January 27th, 2014

Obama: you ain’t seen nothing yet

William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection points out that the most dangerous years of the Obama administration are upon us. He quotes a WaPo article by Scott Wilson that describes a supposedly “new” approach of the president’s.

Wilson’s article, which appears to be written from a purely descriptive point of view, is one of the most important things I’ve read in quite a while. It outlines as “new” what most of us on the right have long expected from Obama’s second term. For example, in November of 2010, less than two years into Obama’s first term—when some people were speculating that he might tack more to the middle for the last half of that first term—I wrote that even if he did, it would represent only a temporary feint to lull the American people into a false sense of relief at his moderation:

It need only be until the next election…And then, and then—voila! Four more years! Four years in which he won’t have to answer to the electorate at all. He will be unleashed to do whatever it is he really wants. And does anyone think that would look moderate at all?

Back then I already had a much greater fear of Obama’s second term than his first. Freed of the fear of consequences, he could exercise power in whatever way he might think possible to get around the limitations of our system of checks and balances. Neither I, nor anyone who has actually watched and studied Obama carefully, should believe he has anything but contempt for those boundaries where he is concerned. That is the mark of tyranny.

Wilson’s article is long, but well worth reading in its entirety. The following are some excerpts and my commentary on them [emphasis mine]:

Obama has said that his fraught relationship with Congress, especially after Republicans won the House in 2010, complicated his ability to promote his agenda. But for the first time, following what many allies view as a lost year, the White House is reorganizing itself to support a more executive-focused presidency and inviting the rest of the government to help.

The new approach comes after weeks of internal White House debate over a single question: What went wrong in 2013?… Senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer outlined the lessons learned in a three-page memo that Obama discussed with his Cabinet in recent weeks, according to several administration officials who have read the document.

So first we have the framing of this as a new approach, one to which Obama came reluctantly, forced by the stubborn resistance of Congress’s Republicans to his agenda. Of course, his approach is neither new, nor forced—although I suppose it’s “forced” inasmuch as it wouldn’t be necessary if Congress was still controlled by Democrats who could be trusted to merely rubber-stamp Obama’s desires. And it’s “new” in the sense that it will now be intensified. Obama is also attempting to capitalize on Americans’ dislike for and disapproval of Congress, which is far more unpopular even than he is.

More:

Among [a Dan Pfeiffer memo's] conclusions is that Obama, a former state legislator and U.S. senator, too often governed more like a prime minister than a president. In a parliamentary system, a prime minister is elected by lawmakers and thus beholden to them in ways a president is not.

As a result, Washington veterans have been brought into the West Wing to emphasize an executive style of governing that aims to sidestep Congress more often…

“A State of the Union creates a contract with the public about what you say and what you will do,” said John D. Podesta, a senior adviser to Obama brought in this month to help design an effective governing strategy around the president’s goals.

“In that sense it is like a campaign, and it disciplines the priorities of the White House by creating an operation manual for the year ahead,” he said. “It is certainly in that spirit we are approaching this year’s State of the Union.”…

After Obama’s second inaugural address last January, Podesta, then head of the Center for American Progress, the administration’s off-campus think tank, said Obama “no longer feels to me like a prime minister.”

“He now understands the full range of the power of the presidency to get things done,” Podesta said at the time.

Now in the West Wing for a year-long stint as senior adviser, Podesta acknowledged that he was brought in partly to make that early prediction a reality…

Again, we have the carefully cultivated—and media-supported—myth of the heretofore reasonable and retiring Obama, hamstrung by his deference to Congress. Along with this is the notion that only recently has come the idea of politicizing Obama’s State of the Union speech, and that only recently Obama “gets” that he can accomplish a lot more by executive fiat than he ever thought possible before. He’s doing it for you, folks, to get around those people in Congress who thwart all the good he would otherwise do for you.

Who needs Congress? Not Obama. But that’s not new; he made it clear even in his first term that he would expand executive power though the liberal (pun intended) use of agencies and executive orders, if Congress wouldn’t play ball. After all, how many divisions does Congress have? Or SCOTUS? And he knows the MSM won’t object, and in his second term he no longer fears the people, if he ever did in the first place.

