If the Democrats win, they plan to make ACB irrelevant
I wonder how many people voting for Biden realize the revolutionary leftist nature of the Democratic Party at this point. I know quite a few people who are only focused on hating Trump, and voting for the Democrats they think they know – who are not the Democrats of today.
At any rate, here’s the plan:
But understand they’re not just talking about packing the Supreme Court, they’re talking about packing the whole federal judiciary, that’s why Biden is saying the “court system.”
From Jonathan Turley, one of the few honest Democrats (or at this point, perhaps ex-Democrat – or maybe he was always a libertarian):
What this commission [proposed by Joe Biden] seems designed to do is to give a form of enablement to Vice President Biden and the Democrats. But what is also worrisome is that when you look at what they’re saying, they’re saying if Judge Barrett is confirmed … that will give them license to tear apart one of the most important institutions in the country. It’s like kids saying, “Step over this [line] and if you do, I have a right to fight you.”
Actually, no. It’s not like kids; that’s trivializing it, although I don’t think Turley meant to minimize it. It’s not childish, though. It’s tyrannical. And ACB doesn’t matter; it’s not about her or about approving her. It’s about anything the right will do that gives them any power at this point. The left has decided that the right cannot have even temporary power anymore.
No, it’s not childish. The proper analogy is to Hugo Chavez of Venezuela – and I recently wrote about why that is so.
And our response should be “when the civil war is over we hang all of you”.
At this point anyone who supports Kamala and Senile Joe (the puppet of forces he can barely comprehend) is either evil or cognitively impaired, by virtue of limited intelligence, susceptibility to brainwashing, unwillingness to be truly informed on the issues, or so overwhelmed from responding emotionally to everything as to preclude any assessment of anything based upon facts, evidence, reason, and logic. A republic in which so many citizens are so gullible and so much of the elite malign and truly vicious cannot endure for long.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/26/7-open-leftist-threats-that-political-terror-is-coming-to-america-whether-trump-wins-or-not/
How many here think the cabal vampires can take on Ymar and win?
Raise your hands.
What about Trump vs the Left, who wins?
Civil War 2, let’s take a timestamp bet for fun here and now. Who wins and when?
It is very much analogous to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
The canary in the coal mine is the 2nd amendment. The SCOTUS has put in place a definition of the 2nd that makes it an individual right (Heller v. D.C.). As leftist DA’s across the country decline to protect citizens from leftist violence, people who never considered buying a gun have bought them to protect themselves. If a leftist mob comes for them or if their police force is crippled, they’re on their own. Leftists need the mob to be their brown shirts, to enforce the values and norms that they desire and tp keep citizens in-line. Private ownership of firearms stands in opposition to this plan.
The Left needs a SCOTUS that will strike down Heller. The Left doesn’t have the votes or the patience to amend the Constitution by the normal process; they’ll amend it by “interpreting” the Constitution to mean whatever they want it to mean.
From Jonathan Turley, one of the few honest Democrats (or at this point, perhaps ex-Democrat – or maybe he was always a libertarian):
Turley is a conventional academic whose worldview is that of a conventional academic ca. 1988. Even though he’s a half-generation younger than Robert Reich, one can say his outlook has remained fixed while that of Reich and Paul Krugman has been protean. Alan Dershowitz is another person who arrived at his understanding of the world before the media and the Democratic Party were taken over by completely unscrupulous people. I see no indication from his general-audience writing that Turley is any kind of libertarian. He is animated by legal arguments composed at a time when the discourse of the law retained some autonomy from the political struggles of the surrounding society.
Should note that Turley attracts a bunch of liberal commenters, some of whom act like paid trolls. Some of them are vociferously contemptuous of him, not because he’s ever an advocate of any sort of starboard politics, but because his judgments on legal questions and public manners are inconvenient for the narrative pushers. They’ve gotten escalatingly shrill in the last year.
They ain’t winning. So there’s that.
The problem is not that they’re stewing over changing the dimensions of the Supreme Court or adding more federal judge’s positions or amending the jurisdiction of the courts. These can be legitimate activities. The problem is what lies behind this. Since 1937, the Democratic Party (the old Dixiecrats excepted) has expected the federal judiciary to act in accordance with it’s objects. In the first instance, this took the form of pretending that New Deal legislation without warrant in Article I was legitimate. After 1954, it took the form of expecting the court to impose liberal social policy contra the preferences of elected officials. There have been some instances where the court declined to impose the liberal agenda, but they’ve very seldom impeded it when enacted by elected officials. The two notable exceptions were Citizens’ United, which impeded the efforts of liberals to prevent political participation by corporations not aligned with the Democratic Party (participation by The New York Times Co. and the Service Employees International Union being totes OK to them) and Heller, which placed some brakes on gun control legislation. From Congress down to street-level Democrats, they’re all verklempt at the prospect of having to make their case to state legislatures and of being inhibited in their kulturkampf against the political opposition and against subcultures they despise (like rural gun owners). It tells you something about how awful is the intramural culture of the Democratic Party.
ArtDeco:
Do you consider the Supreme Court’s decision on Chevron (which gave regulatory agencies deference) as an extension of the Democrat expectation of judicial compliance? Justice Thomas has made comments that question the Chevron decision IIRC.
j. e.
“susceptibility to brainwashing, unwillingness to be truly informed on the issues, or so overwhelmed from responding emotionally to everything as to preclude any assessment of anything based upon facts, evidence, reason, and logic. ”
I have never met anyone whose anti-Trump position started anywhere else. Talking heads on television might make a shallow case on policy grounds, but mostly they have to lie. Their appeal is to the group you describe.
