Nom de plume: Rivrdog

Bring.It.On.

All over the news today is rumor of a major power-grab by President Obama. Not rumor actually, he's being goaded into it by the Left Wing of his party.

The power-grab is in two parts, concerning the President bypassing the House on raising the debt ceiling, and the President bypassing the entire Congress to create new gun control laws.

Note that the latter item has been discussed in these pages for about 2.5 years, including the recent issuance of Dire Warnings by your blogger...

Taken together, Nancy Pelosi's call for the President to ignore the Constitution and assign himself the power to create debt in the name of the United States, and Joe Biden's call for the President to consider enacting his Panel's gun control laws by Executive Order, taken together, WILL precipitate a Constitutional Crisis.

As Newt Gingrich said on Fox News tonight, the Constitution has a general rule for Executive Orders: the President may use an Executive Order to direct the implementation of an existing Federal law. The President may not use an Executive Order to create law where none had existed before.

For the Debt Ceiling, there is NO law authorizing the President to raise the debt ceiling. The Fourteenth Amendment was NOT about that, it was about refusing to use the Good Faith and Credit of the Federal Government to stand behind war debt incurred by the Confederacy. To try to stretch that into blanket permission for the President to have the power to control ALL Federal debt simply ignores Article One, Sections Seven and Eight. To "parse" the Fourteenth Amendment on it's applicability where it conflicts with the basic Articles of the Constitution itself is simply wrong, and illegal.

For the Gun Control legislation the Biden Gang is about to come up with, there is a direct conflict with the Second Amendment and Tenth Amendment. The laws that Biden wants to come up with do not exist (the "Assault Weapons Ban" used to exist, but it expired and was not renewed by Congress, so it is not law). Likewise, no law exists to ban High Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices or Private Sales of firearms by Federal law. Some hi-cap magazines and some such un-registered sales are already banned by State Edicts, so the Tenth Amendment is already in force on this issue, and for an Executive Order to be signed banning private sales, the idea that the Tenth Amendment already controls such law would have to be rejected, presumably by the Supreme Court of the United States.

When asked what would be the appropriate remedy for the President performing these Executive over-reaches, Newt Gingrich simply said, "Zero out the budgets of the agencies tasked with implementing the illegal Executive Orders."

Well, it might be difficult on the Nation to zero the budget of the Treasury Department, but the world would NOT stand still if the FBATFE's budget were zeroed, or the EffBeeEye's, either.

All that is not necessary, however. The House of Representatives has adequate legal counsel, and if such counsel were to opine that the Executive Orders were un-constitutional, the Speaker would simply memorialize the President to rescind them, and if the President failed to do so, he could be charged with Treason, a "High Crime", and impeached in the House. The Bill of Impeachment would then move to the Senate for trial, and I would have a hard time believing that there aren't six Democratic Senators who would not vote for conviction.

Then we get President Joe Biden. Something tells me that Uncle Joe is not so keen on ripping up the Constitution as his boss is, and he would likely rescind the EOs of Obama when reminded to do so by the House.

Here's the thing about Impeachment. Were a Bill of Impeachment to be filed, every one of the hundreds of Executive orders Obama has signed, some having great effect on commerce (e.g. the "war on coal"), would be looked at. Chances are, the Bill of Impeachment would demand such a review. Chances are, that the Bill of Impeachment would have a clause that said, upon a vote of Impeachment, that the House of Representative considers every action implemented by an Obama Executive Order to be improper, and thereby orders it's members not to appropriate any funds for the implementation of any of them.

My friends, there's a name for that.

It's called the Un-Do.

If Obama wants to precipitate the Un-Do of everything he has done since 1/20/09, including ObamaCare (many parts of which were done by Executive Order/Fiat), he should just go ahead and issue those Executive Orders. If he wants to keep his Office, he needs to ignore Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden.

During his first term, the Third Debate and again right after Newtown, Obama DID say that he would leave gun control up to Congress and the normal political process. It's time he re-read his own speeches.

