Two. That’s all … two.

The nation, at this point in time, sits two people away from a dictatorship.

Curious? With apologies for the length, read on. And stay with me — this is important.

First, some background and fair warning. For those of you who’ve followed my sometimes [or, rather, consistently] rambling rants here at America’s Right about all things liberal, by now you should know one thing: As noted in my brief “profile” (can we still use that term?), if any post appears at America’s Right with my name on it and which in any way is sympathetic to or complimentary of anything liberal, you may rest assured that the piece is a forgery.

Now, I’ve been around the block a few times and can say, with some authority, that even before the reign of The Guy from Chicago, the decades-long, incremental creep of socialism and liberalism into the national fabric, accompanied by their handmaiden enabling doctrines of “political correctness,” “capitalists bad – socialists good” and “redistributionist equity,” had so shoved the foundations of the country to the left and away from the original intent and labors of the Founding Fathers that they would likely not have recognized the place. And that is a sad truth.

However, if they would have been merely dismayed and saddened between 1789 and 2008, before the last general election, they would now in 2010 be clinically depressed if not outright suicidal. Check it out:

  • a compounding of the nation’s debt in one year to a level four times greater than that aggregated in the first two hundred years of the nation’s history;
  • the nationalization of one-sixth of the nation’s economy under the cynical guise of “healthcare reform,” the final costs of which remain unknown;
  • the creation from thin air of scores of political “czars” unaccountable to the Senate or anyone other than the Charlatan in Chief;
  • the populating of the Supreme Court with folks who think governmental policy properly emanates from the bench, not the Congress;
  • a “commander-in-chief” who would rather bow to the Muslim head of Saudi Arabia than answer the pleas of the governor of Arizona to stop the invasion of the state by foreign forces, as required by the Constitution;
  • a president who has counted among his acquaintances and role models Saul Alinsky and William Ayers – both fans of Karl Marx – Jeremiah Wright, Van Jones and Hugo Chavez;
  • and on, and on, and on. [here, dear reader, feel free to insert your own personal favorite Obama outrage(s)]

Memo to the electorate: any time you see the word “reform” tagged onto a topic which the radicals now in charge have deemed to be in dire need of “change” – especially when accompanied by the adjective “comprehensive” – run for the hills, because nothing … repeat, NOTHING … good can come of it. This includes immigration “reform,” banking “reform,” Wall Street “reform” and education “reform.” All of these are liberal code-speak for the collectivization and eventual demise of the United States of America.

And here’s a scary one you will likely hear more about in the coming months: pension, 401(k) and IRA “reform.” That’s right, Virginia, the regime apparatchiks and their operatives in the Congress are now hard at work setting the stage and floating “trial balloons” for the capture and appropriation – as happened in Argentina – of millions of Americans’ private pension nest eggs. Government and public pensions are one thing; private pensions, until recently, are quite another.

First, The Guy creates the deficits and debt to drive the nation toward bankruptcy. Voila! The crisis! Then, in a concocted maneuver to “save” the system, his policies try to seize your private property — one “reform” measure at a time. But don’t bother searching for these stories through mainstream media sources: the mainstream press (save for, thankfully, Fox News Channel) is now, tragically and lamentably, little more than a propaganda organ for The Guy and his sycophants. Thomas Jefferson and his compatriots would not be pleased.


The electorate needs to understand, in clear and unequivocal terms, precisely what is at stake here. This regime has been able to get away with its accelerated radicalization and collectivization of the nation since it captured power in January 2009 only because (a) it controlled the White House; (b) it controlled the Congress; and (c) it enjoyed the sympathies of four-ninths (and sometimes five-ninths) of the United States Supreme Court. And it consistently received a pass from the press.

But as November 2, 2010 approaches, assume the worst case scenario and just do the math. The current composition of the Democratic Caucus in the Senate is 58 Democrats, including two Democrat-leaning Independents (Lieberman and Sanders) and one vacancy. It is a safe wager that the seat vacated by the death of Democrat Robert Byrd will again be filled by a Democrat (but let us hope I am wrong). If that happens, the Democrats, at 59, will need but a single additional senator to again “run the table” in that chamber, assuming they don’t lose anyone in the upcoming election.

