Building the Stepford Congress: Chicago Dems and Gun Control

 

Puppet politicians are the order of the day in today’s campaign world.

If an elected official crosses the party line, they may find themselves being attacked by their own party, instead of the other guys.

Just ask former Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Halverson of Chicago. Rep. Halverson is the front runner in a field of 15 (previsously 16) candidates for the Congressional seat vacated by Jesse Jackson Junior.

During her time in office, Rep Halverson racked up a mixed position on gun control. She voted for some gun control measures and against others. She also stated then as she does now that gun control is not the answer to the violent deaths in this country. Her believes that we need to look at the social order itself for our long-term solutions.

This position is clear evidence of independent thinking on Halverson’s part. Sadly, it appears that independent thinking is something that the Democratic Party is will no longer allow it’s elected officials to do.

The response by the national Democratic Party to Rep Halverson’s candidacy has evidently been to load in huge amounts of money against the Congresswoman. The greatest irony is that they appear to be working with the Republican New York mayor and his “super pac” in an effort to defeat Congresswoman Halverson.

I remember years ago when Democrats prided themselves on being the party where people could think for themselves. We had more than a bit of contempt for the threats and bullying we saw the Republicans heap on one another. We didn’t think much of those folks who did what they were told and never had a thought of their own. Sadly, the Democrats have become more and more like the Republicans in this matter until now they are virtually indistinguishable from them.

In both political parties, elected officials either toe the line or pay the price of being attacked by their own party. People they thought were friends become enemies in a single hour. That is politics in today’s America. It’s ugly. It’s cruel. It is totally without personal honor. And it works to silence the voice of the people in elections.

Enter the Stepford Congress and it’s unending failure to act on behalf of the common good. Instead of independent thinking what we have instead are a bunch of legislative “mules” who carry legislation for special interests and do whatever they are told by the left and right wing nuts who control them.

I am not commenting specifically about the gun control issue in this post. I would feel the same if the situation was reversed and the Congresswoman was being attacked by her political party for favoring gun control. The issue at hand is not what an individual political candidate thinks. It is whether or not they are going to be allowed to think for themselves.

I really do not care who the voters in this Congressional district chose to be their voice in Washington. I only hope that whoever they pick he or she is an independent thinker and not someone who will be part of the Stepford Congress.

A Fox News interview with Congresswoman Halverson is below. I’m impressed by how hard she tries to take the high road in all this.

YouTube Preview Image

  • lucy luckless

    Ms. Hamilton, how does this kind of thing work for you at the state level? You are so wonderfully forthright here … do you suffer for it? God bless you and keep you safe and healthy … and writing!

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Yes Lucy, I suffer for it. Thank you for your kind thoughts.

  • Bill S

    So this is the second amendment ?

    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    It is due to this 18th century amendment that we allow assault weapons and guns in general?

    Congresswoman Halverson should be a republican if she is not against assault weapons. The only legitimate use for most of these guns is target practice. We are suffering tragedies like Newtown and she is opposing the President’s efforts? If the democratic process is still working, she will not get the Democrats’ nomination.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      This is exactly the attitude I was thinking of when I wrote this post. What’s so terrible about Democrats who can think for themselves Bill?
      “Congresswoman Halverson should be a republican if she is not against assault weapons. “

