The Constitutional Convention of 2016

Folks, this is pure fantasy. The question it raises is simple: What would a second U.S. constitution look like? How would it be worded to prevent the deliberate dismantling of our country and its institutions, and the slow disintegration that we are now witnessing?


Although stymied and wounded by the collapse of his explicit second-term goals as scandal after scandal bursts around him, Barack Obama presses on through 2013 and 2014 brazenly violating constitutional restraints. A compliant press continues to run interference for him, and those few jurors and legislators who still believe in the Constitution are scattered, demoralized, and impotent. Nobody listens to them and nobody carries out their lawful orders.


While the 2014 election is not crooked enough to restore a Democratic majority in the House, the party’s operatives are effective in stealing several closely contested Senate races, giving Harry Reid two more years of control over the upper chamber. In the lower house, despite gallant efforts by conservative representatives to conduct hearings into the growing backlog of Obama scandals, the media simply refuses to cover them more than cursorily. Outside of AM radio and certain now heavily spammed Internet sites, a blackout on news unfavorable to the Obama regime falls over the country.


By 2015, there are overt acts of resistance from various quarters. Accounts of mutinies and near-mutinies in some Marine, Navy, and Army ranks begin to be heard when the media miscalculates and publishes accounts of courts martial for disobedience. Hoping to demonstrate the danger that racist, sexist, and reactionary servicemen pose to a progressive republic, the media’s slanders backfire as large, spontaneous pro-military demonstrations erupt in red-state cities.


In the Dakotas, Idaho, Alaska, and Utah, rebellious legislatures vote to disobey federal environmental laws and racial quotas, vowing to grind down the federal court and prison system. In Lubbock, Texas, a group calling itself The Tree of Liberty openly calls for creation of a secessionist movement whose goal is to pry red states away from the Union. When the government attempts to arrest and try the group’s leaders for sedition, a second Waco occurs, with 21 federal agents and seven secessionists dead in a shootout at a farm outside of town. As a huge federal law enforcement presence descends on the countryside around Lubbock, The Tree of Liberty’s surviving leadership goes underground, broadcasting via illegal mobile land and sea-based radio stations.


Late in the year, citing precedents set by Abraham Lincoln when he set out to defend the Union against the southern rebellion, Barack Obama claims extraordinary executive powers and begins to assign military units to patrols and sweeps in states where legislatures have called for resistance to the federal government. Despite desperate attempts by some federal judges to thwart him, and calls in Congress for his impeachment, the president continues his coup with no resistance from Democrats, the ACLU, the Pentagon, or the media.


In February 2016, Texas Governor Rick Perry announces that his state has decided to initiate “a temporary secession” from the United States of America. He reveals that Texas has quietly acquired and sequestered an arsenal of advanced weaponry, including tanks, artillery, fighter jets, cruise missiles, anti-aircraft batteries, and most significantly, control over 300 nuclear warheads.


He declares a “no-fly zone” over Texas by U.S. military aircraft, forbidding them to enter the state under threat of interception and destruction. He forbids U.S. ground troops to cross the Texas border under threat of an unspecified retaliation against the city of Washington, DC.


After going into hiding, Perry delivers a televised address estimated to draw an audience of 150 million people. In it he lays out the reasons for the secession, beginning with a pledge not to use the weapons Texas has seized against the federal government in exchange for a six-month “truce.”


“We will use that time to host a constitutional convention to which we are inviting delegates from all of the states. Our intent will be to draft a new U.S. constitution that corrects the gaps and weaknesses of the first. It will prevent from happening again the kind of slow-rolling coup that has overtaken our country ever since the lobbyists, professional politicians, crony capitalists, unions, and leftists began wresting power from the people and turning it to their own narrow and selfish ends.”


He asks that each state send two delegates to form a body of “100 of the best and brightest among us” to deliberate on and formulate a draft constitution that can be taken back to the people of the United States as a template for a reformed and rebuilt federalism.