That’s one.

We must hope they lose at least ten seats, with the Republicans losing none, removing Harry Reid and his pals from the majority. But we should not bet the ranch on that delicious potential. Translation: as of today, one more Democrat in the Senate and it’s “Katie-bar-the-door.” Or, perhaps better stated, it’s “Karl-bar-the-door.” After all, we can’t let those “rich” taxpayers escape, can we?

The current composition of the House – 253 Democrats and 178 Republicans – might well change, such that Nancy (“Partnership not Partisanship”) Pelosi will be returned to the House basement broom closet from whence she escaped in 2007. On the other hand, unless the Republicans can hold all of their present 178 seats and gain at least 40 seats now held by Democrats to regain the majority, the House will remain a part of The Guy’s “team.” So, if the Senate gains one net Democrat in this coming November and the House stays under Pelosi’s “stewardship,” the Congress stays aligned with Obama’s “vision” for the nation.

Which brings us to the Supreme Court.

The Guy has already succeeded in replacing a liberal with a liberal. Associate Justice David Souter leaves, Associate Justice Sonia (“Policy Comes from the Bench”) Sotomayor arrives: it’s a lib-for-a-lib wash. But now, Justice Stevens has announced his departure and The Guy has nominated Elena Kagan, his Department of Justice Solicitor General. (More about the DoJ in a moment.) Anyone who believes that Kagan, if confirmed, will line up with the conservative wing or even “moderate” seat of the Court is likely indulging in a controlled substance — not that the liberal wing of the Court thinks that’s all bad, of course. So, again, Justice Stevens leaves, Elena (not yet a Justice) Kagan arrives and it’s another lib-for-a-lib wash.

Ah, but if before January 2013 – when, hopefully, America’s nightmare will be ending – any of the conservatives on the Court (Chief Justice Roberts, Associate Justices Alito, Scalia or Thomas) or the “swing vote” moderate (Justice Kennedy), decide to retire or otherwise depart the bench, The Guy will have an opportunity to, yes, nominate and with Senate approval install a replacement. Heck, he could even bypass the Senate and Congress altogether and attempt another “recess appointment,” as recently done with Donald (“Healthcare Rationing is Good”) Berwick if the timing were right. Odds are that a recess appointment would not be made to the Supreme Court, but odds are also that such a replacement on the Court, however it happens, would not be a conservative. Just a wild guess.

And that’s two.

And remember, the Supreme Court has the final say on what is, and what is not, constitutional. That much we know from the 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison. Ironically, Marbury is generally also recognized as the decision confirming the protections of the Constitution as implemented through the “separation of powers” doctrine.

And so, under the “worst case” scenario, the nation would then have (a) the Executive branch controlled by The Guy; (b) the Legislative branch controlled by people as radical as, if not more so than, The Guy; and (c) the Judicial branch “likely” controlled by judges philosophically and intellectually aligned with The Guy. And with that, the nation can kiss the separation of powers doctrine, brilliantly conceived by the Founding Fathers and designed into the Constitution, goodbye. Remember: when there is no longer any “separation,” there is no longer a “doctrine.” There is only one thing left: power.

Sooooo, to recap: if between now and January 2013 the Democrats gain but one net seat in the Senate, hold their death-grip on the House and limit Republican gains to less than 40 seats, and a single “conservative” or “moderate” vacancy arises at the Supreme Court before then … that, Virginia, by definition could easily lead to a classic dictatorship. To use a meteorological term, a “perfect storm.”

Accordingly, when you go to vote in November – and please do so while you still have the chance, lest “comprehensive election reform” thereafter raise its head – keep these facts in mind. And if you succeed in running the gauntlet of “poll watchers” there to ensure that “security” is provided and that the voting process is proceeding according to plan, rest assured that The Guy’s Department of Justice will be looking out for you as you vote.  Assuming you’re the right color, of course.

