P. J. O'Rourke is a know nothing, about the dress of Donald Trump and of George Washington

Here:

Show me one candidate who has the dignity of Washington . . ..

[T]ypical of modern Americans is Trump’s bad taste. ... He puts his own individual stamp on gaucherie. And we like it. We’re a country that cherishes being individuals as much as we cherish being gauche.

Trump’s suits have a cut and sheen as if they came from the trunk sale of a visiting Bombay tailor staying in a cheap hotel in Trump’s native Queens and taking a nip between fittings. Trump wears neckties in Outer Borough colors. And, Donald, the end of your necktie belongs up around your belt buckle, not between your knees and your nuts. Trump’s haircut makes Kim Jong Un laugh.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Washington abandoned the parodied powdered wig of custom and tied and powdered his own long hair, and to his first inauguration as president he deliberately wore a suit made from brown broadcloth from Connecticut instead of the formal black imported from Britain in order to drive home his Americanism.

To say one likes Trump's gaucherie is completely disingenuous while pivoting to correct it. It shows that P. J. O'Rourke's libertarianism is short on the Americanism and long on the snobbery of cosmopolitan liberalism, the readership of The Daily Beast.

Brian Williams of NBC garnered just 18 college credits from THREE colleges and universities

But all you're going to hear about is how Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin never finished at Marquette, where he still needs 34 credits to graduate.

WaPo is already on the warpath, here, saying Walker "was not close to graduating", under the headline "questions linger over college exit".

Hm. When it comes to Brian Williams, I'd say questions linger over his (many) college entrance(s). Whereas Walker is "about one-quarter of the required total away from earning his degree", Brian Williams is more than three-quarters of the required total away, having attended a community college, Catholic University of America, and George Washington but accumulating only 18 college credits.

Williams is not even in the same class of serial matriculators as Sarah Palin because she actually finished her degree after six whacks at it, but Williams still got to quote an NBC poll to her face in October 2008 in which 55% of Americans supposedly didn't see Palin as qualified to be president because the fourth estate doesn't really care about qualifications, just about who it is who doesn't have them.

Well, 33% of Americans today have now developed an unfavorable view of Williams in the wake of the revelation of the history of his many fabrications, according to Rasmussen here:

"Thirty-three percent (33%) view him unfavorably, with 18% who hold a Very Unfavorable view."

They are a little late, but we'll take it.

Republicans stopped growth of representation in the 1920s: Why isn't fixing that the Tea Party's job one?

From the Wikipedia article, here:

In 1921, Congress failed to reapportion the House membership as required by the United States Constitution. This failure to reapportion may have been politically motivated, as the newly elected Republican majority may have feared the effect such a reapportionment would have on their future electoral prospects. Then in 1929 Congress (Republican control of both houses of congress and the presidency) passed the Reapportionment Act of 1929 which capped the size of the House at 435 (the then current number). This cap has remained unchanged for more than eight decades. Three states – Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota – have populations smaller than the average for a single district.

The "ideal" number of members has been a contentious issue since the country's founding. George Washington agreed that the original representation proposed during the Constitutional Convention (one representative for every 40,000) was inadequate and supported an alteration to reduce that number to 30,000. This was the only time that Washington pronounced an opinion on any of the actual issues debated during the entire convention.

In Federalist No. 55, James Madison argued that the size of the House of Representatives has to balance the ability of the body to legislate with the need for legislators to have a relationship close enough to the people to understand their local circumstances, that such representatives' social class be low enough to sympathize with the feelings of the mass of the people, and that their power be diluted enough to limit their abuse of the public trust and interests.

---------------------------------------------

All the ancient American debates about this issue argue over ratios of 1 representative for every 15,000 or 30,000 or 40,000 or 50,000 of population. But today because of what the Republicans did in the 1920s, arresting growth of representation and fixing the number at 435, the ratio has soared to 1 for every 728,000!

If you wonder why your representative doesn't represent you today, that is why. He or she doesn't know who you are, or care.

If you want to fix America, fix that. We could start by doubling the size of the House, which means halving all the districts.

That sound you're hearing right now is Congressmen everywhere shitting their pants.