“The delegates must not and may not be nominated or sent by standing state governments or the Democratic or Republican parties. We are asking for private citizens who are willing to sign and publicly declare an oath of allegiance to the current constitution of the United States. Marxists, socialists, radical feminists, radical homosexualists, race baiters like Al Sharpton or Chris Matthews, Keynesian advocates, pacifists, Islamist apologists, global warming true believers, and similar extremists of all stripes will not be invited. The convention will be a conversation conducted by mature men and women whose philosophies and worldviews are based neither on naive assumptions about human nature and reality nor the advocacy of avaricious, power-hungry ideologies like Marxism or President Obama’s corporate fascism.”


Perry then asks the delegates to consider the following:


  1. What new amendments would they add to the Constitution and for what reasons?
  2. What current amendments would they expand upon, and how?
  3. How would they address such hot-button issues as abortion, euthanasia, homosexual “marriage,” Islam/sharia law, voting rights, education, welfare, citizenship, war powers, etc.?


The gavel has just dropped to call the convention to order. Where do we start?

How to Gum Up the Works?

Saul Alinsky was a wicked man, and perhaps the wickedest advice he gave his acolytes was “make them play by their own rules.”

So here’s a thought experiment: What are some non-violent acts that resistors to the current federal regime could commit that would royally gum up the government bureaucracy and perhaps starve the beast of funds–all the while playing by its rules?

Please ransack your imaginations and offer some tactics. To get things started, I’ll offer two:

Create a Geezer Shock Corps (not pronounced “corpse,” Barry) where tens of thousands of old farts like me who really don’t have anything left to lose engage in acts of civil disobedience. We’ll flood the courts and jails with old-people stink and cost the gubmint an arm and a leg to keep us locked up. When the Feds begin mistreating us–and they will, because it’s their nature and we’re going to cost them a lot–even the Whore Media will get off its knees long enough to report the elder abuse.

Fill in the wrong race or sex on every application for college or government funding. Force the authorities to reveal their criteria for determining who belongs to which race or sex. Sue them for violating what the Supremes have said is every person’s right to determine his/her/its own take on what makes the universe run and his/her/its place in it.

Any and all ideas for non-violently sabotaging the elitists who have hijacked our country are welcome.

NSA Disclaimer: Chuck Martel is not calling for the violent overthrow of you cretinous yahoos. He simply wonders what intelligent people might do to get you all in a panties-tied-up-in-a-bunch tizzy.

Gore Jumps the Shark

Here’s an interesting little tidbit from Climate Depot, a site that’s skeptical of the AGW hoax. Apparently the High Priest of Hoaxdom, Al Gore, was seen melting at a big AGW confab a few days ago. The Dorothy who was destroying his “beautiful climate change wickedness” is the growing legion of people who see through the whole AGW religion and have now moved on to such silly things as saving their national economies and waking up to jihad.–Climate-Depot-Responds



New Contest: How to Blame Flash Mobs on the Tea Party

Over at The American Interest, Walter Mead has written an interesting piece, “American Tenderbox,” on the recent spate of strong-arm robberies and attacks on whites by flash mobs of young black men:

After succumbing to weariness over a seemingly endless attempt by one contributor on another thread to paint sociology as a legitimate science, I suggested that we start a new thread. In it, we would look at Democratic Party social policies, designed to liberate black people, and ask if they’ve had anything to do with the rise in flash-mob savageries in the downtowns of various Democratic cities. I asked said contributor in jest whether he could conjure up a “scientific” sociology study that shows that Tea Party members are the ones behind the flash-mob phenomenon.

Which got me to thinking. . .

Let’s have a contest to come up with the best explanation why Tea Partyers are the ones responsible for lawless behavior among some black urban yoots. Feel free to create your own names of putative sociology studies that prove your assertion, as well as imaginary URLs linking to them. Various prizes will be awarded for the most clever repeated use of the words “racism” and “Tea Party” in the same sentence, as well as parodies of leftspeak in the summaries and abstracts of your scientific “proofs.”

Should SADIE be allowed to contribute? We met, and after consulting Wiki, decided that she may.

UPDATE: Note to Mike Devx: This isn’t the Democratic Party, so Martel isn’t allowed to rig his own contests. But Chuck says to tell you he appreciates the compliment!