Do you consider the Supreme Court’s decision on Chevron (which gave regulatory agencies deference) as an extension of the Democrat expectation of judicial compliance?
Only to the extent it legitimizes legislation via administrative regulation. NB, regulatory agencies have the discretion they do because elected officials countenance that. There are correctives which can be applied by statute. Congress accomplishes nothing except throwing bon-bons at their clientele, so nothing actually is repaired. FWER, both judges on the court’s right flank in 1984 recused themselves for some reason, as did one of the four left-flank judges. It was a 6-0 decision on the part of the left flank and the temporizers on the court.
Before the Left tries to unmake America, they should probably ask themselves at least one question:
Will Prohibition with guns be more or less violent than Prohibition with alcohol?
On the one hand, buying and owning guns isn’t really culturally equivalent to imbibing a little happy juice. On the other hand, violence with alcohol prohibition came primarily from bootleggers and was directly primarily at other bootleggers. On the gripping hand, violence with firearm prohibition will include consumers as well as manufacturers/distributors and will be be much more directed at law enforcement and government officials.
Mike
I have been making reference to Hugo Chavez and Venezuela here for months now. Proof that it does not take many years to kill a country, so here they come.
The US is no longer a Republic. It is just another grubby democracy and the have-nots will rise up to seize through a voter majority what they thought they wanted. Jimmy Carter was there and certified the Venezuelan election was “pure”. So they got their Chavez, and they got corruption and much worse poverty.
There is only one way to deal with evil, and that is to kill it. “The tree of liberty…etc.”
The US is no longer a Republic. It is just another grubby democracy and the have-nots will rise up to seize through a voter majority what they thought they wanted.
The salient feature of the last five years has been the hostility of the chattering classes (and, in truth, much of the professional-managerial bourgeoisie generally) to the non-exotic working class. Do try to keep up.
Cicero:
I wrote the following in October of 2008:
Consider “ghost guns” and 3D printing, improvised home made fire arms, zip guns, etc. The genie is out of that bottle.
Try ForgottenWeapons web site for improvised firearms.
Art Deco:
See this:
See also this. I also had looked him up many years ago, did some research, and determined he was somewhat of a libertarian.
I’m still modestly optimistic that the polls are off and Americans, on the whole, aren’t so completely blinkeredly suicidally foolish as to elect Fascist Zombie Joe, but I sure ain’t sure.
I got through all of Obama’s years plus the past four years of ThisGate, ThatGate, EveryWhereAGateGate without worrying. But I’m worried now.
_________________________________________
It takes a worried man
To sing a worried song…
–Kingston Trio, “A Worried Man”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1q0LNb8irA
huxley:
I’ve been worried for a long time, probably about 15 years. The Obama years were very worrisome, and I thought Hillary would win in 2016. Worried then, worried now.
Then again, I’m somewhat of a worrier, in case you hadn’t noticed.
“The left has decided that the right cannot have even temporary power anymore.” neo
Ultimately, that decision leaves no other recourse to grievance than Civil War.
“our response should be “when the civil war is over we hang all of you”.” Chases Eagles
If Civil War comes as a result of the left leaving the right no say in the governance of the country and the left turns unalienable rights into revocable privileges… I favor a more nuanced approach.
Those who voted for Harris/Biden but did not actively support the resultant tyranny… permanent loss of citizenship. As they have demonstrated themselves to be unfit for self-governance.
Those who did actively support the resultant tyranny but did not engage in armed conflict or in direct support of armed conflict… permanent loss of citizenship and all assets, plus permanent deportation. They would be permanently personna non grata. Their assets forfeit as proportionate consequence for their actions.
Those who actively engaged in direct support of armed conflict and imposition of tyranny through force of arms… mandatory execution.
The number of Supreme Court Justices is not fixed under the Constitution. Congress can change it at any time by passing an act that is then signed by the President. Article III, Section 1, is pretty basic in its wording which allows Congress to establish the court system: “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”
That’s it.
Nothing in the Constitution to stop either party from packing the court. Rubio had a plan to propose an Amendment setting the limit to nine. But good luck with that.
Is it a good idea to pack the court? Probably not. But that’s simply an opinion. It can happen. Congress has the power to do a lot. There is only some gentleman’s agreement that the court stay at nine.
Montage: Would you please pay attention to the larger context? Or are you just a tool?
It’s not just court packing, it’s not just packing the federal courts, it’s changing all the rules of the game to insure Democrats one-party rule.
Removing the Electoral College, admitting Puerto Rico and Washington DC as states, admitting massive numbers of illegal immigrants. These aren’t wacky ideas discussed on the far left.
These are agenda items we are hearing from Biden and Obama because Democrats can’t bothered to persuade Americans of their policies. Thus these items must be pushed through by any means necessary.
“The fundamental transformation of the United States.” Do you recall those words?
Montage:
Have you’ve been asked this before? If President Trump wins, should he (he assuredly is not a gentleman!) consult with the Federalist Society and appoint another 5, 10, 15 justices? Just an option, what could go wrong? Is that a good idea? You may say “Probably not” or feign ignorance. Some consider you probably less than honest in your opinions.
j e,
“A republic in which so many citizens are so gullible and so much of the elite malign and truly vicious cannot endure for long.”