Boiling Gun Control down

First Premise: Those who support more than a minimalist government (the Statists who believe the government represents the culture) are constantly in search of ways to lock in the power of government against the possibility that it might be reduced. By using regulations, better expressed simply as controls, we are constantly forced to toe the line in some new manner. Those who support only the level of government required to protect the citizens in the ways they can't protect themselves, are the individualists. The US Constitution was written by and for individualists, but it has been moved inexorably towards statism in many ways by the Federal Courts which have the duty of interpreting it.

Along the way to developing the culture, the idea of Civil Rights was born. Those rights are defined generally as human rights, and some of them are explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the Federal Constitution (and copied by most State constitutions as well).

Second Premise: Civil Rights are where the rubber meets the road in the interpretation of the Constitution. The Statist progenitors of a more pervasive and controlling central Government appoint the Judges who have to interpret the Constitution, so it follows that these men and women of power and authority would spread the idea of larger and more pervasive government with their rulings, and they do.

The First Amendment to the Constitution, a strong Civil Right, started simply enough, as a mandate to allow individual freedom of expression and association, but it has since changed via interpretation so radically that it was recently used to allow large, well-financed groups to effectively buy elections, which is a terrible perversion of the purpose of the First Amendment. Since the First Amendment doesn't directly oppose the Federal Government, and as seen in my example, can be twisted to suport statism, it is not often opposed by the statists.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms, was inserted into the Bill of Rights by the Founders for the stated purpose of allowing the arming of militias, or armed forces of the People, to exist as a check on the power of the Federal Government, which the Founders refused to trust for the maintenance of individual freedoms (the Founders were assuredly NOT statists). The Second Amendment was written as, and is currently interpreted as, a Civil Right, as it upholds the basic Human Right of self-defense of one's life. As written and interpreted, it stands as an absolute limit on the power of the Federal Government. If the Federal Government assumes (seizes) too much power from the People, the Founders expected that militias would be formed of adequately-armed men to oppose, and if necessary, remove the Federal Government (restore the "Free State"). Since the Second Amendment puts a (unstated, sadly) limit on Government power and control, it is considered undesireable by statists, and is opposed.

That's it, readers. it's really this simple. Statists, currently represented by most politicians of both major parties, believe that bigger government is better, and they have been working towards that goal for several generations now. They work towards that goal by supporting implementation of rules which support them, and by fighting against rules which work against them. The Second Amendment works against Statists, so it will always be opposed. The way we see it being opposed now is highly opportunistic, but the opportunism we see is only part of the greater opposition of this core Civil Right which envisions the use of force to maintain individual freedoms.

Now you know why the fight to maintain the 2A is a constant fight which will never end and must never end. 

The day the right to keep and bear arms ends by fiat of the Federal Government, the Republic ends. At that point, we either end it in an appropriate use of our Second Amendment right, or we end the Republic by agreeing that it's time is done and it's Constitution is irrelevant. One of those two things will happen upon the death of the Second Amendment.

BTW, Readers, the entire Bill of Rights, under which umbrella this libertine culture of ours has flourished, ends the same day as the Second Amendment ends, and the entire direction, life and force of the culture then exists only at the whim of the Government. Ask yourself if YOU want to surrender every single choice you get to make to this, or any other, Government. If you do NOT choose surrender, then you'd better possess, maintain and be practiced with the arms that the Second Amendment now permits, and you'd better be prepared to fight with those arms.

 

H/T for the inspiration of my muse goes to the Country Gal, who has reminded me to stay on task.

 

Disarming Military Veterans - Part Two

In Part One of this post, we noted why military veterans are feared by "liberal" politicians: fear that their positions of comfort and leadership would evaporate if those pols were to over-reach in the further strengthening of an overly-ambitious Federal Government, and the Veterans were to tell them, "No, that's far enough, you can't go any farther towards erasing the individual rights of liberty our forefathers gave us." Some of us have said that, individually, and in small organizations, but we are ignored or shouted down by the momentum of the movement which exists to make all citizens wards of the Government instead of stewards of their own Liberty. That momentum is mighty, and approaches or may have already exceeded 50% of the citizens of this great Nation. The progenitors of the wardship movement, sometimes known as Socialists, after the model of Government which says that the society has more rights collectively than the individual has, have become well-organized at their task, and ending individual Liberty is within their grasp if they act together in a final push.

