Saturday, July 4, 2009
On La Palin
TO RUN FOR Prez, Drew at Ace of Spades HQ manages to get it right while simultaneously leaving me some daylight for a run up the middle.
Sure, all the advice Jonah Goldberg gives is sound, but it doesn’t touch on one reason for Ronaldo Magnus’ success: his intellectual attainment.
Beginning in his days as host of General Electric Theater and carrying through his post-White House years, Reagan wrote copiously, on all manner of subjects. He worked and refined his message. You don’t do that and not get good at it—regardless of the idiotic canards of the Left.
Reagan estimated he had visited 135 GE research and manufacturing facilities, and met over a quarter-million people. During that time he would also speak at other forums such as Rotary clubs and Moose lodges, presenting views on economic progress that in form and content were often similar to what he said in introductions, segues and closing comments on the show as a spokesman for GE.
-- Wikipedia
Remember that THE Speech—the one that thrust Reagan into the vanguard of the conservative movement—was delivered in 1964 and Reagan didn’t ascend to the Presidency until 1981. A long time waiting in the wings. And, to some extent, I would argue he had more and greater influence on the American conservative movement in the years before his administration than during or after.
As Rush says, if we in the Right want to see our principles once again hold sway over America, then we need to espouse them, loudly and well, with full voice and no RINO cavils. Please stress that well. As delightfully refreshing as Sarah Palin is to her natural constituency, there is that about her speaking style which grates on the ear. The twin examples of Reagan and Buckley teach that, if you want people to respect your principles, you have to respect them yourself. And talking them down, as though the American people are somehow too dumb to appreciate ten-dollar words, complete sentences that parse, and proper grammar and syntax, does not, in my not-so-very-humble opinion, demonstrate that respect.
So I would echo what Goldberg is saying: Sarah, dear Sarah: get good at espousing your beliefs. Polish your delivery—not to make it slick like the glib prevaricators on the Left—but to make it clear and strong, like Reagan.
...
Update: Between the writing and publication of this post, Sarah Palin announced her resignation from the office of governor. I’m still digesting the news, but I have several quick reactions:
1) This is not the way pols usually handle the kind of low and dirty attacks Palin has endured from the Left. The leftists pressing the attacks probably expected some kind of a phyrric battle, in which they—as a pack of jackals—would eventually wear down and pull down the lioness governor. Instead, Palin appears to have given them the slip. I’m not entirely sure how shedding the power and influence of a gubernatorial office can aid in such a fight, but… well, we’ll see.
At this point, I’m betting on the lion. As I believe Winston Churchill said on the question of whether it’s better to be a live jackal or a dead lion, “I prefer to be a live lion.”
It occurs to me that this might prove to be a brilliant, game-changing tactic. After all, what’s the political scandal truism? “It’s not the sin, it’s the coverup that gets you.” In every case I can think of where a political figure was accused --rightly or falsely—of manifst sins against the body politic, and fought bitterly until the end, nobody won. The accused came out bloodied and vastly weaker. The accusers gained notoriety, but also something of a pariah-noid reputation, even among their own co-partisans.
So, now, here’s Palin, so beset by petty, ankle-biting, SLAPP-type tactics that she can only devote 20% of her attention to her office. I’m sure that she hasn’t side-stepped them all by this maneuver, but her opponents, if they pursue this, will appear petty, vindictive, and mean. And her private-citizen status certainly leaves her free to use tactics being a holder of public offers might bar her from using.
2) Although her stated reasons for her resignation could (and probably will) be cast by an evil mind as self-pitying, they also do not reflect well on the character of her opponents. Of course, said opponents can and probably will remain nameless and faceless—shadowy figures—unreported by the legacy partisan (scorn quotes) “mainstream” press. (To the extent that they are not themselves members of said press.) If they can be exposed to scorn, ridicule, and opprobrium, perhaps some of their effect can be blunted. While it may be unseemly for a governor to attack a private citizen accusing her of ethics violation, there is no such let on a private citizen. Additionally, having “hounded her from office,” the dirty tricksterss can be all too easily portrayed in the public mind as—as I say—mean, petty, and vindictive—which, of course, they are and have been all along.
If the press is unwilling to make such an exposure, you might well ask, how, then, is it to be made?
Well, here’s how—in blogs. On the Internet. With viral videos and vlogs. If there is enough grassroots support out there not only for a conservative candidate willing to espouse those principles in the Right and do so unashamedly and without reservation, but for those principles themselves, I suspect that the whole sordid mess can be thrown back in the faces of the leftist machinators. And, though they may not care themselves whether their slime comes back at them, having the public see them thus revealed in their true faces can only be good.
Cross-posted at BabyTrollBlog.
