The man who would be king

By Capt. Fogg

President Obama wants to be a king, you know.  We hear that all the time.  He's a tyrant, he appoints Czars to run things, but of course he gets nothing done and plays golf while hordes of armed terrorists cross the borders disguised as children he invited here with his "policies." Never mind that the influx peaked in 2008. 

His policies -- his executive orders -- you know he's issued more of them than any other president and he's trashing the constitution by doing it!

Rand Paul, the man who would be president says his first executive order would be to repeal all previous executive orders, doesn't seem to see that particular order as trashing the constitution or indicating royal presumptions of his own and perhaps because he also asserts that revoking all previous orders would be his only and final order.

Of course the entire premise, that our current executive branch operates primarily by autocratic executive order and in disregard for the "will of the people" (as ignored and filibustered by Congress)  is false.  In fact Obama and his predecessor issued far, far fewer of them than any president in my lifetime.  If the facts don't fit, you're full of shit as Mr. Cochran might have said -- and he would be right.

But Paul's presidential campaign is not about truth or even about Democracy.  It's all about appealing to the irrational and fact-free passions of  the Party and apparently he had to think for a moment about repealing Truman's integration of the military and indeed Lincoln's executive order freeing of the slaves and Eisenhower's desegregation of schools before saying he would repeal and re-instate those which had some saving grace.  One can only imagine the debate about re-instating those three, but I have to wonder about the Napoleonic ego of someone who would repeal all the executive orders of the Washington administration onward and using his own judgement, re-order those he agreed with.  

To the people who cheered and applauded this proclamation without bothering to check any facts or perhaps to those who care little for facts or are able to dismiss them for some metaphysical reasons President Paul is a prospect devoutly to be wished because to those who really would be kings, all that which stands in the way must be done away with, whether true or false, good or bad or disastrous.

Uncanny resemblance

My friend Simels asks: "Did you ever notice that Rand Paul looks just like Donald Duck's n'eer do well cousin Gladstone Gander?"

Actually I hadn't, but now that he mentioned it -- well -- judge for yourself.

[photo via]

Rand Paul fires the first shot at 2016

I want to shoot myself for even saying the words Election 2016, but it's clear the battle flags are being planted already. In the race to be first out on the field, Rand Paul issues a call to arms to rally round the paranoid gun hoarders.

In a blast email Rand tells the true believers there's an “anti-American globalist plot against our Constitution," led by none other than President Barack Obama in league with the UN. They're coming to take yer guns and destroy Murika. But have no fear. Rand Paul is willing to lead the troops to glory. He has a battle plan ready to go.

Direct mail. Phones. E-mail. Blogs. Guest editorials. Press conferences. Hard-hitting internet, newspaper, radio and even TV ads if funding permits. The whole nine yards. Of course, a program of this scale is only possible if the National Association for Gun Rights can raise the money.

But that’s not easy, and we may not have much time.

In fact, if gun owners are going to defeat the UN’s schemes, pro-gun Americans like you and me have to get involved NOW!

So please put yourself on record AGAINST the UN Gun Ban by signing NAGR’s Firearms Sovereignty Survey.

But along with your survey, please agree to make a generous contribution of $250, $100, $50 or even just $35.

Freedom ain't free and yer gonna need those guns when Rand leads you into battle against the agents of tyranny. (And if that doesn't work out, Mr. Paul is all set up for nice sinecure with the gun lobby.) Is Murika a great country, or what? [photo via] and [graphic via], true patriots.

Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell: Unnatural alliance

There's a reason they invented that old saw, politics make strange bedfellows. Rand and Mitch are natural born enemies. Mitch worked actively to shut Rand out but once his erstwhile opponent won, Mitch made Rand his frenemy because, good politics. As Mitch said himself after Rand's grandstanding filibuster, the kid understands the inside game.

This unholy alliance begets such mutual beneficence as this:

"What Rand was doing last week brought back a lot of memories of the early part of my career,” McConnell, 71, said yesterday in a telephone interview, recalling a 1994 filibuster he led that derailed campaign finance legislation. ...

Paul’s alliance with McConnell gives him access to wealthy donors who are usually essential to mounting a national campaign. ...

Five days after he praised Paul’s filibuster, McConnell e- mailed supporters urging them to donate to his Senate re- election campaign and to sign a petition declaring that they too “stand with Rand and Mitch.” ...

“We don’t agree on every issue but we agree on a lot of issues,” McConnell said. ...

For instance, McConnell has voted for Rand's cockamamie budget plan more than once. Not like there was any danger it would pass but good optics for the rubes back home. Which brings us to Mitch McConnell's biggest fear.

