This is a follow up on my Friday post about Bill O'Reilly's insane stance that the government has the right to ignore the Constitution in a "state of emergency". During the email segment at the end of his Friday night show, he read three emails criticizing him as I did. He then proceeded to thumb his nose at us, and again state that his assessment was correct. As a justification of his stance, he cited President Lincoln's supsension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War.
However, he convienently ignored the fact that Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution specifically grants the government that particular leeway on Habeas Corpus in the case of either invasion or rebellion; rebellion being what the Confederacy was engaged in during the Civil War. Lincoln didn't ignore the Constitution - he followed it!
It is sad to say, but O'Reilly is pulling a real Iggy on this one. He is either ignorant about this topic, or knows that he is wrong, and is ignoring the facts anyway.
Bob
Ceterum , exsisto quietis Iggy!
Monday, February 22, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
Bill O'Reibermann Debuts On Fox News
Last night, Bill O'Reilly interviewed a gentleman named Stewart Rhodes, the founder of a group called The Oath Keepers. I don't know much about the group, other than that they describe themselves as current and former members of either the military, police or firefighter forces. The premise of their organization, is that they will keep the oaths that they have taken, and not obey illegal or unconstitutional orders, should they ever be given one. You can decide your feelings on them yourselves, but it was actually O'Reilly that said some things that almost made me throw a hammer through the television.
What has so raised my ire, is a sequence that occurred when they were discussing the group's position that its members will not obey orders to disarm law-abiding citizens. O'Reilly incredulously asked when that had ever happened in American history, and Rhodes replied, almost disbelievingly, with the obvious answer; Katrina!, O'Reilley made the outlandish statement that government has the right to seize firearms in a "state of emergency". Excuse me? Come again? That is the kind of statement I'd expect from Olbermann or Matthews - not the normally level-headed O'Reilly, who then went on to claim that in Louisiana, the police confiscated all firearms, both from of law-abiding citizens, and from not so law-abiding citizens (as if that somehow made it alright).
For God's sake, emergencies are the times that people need the ability to protect themselves the most! In post-Katrina Louisiana, the government did not seize "everyone's guns" as he claimed. They seized the guns of law-abiding citizens, because those are the people who bought and registered their guns legally - that's how the government knew where to look! The criminals and thugs who bought and kept guns illegally, still had them, and law-abiding citizens were left defenseless in a lawless environment!
Unbelievably, he followed that up with an even more outrageous statement. When Rhodes explained that the group's philosophy is that disarming law-abiding citizens, even in an "emergency", is a blatant violation of Americans' second amendment civil rights, O'Reilly claimed that the group's premise was "an extreme position". I almost fell out of my chair. What part of "The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" makes not infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms an "extreme position"!
These are the types of beliefs and statements that make gun-owners so fearful, sometimes to the point of paranoia, about any firearms legislation. If someone like Bill O'Reilly believes that in some circumstances, the government can arbitrarily ignore the constitution, imagine what people like George Soros, Al Franken, Eric Holder, and of course, the members of the Axis of Socialism have in mind for our second amendment rights.
I have often disagreed with O'Reilly in the past, but always respected him, because he is fair and his views are generally both constitutional, and logical. Last night, I lost a lot of respect for him, because his position was both indefensible and illogical. Another statement or two like this, and not only will I lose all respect from him, he will lose me as a viewer.
Bob
Ceterum , exsisto quietis Iggy!
What has so raised my ire, is a sequence that occurred when they were discussing the group's position that its members will not obey orders to disarm law-abiding citizens. O'Reilly incredulously asked when that had ever happened in American history, and Rhodes replied, almost disbelievingly, with the obvious answer; Katrina!, O'Reilley made the outlandish statement that government has the right to seize firearms in a "state of emergency". Excuse me? Come again? That is the kind of statement I'd expect from Olbermann or Matthews - not the normally level-headed O'Reilly, who then went on to claim that in Louisiana, the police confiscated all firearms, both from of law-abiding citizens, and from not so law-abiding citizens (as if that somehow made it alright).
For God's sake, emergencies are the times that people need the ability to protect themselves the most! In post-Katrina Louisiana, the government did not seize "everyone's guns" as he claimed. They seized the guns of law-abiding citizens, because those are the people who bought and registered their guns legally - that's how the government knew where to look! The criminals and thugs who bought and kept guns illegally, still had them, and law-abiding citizens were left defenseless in a lawless environment!
