Hard History Coming

I have been getting reoriented since my return on Sunday. But things continue to be busy around PolyKahr Estates, so I have had limited time. One thing I have been paying some attention to is the debt ceiling debate, in which our "brave" Republicans have once again capitulated and given the Left what it wants for a mess of pottage.  So, it was with interest that I noted that my friend, fellow blogger, and Conservative Examiner, Anthony Martin posted a piece on Saturday entitled Why Bloody Civil War is Inevitable. Go read the whole piece, including the links. I'll wait.  Then read the Curmudgeon Emeritus's post at Eternity Road entitled The Short Route to Chaos. Notice some similarities?

On Sunday, Anthony had to publish again to make clear he was not calling for civil war, but felt in was inevitable. You can read that here. I was particularly disgusted by the comments left by on the Examiner site by "Glenn Wright" who frankly looked to be a troll trying to provoke someone...anyone... into careless words that he could take and say "See, see! They are plotting to overthrow the government!" Today I read at the Summer Patriot, Winter Soldier site the following:

it seems to me inevitable that we fight them. it is because they are our enemies, as surely as vladimir putin, as sure as ahmadinejad. we owe them no apology for our views, and we should back away from them not one iota, and give them not one peppercorn's consideration.

There are, in fact, many other sites where one will find expressions like this. To a man or woman, all express the fear that a civil war is inevitable because otherwise, liberty will be wiped out on the face of the earth.  In a former time, one could emigrate to America.  But now there is no place to run.  Those who desire freedom to live their lives without some dictator telling them at every turn what he will and will not allow, will have no choice but to stand and fight, or accept slavery for themselves and their children, grand children, and all future generations.  For too long, liberty loving individuals have been giving up ground to the loony Left. It is as if we were in a primitive tribe who gives into mad man rather than provoke him, because nobody knows what he will do next.

On guns, to take one issue, we have caved, and capitulated our way to where we were back in the 1990s, when the concealed carry movement really got rolling. If gun rights activists became radicalized, it was because it was only by being radical that they made any progress regaining our former rights. I remember GCA 68, though I was in high school at the time.  All the wise men recommended appeasing the mad men because society was coming apart, "riots everywhere you know, we can't let them have guns too. It's only a small infringement on our rights, after all.  Who knows what they will do."  But once they got GCA 68, there were further demands, always more demands to "compromise" and "be reasonable" yet again.  But we began to see that we were not being asked to compromise, but to capitulate, and we began to follow Jesse Helms advice:

“Compromise, hell! … If freedom is right and tyranny is wrong, why should those who believe in freedom treat it as if it were a roll of bologna to be bartered a slice at a time?”

"By any means necessary" is not just a slogan, but a modus operandus with the Left.  It was telling to me that one of the guests interviewed on Andrew Napolitano's show, Freedom Watch, Friday let slip the remarkable statement that they needed to cut a deal to raise the debt ceiling because they feared Obama would actually not send out Social Security checks or pay the troops!  If true, the President can be said not to be merely fear mongering, but committing economic terrorism on vulnerable Americans.  And what does that say about who cares more about grandma?  The "we care more" party is willing to hold Grandma hostage until they get their debt ceiling raised, because spending more is all that counts with them!

The great majority of Americans consider themselves some brand of conservative, while only 20 percent consider themselves Leftists.  Typical of conservatives, they have been slow to react to the foreign invasion of a European philosophy called Marxism.  It has not helped that the Marxist have hidden themselves behind false flags and innocuous sounding names.  But America is waking up, at the 11th hour.  It appears that the Left is currently in control of all the cards.  We just have ourselves, our faith and our guns.  So be it.  Our side is through capitulating.  With Jesse Helms, we say "Compromise, hell..."  Of course, that will not satisfy the mad men.  They have taken everything else, but the want our freedom and liberty too.  So, yes, there will be bloody civil war.  I am not calling for it, I just don't see any way to stop it, barring a miracle.  Don't shoot the messenger.

The Debt Ceiling Silliness

Or, what is the other hand doing while we are being distracted.

An article on the "Super Congress" idea floated by John Boehner (RINO, OH) at American Thinker by Robert Eugene Simmons, Jr entitled Boehner's 12 Member Commission Political Game gives John Boehner the maximum benefit of the doubt with his insane idea. Unconstitutional doesn't begin to say it.  But it will do.  Boehner is proposing to disenfranchise each and every one of us from budget decisions.  The underlying assumption is that tax money belongs to the Government.  In fact, tax money belongs to each of us, and we each have to have a say in how it is used.  Otherwise, why do we need Congress.  Save the money and go with the "Super Congress."

In one narrative, Mr. Boehner is trying to avoid the opprobrium that will no doubt be heaped on him come election time if he does not succeed in both raising the debt ceiling (allowing his Social Security constituents to be paid) and securing spending cuts (as demanded by his TEA party constituents.) In other words, he it attempting with his idea of a "Super Congress" to avoid blame that will inevitably cost him his cushy Congressional job.

Or, there is another possibility. Who does Mr. Boehner actually work for?

Yesterday, as I was driving to work in morning rush hour traffic, I heard a talk show host make a remarkable statement. I will have to paraphrase because I didn't want to risk taking my eyes off the road, or pulling over. Even here in Raleigh, rush hour drivers are crazed. In any case, this individual said that after much study of the debt ceiling issue, we needed to raise the debt ceiling because of contractual obligations the Government had incurred during the last six months, which would be defaulted if we did not raise it.

Hmmmm.

Now, as I understand the process, money is typically appropriated by one committee,known as a Appropriation committee. There are many such committees.  All of the Appropriations committees' various appropriations combined make up the budget. This is passed to the Senate, which may tweak them. If so, the two sides negotiate, both pass the same bill, then send it to the President for signature. But, before the President can actually obligate that money, (for instance, let a contract) the funds also have to be Authorized by an Authorization committee. The Authorization committee should be fully aware of where we stand relative to the debt ceiling. It doesn't matter how much has actually been obligated by the Executive, because he can not spend money that has not been authorized. So, where did this process break down? Did the Authorization Committee allow the Executive to spend funds beyond the debt ceiling, or did someone in the Executive branch obligate money that was not authorized? Mr. Boehner surely knows this, so who is he trying to protect?  If you answer that question, you will answer who he is working for, because he is not working for us.  I have said for a while now that Boehner should tell the President to go pound sand, politely of course.  He should not be afraid of letting the debt ceiling stay where it is.  If the President decides to not pay Social Security, then it is on his head.  If the President decides to default, that too is on his head.  We take in enough in taxes to allow us to pay our debts, and pay essentials.  What not raising the debt ceiling does is force a debate on what is and is not essential.  We have needed that for a long time.

If I am wrong about this, I wish someone would tell me how.