Monday, July 30, 2012

Headlines - Monday July 30

Nothing from Cheney is said in a vacuum. There's some reason he's saying this publicly, now. He seems to be trying to shut Palin up, force her out of the picture. It's not entirely clear why, unless the GOP is afraid that she's somehow going to screw up the election, or the selection of the VP. But there's some calculated reason that Cheney is saying this now.

From Jonathan Karl at ABC News:
"That one," Cheney said, "I don't think was well handled."

"The test to get on that small list has to be, 'Is this person capable of being president of the United States?'"

Cheney believes Sarah Palin failed that test....

"I think that was a mistake."
No shit.

Antonin Scalia is doing a publicity tour for his book or his ego or whatever, and stopped by Fox News Sunday to say some really stupid and dangerous things about how the Second Amendment might limit "frighting"—carrying a huge axe just to scare the shit out of people—but may not limit anything that can be held in your hand—like a rocket launcher.

Yes, that's right—a fucking rocket launcher:

WALLACE: What about… a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute?

SCALIA: We'll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried — it's to keep and "bear," so it doesn't apply to cannons — but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.

WALLACE: How do you decide that if you're a textualist?

SCALIA: Very carefully.


First of all, what the hell is Scalia doing making the Sunday show circuit? Second of all, what the hell is Scalia doing making the Sunday show circuit. I understand that he's got a book to sell. But does he understand that he's a Supreme Court justice, not Sarah Palin?

And finally, really? The Second Amendment limits the right to bear whatever arms you can hold? If that is the case, then why stop at rocket launchers? Why not just proclaim that citizens have the right to bear suitcase nukes?

A strict textualist interpretation of the Second Amendment leads to ridiculous results. Results that the vaunted Founding Fathers could not possibly have intended, as the 15 preeminent university professors of American history pointed out in the amicus brief they submitted to the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (the 2008 case in which Scalia, writing for the majority, held that "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.")

Historians are often asked what the Founders would think about various aspects of contemporary life. Such questions can be tricky to answer. But as historians of the Revolutionary era we are confident at least of this: that the authors of the Second Amendment would be flabbergasted to learn that in endorsing the republican principle of a well-regulated militia, they were also precluding restrictions on such potentially dangerous property as firearms, which governments had always regulated when there was "real danger of public injury from individuals."

You're goddamn right the Founders would be flabbergasted. This is madness.


The Most Honest 3 1/2 Minutes of Television


Rmoney may as well have gotten off the plane an Israel and asked where can a fellow get a good Ham-n-Swiss on rye in this town? As if the London fiasco wasn't embarrassing enough for Mittens, he went on to Israel where he planned a high-dollar fundraising dinner with right-wing Israeli war hawks who want a Romney presidency so the US will back them in a nuclear strike against Iran. There was a little problem with scheduling, though. The member of the Cult of Mormon claims that they checked a Hebrew calendar, and went ahead and scheduled his $50,000-per-plate fundraiser on Tisha B'Av, anyway. For those who don't know much about Hebrew holy days, Tisha B'Av is a Jewish holy day of mourning for the victims of the Holocaust and the destruction of first and second Temples of Jerusalem. It isn't baptizing-our-dead-relatives-into-the-Mormon-cult offensive to us, but it's still pretty fucking tone-deaf, clueless and offensive just the same.


Uh. Happy Sunday, everybody? Good news? Ronald William Brown, a very nice man who loved to hang out with children from his Florida trailer park, and buy them pizza, and watch over them at Sunday school, and be the puppeteer on a Christian Television Network show (above!), was not able to realize his fantasy of abducting one of said children, strangling him, and frying him up in a pan for eating. Hooray! READ MORE »


Partisan hack and spawn of shooter disagrees with daddy dearest:



The Romney campaign unilaterally endorsed a preemptive attack on Iran yesterday during the first day of Mitt Romney's trip to Israel. But that's not at all.

Senior adivser Dan Senor also lowered the bar for what a Romney administration would consider to be justification for a preemptive strike.

"If Israel has to take action on its own, in order to stop Iran from developing that capability, the governor would respect that decision," Mr. Senor said.

Previewing Mr. Romney's remarks, Mr. Senor explained: "It is not enough just to stop Iran from developing a nuclear program. The capability, even if that capability is short of weaponization, is a pathway to weaponization, and the capability gives Iran the power it needs to wreak havoc in the region and around the world."

"The capability, even if that capability is short of weaponization."

Meaning a Romney administration would consider even a nuclear energy program to be justification for a preemptive attack. Ignoring the fact that Iran's civilian nuclear program is monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Because it's a "pathway to weaponization."

There should be no doubt that the foreign policy of a Romney administration would strongly resemble and possibly even surpass the awfulness of the Bush administration.

Romney won't even release his tax returns. Does anyone really believe his administration wouldn't set a new precedent for secrecy and subterfuge? And Romney's spokespersons would say "it was legal" with all due contempt.



No comments: