sic semper tyrannis

The photo of Barack Hussein Obama disrespecting our national anthem was taken September 16, 2007. According to this source, the occasion was a Steak Fry hosted by Iowa Senator Tom Harkin. You may note the two senators to Obama’s left, both at the time candidates for the Democratic nomination.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words; this one simply tells of a man who can’t be bothered to respect our nation. At least Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton understand how important it is to show one’s respect for our nation in the form of a salute.

The argument that “sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn’t” salute the flag by placing his hand over his heart don’t cut it. If Obama thinks the gesture lacks any meaning or symbolizes nothing, then that is his opinion.

But: is that what we want in a commander-in-chief? Someone to whom being a leader does not include visibly supporting our nation by the small yet significant gesture of saluting?

No, we do not want a man as casual and disrespectful as Obama as our commander in chief. That is the only acceptable answer for a patriot.

The mini-language flap that’s arisen around Barack Hussein Obama has sparked some sympathy. Some. Very little, actually. As described here, it’s classic elitist nonsense: look at you poor rubes out there in fly-over country; you can’t speak French.

Oh, the shame! I hang me head in abject sorrow. What BHO said can be boiled down to this quotation:

“I know because I don’t speak a foreign language. It’s embarrassing!” he said.

We must presume this non-speaking of a foreign language is not another flip-flop, as he previously had said he speaks some Spanish and Indonesian.

As Dick Nixon used to say, “that is inoperative.” But I’m generally sympathetic to the notion that we would all be more interesting folks if we could speak another language. Just think — if you spoke passable French, you could order in a bistro in Paris. Just think — if you spoke passable Spanish, you could order a meal at a fast-food restaurant in the United States.

On the other hand, never, ever, admit to foreigners that you, a credible candidate for president, are “embarrassed” because more Americans don’t know a second language. We don’t know a second language for the simple reason that we do not need to. Name your field, technical or otherwise. It’s a rare piece of work that is both necessary to read, and unavailable in English.

Back in the day, I had to learn technical German in order to read physics journals not then available in English. Ain’t I swell? That requirement, at the PhD level, went away. As did any pretense that I can speak German. Because it’s not needed. Journals in physics, chemistry, math, you name it, are…drum roll please…in English.

Mr. Obama: we’re embarrassed that you are embarrassed.

An op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal reminds us that there is a movement afoot to force a back-door change to the Constitution: the “National Popular Vote” would neuter the Electoral College by requiring each state that adapts it to cast its electoral votes for whoever wins the national popular vote.

The proponents, largely partisan Democrats who wrap themselves in the liberal mantra of “count every vote,” no doubt view this attempt to negate the Constitution on the cheap in the name of “the people” as striking a blow for freedom. At least the freedom for Democrats to win elections they can’t win under those stuffy old Dead White-guy 18th century rules.

The likely motive? It is in their view a way to elect more Democrat presidents. On the presumption, of course, that “the people” will almost always vote for those who promise them more in the way of government largess.

Not that Republicans of recent years have been shy about gorging themselves at the public trough, but that’s for another time. But Democrats remain the party of government handouts; uncontested champions of raising taxes and creating programs that will continue to suck the life blood from us and tax us into the grave.

Returning to the NPV, four states have signed on so far; others are nibbling on the bait. The actuality of NPV? The first thing is that it would undermine the entire concept of our founding: that we are a federal republic, with powers not explicitly granted to the central government reserved to the individual states and their people.

NPV also kills sectionalism. Which some would consider a blessing, but not those of us who claim to like diversity. Oh, not the skin-color-counting kind of diversity. But cultural diversity. Many of the same liberals who decry the malling of America, upset at seeing the same chain stores in Iowa as in California, will probably also be enthusiastic about eliminating sectional differences in voting. And not see the slightest bit of dissonance in their self-contradictory choices.

Sectional candidates don’t necessarily travel well outside of their sections: northeastern liberals like Michael Dukakis and John Kerry both tanked. But, on the other hand, Southern moderates like Bill Clinton have done well outside of their sectional base. Sectionalism is not the problem — what actual candidates do and say and promise is.

Theories of government (federalism) aside, consider this example for one of the states that has adapted the NPV, Maryland. In 2004 in Maryland, Kerry swamped Bush, 56% to 43%. How would you feel, if you had voted for Kerry, if Maryland had cast its 10 electoral votes for Bush?

The key word? You would have been disenfranchised. Another example, even more egregious? If the District of Columbia adapted NPV, (89% for Kerry, 9% for Bush), awarding the 3 electoral votes to Bush would enrage the populace.

Since both D.C. and Maryland are Democrat strongholds, it is hard to imagine why Maryland has gone along with a law that would disenfranchise the state whenever a Republican wins the national plurality of votes. Perhaps the state’s legislators were drunk during the vote? Or was this some sort of devious plot by Karl Rove…

NPV is a back-door, underhanded attempt to change what won’t be changed by the will of the people for the simple reason that most states’ legislatures won’t go along with it. That is, by amending the Constitution. The NPV crusade is typical of liberals who claim to represent the “voice of the people.” Except when it comes to actually getting people to vote their way on some issues like the Electoral College.

NPV is a truly radical and truly bad initiative. It is undemocratic. It is unamerican.