The dream scenario

Lately, Republicans and Conservatives are feeling depressed, because they think Obama’s got the nomination locked up. Never fear, I have a solution.

The latest polls show Obama at 47% and McCain at 41%. How can McCain make up this deficit? By introducing the correct third party candidate. And I don’t mean Bob Barr.

No, I mean Alan Keyes. Yes,, the OTHER black candidate for president. Did you forget about him? The media would like you to, because he’s the biggest threat to Obama.

Think about it. Obama has 90% of the black vote against McCain. What if Keyes cuts into that vote? Since neither candidate can muster 50%, there’s plenty of room for third party candidates. And the beauty of it is, Keyes takes votes from Obama that McCain never had a chance at anyway.

So here’s how it might break down. Keyes gets 5%, Obama gets 47%, and McCain gets 48%. Which is a victory in more ways than one, because black candidates will have received over 50% of the vote for the first time in American history. Conservatives can club the advanced and sophisticated elites over the head with that when they try to complain that Obama lost.

Don’t like either major party candidate? Vote for Alan Keyes. You might really like the results come election day.

For years, the talk in the golf world has been about Tiger proofing courses – growing the rough deep, narrowing the fairways, toughening up the majors so that Tiger can’t win them by 10 strokes over anyone else. It’s even spilled into the videogame market, where home based PGA tour wannabees can vary the level of difficulty in their virtual golf games. And yet, Tiger keeps winning majors, inexorably closing in on Jack Nicklaus’ record of 18 majors. But that doesn’t mean the Tiger proofing has had no effect. In fact, if you examine the effect that Tiger proofing has had, you’ll see that Phil Mickelson’s chance to win majors has been virtually eliminated.

Let’s take the major venues, one by one. Most experts agree that the British open, with it’s wild winds, waist high rough, head high bunkers, and unpredictable conditions is “real mans” golf – the toughest test of any of the majors. American courses may be lengthy, but golfers can almost always find their ball in the rough, and I have yet to see a golfer play the ball backwards out of any American bunkers. So there’s been no Tiger proofing of the British open because it’s not needed. Predictably, Mickelson has never won a British open, and rarely is competitive.

Next, let’s take the US open. Wherever it is, the fairways and greens always seem to be bone dry, which challenges everyone to stay below par. You have to hit fairways to win the US open, something Mickelson has never been accurate enough to do. The surprising thing is that Mickelson has gotten close enough to post 4 runner up finishes. Some people take those runner up finishes as a clue that Phil will eventually win a US open. I take it the opposite way – he’s been lucky to be runner up there, and his luck is rapidly running out at age 38.

How about the PGA? Well, Mickelson won once there in 2005, so there’s a glimmer of hope. However, the PGA has felt the competitive pressure from the other majors, and has copied the Tiger proofing steps to try to restore their credibility. This years PGA looked just like a US open setup. Phil’s game, which is based on length and the ability to make recovery shots out of the rough, cannot survive in such conditions. Look at the contrast between “regular” courses and the majors. Mickelson can and does win 2-4 events a year when he can overpower other golfers and the rough is moderate length. His inability to hit fairways can be ignored. But once Tiger proofing takes hold and you are forced to hit fairways, Mickelson’s game drops a notch. He’s had several years to adjust, even going without a driver for a couple of days at the US open, and nothing has worked. This year, with Tiger out injured, Phil could not take advantage of Tiger’s absence. So we can eliminate any more PGA trophies from Phil’s potential major collection. He just doesn’t have the game.

With 3 out of 4 majors eliminated, Phil’s only chance to win more majors is at the Masters. With 2 Masters wins under his belt, you’d think Mickelson’s chances are good to win another. However, his results in the last 2 Masters have not been encouraging. If he hits the fairways, his putter gives out on him. If he makes putts, his iron play goes haywire. He’s certainly not shown the confidence there recently that a past champion should have.

