Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Because They Can

If I can trust the reports -- you didn't think I was going to subject myself to that hour-long torture session, did you? -- the president's 2014 State of the Union speech was a tissue of lies and evasions about the consequences of his policies, plus a melange of self-congratulations for developments to which he had no just claim, joined to a series of proposals with no legislative future, with a sprinkling of veiled and not-so-veiled threats. It surprised no one who's paid adequate attention to the events of the past five years.

Barack Hussein Obama’s time in the Oval Office reduces to five years posing before a full-length mirror, one hand thrust between the buttons of his gaudily bemedaled tunic, chanting "I am awesome," occasionally leavened with "why won't they admit it?" Despite his colossal and nearly unbroken record of failure by all objective standards, he announced a "year of action:" unilateral action wielding powers nowhere granted to the executive branch of the federal government. His rhetoric translates to "do as I say or my tantrums will get really bad." If there's a certain ambiguity in his target selection, that's of a piece with the overall strategy his handlers and managers have settled on as most likely to have the desired intimidating effect.

But the most interesting aspect of it all, to these old eyes, is the confidence his minions have expressed, and continue to express, that he'll succeed in pulling off the coup against our Constitutional order inherent in his stated intention to end-run Congress. When other presidents have found themselves as thoroughly buried by developments as has Obama, they've retrenched: they've moderated their claims and aspirations and limited their aims to what seemed achievable. Obama, in contrast, has proclaimed his intention to attack with full force: to set the Constitution aside and rule by decree.

Do he and his lieutenants really think they can get away with it? If so, why?

In analyzing any confrontation, the critical need is an objective and comprehensive assessment of all the forces that bear on it. The Soviets were masters of this art, which they referred to as the correlation of forces. (Don't think that just because they were idiots in the economic sphere, they were therefore inept at everything.)

The forces that assist the Obama Administration's bid for unbounded, unlimited power range well beyond the party alignments in Congress:

  • Our envy-driven social fragmentation;
  • The regime's grip on the Main Stream Media;
  • Its success at creating ever more government dependents;
  • The insignificant will-to-resist of the Republican caucuses on Capitol Hill;
  • The general disinclination among private citizens to oppose the regime with more than words;
  • The effectiveness of the alphabet agencies, particularly the IRS, at suppressing and punishing visible opponents of the regime;
  • The regime's ability to secure the compliance, and in some cases the active cooperation, of the Fortune 5000 companies that employ the preponderance of American workers.

Against all this stand only two centers of resistance: the state governments and the federal courts. However, the courts are a feeble reed, and the states can be bludgeoned by the withholding of federal funds that they've come to expect.

To me, this looks like a favorable alignment for the Obamunists. If their strategists see it the same way, we have the answer to our questions:

Yes, they think they can get away with it. Moreover, now, before the alignment can shift significantly, is the time to strike.

I'm not going to give you a rah-rah / rally-round-the-flag / whoop-it-up talk this morning. The social and economic condition of the nation is dire. Its political condition is worse. If the Obamunists' assessment of the situation parallels mine, there's a significant chance that we'll see the end of all Constitutional constraints upon the federal government, regardless of how the November elections turn out. Indeed, should the elections give the GOP majorities in both houses of Congress, one consequence might be a presidential declaration of a state of emergency and the "suspension" of the 2016 elections, that The Won might remain in the White House "until the crisis has passed."

Such things happen in other nations from time to time. We've been an exception so far, but part of that might be due to good fortune. Imagine that, for whatever reason, the Civil War was not concluded in 1865. Had it not been for his assassination, and had the war dragged on for several years longer, is it unthinkable that Lincoln would have declared exactly such a state of emergency in 1868? Had he done so, do you think the population of the Northern states would have risen against him, while the war with the South was still in progress?

Would Twenty-First Century Americans rise against "their" government?

Should the worse come to the worst, I don't know what could be done about it. I already fear for those who've been forthright about condemning the burgeoning federal tyranny. They've got to have crosshairs on their backs by now. Indeed, as minor a voice as mine is, I've been tempted to cease writing, opinion and fiction both, on the chance that it might minimize my exposure to the regime's wrath. It's been suggested to me as the course of prudence by others, as well.

