Cuts to the Quick, Doesn't He?

Cuts to the Quick, Doesn't He?

Michael Ramirez pens another Pulitzer-worthy effort:


As I've said before, "I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!"

I Reiterate . . .

I Reiterate . . .

Steven Den Beste in his post on the election, not the end of the world wrote, among other things:

A lot of bad things are going to happen during this term. But I don't think that this is an irreversible catastrophe for the union. I've lived long enough to absorb this basic truth: the US is too large and too strong to destroy in just 4 years. Or even in 8. We survived 6 years of Nixon. We survived 4 years of Carter. We even survived 8 years of Clinton, God alone knows how.

The President of the United States is the most powerful political figure in the world, but as national executives go his powers are actually quite restricted. Obama will become President, but he won't be dictator or king, let alone deity. He still has to work with the House and the Senate, and he still has to live within Constitutional restrictions, and with a judiciary that he mostly didn't appoint.

The main reason this will be a "coming of age" moment is that now Obama and the Democrats have to put up or shut up. Obama got elected by making himself a blank slate, with vapid promises about "hope" and "change" -- but now he actually has to do something. Now he has to reveal his true agenda. And with the Democrats also having a majority in both chambers of Congress, now the Democrats really have to lead. And they're not going to do a very good job of it. It's going to be amusing to watch.

And the people who fell for the demagoguery will learn an invaluable lesson.

Oh, the Democrats (will) try to blame failure on Republican filibusters, of which there will be many. But that's always been a factor in our system, and many people believe it's an important check on government excess. The tradition in the Senate is that it is supposed to be a buffer against transient political fads, and the filibuster is a major part of that.

If the Democrats go all in, and change the filibuster rule, then they'll have truly seized the nettle with both hands and won't have any excuses any longer. That's why they won't do it. It's their last fig-leaf. But even with the filibuster rule in place, they'll be stuck trying to deliver now on all the promises implied, or inferred, during this election. The Republicans can only filibuster on bills the Democrats have already proposed.

(My emphasis.)

As I wrote in The Nuclear Option back in May,

The title of this essay is "The Nuclear Option." I named it that for a reason. John McCain has caught a lot of flak for preventing the implementation of "The Nuclear Option" with his Gang of 14 who negotiated the compromise that also resulted in Judge (Janice Rogers) Brown's confirmation.

But he was right.

As we go into the 2008 elections, the Democrats will, once again, control the House and Senate - perhaps with significant majorities. No matter who ends up in the White House, the Senate Judiciary Committee will be run by Democrats, and any and all nominees will be vetted by them. If John McCain wins the White House, then "moderates" are the best we as a nation can expect to see confirmed, but if Obama or Hillary wins, then Republicans will be in precisely the same position the Democrats were in. Filibuster will be the Republican's only arrow in their quiver.

What do you want to bet that "The Nuclear Option" will be brought up by the Democrats in that event?

At least that's not a tool the Republicans generously handed them.

Thank whatever Diety you worship for that.

Awwww Crap!

Awwww Crap!

Michael Crichton has died. I didn't even know he had cancer. One of the most eloquent voices against the abuse of and the politicization of science has been silenced. And it appears that his web page, where most of his speeches and essays are posted is getting hammered - I'm seeing a lot of "503 Error - Service Unavailable" messages.

I've read just about every book he's written, and most if not all of his essays. The last book of his I read was Next, and it was one of the most disturbing novels I've ever read - especially since I know how thoroughly he researched his work. The man was a national treasure.

If you haven't already seen it, I strongly recommend you go to this post from July and watch the 56 minute interview he gave to Charlie Rose after Next came out.

RIP, Michael. We need you, and we're going to miss you. The Church of Global Warming will be ramping up their membership drive shortly.

Quote(s) of the Day

Quote(s) of the Day

From Billy Beck:

At the moment, I have two general things to say:

1) That was the capstone of twentieth century American politics. That catastrophe is complete now.

2) It was the most profoundly foolish thing that American voters have ever done. As a matter of justice, it might be interesting to see how many of them discover this fact in the next four or eight years. It won't make any difference, however, to the price that comes with the lesson. This event will hobble Americans for whole generations. It is very much an open question to me whether anyone will learn anything in the wake of this. I am very much afraid that that capacity is on its way completely out of American civil life. I'm not kidding.

All bets are off.

