The True Party of No

When the Republicans retook control of the House of Representatives in the 2010 mid-term elections, the Democrats tried out a poll and focus tested moniker for them – “The Party of ‘No’”. Remember how the opposition to the proven destruction wrought by the “Marx-lite”, venture socialist and crony capitalist policies of the Obama administration were offered up as “obstruction” and the beginning of the “do nothing” Congress?

Well, there is a party that defines itself as “The Party of No” and it isn’t the Republicans. If you look at the platform, the policies and the actual efforts of the Democrats, you will see an exceptionally negative agenda, a contronymic (standing for exactly the opposite of what is expressed) and contrarian agenda that is focused on restriction, elimination, prevention and prohibition. From energy to abortion, the “progressive” Democrat policies, supported with eliminationist rhetoric, are about as regressive as they come.


Contrary to what is publically expressed in their drive to “alternative” energy, the Democrats are actually at war with fossil fuels, the energy that has been the driving force behind our economy for a hundred years. They have wasted public funds with impunity on fairy tale technologies that are either based on pixie dust or are simply technologically untenable while ignoring economical and immediately available energy – vast swaths of recoverable hydrocarbon reserves beneath our own lands, development of clean nuclear power and the vast potential of hydroelectric power.

Using scientifically tenuous connections between climate change to focus solely on an anthropologic cause for variations in global climate variation (to the exclusion of historical data that disproves their theory), they have prosecuted an eliminations process in restricting drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, restricting access to public lands (on-shore and off) that are laden with resources. It hasn’t been that long ago that natural gas was touted by the “progressives” as the future of energy, a clean burning fuel – today they are against the fracking processes that have made it plentiful and cheap – the gas is the same but now that it is economical, it promotes something else that the “progressives” hate – more cars, more, cheaper and better consumer products and a continuance of a uniquely independent American lifestyle.

Their animosity toward nuclear power is a hangover from the Three Mile Island incident and the hyper-dramatization of that incident by a movie, The China Syndrome. While this movie was pure “progressive” hyperbole and distorted the possibility of disaster to the extreme, it was very effective propaganda and essentially killed the nuclear power industry in America.

The “environmentalist” wing of the Democrat Party has also effectively destroyed hydroelectric energy and is now prosecuting the destruction of dams, a program of “dam busting” is currently in vogue.

Private Property

We are constantly reminded how the federal government can use its agencies, namely the EPA to restrict and control the use, or to prohibit the use altogether, of your private property. The most recent issue was the case of Mike and Chantell Sackett of Priest Lake, Idaho:

Many Americans have been victims of the EPA’s federal land grab. Back in 2005 Mike and Chantell Sackett purchased three-quarters of an acre in Idaho in order to build a new house. They obtained permits and verification from the state and local governments in Idaho, and started building in 2007. Enter the EPA. Agents arriving on their property threatened to fine them $37,500 a day, arguing that their property was considered a ‘wetland.’ Under the CWA, the EPA argued it had the power to “protect” land even from its own owners. The Sackett’s although owning the land, did not have the freedom to do with it what they liked.


Claiming to support freedom of religion, Democrats are actually prosecuting a systematic but passive aggressive war on a particular religion in their quest for secularization of our society – Christianity. Restrictions on expression of the Christian faith are legion. One of the most egregious attacks has come through the implementation of Obamacare and the attempt to force Catholic health organizations to supply abortifacients, something that is diametrically opposed to Catholic religious tenets.

Freedom of Speech

The Obama administration’s use of the FCC to attempt to regulate the Internet, to restrict the issuance of broadcast licenses, the charade of “campaign finance reform” and harassment/hate crime laws that are based on the utterance of simple opinions are but a few examples of the constant assault on our freedom to express our opinions. In 2004, Tom West of the Claremont Institute wrote a column that is still applicable today:

Applied to free speech, the liberal view leads to the conclusion that government must limit spending by those who can afford to publish or broadcast their views. As University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein writes, the traditional autonomy of newspapers “may itself be an abridgment of the free speech right.” Government interference with broadcasting content through FCC licensing is from this standpoint a positive good for free speech. Without it, rich white males will dominate, and the poor, women and minorities will be marginalized and silenced. Therefore, in the liberal view, speech rights must be redistributed from the rich and privileged to the poor and excluded.

University of Maryland professor Mark Graber endorses this view: “Affluent Americans,” he writes, “have no First Amendment right that permits them to achieve political success through constant repetition of relatively unwanted ideas.” In other words, if you publish or broadcast “too much,” government has the right, and the duty, to silence you. Yale law professor Stephen Carter agrees: “Left unregulated, the modern media could present serious threats to democracy.” Sunstein calls for a “New Deal for Speech,” in which government will treat speech in exactly the same way as it already treats property, namely, as something that is really owned by government, and which citizens are only permitted to use or engage in when they meet conditions established by government to promote fairness and justice.

Arguments like these are the deepest reason that liberals no longer follow the Constitution, and why Americans today no longer know what the free speech clause really means.


Abortion. There is but one single purpose for abortion – to prevent a human life. While it is sold to society as a “woman’s right to choose”, whether you consider a fetus a lump of cells, a “potential human” or a baby, there is no other outcome of the procedure other than to end a life. Not only do the Democrats support it, as James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal points out,  they celebrate it:

Still, we’re inclined to agree that the Democrats are behaving recklessly in seeking to Akinize the GOP. They not only plan to put abortion at the center of their own convention–as the Washington Examiner reports, the list of speakers now includes the heads of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and NARAL Pro-Choice America, not to mention abortifacient poster child Sandra Fluke–but the Hill reports they also plan to break with tradition and wage “a full-scale assault on Republicans next week during their convention.”

Ann Coulter once opined that abortion is the holy sacrament of the liberal religion – I am inclined to agree.

These are but a limited sample of things that immediately come to mind, I’m sure that you can think of many, many more but there is a common theme in each of them. Democrat policies always seek to end or restrict, never to create or free. In what is an oxymoronic presentation of their post-modernistic mindset, they promise freedom by regulating behavior – a “we have to destroy it to save it” proposition.

We know who is the actual “Party of No”, we know that self-described “progressives” are in word and deed, the most regressive people on the face of the planet. We know that while every single policy promises progress, they only seek to achieve it through the restriction, confiscation, exclusion or prevention of something else.

The Democrat Party, the true Party of “No”.

5 thoughts on “The True Party of No

  1. That Party has been a contradiction for years. But by having their collective heads in the sand even the ones that are reasonable are drowned out by the caterwauling majority that want nothing to do with working for the American people. They care not for you or I but for the perceived power that they so desperately want to retain.

    • The inherent problem of the contemporary Democratic party is rooted in their Big Tent philosophy. Too many differing agendas to appease. Thinking about that, I have to say that I would feel sorry for any Democrat POTUS. It has to be challenging to keep the party happy on so many conflicting fronts.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s