Oh, No, NASA Says Hot Air Escaping AGW Arguments!

I just ran across this item on Drudge, a Forbes report on some bad news for AGW hoaxsters. Here is the lede:

“NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.”

The link is at:


A Bookwormish Guide to Leftist Memes

It’s always fun to track the little memes that creep into and out of leftist discourse. Back in the day, they included “premature anti-fascism,” “McCarthyite witch hunt,” “peaceful co-existence,” “Venceremos!,” “Bush Lied, Children Died,” and other absurdities.

Here’s a look at some of the current crop of “progressive” memes:

Shared Sacrifice—This is the new chestnut from Obama’s lips. It’s code for “let’s milk the rich and make ‘em pay for our plans to continue expanding the federal government.” Its proponents immediately raise objections to any suggestions that people who have very little tax burdens might want to “have more skin in the game” by being asked to contribute a bit more themselves.

Implicit in “shared sacrifice” are two assumptions the left cannot question without losing its identity: 1.) The federal government’s continued growth is vital to the survival of the free market and the United States of America. Starving it of needed taxes is much like starving a healthy child who is just entering a growth spurt. 2.) The acquisition of wealth is suspect at best and borderline criminal at worst. What’s at work here is a sublimated acceptance of the Marxist notion that labor alone gives value to a commodity or good. Since the rich don’t really work, the value of their products doesn’t really belong to them.

Narratives—This is one words that often marks its user as an unreflective relativist. In Left Land, all accounts of “reality” (notice the scare quotes) are conflicting narratives based on how centers of power—or powerlessness—see the world and would organize it according to their position. Although there is no objective truth, and all narratives are relative, some narratives are better because they can lead to social justice (see below). How one thing can be better than another when there is no such thing as better, is never explained.

White Skin Privilege—At one time, this was a serious and substantial characterization, especially in the South and in Democratic cities of the North. Today, though, it is racial code talk for middle-class values, which do not particularly take race into account. The people who use this term are either academics trying to get one more grand hand-wring out of their liberal guilt, or lower-class ethnics of any race who disdain such repressive practices as graduating from high school, delaying sexual gratification, learning how to show up at work on time, using normal business English, and not selling dope to their neighbors.

Fundamentalism—This is a leftist meme that is never explained because that would require a rudimentary knowledge of the thing—usually religion—that is being condemned. It is designed to summon images of barefoot, sexually frustrated women, illiterate hicks who cower in fear before the printed word (or NPR), and prigs who would torture gays—oh, wait, that’s the Religion of Peace—and refuse to believe that the universe created itself out of nothing and has been one accident after another ever since.

Social Justice—This is the Holy Grail of progressivism. It is code for the elimination of whatever it is you want eliminated in the name of justice and equality: borders, aptitude tests, strength tests, marriage eligibility criteria, workfare, sexual differences, income disparities, etc. For leftists, it is the most wonderful catch-all phrase ever invented, with the possible exception of  “We shall overcome.” “Yes, we can!” [With thanks to DL Sly for a better suggestion.]

Externalities—A useful economics notion that has been twisted into a hammer that sees every enterprise and market innovation as a nail. Simply put, an externality is a hidden cost that may not become apparent until later. For example, building an interstate highway system may improve the general economy of the country by allowing for faster, more efficient movement of goods. But one externality that only later becomes apparent is that in bypassing towns that once depended on through traffic from the predecessor highways for their commerce, the interstates led to those towns’ decline and even deaths.

Usually you will see the term applied to situations where it will reinforce a leftist point of view. A good example is the ongoing leftist hate fest against Wal-Mart. The meme goes that Wal-Mart moves into a bucolic little town and destroys the colorful mom-and-pop stores that give the place character and community. This destruction is the externality.

However, if you were to view another externality that never gets mentioned, it would wreck the leftist narrative. Think of an isolated place so far along the supply chain that it gets little choice in what goods it can buy and must pay a high price for them to cover the cost of transporting them so far. So, even though they’re forced to charge high prices, the cute little mom-and-pops cannot pay their help or themselves much money. The local economy is stuck in a place where it can’t really create a surplus.  

