 million cut over last year

• $42 billion for the State Dept​. and Foreign Operations

• $3 billion for Israel

• $39 billion for Homeland Security that includes nearly $12 billion for Customs and Border Patrol and nearly $6 billion for Immigration and Custom Enforcement.

But before the deal could be sealed, the Senate version was declared unworkable. Part of the controversy was the payroll holiday, which was slated to transpire for two months. One reason for such a short holiday, as Rush Limbaugh explained on his show, is that the politicians want to bring it back up for campaign season. (In other words, they want to play Santa Claus with our own money.)

The hitch: House Republicans say the bill would cause widespread financial disruption. House Whip Eric Cantor explains:

Now the bill is back in the Senate. But Harry Reid refuses to come back to Washington so that the true “compromise” bill can be hammered out. Representative Allen West, who once understandably offered President Obama a debate “any place, anywhere, anytime,” shows the right tenor regarding the Congressional hijinx:

H/T American Freedom.

At one point, James Delingpole says about the Tories, “What you have is this kind of jellyfish party which doesn’t really have any particular political viewpoint other than it would quite like people to vote for it.” Sounds a lot like another party we know.

Dennis Miller interviews James Delingpole here on his book Watermelons: The Green Movement’s True Colors. That’s me talking to Delingpole at the 12:00 mark.

Hot Air reports:

Tennessee banker Jimmy Moncrief just self-published his first book — a 150-page stunner called “Everything Obama Knows About the Economy.” Those who buy it won’t have much to read: Every page of the book is blank. No matter: Moncrief has already sold hundreds of copies as Christmas gag gifts.

My only question: Why just the economy?

The historical pattern of directional polling shows the obvious self-delusion many voters held at the time that electing a radical posing as a moderate would solve the problems of the country. Two major concerns were in the minds of voters at the time of Obama’s election. First was the wars overseas, a cause of general dissatisfaction accumulated over years of negative press. Second was the rapidly tanking economy, a cause of immediate and acute stress. Obama closed the direction gap within a few months, going from a 49 point negative spread to a 9 point positive one – all without having done anything!

American voters themselves are obviously a major source of the country’s problems. While they are grossly uninformed and even willfully ignorant of the ways politicians lie and manipulate them, they publicly acknowledged that politicians and their media consorts are deceitful. Which leads one to conclude that many Americans just don’t give a damn; they don’t think politics affects them or they believe that the country will always be strong and prosperous, no matter how powerful the government, and no matter what policies it pushes.

Additionally, the directional polling refutes the contention of a new Princeton study, cited on the Rush Limbaugh show, that some dose of voter apathy is healthy for a “democracy.” The poll’s contention, as related by the UK Daily Mail, is that the uninformed are essential to a working democracy. Specifically, the study claimed that “the uninformed are essential to democracy because their apathy helps to dilute the effect of powerful minority interests – for instance, highly educated elites – who would otherwise dominate public life.”

But tellingly, the uninformed were easily misled that the election of the radical Obama, who many perceived as a moderate, would improve the situation of the country – whether in terms of ending the war or improving the economy through massive stimulus and bailouts. Then voter misconception was corrected over the course of three years that either the president was incapable of correcting the problems, or more accurately, was ideologically and politically disposed to ‘never let a good crisis go to waste.’

One problem with interpreting the directional polling: Do those who feel Obama is wrecking the country as it was founded and agree with the president’s policies feel we are heading in the right direction or the wrong direction? We have a “loony 20%,” as I call them, comprised of unabashed progressives, socialists, leftists who do want to see the country “fundamentally transformed,” and who would not be averse to wrecking it initially in order to make it more “socially just.” It is difficult to say how many of these die-hard leftists would be in the “right direction” camp, but one should presume a good percentage. In other words, for staunch Obama voters, the right direction is the wrong one.

The Environmental Protection Agency, the last time I checked a regulatory body charged only with enforcing legislation, is “deliberating” on expanding its own powers through the Rio Conference scheduled to be held in June 2011. That’s right, a government agency filled with unelected bureaucrats is effectively deciding whether or not it wants to make law and expand its own powers, all in the name of promoting “sustainability.”

What is sustainability? Why, it’s the new global environmentalist catch phrase implying that mankind will run out of resources if the distributocracy does not intervene to centrally plan the world economy. Sustainability is part-and-parcel of the insidious and very real Agenda 21 (see official website where it explains the intentions). It is telling that the UN quixotically states as one of its goals that the world should be “climate neutral.”

Why would the EPA seek to override the will of the people and unconstitutionally set its own regulatory powers and their scope?

