Good evening, my friends, and here we are again for another evening of Musings After Midnight. Welcome.
This evening I thought I would present some thoughts for your consideration that may well bother you, and, to be frank, that bother me. Nonetheless, there is a certain price to be paid for being fully awake and aware, cognizant of the dangers we face in this age, and in full possession of the facts.
An old professor of mine used to say, "The price of a real education, and the realism it entails, is a certain measure of existential angst."
And another person I knew, a psychiatrist with whom I worked closely in mental health chaplaincy, once told me, "In a certain sense, the depressed person is the one who is fully aware and fully realistic. They have looked into the abyss of modern existence and come to the honest conclusion that things don't look very good."
While I do not consider myself to be totally cynical or perpetually hopeless, there are those times when I admit that the present situation in the country, and in the world, does not look good and lends itself to a certain degree of healthy skepticism, which can lead me at times to suffer for a few days in my "existential angst."
But, being a Christian I cannot allow myself to stay there for long. I do believe that things can change even when they appear insurmountably hopeless. So, there is hope. I am the first to admit, however, that such hope is at times very difficult to come by except for that hope that comes from the promises of God, many of which are not fulfilled in this life but the next.
Be that as it may, my assessment at present is that the situation in America and the world is dire. That is just the plain truth, and I would be derelict in my duty if I did not tell you this truth, and I would be lying to myself if I did not admit it.
Several events over the past few weeks have been for me such a disappointment, and frankly, such an unexpected twist, that I have considered things that before now I would not allow myself to entertain in my mind. I have never considered myself to be a conspiracy theorist nor adhered to what I consider to be the more outlandish of these theories, which to me push the envelope of sanity.
And while I still find some of these conspiracy theories to be beyond the pale, I have been forced of late to take a new look at the subject of political conspiracy from the standpoint of the current climate in the U.S. today and some of the behaviors and statements of people that I thought knew better but for some reason have thrown their weight behind the ideology of the present leadership structure in Washington as represented by the current occupant of the White House and the Democratic leadership in the U.S. Senate.
First, in spite of the overwhelming opposition of the American people, a laughably bumbling defense before the Supreme Court by Administration attorneys, and the near unanimous consensus among conservatives and Constitutional originalists that ObamaCare is not only unconstitutional but a horrid joke, the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, who claims to be an originalist, ruled in favor of the law against all odds and in the face of simple logic and rationality. Not only did he damage the reputation of the Court but he probably permanently damaged his own reputation as a jurist by making such a flimsy argument in favor of the healthcare law.
Roberts stated that it is not up to him to correct the political choices of the electorate. While there is some modicum of truth to that statement, it IS his responsibility to decide if the laws passed by the "political choices of the electorate" pass the constitutional muster.
But I have already written extensively about the Roberts ruling and its indefensible disregard for the Constitution, mainly in that although the Chief Justice says the Commerce Clause cannot be used to force citizens to make purchases, that is precisely what he decided that Congress has the power to do. It does not matter that Roberts reached into thin air to call it a tax. The fact is, Commerce Clause or not, Congress now has the power to force Americans to make purchases against their will, and if they don't they can be punished by the IRS.
This is the type of doublespeak we have come to expect from the Obama Administration. Keep this in mind as we go forward.
Second, although the U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly with bipartisan support to repeal ObamaCare, the House leadership stated last week that it intends to fully fund the healthcare initiative. This they have done without input from the members, the rank and file Republicans who form the majority.
Here again, doublespeak and a vast disconnect. One day the House leadership supports the repeal of ObamaCare. The next day the House leadership says it will fully fund ObamaCare although they just voted to repeal it.
What the hell gives here?
And to be specific, here I am talking about the House leadership only and not most Republicans in the House. This means specifically Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy.
If the vote in the House was to repeal ObamaCare, then wouldn't it naturally follow that the ones who voted in favor of the repeal would also vote against funding the very law they abhor?
Odd. Very odd.
Third, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wades into the gun control controversy by suggesting in an interview on Fox with Chris Wallace that the Court may well issue restrictions on the gun rights of citizens. Only days before, Barack Obama stated that he wants to ban so-called "assault weapons" by quipping that "AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers and not criminals," no matter that soldiers do not use AK-47s and the overwhelming majority of citizens who own them are not criminals. If criminals have them, they got them illegally off the street since it is illegal for criminals to have them.
So why would a conservative Supreme Court justice offer commentary on the issue in the aftermath of the Colorado shooting only days after Obama calls for more gun control and a gun ban?