That final push may be coming, and it will certainly be preceded by as much citizen disarmament as the Socialists can manage, for the obvious reason.

We aren't afraid to state the obvious here.

The reason the Socialists want us disarmed is that they are somewhat afraid that a revolt against Socialism might develop during the final push to implement the destruction of individual liberties, and they are VERY afraid that if those carrying the revolt have credible arms, their revolt might succeed in restoring all the individual liberties our forefathers intended us to have, and that would mean the end of their trying to convert the very-NOT-Socialist USA into a de-facto Socialist nation.

The disarmament of Veterans has already begun.

For some, it began with the end of their enlistments during this current war against terror in South West Asia (Iraq & Afghanistan). When those Veterans mustered out, or in some cases are still enlisted or serving with Commissions, the military began to make an assumption that they had likely been affected by Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Don't get me wrong, PTSD is a real affliction, and it's definitely job-related to the military (and other stressful occupations), and in one respect, it's good that the military has finally recognized that. Generations of soldiers, sailors and airmen have served, some have been afflicted with PTSD, and had their afflictions ignored by the military. PTSD is not ignored now, and that much is good.

There's a dark side to the initiative within the DOD to handle PTSD though, and that dark side is expressed by the DOD assuming that all veterans who have been in enemy contact (and a few who haven't been) are afflicted until they have demonstrated that they haven't been afflicted. Is the Department of Defense merely trying to leave no PTSD-afflicted veteran behind, or is another purpose at work here?

I maintain it's the latter. The dark side here is that the assumption of PTSD affliction as a normal or usual outcome of having been in contact with the enemy allows the DOD to attach a label to the combat veteran.

That label is "Crazy". No, they don't come out and say the word, "crazy", but they imply it. PTSD in it's moderate-or-worse form is considered a personality disorder, and those with recognized personality disorders may not possess arms in this Nation. Thus does the wannabe-Socialist government try to disarm it's greatest and most-likely potential foe, by calling them "crazy", and requiring them to prove that they're not. Of course, that's a perversion of our legal system, which REQUIRES the assumption of innocence until complete proof of guilt is obtained, but ever since the Virginia Tech University massacre, perpetrated by a deranged person who obtained arms by lying about his mental disease, and the mistaken acquiescence of the NRA in the "solution" to that "problem", persons in treatment for any sort of personality disorders are supposed to have their Second Amendment rights removed until they are certified as sane and responsible and have gone through (a yet-undeveloped) process to certify that. Coupled with the fact that the Forefathers didn't recognize the then-nascent industry of Psychology, under the auspices of which everyone must be labeled as to their deviancy from a norm, Military veterans with PTSD were swept into that net. The forefathers had "insane asylums" in their day, but they could never have imagined the extent of labeling people "crazy" that we do today. The DOD's assumptive diagnosis of PTSD in separating/separated Veterans (their "screening system" for Veterans amounts to that) sweeps far too many Veterans into the "crazy" net.

Lest you forget, the idea of labeling people "crazy" so as to minimize their opposition to Government is not new, and both of the major Communist dictatorships of the past century, namely the former USSR and the People's Republic of China, make or made strong use of the "crazy" label, except they don't do it to disarm the populace (those people are already disarmed), it is used to deny basic liberty. I refer you to the acclaimed docu-novel "The Gulag Archipelago" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%

Summary: So far, in Part One, we have identified FEAR as being the motivator for the current attempt to at least weaken and probably remove, the Second Amendment and it's Civil Right of self-defense with firearms, and we looked at the application of FEAR as the primary tool to do so.

In this Part Two, we have identified the target of that "fear-and-smear" campaign. That target is we Veterans, who pose the greatest threat to the implementation of Socialism and the further reduction of individual liberties in this Nation. We have examined just how this fear-and-smear tactic is going to go, and it's likely strategic objective, the disarmament of Veterans by claiming that we are all too crazy to possess firearms.

