Joe Sobran: RIP

Joe passed away on Thursday, September 30th, 2010 at age 64.

As a young man, he was a protege' of William Buckley's, and for several years his name appeared on the masthead of Buckley's National Review, until the two men had a falling out over American policy towards Israel.

I blame the rift on Buckley, who fecklessly accepted scurrilous charges of anti-Semitism against both Sobran and Pat Buchanan, both of whom had incurred the wrath of Israel's powerful lobby when they deigned to question America's unqualified support of that state.

I've missed Joe's columns the last few years while he's been ill. He had a knack for articulating tertiary positions amidst left and right wing group-think. Here, http://www.sobran.com/columns/ in a column published ten years ago, Joe navigates a cogent course between reactionary, guilt-laden progressivism and obtuse, imperialistic mercantilism.

Joe reportedly came to believe in anarchism during his last years, which saddens me. I'm inclined to believe his once razor-sharp mind was weakened by his many ailments, compounded by the betrayel of many neo-conservative friends.

The United States are Stirring

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison warned us that if the federal government were ever to become the sole and exclusive arbiter of the extent of its own powers, those powers would always grow, regardless of separations of power, protests, lawsuits, elections, or any other vaunted part of the American system.

The above was put out today by the Tenth Amendment Center http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/ .

The United States weren't brought into union as mere administrative entities of the federal government. The United States are STATES not PROVINCES.

"Checks and balances" don't merely designate different realms of authority for the three federal branches. The Constitution wasn't intended to be a suicide pact, hence checks and balances - as understood by the founders - included, 1.) jury nullification (of unjust laws, or good laws applied unjustly), 2.) state nullification (of federal laws which encroach on states' rights), and the ultimate check on federal power: 3.) secession.

Historically, secession was disallowed by force. But it was never adjudicated. Due process would've exposed the historical fact that states originally joined the union with the explicit understanding that they could leave. Therein was the reason Jefferson Davis was not tried for treason, despite the oft expressed desire of the Republicans to hang him as a traitor.

So, since no logical arguments (including Lincoln's specious ones) were available to forbid secession, the matter was settled with an ad baculum argument (appeal to force, a logical fallacy.)

Jury nullification is still available, technically, though in reality it's negated through abuse of the voir dire, and through judges' misleading instructions to jurors that they are forbidden to rule on the law.

The other check on federal power - state nullification of federal law - is trying to make a comeback. Arizona's defense of Obama's attack on its immigration law, and attempts by states to opt out of Obamacare, are examples.

Anything is possible, but it doesn't look good for the nullification cause, because we've become a nation of compliant collectivists, having been taught unconditional federal primacy by school and television.

I'll adopt a more optimistic view if the Senate Judiciary Committee asks Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan some of the questions posited in George Will's latest column.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/06/24/AR2010062403178.html

Such as:

Federalist 45, James Madison said: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite." What did the Father of the Constitution not understand about the Constitution? Are you a Madisonian? Does the doctrine of enumerated powers impose any limits on the federal government? Can you cite some things that, because of that doctrine, the federal government has no constitutional power to do?

Of course, no Democrat would ask such a question. But it'd likewise be a miracle for some patrician Republican to defend the Constitution with such a pertinent query.

I'd love to hear Kagan, Obama, or any Progressive, answer the above four questions. Assuming they'd be truthful, here's a hypothetical transcript:

SENATOR HATCH: In Federalist 45, James Madison said: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite."

Assuming you are familiar with the Federalist papers, and with Madison, can you tell me whether you agree with Madison's understanding of the Constitution?

MS. KAGAN: Yes, I do.

SENATOR HATCH: So, do I understand correctly that you do believe in the doctrine of enumerated powers?

MS. KAGAN: Yes, Senator Hatch, I affirm the doctrine of enumerated powers.

SENATOR HATCH: Does the doctrine of enumerated powers impose any limits on the federal government?

MS. KAGAN: Certainly.

SENATOR HATCH: Can you cite some things that, because of that doctrine, the federal government has no constitutional power to do?

MS. KAGAN: No, Senator, I couldn't comment on cases that might come before the court should I be confirmed.

SENATOR HATCH: So, you affirm that there are limits to federal power, and that Madison rightly said federal powers are few and defined, and yet you can't name even one thing that the federal government is forbidden to do by virtue of the enumerated powers doctrine?

