"Look at the silly monkey."

It seems in the wake of Arizona’s passage of SB1070, the law that imbues the state with the authority to enforce Federal immigration laws independently, immigration reform has become the hot topic of political discussions. This issue is becoming a driving force on the Sunday morning chat shows as well as many of the political blogs sprinkled throughout the realm of cyberspace. It’s become the hot button issue of the 2010 mid-term elections for many of the candidates seeking office in an increasingly divisive political environment. The debate on immigration reform may very well be the pivotal issue in the upcoming November elections, which may be the worst of possible outcomes for the future of American politics.

After the financial fiasco of TARP just before the 2008 elections (or as I like to call it the “Bailouts for Billionaires” program), the 2009 Economic Stimulus bill (which I like to refer to as the “Thanks for the Votes” reimbursement program), the Federal buyout of General Motors (or as I like to call it “The UAW Jobs and Bonuses ‘Thanks for the Votes You Mafioso Bastards’ Preservation Program”), and the Health-care Reform bill (or as I like to call it the “We’re passing this 2,000 page monstrosity without even reading it come hell or high water whether you voters like it or not” bill), it seems the problem of illegal immigration is a rather small one. Granted the influx of illegal immigrants from our southern border may be a cause for concern, but such concerns seem almost trivial in the wake of the recent financial atrocities listed above.

There’s a reason why the focus has shifted from the overspending and subsequent taxation to support so-called private corporations who are “too big to fail” to kicking out the illegal aliens who pour through our sieve-like southern border. It’s very likely that the political candidates and their associated political action committees who are working overtime to shift the focus of the current political climate are being funded by one or more of these corporations who are “too big to fail.” These candidates are looking to break into politics right on the heels of the growing economic malaise plaguing the American psyche but they would be fools to do so by biting the hand that feeds them. So the blame shifts from the billionaires who bathe in money appropriated from the taxpayers on their behalf to illegal aliens who may or may not be illicitly making use of public services.

The Republican party has been doing everything it can since 2009 to capitalize on the fervor of the Tea Party movement but has fallen short of this goal due to the fact that their own fiscal insanity and corruption is on par with that of their Democrat counterparts. Some Republicans however have seemed to find a way to avoid the larger fiscal issues by playing upon an increasing sense of xenophobia and it appears to be working. The public outrage concerning our porous southern border seems to be eclipsing the outrage of taxpayer dollars being used to bail billion-dollar companies out of their financial blunders. The eyes of the public are being led away from the malicious partnership between the Wall Street financial sector and the U.S. Federal government and being led to the barely literate migrant workers from Mexico working for a slave’s wage illegally.

One should make no mistake that this is nothing more than a distraction and it’s deliberate. I can only hope that the recent anti-government sentiment among voters remains steadfastly focused on the larger issues of fundamental corruption in Washington as opposed to the trifles surrounding immigration reform. There are bigger and far more expensive fish to fry. We should not let the 2010 elections be hijacked by indictments of the U.S. immigration policy but rather a sober look at this nation’s financial situation with a ruthless eye towards sweeping audits and spending cuts. Until those issues are addressed this nation’s immigration policy will be a moot point.

It's not as scary as it looks.

This afternoon I watched a video clip on youtube of an old episode of Crossfire, a Sunday afternoon talk program. This clip was from the year 1986 and the subject was obscene rock music and whether or not the government should step in and impose standards of censorship to ensure that obscene materials do not fall into the hands of impressionable young listeners. Two of the four panelists were political commentator John Lofton and musical iconoclast Frank Zappa. During one point in the heated discussion (it was actually more of an interrupting contest than a discussion), Lofton asked Zappa if he’s some kind of anarchist. This was in response to Zappa’s unwavering viewpoint that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is completely inviolate in all forms of media. Often when someone is openly advocating freedom over government control, it seems that there will always be someone else who sees exercising that freedom as anarchy. I myself have often been called an anarchist. At first I defended my pro-liberty viewpoint as not being anarchy but rather as a Constitutionally sound rational perspective. After closer examination of this however, I may be forced to describe my defense of individual liberty as anarchy.