How do we fight this structured campaign of fear, which appears to be working at it's inception? What steps must we take to solidify the Second Amendment and anchor it properly against the tide of disarmament hysteria which is sweeping the Nation after Newtown? Who could best lead this fight? What tactics will work and what tactics won't work? All these questions will be tied up in Part Three, the final Part of this series.

Disarming Military Veterans - Part 1

In the past few weeks since the recent mass shootings, and the "dancing in the blood" which inevitably followed those tragic but unstoppable events, this blog has consistently transmitted a singular message, that the Bill of Rights, in all it's ten Amendments, is inviolate. 

"Inviolate" means it is a set of standards, rules to govern the behavior of citizens and governments, and, in the case of the Second Amendment (2A) the rule SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED (changed). It is so written as the Law of the Land, and we are, after all, a Nation of Laws. So we have been told, at various times, by all of our Government leaders, including President Barack Hussein Obama.

Why then, since the Right to Keep and Bear arms is so obviously a foundational part of our Law, do so many of our governors attempt to evade it?

There is one human trait which explains this deviancy from our basic Rule of Law. That trait is the emotion of FEAR.

Fear. That emotion which we as humans find most difficult to overcome with logic, reason and sanity.

Fear. That emotion that leaders of evil intent most utilize to gain our compliance to their wills, even if that compliance violates all law and/or logic.

Fear. The one thing that can be relied on to force control of the citizenry even as that control is inadvisable, inappropriate, illogical or illegal.

To defeat the application of fear, we must understand how it starts.

Fear most often begins when accustomed human comforts are threatened. Food aplenty is a comfort, as is shelter from the elements, and above all, some way of securing the money to make these comforts possible within our system of commerce. So, we work for our "living", another way of saying we offer our talents in exchange for a wage to enable our comforts.

Some of that talent is in the form of leadership, and some of that leadership is in the form of governance, so it happens that some become givers of laws and makers of rules. These govenors are people like us, though, so they strive for comforts like we do. If their access to their accustomed level of comfort is threatened, they become fearful. These governors have been granted or have assumed the power to use fear to govern, so, when their comforts are threatened, they use fear projection against us, so as to end their own personal fears.

Are you still with me? I know this background information in human psychology is difficult, but understanding it is vital to gaining insight into the "gun control issue".

Okay, let's move on then.

Ever since human society has existed, it's members have fought for control of those societies, the fighting mostly being against other, exterior societies. To better fight, professional soldiers are used. These are men (mostly) who have learned the harsh disciplines of war and have learned to personally control how fear affects them. This advanced level of fear-control makes these soldiers relatively immune to the fear-projection antics of the governors who exert control in the non-soldierly, or civilian, part of their societies. This immunity to fear of persons trained and experienced in warfare is a major problem for those governors, because their primary method of control in the making and giving of laws, projection of fear, is apt to be rejected by those trained as soldiers.

The Founders recognized this potential rejection of control by the soldiers, and insisted that the citizens control the military profession in this society. The Founders' wisdom was appropriate and has been followed, so we have not had any excursion of the military outside their civilian-generated orders of performance of duty, in the entire history of this Republic.

Now it all changes.

The present set of governors of this society appears to have decided to change the entire societal model, the model that worked so long and got this society to the place of planetary ascendancy it has achieved, and the model that the Founders put into place with our Constitution. This blog-post will not attempt to discribe that catalog of change that our present governors seek, it will simply say that it exists, and is being put into place as we speak. It appears that these changes are such radical departures from the original intent of the Founders that some resistance to their imposition on the society might be expected.

In the vernacular, the fecal matter is hitting the rotating blades of the wind-machine. We abbreviate this to "SHTF" in this blog.

The condition of SHTF is as perfectly normal to the professional soldier as it is horrifying to the civilian. It is part of the situation that soldiers have been trained to NOT fear. Soldiers function well at their tasks of war in SHTF conditions, unlike the general citizenry, or, for that matter, the governors who started flinging the poo to begin with (the Force of Irony is strong with them).

Were the trained soldiers (we call them "Veterans") to decide, either within the military structure or outside of it, that the governors had gone too far with their departures from the normal modes of society, the soldiers could easily change out the set of governors to one more to their desires. That change is generally known as a "revolution", because it involves inviting the present governors to rotate their sorry asses out of leadership and perhaps out of existance as well.

