Call me "Mr. Nobody"

Here we have an idiotic Democrat(ic) member of Congress putting his idiocy on open display before God and everybody.

Democrat idiot on the supposed authority of Congress to force Americans to purchase health insurance:

"Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there’s no question there’s authority. Nobody questions that."

Again, call me Mr. Nobody. Heavy on the Mister!

By the way, when exactly was it that Congress' (unlimited) authority on this issue became unquestionable? I must have been sick that day.

Read More

"Race war," "Civil war" -- how to equate the two

Chiu Chunling once wrote, in response to a black racist commenter at Loyal to Liberty that "if you don't want a race war, then don't start one.

I think the same principle applies with regard to civil war and the war of ideas which instigates it. As I wrote this morning at the Tenth Amendment Center,

Terry Morris Says:
October 3rd, 2009 at 7:45 am

Congress is doing a fine job of working out details of the healthcare bill, what???

I’ll tell you what, when Congess (or any other government entity) can show me where it (or any other government entity) has any legitimate business whatsoever involving itself in healthcare, then I’ll agree or disagree with the assertion that Congress is doing a fine job of it. As it is, the only ‘fine job’ Congress is doing is the job of overthrowing the principles of the constitution. Which too many people recognize to allow to go off without a hitch.

In other words, if Congress does not want a civil war, then it’s best advised not to start one. End of story.

Of course, I'm not at all convinced that the current Congress does not want a civil war, and am persuaded that it, somewhat like so-called "thrill-seekers" may actually think it wants one. If that's the case, then its members seem oblivious to the fact that their side cannot possibly win such a war. This ain't 1860 after all. But whatever. Most so-called "thrill seekers" do actually recognize that they're very likely to end up on the 'winning' side of things despite the danger inherent to their pursuits. Otherwise they wouldn't do it, or otherwise devise ways of making their pursuits, well, less dangerous. But what about the current Congress? Perhaps they're kind of, sort of, in-a-way something like Grizzly Man (who was violently eaten by one of the objects of his affection). Who knows.

Read More

The Constitution according to Nancy

Nancy-baby (H/T: Tenth Amendment Center):

The 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that "the powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states… or to the people. But the Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production. Since virtually every aspect of the heath care system has an effect on interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited. (bolded in original).

Translation (as if you needed one):

The Tenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution is inoperable and meaningless, and has been for a long long time. Why this obstructionist, divisive amendment was ever added as part of the Bill of Rights is anyone's guess. Surely the founders didn't expect the states to make the mistake of ratifying it. But whatever. That was then, this is now. And the joke's on them.

Since Congress has successfully used the commerce clause to control various aspects of American life, building line upon line, precept upon precept, the sky is now the limit. Indeed, given that virtually (qualifier added as merely a matter of form) every aspect of everything done in America effects, in some way, shape, form, interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate all aspects of American life is unlimited. Challenge my authority and I'll bury your sorry constructionist, literalist, originalist, traditionalist *ss!

She forgot to mention that Congress only need "occupy the field" and "intend a complete ouster" in order to take absolute control over any subject matter. But she's clear enough methinks. The central government is [essentially] all powerful, and by its good graces alone does it allow the states and the people to retain any portion of their sovereignty and autonomy. Thus, if you care to retain what little you have left, you had better bow down before the U.S. government and its Communist power brokers and beg for its mercy and forgiveness. For has it not been written, "if the People ask bread [their government] will not give them a stone."

Read More

Et tu, Joe?

Again I ask this fundamentally critical question: What the hell, and by what legitimate authority, is the central government doing nationalizing healthcare?! Secondly, what possible usefulness is the Republican party to the preservation (or restoration, as it were) of limited Constitutional government when everything we hear from it and its acolytes concerning this healthcare business, among other things, amounts to no more than the equivalent of "we're moving too fast in the right direction."?

