July 27, 2014

Earth to Feds — it’s called camping [Darleen Click]

Our southern border is functionally non-existent, and Obama is poised to granted “refugee status” to illegal aliens pouring over that border.

Meanwhile, some members of the Border Patrol are busy protecting the Canadian/Us border in Alaska from shutter-happy Boy Scouts

While the Obama administration has begun looking into ways to ensure safe passage to the United States for Honduran children, federal officials have reportedly harassed an Iowa Boy Scout Troop seeking to enter Alaska through Canada.

Jim Fox, leader of the Mid-Iowa Boy Scout Troop 111, told an Iowa television station one of his scouts took a photo of a Border Patrol official and agents immediately leapt into action. “The agent immediately confiscated his camera, informed him he would be arrested, fined possibly $10,000 and 10 years in prison,” he said. Fox alleges one agent drew his pistol and pointed it a scout’s head after the scout attempted to retrieve luggage from the top of the van in which the scouts were traveling.

A statement obtained from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency denied that the agent had pulled a gun on the Iowan Boy Scout.

First off, the camera seizure and threats were bogus from the start. The agent has no expectation of privacy while in public and on duty.

However, the lengths at which Government officials want to scare-ify any object outside the realm of the comfy chair zooms into parody …

The Border Patrol agents also inquired as to why the scouts were traveling with excessive amounts of lighters, matches, and knives, Fox News reported. Eventually, all of the scouts arrived back home in Iowa from their 23-day trip, but not without much stress and consternation. “We’re going to present our country in this manner: that we’re the bullies and we’re going to tell you what to do to protect your safety,” the troop leader told the Iowa television station. “These kids are going to turn.”

Posted by Darleen @ 2:38pm

Tags: ,

Comments (135)

  1. The agency only denied the part about pulling the gun?

    So, I guess the rest is accurate?

  2. How many canuckles
    Could a canucklechuck chuck
    If a canucklechuck were
    Allatime being photographed
    And having to pull its gun?

  3. Apparently the border guards didn’t get the word that the Boy Scouts are no longer the most horrifically evil homophobic organization in the history of hate.

    That honor now belongs to whatever organization is willing to have Brendan Eich as a member.

  4. border patrol thugs are as scummy as all the other piggy piggy union whores what infest sleazemerica’s government

  5. Feets? I usedto love you…now? please just go away, and take your pickles with you, mmmkay?

    As for the post? I know what I want to say, however those words were also left adrift in a tragic boating accident…Honestly, although I never HAD the words? There’s nothing more to say.

  6. how is what i said any different than what the chubby canuck said

  7. The agent has no expectation of privacy while in public and on duty.

    This is why I get into language arguments about “states’ rights” being oxymoronic. A “right” is the moral principle that sanctions freedom of action in a social context. It’s something you can do without getting anyone else’s permission.

    Individual people living their private lives have rights, such as the right to privacy, but government officials doing their jobs are exercising power over us. As the Declaration of Independence points out, the just powers of government, derived from the consent of the governed, exist to protect the rights of those individual people.

    Individuals have rights; governments exercise power. A cop on duty therefore has no right to privacy. (However, if someone were to publish his home address, the names of his wife and children, their places of employment/education… that violates his/their personal rights to privacy, because that’s not where he’s claiming to have power over us.)

    Keep the language straight, and no one can make the ridiculous claim that a law passed to protect the privacy of private citizens extends to the public acts of government, where sunshine is held to be the best disinfectant.

  8. Hey, the “Boy Scouts” link in the article links to … this article.

  9. The Monster has the whole kit-and-kaboodle.

    People-rights, States-powers. It’s not only a true formula, it’s a simple one.

  10. However, if someone were to publish his home address, the names of his wife and children, their places of employment/education… that violates his/their personal rights to privacy

    this is such a terrific idea

  11. “border patrol thugs are as scummy as all the other piggy piggy union whores what infest sleazemerica’s government”

    Yes. When I was a boy, it was a great question about how the German people could do such evil in the ’30’s-’40’s. Turns out it is a simple progression of small evils being normalized into great evils, and the people but frogs in a gently heating pot.

