I just saw RoboHobo’s link to the article about “Obama as having a narcissistic personality disorder.” Well I clicked on it. And well I’m at work. And what pops up on my screen but: “This web site blocked because of category:hate speech.”

Things to come, eh?

Indeed, the most unsettling thing about a Con-con is the message it sends: The very act of convening a Con-con – no matter what comes out of it (my guess: probably a lot closer to the EU’s infamously bloated constitutional proposal than to what we have now) – amounts to a tacit admission that the current Constitution has either become obsolete, or somehow failed to serve its purpose.

Here’s the thing though: What happens when a critical mass of people reach exactly that conclusion – that the best model of government in world history just isn’t good enough anymore? They may well opt for something new – anything new, as long as it isn’t the Constitution that they perceive to have failed them already. After all, it wouldn’t exactly be the first time Americans have blindly embraced change for its own sake.

Tax Protests
10th Amendment resolutions
Support the Constitution Party, GoP and all local vetted candidates from our side of the fence.
Join the NRA and support 2A issues to the best of our abilities. (This one is important as the Left is trying to demonize gun owners as radicals.)
And on, and on….

Also:
bvw @ #168 said:

“Obama will not bring us out of this. I’ve suggested elsewhere that he is a high functioning autistic. He is not capable of understanding the obvious consequences of his actions, beyond the simple dynamics of division and the politics of the bold lie of a con artist.”

Or I prefer the take of Ali Sina from FaithFreedom -

http://www.faithfreedom.org/obama.html = Obama as having a narcissistic personality disorder.

1. As Wretchard stated legitimacy comes from working within the legal framework of the society. To repeat his point, by doing so you put the antagonist in a no-win situation. If the mass movement is legal and large enough the antagonist cannot indulge in repression without confirming the grievances alleged against him.

2. Because the constitutional convention is provided for in the constitution it confers legitmacy upon the outcome. If this were tried now I agree the effort would be highjacked by the left. They currently have to much popular support.

But my point is we should be preparing now for the next crisis (economic melt-down, WMD used on U.S. soil or something else monumental but unanticipated) to propose the convention. When that occurs, the liberal elite/MSM will be discredited and will lose both confidence and support. Then the inattentive middle will be open to the proposals of the right. While the middle is not strong on specific policy proposals I believe they will respond well to core American values such as free speech (no speech codes), equal protection under the law (no affirmative action), economic independence (no long term welfare) and choice (no single payer government health plan). The hard left will still try to high-jack the convention but will be perceived as mouth pieces of the ancien regime that didn’t prevent the crises.

I think we can agree some form of my anticipated crisis is likely to occur. If the right can’t win under those circumstances I think it safe to say the war is already lost.

Interesting results.

Yet sad. The fundamental rules of economics are simple and humble, yet inviolate. And who can state them? Too many believe in magic. History records most, if not all of the current failings, nothing is new under the sun.

It delays the recovery — if recovery is possible to entertain the theory that the fix will come through Obama. It is like hoping that a group of leukemia cells can be convinced by some magic microbiology to kill off all the other leukemia cells.

Yet Brooks is correct when he asks if we are operating far beyond our economic knowledge. And he’s right only for the reason he seems to tie to that statement, where he says “Every time the administration releases an initiative, I read 20 different economists with 20 different opinions.”

That extreme diversity of opinions in the class of elite experts in the field indicates not only a complete failure of common sense, but a Babel situation, that no one can hear each others words any more — everyone is on their own, unable to communicate! Yes they use words and proper grammar, and educated compositional structure, but any wisdom is hard to find, because a common basis for economic discussion is missing. It is as if all the learned wisdom of ages is forgotten.

Time for the return of the Gods of The Copybook Headings. Or worse — what will be in ten years, chaotic breakdown among the whole of the world’s societies leadership and elites is rare. Babel was one, perhaps the fall of Rome another. But even the collapse of the Roman Empire could be a minor event compared toteh speed and force of our current collapse.

Where is the system reactance? Normally some major reactance develops to such dynamics, yet we seem to be almost without it. ALL, or close to, the men and women in power and authority seem to have no energy, be corrupt, or be, well, high functioning autistics.