An interesting take on things.
The original civil war was fought by farmhands and factory workers, freed slaves and young boys turned soldiers; the new civil war is being fought by lawyers in blue or gray suits not with bullets, but with bullet points.
From the Mueller investigation to Federal judges declaring that President Trump doesn’t have the right to control immigration policy or command the military, from political sabotage at the DOJ by Obama appointees like Sally Yates to Patagonia’s lawsuit over national monuments, the cold civil war set off by the left’s rejection of the 2016 election results has been a paper war largely waged by lawyers.
The loss of the two elected branches of government has forced the left to default to the unelected third. Like AG Schneiderman, the left’s legal civil war appears to reject the authority of the Federal government. But despite the posturing, blue staters aren’t serious about seceding. Nor have they become newfound converts to the rights of states to go their own way when they disagree with D.C.
New York and California’s #resistance apparatchiks aren’t rejecting the authority of Federal judges. They’re turning to them and relying on them. Instead they’re rejecting the authority of elected Federal officials. Their secession isn’t Federal, it’s democratic. They want a strong central government. They just aren’t willing to allow the American people to decide who gets to run it.
That’s what the civil war is about.
It most certainly is. Worse, they’re perfectly willing to go to incredible lengths to brazenly disenfranchise a very damned large (one would think, umm, daunting) number of normal Americans in order to ensure that the people have no say in running it. Normal Americans, that is, who have gone to great lengths themselves to make it abundantly clear just how fed up they really are with liberal nonchalance about their concerns, and expressed their clear intention not to continue serving as a docile, passive cash cow there for the milking to feed liberal fool’s-errands—a veritable no-limit ATM for Superstate folly.
If anyone needed evidence of the boundless arrogance of the modern Progressivist, well, consider that Exhibit A.
To pile irony on top of irony on top of irony here, the Democrat Socialist Party, the party of slavery back in the days of the Civil War and of Jim Crow and segregation in the 20th century, has insisted for the past several decades on A) an unrestrained and ever-expanding federal government with no meaningful limits on its scope and power, and B) no real recognition of anything at all in the way of what they most scornfully refer to as “states’ rights,” which they’ve heretofore regarded as merely an unpleasant anachronism.
Yet here they are, dusting off all the old shibboleths once more—not just shouting their fervor for states’ rights from the very rooftops, but actually giving secession a serious second look too. The crowning irony: the party pimping all these shopworn ideas—none of them any more recent than six or seven decades, some of them more than a century and a half old—is still pleased, incomprehensibly, to congratulate itself on being the party of “new ideas.”
In other words, they’re now using the exact same “principles” they once deployed as arguments AGAINST the threat of a too-powerful central government to argue in FAVOR of a too-powerful central government. They manage all of this, mind, without for a moment evincing the slightest hint of self-awareness: of just how ridiculous and incoherent it makes them all look…or how desperate.
And they’re doing it all with a straight face, too. If we weren’t already very familiar with their consistent inconsistency, it would all be quite confusing. But in this, the terminal stage of their decay, they can’t help themselves. Having lost most state governorships and legislatures, both houses of Congress, the Presidency—they’re even seeing federal judgeships stripped from their weakening grasp in job lots—chaos is all they have left to hold onto.
Anybody still wondering why their hatred for Trump is so fierce and implacable? Breathes there a man with soul so dead as to be able to resist laughing right out loud at them?
Update! Another irony:
States’ rights is an important concept – it’s sure nice to see some Democrats joining in on supporting it now for the first time since they last asserted states’ rights to enforce Jim Crow – but see, the federal government gets to control interstate commerce. Thanks to the liberals, the concept of “interstate commerce” is pretty much interchangeable with “any commerce.” Leaving aside the interstate movement of pot, the feds have a right, under the current understanding of the regulation of interstate commerce, to outlaw dope everywhere. But hey, if the vocal corps of hemp enthusiasts out there wants to advocate for the Supreme Court to overrule the expansive reading of the commerce clause in Wickard v. Filburn, I’ll totally inhale.
Another contradiction: the same Einsteins demanding their “right” to spark up a fattie are pretty much the same ones who worked so diligently to get cigarette smoking banned pretty much everywhere. Go figure, right?
You’d think that it might finally be dawning on at least some of them that maybe giving the federal goobermint so much power over us, directly contravening everything the Founders ever said, was maybe not the best idea anybody ever had.
I don’t see any way to argue with this part, though:
…science has established that marijuana is a gateway drug that inevitably leads to reggae – a musical genre whose listeners are too high to even notice that there is actually only one reggae song and that the musicians simply give it different titles to fool the fans.
He’s right, and you know it.