Ramirez Weighs in on the Palin Question

Ramirez Weighs in on the Palin Question


The man is a national treasure. (Mike Ramirez, not McCain.)

More Right-Wing Hatemongering

Unix-Jedi emailed me this morning with a very interesting link. It seems that the very same people who apologized to the world for Bush getting re-elected are now advising us that we all just need to get along.

Jim Treacher had something to say about that. Specifically:

There's nothing easier than telling the guy you just beat that he should forget the depths you plumbed to do so.

So did Victor Davis Hanson:

When I hear a partisan insider like Paul Begala urging at the 11th hour that we now rally around lame-duck Bush in his last few days, I detect a sense of apprehension that no Democrats would wish conservatives to treat Obama as they did Bush for eight years.

Which was picked up by Tim Blair. But what U-J sent me was a link to a specific comment at Tim Blair's Daily Telegraph post. This one:

That website made me want to puke. Those head-tilts are now not of compassion but condescension. As if the left has anything to teach anyone about graciousness or moderation in attitude or behaviour.

Of course conservatives will "get along" and make nice - it's why they knew they could get away with all the atrocious things they've said and done the past 8 years. Did anyone hear GWB whining about all the stuff that's been said and written about him? Has he blackballed a network for asking "tough" questions? Has he querulously queried a news anchor about being a shill for the opposing side?

Do you know why conservatives generally have the capacity for graciousness in victory and defeat? Because, as a rule, conservatives are happy with who they are. There's no cognitive dissonance going on, because we live what we believe - we like free markets, so we consume; we actually care for our less fortunate neighbours, so we give generously (of our OWN money that we earn) and we buy their stuff so they can gain wealth; we don’t believe the economy works by taking from one and giving to the other (as though a dollar for you means a dollar less for me), so we work hard, pay our taxes grudgingly and rejoice at the success of others while working to secure our own; we don't believe in AGW, so we don't agonise over the recycling or flying or driving anywhere. It's bliss.

If you're a lefty in a western capitalist democracy, this is impossible because you are living off the wealth created by a system you think you despise. You are inherently angry and bitter all the time, because your life can't measure up to your impossible ideals, and you are naturally self-absorbed and self-centered because of this anger and bitterness. It's all consuming.

Of course, I'm generalising. I'm sure some of the head-tilties pictured were appalled at the treatment of the conservatives at the hands of the minority (but vocal) radicalised elements of their pseudo-religion, and in the last 8 years raised their voices again and again in protest at such unprovoked and vicious assaults on the character and person of their political opponents, all the while gently counselling their wayward brethren to focus on critiquing ideas, and having genuine debates rather than resorting to name-calling.

And I know, some conservative once called you a name so we are just as bad. Boo hoo. Go cry in your victory herbal tea, winner, and try to figure out just how to run something and lead something for once, instead of making dopey-hopey-changey noises and singing "How many times must a man blah blah" while wearing your "Abort Sarah Palin" button on your "Sarah Palin is a C***" t-shirt while waving your "GWB is not my President" banner and throwing a molotov cocktail at the McDonald’s on the corner. Oh, and did I forget to mention the "No War for Oil" hat on your head?

This makes me sound unhappy doesn't it? But the above is what the left actually DID. It's so bitter, angry, twisted and unhinged that merely stating the fact makes me sound bitter, angry, twisted and unhinged. So sad. (head tilt) But I weally, weally wuv you guys and want to make it work so your heads don’t explode. M'kay?(/head tilt)
JanineV of Perth

You go girl!

But my favorite comment was this one by "Diggs":

In my lifetime I've seen two Democrat Congresses clamor to allow the military to lose a war; one successfully (Viet Nam), one unsuccessfully (OIF). I've seen two Democrat Presidential candidates demand that they be voted in as Commander in Chief so that they can so order the US military to lose said war; one unsuccessful (McGovern), and one successful (Obama). I've watched Democrat Senators and Congressmen defame the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who daily risk their lives so that these retards can do that defaming at no risk to themselves. And I've just retired after 22 years as a commissioned officer in the US Army, so I can now freely criticize the US President.

No, I'm not going to hold back just because I'm "above all that". I'm going to be just as brutal to Obama as any Lefty was to George Bush because it matters. It matters that we didn't fight back against the slime merchants at their level, and now they’ve won. And now my fellow soldiers, my brothers-in-arms, the folks who had my back in harm's way, have to serve once again under someone who not only doesn't understand them, but loathes them and their honor. Now I have their back.