As I've said numerous times before, if the Republican party is not a viable vehicle for conservatism, then it is useless. Period. After all, it's a poor dog that won't wag its own tail, a poorer dog still that bites the hand that feeds it. But beyond that, and perhaps more importantly, if the Republican party and its acolytes are nothing more than liberal progressives at heart donning the specious mask of conservatism, then it and they are my avowed enemies, more dangerous even than Hussein and the openly Communist Democrats.

Which is the more dangerous enemy to a free people and their constitutional form of government -- an openly Communist Democrat or a covert Communist Republican?

Though regrettable, it's also understandable that the average Joe isn't fully aware until it's too late of how his government is systematically destroying his fundamental liberties, even as he pays obedient, patriotic tribute to it. But Joe Wilson isn't your average Joe. Joe Wilson is a Republican U.S. Congressman supposedly trying to represent the best interests of his constituents, namely South Carolinian citizens in particular and the larger U.S. citizenry in general. He knows what's going on legislatively in the U.S. government, and he knows what's been going on under other administrations. Indeed, before he was vocally against illegal alien healthcare coverage per his "You lie!" outburst last week, Kerry-like Joe Wilson was silently for it, as Ilana Mercer brings out in this WND article.

To be fair to Mr. Wilson and his Republican colleagues, it is possible, I suppose, that he has experienced a genuine change of heart or some kind of epiphany on this illegal alien question. I'll very cautiously give him the benefit of that doubt because it actually does happen, albeit I'm also quite sure that leftier-than-thou Joe Wilson is a strong proponent of the principles of absolute equality and non-discriminationism. At the same time I think it's very safe to say that Joe Wilson and most other Congressional Republicans actually agree with and advocate the principles of nationalized healthcare, they just think, as I said above, that alien-in-chief Hussein and the openly Communist Democrats are going too far too fast, which is the exact definition of the U.E., which we apply exclusively to liberals. If we're right in doing so, then what does this make Joe Wilson?

While Wilson was right to call out the alien/liar-in-chief for his blatant lies and his provocations of the opponents of 'Obamacare,' Joe Wilson and his RINO colleagues ought to be severly reprimanded for passing themselves off as conservatives, which they're clearly not. But then again, Wilson and his RINO colleagues very likely don't have a clue about what conservatism and its fountainhead is in the first place. In the unlikely event that they do understand what conservatism is, they obviously disagree with it. They have, in other words, the form of conservatism but deny the power thereof.

What, then, is the solution to this rampant problem of non-conservative, non-Republican Republicanism, which is epitomized in the former RINO Arlen Specter? To be quite honest I don't rightly know, except to say that a return to Balanced Constitutional Government, whereby destructive liberal progressivism attempting to pass itself off as something else -- conservatism -- would be more easily recognizable and thus manageable, is essential. But any genuine "conservative" position on nationalized healthcare must begin with the premise that centralized healthcare is not only constitutionally inconsistent, it is, in point of fact, self-destructive and unAmerican if the objective is in fact "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" through the creation and maintenance of a "more perfect Union." Of course, many of us know perfectly well by now that this is not the objective of Congressional Democrats OR Republicans, who are all (admitting as always the occasional exception) demagogues well versed in paying an obsequious court to the People. Meanwhile they systematically do everything in their power to destroy the Peoples' lives, their liberties and the means of their wealth.

Read More

Congress poised to criminalize Self-government and Independence

In a short column written for the Washington Post, Ezra Klein explains why the Town Halls during the Congressional break are likely not to effect the final outcome of the health care debate which he considers something of a foregone conclusion. In other words, says he, Congress is most likely going to pass the health care bill, and the alien-in-chief is, of course, going to sign it into law. This in spite of all the opposition fireworks we saw at tht Town Halls last month.

Klein's take on the matter is almost identical to my own, which I've expressed here and elsewhere a number of times over the past months since the health care debate was first initiated in Congress. My perspective on this issue is a pretty simple one -- Democrats, who currently hold a clear super majority in the House, and a not so clear but nontheless large majority in the Senate, have been chomping at the bit since they lost their majorities back in 1992, waiting for the moment they would regain power enough to push their socialist agenda through without serious opposition.