I know that Scalia has suggested in the past that he believes there are "reasonable restrictions' on the Second Amendment--a statement with which I strongly disagree. But the fact is he WAS one of the YES votes over the past few years when the Supreme Court affirmed the individual right to own guns, including handguns, and when the Court struck down gun control laws in D.C.
I simply find it odd that he would insert himself into this issue at the present time. Why now? What does he know that's coming down the pike which suggests that Americans should brace themselves for more gun control, in spite of the fact that literally hundreds of laws already on the books restrict the scope of the Second Amendment?
In my view there has been a most disturbing trend over the past four years among the opposition to the current Administration to roll over and play dead in the face of the most overt, barefaced onslaught against our liberties in the history of this Republic. The Republican leadership in the House has been wimpy at best. The Supreme Court has seemingly bent over backwards, almost breaking their weak spines, in order to avoid doing anything at all to raise the ire of the bully in the Oval Office.
It is almost as if somebody, somewhere, is holding something over their heads. But what? And who?
Is our government being held hostage by someone or a group of someones?
I can tell you that those that I would think would have been much more ferocious in their condemnation of this regime have acted strangely. It's out of character. It's almost incredible to me.
Why else would Speaker John Boehner call out a member of his own Party, Michelle Bachmann, for simply stating the TRUTH about a freakin' Democrat, a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has known ties to organizations that have been implicated in terrorism? A chorus of Republican voices quickly came to Bachmann's defense in the wake of such a despicable tongue lashing on Boehner's part. For this I was most gratified.
But the more important issue is why would Boehner do such a thing to begin with? What the hell is he afraid of? It is as if someone, somewhere behind the scenes has the major power brokers in this government by the gonads, daring them to make one move that could put radical Islam, or George Soros, or SEIU, or any of the progressive sacred cows in a negative light.
And all of this has occurred against the backdrop of a treaty at the U.N. that would directly threaten the Second Amendment rights of average citizens. Although that treaty appears to be doomed to failure, Senate Democrats moved quickly to insert a gun control amendment into a cybersecurity bill--an amendment that would place restrictions on citizens, ban certain weapons, and limit ammunition purchases.
In the midst of all of this, Scalia opens his mouth and strikes fear in the minds of ALL conservatives who value their freedoms when it comes to firearms rights.
These factors have led me to stop dead in my tracks and ask myself, "What the hell is going on? What are these people doing? What in God's name is happening to this country right before our very eyes, by the day? And why are some of those on our side rolling over and playing dead, essentially allowing the dismantling of the Republic?"
Now, spare me the nutcase conspiracies, please. Israel and its bankers are not behind it. I consider those who hold that view to be freaks, nutcases, lunatics. I feel the same way about the so-called 9/11 truthers who believe that the 9/11 attacks were "an inside job." Take your loony 'toons crap elsewhere. If you try to post that stuff here, I will delete it immediately.
But just because I summarily reject most of the more outlandish conspiracy theories does not mean I am not capable of recognizing a conspiracy when there IS one! And in this case, the circumstances at the very least suggest that something is terribly amiss.
My friends, I know that people in both political parties are culpable in this period of distress. I have regularly taken to task the RINOS as much as I have the Democrats. And I have castigated George W. Bush for his excesses as well.
But let me be absolutely clear about this so that no one misunderstands me. Bush is the Angel Gabriel when compared to Barack Obama. And as much as I detest a lot of what Boehner has done as Speaker of the House, he is the prophet Elijah when compared to former Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
In order to change the situation we have to send packing the worst offenders first. Thus, our first order of business is to get rid of Barack Obama in November and make sure the Democrats no longer control the Senate or the House.
Now, no matter what that means for you in terms of who you vote for, there is one thing on which we can ALL agree--we need to send Obama packing and we need to rid Congress of his enablers, most of whom are Democrats.
This cannot go on as it stands now.
If in getting rid of Obama, Reid, and company we also get rid of a few RINOS as well, replacing them with solid conservatives, then great. But beware. Do not assume that just because we may defeat Scott Brown in Massachusetts we will get someone better. In fact, if you have been following that Senate race up there then you know the alternative is much worse, a bona fide nutcase.
If you want to vote for Libertarian candidates, then have at it, but I will also remind you that I have seen some Libertarians that I would no more support than I would Jerry Brown, another bona fide nutcase.
The issue is not the Party. The issue is the candidate and the broader issue of getting rid of the current leadership structure that is dominated by Democrats.
This has to be the starting point.
And don't ever forget, my friends, that if Obama wins again, hold onto your gonads because if you think the current Supreme Court is bad, just wait till Obama appoints two or three more justices. We may as well pack it up and haul it in as soon as he is elected in November. It will be time to bury the United States of America which we will have killed with our deplorable political choices.