Obama isn't worthy to lick the Iraqi dirt off the bottom of the lowest ranking Army Private's boots. And I'm not going to let him and his ilk slime the military any more just because it's not proper.

No damn way.

First runner-up is this:

Tim, I am a psychiatrist.

This apparent desire to 'get along together' of '52 to 48' is actually a classic symptom of group psychopathology.

According to Object relations Theory, the Obama supporters are identifying with the object (Republicans) into which they have projected annihilation fantasies for the past 8 years. This is then followed by 'reparation', which is what we are seeing now.

It's all very infantile.

Deep Freud of Melbourne

Isn't it, though? See today's QotD. Specifically, Ragin' Dave's comment to it.

Five Years? Toshiba Has Them NOW!

Five Years? Toshiba Has Them NOW!

Instapundit links to this story from the Guardian:

Mini nuclear plants to power 20,000 homes

£13m shed-size reactors will be delivered by lorry

Nuclear power plants smaller than a garden shed and able to power 20,000 homes will be on sale within five years, say scientists at Los Alamos, the US government laboratory which developed the first atomic bomb.

The miniature reactors will be factory-sealed, contain no weapons-grade material, have no moving parts and will be nearly impossible to steal because they will be encased in concrete and buried underground.

The US government has licensed the technology to Hyperion, a New Mexico-based company which said last week that it has taken its first firm orders and plans to start mass production within five years. "Our goal is to generate electricity for 10 cents a watt anywhere in the world," said John Deal, chief executive of Hyperion. "They will cost approximately $25m [£13m] each. For a community with 10,000 households, that is a very affordable $250 per home."

Deal claims to have more than 100 firm orders, largely from the oil and electricity industries, but says the company is also targeting developing countries and isolated communities. "It's leapfrog technology," he said.

The company plans to set up three factories to produce 4,000 plants between 2013 and 2023. "We already have a pipeline for 100 reactors, and we are taking our time to tool up to mass-produce this reactor."

The first confirmed order came from TES, a Czech infrastructure company specialising in water plants and power plants. "They ordered six units and optioned a further 12. We are very sure of their capability to purchase,' said Deal. The first one, he said, would be installed in Romania. 'We now have a six-year waiting list. We are in talks with developers in the Cayman Islands, Panama and the Bahamas."

The reactors, only a few metres in diameter, will be delivered on the back of a lorry to be buried underground. They must be refuelled every 7 to 10 years. Because the reactor is based on a 50-year-old design that has proved safe for students to use, few countries are expected to object to plants on their territory. An application to build the plants will be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission next year.

"You could never have a Chernobyl-type event - there are no moving parts," said Deal. "You would need nation-state resources in order to enrich our uranium. Temperature-wise it's too hot to handle. It would be like stealing a barbecue with your bare hands."

Other companies are known to be designing micro-reactors. Toshiba has been testing 200KW reactors measuring roughly six metres by two metres. Designed to fuel smaller numbers of homes for longer, they could power a single building for up to 40 years.

I (and Instapundit) mentioned the Toshiba units back last December. Still nothing about how the thermal power of the reactor is converted into electrical power. Micro steam turbines? Thermoelectric conversion? What? Still, I like the idea of neighborhood power generation. Makes me wish I were Bill Gates so I could afford one of my very own.

Still, I'm glad to know that the .gov has seen fit to license the technology for production. It's about damned time.

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

5) The frothing stomach-churning buzzkill sweeping Woodstock Nation as more and more Obamacons realize that the 56 million Americans who voted against Obama are not going to be easily persuaded to join the Borg. Plus, they vote. Double-plus, they're re-organizing. Triple-plus, they're armed and sending Mission Packs of ammo to each other for the holidays. - Van der Leun - Internet Mosh Pits I Am Ignoring for the Moment

Here's that Brokaw & Rose Exchange

Here's that Brokaw & Rose Exchange


It was mentioned in the post below, That's What I've Been Saying for over Five Years. Good commentary by whoever did the YouTube video.

UPDATE: Commenter Mark (no, not that Mark) gave a link to the full interview and said "I'm seeing reports of quotes out of context." I watched the whole thing. Here's my transcription of part of it:

Brokaw: There are conservative commentators who say there's a lot about him we don't know, because we haven't asked enough tough questions; the Bill Ayers relationship, even those who say we've got to go back and explore what his drug use was, . . .

