Friday, July 15, 2016

The Big Tent Mythos

The following is merely commentary.... 

When I was a child one of the most important lessons I learned is that you are who your friends are...in other words, if you lay down with dogs you will end up with fleas. This then begs the questions about our political parties. Just why is anyone who calls themselves democrat or republican allowed in the "Big Tent?" Are there no standards left anymore? Are haters simply allowed because they have a D or an R next to their name? Only in the last congressional election here in NY, did the republican party actually denounce their own candidate for antisemitism. There were no excuses. There was no beating-around-the-bush. There was open and unequivocal condemnation. So where in the world is everyone else in both mainstream parties?

Parties, like people, have to stand for something. There, of course, are the platforms that the party elders create at their conventions, but that is not the entire story of what a political party stands for. A party or clique is defined by who their members happen to be. You do not have to allow everyone to join and can openly reject those that do speak with hate, evil and ignorance. 

I for one do not associate myself with the democrats because decades ago they abandoned their true purpose and allowed in every form of wacked off antisemite (and anti-American) that was around, and yes that includes a former President of the United States. In fact these people were even given prime time speaking spots at party conventions and appear to be the go to people for much of the media. It has become so de riguer in progressive democratic circles to be antisemitic (and even anti-American), that a pro-Israel prominent democrat was even fired from a progressive think tank. Yet those who espoused age-old antisemitic stereotypes, still are employed and are defended by these "progressive" organizations.

The question remains, why do so many still associate themselves with the democratic party...for what ends and for what purpose. My question is why is there no war in the democratic party for the soul of the democratic party? Instead the antisemities are given preeminence and everyone tries to out Jew-hate each other. Even pro-Israel members of the democratic party seem to need to qualify their support less anyone think they aren't progressive enough to be seen as a member of the democratic tribe. Or perhaps the war for the soul of the democratic party has already been lost, and those with some form of conscience are already leaving...hence the exit of prominent blue-dog democrats from the political scene.

Oh the democrats that stay can still fool themselves that they are not supporting haters. But in reality when you have to twist yourself into knots in order to be heard then your cause is lost. When you make excuses for your candidate's life long association with haters, whether it is a pastor, a professor, a neighbor or advisors, then you have allowed the camel's nose of hate into the tent.

Then there are the republicans.Yes, I tend to vote republican, but mostly because I support a strong foreign policy. No, I do not like most of their social policy. But if given a choice between thinking that we should be free and not kowtow to evil dictators and oligarchs, that we do not offer an outstretched hand to modern-day-evil, then a republican I shall vote for. However, something is happening in the republican party that mirrors the democrats...the acceptance of a virulent anti-Semite, anti-American racist in their midsts. (Funny how the left and right seem to coalesce around Jew-hatred...just some interesting food for thought.)

What do we look for then? What issues should we look at? If you are in debt to tyrants then you are a subjugated people. If you have no ability to produce and are hamstringed by government regulation then you have an ineffectual economy. If you do not have freedom of speech, thought and movement then you have no say in your welfare (SOPA, NDAA, Obamacare, acquiescence to the tyrant/dictator run UN). Under these circumstances then quite frankly all the social issues that matter, will come to naught. Protect your future and then you will have the leeway to fight the good fight for the social causes that matter. Sadly there doesn't seem to be anyone offering a real vision of the future...respect for the individual and a strong, proud foreign policy. In all honesty, we are waiting on a modern day TR, but he or she does not exist; not one of these candidates, republican or democrat fits that bill. 

The question then becomes does noone in the political arena have a backbone? Does noone condemn the outrageous and evil diatribes that are thrown about by ignorant and ill conceived individuals? Only one republican candidate actually said he would not vote republican if the party backed the man from Texas...and for that he was savaged by his opponents. The irony here is that the republican candidates who say they will vote for any republican, even an anti-Semite, lies then about their support for Israel and their belief in the US Constitution. When you abide by conspiracy theories about your own government, when you take away the right of the nation to defend itself, when you posit racist and hateful messages, you do NOT support the US Constitution nor the American way of life. Read herehereherehereherehere.  (Pay attention to the sickness of the comments and sadly how hate poisoned many Americans happen to be.)

