The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Yeah, But Tell Me About The Frogskins

Posted on | August 17, 2010 | 14 Comments

by Smitty (h/t Paco)

Thomas Sowell in RCP, on the Constitution being a urinal cake:

While various political leaders have, over the centuries, done things that violated either the spirit or the letter of the Constitution, few dared to openly say that the Constitution was wrong and that what they wanted was right.

It was the Progressives of a hundred years ago who began saying that the Constitution needed to be subordinated to whatever they chose to call “the needs of the times.” Nor were they content to say that the Constitution needed more Amendments, for that would have meant that the much disdained masses would have something to say about whether, or what kind, of Amendments were needed.

The agenda then, as now, has been for our betters to decide among themselves which Constitutional safeguards against arbitrary government power should be disregarded, in the name of meeting “the needs of the times”– as they choose to define those needs.

The first open attack on the Constitution by a President of the United States was made by our only president with a Ph.D., Woodrow Wilson. Virtually all the arguments as to why judges should not take the Constitution as meaning what its words plainly say, but “interpret” it to mean whatever it ought to mean, in order to meet “the needs of the times,” were made by Woodrow Wilson.

Via Insty, we have the Freedom Works dudes on the hostile GOP takeover by the Tea Party:

The American values of individual freedom, fiscal responsibility and limited government bind the ranks of our movement. That makes the tea party better than a political party. It is a growing community that can sustain itself after November, ensuring a better means of holding a new generation of elected officials accountable.

All this is swell and spiffy, but if you haven’t answered the mail on the Federal Reserve Act, and the ludicrous Federal expansion of power it has enabled, then you simply haven’t said much.

Stacy would say “Smittiot! We’ve got to win the election first!” Fine. But be thinking about ways in which we’re going to support the leadership needed to roll back 100 years of incumbency, elitism, and ruling class over-reach.

My chief worry is that, faced with the ugly realities that our government is more or less effectively hiding from us, the Tea Party will wet itself, and the Cloward-Piven will prevail. We have to get ready with the “bring it on, mike foxtrot”.

Category: Weimar America

Comments

14 Responses to “Yeah, But Tell Me About The Frogskins”

  1. Jack Okie
    August 18th, 2010 @ 2:45 am

    Smitty:

    Your fears are understandable, but misplaced. I think most tea partiers are like me – ready to do WHATEVER IT TAKES to restore our Constitutional republic.

    Think on this instead. Your focus on the 17th Amendment and other injuries to our system of government has inspired me, more than anyone else has done. The more I think about it, the more I see repeal of the 17th Amendment as the fulcrum with which we restore the states’ rightful powers. Supreme Court nominees, Federal Reserve – you name it – will look different to senators sent by their state legislatures.

    So keep the faith – we can only do our best, and hope that that will be enough.

  2. Jack Okie
    August 17th, 2010 @ 10:45 pm

    Smitty:

    Your fears are understandable, but misplaced. I think most tea partiers are like me – ready to do WHATEVER IT TAKES to restore our Constitutional republic.

    Think on this instead. Your focus on the 17th Amendment and other injuries to our system of government has inspired me, more than anyone else has done. The more I think about it, the more I see repeal of the 17th Amendment as the fulcrum with which we restore the states’ rightful powers. Supreme Court nominees, Federal Reserve – you name it – will look different to senators sent by their state legislatures.

    So keep the faith – we can only do our best, and hope that that will be enough.

  3. Robert Stacy McCain
    August 18th, 2010 @ 5:24 am

    As always, in a crime, there are levels. When Saudi and Kuwaiti royals take a London weekend for an orgy with booze, they can only get away with that due to corruption as otherwise they would face beheading, befalling anyone caught doing the same. But the damage due to violating Islamic laws against booze and adultery abroad is rather different than the damage caused by US banksters violating the constitution with help from the government….

    As to Obama being any different than his predecessor in defending the constitution, the only thing is that he is the first African-American to be President and that is where his uniqueness starts and ends.

    Should also mention, he is the first black smoker who quit smoking like Dubya quit booze 😀

    “A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true.” — Demosthenes

    AFAIK there were only a few Democrats against GWB’s “violations” of the constitution and international laws but Obama wasn’t one of them, nor did he undertake an effort for impeachment, nor was he against the monstrous war budget with its perpetual growth. From that perspective, a slick lawyer as president only makes things worse.

