Tag Archives: Constitution

Supreme Injustice

I intended to rant on this subject much earlier, but unfortunately have been incapacitated by severe burns, but now I’ll go ahead and finish it, as this still burns me up. . . .

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court issued yet another abortion of justice, striking down Texas’s state laws requiring abortion clinics to be subject to the same medical and sanitary restrictions as hospitals (and preventing the existence of Kermit Gosnell-style horror shows) in a 5-3 decision.  These laws had significantly lowered the rate of abortions in the Lone Star State.  This was a terrible loss, not just for the unborn of Texas, but for states’ rights and federalism.

This proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that for the political Left, and its judicial puppets, the “right” to kill unborn children is regarded as ultimate and supreme, trumping and triumphing over all else.

It, of course, builds on the unholy precedent of Roe v. Wade, which first enshrined baby-killing as a sacred and inviolable “right.”  But this decision takes this evil principle even further; not only is murder in the womb a “right,” but virtually no restrictions or regulations on the killing are to be allowed.

Of course, if the SCOTUS actually followed our Constitution (yeah, okay, you can stop laughing now), we would have neither Roe nor this decision, as nowhere in the Constitution is a right to abortion ever mentioned (all silly “emanations of the penumbra” bullcrap to the contrary).   Neither, of course, is the federal government given an enumerated power of deciding state abortion laws or regulations.  (In many places, taco shops and tattoo parlors are subject to more government regulation than abortion mills.)  Once again, the all-powerful Men in Black simply piss all over the laws of both God and man in service of the almighty leftist idol of “reproductive rights” (aka unrestricted baby-killing).

Ironically, many of the same liberals/leftists celebrating the SCOTUS’s striking down all restrictions on the “right” to abortion (nowhere mentioned in the Constitution) at the same time loudly demand all kinds of restrictions on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

And bizarrely, following the SCOTUS decision, I saw a number of self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” turn their righteous ire, not on the Supreme Court justices who made this abomination of a decision, but instead on the Texas state legislature which made the restrictions on abortion mills, decrying their “devious” and “underhanded” methods.  This was accompanied by much pious finger-wagging lecturing over how “the ends don’t justify the means.”  Thus, the SCOTUS was right to strike them down.  But this is just more nonsense.  There is certainly nothing inherently immoral about the means of toughening standards on abortion clinics to try to bypass pro-abortion court rulings.  Nor, contrary to their shrill accusations, is there any actual “deception” involved.

This seems part of a disturbing trend I’ve noticed within the pro-life movement.  It seems there are more and more people who proclaim themselves “pro-life” and opposed to abortion, yet appear obsessed with attacking other pro-lifers (especially those more politically conservative than themselves), while passively bowing to the pro-abortion left at every chance.

Even though this 5-3 decision would have stood even had Scalia remained alive or replaced by a similar constitutionalist, this should focus conservatives, particularly religious conservatives, on the absolute necessity of defeating Hillary.  Under a Supreme Court, and most federal courts, solidly dominated by leftist justices and judges, things will only get worse, much worse.  While I’m no fan of Mr. Trump, he’s at least provided a list of solid constitutionalist judges he promises to nominate from for Supreme Court Justices.  Can I trust him to keep his word?  I honestly don’t know.  But I know I absolutely can 100% trust Hillary Clinton to nominate leftist activists who will scrap what little’s left of constitutional rule of law, and destroy any semblance of religious liberty.

You’d think Catholics and pro-lifers would wake up and develop a sense of urgency about this.  Yet, instead we have holy folks such as popular “pro-life” left-wing apologist Mark Shea (oh, sorry, Mr. Shea prefers to call himself a “Catholic apologist”) urging Catholics in swing states to vote for Hillary Clinton.  (Ironic coming from a man who spent much his career denouncing voting for “the lesser evil.”)

Nor, I’m afraid, can we look to much in the way of leadership from the U.S. Bishops and their bureaucratic mouthpieces.  They continue to play the charade of rightly preaching against the evils of abortion and euthanasia, while at the same time proclaiming virtually every contentious political issue to be a “life issue,” and insist that we must take the left-wing stance on the rest of these issues (immigration, “gun control,” environmental regulation, etc.) in order to be “truly pro-life.”  This sends the courageous, clear-as-mud message to us saps in the pews to vote however the hell we want, especially if it’s for a left-winger.

