Middle class revolution on hold, but CNBC commenter calls for military coup

Rick Newman says the middle class revolution is on hold here, but apparently spends less time reading the comments sections than he says:

"[A] populist threat to the plutocrats ... is years or even decades away. ... These days, all you have to do is read the blogs and follow the right Twitter ... accounts. If you do, you’ll encounter plenty of angst — but not much revolutionary zeal."

Oh really?

I've never seen anything on CNBC, of all places, like what I saw there this morning, here:

"There is only one entity that can stop the madness. ... There may be no option in the very near future but for the military to assume responsibility of running the country on behalf of the people and for the well being of the country. You must make it abundantly clear to the people (after you have commandered the MSM) that this is being done to preserve what was intended by the founding fathers - a free and just society that abides by the rule of law under all circumstances and does not change or abuse the law for convenience. For you military lawyers you would be wise to bone up on your Constitutional Law because if the Supremes do not play ball then they too must be unappointed. You are saying; 'but this would be treason'. Is it? When your Congress, President and Intelligence agencies arguably commit treason on a virtually continual basis who is exactly on the 'right' side. The time is quickly approaching where the glorification of Wall Street and the elitist classes that depend upon their treachery must end. How many more hard working Americans must have their potential prosperity irrepairably and irreversibly damaged by Wall Street's malfeasance before affirmative action is taken? Courage is one of the main tenets of the millitary ethos - prove it when the time comes."

The Heritage Foundation didn't repudiate the individual mandate until long after the Tea Party did

Ramesh Ponnuru here in March 2012 in the wake of both Romney and Gingrich putting the finger on Heritage for the individual mandate in October 2011:

"So yes, conservative opinion on the mandate has changed. But I don’t think it’s right to suggest that most conservative voters or conservative policy thinkers ever supported it. I think what happened is that as soon as grassroots conservatives focused on the mandate, they hated it—and they were right to hate it, in my view–and both the politicians and that one outlier think tank responded to their sentiment."

Timothy Noah pointed out here in 2013 that it wasn't until 2011 that Heritage formally opposed its own idea, meaning it took Heritage two years to join the Tea Party in opposing ObamaCare:

'Heritage, in a 2011 amicus curiae brief submitted in support of the legal challenge to Obamacare, stated, “Heritage has stopped supporting any insurance mandate.” Heritage also said it had come to believe the individual mandate was unconstitutional—an interpretation later rejected, of course, by the Supreme Court.'

Liberal contributor from The New Republic advocates for tyranny as all Lincoln lovers must

Here:

[T]here will be situations in which the common good demands and requires that the executive go beyond the letter and even the spirit of the law. In these extreme or emergency situations — situations in which an existential threat poses a grave danger, with the survival of the political community itself at stake — the executive's extralegal decisions effectively become the community's higher law.

Probably the clearest example from American history is Abraham Lincoln's 1861 suspension of habeas corpus, defiance of the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (who denounced Lincoln's actions as unconstitutional), and subsequent arrest (without charge) of pro-secessionist Maryland state legislators who appeared poised to condemn the suspension and vote to join the Confederacy.

Was Lincoln acting like a tyrant, as Maryland native John Wilkes Booth and many other critics of the time contended? You bet he was. And it's a good thing, too. Had Maryland seceded, Washington would have been surrounded by enemy armies and the South almost certainly would have won the Civil War quickly and decisively. Extralegal action was required to keep that from happening.

Look who's stupid now: Neither Rush Limbaugh nor his caller remember the chronology and politics of ObamaCare

It's been only four years and already the basic facts are forgotten.

The Supreme Court didn't even take the ObamaCare case until a year after the 2010 elections, in November of 2011, and ruled the mandate a constitutional tax on June 28, 2012. The Court had simply nothing to do with the 2010 landslide victory of the Republicans, but neither Rush's caller nor Rush remember that.

From today's transcript here:

CALLER:  Yes, Rush.  Thank you so much for taking my call.  I really appreciate it, and if you don't mind me taking the liberty, I'd like to give a shout out to James Marshall Timberlake, he's my first grandson born November 2nd.  But I thank you.  The reason I called is that I believe there's an American who has been vilified who really is a hero concerning Obamacare, and that is Chief Justice John Roberts.  Had he done what all of us expected him to do to find it unconstitutional, you would not have had the Republican landslide in 2010; you would not have had the Republican landslide in 2014; you would not be talking about Jonathan Gruber today. ...

RUSH:  I want to know where it started that the way we win is to have liberalism implemented so that everybody can learn how rotten it is.  When did that start?  "John Roberts did a great thing by letting this thing be proclaimed constitutional.  That way we've exposed these people for who they really are."  We didn't need this!  If Roberts had found this thing unconstitutional the 2010 elections would have been the same because Obama would have stayed the same.  He would have found a way to get this done some other way.  He wouldn't have just taken his chips and gone home and cried about it.