Even in the worst case, there would be a silver lining. Enforcement power is never infinite. In a country this large, individuals sufficiently canny about their comings, goings, and doings would have latitude even under the boot -- de facto freedom rather than the de jure sort. It would still be possible to live decently, at least for a while, if one doesn't insist on being "the nail that sticks up."

I'd love to believe that it can't happen here, but it could. I don't want to believe it's going to happen, but it might. I'm having ever greater difficulty believing that it won't.


Adrienne said...

"Indeed, as minor a voice as mine is, I've been tempted to cease writing, opinion and fiction both, on the chance that it might minimize my exposure to the regime's wrath."

You're not alone in thinking that.

KG said...

"the end of all Constitutional constraints upon the federal government" might well suit the Republican Party very well, should they succeed in the November elections.
And I believe that - in part at least - explains their lukewarm opposition to the outrages committed and promised by Obama.
The enemy is the political class itself, of whatever colouration.
"Would Twenty-First Century Americans rise against "their" government?"
Unlikely. Perhaps there's a faint chance that a random spark might spread and ignite the nation, though.
Those who love liberty had better hope it does.

Tommy Age of Reason said...

Good blog. I think us in the 'resistance'need to focus like a laser beam where the most effective results could be had now. Not sure I know exactly what that is but I'm thinking article 5 convention or other means that essentially bypass the machine (that is currently broken). I fear the elections will do nothing to turn the tide.

Anonymous said...


With all due respect, you and I and a whole lot of other Cassandras are all dead already.

You don't think the Bad People have gotten pretty good over the past dozen years at kinetically removing nits from Leviathan's buttocks?

Pay special attention to Bracken's discussion of social network analysis in this bit of fictional fancy:

What must be done now - especially given The Won's plans - is to turn up the volume.

Make the Bad People take action.

Defy the Satanic SOBs.

Both sides are doing battlespace prep in the info space.

We get to be on point.

Be not afraid.

Let's roll.


Another dead guy

Gary Hunt said...

Interesting concept, "correlation of forces". It presumes a degree of structure that is necessary to achieve an end.
Perhaps understand our "end", so that conflicting factions can work in "correlation" would serve to outwit the nitwits.
Factions - The chains of Oppression

Anonymous said...

Psalm 91:5-6 which reads “Thou shall not fear the terror of night, nor the arrow that flies by day, nor the pestilence that stalketh in the darkness, no form of destruction that waiteth in the midday hour.” I will be silenced by nothing less than death

bob57 said...

The outcome of the 2014 elections do not matter one wit in changing Obama's behavior. He has engaged in all manner of unconstitutional behavior and the Republicans hardly break a sweat. The GOP has even gone so far as to crush conservatives who dare to stick a finger in the dictator's eye. Legislators, once thought to be solidly conservative have become cheerleaders for the amnesty which will send the GOP the way of the Whigs. No one sent to the cesspool aside the Potomac can or will clean the unconstitutional goons from the pool. It is a cesspool, the pooped-in punchbowl of constitutional government. You can't un-poop the punchbowl. Prepare.

rickl said...

Yes, I noticed that WRSA put the Bracken post up again last night.

John Work said...

It would seem that we have three options:

1) Do nothing, and resign ourselves to slavery;
2) Openly rebel against the regime and the TWANLOCs with more than words;
3) Wait for the likely collapse of civilization as we know it and hope that we and ours will survive.

None of these options are good. The thing that the Left counts on is that we lack the courage to take any action. It's not "disinclination", it's cowardice. That's what they count on, and so far, they are correct. If we continue to fail to act, then we deserve what's coming. Those of us that live will likely wish we had acted before it was too late.

Though it may already be too late. I saw a comment on Western Rifle Shooters that revolution is a bad idea. True, but worse than slavery or trying to survive after a collapse? The founders of this country chose the hard course, which was even more unthinkable in their day than ours. We should all be ashamed to look in the mirror or into the eyes of those we say we love.