You Owe a Debt of
GRATITUDE TO Jeff Bezos and Amazon.com. With only a handful of compatriots, Amazon is fighting grabby unconstitutional state tax laws that seek to tax interstate commerce in violation of myriad provisions of the Constitution. The effort is heinous, the reasoning specious, and the persistence of state governments in this flatly unlawful initiative despicable.
You should go and spend money with Amazon. You should also inform other merchants, not yet onboard with this blowback on the greedy hand of government, of the righteousness of Amazon’s cause. ::coughdaytimerscough::
How is this unconstitutional?
In main, in two ways. First, it is an ultra vires grab at power which is reserved to Congress (the regulation of interstate commerce).
But-but-but… You allus say that the commerce clause is misapplied. You resist it at every turn.
So? You’re saying I’m arguing one thing here and another over there?
‘ll… yeah? How is that consistent?
Easy. In both cases I am arguing against state power and in favor of the liberty of the individual.
But you’re gaming the system…
Quoting its provisions to argue for the ends to which it was directed in the first place? How is that inconsistent?
Um…
…
Lemme get back to ya on that.
OK. Now, I think that Amazon is knuckling under to a certain extent by conceding the validity of the utterly specious “presence” argument. That is, a merchant based in—as in Amazon’s case—Seattle can in no way be seen to come under the jurisdiction of—oh, let’s take the example of the most egregious offender—California. However, if a bricks-and-mortar chain has stores in California, it is argued, it is reasonable that those stores render sales tax to the state on those transactions which take place in the state.
And why not? Well, I’ll tell you in a minute.
Of course, in this age—and since about the turn of the 20th Century, with the advent of catalog mail-order sales—states have (scorn quotes) “foregone” some sales tax on, for example, goods shipped from—say…—Sears, in Chicago to a customer in Bakersfield, Californ-eye-ay. And the greedy guts in state government, spoiled rotten by their existence within a political system biased toward statism, whinged to the Federal government for dispensation to collect sales tax on goods shipped into their state or (in some even more outrageous cases), simply bought by residents and carried back into the state.
And they got that dispensation. And thus was a key provision of the Constitution dealt the back of the statists’ hand.
And that would be?
Article One, Section Nine, in which it says (in part) “No tax or duty shall be laid on goods exported from any state.”
But-but-but… “Exported,” it says.
Yes. Latin for “carried out.” And your point is...?
But doesn’t that mean shipped internationally?
Once again: your point is...?
Well, is shipment between states...?
What is the definition of the word, “state”?
Um… Oh. OH! I see…
Yes. And this country is called…
The United States.
Right in one. So goods which travel interstate have been, by definition, exported from one state. That they travel without let or interruption by international borders and their consequent customs revenuers is irrelevant. Or, more precisely, it is the point.
During the period after the Revolution, but before the adoption of the Constitution, there were trade wars between the states. And this provision was included in the Constitution specifically to obviate such. Thus the collection of state taxes on ANY good exported from another state (I would argue at any time by any means) is made flatly unlawful—forbidden by the Constitution.
Now, I can see that goods exported from one state to another by merchants who then resell the goods within the state might be reasonably subject to being taxed at the point of resale. Maybe. If the state government plays nice and says “Please” and “Thank you.” But the bias ought to be against government greed and in favor of the individual citizen—whose liberty this government has been constituted to protect.
But do, please, to note that the provision in law is about the goods—the physical, material objects in question—and NOT whether a merchant has or has not a business “presence” in the state. The latter argument is specious. If such a situation were to allow taxation on that basis, goods traveling between Seattle and California might well be rendered subject to taxation in the state of—say—New York, if the merchant doing the exporting from Seattle had a business “presence” in the Empire State. In fact, in some cases, I swear there are state governments which would and have held that to be JUST the case. The greedy hand of government knows no bounds and no shame unless We the Little People act to keep it in check.
And the plaint that the state must “forego” the revenue I find utterly dispicable, as it assumes that the state has a natural right to steal the sustenance of its citizens without let.
So: go spend money with Amazon. And give hell to those merchants who collude with the government to steal from you that to which neither state nor merchant has a right.
Cross-posted at BabyTrollBlog.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Thoughts on Palin’s resignation
My jaw dropped for the first time ever in response to a political event today. I like to think that I am surprised by little in politics, but Sarah Palin’s resignation shocked me.
Let me open by saying this - I do not want to discuss the supposition by the cynics both right and left among us that the other shoe will shortly drop and a scandal is on its way. With Sanford’s and Ensign’s affairs still recent news, I understand the temptation. However, typically the resignation proceeds, rather than precedes from the scandal. That’s because scandal in politics is a simple balancing game - if the politician can weather the initial media storm (and no serious legal infractions were committed), he or she is usually fine. See, for instance, Bill Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. Unless there are indictments pressing down on Sarah Palin that have been kept absolutely secret for the past several months, I don’t think this is the case.
So that being said, the big question on everyone’s mind: why?