Terrorists Win: Fascist Police Shred 4th Amendment In Watertown MA

Where are the Oathkeepers now, huh?

“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them. The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army” – Gen. George Washington, to his troops before the battle of Long Island

After violating the 4th Amendment rights of just about everybody in Watertown, Massachusetts, the incompetent police couldn't find Tsarnaev, but the wretched of Watertown meekly groveled and even thanked their oppressors.

"Haende Hoch!" the Gestapo cries in the video, except in English. You'll be hearing this next at your local train station, bus stop and at road checkpoints manned by Obama's ever-expanding army of TSA goons, just as you do now at every airport. 

Video here.

Story here.

The Congress Fails To Represent The People, Say 90 Percent Of Americans

Congressional approval in August is down to 10 percent, according to Gallup, here, tying the all-time low.

No wonder. How could one person effectively speak for an average constituency of over 700,000 Americans? Do you know your Congressman? Does he know you?

It wasn't meant to be this way.

The fiercest disagreements over the Constitution's ratification were over whether a Congressman would be able to speak for 30,000 Americans, or 15,000 as the anti-federalists wanted. The advocates of 30,000 won, but the line in the Constitution was inartfully written, looking backward to that debate more than forward to the consequence:

"The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand . . .."

And so census followed census, and the Congress grew in size as the population did, decade upon decade, following the principle of one per thirty thousand.

Americans today don't realize how the Congress of the United States offended against this arrangement not until the 1920s. It was a naked power grab, fixing the number of representatives at the then current 435.

The Constitution had said nothing, they eagerly pointed out in those days, about one for more than thirty thousand, only that, say, one for 15,000 was too many. The scientific inspectors of language didn't care about the intent and the custom, only about the new opportunity. Dispensing with the census, however, which was the basis for apportioning representation, was a bridge too far.

But the example had consequences. Not long after FDR in his admiration of foreign dictators overturned another custom laid down in the founding era by the father of the country, George Washington, by running for a third term. There was nothing to prevent it. If one branch of government could grasp for more power, so could another. The imperial designs of the presidency have been with us ever since. 

The best way to fix the Congress isn't to elect a new one of a different political party. It's to dilute the power it has concentrated into its few hands by flooding the place with the roughly 10,267 representatives the constitution calls for. This should be done by constitutional amendment, after the same manner in which the 22nd explicitly enshrined Washington's example into law in 1951, restricting the president to two terms.

The Constitution isn't perfect. If it were it wouldn't be amendable. Strict constructionism is fine as far as it goes, until it runs up against the need for explicit construction.

We used to complain to the British that we had taxation without representation.

Now we have representation without representation.

It's time we changed that.

Backward, countrymen, to the future!

The Pantywaists at National Review Finally Notice the Hutaree, After Vindication

Mark Steyn does a nice job here in National Review of covering up for the way "the right" ignored the significance of the government's ridiculous entrapment of a bunch of religious nuts with guns in southeast Michigan the week ObamaCare passed in March 2010, but still misses the point by connecting their treatment to that of . . . Conrad Black!

I guess it's Canadian obsessive compulsive disorder, or something, on display there.

And I'll bet Conrad isn't too flattered with the comparison, either.

While some of these Hutaree ne'er-do-wells had to rot in jail for two years and others were released with monitoring devices attached to their ankles, all of these hapless souls had to rely on government attorneys to defend them against trumped-up charges while conservatives all across this country pretty much ignored them, except when the left tried to tar the right with their example.

What we got was the right stiff-arming that charge by participating in the marginalization which the Hutaree saw as confirming their peculiar position as God's chosen warriors against the imminent appearance of the AntiChrist. Only extremists or nuts buy guns and train on weekends in the woods. They might as well be the same as those who threw rocks through local Democrat Party offices to show displeasure at ramming government healthcare down our throats, or who made intemperate or even threatening phone calls to Congressmen, some of whom got tracked down, arrested and convicted.

