In Part 1 of this series, I discussed the US Supreme Court and their steady decades-long march toward full-on judicial tyranny. If you haven’t read it yet, please do. I’ll wait right here. In fact, I’ll go read it now, while you do the same.
Alrighty, then. Now that we’re both all caught up, let’s continue.
We have established, using the very words of Founders and Framers, the presence of judicial tyranny in our modern Federal court structure. We have established, further, why this has occurred.
Now, we must ask ourselves some very uncomfortable questions. Namely: who would benefit from pretending this tyranny is not present? Who would go so far as to engage in a full-on assault against anyone daring to call it tyranny? In short, who would set themselves up as a de facto defender of judicial tyranny? And why?
The actual “why?” will be explored further in Part 3, “Of Paradigms”. For now, let us focus on the who, and explore some possible motivations.
Immediately following the release of the US v. Arizona and Florida (et al) v. HHS opinions from the Supremes, countless thousands of patriots and Progs took to Facebook, Twitter, and the blogosphere to express their wide-ranging reactions.
From the Left, we saw what we generally expect. Noses were thumbed, footballs were spiked, gloating ensued, and the Roberts Supreme Court was hoisted to a place of honor on the Progressive totem.
We saw clearly, yet again, how quickly the Leftist heart can change, guided by nothing more than knee-jerk emotionally-reactive disorder. One could almost be forgiven for overlooking the fact that, mere weeks earlier, that very same institution was viewed by the Left much akin to a police car at an Occupy rally.
But, I digress. These reactions from the Progressive minions were, again, fully in keeping with what we know of their collective (and collectivist) makeup.
More curious, to myself and several friends and family members, were the reactions of a small segment on “our side.”
(Author’s note: The quotes surrounding the phrase, “our side” will be fully explained in the final installment of this series: “Of Paradigms”)
A handful of respected right-leaning pundits immediately stepped into the fray, in that last week of June, to spin these SCOTUS opinions in a favorable light.
The “silver lining” pony of a phrase was trotted out ad nauseum, strutting its shallow stuff through newspaper columns, blog posts, and the Twittersphere. But, as the actual rulings were read by wider audiences, and viewed through the jaundiced eyes of conservative activists weary of Constitutional usurpations, the pony was seen for what it truly was: a dead horse. One flogged repeatedly, beyond recognition.
It was pointed out, by many, that there can be no “silver lining” to a crap sandwich. There is no “lining” at all. It’s a sandwich. Made entirely out of crap. But a few talking heads had, apparently, swallowed it whole.
To get the taste out of their mouths, a couple of pundits began harping on a bizarre “checkers versus chess” canard, implying that Chief Justice Roberts should be heaped with high praise for his ingenious handling of the Interstate Commerce argument. “It’s been settled for all time,” they crooned. “His long-game approach may very well have single-handedly saved the Republic!”
But, upon further reading and discussion, we came to realize that this, too, was a red herring, plucked from the raging waters of DeNile. There are no “long-term” implications regarding the Commerce Clause, because there was no majority opinion on it. None, zip, zilch, zero, nada, nein, nyet, nunca. (8 negatives still comes out as a negative, right? I’m a bit rusty on New Math. Hell, let’s throw in a hearty “null!”, just for good measure.)
The fact is, when Justice Roberts wrote his “genius” opinion on the Commerce Clause argument, he was writing for himself. Not the majority. Not the dissent. So, while the originalists (and Kennedy) came to a virtually identical conclusion on that matter, technically making it 5-4, it does not constitute “the opinion of the court,” which would make it controlling precedent.
Drat! Another bubble bursteded. Hindenburg-style.
After having their “silver lining” pony flogged mercilessly, and their “Chief Justice Bobby Fischer” argument checkmated, the “it’s not so bad, we’ll do better next time” crowd were at their wits’ end.
Understandably, they needed something to make them feel better and, what do you know? They found a time-tested, sure-fire alternative. What better way to make yourself feel bigger, smarter, and just all-around more important, than attempting to make a few others feel small, silly, weak, and wrong?
Berating and belittling others to build oneself up has been a favorite pastime of bullies since Cain in the garden of Eden, after all. (For those unfamiliar with that story, Glenn Danzig wrote a song about it, post-Misfits.)