  4. Robert Stacy McCain
    August 18th, 2010 @ 1:24 am

    As always, in a crime, there are levels. When Saudi and Kuwaiti royals take a London weekend for an orgy with booze, they can only get away with that due to corruption as otherwise they would face beheading, befalling anyone caught doing the same. But the damage due to violating Islamic laws against booze and adultery abroad is rather different than the damage caused by US banksters violating the constitution with help from the government….

    As to Obama being any different than his predecessor in defending the constitution, the only thing is that he is the first African-American to be President and that is where his uniqueness starts and ends.

    Should also mention, he is the first black smoker who quit smoking like Dubya quit booze 😀

    “A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true.” — Demosthenes

    AFAIK there were only a few Democrats against GWB’s “violations” of the constitution and international laws but Obama wasn’t one of them, nor did he undertake an effort for impeachment, nor was he against the monstrous war budget with its perpetual growth. From that perspective, a slick lawyer as president only makes things worse.

  5. Adobe Walls
    August 18th, 2010 @ 6:37 am

    “ready to do WHATEVER IT TAKES” covers a lot of ground. I can only hope that all of us will be able to find the strength and courage and perhaps most of all the vision to be ready to do whatever it takes. At this point in time many of us are mad at the ruling class and to a large extent at ourselves for allowing what has come to pass. Tony Blankly asks in a column the other day what will the Republicans do if they retake the house. Mr. Blankly styles that the sneering question de jour from liberal journalists and Democratic Party. None the less it’s a fair question. A Conservative Congress could spend months just repealing legislation and I have my doubts that anything the 111th passed may safely be left alone given all the extraneous crap that was stuffed into legislation that was heinous enough at face value. But is this enough to satisfy the impatience of the public who will be expecting positive results from the economy.
    The economy will not show any real improvement until the business community has some assurances that the taxes and regulations that start coming on line will be eliminated. In my opinion if the current leftist regime was allowed to maintain course, say for instance the entire electorate was drugged on the evening of Nov 1, the economy will only improve marginally for years to come. We need something simple yet bold to start with, something that would demonstrate earnestness and strength of resolve yet not scare the sh*t out of everybody. I submit that eliminating the Dept of Edu could be a good place to start. Of all the government elements this should be the easiest case to make. It’s utter failure to improve education stats, test scores are flat from it’s inception, are straight forward and fairly simple. Of all the Federal Depts. it’s tentacles have probably strayed from original intent the least. Also making the case that education won’t end without DOE should be much easier than say convincing the public that there was indeed air before the EPA. We have to start eliminating federal government somewhere.

  6. Adobe Walls
    August 18th, 2010 @ 2:37 am

    “ready to do WHATEVER IT TAKES” covers a lot of ground. I can only hope that all of us will be able to find the strength and courage and perhaps most of all the vision to be ready to do whatever it takes. At this point in time many of us are mad at the ruling class and to a large extent at ourselves for allowing what has come to pass. Tony Blankly asks in a column the other day what will the Republicans do if they retake the house. Mr. Blankly styles that the sneering question de jour from liberal journalists and Democratic Party. None the less it’s a fair question. A Conservative Congress could spend months just repealing legislation and I have my doubts that anything the 111th passed may safely be left alone given all the extraneous crap that was stuffed into legislation that was heinous enough at face value. But is this enough to satisfy the impatience of the public who will be expecting positive results from the economy.
    The economy will not show any real improvement until the business community has some assurances that the taxes and regulations that start coming on line will be eliminated. In my opinion if the current leftist regime was allowed to maintain course, say for instance the entire electorate was drugged on the evening of Nov 1, the economy will only improve marginally for years to come. We need something simple yet bold to start with, something that would demonstrate earnestness and strength of resolve yet not scare the sh*t out of everybody. I submit that eliminating the Dept of Edu could be a good place to start. Of all the government elements this should be the easiest case to make. It’s utter failure to improve education stats, test scores are flat from it’s inception, are straight forward and fairly simple. Of all the Federal Depts. it’s tentacles have probably strayed from original intent the least. Also making the case that education won’t end without DOE should be much easier than say convincing the public that there was indeed air before the EPA. We have to start eliminating federal government somewhere.

  7. David R. Graham
    August 18th, 2010 @ 6:45 am

    To the question “ways in which we’re going to support the leadership needed to roll back 100 years of incumbency, elitism, and ruling class over-reach.”, Stacy seems to be saying there are none.

    OTOH, I can be misreading his point.