Anarchy is a dirty word in political discussions. It often invokes images of a dystopian society gripped in crime, fear, and chaos where roving gangs of thugs roam the streets looking to rob, rape, and kill anyone unfortunate enough to cross their path. In other words, a bad post-apocalyptic sci-fi movie from the 1980′s. The only image the word anarchy invokes that is even more nightmarish than this is that of Sex Pistols front man Johnny Rotten. However, one has to ask if that is what anarchy would certainly look like. The fact of the matter is that those who describe anarchy in such negative terms are usually persons in the payed service of a government agency. It makes sense that they would view anarchy as a threat to society at large. If there were anarchy these individuals would be out of a job. That would clearly constitute a conflict of interest. It makes one begin to wonder if the specter of anarchy is truly the hobgoblin of chaos that those who hold the reins of state power claim it to be.

The truth is that we experience anarchy every day in very small ways. Thousands of interpersonal interactions occur between people every day without any supervision from the almighty government. Even in cases where there are laws in place, these laws are frequently violated by millions of people who suffer no consequence for doing so. Somehow society manages to not descend into total chaos and violence despite the fact that some people drive 5 mph faster than the posted speed limit. Despite it’s evil and corrupting influence millions of people illegally smoke marijuana and society hasn’t collapsed into utter chaos. It seems surprising given all the hysteria surrounding what would happen if law and order were to be ignored.

Advocates of government power will do whatever it takes to ensure that that power remains in place. It’s like a security blanket. It doesn’t actually provide any practical security in most cases, but those who put their faith in government cling to this blanket as though it were their only lifeline. Some would argue that government is necessary for providing police services, fire departments, and public education. However, oftentimes the police department is ineffectual when dealing with violent crime in any preventative capacity. Cops are largely bureaucrats with badges and paramilitary training. They usually show up long after crimes have already been committed. Although fire departments do fine work, most fire departments in rural areas are already staffed by volunteers which make a centralized state-run fire department unnecessary. Education has existed long before the establishment of public schools and the curriculum focused upon subjects of academic rigor as opposed to the politically motivated public education of today. It seems anarchy isn’t a word to describe chaos as much as it is a word to describe self-government. That is why anarchy is a dirty word to those whose interests lie with government power. After all, the last thing any politician or government bureaucrat wants is for it to be made known that they are not needed.

The balls on that guy!

During his most recent visit to the White House, Mexican President Felipe Calderon described the new Arizona Immigration Law as discriminatory to Mexicans. Upon reading it, it seems that the new state law is almost a verbatim copy of the Unites States Federal Immigration Laws regarding the status of persons who are in the country illegally. The biggest difference is that the state of Arizona actually intends to enforce this law. The new Arizona immigration law might seem draconian at first glance, but in reality it is merely a state-level redundancy of an already existing but oft unenforced federal law. It could be argued that the new law may be merely the first step in the push for national identification cards which violate constitutional sovereignty, but so far there does not appear to be any correlation. Regardless of how one may feel about Arizona taking on the responsibilities that the Federal government appears to have abdicated, one has to consider that the immigration laws of Arizona and the United States are some of the most lenient in the world.

When I was on an extended vacation in the country of Thailand, I was required to submit my passport to every hotel and guest house where I was staying in order to verify that my tourist visa was current and valid. This was true in every place I stayed because the Thai immigration policies are very strict. Even though tourists provide a significant portion of the country’s GDP, the Thai government takes no quarter when it comes to enforcing their immigration policies. Here in America the regulations are a great deal more relaxed. Most foreign tourists need nothing more than a credit card to stay the night in any hotel. Hotel owners are not required to submit a photocopy of a visitor’s passport to the INS whenever a foreign national checks in. Considering the sheer number of persons who are in this country illegally, it seems obvious that even our uncommonly lenient immigration laws aren’t being as vigorously enforced as they would be in other sovereign nations.

This brings me back to El Presidente Felipe Calderon. While Mr. Calderon plays the political game of national victim-hood for the Washington D.C. press corps, he neglects to mention the strict draconian immigration laws of his own country. For example one could be sentenced with up to two years in Mexican prison for sneaking across the border. I dare anyone to find a penalty that harsh anywhere in the controversial Arizona legislation. In Mexico foreign nationals are not allowed to own certain kinds of property, anyone who was not a naturally born citizen is not allowed to hold any public position at all, and any foreigners protesting against the government can be subject to immediate deportation. Mexican immigration laws make ours seem like outright anarchy by comparison. It seems that Mr. Calderon is either completely ignorant of the immigration policies of his own country or he has balls the size of pinatas.

