Lame Duck to Quack Vociferously
after November Elections


Rajjpuut's own analysis and a few stray comments taken as hearsay from friends thrice removed quoting blue-dog Democrats who refused to be quoted on the record, in other words nothing a real journalist can take to the bank, have created a potential nightmare scenario for this country. It's all very iffy, nevertheless, you should know . . . . It appears that Obama and his huge majorities in the house and senate aim to "lie low" in the coming months rather than risking alienation of any more voters. After the election, however, things will get lively as the Dems ignoring the standard "gentleman's agreement" that lame duck congresses never deal with controversial matters ignore propriety and instead aim to force cap and trade, union card check, comprehensive immigration "reform," and virtual unionization of police, firefighters and other first responders upon the nation. In effect, the inglorious result of his first half-term will be that Obama will have made the Constitution and congress as well, almost totally irrelevant. If a voting path is created for 12-20 million illegal aliens who will presumably vote Democrat over Republican by 85%-15%, he will have become a virtual dictator for life . . . something even FDR couldn't do.

Another Independence Day has come and gone. We’ve watched our fireworks exhibitions maybe enjoyed a few relatively harmless, but probably illegal firecrackers and modest personal fireworks such as roman candles and even brandished a few sparklers about – never, however, in our history has it been so vital to remember and to understand what exactly the Fourth of July is all about or, by extension, to come to a firm mental grasp of the concepts enlivening our American Constitution. Our Founding Fathers did an excellent job of creating a government for the thirteen entities, the original colonies made into states, and for the numerous individuals inhabiting them.

One might be tempted to say, the Founding Fathers did the most nearly perfect job that’s ever been done of creating a government . . . however, we are surrounded by legions of those who don’t just doubt the near perfection of the job as many of them do, but literally legions who doubt it was even a good job. Some of them, mostly covertly, would consider “Das Kapital” by Marx as formulating a much more apt and perfect solution to this question as to what kind of government is best for mankind. Of course there are all manner of socialists around too, who would argue they’re merely talking about some needed, harmless and over-all beneficial “tweaking” of the Document in question. All of these individuals and groups are what’s called “progressives.” Progressives see the U.S. Constitution as an outdated and flawed document and see the need to “progress” beyond both the word and the spirit of the Constitution. Should we? Are they correct? Is it outdated? Is it seriously flawed?

The continuum of human government runs from anarchy (total freedom, total lack of responsibility, total lack of government, each man for himself) to totalitarianism (zero freedom, 100% duty; 100% government involvement in every aspect of existence, absolute power concentrated in a central government and thus every man exists only at the pleasure of the state and only to benefit the state). The thirteen colonies had just had two very recent experiences with unsatisfactory government . . . in the first instance the autocratic rule of King George III over the colonies went too far to the left, too far toward totalitarianism for their tastes. But when the British were kicked out, the loose pact created by the thirteen states under the Articles of Confederation was unsatisfactory in its closeness to anarchy.

Within reason, the colonials accepted the proposition that the government which governed (that is interfered with and coerced the citizens) the least was the best form of government. The Founding Fathers, “in order to create a more perfect union,” came up with a Republic in which the peoples’ representatives would be chosen by popular vote, democratic process . . . but as they were building a Constitution for the new government, the central government looked a little too potentially malicious and powerful for many tastes and so the powers of that central entity was dramatically curtailed by the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution (ensuring such personal freedoms as freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, right to bear arms, freedom from ex post facto laws, right to due process, etc., etc., and most importantly the 10th Amendment stating that except for the seventeen explicitly mentioned powers and responsibilities of the federal government ALL other power was reserved for the individual states and the individual citizens of the Republic.

Since 1901, the succession to the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt has marked mostly a succession of progressive presidents intent upon expanding their own powers and the powers of the centralized federal government over the states and the citizens. Obviously some good has been done, the National Park System seems, on balance a good thing, that is NOT the question. It’s a question of progressive aims. There’s no provision in the Constitution for the federal government owning huge tracts of land, but beside the national parks today, the majority of several western states is actually owned by the federal government and not the states themselves. The congress or the people could have passed an amendment to the Constitution expanding the federal powers to include, national parks and perhaps another allowing the central government to own such huge expanses of a given state’s land . . . but chances are the second one would NOT have passed, and perhaps the national parks as well . . . but it should have been the people’s choice yea or nay.

Teddy, in many ways seems beneficent, but certainly he was progressive to the core. Certain presidents wielded their progressiveness far more malevolently: Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and to a lesser extent Bill Clinton and George W. Bush fit that category. Even these did some good things. FDR’s CCC camps come to mind; the Civil Rights Act under Johnson come to mind. The legacy of these progressive "giants" is crushing, today's $14 TRillion national debt pales in comparison to the $110 TRillion in unfunded liabilities attached to Social Security, Medicare, and the federal side of Medicaid . . . of course, Welfare is never attached to this bill, but it certainly should be . . . malevolence surely . . . and now comes cap and trade and the bankrupting of the american coal industry and the skyrocketing electricity prices and the 67% inflation it alone will create, not even talking about general inflation of the money supply by 14X under Obama.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/03/video-of-obama-coal-bankruptcy/?print=1
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/03/obamas-energy-plan-bankupt-coal-power-plants-skyrocketing-electricity-rates/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936289.ece
http://www.theproletariatsnews.com/2008/11/special-report-do-we-need-a-new-fdr-to-save-us-from-depression/
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_eastafrica.html

Perhaps we can credit the other four ultra-progressives and men like Clinton and Bush II as being only misguided and truly having good intentions, not so with Barack Obama. From the first days in office, Barack Obama has been poison for the American Dream and his own dream** of a Marxist America has been clear for all to see, unfortunately, the mainstream media has abetted his efforts and the couch potato class has been too busy with their reality shows and sitcoms -- perhaps America deserves the communism he brings -- personally, Rajjpuut deserves anything but . . . so, wake up America!
Ya'all live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut

** besides the evidence of his origins and point of view from the politico.com link above, and the first Obama autobiography "Dreams from My Father," it's worth noting that every scrap of coverage at "Russia Today" and from CPUSA (our own national communist daily) is 100% positive towards Obama, what are the odds?
E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center