Unbelievably, he followed that up with an even more outrageous statement. When Rhodes explained that the group's philosophy is that disarming law-abiding citizens, even in an "emergency", is a blatant violation of Americans' second amendment civil rights, O'Reilly claimed that the group's premise was "an extreme position". I almost fell out of my chair. What part of "The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" makes not infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms an "extreme position"!
These are the types of beliefs and statements that make gun-owners so fearful, sometimes to the point of paranoia, about any firearms legislation. If someone like Bill O'Reilly believes that in some circumstances, the government can arbitrarily ignore the constitution, imagine what people like George Soros, Al Franken, Eric Holder, and of course, the members of the Axis of Socialism have in mind for our second amendment rights.
I have often disagreed with O'Reilly in the past, but always respected him, because he is fair and his views are generally both constitutional, and logical. Last night, I lost a lot of respect for him, because his position was both indefensible and illogical. Another statement or two like this, and not only will I lose all respect from him, he will lose me as a viewer.
Bob
Ceterum , exsisto quietis Iggy!
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
It's The Monopartisanship Stupid!
In his announcement yesterday that he would not seek re-election, Indiana Senator Evan Bayh claimed that the biggest reason for his decision was that he didn't like the Senate any more, that it was not the same place as when he started his first term in 1998, and that there is too much partisanship. Well, don't feel Bayhd, two out of three ain't bad.
First, he's right that he, like most Americans, doesn't like the Senate. He is also right that the Senate is not the same as it was in 1998. In 1998, the Senate was controlled by Republicans, most of whom were still holding true to the conservative principles of the 1994 Contract With America. Fast-forward to 2010, and the Senate is controlled by Democrats; more precisely, uber-leftist Democrats who view the Constitution and economic facts as obstacles to their dream of a great socialist paradise. Definitely not the same place.
As far as blaming "partisanship" for the insanity that is Washington, riddle me this. For an entire year, the Democrats controlled the presidency, the House by forty votes, and the Senate with a filibuster-proof super majority. So how in the name of God, could Republicans in any way affect the agenda, debate and outcome of votes in Congress? The only partisan problems were within the Democrat Party itself, with blue dog Democrats jumping off the train wreck that is the Axis of Socialism.
Still that doesn't stop the left, both its politicians and their media vassals, from propagating this myth. Today, Barney Frank, the ultimate, despicable, partisan hack tried to make the same claim. Besides, partisanship and obstructionism are just buzzwords used by the left to describe when those damned Republicans won't roll over for them. There's nothing wrong with partisanship and obstructionism when they stop insane polices like Obamacare, Cap and Tax and trillion dollar deficits.
We had one hell of a jaw-dropper from Sir Spouts-a-Lot, this morning. Iggy actually said that Mitt Romney is the sleaziest person to ever run for public office in Massachusetts. Among many others, the People's Republic of Massachusetts has given us Barney Frank, Bill Delahunt, Sal DiMasi, Charles Flaherty, Tom Finneran, Dianne Wilkerson, Marty Meehan, Mike Capuano, Gerry Studds and last but not least, Ted Kennedy, alcoholic, adulterer and killer - and Mitt is sleazier than not just some, but all of these despicable villains? That, is a stupid, iggyotic thing to say.
Ceterum , exsisto quietis Iggy
First, he's right that he, like most Americans, doesn't like the Senate. He is also right that the Senate is not the same as it was in 1998. In 1998, the Senate was controlled by Republicans, most of whom were still holding true to the conservative principles of the 1994 Contract With America. Fast-forward to 2010, and the Senate is controlled by Democrats; more precisely, uber-leftist Democrats who view the Constitution and economic facts as obstacles to their dream of a great socialist paradise. Definitely not the same place.
As far as blaming "partisanship" for the insanity that is Washington, riddle me this. For an entire year, the Democrats controlled the presidency, the House by forty votes, and the Senate with a filibuster-proof super majority. So how in the name of God, could Republicans in any way affect the agenda, debate and outcome of votes in Congress? The only partisan problems were within the Democrat Party itself, with blue dog Democrats jumping off the train wreck that is the Axis of Socialism.
Still that doesn't stop the left, both its politicians and their media vassals, from propagating this myth. Today, Barney Frank, the ultimate, despicable, partisan hack tried to make the same claim. Besides, partisanship and obstructionism are just buzzwords used by the left to describe when those damned Republicans won't roll over for them. There's nothing wrong with partisanship and obstructionism when they stop insane polices like Obamacare, Cap and Tax and trillion dollar deficits.
