Unexpected

Washington is abuzz with the unexpected news flowing from Crimea and Vladimer Putin's latest moves in the diplomatic chess game of governments. The legacy media cackles the same line as to the "unexpected" actions of various foreign government officials. It is ever thus in D.C. Blame cannot be allowed to fall upon The Great One or his appointees any more than guilt may be found for another Kennedy driving in a stupor on or off the public highways as the case may be. Forgive me but it has been my impression that my elected officials, their appointees and the permanent leeches who operate the goverment were far too knowledgeable to be surprised by a crude Russian such as Putin. Yet again, it appears that unexpected events overcame the genius of the Supreme Leader in the White House. But, like most who live in public housing, he appears to have little information outside of his own project as he is constantly surprised by unexpected events which trip up his plans for the lives of Americans, those citizens of a nation he dislikes so much that he promised to transform it as soon as he became its leader. Most of us know about the unexpected; we face it regularly: the car breaks down and we need another $400; one of the kids breaks his arm playing; my new boss doesn't like me and suggested I find other employment. Rather than commiseration, most of us learn we have to, somehow, deal with it. We should have planned for the unexpected as it is to be expected in life. Except in Washington where nothing is ever anybody's fault, where nobody is ever fired and where nobody expects the unexpected.

IF NOT HILLARY, WHO? THAT'S EASY

Recent rumors have it that Hillary Clinton, best known for being the wife of a former president, is not in good health and may decide not to run for her husband's former job. As to the truth of the rumor, I have neither knowledge nor opinion. I would hope it not to be true as I wish none poor health even if I disagree with them. But should it turn out to be true or if Mrs. Clinton should decide not to run for whatever reason, it would surely scramble the Democrat Party nomination race. Who would emerge from the pack to replace the current front-runner? Some have speculated that New York's governor, Andrew Cuomo, might be the likely candidate. I doubt it. He might run but he can't hide from his divorce and lackluster governorship. Besides, he is a long way from nationally known and has zero credibility in foreign affairs or the ways of Washington. There is, however, a perfect candidate for the Democrats, one having the following charateristics: * nationally and internationally well known; * many years as a senior elected official in Washington; * a war-hero; * presidential looking, articulate and scandal-free; * previous presidential candidate who ran well. Who is this mystery man? It's easy: John Kerry of course. Now you know why he decided to give up a safe Senate seat to become Secretary of State with a tenure only as long as the Obama administration. Wily John had some advance knowledge of Mrs. Clinton's issues and decided that as Secretary of State, he would enhance his resume and be ready to run in 2016. If you disagree, name the next most likely democrat.

The Heckler's Veto

The 9th Circuit today announced a decision that may be constitutionally correct but, at the same time, terribly wrong. A public high school in California banned students from wearing American flag T-shirts on Cinco de Mayo on the grounds that the wearing of the T-shirts would incite disruptive behavior on the campus. There had been such behavior between Mexican and white students and it was reasonable to assume more of the same. This type of situation is common: a heckler or hecklers creates or threatens to create a disruption if some person or group is permitted to speak or demonstrate. Those in charge often give in to the "hecklers" to avoid riots, violence or whatever is threatened. It is clear that this strategy works and it is also clear that it is generally a violation of the 1st Amendment rights of the speaker or group that has been shut down. The decision was based on a Supreme Court case which permitted authorities to preserve the peace and to proscribe one's constitutional rights. So, in the case decided, a bunch of Mexican students threaten riot/fights/disruption if non-Mexicans wear American flag T-shirts. Let's change the facts though and see what result you would anticipate. Let's say that Jesse Jackson was going to speak against amnesty for illegal aliens who work for low wages thus competing with black employment. Enraged illegals threaten to create a disturbance outside and inside the hall where Jackson is to speak. Do you think they would be permitted to shut Jackson off? Or would the local constabulary be out in force to stop any rioters in their tracks? Or is that too rhetorical a question? Where was the constabulary on that Cinco de Mayo?

The Conservative Problem

Most polls show Americans to be fairly conservative. Surely there is no radical liberalism in the majority of people or voters. The question thus arises: How do we have so many liberal laws? I think it reflects the lack of a real, conservative political organization plus the many lifetime liberal politicians and their willingness to incrementally move toward their objectives. Surely the Republican party is not a conservative political organization to the same extent that the Democrats are a liberal political organization. Democrats have few, if any, conservatives in their ranks anymore. There are no more Blue Dog Democrats. Republicans have many elected officials who share one or more liberal views. Think gay marriage, immigration, debt limits or voter ID for such issues. Liberal politicians move as a Roman phalanx: together, slowly perhaps, but always together and in the same direction. They are always on message. Conservative politicians march to their own drummer, seldom together and in varying directions. The effect of this differential is the incremental implementation of liberalism within the laws of our land and the slowly slipping away of your liberty and mine.

Better Late Than Never

For a variety of reasons, the hiatus lasted far longer than intended. But, as before, popular demand has brought me back to publishing thoughts and opinions on those topics which are important in current day America. Before deciding to continue, I looked back at prior posts. It was with unfortunate prescience that my Romney predictions came to be. Other posts are also instructively accurate. Thus armed, I've decided to sally forth once more. As always, I welcome comments. Ad hominem comments are ignored and trashed.

Hiatus

The blog will be off-line as I am moving home and office plus taking a holiday.  It should re-commence in mid-May.

Cheers!

Mad Men of Hollywood

There's a popular TV show named "Mad Men" which is set in the 1960s but still, like virtually every Hollywood concoction, it's anti-Republican/conservative and pro-Democrat/liberal.  A recent show had specific dialogue which said the (George) Romney was "a clown".  George Romney was, of course, Mitt's father.

When will there be an episode describing Hussein Obama's father as a clown, a deadbeat Dad or any other derogatory word?  Or comments about Hussein's illegal relative(s) or his DUI uncle?

To quote that eminent constitutional scholar, N. Pelosi, "Are you serious?"

(HT: Legal Insurrection)