I'm not much of a candy eater myself and never have been, but I'm reminded here of when I was in basic military training. For about the first two and a half to three weeks of basic training, my comrades and I were all deprived of, among other things that before we'd taken for granted, access to any kind of candies and soda pops. When we were finally let out onto the break area for an hour one evening, well, I must have eaten about six candy bars and drank about as many pops. Again, I've never liked candy very much, but the idea that I had been denied access to it for upwards of two and half weeks drove me to injest as much of it as I could while I could for fear I might not get another chance, or that it might be long in coming. I think that's similar to what's happening here. If you give them free reign, or virtual free reign, if but for a couple of hours, so to speak, the Democrats and the RINOs in both houses of Congress are almost sure to take full advantage of it, and damn the consequences, really. Like myself at that youthful age, they're very much immature and display a real lack of self control (not to mention common sense). Indeed, I would say that our word for the 'Gamers' -- "Arrested Adolescents" -- applies in this case as well. On the other hand, Mr. Klein and I could both be completely wrong about this, not about the immaturity and hell-bent attitude on display in the U.S. Congress, but about the ultimate passage of the health care bill. I don't think so (that we're wrong), but there is that remote possibility. We shall see in due time.

Klein's article is posted beneath the fold. (H/T: VFR)

The State of Health-Care Reform

The research seems pretty convincing that impressive speeches don't do much to transform the dynamics of presidential approval. But then, tonight's speech doesn't need to do much. And it doesn't need to do much because health-care reform is in pretty good shape. Bills have now passed four of the five relevant committees. The outlier committee, the Senate Finance Committee, is circulating its outline and seems likely to pass a bill within the next week or so.

At that point, the bills will go to the floor of the House and Senate, where passage isn't certain but seems pretty likely. And once the bills pass the House and the Senate, final passage of the conference report (the merged bill) is a good bet. And the president's signature is then a sure thing.

That's the context for Obama's speech: It's sort of health-care reform's version of the State of the Union. And the State of the Process is strong: The legislative politics of health care are in considerably better shape than August would have suggested or the ongoing coverage has really articulated (in part because the Finance Committee was gummed up until this week).

Obama's job, then, isn't all that difficult: It's bringing public perceptions of the health reform process closer in line with the underlying reality. And that underlying reality is that the bills are fundamentally pretty similar, there's a fairly high level of consensus, and there are some crucial elements that need to be worked out over the next few weeks, and seem like they will be. The town halls made health-care reform seem chaotic and incomprehensible and disorderly, but at the moment, it's really anything but. In fact, it's closer to agreement than it ever has been before.

Read More

Hussein O.'s impending impeachment

I've dealt with this several times to date, but not in an entry to this blog as I recall.

Ray Acosta Sr. writes at the Tenth Amendment Center:

Not to worry. As soon as Obama’s popularity gets low enough, he and all his cronies will be impeached.

Here's the deal in any event:

(1) You can't impeach the first black president no matter how low his approval ratings get. We live, my friends, in liberal dominated society. Get used to it, or do something about it.

(2) Even if you could, again, it isn't going to happen because those comprising the body invested with the impeachment responsibility have signed on to the Hussein agenda. Thus, if they impeached him, they'd be implicating themselves. Once again, it ain't going to happen on that basis alone.

(3) Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Hussein was re-elected in 2012 BUT that Republicans re-took the majority in both houses of Congress. Hussein still wouldn't be impeached. Why? See rule no. 1. And if that isn't enough, refer to rule no. 2.

P.S. Lindsey Grahamnesty is a jackass (i.e., a liberal) from way back. Get that through your heads.

