Buy WILLisms

XML Feed

Featured Entries

The Babe Theory Of Political Movements.
Mar. 21, 2005 11:50 AM

Iran's Sham Election In Houston.
June 20, 2005 5:36 AM

Yes, Kanye, Bush Does Care.
Oct. 31, 2005 12:41 AM

Health Care vs. Wealth Care.
Nov. 23, 2005 3:28 PM

Americans Voting With Their Feet.
Nov. 30, 2005 1:33 PM

Idea Majorities Matter.
May 12, 2006 6:15 PM

Twilight Zone Economics.
Oct. 17, 2006 12:30 AM

The "Shrinking" Middle Class.
Dec. 13, 2006 1:01 PM

From Ashes, GOP Opportunities.
Dec. 18, 2006 6:37 PM

Battle Between Entitlements & Pork.
Dec. 21, 2006 12:31 PM

Let Economic Freedom Reign.
Dec. 22, 2006 10:22 PM

Biggest Health Care Moment In Decades.
July 25, 2007 4:32 PM

Unions Antithetical to Liberty.
May 28, 2008 11:12 PM

Right To Work States Rock.
June 9, 2008 12:25 PM



Blogroll Me!



July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004

Social Security Reform Thursday.
March 13, 2008

Caption Contest: Enter Today!
Due: July 29, 2008

The Carnival Of Classiness.
Mar. 14, 2006

Quotational Therapy: Obama.
Apr. 4, 2008

Mainstream Melee: Wolfowitz.
May 19, 2007

Pundit Roundtable: Leaks.
July 9, 2006

A WILLisms.com(ic), by Ken McCracken
July 14, 2006


Powered by Movable Type 3.17
Site Design by Sekimori

WILLisms.com June 2008 Book of the Month (certified classy):

The WILLisms.com Gift Shop: Support This Site


This Week's Carnival of Revolutions: carnivalbutton.gif

Carnival Home Base: homebase.gif


« Quotational Therapy: Part 141 -- John Edwards Is No Longer A Viable Candidate. | WILLisms.com | This Is Your No-Brainer On Drugs »

HuffPo New Low

The Huffington Post manages to consistently plumb new depths of hatred and sociopathology, but today Martin Lewis posted what is probably the most loathsome piece of garbage yet - General Pace, You Can Save the US - by Arresting Bush for "Conduct Unbecoming".

This is what I wrote to the HuffPo in response:

Dear Whomever,

Martin Lewis' post calling for a coup against the White House is a new low for the Huffington Post. Is the Huffington Post going to stand by this traitorous incitement to overthrow our democratically-elected President? Is that what the Huffington Post stands for - illegal militarism in the name of punishing policies some leftist doesn't like?

I urge you to retract this post, fire Martin Lewis, and issue an apology.

Sincerely outraged,

Ken McCracken

I sincerely urge everyone out there to contact the Huffington Post and let them know this crosses the line. Big time.

And please, no 'corrections' defending Lewis claiming he is not calling for a coup d'etat. The only mechanism for relieving the President of his duties as Commander-in-Chief lies in impeachment - what Lewis is calling for completely subverts the Constitution.

P.S. Ed Morrissey agrees that Lewis is pleading for the destruction of the Constitution:

Lewis quotes extensively from the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but clearly his scholarship does not extend to the Constitution. The command of the armed forces follows from the president's election to office, and cannot be separated from the office itself. Bush isn't C-in-C because he got appointed to that position, but because the American electorate voted him into that role. In other words, the military cannot arrest the C-in-C but leave the President in power, and to argue otherwise is to demonstrate complete ignorance.

Secondly, the President does not serve at the pleasure of the Joint Chiefs -- and indeed, the military is subservient to the civilian command structure. They do not have arrest authority over the President -- nor over anyone else in the US other than military personnel, as the Posse Comitatus Act stipulates. Civilian oversight keeps the military from seizing power and is a long and vital tradition in this nation. It's what keeps us from becoming a banana republic, run by military strongmen.

And one of his commenters notes "See? Liberals DO support our troops."

Posted by Ken McCracken · 25 August 2007 04:37 PM


who cares? haven't you ever seen those old cartoons of george washington or abe lincoln made by their political enemies. There has always been politically incorrect mea nspirited, unfair things said about peoples rivals. It's part of politics.

Posted by: lester at August 25, 2007 05:14 PM

now bush supporters care about he constitution. hahaha too late

Posted by: lester at August 25, 2007 05:16 PM

Oh yeah, part of politics includes calling for a military overthrow of the government?

We have a word for that, lester, it's called sedition.

Posted by: Ken McCacken at August 25, 2007 05:16 PM

anything bad said about Bush is legal by fiat of me

Posted by: lester at August 25, 2007 05:21 PM

Good thing you don't count.

