Really, the matter is simpler than it appears, and it reflects back to her strong-armed tactics during the Health Care “debate.” It wasn’t about anybody but Nancy Pelosi.

Pelosi is fully aware of the “bleeding god” conundrum intrinsic to stories like that of Pre-Hawaiian Captain Cook; that the aura of being a deity to a trembling and deferential populous can be erased with a single mortal groan. Once those confined to the septic terra firma realized he was but one of them, they cut him to pieces.

Pelosi needs the leadership position if for no other reason than to have the scepter that divides her from the restless populous that holds her accountable for their mortal losses.  Perhaps they realize that her powers are far from omnipotent, but should she wield any perceivable control over them, it buffers her from suffering a complete and mortal deconstruction at the hands of her party.

Whether or not she survives the bid remains to be seen.  The President, who either operates as an inflexible ideologue with no intent of deviating, or a tone-deaf teleprompter jockey, has at least signaled that “leftward ho!” is the short-term exclamation.  In that atmosphere, a democratic caucus that sees this election as a matter of an occluded message rather than ideological rejection will award her the position by default. 

But to Pelosi, the real issue is an underlying fear that her diluted deification will result in complete and utter Muggle-dom.  And that is simply—a non-starter.

Do us a favor.  Shut up.

Jacob Marley

But this is because Charles lives in his polar-reverse world of Darwinistic “proof.” You know the ones where you are obligated to solidify a negative truth in order to win any debate in his little green coliseum. Let’s take a look at this for second:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. (Italics mine, for emphasis)

See the problem with this? What part of Darwin’s theory was he ready to put to the actual scientific process? None, according to this. “Hey, guys, it aint my job to prove my theory, it’s your job to prove my theory could never have happened.”

But Darwinism isn’t even why I’m writing this today. Charles Johnson’s Rhesus-Monkey-with-his-hand-in-a-gourd grip on his precious little theories is exactly why he will one day fade into the static test patterns of leftist media. He’s not as good as they are, and besides, they’ll never fully forgive him for the National Guard document thing.

One of these little sambas he likes to play is the all encompassing “Tea partiers are racist” numbers. These claims, of course buttressed by some ridiculous theory that an itemized and very clear take-down of one’s individual liberties will only outrage non-racists; that a grassroots movement appalled at what their government is doing is able to prevent a few radioactive isotopes from showing up at the National Mall.

And if they do, empirical evidence is used to point out the fact that they are there. Which is why Andrew Brietbart’s offer of a $10,000 reward to the UNCF who can concretely prove that someone actually used the “N” word and spat upon Representatives Cleaver and Lewis irritates Mr. Johnson to no end.

First of all, it violates the “Charles is never, ever wrong” schitzo-muse he seems to consult on a daily basis. Two, it violates his personal savior Darwin’s squishy terms for throwing out a hypothesis: That Andrew Brietbart should be trying to prove that it could not have happened. Putting the onus of proof on the accusers? Waaaaay too radical for the Crown Prince of Intellectual homeostasis, Charles Johnson.

Pathetic, really.

Johnson has simply done what he believes Darwinism doesn’t: He has de-volved and atomized in the entropic stream–he has gone from order to disorder. In theory and in practice. In word and in deed.

Now, the more I think about it, the more I really do think the sheer horror of this thing is hitting many Obama supporters, but that they will never subjugate their realization to a victory for the right.  It like a contentious and anonymous EBay bidding war–one where you are caught up in a some frenzied anger that another bidder’s proxy bid keeps knocking you out.  Finally, you bid twice the value of the thing you wanted. Sure, you won, but at what price?

So here you have a usually vocal and cacophonous Hollywood set.  And they’re (at least to me) comparatively quiet.  Is it because they simply know they are not part of the austere, legislative body that will never suffer the reverberations of such nightmarish policy?  I guess only they would know for sure. But I sure as anything don’t see them pining for this health care bill.  And to silence ones self to deprive Rush Limbaugh a bragging right? Well, that’s about as shallow as our upcoming coverage spectrums.

I say this because what looks like a cramdown using the “Slaughter Solution” must–must be challenged.  In fact, one could argue that if this thing is going to make it to the President’s desk–this would be the best way to have it unilaterally tossed, as opposed to the individual mandates leaving an unfunded mandate for the country to contend with.

So please.  if you’re a Supreme Court Justice and you happen to read this–please, please save the antebellum statements for the war itself.