ObamaNation

ObamaNation

Catastrophe defeated Disaster. Well, that answers one question - can a black man be elected President of the U.S.?

And another - no, there were apparently no "celebratory riots," thankfully.

The Democrats now have at least 56 Senate seats - not 60 (also thankfully), but not far off. They may have as many as 256 House seats.

For that which The Change we are about to receive, may we be truly thankful . . .

Here's hoping that Markadelphia isn't wrong about everything.

In Honor of Election Day

In Honor of Election Day

You say you want a revolution
Well you know
We'd all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We'd all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be alright

You say you got a real solution
Well you know
We'd all want to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We're all doing what we can
But if you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you'll have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be alright

You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
We'd all love to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know know it's gonna be alright

Commments?

The Test

The Test

Tomorrow is it. It's the test to see if America is still politically Lockean or if Rousseau has finally won. If Gramsci has won.

And if our children have lost.

Today was a long day. Tomorrow promises the same. But there will be an even longer night tomorrow.

Disaster or catastrophe? Here's hoping for the best of those two really dismal choices.

Vanderboegh Has a Wicked Sense of Humor

Vanderboegh Has a Wicked Sense of Humor

And I mean that in the best possible way.

(Anybody who likes Monty Python and the Holy Grail is OK by me.)

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for...but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong. If this is too blind for your taste, consult some well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask his advice. Then vote the other way. This enables you to be a good citizen (if such is your wish) without spending the enormous amount of time on it that truly intelligent exercise of franchise requires. - R.A. Heinlein, The Notebooks of Lazarus Long

And urge all your friends and neighbors to do likewise.

Remember: The choice is between disaster and catastrophe, and if you chose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

Archived for Posterity

I think Judge Andrew Napolitano will be an early candidate for re-education given this WSJ op-ed that I will archive here due to its excellence:

Most Presidents Ignore the Constitution
The government we have today is something the Founders could never have imagined.

By Andrew P. Napolitano

In a radio interview in 2001, then-Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama noted -- somewhat ruefully -- that the same Supreme Court that ordered political and educational equality in the 1960s and 1970s did not bring about economic equality as well. Although Mr. Obama said he could come up with arguments for the constitutionality of such action, the plain meaning of the Constitution quite obviously prohibits it.

Mr. Obama is hardly alone in his expansive view of legitimate government. During the past month, Sen. John McCain (who, like Sen. Obama, voted in favor of the $700 billion bank bailout) has been advocating that $300 billion be spent to pay the monthly mortgage payments of those in danger of foreclosure. The federal government is legally powerless to do that, as well.

Legally powerless, but that hasn't stopped them.

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt first proposed legislation that authorized the secretary of agriculture to engage in Soviet-style central planning -- a program so rigid that it regulated how much wheat a homeowner could grow for his own family's consumption -- he rejected arguments of unconstitutionality. He proclaimed that the Constitution was "quaint" and written in the "horse and buggy era," and predicted the public and the courts would agree with him.

The case here was Wickard v. Filburn, and it represented the first really egregious abuse of the Commerce Clause.

Remember that FDR had taken -- and either Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain will soon take -- the oath to uphold that old-fashioned document, the one from which all presidential powers come.

Actually, as Senators both have already taken the oath. McCain violated it most blatantly with the McCain-Feingold incumbent protection "Campaign Finance Reform" Act. Obama hasn't spent enough time in the Senate to have a record, but it appears the country is about to put him in the Big Chair where he can redistribute wealth to his heart's content. Also without the legal power to do so.

Unfortunately, these presidential attitudes about the Constitution are par for the course. Beginning with John Adams, and proceeding to Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush, Congress has enacted and the president has signed laws that criminalized political speech, suspended habeas corpus, compelled support for war, forbade freedom of contract, allowed the government to spy on Americans without a search warrant, and used taxpayer dollars to shore up failing private banks.

And the American people haven't gotten out the rope or the tar and feathers, more's the pity.

All of this legislation -- merely tips of an unconstitutional Big Government iceberg -- is so obviously in conflict with the plain words of the Constitution that one wonders how Congress gets away with it.

Simple. We let them. And now the majority of the public is so ignorant of the basis and the workings of their own government, they don't know any better! They think it's supposed to BE THIS WAY!