MS. KAGAN: Each case is unique, and brings to bear circumstances unforeseen by the founders.

SENATOR HATCH: You claim to agree with Madison about enumerated powers, yet you seem to advocate a position of unlimited powers. Can you clarify?

MS. KAGAN: Well, Senator, it was Justice Hughes, a Republican, who said "we are under a Constitution, but the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means." I, like Justice Hughes believe the Constitution is to be interpreted according to evolving social realities.

SENATOR HATCH: So, you don't believe in enumerated powers, or in a broad range of powers left to state governments?

MS. KAGAN: Well, I do believe in enumerated powers, and in states' rights, but they are all subject to review as circumstances warrant.

SENATOR HATCH: The Constitution means whatever the court says it means?

MS. KAGAN: Precisely.

SENATOR HATCH: Have you considered that your view - which many would characterize as an activist view - makes a nullity of Article V of the Constitution?

MS. KAGAN: Respectfully, Senator, I vigorously disagree. The amendment process is still available to the Congress, the states, and the people.

SENATOR HATCH: Respectfully, Ms. Kagan, that's not the point. The founders bestowed finite powers on the federal government - you seem to recognize no limits on federal power. Those founders were remarkably prescient, I submit, yet humble enough to know that the Constitution needed flexibility for the unforseen future that their posterity would face. Accordingly, they included Article V, whereby the Constitution may be amended when compelling reasons exist to do so. Yet you, and others who dismiss original intent, amend the law of the land, de facto, by fiat.

I submit that you do not regard Madison as an authority on the document of which he was the principle architect.

Further, I am satisfied that you regard courts as masters, rather than servants, of the Constitution.

Accordingly, my solemn oath to defend the Constitution demands that I opposer your nomination.

Mourning Our War Dead

And when Jesus entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, imploring Him, and saying, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, fearfully tormented."Jesus said to him, "I will come and heal him." But the centurion said, "Lord, I am not worthy for You to come under my roof, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed. "For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, `Go!' and he goes, and to another, `Come!' and he comes, and to my slave, `Do this!' and he does it." Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled and said to those who were following, "Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel. "I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." And Jesus said to the centurion, "Go; it shall be done for you as you have believed." And the servant was healed that very moment. (Matthew 8:5-13,NAS)

Jesus marveled at the Roman centurion’s faith.

Jesus didn’t endorse Imperial Rome - an officer of Imperial Rome endorsed Jesus. The centurion acknowledged a kingdom other than Rome, and a king other than Caesar. And King Jesus received him.

Were Jesus a modern Neoconservative, he’d have pledged allegiance to Rome, and thanked the centurion for "preserving freedom." (Never mind that Neoconservatives are the enemies of freedom)

But Jesus is no jingoist.

Had Jesus been a modern Progressive, he’d have waxed indignant, chastising the centurion for supporting a regime that upheld slavery, wars of conquest, and occupation of foreign lands. (Never mind that Progressives historically support the worst tyrants)

But Jesus isn’t a political agitator.

King Jesus transcends political views. He called Apostles from the extreme left (Matthew the tax collector), and the far right (Simon the zealot).

He hasn’t come to take sides - He’s come to take over!

Therefore, whether you believe in the justness of some, all, or none of our several wars - don't insult the troops. But don't pretend their deployments around the world "keep us free."

Today, Memorial Day, is supposed to be the day we mourn the nearly 1.5 million who didn’t survive the wars we sent them to fight. They did their duty, and paid the ultimate price.

American Idol: John Maynard Keynes

Keynesian economics is a religion, fervently adhered to by its devotees despite its history of failure.

Obama's Keynesian spending orgy will not lead to prosperity. The most uneducated tea partier grasps this, whereas highly educated elitists have immunized themselves against basic universal truths such as gravity, and serfdom being the plight of the borrower.

Note that Keynes didn't invent the idea of government spending as economic stimulus, just like Marx didn't invent central banking. Keynes and Marx were just audacious enought to collate the theories and utopian dreams of others.

Marx called his compilation "scientific socialism" - not because it was scientific, but because he was sure the proletariat would act out his theories in the laboratory of history, and that he would be counted prescient rather than presumptuous.

Keynes gave an academic gloss to what central banks were already doing, disingenuously implementing central planning while claiming to promote free enterprise.