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

Add two to Jonathan Gruber's pile of stupid American voters.

Federal appeals court in Ohio upholds Michigan's 2004 Marriage Amendment

The Detroit News reports here:

The Michigan couple at the center of the same-sex marriage debate vowed Thursday to "continue the fight" after a federal appeals court in Cincinnati upheld the state's gay marriage ban. ...

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals also upheld laws prohibiting gay marriage in Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky, breaking ranks with other courts that have considered the issue and setting the stage for review by the U.S.Supreme Court. ...

Attorney General Bill Schuette, who brought the appeal ... said he welcomes a Supreme Court review. "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has ruled, and Michigan's constitution remains in full effect," Schuette said. "As I have stated repeatedly, the U.S. Supreme Court will have the final word on this issue. The sooner they rule, the better, for Michigan and the country."

Campaign finance reform: Repeal the 17th Amendment

In 2012 there were 33 Senate seats up for grabs, and the cost to a candidate of winning one averaged $10.5 million, if the popular estimates of what winning candidates raised are to be believed. That's something like $700 million total spent by both the winners and losers.

For all 435 House seats the candidates spent something like $1.5 billion, with $1.7 million spent on average by each winner.

With $6 billion total spent on the 2012 Congressional election from all sources thanks to additional PAC spending courtesy of a US Supreme Court ruling, the candidates themselves therefore spent at most $2.2 billion while outside interests spent an additional $3.8 billion to elect both "your" representative and "your" Senator. No wonder you like them so much.

The five most expensive races alone in 2012 were for Senate seats, and cost from all sources in excess of $376 million, $142 million of which came from "outside" sources, 38% of the total. Assuming that $700 million was spent by all 33 Senate candidates themselves in 2012, and adding an additional 38% from outside sources, that would put the cost of the 2012 Senate election from all sources close to $1 billion for just the 33 seats. For the whole lot of 100 Senators, then, we are in reality talking $3 billion for the whole Senate, plus the $5 billion for the whole House in that snapshot of time in 2012, for a total of $8 billion.

That makes your Senator a $30 million target, while your representative is a paltry $11.5 million one by comparison.

You could fix 72% of what's wrong with our politics in this country in an instant by repealing the popular election of Senators.

Just undo it. 

Supremes let stand lower court rulings overturning state marriage laws, Rush Limbaugh misreports it

Rush Limbaugh opened the show today incorrectly saying the Supremes' ruling sent the matter back to the states when in fact allowing the lower court rulings to stand effectively validates the power of lower courts to strip the states of the power to define marriage for themselves. Someone in the office evidently told Rush he got it exactly backwards, and now he's been spending a few minutes correcting himself and beating a trail to put the focus on matters which are trivial by comparison, like the liberals' hypocrisy in ignoring Joe Biden's most recent offensive gaffes.

Combined with John Boehner's recent funding of openly gay GOP candidates, it is clear that real conservatives no longer have a home in the Republican Party, which is repudiating its former support for such laws in the states, and neither do they have a voice on the Rush Limbaugh radio program.

Conservatives who intend to vote for Republicans next month, or Democrats or libertarians for that matter, should have their heads examined, and their souls exorcised.

John Hope Bryant is an ignoramus about Jesus and poverty

Seen here:

'The Greek word for poor, as used by Jesus, is poucos, which means non-productivity. To be poor doesn’t mean you don’t have anything; it means you aren’t doing anything. Poverty is cured by hard work. “Lazy hands make a man poor” (Proverbs 10/4). The Bible says, “How long will you lie there, you sluggard? When will you get up from your sleep? A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest – and poverty will come on you like a bandit, and scarcity like an armed man.” Proverbs 6/10-11.'

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

Actually the Greek word is properly transliterated "ptochos", not "poucos". And Bryant couldn't be more wrong about how the poor behave. The truly poor don't lay about and do nothing. The root of the word signifies that the poor do plenty . . . of crouching and begging.

But the worst thing is trying to baptize Jesus in this enterprise of viewing poverty as an evil, a problem to be solved. Unfortunately in the case of Jesus it's exactly the opposite of what Bryant thinks.

Frankly, Jesus prized poverty and required it as a condition of discipleship: "So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:33).

John Hope Bryant is all over the place in a media onslaught spreading his silly message about the poor saving capitalism, nevermind they can't save for the next month let alone the system most notably conceptualized by Adam Smith, a man feeble in neither mind nor money.

Expect more of this pap from Bryant and your federal government, through his connection with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a propaganda project of the Dodd-Frank bill.

The Bureau's current director, by the way, was an unconstitutional recess appointment by the president according to a Supreme Court ruling just in recent days.