There are no present signs that the society of military professionals intends to perform such a rotation on the governance, but the governors worry about it anyway, as well they might. Were rotation to begin, there is NOTHING that they could do to stop it. The governors seem to have begun to REALLY worry about rotation, though, because they have just come up with a plan to disable that function of the military veterans within the greater society of civilians: they want to disarm the veterans.

Soldiers fight with weapons, and the most common weapon used to fight with is the individual soldier's rifle. For the past 38 years, that rifle has been the M-16 and variants, now the M-4. There is a civilian counterpart available, known as the AR-15 (a Colt Patent Firearms designation, but universally accepted for copies of the Colt rifle). Many veterans acquire AR-15s either while they're in the military or upon separation from the military. These veterans keep their soldierly skill sharp with rifle practice.

The governors now want to end possession of AR-15s by veterans, and anyone else who might possess them and thereby enable veterans to be armed with them, or perhaps even form "Well-Regulated Militias" as the Second Amendment allows AND directs, under the leadership of some of these professional soldiers. The Well-Regulated Militias, of course, would be immiediately able to replace the fear projection of the present governors and thereby end their changes to the societal order.

#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+

To summarize Part One of this discussion, the current problem that our governors have with citizens' possession of soldierly firearms is all about fear, with most of that fear being on the part of the governors, and most of the governors' fears being caused by fear of their loss of control of forcing their objectives. Such loss of control leads to loss of comforts by the governors, and when they are uncomfortable, they want us to be uncomfortable as well, sort of a "spread the wealth" thing.

In Part Two, we'll discuss how our governors have lied to us, have generated fear in the population to aid in their departures from the normal model of society, and how they can be defeated easily without resort to the discomfort of being rotated out of office, even though they may richly deserve such rotation. 

Tobacco Road?

Is the "Tobacco Road" solution on the minds of the tradional conservatives right now? Blow it up, start all over again? One of their champions, some say their best champion, Jim DeMint, Senator of South Carolina, will leave the Senate to head the conservative think-tank The Heritage Foundation. Fine outfit, the Heritage Foundation. Will be even finer with DeMint running it.

DeMint might bring the Heritage Foundation into the forefront of conservative leadership, and if he does that, the TEA Party is reborn, and if that happens, a fight for control of the GOP ensues. The mainstreamers will lose, and the TEA Party might just get invigorated enough to take back the Senate in 2014, and give the Hilldebeeste a serious run in 2016, or give Obama the bum's rush in his possible attempt to declare himself President-for-Life.

Imagine that, conservatives who actually are conservative. If we can convince them to bring their Constitutions and leave their Bibles at home, they might find a strong ally, the Libertarians. The Cs and the Ls joined together might just topple the Gimmes. Could happen.

OTOH, maybe DeMint has just had enough of the internecine fight, and wants a quiet place to live out the rest of his life, as Jefferson did before him at Monticello.

Election Prediction, Second Edition

"...maybe the only edition." Naaaaaaah, you didn't really believe that, did you? 

"The Pundit runs strong in you, Old Rivrdog".

Next prediction:

Mitt has no coat-tails.

The Senate stays on the "D" side, even as Mitt sweeps the Prexy race and buries Obama in the history books.

The House stays on the "R" side.

With no majority in the Senate, Mitt doesn't get to repeal ObamaCare, so we'd best learn how to live with that monster. We won't have to learn how to live with no Second Amendment, though, since the UN's Treaty on Small Arms might be ratified by the (D) Senate (but maybe not, as they think about the 2014 elections), but President Mittens won't sign it, so it dies next week, as it should (unless spite brings it up in the Lame Duck Session, but see above about 2014).

Will there be an "Un-Do" of all things Obama? I doubt it. Some of the most sweeping of Obama's Executive Orders might go away, but remember that Mitt is a Big Gummint Guy himself, and I'm sure that Big Gummint Bling will have appeal to him, too.