Of course the proletarians never rise up to validate Marx - they have to be coaxed by professional revolutionaries and community agitators, who in turn are financed by the ruling class who direct central planning.

It isn't pure Marxism or pure Capitalism. It's acquisition of power, and let the masses argue about whether the culprit is Capitalism or Socialism. George Soros and Barack Obama don't care - they are focused on expanding the power of the state.

The results of Marxist-Keynesian central planning have been:

*Removal of financial limitations when war is contemplated. Wars have become larger in scope, and more destructive, as states have financed their war efforts with the blood and sweat of future generations.

*Expansion of the welfare state, creating the illusion that Socialism and central planning lead to lasting prosperity for society. Disillusion regarding this myth is spreading throughout Europe presently.

*Bubble and bust economy. Central banks were suppose to prevent this, but instead have been a primary cause of it. The Great Depression started years after the Federal Reserve bank received its charter. Fed expansion of credit markets created false demands, which led to oversupplies, which led to market crashes.

* Instead of blaming central banks, Keynesians and Progressives blamed "capitalism" and lack of regulation. They are doing the same thing now. "Leading economists," - i.e. the ones in government and on TV - is a euphemism for government-approved economists. Economists of the Austrian School predicted the crash of '29 while "leading economists" were heralding an era of permanent prosperity.

*The free market doesn't coexist with central banking, except in name. Hence, when the bubble economy caused by the Fed bursts, it is counted as a failure of the free market. More regulation is called for. This is like setting a house (the free market) on fire (Fed credit expansion), blaming the house, and then calling for kerosene (more regulation) to be added.

When Harding took office, America was in a severe recession, which would have become a depression had he and Coolidge done what Hoover and FDR later did.



http://blog.conservativetoday.org/index.php/ConservativeToday/Economy/the-severe-recession-of-1920-the-forgott

A Liberal Joke is a Conservative Hate Crime

A teacher's union in New Jersey recently distributed a clever, mock prayer which ostensibly asks for God to take out Gov. Chris Christie. Liberals, and Conservatives with skin, thought it was hilarious.

As a rejoinder, some wiseacre set up a Facebook page which substituted Barack Obama for Christie. Over a million people were signed on last time I checked.

Lefties are going apoplectic, because apparently only Fox and talk radio reported the original story.

Your government, and its media allies wants you to DO AS WE SAY, NOT AS WE DO!

Fighting Corruption With Corruption, the Chicago Way

FIGHTING CRIME, GANGSTER STYLE

Back in about 1930, a young woman had her purse snatched on the streets of Chicago. Fortunately, she had recently met Al Capone, a prominent citizen, who had given her his card and told her to call him if she ever needed anything.

Within a few hours after calling Mr. Capone, the woman's purse was returned intact, with nothing missing.

From this story we learn that Al Capone was a crime buster.

FROM CAPONE TO OBAMA: THE LINK

The Capone gang opened its hearts to a sociology student named Saul Alinsky. The young scholar, and future community organizer, hung out with Frank Nitti, Jack Guzik, and other Capone lieutenants. They trusted him, and allowed him to be privy to the inner workings of the Capone organization.

Alinsky went on to become a professional revolutionary, agitating for the underprivileged against the powers that be, and teaching principles of community organizing with the goal of taking control of government. He perfected the art of personal destruction of one's foes, always attaching a legitimate cause to divert attention from his own actions.

Alinsky's prize pupil came along after his death in the person of Barack Obama, who used Chicago as a proving ground to start a very successful political career.

Mr. Obama is now reforming Washington D.C.

Notably, his current focus is Wall Street. A specific target is Goldman Sachs, recipient of billions of our tax dollars, and associated with former Treasury secretaries such as Hank Paulson, Robert Rubin, and the current one, Tim Geithner.

Goldman Sachs gave $1 million to the Obama campaign, and Geithner, with the Federal Reserve bank of New York at the time, helped steer bailout money its way.

So naturally, tax evader Geithner, and Chicago pol Obama, are the perfect guys to reform Wall Street and teach Goldman Sachs a lesson it won't forget.

History repeats itself. Just as Al Capone fought crime in Chicago, the pride of Chicago is fighting big money in Washington.

Please give Bill Clinton a job, Mr. Obama

Bill Clinton: my pick for the Supreme Court.