As Lincoln rightly observed, “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.”
rcat,
“Private ownership of firearms stands in opposition to this plan.”
Indeed.
“Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace.” ~ James Madison
The Left has its “enslaved press”. Obama purged the upper echelons of the US Military. Hoping that to be sufficient when the Left ‘legally’ eviscerates the Constitution.
But to be confident of their ultimate victory and remove all effective resistance to their reeducation camps and killing fields they MUST have a disarmed populace. So it’s a virtual certainty that they have to gut the 2nd amendment and confiscate arms. That of course is a predictable trigger wire to Civil War. So the Left has to be counting on the military to follow the ‘lawful’ orders of a ‘legally elected’ Federal Government, rather than the troops honoring their Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution.
“…irrelevant…”
In Democratic Party fantasies, perhaps; but not quite yet.
Not by a long shot.
Andrew McCarthy explains why (and eviscerates John Roberts while he’s at it):
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/522856-justice-barretts-baptism-by-fire-protecting-the-integrity-of-elections
H/T Powerline blog
Cicero,
The 50%+ of Americans who will vote for President Trump still have a Republic because governance always rests in the ‘consent’ of the governed. That’s true whether a republic, a democracy, a monarchy, a dictatorship or any other form of governance.
An unwillingness to if necessary, die for liberty is consent to be governed by whatever form of governance under which one resides.
Though in certain ways the Constitution has been “interpreted” to state what cannot be logically defended, in the main it still retains its integrity. Overall, the Bill of Rights still applies. We have not yet reached a point where the choice is 1984 or 1776.
huxley
It’s legal and can happen. Context is secondary. Sure, it’s scary to Republicans. But it’s not insurrection [or whatever] if Democrats follow Constitutional rules to make changes. A fundamental change to the United States happened when the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments passed. That was a good thing, actually. Plenty of people were upset though. Anytime big changes happen in the country some segment [often conservative] gets upset.
om
If Trump [or a Republican congress] did the same I would still say they had the ability to do it within the Constitution. Sure, I would dislike it. I’m not saying I like Democrats proposing it either.
“…if Democrats follow Constitutional rules…”
(Like Harry Reid, presumably, when he pulled his nuclear option stunt.)
And there you have it.
And here we are.
BTW-1, didn’t the Republicans “follow Constitutional rules” in nominating Justice Barrett? For some reason that didn’t seem to go down too well among some. (If I recall, it made ’em downright hysterical and threaten sweet revenge…)
BTW-2, didn’t the Democrats, a bit disappointed with the results of the previous election also threaten, with the usual, seemingly obligatory hysterics, to repeal the Electoral College—no doubt “follow[ing] Constitutional rules”. Hmmm, using “Constitutional rules” to blow up the Constitution. Gosh, who’dathunk such a thing was even conceivable….
Ymar,
That Federalist article you linked to is quite chilling. If it comes to pass, it will make another Civil War inescapable.
By yourself… you have the proverbial snowball’s chance in hell.
In actuality, Trump wins. However successful the theft, cheating isn’t a ‘win’.
Logistics will determine the winner, so the right wins Civil War 2. How long and how bloody it would be is up to the US military.
That is correct, and no longer unexpected.
Their Manichean “realizing of the dreams we dream” managed-evolution paradigm, necessarily sees any loss of momentum toward their no-limits goal of ascending to a communal godhood as justifying a correction by any means necessary; and ultimately requires that retrograde types be phased out of existence completely. Republicans can have no place in a man made heaven on earth. Even their existence would be discordant and an affront to the proposed paradisaical harmonies envisioned.
They have to be gotten rid of; through tax polices, administrative intimidation, and population swamping, if possible; but by any means that gets the job done sooner rather than later, in any event.
Though that said, I think most of us on the extermination list are still shaking our heads as we persistently try to come to terms with – to understand – the vehemence and existential hostility evinced by friends and relatives and even wives and children, toward traditional, or conservative, or even libertarian leaning Americans.
Obviously they imagined that a physical and emotional Nirvana was just around the corner; and that the only thing between them, everlasting emotional comfort, the eternal joys of unchallenged self-regard, and a consequence free liberation of their appetites, whatever those might be, is the pesky presence of those now obsolete Republicans and their “enablers”.
It has become a commonplace here regarding progressives, that “politics is their religion”. And so it is, in a manner of speaking. But really, politics is the ritual instrument [“religion” if you will] of a much deeper progressive faith and worldview which melds ego, power, an all-purpose “evolutionary justification”, and a radical subjectivity that makes reason itself the enemy of sheer will and dreaming.
This truly is a war between right reason on the one hand, and unbridled, vainglorious, vaunting, emotion driven will, on the other.
Montage,
“it’s not insurrection [or whatever] if Democrats follow Constitutional rules to make changes.”
True. Yet we all know that while the Democrats may follow the letter of the law, they won’t follow the spirit of the law. Demonstrated when they passed Obamacare not only without one Republican vote but without any Republican input. The Congressional democrats shoved Obamacare down America’s throat and repeatedly lied to do it. Then relied on judicial malpractice to sustain it.
Whereas, ACB’s nomination and Senate approval is entirely within both the letter and the spirit of the law. Objections are simply spiteful hypocrisy.
It all boils down to Democrat’s being entirely in favor of one party tyranny while calling it the “will of the voters”.
Geoffrey Britain,
My hang them comment was directed at the senate.
