The Supreme Court's Arizona Immigration Decision

From reading about it, one would think that the state of Arizona won 1 of the 4 decisions that the Supreme Court handed down a few days ago.  Well, no, Arizona did NOT win 1 decision, simply because the Obama administration has made it plain that it has absolutely no intention of enforcing it.  In fact, they are inviting people to snitch on Arizona law personnel if THEY try to enforce it.

Rush has a fine explanation of it.  Read it and gag.

The Man is an Embarrassment

Here's the latest from America's Joke-in-Chief.  It's called the "Obama Event Registry":

"Got a birthday, anniversary, or wedding coming up?

Let your friends know how important this election is to you—register with Obama 2012, and ask for a donation in lieu of a gift. It’s a great way to support the President on your big day. Plus, it’s a gift that we can all appreciate—and goes a lot further than a gravy bowl.

Setting up and sharing your registry page is easy--so get started today."

Here is a man who descries selfishness, has made attacks against it the chief cornerstone of his entire presidency, and yet he has the unmitigated gall to ask people, on one of the most important events of their lives, to forego receiving gifts from well-wishers and instead give the money to him.  The man has absolutely no shame.  What an embarrassment he is.

What's next?  Funerals?  Donations in lieu of flowers?  Well, the dead won't mind.  If Eric Holder has his way, they'll all be able to vote for Obama anyway. 

What the Democratic Party Has Become

Rush had a couple of quote-worthy remarks yesterday. Here is the first:

"We ask the question: 'Has the citizenry finally devolved to the point that they would rather not work and be taken care of?' That's what it boils down to. That's the overriding question that we ask, in fear, every time we start thinking about this next election. And Obama has clearly rolled the dice and said, 'Yeah. There's more people that want to sit around and be taken care of by me than there are people who want to assume responsibility for themselves.' That's what he's banking on."

And Rush's second statement: "I don't think we've lost the country. I think we're close, but I don't think we've lost it."

The election this year will detemine whether Rush is right or not.

"Gay Activists Invited to WH 'Flip Off' Reagan." Last Friday, Obama held the first-ever queer pride reception at the White House. Some of the queers made a beeline to the portrait of Ronald Reagan and gave him their middle finger. Classy. But, obviously, people who wallow in a cesspool and keep their noses up somebody else's rear wouldn't know excellence when they see it. Don't forget, though; it's "progressive."

And here is some more information that portrays the current Democratic Party. A few weeks ago, some kindergarten students were banned from singing Lee Greenwood's song, "God Bless the USA" at a graduation ceremony. The principal (a black woman) was afraid that other cultures might be "offended." Well, enough of the children's parents were offended by her blatant anti-Americanism that, a few days later, some of the children were taken to a nearby playground where they sang the song together. And were actually heckled by some adults.

One of the protesters said, "The kids don’t even know what they’re singing. They got something you tell them to say. It’s ridiculous. It’s sad, sad, sad. You all are going to burn in hell. You all burn in hell. Shame on you. Shame on you." Another adult said--now notice this--"You Republicans go to a Republican area and do that. We don't want that here. Go to a Republican area." Ah. Singing a patriotic song is a "Republican" thing. Yes, it is....

The "leadership" of the Democratic Party would, of course, deny that their party is "unpatriotic," but after years and years and years and years and years of bashing the United States, of telling people how unfair America has been, of criticizing and blasting the history of the country and its role in world affairs, how can anybody be stunned when the rank-and-file despise the country? And make no mistake about it--there are many, many people in the United States who hate America. All they have heard, all their lives, from people they respect and trust, is how bad America is, how wicked, immoral, racist, exploitative, and unfair the United States has been in its history (and at present); how could they NOT abhor it? They hate the rich because they've been told--by Democrats, academia, and the media, the "progressives"--that all the economic evils in the country are because the rich have exploited the poor, robbing, cheating, and swindling them. And so--back to paragraph one and Rush's statements--there are people who don't want to work in the first place, who don't want to assume responsibility for their own lives, and who Obama and the Democrats are happy to cater to by telling them they have a RIGHT to live off others because those others stole from them in the first place. Obama's recent immigration announcement, in effect allowing hundreds of thousands of people to break the law with no consequences, was nothing more than a politcal play to get votes. Barack Obama cares nothing, absolutely nothinig, for the United States; he's probably to be numbered among those who hate the country. Regardless of that, he is obsessed only with himself, only about his own re-election, and he is doing everything he can to build a coalition that will win him a second term. He has given up on the white working class, on decent, hard-working, mainstream America, the people who built the country and who made it the greatest nation in the world. He knows he isn't going to get many votes from them. So he's reaching out to every fringe group he can find--blacks, illegals, queers, potheads, Hollywood, welfare bums, left-wing environmental kooks--in hopes he can put together a big enough group to give him an electoral victory in November.