In my world, there is no such thing as a "Big Tent." In my world, you are either a good person or you are not. To placate evil of any kind in order to win votes makes you a hater as well. It makes you an embarrassment. It makes you a spineless, useless individual who has no right to be President of the United States. It makes you un-American.

If you do not have the cajones to stand up to members of your own party who espouse evil and ignorance, how are you as President going to stand up to the challenges and the threats posed at this nation world wide? The truth is, you will not be able to and you do not deserve the chance.

The American people stand their ground for their beliefs in right and wrong. You cannot appease hate, no matter the side of the aisle. For those who are so afraid to stand their ground, for those that are so afraid to have true American values, the values our forebearers fought and died for, and stand on the side of good, I have a question that needs to be asked of all the Presidential candidates in the upcoming election....how much did you sell your soul for inorder to become President of the United States? Were you given 30 pieces of silver or more? For only someone so devoid of a conscience can allow anyone and everyone into a Big Tent.

Signing Statements and the US Constitution


It's really nice to know that somewhere someone actually sees what you see when it comes to violations of the US Constitution. Signing Statements are a violation of the US Constitutions. The President has two choices if he doesn't like legislation: veto it or sign it anyway and then let the chips fall where they may. There is no line-item veto in our Constitution and that in effect a signing statement usurps the power of the Congress. Here is the recent letter by the President of the American Bar Association to the White House about signing statements:

December 30, 2011
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

During your predecessor’s administration, the American Bar Association adopted a policy opposing,
“as contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers,” any President’s
use of signing statements issued with the stated intention “to disregard or decline to enforce all or
part of a law the President has signed.” Although during your 2008 Presidential campaign you said
you would not use signing statements “as a way to do an end run around Congress,” your statement
accompanying your signing last week of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2012 is reported to
be the nearly 20th such signing statement you have made since taking office.

While we acknowledge that the use of Presidential signing statements dates back to the early 19th
century, we must again voice the ABA’s policy opposing this practice. Where a signing statement is
used to nullify a provision of law, the President is effectively usurping the power of the legislative
branch by denying Congress the opportunity to override a veto of that law and may be abrogating the
power of the judicial branch to make a determination of constitutionality.

Clearly, the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution was to give the President the choice of
signing or vetoing a bill presented by the Congress – in its entirety. The Constitution does not
contemplate or accommodate a line-item veto, yet that is precisely the effect of a signing statement
announcing the President’s intent to disregard, for any reason (constitutional or policy), a provision
of the legislation that he is signing into law.

We recognize that Congress may insert what the President considers objectionable language into
omnibus, must-pass legislation, where a veto could disrupt the operation of government. However,
the ABA’s commitment to the constitutional principles of “separation of powers” and “checks and
balances” leads us to reassert respectfully that a veto, and not a signing statement, is the
constitutionally appropriate avenue for any and every President to respond to an

Read the discussion at the ABA website.

So why is the legal opinion of the ABA so important at this point? Apart from the fact that it is the only national representation of American lawyers, it has been castigated as a leftist/progressive shill organization and a cynic could assume that the ABA would just rubberstamp anything a leftist/progressive President would promote. Many even claim that the ABA gives high ratings to potential judges, who have no business sitting on the bench, merely because these individuals support the democratic party platform and liberal view of the Constitution.

Perhaps some of the ABA's detractors should reconsider. It seems to me that as John Adams once said..."I am for the law" is still the watch word of the national bar. If one of the largest organizations of attorneys nation-wide tells the President of the Untied States  you are in violation of the US Constitution, someone in the White House really should pay attention, no matter what the liberal think-tank-yes-persons have to say. Or maybe the White House should just watch this....





I suppose the same could be said for recess appointments when the Congress is not in recess too...the word unconstitutional comes to mind. Someone needs to remind the Obama administration that Alexander Hamilton's version of an imperial presidency was resoundingly rejected by the adoption of a small document called the US Constitution. In fact I recommend they read those pesky writings called The Federalist Papers if they truly need to understand what the authors of the Constitution were thinking and why. Just a little snarky suggestion.....