Then there’s the Winged Foot factor. Since his collapse in 2006, Mickelson has scored a top 10 finish in only one major. You can make a good argument the Phil’s confidence is shot. Even more telling, his wins at the “regular” tournaments, once by wide margins, are now narrow wins in playoffs(Riviera, 2008) or close shaves(Colonial, 2008) or losses in playoffs(FBR, 2008 and Riviera, 2007). Other golfers aren’t afraid of Mickelson anymore, knowing that he can be beaten.

Mickelson remains the most popular golfer on tour, with massive crowd support and lucrative endorsements. And he may retain his hold on the #2 ranking. But anyone looking for a Nadal like pursuit and overtaking of the dominant Federer #1 type player will be sorely disappointed.

 

Still thinking they can game the system

By Andrew Vander Dussen

Faced with imminent loss in November, the Republicans are trying to change their strategy. New strategies included drilling, fixing unfunded entitlements, and winning the war in Iraq.

Let’s start with drilling. The Republicans newfound interest in drilling would be more convincing if they’d done anything about it from 2000-2006. They had a Republican president, Senate, and House. What better time to reverse Clinton’s position and start drilling? And yet, they did nothing. Which makes them last minute johnnies, crying now about a situation that was in their power to fix years ago.

How about the unfunded entitlements? Well, the impending 50 trillion or so crisis that they tell us about now must not have been there during Bush’s first term when they passed No Child Left Behind or the shiny new prescription drug benefit. If it was there, you think they would have restrained themselves from any new programs and taken care of the existing ones, don’t you think?

The other thing is, this fiscal responsibility scenario doesn’t seem to involve reduced spending. No, it means higher taxes “for the good of the country”. Are we to return to the bad old days of the 1950s when the Democrats spend all the money and the Republicans raise taxes to pay for it? Actually it’s worse now, because the Republicans spend money like the Democrats now too. Which is why the Republicans can’t generate any interest in their party base. I wonder why?

Which leaves their trump card. The Iraq war. Better vote for McCain or else! And you know what, they’re probably right. Which explains their lack of urgency on any other issue. That’s their ace in the hole. No matter how much conservatives dislike Republicans for their open border policies or not protecting the dollar or big fat pork barrel projects, they know people will vote for them out of fear of Barack Obama.

If you want to vote McCain for that reason, I understand. Just keep your eyes open, and be aware of what you’re getting. Not less government, not less entitlements, not border security, not less diversity pushed down your throat. No, all you’ll get is a continued effort towards victory in Afghanistan and Iraq. No more than that. So don’t expect anything more.

 

What’s a common complaint that I’ve heard for all my adult life? That teachers aren’t paid enough. Why is that?

You can break down the issue as a simple case of supply and demand. There are a limited amount of positions and a large supply or labor, both at the K-12 and college level.

Or you can approach the issue of performance. How do you judge whether a teacher is successful or not? Invariably the response is that children’s behavior comes from many factors in society, including parents, friends, mass media, and the like. So limited accountability is built into the system.

Besides, if children can’t read or measure up to standardized tests, are teachers fined? Do they lose the money they’ve already been paid? No. So there’s no penalty for failure. Under those conditions, there’s little or no risk in being a teacher. That’s why they supply of available teachers is always high. When you get to the college level, where tenure makes it almost impossible to fire a professor, the supply is even higher and the competition is fierce. And why not? Once you get tenure you’re all set. Who can say that in the business world?

But those who complain about teacher’s pay do not consider job security, low risk, and benefit packages as factors in the equation. All they care about is the base salary. And the fact that “our children” are at stake.

Which brings up another issue. Whenever people without children bring up issues with the educational system, people with children sniff that “you don’t have children, so you don’t know anything”. Well, one thing I do know is that my taxes are paying for your children. As long as I’m taxed without consent, I’ll have my say about how my tax money is spent. If you don’t want my input, pay for your own children.

 

Last night I watched reruns of the game show “family feud”. 2 of them were recent shows from 2008, and 1 was an old Richard Dawson hosted show from the 1980s. I was struck by the cultural differences between the shows.

For one thing, there was a technological difference. The 1980’s set had huge, table mounted microphones for the contestants, a clumsy rotating game board, and primitive looking graphics. By comparison, the new show set was flashy and modern.

