Friday, March 2, 2018

Whore at a Sunday school picnic.

I republish this post from January of last year to try to keep in the forefront of our minds the indisputable fact that, whatever America is today, it is not a constitutional republic and it is not in any way responsive to the will of the people. A recent post of mine elegantly makes that point. What we have is, instead, a monstrosity that would revolt the Founders (as they would be revolted by us for meekly surrendering our birthright).

What we have now is a massive central government controlled by people whose power and nation-destroying agenda will not ever be honestly discussed in the MSM. Chilton Williamson's take below on “the raw mental and political will” to effect the destruction of the republic of 1791 should be on everybody’s refrigerator door.

It is a life-changing thought that the elites of America despise the Constitution and the experiment that it brought forth. They are indifferent to or tragically ignorant of the terrible price paid by millions in the last blood-soaked century. Our precious personal liberty is nothing more than a dirty Kleenex tissue to them. Their insufferable arrogance is driving us to the brink of tyranny and collapse.

From January 12, 2017:

Whore not pictured.
I hate to be a similarly out-of-place citizen in the polity now known as the nation that is indispensable, exceptional, and qualified as no other to lead and inspire lesser breeds around the world. I really do. But, I have just been wondering about this Obamacare thing.

But first, a detour through the spidery labyrinths of our much discussed Constitution whose original structure has for the last 80 years or so begun to resemble today's photos of modern Aleppo.

A mere majority of our Supreme Court justices has for a good long time taken to interpreting the Constitution as though it were a "living Constitution," something just there to provide a launching pad for fanciful ideas that have entered Their Enlightened Consciousnesses. That expansive and imaginative approach to what the Constitution says is, shall I say it, complete crap.

A better understanding can be acquired by internalizing this excellent passage in Chilton Williamson's review of Rethinking the American Union for the Twenty-First Century:

As Kent Masterson Brown (“Secession: A Constitutional Remedy That Protects Fundamental Liberties”) suggests, the meaning of the Constitution in respect of the relationship between the central government and the states is so extravagantly clear that neither intellectual density nor even incompetence can explain how the compact theory [Madison, Jefferson] was gradually overwhelmed and defeated by the nationalist one [Hamilton, Webster, Lincoln]. It was raw mental and political will that did the trick, abetted by intellectual dishonesty, demagoguery, and sheer mendacity.[1]
This brilliantly frames the fundamental issue of our Republic, namely, Does the Constitution mean (a) what it says or (b) what five excellent, caring, leftist[2] members of the Supreme Court say it means?

If the meaning of the Constitution is determined in accordance with the approach in (b) then we get what we see today – a made up, floundering country that is controlled by a massive federal government populated by officials and politicians egged on by a massive, sycophantic media monopoly who are simply unreachable by the ostensibly sovereign people, or, possibly reachable only with the investment of enormous sums of money, time, effort, and expertise. The lottery has better odds of a satisfactory outcome and what we're left with is a giant middle finger salute to representative government, courtesy of treasonous progressives, the most beautiful and deserving of our people.

The fact of Obamacare is but one of thousands of crushing, asinine initiatives undertaken by the federal government. Obamacare's complexity and expense are stunning as can be seen and inferred from this chart prepared to illustrate the whole tedious structure:

So, my question is, Where does it say in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that the U.S. government has any power to legislate anything relating to health care (outside of health care for the armed forces)?

Answer: there is no such power in that Section and it is a tragedy to see Ryan and every violator of his or her oath to support and defend the Constitution pretend that there is any need for them to come up with a replacement for Obamacare. Mr. Trump is similarly set on an unconstitutional course.

So why are these fools acting like it's their sacred duty to "do something" about health care at the federal level? I and a few other citizens raise this issue but the ones with contempt for the Constitution swan about like princes living princely lives off of the public dime.

Who's out of place?

[1] "The Long March Through the Constitution." By Chilton Williamson Jr., Chronicles Magazine, 5/1/14 (subscription required)(emphasis added).
[2] "Like many other progressives of his day, [Louis] Brandeis was tired of outmoded 18th century conceptions of liberty." – Richard A. Epstein quote in Conservapedia. "Outmoded" as defined by Brandeis. Simple as pie. You agree, of course.


Unknown said...

Very well stated. I tell people all the time that Feds controlling medical care is dangerous and wrong but people think its a right to have medical care. I fear for my grand-kids the kind of country they will be living in. I can see how medical records can be used to limit all sorts of freedoms especially the 2nd amendment.

Col. B. Bunny said...

Thank you. As someone who uses the VA for my medical care I have to assume that anyone in the VA anywhere could possibly have access to my medical records. Whether that assumption is justified I do not know as I presume the system programmers have built in some kind of permissions less than "everyone who feels like looking at stuff."

The recent massive credit rating agency and Office of Personnel Management cyber penetrations suggest that no one's head can like easy on the pillow at night.

I wish the people of America could reacquire some of the "Don't tread on me" sensitivity so that we shy away from the idea that centralization and people with specialized technical competence are somehow preferable to local folks with more modest (?) skills.

Ditto for their paying attention to what can and cannot be done under the Constitution. "Everything" isn't the correct answer.