    • Mac

      Hi Bill S. I noticed that you commented on an 18th century amendment. I should mention another one that precedes the 2nd amendment: the first amendment. Your comment suggests that these old amendments have little value today. I am unwilling to give up my right to free speech. I am unwilling to give up my right to worship as I believe God has revealed worship to me. I feel the same way about the 2nd amendment. It is still valid. The reason it is in there is because the writers understood this critical thing about mankind: power corrupts… and you know the rest. As long as men hold power, they will be inclined to force others to bend to their will. And when those men hold all of the power of force – by that I mean arms – they will use that power to suppress liberty and compel those without power to be their servants. The 2nd amendment exists so that free people can remain free. It is most regrettable that some criminals and mentally deranged people have abused firearms. But, to sacrifice the liberty of a nation over the few is a larger sacrifice than I care to make. I want my children, and their children, and the children after them to enjoy liberty. As long as the populace has arms they can resist tyranny.
      With respect to “the only legitimate use for most of these guns…,” we stand on shaky ground when we use words such as “only.” I can think of many uses for a semi-automatic weapon. For example, ranchers who are out in the field for days may be surrounded by wolves or threatened by bears. A six shooter may not be fast enough, accurate enough, or have enough rounds to save that rancher’s life. There are other legitimate uses.
      Lastly, you should be proud of someone in politics who has the courage to stick to her convictions regardless of the party line. Presidents, Senators, Representatives, and Judges can all be wrong. When they are, strong, courageous, articulate people must stand up and speak out. These are the people we need.
      I hope we have shared meaningful dialog and continued respect for one another.

  • Bill S

    There is nothing wrong with her thinking for herself, but if she wants to do something good for this country if she is elected, she can start by standing up to the gun lobby and enthusiasts and support legislation to completely ban assault weapons, period. Interpretation of the second amendment to imply that it is a constitutional right for people in this country to own weapons with the killing capacity of the one Adam Lanza had is wrong in so many ways.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      So … she can think for herself so long as she thinks like you. Is that what you’re saying?

  • Bill S

    “As long as the populace has arms they can resist tyranny”

    You want people to be able to fight the government, the police, the army, the national guard, etc.? Is that what the second amendment means to you? You think we should have militias? You are living in the 18th century. Where do you think you are? Syria?

    How about voting and political activism? Wouldn’t that be more effective than armed confrontation like Ruby Ridge and Waco?

    • Theodore Seeber

      Would be nice if we still could, but I think Waco proved that we can’t effectively fight back anymore.

      Voting and political activism is so controlled by corporations giving us bread and circuses like Gay Marriage, that it has become useless for anything resembling actual representation in government. It is only now useful for creating tyranny to tear down traditional institutions in the name of “progress” (by which they really mean population and capital control).

      I have no doubt at all that any *serious* pushback against the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, will result in large populations being marched into the camps and gassed.

      • Bill S

        Welcome back. Addicting, isn’t it. Now you know full well that no one is going to be gassed. Despite what some people might think, we are not living under a tyrant. He was elected by the people is doing the best he can in governing a divided populace.

  • Bill S

    “So … she can think for herself so long as she thinks like you. Is that what you’re saying?”

    I guess in my own impotent rage about guns, I do seem to be saying that. I think I figured out why pols won’t take on the gun people. They don’t want to be shot at by some extremist bent on overthrowing or controlling the government through violence.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Bill, that’s silly.
      “I think I figured out why pols won’t take on the gun people. They don’t want to be shot at by some extremist bent on overthrowing or controlling the government through violence.”

    • SteveP

      Your own words: “It is wrong (and maybe evil, for lack of a better word) to condemn all [gun owners] due to the actions of [murderers]. You should know that.”
      .
      You are afraid, your afraidness is palpable. You are afraid that someone will deem you just an undifferentiated mass of cells with eyes that do not see, ears that do not hear, lips that do not speak, hands that do not touch. The Church, your mother, would have protected you but you reject her. You are on your own just as you want.

      • Bill S

        “Your own words: “It is wrong (and maybe evil, for lack of a better word) to condemn all [gun owners] due to the actions of [murderers]. You should know that.”
        That was about gays v. abusers, but I accept your comparison. It fits. I’m sorry I lumped all gun owners in with potential assassins and insurgents.

        “You are afraid that someone will deem you just an undifferentiated mass of cells with eyes that do not see, ears that do not hear, lips that do not speak, hands that do not touch.”

        I hadn’t thought of it that way, but yes, I would be afraid of that if I thought it could happen.

        “The Church, your mother, would have protected you but you reject her. You are on your own just as you want.”

        The Church still provides me with a sense of belonging, even if I don’t buy everything she says. Does anyone really buy everything the Church says? I find that incomprehensible..