46 Responses to “Obama: you ain’t seen nothing yet”

  1. Mac Says:

    John Podesta, former Bill Clinton insider and chief of staff during the Lewinsky business. Perfect.

    Meanwhile, in today’s headlines, the question: “Will mentioning Lewinsky scandal damage Rand Paul”? Obama hires one of the architects of the lying etc surrounding the scandal, but it’s Rand Paul who may be damaged? Simply by reminding the world of its existence?

    These people may become our permanent rulers, and they hold most of us in contempt. Not to mention the American system.

  2. waitforit Says:

    Wow. What a lovely constitutional scholar to only recognize his executive authority after massive disobedience to same. Let’s get on our knees and thank God that we have such a One mediating our prayers. Thank you God for Obama who will protect us from those nasty people we elect, whom we call representatives.

  3. Charles Says:

    At the risk of invoking Godwin’s Law; isn’t this sort of what Nazis and other fascists have done?

    “The government isn’t working, so you need me to step in and get things down, it is for your own good, you know.”

    There, Godwin’s law, on just the second comment.

  4. waitforit Says:

    Darn right, Charles and the implementation of executive blowhardness will need troops, otherwise known as brownshirts, ie., those who can be bought cheap, ie., the Romney 47%.

    There were the 49′s, the 48′s, now the 47′s! That’s kind of an interesting aside.

  5. waitforit Says:

    If someone knowingly makes you a promise which was a lie and you relied on that promise and suffered as a result, that’s the definition of fraud. And if all you receive in your behalf is the property which was taken from you, is that fair? What has the liar, the defrauder, the perpetrator suffered. He only gave back what was not his to begin with. Isn’t punishment required?

    Isn’t it time we start talking about punishment for the loss of life, liberty, property and happiness this piece of shit president has caused?

  6. M J R Says:

    “The president is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen — this is simply not accurate. Due process and judicial process are *not* one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process; it does *not* guarantee judicial process.”

    – USA Attorney General Eric Holder, 18:25 to 18:50 in the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZViuts8RQRY

    The date on the video is September 5, 2013. The poster warns that there will occur “something big late this year.” Now, “late this year” has come and gone, and I/we can do without the tawdry sensationalism. At any rate, the relentless evolution to a third-rate banana republic is a slow process — frog in boiling water and all that. All this having been stated, Holder’s point-blank assertion is troubling, to say the least.

  7. Matt_SE Says:

    This “new” approach is just as likely to backfire as succeed, IMO.

    If, like some of the doom-and-gloom crowd around here suggest, the American people are corrupt and just want “free stuff” then Obama’s imperial schtick will be applauded.

    If, on the other hand, Obama’s people are reading into the polls what they wish instead of what really is, then this naked power grab may win Republicans even more seats than they would’ve gotten already.

    Which view is correct? I can’t know for sure, but since I’ve decided Obama’s defining characteristics are hubris and incompetence, even if he tries what the people want, he’s likely to screw it up.

  8. Matt_SE Says:

    Look at the polls:

    Americans’ agenda does not even remotely align with Obama’s. Per Gallup, December 2013:

    #1) Dissatisfaction with government (21%). Which part of government do you think Obama’s going to clean up? Is there *any* part he’s going to clean up?

    #2) Economy in general (19%). Obama has presided over the worst recovery in US history. But I’m sure his 17th “pivot” will do the trick…

    #3) Healthcare (17%). Uh-huh.

    #4) Unemployment (12%). Obama allowed the unemployment extension to expire, but really, how could he have justified its continuance past 99 weeks? Oh, and see #2 above.

    #5) Federal budget deficit (9%). Obama has spent us into debt as much as ALL OTHER PRESIDENTS COMBINED.

    6) Moral/ethical decline (7%). Obama supports all freaky-deaky leftwing social projects. This is the guy that said, “God bless Planned Parenthood.”

    7) Poverty/Hunger/Homelessness (5%). All on the rise since Obama took office; arguably, as a result of his policies.

    8) Education (4%). Obama administration attacks charter schools. College tuition becoming out of reach for most Americans.

    9) Lack of Money (3%). See #2 and #4 above. Also, Fed printing may result in devaluation of what little money we have left.

    10) Judicial system/courts (3%). Court-packing in DC circuit. Reid nuked the filibuster.