Seeing her children attacked by foul-mouthed leftists like David Letterman and her personal reputation and pocketbook damaged by incessant, baseless ethics complaints obviously had a lot to do with it. She mentioned both in her speech today, and I will fully credit those explanations.
But I think her action today should be looked at it in a broader context. If Sarah Palin was truly wearied by the vile attacks on her person during the campaign and immediate aftermath of the election, she could have gone back to Alaska, shut her mouth, and probably lived in relative peace. She didn’t do that. Instead, she traveled around the country and abroad, gave speeches to conservative groups, and did the “team player” fundraising type activities all rising party stars are expected to do.
This is not a woman who intends to step quietly out of the spotlight.
I think with her announcement today that her future in elected politics is over for the foreseeable future. She likely knows that - if she were dead set on another presidential run she knows she would have had to have at least finished out her term before taking a step back from the stage for a time. And for that, I am truly saddened. She is blazingly charismatic, and there are no other Republicans out there right now who can capture the imagination of such a large portion of the Republican electorate. Had she made some more good political moves, made some compromises on her tone and general approach to politics (more issue-oriented talk and less red meat, for instance), and so on she would have been to a shoe-in to be a top presidential contender in 2012 or 1016.
So, her resignation tells me that she doesn’t want to do that.
Her decision therefore leaves her in a strange limbo - she won’t be giving up the spotlight, but she’ll be backing out of any future in electoral politics (at least for quite awhile). What we have here is a very rare breed of politician - one who knows that pure political power is not the end-all-to-be-all of influence. Some have likened this to Obi-Wan’s decision to let Darth Vader kill him in A New Hope - you remember the line: “Strike me down, and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.” There might be a point to that comparison - Sarah Palin’s charisma can still do a lot of good rallying conservatives, and it may be that getting out of office is the very thing she needs to unleash the talents she has.
I know nearly all of Eternity Road’s readers were deeply disappointed today. I was too. But nothing about her actions or words this year leads me to believe Sarah Palin is going away. I suspect she may have already lined up her next role in the conservative movement, and conservatives will rally to her all the harder. We have to remember: our ideas transcend any one politician, and we should get behind anyone who uses his or her talents to their utmost to advance those ideas, even if it means giving up power.
So my sadness is giving way to quiet, deeply respectful applause today. Sarah Palin is a great political talent, and I will trust her judgment on this.
And who knows? The Romans cherished the story of a farmer named Cincinattus, who was reluctantly plucked from his crops and elevated to dictator to save Rome from an existential threat. After defeating the enemy, Cincinattus voluntarily gave up power and returned to his farm. The fantastic film Gladiator married this beloved Roman tale to the story of a man ruthlessly beaten down by his enemies, but who nonetheless rose from the metaphorical grave to gain victory in the end.
Certainly, no American politician since Washington has really followed such a career path, but after 4 or 8 years of the nakedly power-hungry Obama and his allies, might we be looking for our own Cincinattus?
Keep your eyes on Sarah Barracuda. She’s got an interesting future ahead of her.
A Cruel Loss
I am heartbroken.
Only this morning, as a comment to this post at GM's Place about the ongoing campaign to destroy Sarah Palin, I had this to say:
Hatred can have many geneses. Palin-hatred might partake of several.First, there's Governor Palin's exceedingly "conventional" home life, in which she's happy and stable. Quite a lot of people will never know such a life. They envy it in the Ayn Rand sense: "hatred of the good for being the good." The syndrome afflicts left-liberals disproportionately.
Then there's Palin's extraordinary beauty and grace. It's been said, with some justice, that politics is celebrity for ugly people; there's certainly quite a lot of ugliness on the Left. It's also been said, by P. J. O'Rourke and Ann Coulter among others, that the beautiful women are the most reliable indicators of political trends -- and the beautiful women are trending to the Right. That has to sting the vitriolic harpies on the Left.
Then there's Palin's political success. She busted every barrier the Alaskan Establishment set before her, pretty much without outside assistance. This is a "twofer:" first, because her political success owes nothing to the feminist movement, and second, because she's a conservative Republican. That puts a spear into the Left's notions that conservatives can't abide a strong woman.
Then there's Palin's sincerity about her convictions. She walks it like she talks it: devoutly Christian; pro-life even at her own expense; utterly faithful to her husband despite their frequent protracted absences from one another; loving and supportive of all her children, including her soldier son and her unwed mother daughter; and incorruptible in the performance of her duties, where so many other pols would be setting themselves up to cash in after their time in office has ended (at least). Name a left-liberal pol who left office poorer than he went in; some of them even refrigerate their bribes.
Finally, but by no means least, she wears figure-flattering clothes, grooms herself beautifully, and walks gracefully and confidently in high heels. Most women on the Left resent having to shave their legs -- some don't bother -- wear clothing that would look well on an alley-dwelling wino, and think high heels are a Republican plot.