Read More

'Wise Latinas' feeling their oats

Check out Auster's consecutive articles on the subject, here and here. (Note: I've embedded the links to the articles in the order they were posted at VFR)

Read More

A guide to the TEA rallies, for dumm... leftists

Irate Tireless Minority of one, Call Me Mom, has posted a pretty good analogy at her blog attempting to explain for leftists what the TEA rallies are all about. If you've read any of Call Me Mom's posts concerning the TEA Parties (at her personal blog, and at the AFB), specifically the Madison WI Tea Party which she attended, then you are well aware that she apparently took copious notes while there. Either that, or she has a photographic memory.

Call Me Mom writes:

It seems that the MSM and others of the collectivist mindset do not quite understand the reasons behind the tea party movement. I thought a helpful illustration might be of assistance. It's not an exact parallel, but close enough, I hope, for basic comprehension.

In my mind, as well, I think, as in the minds of the founding fathers, government is like an unruly child that must be watched over every second of the day, lest the entire family come to harm through his mischief. Let's say, for the sake of this illustration, that our unruly child has become a college student and we, his parents, sent our credit card with him to use for certain, very specific expenses or in case of emergencies. This is not money we have, but money we are willing to work in the future to provide for those specific expenses. He was fairly responsible at first. After a few blips here and there, we have gone on with our lives and not paid much attention to the totals on the credit card statement.


We have just received a bill for several trillion dollars. The extra zeros caught our attention. We thought "how could that possibly be correct?" After checking with the company, we have been assured that it is indeed correct. Our unruly child, bereft of our close attention, has been behaving badly. He seems to have decided that, since we are(or were)the richest family on the block and since he has a credit card that seems to have no limit, there's no reason he shouldn't help others as well as himself. In fact it looks as though our unruly child has decided that he can provide for the entire world...as long as he has our credit card. He seems to believe that it is his duty to do so, since he has the means...our credit card. He has purchased houses, food and medicine for his friends, his friend's relatives and strangers. He has even allowed thieves to come into our home and take our things for themselves. These thieves are not required to follow our rules, but we are supposed to treat them as honored guests no matter how they behave because our child thinks they will return his generosity with a like measure of their own.

We have invited our unruly child to a tea party to explain the consequences of his actions.

As I've said a couple of times before at this blog, I don't particularly care for the "Taxed Enough Already" acronym because I think it really misses the larger point of what the TEA rallies are all about -- they're not just about excessive spending and taxation, although that is certainly part of what they're about. At the same time I haven't expended any effort in coming up with a better slogan, so there ya go. But like I said above (and in a comment to the post via email since I'm having trouble posting comments at her blog) Mom's analogy is a good one. In the end, though, leftists aren't going to get it because they're the ungovernable spendthrifts who have racked up the credit card bill.

Beyond that, after they'd robbed from Peter to pay Paul to the point that Peter said "enough!" and demanded repayment, they started to look for get-rich-quick schemes in which to 'invest' borrowed money on someone else's name in order to cover their losses, and in an attempt to hide from their parents what they'd done. And you know that there are any number of get-rich-quick schemes and schemers out there. And when that fails we have the lottery and gambling casinos on virtually every corner now. These 'gaming' casinos are particularly enticing to ungovernable spendthrifts such as those unruly children Mom alludes to. Indeed, I would be willing to bet my last dollar that upwards of 80% of those who frequent these casinos, and/or play the lottery, do so on someone else's dime, keeping with Mom's analogy. In other words, I'd bet that the vast majority of 'gamers' are people who receive some kind of government assistance; that they receive in benefits more than they pay in taxes. Anyone care to wager with me on that point?

But anyway, do read the rest of Mom's entry. Also, Mom was kind enough to post my comments to the entry which I sent to her, as I said above, via email. In that comment I make a suggestion as to what ought to be done to our illustrious leaders who brazenly continue to squander the wealth of productive Americans on unruly vagabonds. And I still ain't smiling.

Read More

Can there possibly be a more ridiculous figure...

...than the likes of 'Speaker of the House' Nanci Pelosi?