We had one hell of a jaw-dropper from Sir Spouts-a-Lot, this morning. Iggy actually said that Mitt Romney is the sleaziest person to ever run for public office in Massachusetts. Among many others, the People's Republic of Massachusetts has given us Barney Frank, Bill Delahunt, Sal DiMasi, Charles Flaherty, Tom Finneran, Dianne Wilkerson, Marty Meehan, Mike Capuano, Gerry Studds and last but not least, Ted Kennedy, alcoholic, adulterer and killer - and Mitt is sleazier than not just some, but all of these despicable villains? That, is a stupid, iggyotic thing to say.
Ceterum , exsisto quietis Iggy
Friday, February 12, 2010
Patches Crashes, And Camelot Dies
So bye-bye, to those Kennedy guys,
Drove a Delmont off a levee,
Too bad Mary Jo died,
And Patches crashed his Mustang on that May night
Singin' this 'll be the day that it died,
This 'll be the day Camelot died.
Completely ignoring the damage that his and his father's left-wing beliefs have done to America, the laundry list of criminal and civil offenses he has committed while in office was long enough to guarantee prison time; had he been virtually anyone else. I never understood the whole fatal attraction of Camelot. Why did people ever embrace a royal family of America? All it did was breed arrogance, voter complacency, and a sense of entitlement on the part of the members of the clan. Patches is merely the ultimate byproduct of its digestive tract. Would he ever had gotten a sniff of a state representative's seat, let alone a U.S. House seat, if his name was Patrick O'Brien, or Patrick Goldberg or Patrick Calabria?
Camelot is dead. I say good riddance to bad rubbish.
One "I can't believe he said that" moment from Iggy today. During a discussion of Sarah Palin's hand notes job, the guys poked fun at Obama needing a teleprompter to address a sixth grade class, and Iggy claimed that he was actually talking to reporters, not sixth graders in that classroom. What??? Was the White House briefing room being painted and that classroom the only venue that was available? Put the crack pipe down, and slowly step away, Sir Spouts-a-Lot
Besides, I don't understand what the big deal is about what she wrote on her hand.
Bob, RI
Ceterum , exsisto quietis Iggy
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
The Thought Police, They Get Inside Iggy's Head
I’ve been working on a pretty extensive post, but I had to talk about an outrageous claim from Dr. Drive-by this morning. When the guys were discussing Scott Brown, and his ability to derail Obama’s policies in upcoming votes, Iggy, actually claimed that this was not why people voted for Scott Brown. He actually tried to make the case that Scott brown was elected over Coakley simply because she was a “bad candidate”.
Never mind that Brown consistently campaigned on traditional conservative values of lower taxes and less government spending. Ignore the fact that he specifically said that he would be the 41st vote in the Senate to stop Obamacare. The liberal PR machine went with the mantra that “Brown won because Coakley ran a bad campaign” – even before he actually won – so that is what the moon bat moron runs with. It is as if there is a direct feed from the Boston Globe directly into the speech center of his brain.
Oh, and would you look at that; as I type, the news comes across the wire that the Senate vote to end the debate on appointing that socialist, SEIU hack Craig Becker to the NLRB failed - and Brown voted to sustain the filibuster. Wrong again Iggy!
Just as an interesting aside on the vote, it failed 52-33, with two Democrat senators siding against Obama. What a coincidence, it was Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson. Nelson is toast in November, and baring divine intervention, Nelson is toast in 2012. They're like killers on their death beds trying to atone for their sins. Too little, too late . . .
Bob, RI
Ceterum , exsisto quietis Iggy
Never mind that Brown consistently campaigned on traditional conservative values of lower taxes and less government spending. Ignore the fact that he specifically said that he would be the 41st vote in the Senate to stop Obamacare. The liberal PR machine went with the mantra that “Brown won because Coakley ran a bad campaign” – even before he actually won – so that is what the moon bat moron runs with. It is as if there is a direct feed from the Boston Globe directly into the speech center of his brain.
Oh, and would you look at that; as I type, the news comes across the wire that the Senate vote to end the debate on appointing that socialist, SEIU hack Craig Becker to the NLRB failed - and Brown voted to sustain the filibuster. Wrong again Iggy!
Just as an interesting aside on the vote, it failed 52-33, with two Democrat senators siding against Obama. What a coincidence, it was Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson. Nelson is toast in November, and baring divine intervention, Nelson is toast in 2012. They're like killers on their death beds trying to atone for their sins. Too little, too late . . .
Bob, RI
Ceterum , exsisto quietis Iggy
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Fffftttt . . . Message For You Sir!
Hi folks. Some of you have asked to be notified via email when I submit new posts. If you're interested in being on the list, please email me your address at shutiggyup@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)