Since the election there has been much discussion of the future of the Republican party. Can it ever again win a national election, or is it doomed to permanent minority status? The most common response has been that the party must “reach out” (i.e., compete in the offer of bribes) to the exploding Hispanic population. Rather neatly and deceitfully avoiding the obvious fact that Republican sponsorship of mass immigration is the cause of their minority status.
A few fringe commentators have urged that the party instead do more for its core constituency of conservative white people. But the party leadership has already repudiated this alternative in both word and deed. They have apologized for “the Southern strategy” ( though not for the numerous elections that it won for them). The alternative strategy would not be respectable, and no people are more terrified of being thought unrespectable than the Republican leadership. The world view of the Sixties revolutionaries is now the mainstream, and to challenge it identifies one at once as a clueless or malevolent occupant of the disreputable fringe.
Conspicuously absent from this discussion is any explanation of why the Republican party should continue to survive at all, must less flourish. Why should we care?
Obama’s little temper tantrum over the Supreme Court voting down his unconstitutional takeover of the health insurance industry may have awakened a sleeping giant — the Judiciary. Good lawyers know better than to tick off judges.
And your common graduate of Cleveland State University knows the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of the law. Apparently a Harvard education was wasted on the president because on Monday, the president said it was “unprecedented” for a “group of unelected people” to tell him no. Instead of studying John Marshall, Charles Evans Hughes and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Barack Obama must have been poring over George Wallace’s tirades against that “group of unelected people” in Washington.
What sort of 40-year-old American who is not a socialist blathers on about “negative liberties”? He wants unlimited government. That’s socialism. Judge Jerry Edwin Smith called him on that perverted view of constitutional government. Expect more of these confrontations, not less as Barack Obama has chosen anger, hate and spite as his re-election theme.
Things got ugly when a black mail carrier refused to take back a letter he’d delivered to a lady in Hingham, Mass. She went on a racist rant and slapped him. He secretly taped it all on his cell phone.
The argument in the video is sparked by a certified letter that the mail carrier delivers. The woman has signed for it, but decides she doesn’t want it because it’s addressed to her husband, not her.
But the mail guy won’t take it back. Things go sour when she calls him a “F n thief.” She quickly qualifies: “I’m not prejudiced but right now I’m getting real pissed off.”
Then everything she says afterward is so racist it would make George Wallace blush.
Finally she slaps him. Just your normal day on the mail route.
Except really, really racist.