Anyone who is functionally literate can easily see the hypocrisy of the Mexican President’s comments regarding the Arizona law. That’s what Mr. Calderon is counting on. Most reporters in Washington D.C. are not in-fact functionally literate. The Arizona immigration law is what these activist journalists have been praying for. To them it’s another chance to play the ever-so-overused race card. In their minds it’s not about the enforcing this country’s highly lenient immigration laws or addressing what has become a very real problem in that part of the country, it’s about racism. It’s always about racism. If Arizona’s new law is in fact motivated by racism, it forces me to ask the obvious question. Are Mexico’s harsh and ultimately counter-productive immigration laws racist? After all, even naturalized citizens aren’t allowed to hold public office in Mexico. Are the Mexicans racist, xenophobic, or both? Does President Calderon have a leg to stand on when he criticizes Arizona for doing a small fraction of what his own country already does? Does President Calderon have enormous balls for displaying his open and obvious hypocrisy for an entire nation to see? Are the answers to these questions as obvious as one might think?

This is your country on socialism...any questions?

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once said “The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” No matter how benevolent Socialism may appear, it is ultimately an unsustainable system of economics that relies upon mounting levels of debt that eventually devalue the nation’s currency laying waste to the entire economic infrastructure. This reality has played itself out every time any nation embraces a socialist model of economic management. Those who oppose socialistic philosophies often cite the downfall of the Soviet Union as a prime example of why Socialism doesn’t work. Those who favor Socialism often repeat the customary refrain of “Socialism works in Europe.” The events of this week however indicate that those who say that may have spoke too soon.

Greece is in trouble, big trouble. The nation’s public debt, expensive social programs, and floundering industries have put it on an inevitable course of economic ruin. The E.U. is going to lend even more money to Greece as a stop gap to give the Greek government a chance to address their economic issues. Taxes in Greece are on the rise as public services are beginning to dwindle. This is causing certain elements their dependent citizenry to riot in the face of diminishing services and escalating taxes. The international markets are in a tailspin due to rising concerns of not only Greece’s insolvency, but the insolvency of other European Union nations such as Spain and Portugal. The vaunted “soft socialism” of Europe which is often used as a shining example by progressives to advocate the implementation of such a system here in the U.S. is headed for the inevitable disaster that socialism of any stripe always brings.

Many can attribute Greece’s economic woes to corrupt politicians but I feel that’s more a symptom of the problem rather than the underlying cause. Politicians become corrupt once they are given power. It’s nearly unavoidable. When problems arise people look to government for solutions. To implement these solutions the government usurps power. Once this power falls into the hands of some bureaucratic functionary it is either misused by said functionary or it goes up for sale to the highest bidder (usually a major corporation of some kind). Marxists often argue that the only reason their visions of a worker’s utopia has never been realized is that the wrong people are always put in charge of socialist regimes. The truth is however, that even the right people can eventually be transformed into the wrong people once they have a taste for real power and can convince themselves and others that they wield this power for the common good. Lord Acton was quite correct about the corrupting influence of power.

Once government functionaries are given broad sweeping powers over a nation’s economic health, waste, fraud and abuse become the norm. When the public becomes aware of this situation politicians always promise to end the waste, fraud, and abuse. They do this by allocating even more power to government functionaries. This is the equivalent of throwing gasoline on an already massive inferno. At this point the social “safety net” erected as a temporary measure to help people who fall on hard times becomes a hammock where those who feel entitled take up permanent residence.

Those who pay into the system to support it’s massive failures and corruption soon get wise to the scheme and find a way to opt out by either finding a way to shelter their earnings or withdraw from the system altogether. Suddenly the “eat the rich” approach that Marxists espouse becomes a recipe for starvation as those who don’t benefit from the system find a way to circumvent it. The only option left for government is to borrow the money they need to pay for the ever increasing entitlement programs. This racks up public debt and undermines the nation’s currency as the treasury starts printing more and more money to cover the interest on the debt. This causes industries to cut their losses, pack up and leave for greener pastures. As a result of this unemployment soars which puts more people on the entitlement rolls. This increases the expense of the already overburdened entitlement programs which forces those who no longer have the ability or inclination to be self-sufficient to get by with less. This is the part of the story where riots begin.

Greece is at this point now. Riots are breaking out as the entire socialist house of cards collapses around the feet of those who built it. It’s unlikely the bailout from the E.U. will help in the long term. Greece needs  a fundamental economic restructuring, but it’s unlikely there will be any meaningful reforms. With thousands of citizens being dependent upon the state, the soil for economic growth has been sown with salt. If anyone tries to dismantle the entitlement juggernaut they will likely be met with profound resistance. The entire Greek economy will fall on it’s sword to preserve the political careers of the Greek ruling class. What’s happening in Greece is a preview of things to come in other European countries. This is why the DJIA plummeted nearly a thousand points at one point of trading today and closed at nearly -350 points. The writing is on the wall and the investors on Wall Street know it. The economy of Greece may be unsalvageable and hopefully it will serve as a warning to other nations dabbling in European-style “soft” socialism.  Socialism doesn’t work. It didn’t work in the U.S.S.R., it’s not working in Europe, and it won’t work here. The Marxists out there just need finally accept reality.

