Still feeling a little depressed about yesterday? Haven’t quite got your American spirit back? Well, here ya go:
All part of Madison Rising One Million Star Spangled Challenge in response to Bill Press expressing disdain for our national anthem. I only just found out about this band and I have to say that they seem a very talented group of young men and I wish them all the success in the world.
Today is The Day – we’ll find out if our nine Justices can read the Constitution. If at least 5 of them can, then ObamaCare will be struck down because it is patently absurd that government can compel us to buy something (which, by the way, will pave the way to abolishing the absurd laws mandating auto insurance…what a scam that is: insurance companies got people to pass laws to force people to buy insurance). If 5 or more can’t read the document – and it is only a few pages long – then we’ll get some tortuous, involved opinion about penumbras and how if you have you Law Professor Secret Decoder Ring and read the Constitution in half-light with the Moon over your left should then you can see the fine print put in there by Madison which says “Congress shall make laws forcing people to buy stuff”.
I hope it is struck down – but, honestly, Obama has used the law already to insert a huge amount of ObamaCare in to our bureaucracy. The only sure cure is a complete repeal – with the repeal including a specific provision voiding all regulations implemented since passage under the authority of the ObamaCare statute. So, even if it is upheld, repeal is still the answer.
And repeal can only happen under President Romney – remember that if for a moment you lack enthusiasm to vote Romney on November 6th…only Romney means the end of ObamaCare.
The latest blatant, disgusting lie from the left is that the attacks on Holder over “Fast and Furious” are the result of a racist, GOP campaign to discredit and remove Holder because he, and he alone, stand between us and our nefarious plot to suppress the vote. This is not the first such lie to be floated in our political discourse, but we should make it the last.
Let us stand forth, fellow Americans, between now and November 6th and do what needs to be done to restore decency in our public life. Enough of race-baiters on the left poisoning America. Enough of all these liberal groups with their tax-free status and revolving door between them and the bureaucracy. Enough of essentially paying liberals to slander us.
Obama needs to not just be beaten, but crushed – and after he is crushed it is time for us to go after the left with a will and chase them entirely out of the halls of power. Go after them – investigate them inside and out. I’m confident that once we start turning over the rocks we’ll find all sorts of disgusting things scattering in the light. This is not about revenge – this is about cleansing our public life from a force of people who, essentially via taxpayer subsidy, make life miserable for all Americans who won’t bow the knee to liberalism. For decades now our liberals have lived on the Big Government gravy train – having nothing to do all day long but devise ever higher taxes, ever more regulations – and ever more smear campaigns against anyone who dissents from liberal orthodoxy. Holder is just a product of this – and those defending him by accusing us of racism are also a product of this liberalism-government complex designed to, come what may, thwart the rule of law and the will of the American people.
If we want to be free – if we want to preserve our constitutional republic – then it isn’t enough to just beat Obama. Obama and Holder are not the problem – they are just symptoms of the problem. If it wasn’t Holder running roughshod over law and justice then it would just be some other liberal. In order to have real victory, we have to defeat the entirety of the left – we must, that is, destroy all the liberal lies because if one of them lives then the others will revive.
I’m sure you’ve all heard the story and, of course, the rather astounding news that the bus monitor has been lavished with donations from the general public. But there is a bit of a debate on what to do with the kids who did the bullying. So let’s debate – choose one of the following options:
1. Carefully tell them that it was mean to do that and that they shouldn’t do it again.
2. Give them detention so they’ll think about what they did.
3. Send them to jail so they can learn to be first-rate criminal barbarians.
4. Give them psychological counseling so they’ll learn that their bad behavior is someone else’s fault.
5. Spend $100 billion on anti-bullying PSAs.
6. Flog them.
I tend to think that a child, faced with the prospect of having his back laid open with a whip, might decide to behave himself. But, then again, maybe the earnest entreaty by a caring psychologist will get the kid to do the right thing. I mean, after all, we’ve been using the caring, psychological model for 40 years or so now and its turned our schools from places where the biggest problems were chewing gum and running the halls to places where you have to be on guard against rape and murder, so we can see how well child psychology works out as a palliative. I mean, let’s get real here – the bus monitor wasn’t physically assaulted, so the bullies in a sense are right up there as honor students, relatively speaking.