There was also a time difference. Richard Dawson took a lot of time to talk to each family, asking them their profession, where they lived, etc. By contrast, the new host, John O’Hurley, asked only a couple of questions and jumped immediately into the game. Don’t get me wrong – O’Hurley is very suave and debonair and makes jokes with the people. But the pace seemed slower under Dawson, and he seemed genuinely interested in the people. The new show is more pro forma and by the numbers.

Another time difference is in the fast money game at the end of the show. 2 people are drawn from the winning family and asked the same set of survey questions. In the old show, the first person got 15 seconds to answer the questions while the second person got 20 seconds. In the new show, the answer times have been lengthened to 20 seconds and 25 seconds. I wonder why? Are the questions tougher? Or are people not as smart nowadays?

The biggest difference was in the contestants themselves. Sure, the clothes fashions and hairstyles are different, that’s to be expected. But in the old show, most contestants were middle aged. In the new show, you see most families with only 1 or 2 middle aged people, with everyone else in their 20s. And I can’t help but think that this mirrors Hollywood’s obsession with youth. Movie stars now seem teenaged and rail thin in comparison to the stars of movies 30-40 years ago. And those middle aged people that appear on television now are much more suave and gentrified than their counterparts from decades ago. Everything seems more upscale.

Maybe that’s a sign of progress. And it’s not necessarily a bad thing. However, it seems clear to me that the contestants of 20 years ago would never make it to television today. They’re too old and not good looking enough. And that raises an issue. Are only the beautiful people allowed on TV or in the movies? Deal or no deal is a good example of that trend.

Reality shows seem to present the anti-Hollywood extreme – weird behavior, staged screaming matches and power struggles, people voted off the island, etc. Which leaves games shows as the last television refuge of the normal people. But only if you’re in your 20s and nicely cleaned up.

 

By Andrew Vander Dussen

Progressives are those who wish to advance society. Who think they are better than the rest of us. In fact, we’re in their way. If we’d only go along with their latest great idea (global warming, the green revolution, gay marriage, etc) the world would be a better place. But occasionally, progressives get bitten by their own words. I wrote an earlier column about Charlton Heston, his fight against the censors, and his subsequent fight against offensive music lyrics almost 30 years later. And that got me thinking, are there other examples in history of people who wished for “progress” and got more than they wanted?

I came across an unlikely example today. President Herbert Hoover. As we all know, Hoover is seen as one of the worst Presidents in US history, with the Great Depression hung around his neck like a big millstone. What you don’t know is the back story of who Hoover really was.

Hoover started out as a mining engineer, quickly developing a reputation as a “can do” person who overcame obstacles to get the job done. This led him to participate in food relief efforts, first for Belgium in 1914, then for other countries. His work got him noticed by Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, who appointed him to lead the American Food Administration in 1917. His successful work in government led prominent Democrats to talk about Hoover as a Democratic candidate for President in 1920.

Did any of you know that? Did you know that Woodrow Wilson valued Hoover highly and was one of the Democrats pushing Hoover’s name forward? That his progressive attitude and behavior made him an attractive figure to the party that would drag his name through the mud over a decade later?

Of course not. Because Hoover was politically astute enough to realize the nation was tired of the Democrats after 8 years of Woodrow Wilson, he rebuffed the Democrats queries and supported Republicans instead. His support gained him a position as Secretary of Commerce in the Harding and Coolidge administrations. Was this the real source of Franklin Roosevelt’s hatred of Hoover, because Hoover betrayed the other Woodrow Wilson progressives and went Republican?

Serving under Republican presidents did not change Hoover’s views, however. He was still a progressive, and used his position to coordinate the economic affairs of the government. While Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon was cutting taxes, Commerce Secretary Hoover was expanding the role of government. He continued pushing his progressive views as President, tinkering with the role of government until the Great Depression overtook him.

No matter what Hoover tried, he could not address the stock market crash, the banking crisis, the worldwide tariff wars, or crushing unemployment of the Great Depression. Forced out of office, Hoover complained that many of Roosevelt’s New Deal policies were extensions of his own. Remembering Hoover’s betrayal of the Wilsonian progressives, Roosevelt piled on the attacks, blaming Hoover every chance he got, no doubt with a great deal of personal satisfaction along the way.