    However, if that is what Stacy is saying, I concur. I do not see anything impeding much less stopping, and even far less reversing, those 100 years of incumbency. And if Republicans overtake control of either house of Congress or the WH in 2012 I will be astonished.

    Politics is local as well as dirty business. Locally, the DNC controls most county and state election commissioners and probably all vote counters. In Seattle, the election commissioner hires union members to open ballots. Supposedly they are machine counted, but that’s if they make it to the machine. The RNC is known for weak voting oversight and with the courts against them would not fare well in any dispute, and then ex post facto, after the commissioners have already announced the winners, Democrats.

    The only potential impediment I see to DNC sweeps in ’10 and ’12, and virtually every election after is Bell, CA-type actions, which surely the WH is desiring and baiting as a pretext for declaring martial law.

    At that point, state and local police agencies could not handle the ire, therefore US Armed Forces would have to be summoned to enforce it.

    But there are two imponderables in doing that. First, would they? And second, with all the hate the WH, Attorneys/Courts and Congress are throwing at them to get them to resign their commissions and enlistments — that is, with all the effort those branches are expending to Pretorian Guard-ize DOD — those branches also know they require the force structure capability of DOD just to exist.

    Thus, they are over a barrel. They hate the Armed Forces but need them to remain in power, ultimately, although proximately election commissioners and vote counters alone can do that … until the bear turns, a la Bell, CA. Then their existence depends on the loyalty of the Armed Forces, a loyalty upon which they know they cannot rest.

    So while they likely will sweep ’10 and ’12, there are forces at work they do not factor into their social engineering computer models and which ultimately — who knows who, when or how? — will roll them up.

    Transcendence is a constant headache of tyrants, and their nemesis.

    Here is a suggestion: instead of considering the nation based on her Constitution, consider her based on her geography. I think this will yield a much more gratifying and realistic outlook and also generate reverence for the nation’s Constitution. A nation is an expression of her geography and her Constitution puts that geographical expression into print.

    Civilization rests on six inches of topsoil.

    And finally, look for efforts to reduce population in the 50% + range not only through inducement of despondency and denial of medicament but even more directly through reduction of food supply. Eco-and eugenics-nazis have been pushing this for a century, to include the current Prince of Wales.

    The weakness of their approach is that life, the reality they seek to control, is a meta-random, not a linear system. This reality is their undoing-in-waiting. “Bring it on, mike foxtrot.” is the Bell, CA phenomenon, something they are baiting into existence thinking it is merely a linear system anticipated by their computer models — all linear systems — which tell them they are invincible.

  8. David R. Graham
    August 18th, 2010 @ 2:45 am

    To the question “ways in which we’re going to support the leadership needed to roll back 100 years of incumbency, elitism, and ruling class over-reach.”, Stacy seems to be saying there are none.

    OTOH, I can be misreading his point.

    However, if that is what Stacy is saying, I concur. I do not see anything impeding much less stopping, and even far less reversing, those 100 years of incumbency. And if Republicans overtake control of either house of Congress or the WH in 2012 I will be astonished.

    Politics is local as well as dirty business. Locally, the DNC controls most county and state election commissioners and probably all vote counters. In Seattle, the election commissioner hires union members to open ballots. Supposedly they are machine counted, but that’s if they make it to the machine. The RNC is known for weak voting oversight and with the courts against them would not fare well in any dispute, and then ex post facto, after the commissioners have already announced the winners, Democrats.

    The only potential impediment I see to DNC sweeps in ’10 and ’12, and virtually every election after is Bell, CA-type actions, which surely the WH is desiring and baiting as a pretext for declaring martial law.

    At that point, state and local police agencies could not handle the ire, therefore US Armed Forces would have to be summoned to enforce it.

    But there are two imponderables in doing that. First, would they? And second, with all the hate the WH, Attorneys/Courts and Congress are throwing at them to get them to resign their commissions and enlistments — that is, with all the effort those branches are expending to Pretorian Guard-ize DOD — those branches also know they require the force structure capability of DOD just to exist.

    Thus, they are over a barrel. They hate the Armed Forces but need them to remain in power, ultimately, although proximately election commissioners and vote counters alone can do that … until the bear turns, a la Bell, CA. Then their existence depends on the loyalty of the Armed Forces, a loyalty upon which they know they cannot rest.

    So while they likely will sweep ’10 and ’12, there are forces at work they do not factor into their social engineering computer models and which ultimately — who knows who, when or how? — will roll them up.