  12. when the National Park Service started ass-jacking disabled veterans

    you knew something had gone very wrong

    and now we know they’re just getting warmed up

  13. I forget, how many army surplus tanks did the National Park Service get? They aren’t as armed up as the Dept. of Education are they? that would be bad.

  14. people have to come to terms with the evidence what says the war on drugs is simply not something this shitty little country can prosecute with any competence

    it’s just a full-employment plan for unionized whore prison guards, border patrol sluts and various and sundry other bureaucrats and law enforcement trash from a hundred-plus cabinets departments bureaus and field offices

  15. I’m late to the game here but, yeah, The Monster says it true.

  16. I’d add that if people were properly educated with the development of rights in Western thought then it would be impossible to make these sorts of mistakes.

    Imagine De Cive wherein the Leviathan itself plays the role of man in nature. It’s nonsensical.

  17. Footnote: written works are to be italicized, yes, I know. Html formatting makes this a pain in my ass though when I assume that people recognize such obvious titles.

  18. >I assume that people recognize such obvious titles.<

    thank you for your condescension. perhaps some "little debbies" for the digestion.

  19. Fuck off.

  20. Signal to noise ratio, people.

    Want to have a discussion about rights vs powers? Good luck with that. Gresham’s law applies to internet commenters as well. The bad drive out the good.

  21. “Gresham’s law applies to internet commenters as well. The bad drive out the good.”

    Which are you?

    Sorry, couldn’t resist.

  22. >The bad drive out the good.<

    brave of you take the "bad" side. oh well.

  23. “Want to have a discussion about rights vs powers?”

    There isn’t supposed to be much of a discussion, at least when it comes to inalienable rights. Is there?

  24. lots of little debbies are tried and true supermarket staples beloved by Republican families and also Democrat families but there’s also a LOT of seasonal ones that appeal to the nonpartisan impulse shopper

  25. Probably the guy who should learn to take a hint, John.*

  26. – The bastard is really worried Hamas will be disarmed and unable to make war isn’t he. ::spit::

  27. golldarn it … thanks Monster, link fixed.

  28. >Fuck off.<

    why so hostile? that is all.

  29. People should read through this thread for their own edification. I thought someone made a good point so I said so. I tried to add to it.

    I was then once again bored to tears by normal troll horseshit.

    Tell me I’m wrong.

  30. Is pw a place where adults can gather to talk or is it #littledebbies #whoresluts #lulz?

  31. – Bumblefuck on the job. Even some writers on the Left are saying he’s checked out.

  32. – Right link.

  33. >I was then once again bored to tears by normal troll horseshit.<

    easy solution: ignore people you think are wrong. or argue you are right. otherwise shutup?

  34. – Sarah goes online.

  35. See, this is why I tell you to fuck off, nr.

    You never, ever have to respond to my comments. That would be a start.

    After that, you’d stop shitting in a place I hold in a certain level of respect. You think pw has anything to do with subliterate grunting? You think that’s an honor you’re paying to our host?

    Fuck off.

  36. god bless america

    now she thinks she’s glenn beck

  37. BigBangHunter, I wonder how the IDF civilian casualty count compares to Obamas drone strikes?

    Kinda hard to tell since the media isn’t too interested in such and the like.

  38. >now she thinks she’s glenn beck<

    i hope so. too bad com{munist}casters own the feed

  39. that is all.

    Oh, if only that were true…

  40. >You never, ever have to respond to my comments. That would be a start. – See more at: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=54537#comment-1097995I was then once again bored to tears by normal troll horseshit.<

    easy solution: ignore people you think are wrong. or argue you are right. otherwise shutup?
    – See more at: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=54537#comment-1097995

  41. >Oh, if only that were true…<

    hey i'm the biggest idiot this side of baracky. simple ?:" why the hostility?"

  42. – So true John, but like everything with the Left its a Litella thing, “Oh that’s different…never mind…”

    – “The enemy of my enemy is my enemy too if they’re doing enemy stuff in my country”. Egypt may turn out to be an ally in spite of Jug ears help.

  43. > You think that’s an honor you’re paying to our host?<

    hmmm you know my intent? that's proggtarded my friend.