Your papers, please.

We’ve all seen old movies which take place within the borders of countries controlled by oppressive regimes. Most of these movies take place during the second world war in Nazi occupied territories or behind the iron curtain during the cold war. In these movies the spy or escaped POW has to make his way out of these countries using forged identification. The intrepid hero is usually stopped at some point (usually without any cause) by a soldier or law enforcement agent and asked to produce this identification on demand. The antagonist would ask the customary question with the equally customary euro-trash accent “Your papers please.” It’s usually a very tense part of the film where the character isn’t certain if his forged credentials will pass muster. As American moviegoers we would usually look upon these scenes and be very thankful that this sort of thing could never happen here in the land of the free…or could it?

Over the past couple of years there have been concerns in libertarian circles about the possibility of the Federal government imposing a national ID law for the entire country which would render state-issued ID obsolete. This article however is not being written to address that concern. This article concerns Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 which was passed into law yesterday. This law is supposed to address the burgeoning problem of illegal aliens in the state of Arizona. The law states that anyone suspected of being in the country illegally by law enforcement will be required to produce some form of identification to prove otherwise. Many in the conservative blogsphere are fully in support of this measure. After all, it does not seem that the Federal government has any interest at all in curbing the influx of illegal aliens into this country from our southern border. It looks as though the state of Arizona is taking the problem into it’s own hands to be solved as they feel is necessary.

The major problem with this approach however should seem obvious to anyone with an I.Q. above room temperature. It’s blatantly unconstitutional. Law enforcement cannot just stop someone and ask for their identification without probable cause or a warrant. It says so in the Fourth Amendment. How does one establish probable cause to suspect someone might be in the country illegally? Could it be that they look Hispanic? A significant percentage of people in this country who are here legitimately look Hispanic. An even larger percentage of these people live in Arizona. Will Arizona law enforcement officials be stopping all people who look Hispanic? That not only sounds like a formula for excessive civil rights violations, it sounds like a lot of overtime pay for law enforcement being billed to the taxpayer. What other probable causes might prompt police to ask someone for his or her papers? Maybe they no hablo Ingles. They might not be citizens of this country, and they might not speak the language, but that does not mean that they are here illegally. They could be here on completely legitimate visas or they could even be tourists. No judge in any court would consider looking Hispanic or speaking in a foreign language as constituting probable cause that a crime is being committed.

The only reason law enforcement may have to ask a person for their identification is if there is sufficient evidence to warrant probable cause to do so. If a patrol officer engages in a traffic stop it’s usually because there has been some sort of vehicular violation (such as erratic driving, damaged tail lights, or expired registration). All of these are legitimate reasons to ask for the requisite license and registration. If it happens that the driver cannot produce a valid drivers license because they are in the country illegally than by all means they should be dealt with according to existing immigration laws. It’s the same as if during a traffic stop an officer discovers that the driver of the vehicle has an outstanding warrant. Legally appropriate action will be taken. However, simply pulling someone over because they have a Mexican flag hanging from their rear-view mirror is just as bad as pulling someone over because they have an “Abort Obama” bumper sticker. It’s an outrageous and unconstitutional overreach of government powers.

This new law in Arizona is not only going to wreak havoc on the constitutional liberties of Arizonans, it will also bankrupt the state and leave it’s economy in ruins. Civil rights lawsuits will crop up like dandelions. Legal fees and settlements will become a gaping fiscal wound in Arizona’s budget. To help pay off these legal fees the state government will undoubtedly turn to the taxpayer to foot the bill for this fiasco. The higher tax burden in all likelihood will drive businesses and jobs far away from the Grand Canyon State thus widening it’s unemployment percentage. The situation would clearly lead to a lose-lose scenario for all concerned. Would pandering to “blame illegal aliens” crowd really be worth the cost overhead that this law will undoubtedly foist upon the people of Arizona? Somehow I don’t think so, and I’m not the only one. Someone far more qualified in legal matters than me shares his opinion in the video below.