Notice that even after a crushing defeat, Hoover was still a progressive believer in big government programs. Since his “me too” arguments failed, his only way to rebuild his reputation to either Republicans or Conservatives was to become a staunch anti-communist, which he did later in life. No matter what he did, Hoover lived to regret his progressivism, which was used by an even bigger progressive (Roosevelt) to demonize him for decades.

Hoover was a regular figure at Republican conventions until 1964, when ill health prevented him from attending. No doubt many Republicans felt sympathetic to him. I don’t. He lived by the progressive sword and died (politically) by the same sword.

 

Tiger Woods is adding another chapter to his sterling career. And he’s doing it on one leg. He hasn’t won the US open yet, but he’s showing unbelievable grit. The closest historical comparison is Ben Hogan, who came back from a life threatening car wreck to play stellar golf, but only by soaking his battered legs every night after playing and squinting at putts through one good eye.

It’s becoming clear that Woods is better than Nicklaus. No, he hasn’t passed Jack’s majors record yet, but Tiger’s will to compete and win is unmatched. If he can win hobbling around at the US open, mark him up for 10 more majors, evenly dispersed among the Masters, British Open, and PGA tournaments, with one or two more US opens thrown in for good measure.

Having said that, you need to understand that just because Tiger is better than Jack, Tiger’s competitors are not automatically better than Jack’s. In fact, after watching the current group of scrubs wander aimlessly around the course, this bunch pales in comparison to the Palmers/Watsons/Trevinos/Players that challenged Nicklaus.

Witness Adam Scott, the number three player in the world, with a TPC under his belt, paired up with Woods and Mickelson the first couple of days. Scott clearly wilted under the pressure, missing easy putts, and nervously trying to ignore the huge galleries following Tiger and Phil.

Or take Mickelson, endlessly fiddling with his game, changing putters and borrowing Tiger’s old swing coach in futile efforts to close the gap with Woods. This week’s brilliant idea was to leave his driver home. By day three, even the blockhead had to realize that giving up 50 yards a hole to Woods was not a great idea. After finally breaking out the driver, Mickelson remained in contention until a disastrous “tin cup” episode on the thirteenth hole. Phil kept aggressively going for the pin when everyone in the gallery knew it was time to fly the ball past the hole, get it on the green safely, and take his medicine. But no, Mickelson kept watching the ball roll back to his feet an astonishing 4 times until he gave up and threw in the towel, not only on this tournament, but on any hope of winning another major.

The whole driver episode showed that the only reason Phil competes with Woods at all is the edge in technology. Sure, every player can match Tiger’s driving distance by using the advanced technology that wasn’t available to Jack’s challengers. As Phil showed, once stripped of their technological edge, Tiger’s opponents are helpless. Even when the field doesn’t sabotage itself like Phil did, Tiger’s driving accuracy lands him in the fairway while his competitors usually end up in the rough. And even when Tiger joins them, his recovery shots are better. When they finally get to the green, Tiger’s putting is unmatched. Ever wonder why Vijay Singh, Ernie Els, and Phil keep changing putters while Tiger leaves his rock solid putting game alone? Because all Tiger’s competitors need the technological edge to stay close.

Start comparing challengers to yesterday. Is Mickelson close to Palmer? Is Singh close to Gary Player? Is Adam Scott close to Tom Watson? Is Geoff Oglivy close to Lee Trevino? Is Ernie Els close to any of them? No. Yes, they have technology. Yes, they have copied Tiger’s workout and fitness regimen. But they’d do better to copy Palmer’s shot making.  Or Watson’s competitive drive. Or Ben Hogan’s course management.

 It turns out another party has taken credit for the advent of gay marriage in California. Tila Tequila, the MTV show host who pretends to be bisexual, stated that she felt her show made a difference in changing people’s attitudes towards gay marriage by showing that everybody is “into it” and that it’s “cool”. Whether her claim of credit is true or not, her example is the lib strategy in a nutshell. Push your alternative lifestyle of choice into every media venue you can, and present a vision to the public of “normality”. And it’s not just a lib strategy. Advertisers use it to sell products. After all, you don’t want to be the only one without a trendy new Iphone, do you? Or the clumsy person using cash to slow everyone in line down instead of using the obviously more efficient debit/check card?