If the local Tea Party groups recruit a primary challenger, Paul said he will stand by his Washington colleague. “I am supporting Senator McConnell,” he said.

Rand's tea party creds are his strength in this ungodly pact. The true 'Murkins are unlikely to be pleased. Will be interesting to see how this bit of palace intrique plays out in real time.

[photo: Tom Eblen/Lexington Herald-Leader/MCT]

Rand Paul's fake out filibuster

Still basking in the afterglow of his orgasmic 13 hours as the biggest thing on the twitters, Rand Paul is now making the media rounds for interviews. With his ego so thoroughly satisfied, Rand has an announcement to make:

Paul himself seemed to appreciate that this was an important moment for himself, confidently acknowledging to POLITICO in an interview that he was “seriously” considering running for president in 2016.

I'm sure you're as shocked as I am to hear this bold proclamation. In other words, not at all.

If you were perhaps wondering if Rand's fantastic filibuster sprung from a moment of divine inspiration, well the answer is no. Rand cleared the spectacle with McConnell well in advance of the grandstanding.

National Journal reports Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) "had lined up the tacit approval of the GOP leadership" for his filibuster earlier this week of John Brennan's nomination to be CIA Director.

"For a politician who earned his stripes as a political outsider, Paul's filibuster performance and planning demonstrated his aptitude at the inside D.C. game."

Hear that folks? That's what matters on Capitol Hill. It's not about good governance at all anymore. It's about how well you play the game. And how much money you can raise for the party's war chests of course. Rand scored on both counts with his turn at center stage in the eternal kabuki, so today he's the GOP hero. A serious contender!

As for how genuine Mr. Paul's concerns about drones are, Betty Cracker discovered Rand had a different message for Rushbo's dittoheads. Also, not quite sure what Bill Scher is talking about here, but this tweet suggests Rand's rhetoric was more sleight of hand than putting the cards on the table.

‏@billscher: Wow. Paul's drone bill allows exception for U.S. citizens who pose "imminent threat." What a colossal waste of time this has been.

So maybe we can stop pretending Rand is some big champion of due process and civil rights? [photo via]

The World is the Battlefield

By Capt. Fogg

I find it remarkable that the proposed provision of the Defense Authorization act enabling a President to detain anyone suspected of belonging to a terrorist organization indefinitely and without trial, can be presented as one of those bits of "evidence" that Barack Obama is trashing the constitution. Obama's Indefinite Detention Powers is the title of more than one article. Remarkable indeed since he's threatening to veto the abomination if it passes.

I do recognize that since the Authorization for Use of Military forces (AUMF) that Congress approved after the September 11 terrorist attacks was used to bolster somewhat unfair arguments that Bush was trashing the revered document, an equal and more ridiculous counter charge has to be leveled against his Democratic successor. That is a principle we had beat into our consciousness when Bill Clinton had to face charges, some contrived and some with marginal merit that were so like unto those Nixon was glaringly guilty of.

But I digress. I'm not surprised to hear such things slithering in the murky Senatorial cistern, but I'm surprised at the bipartisan support of Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-Calif.) bill and the astonishing lack of debate over this shocking redaction of the Bill of Rights. I was however surprised and pleased to hear Rand Paul declare opposition is heatedly as I would do, given the chance.

I was nauseated and enraged to hear our former Presidential contender, John McCain rail about how dangerous "these people" were without regard to how we determine fairly whether or not the accusations are true. I have been raised to think that justice demanded a fair trial and no decent civilization has failed to provide a process to determine the truth of an accusation, sometimes made under duress or torture or out of jealousy or greed or worse. A less stuffy writer might simply ask: how the hell do we know the charges are true without a trial?

Senator McCain doesn't seem to care, although with his history, he might just give the opposite position tomorrow and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) seems proud of his shiny new black boots, claiming that now we can jail any American citizen because "it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland." Did he mean to say Vaterland?

"The FBI publishes characteristics of people you should report as possible terrorists. The list includes the possession of “Meals Ready to Eat,” weatherproofed ammunition, and high-capacity magazines; missing fingers; brightly colored stains on clothing; paying for products in cash; and changes in hair color. I fear that such suspicions might one day be used to imprison a U.S. citizen indefinitely without trial. Just this year, the vice president referred to the Tea Party as a bunch of terrorists. So, I think we should be cautious in granting the power to detain without trial."

writes Senator Paul in the National Review.

Yes, I think our legislators have earned their 8% approval rating and can only wonder why it isn't lower. John McCain, you're a goddamn terrorist yourself, attempting to make Americans afraid for political purposes. Rand Paul: you may be far right, but you're damn right too!