It is impossible to form a government that actually provides good governance with such a witches brew, and sane people didn’t expect it. That there are still many of these anti government nit wits in place, consciously embedded by small violations of civil service rules over the span of 8 years, is also no surprise. Their cousins, outside of government who were frustrated the George II and Cheney the Impaler did not completely crush or corrupt the government, are now claiming to be “patriots” wanting to take their country back, to secede, to ignore any part of the Constitution that protected somebody else’s rights, and to re-interpret, it and all historical records to fit the mythical narrative the have made up to justify their current folly.

Of course they hate. They hate the facts that do not fit those narratives and they hate people who bring up those facts and, most of all, they hate those (especially minorities, sometimes including women) who exemplify the the history of their maltreatment by those “patriots.”

It seems a bit odd that a US Congressman – a sworn representative of the American government, a man who loathes those who don’t recite the Pledge, and wears a flag lapel pin with OCD-like repetition – is calling for a “revolution” in America.

But what’s more American than rebellion? We’ve had at least two in our history: the colonials rebelled against the British and the south rebelled against the north. I remember something about the tree of liberty requiring occasional nourishing with the blood of patriots. It’s not about hating America; it’s about hating some people’s vision of America: at the moment, primarily the visions of Obama, Pelosi and Reid et al. They just happen to be the one’s in charge right now. Besides, it’s not a violent revolution being called for; it’s more of a civil disobedience revolt.

Mind you, I don’t think it would be likely to work, anyway. The only thing that will stop the health care reform bill now, I think, would be a SCOTUS ruling that the resolution maneuver or some major component, such as the mandate to buy into the insurance exchange, is unconstitutional on its face and the SCOTUS is, I think, unlikely to touch such a politically charged issue, no matter how conservative the court might be. The Supremes simply do not look behind the signatures representing the bill as being passed in both houses, no matter how unconstitutional the trickery involved in getting to said passage.

Mind you, I’m not saying the maneuver is unconstitutional. I’m not qualified to make such a call. I’ve read legal experts argue both sides of that question. I’m just saying, its (hypothetical) unconstitutionality is likely to be a moot point.