Can anything political possibly be more embarassing to that segment of the general public which makes anything resembling a contribution to the betterment of the society at large, than Nanci Pelosi as the Speaker of the House of (United States) Representatives?

Just a thought.

Read More

Darby on the TEA protests

Rick Darby of Reflecting Light has a good piece of advice for those of us who were in attendance this past April 15 at a Tax Day TEA Party near us. I.e., all of you potential domestic/homegrown terrorists out there.

Rick's advice? Read it for yourself.

I said once before at this blog that the chosen TEA acronym (Taxed Enough Already?) was/is a rather uninspiring bit of phraseology. And I add further that it really misses the point. But ultimately I tend to think that the TEA rallies, whatever the chosen acronym might be, represent a more (pardon the term) 'comprehensive' understanding of a deeper and more pervasive problem. People may not yet understand the root of the problem, of which excessive taxation is merely a symptom or an effect, but we'll get there eventually.

As has been said before, scum rises to the top (can there be a more profound example of the principle than the current occupants of the U.S. Congress and the White House?). I've personally always thought this natural phenomenon, as it manifests itself in government and politics, is ultimately a good thing, for it gives us, if we'll put any measure of reflection to it at all, some idea of what lies beneath the surface. And that is ultimately where we'll need to turn our undivided attentions in order to make the appropriate corrections necessary to clear out the scum residing at the top and elsewhere.

Read More

"Stimulus" bill passes Senate,...

...will wonders never cease?!

I know, I know, nobody likes a smart alec, but I can't help feeling completely justified in reacting this way. Plus, I'm not really out to win anyone's approval anyway. If you don't like my attitude, move on. If you can put up with it for a couple of more paragraphs, continue reading.

When are people going to wake up? The U.S. Senate, as I've said numerous times since the results of the late election came in, is a filibuster proof Senate precisely because there are a number of RINOs who occupy seats in the U.S. Senate. Obama and the Democrats, I guarantee you, know this. All of this hope and hype about the Democrats needing to be very careful so as not to lose the support of three rogue Republican Senators which was supposedly hanging by a proverbial thread is herein effectively shown for what it is, just that - hype, and hope.

I listened with disgust yesterday to the talking heads claiming that Senate Democrats had at least better be on pins and needles unless they wanted to lose the fragile support of the three lone Repulicans who they'd barely, through tough back room negotiations, managed to swing to their side on the "stimulus" package. Right. And now we learn that not only did they somehow manage to keep their support while simultaneously growing the bill, they managed to do so with the removal from the Senate bill of the House's stipulation for the inclusion of E-Verify to protect American workers from their jobs going to illegal aliens.

I'm shocked, SHOCKED!

I don't know how much more of this my heart can take. Is it possible, with the Democrats occupying less than 60 seats in the Senate, that Congress will pass so-called "Comprehensive Immigration Reform," thus effectively nullifying all of the work that has been done at the state and local level to do what the central government has neither the will, nor the basic instinct to do, i.e., preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States?

Say it isn't so.

Read More

But wait!, might secession (or the threat of secession) be our only option?

Yesterday I wrote that the secession movement is an ill-conceived movement that can accomplish nothing, if followed through to its end, but fracture of the country and civil war, followed by, if the country could survive a modern civil war at all, tyranny of the victorious part over the losers. And I offered what to me is a more sensible plan, an Article V state initiated convention for proposing amendments.

I can quote many founders and many founding documents on this, but for the time being, and since I'm a bit short on time this morning, let's consider a few excerpts from Washington's Farewell Speech:

The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the constitution which at any time exists 'til changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community, and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans, digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

As I've written before, the full text of Washington's speech is well worth your time to read and reflect on often. It, along with the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the Monroe Doctrine, and perhaps a few others should serve as our political scriptures.