Catholic pro-lifers can keep playing these stupid games and losing, or we can take a stand and fight.  Time’s running out.

Advertisements
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Reflections from the Wrong Side of History

(Note:  I was too busy to complete this rant when the bathroom battle began last month, but as several states, including Texas, are suing the DOJ, figured it’s still relevant.  Anyways, here it goes . . .)

I learned few weeks ago that I was, throughout my life, a victim of horrific oppression, comparable to that experienced by blacks in the days of Jim Crow, perhaps even to slavery.  See, I had been forced by the cruel forces that dominate our society to use segregated bathrooms, locker-rooms, and showers.  This was just as bad as the days of “colored only” drinking fountains, and “Negroes” being forced to sit at the back of the bus.  Or so such luminaries as Nancy Pelosi and Loretta Lynch inform me.  Thank God (is it still okay to say that?) that we finally have those heroic white knights (or is that racist? Sexist?) in the Obama DOJ to save us all from that horrific oppression, and usher in a bright new era of Tolerance and Equality.  Now, boys in public schools will no longer face forced segregation into that bathroom marked with the little stickman, but now finally have the freedom to pee, poop, and shower as equals with the ladies.  What red-blooded American boy could object to that?

Still, much progress remains to be made, as alas such backwards segregation of facilities remains at my place of work and gym.  (My triumphant strolling into the ladies’ gym locker room didn’t go over so well.  Those hateful bigots!)  Though no doubt that will all change after a Hillary SCOTUS appointment, when using the facilities of one’s choice is finally, decisively declared by the highest court in our land to be a “constitutional right.”  (Look it up; it’s right there in the Constitution, in the emanations of the penumbra, right between the right to abortion and right to gay marriage.)

But seriously, folks. . . . Please tell me this is all bad joke.  Even ten years ago, this would sound like far-fetched satire, rather than actual news.  Given the record of the leftist cesspool that is the Obama administration, I can’t exactly say I’m shocked, but let’s just say it exceeded my expectations here.

And leaving aside one’s beliefs on so-called “transgendered” issues, and the problems that will invariably arise when “biological’ men are allowed into locker rooms and such, no questions asked, the question remains: since when was it the job of the federal government (much less the executive branch) to dictate school bathroom policies?

But, of course, nobody asks such questions anymore, or at least nobody but us right wingnut wacko-birds.  Screw the tenth amendment!  Screw enumerated powers!  All that’s required now is that the all-powerful federal government is (in the words of Pelosi) “on the Right Side of History.”  And, of course, it’s the prerogative of that same all-powerful federal government to determine what is and is not on “the Right Side of History.”  (Though they must really mean, of course, “Left Side of History.”)  And woe unto you if you’re determined to be on the Wrong Side of History.

Somehow, tyrannical dictatorial governments are always on the Right Side of History.  Just ask Lenin.  Forward, Comrades!

And Lynch had the gall to invoke our country’s “founding ideals” to justify the administration’s latest blatant unconstitutional overreach.  And I had mistakenly thought the American Founding Fathers were fighting tyranny to establish representative, limited, constitutional government.  But, apparently they were really fighting for the right to use the ladies’ privy.  Who woulda thunk it?

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Antonin Scalia, RIP, and the Fate of the Constitutional Republic (Or, What’s Really at Stake this Election)

Well. I’ve finally got back to ranting and raving (online, that is) with Silly Season 2016 already in full swing.

This month saw the unfortunate passing of the great Antonin Scalia, a judicial giant and true constitutionalist the like of which we may never see again in our lifetime.  May he rest in peace.

While we pray God may rest him in heaven, unfortunately his death leaves those of us Americans left here on earth in a truly perilous situation.  If the Republicans in Congress fail to block any Obama appointees, it may well put the final nail in the coffin of our constitutional republic.