One of the objectives of Desert Storm was the destruction of the Iraqi Republican Guard. Not defeat. Wiping them out. And that pretty much happened to the Tawakalna Division at the Battle of 73 Easting.
The left has gone all in. They said revenge. Only terrorists and criminals seek revenge for exercising one’s legal rights. And the anti-self-defense DA’s are terrorists. Every aspect of their power must be destroyed most importantly their Lawfare Division. The lawyers and judges that brought us here must pay a heavy price.
How many phones did the FBI erase? 25 or so? How many of those phones belonged to licensed lawyers? People who I believe take some kind oath?
They must be made to understand that Trump is their last chance to be brought justice through anything that remotely resembles due process. If he fails what comes next is a warlord. And he will be given a mandate. Since these idiots are so in love with China, when dealing with them the rule will be: What. Would. China. Do.
“Logistics will determine the winner…”
I suspect that the Democrats and their antifa/BLM shock troops will try to make events in the upcoming week as chaotic and violent as possible so as to either ensure that Trump loses or make the result so inconclusive for as long as possible, in order to maintain the high levels of violence and chaos, which will continue to prevent a conclusive result (with the encouragement of the Democratic Party).
That is, so that Trump cannot claim victory.
Such that any attempt by Trump to counter the violence will result in hysterical cries of “tyranny” and generate apoplectic calls for his impeachment, even as the violence continues, encouraged by those who criticize Trump for trying to end it.
DNW,
“This truly is a war between right reason on the one hand, and unbridled, vainglorious, vaunting, emotion driven will, on the other.”
Agreed, yet such cannot win against a cold, hard reason that clearly sees the stakes at risk.
“But goodness alone is never enough. A hard, cold wisdom is required for goodness to accomplish good. Goodness without wisdom always accomplishes evil.” Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land
Montage:
You either really really don’t get it, or you do and pretend not to.
Everything legal is not desirable. And no, it’s not just Republicans who should be upset. Everyone should, if they understood what was happening. Why do you think that in the 30s when FDR proposed to stack the Court, even his own party realized the danger to the republic, and his own party (the Democrats of the time, who had a huge majority and could have done just about anything they wanted) stopped him?:
The Democrats back then were a lot different then the Democrats now. They understood the danger to all – even though they legally had a supermajority that could have legally done just about anything. They understood the danger of what the Founders called “the tyranny of the majority.”
And to equate – as you seem to do – the amendment process as a path to fundamental change with a fundamental change passed by a simple Congressional majority, is ignorant. The amendment process was made very difficult to assure that whatever was passed that way reflected the will of a very large majority of Americans. That is one of the many things a republic is about rather than the majority rule in a simple democracy.
Also, study the history of Venezuela in the link. Apparently you don’t care if we end up that way. Also, see this about the Enabling Act that allowed Hitler to become a tyrant, completely legally.
I will say this for the umpteenth time;
the greatest threat a representative democracy faces, are the voters voting for a national suicide. (see Venezuela).
And it would be “legal.”
By the way, no need to abolish or even re-define the 2nd amendment; all that is needed is to impose a $10,000 tax on all firearms and ammo and bingo, the 2nd Amendment is gone.
Fracking? impose impossible to meet “environmental” rules and regulations.
Bingo, no more fracking.
Abolish the Electoral College?? Force the state legislatures to vote yes by withholding all sorts of Federal grants, aid; basically punish the states into submission.
Apply enough pressure and amazing things can be accomplished.
These sorts of actions can obliterate the Constitution as the basis of our laws and our government.
An all powerful Federal Govt can “legally” do whatever it chooses by imposing an oppressive array of rules, regulations, taxes, fees, executive orders and laws.
A compliant court system of the “correct” judges can grease the skids for anything.
And adios to our Constitutional Republic.
Everything legal is not desirable. –neo
Montage: Let me underline what neo wrote above.
If conservatives are to take you and the Democratic leadership seriously — and it seems clear that we should — then Trump, in the next three months or four years and six months, should pre-emptively stack the courts and do anything and everything legally possibly to make sure Democrats can never regain substantial national power again. Is that something you would like to see?
Your approach leads to Venezuela or civil war. And since conservatives are substantially well-armed, it won’t be Venezuela until many millions are dead and even then it won’t be Venezuela because I don’t see conservatives losing that war.
Is it possible for you to think that far ahead? It’s a standard escalation scenario, however tragic.
Goeffrey Britain:
“consent of the governed”?
How did that work in Venezuela? In Romania? Or elsewhere under tyranny?
It will take a great deal of vicious pain inflicted by the powerful elites before the “governed” finally rise up. Decades of suffering and abuse, even.
With the massive mail-in vote and its inherent fraud (I got a mail-in ballot without a request!), with MSM silence on important matters weeks before election day, this country is no longer functioning like a republic, but as a democracy of (largely ignorant because uninformed) voters.
The Founders believed educated people were critical to America’s survival. They, many of them, are no longer educated but instead were indoctrinated. That is everywhere in the USA!
Context is secondary. Sure, it’s scary to Republicans. But it’s not insurrection [or whatever] if Democrats follow Constitutional rules to make changes. A fundamental change to the United States happened when the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments passed. That was a good thing, actually. Plenty of people were upset though. Anytime big changes happen in the country some segment [often conservative] gets upset.