  44. I doubt Egyptian leaders WANT to be a US ally. They probably noticed a pattern from the last two Egyptian leaders by this point.

  45. the baracky has done this: the wahhabis , jordanians , and egyptians are pro- israel. thank you clowndisaster™

  46. – I can’t say, but what I do sense is some of the ME countries are simply fed up with all the waring and carnage which never seems to result in any sort of stability or put an end to the conflicts, and I think just maybe we’ll see more of that reaction in other area’s in the years to come. If it ever comes to pass that more ME leaders see the value in building instead of destroying the tide could turn fully against the Islamist’s.

  47. “now she thinks she’s glenn beck”

    You prefer this? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/26/business/a-21st-century-fox-time-warner-merger-would-narrow-already-dwindling-competition.html?_r=0

    Six companies control 90% of the media. That can’t be good.

  48. – Another example is the worldwide outrage by many Muslims over the attempt of ISIS to impose Sharia law.

  49. I seem to remember ME polls from a few years back indicating 80% + wanted sharia law.

    I wouldn’t put much stock in the muzzies reforming any time soon.

  50. – Latest “Israeli Live blog” here.

    – Even HuffNPoop (We brave the insanity of the crystal star chamber so you won’t have to) has softened the anti-Israeli rhetoric since Hamas broke its own ceasefire agreement.

  51. Speaking of Sarah apparently she has turned into a lush at least to the severely edited video over here:

    Good to see you bh. You still have that restaurant?

  52. Even though I’m just a dickhead, I’d be more upset with the loss of the ceiling cat than the right-looking ‘dillo graphic.

    bh knows how to write a coherent sentence and does so almost all the time. You may or may not know how to do so, but do so almost never.

  53. hmmm you know my intent? that’s proggtarded my friend.

    Don’t try to hijack that which you don’t understand. We’ve seen that before. Nothing in intentionalism militates against calling out fools or liars.

    Also, proggtarded is what a child might say. #proggtarded

    So, again, fuck off.

  54. it’s not either/or it’s a smorgasbord of anti-fascist tasty goodness

    like a sampler platter or those tasty boxes you can buy on jet blue sometimes

    unless you’re sitting in the back

  55. or a really well-stocked mini-bar with those adorable little teensy disarronos

  56. Good to see you bh. You still have that restaurant?

    Very nice of you to ask, BT. Good to see you as well.

    Yeah, I do. We’re in the tourist time of the year now. Busy, busy, busy.

  57. I’d wonder about linking a Crooks and Liars post though, BT. Probably worth checking it for an honest presentation.

  58. I think i mentioned i had doubts when i posted it. But you know, it is what the progs are talking about on the facebook.

  59. For what it’s worth, ‘feets, I did catch your meaning with the Lost comment.

    As it is, I just don’t think it’s a character flaw to keep noticing one of the failings of our age. If it keeps repeating it’s not caused by the person who simply notices the nauseating repetition. No, it isn’t on that guy at all. It’s on those other assholes entirely.

  60. As we’re talking about Lost and all.

  61. it is what the progs are talking about on the facebook.

    You’ve noticed no doubt that a current mission of some urgency is to create a mockery of impeachment, which Palin has put straight out on the table. The left knows what’s what, and they’re all about enlisting the Republicans to do their mockery work for them, with the Republicans more than happy to oblige.

  62. yeah i don’t see the point in doing an impeachment now. I just don’t see a plus side. Win the Senate, keep the house, pass some helpful legislation and don’t step on your dick when you do it, is all i ask for now.

  63. That’s exactly what the spineless Republicans propose. They have no more concern for the Constitution than the leftists.

  64. One has to wonder then, BT, will we not stay in tyranny if we don’t take the basic measure laid out for us in our constitution?

    Surely the despot has earned this remedy. Surely there is not a kinder, gentler remedy. Surely, after we’ve read our Roman histories, we shouldn’t allow these precedents as we’ve learned that they will only become established and grow in time.

    He might be gone in a couple years. The imperium must be checked though. It must always be countered by the people or the experiment is over.

  65. Okay, sdferr, has beat me to it again.

    It happens.

  66. So you think impeachment is the right move? What would the charges be?

  67. What would the charges be?

    The man is lawless. Lawless.