Melodramatic?  Hyperbolic?  I don’t think so when you consider the facts.  There are now only two constitutionalists on the U.S. Supreme Court, Thomas and Alito (the Republican nominees Kennedy and Roberts have proven shameful traitors to our constitution).   And, of course, it’s a given that any and all Obama nominees will be left-wing activists who don’t give a rat’s ass about the Constitution or the intent of the framers.  With an Obama-appointed justice, the court will become nothing more than a rubber stamp for whatever pieces of unconstitutional Marxist despotism he or any future leftist president might cook up.  And no doubt such a court would take judicial activism to new heights (or, rather, depths) of “creative” judicial tyranny.

And this is in addition to Obama packing the federal courts with leftist activists.  (About 40% of current federal judges are Obama appointees.)

The nomination of Supreme Court justices and federal judges is probably the biggest reason this presidential election matters.  And it’s an issue much of the media would have us ignore, preferring to focus on trivialities and nonsense.

Obviously, it goes without saying that if either Hillary Rodham Clinton or Comrade Sanders wins the presidency, we’re all screwed royally.

But what about the Republican side?  Much as I dig his combative un-pc New York style, and even his goofy hair (toupee?), front-runner Donald Trump is no conservative.  Prior to deciding to run as a GOP candidate for Prez, he’s been liberal on neary every issue, and today is often vague on his actual positions.  When he does mention specifics, he too often takes a corporatist statist stance, as with his support of “eminent domain.”  His campaign reminds me of Obama ’08 in that they’re both mostly cult of personality coupled with incredibly vacuous but catchy slogans (“Hope and Change!” “Make America Great Again!”)   While breathing fire all over Ted Cruz and other conservatives, he’s quick to tout how eager he is to “get along” and “make deals” with the liberal Dems in Congress.  Sounds a bit too much like the Establishment Republicans he’s supposed to be against.

Trump has criticized Scalia, and once said his ultra-liberal judge sister would make an excellent Supreme Court justice.  Doesn’t sound like a guy it’s safe to gamble on this year.

No better is GOP Establishment puppet and two-faced weasel Marco Rubio.  This is the man who lied to voters that he would oppose amnesty for illegals, before authoring much of the notorious “Gang of 8” bill, and now lies about his past position, while having the audacity to call Ted Cruz a liar for pointing this out.  His record as a senator is otherwise thin and spotty.  Despite not being present at the voted to defund abortion giant Planned Parenthood, he’s apparently being hailed in certain Catholic circles as a political messiah of sorts.  I have even been accused by some pious souls of “putting my politics ahead of my faith” for supporting Cruz over Rubio.  (Sadly, for many Catholics, belief in an open-borders welfare state has become a chief article of faith, even the chief article of faith.  In NewChurch, things such as the infallibility of Scriptures or “traditional” sexual morality may be open to dispute, but question amnesty or our government’s spending on “social” programs, and it’s anathema sit!)

This leaves Ted Cruz –love him or hate him–as the only actual conservative in the race.  He’s also one of the few U.S. senators who actually kept his promises to voters after going to Washington, and who’s record has been consistently conservative.  No, this isn’t a campaign ad, and I’m not going to promote Cruz as some messiah.  (We should know better than to look for saviors in politicians or government, anyway.)  He’s just the guy running who’s least likely to screw over the country.   Any conservatives voting for Trump or Rubio will have only themselves to blame if we get the shaft.  Frankly, I think there’s way too much on the line this year to gamble here.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

(Another) Day that Will Live in Infamy

(Blogger’s note:  Originally I was going to write a rant this weekend concerning the politicization of the recent vile murder in Charleston, and the ensuing brouhaha over the Confederate flag.  But today’s news is of far more serious consequence to the country, so I’ll put that one off for now, and write on today’s travesty.)

Well, the U.S. Supreme Court did it again, and in a major way.  Once more, the Supreme Court made a ruling on the case Obergefell  v. Hodges, that not only spit in the face of Christians, natural law, and millennia of human tradition, but also was a blatant rape of the U.S. Constitution, whose job the Supreme Court justices is to uphold.  This decision to make homosexual “marriage” the law of the land was hot on the heels of another SCOTUS decision upholding the unlawful monstrosity of Obamacare (the majority opinion being written by that two-faced piece of filth John Roberts, who at least took the right side on the “gay marriage” case).