Yes, I understand that Clinton is an enemy of the Bill of Rights, and a champion of more centralized government. He is a thoroughgoing statist - but no more so than any other Obama appointee would be.


So what would be the upside to a Clinton nomination?


This: Justice Clinton wouldn't be on TV using his considerable dissembling skills to attack our rights. He'd be confined to casting one vote (the same vote any Obama appointee would cast) against freedom, in mostly hidden proceedings, as opposed to stirring up mass hysteria - possibly leading to violence - against freedom loving Americans exercising their first amendment rights of freedom to peaceably assemble and to voice grievances against their government.




This morning on ABC, Clinton regurgitated his favorite calumny against Conservatives, Libertarians, and Constitutionalists, insinuating that anger directed at government is creating an environment that could portend violence, just like in 1995, when, according to President Clinton, Rush Limbaugh helped create an atmosphere that led to the Oklahoma City bombing.


For the record, Clinton's scapegoating of Limbaugh in 1995 was designed to divert attention away from the real inspiration behind the Murrah bombing, which was....


Janet Reno, Clinton's attorney general.


Timothy McViegh, like all far-right vigilantes, had no affinity for Rush Limbaugh. He was outraged by two incidents of government tyranny:

1. The assassination of Vicky Weaver at Ruby Ridge, Idaho by the FBI, under President George H.W. Bush (R-TX);
2. The tank and commando assault on the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, orchestrated by Reno for President Clinton (D-AR), which resulted in the incineration of several dozen men, women, and children.
   
   

Note that government tyranny has bipartisan support. Retired Senator John Danforth (R-MO), headed the official commission to minimize government culpability in the Waco assault. Surprise! The patrician Danforth absolved the federal government of serious wrongdoing! (See the Cato report and other sources showing the injustice of this.)


In the Ruby Ridge incident, FBI assassin Lon Horiuchi was charged by the local prosecutor, but Fed muscle pushed the matter into federal court, where... Surprise! Federal power was vindicated by federal power!


Decent Americans across the ideological spectrum were appalled by these incidents. I'm still plenty pissed about them, myself.


Some indecent Americans were upset, too, and a couple of them decided to take on the federal leviathon all by themselves. McVeigh and Terry Nichols were inspired by Bill Clinton and Janet Reno, not by Rush Limbaugh.


(Memo to Progressives: In the above paragraph, I deliberately used the word "indecent" to describe domestic terrorists.)


Some indecent Progressives, such as Bill Maher, Arianna Huffington, Keith Olberman, and Rachel Maddow, pretend that acts of government tyranny such as at Waco and Ruby Ridge never occurred, and that patriots who are angry with government for committing generational theft to the tune of $12 trillion and counting are to be dismissed as cranks and nascent terrorists.


(Memo to Progressives who believe rights are bestowed by government, not by God, and that concern about expanding central government amounts to stupidity: In the above paragraph the same adjective was applied to you as was used to describe domestic terrorists. I likened you to domestic terrorists, because you are domestic enemies of our Constitution.)


The Weavers and the Branch Davidians were not people with whom the average tea partier would associate. But Obama and his friends in the media and in the blogosphere work around the clock to suggest otherwise.


If Obama's Progressive allies succeed in making pariahs of tea partiers and other patriots, why would patriots not fear that their government would target them as it did Ruby Ridge and Waco?


Here I must inject some disclaimers for gentle souls who might have genuine concerns about my position vis-a-vis certain aforementioned racists and cultists:


***BEGIN DISCLAIMERS***


1. I approved of the death sentence given to McVeigh, and would have approved the death penalty for Nichols as well.
1a. But it was Janet Reno, not Rush Limbaugh, who inspired those two.
1b. Patriots don't start wars. We first pursue every legal remedy. Then, we engage in civil disobedience.
1c. Some of us offer imprecations to God, per the examples in the Psalms.
1d. We take up arms as a last resort.




2. Lon Horiuchi should not have been allowed to assassinate Vicki Weaver with impunity.
2a. The Weavers observed Hitler's birthday with the likes of Richard Butler and others.
2b. For that reason alone, I'd never have allowed my children to play with the Weavers' children.
2c. But I still don't think Lon Horiuchi should have been allowed to assassinate Vicki Weaver with impunity.