    One charge then with a great, long list of examples.

  68. Which action would you focus upon?

  69. Let’s offer a counter example here.

    A man takes charge of the executive and actively subverts the nation. This is allowed without rebuke from the legislative branch.

    How long will we have as a republic once he’s gone after we’ve made all these smart and canny short-term electoral decisions?

    The answer is obvious. We’ll stay in our decline. We’ll keep doing what we’re doing with the hopes that we’ll hold the whip every four years.

  70. Which action would you focus upon?

    Honestly, I would impeach the man. I would turn the entire legislative agenda of the House into a series of rebukes.

    What we have to recognize is that we might have already lost. If the two of us might think this course of action might not work then we must also, the two of us, think that slinking away from the honest Constitutional response won’t work any better. We’re quite possibly screwed.

    With that being the case, maybe, just maybe, we act with fidelity to our founding and see if that works.

  71. The initial problem is not a catalog of ClownDisaster’s perfidies BT, surely not with so many ill-informed leftists and irresponsible Republicans loose in the public consciousness, blathering endlessly to no good purpose about matters they can’t be bothered to understand. The initial problem is to counter the mockery campaign and general ignorance with a seriousness of purpose, as undertaken in the finest sense of the term by Andrew McCarthy, who understands that because impeachment is a political remedy to a regime-changing political problem, it must be begun with a fundamental education of the public as to what impeachment is intended to remedy and how that remedy is to be applied, keeping an eye on the formation of a public opinion informed by the truth, and not mere lies or dissimulations.

  72. I understand your concerns bh. I’m just trying to figure out the exact charge that would be the preamble to the multiple examples to follow.

    I understand his recess appointments were unconstitutional but were they unconstitutional to the point of being an impeachable offense?

    The immigration crisis could be the offense we are looking for though he seems to have cover with the refuge act that was passed in 2008 or thereabouts.

    But if the consensus is that we need to impeach and impeach now i’ll be glad to examine the position further.

  73. Ok i was typing while you and sdferr were posting and i concur that education as to the why’s is paramount and rebuking the status quo with legislation from the house and passed by the senate is also important. So first things first. Capture the Senate.

  74. There is an answer in my head rattling around, BT.

    It’s possibly a margin note in Federalist. Give me a second.

  75. Honestly, lets all just reread 65 — as I’m doing now — to get a tenor of the feeling involved.

  76. So far I haven’t seen anything about Vox or CNN.

  77. If first things are to be first, then each with any concern for first things will first cease speaking as though impeachment is some meaningless artifact of a by-gone musty old piece of meaningless parchment, subject entirely to the whims of the media elites (so-called) or the [painfully moronic] political elite (also so-called).

    Lunkheads like John Boehner, who wants no part of responsible legislative behavior, and his stooge Steve Scalise, who likewise, trot about in company with sheep constantly pooh-poohing the actual legislative tools at their disposal, and instead offer up ridiculous diversions in the form of “lawsuits” in a pretense that they wish to see adherence to the “rule of law”, which rule of law embodied in the Constitution they are more than happy to ignore, so long as they think they’ll retain their ever paltrier powers, grander perquisites and emoluments.

  78. To be a bit more transparent I’m not really looking around my library to find further instruction.

    It’s the written and agreed upon remedy. Obama himself swore to this. Yes, it’s a political remedy and intended as such. (This is one reason I fight against the pejorative use of “political”.)

  79. One plausible, even practical means to go about teaching the public the fullness of impeachment is to start with the impeachment of the Attorney General who is held in formal contempt by the House of Representatives. Or, if he’s too tough a nut for these imbeciles to tackle, start with a lower ranking official. There is no dearth of faithless jerks to remove from office.

  80. I do hope that everyone recognizes what sdferr is scorning here, these “hey, look, a squirrel” lawsuits against the executive.

    That’s not what has been written, it’s not what’s been agreed upon.

  81. Ok i reread 64,65 and 66. Sdferr hit at a point that has also been gnawing at me and that is do we have the team that could properly educate, prosecute and convict the sitting president. Does the GOP House and Senate has the gravitas to bring about the public opinion necessary to see this through. I don’t think we do.