(But I must give credit to Alito and Thomas for fighting the good fight in their brilliant dissent.)

If the Supreme Court was actually doing its job of interpreting the Constitution, this case would be thrown out.  In the Constitution, the powers belonging to the federal government are limited and enumerated, and the power to define marriage is nowhere granted to federal courts.  Barring an amendment of the Constitution, such matters are left to the states and the people.

And before you bleeding hearts start lecturing me on “precedent,” I’m well aware that the SCOTUS now has a long history of rulings that rewrite the law to force a left-wing social or political agenda down the nation’s throat, rather than legitimately interpret what the Constitution actually says.

And that’s exactly the problem.  (I hold the old-fashioned, troglodytic view that the job of the Court is to uphold and interpret what the law actually says, rather than force a political agenda. And you can go shove your emanations up your penumbra.)

And any Christian who believes the line that today’s ruling will have no effect on religious liberty is deluding himself.  We’ll see more Christian bakers, florists, photographers, etc. being forced against their will to cater to homosexual “weddings” or lose their business.  And of course, kids in all public schools will be forced to learn about same-sex “marriage” as a legitimate option.  Churches that refuse to perform or lend facilities to “gay marriage” will likely face lawsuits and lose their tax-exempt status.  The goal of the militant homosexual lobby was never just tolerance, but elimination of any resistance.

This, of course, was immediately followed by jubilant celebration everywhere in the “mainstream media” (which I’ve made a point to largely avoid, though I do see the headlines), and by corporations, such as Google, Android, and others touting their support on Google’s Chrome homepage.

Our media and corporate elite apparently see sexual perversion, sodomy, and genital mutilation as unqualified goods to be universally celebrated; as if it were utterly unthinkable that any of us could possibly have any problem with it (except, of course, for us few right-wing bigoted troglodytes).  “Gay marriage” is to be universally celebrated like it’s the U.S. team winning an Olympic gold medal.  And Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner is an American hero!  (Or is that heroine?  But don’t call our troops “heroes,” because that can get politically complicated.  Don’t want to offend terrorists, do we?)

Hell, even flippin’ WordPress, which I’m publishing on, now has that goddamn rainbow flag at the top of their edit page.

While making a cash withdrawal at a Chase ATM, I was first greeted by a cheerful on-screen invitation from the good folks at Chase to join them in celebrating National GLBTQ-whatever-the-hell-the-current-alphabet-soup-is Month.  As if this was as nice and uncontroversial as, say, wishing customers a happy Father’s Day.  (Of course, for today’s left, I suppose the entire idea of fatherhood is indeed greatly problematic.  Not like, say, a man getting himself castrated and mutilated and calling himself a woman, which is happy and healthy, and worthy of universal celebration.)

But if a bank, or similar institution serving the public, wishes customers a “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Easter” during the appropriate seasons, that’s out-of-bounds, and calling for lawsuits, or at least major controversy.

Welcome to the twisted, through-the-looking-glass world of 21st century “progressive” America.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Fools and Knaves

Well,  John Boehner and the House “leadership,” after giving only the most pathetic pretense of a fight, caved in and voted to pass a DHF bill that includes full funding for Obama’s unconstitutional executive amnesty for illegal aliens.  Surprise, surprise.

Dear Leader and the American Totalitarian Party (aka the Democrats) got everything they wanted.  As did the amnesty-loving Chamber of Commerce fat cats who bankroll the Stupid Party.  In the meantime, America and constitutional rule of law once again got screwed royally.   Including we poor dumb conservative schmucks who actually gave the Republicans their majority in Congress, in the faint, and now obviously vain and foolish, hope that they’d actually do something to stand against the tyrannical piece of excrement occupying the oval office.

Is Boehner then a coward, a fool, a knave, or all of the above?  I’ll let you, Gentle Reader, be the judge.

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

More Rotten Business as Usual

More rotten business as usual in politics last week.  (Again, been busy,  my apologies for the lateness of this post.)

First, once more we see the noble bipartisan cooperation between the Jackasses and the GOP “leadership” as they both agree to raise the debt ceiling with no spending limitations, and accelerate our nation’s plunge into bankruptcy to the point of no return.

