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.