3. I generally eschew sensationalist doctrines predicting apocalyptic showdowns between government and religious folks.
3a. It would be great if the government hadn't given credence to such fantastic eschatology by sending tanks to Waco.
3b. But tea partiers and other patriots don't think the Waco outrage justifies violence - though...
3c. ...Some far-right fringe groups do. But they aren't inspired by Limbaugh, Beck, or even Breitbart. They are energized by the actions and policies of the last four presidents, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama.


4. These disclaimers are for gentle souls. Corrupt souls, the priggish Progressive element, will call me a racist or terrorist no matter what I say, in order to avoid dealing with facts.


***END DISCLAIMERS***


And now, with government power expanding, American patriots are concerned about the future of freedom. The powers that be have turned a deaf ear to their concerns, and furthermore, President Obama never misses an opportunity to cast aspersions on their character.


Historically, governments demonize certain groups before moving to silence them.


We, the People, assert our constitutional rights.



They, the Plutocracy, answer, "shut up!"


Wrong answer.


We, the People, discovering that our government and its claque despise us, encourage one another with our heritage:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...

Oprah: "Poverty is over in Cook County!"

Oprah Winfrey announced today that a group of about 100 celebrities have covenanted together to end poverty in Cook County, Illinois, this year.

Ms. Winfrey said: "War on poverty was declared over forty years ago, and $trillions have been spent by government in that war - yet this community continues to suffer. Today, we declare, not war, but victory, over poverty."

Ms. Winfrey and other famous Chicagoans have been meeting secretly for several months, outting together the ultimate wealth redistribution plan. Recently, through the influence of Barbra Streisand, magnificoes from outside of Chicago became part of what is hoped will be a model of egalitarian social justice for communities across America.

Here is the plan in a nutshell:

Ms. Winfrey and the group of 100 - all millionaires, and many billionaires - will each henceforth retain only $900,000 per year of their after tax income. All money over that amount will be donated to the less fortunate of Cook County.

The celebrities also agreed to limit themselves to two homes apiece; all other real estate holdings will be liquidated, and the proceeds redistributed to the less fortunate of Cook County.

Ms. Winfrey, speaking near the old location of the Capone gang in Cicero, on the south side, said, "Progressives have been very generous with other people's money, and demanding greater regulating of business and more taxes from the wealthy to support social programs. Today we stop waiting for others to do the right thing, and we put ourselves forth as examples of how the very rich can lift others up."

Specific numbers were not disclosed, but Onesimus Jones has learned that by the end of 2010, about $8 billion dollars will be distributed among the poorest two million residents of Cook county, about $4,000 per person. Projections for 2011 call for about $5,000 per person for the same group.

Other celebrities making the covenant with Oprah include: Barack Obama, Tim Geithner, Michael Moore, Barbra Streisand, Jon Stewart, Al Franken, Jesse Jackson, Tim Robbins, Sean Pean, Ellen Degeneres, Steven Spielberg, and Arianna Huffington. The complete list will be released later this month.

Oprah wanted to announce the covenant on New Year's Day, but details took longer to finalize, delaying the announcement until April 1st.

Branson free paper promotes Census collectivisim

The Branson Independent, published thrice weekly, purports to welcome letters to the editor.

But not, apparently, letters that challenge the accuracy of the paper's reporting.

I wrote a letter responding to the current Census hype, prompted by the front page item in last Wednesday's (March 10th) Independent.

No room for my letter, or any letters, as of yesterday's paper. My guess: important news like Madonna's marriage advice trumps trivial matters like the destruction of the U.S. Constitution.

Here is the letter:

Dear Editor,

On your front page today is this assertion:"Those who know what the Census is about, know that it's aboutsecuring funding for residents who live in every county, each villageand each municipality across the state and throughout the United States."Does anybody read the Constitution anymore? Article I, Section 2 of that unconsulted relic informs us that the Census is about apportionment in the House of Representatives.

The 2010 Census will determine whether Missouri is represented in the House by eight or nine members. Knowing the difficulty of amending the Constitution, judges, lobbyists, and legislators have nullified it instead, expanding thethe Census into a tool for central planning. Having taken money fromthe current and future residents of the states, the government sends it back to said states, after deducting a rather substantial handling fee, which is used to create jobs - government jobs, that is.

Imagine what Missourians could do if, instead of sending our money to D.C. and lobbying to get some of it back, we just kept it here. If the Commerce Department simply concentrated on getting an accurate count, rather than collecting data for collectivist schemes, there would be no need for massive campaigns begging the citizens to fill out the Census forms, or painful reminders of the ongoing abuse of our founding fathers' work.