  82. Boehner’s idiotic lawsuit is already blowing up in his face, as well as contributing to the ease with which the leftists make mock of the whole nation. He’s a feckless bastard, is what he is.

  83. High Crimes AND Misdemeanors, folks.

    Bubba sticking his knob in the mouth of an intern young enough to be his daughter Misdemeaned the Office of President.

    By that standard, Obama’s in High Crime territory.

    Start with the invasion of States along our southern border that he’s fomenting.

    The reason being, impeachment is a legal solution to a political problem. And right now, the border crisis is the political problem that most strongly concentrates the mind.

  84. For myself, I think that Obama is essentially unprecedented. He’s not an extension from Bush like the feeble-minded might say.

    No, he regularly says in public that he will do what the legislative branch will not. Upon his own authority. What authority is that?


  85. do we have the team

    We for damn sure won’t get such a thing cutting these backstabbing cocksuckers any slack. Better to denounce them aiming at shame to whip them back into line. No guarantees, of course, but neither can we expect action if we don’t demand it.

  86. Holder would be a good target after the midterms.

  87. On ObaZma the great, neo-neocon went back [Obama, the Alinkskyite, revisited] to look at a David Horowitz 2009 essay from way back just after the ClownDisaster’s first election. Horowitz nails the problem.

  88. Obama’s not the first guy to promise extra-legal action.

  89. True, Ernst. No, he isn’t unprecedented.

  90. Not that this puts him into good company but I do take the correction. You’re right.

  91. He is unprecedented in some respects, just not in all. Those in which he is uniquely unprecedented are at root the cause of his success at subverting our society and modes of government, however.

    Horowitz: “No matter what Alinsky radicals say publicly or how moderate they appear, they are at war. This provides them with a great tactical advantage since other actors in the political arena are not at war. The other actors actually embrace the system, which commits all parties to compromise and to the peaceful resolution of conflicts. It commits them to a pragmatism of ends as well as means. Not every wish can be satisfied. By contrast, Alinsky radicals have an unwavering end, which is to attack the so-called Haves until they are finally defeated. In other words, to undermine the system that allows them to earn and possess more than others. Such a system, according to the radicals, is one of “social injustice,” and what they want is “social justice.” The unwavering end of such radicals is a communism of results.

    For tactical reasons radicals will make many compromises along the way; but their unfailing purpose – the vision that guides them – is to conduct a war against the system that in their view that makes social injustice possible. “

  92. Illiterati non carborundum bh

  93. I’m working on it, Ernst.

  94. OK Horowitz is quite the read. What i have been seeing with the progs is two fold, one social justice, two anti corporatism and that seems to be why they are so upset about being saddled with insurmountable student loans. Anyone wearing a GOP lapel pin is a socon antiwomean homophobe and not to be listened to. Oh yeah and GAIA.

    So if impeachment is the way to go then i hope the GOP brings its A team because otherwise they will be consumed by the fire and whatever rises from the ashes might be the ones we are looking for.

    It has been a pleasure talking to you guys and i hope to visit more frequently. You guys always were the best of the best.

  95. More likely, the way to go is Art. V. That’s more of a bottom -up solution than impeachment.

    Anyways, here’s hoping that Jarrett, or whomever is pulling Obama’s strings, is as myopically committed to the poverty of the possible as the GOP is.

  96. impeachment is a legal solution to a political problem.

    The power was given to a political body so that the executive couldn’t hide behind written law as has become typical with abuses of power in recent years. The procedure set forth in the Constitution is actually pretty sparse, with Congress entrusted with the details.

    That tells me it’s meant to be a political process within a very loose legal framework intended solely to protect the separation of powers.

  97. Maybe rather than “legal”, the term judicial is indicated? — i.e., taking the form but not the [legal criminal or civil] substance of a trial, but a trial at politics. There is a question of justice involved, justice to the law which embodies the contract of the people (to whom rights adhere) with the powers granted by the people to the state, and in a proper sense the people’s representatives charge the executive officer[s] with violation of that political contract.

    Here however, we have representatives who themselves choose to violate that self-same contract, with all the disregard of a child burning an insect with a magnifying glass.