Tomorrow is Tax day. It has also become the day for the Tea Party gatherings being held all across the United States. These gatherings have left-leaning statists making dookie in their underwear. They have gone as far as forging a party-line narrative that these gatherings are not about a Federal government gone mad with the taxpayer’s checkbook, but rather a gathering of Aryan white supremacists who are incensed that a black man was elected to the office of President of the United States. Anyone who has attended one of these gatherings could easily dispel this myth, but the opposition on the left won’t let a stupid thing like the facts get in the way of their precious narrative.

The problem these folks are faced with is that these gatherings are not a conglomeration of white, racist, illiterate rednecks. They know it as well as we do. So they need to find a way to make certain that the narrative sticks. Their solution can be found at the website crashtheteaparty dot org. Their strategy is simple.They want people to show up undercover (like super-secret spies and stuff) at the tea party gatherings with picket signs that are full of ignorant, racist, extremist rhetoric. They will pose as the type of person they imagine a typical Tea Party attendee to be in order to discredit the movement. Since these people could not find definitive facts to support their narrative, they decided to go ahead and fabricate it. How pathetic! This is a direct quote from their website (with my own annotations).

Whenever Possible we will act on behalf of the Tea Party in ways to exaggerate [read falsify] their least appealing qualities (misspelled protest signs, wild claims in TV interviews, etc.) to further distance them from mainstream America and damage the public’s opinion of them. [In other words they plan on lying about the Tea Party movement from the inside to any moron in the news media who will listen in an effort to discredit them.]

That’s a play right out of Saul Alinsky’s book. This to me goes a long way towards proving that the claims from the left about the Tea Party are patently false. After all if they were true they wouldn’t need to crash the Tea Parties to fabricate the evidence in the first place. This is like proving that cell phones cause brain tumors by finding someone with a brain tumor, giving him a cell phone, and then taking a photograph. There’s your poof! Eureka! The degree of moral and ethical depravity from the left appears to have no bounds in what they laughingly refer to as political discourse. Since I will not be attending the Tax Day Tea Party this year due to my employment obligations, I will ask any liberty-minded attendees to keep an eye out for these so-called “crashers”. If you happen to spot one, let him or her know that you are on to them and their attempt to mislead the mainstream American public will not work because we ARE the mainstream American public. If possible have someone at the podium point them out. Hopefully this might result in some good old fashioned public humiliation. Let these cockroaches know just how petty and pathetic they really are. Don’t give them a voice. Don’t give them a chance. Don’t give them an inch.

Update:

This is a perfect example of what I meant in this post. I’m glad to see that some of the crashers met with the abject failure they so richly deserve (hat tip to moonbattery.com).

Epic FAIL!!

]]> http://www.libertoad.com/2010/04/14/pathetic/feed/ 2 http://www.libertoad.com/2010/04/13/be-careful-what-you-wish-for/ http://www.libertoad.com/2010/04/13/be-careful-what-you-wish-for/#comments Tue, 13 Apr 2010 22:49:06 +0000 Crazy Ivan http://www.libertoad.com/?p=823

How else does one react when our incompenet lawmakers shoot themselves in the foot?

Everyone has heard the old adage that one should be careful what he or she wishes for because they just might get it. A little more than two weeks ago congress went to amazing lengths to pass it’s highly disputed health care bill into law. They used every trick in the book and even made up a few new ones. They struck backroom deals, offered bribes, coerced, and manipulated anyone within their ranks to vote in favor of the over 2,000 page-long bill. It seems that many of them have even sacrificed any hope they may have had of being re-elected in the upcoming November vote. The bill was to be passed come hell or high water. In retrospect however, maybe they should have at least read the bill first. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi while speaking at the 2010 Legislative Conference for the National Association of Counties said that congress had to “pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it, away from the fog of controversy.” Recently however, the Congressional Research Service has taken the time to study the monstrous over 2,000 page health care legislation and has indeed found out what’s in it.

It seems there’s a part of the bill which states that the law may remove congress members and congressional staff from their current health care coverage. Since the coverage offered by the law for all Americans will not go into effect until 2014, it is conceivable that congressmen and congressional staffers could be removed from the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program without any alternatives being available for another four years. This is arguably the funniest thing I’ve seen in a long time. Congress passed the bill with draconian fervor and now they get to find out what’s in it. I guess Nancy’s going to have to postpone those Botox treatments for the next few years and I’m pretty certain that Robert Byrd is doomed. Congressional Democrats will no longer be able to give him a booster shot and dunk him in formaldehyde for a few hours before trotting him out to the Senate floor to cast his vote. They no longer have the insurance to cover those pre-existing conditions. The irony just kills me. They wanted this bill to pass so very badly that many of these so-called representatives have sabotaged their own political careers to make it happen, and now they themselves are in danger of being uninsured as a result of that very same bill. It’s almost enough to make one believe in karma.