Recently as well I wrote about the supposed "exclusive" authority of the federal government over immigration, and the illegitimacy of this false doctrine. I wrote there that the basis on which this illegitimate doctrine is founded -- where Congress has "occupied the field" and intended a "complete ouster" is a dangerous and an unAmerican doctrine which effectively and for all intents and purposes makes the constitution, or any stipulation contained therein reserving to the states and to the people certain powers not explicitly granted to the national government, null and void.

I wrote in yesterday's post concerning Article V that the state initiated method for proposing amendments had miraculously managed to survive the assault on the constitution let loose in its full fury since the establishment of the fourteenth amendment. As an aside, there is some pretty solid evidence that the fourteenth amendment was not ratified by Congress according to the constitutional prescription. It shouldn't surprise any of us that the defeated southern states which opposed the amendment would have their Congresses dismissed and more favorable Congresses installed in their places by the all-powerful oppressive federal regime.

But to get on with the point of the post, and to summarize what my investigation has yielded on the subject thus far, it seems that the federal courts have once again struck down a clear constitutional provision intended by the founders as a (to use a modern expression) backup to the backup. And on what grounds have they colluded with Congress to overthrow the constitution? Well, apparently the docrine of federal preemption in all things governmental (read: tyranny and oppression!) is more deeply ingrained than I'd originally thought.

Now if you'll kindly pardon me, I think I'll get started eating my crow. (More later when I've had time to digest some of this ... crap.)

I still maintain that the secessionist movement, in and of itself, is an ill-advised movement, UNLESS it is part of a larger strategy intended to regain control of our government by peaceful constitutional means. And let's be clear about what the stakes are here -- this whole concept, as I've said so many times before, that the federal judiciary is the last word on the constitution is as illegitimate and unAmerican a concept as there ever was or ever shall be. There are times, my friends, when we must act in direct defiance of our government; when we must abjectly deny its self-proclaimed authority over all matters constitutional, and reassert our power as the ultimate and final arbiters of the constitution. Otherwise we're nothing more than slaves subject to the whims of an arbitrary government, whether we realize it or not.

What am I proposing?

Much will need to be added to my initial thoughts on this, but the following is basically what I'm proposing.

First, irregardless of what the federal courts have ruled and on what illegitimate basis they mean to collude with Congress and subject us to their oppressive arbitrary rule, I reject their arbitrary authority and rulings out of hand. The constitutional prescription for calling a convention for proposing amendments is not in the power of either Congress or the federal judiciary or the Executive branch to change or overthrow. It is the power reserved to the people through their state legislatures, by explicit constitutional decree, and to none other. I therefore declare any ruling to the contrary null and void. The first point then is this, let the federal courts rule as they will on this subject then laugh them into derision.

Second, we can use a recent example to show that the people still retain to themselves ultimate and final authority on matters constitutional, and that our federal "masters" will cower to the will of the people when and if the people assert themselves -- the killing of the Senate Amnesty Bill.

Third, we need to combine forces with groups such as the Secessionist movement to effect our ends of setting our government aright.

Fourth, we need to advocate for an Article V convention as a singular purposeful movement throughout the states under the banner of some overarching theme, i.e., the restoration of Balanced Constitutional Government. The purpose here is to show unity under a common theme and singularity of purpose. The problem thus far with effecting an Article V convention, as I see it, is that there has been no national unity of purpose; no movement among the states that could effect the requisite number (two thirds) of states needed, at any single time, to effect the convention. No; the applications of the states are, though they line up under common motives in certain cases and do meet the requisite number required, spread out over the course of time, and therefore easily dismissed by the federal Congress as just so many separate applications which, in and of themselves, and spread out over time as they are, do not meet the requisite number laid down in Article V.

The purpose in point four can be summed up this way: Get the requisite number of states on board and under a common overarching purpose in a relatively short span of time, say, five years. If the requisite number of applications are made, under a common overarching banner and within a short span of time, by the states, Congress cannot simply ignore them as they have over the course of our history. If Congress inadvisedly chooses, under these conditions, to declare that it has "exclusive" authority in proposing amendments, then the people would be actuated to take immediate action.