When we add in the rest of the benefits of public schools – illiteracy, teen pregnancy and a lot of self-esteem – it just might be that a larger dose of what we’ve given will work. You never can tell with these things…just one more anti-bullying public service announcement might be all it takes to turn these kids around.
With the completely unconstitutional imposition of the DREAM Act and, now, the absurd claim of Executive Privilege regarding the “Fast and Furious” scandal, a lot of conservatives and libertarians are furious with President Obama over his assumption of rather autocratic powers. But I ask everyone to pause for a moment – one has to consider just what sort of government the United States has. To do this, I think it best to refer to an outside observer of proven sympathy for the United States, Winston Churchill:
…The rigid Constitution of the United States, the gigantic scale and strength of its party machinery, the fixed terms for which public officers and representatives are chosen, invest the President with a greater measure of autocratic power that was possessed before the war by the Head of any great State…
Churchill was referring, in that instance, to Woodrow Wilson. Keep in mind the time frame Churchill was using – this was the day of Nicholas II of Russia, Wilhelm II of Germany and Franz Josef of Austria. And yet Churchill was asserting that these three men had, in practice, less autocratic power than was held by Woodrow Wilson. And, he was right. Churchill correctly perceived a truth about the the United States which to this day escapes nearly everyone: the President of the United States, while his term lasts, possesses an immense amount of autocratic power. Boiled down, in our President we have an elected king – limited in real terms only by three things:
1. His term of office.
2. His inability to appropriate funds without Congressional approval.
3. The risk of impeachment.
Lincoln understood this – stating that he would maintain the contest with the South until he died or his term ended. When in 1864 Lincoln looked to be the loser of the Presidential election he was yet determined to win victory between election day and the end of his term (which in those days ended in March, not January). And he could have done it – Congress could have cut off funds for additional military power, but the military power he already had was sufficient and no power in the United States government could have prevented him from ordering Grant to continue, election results be darned.
The real lesson in Obama’s abuse of power is this: always have a great deal of care whom is elected President. Because you’ve got him for four years and while you can limit the amount of money he spends, you can’t really limit what he does with the money he is allowed to spend. Jokingly, someone has written a list of 10 things Romney can do after he takes office in the manner of Obama’s DREAM Act – among them, cease enforcement of various environmental laws and of any tax rate above 18%. It was put out as a joke, but it is also a reality. Suppose Romney did tell the IRS not to prosecute anyone who failed to pay more than 18% of their income as taxes – what could anyone do? Impeach him? Impeachment has only come up three times in American history: with Andrew Johnson it was a GOP witch hunt against a War Democrat; with Nixon it was a Democrat witch hunt against someone they didn’t like; with Clinton we actually had a genuinely impeachable offense but Democrats ensured that it wouldn’t go anywhere. Impeach Obama? It would require the votes of 20 Senate Democrats to do it – short of committing rape or murder live, on television, do you think that there is anything Obama can do which would move 20 Senate Democrats to vote to convict? Get real!
We elect a king every four years and then allow that king one more shot at an additional four years. In office, he is mostly limited by his own conscience and sense of right and wrong. A President who simply does not care about the law (or, as in Obama’s case, understand what a law is) is highly dangerous – as we can see with Obama. For more than two centuries we have been extraordinarily lucky – even with a cad like Clinton or a twisted man like Nixon, there was still a sense of respect for the Constitution and a desire to live up to great predecessors – looming over all was the figure of Washington, who defined what a President is and offered a model for all who came after if they cared at all about the United States. Trouble is, if we get someone who doesn’t care about the United States – who, in a real sense, has nothing but contempt for Washington and the edifice he raised – then we’re in a bad way.
