On the Edge of a One-Party State

How about that debate? :D

Sorry. I know last night’s debate was not pleasant viewing.  I don’t know who said shut up more, Biden at Trump or me at my television.  And, like many, my IQ may have decreased last night.  So forgive me if this post is not my most eloquent. 

Having said all that, there was one moment last night that disturbed me more than the whole rest of the debate, and that was Biden refusing to say whether he would end the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court:

Chris Wallace, in one of the few tough questions he posed to Biden, said this:

So my question to you is, you have refused in the past to talk about it, are you willing to tell the American tonight whether or not you will support either ending the filibuster or packing the court?

Biden refused to answer, something the Trump quickly challenged.  Here's the colloquy:

BIDEN: Whatever position I take on that, that'll become the issue. The issue is the American people should speak. You should go out and vote. You're voting now. Vote and let your Senators know strongly how you feel.

TRUMP: Are you going to pack the court?

BIDEN: Vote now.

TRUMP: Are you going to pack the court?

BIDEN: Make sure you, in fact, let people know, your Senators.

TRUMP: He doesn't want to answer the question.

BIDEN: I'm not going to answer the question.

TRUMP: Why wouldn't you answer that question? You want to put a lot of new Supreme Court Justices. Radical left.

BIDEN: Will you shut up, man?

TRUMP: Listen, who is on your list, Joe? Who's on your list?

WALLACE: Gentlemen, I think we've ended this —

BIDEN: This is so un-Presidential.

TRUMP: He's going to pack the court. He is not going to give a list.

And this is not the first time Biden has refused to answer.  I hope he does not get away with his non-answer.  Given what passes for jurisprudence from Democrat hacks-in-black, if Democrats do pack the Supreme Court, you can pretty much kiss the Constitution and the rule of law good-bye and America with it.  We would be on the road to Venezuela.

Think I’m exaggerating?  Early in the Hugo Chavez regime, the Supreme Court of Venezuela had the temerity to say no to some of his designs.  His response?  He packed the Supreme Court.  He, like the current leadership of the Democrat Party, expected judges to do his bidding regardless of trivialities like a constitution or the rule of law.   So he packed the Court and got just that.  

Should Biden get elected and Democrats win the Senate, we are in serious danger of that happening right here in the United States.  Democrats have already long demonstrated they think the purpose of judges is to do their policy bidding regardless of the Constitution and the rule of law.  Should they gain enough power to pack the Supreme Court, that is what they, and we, will get.  And we will no longer be a Constitutional republic but a Leftist One-Party State.  Why?  Because elections do not matter with Leftist Dictators in Black Robes.  If we are not wise enough to vote for untrammeled Marxism, a Democrat-packed Supreme Court will shove it down our throats . . . for “justice”, of course. 

And, also of course, should Biden be elected, he will reopen the floodgates of illegal immigration (or just make it legal) and give away amnesty and citizenship like candy on Halloween.  Democrats are not pleased with the current electorate, so they will change it by importing a more pliable, less American one.  Even if they do not pack the Court, so changing the demographics of the electorate will make us a Leftist One-Party State just like they did with California.

Democrats make even create two new states from Washington, D. C. and Puerto Rico to pack the Senate with four more Democrat Senators.  I have my doubts whether they will be able to do that in the near future.  But that is on the DemocRAT agenda as well.  And, again, you can pretty much kiss America good-bye if they succeed.

So there is much more on the ballot this year than public policy.  What is on the ballot is whether you will have much say on public policy in future elections.  For if Biden wins, we are in grave danger of being on the road to a Leftist One-Party State.  And if Democrats take the Senate as well, we are practically there.

What You Are Probably Not Being Told About the Boy Scouts Bankruptcy

This morning comes the sad news that the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) has filed for bankruptcy.  The “news” media will let you know they did so because of mounting lawsuits concerning sexual abuse.  But there are important factors most of the news media and the Left (But I repeat myself.) are either downplaying or hiding.

First, I will say I am no apologist for the Boy Scouts.  Although I know of men who had excellent experiences in the Scouts, I have never been in Scouting, and I disapprove of how BSA is currently run as you shall see.