In virtually every generation and during virtually every presidency (Jefferson, Jackson and Cleveland are exceptions that come to mind) the popular branches of government have expanded their power. The air you breathe, the water you drink, the size of your toilet tank, the water pressure in your shower, the words you can speak under oath and in private, how your physician treats your illness, what your children study in grade school, (my emphasis) how fast you can drive your car, and what you can drink before you drive it are all regulated by federal law. Congress has enacted over 4,000 federal crimes and written or authorized over one million pages of laws and regulations. Worse, we are expected by law to understand all of it.

The truth is that the Constitution grants Congress 17 specific (or "delegated") powers. And it commands in the Ninth and 10th Amendments that the powers not articulated and thus not delegated by the Constitution to Congress be reserved to the states and the people.

What's more, Congress can only use its delegated powers to legislate for the general welfare, meaning it cannot spend tax dollars on individuals or selected entities, but only for all of us. That is, it must spend in such a manner -- a post office, a military installation, a courthouse, for example -- that directly enhances everyone's welfare within the 17 delegated areas of congressional authority.

And Congress cannot deny the equal protection of the laws. Thus, it must treat similarly situated persons or entities in a similar manner. It cannot write laws that favor its political friends and burden its political enemies.

Well, not legally. (There's that word again.) Hasn't stopped them.

There is no power in the Constitution for the federal government to enter the marketplace since, when it does, it will favor itself over its competition. The Contracts Clause (the states cannot interfere with private contracts, like mortgages), the Takings Clause (no government can take away property, like real estate or shares of stock, without paying a fair market value for it and putting it to a public use), and the Due Process Clause (no government can take away a right or obligation, like collecting or paying a debt, or enforcing a contract, without a fair trial) together mandate a free market, regulated only to keep it fair and competitive.

It is clear that the Framers wrote a Constitution as a result of which contracts would be enforced, risk would be real, choices would be free and have consequences, and private property would be sacrosanct.

The $700 billion bailout of large banks that Congress recently enacted runs afoul of virtually all these constitutional principles. It directly benefits a few, not everyone. We already know that the favored banks that received cash from taxpayers have used it to retire their own debt. It is private welfare. It violates the principle of equal protection: Why help Bank of America and not Lehman Brothers? It permits federal ownership of assets or debt that puts the government at odds with others in the free market. It permits the government to tilt the playing field to favor its patrons (like J.P. Morgan Chase, in which it has invested taxpayer dollars) and to disfavor those who compete with its patrons (like the perfectly lawful hedge funds which will not have the taxpayers relieve their debts).

Perhaps the only public agreement that Jefferson and Hamilton had about the Constitution was that the federal Treasury would be raided and the free market would expire if the Treasury became a public trough. If it does, the voters will send to Congress those whom they expect will fleece the Treasury for them. That's why the Founders wrote such strict legislating and spending limitations into the Constitution.

Everyone in government takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. But few do so. Do the people we send to the federal government recognize any limits today on Congress's power to legislate? The answer is: Yes, their own perception of whatever they can get away with.

And we, the public, are at fault for not stopping them.

If you have not read it before (and perhaps even if you have) I recommend the story Davy Crockett vs. Welfare as an illustration of what Judge Napolitano was talking about. (Please ignore the fact that it's on LewRockwell.com. The story is the point, not the source.) I also recommend you read The Wild and Free Pigs of the Okefenokee Swamp.

When looking for the Crockett piece, I found this quotation I think is apropos, but far too late:

Government, wherever it exists should be heavily shackled and released only to perform a very narrow function. When government is out exercising its power, there should be men of honor and valor, armed and waiting to subdue it at the slightest provocation. - Difster

Cogent Analyses

Cogent Analyses

In a comment to A Good Question, reader Rumpshot left a link to a piece by Doc Russia. I read it, then went to the top of the page and read the most current post.

I recommend them both to you most strongly. First We Won't Be Fooled Again, then The Dark Horse/The Black Stain.

Thanks for the pointer, Rumpshot. I try to read Doc Russia on a regular basis, but he's been posting so infrequently that I sometimes let it slip.

A Good Question

A Good Question

Reader DJ comments:

Way back in October of 1995, my wife and I attended a trade show in Paris. What is relevant about that trip is an event that happened on the way back.

We flew back on a TWA L-1011 from Paris to JFK in New York. We sat in seats 1 and 2 in row 53, in that small section of about ten rows all the way in the back. That little section of about 90 or so seats was filled with Russian immigrants. My nose told me emphatically that their trip, so far, had been a long one, and we had a long way yet to go.