    So tell me…if Obama uses Executive power to ram through his preferred changes, on which of these issues are the American people likely to be satisfied?

    I just don’t see it happening.

  9. parker Says:

    We stayed below zero all day and its been much colder than typical for the last 45 days. Has the messiah cured global warming?

  10. neo-neocon Says:

    Matt_SE:

    It doesn’t make any difference whether they’re satisfied.

    He was re-elected, wasn’t he? That’s a mandate in his book, in the sense that he’s got the power. He doesn’t care what the people think.

    Plus he is determined to change the makeup of the people. That’s where immigration reform comes in, as well as increasing (rather than decreasing) people’s dependency on government, which will guarantee more Democratic victories, he and his supporters believe.

    Plus, I know plenty of well-educated, liberal but not radical people, who either are not paying much attention to what he’s doing, or are aware of what he’s doing and applaud because they don’t mind power grabs as long as it is supposedly in their best interests, and they think Obama has their interests at heart.

  11. parker Says:

    Matt_SE,

    I’m not one of the doom and bloomers. I think there is a good chance the hubris, hypocrisy, and outright damage done by the messiah is wearing thin on a slim majority. The problem is to get them to the polls.

  12. Matt_SE Says:

    @ Neo-neocon & parker

    That’s the point of this. Obama may not be up for re-election, but if he plays the asshole in the run-up to the 2014 elections, he can take his party (who ARE up for re-election) down with him.

    When that starts dawning on individual Democrats, whose skin do you think they’ll save? Their own, or Obama’s?

  13. M J R Says:

    . . . and how to dissuade the illlegals and the cemetery-dwellers from voting.

  14. Matt_SE Says:

    Of course, that’s a rhetorical question since we already have the answer:

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/01/13/North-Carolina-s-Democratic-Senator-Plans-to-Snub-Obama-s-Speech-in-Her-Home-State

  15. M J R Says:

    (this was supposed to be a quick follow-on to parker’s 5:27 pm comment, but Matt_SE snuck in before me)

  16. M J R Says:

    HE DID IT AGAIN!!!

  17. IGotBupkis, "'Faeces Evenio', Mr. Holder?" Says:

    I believe there is a reason Obama has been the best salesman of guns in the nation’s history.

    I hope it means what I think it means.

    The only question is, when does the revolution begin? What spark against what tinder will initiate it?

  18. Matt_SE Says:

    Here, M J R….
    I’ll run to the store for some smokes. You’ll have at least 15 minutes to get in some shots!

  19. neo-neocon Says:

    Matt_SE:

    It certainly could work that way, and I hope it does work that way. But to coin a phrase, what difference will it make? If Obama is planning to go around Congress from now onward, they can’t stop him even post-2014 election unless there are enough Republicans, and enough courageous Republicans, to impeach and convict him (will not happen). I do not think Democrats will turn on him.

    Obama is playing the long game. It may backfire in 2014, but I think he (and other Democrats) are counting on it working in the long run. And by “long run” I don’t mean a century; I mean within the next ten years or so.

    I hope you’re right and I’m wrong on this, believe me.

  20. southpaw Says:

    I for one take comfort in the idea that Obama is going to start fixing things.
    Give him enough rope to hang himself, and he will. Whenever he’s been convinced he knew what he was doing — driven by naiive ideology, it’s been a disaster. Not that I’m looking forward to the disaster,
    But given he’s a demigod in the eyes of the media, nothing short of self-inflicted, unrestricted access to fall flat on his face will convince the worshipers he’s a deeply flawed and pompous ass, and not a great leader or thinker.
    The only thing that might derail this is if the Republicans take the lead and try to out-do him. I’m hearing they are, led by Boner, and are actually trying to legislate some of the same offensive and idiotic policies before Obama takes credit for all the unpopular, expensive, idiotic policy failures. Only John Boner is dunce enough to think he’s outsmarting Obama, and play right into Obama’s hands again.

  21. parker Says:

    “That’s where immigration reform comes in…”

    That would be dead in the water without the chamber of commerce RINOs.

  22. DNW Says:

    Some years ago, when Bill Clinton was at his outrageous nadir, I wrote to my Republican house representative and asked why, in the name of the Republic, the son of a bitch was being invited to address Congress in the first place since, a., he had no legal right to appear in the forum otherwise and b, since they had to make it a point to enable his appearance.