Having said that, the vast majority of the suits against BSA are based on alleged abuse decades ago. From AP:

Most of the newly surfacing cases date to the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s; the organization says there were only five known abuse victims in 2018. The Boy Scouts credit the change to an array of prevention policies adopted since the mid-1980s, including mandatory criminal background checks and abuse-prevention training for all staff and volunteers, and a rule that two or more adult leaders be present during all activities.

Back then, there was a lot of ignorance in society about child abuse, its harm, and how to prevent it. BSA has since taken a number of measures to prevent it.  The same could be said about many organizations that work with children. How many of them do we wish to drive into bankruptcy?

A big reason these past abuse cases now necessitate bankruptcy is that states such as New York, Arizona, New Jersey and California have after the fact changed their statue of limitation laws to allow law suits for abuse so long ago.  I take the unpopular stand that statue of limitation laws have a good purpose.  Memories weaken after so many years.  And, yes, there are false memories.  It is harder to defend oneself against allegations of acts long ago.  And, especially in the area of sexual abuse, false allegations are frequent; greatly lengthening or eliminating statues of limitation enable false allegations. 

In addition, it is unprincipled, to say the very least, to change the law, then allow criminal prosecution or lawsuits based on allegations of acts before the law was changed.   Such are ex post facto laws rightly forbidden by the Constitution.  But who cares about the Constitution or the Rule of Law any more?  (Yes, yes, I know lawyers will argue that changing statues of limitations, then suing on the basis of that is not ex post facto law. Guess what I think of such lawyers and the hacks in black and unprincipled legislators that enable them.)

Having said that, it is gross negligence that BSA allowed some abusers to return to Boy Scouts. Again, there was a lot of ignorance about child abuse and abusers back then, but that is inexcusable.

But past child abuse is not the only reason behind the BSA bankruptcy.  AP is typical in hiding as much as it reports:

The Boy Scouts’ finances have been strained in recent years by declining membership and sex-abuse settlements.

The number of youths taking part in scouting has dropped below 2 million, down from more than 4 million in peak years of the 1970s. The organization has tried to counter the decline by admitting girls, but its membership rolls took a big hit Jan. 1 when The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — for decades a major sponsor of Boy Scout units — cut ties and withdrew more than 400,000 scouts in favor of programs of its own.

What AP does not tell you is that admitting girls has harmed membership.  Boys and young men desire male spaces as they aspire to and grow into manhood. Taking that away drives many of them away.  AP also does not tell you that the 2015 decision to allow gay scout leaders alienated many families involved in scouting, families that tend to be more traditional than average. These changes and subsequent membership declines in the past decade have made it that much more difficult for BSA to deal financially with the lawsuits.

Once again we see the phenomenon of “Go Woke; Go Broke.”

All this is not to downplay the difficulties men have gone through due to past abuse.  This is to say the bankruptcy of the Boy Scouts of America is not as simple as you are being told.  Unprincipled changes in the law and politically correct changes the Left pressured BSA to make have significantly contributed.

---

P. S.  Obama once said that “nobody should be barred” from Scouting.  But now Leftists cheer as the Boy Scouts are sued into bankruptcy precisely because people were not barred from Scouting.  Make up your minds, Leftists.  Or was destroying Boy Scouts your plan all along?

Why We Are So Divided

Daniel Greenfield has written one of the better explanations I’ve seen of why we are so divided as a country.  In short, the Left has taken over the Democrat Party and is refusing to submit to the Constitutional Rule of Law.  And that includes attacking the Constitutional freedoms of opponents, of which the violent attacks on Trump rallies and right-of-center speaking engagements are only the tip of the iceberg.  One can hardly be unified with those trying to attack and enslave you.

Some highlights of Greenfield’s piece:

Political conflicts become civil wars when one side refuses to accept the existing authority. The left has rejected all forms of authority that it doesn’t control.

The left has rejected the outcome of the last two presidential elections won by Republicans. It has rejected the judicial authority of the Supreme Court when it decisions don’t accord with its agenda. It rejects the legislative authority of Congress when it is not dominated by the left.

It rejected the Constitution so long ago that it hardly bears mentioning….

There is no form of legal authority that the left accepts as a permanent institution. It only utilizes forms of authority selectively when it controls them. But when government officials refuse the orders of the duly elected government because their allegiance is to an ideology whose agenda is in conflict with the President and Congress, that’s not activism, protest, politics or civil disobedience; it’s treason.