Now Wal-Mart comes in, with its huge buying power and economies of scale. Its per-hour pay rate is more than competitive with the mom-and-pops, and it likes to hire old people and part-timers (a big plus in farming communities). Because Wal-Mart centralizes access to many goods and services, people spend less on gas while buying those goods and services at a lower rate than they ever could have at the mom-and-pops. Net effect: the local standard of living goes up because people’s incomes stretch further.

This is a positive outcome, but note that the externality of the drag that small, inefficient stores put on rural citizens is never noted. Doesn’t fit the narrative.

Racism—Use of this term has devolved almost entirely into a situation where the pot is calling the kettle black. The notion that criticizing Obama is racist betrays the accusers’ closeted racism, which cannot see beyond Obama’s skin. Because for the left it is Obama’s skin, not Obama the man, they elected.

The most amusing use of the word is when leftists indignantly call people who criticize Islam “racists.” The Arabs, who are a Caucasian people, as well as the Iranians and many Pakistanis, would be surprised to learn that their religion is a race. Again, implicit in leftists’ use of the word race is a race consciousness that surpasses anything you’ll ever find among conservatives. Remember, it is “progressives” who firmly believe as one southern wag once said, “America is the only country on earth where a white woman can give birth to a black baby, but a black woman can never, ever give birth to a white baby.”

Fox News—Fox is not only the left’s bête noire, it also reveals its deep down perception that its own captive media have lost their mojo. Come on, when you compare Fox’s total viewership with the combined figures for all the other cable news channels, as well as the networks, the mainstream media, NPR and PBS, it has only a fraction of as many viewers. Yet Fox looms like Leni Riefenstahl in the leftist mind: Its visual magic can transform millions of flyover trash into letter writers, poll watchers, voters, raving racists, roving homophobes, and openly pro-Israel supporters—all in the space of only one Hannity segment.

Do you have any memes you’d like to add to this list?

School’s a Private Matter for Bigwig Leftists

An interesting news item today relates how Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel got very testy with an interviewer when she asked him why he is sending his two children to a private rather than a public school.

I’m not particularly dismayed at Emanuel for resenting the question—New Jersey Governor Christie recently told a radio talk-show caller that it was none of her business where he was sending his kids to school. Rahm can certainly plausibly say the same thing.

But the difference here is that Emanuel is an ultra-leftist who should believe that his children cannot claim privilege and are needed to serve the noble cause of demonstrating his profound belief in the public schools. (As we all know, public schools are under assault by reactionaries and theocrats.)

I know the standard explanation is that a private school is more secure than a public school, therefore presents fewer problems protecting the kids of prominent politicians or officials. It’s not too hard to see what “more secure” means: not very many black students. Even Barack Obama, who is an upper middle-class white liberal in all but pigmentation, knows that the Washington, DC public schools are cesspools where any sort of discipline, whether mental or physical, is in short supply. (I emphatically don’t blame the black kids, who come from a culture mired in self-destructive behavior abetted by 45 years of Democratic Party racism.)

I’m amazed that the left, which I know just despises hypocrisy, doesn’t see how racist officials appear when they choose to privately school their children. Almost as hypocritical, I suppose, as calling for yet more money to be poured down the rat hole of public education even as Cody and Brie are heading off for classes at Almost All-White Academy.

It’s a Small World After All

Over on Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds links to John Hawkins’ (at Right Wing News) contention that conservative blogs are having a tough go, especially in light of the left’s increasing dominance of the blogosphere. However, Reynolds think one commentor’s response to the post is worth noting: Smaller blogs don’t need to be high-readership affairs to have a profound effect on what people think and discuss.

An excerpt:

JOHN HAWKINS ON THE END OF THE INDEPENDENT CONSERVATIVE BLOGOSPHERE. But I think the comment by Perry De Havilland is spot-on:

“Don’t look at The Big Players as all that matters as it just does not work that way any more… that is ‘Old Think’, i.e. newspaper era think. The heterarchical nature of the Internet changes things fundamentally.