Your blogger voted early (as is the law here in Oregon, we vote for everything by mail-ballot). I voted for Mitt, but following this doctrine, I voted for mostly (D)s for State offices. Gotta eat to live, ya know, and gotta still pay that largish mortgage, too. If I had to walk away from Schloss Rivrdog and live up in the hills in a rental double-wide, I could handle that change, but the gudwife couldn't.

The next four years are going to be a balancing act for Mitt Romney. How well he pulls that off will determine if he gets Four More when his turn comes to re-up.

How Obama intends to become Dictator

Yep, I just put the words "Obama" and "Dictator" in my title, so the NSA Internet snoopy system will see it. 

I want them to see it. The way I look at it, when Obama has to consider that there are some of us who are ahead of his plans to be President-for-life, he might have some second thoughts.

Thanks to my vast (hahahahaha) intell net, I have been informed of the plan of how Obama will seize control.

Some background: Read the NY Slimes article, which is remarkable because it says nothing about the meat of the plan. I will put this down as the Slimes covering for Obama.

Now, read the Executive Order proposal which would implement the plan, which is simple, really: it names pretty much everything as a "critical infrastructure" and exerts total Federal Presidential control over those facilities. It lets the UN and European Union into our governance. In the guise of "hardening the target" against cyber-threats from our enemies (which the document doesn't even name!), total control over everything is forced on the Nation.

Here are some of my notes I made while reading the above links:

The NY Slimes article is BeeEss. We take responsibility for Stuxnet? We admit an act of war against Iran? That was an Israeli op all the way, or so 99% of cybersecurity thinkers agree. Also in that article, it is NOT mentioned that his EO will probably open the door for the UN's version of Internet control, which:

1. Allows a tax on all Internet use, probably in the form of a per-email tax, but probably in the future, a bandwidth tax.
2. Violates our First Amendment big-time, but then the United Nations cares not a whit for our Bill of Rights and neither does the President, although sworn to.
   

See "Additional Federal Responsibilities" Section (1), which allows the UN in. (second link). See Sect (4), which allows the Dept of Interior to ban any "threat" in a National Park or Monument or "significan icon", everything else Federal, I'd guess. That means no guns on Federal Property, at all, ever. Section Five allows the use of the Dept of Commerce to force internet-related companies to sell to the Feds first before they sell elsewhere. Something like was done with the recent massive ammo orders. Section Six gives the President Imperial powers to oversee the implementation of all this.

Finally, read Congress' response, a letter to the President saying "awww, it's inadvisable"

Sorry, Honorable Gentlemen, your letter should say "if you do this, we will impeach you immediately for Treason."

Now YOU, Dear Readers, are advised in this matter. Let your conscience be your guide as you plan YOUR response to wannabe Dictator Obama.

UPDATE: Go here and read the interesting post and comments over at Oleg's place. I am commenter 30 or so.

 

You may be Classist

• if you stay in school to better yourself
• if you are a good parent and want more for your children than you had
• if you work, and seek to be promoted within the system at work
• if you enlisted in the military and served your country to protect it from external evil
• if you appreciate the lessons of history

Right now, the (D)emocratic Party leadership is hell-bent on erasing classism, which started this Nation, and replacing it with the "Git yo' FREE shit" society. The (D)emocrats believe that the superior path for the Republic is to have a society where everyone is totally equal, and if the Creator didn't endow them all with drive, the Government should take assets from the ones with drive and give them to the ones with too little drive to succeed in a classist nation.

There are several problems with this utopian vision, the primary one being history: it has never worked where tried. The vision is, of course, the driving force behind Socialism, and Socialism is the driving force behind the (D)emocrats' egalitarianism movement ("Git yo' FREE shit here").

The excessive egalitarianism of Obama, the latest of a series of misguided leaders to advance the Socialist theories of governance, were dealt with earlier by Friedrich Nietzsche, the great German philosopher, who ascribed the term Nihilism to the philosophy which dictates that relative morality is inconsequential, and that good is meaningless.

The modern Socialists are all Nihilists, and the antidote for the depressive evil of Nihilism is Classism, and restoring the class of citizen who does relative good, as opposed to one who does nothing, but must, under Socialist doctrine, be treated as well as the one who does good.