There should be no doubt left that there is no substantial difference whatever between the Democrats and the Washington establishment Republicans – they are simply two heads on the same insatiably ravenous statist beast, and both are equally contemptuous of true conservatism, and of true conservatives.

Every single Republican Congressman and Senator who did nothing to stand up for conservative principles and oppose the runaway growth of the Leviathan State needs to be tossed out.

Also, in federal tyranny rules, a federal judge ruled the Commonwealth of Virginia’s law (passed by popular vote) limiting legal marriage to a man and a woman “unconstitutional” – showing typical disregard for actual Constitution, which nowhere grants the federal government the power to define or redefine legal marriage.  (See the woefully neglected 10th Amendment.)   Once again, liberal activist twist the actual meaning of the law of the land beyond all recognition in order to advance a left-wing social agenda.  No doubt, this issue will head for the Supreme Court, though I’m not exactly optimistic about how that will turn out – especially given the record of the that traitorous weasel John Roberts as Chief Justice, who puts political game-playing above interpreting the Constitution, and thus gave a green light to the Obamanation of Obamacare.

Dr. Jeff Mirus writes of this issue in CatholicCulture.com, “One of the dangers of any constitution is that eventually it will be used to enforce policies which those who wrote the constitution never even dreamed would be desired in the first place.”

But the danger is not in the Constitution, but rather in the government – made up of power-mad men who are not ones to let a mere piece of paper stand in the way of their power or ideological agendas.  It is just as happy to ignore the Constitution altogether, as its judges are to radically “reinterpret” it.

Without virtue or morality to reign in ambition, the restraints of the Constitution are broken as easily, as our second president John Adams so memorably phrased it, “as a whale goes through a net.”

Given the active on-going onslaught of our courts and federal government against our deepest moral principles, you’d think it time more serious Catholics get behind efforts to reign in the Leviathan State, rather than support its expansion.  The hour draws late.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Conservatism and the Enduring Moral Order

Every so often, I’ll hear someone (sometimes a liberal, but oftentimes a self-described “conservative”) express a nostalgic longing for some vague time in the mythic, mist-shrouded past (the ‘50s? the ‘80s?), back before conservatism had supposedly been “hijacked” by religious crazies (like us pro-lifers) with our childish and irrational moral concerns, and conservatives instead were concerned only with real issues such as the GDP . . . or something.  (As many “conservatives” today are increasingly unwilling to stand for principles of limited constitutional government, decrying those who do as “extremists” and such, so it’s becoming really unclear what such “conservatives” do stand for, or what exactly it is they wish to conserve.)

The trouble is, to start with, that this mythic golden age of amoral conservatism never actually existed.  While there have always been differing strains of conservative thought (traditionalists vs. libertarians, etc.), concern with moral issues was never alien to conservative thought.

The late great Russell Kirk was a philosophical founding father of the modern American conservative movement, helping launch conservatism as a national intellectual and political force in the 1950s, along with other pioneers such as William F. Buckley, Jr.

While, as Dr. Kirk admits, there is no single conservative creed or manifesto, he laid out a series of “Ten Conservative Principles,” which, in my humble opinion, is probably the best summation of conservative principle and philosophy anyone has ever made.  The first draft was published in the ‘50s, and he continued to hone it throughout his life. (I strongly recommend that everyone interested read the entire list.)

The first of these conservative principles is belief in an “enduring moral order.”

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

It’s worth noting that not only did Dr. Kirk include belief in an enduring moral order on his list of ten conservative principles, but it was number one on the list.

He concludes that section by saying:

It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.

The idea of the importance of morality and belief in a moral order to a just and functioning civil society was not a unique invention of Russell Kirk or the modern conservative movement, but was in fact a belief shared by the American founding fathers.

As John Adams famously said:

Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

All the founders, despite their varying religious views, agreed that morality (including “religious” morality) was essential to the health of the American republic.

(You can find a collection of quotes from various founding fathers here.)

One of the most pernicious lies popular today is the idea that “separation of Church and State” somehow forbids any and all moral considerations from entering into American law or issues of government, and that Christian citizens are somehow obligated to toss out any moral beliefs they might hold when walking into the voting booth.  If we allow any “religious” morality to creep into legal or political discourse, we are warned, we are in imminent danger of the establishment of a horrific and repressive “theocracy.”