  98. If we are looking for legal reasons for impeachment, I would refer back to the charges used against Nixon, since Obama actually did what Nixon was merely accused, in re, abuse of the IRS. Continue on with his failure to “faithfully execute”, in re immigration laws, DoMA, the War Powers Act, et alia. Mention his violation of the separation of powers, in re his unilateral rewriting of duly-passed legislation, and doing so for purely political reasons, and round it off with his obstruction of justice (a fairly catch-all phrase, but easy to prove). Don’t forget his murder of American citizens without indictment or trial, and include his repeated violations of Constitutional rights of the rest of us (NSA) and one man in particular (the guy who made the video that he and Hillary blamed for Benghazi, even though they knew the facts early on).

    Put Trey Gowdy on the prosecution team, and watch the fur fly!

  99. In order to throw a little bit of light on the subject:

    On Tuesday, May 29, 1787, the fourth formal day of meeting in Convention, Edmund Randolph presented the “Virginia Plan” to the body — this was the initial(!) step of substance with a view to the consideration of the contents of the work of the Convention (and yes, the Virginia Plan was, generally speaking, rejected in the event) — as opposed to conducting matters of organization of the Convention itself which had been conducted in the preceding three days of meetings.

    In “point 9” of Randolph’s presentation, we see the first appearance of the term “impeachment” at the Convention, a term which reappears again and again during that Summer, is considered and modified as to its form again and again. Yet though the form may have changed, the purposes of making the officers answerable to the people never changed.

    *** 9. Resd. that a National Judiciary be established to consist of one or
    more supreme tribunals, and of inferior tribunals to be chosen by the
    National Legislature, to hold their offices during good behaviour; and
    to receive punctually at stated times fixed compensation for their
    services, in which no increase or diminution shall be made so as to
    affect the persons actually in office at the time of such increase or
    diminution. That the jurisdiction of the inferior tribunals shall be to
    hear & determine in the first instance, and of the supreme tribunal to
    hear and determine in the dernier resort, all piracies & felonies on the
    high seas, captures from an enemy; cases in which foreigners or citizens
    of other States applying to such jurisdictions may be interested, or
    which respect the collection of the National revenue; impeachments of
    any National officers, and questions which may involve the national
    peace and harmony. ***

  100. For those who care about the subject of impeachment, particularly in the context of John Boehner’s proposed House “lawsuit” to beg the courts to make the Executive behave (is it possible to even say these words out loud without either laughing in disgust or weeping in despair?), take a read of neo-neocon’s post The Obama Infomercial, where down in the comments a long colloquy on impeachment takes place.

  101. Here however, we have representatives who themselves choose to violate that self-same contract

    Indeed, Congress as a body is behaving like 1776‘s fictional version of James Wilson — they just don’t want the … responsibility!

  102. Yes, McGehee, perfect!

  103. The House, as currently constituted, lacks the Will to Impeach.

    Perhaps, after the fall Elections — perhaps — the new Republican Majority will contain enough Trey Gowdy types and ‘Obama’ can be Impeached, as he damn well should be.

    But, best case scenario, if the GOP takes control of Senate, it will not be composed of enough Ted Cruz types, so there is no hope that ‘Obama’ will be removed.

    Add to this the fact that The Jarrett Junto — powered by Alinksy Gas — would pull out all the stops [ala: David Horowitz] and ‘go nuclear’ [can you say, ‘race riots’?].

    Utilizing the Article V Option is a possibility, but unless the Convention Of The States happens within a year, it will be too late because we are fast moving towards a situation where The Junto will be taking measures to ensure they really never have to worry about being out of Power And Control ever again.

  104. On Friday, June 1, 1787, the second and third occasions of the use of the term impeachment occurred on the floor of the Convention by Gunning Bedford of Delaware.

    Thus: *** Mr. BEDFORD was strongly opposed to so long a term as seven years. He begged the committee to consider what the situation of the Country would be, in case the first magistrate should be saddled on it for such a period and it should be found on trial that he did not possess the qualifications ascribed to him, or should lose them after his appointment. An impeachment he said would be no cure for this evil, as an impeachment would reach misfeasance only, not incapacity. He was for a triennial election, and for an ineligibility after a period of nine
    years. ***

  105. On Saturday, June 2, 1787, in committee of the whole, the fourth and fifth occurrence of the term impeachment takes place.