The four points I've drafted above are not intended in any way to exhaust those things we need to do in order to effect an Article V convention. Surely persons a lot smarter than I am and more Constitutionally astute can either add to, take away, or revise what I've written in the four points to better suit our purposes. The main point is to devise the bare bones of a plan and a strategy to save the constitution and our people. Any additional thoughts from my readers are greatly appreciated.

One last thing, I realize that there is a fear that the entirety of the federal constitution might be overthrown if such a convention were to be held. I would answer this fear in a couple of ways -- First, I personally don't believe this outcome has a chance in hell of ever happening. The People, by a solemn act of themselves as a whole, will never "scrap" the entirety of the U.S. Constitution. Too many Americans believe its principles to be sacred and inviolable. Second, as I've shown here and elsewhere, the federal government has already effected the overthrow of the constitution for all intents and purposes. As long as we permit it to believe it has all and exclusive power and authority; that it is the final arbiter, and not the people, nothing will be done to change it and federal government will continue to assert its prentended power in actuality until all, including any window of opportunity left to us to rectify the situation and rein the federal government in, will have been lost.

Read More

VA on the ominous implications of an Obama Presidency

Vanishing American, citing the conclusions of a Jared Taylor article on the inevitability of an Obama Presidency, questions Mr. Taylor's use of the term "edifying" in describing his predicted effect of said presidency. I've not yet read Mr. Taylor's article, so I'm going on VA's assessment which I trust is accurate.

VA writes:

I can't fault much of what Jared Taylor says in this piece on Why Obama Will Win. I suppose my problem with the piece has to do with his conclusions. Overall, I get the impression that Mr. Taylor believes that an Obama presidency will, at worst, be ineffectual and bumbling, that it will be a failure in the sense of not being able to deliver on promises made.

If only I thought that. If the worst we had to deal with was just another ineffective presidency, it would not be so bad.
The concluding sentence of the piece is the following:

It will be an edifying presidency; and whites may be a little less deluded in 2012.

Now, maybe there's some meaning of the adjective 'edifying' which eludes me; my Webster's Dictionary gives this secondary meaning of the verb to edify:

2. To instruct and improve, esp. by good example; to profit morally or spiritually.

For the life of me, I cannot see how we might even be instructed, much less 'improved' by an Obama presidency, and I am really at a loss as to imagine how we might profit morally or spiritually by it.

It does seem as though Mr. Taylor is joining the 'worse is better' group, although he stops short of recommending that his readers vote for Obama as a number of people on the right have done.

I gather that he sees the election of Obama as a certainty, and most of the time, I see it the same way.

However the election is still a few months away. Things could change in that period of time. It ain't over till it's over. Unless, of course, the whole process is rigged, which is entirely possible. At no time in my life have I ever had less confidence or trust in the system.

VA goes on to say the following in the final paragraph of the entry,

If an Obama presidency would be a mostly failed endeavor, we'd have little to be concerned about, but I am not convinced of that. I don't think, as I once naively thought, that the President is really 'the most powerful man in the world.' But he does have the most powerful men in the world behind him, or he would not become President.

to which I respond, pointing out that the President of the United States is, most powerful men in the world behind him notwithstanding, rendered virtually powerless by a U.S. Congress determined to oppose him and his agenda; that given the current makeup of the U.S. Congress and the probable makeup thereof following the November elections, an Obama presidency will, in my opinion, be disastrous for this country. It will be a disaster that we'll probably not know the full effects of for two to three decades to come.

I'm in full agreement with VA on this one. I simply can't get with the "worse is better" crowd. A lot of irreversible damage can be done in four years by an Executive with a Legislative branch to support him. But if you can show me evidence that the next Legislature will oppose an Obama administration, then you might have a chance to convince me that worse is indeed better in the case of an Obama Presidency.

Read More