I’ve seen this line not just from the atheists and militant secularists, but sadly from many supposedly religious Catholics, who insist we must “keep our morality out of politics.”

(Interestingly, we never seem to hear that line from when religious liberals give religious reasons for supporting more left-leaning policies, such as environmentalist measures.)

This idea, though, is absolute nonsense.  The “wall of separation” phrase is not in the Constitution, but a private letter of Thomas Jefferson to a member of the Danbury Baptists, assuring them that their sect would not face persecution .  The first amendment of the Constitution does not forbid morality,  but says that Congress shall not “make laws concerning an establishment of religion.”  An establishment of religion in the 18th century meant specifically a national church supported with tax dollars – such as the Church of England.

None of the current social conservative positions involve actually forcing religious doctrine or practice on people (as would laws requiring people to believe in the divinity of Christ or attend Sunday Mass).  They involve what is traditionally known as natural law – moral principles that can be known by man’s natural reason – and which were once almost universally accepted in our civilization, regardless of creed.

All laws “impose morality” – that is, an idea of what is right and wrong, what one ought or ought not do.

And when voting on legislation or choosing between candidates, everyone will bring their own moral judgments, whether influenced by religion or anything else.  It’s impossible to neatly separate “religious” ideas from “non-religious” when making such decisions.  For the believer, religious faith is an integral part of one’s entire philosophy of life, and will affect how I view things such as right and wrong, the meaning of marriage, and human life itself.

For example, as a Christian, I consider human life to have intrinsic worth and value, and thus it is always gravely wrong to deliberately take an innocent human life, as by abortion.  Others may believe human life has no intrinsic worth, and that others have a right to take it as they see fit.  However that’s also a different “moral” judgment, based on un-Christian principles.  Likewise, the idea that homosexual couples have an inherit right to be legally recognized as “married” is not based on objective science, but on an idea of morality – albeit one alien to orthodox Christianity.

The social left doesn’t want to merely keep church and state separate, but to ensure the law is based on a certain nihilistic and atheistic philosophical ideology, rather than traditional Judeo-Christian natural law morality.

But as all Christians should know – and history bears out – removing all morality from law and government doesn’t result in religious freedom, but godless government – and inevitably tyranny.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Lies, Damned Lies, and Golden Opportunities

(Blogger’s note:  This material was originally intended for last week, but due to my schedule lately, I did not have time to finish it then.  My sincere apologies for this being overdue.)

Oh how the mighty have fallen!  The man who not so long ago was so widely hailed as our new Secular Messiah, and Savior of the World, keeps revealing himself to be more and more pathetic with every day, proving himself to be, in the words of Clint Eastwood (because, as I’ve said before, the words of Hollywood actors are of infinite importance), “the greatest fraud ever perpetuated on the American people.”

First there was his incredibly shameless, and artless, lying about his lying about Obamacare.

“Now, if you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really like that plan, what we said was you could keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law was passed.”

(Italics added.)  Of course, Dear Leader had never once said that last part before.   (Ha, ha!  Fooled ya suckas!”)

That one, in my humble opinion, beats out Slick Willie’s classic “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is,’ is.”

Then there was his half-assed, insincere “apology” for the debacle he had forced upon the nation, followed by his trying to wriggle out by saying insurance companies can offer their old plans (which had to be scrapped in order to comply with the new legislation) – thus, in typical Obama fashion trying to avoid responsibility for the damage, and putting the blame back on those Evil Insurance Companies.

You’d think now would be the perfect time for “conservative” Republicans to attack Obama and the Dems with all they got.  But instead, the GOP establishment (after doing virtually nothing to stop this disaster), wants to sit back and let it Obamacare “implode of its own weight.”

In the meantime, Washington and their media cronies are spending all their ammo on Ted Cruz and the Tea Party, frantically scrambling to dig up any dirt they can.  (OMG!  Cruz liked to drink in college!  And he was . . . get this!  . . . ambitious!  So unlike humble “choom room” Barry.)