And he's liable to do it.

And if he does, Rush, the country will be lost for good. There will be no coming back. Well, given the way the demographics of the country are going--and who controls the education system--it's only a matter of time anyway.

You've got to give the Democratic Party credit, though--they know how to win. They don't care if they destroy America in the process, but they do know how to win, gain, and keep political power. And, believe me, to the liberals, political power is what it is all about. Those fringe groups are people that they can control. And that's what they want. That's all they want.

I have never been a proponent of democracy and, as I have noted on this blog before, neither were the men who founded America. I won't go into the reasons here; I've done that before. But I will present to you now another--perhaps the most powerful--argument against democracy. I can do it in two words: Nancy Pelosi. That any human being, as stupid, ridiculous, and witless as she is, could be elected to the House of Representatives is certainly one of the most damning indictments of any political system. And then....and then...the rest of the democratically-elected Democratic Party made her the Speaker of the House of Representatives--two heart-beats away from being President of the United States!!! That is a frightening thought, a scenario too horrifying to contemplate, a nightmare beyond even the most foreboding terrors of the ghoulish mind of a depressed, demonic Poe....

Nancy Pelosi. I rest my case against democracy. An utterly unanswerable argument.

Oh. What's the best form of government, you ask? An aristocracy of virtue and merit. The people who rule must prove themselves worthy of it by their character.

Let Jeremiah search Washington, D.C. with candles to see if he can find one such person...

Is Obama a Socialist or a Fascist?

In a relatively recent post, I indicated that Barack Obama is moving the United States towards fascism, not socialism.  It is very popular, among conservatives, to refer to Obama as a "socialist," and some recent books have broadened the definition of "socialism" so wide as to include almost any intervention of government into the economy.  I've never been comfortable with that because the classical definition of "socialism" is government ownership of the means of production, and Obama is not really pushing for that; he yearns more for government control of private production--leave business in the hands of private enterprise, but have the government order it what to do.  That is fascism, not socialism.  That's Mussolini and Hitler, not Stalin and Mao.

I was pleased to note that, today, Thomas Sowell has published an article about this very thing, entitled "Socialist or Fascist?"  He didn't come right out and call Obama a "fascist," (I didn't, either, though the implication is strong), but if you are interested in reading his article, here is the link:

Keep in mind that Thomas Sowell is a trained economist, so this is not the vision of an ignorant sap, but of an expert in the field.

Why Obama Can (Unbelievably) Still Win

Well, what's been going on lately?  I've been very busy with school, but finals are next week so it should slow down soon.  I'm not exactly sure what I'm going to do during the summer holiday; I'd like to take a Chinese language course, but the one offered by the university here is more expensive than I want to pay.  I might be able to get them to discount it some, but I don't know.  I may do some traveling, and I certainly want to do some reading and writing.  Regardless, I'm a little weary, so I'm looking forward to the break.

As amazing at it might seem, Barack Obama still has a very good chance of being re-elected President of the United States this year.  It really has very little to do with Mitt Romney, who actually is, so far, turning out to be a very level-headed and solid candidate.  It is simply a matter of demographics.  Obama and the Democrats have desperately been trying to get as many people as possible dependent upon government largesse, and then convince these people that the Republicans will steal their candy and leave them starving in the streets.  Almost 50% of Americans are receiving some kind of government assistance now and almost the same number pay no income tax.  Most of those piglets aren't going to turn away from the teat they suck on.

