Increased Dependency and Identity Justice

Isn't it about time to question liberal's motivation in all of their verbal maneuvering? When liberals declare words and subjects off limits, it's usually because they are losing the argument.

I think liberals like high crime because it makes individual citizens more dependent on the government. That's why cities that have been one party bastions of liberalism are mostly high crime, high poverty, low education hell holes. If someone mentions an alternative, like vigilantism, that implies people might be able to do without government, liberals declare that even the words describing self-help are pejorative. Liberals want gun control so they can make you vote the way they want. Vote wrong and the police may not respond to your emergency call. Without a gun, you have no chance of defending yourself.

Liberals say that you can't challenge anyone's patriotism. I think that liberals mess up any war they manage, because it's in their interest to make military spending look ineffective. Liberals need all of the defense spending they can cut for domestic programs to make citizens more dependent on government so they have to vote for liberals to continue the gravy train.

Liberals favor teachers' unions over minority children. For liberals, no escapes from failing public schools can be permitted. If someone actually gets a decent education, they might be able to support themselves without government help.

Liberals are taking identity politics to its logical conclusion. It started out that if you voted your identity, the results of government actions were irrelevant. Now, you can be guilty of crimes only if you are not in a liberally favored identity group. As a straight white Anglo-Saxon Protestant Republican Vietnam Era veteran, I can tell you I am not happy about the prospect of identity justice.

Violence Without Legal Opposition Leads to Vigilante Action

The breakdown of law and order in Cologne, Germany on New Year’s Eve lead to widespread sexual assaults and robbery by roving mobs of Islamic immigrant men.  Police were unable to stop the crime spree.  If this kind of breakdown becomes common, people will resort to rougher methods of self-defense.  When law and order break down, people take the law into their own hands because they have no other choice.  This is called vigilantism.  Liberals give the word a pejorative connotation and then dismiss the possibility that anyone would even consider it.

The pejorative nature of "vigilantism" depends on how much history you know and where you grew up. In the gold fields of Montana in the 1860's, vigilante justice was the only kind available. The Civil War was raging back east, so nobody had time to send the agents of law and order to the gold fields.  In the fall of 1863, a band of outlaws killed about 100 miners. The leader of the outlaws was Sheriff Henry Plummer of Bannack, Montana. In January and February of 1864, the Vigilance Committee of Alder Gulch captured, tried and hanged about 25 members of the gang, including Plummer.

The numbers 3-7-77 have long been associated with Montana vigilantes. These numbers are on Montana State Police patches. When I lived there, they were also painted on the bottom of every Montana State Police car's front doors.

Liberals are so out of touch with reality that they have no idea what honest people will do if they have no other choice. Liberals assume people will not defend themselves, but they most certainly will.  If liberals continue to favor multiculturalism over law and order, they are going to find out that governing without protecting the governed is a good way to lose their consent and let lose the vigilantism they don’t consider an option. 

Obama's Legacy of Ruin

Adam Smith famously said, "There is a lot of ruin in a nation." Barack Obama seems hell bent on seeing how much ruin he can inflict on this country as part of his "legacy."

The Iran nuclear arms deal is a dire threat to America. We could easily lose a major city to a terrorist nuclear weapon hidden in a hijacked ocean freighter. We also run the risk that other countries who once depended on the US to defend them from nuclear threats will feel compelled to make their own arrangements. This could easily lead to a general, perhaps nuclear war in the Middle East.

Putin is taking crazy chances because he knows his grip on power is threatened by the rock bottom price of oil. Energy is Russia's main world class export. The last time oil prices crashed, Russian inflation hit 80% a year, Russia defaulted on its bonds and Boris Yeltsin was forced from power. That's how Putin came to power. Putin believes, probably correctly, that losing power will be the death of him. He has resorted to risky military adventures to bolster his popularity. Putin has found no US resistance to his attacks on the Ukraine and Syria. In the Ukraine, Obama has not supplied any weapons at all. Putin's next trick could be attacking Lithuania, a former Soviet Republic and now NATO ally. At the moment, Putin has just finished quietly negotiating basing rights in Belarus, next door to Lithuania, while everybody is watching the Russian Air Force bomb civilians in Syria.

I am also concerned that Obama's disdain for the Constitution and rule of law has created dangerous precedents that his successors will emulate. I don't want a dictator even if he's on my side. I think it will probably take a Constitutional Convention called by the states to fix the mess, because the courts have not acted to restrain the administration's extralegal moves. In many cases they have piled on themselves, for example in the Obamacare cases where they rewrote the law twice without benefit of Congress.

As to the amount of ruin in the US, I am fearfully asking myself, "Are we there yet?" 

2015 Was The End of the Rule of Law for Feds

2015 was the end even a polite fiction of the rule of law in the US.

The way the Supreme Court decided the Obamacare case and the Gay Marriage case both came from the Humpty Dumpty school of law. The law means whatever 5 Supreme Court Justices decide it means, and neither more nor less. According to the Supreme Court, Congress no longer has the power to require statutes, like Obamacare, be implemented as passed. According to the Supreme Court, the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 when homosexual acts were illegal in all states, requires gay marriage.

Regulatory overreach became the rule in 2015. It was the year when the administration asserted it could regulate the internet using a law passed in 1934 to regulate defunct land line telephone monopolies, a law which was modeled on an earlier law passed in 1887 to regulate railroads. Statutes that seemed to forbid internet regulation did not make any difference. It was the year when the EPA outlawed coal without benefit of Congress, and the courts refused to restrain the EPA before this obviously illegal system of regulations was put into effect. It was the year which made clear that regulatory agencies had executive, legislative and judicial functions all in one package which were obviously at the president's command. These regulatory agencies have no separation of powers and no checks or balances. The Congress can't restrain them without a veto proof majority and the courts won't restrain them because the agencies are supposed to possess subject matter expertise to which courts are supposed to defer.

I think it's obvious that Barrack Obama has brought us to a turning point. If we don't reverse the trend toward arbitrary executive edicts and runaway justices, we are on the road to a banana republic dictatorship. If we are to reverse the trend, Barack Obama has pointed out all of the flaws in our current system that we need to fix by exploiting them. The flaws are so dangerous, numerous and ingrown that it will take a Constitutional Convention to fix them