Marty Peretz Is Spinning In His Grave

14 04 2015


His publication is now firmly planted in the clickbait era.

“Barack Obama should be Hillary Clinton’s running mate” is good and oft-repeated advice.

In 2005.

(Though back then, I had other ideas.)

The reason it can’t happen today is because if you’ve already run out the Constitutional clock in terms of being POTUS, you legally can’t be VPOTUS, because VPOTUS becomes POTUS if something happens to POTUS.  It’s also why Bill Clinton can’t be Hillary Clinton’s running mate.

Then again, what does the Constitution matter to any of these people?  A lot of reasonable people think that Baraq Obama being President (and the concept of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio being President) violates the “natural born citizen” clause.  But it’s all moot:  HRC won’t ever pick Bill or Baraq, even if she could.

She hates ’em both.

Abhorring the Vacuum

10 09 2014

Washington, D.C.

It’s finally dawning on the left wing Obama brown nosing cultists:

The good news is that Obama has a pen and a phone.

The bad news is that he won’t have a pen and a phone forever, eventually someone else will.

I think this essay is missing a few things.  Some of the crucial ways in which power has been accumulated around the Presidency in the Era of Hope and Change also include the fact that President Obama is just flat out ignoring the Federal courts in some cases, his executive branch regulatory agencies are on a regulation-issuing rampage, and that his official opposition is mostly hapless and ineffective and given to slap-happy dead end attempts to oppose him (the lawsuit that this essay mentions at the beginning will amount to nothing), and in the case of immigration, deliberately so because it mostly agrees with what he’s doing, the few immigration patriots in Congress notwithstanding.  When you get right down to it, I think the Republican establishment is perfectly happy with ObamaDontCare, because its prime beneficiary, the insurance industry, dumps a lot of money on Republican politicians and Republican-allied think tanks and PACs.

Otherwise, the historical trend is undeniable:  Power abhors a vacuum, and when it can, it almost always accumulates around some central singular force.  That axiom has been aided in recent American history by both the increasing trend of presumed Federal supremacy in most public policy, and an original flaw of the Constitution that invests all military and Federal law enforcement power in the executive branch.  That’s what Obama really means about this “pen and phone” business; it means that he has control of the world’s most powerful military and of Federal law enforcement, the chances of either being defeated for the foreseeable future are slim, so therefore he can do whatever the hell he wants.

Except I think the author of this essay doth protest too much when he worries about future “conservative” Presidents’ use of the pen and phone.  Sure, we might have Republican Presidents, in theory, but the Republican establishment is working day and night to make sure that no genuine conservative (quote-unquote) can win the Republican nomination for President.  That and as I write this, “genuine conservatives” are still worshiping at the altar of the Cult of the Constitution and the cult of one form or another of libertarian ideology, so all you’ll hear them talk about in their quixotic Presidential campaigns is how they want to “restore the Constitution,” as if it’s any more possible to restore a dead document than it is to bring a dead man back to live, notwithstanding that one example two thousand years ago.  The writers at Vox would have a lot of reason to worry if someone like your ever-lovin’ too snarky for his own good blogmeister was running for President in 2016, who would promise to use the pen and phone to benefit white people.  But nobody like me seems to want to do that.

Because Pen and Phone

25 06 2014


I think Obama will lose this lawsuit.

Won’t matter, though.  He’ll ignore the courts.

Because, pen and phone.

I don’t even know if impeaching and removing him would do any good.  He’d just use the pen and phone to order the Federal men with guns not to remove him.

Turns out separating the executive and legislative powers and giving the executive branch all the law enforcement and military power was the big mistake of the 1787 Constitution.

If the pen and phone is here to stay, then political campaigns going forward should be entirely about Who-Whom, who gets to use the pen and phone on whose behalf.  No more right wing Ron Paul style abstract wonkery about saving a dying document.  Since the 1787 Constitution is dying, we better make sure we have a Vladimir Putin style figure, a patriotic populist nationalist white man, with his butt in that chair behind the Resolute Desk and his hands on the pen and phone on the day it officially dies.

And now that I said “Putin,” I know that lauraagudelo272, whose WordPress avatar has a head picture of Putin, will like this post.

Brick House

15 01 2014


Ted Cruz has a long piece in the HLR about the threat to the Tenth Amendment from international treaties.

It’s not just the Tenth, and it’s not new.  Way back in the 1950s, John Bricker picked up on that sort of thing, and tried to do something about it.

Right On Time

31 10 2013

Washington, D.C.


Pay close attention to what this advertisement is trying to tell you if you happen to be a juror on the Mark Witaschek case.

“But blogmeister, what about the ooks?”

That ship sailed long ago.

How It’s Done

26 03 2013

Washington, D.C.


A 50-Point Swing Against Targeted Drone Killings of U.S. Citizens

A year ago, as the presidential race was taking shape, The Washington Post’s pollster asked voters whether they favored the use of drones to kill terrorists or terror suspects if they were “American citizens living in other countries.” The net rating at the time was positive: 65 percent for, 26 percent against.

Today, after a month of Rand Paul-driven discussion of drone warfare, Gallup asks basically the same question: Should the U.S. “use drones to launch airstrikes in other countries against U.S. citizens living abroad who are suspected terrorists?” The new numbers: 41 percent for, 52 percent against.

The lede of the poll is even kinder to Paul, finding as high as 79 percent opposition to targeted killing in the United States. But that’s a new question. On the old question, we’ve seen a real queasy swing of public opinion.

Now, I would not have swung on the question of the use of drones to target “U.S. citizens” over in Whackistan (really, nasty Muslim terrorists or terrorist wannabes who only got American citizenship based on this “birthright” bullshit or the fact that we give out citizenship to any non-white with a pulse), but their use on American soil is a far different question.

My point in bringing this up is this:  When you display a little bit of leadership, and take the time and effort to explain things to people, people will get it.

So who will be the Rand Paul filibustering for 13 hours on immigration?  Because it certainly won’t be Rand Paul.

First They Came for the Communists…

11 03 2013


The issue to me is even more fundamental than whether this study’s methodology is flawed or not.

Why should gun ownership rates matter at all?  The Second Amendment still exists, and applies whether the gun ownership rate is 1% or 100%.  Does the First Amendment not exist and deserved to be deleted if only ten people in the whole country have political opinions?  If there were only five crimes in the whole country in a given year, does this mean the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments can be repealed?


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,728 other followers