Good morning, Gentle Reader. Here we are...finally.
Recent events have had me somewhat distracted -- "wrapped around the axle of life," as a dear friend likes to put it. Like many others of the Internet Commentariat, I view the dissipation of this most unfortunate year with relief. And despite my own mounting weariness, I'm here to rant about it. But not with a year-in-review piece of the usual sort. There are plenty of other bloviators out there who can do that adequately well.
Buckle up. This ride could get bumpy.
Not to put too fine a point on it, two developments stand out above the rest. (And for those of you with homonym trouble, the study of that sentence would be most profitable.)
- The United States of America no longer exists.
- The world has moved to the brink of nuclear war.
Assertion #1 proceeds from the following rather simple chain of postulate, observation, and implication:
- Any particular polity must possess a specific definition.
- The United States of America is a polity defined by a Constitution which is "the supreme Law of the Land."
- The Constitution of the United States no longer defines the polity currently called the United States of America.
- Therefore, the United States of America as defined no longer exists.
None of those statements are objectively arguable. Have a pithy summation from one of the few remaining statesmen in Congress:
Here we have a supposed "Constitutional scholar" completely flummoxed by a simple question about the reach of presidential authority. For those of you who haven't read the document recently, the Constitution is nine sheets of parchment written in clear, nontechnical English. Even if we include the signatures at the bottom, it comes to under 5000 words. But Simon Lazarus, the witness Representative Gowdy is interrogating, is determined not to say anything that might undermine any of the positions or actions taken by Barack Hussein Obama, another supposed "Constitutional scholar."
What's worse, were you to assemble a hundred persons generally accorded the status of "Constitutional scholar," about half of them would be just as unwilling to answer Representative Gowdy's questions clearly. With the willing support of...persons such as this Lazarus creature, the Obamunists have completed a coup against the Constitution. That coup has been in development for at least a century. It has come fully to fruition with the assertions of Barack Hussein Obama that he can refuse to enforce the laws he himself has agitated for and signed.
Congress? Without any enforcement power of its own.
The federal courts? Completely cowed by the executive branch.
The "alphabet agencies?" Their entire agenda is increased power and control.
The Legacy Media, who are the main reason Obama was elected, are in on the coup.
Allow me one further, extremely bitter observation:
The sentiments expressed by Miss Gerritson in the above graphic are fine ones indeed...but does she believe them herself? A few questions would clarify the matter:
- Do you believe that the federal War on Drugs is Constitutional?
- Do you believe that federal anti-child-labor laws are Constitutional?
- Do you believe that federal redistribution programs (e.g., Social Security, Medicare, and federal welfare programs) are Constitutional?
Not one of these things -- and they're far from the only ones I could cite -- has any Constitutional basis. Indeed, the text of the document, when coupled to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, would appear to forbid all three exertions of federal power. But how many supposed Constitutional Fidelists would be willing to oppose all three of them as beyond Washington's Constitutional authority?
Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal well meaning but without understanding. -- Justice Louis D. Brandeis
The United States of America has ceased to exist -- and We the People, "well meaning but without understanding," helped to kill it.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
First we got the bomb, and that was good,
'Cause we love peace and motherhood.
Then Russia got the bomb, but that's okay,
'Cause the balance of power's maintained that way.
France got the bomb, but don't you grieve,
'Cause they're on our side (I believe).
China got the bomb, but have no fears,
They can't wipe us out for at least five years.
Then Indonesia claimed that they
Were gonna get one any day.
South Africa wants two, that's right:
One for the black and one for the white.
Egypt's gonna get one too,
Just to use on you know who.
So Israel's getting tense.
Wants one in self defense.
"The Lord's our shepherd," says the psalm,
But just in case, we better get a bomb.
Luxembourg is next to go,
And (who knows?) maybe Monaco.
We'll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb.
[Tom Lehrer, "Who's Next," 1964]
North Korea has nuclearized and is arming itself with missiles of intercontinental range.
Iran is very close to nuclear-state status, and has explicit North Korean support.
Pakistan, already a nuclear state, is steadily "going Taliban."
Saudi Arabia is suddenly interested in acquiring nukes.
Venezuela? Watch this space.
There will be war. It will break out within the next two to three years. Whether it will be nuclear remains to be seen...but Israel is likely to decide that for the rest of us, and Israel has a very powerful incentive -- national survival -- to draw the nuclear sword against Iran.
Whether a regional war in which nukes are employed would directly involve the U.S. -- yes, yes, I'll keep calling us that, for simplicity -- is difficult to determine. It would depend on the characters of several individuals whose responses to events are difficult to predict.
However, three of those individuals -- Barack Hussein Obama, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, and Kim Jong-un -- are hardly models of sober consideration or restraint. Whether the rest of the world in combination could restrain the three of them is horribly uncertain.
In the very best case, Israel strikes Iran conventionally and pre-emptively, destroying its nuclear facilities before the ayatollahs can complete a deliverable nuclear weapon. The United States and Russia then proclaim the matter closed, commanding that all other nuclear states "stand down" on pain of annihilating nuclear retaliation. No other outcome would be nearly as acceptable...but how likely is it?
Iran's nuclear facilities are dispersed and well hardened. It's by no means certain exactly where Iran's fabrication of a deliverable nuke would be performed, or on what delivery platform it would be mounted. And as I've already observed, Israel has very powerful reasons to want to do a thorough job...which might not be possible with conventional arms alone.
Pyongyang is informally allied with Tehran. A megalomaniacal delusive such as Kim Jong-un might see the outbreak of hostilities in the Middle East, whether nuclear or not, as his opportunity to assert North Korea's status as a "great power." He might use his nukes to hold South Korea, a U.S. client state, hostage while he comes to the support of the ayatollahs.
Have you checked out this line of products? They're not that expensive. Really!
How much can any group of decent persons do about any of the above?
2014 looks to be the year we'll find out. I'm not sanguine about it. We're too badly fragmented, too various in our personal and provincial concerns, and too beleaguered by more immediate threats to our freedom, our prosperity, and our security. As a Christian, I'm supposed to be a "person of hope," but this morning most of that hope is focused on the life to come.
I'll keep writing -- fiction and non-fiction both. It's what I do, and anyway, I'm too old to adopt a new vice.
Keep close to your loved ones. Make sure they know that you love them.
Happy New Year.