Exactly.  Today’s Left only submits to Constitutional democracy when they win.  And when they win, they work to tear down Constitutional democracy.  

We can have a system of government based around the Constitution with democratically elected representatives. Or we can have one based on the ideological principles of the left in which all laws and processes, including elections and the Constitution, are fig leaves for enforcing social justice.

But we cannot have both.

Now I do not think we are headed towards a shooting civil war.  But I do think the only good way in front of us to deal with our current divisions is the complete and virtually permanent defeat of the Left. (Another tolerable possibility is a national divorce as Ace has advocated from time to time.  But that appears unlikely.) For it is not just policy differences at stake.  Our Constitutional freedoms are at stake.  We must defend them and defeat their enemies.  Yes, today’s Democrat Party is among the enemies.

The left is a treasonous movement. The Democrats became a treasonous organization when they fell under the sway of a movement that rejects our system of government, its laws and its elections.

Leftists Show How Much They Respect Constitutional Democracy and The Rule of Law

Liberals and Leftists have oft shown us how much they disrespect American Constitutional democracy and the rule of law.  Yes, some liberals and Leftists do respect the rules of the political process set up by our Constitution.  But they are few and getting fewer I’m afraid.

The response to the Gay Marriage ruling illustrated that.  How many on the Left were concerned about the Supreme Court running roughshod over Constitutional democracy?  How many were concerned about the stated danger to Freedom of Religion?  How many had the intellectual and ethical honesty to see the ends do not justify arbitrary tyrannical means?

That is just one episode.  We got another last night or several actually.  In cities across the country, Leftists protested against the undisputed results of a free election. 

Let that sink in.

And not all the protests were peaceful.

Again and with emphasis, Leftists only respect constitutional democracy when they win.

------

Housekeeping: Due to a technical issue, I had to change the template of this blog.  There wasn’t too much damage, but my sidebar links were lost.

I think I will take the opportunity of this change and of the election to make some further changes.  I already find it necessary to post less frequently due to studies and other priorities.  That may continue.  So I will likely be more selective in posting, particularly on political matters.  Other venues are better for most political posts anyway.

I will also remake my link list at some point.

I hope my studies will equip me to focus this blog more on erudite and edifying considerations.  Right now, the time studies and life in general are taking is not allowing that as much as I want.

Speaking of which, back to the books.

Will the Supreme Court Spank Obama For Violating the Rule of Law?

Yes, my headline may seem an exercise in wishful thinking.  And perhaps it is. 

But when the Supreme Court decided to hear a challenge of Obama’s Immigration Action from 26 states, it asked something that was both overlooked and rare.  As noted by George Will (Emphasis mine.):

The court has asked to be briefed on a matter the administration must be reluctant to address; the Justice Department requested that the court not insert a “constitutional question” into the case. The question the court will consider is: Did Obama’s action violate the “take care clause”?

Obama has sworn to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,” which says the president shall “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law in Houston and adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute in Washington says that only three times has the court relied on the take care clause to limit executive actions, and the justices have never asked for a briefing on this clause.

It seems at least some on the Supreme Court are ready to give Obama a dressing down on his willfully violating the Rule of Law in the area of immigration, and one the Courts have rarely given a President before. 

I hope I am not engaging in wishful thinking, but, at the least, this is certainly a case to watch.

Steelers Win! (Or what happens when the Rule of Law is flushed down the toilet)

Yes, there are any number of other matters I can post on.  But that ugly Steelers – Bengals game Saturday night was such an object lesson, I cannot let it pass.

There was already a lot of longstanding, deep-seated hostility between the two teams before the game . . . not unlike conservatives and Leftists, and Obama and almost half the country.  And there is a long history of NFL favoritism towards the Steelers, not unlike the favoritism of Obama’s Feds towards favored client groups and against Red States.

Before the game’s defining moment, authorities, namely Steelers’ coaches, had already committed at least one enormity, namely pulling an opposing player’s hair.

What was the defining moment you ask?  Steeler Ryan Shazier’s brutal head-to-head spearing of Bengals running back Giovani Bernard.  It was an obvious illegal hit (which broadcaster CBS anchors said was legal.  Sycophant news media anyone?), but it was not flagged.  The Bengals and their fans were justifiably angry about that.