A teenaged character in Jack Vance's novel Araminta Station asks his father why a woman hates him and Dad so. Part of the answer is that "You are everything that her son is not." I'd say that applies to Palin-hatred, as well.
Just a few minutes ago, Sarah Palin resigned as Governor of Alaska:
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin shocked the political word Friday by announcing that she will step down at the end of the month and transfer power to Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell.Palin made the announcement from her home in Wasilla, flanked by her husband, Todd, and family and state commissioners....
Palin, who defeated incumbent Gov. Murkowski in a primary in 2006,.gained national prominence when GOP presidential candidate John McCain picked her as his running mate last year. But her approval ratings in the state have skidded in recent months.
Palin has been dogged in recent months by ethics inquiries. Her office last month announced the 15th dismissal of an ethics complaint against her or one of her staff.
The campaign to bring down the best conservative officeholder in the country has succeeded...by wearing away Governor Palin's patience. Not one accusation ever stuck. Every complaint brought against her was dismissed. But each one taxed her time, her zeal, and her bank account. It took a million mosquito bites to bring down this elephant, but when substance is lacking, numbers will sometimes suffice.
It's time for freedom lovers to take a no-prisoners / no-mercy attitude toward the Democrats, the Left, the Mainstream Media, and the Republican Party establishment. All of these have contributed to Palin's departure. It is vital that none of them ever know another restful night. Dog their private lives. Dog their finances. Dog their associations. Pepper them with hostile questions and accusations at every imaginable turn.
Take vengeance for Sarah Palin.
The “Fair Tax” coming soon?
For each of the last six years a bill has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congressman John Linder (R-Georgia) which would eliminate the Federal income tax and replace it with a sales-like tax on all commercial transactions in the US. The bill (HR 25) which currently has 55 co-sponsors has been referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
A book touting the bill has been co-authored by Congressman Linder and Neal Boortz, a libertarian talk radio host based in Atlanta. In the interest of full disclosure: your humble blogster has not read the book but believes he has a decent understanding of the legislative intent of the author.
The bill as introduced would abolish the current income tax, capital gains and estate taxes, eliminate the IRS and tax the sale of all goods and services at the rate of 23%. The proponents of the idea allege that the Fair tax is revenue neutral and would fund “current government expenditures at their present level”. Provisions are included in the bill to re-emburse households for “basic living expenses”.
The good news thus far? The present Byzantine tax code disappears as well as the gestapo-like Internal Revenue service. Also down the tubes is the ability of politicians to utilize the tax code for social engineering and to buy votes from various and sundry special interest groups. Labor and savings are not taxed and only consumption falls under the purview of the avaricious government. What’s not to like?
Here are just a few of the possible down sides. Enactment of the legislation as written implies radical changes to, or outright repeal of the 16th Amendment. This requires the usual super majorities in Congress as well as ratification by the legislatures of three quarters of the states. No mean task in view of the politicians’ addiction to the wielding of the taxing power at both the federal and state levels. The creation of fiat (paper and electronic) money by the politically manipulated Federal Reserve Bank as well as ongoing budgetary deficits will continue to exert inflationary pressures resulting in the temptation of Congress to raise the initial 23% rate higher.
The greatest danger your humble blogster sees in the movement of this legislation through the enactment process is the power of both houses of the Federal legislature to attach amendments. Heretofore the proposal has garnered little support from members of Congress from either party for obvious reasons. That situation is likely to change very soon for the following reason.
If the provision for repeal of the 16th Amendment is stripped from the bill the distinct possibility exists that the final version could be the enactment of the so called “Fair Tax” in addition to retention of the income tax. This euro-like monstrosity would be the “wet dream” of our current crop of collectivist politicians. We would for all intents and purposes be saddled with the European system of a progressive income tax in addition to an extremely regressive value added tax.
As Ms Duckwell says: “Be afraid. Be very afraid.”
cross posted at: Fighting in the Shade™
Revving Up The Fortress’s Anti-Gravity Machine
Your Curmudgeon hasn't written much these past few days. Ponder the tone of his previous piece if you need an explanation. Recognition of how dismal his mood has become, plus morning Mass and a lovely slice of matzoh topped with Chocolate-Chip Cream Cheese, have him resolved to "lighten it up" for the day.
Perhaps for the weekend. After all, this is our national birthday bash, isn't it?
The Fortress of Crankitude is home to a host of furry friends. The majority of them are former strays who just showed up on the front porch one day, liked the accommodations, and decided to stay. We acquired three of our current cats that way, and many other animals over the thirty years your Curmudgeon has lived at this address.