Now vindicated, the Hutaree can become an example of "who's kookier?" Steyn writes:

But they weren’t paranoid, were they? They were convinced that one day the black helicopters would be hovering overhead. And one day they were. Or, actually, one night – in the wee small hours, descending from the skies with searchlights circling. Oh, and Humvees – just like in Waziristan. So Eric Holder proved their point. In Lenawee and Hillsdale counties, they still talk about it – and the general consensus is the pseudo-commandos of the federal constabulary looked way more ridiculous than the survivalist kooks.   

As at Waco, our feeble tyranny finds itself constrained to choose targets who are already estranged from the mainstream of society, in order the more easily to make an example of them to the rest of us who had better not get out of line when government decides to force its will on the people.

This week Rush Limbaugh has been complaining that it's astonishing that the question of government force, the individual mandate, at length comes down to just nine people in black robes who will decide the fate of a once free people.

It is astonishing. He's had the power of a microphone in all this and has done nothing to stop it coming to this pass, all because he's afraid of being called an extremist, just as are almost all conservatives. Rush Limbaugh is most certainly afraid of what people will say, which is why Rush protests so often that he doesn't care what people think. It's his livelihood to care, otherwise he's out of a job.

Let's suppose the Supremes uphold the mandate. What will become of people's fear then? They will have a choice, to let their children become Red, as we now know John F. Kennedy was prepared to do in the Cuban missile crisis, or to fight.

I have just one question for all you pantywaists. When George Washington and his ilk decided it was time to start shooting Red Coats (over taxes which were paltry compared to what we endure), was he an extremist?

The Feeble-Minded, Libertarian Crank, Rep. Justin Amash Can't Encourage "In God We Trust"

The text of the bill he voted against reads as follows:

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress reaffirms ‘In God We Trust’ as the official motto of the United States and supports and encourages the public display of the national motto in all public buildings, public schools, and other government institutions.

There is nothing binding in this resolution whatsoever.

It does not require the motto be displayed, anywhere. It merely supports the motto and encourages its display where and when it happens. A wise man, even an atheist, would regard this as a mere trifle, a sop to the parochial interest of an unenlightened but harmless population, a one-off costing nothing to a politician with any sense.

But Amash still couldn't stomach it. Prudence is not a subject of the law schools, which know with Socrates that virtue cannot be taught, but especially to the ilk it attracts.

That said, it is sheer misrepresentation for Amash to say, “There is no need to push for the phrase to be on all federal, state, and local buildings.”

The bill pushes nothing, unless you're an over-sensitive freak, an un-American ideologue like Justin Amash.

George Washington, on the other hand, not only found it unobjectionable but recommended for the mere American politician to cherish and respect religion and morality:

Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion, and Morality are indispensable supports.—In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.—The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.—A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity.—Let it simply be asked where is security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.—Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure.—reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.—

I have seen no evidence that Justin Amash cherishes or respects religion and morality as a politician, nor that he understands their priority over him as a Christian legislator and American, which he claims to be.

Rather is it evident that his loyalties are to a narrowly conceived creed of a different kind.

The do-gooder's work is never done.

Obama Admits It Again: He's Tempted By Tyranny, and Disrespects Limits

"The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting, I promise you, not just on immigration reform." (quoted here yesterday)

Here's The New York Times in March: Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China.

And, of course, at the age of nine being prime minister of Indonesia already looked pretty good, according to this in April: His mother's ambition was clearly not lost on the future US president. When his Indonesian stepfather asked him once what he wanted to be when he grew up, he was probably expecting him to say an airline pilot or an athlete. "'Oh, prime minister', Barry answered,'" wrote Ms Scott.

The hunger for power evidently began early. But its possession now apparently does not satisfy. What's especially disturbing is the frustration Obama keeps expressing with the limits we place on presidential power in America. He's frequently seen bowing to foreign leaders. Why not to the constitution?

Nothing in it prevented FDR from seeking a third term, and then a fourth, except respect for the long tradition of the unwritten rule of laying down power voluntarily after two terms, going back to the example of George Washington. The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1951, was the people's response to the lack of self-control FDR showed by his actions.