Right across the aisle sat what appeared to be a middle aged couple traveling with a granddaughter about five years old. The were a stereotype right out of Life magazine. He appeared to have worked hard, his faced burned by the sun and frozen by the wind, and her cheeks a bright red as they peeked around the kerchief that was knotted beneath her chin. He was wearing a well worn tweed suit coat that might have fit about 25 pounds ago, and she was wearing a cotton dress over her dumpy frame that was more patches than original fabric. She carried the child while he carried a small bundle of boxes that were neatly stacked and carefully tied together with a ribbon.

What made it memorable was what happened as they took their seats in all the hubbub and confusion of immigrants who don't speak the language of air travel. She picked up the child and sidled into their seats, after which he slid into his seat next to them and on the other side of the aisle from me. They sat down, stowed their bundle, and got the child belted in.

Then, when all was ready for flight, he squared his shoulders and took a deep breath. Then he let it out and slowly, ever so slowly, slumped forward until his forehead was against the top of the seat back in front of him. Then I noticed his eyes were closed and his hands were shaking. He sat there, slumped over, his hands still shaking, for a full two minutes. Then he slowly straightened, leaned back, and I noticed tears in his eyes and hers.

What had they been through to get where they were?

I'd have given a month's pay to know his thoughts at that point, but I didn't intrude. As the flight progressed, it became apparent that they didn't speak English, only Russian.

That was thirteen years ago. I can't help but wonder what these people think of Obama. I have thought of them often as more and more of the reality of Obama has come to light.

Do you suppose they'll defend the freedom they came so far to find?

I think I know the answer Mrs. Ly Chho would give.

Well, Given His Recently Unearthed Coal Comments . . .

Well, Given His Recently Unearthed Coal Comments . . .

I'd say this cartoon is pretty much spot-on. (h/t Theo Spark)

Quote of the Day

On Professor Brian Anse Patrick's "Administrative Control Bias" of the media:

This time around I think it's more than just the usual MSM leftward bias. What the Brits may not have noticed is that the MSM actually has a vested self-interest in Obama winning this thing. After all, it won't be long before the MSM will join Wall Street and General Motors at the edge of the abyss and in desperate need of a bailout (and in the MSM's case, coupled with additional protection in the form of Fairness Doctrine v2.0). It's not hard to see which candidate, should he win on Tuesday, is most likely to go along with this. - "Joshua" in a comment to Presidential Media Bias as Seen from Across the Pond.

Hmm. . . Fits all the available facts.

Presidential Media Bias as Viewed from Across the Pond

In relation to yesterday's post, here's something in a similar vein from the UK's Guardian:

Mad about The One
The US media have been captivated by Obama, at the expense of their curiosity and scepticism

Harold Evans, Saturday, Nov. 1, 2008

It's fitting that the cynicism "vote early and vote often" is commonly attributed to Chicago's Democratic boss, mayor Richard Daley, who famously voted the graveyards in 1960 to help put John Kennedy in the White House. In this 2008 race, it's the American media that have voted very early and often. They long ago elected the star graduate of Chicago's Democratic machine, Barack Obama.

I am not talking of editorials in newspapers, though Obama has the preponderance of the endorsements over John McCain. Obama certainly deserves the credit for recruiting impressive advisers and running a more efficient campaign machine than any one in the US's political history.

What's troubling to anyone old-fashioned enough to care about standards in journalism is the news coverage in mainstream media. Forget the old notions of objectivity, fairness, thoroughness, and so on. The nastiest rumours on both sides haven't been published, but the coverage has been slavishly on the side of "the one".

It has not just been anti-Republican. It goes without saying that after eight years of George Bush's macho blunders, the disenchantment of even the conservative outlets was bound to show. Researchers at the Project for Excellence in Journalism report that in the six weeks since the Republican convention, McCain, once the darling of the media, got four times as many negative stories as positive ones. Meanwhile, Obama got twice as many positive stories as McCain. The website Politico has also acknowledged that it had loaded the dice against McCain: 100 stories were more favourable to Obama than McCain; 69 were the opposite.