But then matters got even worse.  Steelers coach Mike Tomlin challenged the ruling that the Bengal player was down on contact before he fumbled the ball.  (When you are knocked unconscious by a dirty hit, fumbles can happen.)  He won that challenge.  So not only were the Steelers not penalized for the illegal dirty hit, they were rewarded by being given the football.

Does that not sound too familiar? IRS scandal before the 2012 election anyone? Obama rewarding those violating our borders? Etc. Etc.

Back to the game, at that point, the anger in the stadium exploded.  Really the NFL should be thankful there was not a riot then and there.

The Rule of NFL Law, if you will, was not being enforced in that key incident except when it benefited the Steelers.  That may not have been the referees’ intent.  But it was most certainly what they did.

Those who watched the rest of the game know the result - it got ugly, very ugly. Unequal justice and undermining the Rule of Law invites that. And the Bengals got too ugly for their own good.  Yes, that next to the last flag against the Bengals for Burfict's cheap and dirty shot to the head had to be thrown.

But what about that last flag when turned a possible Steelers win into an easy FG win?  Steelers Assistant Coach Joey Porter was on the field mouthing off at Bengals players.

Now Joey Porter and the Bengals have a long history of hate between them.  And Porter has long been a bad actor back to his days as one of the NFL’s dirtiest players (which speaks volumes about the Steelers that they made him a coach).  And he should not have been on the field mouthing off at the Bengals in the first place.  That should have been flagged.

Bengal Pacman Jones, himself not the cleanest or coolest player in NFL history, lost control and shouted back, bumping (probably inadvertently) an official in the process.  He, not Porter, gets flagged, putting the Steelers in easy FG range.  End of game.

Yes, there is a lesson here for those of us who are provoked by the disregard of the Rule of Law in this county.  We have to be smarter and better than them.  The Bengals were not smart.  They lost.

So this travesty of a game was practically an exercise in unequal justice and making a mockery of the rule of law and in demonstrating the ugliness that can and likely will happen as a result.

And, yes, things could get uglier in this country.  That it hasn’t yet speaks volumes about the peaceful nature of real Americans.  As a whole, we are not hotheads like certain Bengals. 

But Americans do have their limits as our English friends found out.  Let us pray the Rule of Law is peacefully restored.

Lawlessness Begets Lawlessness

I have been very hesitant to write this post.  I fear that what I am about to say will be twisted into supposed advocacy of violence.  So let me say right now, I pray for a peaceful, lawful defeat and casting off of the lawless tyranny, tyrannies really, that have descended on America.  And every time I read from Coverdale’s Psalm 57 during Morning Prayer – Under the shadow of thy wings shall be my refuge, until this tyranny be overpast – I am reminded so to pray.

But I fear matters will not transpire so well or so peacefully for the United States.

And so does Maetenloch at Ace of Spades.  For the past two nights, he has focused on the problem of lawless Leftists disregarding the rule of law and using raw government force to attack political opponents, and so far without consequences.

Yes, his overnight threads are . . . wide-ranging.  Focus on  “Wisconsin’s Shame” and “How Lois Lerner Evaded Charges” from two nights ago and on “Quote of the Day” and “Kurt Schlichter: Why Liberals May Regret Their New Rules” from last night.

The problem of lawless government extends far beyond it being used to attack political opponents. (That is another reason I have been hesitant to post.  It is a problem so big, it is hard to get one’s arms around it, and it is not at all easy to do so even in this humble post.) But for now, let us consider this aspect and its consequences.

And, yes, I am not naïve.  I know Obama and his ilk are not the first ones to attempt to use the power of government to suppress and attack political opponents.  But a moment in American history in which the attacks are so wide ranging, using multiple agencies, and are being conducted with such impunity – such a moment does not come to mind.

The result may be that Leftists may find their cry “No Justice. No Peace.” may be more true than they would like. As Maetenloch observed two nights ago:

We have a system of justice in this country but more and more it's clear that it no longer can provide any justice in the cases of partisan government officials using government harassment and thuggery against citizens who merely hold opposing political beliefs. . . .