“100,000 small blogs with 100 readers per day move ideas around in ways that are vastly harder to track but they are just as important as 100 blogs with 100,000 readers each. . . . I no longer get my information from a newspaper whilst drinking my morning coffee… I spend about the same time quickly scanning a selection of blogs and then mine deeper based upon what I find, and many, indeed most of those blogs are not high readership… so what? It matters much less than you think.”

The item got me to thinking why a small-potatoes blog like this attracts the likes of self-styled polymaths like Zach or the now-gone abc. I think it’s because they instinctively know that places like Bookworm Room are ones where, if they can make their arguments stick (so far, no luck) with educated, intelligent conservatives, they can make them stick on bigger sites that have much more traffic but less-discerning readers.

(There’s also the simple fact that most of us here, Zach included, don’t mind taking the time to write long-form comments and responses because we have some assurance they’ll actually get read. That’s not always the case in forums where hundreds of responses can show up in only a few hours.)

We’re like New York in that line from the Frank Sinatra song, “If I can make it there, I can make it anywhere.” So, we’re a kind of testing ground for leftist and statist memes. That’s why people like Zach and abc repeat themselves endlessly. It’s probably far less from the misbegotten belief that saying the same things over and over will produce converts, and far more like exposing armor plating to repeated artillery hits—all the better to see which part of it, if any, can withstand the opposition.

As backhanded as the compliment is, it’s still a compliment. And it certainly squares with De Havilland’s observation above.

Radicals’ Love Affair With Symbolism

I live in a small town of 12,000 people that has a very inviting and walkable downtown. I strolled to the bank yesterday and noticed that a couple of young people had set up a Lyndon LaRouche “Impeach Obama” table directly across the street from the town’s busiest restaurant.

As I passed their table, the young woman who seemed to be the brains of the pair asked me, “Do you want to save the United States?” I told her that indeed I do, but that following Lyndon LaRouche’s nostrums hardly seemed the way to go about it. “Besides,” I said, “it’s obvious from your portrait of Obama with the Hitler moustache that you’re not here to convert, only to provoke.”

She was from Marin and agreed that the extremity of her presentation was bound to persuade few, if any, that Obama is, as she put it, “leading the country into fascism.”

So I asked her why she had planted her flag in such hostile territory with little or no expectation of success. She shrugged her shoulders and ask me for a donation.

Later I got to thinking about the obsession with symbolism that seems to characterize radicals: The LaRouchites with their silly Obama = Hitler visual; the Obamaites with their ludicrous Caligulan pillars and halo effects; the Democratic-led Ku Klux Klan with their pointy hoods; aliterate college students dressing up as Disney characters to protest against regents voting for tuition increases (California); leftist cartoons depicting Jews as fanged baby eaters; Code Pink’s wizened skanks subliminally evoking the color of young women’s labia; the clichéd, oversized, grotesquely rendered puppets at “progressive” parades representing the bogeyman du jour.

Where does this fascination with imagery come from? Is it spillover from Halloween? A vestige of the 60s when “look-at-me!” dress and epater le bourgeois were in vogue? The result of too many fine arts grads looking for too few jobs and having to retreat to pottery barns to produce art for “social justice?”

It goes without saying that the imagery moves few, and for any thinking person shows an inability to see the world in anything but crude symbols. So what is its purpose? Is it simply to enrage (or in my case, inspire fleeting pity)? What does it say about the person who makes it? That he is creative and insightful? That she has bravely surrounded herself with like-minded people?  That he will finish the day ranting at somebody other than the choir?

Probably the symbol that amuses me the most–although the people who present it are clueless that it is even there–is when anarchists hide behind black masks. How can the bravest, baddest young men in the hood act so scaredy cat in the face of despised authority? “People of the world, were here to liberate you! We’ll let you know who we are just as soon as we overthrow the system!”

Another symbol that has been devalued, like denarii under a corrupt Roman emperor, is the Nobel prizes. Obama’s win of the Peace Prize in 2009 not only was cynical, it was racist. Contrast his life, devoid of struggle or principle, with that of a far worthier recipient, Martin Luther King, Jr. Whereas King received the prize in recognition of genuine courage and accomplishment, Obama received it as a pat on the head from white men who saw him as a magic Negro, the perfect patsy on which to load their resentment of the United States while showing their post-racist bona fides.

