On the Road to America's End

In Obama’s Henchmen, Selwyn Duke has analyzed the workings of Obama and his administration in a way I'd not seen before. I find it intriguing even if I'm not sure I accept some of his premises. (For instance, when the Sustainability angle is not considered in the mix of premises, what seems bizarre isn't really, and that is due to the misanthropic morality that the Sus crowd has embraced.)

But it is well composed, so I thought I should pass it along to my readers who are upset with the decline of America.

Why do I recommend reading it? I direct your eyes to the troubling if accurate closing paragraph of his analysis.

While it’s clear that he [Obama] doesn’t have traditional America’s best interests at heart, the reality is that his corrupted judgment ensures he couldn’t choose good appointees even if he wanted to. But the real problem is a people that, clearly, couldn’t choose a good president even if they wanted to.  This intellectual and moral decay is the real scandal in America — and it ensures political scandal till the end of the republic. [emphasis added]

Dear reader, even if that dire prediction is inevitable whatever the ultimate reason for it, is the reason he gives entirely outside of our control? Have we simply given up because we are frustrated by all the idiocy we see around us? I hate giving up, accepting that our nation's fate is sealed. So what might we do to help remedy this people problem?

For Better Grokking "Fundamentally Changing America"

I have not in a long while pointed to a Fran Porretto post. Although he regularly provides penetrating and even trenchant thoughts, there is more Ayn Rand novelist than Walter Williams essayist in his works, so it is often too hard to identify all of them and how they interact in the kind of short essay I prefer to compose.

Today, however, he is quite singly focused. I wholly recommend you read all of The Debunking: Public Safety. It makes clear that the forces who are fundamentally changing the meaning of freedom in America will do it at your extreme expense and none for themselves.

In particular, take note of the doughnut shop exception. The cynicism of the Left in their bold assaults on our reason is, from my point of view, a form of childish daring of us to respond in a manner to their liking. Consequently,  I firmly suggest that you serve them -- any response -- cold.

The Left Protects Wildlife to the Extreme; Babies, Nah

Commenting on the Soviet Style Media's avoidance of the Gosnel (baby mass-murdering abortionist) verdicts last week, Open Blogger (at Ace of Spades) "Krakatoa" made the following observation.

If one of the byproducts of abortions was a dead environmentally insignificant fish or three in some river delta or perhaps a few well-lubricated pelicans [in] the Gulf of Mexico, there would have been a moratorium on them years ago.

This sadly reinforces my observation that most bloggers are shocked when the misanthropics of an issue become obvious. The entire Progressive movement grew out of Malthusianism and Utilitarianism, both of which looks with a murderous eye towards sub-races and their natalism. Thus the Gosnel atrocity (these were Black babies) should be doubly concerning towards Blacks. That white leftist/progressives dominate the media is no surprise.

They who call conservatives racist are proven here to be the most deadly racists in America.

Pass this observation and my commentary on. It pains me to see Blacks so misled, and it should any decent human being. But then again, the decent human being is the most endangered species on Earth based on the lack of them.

**Update**
Og brought to my attention that Baldilocks has indeed made attempts and endured trolls for trying to inform Blacks about anti-natalism -- the ultimate form of racism -- against them. I always find it hopeful when I see people who do not Politically Cower. They have the stuff from which real leaders are made.

Some of her discussion about Margaret Sanger inspired to me to compile a lengthy comment which included with some obcure links* (and of which contains some items upon which to base a larger essay here) she may or may not have been aware of before, but of which I always hope others will learn.

-----
*Groan: both links I left there are messed up because I couldn't get the < a href= > to work. So  I left actual url links between brackets. Baldilocks' site turns them hot -- but incorrectly included the closing bracket as part of the url, and they don't work properly. They need to be copied; pasted in the url line, and edited to delete the trailing nonsense. What's worse is that I previewed the post before publishing and tested to see that both links worked. After publication the closing brackets became an issue. Just damn. Just adding to my day that was not a good one.

Here's a Fine Example

About 8 months ago I published the short post The Most Dreadful Phrases about some hard learned wisdom.  Among the dreadful phrases is "I thought you were smart."   Today I saw this headline in my sweep of news (h/t Newsbusters by way of  JWF).

Luke Russert: ‘Smart’ House Republicans Aren’t The ‘God, Guns & Guts People’

Money quote:

...they got to keep it serious, they can't make this into a witch hunt because they lose the political high ground. The best committee to have out of the gate in order to have these types of questions, Joe [Scarborough], is the House Ways and Means committee. You remember from your time up here, that's where the party puts its stars. It's not the God, guns and guts people on the Ways and Means committee, it's the smart people, it's the people that understand the true mechanisms of government. 

Let me interpret this the way little Russert meant it. "The party that is allegedly [wink, wink] the home of those representatives who know that government needs to be kept on a short leash, that's the one where the smart people know which way the wind blows and what side butters their bread."

Like I said last August, "I thought you were smart" is the kind of line you hear from those who are disappointed you don't fall in line with the corruption that "everybody else" is a part of.

Levin -- "Eliminate the IRS"

Our Soviet Style Media has been dragged kicking and screaming into covering the Obama scandals. The most eagerly reported of these are the excesses of the IRS in persecuting Rightist not-for-profit organizations (like Heritage) but doing nothing against Leftist ones (such as Media Matters).

In the wake of this "new" awareness, Mark Levin tonight vehemently demanded the IRS be eliminated. [I will provide a link after the show is over.] LINK

@2:25 "Folks: It's time to kill the IRS."

Nonetheless folks, once again Mr. Levin is not extreme enough. It really shouldn't need that much explanation for regular readers, because you are already aware of the one-two dance that the Dems and the GOP do to increase Fed powers. The SKUNCs in congress will simply work with the Democrats organized Leftists in Congress to cut back on such demands. They will wind up squandering the public outrage by compromising away from "eliminated" into "reforms."

In order to actually achieve elimination of the IRS, someone like Levin needs to make more extreme suggestions. Only by making more Draconian demands do we have a real chance to actually achieve elimination of any corrupt and dangerous wing of government. You know I'm right.
 

Congressional Scholar Bleg

My question arises due to the news that the Senate passed an Internet sales tax bill today. 

Amidst all the moaning and gnashing of teeth about how this is unconstitutional (I agree), there is another constitutional matter that I am curious about. I must be missing something. How is it possible that this bill originates in the Senate? Doesn't our Constitution require all tax bills be initiated in the House of Representatives?

Please direct you favorite constitutional lawyer to this question. For Mark Levin's 3 hours he never addressed that part. Maybe he's aligned with the other SKUNCs and think this question deserves a response like Nancy Pelosi's "you must be joking."

I'm not joking.