Oh, and be sure to ignore former DoJ attorney J. Christian Adams’ sworn testimony regarding what he and other Justice Department attorneys had been told by their superiors there regarding how the laws concerning voter protection and civil rights were going to be “enforced” following the dropping of charges and abandonment of a default judgment (that’s right, a default judgment) against a couple of New Black Panther Party members who were providing “security” at a Philadelphia polling site during the 2008 election.

Above all else, though, remember.  Two people, folks. Two.



  1. Anonymous says:

    Real Americans will not allow for the commandeering of an airliner, let alone the commandeering of our nation. Let’s roll. Remember in November!, and please, just ignore Buckwheat with the nightstick.

  2. whats_up says:


    As usual with you a little over the top. But what I have come to expect from the far right wing, of which I consider you one.

  3. Boston Blackie says:

    I don’t know why I check in at lunchtime, I always end up with heartburn thanks to Obeyme and his grandiose ideas to bankrupt us.

    Rick, Thanks for reminding us what is at stake in the midterms. What you forgot to mention is what will be shoved down our throats by the lame duck Congess this fall. I have seriously considered stopping my contributions to my 401(k) and pulling out what’s left in there, screw the tax penalty since I am not yet 55. It’s sure a hell not going to worth didilly swat in 20 years.
    I actually pray each day for God to save our country, including the continued health of all our Supreme Court Justices. I don’t think God would like it if I only prayed for the health of conservatives.

    Remember: when there is no longer any “separation,” there is no longer a “doctrine.” There is only one thing left: power.

    That should be the battle cry. These people are drunk with power.

  4. Dee says:

    Thank you,Rick, for giving me another headache. Really, your article is very thought provoking and not something I had thought of. I did read that Justice Kennedy said that he will not retire until BO is out of office. As for the swing votes in the Senate, Snow, Collins, and the very disappointing Scott Brown are usually game to provide those.
    Our local liberal newspaper had an editorial that stated that the New Black Panther case was “much ado about nothing”. They stated that the 2 men were dressed in costumes and looked silly. They also said that those 2 said a few racial words and left when they were told to. I laughed out loud when I read that.
    I had heard about the administration wanting to take over the 401K’s and then providing people with a 3% yearly allowance. If that should occur, I plan to cash mine in, pay the penalty, and stuff it in my mattress!
    BO does not care what the people want. He does what he wants to and if you don’t like it, too bad.
    There was an article on Drudge today that told of Pa. getting $160 million dollars for a high risk insurance plan and in that plan abortions would be covered with tax dollars! I thought we were told that no abortions would be covered under the health care plan. Silly me to think that maybe that was true.
    Thank you once again, Rick, and to all the contributors and commenters who make me realize that I am not alone.

  5. Tory says:

    Over the top? What a unique way to describe a non-sensational,thoughtful, ( I would add “comprehensive”, but the 0 adminiregime’s serial misuse of that word now makes me gag) analysis that relies on history to make a very sobering and plausible assessment of what lies ahead.

    I agree with every syllable of this article. The imperativeness of making the electorate comprehend what is going on, though, is worrisomely problematic in light of admissions like the one made by mainstream media figure Mort Zuckerman, where he candidly and breezily admits that he helped write one of Obama’s speeches.

  6. kj says:

    Kennedy has stated that he won’t retire until after Obama leaves office. The conservatives won’t leave unless they die.

  7. Thanks for the depressing article. ;-) Unfortunately, it is quite an accurate analysis. (Seriously; this makes me want to hoard my food storage and live in a bunker…..) But as far as one of the more “conservative” Supremes leaving, that might be premature. It seems those guys haven’t been in that long; or maybe time flies faster than I think.

    Let’s hope the worst case scenario does not play out….and 2010 can actually be the year of change we can believe in: Ousting Reid, demoting Pelosi, and getting rid of the DEMONcrat-controlled Congress.