Then there is Paul Krugman. The man is a disgrace to logic and civility. But he has been a tireless advocate for the Euro bureaucrats’ ideal of a state run by all-knowing functionaries who can fine-tune an economy with regular injections of hot air from the present and IOUs to be paid by children from the 2030s. For his loyalty to that statist vision, he earned his doggie treat.

Symbolism is also a Rorschach test, both for the creators and consumers. Early in Obama’s regime there was the guerilla art poster of The One made up to look like The Joker. Conservatives immediately got the double jape: not only a narcissist careening out of control but also a greatest practical joke in American history gone awry–a clown had somehow won the presidency. Liberals immediately resorted to their one-arrow quiver and declared that the poster was racist. Never mind that defaulting so quickly to that explanation exposed liberals’ own always shallowly hidden racism.

The one mash-up of symbols that leftists are particularly fond of is the Star of David and the swastika. This harkens back to the LaRouchites’ facile Hitler mustache on Obama. By juxtaposing two incompatible symbols, the artists attempt to prove their great powers of insight. That the pairings come off as just plain stupid to almost any normal person who sees them doesn’t occur to them at all.

What does this rant symbolize? Only that Marin County is undergoing one of its routine sieges of summer fog. It should burn off by mid-afternoon, and then I’ll be free to cavort in the sunshine. In the meantime, I thought I’d post a “What’s up with that?”

Is the Sky Falling? NYT Item Questions The One

Interesting item from the New York Times today about a “mischaracterization” (what we knucklewalkers call a “lie”) Obama made during the 2008 campaign. The lede:

“The White House on Wednesday declined to challenge an account in a new book that suggests that President Obama in his campaign to overhaul American health care, mischaracterized a central anecdote about his mother’s deathbed dispute with her insurance company.”

The Obama “narrative” is slowly unraveling. Even the true believers are getting sick of the guy. So expect more sniping at the edges as the whore media wait to see if Obama is losing his momentum. If so, they will throw him under the bus as fast as they can to make room for somebody else.

Speaking of—and I know this is a long shot—let’s say the Democrats do decide to toss Obama overboard. Who’s waiting in the wings? Could Hillary take advantage of the resentment among all the Demo women who saw how disgracefully the media and Obama treated her? Is there a Demo dark horse who’s been making waves off camera who could make a plausible case for being both the not-Obama and the not-GOP candidate? A superb tightrope walker?

How would the not-Obama position him/herself to get Demos and independents to the polls in large enough numbers to win the 2012 election? In a way we’re looking to design a successful campiagn from our opponents’ point of view.

Bookworm Room Designs the GOP’s 2012 Campaign

We’ve skirted this topic before in Bookworm Room, but never really plunged into it: If you could plan the GOP’s 2012 campaign against Obama, what themes and visuals would you bring into it? This assumes you have a big war chest and carte blanche regarding the many embarrassing and critical things you can bring up about The One. The only restriction is that you cannot attack the man’s person or family, only his actions and policies. (Well, OK, Michelle’s hi-calorie scarf fests are fair game.)

  • What would be a great slogan (or series of slogans) that quickly defines the approach the GOP should take to unseating  Obama?
  • What groups or voting blocs should the GOP especially aim at, and what would be the specific message(s) directed at them?
  • What are some photos or videos that you would fold into the campaign?
  • How much humor would you inject, and what would be some examples of that humor?
  • What would be your preferred media? TV? Newspapers? Radio? Social networks? (Speaking of social networking, how would you use Twitter and Facebook to dismantle the Cult of Obama?)
  • A related question: How would you handle the expected refusal of the mainstream media to accommodate some—or even many—of your ads? How would you get around them?

It may be, given the range of good minds here, that we could come up with some ideas worth passing on to the GOP. And just to hedge our bets, given the GOP’s almost reflexive cowardice, we could also pass them on to the Tea Party and conservative 527s.