Another example is the old tv show “Dallas”. Audiences in Eastern Europe lapped up the show because they fell in love with the lifestyle of the rich and famous that was displayed to them. It didn’t matter to them that the show was fake, the vision that JR and Pam and all the others put in their mind, the fancy cars and cocktail parties, did more to push capitalism into the ex communist block than any of Reagan’s speeches.

 

Disappointment in Pat Buchanan

Pat Buchanan’s new book is out, and this time his variation on the “death of the west” theme is Winston Churchill and WWII. Supposedly Churchill was a war loving cowboy who forced the issue with Hitler and sparked an unnecessary and needless war.

I have a few questions for Mr. Buchanan.

1)      Did Churchill force Poland and Hungary to demand territory from Czechoslovakia and assist Hitler in its dismemberment?

a.       No. Despite the romanticized history of Poland, the interwar Polish government fought a war with the Soviets, demanded territory from the Czechs, and played off the French, Soviets, and Germans against each other in a venal game of manipulation. That Poland ultimately lost that game does not absolve them of their territorial greed or their refusal to cooperate in international agreements to reign in the Germans. If you want to pass around blame for WWII, include the Poles too.

2)      Did Churchill prompt the Soviets to provide food, raw materials, and weapons testing to the Germans throughout the 1920s?

a.       No. The Soviets did that all by themselves. During the 1920s, Germany was isolated and Soviet assistance was invaluable to their efforts to rebuild their military. The Soviets tried to portray themselves as an ally with the West against the Germans in 1936, but a decade of assistance to the Germans totally undermines that campaign. The Soviets deserve their fair share of blame for WWII.

3)      Did Churchill propose a British alliance with Japan in the 1930’s which would isolate the United States?

a.       No. Neville Chamberlain did. Chamberlain was so anti-US that he proposed an alliance with the Japanese to counter the United States. Does Buchanan think the war with Japan was unnecessary as well?

I could go on, but I think the point is made that it is totally unrealistic to blame one man for the outbreak of WWII, or to pretend that the entire war was unnecessary. But I don’t think that is Buchanan’s purpose. To me, his book is an attempt to link Churchill to George W. Bush. 2 war hungry cowboys who sparked unnecessary wars. Since the outbreak of WWII and the Iraq war are totally different, with a completely different cast of characters, this is nothing more than shameless demagoguery. Buchanan knows that popular opinion is against the Iraq war and wants to gravy train on that sentiment with false historical analysis, making a few quick bucks along the way.

But it’s even worse. Linking Bush and Churchill plays into the liberal hatred of white males, who supposedly sparked the American Revolution for their own interests, and whose contributions to the world are routinely broken down and disparaged in today’s universities. Notice that we no longer have Lincoln’s birthday or Washington’s Birthday as holidays, but we do have a Martin Luther King holiday? So Buchanan pretends to stop the death of the west, and then climbs on the bandwagon to help the libs bash historical white male figures when it is convenient for his own purposes. Unbelievable.

 Coincidence or cause and effect? The day Hillary Clinton concedes the Democratic nomination, the Dow drops almost 400 points. Do the market gurus know something we don’t?

Historically, there’s not a big difference in market performance between Republican and Democratic Presidencies. You have examples of good performance with both parties(Reagan, Clinton, Bush) and bad performance with both parties(FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Carter).

Then again, Obama has not been shy about his plans to raise taxes and increase spending. That’s never been good for the market, regardless of who is president. Then there’s the uncertainty factor. With Obama all over the map on foreign policy(ready to withdraw troops one moment, then pandering to the Jewish vote the next) the market makers don’t know what to expect. That spells trouble for investors seeking stability. Love them or hate them, both Clinton and Bush let everyone know where they were coming from, (peace dividend, tax cuts, etc). No one really knows what Obama will do, or for that matter, what McCain will do, now that McCain is on the global warming bandwagon too. Will McCain extend the Bush tax cuts? More than enough reason to A) pull your money out and put it into cash or B) play the market down instead of up.

