“It can’t last another decade.”
Even if Washington bails out Sacramento. Because if it does crazy things like that, Washington can’t last another decade.
Category Archives: Political Commentary
Party Like It’s 1773
It’s been 237 years since they dumped the tea into Boston Harbor. And this year’s elections shows that the spirit of 1773 remains alive.
That Pesky Constitution
It just keeps getting in the way of the agenda and “progress.”
The Dishonest “Tax Cut” Debate
My thoughts, over at PJM.
Evil Versus Evil
Thoughts on the continuing academic cover up of the evil of communism. We should have the goal of making Marxists as much of a social pariah as Nazis, both on and off campus. Including the idiot Che admirers.
Am I Crazy?
Repeal DADT for non-combat roles, but keep it in place for combat troops. What’s wrong with that? OK, I know what’s wrong with that — it is politically incorrect. But it conforms to military polling. Unless you think that’s irrelevant.
A Sad Anniversary
I think that today is the thirty-eighth anniversary of the day that Gene Cernan climbed back into the LEM and headed off to lunar orbit with Jack Schmitt to meet up with the command module for the trip back to earth (perhaps depending on what time zone you use). Humans haven’t walked on the moon since, for many reasons, but foremost because too many people think that the only way to return was the way we went the first time, with massive government expenditures and a big rocket. This false perception has held us back for almost four decades now.
Not That Many Shopping Days Until Christmas
I really appreciate the shopping that people have been doing at my Amazon link (over there in the left sidebar) — it really helps reduce the stocking coalage, especially the Kindles (though the cameras and printers and laptops are great, too).
But for that Tea Partier in the family, all of Bill Whittle’s Firewall videos have been compiled into a DVD, so it’s a great stocking stuffer, too. I don’t get a direct cut, but I’d like to see Declaration Entertainment succeed, because I’d like to do well by doing good consulting with things like the solar fiction movie that Bill wants to make.
[Update a while later]
If anyone else is having trouble using the Amazon box, like my commenter, this link
“No Labels”
Is a racist organization. It’s so much fun to turn the Alinskyites’ own weapons back on them.
The Weakness Of The Case For ObamaCare
Some useful thoughts from James Taranto:
In defense of Marshall, he runs a political blog and is not a lawyer. But our sense is that he accurately captures, as well as mirrors, the prevailing mentality of those on the progressive left who are lawyers. They refused to take seriously the argument that ObamaCare is constitutionally infirm, and they are now realizing that was a mistake.
We recall a conversation with a young liberal lawyer we met at an event in late March, a few days after the House passed ObamaCare. When we pointed out that there were likely to be court challenges to the new law, particularly the mandate to purchase insurance, she was dismissive. She asserted that the constitutional questions were well settled. When we offered arguments to the contrary, she did not engage them but became emphatic to the point of belligerence, insisting that it was “crazy” to harbor any doubts about the constitutionality of ObamaCare.
Our position was not that ObamaCare was clearly unconstitutional or that it was likely to be struck down, merely that there were serious constitutional arguments against it that had some possibility of prevailing. This modest claim so shocked our new acquaintance that an initially pleasant encounter turned rancorous and left us feeling she had insulted our intelligence.
Don’t worry, we got over our hurt feelings. But the dismissive attitude we encountered in that conversation and again in Marshall’s post leads us to think that the pro-ObamaCare side may not be prepared to mount a convincing legal defense. If there were five Stephen Breyers on the Supreme Court, they wouldn’t need to. But there are only four. If the Obama administration’s lawyers are to win over Justice Anthony Kennedy, they’ll have to do a lot better than arguing that the other side’s case is stupid, crazy and laughable.
And yet, based on the evidence, they don’t seem to be capable of it. Remember Crazy Nancy’s cackles of “Are you serious?! Are you serious?!” Yes, we were.
This is just a special case of the general proposition that the left, because it has cocooned itself in academia, the Beltway and the mainstream media, and excluded those with other views, isn’t used to actually having to defend its views, and when confronted with actual arguments against them, has to resort to “hater,” “racist,” “wingnut,” etc. It’s arguments, such as they are, are hothouse flowers that can’t survive in the wild. And probably won’t survive the SCOTUS, either.