No one can figure out if you’re a fool or a fraud. The appellate judiciary has been a locus of misfeasance for > 80 years. What the Democratic Party is in a snit about is that for an indeterminate period of time, abuse of power will not be exercised on their behalf, and the possibility that some standing abuses will be reversed. And, when they’re reversed, the issue in question gets tossed in the lap of state legislatures. Your problem, as ever, is that now and again your opposition gets to have its way in matters of social policy. Well, grow up.
How did that work in Venezuela? In Romania? Or elsewhere under tyranny?
Huh? Roumania had little or nothing in the way of a civil society from 1938 to 1989 – just a brief window in 1944-47. Prior to 1938, their civil society was disfigured by among other things frequent electoral fraud, something of which we’re about to get a double dose in this country. (No clue what objection you have to Roumania’s parliamentary system the last 30 years).
As for the decay of Venezuela’s political order, see Mark Falcoff’s articles penned at the time Hugo Chavez was elected.
Neo,
The FDR court packing scheme is a bit more complex than you note. He ended up getting what he wanted from the Court, anyway. It was controversial, yes. But so would a plan to pack the court now. You seem to think Biden and the Senate could stack the court immediately and that is not the case. The Democrats would need 60 votes to do a change like that. At the most, they might have a majority after this election with 54. I don’t see 6 Republicans joining Democrats to stack the court. Even Romney.
I will continue to go back to what is allowed by the Constitution. If you love this country and you love the Constitution then you – at some point – have to step away from one political view and see what is possible and accept that it can happen. It is irrelevant if it is undesirable. McConnell rushing through ACB was undesirable but I don’t complain about it because he followed the rules he is allowed to under the Constitution. Elections have consequences. [And, yeah, it can be awful, I’ll admit]. But If you want to block all such actions by Democrats then support Republicans writing new legislation to make sure court packing can never happen, or the electoral college can never be abolished or new states cannot be admitted.
I’ll predict now that if Biden wins he will be one term [not surprising] but the Republicans will very possibly be back in the White House in 4 years because the Democrats that will be running will be further left than Biden. The Republicans may even win the midterms. It’s going to be a wild few years in politics – I think.
Art Deco:
I specifically referenced “consent of the governed.” That Romania had no “civil society”, as you term it, is not relevant to said consent. It was and is a nation, it had a society though perhaps not “civil” enough for you. One definition of “society” reads, “The totality of people regarded as forming a community of interdependent individuals”.
My point, which you second (inadvertently, in your standard argumentativeness), is that indeed it took decades for the “consent of the governed” to well up and depose Ceaucescu the tyrant.
*breaks out popcorn and booze and sits back to watch the unfolding discussion of the history of Romania over the past 100 years*
Eh, who am I kidding… I hate popcorn. But give me a can of Pringles and I’m there.
The Democrats would need 60 votes to do a change like that.
The talking points they e-mail you each day stink.
Art+Deco
True, the Democrats could eliminate the filibuster. The history of the filibuster is worth noting; in 1975 the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or 60 of the current 100 senators. I like the filibuster. Changing it could really hand either party an advantage when they control the Senate.
The left has decided that the right cannot have even temporary power anymore.
Once again, I am reminded of Spain. The left won the first post-Monarchy legislative elections, in part because the right was still disorganized after the abdication of King Alfonso. The right became more organized, and won the 1933 legislative elections. The response of the left was to request of President Niceto Alcalá Zamora that he annul the elections, going against the Constitution the left wrote. From Stanley G. Payne’s Collapse of the Spanish Republic, 1933-1936 : Origins of the Civil War:
Sound familiar?
JohnTyler,
“all that is needed is to impose a $10,000 tax on all firearms and ammo and bingo, the 2nd Amendment is gone.”
A packed court might well ignore… “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” which would be a trigger wire for Civil War. What the Left fails to grasp is that eliminating inalienable rights requires force and, in this country at this time… will result in them reaping the whirlwind.
Cicero,
“Goeffrey Britain:
“consent of the governed”?
How did that work in Venezuela? In Romania? Or elsewhere under tyranny?”
Before all else, tyranny always seeks first to disarm the public. Once he reached his point of power, the first thing Chavez did was to effectively disarm the Venezuelan public. South American countries also have a long history of military coups. Neither is the case here. When the dems seriously try to confiscate arms, as they must, they are in for a mortal shock. Nothing will impel American “deplorables” to armed resistance faster than to seek to disarm them.
On a gut level, Americans realize that arms are their last defense against tyranny. I point to the massive upsurge in gun sales as evidence in support of that assertion. It is NOT just rioting and criminal activity alone that is driving that upsurge.
People sense that a confrontation is coming.
Montage:
Once again you play the “ignorant, aw shucks game” this time with the filibuster. Since your Democrats have already threatened to eliminate the filibuster you are playing a loosing hand. Do you mostly talk to other progressives and assume people at this blog are just as ill informed your peers?
You mentioned Hugo Chavez. Earlier I mentioned an article by Angelo Codeville. It is so worth reading. Then the other about the FBI and the “Whitmer” plot.
https://amgreatness.com/2020/10/23/the-police-and-us/
https://amgreatness.com/2020/10/15/your-fbi-will-entrap-you/
Also Richard Evans “The Third Reich in Power” describes what the Progressives want to do.
But it all assumes one thing. Compliance by the bulk of America. Trouble is that they have taught us not to do so. The breakdown of the rule of law ala riots, the harassment of law abiding citizens by leftist mobs and now the heavy hand of shutdowns in blue states. If people come to the conclusion that the state which we delved our right of violence to maintain order has abrogated it’s end of the bargain then a new political calculus is born. Couple that with a return to stagflation and economic despair and the state starts losing it’s coercive power.