    Nothing wrong with being (far) right wing.

  8. whats_up says:

    @ Tory:

    With all due respect, Conservatives have been claiming that Liberals are dictators for decades. We heard it when Carter was in power, we heard it when Clinton was in power. We heard it when Gov. Wallace denied 6 black students their right to go to school. It was nonesense then and it is nonsense now. If you have a beef with the agenda, fine lets talk, but when all you can do is try and scare people, and cant actually defend your Conservative postions, then yes it is over the top. That was true in 1977, it is still true now.

  9. For whom the bell doesn't toll says:

    John was in the egg business. He had several hundred young layers (hens),
    called ‘pullets’, and ten roosters to fertilize them. He kept records, and
    any rooster not performing went into the soup pot and was replaced.

    This took a lot of time, so he bought some tiny bells and attached them to
    his roosters. Each bell had a different tone, so he could tell from a
    distance, which rooster was performing. Now, he could sit on the porch and
    fill out an efficiency report by just listening to the bells.

    John’s favorite rooster, Obama, was a very fine specimen, but this
    morning he noticed Obama’s bell hadn’t rung at all! When he went to
    investigate, he saw the other roosters were busy chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing, but the pullets, hearing the roosters coming, would run for cover.

    To John’s amazement, Obama had thought of a way to do it without work, he
    had his bell in his beak, so it couldn’t ring. He’d sneak up on a pullet,
    do his job and walk on to the next one.

    John was so proud of Obama, he entered him in the Chicago County Fair and
    he became an overnight sensation among the judges.

    The result was the judges not only awarded Obama the No Bell Piece Prize
    but they also awarded him the Pulletsurprise as well.

    Clearly Obama was a politician. Who else but a politician could figure out
    how to win two of the most highly coveted awards on our planet by being
    the best at sneaking up on the populace and screwing them when they weren’t
    paying attention.

    Vote carefully next fall, the bells are not always audible.

  10. Linda B. says:

    Thank you for this article. Your summary of what is known the “Guy” has done publicly is a ponderous list. Imagine what that list would be like it we had access to all of the deals he has made in private. I believe there is a financial crisis brewing of a great magnitude which may even come before the elections. Printing money to keep yourself afloat has been tried and failed every single time. Inflation and hyper-inflation is the result – something we can remember as a result of the Carter administration’s policies on oil. Our debt, as you so aptly pointed out, is increasing every minute of every day and our creditors are becoming more unwilling to invest any additional funding. This BP crisis has given the “Guy” another reason to shackle us and our energy supply. No more drilling for oil off shore means we are dependent upon others even more so and the cost to consumers will (of course) be raised while the “Guy” has invested U.S. funds in Brazialan Oil with our tax dollars for them to continue drilling so his friends (PETRO BRA and George Soros)make more money at our expense. The re-distribution of the wealth Obama speaks of is taking it from everyone and giving it to his friends. So energy will be controlled by the government, banking will be controlled by the government, healthcare will be controlled by the government and next food. Since our farmers are being pushed out of business and there are more corporate farms and less local farming, the government can easily step in and even control your food supply and distribution. So I wonder what the re-distribution of food will look like? Food for thought.

  11. T.I.M. says:

    One other point on that $160 Million to Pennsylvania for “high risk” procedures. The article said that any abortions would be legally covered except those to determine the sex of the child. Who kills a fetus to determine the gender?
    And what are Bart Stupak and those who flipped their votes on the basis of abortions not being covered now thinking?
    And what really happened to the “unshakable” Dennis Kucinich on board Air Force One to flip his vote, even though he still said he was against the Health Care Bill?

  12. R v. L says:

    Better far right, than far left. Especially fiscally.

  13. Gail B. says:

    whats_up says:
    July 14, 2010 at 12:01 pm


    “As usual with you a little over the top. But what I have come to expect from the far right wing, of which I consider you one.”