But the press bias towards Obama doesn't represent a simple revulsion for the Republican party. It was on display in the Democratic primaries with the persecution of Hillary Clinton. Worst of all, in the primaries, the press let the Obama campaign get away with continuous insinuations below the radar that the Clintons were race-baiters. Instead of exposing that absurd defamation for what it was - a nasty smear - the media sedulously propagated it.

Clinton made the historically correct and uncontroversial remark that civil rights legislation came about from a fusion of the dreams of Dr Martin Luther King and the legislative follow-through by President Lyndon Johnson. The New York Times misrepresented that as a disparagement of King, twisting her remarks to imply that "a black man needed the help of a white man to effect change". This was one of a number of manipulations on race by the Obama campaign, amply documented by the leading Democratic historian, Princeton's Sean Wilentz. Clinton came close to tears in a coffee shop in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, which many thought helped her to win an upset victory there. MSNBC television gave a platform to the Chicago congressmen, Jesse Jackson Jr, where he questioned her tears and claimed that she'd not shed any tears for the black victims of Katrina, and that she'd pay for that in the South Carolina primary, where 45% of the electorate would be African-Americans.

In fact, MSNBC ran a non-stop campaign for Obama propelled by the misogyny of its anchors, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and David Shuster. Chelsea Clinton joining Clinton's campaign prompted Shuster to report she was "pimping" for her mother.

Obamania has not been deflated one bit by the non-stop talkers on rightwing radio. They offer vituperation in place of enlightenment; paranoia in place of policies, and as such have little influence with the crucial independents.

On the web, the rightwing Drudge Report highlights anything that favours McCain, the Huffington Post does the same for Obama, and the more independent Slate has said only one of its staff intends to vote for McCain, the other 55 for Obama. Fox News has the vehement Sean Hannity paired with the mildly liberal Alan Colmes, (mildly liberal?) not a fair match, but it has been more willing to investigate than CNN. In the Democratic primaries, there was a pattern on CNN where the short news videos of Clinton rarely let you hear what she was saying, but the short news videos of Obama let his words come through. I mentioned this to a CNN editor who said, "Oh, that's our young video editors, they just find Obama more exciting."

The young and affluent liberals have been captivated by Obama's charisma, the unstated notion that electing a black man will be absolution for the years of discrimination and prejudice, and the expectation that Obama's undoubted appeal to the outside world will repair America's image. All understandable, but these emotions have been allowed to swamp the commonplace imperatives of journalism: curiosity and scepticism.

All the mainstream national outlets were extraordinarily slow to check Obama's background. And until it became inescapable because of a video rant, they wouldn't investigate the Reverend Jeremiah Wright connection for fear of being accused of racism. They wouldn't explore Obama's dealing with the corrupt, now convicted, Chicago businessman Tony Rezko. They haven't investigated Obama's pledge to get rid of the secret ballot in trade union affairs. After years of inveighing against "money in politics", they've tolerated his breach of the pledge to restrict himself to public financing as McCain has done (to his cost). Now the LA Times refuses to release a possibly compromising video, which shows Obama praising Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi at a 2003 banquet, saying its promises to its source prevent it from doing so.

The British press is notorious for political distortions, which more or less balance out. But the American press likes to think of itself as more superior and detached than it actually is. In 2000, the mainstream media did a great deal to elect George Bush by portraying Al Gore as a boastful liar.

Let's hope the consequences of electing "the one" will be as wondrous as the press has led the voters to believe.

Let's rather hope that "the one's" loss will be seen (among other things) as repudiation of the press's manipulation.

I received the link to this piece from journalism professor Edward Wasserman, with whom I had a short exchange back in 2004, after I sent him an email about the Malone ABC piece. Hopefully in the not-too-distant future, I'll have a post up concerning a new exchange.

Gun Sales

Gun Sales

Tam points to a story on "Gun Sales Thriving in Uncertain Times" in the WaPo with this comment:

Say what you will about Barry...
...but the man's an even better gun salesman than Hils.

In the last 30 days (actually less) I've purchased a T/C Encore frame, ordered an assembled Bushmaster AR-15 lower (less buttstock), and going in the mail today is an order for a custom M14 to Ted Brown.

I'm also buying other stuff - reloading supplies, etc. (I purchased 11 20-round magazines for the M14 already, even though I won't have the rifle for months.) One thing I've noticed when I go into Sportsman's Warehouse or Murphy's guns (especially Murphy's) is that the gun counter is crowded. Murphy's parking lot just isn't big enough and hasn't been for a while. So the WaPo's observations are accurate even here in flyover country. Perhaps especially here in flyover country.