Will it devolve into the Weimar Republic with Freikorps being created? Or will the people speak VERY LOUDLY via the ballot box as they have done so far? It depends on how much the leftist violence spills out of it’s protected enclaves of NYC, Washington DC, LA, Chicago and other compliant governments. Someone is going to shoot back for real. Then it will be interesting. In the end the progressives will lose because they do not command enough of the apparatus of the state at all levels to win, the Bolsheviks not withstanding. The Bolsheviks overthrew an autocracy like Pizarro did the Incas. Remove the head and the body can’t function. Our government is decentralized so it wouldn’t work. There are counties defying state governments about stupid COVID rules.
But as in the Civil War, it can get quite bloody. Imagine the chaos if the rural areas cut off the cities from food and electricity.
“in war, amateurs talk about strategy, generals talk about logistics”
Montage:
You say that FDR’s court-packing scheme was a bit more complicated than what I wrote? Well, fancy that! I’ll be gobsmacked. You mean, I didn’t write the complete and definitive history of FDR’s court-packing scheme?
I am quite aware of what happened; I’ve read about it before. My point here in mentioning the FDR situation was to contrast then and now, “then” being when even the Democrats realized it was a very dangerous idea, and “now” being when they are advocating it as a way to greater power and essentially to make the Court become an arm of the Democrats who are in power.
Theoretically, the GOP could pack the Court further if and when they get into power. Note that word “if” – because part of what the Democrats are determined to do is to prevent the GOP from ever coming to power again.
And your point about the filibuster is no point at all. Again, I’m not sure whether you’re ignorant or naive, or think we are, or are just playing some silly game here. The filibuster is just a rule and can be easily changed, and after that only a simple majority will be needed. That’s another dangerous thing to do, but the Democrats will not hesitate for one moment to do it if they get in power and they think it’s worth their while.
On court packing and context, it is important to remember that conservatives spent DECADES watching a liberal judiciary not only invalidating conservative policies but overturning established practices and laws supported by large majorities of the population.
The Right did not talk about court packing. It set about trying to change the judiciary by winning elections and appointing judges and Justices. It was a long and difficult endeavor and ultimately succeeded because the Left changed the rules.
Now, before the Left has had to live with a conservative Supreme Court for even a single second, they demand the rules be changed and the system rigged to destroy what the Right has achieved.
Mike
Om
As I’ve said before I don’t agree with everything the Democrats want to do. I don’t want to see the filibuster end nor see other drastic measures used because the Republicans could then do the same to implement their agenda. Neither party should be able to easily run roughshod over the other. But, of course, it certainly can happen – and does. Politics is rarely harmonious.
“Neither party should be able to easily run roughshod over the other. But, of course, it certainly can happen – and does. Politics is rarely harmonious.” Montage
Are you so obtuse as to fail to see that the democrat party’s leadership and power brokers are no longer invested in a power sharing arrangement? One in which a peaceful transfer of power between sincerely differing opinions is respected? That their progressive agenda finds it intolerable to even contemplate an arrangement in which they must truly compromise? Are you so foolish, so willfully blind that no amount of evidence can pull the wool from your eyes? Do you actually think that the incessant and increasing demonization of the right by the left is merely politics as usual? Do you see conservatives routinely labeling progressives as Nazis? Calling for Truth and Reconciliation Commissions? Rioting, looting and insisting that a failure to speak out in agreement with only one point of view is support for oppression and racist? That you’re either fully on board or an irredeemable?
Is it that you don’t see or that you do see and view pretense as somehow advantageous? Not that it matters, for in either case your default position is acting as a supporter of liberty’s enemies.
It all begins with Hillary—“Hey! I lost, so let’s delegitimize the President (and the Electoral College while we’re we at, Yes We CAN!!)”—Clinton.
And her media poodles.
Taken up by Barack—“Hey, what a FANTASTIC idea, Hillary, you’re a genius!! Comey, Brennan, get on it”—Obama.
Because everything was/is DO-ABLE. Everything was/is POSSIBLE (if you lie enough, cover up enough, are smart enough—and “BOY ARE WE EVER SMART!!— besides, the media is TOTALLY in our corner”).
“So we’re—it’s safe to say—unassailable. Impregnable.
We can do nothing wrong.
“And IF we’re discovered—and the chances of THAT are less than nil (I mean look at this elaborate scheme we’ve worked out, a thing of beauty, of sheer brilliance)—then we can always deny it as, heh, Republican (those LOSERS) conspiracy theory.
“Remember, we have the media!!”
Which, by the way, is how you get trash like this:
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1321263064319217665
It’s the Democratic Party—“No Malarkey!”—way.
A warning from someone who’s “been there”:
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/409913/
Are Americans compliant enough to tolerate – by peaceful and “legal” means – the evisceration of their rights?
Who knows.
But the pacificity of the citizenry when ordered to lock-down due to the corona virus, despite the glaring inconsistencies as to which groups were allowed to protest/riot, or which businesses were allowed remain open (e.g., Home Depot, Lowe’s etc), demonstrates that if the people believe, rightly or wrongly, that restrictions placed upon them are for their own good, they will willingly comply.
And even if they don’t believe the restrictions are for their own good, they will still obey them if their livelihood is not negatively impacted.
Why risk arrest and destroy your life just because a law/restriction pisses you off, yet that restriction does not impact your lifestyle?