Gary Hunt said...

John Work,
I agree that revolution is a bad idea. However, if our goal is to return to a Constitutional government, bound by and in adherence to the Constitution, as written and intended, then, perhaps, Restoration is really the objective.
The Plan for Restoration of Constitutional Government

John Work said...

Gary Hunt,

Thank you for the link. I've skimmed your plan, and I plan to study it in more detail. I'm certainly in agreement that Restoration should be the primary objective. However the process might be more akin to the Civil War than to the Revolutionary War. We are a deeply divided nation. A minority is in the process of a successful "soft" revolution to destroy our common culture and to nullify the Constitution. The majority of our "citizens" are basically uninterested and are clueless as to where this is all heading. Then there is the minority who wish to limit the Federal government to the bounds established in the Constitution. I'm not sure that we have the time or the freedom to follow the parallels of the 1770's, but I plan to read and study your material. Thanks again for the link.

Gary Hunt said...

To simplify your understanding of the concept, a brief article, an overview the concept behind the "Plan", is at

Anonymous said...

Fran, I am also very disheartened by the state of our nation. John Dewey's educational system has finally, after roughly 100 years, destroyed the knowledge base of this nation. Political correctness (and the legal power behind it) has destroyed our ability to complain and correct our political problems. Massive illegal immigration, a deliberate objective of the Democrats since 1965, is further destroying it.

So, what do we do? Doing nothing will not stop the slide to Turd World status for this once great nation (and former Republic). Hunkering down and waiting for a collapse isn't much of an option (especially when the stroke of a pen can send swarms of JBTs to our homes to seize the "public property" we so carefully squirreled away). No, the only hope seems to be some kind of revolt.

Revolts, of course, take many forms. The American Revolution was one - active combat operations against enemy forces, whether on literal battlefields or via guerilla operations. This is certain to get a few million of us killed, combined with some pretty bad atrocities on both sides.

Another sort of revolt is to stop funding the beast - don't pay your taxes, and try to cost it as much time and money as possible. That'll land you in jail, unless 10 million or more people do the same thing at the same time.

Then there is non-compliance - simply go about your life, considering all but those laws and regulations which have their origin in morality to be optional. You obey only to avoid being punished, and then only when you think you may be caught - otherwise, you do what you believe to be necessary and moral. Of these, the last seems to have the greatest chance to succeed - but in a nation with 300 million guns I strongly suspect that option #1 will be in operation, as well. In that case, I like Bracken's ideas - basically, a nation with several tens of millions of deer-hunters armed with scoped-rifles capable of hitting a man-sized target at 500 yards with great consistency simply cannot be defeate by a modern military. That is what we are coming to,and it is the fault of that class of people you spoke about on 1/30/2014.

But don't stop writing - as the gent from the Western Rifle Shooters Association mentioned, if you were ever on their list, you're still on it and, therefore, dead already. Given this, keep jamming a sharpened stick in their eyes as much as you can.

Reg T said...

Fran, since I don't think your old eternity road email addy still functions, forgive me for doing it this way. I've "dropped out" myself, in spite of my anger over the present condition of what used to be a good country to live in.


Please forgive the intrusion, but I was re-reading your Chosen One trilogy (for the third time) and I realized that I never stopped to ask you if “Onteora” was an intentional corruption of Oneonta? I attended the state college there for one semester in the spring of ’68 (long story). I don’t really recognize it from the descriptions in your novel, but I was only there for those few months (Jan-June), so I don’t recall enough about the town. I took my wife to visit the campus on a drive through the area in 2009, and it had changed quite a bit (duh - forty-one years tend to change things, don’t they?), although I did recognize some of the buildings that had been present during my time there.

Without giving up personal info, which I don’t blame you for withholding, _was_ Oneonta the basis for Onteora, or at least the similarity in names?

Anyway, thanks again for a lovely story. I do enjoy everything that I have read that you have written.


Reginald F (for Francis) Thibodeau
Currently keeping his head down in the mountains of southwestern Montana