    Transcendence is a constant headache of tyrants, and their nemesis.

    Here is a suggestion: instead of considering the nation based on her Constitution, consider her based on her geography. I think this will yield a much more gratifying and realistic outlook and also generate reverence for the nation’s Constitution. A nation is an expression of her geography and her Constitution puts that geographical expression into print.

    Civilization rests on six inches of topsoil.

    And finally, look for efforts to reduce population in the 50% + range not only through inducement of despondency and denial of medicament but even more directly through reduction of food supply. Eco-and eugenics-nazis have been pushing this for a century, to include the current Prince of Wales.

    The weakness of their approach is that life, the reality they seek to control, is a meta-random, not a linear system. This reality is their undoing-in-waiting. “Bring it on, mike foxtrot.” is the Bell, CA phenomenon, something they are baiting into existence thinking it is merely a linear system anticipated by their computer models — all linear systems — which tell them they are invincible.

  9. Live Free Or Die
    August 18th, 2010 @ 1:13 pm

    Civilization rests upon Atlas, shoulders, and he’s about to shrug.

  10. Live Free Or Die
    August 18th, 2010 @ 9:13 am

    Civilization rests upon Atlas, shoulders, and he’s about to shrug.

  11. Jack Okie
    August 18th, 2010 @ 1:28 pm

    “WHATEVER IT TAKES” means exactly what it says. I urge you to really think through the implications of repealing the 17th Amendment. The Department of Education, earmarks, Nancy Pelosi and other abominations are actually symptoms. The underlying, central problem is the relative power of the states vis-a-vis the national government. The 17th Amendment neutered the states.

    Thought experiment: What would it look like if everything in DC were the same, except our Senators were now representing their state legislatures? Please, walk through the process of this session’s stimulus or health care bills. How would a senator vote if a bill sucked money out of his state? Any senator voting against the interests of his state would be on the next plane home.

    Restoring power to the states will stop the vast flow of money to Washington DC: the states will insist on keeping it themselves. With each state retaining the funds to take care of its responsibilities, most federal control goes away. States like mine become “Sanctuary States” where small government, local control and sanity prevail; these will gain population at the expense any blue states that don’t change their ways.

    Repealing the 17th Amendment doesn’t automatically fix problems like Supreme Court overreach, but it opens a path. Please take the time to think it through – model it – rather than dismissing the idea out of hand.

  12. Jack Okie
    August 18th, 2010 @ 9:28 am

    “WHATEVER IT TAKES” means exactly what it says. I urge you to really think through the implications of repealing the 17th Amendment. The Department of Education, earmarks, Nancy Pelosi and other abominations are actually symptoms. The underlying, central problem is the relative power of the states vis-a-vis the national government. The 17th Amendment neutered the states.

    Thought experiment: What would it look like if everything in DC were the same, except our Senators were now representing their state legislatures? Please, walk through the process of this session’s stimulus or health care bills. How would a senator vote if a bill sucked money out of his state? Any senator voting against the interests of his state would be on the next plane home.

    Restoring power to the states will stop the vast flow of money to Washington DC: the states will insist on keeping it themselves. With each state retaining the funds to take care of its responsibilities, most federal control goes away. States like mine become “Sanctuary States” where small government, local control and sanity prevail; these will gain population at the expense any blue states that don’t change their ways.

    Repealing the 17th Amendment doesn’t automatically fix problems like Supreme Court overreach, but it opens a path. Please take the time to think it through – model it – rather than dismissing the idea out of hand.

  13. Jack Okie
    August 18th, 2010 @ 1:38 pm

    Shorter point:

    Repealing the 17th Amendment means we don’t have to “fix” Washington DC, but deconstruct it. Starve the beast – no money means no EPA, cap-n-tax, nanny statist BS, etc. It does however, mean paying close attention at the state level to be sure the same crap doesn’t manifest. Since our state representatives are much closer to hand, that should be manageable if we remain vigilant.

  14. Jack Okie
    August 18th, 2010 @ 9:38 am

    Shorter point:

    Repealing the 17th Amendment means we don’t have to “fix” Washington DC, but deconstruct it. Starve the beast – no money means no EPA, cap-n-tax, nanny statist BS, etc. It does however, mean paying close attention at the state level to be sure the same crap doesn’t manifest. Since our state representatives are much closer to hand, that should be manageable if we remain vigilant.