What’s probably going to happen now is congress will try to add a fix to the bill to undo this little oversight in the legislation. I say we shouldn’t let them. If they even try there should be a filibuster the likes of which the U.S. Senate has never seen. Let them go uninsured for the next four years. They should consider it penance. As far as I’m concerned they made their bed and now they have to sleep in it. While they ran roughshod over the U.S. Constitution to pass this bill, they mocked and ignored their constituents who made it perfectly clear that they wanted no part in this boondoggle. Now that it has come to light that the largely unread bill could potentially leave members of Congress without health insurance, these parasites are not only getting what they deserve but they’re getting it as a direct result to their own corruption and incompetence.

The portion of the bill that could potentially remove congress members and their staff from their current medical coverage can be traced to Sen. Charles E. Grassley from Iowa. He stated that the measure in question was to ensure that “political leaders live under the laws they pass for everyone else.” This seems fair to me and the confusion that seems to surround the details of the health care legislation gives me an idea for future bills. If libertarian measures can be sneaked into these leviathan monstrosity bills passed by Congress, they can function as a sort of Trojan horse. After all, it isn’t as though our elected officials will ever read any of the legislation they pass anyway. Potentially, one could include a measure abolishing the Federal government completely by discreetly tucking it away in a 3,000 page economic “stimulus” bill. I personally could think of no better way to stimulate the economy. If congress wants to keep shooting themselves in the foot the least we can do is supply them with the ammunition. We can make their laziness, corruption, and incompetence work for for the people instead of against us. Now that’s change we can believe in.

Great party! But who invited all of these n@!*ers?

In the aftermath of congress passing it’s highly embattled health care overhaul bill, some representatives have been making allegations that angry mobs of protesters have been spitting on them as well as shouting racist and homophobic invectives. Rep. Andre Carson claimed that a mob to Tea Party protesters shouted the dreaded “N” word at least 15 times as he and Rep. John Lewis were leaving the Cannon House office building. There is no definitive video or audio evidence of this incident despite the fact that cameras were on the scene. As a matter of fact Andrew Breitbart of biggovernment.com has promised a $10,000 reward to anyone who can provide such evidence. So far nobody has been able to collect this reward which casts these allegations in a rather dubious light. Despite this, many representatives are crying foul and painting those constituents who disagree with their legislative overreach as violent racist hate mongers.

Playing devil’s advocate as I often like to do, let’s suppose the claims of Representatives Carson and Lewis are indeed true. This of course flies in the face of two important maxims. The first of these being that the burden of proof must always be born by the accuser and the second of these is that politicians don’t always tell the truth. Ignoring these tenets of common sense lets assume some unhinged and misguided folks shouted the “N” word as described by these congressmen. So what? Members of congress have been less than courteous all through last summer’s town hall meetings when confronted by constituents with whom they disagreed. We all remember when California Representative Pete Stark said to one detractor “I wouldn’t dignify you by peeing on your leg, it wouldn’t be worth wasting the urine.” That seems a bit harsh from my perspective. Certainly more harsh than mindlessly shouting a completely outmoded racial slur. And this was not an isolated incident. Rep. Barney Frank also had some words of disdain asking an admittedly unhinged voter “On what planet do you spend most of your time?” He also said “Trying to have a conversation with you would be like arguing with a dining room table.” Granted Rep. Frank was being confronted by someone who appeared to be completely out to lunch, but it seems he was only too happy to steer clear of the high road. Then of course there was the incident where Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was asked a question regarding the constitutionality of the health care bill to which she indignantly replied “Are you serious?” She has also decried opposition to the bill as being un-American.

Less than a year ago these so-called representatives spent an entire summer rudely sneering at groups of voters who disagreed with the proposed health care legislation. Now these same people are whining and crying about how the Tea Party protesters are saying mean things to them. What were they expecting? You can’t undermine the will of the people and insult many of them in public and not expect some sort of reprisal. It’s very unlikely that anyone shouted the “N” word to Mr. Lewis or Mr. Carson, but what if they did? Is that any worse than telling someone that you wouldn’t waste urine by peeing on his leg? Shouting a racial epithet is an empty and mindless way to insult someone. It was obvious that Pete Stark put a certain degree of thought in expressing his utter disdain for a large portion of the voting public. An insult like that stings more.