Posted by: Ken McCacken at August 25, 2007 05:21 PM

How low will they go? Pretty dang low!

Posted by: zsa zsa at August 25, 2007 05:45 PM

The article has the air of "playing army," or "playing lawyer." Okay, "playing army lawyer." Whoa, guys, I've found this really cool trick whereby we could get rid of the president. It is reminiscent of the reasoning of the guys who say you don't have to pay your income tax or that 9-11 was an inside job.

He doesn't see it as sedition, or as a poorly-disguised military coup because he just hasn't thought about it very hard. It's just a grinning, seventh-grade "know how much I think Bush is illegal? This is how much I think he's illegal."

Such sentiments, however childish, are dangerous nonetheless. They illustrate that even with lester, above, who is at least trying to be funny, the grim reality of what is being said is missed, because it's just so much darn fun to show how much smarter and more righteous you are than George Bush and his uh, cabal... cronies... minions - what's the favored term these days? While such silliness of reasoning seldom leads to any real conflict, it has, and it could. Unthinking people do not need much intellectual cover.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at August 25, 2007 08:16 PM

This kind of thing just drives me bonkers.

Isn't a coup d'etat precisely the type of thing the left has been saying Bush will do?

But . . . if a leftist actually proposes a coup d'etat, we're just supposed to sit back and say that is alright?

This leftist thinking, that their aims and ideals are so precious and so good that we can just throw out the rule of law in order to make it happen, is
perhaps the most outrageous conceit they have.

Did I say it drives me bonkers?

Posted by: Ken McCacken at August 25, 2007 08:23 PM

For those people who think Martin Lewis has a good idea, let me make just one point - creating precedent.

If a Democrat were to be elected POTUS in 2008, would it be permissible for a person who hated her to advocate a military coup? An Assassination? NO - it would not be permissible then just as it is not permissible now for someone to write an article advocating mutiny, treason or sedition.

There comes a point in a civilized society when a position being advocated is so reprehensible that even the allies of the advocate must stand up and shout "Enough!" as they cast out the offender. Failure to act will cause the rebellious to reap the whirlwind.

Posted by: Poole at August 25, 2007 09:01 PM

well, nominate a less horrible candidate next time and you won't see stuff like this. That's your free market solution

Posted by: lester at August 26, 2007 08:25 AM

anything bad said about Bush is legal by fiat of me

This is already correct thanks to the 1st Amendment, with the exception of verbal threats to kill or harm the president, which have been illegal for decades. However, the legality of speech says nothing about whether it's right.

Posted by: Bigfoot at August 26, 2007 12:22 PM

Nominate a less horrible candidate? Why are you talking about the RoboGore?

Posted by: Poole at August 26, 2007 01:10 PM

I mean like reagan

Posted by: lester at August 26, 2007 01:32 PM

The left worries about a coup by Bush for precisely the reason we see illustrated here. They are thinking it themselves, at least in humorous fantasy; they see themselves as good people, and Bush a bad one; therefore if they, being righteous, have these thoughts, how much more must the unrighteous neocons be having them?

It's called projection - the attribution of your own unacceptable feelings onto your opponents. Metaphorically, they are playing their movies on George Bush's screen.

Oh please, please, someone tell me I don't have the right to diagnose psychological problems like that. I am just dying to have that discussion again.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at August 26, 2007 04:14 PM

And they see their cause as so righteous, that they think that theirs ends justify the means. It isn't projection for them, because these are not 'unacceptable feelings' for them. For many of them, they would like to have a dictatorship put in place so that they can carry out their all-important schemes of social engineering without all that messy democratic consensus crap getting in the way.

Posted by: Ken McCacken at August 26, 2007 07:31 PM

Heh, lester, are you a Reagan fan, too?

Posted by: Ken McCacken at August 26, 2007 07:32 PM

ken- "the government isn't the solution, the government is the problem" Yes i am a reagan fan. well, usually if someone asks my favorite president I say "none of them". The whole notion of a president kind of offends me and I thnk most of the things that have helped us have been made by individuals in the private industries not politicians, who are up there with lawyers and used car salesmen.

At the same time, I grew up in the years 1980-2000 and the US was bascially an unstoppable force those 2 decades and i wouldn't pretend otherwise. and reagan was the precedent setter for that era. it certainly wasn't Nixon or carter!

Posted by: lester at August 27, 2007 12:08 PM

Personally, I think Lewis may be on to something here.

Posted by: Random Numbers at August 27, 2007 06:26 PM

With your title, Random Numbers, and that post, you really have to read Taleb's The Black Swan. You will love it, RN.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at August 27, 2007 06:42 PM

Just showing the likes of Lewis how satire is supposed to be done.

Posted by: Random Numbers at August 29, 2007 01:16 AM