So there's an assumption that if the legal system is manipulated and even blocked, then there's simply no recourse at all for those on the receiving end of this treatment and so they'll just accept it. Which is clearly what the above people [i. e. namely Milwaukee district attorney John Chisholm and Judge Barbara Kluka in Wisconsin, and Lois Lerner and US Attorney Ron Machen. - Ed.] and their allies seem to believe. Well out of inertia of trust in the system this is true up to a point - but only up to a point.

But when that trust that justice will actually be delivered is finally broken, stoic acceptance of the jiggered results of a broken system can no longer be counted upon either. Instead you will see a reversion to the older, rougher justice delivery firmware that's embedded in our DNA and it will be ugly. But not necessarily unjust.

Given that people have had their lives destroyed for merely making a bad joke on social media, wearing the wrong shirt, answering a hypothetical question about catering incorrectly, and using the wrong ordering of words in a phrase, not to mention threatened with jail for the act of committing politics, I see no reason that Chisholm, Kluka, Lerner, and Machen who have done far worse should be able to walk the streets and go through life comfortably and carefree.

Don't blame me for this - I wasn't the one who deliberately subverted and broke the system of justice that we had.

Yes, this comes a bit close to advocating vigilante justice.  And vigilante justice is not to be desired - all the more reason to demand lawful justice against the likes of John Chisholm and Lois Lerner.  For a vacuum of no lawful justice from those who have the duty to execute justice invites vigilantism . . . and worse as Kurt Schlichter warns:

Which brings us to America in 2015. It’s becoming a nation where an elite that is certain of its power and its moral rightness is waging a cultural war on a despised minority. Except it’s not actually a minority – it only seems that way because it is marginalized by the coastal elitist liberals who run the mainstream media.

Today in America, we have a liberal president refuses to recognize the majority sent to Congress as a reaction to his progressive failures, and who uses extra-Constitutional means like executive orders to stifle the voice of his opponents. We have a liberal establishment on a secular jihad against people who dare place their conscience ahead of progressive dogma. And we have two different sets of laws, one for the little people and one for liberals like Lois Lerner, Al Sharpton and Hillary Clinton, who can blatantly commit federal crimes and walk away scot free and smirking.

Today in America, a despised minority that is really no minority is the target of an establishment that considers this minority unworthy of respect, unworthy of rights, and unworthy of having a say in the direction of this country. It’s an establishment that has one law for itself, and another for its enemies. It’s an establishment that inflicts an ever-increasing series of petty humiliations on its opponents and considers this all hilarious.

That’s a recipe for disaster. You cannot expect to change the status quo for yourself and then expect those you victimize not to play by the new rules you have created. You cannot expect to be able to discard the rule of law in favor of the rule of force and have those you target not respond in kind.

And although we are already going beyond the topic of government attacks on political opponents, that goes to the heart of the problem – lawlessness begets lawlessness.  And that especially if the lawless are those in power who abuse government power to subvert justice, the rule of law, and Constitutional rights instead of furthering and protecting them.  What I've posted so far is just a taste of the rising anger among Americans.

Schlichter notes that the revolt against these and other enormities of the Left has been peaceful so far, marked mainly by the elections of 2010 and 2014. (And I find that peacefulness remarkable and commendable.)  But, unlike Bill Clinton in 1994, Obama has chosen to defy the Consent of the Governed as expressed in those elections and so have congressional Republicans.  They were elected to stop Obama.  Instead they have enabled him.  And the consequences of that enabling could be ugly as well and in many ways already are.  But that will have to wait for another post.

In any case, government that not only ignores political opponents, but also ignores the rule of law by using raw government power to attack political opponents, as DA John Chisholm and IRS hack Lois Lerner and, yes, Obama have done, is profoundly un-American and invites a response we do not associate with this country as well.

Please pray for the country.  We need it.

---

MORE: Glenn Reynolds has been posting frequently in this area over at Instapundit.  For example, this post about Wisconsin.

Protesters Block Road . . . and a Driver is Arrested. HUH?

Sometimes an event is so head-scratching and/or outrageous that it puts even me at a loss for words.  Perhaps, Jim Hoft says it best, “It’s an Obama world.”