Van der Leun finds a Good One

Van der Leun finds a Good One


By the same artist:


And by all means, do peruse the site. You'll like this one, for example.

Philosophy, Revolution, and the Restoration of the Constitution

(*sigh*)

Vanderboegh is at it again.

Oldsmoblogger is convinced that Mike Vanderboegh is the Thomas Paine of modern times. I'm not so sure.

He's not shy, though.

The latest excrement-storm stems from an op-ed penned by Jeff Knox, or "Knox the Younger" as characterized by Mr. Vanderboegh. That op-ed, entitled "Mutual Assured Destruction" spells out the situation as Knox the Younger sees it. I'll excerpt, but you really should read the whole thing:

Don’t expect average Americans to rise up in revolution because the government is playing fast and loose with the Bill of Rights or because taxes get too high. That's not the way modern Americans think, nor is it the way the world works today. Armed revolt in America would not lead to a renaissance of Jeffersonian liberalism; it would lead to the destruction of our nation and the guarantee that whatever replaced it would be worse than what it replaced.

Like nuclear deterrence, it is the threat that saves the world, not the execution.

--

While this is all accurate and works well on paper, just like Marxism and Amway networks, the whole thing falls apart in practice because people never do what you want them to do or what they ought to do – even when doing so is clearly in their own best interests. During the Revolutionary war, a full 40 to 45% of Americans actively supported the revolt. Today, less than 6% of gunowners are even minimally active in political activism. Gunowners turn out for elections at about the same rate as the non-gun owning public.

If gunowners and supporters of liberty can't even agree on a presidential candidate, what makes any of them think that they will be able to agree on a revolution? The threat of armed revolt must be maintained, but like the mutual assured destruction of nuclear war, its implementation must be avoided at all costs. If we have the numbers and the commitment to win a revolution then we should easily be able to win an election.

Mr. Vanderboegh of course disagrees. His piece is printed at Western Rifle Shooters Association and is entitled "An Open Letter to Jeff Knox: Destruction? Yes. Mutually Assured? No!" Again, read the whole thing (I'll be saying a lot of that), but here's some pertinent excerpts:

"Armed revolt" will come about because the leviathan will one day pick on the wrong guy, and a large number of them will be killed by this one guy. They will be shocked, they will be horrified and they will want blood. This individual case of resistance will cause a violent reaction on their part, lead to more onerous laws, confiscation, etc., which in turn will lead to even more incidents, and again, and again, until you get your "Red Dawn" or the ATF equivalent of it. As to whether it would lead to the destruction of our nation or the restoration of our republic is a matter of military argument. Don't wave your white flag just yet - you might be embarrassed.

--

(Y)ou're saying we have the ability but not the will. If we begin shooting, won't we run out of targets before they will? Oh, I forgot, you and yours aren't going to come to the party, so sad. One other thing. We're not talking about nuclear weapons, Jeff, we're talking about aimed rifle shots. Nothing indiscriminate about that. Which ought to make the gun-grabbers even more queasy, unless of course they're falsely reassured by your cowardly pap. One wonders indeed which audience you are writing this for.

--

We don't even need 6%. All we need is 3% -- less than that really -- to provoke the response that forces you, Knox the Younger, and your ilk to submit, or fight.

--

You fool. You don't have to agree with us. In fact, we're counting on your type folding at the first shock. People don't AGREE on revolution, they are FORCED into it by events. And there are enough of my kind, the three percent, to create the events. Have you learned nothing from history? It is made by determined minorities. We may be a minority but we are determined. If you want to hang onto ANY of your guns or other liberties, you will HAVE to fight. We will make sure of that.

It goes on like that.

Knox responded in another piece entitled "Philosophical Wars." (Yes, read the whole thing.) Excerpt:

It is mind boggling to me that intelligent people could be so short sighted and misguided as to think that killing people and blowing things up is somehow going to make things better for our grandchildren. They seem to think that because only about 5% of the populace supported the idea of seceding from the English Empire back in 1776, that their "magic number" is 3% and they think they have that because some survey suggested that 3% of the population thinks violence against the government is justified or could be justified today. What they fail to take into account is the "bluster factor" of people who will agree with such a statement, but who don't really mean it, and the radical other side - the people who support the terrorist tactics of the Animal Liberation Front and radical Leftists like Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers.