    Ever heard the expression, “What the mind can conceive and believe, it can achieve”? Well, Whatsie, honey, the Progressive Left is in power, and it has conceived the idea, believes it can be done, and is WORKING HARD on achieving it.

    STOP CRITICIZING AND OPEN YOUR EYES!!! Rick is trying to warn you, not scare you. When you’re about to be hit by a fly ball and someone yells, “WATCH OUT,” he’s not trying to scare you. “WATCH OUT” is a warning.

  14. Nicknack says:

    The point was well made. The omission in your point is that the current band of ‘convervatives’ are playing politics in hopes of taking back both chambers and risking the coutry.

    While the republicans are minorities the founding fathers were insightful in allowing for a fillabuster to halt all movement on legislation. The current candidate for the Supreme Court by any measure or standard is not qualified to fill the roll. The expereince of 18 months as solicitor general is comical as she has lost two cases that should make folks shudder if she was arguing on principal and not as part of her duty.

    The first amendment violations that were allowed in the citizen united case and the gun control case both show that on princpal she carries what is un american standards where Supreme Court justices need precedent to help decide a case. Both incidents taken as an indication of her legal skills which have been admonished in the procedings should allow men of good consicence to deny her acession to the high court.

    The current band of senators need to become brothers in the protection of the union as currently the assalt on the states by the federal goverment because of immigration but also because of the points your pice highlights should incite a fillabuster. And with good reason!

  15. Tory says:

    @whats_up…agreed that the various factions of political ideologies have been fairly consistent in (mis?)characterizing “the other guy” as aspiring dictators. However, the fact that this tactic has been perhaps over-utilized and overstated in the past doesn’t mitigate the gnawing reality that “The Guy” has justifiably earned the charges against him. Carter and Clinton both had a proclivity for overreaching the arm of the government to where it didn’t belong, undeniably, but there is no sense that either truly embraced the ideological affection for the scope of authoritarianism that “The Guy” seemingly struts and flaunts. We could also argue that the Carter/Clinton overreaches were less motivated by the personal, perfunctory distaste for all things American that seems to be the catalyst for Obama. What we first saw as contempt as betrayed by the infamous nose-up, smirking posture has been more than substantiated by his attempted and accomplished actions. To Rick’s original catalogue, we can also add the series of events surrounding the drilling moratorium, first issued by “The Guy”, smacked down by the courts, reimposed by “The Guy”, smacked again in appeal. “Whatevah!”, says Obama, once again declaring the moratorium in effect.

  16. nana3 says:

    Rick…if that summary was ‘over the top’, I only wish more voters had been over the top and understood what they were doing when they elected this fraud.
    The madness coming from this regime is what is ‘over the top’ and I think you laid out the case quite well. The facts are there and anyone who doesn’t or refuses to see what is happeneing to our country should wake up and realize WHATS UP!

  17. whats_up says:


    I have lived through many political elections. This is nothing new, I love how only those on the right can “see” what is going on, reminds me of the left when Bush was in office, only they could “see” then how bad he was. Spare me your platitudes on how you have the insight and those that voted for Obama dont.


    Sorry dear his actions are no different than Clinton, the only difference is that he actually got health care passed. Basing your opinion of someone on “the infamous nose-up, smirking posture” is pretty petty. If that is how you choose your candidates fine. I prefer to choose mine based on viewpoints of what they actually want to do, not on how they look. However if you choose to be superficial I cant help that. I have yet to see how Obama is “un-American” I know that right uses that alot, but can you actually point to something that he has done as “un-American”

  18. Hellth Kare comrades! says:


    Just because you get something passed, means it is a good thing.

  19. Boston Blackie says:

    “I prefer to choose mine based on viewpoints of what they actually want to do, not on how they look.”

    No truer words have been spoken. Unfortunately, not enough people thought like you and I during the last election cycle. They DID choose their candidate on how he looks(and that he can read from a telepromter).

Speak Your Mind