    The members who had been lied to, would just be aiding and abetting his propaganda effort.

    The Constitution after all, requires only that the executive issue a yearly report; it does not mandate that the legislative branch participate in its own, and our, degradation through a ridiculous dog and pony show.

    He replied with some mumbo-jumbo about respect for the office, blah blah, immemorial and time out of mind tradition blah blah, and our common blah blah …

    The fact is however that apart from sheer cowardice, the panting glamor junkies of both parties simply won’t pass up any opportunity to engage in the spectacles that impart meaning to their lives. Even if all it is, is a starring role in the theater of their own humiliation. I’m convinced that they would go out of their way to print the tickets and issue the invitations to their own auto-de-fe’.

    Remember, the House Speaker must issue the invitation. Oh yeah, that’s the guy who cries ….

    What kind of human beings really, are these extraordinarily emotionally needy, and pathetic men?

    These, we are to believe, are the living descendents of historically free men?

    Oh yeah … again. Most of them really are not.

  23. parker Says:

    I’m going to part from the core of the topic at hand to highlight the issue of immigration ‘reform’…

    I know numerous people who used to make a middle class income as roofers, drywallers, and framers. They were independents who hired crews and bid on jobs. They refused to hire illegals for a few dollars per hour to do somewhat dangerous and strenuous jobs. They paid their crews a decent wage and thus could no longer win bids when faced with the competition that was willing to look the other way. Competitors who would figure $7/hr for illegals that they would actually pay $5/hr. Many skilled, experienced tradesmen have been forced out of the market due to the failure to enforce immigration laws already on the books.

    Big ag and the chamber of commerce want cheap labor and do not care if this causes many into low paying jobs or welfare. That should be a consistent talking point for real conservatives.

  24. Ann Says:

    Neo said…
    I know plenty of well-educated, liberal but not radical people, who either are not paying much attention to what he’s doing, or are aware of what he’s doing and applaud because they don’t mind power grabs as long as it is supposedly in their best interests, and they think Obama has their interests at heart.

    There’s a piece by Allahpundit up at HotAir discussing a new Wash. Post poll showing that 52% support Obama using executive orders to bypass Congress on his legislative goals. The breakdown shows postgrads at 54% support; folks who should “know better,” but as Neo said don’t care:

    Of the four demographics here, postgrads are the second-most likely to say that Obama can “bypass” Congress. I think they know better; they certainly would if President Romney was suspending mandates and moving statutory deadlines willy nilly. They’re just mostly lefty hacks who hate that the Republican House won’t rubber-stamp Obama’s agenda, so they feel obliged to rubber-stamp his power grabs instead.

    Allahpundit ends with this:

    …it may well be true that the GOP’s “tyranny” charges are a dead end politically — simply because there are too many people who don’t care if they’re true or not.

    Certainly seems that way.

  25. Matt_SE Says:

    @Neo-neocon

    I certainly hope I’m right, too. Indeed, I find it difficult to proceed on any other assumption!

    But per my post @ 5:10, if these are the priorities of the American people, what is Obama going to do to address those using Executive orders? I see neither the willingness, the authority nor the talent.

    And if he goes the extra mile to assert his authority without addressing what Americans care about, that itself will lead to disenchantment.

    I expect a lot of hot air in the SotU, coupled with class/race warfare and jabs at the Republicans. In other words, the usual.

    To be honest, I’m not terribly worried. Because as I’ve said before (and recently elevated in status) Edwards’ Law: “Socialism is its own cure.”

    (Note, the corollary: “Sometimes the cure kills the patient.”)

    Let the people see how an imperial president operates. Let them decide if that’s what they want, and let the chips fall where they may.

    Also note: the job will be a lot easier if we have leadership that can make a coherent case without alienating its own base!

  26. Matt_SE Says:

    Also note that Obama is just as likely to make any problem worse by his intervention as not.
    Delays to Obamacare mandates? They’ve thrown the insurance industry into chaos. Next come the bailouts…and those are bound to be unpopular with everyone.
    And if he doesn’t bail them out, then EVERYONE will lose their policies when the companies go bankrupt. Not exactly the way to win friends, that.