First of all, there is waning public opinion that global warming is primarily the result of human activities (37% Democrats, 14% Republicans). Second, there is declining scientific certainty that such warming is even harmful, let alone constitutes a “crisis.” Third, there is only so long one can spout off apocalyptic rhetoric that the “sky is falling” before one starts to look like a New York City subway kook. Fourth, such releases as Climategate I & II have exposed that at least some scientists, non-profit organizations, and politicians have nefarious motives in supporting the theory. This view is bolstered by such claims that the UN needs $72 trillion in order to “fight” climate change. Fifth, it is unclear how the yielding of such immense sums of money to a global body would lead to a better climate. What would be the test? Sunny and 72 all year long, every day, everywhere? It still wouldn’t be worth it.

But more at stake is the country’s entire philosophy of governance. Is America to be a nation run by experts for our own supposed good? Or are we citizens going to possess the predominant amount of control over our own lives, provided we don’t harm others?

That’s where the insidious nature of the left-wing hive mind mentality comes to the forefront. With such scams as Obamacare (sure, it will save us money, but cost almost $2 trillion more over the next decade, according to the CBO), and manmade global warming (you will never see it reported in the MSM that man only has influence over about .30% of the greenhouse effect, based on DOE figures), it should make Americans, including tree-hugging lefties, wonder why such lies and distortions are needed for the government to institute more controls over people. The historical record is abysmal for those who blindly trust in the government, especially when they know they are being lied to.

The politicians and the bureaucrats believe themselves to be the sole repositories of power in our brave new post-constitutional, post-republic America. Don’t worry about an unelected government agency actually making law – it’s for your own good.

While the Occupy movement has turned into a festival of arrests for petty crime, radical Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and even Al Qaeda have rushed in to fill the anarchic power vacuum resulting from the uprisings. Now that the fruits of democratic destabilization and resulting Islamization are becoming clearer, it would behoove us to examine the mismatch between the left’s laudatory rhetoric and the visual reality of the situation.

The left may cry foul and allege that such comparison is unfair, and that to make a democratic omelet, it is necessary to break a few eggs (eggs being human skulls).  But it is well-known in political science that democracy is an unstable political system and rapid democratization is a very unstable and often bloody process.

Lest anyone should forget, in the midst of the Egyptian uprising, the CBS reporter Lara Logan was repeatedly sexually assaulted by a crowd in Cairo. Below is a picture of Ms. Logan moments before the brutal and despicable attack:

An anomaly? Not hardly. More recently, this is how those chivalrous, “misunderstood” Egyptians have treated women who dare express their “democratic” rights.

Get the picture?

And with the rise of Islamist groups in the Middle East, the rights of women and homosexuals are only going to degrade further. Perhaps it is time for the left to support individual rights and the rule of law, rather than the false seduction of democracy for the sake of democracy?

Although Ms. Rice has the capability of wielding a fierce and feisty intellect in debates against the left, she also values her privacy and integrity. Despite vicious attacks on everything from her race to her sexuality (GOP opposition would be sure to exploit these baseless rumors as well to chill the Evangelical vote), Rice has tended to stay out of the limelight, addressing her character assassination through books, rather than public appearances.

The looming question is if conservatives are itching to turn to an associate of the Bush administration, a relationship that the left is sure to demonize and fear-monger to the utmost, for strong and sure leadership or if people desire fresh faces to deal with seemingly unprecedented problems. Newt Gingrich‘s sudden popularity shows that the conservative base has no problem turning to the past, but the former Speaker is associated more with the relatively positive 1990s than the media-tainted War on Terror.

Condoleezza would be a fairly good but flawed choice for Vice President. That being said, she believes in the global warming claptrap, and stood to profit on cap-and-trade at one point.

Regardless, I am doubtful she would remake herself to run for office, or put herself through the grinding mill of the left-wing screech machine. Conservatives have been disappointed time and time again by the lack of GOP candidates to step forward and take our national crisis seriously, and I presume that we are going to be disappointed once again with this flimsy hearsay.

Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America is a book that is to be “chewed and digested,” as Sir Francis Bacon wrote of classic works. So when in the course of slowly perusing what the distinguished French statesman had to say of the perils impending in America, should our populace opt for government centralization, it bears taking notice.

It is vital initially to correct a prevalent misapprehension among the American intelligentsia, for those whose minds are disposed to receive truth rather than the stale academic repetition of the supposed merits of unrestrained democracy.

GOVERNMENTS usually perish from impotence or from tyranny. In the former case, their power escapes from them; it is wrested from their grasp in the latter. […] But I do not think that a democratic power is naturally without force or resources; say, rather, that it is almost always by the abuse of its force and the misemployment of its resources that it becomes a failure. Anarchy is almost always produced by its tyranny or its mistakes, but not by its want of strength.