    The fourth use, by John Dickenson of Delaware: *** Mr. DICKENSON moved “that the Executive be made removeable by the National Legislature on the request of a majority of the Legislatures of
    individual States.” It was necessary he said to place the power of removing somewhere. He did not like the plan of impeaching the Great officers of State. He did not know how provision could be made for
    removal of them in a better mode than that which he had proposed. He had no idea of abolishing the State Governments as some gentlemen seemed inclined to do. The happiness of this Country in his opinion required considerable powers to be left in the hands of the States. ***

    The fifth use, by Hugh Williamson of North Carolina : *** Mr. WILLIAMSON 2ded. by Mr. DAVIE moved to add to the last Clause, the words — “and to be removeable on impeachment & conviction of mal-practice or neglect of duty” — which was agreed to ***

  106. From the neo-neo post sdferr linked above.

    … I don’t think that even Obama thinks he’s doing good any more. I think more of his motivation is hatred at this point.

    But, from a link at another neo-neocon post.

  107. FoxNews does its part to revile the Constitution in accord with the tacit agreement struck between the leftists who would do away with the old rag altogether and spineless Republicans who are content to bury the old rag in practice, if not quite yet in lip-service.

    No surprise there regarding FoxNews, which today in radio reports acts insouciantly as a mouthpiece for Hamas’ propaganda campaign in their war against the existence of the state of Israel.

  108. Darn it, clumsy fingers. To continue.

    The Alinsky radical has a single principle – to take power from the Haves and give it to the Have-nots. What this amounts to in practice is a political nihilism – a destructive assault on the established order in the name of the “people” (who, in the fashion common to dictators, are designated as such by the revolutionary elite). This is the classic revolutionary formula in which the goal is power for the political vanguard who get to feel good about themselves in the process.
    Alinsky and his followers organize their power bases without naming the end game, without declaring a specific future they want to achieve – socialism, communism, a dictatorship of the proletariat, or anarchy. Without committing themselves to concrete principles or a specific future, they organize exclusively to build a power base which they can use to destroy the existing society and its economic system. By refusing to commit to principles or to identify their goal, they have been able to organize a coalition of all the elements of the left who were previously divided by disagreements over means and ends.

    If you think you have already pushed the “existing society and its economic system” past a tipping point to where destruction is nigh then what else is there to do but speechify and golf.?

  109. On Wednesday, June 13, 1787, in committee of the whole, the sixth, seventh and eighth occasions of the use of the term impeachment occur.

    The sixth, by Edmund Randolph and James Madison: *** Mr. RANDOLPH & Mr. MADISON, then moved the following resolution respecting a National Judiciary, viz “that the jurisdiction of the National Judiciary shall extend to cases, which respect the collection of the national revenue, impeachments of any national officers, and questions which involve the national peace and harmony” which was agreed to. ***

    The seventh, in the “Report by the Committee of the Whole on Mr. Randolph’s Propositions”: *** 9. Resolved that a National Executive be instituted to consist of a single person, to be chosen by the Natil. Legislature for the term of seven years, with power to carry into execution the national laws, to appoint to offices in cases not otherwise provided for — to be ineligible a second time, & to be removeable on impeachment and conviction of malpractices or neglect of duty — to receive a fixed stipend by which he may be compensated for the devotion of his time to public service to be paid out of the national Treasury. ***

    And in the same “Report”, the eighth: *** 13. Resd. that the jurisdiction of the Natl. Judiciary shall extend to all cases which respect the collection of the Natl. revenue, impeachments of any Natl. Officers, and questions which involve the national peace & harmony. ***

  110. On Friday, June 15, 1787, the ninth use of the term impeachment occurs in the presentation of the New Jersey Plan by William Patterson of New Jersey.