The C.S.O. has suggested we hunt for the signs -- written in some script only animals would recognize, no doubt -- that say "Free Food 'n' Flops!" and give our address. There have to be a few such, and in several dialects; it isn't just cats that come a-callin'. Over the years we've taken in:
- 4 dogs,
- 10 cats,
- 1 Belgian flop-eared rabbit,
- 2 hamsters,
- 1 Norwegian white rat,
- 2 turtles,
- and 1 Vietnamese pot-bellied pig.
Of these, three dogs, the turtles, and the pig were ultimately reclaimed by their "rightful owners." (Just what sort of cretin puts his pet turtle out-of-doors for the day? Oh, never mind.) The rest became members of the Fortress's menagerie. Beyond that, there are several neighborhood dogs, whose owners we know well, that regularly come to visit -- without first notifying their owners.
No doubt this will continue until we brick up the doors. Your Curmudgeon has wondered, irregularly but often, what makes our little villa by the seashore such a desirable retirement home for the four-footed crowd. He's beginning to think it's the cuisine.
The C.S.O. likes to cook, and she's very good at it. (Yes, there are women who like to cook but have no talent for it. Several of your Curmudgeon's friends are married to such. Which helps to explain why your Curmudgeon doesn't see those friends much any more.) Her cooking is extremely odoriferous. The aromas tend to spread throughout the house and into the neighborhood beyond.
Not a terrible thing, if your neighbors are tolerant sorts...and you like animals.
The Independence Day celebration is the C.S.O.'s usual occasion for making Barbecued Pulled Pork. This is a Curmudgeonly favorite, a marvelous excuse for emptying the barbecue sauce bottle. But there's a correlated consequence: we tend to get amplified attention from wandering beasts from the moment the pork roast comes out of the slow cooker. Today since 6 AM, we've already received "visits" from quite a few such. Apparently Iams, Science Diet, and Purina ain't got nothin' to compare to this concoction.
But what's this: an opossum? In daylight? Wearing a bib? And aren't horses and deer supposed to be herbivorous?
Clearly, more research is needed.
While we're on the subject of food, consider the category of leftovers.
Your Curmudgeon lives on leftovers. Anyway, it often seems that way. The C.S.O. only knows divisional-size recipes, and besides, she likes to flaunt her world-record collection of Tupperware and Rubbermaid products. (Those thinking of visiting the Fortress, beware; you'd better like the food here, because as surely as the Sun will rise tomorrow, you'll be taking some home with you.)
The Fortress has two refrigerators and a large freezer, all of which are continuously full. This causes some difficulties when the item you seek is of the less popular variety; you might have to search all three, and move half a ton of miscellaneous plastic vessels containing God-alone-knows-what before you remember that we're out of it. Worse, as any kitchen chemist will know, plastic is a marvelous invention, but it conceals better than it reveals, and the C.S.O. does not label said vessels. On more than one occasion, she's reached into the freezer and handed your Curmudgeon something to take to work for lunch, only for your Curmudgeon to discover come the noon hour that what he held was a container of frozen tomato paste. Tasty, yes, but less than filling, and inadvisable on an empty stomach.
This morning, as he watched the C.S.O. put the box of matzohs back into the bread box and the butter salver back into the refrigerator, your Curmudgeon had a food epiphany, which he announced with the traditional cry of Eureka!
We wouldn't speak of the unconsumed matzohs or butter as "leftovers," would we? How about what remains of the milk after you've adulterated your morning coffee? Speaking of which, are the coffee grounds that remain in the canister after you've filled the basket of your coffeemaker "leftovers?" Is the sherry still in the Harvey's bottle, spared by your early passing-out yester eve, "leftover?"
The C.S.O. smirked. To qualify as "leftover," food must be prepared and served for prompt consumption. It can't be a mere ingredient to other recipes. Thus, the slices of bread that remain in the loaf, and the slices of boiled ham that remain in the package, cannot be "leftovers," but the half-a-ham-sandwich your Curmudgeon didn't finish yesterday would qualify as one -- and by the way, when does your Curmudgeon plan to finish it?
Aha, your Curmudgeon replied. So what makes a "leftover" is the labor of the ultimate chef! For that's all that distinguishes the uneaten portion of the sandwich from its components.
The C.S.O. disagreed vigorously. No, said she, the "leftover" status applies to the whole item, not merely to the labor involved in producing it. Bah, your Curmudgeon replied. That sandwich fragment could be deconstructed, and the components reunited with the others of their kind which you'd never call "leftovers." The only element that can't be treated that way is the work involved in making the sandwich in the first place!
Oh? the C.S.O. replied. What about the bite marks?
Expect this discussion to continue.
As the months have rolled past, a great deal of discussion has been devoted to the viability of Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, as a presidential candidate in 2012. Arie Korving, at his fine blog The Virginian, devotes some thought to it this morning.