Last Night's Speech from the Throne

The pomp and splendor that attends a State of the Union address befits a king more than a chief executive of a constitutional republic.

Then again, what does our Constitution have to do with our increasingly regal presidency, which has incrementally appropriated monarchial powers for well over a century?

Since Wilson, every president has (with occasional exceptions, e.g. Carter in 1981) declined to simply send a letter to Congress conveying the state of the union. They've all opted for an ostentatious entry into the House chamber, transforming an administrative duty into a royal pageantry.

The President-King ascends to the dais and admonishes his subjects. The nation curtsies. Every network preempts regular programming - unthinkable that his majesty might appear on just one channel.

Washington kept his address to about ten minutes. Jefferson declined to appear, on grounds that doing so was akin to the English monarch's "Speech from the Throne."

Modern presidents, who mostly wouldn't make pimples on the aforementioneds' arses, tend to speak for an hour or so, demagogueing for the Welfare State, the Warfare State, or both (FDR, LBJ, both Bushes). No attempt is made to justify the various expansions of government on constitutional grounds. Always, there is a crisis in need of government action.

The very staging of such an event precludes humility, or even a modicum of the restraint that our Constitution was designed to impose on government.

The Imperial Presidency is not new. Culpability for this lamentable fact runs across the spectrum.

Blame the Supreme Court for abandoning Original Intent in favor of some contrived, organic constitution which inhales and exhales with every statist scheme emanating from academic pinheads. Instead of amendments, this constitution has shadows and penumbras, which one has to have special dispensation to read.

Blame the Congress, for abdicating it's duties and responsibilities. Members inveigh against unpopular wars, but fail to exercise their obligation and power to defund them. They recoil in mock horror at abuse of power from the executive branch, while creating evermore executive departments. They place sole blame on the president for budget deficits, when spending bills originate exclusively in the House.

Blame We the People. We don't vet candidates. We don't read the Constitution. We stay loyal to one of the parties, when both have proven to be the chief threats to our liberties.

While presidential hubris is well entrenched, Barack Obama carried it to a new level last night.

For seventy minutes he waxed petulant and imperious, lashing out at the Senate, the Supreme Court, oil companies, affluent people, Constitutionalists, and opponents of global warming dogma. Here was his broadside against the latter:

I know there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.

Our radical young president acknowledged and dismissed his opponents all in one breath. You can't do that and make a credible claim to being open to the ideas of others.
Oh, but you can dissemble - claiming to eagerly desire dialogue, while what you mean is: "we are going to discuss the matter, and then we are going to do it my way."
Truth is relative, according to the original Chicago organizer, Saul Alinsky. Insolence, he taught, is the proper attitude for a change agent. Obama, as a Chicago organizer, taught Alinsky's methods. Now he is using them against the Constitution, and anyone who in any way opposes him.
Even after pushing federal deficits to unprecedented levels, Obama continued to blame our debt problem on Bush. Then he told the most blatant of several lies - that he is going to bring down the deficit beginning in 2011. Obama knows that those who can count and connect dots will make the following observation:

Taking spending to record levels over the next year, then freezing a portion of said spending, WILL NOT REDUCE THE DEFICIT!

"The politics of change," Alinsky's concept as applied by Obama, calls for masses of people to be mobilized in the cause of deliberately vague ideology. The hope is that the masses will be naive enough, or too busy, to notice that the Emperor has no clothes.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.!

In other words, the Wizard doesn't want you to notice the specifics of what he says about the deficit. Just trust him to be your brain, your heart, and your courage.

And get that damn Toto out of here before he gets on talk radio or Fox news and exposes the whole charade!

Class Envy: Tool of Tyrants

Alinsky, patron saint of community organizers, including our current president, saw life as a struggle between Haves and Have-Nots. Freedom is found by the Have-Nots taking power away from the Haves.

The theory works well in the classrooms of tenured Marxist professors. In history, not so much. The Have-nots rid France of King Louis XVI. The result: an obtuse monarch was replaced by a bloodthirsty mob. Order was restored by the imperious tyrant, Napolean. In Russia, the Czars were autocratic and out of touch with their subjects. Lenin rallied the Have-nots, then he and Trotsky instituted a reign of terror, which gave way to a tidal wave of terror in the person of Stalin. Life is not a struggle between Haves and Have-Nots. It is an inner struggle between flesh and spirit. Does Christ rule in my heart, or does my own corrupt flesh rule?