Now there are some practical steps we can take – from re-asserting Congressional power to declare war, to putting more strings on what is done with appropriated money, to insisting that no US ground troops are deployed outside the United States except during time of declared war. These and other measures can hem in a President a bit and ensure that he seeks Congressional cooperation before doing something. But, fundamentally, unless we want to re-write our Constitution in to a parliamentary abomination (ie, where the head of government is the leader of the House of Representatives and the President is a mere figurehead), then we simply have to ensure that when we elect a person to the Presidency that we are sure he or she is fit for the job. King Obama is the first man we’ve elected who is entirely unfit by temperment, training and education for the Presidency – and it shows in the way he is (deliberately or not is immaterial) wrecking the manner of American government.
So, rather than whine about what Obama has done, let us set to work with a will to oust him on November 6th and then lay the lesson to heart: never be fooled again.
Interesting news story: Voyager 1 is now on the very edge of the outer solar system and will soon enter inter-stellar space, the first man-made object to do so. Clearly, a milestone in human achievement. But here’s the kicker – its actually an achievement of the 1970’s, as Voyager was launched in 1977. That got me thinking – our government has been wasting bags of money for the past 80 years, but we’re always getting less and less from it.
Think of it like this: when FDR started us on our path to bankruptcy, we at least got the Hoover Dam; the Civilian Conservation Corps (any of you camping enthusiasts out there can probably name a half dozen camping/fishing spots which were created by the CCA); Mt Rushmore. For Ike’s bags of money spent we got the inter-state highway system. For JFK’s profligacy we got the Moon shot. It all started to go wrong with LBJ; his building of the Great American Bankruptcy got us the “Great Society” and Vietnam. Nixon just went from bad to worse – spending still shot up and we lost Vietnam and got millstones like the EPA. And on and on it went – until, now, we’ve got Obama…who has spent at least $3 trillion more than would have been spent if McCain had been elected, and what did we get for it? Solyndra.
Our liberals are spending more money than ever and we are getting less and less for it – just more government; more payoffs to cronies; more bailouts for the well-connected. We, the people, are more than used to getting robbed blind by liberals…but at least we used to get something useful thrown in. Like the Hoover Dam and the Moon shot; in other words, things which useful people can either use or at least glory in. Can you imagine the shivers of horror among liberals if anyone suggesting building another Hoover Dam? Carving another mountain in to a grand, American monument? If, on the other hand, you offered to re-carve Mt. Rushmore in to a Gay Pride display, liberals would allow it – with no more than 10 years of bureaucratic red tape between proposal and first action.
Small minded, cowardly, little cretins who’s only concern is their place at the trough – that is modern, American liberals. That, by the way, is what was rejected in Wisconsin. That, also, is what the battle is ultimately about – will America shake off the chains of liberalism and rise to new heights of glory, or will we go on our knees and, fearful of doing anything, die a slow, painful death? Will we, that is, take the path of least resistance until the whole United States is Detroit? Or will we recover our courage and not only save America, but even return Detroit to its glory days?
Obama offers us nothing but more bureaucrats and more money for his cronies – Romney offers us a return to American greatness. A return of an America which can, indeed, put a man on the Moon.
My choice is made; and never have I had an easier one.
Like this; from the New York Times:
With evidence that powerful new weapons are flowing to both the Syrian government and opposition fighters, the bloody uprising in Syria has thrust the Obama administration into an increasingly difficult position as the conflict shows signs of mutating into a full-fledged civil war.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said on Tuesday that the United States believed that Russia was shipping attack helicopters to Syria that President Bashar al-Assad could use to escalate his government’s deadly crackdown on civilians and the militias battling his rule. Her comments reflected rising frustration with Russia, which has continued to supply weapons to its major Middle Eastern ally despite an international outcry over the government’s brutal crackdown…
Meanwhile, the report goes on to note that the rebels are being armed by the Turks with assistance from other Muslim powers. Here’s what is actually going on:
No one outside of the precincts of the West gives a hoot about the sufferings of the Syrian people. We here in the United States are disgusted with the mayhem and slaughter but people who are not like us don’t care – they only look at the mayhem and slaughter and think, “can I gain any advantage out of it?”. No amount of moralizing by Obama and Clinton or anyone in the West will make the least impression upon the Turks, Russians, Iranian, Saudis or anyone else who is so far involved in the war in Syria. In fact, they’ll probably view such statements as a sign of weakness – figuring that if we really had a pair we’d intervene so we can grab what advantage we want out of the situation. Holding back and lecturing all concerned is, in the view of such people, the act of cowards.