Your Curmudgeon sees Governor Palin's problems in strategic-tactical terms. There are enemies out there with plans to discredit and destroy her; if they're permitted to succeed, her natural political assets will go to waste. Some of those enemies are Democrat allegiants; others are members of the inner circle of Republican power-brokers. Nor can any of them be bargained with; all of them see her as a threat to their rice bowls, which are kept nicely filled by reserving federal power to a tightly controlled Establishment. They must be neutralized -- destroyed as effective political forces for the perpetuation of the Permanent Governing Elite.
But one of Governor Palin's principal assets is her innate niceness. She's simply too good a person to go to war for her own advancement. Her triumph in Alaska, for which she had to fight her way past the state's GOP Old Guard, must have cost her a great deal of emotional agony. To repeat that performance at the federal level might be beyond her capacity for ruthlessness.
We who admire Governor Palin have been casting about for a solution. Perhaps one has come in sight:
Chuck Norris, the most feared human being of all time, is exactly the field operative Governor Palin needs. There aren't many persons arrogant enough, or insane enough, to sass someone Norris has pledged to protect. Such a fool would be dead before he could finish his sentence, his executioner disappearing silently into the shadows as the body slumps to the ground. Allegations about an affair? Roundhouse kick to the head. Imputations of abuses of gubernatorial power? Knife-hand strike to the solar plexus. Scandalous accusations about her family? The Five-Point Palm Exploding Heart technique.
(Wait, that last was Uma Thurman, wasn't it? Well, no doubt Mr. Norris would come up with something equivalent.)
And if having Chuck Norris at her service doesn't suffice...well, Dick Cheney is currently at liberty, right?
Food for thought.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Processes, Birth Certificates, Referenda, And The Rule Of Law
Imagine along with your Curmudgeon for a few moments.
Imagine that it were discovered, incontrovertibly, that Barack Hussein Obama really was born in Kenya, rather than in Hawaii as he alleges. Imagine further that Obama would refuse, even after the discovery was publicized and proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, to relinquish the presidency. Imagine still further that he offers as justification his having won the 2008 presidential election. Would you support or oppose his claim to the authority of the presidency?
You'd oppose it. Of course you would! The qualifications for the presidency, slender as they are, are spelled out explicitly in the Constitution of the United States: Article 2, Section 1, paragraph 4. If Obama cannot satisfy the Supreme Court that he was born in the United States, he cannot hold the presidency, any more than Arnold Schwarzenegger could.
Yet Obama has refused to present a legitimate birth certificate to public scrutiny, despite numerous attempts to get him to do so. The reasons aren't far to seek...but so far, the Supreme Court has failed to act on its duty to compel him to satisfy the constitutional requirements for the highest executive position in the land.
Imagine a bit further: that Obama were to win re-election in 2012, and were then to stand for a third term in 2016. The Constitution, in its 22nd Amendment, forbids exactly that. But Obama could trot out any of a number of rationalizations, including "this ongoing crisis," or his "unprecedented popularity," or whatever your fevered imagination might produce. Would you regard any such justification as adequate to set aside the 22nd Amendment?
No, of course you wouldn't! The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and cannot be altered save by the procedures set forth therein. For Obama to stand for a third term in defiance of the 22nd Amendment's two-term limitation would constitute a coup against the Constitution itself. Impeachment, trial, and conviction be damned; that would be a hangin' offense.
Yet there are already leftist shills arguing that Obama has a "duty" to remain in office long enough to finish "remaking America" -- that is, destroying capitalism, or the facsimile of it we've known, and imposing totalitarian federal control on every aspect of life and commerce. New York social-fascist Jose Serrano claims that this would merely restore the status quo ante 1951, when the 22nd Amendment was ratified.
As it happens, Obama has offered his backing to Manuel Zelaya, deposed as president of Honduras a few days ago. Zelaya attempted to circumvent the constitution of Honduras, which limits a president to a single four-year term, and which forbids amendment to that particular provision, by holding a referendum on the subject, which Honduras's Supreme Court ruled forbidden by the specific dictates of the Honduran constitution. In this, our social-fascist president is joined by Cuba's Raul Castro, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, and Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega: three Marxists who claim a right to wield unlimited power for life.
Quite a lot of people would shrug. It might seem incomprehensible to a Gentle Reader of Eternity Road, but it is nevertheless true. Constitutions, they'd say, should be "living documents," able to bend to the Zeitgeist when it asserts itself. A constitution that won't make way for a popular movement, they'd say, is a dead letter with no claim on anyone's time or attention.
Now that we've got all that out of the way, allow your Curmudgeon to ask his key question for the evening, very, very quietly, so as not to disturb anyone's slumber:
What makes the provisions of a constitution something to respect and uphold?
Think about it.
A constitution is a unique document. It's a popular contract, either explicitly or implicitly given force by the acquiescence of the mass of the people, that sets down the terms under which the actions of a government will be deemed legitimate. If it contains provisions for amendment -- which the overwhelming majority of constitutions do -- those provisions will undoubtedly specify the exact process by which an amendment might excise a part of, or become a part of, the document.