    The ninth use: *** 5. Resd. that a federal Judiciary be established to consist of a supreme Tribunal the Judges of which to be appointed by the Executive, & to hold their offices during good behaviour, to receive punctually at stated times a fixed compensation for their services in which no increase or diminution shall be made, so as to affect the persons actually in office at the time of such increase or diminution; that the Judiciary so established shall have authority to hear & determine in the first instance on all impeachments of federal officers, & by way of appeal in the dernier resort in all cases touching the rights of Ambassadors, in all cases of captures from an enemy, in all cases of piracies & felonies on the high Seas, in all cases in which foreigners may be interested, in the construction of any treaty or treaties, or which may arise on any of the Acts for regulation of trade, or the collection of the federal Revenue: that none of the Judiciary shall during the time they remain in office be capable of receiving or holding any other office or appointment during their time of service, or for ____ thereafter. ***

  111. On Saturday, June 16, 1787, the tenth use of the term impeachment occurs in a summation speech by James Wilson contrasting the two plans presented to the Convention to date.

    The tenth use, by James Wilson of Pennsylvania: *** Mr. WILSON entered into a contrast of the principal points of the two plans so far he said as there had been time to examine the one last proposed. These points were 1. in the Virga. plan there are 2 & in some degree 3 branches in the Legislature: in the plan from N. J. there is to be a single legislature only — 2. Representation of the people at large is the basis of the one: — the State Legislatures, the pillars of the other — 3. proportional representation prevails in one: — equality of suffrage in the other — 4. A single Executive Magistrate is at the head of the one: — a plurality is held out in the other. — 5. in the one the majority of the people of the U. S. must prevail: — in the other a minority may prevail. 6. the Natl. Legislature is to make laws in all cases to which the separate States are incompetent & — : — in place of this Congs. are to have additional power in a few cases only — 7. A negative on the laws of the States: — in place of this coertion to be substituted — 8. The Executive to be removeable on impeachment & conviction; — in one plan: in the other to be removeable at the instance of majority of the Executives of the States — 9. Revision of the laws provided for in one: — no such check in the other — 10. inferior national tribunals in one: — none such in the other. 11. In ye. one jurisdiction of Natl. tribunals to extend &c — ; an appellate jurisdiction only allowed in the other. 12. Here the jurisdiction is to extend to all cases affecting the Nationl. peace & harmony: there, a few cases only are marked out. 13. finally ye. ratification is in this to be by the people themselves: — in that by the legislative authorities according to the 13 art: of Confederation. ***

  112. There’s this Matthew Continetti piece in the Weekly Standard that ties in with neo-neocon/Horowitz stuff.

    I mean, really, who’s surprised to learn that an Alinskyite is also an anti-anti-Communist who believes that the wrong side won the Cold War?

  113. We aren’t surprised Ernst, but surely we must admit that the concealment Alinsky and ObaZma practice to hide their war against America and for their empty utopian vision is not only well thought through on Alinsky’s part, but relatively well executed on the ClownDisaster’s part, insofar as the lie will never be confessed by him and the pretenses through lip-service to American principles parachuted into his boring speeches ever maintained? After all, he has an army of acolytes at his command ready to jump to sophistical operations at any approach of the truth.

  114. – What a ration of total temporizing bullshit. Jug ears is a fucking Marxist, pure and simple. No need for anything more complicated than that.

  115. While Alinsky was clever, I think we should not hail him as a great thinker.

    He merely used his low animal cunning to devise his strategy and it has worked only because enough Americans have willfully kept their heads up their ever-loving arses.

  116. Well thought through does not equate to great or greatness, and I for one wouldn’t desire anyone should think so. But the point went to manifest effectiveness — which look, the piece of shit through the thorough work of his likeminded henchmen is President of the United States. It’s a hideous thought yet undeniable, right? And some rough half to three-quarters of the country still doesn’t know what they’re dealing with.

  117. – That it’s taken almost 6 years for the millennial’s to begin, just begin, to understand they got shafted royally is even more depressing than having that jackass as president.

  118. At 19 people know everything they think they’ll ever need to know, but even if that were so they do not understand. That takes more years of learning — not only of new things to know, but how all the things they know really fit together in the real world outside their skulls.

    That’s nothing to be depressed about. It’s just the limits of individual progress.

  119. Starting with Holder.

  120. Finishing law.

  121. End side one, for delicate ears.

  122. Curious Protiens and Packer fans as well need to know how this middles, yes?


  123. *Proteins*