Rose: Even though Senator McCain had a chance to do that very thing, and ask him about it in one of the debates

Brokaw: And did not, chose not to go there.

--

Rose: What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?

Brokaw: Well, he uh, Thurgood Marshall is a big hero of his. He's got a picture of him in his office.

Rose: Is that because of his central role in arguing Brown v. Board of Education?

Brokaw: Well, I think, remember Barack Obama went to Harvard Law School, taught at the University of Chicago. And there was no greater legal figure in the African-American community or even signs that America was changing than Thurgood Marshall, so that makes perfect sense. Um, you know it's an interesting question. I don't know what books he's read. I know that he's uh, he's got a great curious mind. So does John McCain, by the way. He's always got a book in his hand. Mark Salter who's a first rate writer . .

Rose: Is his old best friend.

Brokaw: Right. They're trading book ideas constantly.

--

Rose: Have we had a serious debate about foreign policy in this country?

Browkaw: No. We've not had. There are a number of issues that have not come up. John McCain believes in a league of democracy - putting together a separate group to push against Russia. Charles Krauthammer wrote that that was, he couldn't say and I can as Charles put it, that was designed to kill the United Nations which is a good idea. We didn't examine that very carefully. We don't know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy. China has been not examined at all.

Rose: At all.

Brokaw: Which is astonishing.

Rose: But do we know about what they think? It is more likely that we'll know about John McCain because he's been speaking about foreign policy over a longer period of time.

Brokaw: Right.

Rose: But I don't really know, and do we know anything about the people who are advising them, I mean in terms of whether - Susan Rice and where they are. And do we know who might populate these governments.

Brokaw: Tony Lake who worked in the Clinton Administration. Dick Holbrook obviously is eager to be involved in the briefings. There are some kind of neutral foreign policy specialists in the academies and the Council of Foreign Relations that Barack Obama has been reaching out to. John McCain has been reaching out to those think-tanks and institutes

Rose: AEI and others.

Brokaw: Right of center. Sure. We do know, who, do we know is going to be secretary of state? No.

--

Rose: I think it was you, and maybe not and you'll correct me, but after we began to understand the implications of terrorism and someone asked you whether there was subjects that you thought journalism hadn't done its job, media hadn't done its job, you suggested understanding what was brewing out there.

Brokaw: That was me, and I talked about all the incidents that were building up, the Cole, the attack on the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and we would report them but we didn't connect the dots. And I went to see Louis Freeh about something else one time - we were talking about computer crimes - and he said "You should look into terrorism." And I walked out thinking "We should look at terrorism," and didn't.

--

Rose: There are so many things I don't know in terms of the makeup of. . . we've gone through this long campaign. I care about it almost as much as you do in terms of being a political junkie. But there are questions you don't know in terms of. . . I don't know know what Barack Obama's world view is. I really don't know.

Brokaw: No, no, I don't either.

Rose: I don't know how he really sees where China is and where it wants to go, and how smart he is about that, or India, or the whole global structure.

Brokaw: Well, one of the . . .

Rose: Or John McCain either.

Brokaw: Yeah, one of the things I tried to get out of the national debate, and they began to answer it a little bit, which I think is an important question: what is the Obama Doctrine and the McCain Doctrine when there is a humanitarian crisis? We're going through one this week in the Congo. Again, I raised the Congo as an example of that. And the use of American military forces to intervene if we have no national security stake in all of that. And they both said in kind of the broadest possible terms, "Well we should go help out." but you didn't get the impression that they were going to go pull the trigger on that in the next day. That's an important discussion for this country to have.

Rose: If you look at Rwanda, and where you've been, and the Secretary - former Secretary of the United Nations has said "We made mistakes." The President of the United States has said "We've made mistakes." Where would they be if they faced the same choices with respect to that kind of genocide?

Brokaw: And that's what we should know.

Rose: And we don't know.

Out of context? Somewhat. But I think this comment left at Charlie Rose's site pretty much sums it up:

This interview does nothing to disabuse my view that the Media is populated by self-serving, egoistical, pandering Maggots; fly larvae who's only job is to destroy and corrupt healthy systems and drag them into the muck and mire of their own decadent slime. The editorial offices and J-Schools need to be flushed after disinfection with a flame-thrower. The casting of blame onto McCain, for not bringing forth at the debates those questions the Media should have been asking at the start of Obama's run for the Oval Office, and their willful blindness at the corrupt machinations of the convention denying Hillary a fair vote, is purely despicable.