If we leave aside the specific terms of such a document, and all the justifications, whether from Hobbes, Locke, or Pee-Wee Herman, that might be offered for it, we're left with a single stanchion to which to cling: accepted processes. Some process was deemed a legitimate way of arriving at a constitution, which would thenceforth be the Supreme Law of the Land. That constitution must define a compendium of legislative processes by which laws foisted upon the citizenry might be adjudged legitimate or illegitimate, plus executive processes within which the executive power might legally enforce legitimate laws. Surrounding all laws must be a corpus of judicial processes by which one accused of violating some law might be determined guilty and therefore punishable, or not guilty and therefore not to be harmed.
If any of these requirements is not met, the "constitution" amounts to a rationalization for reposing unchecked power in the hands of some discernible group of men and whatever inheritors they nominate. The rule of law, to which we grant near-sacred allegiance, reduces to the rule of accepted processes.
Americans don't think about such things very much. As a mass, we're averse to hard thought about whys and wherefores. Things are as they are, we tell ourselves, because they work satisfactorily, or because that's the way they've always been, or because it would be too much trouble to change them. But in point of hard, ground state fact, our entire political system is founded on a single notion, one your Curmudgeon has harped on many times over the past eleven years of commentary on innumerable subjects:
Our Constitution was formulated and ratified according to a process to which the thirteen original states gave their assent, and to which all the states admitted to the Union since then had to acquiesce. State constitutions and county and municipal charters had to meet a similar test. Even those who disliked the outcome had to admit that the agreed-upon process had been followed. If they could have demonstrated otherwise, they'd have had grounds for deeming the results illegitimate and unworthy of their respect -- and their opponents would have had to concede the point or be exposed as power-mongering liars.
Our laws are supposed to be made according to the relevant Constitutional processes, and under the constraints imposed by that document as to subject matter and enforcement. Rather often these days, nothing could be further from the truth -- and in this lies the greatest shame of the current generation of Americans: We could easily reach that judgment for ourselves, each and every one of us, yet we've done little or nothing about it.
We're unwilling to buck the Mainstream Media and the special-interest groups in the name of constitutional fidelity, even when the justifications are plain and the matter is dire. We don't want to be thought hairy-eyed Cause People by our neighbors, whose kids go to school with ours and to whose backyard barbecues we hope still to be invited. We don't want to "rock the boat."
In other words, we're cowards.
Today, we have a president and a gaggle of federal legislators -- never mind the state and local equivalents -- who disbelieve in constitutional constraints, and who dismiss all considerations of legitimizing process. There's been no uprising yet, partly because so many of us are in shock at the brazenness of the Obama Administration's all-out attack on freedom, the free market, and America's position as the world's guarantor of acceptable international behavior. But one thing leads to another; little violations of agreed-upon processes pave the way for larger and larger ones. When 2012 is upon us, will we have enough spine to resist the Administration's arrogation of the power to rule a candidate unacceptable because of his convictions? Will we be capable of denying ACORN the privilege of counting the votes? Should 2016 find Obama still in office, will we rise up to oppose his quest for a third term?
Unclear. Massively unclear, all of it -- and it will remain dubious and worse for so long as Americans refuse to acknowledge the supremacy of processes over arbitrary claims of power, in particular of constitutional processes and constraints over all bids for and uses of power. On what other basis can anyone strive against the social-fascists now in power? Their Ace-of-trumps argument is "I won," remember? If we can't recur to process requirements to defeat that, what can we do?
Don't delude yourself that any argument about rights or similar abstractions would carry the day. Americans aren't generally interested in such things, except as they might be used to justify some subvention in their favor. Besides, our opponents have their own definitions for "rights:" A right to health care. A right to a job -- or an income. A right to abortion on demand. A right to force their way into some voluntary assembly minded to exclude them. A right not to be frightened or offended. A right to stick their hands into our pockets to fund whatever vague fantasies they might concoct about their "rights." The Bill of Rights is just wastepaper in the hands of the imaginative statist; consider what the courts have done to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and see if you can disagree.
And pray.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Birds of a Feather…
Graphic courtesy of: The Real Nicaragua.com
On 22 January of 1980 your humble blogster experienced the doubious honor of viewing what passed for a Nicaraguan (Sandinista) jail from the inside. The account of that saga can be read here. At the time, Daniel Ortega was “president?” of that unhappy nation. Since then, Nicaragua has experienced its ups and downs with recent emphasis on the downs by having returned the Marxist child rapist Ortega to the presidency.
One day in 1998, Zoilamerica, [Ortega’s stepdaughter] a militant Sandinista, walked into one of the counselling centres she had established to challenge the cult of machismo and abuse of women and told her friend, psychiatrist Marta Cabrera, ‘I want to talk.’ The story she told was that since she was 11, Ortega had fondled, abused and finally raped her.