As someone firmly committed to our Republic’s First Principles, and trying to educate the public as to how we can begin to reinstate them, I immediately recognized the imminent danger these two rulings posed to the rule of law. And I was not alone. Several people on Twitter changed our profile pictures, or avatars, to inverted US flags. This is a well-recognized symbol of distress, after all, and rampant judicial tyranny is nothing if not distressing.
But there is a steep downside to voicing that distress, that loudly, and all in a public venue: the bruised and fevered egos of the recently chastised are on the prowl. And they are hungry for an outlet to vent their frustration. Patriots, visibly upset at the recent trouncing of our Constitution, make for a target-rich environment.
Some even tried to advance the notion that our avatars signaled, not distress, but surrender.
But, the fact of the matter is, the avatars were displayed for no other reason than to alert fellow Twitter travelers to the danger our nation faces. Sometimes that must be done with a bucket of water, as opposed to a whisper. To paraphrase Orwell, when deceit is ubiquitous (and society comes to implicitly accept this as immutable and normative), telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. For most, this normalcy bias breeds paralysis. “As long as Old Navy in the mall is open this weekend, so I can take advantage of their ‘30% OFF ALL KHAKIS AND CAPRIS’ sale, everything’s peachy.”
The fact is, it takes a jolt to awaken them, to incite action, so they can shake the paralysis off. This is not a controversial statement. It is objective fact. Read the Declaration of Independence some time. Listed, at length, were a “long train of abuses” imposed upon the colonies by the crown. The Revolutionary War did not start over a “half-penny tax on tea.” It was the inevitable result of the culmination of prior usurpations, wearing down the patience of a population not yet fully enfranchised with personal liberty.
Yet, they sought to achieve liberty, even realizing that, in order to do so, they must fight a war against the most powerful army and navy to ever exist on the face of the planet. Most were against doing so. Never once did a majority of colonists support the war. But fight, they did.
Compare that to modern times, where even more of the population is fully ensconced in complacence and apathy, much of which is actively supported by various levels of government. How much harder is it, in 2012, to rally support even for an electoral revolution?
But some choose to lecture us, the truth-telling revolutionaries, on proper etiquette regarding a strip of fabric (made in China). And all this, while attempting to downplay the fact that we are trying to call attention to the existential threat facing the very idea that symbolic cloth represents.
Many current and former soldiers who served under that flag agreed that the gravity of the times called for such measures. Here,
and also here,
and, finally, here.
Interestingly, one among the 4 Tweeters supporting Adam on this (yes, only 4), posted this as proof that it is indeed disrespectful. But, if you read the numerous comments on that piece, the vast majority agreed with the man in the story that our nation is in great distress. Yes, a couple of the commenters were nutty, but most cited the very same reasons as all those in the twitter links above. Extreme distress.
And, for the lulz:
The ONE link I could find with Adam’s name in it (that actually goes to a working Twitter status), was this one. Why is that? Well, because Adam, who believes so strongly in respecting the flag, and lecturing others for days to respect it, as well, has mysteriously deleted all his tweets on the topic. Why would you do that, if you were so sure your argument was correct and just?
No worries, though. We have Topsy. For some reason, this content analysis/aggregator doesn’t have such a quick turnaround on flushing its databases.
But, was this really all about respecting the flag? Or could there be something deeper at play here? I think it will become quite obvious that it is, indeed, the latter. Finally, I posted what can only objectively be seen as THE point regarding the larger issue:
So, in our third and final installments, we will explore the paradigm that undergirds the lecturing-classes. Their refusal to accept the reality and gravity of this, the most precarious moment in history for the very notion of individual liberty, is barely shy of treason.
Those aren’t MY words. They come directly from the man who wrote that Declaration of 1776, Thomas Jefferson:
The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine our Constitution from a co-ordinate of a general and special government to a general supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet. … I will say, that “against this every man should raise his voice,” and, more, should uplift his arm …
Letter to Thomas Ritchie from Jefferson,
“Uplift his arm”? Was this sedition, and from our 3rd President, no less? Yes. And fully justified, in his mind, a full 103 years before any semblance of a US Flag Code existed. Why? Because Thomas Jefferson understood perfectly well that the idea symbolized by the flag was worth infinitely more than the flag itself. How have some of our modern self-described patriots gotten things so twisted?
Stay Tuned for Part 3 – “Of Paradigms”, coming soon here, and at The Trenches.