The most telling aspect to this whole sordid affair is that despite the fact the nobody has come forth to collect Andrew Breitbart’s $10,000 “N” word prize, it is being accepted as fact by many of the major news outlets that the incident did occur. This comes as no surprise to me. For well over a year the mainstream news media has gone to great lengths to portray the Tea Party movement as being a radical white supremacy movement despite the fact that there have been people of all different races seen at these events.  I personally attended one such event and can testify that it was not by any means a racially motivated event. As a matter of fact one of the keynote speakers at the event I attended was black. I guess he was a white supremacist too, I don’t know. The facts however are not what is important to these news reporters. What’s important to them is the narrative. If the facts don’t fit the narrative, they need to be edited until they do. I’m convinced that Representatives Lewis and Carson invented the “facts” based upon which narrative would paint them in the best light and paint those who oppose them in the worst light imaginable. Considering the political fallout that will inevitably follow these representatives in the November elections, they will need all the good press they can get.

Hyperbole much?

“Life is but a walking shadow,
a poor playerthat struts and
frets his hour upon the stage
and then is heard no more:
it is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing.”
Macbeth Act 5, Scene 5

In the wake of the unprecedented passage of the hotly disputed health care bill this weekend, the right-of-center blogsphere has been practically apoplectic. These guys have been screaming for revolution, activism, and promising repeal if and when the Republican Party takes back control of the house and senate. Fourteen state governments have even filed suit against this legislation based upon it’s unconstitutionality. Despite my own feelings regarding the federal government imposing unprecedented  control of what was once the private health insurance industry, I cant help but remember the soliloquy from the fifth act of Macbeth. It seems that all of this sound and fury from the right is little more than a tale told by an idiot signifying nothing. Here’s why.

For one thing, this legislation will not be repealed. Even if the Republican Party were to gain majorities in the house and senate as soon as 2011, many of the entitlements promised by the new legislation will already be in place. No politician could ever enjoy a political victory by promising to take away entitlement goodies from a dependent constituency. Politicians win elections by promising the electorate free stuff. It’s been that way since the beginning of free elections. Nobody ever won an election by promising to take away entitlements. The best those who have opposed the health care bill could hope for is a reform of the health care entitlements similar to the welfare reform legislation of the 1990s. Repealing the health care bill is purely a fantasy being entertained by frustrated conservatives who feel as though the proverbial rug has been pulled out from beneath them.

As far as the state governments filing a lawsuit based upon the unconstitutionality of the bill, this will probably accomplish little if anything at all. Litigation takes time, too much time as a matter of fact. By the time this case is heard in the Supreme Court the health insurance entitlements will already be well entrenched in the national lexicon. Rescinding the bill by way of judicial review will be utterly impractical by then. This of course is assuming that the Supreme Court would even rule in favor of the states. The judiciary as of late has had little use for upholding the U.S. Constitution, especially where state’s rights are concerned. Too many of these judges enjoy the power of “legislating from the bench” as it has been called. Justice Sotomayor has even publicly admitted to such ambitions despite the constitutional checks and balances that would prevent such abuses.

This last option we have been hearing from the right is the option of revolt and revolution. Please, give me a break. That’s not going to happen as long as the vast majority of Americans are fat, dumb, and happy. Revolution only happens when the crap really hits the fan. When people are waiting in line for two to three hours to buy toilet paper, the unemployment numbers break 30%, and the value of the dollar has plummeted to the point that gasoline costs $20 a gallon. If it comes to this, maybe we might see the seeds of revolution being sown. That hasn’t happened yet and it may take decades to even approach that level of civil discord. The Soviet Union plodded along for nearly 80 years until their people were fed up enough to change anything. Another important point to consider is that the current voting public does not consist of rugged individuals such as those seen in what was called “the greatest generation.” Most of the voters are baby boomers and gen-x’ers. Compared to those who came before, most of us have had everything handed to us on a silver platter. We are the affluent results of a decadent culture. You will be hard pressed to find anyone with the spine or stomach for a real revolution against the powers that be. Too many people have too much to lose by throwing off the chains of the Federal government.