Supremes unanimously slap down the King of constitutional law in the White House for 13th time

From John Fund here:

"Those decisions are very revealing about the views of President Obama and Eric Holder: Their vision is one of unchecked federal power on immigration and environmental issues, on presidential prerogatives, and the taking of private property by the government; hostility to First Amendment freedoms that don’t meet the politically correct norms; and disregard of Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless government intrusion. These are positions that should alarm all Americans regardless of their political views, political-party affiliations, or background."

Sean Trende Calls For A Larger US House But Never Mentions The Actual Language Of The Constitution

In "It's Time To Increase The Size Of The US House", here, Sean Trende of Real Clear Politics makes many of the same points we have made about the sorry state of representation in these United States, including the importance of the "unratified" Article the First as the real First Amendment as opposed to the mythology which has grown up around the default one.

As Trende ably shows, Article the First would have fixed representation eventually at 1 US representative for every 50,000 of population. He appears horrified, however, at the prospect of a Congress of 6,100 representatives today.

Is that why he never mentions Article I Section 1 of the actual constitution which is ratified and under which we are supposed to operate?

"The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand . . .."

If 6,100 representatives is horrifying, the 10,533 representatives we should have according to the spirit of the actual constitution is downright heart-stopping. I can understand Trende not talking about this, but how come the Tea Party never does? After all, they carry the constitution around with them pretty much everywhere and are supposed to be the quintessential originalists these days, second only to Antonin Scalia.

This was the language Article the First was supposed to remedy. But as it stands, the constitution was ratified with this loophole specifying how many representatives we may not have, but not how many we should. As a consequence, when the light finally dawned on the dimwits in Congress in the 1920s that they could fix representation at the then current 435, they set up for themselves quite the little oligarchy of power, influence and corruption, and representation ceased to expand ever since. And along with that expanded our discontent.

That's why your congressmen doesn't know your name nor the name of the other 728,000 average constituents in his district. Nor does he care to. The only name in his Rolodex (sorry, I'm dating myself) is the Club for Growth or some such "org".

It's also why we have the other problems Trende mentions: malapportionment as in Montana, gerrymandering of the most unnatural sort just about everywhere, underrepresented minority enclaves and rural areas, and the expensive bought and paid for campaigns which depend on mostly outside money.

Trende mentions the British House of Commons has more representatives than we do, but the irony that they are better represented than we are never dawns on him. Nor does Trende mention New Hampshire. They have 400 in their House, a ratio of 1:3300.

America should be more like New Hampshire.  

The Only Insult In This Instance Is Sotomayor's Insult To Our Intelligence

How do we put up with these morons?

“I figure I may not be the smartest judge on the court but I’m going to be a competent justice,” she said. “I’m going to try to be the best I can and each year I think my opinions have been getting better. And I’m working at finding my voice a little bit.”

Competence, it appears, is a bar, uh hum, too high for The Supreme Court.

Criminal: "a person who has committed a crime".

Story here.

Nat Hentoff Says Obama Wasn't Fully Qualified To Teach Constitutional Law At The University of Chicago

Here, but that's just for starters:

Hentoff called this the worst state the country has ever been in, “Even worse than Woodrow Wilson’s regime, when people could be arrested for speaking German.” Compounding the problem he says, is the digital age, which has allowed the president to engage in unprecedented domestic spying with the apparatus of the National Security Agency. WND asked if Obama really posed such a threat, considering he was a professor of constitutional law. “People forget, he taught a course that he was not fully qualified to teach. But nobody seemed to care,” Hentoff observed.

He also pointed out that Obama was the only editor of the Harvard Law Review to never publish an article, something that went virtually unnoticed when voters considered his qualifications. “See, that was a case of affirmative-action and people feeling, ‘Hey we ought to do something important, symbolically, and here’s a black guy, and he’s articulate, so we’re gonna do this.’”

Hentoff mentioned that former U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, the man Time Magazine once called “the most doctrinaire and committed civil libertarian ever to sit on the court,” once personally lectured him that “Affirmative-action on a racial basis is a total violation of the 14th Amendment, no doubt about it.” And, referring to Obama’s presidency, the journalist said, “That’s what that kind of affirmative-action did for us.”

He told WND that he firmly believed the president does not care about due process, the separation of powers, the concept of a self-governing republic or many other basic American ideals. And that’s why, he said, “What Obama is doing now is about as un-American as you can get.” Hentoff wanted to make sure no one thought he was engaging in hyperbole. He said it was literally true that Obama is “the most un-American president we’ve ever had.” And just to make sure everybody heard him, he added, “I hope the FBI got all of that.”

Is It A Coincidence John Roberts' Law Clerk Is A Utopian Progressive?

Birds of a feather flock together.

Joshua D. Hawley, here, clearly a friend of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic":

Christians’ purpose in politics should be to advance the kingdom of God—to make it more real, more tangible, more present. Or should I say, to immanentize the eschaton.