What I want to know is, where are the Washingtons, Jeffersons, Adamses and Hancocks? Who do these Bozos think is going to lead the new America out of the ashes and back to its Constitutional glory, and why arent these giants running for public office and leading the political revolution? What do they think China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea are going to be doing while their merry little band of terrorists is busy crippling our nation and trying to foment rebellion? What exactly do they expect the "end" of their rebellion to look like? How are our children and grandchildren going to be better off?

Revolution is like cannibalism; it can be justified, but only when there is absolutely no other choice for survival.

And, of course, Vanderboegh rebutted, in a piece he titled "Reply to Knox the Younger." (You know the drill by now.)

The first sentence of his counterpoint deliberately mischaracterizes the reality we face. I say deliberately because he is otherwise a reasonably intelligent chip off the old Knox. (And I daresay that if his daddy ain't rolling over in his grave, he is at least restive at his son's latest foray.)

--

The predicate for armed conflict in this country will be made not by us, but by our would-be tyrants, who will pass more laws stealing our traditional liberties and seizing our property. It will be our enemies who, having read Knox's soothing missive, 'Let's get real, no one's going to resist the Leviathan,' will take it as evidence -- a professional opinion from 'one of them' -- that they can plunder us and, if necessary, kill us, without risk of retaliatory violence.

--

Knox spends much of his rebuttal belittling the number who he thinks would resist. Again, he offers no statistics, merely gratuitous opinions which may be as easily refuted.

Who indeed cares what the real number would be? It would still be enough.

He should recall how many cops tried to find the DC snipers - two mokes who were not very bright, had no support network, and a one-trick pony MO. They still managed to freeze the DC area for what, how many weeks? More then a month wasn't it? Two morons -- with the entire resources of the federal government and the local police looking for them, it was just two morons.

But why would the Leviathan go down this path in the first place?

BECAUSE THE JEFF KNOX'S OF THIS COUNTRY HAVE ALREADY TOLD THEM THEY CAN, THAT NO ONE WILL RESIST, THAT NO ONE SHOULD RESIST.

It is at this next excerpt that I will start commenting:

Knox asks what our traditional enemies will be doing when the three percent (who he calls "terrorists") are "busy crippling our nation and trying to foment rebellion?"

I reject the notion that it will be we who will cripple our nation and foment rebellion. He has us confused with the Leviathan. This decision is entirely up to our would-be oppressors. Of course our enemies will take advantage of such a situation. All the more reason why the Leviathan should not push us into this corner.

Vanderboegh may reject the notion of placing the blame, but he cannot reject the reality of the fact that he just described the crippling of our nation in the face of our foes.

Next excerpt:

Then Knox asks, "What exactly do they expect the 'end' of their rebellion to look like?"

Gee, I don't know. Maybe the country I grew up in without the stain of segregation and racial discrimination?

Once they start this dance, if they want to get out of it with their lives, the Leviathan will have to dial back to a time when they didn't control so much of our lives. It's either that or they lose their lives. Which way do you think they'll vote when they understand that?

Knox next criticizes us for advocating "revolution", when it is really Restoration that we are seeking. We want the constitutional republic of the Founders back. We want it restored.

It is the collectivists who have infested and infected every corner of our government with the statism and corruption of their nanny regime.

They are the revolutionists.

They are the cannibals.

And now it's my turn.

One quote I like very much is this one by Ambrose Bierce:

Revolution is an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment.

The number of "successful" revolutions - ones that accomplished their stated intents and actually brought liberty and freedom to the oppressed can be counted on one hand with fingers left over.

Here's another quote, this time by Alexander Solzhenitsyn:

In a state of psychological weakness, weapons become a burden for the capitulating side. To defend oneself, one must also be ready to die; there is little such readiness in a society raised in the cult of material well-being. Nothing is left, then, but concessions, attempts to gain time and betrayal.

Jeff Knox described that "cult of material well-being" in a line from his first piece:

The fact is that only those who have nothing to lose (and nothing to live for) are willing to give up everything – including their lives – in a symbolic gesture of defiance. The rest of us, those with families – kids, grand-kids, vulnerable parents – and homes, jobs, and lives, are not interested in ditching the house, refrigerator, and HD-TV in exchange for a prison cell or a mountain cave.