But there is something deeper involved here.  Self-government is, largely, a product of western European (basically English) Calvinism.  The most stable self-governing countries in the world, for the most part, were former British colonies.  Most other peoples simply have struggled with "self-government" because they have no history of it (the Japanese, Koreans, and non-communist Chinese are notable exceptions to this).  As the United States has become more heterogeneous--especially rising black and Hispanic populations--the natural tendency of those ethnic groups is to drift towards dependence.  Those two groups, especially, have no tradition of self-government, of independence, of making decisions on their own.  They've been told all of their history, by some absolutist ruler, what to do, and thus it is easier for them simply to allow government to take care of them, rather than take the risk, responsibility, and consequences that freedom offers.  This is not a racial argument, it is an historical one.  The Latin American countries, for 200 years, have struggled with self-government because they were colonies of an absolutist Spain.  Those Hispanics who are now gravitating to the United States have no idea how "self-government" works, so they lean on government.  The Europeans spent only enough time in Africa to screw that continent up, not teach them self-government.  America, of course, kept blacks subservient through slavery and Jim Crow laws--and liberals today want to continue that subservience--so they, too, look to government for support.  A recent study which indicated that the birth of minority babies now exceeds that of Caucasian babies is a godsend to Democrats and a death knoll for freedom in the United States.  What will happen in 20 years when all those people can vote?  How can the private sector survive without a massive re-education program, extolling the virtues of the family, church, hard work, and individual responsibility--all of which are diametrically opposed to the very principles of government?  And since the government controls the union-dominated education system, what are the chances of educational reform happening?

There is also the "heathen" factor.  Benjamin Franklin said, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.  As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."  The whole need for government is based upon man's unwillingness to control himself, and the more wicked man becomes, the more government he requires.  This is not only history, it's common sense.  As the left continues its unrelenting attacks on Christianity and everything decent, moral, and virtuous, it is no surprise that government continues to grow.  It is exactly what the secular left wants!   And yet, they have the unmitigated gall to call it "progressive."   More wickedness is "progressive."  Well, it is to some people, and those people will vote for Obama.

Even Bill Clinton admitted that Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital was "sterling" and that he was a well-qualified candidate.  I never have especially liked Romney, but he is obviously far superior to the incredibly incompetent Obama.  But that doesn't matter.  In a democracy, superiority doesn't always win.  In fact, because democracy caters to mediocrity, "superiority" is often frowned upon.  Bottom line is, don't be surprised if Obama is re-elected.

In one sense, it's really amazing that anybody would still support Obama.  The job of President is way over his head, he was never qualified for the position in the first place, and thus it is absolutely no surprise that the country is floundering and directionless.  Recently, he said “The private sector is doing fine.  Where we’re seeing weaknesses in our economy, have to do with state and local government....cuts initiated by governors or mayors..."  How anybody could be that stupid is...well, no, I realize that people can, indeed, be that stupid.  He backed off the "private sector is doing fine" comment when everybody, including liberals, laughed at him.  But to say that the economy is weak because of cuts in state and local government budgets is buffoonery of the highest order.  But that is Barack Obama.  He has no talent, no acumen, and he never did.  He was a creation of media propaganda.  The masses are easy to lead around by the nose; Adolf Hitler is a perfect example of that.  He was democratically elected by the most educated people in the world at that time.  As I have said before, that Obama has been a failure is no surprise to anyone who knows the first thing about history and economics.  I knew he would fail before he ever got into office, simply because what he believes is wrong.

But then, I guess it depends on what you mean by "failure."  If more government power is considered "successful," then he has certainly been one of the most successful Presidents in American history.   But if freedom, self-government, virtue, righteousness, industry, morality, and decency are the standards and criteria, then Obama has been exactly what could have been expected, because he and the Democratic Party don't believe in any of those things.