With the recent events in neighboring Honduras seizing the attention of the media, one can not be blamed for wondering what on earth is going on. A simple explanation by way of analogy is probably appropriate:
Let us suppose that in June of 2008 with the November election upcoming and George W. Bush due to be term limited out of the White House he decides to stage a special election to decide if he should be allowed to be a candidate in the November election. Houston, we have a problem. There’s a little matter of the 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution which clearly states that “chimpy bushitler mc halliburton” cannot be a candidate in said election. Not to worry. Since various administrations routinely ignore the Constitution, Bush proceeds to stage the special election (which he probably intends to rig anyway) but the supreme court declares the special election to be illegal and orders the military to prevent it by any means; which it proceeds to do.
That is the simplest analogous description of what has transpired in Honduras. However, Honduras being a smallish republic of about 7.5 million souls, outside powers feel free to intervene, and local governments led by those of the Marxist persuasion are lining up to flex their international muscles by restoring their soul mate Mr Zelaya to the presidential palace in Tegucigalpa (this aparently includes the Obamessiah).
The Messiah’s international hands-off policies only appear to apply to entrenched despots and not to democratic governments attempting to apply the rule of Law.
cross posted at: Fighting in the Shade™
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
When in the Course of Human Events…
It seems like only yesterday we were treated by the leftists to the refrain that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism”. Actually that was during the administration of “chimpy bushitler mc halliburton” which concluded a mere 5+ months ago.
Now that the political left is in the catbird seat, it seems that the refrain has gone down the memory hole along with the hoola hoop and the Studebaker. The current terms used to characterize the left’s political opponents are: “terrorists, right wing extremists and those guilty of “treason” (against the planet?).
In the following question posed to Speaker Karen Bass (D LA) of the California Assembly she stated:
Q. How do you think conservative talk radio has affected the Legislature’s work?
A. The Republicans were essentially threatened and terrorized against voting for revenue [tax increases]. Now [some] are facing recalls. They operate under a terrorist threat: “You vote for revenue [tax increases] and your career is over.” I don’t know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist. I guess it’s about free speech, but it’s extremely unfair.
Free speech exercised by opponents objecting to collectivist agenda items is ALWAYS “unfair”.
Recent characterizations of conservative and libertarian protesters of far left policy positions as “right wing and potential low level terrorists “ continue almost unremarked except in the alternative media (internet and talk radio) which are in turn attacked as “terrorist”)
In just the last few days the scam of the erstwhile religion of the global warmistas was used as a cover for the passage in the US House of Representatives of the most draconian tax and power legislation in recorded history. The occasion of the debate on this outrage elicited the assertion of one leftist “economist” on the payroll of the New York Times (Paul Krugman) that opponents of this abomination “are guilty of treason against the earth”
Could the time be approaching when it is appropriate to take down the musket above the mantle in order that it should be cleaned and oiled?
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
cross posted at: Fighting in the Shade™
Yeah, I’m Still Alive
JUST A LITTLE busy’s all. Spent the weekend putting a floor in the downstairs bathroom. Discovered that what we thought was the cats’ water dish spilling was actually a slow leak from the shower. Don’t ask.
Life’s tough and those fardlers you lot elected to Washington over the last couple of years are bound and determined to make it worse. So easily led and credulous you are. The captive state-run media whines and moans about the evil George Bush and you fall for it like the suckers Mencken said you are. So—just for the change—you vote in the media’s party of choice to become your new lords and masters. And, now they’re going to enslave not only you, but all your unborn descendants and there’s nothing you can do—that you’re willing to—to stop it.
Their latest round of programs—thrown up like so many bomb-craters in your life’s road, more and faster than you can comprehend, let alone act to prevent or obviate—will reduce this once great nation to a shadow of its former glory.
No, they’re not stupid. They know what they’re doing. The incentives reward them for enhancing their own entrenched power. So they do.
Don’t try to tell yourself that they surely can’t be that evil. Don’t delude yourself that they’ll never get away with it. They’ve been getting away with it for over a hundred years. The Constitution won’t stay their hands. They rely on your sheeplike acceptance, on your desire to play the game according to rules they scorn, spurn, and spit upon.
You can’t vote them out, because there’s no change on offer. The opposition candidate is cut of the same cloth and the media has persuaded you that the third party is composed of loons and nutters. Your choice is between violent revolution, and you shrink from that, or slavery, and that’s too much to be borne. Sorry, Charlie. Those are your options. Choose now. The clock is running.
You’d better act before such sentiments as these bring the dark knock on your door at 3AM. Because by the time it does, it’ll be too late, and the butcher’s bill will be ten times what it would be today.
Have a good one.
Cross-posted at BabyTrollBlog.