Russia and Iran want to maintain their Syrian ally. Iran because it allows Iran to keep up pressure in Israel while also allowing Iran to project power in to the center of the middle east. Russia because Syria is on Turkey’s southern flank and puts the Turks between two fires if any Russo-Turkish conflict arises…plus it sticks a finger in our eye and Putin (utter fool that he is) thinks that Russia’s proper role is to oppose the United States (the truth is that Russia can only survive in alliance with the United States, but Putin is just too blinded by his Great Russian nationalism to see this). In service of this goal the Iranians have shipped thugs to Syria for the purpose of massacring Syrians who oppose the Assad regime (probably the very same thugs the Iranians use to massacre Iranians who oppose the Mullah’s regime in Teheran…so, they’re likely experienced killers who no how to choke off a rebellion). Russia won’t send troops but is clearly sending arms – and in spite of bland words to the contrary, is sending arms which are useful in fighting the increasingly competent Syrian rebels.
Turkey would love to turn Syria in to a satellite State – the Turks, after all, were the imperial overlords of Syria for more than four centuries and while we here in the United States might not know it, the Turks understand that controlling Damascus is just as important as controlling Baghdad if you want to dominate the middle east (this is why Iran continues to press their power in Iraq along with trying to sustain their ally in Syria). The Turks also have a very long history of enmity with the Russians (there have been, I think, 9 Russo-Turkish wars over the centuries) and so would love to reduce Russian influence in the area. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and other States in the area have a vested interest in curbing Iranian influence – and taking out Iran’s key ally in Damascus is worth a lot in Saudi eyes.
Our problem is that we have as President and Secretary of State two people who appear to have zero knowledge of how the world works. Obama and Clinton seem to think that there is, somewhere, a genuine desire in Syria and in the other players to end the bloodshed. There isn’t. There is a desire to win. Assad wants to win. The rebels want to win. Iran wants to win. Russia wants to win. Turkey wants to win. Saudi Arabia wants to win. All of them won’t win, of course – but they are all fighting for victory as they see it. We, under Obama and Clinton, don’t want to win – we don’t even know what we want other than an end to the violence; an admirable desire, but violence can be ended in good or bad ways. Obama and Clinton are ensuring that when the violence ends there is sure to be one nation which won’t have won: the United States.
Proper American policy in this matter is not to get involved in Syria – we have no dog in that hunt, unless we could grab Damascus and keep it. That would involve a major military offensive too fraught with risks right now to be envisioned. So, nothing to do in Syria – but we do have a strong interest in completely ending Syria’s (and, thus, Iran’s) role in Lebanon. Syria’s armed forces are, naturally, being concentrated on the rebels. I’ll bet their forces in Lebanon are thin on the ground: the opportunity is for us eject them completely – ending Syrian domination and at the same time vastly undercutting the ability of the Iran-backed terrorist groups to operate there. It is a certainty that Lebanon’s Christian population wouldn’t be adverse to a change in Lebanon’s status – certainly in the southern regions of the country, which we are most concerned about as it borders Israel. A bit of thought and effort and some coordination with Israel and the thing could be done…by the time Syria is able to respond, it would be too late.
Will we do this? Not a chance – Obama doesn’t even see it. I doubt that anyone in his Administration does. So, we’ll get more liberal hand-wringing while the Russian and Iranians battle it out with the Turks and Saudis and the winner of that not only gets Syria, but Lebanon thrown in to the bargain. Just monumental stupidity brought about by rank ignorance on the part of our leadership.