Obama would do well to consider that more seriously, and these words from our Declaration of Independence:

A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Preparing Our Hearts For Christmas, With George Washington and Thomas Paine

From Paine's December 23, 1776 The American Crisis, which Washington had read aloud to his troops as they prepared to attack Trenton on Christmas:

Not all the treasures of the world, so far as I believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for I think it murder; but if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to "bind me in all cases whatsoever" to his absolute will, am I to suffer it? What signifies it to me, whether he who does it is a king or a common man; my countryman or not my countryman; whether it be done by an individual villain, or an army of them? If we reason to the root of things we shall find no difference; neither can any just cause be assigned why we should punish in the one case and pardon in the other. Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul by swearing allegiance to one whose character is that of a sottish, stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish man. I conceive likewise a horrid idea in receiving mercy from a being, who at the last day shall be shrieking to the rocks and mountains to cover him, and fleeing with terror from the orphan, the widow, and the slain of America.


Enjoy it all, here.

Barack "Fabius" Obama Can Still Be Stopped

Among other things, Bill Flax shows why expunging the study of classical antiquity from the public schools was a priority of the radicals of the 1960's: its stories, repeated and memorized through the study of Latin, stood in the way of their program to subvert our country and destroy our liberty. If you read nothing else this year, read this, which was posted here:

February 13, 2010

We Picked the Wrong Roman Dictator

By Bill Flax

From Government Square in Cincinnati, I often sit surrounded by impressive displays of federal invasiveness, and muse that we picked the wrong Roman dictator.

The Federal Building across the street, serving primarily to dispense largesse confiscated from the workers packed into the square below. The brilliantly marbled Federal Reserve branch where regulators seek enhanced power to oversee commerce while recoiling vigorously against any attempt to be scrutinized themselves. And the block long Federal Court House, which unlike the others, has constitutional legitimacy even as its reach and depth far surpass anything our founders would have tolerated.

Taking nothing away from the many hard-working and honorable souls inhabiting these structures, but America has lost its way. My hometown was named for the Society of the Cincinnati. In ancient Rome, citizen-general Cincinnatus put down his plow to save his nation. When the battle was won, he declined a crown and returned to his farm. His self-restraint in the face of overwhelming temptation bequeathed to Rome several centuries of limited, republican government.

George Washington exhibited similar virtue after our independence. He too could have been king, but his self-denial enabled the rule of law to triumph over the rule of men. Our revolution was largely fought to settle the timeless question of whether government is answerable to the law protecting the rights of its constituents - or - are the people subject to government with a malleable Constitution bending to political pleasure.

America once enjoyed a constitutional republic where property rights were sacrosanct, contracts were conscientiously enforced and markets prevailed. Secure property rights channeled our energies into productive enterprise via the profit motive. An impartial application of the law encouraged market development which enhanced specialization and America's hallmark: an innovative spirit propelling higher living standards for all.

Freedom and prosperity are inexorably linked. Government constrained by law and limited by checks and balances, between both branches and levels of government, birthed an economic juggernaut. Yet, another Roman general has indirectly put a more pronounced stamp on our economy.

Fabius was called to confront Hannibal after the Carthaginian warlord destroyed several Roman armies. Recognizing Hannibal was too strong to confront directly, Fabius conducted a masterful war of attrition. When Hannibal advanced, Fabius retreated. When Hannibal retreated, Fabius advanced always staying safely distant, but close enough to harass the invader. Several times the citizenry grew impatient only for a replacement to hurl the Roman army headlong into calamity.

These "Fabian" tactics became the archetype for a group of sophisticates in late Victorian England. The Fabian Society believed in socialism, not coming by revolution as Marx envisioned, but by evolution. Bored by leisure and rebelling against the strict mores of the time, they sought not to directly confront the existent order, but to undermine it from within.

As prominent Fabian George Bernard Shaw explained, "The Fabian Society succeeded because it ... set about doing the necessary brain work of planning Socialist organization for all classes, meanwhile accepting, instead of trying to supersede, the existing political organizations which it intended to permeate with the Socialist conception of human society."

These ungrateful children of wealth advocated redistribution of other's property while they resided in luxury. Similar to many intellectuals today, they thought they knew better than we how to live our lives. Unfortunately, Fabians and their ilk became the dominant force in our media and educational establishments, indoctrinating generations of Americans to a perverted view of economics and "social justice."