Or this one:

This interview does nothing to disabuse my view that the Media is populated by self-serving, egoistical, pandering Maggots; fly larvae who's only job is to destroy and corrupt healthy systems and drag them into the muck and mire of their own decadent slime. The editorial offices and J-Schools need to be flushed after disinfection with a flame-thrower. The casting of blame onto McCain, for not bringing forth at the debates those questions the Media should have been asking at the start of Obama's run for the Oval Office, and their willful blindness at the corrupt machinations of the convention denying Hillary a fair vote, is purely despicable.

And, finally, this one:

The apparent lack of any knowledge of who Barack H. Obama is, what he stands for, who his heros are by you and Mr. Brokaw and the misnamed MSM is absolute proof of the pro-Obama, anti-McCain journalists failure to report any of the negative information that is available on all of details in BHO's past. His friends, advisers, heroes, counselers are known,Ayers, Wright, Alinsky, "Frank a well documented communist and many others leftist academics.What he stands for is a socialistic spread the wealth big governemnt, tax those who earn, give it to those who don't calling it a tax cut when it is welfare and a truly anti-military administration. When a sucker buys a pig in a poke he finds a rock when he open the poke. The democrats chose a candidate in a poke and when the poke is opened out comes a socialist/Marxist.

And with that in mind, Bruce has a bumper sticker for sale you might want.

One more thought: All the commentary in the interview about Obama having to "move to the center to govern" is going to be pretty funny about this time next year, I think.

Bias? What Bias?

Bias? What Bias?

Found over at Mostly Cajun:


See tomorrow's Quote of the Day.

What I've Been Saying for Over Five YEARS

What I've Been Saying for Over Five YEARS

What makes me angriest: that there is no outcry against election fraud; that the media have become pure political instruments; that our "educational system" has produced an ignorant electorate.

--

Never before has the ignorance of the electorate been so intensely cultivated as in this election. We all know that major publications and broadcasters have simply refused to report news, and what they did report was spun politically. And among the stories they are not reporting, is the massive electoral fraud, from the "where is all that money coming from?” to the “how dare state officials refuse to verify the identity of voters?" one, to the refusal to report, day by day, on Joe Biden's scandalously inept, incompetent, and often meretricious campaign. Instead, they obsess on every real and imagined misstatement by Sarah Palin, who for me has been the most attractive of the four candidates.

An ignorant electorate is a real threat to good government, and the whole point of the First Amendment is to create a wide-open national debate from which the truth might emerge. The current behavior of the media–now totally politicized–makes it very hard to get to the truth. They censor themselves, just as our Italian friends confessed they were doing to themselves thirty years ago.

Rush today played some clips from a conversation about Obama between Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw. Each said repeatedly “we really don't know much about him.” Well, duh, whose fault is that, y'all? Yours. You haven't done your job.

That's from Faster, Please! in a piece entitled Election Thoughts. RTWT.

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

The problem is which paragraph to choose? I settled on this one:

All across the world, Mr. Obama's election has helped mend America's tattered image as a racist, violent cowboy, willing to retaliate with bombs at the slightest provocation. The huge outpouring of international support following the election shows that America can still win new friendships while rebuilding its old ones, and provides Mr. Obama with unprecedented diplomatic leverage over our remaining enemies. When Russian tanks start pouring into eastern Europe and Iranian missiles begin raining down on Jerusalem, their leaders will know they will be facing a man who not only conquered America's racial divide but the hearts of the entire Cannes film community. And those Al Qaeda terrorists plotting a dirty nuke or chemical attack on San Francisco face a stark new reality: while they may no longer need to worry about US Marines, they are looking down the barrel of a strongly worded diplomatic condemnation by a Europe fully united in their deep sympathy for surviving Americans. - Iowahawk: Election Analysis: America Can Take Pride In This Historic, Inspirational Disaster

Tip of the hat to reader DJ for the pointer.

Somebody's going to offer Iowahawk a lot of money to write comedy for a living, I think.

Home Again, Home Again, Jiggety Jig

Home Again, Home Again, Jiggety Jig

Man, that four-hour trip home from the jobsite sucks. Blogging will probably be light this weekend. Like everyone else, I'm burned the hell out on politics. I think I want to kick back and read some brain-candy.

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

This little corner of America did NOT provide a majority vote to elect Barack Hussein Obama. This state didn’t. The shadow that was a great nation did.

I am NOT a happy person this morning. - Mostly Cajun, Yesterday

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