Last week, in an update to an open thread, I linked to an article which shows that under Obama black Americans have suffered greatly, with black unemployment rising to ruinous levels. I asked, rhetorically, if these conditions will really cause black Americans to once again award 95% of their votes to Obama. My thinking was, yes, it would. Though I expect black turnout to be lower in 2012 as a percentage of the total vote than 2008, I fully expected a repeat of the overwhelming support for Obama.
Perhaps I was wrong – this poll (PDF) by the Democrat-leaning PPP shows Romney gaining the support of 20% of North Carolina African-American voters. To be sure, the polling sample of black voters is small; about 200 respondents. But, still – my goodness! If Romney can really win 20% of the black vote then not only is Obama doomed but about 2o or 30 House seats suddenly become “in play” for the November election (the Democrats have about that many House seats which are theirs by gift of a 90%+ black vote in favor of the Democrats…if that drops a bit, the Democrats lose the seat). It is poll results like this which must be costing Axelrod many a sleepless night.
Count on it that Obama will sweep the African-American vote by an overwhelming majority – but if there is really any movement to Romney then it is going to be a stunning political change. Maybe, at the end of the day it will take a black liberal to destroy African-American loyalty to the Democrats?
As an aside, the overall poll shows Romney up 48-46 over Obama in North Carolina – in line with the “battleground” status of North Carolina for 2012. On the other hand, the polling sample is 44% Democrat, 36% Republican. Almost certainly on November 6th the turnout will be more in line with 40%+ GOPer and no better than 35% or so Democrat…meaning that you can add at least 5 points to Romney’s total in this poll. I never believed stories that North Carolina was competitive for the Democrats in 2012 and I’m more certain than ever it won’t be – watch for the Democrats to pull the plug on the State right after the convention.
From Powerline, quoting Obama:
The private sector is doing fine. Where we’re seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government. Oftentimes cuts initiated by, you know, Governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don’t have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in.
And so, you know, if Republicans want to be helpful, if they really want to move forward and put people back to work, what they should be thinking about is how do we help state and local governments…
Three days ago the voters of Wisconsin rejected the notion that the people should pony up ever more so that government be flush with cash…and now Obama is asserting that if the GOP wants to be helpful, the way to do it is to get the people to pony up ever more so government can b flush with cash! This goes beyond stupid – this is an egregious rejection of basic reality. Whatever else the people might want, more government isn’t it.
If we can’t beat Obama, now, then we might as well close up shop for good. He’s just proven himself to be completely out of touch and in opposition to the direction Americans want to go.
And, as per usual, subtracts from the sum total of human knowledge:
…CNSNews.com asked Pelosi, who is Catholic, whether she supported her church in the lawsuits it has filed, which argue that the administration’s regulation violates the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment.
“What about the 43 Catholic institutions [that] have now sued the administration over the regulation that requires them to provide contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortifacients in their health care plans?” CNSNews.com asked. “They say that violates their religious freedom. Do you support the Catholic Church in their lawsuits against the administration?”
“Well, I don’t think that’s the entire Catholic Church,” Pelosi responded. “Those people have a right to sue, but I don’t think they’re speaking ex cathedra for the Catholic Church. And there are people in the Catholic Church, including some of the bishops, who have suggested that some of this may be premature,” Pelosi said…
Uh, Nance, old gal – ex cathedra is something the Pope does only very rarely and only to rule on matters of doctrine. The Pope does not rule on how we govern ourselves. The Church’s opposition to abortion goes back to the earliest days of the Church and thus requires no, new ruling from the Pope on whether it can ever be allowed – and, so, when 43 Catholic institutions sue the US government in order to fight against a government mandate to violate Church teaching then they are not doing something ex cathedra because they don’t have to…but they are very much defending the teaching of the Catholic Church you claim to belong to.
It really does make you wonder – how did someone this ignorant manage to not only get elected to Congress but manage to become Speaker of the House at one point? Does anyone on the left side of the aisle have any concern for intellectual ability? Was it really no more than she was a fountain of (sometimes illegal) fundraising and a sure vote for the left? Is that all it takes to rise high in the Democrat party? Basic knowledge and honesty play no role?
Blogs For Victory 
You must be logged in to post a comment.