 

The people in New York, San Francisco, and Seattle, by their own admission, are not US citizens. They are citizens of the world, purveyors of a wider vision than the primitive United States. Let the world protect them, then. When the Islamofascists come, we'll just defend the red states - blue states can fend for themselves.

 

So Obama is the winner. Count me among those who are surprised. Why? Recall that Hillary, from the moment John Kerry lost in 2004, seemed to be the presumptive Democratic nominee. She had the money, the party connections, the U.S. Senate seat to give her credibility – and she still lost.

Which makes you think. Maybe the 1990’s wasn’t the paradise that liberals would have you believe. Wasn’t it the time of balanced budgets and no evil wars and rising stock markets where everyone was getting rich? That’s what they would have you believe. And if that’s the case, shouldn’t Hillary be the automatic Democratic nominee?

The thing is, Hillary didn’t lose the general election. Republicans, despite the chicanery of Rush Limbaugh, had no effect on the Democratic primaries. And even if they did, Rush’s supposed strategy was to have Republicans vote for Hillary in stealth mode. So Clintonites have to face the fact that Hillary was rejected by her own party, even with Republican aid on her side.

Guess Republicans and conservatives aren’t the only ones who had problems with the 1990’s era glory days of the Democratic party.

by Andrew Vander Dussen

 

Remember how “states rights” was code words for racism? Here are some code words from the present.

What’s the code word for the left? Control.  

Control of wages and prices in the economy.

Control of your thermostat in your home.

Control of which light bulbs you buy.

Control of which car you buy.

Control of how much energy you use.

Control of which food you eat.

How to implement all this? More centralized control from Washington.

What’s the code word from the right? Safety.

Safety from terrorists.

Safety from criminals.

Safety from job outsourcing.

Safety for your retirement.

How do they make you safe from everything? More centralized control from Washington.

What’s the code word for the media? Fear.

Fear of child molesters.

Fear of religion.

Fear of the weather.

Fear of war.

Fear of economic meltdowns.

Fear of someone else getting ahead of you in the rat race.

How do they calm everyone’s fears? More centralized control from Washington.

Laying out things in this manner shows how the average citizen is being bombarded from three directions – the left, the right, and the media – pressured to allow more centralized state control. They are not the enemies that they appear to be, because they are working in concert. They take turns eroding your freedoms away, piece by piece. How many people do you talk to in daily life,  who say that the government is not responsive to their needs, but acting on its own agenda, regardless of how they voted?

What’s the solution? Elect local representatives that are not beholden to either major party or to the media conglomerates. That way, they will represent your interests rather than their own national or international agendas. The other thing is, ally with people who have similar values. If you are a minority in one area, move to where you can be part of the majority.

 

Gay Marriage issue in CA

By Andrew Vander Dussen

California’s gay marriage issue is the hot topic. Everybody’s got an opinion. The most interesting ones are coming from the left in support of the courts decision.

One talk radio caller kept harping on the fact that the court overturned the tyranny of the majority. Over and over again he related that the majority was wrong and the need to protect minorities as justification of the court’s decision. Which leads to a few questions.

Q: Is the majority always wrong? Are we to overturn every law passed by a majority of the voters?

Obviously not. Which leads to a further question. How do you know which laws are right and which ones are wrong?

A: The courts decide that.

Q: Ok. How do the courts decide?

A: They use the constitution.

So far, this is pretty straightforward. Then you get the difficult questions.

Q: What if the constitution is silent on the issue?

A: According to Thurgood Marshall, famous U.S. Supreme court justice, the courts make the decision and wait for the law to catch up. In other words, they make it up as they go along. Which leads to a further question.

Q: Are the courts always right?

A: Obviously not.

Q: How do we know which court decisions are right and which ones are wrong?

A: Once you get to the U.S. Supreme Court, it’s done. Right or wrong, their decisions are final.

Q: How does this bear up under the light of historical analysis?