We’re supposed to fear the sinister ambitions of those rare politicians who dare suggest the government actually follow constitutional limits, while at the same time putting our faith and trust in politicians (of either party) who constantly and shamelessly expand the power of unlimited, lawless government.  It’s all for our own good, of course.

 

,Now is a golden opportunity to fight for the principles of freedom and limited constitutional government, against this spectacular failure of the federal leviathan.   Men follow courage of conviction.  Nobody follows spineless compromise, or those who stand for nothing.  Yeah, it mucked up history, but “conservatives” would do well to sit down and watch Mel Gibson’s Braveheart, and ponder its lessons

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Dispatch from the Zombie Apocalypse

Well, we’ve somehow managed to survive an entire full week of Apocalypse brought about by the wanton disobedience of some in our fair nation to the Will of Dear Leader.  You know, what the wise men in the media and the Dem Party solemnly assured us would be the greatest catastrophe in the history of our country since the Civil War – or perhaps ever.   Millions of corpses strewn across battlefields throughout the country as brother wars against brother,  the Four Horsemen unleashed, plague and famine across the land, rivers turned to blood, demon resurrections, Deadites stalking the earth to feast upon the living – or, okay, anyhow, you get the idea.

Yet somehow, amid the rubble and carnage, teh interwebz miraculously continue to function, allowing me to spread this message to the masses.

All media hype to the contrary, the government “shutdown” is hardly some unprecedented new horror in America.  Prior to the current shutdown, the government had “shutdown” a full seventeen times since 1976, including eight times under Reagan, and twice (including a 21-day shutdown) under Clinton.  (“Shutdown” is somewhat misleading, as the majority of government continues to function fully during this period.)

Yet somehow, those occurrences failed to unleash Armageddon, or even a new War Between the States, nor did they even put a dent in the prosperity of the ‘80s and ‘90s.

Okay, you protest, maybe it’s not the end of the world, but there’s still plenty of unnecessary suffering and inconvenience.  Lots of unnecessary government workers will have to wait on their paychecks, and look at all those poor old WWII vets shut out of their own memorial!

And it’s all the fault of those crazed, radical, wild-eyed Republican right-wingnuts who are acting like little children throwing a tantrum if they don’t get their way, stubbornly refusing any concession to the perfectly wise and reasonable demands of Obama.

Except that in actual reality, the Republicans in Congress have made just about every concession to Dear Leader’s demands, including full funding of Obamacare, showing all the backbone and defiant resolve of a bowl of tapioca pudding, and are now merely demanding delays in the implementation of Obamacare.

(With few notable exceptions, Republicans in the House and Senate have shown near zero willingness to fight against a law which blatantly defies the Constitution of our land – yes, despite how the SCOTUS and that traitorous little weasel Roberts ruled – and is unpopular with most of the American people.

It’s time for the Republican Party to find a new symbol.  The mighty elephant is one of the most magnificent creatures to walk God’s earth.  They should stop disgracing that noble beast, and replace it with something appropriately spineless, brainless and squishy – like a worm or a slug, willing to be trampled by a jackass.  Frankly, if the GOP can’t find the balls to stand for anything, it deserves to go the way of the dodo – or the wooly mammoth, to use a pachyderm example.  The Party may be old, but there’s not a damn thing grand about it these days.)

It’s King Obama (wait, I believe we still officially use the title “President”) who’s playing my-way-or-the-highway, refusing to make even the tiniest concessions to the opposition.   (This is the Prez who ran back in ’09 promising to “reach across the aisle” and unite the country.)  Now he “will not negotiate with those people.” (You see, he’s only willing to negotiate with reasonable folks, like brutal Islamist dictators.)

This is contrary to every previous president, who actually negotiated and made concessions to end shutdowns.  He is also the first to demand the closure of the WWII memorial, which is privately funded, and has remained open under every previous government “shutdown.”  It’s another shamelessly cynical exercise of Dear Leader’s “maximize the pain” principle to bend people to his will.

Obama wishes to rule as a complete despot in blatant disregard to any and all constitutional restraints on power.  Those cowardly Republican “leaders” afraid to stand up to him are worse than worthless, and all the mindless media zombies who voted for Dear Leader and support his every despotic seizure of power – yeah, I’m talking about you – are a cancerous rot on the face of our dying Republic.