    The man’s incompetent, and he’s surrounded himself with incompetent sycophants. It’s like the imperial presidency of Mr. Magoo.

  27. Matt_SE Says:

    A couple of other things:

    This may all be a moot point if the economy (or its proxy, the stock market) crashes. That’s pretty much out of his hands, and the economics pundits are not predicting smooth sailing for 2014. We’re seeing turbulence already, and as I scolded that liberal troll in the other thread, because of globalization collapses in other economies can trigger collapses here.
    (Have you seen the state of Argentina, Venezuela and Turkey recently?!?)

    Fair or not, presidents usually get blamed for disasters on their watch. A new collapse would be hard to pin on Bush.

    Not related but curiously: If Obama is so keen on immigration reform, why hasn’t he made any concrete moves on it? Even the Spanish-language version of Healthcare.gov lags behind the English version. He’s done the “dreamer” thing, but can’t he do more?
    I’m not sure he’s as committed to it as we fear…though I don’t know why.

  28. Don Carlos Says:

    To hell with Godwin’s Law.
    And to purgatory with those opponents of Obama who insist he is a fool.
    You lose, BHO wins. Suckas!

  29. Cornhead Says:

    Preffer is detestable.

  30. J.J. Says:

    Obama will have an interview with Bill O’Reilly on Sunday before the Super Bowl. A question I would like to s hear him ask:
    “Mr. President, as you know the country is deeply divided. Won’t your unilateral approach to getting things done with your phone and pen create more divisiveness in the nation?”
    When Obama claims his unilateralism is caused by Republican intransigence, I would follow on with:
    “Can you detail two instances where you have called in Republican leaders to work out a deal on some issue and what you offered them in return for working with you?”

    Not exactly gotcha questions, but the answers could be illuminating to any who are watching.

  31. Richard Saunders Says:

    Neo: There is something that can be done about Obama’s rule by fiat, but it will take a Congress with the gonads to do what they should have been doing all along — use the power of the purse! Oh, that I should live to see the day! “No funds appropriated herein may be expended to enforce a minimum wage of more than $7.25/hr. No funds appropriated hereunder shall be expended to restrict water use to save the snail darter. No funds appropriated hereunder shall be expended to enforce the Affordable Care Act. No funds appropriated hereunder shall be expended to subsidize sugar producers. . .”

  32. mary Says:

    I don’t see him as evil, I see him as desperate. He’ s using tyrannical moves because all of Congress has seen how bad he is so he thinks his grand ideas will not be supported. And this time he’s sure they will work.

    the problem is if his plans fail, they will fail because of him directly and not just him and congress together

  33. George Dixon Says:

    The one thing missing from the article and the comments is the role played by Federal Agencies in the Obama-IRS 2012 election.

    IF a fair election occurs in 2014 I would doubt that the democrats will have anything but the Presidency.

    If a fair election (fair as in no IRS or FCC abuse of the system on behalf of the democrats) had been held in 2012, Obama would be retired.

    The research done by both Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and Stockholm University found that the impact of the IRS abuse leading up to the 2012 election was “Obama won” when he otherwise would not have.

  34. MarkJ Says:

    Obama is displaying an “apres moi le deluge” mindset. He seems utterly unwilling or unable to understand that his (likely GOP) successor may decide, shucks, E.O.’s and non-enforcement of laws ain’t so bad and issue them on, oh say, abortion….and ObamaCare and [fill in the blank].

    What goes around, comes around.

  35. Ymarsakar Says:

    We are the ones we have been waiting for, the Left said.

    But this is the time I was waiting for, since at least 2007.

  36. I Callahan Says:

    Plus he is determined to change the makeup of the people. That’s where immigration reform comes in, as well as increasing (rather than decreasing) people’s dependency on government, which will guarantee more Democratic victories, he and his supporters believe.

    “Fundamentally transform the United States of America”. Funny how no one (at the time) took this statement seriously, as this is as big an admission of what the future was going to be as anything else.

