Thank you sir, whoever you are, for putting in print your true thoughts. You’re precisely why Conservatives are Conservatives, and you confirm our beliefs that Leftists couldn’t care less about our foundational documents. And that damned Constitution, written a hundred years ago.
BZ
Isn’t it odd — and don’t you cringe — when you find that a member of our House of Representatives proposes a law that would “force” DC to obey the law?
Isn’t that the greatest of abominations you can feature? We have to propose a law that mandates laws get obeyed?
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), proposed the ENFORCE the Law Act, which aims to bring our current Imperial Presidency into line with such heretical things as the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution. Mr Gowdy speaks here:
The Founders described the “long train of abuses” at the hands of a king that triggered the need for a change, in the form of a Declaration of Independence. Runaway governance is back, and President Obama is the conductor.
The Constitution set up peaceful mechanisms available today to deal with overreach that weren’t available to the revolutionaries of 1776. Today’s lawmakers must use these to brake Barack Obama’s disregard for the Constitution before that “long train” grows longer.
The House could consider as early as this week the Enforce the Law Act, granting either the House or the Senate the explicit authority to file a lawsuit against the president for failing to carry out his constitutionally mandated duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
It directs such lawsuits to a three-judge panel of a federal district court with appeals going directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, the measure’s Republican sponsor, blames Mr. Obama for the need to act. “This administration’s disregard for the law,” he says, “has reached an unprecedented level from a constitutional perspective. … This bill … will give Congress the authority to defend this branch of government as the Framers and our fellow citizens would expect.”
How is it that we seem to have found ourselves here with — on its face — such an incredibly ridiculous bill?
BZ
From the NYTimes.com:
by David Carr, The Media Equation
There have been times when the CNN host Piers Morgan didn’t seem to like America very much — and American audiences have been more than willing to return the favor. Three years after taking over for Larry King, Mr. Morgan has seen the ratings for “Piers Morgan Live” hit some new lows, drawing a fraction of viewers compared with competitors at Fox News and MSNBC.
It’s been an unhappy collision between a British television personality who refuses to assimilate — the only football he cares about is round and his lectures on guns were rife with contempt — and a CNN audience that is intrinsically provincial. After all, the people who tune into a cable news network are, by their nature, deeply interested in America.
Perhaps a brief interjection: actual listening Americans deplored being lectured-to by a stunningly ineffectual media cunt who wouldn’t know how to defend himself in a game of tag. Because, after all, that United Kingdom — they’re certainly the epitome of national power and stolid sovereignty, are they not?
Yes. They are not.
“Look, I am a British guy debating American cultural issues, including guns, which has been very polarizing, and there is no doubt that there are many in the audience who are tired of me banging on about it,” he said. “That’s run its course and Jeff and I have been talking for some time about different ways of using me.”
Yes, I know, it’s that pesky Second Amendment we stupid Yankees seem to revere. Clinging to our “small town” guns and religion. But isn’t it odd that you shepherd’s-pie-eating Brits seem to surround yourselves with more and more guns held by government officials than at any other point in your history? And still you’re losing your culture and your significance and your own sovereignty day by bleeding day?
Perhaps a bit of accuracy is called for:
Mr. Morgan’s approach to gun regulation was more akin to King George III, peering down his nose at the unruly colonies and wondering how to bring the savages to heel. He might have wanted to recall that part of the reason the right to bear arms is codified in the Constitution is that Britain was trying to disarm the citizenry at the time.
Damn Mr Carr for ripping a sheet from the play-book of Captain Obvious.
I say: send Mr Morgan, the quintessential loser British twat, back to the UK where he can take up the cause of Muslims and those who wish to destroy the United Kingdom and other oppressive Western civilizations. And enjoy, Mr Morgan, your prognosticated Orwellian 1984 at least a few more years before we Yanks will.
Firearms-free, of course. Because average UK citizens cannot and never will be trusted with “bang-sticks” in their possession. An actual Webley in the hand of Piers Morgan himself? Think of the children!
A bit of sarcasm there, eh wot?
BZ
P.S.
I wonder from where the origins of the words Prole and Serf and Groundling source? Perhaps you can tell me, Mr Morgan?
P.P.S.
Oh. That’s right. From British books and plays and history. Imagine that.
Disarmament.
Of you and yours, at the behest of the United Nations.
BZ
I chanced across a news site called the Missoulian, sent to me by a comment-friend (the symbols I cannot reproduce here in my basic version of WordPress), which featured a headline in this article that reads:
Pat Williams, Missoula
Republican Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives John Boehner and I are friends. We have seldom visited since I left the Congress in 1997, but during Boehner’s first years in the House I was the chairman of an education committee of which he was a member.
Boehner, despite our political differences, was attentive, engaged and always considering fresh ways, as he saw it, to improve the nation’s schools. I liked him and still do – although now I am troubled by the policy and political muddle in which he has been cast. It is also disappointing to note that he prefers to follow rather than lead.
Boehner, although a genuine “corporations come first” Republican, is far more moderate than his four dozen Republican members who agree with the “take no prisoners” radicalized creed of their tea party constituents. That minority within the House Majority trampled roughshod over the preferences of most of the citizenry by taking the U.S. federal government hostage to their demands.
And, of course, here is where the writer and I agree then depart, and not just a tad bit, but radically.
Yes. Agreed: Boehner is “far more moderate than his four dozen Republican members who with the ‘take no prisoners’ radicalized creed of their tea party constituents.”
But a massively-important interjection: to believe in the Constitution, to believe in a limited government, to believe in a Constitution that, by its nature, tends to limit government (as I, frankly, quite nicely summarized here) is not a concept or philosophy that can be categorized as “radical” unless you yourself are a radical and a disbeliever in the brilliant precepts of our founding fathers — as horribly Caucasoid as they may have been. Damn them for that. When you minimize our foundational documents you bleat for a “Living Constitution.” Meaning: you simply want more governmental Free Cheese.
In my opinion, as I wrote in 2010, it all gets down to:
POSITIVE vs NEGATIVE RIGHTS:
Our current Constitution frames much of what we value in terms of what the government cannot do.
– It cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment.
The vitally-important final paragraph from the article is:
However, this year’s Boehner seems to feel the Speaker’s cloak slipping from his shoulders and apparently is unwilling to jeopardize his vaulted position. Thus he continues to substitute ducking and dodging for bold leadership. Perhaps it was too much to hope, but wouldn’t it have been historic if Speaker Boehner told his Republicans to either act like adults or find themselves a new Speaker of the House?
The GOP has pretty much “gone along to get along” and I am primarily done with that philosophy.
Because I should care to point out the statue of Captain Obvious standing in the room: when is it, precisely, when a moderate Republican has been embraced recently by the electorate, or not been demonized by the press, or not been castigated by the Demorats? Clue me in, if you please: when?
So: “wouldn’t it have been historic if Speaker Boehner told his Republicans to either act like adults or find themselves a new Speaker of the House?”
Again, another point of departure with the — I submit — Leftist author: his Republicans in the arms-length guise of Ted Cruz ARE acting like adults. The Fiscal Adults. The Logical Adults. The Common Sense Adults. Sitting at the Adult’s Table. As opposed to the kid’s table at Thanksgiving. Because: there are no adults in DC these days.
Additionally: the GOP should find itself a new Speaker of the House. Perhaps John Boehner should feel the speaker’s cloak slipping from his tanned shoulders.
One House suggestion: Tom McClintock.
An actual Conservative.
BZ