Gun-totin', Chronic-smokin' Hearse Initiator (ludickid) wrote,
Gun-totin', Chronic-smokin' Hearse Initiator

Around the horn with extra corn

Town Hall is pretty fun today:

Dennis "My Son Has a Black Friend" Prager, who himself is inordinately fond of calling any fellow Hebrew who isn't blindly worshipful of the government of Israel a 'self-hating Jew', takes massive umbrage at being called an 'Uncle Jake' by a liberal (Israel-supporting) Jew for his constant sucking up to Christians. Hilariously, he defends himself not against the essense of the charge (that Jews are foolish to cozy up to conservative Christians, who historically have not treated Jews particularly well despite any ideological similarities they might otherwise have) by busting out a list of statistics which prove that he, Dennis Prager, is the Jewiest Jew who ever Jewed and that no one could be more Jewy than he. No word yet as to whether Ward Connerly will subject Jesse Jackson to the paper bag test.

On a day when Jonah Goldberg, Linda Chavez, Michelle Malkin and others are scoffing at the liberal traitors who dare question the President's use of domestic wiretaps*, Alan Reynolds -- a Cato Institute flack better known for his "if you don't like the conditions at Wal-Mart, just quit and get a better job" editorials -- blasts out a rather scathing article taking the Bush administration to task for their contempt for due process, deceptive ass-covering and general attitude that the country would be a lot better off if GWB could just do anything he wanted. I predict he'll probably get in trouble for this one, and next week they'll put him back on Wal-Mart duty.

But as usual, Li'l' Bennie Shapiro is the cream of the crop. He's also down on the pinkos among us for being suspicious of the President's desire to spy on his fellow citizens in defiance of the law, but since he's Ben Shapiro, he bolsters his argument with some totally batshit claims. Let's watch!

(Surely this [Ben refers here to a New York Times editorial expressing dismay at the domestic wiretapping] marks the first time that The New York Times has appealed to the rule of law and the Constitution to justify its policy positions. Normally, it seeks to destroy both in the name of liberal talking points, like gay marriage.)

Now, of course, this is nothing but unmitigated bullshit. Bans on gay marriage, legal scholars of every ideological stripe generally agree, would not survive a collision with the Constitution -- which is why conservatives, not liberals, have sought a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriages: because the document as it stands now contains exactly nothing that would forbid them. Moving on, Ben claims that there's nothing inherently wrong with questioning the limits of presidential power, and cites a few examples:

The debate about presidential confidentiality during the Nixon administration ended with President Richard Nixon's resignation.

This is cute, because it implies that Nixon resigned because he ended up at the losing end of a 'debate' over confidentiality, rather than because he was facing impeachment over a number of high crimes and misdemeanors, including abuse of power, authorizing an illegal break-in for political purposes, lying to Congress, and covering up all of these activities.

The debate about presidential invincibility ended with the impeachment of President Bill Clinton by the House of Representatives.

See, I don't really remember any debate about presidential invincibility. Prior to Bill Clinton's presidency -- indeed, during Bill Clinton's presidency -- I don't recall anyone making the argument that the President is invincible and can do anything he wants no matter what anyone else says or does. And I don't think Clinton's impeachment (which, contrary to what Ben seems to be implying here, was not the first time a president was impeached) had much to do with any percieved invincibility or the culmination of a debate on same, but it sure had a lot to do with extremely partisan loathing of a president guilty of nothing more than getting his knob polished and denying it. Unless what Ben means by "invincibility" is that Clinton was going around saying he could deflect bullets with his bare skin, he seems to be saying that NIXON was a more or less innocent victim of circumstance who was forced to resign when he ran afoul of a political debate beyond his control, while Bill Clinton was an arrogant, amoral monster who ran the country like a personal fief until brave congressmen dethroned him with their clever use of the law. Of course, Ben was six when all this happened, so I guess I can forgive him for not being clear on the details.

The New York Times felt it necessary to sound the alarm about the demise of our civil liberties and, by doing so, alert terrorists that they are indeed being monitored. President Bush was eminently correct when he called the media's disclosure "a shameful act."

So, to recap:

1. The Times -- which sat on this story for over a year, at the request of the President -- is to blame for leaking this story.

2. Terrorists plan their operational activities based on what they read in the newspaper, and had no idea whatsoever that they might be monitored by intelligence agencies prior to this.

3. It is not shameful that the President may have illegally and unconstitutionally spied on American citizens; it is shameful that the media reported it.

*: You'll forgive me if I'm looking even harder than usual for gallows humor today, but since the revelation that Bush's pro-torture, pro-domestic spying, pro-'fuck the constitution, we'll do whatever it takes to beat these terrorists' stance has actually led to a substantial upswing in his approval ratings, I've been kinda, well, down.

Also, what the fuck is with Ben Shapiro crowing about how the concept, wherever it came from, of 'presidential invincibility' took a much-needed kick in the ass when Bill Clinton got nailed for his blowjob, in the same article where he argues that President Bush should be allowed to do whatever he wants?

Also also, what is with this bullshit about how every piece of authoritarian nonsense is justifiable, because after all, we're at war? They ain't talking about Iraq, folks: they're talking about the war on terrorism. Maybe I'm just a total liberal pussy, but I get a little suspicious when people tell me I should gladly cough up my constitutional protections in aid of a war that's been fought non-stop for over four years without a single casualty.

I need a nap.
Tags: politics, town hall roundup

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.