That's part of it, but it's the symptom, not the disease.

Vanderboegh is convinced that his 3% can drag - perhaps kicking and screaming, but drag - a significant (and, more importanty, sufficient) portion of the population into the fray in support of the 3%.

I'm not so certain. In fact, I'm severely doubtful.

Here's why.

It all goes back to philosophy. Billy Beck has pulled his hair out over the topic:

(Y)ou people are talking about blowing the place up, whether you know it or not. That's the only way it can go, as things are now, because there is no philosophy at the bottom of what you're talking about.

Neither Knox nor Vanderboegh addresses the subject directly.

We're in an ideological war, once described thus:

The heart of the conflict is between those to whom personal liberty is important, and those to whom liberty is not only inconsequential, but to whom personal liberty is a deadly threat.

Vanderboegh dismisses Knox's objections with respect to voting:

Knox also condemns us us for talking "revolution" but not "actively and diligently working hard every day to elect quality people to office at every level and to educate the elected officials already in office about their core responsibilities."

What does he think we've been doing these past twenty years of more? Does he think we just jumped into this thing and started threatening people?

I was doing political work on behalf of the Second Amendment when Jeff Knox hadn't sprouted short and curlies. The real question is how long do we continue to labor in those fields when the collectivists keep dumping Agent Orange on our work?

We have sacrificed in the political arena, we have fought and spent and argued ourselves half to death with the struggle.

And yet - here we stand today on the precipice.

And why? Because one philosophy has predominated in this country over the last 100 years. Vanderboegh also wrote:

The Constitution is a piece of paper if its spirit does not live in the hearts of men. If it is despised, disregarded and prostituted against the Founder's intent, then it is so much toilet paper.

Indeed. And that's very much what it has become - because the philosophy of the Founders has been replaced.

And revolution won't restore it.

I hate to say it, but I think Ambrose Bierce was right. And Billy Beck's prediction of "The Endarkenment" is pretty much the way it's going to go.

Reader Mastiff left a comment here not too long back:

To win this fight, we need to reform the institutional structure of government--create structural incentives for specific actors in government to want to defend our freedom. Otherwise, in a long-running fight between a government that wants to expand its own power and a populace that doesn't know what it wants, the government will win.

Gramsci works both ways. If in the space of a hundred years, an ideology alien to our traditional mode of politics was able to dominate our intellectual class, there is nothing stopping that process from working in reverse. IF people settle in for the long haul and start laying the groundwork.

Unfortunately, the Publick Edumacation Sistim stands athwart any effort to reverse Gramsci.

And the Endarkenment Approacheth, in part because - 3% or not - there's a bunch of people who will not go gently into that good night, and have the means and the will to make it painful. Whatever results will not be "the country I grew up in without the stain of segregation and racial discrimination."

UPDATE: David Codrea commented on the kerfuffle first.

UPDATE: William comments.

UPDATE: Oldsmoblogger comes out of hiatus and comments as well.

But, but, the Evil KKKorporate Media is RIGHT WING!

(h/t to Phelps.)

First there was CBS's Bernie Goldberg. Then Dr. Bob Arnot of NBC. Now ABC's Michael Malone:

The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I've found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.

But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I've begun -- for the first time in my adult life -- to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was "a writer," because I couldn't bring myself to admit to a stranger that I'm a journalist.

Read the whole thing.

Of course the commenters are accusing Malone of being a Republican.

Still, the one thing I noted in Malone's piece was the absence of any mention of the same bias shown by the media in 2004. Oh, not to the same degree, certainly, but there was definitely a pro-Kerry media bias. In fact, I had a short exchange with Journalism Professor Ed Wasserman of Washington and Lee University about it that September. Apparently 2004 was a practice-run for 2008.

And You Can Walk on Water, Too!

If you're not too lazy to get off the couch. Bob Parks has found perhaps the definitive example of the stereotypical Obama supporter:

I never thought this day would ever happen. I won't have to worry 'bout puttin' gas in my car. I won't have to worry 'bout payin' my mortgage.

Yeah, I never thought this day would happen either. Guess I'll be puttin' gas in your car and payin' your mortgage.

Oh, wait . . . I don't make $250k a year. Or is it $150k. Or $100k.

(Edited to correct transcript error.)

UPDATE:  The original JS-Kit/Echo comment thread for this post is available here, thanks to the work of reader John Hardin.