Note that there was nor is any shortage of civil “servants” to enforce the lock-down.
The ease with which people can morph into Eloi as a result of “orders” given by the Morlocks is pretty frightening ( I borrowed from “The Time Machine,” by HG Wells).
And this tendency is not restricted to ordinary folks.
Just look at all the upper level middle managers at the FBI and DOJ during the Trump/Russia scam.
There must have been dozens there that knew what was going on and NOBODY – no agent, no DOJ lawyer – not even surreptitiously raised the alarm.
Why not?
Maybe it was because they wished to preserve their income and pension. After all, they have mortgages and college tuition to pay; so it payed to remain mum.
Much has been written about how easily Germans were led by the nose to follow Hitler and his bunch. Explanations oft times refer to their supposed affinity for order and obedience.
Given the latest events here, and the apparent evenly split support of the electorate for Trump and Bidet, I don’t think Yanks should be criticizing those Germans or even those Venezuelans who allowed? voted for? supported ? did nothing? as their new leaders led them into the abyss.
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”
Thomas Jefferson, from the Declaration of Independence.
A bit off topic, but then maybe not. This morning another record number of new active “cases”. It’s now looking like a “3rd wave” at least as large as the June wave. I believe it’s all BS. Why? The prevalence, and encouragement, of on-demand, non-prescription testing, combined with testing companies setting the positive threshold too low. See the below referenced, somewhat technical article.
So…. I fully expect the D governors to declare a “health emergency” and shut down in person voting for next week. Threw out your mail in ballot? Too bad, you’re screwed.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1320536482298384390.html?fbclid=IwAR1EREFR8_sWcr1tHbEOffzfe7NYqPLUOGDkIcXJSH4PSU6ncS4Q9yqAjQw
I wouldn’t put it past them one bit.
(That is, if the rioters even allow people to get near the polling stations, with law enforcement being ordered to stand down…)
On the bright side, wth Coney Barrett on the SC, snd Critical Drinker doing take-no-prisoners movie reviews on YouTube, perhaps there is hope for the Republic after all.
It seems impossible, but given what we’ve seen up until now, and given the rhetoric of the Democratic Party, it’s not unlikely:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin102820.php3
H/T Powerline blog
Critical Drinker YouTube videos are especially good.
Riots in predominantly Democrat urban areas will ensure Democrat voter turnout in those cities. What am I missing in this plan? Where is the rocket scientist when I need him? Montage? Montage?
Funny … but eventually you run out of places to move to.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bf40cbe0d696bfa15e3afa886312bcad77512e8341e0eb60c7ecbd43a93b0a6d.jpg
@ JTyler,
Yeah, you are right. A plurality of so-callef Americans have virtually no use for freedom anyway. This, inasmuch as traditional freedom (distinct from Bonobo-like moral license) in large measure concerns going about your life and pursuing economic ends with what Hayek called “independency”.
For those center of the herd types whose aim in life is safety, “connection”, inclusion, social affirmation, place, and emotional comfort, any legal framework set up to guarantee rights they have no interest in, is of almost no importance to them.
Have, for example, those public sector employment females who were getting on line and defiantly proclaiming their desire to fellate Bill Clinton or Obama, for caring for their needs and feeling their pain, suddenly developed an interest in going into the forest and chopping down trees? Or what have smirking metrosexuals like Peter Strzok ever had as life goals apart from institutional membership and privileges?
As I have stated so many times people are sick of it, the average American Democrat has about as much use for freedom as traditionally conceived, as a dog has for a fiddle. And they see no reason why you should have it either. Their ancestors had no history of freedom or fighting for it. They lived and reproduced without it, by fitting in, conforming, and manipulating where and when they could. America simply offered a richer field of action for a deployment of their long refined survival strategies.
Ask yourself, how many of urban Americans could even speak of freedom without some measure of embarassed self-consciousness as they recited formulae that had no resonance in their own lives or with their own heritage.
How many children were taught by their parents about freedom either explicitly, or implicitly (say, through through family histories), as opposed to those who taught by their own conversation and example, a constant preoccupation with distributive fairness, equity, and receiving “their share”?
The obsession with credentials in our public discourse is a symptom of an environment in which cattle-like people no longer ( or more likely never did) believe they have intrinsic rights, but instead have justifiable conceits, special privileges, and permissions of allowance, all based on official stamps of accomplishment and approval.
John Tyler: Totally agree. Thanks.
I think America is mortally ill, afflicted with a Democratic cancer that has metastasized to many critical organs. Only the date of the death certificate remains pending.
God bless Trump for trying, even in these late hours. But 73 million stupid and ignorant Americans have already voted by mail.
What a bunch of Eeyores. The left has a glass jaw.
Linked is just part of Biden’s speech yesterday in Pennsylvania, in which Biden’s cognitive decline was on full display–Biden was often unable to articulate, was hesitant, groping for words, was mispronouncing words, there were flashes of rage, and sometimes just incoherent mumbling.
If I were the Trump campaign I’d run this video non-stop, until election day, and ask some simple, straightforward questions–
“Is this the guy you would want running your household, your business, the country, making the decisions for peace or war, negotiating with foreign leaders?”
“Is he now capable of doing a competent job of any of those tasks?”
“How likely is Biden to be competent enough to serve even the first year of his four year term in office?”
“And, finally, do you really want a President Harris?”