It is important not to confuse stability with force, or the greatness of a thing with its duration. In democratic republics the power that directs society is not stable, for it often changes hands and assumes a new direction. But whichever way it turns, its force is almost irresistible. The governments of the American republics appear to me to be as much centralized as those of the absolute monarchies of Europe, and more energetic than they are. I do not, therefore, imagine that they will perish from weakness.

If ever the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event may be attributed to the omnipotence of the majority, which may at some future time urge the minorities to desperation and oblige them to have recourse to physical force. Anarchy will then be the result, but it will have been brought about by despotism.

De Tocqueville then cites the opinions of two key architects of The Constitution (including The Bill of Rights):

Mr. Madison expresses the same opinion in The Federalist, No. 51. “It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been, and ever will be, pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society, under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger: and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted by the uncertainty of their condition to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves, so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions be gradually induced by a like motive to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful. It can be little doubted, that, if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of right under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of the factious majorities, that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it.

Jefferson also said: “The executive power in our government is not the only, perhaps not even the principal, object of my solicitude. The tyranny of the legislature is really the danger most to be feared, and will continue to be so for many years to come. The tyranny of the executive power will come in its turn, but at a more distant period.”

I am glad to cite the opinion of Jefferson upon this subject rather than that of any other, because I consider him the most powerful advocate democracy has ever had.

We thus come to Tocqueville’s chilling warning:

I HAVE already pointed out the distinction between a centralized government and a centralized administration. The former exists in America, but the latter is nearly unknown there. If the directing power of the American communities had both these instruments of government at is disposal and united the habit of executing its commands to the right of commanding; if, after having established the general principles of government, it descended to the details of their application; and if, having regulated the great interests of the country, it could descend to the circle of individual interests, freedom would soon be banished from the New World.

But in the United States the majority, which so frequently displays the tastes and the propensities of a despot, is still destitute of the most perfect instruments of tyranny.

In the American republics the central government has never as yet busied itself except with a small number of objects, sufficiently prominent to attract its attention. The secondary affairs of society have never been regulated by its authority; and nothing has hitherto betrayed its desire of even interfering in them. The majority has become more and more absolute, but has not increased the prerogatives of the central government; those great prerogatives have been confined to a certain sphere; and although the despotism of the majority may be galling upon one point, it cannot be said to extend to all. However the predominant party in the nation may be carried away by its passions, however ardent it may be in the pursuit of its projects, it cannot oblige all the citizens to comply with its desires in the same manner and at the same time throughout the country. When the central government which represents that majority has issued a decree, it must entrust the execution of its will to agents over whom it frequently has no control and whom it cannot perpetually direct. The townships, municipal bodies, and counties form so many concealed breakwaters, which check or part the tide of popular determination. If an oppressive law were passed, liberty would still be protected by the mode of executing that law; the majority cannot descend to the details and what may be called the puerilities of administrative tyranny. It does not even imagine that it can do so, for it has not a full consciousness of its authority. It knows only the extent of its natural powers, but is unacquainted with the art of increasing them.

This point deserves attention; for if a democratic republic, similar to that of the United States, were ever founded in a country where the power of one man had previously established a centralized administration and had sunk it deep into the habits and the laws of the people, I do not hesitate to assert that in such a republic a more insufferable despotism would prevail than in any of the absolute monarchies of Europe; or, indeed, than any that could be found on this side of Asia.

We must make it an imperative to reduce the size and influence of the bureaucracy, which operates under the executive branch. A recent House measure that would strip Obama of several key czars is a step in the right direction. We must also pay attention to the influence of public sector unions, and make it requisite that those who labor for the American people cannot unionize, or cartelize, their labor against them. We must return power to the states to the greatest extent possible. Repealing the disastrous and unconstitutional Obamacare would be a necessary measure in that regard. In essence, we must return hands to individual citizens, and not to the wanton and unruly “people.”

What the left wants is for us to concentrate on each other instead of on the government. If a game comes out where the right can fantasize about stopping OWS terrorists, and the OWSers can fantasize about taking out extremist “tea baggers,” then the government wins.

The real problem is the U.S. government spending trillions in money we don’t have. Sensible Americans have lived in terror for the last three years, thanks to the non-stop spending binge of Washington, unmanageable debt, rampant unemployment, more undeclared aggressive wars, and infringements on our civil liberties. We need to worry more about the Feds, the Dems, and the RINOs than the street rabble.

Enjoy the game, but don’t get too absorbed with the concept of shooting fellow American citizens who may be confused about the current political situation.