        • SteveP

          You were not asked to purchase anything; in reality your redemption was purchased at a price that you are unable, and seemingly unwilling, to pay.

          Review CCC 1269, specifically: “From now on, he is called to be subject to others, to serve them in the communion of the Church, and to ‘obey and submit’ to the Church’s leaders . . .” Recall you consented to the Rite of Confirmation, being of the age of reason, and assented affirmatively to the Baptismal vows.

  • Bill S

    Yes. When you think about it, it does seem a bit silly. But no more so than; “As long as the populace has arms they can resist tyranny”.

    Given people’s love affair with guns and some of the crazy people out on the loose, anything is possible. If people see guns as a means of resisting tyranny and if they see Obama as a tyrant, it’s possible that someone would want to take him out if he pushes through tough gun controls. The same might go for Congress.

    • Theodore Seeber

      Maybe in 1860 and earlier. But since the invention of mustard gas and other weapons of mass destruction, uh, no. The Kurds had plenty of weapons, didn’t do them any good at all against Saddam Hussein’s rockets.

      So against tyranny, no. But if you live in a place like where I grew up, where the nearest police response is more than 20 minutes away, a 12 gauge with rock salt load is a damn good alternative.

  • Bill S

    What will a 12 gauge with a rock salt load do? Thank you for acknowledging the foolishness of armed resistance.

    • Josh Lyman

      It might make the attacking tank a little scratched..

  • Bill S

    “your redemption was purchased at a price that you are unable, and seemingly unwilling, to pay.”

    I don’t believe that. Supposedly, the redemption is for the sin of Adam. Evolution clearly shows that there was no Adam. So that is just a myth. Did Jesus die to redeem us from a myth? What did I ever do that would require redemption? And why a human sacrifice?

    As for the rest of your comment. All I can say is “no way”. You can buy all that if you want. But I pass.

    • SteveP

      If you are going to rebel, you ought to rebel against what the Church teaches rather than what you think the Church teaches. Rebelling against yourself seems a bit idiotic. Pick up a Catechism, specifically CCC 390-405 and CCC 1739.

  • sg

    Stuff like this just proves to me that there is really only one party with two wings that pretend to be separate parties. The tiny elite control both parties.

  • Bill S

    “402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: “sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.””

    Steve P. How do you understand the above? Is it literal or figurative? I’m assuming you will say figurative. If so, what does it actually mean?

    Did Paul take it as literal or figurative? I suspect that he took it literally.

    So, given what we know today, does Paul still make sense?

    I would very much appreciate it if this were not deleted. I really want to know the answer.

    • SteveP

      Whether or not St. Paul read Genesis 3 as literal or figurative is rather beside the point of the text: the revelation is that sin and, as a consequence, complete death entered the world. St. Paul acknowledges that he is aware of sin and death in his own milieu and reads it was present in the past.

      Do you not observe there is sin and death in your world?

  • Bill S

    “1739 Freedom and sin. Man’s freedom is limited and fallible. In fact, man failed. He freely sinned. By refusing God’s plan of love, he deceived himself and became a slave to sin. This first alienation engendered a multitude of others. From its outset, human history attests the wretchedness and oppression born of the human heart in consequence of the abuse of freedom.”

    OK. I agree with this one. Except for the part about God.

  • Bill S

    ” the revelation is that sin and, as a consequence, complete death entered the world.”

    Do you really believe that death came into the world because of sin? Do you understand evolution? Natural selection? Survival of the fittest? Biology? Anthropology?

    Do you mean physical death or some kind of spiritual death?

    • SteveP

      I am convinced you are not a catechized Catholic. See CCC 1000; the implication of the resurrected body is that the first Adam, who died, was at one time like the second Adam – the second Adam’s rising _restored_ the created image that sin marred.

  • Bill S

    No I am not. The catechism is too bizarre for me. I still can’t figure out what you take as literally true. I don’t even believe that this stuff is figuratively true.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X