The most disturbing aspect of the events of this past weekend is not so much the fact that the bill passed but the manner in which it was passed. The methods used to ramrod this bill to the President’s desk circumvented the very rules of legislative procedure outlined in the U.S. Constitution. This sets a dangerous precedent. If this bill can be rammed through in this fashion, what’s to stop congress from doing the same thing with any other piece of legislation? This is what disturbs me the most. This is a huge step away from being a constitutional republic moving in the direction of oligarchy (which is merely a nice way of saying “collective dictatorship”). Congress can now pass anything they want despite the rule of law and the will of the people. I find it interesting (although not in the least bit surprising) that progressives on the left are quite pleased with the clever machinations which led to congress circumventing constitutional procedure to pass a bill they favored strongly. It makes me wonder how they would feel if a Republican led congress used the same tactic to pass a bill they did not favor. At that point would they cry foul? Would they side with the Constitution then? Does one’s loyalty to his or her political party supersede ones loyalty to the Constitution of this nation?

These are important questions to consider. The impotent sound and fury on the right and the smug self-satisfaction on the left fails to consider that unprecedented power has just been wielded by our elected officials to advance a specific agenda. Congress and the executive branches of government were never meant to hold this much power over the will of the people. In a previous post I predicted the ultimate downfall of this once great republic as it spirals down the vortex of Marxist ideology. This is yet another step on this path. Not so much in the health care bill itself, but the draconian grab for power which made it possible.

Has anyone seen my fiddle?

I spend a lot of time on the internet. Being a cubicle slave for 40 hours a week at an undisclosed location affords me a lot of time to read other blogs and even their comments sections. At this one blog in particular a right-wing republican blogger was railing against the reconciliation process being employed by house and senate democrats to pass the health care boondoggle by bypassing the filibuster in the senate. Inevitably one of the commentors calling himself Proud_Liberal was pointing out the republicans in the past used the same tactic to pass tax cut legislation. This of course descended into the typical partisan bickering and name calling that is characteristic of what passes for political discourse in this day and age. The liberal called the conservative a racist. The conservative called the liberal a fascist. This went on and on with the liberal foaming at the mouth about Bush’s push to war in Iraq and Afghanistan followed by the conservative defending a revolutionary standpoint using the health care reform bill as the proverbial final straw. The whole thing was idiotic.

The problem with both sides to these sorts of debates is the hypocrisy. I pointed this out in a previous post entitled Hooray for Our Side. Democrat apologists will often use the line “You didn’t complain when Bush did the same thing.” when Republican supporters point out the missteps of the current administration. They have a point but there’s a fallacy to this argument. The conservatives didn’t complain about the socialist agenda of G.W. Bush but the progressives did. Now that a Democrat congress and executive administration is in place the progressives have no problem with anything the congress does while the conservatives are crying for revolution. Republican politicians are trying to convince the voting public that if they win majorities in the house and senate in the 2010 elections that they will enact change (sound familiar?). In the words of our 43rd President “fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”

I for one want the progressive socialist agenda to go through. Yes, you read that correctly. I give up. I want it to go through. I can almost hear you say “Are you crazy, Ivan?” *snicker* There’s a reason I say this. For the last century or so progressives, communists, and socialists have always believed that if they were granted broad sweeping powers they could remake any nation into a Utopian paradise. They’ve been trying this for nearly 100 years and they have failed miserably every time. The former Soviet Union, Red China, North Korea, Cambodia, and Cuba are just a few examples of how this agenda only serves to impoverish and ultimately enslave the majority of the population for the good of the state. However, despite the empirical failures of the progressive philosophy these folks are still convinced that it could work if only they were the ones to implement it. My response to them is “Go for it. Let’s see how that works out for you. ” Yes, I want America to be flushed down the commie rat hole. I want it to become clear to every man woman and child in excruciating detail just how backwards, perverse, and destructive the socialist agenda actually is. Sometimes lessons need to be learned the hard way and Americans need to know firsthand why socialism is ultimately a kind of serfdom rivaling that of the middle ages.

Republican bloggers often call for revolution, but in reality the only revolution they want is more Republicans in office doing the same things their Democrat predecessors have been doing all along. Also as is expertly pointed out by Democrats who claim “Republicans did the same thing”, the Democrats are no different than their reviled Republican counterparts. The political polarization in this country has nothing to do with principles, facts, or morality. It is strictly about party affiliation. So I give up. This country deserves to be 12 trillion dollars in debt. This country deserves the 50 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities from medicare, medicaid, and social security. This country deserves the 2 trillion dollar a year health care boondoggle being foisted upon us by our elected flunkies. The people in this country have abandoned it’s founding principles long ago and the only way back is for the Federal government to collapse under it’s own weight the same way the Soviet Union did. If the Democrat’s health care reform bill will help to speed up this process then I fully endorse it. Let Rome burn.