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQN0stFPySU&app=desktop
DNW:
You write:
I understand and agree for the most part with the first two sentences in that quote. But the rest of it sounds like you’re making an assertion that you know nothing about. Their ancestors? Whose ancestors? Democrats are a pretty diverse group in terms of ancestor origins, and I would argue that it’s actually likely that the vast majority of people who came here in the past had ancestors who cared a lot about liberty. They also came for economic opportunity, but liberty was generally a big concern as well, at least in the past. And as far as black people who came here as slaves go, they seemed mighty interested in liberty as well – escapes, civil rights movement, etc.
I think the loss of concern about liberty is a much more recent phenomenon (last 30 years or so) and cannot be blamed on supposed ancestors.
Yes, and no. They may not be able to take a punch, but if you leave them breathing, they will never go away.
So, if you are talking about real hardball, real “you libs broke the contract” extra legal tactics, right up to social warfare and possibly including killing, you probably have a point.
And, yes, within the context of bemoaning the fact that we seem to have been drawn to the verge of such a situation, much of what one reads here is doom and gloom.
I think to be fair though, conservatives are well aware that they operate with moral inhibitions, attachments to procedural forms, and to the legal legacy of the past, which progressives are free of; and therefore, in contemplating what mght come to pass, in terms of hard moral and social choices if the Keith Olbermans, and Robert Reichs, and Hillary kind ultimately do push it far enough, many are as you imply alarmed and gloomy.
They are in part, because once you draw that line in the sand and state that the former social contract is null and void, even if you do win there is probably no going back to tne way it used to be. Or to the way it at least appeared to be.
And yes, the left might very well fold like a cheap tent once we arrive at a field of contention outside the laws.
After you have won though, what do you do with them then? Kill them all? Pretend that we can go back to square one and that they will mysteriously develop into a kind of liberty loving and freedom respecting people they were not before?
Maybe you calculate it will never go so far as to be even close to that.
And maybe you figure that traditional Americans will not quite ever be faced with a choice between abject submission within a system of at least superficially legal forms, or retaining their historic liberties by repudiating the ostensible social compact that is presumed by many, if not by myself, to underly the most general and basic legal concepts.
If you have such a scenario to present which manages to thread the needle in the case of a Trump loss, you will certainly have an audience clamoring to hear it.
And I will be among the first in line.
Neo,
I’m stupidly using a bloody tablet to comment when I should not be commenting at all. I’ll try to respond later.
In the meantime, however it may be that their chilcren and grandchildren have expressed their life way preferences over time, do you really believe that independence and self-direction was paramount among the motives for the Swedes, the 19th century famine Irish, the German socialist refugees, or even the British of the 19th Century?
And frankly, Africans never even crossed my mind. They did not come here voluntarily, and although as inhabitants they were enumerated and partially counted for apportionment ends, were not in general part of the body politic [though not universally excluded from the franchise everywhete and at all times] ], until post 1865.
The German immigrants post revolutions of 1848, are among the more famous examples of ideologically socialist peoples who retained their collectivist and communal ideals self consciously, and deliberately, for decades through various institutions and publications designed just for that.
“…they plan to make ACB irrelevant…”
Um, not just irrelevant. Illegitimate. Totally illegitimate.
(Just like Trump! Fancy that…though truly, if anyone “knows” illegitimate”, Warren does.)
https://twitter.com/SteveHainesx/status/1321119311935741955
Yes, the same dreary, ugly pattern repeats. Talking points bouncing around in an echo chamber of scoundrels and fools.
Hillary is the template here. The role model. The inspiration. The leader of the foul pack.
The rot is deep; the hypocrisy mind-boggling.
Once again, the leader dares to speak:
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1320880328395968520
…as the deep rot deepens even further and the stench grows ever more repulsive.
I’m feeling a bit more optimistic today:
Lee goes further than some other analysts in suggesting that pollsters may be deliberately overstating the strength of Democratic candidates in order to dampen Republican turnout. In this press release, he calls it “the very definition of ‘voter suppression’” for a poll, by Franklin & Marshall College, to claim Hillary Clinton was ahead by eleven points among likely voters in surveys taken from October 26–30, 2016. He frankly calls this “liberal bias.”
–“Another Pollster Sees a Trump Win”
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/10/another-pollster-sees-a-trump-win/
Considering how deceitful and partisan the media in general has become, it shouldn’t be a surprise that pollsters have their thumbs on the scale too.
Plus for Trump to lose, doesn’t he have to lose Rep voters? Unless Biden can unleash a big wave of non-voters from 2016, which I’m not expecting. If anything, Trump is going to get more Rep voters because of those, like me, who were too skeptical of Trump in 2016.
The history of Irish immigration – something about being under the English and reviled as papists, peasants, sub-human(?), and of course starving. Something about being subject to “Irish need not apply” discrimination. I wonder if the Orange Ulstermen were absolved of the anti-Irish policies. And of course indentured-serviture. Lots of historical questions to answer. Not worthy of freedom?
Why did the Swede’s and other scandinavians leave the forests, fijords and lakes? Economic privation, social class discrimination, European warfare and choas? Lots of historical questions to answer. Nope, they all yearned for a life in the midwest where things were easier and the Sioux were peaceable neighbors. They didn’t fight in the Civil War either?
DNW:
No doubt some people maintained leftist views, but not the majority.
Most of my ancestors came from Germany way back when – in particular, in the 1840s – and they and their descendants valued liberty very highly.
Some others who came much later, from other countries, not so much. Although even in that group, many did.