Obama is still blaming the out of control federal deficit on Bush, even though he will add as much debt in his first two years as Bush did in eight. Obama ran for president as an advocate for the Have-Nots against the Haves - yet bailouts for the uber-rich continue, while the unemployed are basically told, "be thou warmed and fed." Obama ran as the fill-in-the-blank candidate. "Hope" and "change" - deliberately vague terms. What were you hoping for? Unsophisticated voters inserted every pipe dream they ever held, and looked to their Messiah (he did run with a messianic theme) to fulfill....

Oops. Obama-flesh is no more sanctified than Bush-flesh, although it promises much more.

Let's pray that a Stalinesque figure doesn't step in to pick up the mess.

One full year of Obama

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works...

One year ago today, President Obama directed this cheap shot at advocates of constitutional government. His comments - dismissive of those who would reduce the central government back to its legal limits - echoed candidate Obama's bigoted remarks about people in mid-America who "cling to their guns and their bibles."

Out of the other side of his mouth, Obama made conciliatory remarks about working with opponents and receiving their ideas. He meant, of course opponents who agree with him about an unlimited role for government.

Marginalizing the millions of Americans who don't like the ongoing nullification of the tenth amendment apparently wasn't enough.

All major news outlets were expected to spread palm leaves, and make a straight path for the One.

One news outlet offered token resistance (they allow air time for dissidents). Obama's minions declared war on Fox.

The war didn't go so well. It only enhanced Fox's standing as the favored source for news broadcasts, and increased the profile of their mostly conservative programming.

This entire episode was emblematic of the ineptitude of the new administration. There was the terror inflicted on Manhattan by the surprise flyover of Air Force One, the appointment of Wall Street insider/ tax evader Tim Geithner to run Treasury, and the appointment and firing of self avowed Communist and "truther" Van Johnson as one of the "czars."

Finally an Islamic jihadist in our own army killed 14 people at Ft. Hood, and Obama responded with less vigor than was shown against Fox.

All of this contributed to a Republican victory in the Massachusetts Senate race yesterday.

Contrary to the chirpy Sean Hannity's annoying comments today, Brown's victory does not amount to a repudiation of big government in America, least of all in Massachusetts.

The electorate of Massachusetts, which inflicted five decades of Kennedys in the Senate on us, has not turned away from its love of Statism, or its affinity for Socialism.

Harvard elitists - reflecting the mindset of most New England voters - accept big government as a given, but have judged Obama as a failure in implementing it. It might even be unfortunate if this setback causes the administration to learn discretion, thus hiding its contempt for those who deign to dissent.

The risk is that Obama will learn to hide his contempt for working Americans and succeed.

That would be bad for America.

Three Courageous Southerners

This week marks the birth dates of three courageous Southern men:

Martin Luther King - January 15th

Robert E. Lee - January 19th

Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson - January 21st

King is honored with a national holy day. For the growing percentage of working people who are employed by government, or by government regulated business, (full disclosure: I'm in that favored category) it's a welcome day off. Federal employees enjoy ten of these national holy days, courtesy of the involuntary donations the government collects from less privileged Americans.

Personally, I'm not enthused about holy days in honor of flawed humans. Christmas commemorates the birth of the only flawless human, and is an exception, with one caveat: Jesus was certainly not born around winter solstice. Nevertheless, hearing "...come let us adore him..." - in public, in post-Christian, lawyer-laden, America - blesses my soul.

Objecting to holy days for humans - Columbus Day, MLK Day, Presidents' Day (nee' Washington's and Lincoln's birthdays) - doesn't negate the fact that birth dates of great people do afford opportunities to reflect on their legacies.

Enter Martin Luther King, Robert E. Lee, and Stonewall Jackson.

The three have two things in common: They were Southerners, and they were remarkably courageous.

Many Conservatives object to honoring King because of his philandering, plagiarism, and Communist associations. Count me among those that see those things as fair game for discussion.

And to reiterate, I don't care much for holy days that honor mere men, anyway.

Where I part with many Conservatives is in my genuine admiration for King's courage. I also happen to appreciate his oratorical skills.