Take the Dredd Scott decision. The Supreme Court overruled the majority and decided that blacks had no rights. That decision led directly to the Civil War.

Or the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII. The Supreme Court ratified that too, over the objections of many in the military and law enforcement, including J. Edgar Hoover.

And that’s just 2 examples. There are plenty of others in both the US and state supreme courts if you care to dig.

So a minority of judges, 5 people in some cases, made decisions that were wrong, caused the country great harm, and left consequences for decades to come.

Q: What recourse do we have against wrong decisions by the minority of the state and U.S. supreme courts?

A: None.

Q: Why?

A: Because the minority is always right.

That’s the situation we are in here in California. That’s the attitude of the liberals. They don’t have to justify what they do, because they are full of crusading fervor for their righteous cause. And I cannot describe for you the glee and outright joy they take in sticking it to the “majority”.

Q: What’s worse than the tyranny of the majority?

A: The tyranny of the minority. People forget that a majority vote requires some degree of consensus. 51% of those who vote must compromise with each other to get something passed. Political parties have to cut deals. Representatives get pressure from their constituents. Senators get pressure from lobbyists. Presidents get pressure from other countries. Voters have to get signatures to get an issue on the ballot, and then work to get it passed. It’s not perfect, but at least there are some safeguards to prevent extremist laws from going into effect.  

Minority decisions don’t require that at all. All you need is a few judges to dictate what is right by fiat and issue the diktat to everyone.

Which makes the liberals fear of “majority tyranny” laughable. Who are they kidding?

If liberals want to change the constitution, the least they could do is sponsor legislative amendments and have the states vote on it. That’s what they did with ERA, right?

But that’s the problem for liberals. They lost the ERA fight. So they decided to have the courts impose their will for them. After all, they’re only enforcing what everyone “ought” to be doing.

Q: How do you fight people who think they’re always right, and will use any means to impose their will?

A: Move to a state where they don’t do that. Why do you think the U.S. population has been migrating out of the Northeast and into the South and West? How do you explain the outflux of people from California to Arizona, Nevada, and other nearby states?

Q: If the U.S. Supreme Court is doing this, then no state is ultimately safe from this. Moving to other states just postpones the inevitable. What do we do?

A: This explains why everyone is so focused on the nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court, and why the nomination struggles have been so intense for the last few decades. Despite the media’s propaganda about the “Imperial Presidency” people know that the real power lies with the courts.

Q: What if we lose the battle for the Supreme Court?

A: In many ways, the battle is already lost. Conservative judicial supremacy is no better than liberal judicial supremacy. We are facing a structural problem with the constitution that has been there since the outset – the unrestrained power of the courts and the inability of the legislative or executive branches to stop them.

But remember this. There are always alternatives. If there weren’t, our ancestors would not have left intolerable situations in their home countries and come here. If it gets too bad in this country, you always have the option to leave.

 

Want to see the future? Look at France. And look at Bridget Bardot.

What’s the lesson of Brigitte Bardot? Let’s review a little history. Once one of the most famous stars in the world, Bardot led the charge into the trendy issue of the day – animal rights. With the typical self-righteousness of the Hollywood left, she crusaded against evil seal hunters and evil corporations and evil conservatives in general. The avant garde of the entertainment world rallied to her cause. And she lived happily ever after, right?

Wrong. Apparently Bardot has been outspoken about the invasion of Muslims into France. So outspoken that she has been convicted and fined multiple times for “inciting racial hatred”. And not just for comments about Islam. She’s also been accused of homophobia.

Echoes of Geraldine Ferraro are ringing here. Doesn’t Bardot get a free pass from the new left for her lifelong efforts on behalf animals, the environment, feminism, and all the other causes so dear to the left? No. Once she broke with the current conventional wisdom of the left, they turned on her.

I hope you all enjoy the First Amendment, because it doesn’t exist in Europe. You are not free to speak your mind about what’s happening to your country. And since the Supreme Court keeps looking to “international precedents” to override the constitution, you can look forward to trials, convictions, fines, and maybe imprisonment if you dare speak up against the current mania of the left. Like global warming. Or diversity. Or whatever they come up with next.