The short version of what has me at a loss follows.  In Dekalb, Illinois, “Black Lives Matter” protesters blocked Lincoln Highway.  When a driver had the green light, he slowly tried to get past the protesters.  A pregnant woman was slightly injured. (Aside: And I smell an exaggeration of injuries here.  That sort of ruse in an old trick in the Leftist playbook as is provoking or creating an incident.)  The protesters stormed the car.  The driver turned into the police parking lot to seek refuge.  Police had to restrain oh-so peaceful protesters from attacking the driver.

Now here are details that have me shaking my head.  The protesters were blocking traffic right by the Dekalb Police station.  Why did not police remove the protesters, forcibly if necessary?  And, yes, police allowing this behavior is a problem across the nation.

And then, after an incident for which police and/or those directing them share responsibility by their inaction, it is the driver who is charged and in danger of jail:

The woman was taken to Kishwaukee Hospital in DeKalb with minor injuries, treated and released, while Wittke was charged with reckless driving and failure to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk, Petragallo said. The more serious charge, reckless driving, is punishable with probation or up to a year in the county jail.

Expanding to the big picture, what we have here is an undermining of the rule of law at every level of government, from the President to police chiefs.  And we have a very unequal application of law enforcement.  If you are an illegal or a looter – or a traffic blocker – probably nothing happens to you.  But if you are law-abiding citizen asserting your lawful rights, God help you.

As I tell friends, it is better to be an illegal alien criminal under Obama than a law-abiding U. S. citizen.

In such an atmosphere, it will not take much for a backlash, perhaps in the form of vigilante justice, to get very ugly indeed.   Take blocked traffic.  That induces a lot of rage as it is.  Combine that with the (correct) perception that the powers that be side with those intentionally blocking traffic rather than with you the driver trying to go about his or her business . . . it could get ugly fast.

Similar warnings could be said in other areas of civic life.  The continual undermining and perversion of the rule of law by all levels of government has this country too close to a tipping point.

And perhaps I best stop there except to urge prayer.

-----

The organizer for the above protesters could be a poster child for a lot of things, none of them good.

The protest organizer, a Grad student at NIU, says that he is planning more protest when NIU classes resume in January, but told the Daily Chronicle he’ll be leaving town after he graduates because, as he claims, some people said “racist” things towards him and the other protesters including giving them the finger.

He blocks traffic . . . and is unhappy that drivers call him names and give him naughty gestures.

I've got nothing. . . . nothing printable at least.

Obama Endorses Blocking Traffic?

It is bad enough that several police forces are not doing their duty to clear major roads and even interstates of protesters intentionally blocking traffic.  But now it seems the current President of the United States is encouraging protesters to block traffic:

During an exclusive interview with BET aired Monday, President Obama commented on unrest over the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, saying the protests were “necessary” and noting that “a country’s conscience sometimes has to be triggered by some inconvenience.”

Now perhaps Obama was not referring to blocking traffic.  But what else could he have been referring to?  The only significant “inconvenience” caused by the Ferguson, I Can’t Breathe, Black Lives Matters etc. protesters (other than looting, burning, and assaulting, of course) is blocking traffic on major roads.   And a President is saying unlawfully inflicting such “inconvenience” is justified?

But I’ll tell you what.  Obama has the opportunity to clarify himself.  He can come out and say something like this: “Although the concerns and grievances of the protesters should be expressed and heard, blocking traffic and making it difficult for people to go to work to earn a living and to go home to their families, and endangering the lives of those in emergency medical situations, is not an acceptable way to protest.”

If Obama says something like that, I will post it here.  I’m waiting . . . . . .

Coalition of African American Pastors call for impeachment of Eric Holder

If you think Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder should be impeached you’re RAAAACIST!... Or not.

Holder has given cover to states’ attorneys general to subvert the constitutions and laws of their states.  He has advised them not to defend their states’ laws against same-sex marriage.

This subversion of the rule of law was the last straw for the Coalition of African American Pastors.  They have started a petition calling for the impeachment of Eric Holder.  They must be Black White Supremacists* or something.  I’m confused.  Anyway, yes, I have signed… because I’m also very racist, you know.

Would that the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives had the courage of these pastors.  I am getting tired of all talk and no action from Speaker Boehner and company.  The Obama Regime is running roughshod over the Constitution and the rule of law…. And Establishment Republicans are more concerned about going after the tea partiers who want to stop Obama.

*Apologies to Dave Chappelle, who is a brilliant comedian, by the way.