Martin Luther King knew for several years that he was a likely target for assassination, yet he continued to speak out boldly, publicly, for what he believed.

While King's consorting with communists is censorable, let's save some contempt for certain of his contemporaries…like the cowardly reprobates who killed four little girls in the 1963 Birmingham church bombing, eh?

I also happen to admire him as an orator. For me, words like, "I have a dream....," and judging men by "the content of their character, not by the color of their skins," are keepers, rightly preserved for the ages. Our current crop of race mongers - Sharpton and Jackson; Eric Holder and Jimmy Carter - are frauds largely because their collectivist politics lead them to regard color over character.

My other two courageous Southerners are at least as worthy of honor as MLK. But there character is often impugned because of their association with the lost cause of Southern Independence.

Lincoln referred to both Lee and Jackson as traitors, which is remarkable because in the spring of 1861, he offered Lee command of the entire Federal army, on the recommendation of then top General Scott, who regarded Lee as the finest officer in the Army.

Lee declined the offer, resigned his commission, and the rest is history...

...Except that history has been distorted.

The average person has been greatly misinformed about the War for Southern Independence.

But in school we learned Lee and Jackson fought to preserve slavery.

Wrong! They fought to preserve Virginia, when she was invaded by what was to become the most powerful army ever formed up to that time. These invaders marched through Washington D.C. singing John Brown's Body, an ode to the terrorist who once pulled four men out of their beds and murdered them in cold blood.

(Julia Ward Howe, whose husband helped finance Brown's ill-fated takeover of the Harper's Ferry arsenal, changed the words of John Brown's Body into a horrendous ditty celebrating the slaughter of secessionist southerners. Millions of Christians have sung The Battle Hymn of the Republic in church, oblivious to the fact that they are equating the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of other Christians with God's work.)

Lee unequivocally opposed slavery. Jackson – the Rosa Parks of his day - demanded that the young black people in his Sunday school class be allowed to sit with him in the front of the church (for context consider that Lincoln regarded blacks as inferior and advocated sending them all out of the country).

If Lee and Jackson fought for slavery, Ike and Patton fought for Stalin.

Robert E. Lee carried on friendly correspondence with Lord Acton, the British statesman who said "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton wanted Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia to prevail, because he saw that Lincoln's victory would be a victory for "might makes right."

Where are the wise and courageous of our age who will overcome the ignorance and cowardice that threatens to enslave from it's fortress in Washington D.C?

Inane Race Baiting while they destroy our economy

It's somewhat gratifying to see the Democratic party's hypocrisy on race relations so blatantly displayed in the Harry Reid matter. The unique dance stylings of Eric Holder, Al Sharpton, and their ilk have given some comic relief as the party in power is momentarily diverted from their quest to destroy our nation's economy.





Every political or religious group has its double standards; but nobody models hypocrisy with as much elan as modern Progressives.





Let's make one thing perfectly clear: Harry Reid's comments about candidate Obama's "light-skinned" appearance and speaking patterns "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one" were simply Senator Reid's unvarnished appraisel of current Realpolitik; they weren't racist by any reasonable standard.



They were only racist according to criteria advanced by Progressive race hucksters to slander Conservatives.


Trent Lott made a comment on Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday to the effect that Thurmond should have been elected president when he ran as the "States' Rights" candidate back in 1948. Because Southern states rights' advocates supported racial segregation, Lott's remarks were taken out of context, and he was forced to resign his post as Senate majority leader.


Common sense would tell you that Lott was just trying to say something complimentary on a momentous occasion - the Senate was not on the verge of reinstituting segregation. Furthermore, Thurmond had long since renounced segregation, and would certainly not have won reelection so many times had he not done so.


Moreover, States' Rights, sans segregationism, was and is a valid political position, according to our national Constitution.



Harry Reid ought to resign his leadership position, just to maintain the delusion that his party's posturing on race relations has merit.



Then, hopefully, the good folks of Nevada can throw his sorry butt out of our government - not for these bogus charges of racism, but for his efforts to destroy our nation's economy, by creating record amounts of fiat money.



Said fiat money will result in inflation of our currency, which will lead to higher prices for neccessary items, including food and energy. This will hurt low and middle income people the most, and will belie the idea president's promise not to impose further taxes on them.



Let's not forget bipartisanship.



Throw out the Republicans, too!