(So many on the left who spent the Bush II years screaming about how Bush was Hitler and “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism,” now support every despotic increase in federal power, and will tolerate no dissent from their Dear Leader.)

Frankly, our out-of-control federal government should stay shut down, and those with unnecessary government jobs should look for work in the private sector, rather than off the public dole.  (So much of our Leviathan State is in fact unnecessary.)

Our current soft tyranny did not come about by force of arms, but because We the People have allowed it, becoming unthinking zombies rather than a vigilant free citizenry preferring freedom to easy dependency.

Have a nice day.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Damn the Constitution, Full Speed Ahead!

I’m trying to finally get back into ranting on here after a long absence due to the intrusion of that thing called life, and recent (greatly appreciated) traveling and meeting with family and friends.  My apologies to my dear readers (not to be confused with Dear Leaders) for allowing Gregorian Rants to lie dormant for so long, as I’m sure you waited all those weeks in breathless anticipation for the publication of the next Rant.  (Hey, I’m kidding – take it easy, there.)

Since the SCOTUS ruling, led by “conservative” Chief Justice John Roberts, declaring Obama’s HHS Mandate to be a “tax,” and thus constitutional, Justice Roberts is now (as I predicted) being widely praised by the usual collection of left-leaning chatterboxes in the media for his alleged brilliant non-partisan magnanimity in pursuit of Constitutional justice, and sublime Solomon-like wisdom.  Those currently heaping accolades on Roberts no doubt include many who once condemned him as an unacceptable right-wing partisan “extremist” back when he was nominated by Bush II.   Now, such partisan animosities are tossed aside, as Roberts’ former lefty opponents hail him as pretty much the greatest man since . . . well, since Barrack Obama.  In the words of one Slate scribe, Roberts’ decision avoided an “ugly partisan victory” which would have resulted had he voted to reject Obamacare as unconstitutional.  (Of course, giving Dear Leader what he wants can be neither partisan nor ugly.)

Some on the right (as well as on the left and muddled middle) have praised Justice Roberts’ alleged bi-partisan tactical brilliance in granting Obama and the Dems a tactical victory in ruling the HHS Mandate constitutional by declaring it to be a tax (against the declarations of Team Obama that it is not), while (quite rightly) rejecting the arguments from the left that the mandate was allowable under the Commerce Clause, which was supposedly a strategic victory for conservatives.  Supposedly, this ruling would give greater leverage to Obama’s opponents by declaring the mandate a tax.

But isn’t that exactly the sort of partisan political game that those praising Roberts’ decision claimed he was so brilliantly avoiding?   The goal of a Supreme Court justice should be to correctly interpret the U.S. Constitution, not to find clever compromises between dueling partisan political interests.  Whether Democrats or Republicans are politically helped or hurt by the decision should be utterly irrelevant to the decision-making process.  The hard fact remains that this ruling, however you choose to spin it, grants the federal government unprecedented new power over the lives of citizens.  Calling the mandate a “tax” is quite a stretch, as no prior taxes have involved forcing citizens to purchase a particular product against their will.  It’s the same as if the government were to force every citizen to go buy a Ford vehicle under penalty of law.  Who needs convoluted Commerce Clause arguments when you can simply declare whatever the government forces citizens to do with their money a tax, and therefore constitutional?  Justice Roberts has betrayed not only conservative principle, but the Constitution he swore to uphold.

As we celebrated Independence Day yesterday, we recalled how our forefathers rose up against the British Crown, fought, bled and died, over unjust taxation and oppression that was utterly paltry in comparison to that exercised by our current government, which taxes and meddles in the private lives of its citizens on a scale and scope undreamt of King George and the British government of the 1770s.  Today, our government overlords and toadies in the courts busily seek ways to expand the definition of taxation to justify ever-greater government intrusion on our freedoms.  The Constitution was drafted to limit federal power, but today Supreme Court justices instead find ways to twist it in knots to declare any expansion of government power they like “constitutional.”

Our forefathers were willing to sacrifice everything for the cause of freedom.

Today, we’re willing to settle for free condoms instead.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,