With a Wary Eye
The solemnity of the moment is becoming too much, the quiet between storm fronts too difficult to stomach. It's time to rant. The very idea that we sit on the edge of our seats, eyes toward Washington DC, waiting on the deliberations and dispositions of nine mortals to tell us how much of our liberty we get to retain is preposterous. It is offensive and repulsive to a free people. Two days ago this Olympian council eviscerated Arizona's sovereignty, thereby reducing 50 states to little more than administrative field offices of the federal government, and yet here we sit, eyes fixed as if watching for a particular color of smoke to rise from the Vatican. This is absurd.
It was 236 years ago that 56 men prepared to commit an act of treason against the Crown, and they sure as hell weren't pledging their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor in order to secure the blessings of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, the Individual Mandate, the general defenselessness of the citizenry, unelected czars, unauthorized appointments, incursions on religious freedom, or a Chief Executive who takes it upon himself to effectively rewrite laws passed by the people's elected representatives. Is this what they had in mind? They could have had all this rot without firing a shot!
Mr. Chief Justice, how did you feel when, before the ink was even dry on a decision you supported, the Obama Administration announced that it would not cooperate with Arizona authorities in the one facet of the state's law that you permitted to stand? Did you feel insulted? Because that's how we feel. You defanged a sovereign state's ability to protect its people and its territorial sovereignty in the face of federal intransigence and in full knowledge that the President himself only last week unconstitutionally over ruled federal immigration law. What in the name of Bayou LaFourche were you thinking?
For his part, Governor Romney countered that, "Today’s decision underscores the need for a President who will lead on this critical issue and work in a bipartisan fashion to pursue a national immigration strategy. …" Way to draw a clear distinction there, Governor. One side fights for anarchy while the other side fights for the rule of law, and what we evidently need is someone who will reach across the aisle to the anarchists. Do I seem cross? I am. I take individual and state sovereignty seriously. But to be fair, and on a positive note, the Governor did add that, "I believe that each state has the duty–and the right–to secure our borders and preserve the rule of law, particularly when the federal government has failed to meet its responsibilities." That much is encouraging, at least.
Meanwhile, demonstrating his customary flair for thumbing an upturned nose at the court, at the legislature, and at civil society in general, President Obama most recently suggested that a reversal of his odious healthcare law would be a "step back." The man who gathers power to himself in ways that would make Hugo Chavez burst with pride said, “The American people fight for what’s right. And the American people understand that we’re not going to make progress by going backwards. We need to go forward."
Got that? That would be, "forward," to a time when men of brilliance designed systems of government based on coerced egalitarianism and equality of outcome. A time of "progress," of wars on poverty that are never won, of racial preferences that only deepen racial divisions, of utter incoherence on all levels. A time when the "best and brightest" saw the role of the citizen as that of facilitating the self actualization of egg heads in government and academia. Forward, the student of Alinsky tells us,…forward to the discredited ideas of the early 20th Century that are currently in full bloom in Greece, Spain, Italy, and coming soon to a state near you.
Of course, the American people do indeed fight for what is right. They fought mightily in 2010, and are poised to fight yet again. And in a few days we will know if the Supreme Court will join the battle and side with the Constitution itself. In the meantime, as in days of old, people are reduced yet again to casting a nervous eye toward a distant city, wondering if their liberty will survive the deliberations of an unaccountable group of people they've never met. How utterly and devastatingly sad.
- Comment (32)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (7)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Feb '12
Re: With a Wary Eye
Once again you articulate what many think. And our current WH occupant begs for dollars among the richest in the land. LORD have mercy.
Re: With a Wary Eye
Mercy is the Lord's business. I will have none at the ballot box.
May '10
Re: With a Wary Eye
Well said, Dave.
Dave Carter
This is absurd.
What isn't, these days? I can't discern fact from fiction anymore.
Jun '10
Re: With a Wary Eye
Preach brother Preach!! Well said Dave
Nov '11
Re: With a Wary Eye
This is it:
'Mr. Chief Justice, how did you feel when, before the ink was even dry on a decision you supported, the Obama Administration announced that it would not cooperate with Arizona authorities in the one facet of the state's law that you permitted to stand? Did you feel insulted? Because that's how we feel.'
Mar '11
Re: With a Wary Eye
Dave Carter
Forward, the student of Alinsky tells us,…forward to the discredited ideas of the early 20th Century that are currently in full bloom in Greece, Spain, Italy, and coming soon to a state near you.
Here, already.
Note: It isn't really a lack of leadership. We've got more leadership than is good for anybody. The leadership lacks Clue #1, unfortunately.
Apr '11
Re: With a Wary Eye
PracticalMary: This is it:
'Mr. Chief Justice, how did you feel when, before the ink was even dry on a decision you supported, the Obama Administration announced that it would not cooperate with Arizona authorities in the one facet of the state's law that you permitted to stand? Did you feel insulted? Because that's how we feel.'· 3 minutes ago
One small bright spot: Could we interpret this as Obama not giving a damn about the Supreme Court because he knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that his baby is doomed? Maybe he has been tipped off, and knows there is nothing more that SCOTUS can really do to him, so what does it matter if he mocks them?
After two days of uninterrupted pessimism, I just thought I'd throw out some hopeful-sounding speculation...
Mar '11
Re: With a Wary Eye
Don't hide your true feelings, Dave.
Actually, it's refreshing to read such strong feelings on Ricochet - you are the best, Sir.
And right.
I bitterly cling to the belief that America will vote in November to boldly go backwards - back to the Constitution. We can't afford to rely on one or two men in black robes.
On the other hand, I am sitting at the gate at Phoenix Airport, waiting to leave the country ;-)
I'll be back in time to vote.
Edited on June 27, 2012 at 5:29amMar '11
Re: With a Wary Eye
Damn, boy, you sure can be eloquent in the defense of liberty. I'd be proud to have you share my foxhole anytime.
May '10
Re: With a Wary Eye
Oh yeah!
Mar '12
Re: With a Wary Eye
Well said.
Jan '11
Re: With a Wary Eye
I'm afraid to comment, because like you, Dave, I have a simmering anger at the disrespect with which this country has been treated. I resent the condescension, the lying, the amateurishness, the hypersensitivity to criticism ... we're a great country in a crucial time, but we've been left to the self-indulgence of a narrow class of prima donnas.
If I comment more, I'll just get angry. I'll stop here.
Apr '11
Re: With a Wary Eye
Most excellent.
Dec '10
Re: With a Wary Eye
Sorry Dave, it's time to consider giving up the fun and adventure as a poet road warrior, get syndicated and then get elected to national office ... we need you man!
Jul '10
Re: With a Wary Eye
I've sent this to six people. More, later. While it's important to get more members for Ricochet, I thought it as important to have them read this. Excellent, Dave. And thank you.
(If this doesn't pique their interest in our site, ...)
May '10
Re: With a Wary Eye
Mr. Carter, you are a most excellent wordsmith. Thank you.
Jun '11
Re: With a Wary Eye
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Dave Carter for president! You have a campaign team at Ricochet ready to help you in any way we can. You can use the Big Rig as your whistle stop platform.Yes. This could work. Run Dave, run!
Jun '11
Re: With a Wary Eye
Spot on, Mr. Carter. We've gone from the rule of law to the rule of lawyers.
Jun '10
Re: With a Wary Eye
Yes!
Jun '10
Re: With a Wary Eye
Hear, hear!