Not a good sign....

The reaction (so immediate, it had to be planned in advance) of the Obama Regime to the Supreme Court decision which said the AZ law (SB 1070) was OK insofar as local cops may properly check the immigration status of persons they reasonably believe might not be citizens, was an eye-opener. Within minutes of the decision, the regime had announced that no AZ cops would have access to the ICE database anymore.

This is strange, since Missouri has the same rule about cops checking the immigration status of citizens, and in fact, Missouri goes even farther, having voted by Citizen Initiative to make English the official and ONLY language of that State (zero State funds are expended to be bi-lingual), and further passed laws making it illegal to give any State Assistance to a non-citizen and making it illegal to give scholarships or reduced tuition fees for post-secondary higher ed to non-citizens.

Missouri is currently run by the Democratic Party, whereas Arizona is currently run by the GOP.

What partisanship? The idea of the State enforcing immigration doctrine is written into Missouri law, and that is apparently fine with the Obama and the DNC. Here's why it's fine with them: there are few votes at risk. Any illegals in MO before these laws were enacted, starting in 2008, weren't enough in number to swing any elections, so it doesn't matter to the (D)onks, and MO therefore falls off their radar. In AZ, however, there are so many illegals that one HAS to believe that a significant number are voting (illegally), so it matters, especially to local governments in the Phoenix area. Phoenix is actually a liberal city, mainly supported by La Raza types.

Back to the ill-bodings.

In the next two days, the SCOTUS will rule on the Constitutionality of Obamacare. It is widely believed by legal scholars of BOTH parties that the guts of the program will be ripped out by the SCOTUS.

THIS pundit has a short-term forecast: Since the possibility of a re-do of Obamacare does not exist with the GOP in control of the House, Obama will have a planned announcement broadcast immediately after the ruling comes out (and before the ruling can even be read, sort of like how the law was promulgated in the first place) that says that the Regime will ignore the SCOTUS, that the ruling doesn't mean what the Court and all the rest of the legal minds in the Nation says it means, and there will be Executive Orders ready for promulgation to get around the decision.

Obama will then say to anyone who says that the centerpiece work of his Regime was just marked "F" by the SCOTUS and handed back, that the SCOTUS took the words wrong, and if they were taken his way, Obamacare with it's mandate is still legal, and what's more, he will have ordered it to be so.

This sets up a ring-tail Constitutional Crisis, which according to the Cloward-Pliven Policy, is exactly what Obama wants and needs, because it will obfuscate the central issue of the GOP's campaign: that Obama & the (D)onks have screwed the economy up so badly they can't be given a chance to continue.

The Romnoids had better have a plan ready to counter this obfuscation strategy, and particularly, they will need to watch for any further Federal transfers of dollars to sub-projects in the defective Health Care Reform Act. The Regime will continue to make those transfers, and every one of them becomes a legally-definable theft from the taxpayers, and should be announced to the population at large as such. Romney needs to keep on message, and leave the Regime to screw itself further into the mud and slime of dictatorship.

I don't worry about Obama's dictatorship as much as I used to. We have a Second Amendment for the purpose of removing him if he doesn't go quietly when voted out this November.

Go directly there

...to BorePatch's blog, and read this screed.

Yes, it's come to this pass. History will show that the Second American Revolution actually started before Obama's second term started...

H/T to Uncle

BTW, if you are into conflict management planning as I am, you might consider this date: Wednesday, the Seventh of November, 2012. That is the day after the election, and assuming Obama is re-elected, that is the day his "complete-the-dictatorship" program starts. Assuming you are going to resist that dictatorship, YOU will have to be prepared to begin your resistance on that date. If you are on the other side, and will be joining Obama IN his dictatorship, that is the date, after which you will begin laying your life on the line for Obama, every day until one side or the other wins unconditional victory.

Today, we are on the Seventh Day of the Fifth month of 2012. There are exactly six months, one half a calendar year, left for you to prepare for this conflict, both physical and mental preparations. The world of your comfort, as you presently see it, ends in six months. Six months from now, you will be fighting, for or against Freedom, right here in your United States of America.