The Fabian movement spawned John Maynard Keynes, an advocate of central economic planning. The overriding focus of Keynes' theory was Aggregate Demand. Loosely defined, aggregate demand reflects the total amount of goods and services consumed at a stable price. Borrowing and spending supplanted classical economic focus on production and savings as the building blocks of prosperity.

Keynesianism was described by Zygmund Dobbs in the illuminating expose, Keynes at Harvard, "The great virtue is consumption, extravagance, improvidence. The great vice is saving, thrift and ‘financial prudence'" because, "If there are no savings there is no private money for investment. Without private investors the government must provide investment capital. If the government provides for investment it has the power to dictate the conduct and processes of those who need investment capital."

Americans wanting to mollify temporary hardship in the throes of recession resurrected Keynes. Rather than endure uncomfortable surgery guided by the market, government injects cortisone to offset the recession's corrective reallocations. Subsidies replace efficiency. Bailouts replace business revitalization. Entitlements replace personal savings. Statism replaces self-reliance. All these government proffered "solutions" may ease our immediate discomfort, but perpetuate economic weakness and come at the price of liberty.

Not only is it immoral to confiscate private property through coercion to redistribute to political favorites, it's also ineffective. Market distortions inevitably harm the economy. The more control we retain over our time, resources and abilities the more closely our efforts will be aligned with productive enterprise. A far-off central planner has no ability to effectively steer this process.

We have witnessed Washington assume greater control with each injection of dubious capital. As Henry Hazlitt warned, "Keynes's plan for 'the socialization of investment' would inevitably entail socialism and state planning. Keynes, in brief, recommended de facto socialism under the guise of 'reforming' and 'preserving' capitalism."

In the closing months of his presidency, Bush crossed the Rubicon authoring vast intrusions "to save" capitalism. Bush quickened what had been a long, painstaking march to socialism. Then a new Caesar immediately began to sprint. We elected not "change," but acceleration.

Only eunuchs were permitted to guard the harem. Entrusting power to the ambitious personalities attracted to government inevitably augments the state to our detriment. Keynes admitted his theories, "can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state than ... a large degree of laissez-faire." We must never abjure our God-given rights to the arbitrary whim of professional politicians in exchange for economic safety-nets.

Incessantly higher spending and increasingly burdensome regulatory controls proved too much. Americans now fear this headlong rush into government expansion. Poor Obama misread the signs and awakened the masses. We weren't yet so effete to be bought by bread and circuses.

The Fabians underestimated the resiliency of free markets and Obama over-estimated his demagoguery. Cincinnatus might be forever gone, but Fabius can still be stopped.

Arguments Against Libertarianism

1. Liberty is like fire. It is necessary, but not everywhere and at all times and in all circumstances.

2. The American Revolution was not successful because George Washington exercised his right to free speech with the British, but because he shot them.

3. Tolerance ends where fanaticism begins because fanatics with power will never reciprocate.

4. Opinions arrived at under the pressure of the moment are oblivious to the lessons of the past.

5. Individuality is but a step away from the odd, the strange, the weird, the freakish, the nutty, the screwy and the kooky.

6. Eccentricity flies at great speed at the outer edges of the great spiral of the galaxy, threatening to disintegrate at any moment.

7. Libertarians would set free from their cages parakeets in winter.

8. If a traditionalist conservative is like a Protestant Christian, a libertarian conservative is like a Buddhist Christian.

9. Conservatives graze in the pasture. Libertarians are the flies on their backs.

10. Libertarianism is another form of materialism, for which metaphysics is an utter impossibility.

11. Liberty is not primary but is dependent upon law and order for its existence.

12. The cement of society is gratitude, friendship and brotherly love, not self-interest.

13. Human institutions are imperfectible because human nature is an irresolvable mixture of good and evil.

14. Governments which recognize that the state is instituted by God and fear Him restrain human passions, making life richer, more civilized and long.

15. Conservatives recognize others as fellow-travelers to the grave. Libertarians are Ebenezer Scrooge.