  37. News and Commentary for January 28 | Palo Verde Republican Women Says:

    [...] The Media intends to cover for Obama’s tyranny. “So first we have the framing of this as a new approach, one to which Obama came reluctantly, forced by the stubborn resistance of Congress’s Republicans to his agenda. Of course, his approach is neither new, nor forced—although I suppose it’s “forced” inasmuch as it wouldn’t be necessary if Congress was still controlled by Democrats who could be trusted to merely rubber-stamp Obama’s desires. And it’s “new” in the sense that it will now be intensified. Obama is also attempting to capitalize on Americans’ dislike for and disapproval of Congress, which is far more unpopular even than he is.” Obama: you ain’t seen nothing yet [...]

  38. News and Commentary for January 28 | The Joke's On Us Says:

    [...] The Media intends to cover for Obama’s tyranny. “So first we have the framing of this as a new approach, one to which Obama came reluctantly, forced by the stubborn resistance of Congress’s Republicans to his agenda. Of course, his approach is neither new, nor forced—although I suppose it’s “forced” inasmuch as it wouldn’t be necessary if Congress was still controlled by Democrats who could be trusted to merely rubber-stamp Obama’s desires. And it’s “new” in the sense that it will now be intensified. Obama is also attempting to capitalize on Americans’ dislike for and disapproval of Congress, which is far more unpopular even than he is.” Obama: you ain’t seen nothing yet [...]

  39. In The Second Term | Transterrestrial Musings Says:

    [...] Get ready for a lawless president to double down on the tyranny. [...]

  40. neo-neocon Says:

    mary:

    I’m not sure I agree that Obama is desperate. I think his narcissism protects him from that, and he retains many tricks up his sleeve.

    However, I want to point out that it is possible to be both evil and desperate.

  41. Dave Says:

    We’re at stage (3) of a quasi-Hayekian cycle:

    (1) A Party gets voted into power by promising a Plan to fix some pressing social problem, ignoring the fact that if said problem could be solved by majority opinion, the majority would have already solved it.

    (2) Representing a diverse coalition of interest groups, Party members cannot agree on a simple, specific Plan, so they cobble together a Rube Goldberg monstrosity with just the right mix of hokum and magic pixie dust to appease all factions.

    (3) When put into action, this Plan quickly falls apart. Saboteurs of the opposing party must be blamed, and decisive executive action must be taken to save the Plan. Each fix exposes more flaws, so the Plan now changes unpredictably from day to day.

    (4) WAR!!! We must defeat this other country! The enemy leaders also welcome war as a distraction from their own failed Plans.

    (5) The war ends, and the vanquished leaders are hanged while the victors wave to vast cheering crowds. The old, failed Plans are forgotten, and it’s time for a new Plan to rebuild the country. Back to stage (1).

  42. Ymarsakar Says:

    Funny how no one (at the time) took this statement seriously, as this is as big an admission of what the future was going to be as anything else.

    A few individuals I know took it seriously.

    Just as “we are the ones we have been waiting for” sounds different on interpretation now than what many thought it meant back in 2008.

    Civilian security force as strong as the US military.

    Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.-Guess who

  43. Ymarsakar Says:

    E.O.’s and non-enforcement of laws ain’t so bad and issue them on, oh say, abortion….and ObamaCare and [fill in the blank].

    What goes around, comes around.

    They have addressed this issue by subverting Republicans. Who is going to do it, a Republican President? They control the Republican primaries, the Democrats. They can bribe, blackmail, or otherwise condition people to hold Democrat light policies.

  44. Mac Says:

    Ditto to what Parker said above (6:03pm) re immigration. I’ve heard and seen enough anecdotal evidence to be convinced that the damage to low-wage American workers is significant. There’s a large black population where I live, and I’ve observed African faces in low-end but decent jobs being replaced by Mexican/Central-American ones. It is an unholy alliance of business and the left, the former just wanting cheap labor, the latter either sentimentally or maliciously enjoying the sight of white America’s eclipse (they just close their eyes to the effect on black employment, where it may be most pronounced).

  45. Matt_SE Says:

    Blah, blah, blah. I’m not worried.

    Obama will have his tantrum and unless he does something truly outrageous, the country will move on after he’s gone and say “good riddance.”

    Any half-way competent administration after his will look Reagan-esque by comparison.

    On this forum, I suppose that attitude would make me an outlier.

  46. PD Quig Says:

    They are itching for either a 2nd Civil War or a second American Revolution.

    Bring it on.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>








Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge