Wednesday, February 6, 2019

CTH: You're Doing It Wrong


















Mike at Cold Fury posted excerpts of some codswallop from Conservative Treehouse today:
Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announces he is “especially proud” of passage for his amendments requiring the U.S. military to continue operations in Afghanistan and Syria:
Which I took at face value, nearly ruining a perfectly good keyboard with the beverage I was consuming:

Srsly?
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy of the United States…” – U.S. Constitution, Art II, Sec. 2 
It’s prima facie an unconstitutional amendment, and wouldn’t pass the smell test in the first 5 seconds in federal court. The judge would throw it out before counsel even took their seats. 
As a moot law, it’s completely unenforceable, and Trump could tell the entire Congress to f**k themselves and bring every troop home tomorrow, and there’s jack and squat that Bitch McConjob and Queen Alzheimers can do about it except piss their Depends. 
That’s why the Constitution cleverly didn’t make Congress the executive branch. 
The military will leave Syria and/or A-stan the minute the CG says “GTFO!”, and anyone from private to CJCS who half-steps will have a long time in military correctional custody to rethink insubordination, sedition, and treason. 
Congress’ sole say in military affairs is writing the laws under which they operate, and funding them (or not). That’s it. They can starve a war, but they have no more say over where and whether the military deploys than they have over when the tide comes in.
If POTUS decides they’ll all be deployed to Alaska tomorrow, they’ll be packing long underwear and Mickey Mouse boots by sunset. 
If the idiot who wrote this and the layers of editors at Conservative Treehouse are too stupid to figure all this out without being told, they’re not tall enough for the internet.
I promise you President Trump, the entire White House executive staff, and the entire DoD down to a recruit just stepping into the yellow footprints tonight knows it without anyone telling them. 
I missed the SOTU because of work, but I’m pretty sure neither Bitch McConjob nor any other swinging Richard sh*tweasel in the Congress was granted emergency authority to suspend the US Constitution while I was sleeping. 
This is either fakenews for idiots who flunked civics, or what happens when certain websites whose name rhymes with “Funservative Peehouse” let window-licking retards write their content. Take your pick.
Then I dug deeper. It seems Bitch has passed no such "requirement".
So the correct answer is both "A" and "B".

Wait, color me shocked:
The Amendment “requires” no such thing, and the @$$tard monkey who wrote the article overstepped reality by about a country mile, conflating “reaffirming the importance” into “requiring the U.S. military to continue operations”. 
That’s like turning someone hearing “Nice job!” and turning it into “made me CEO of his company”.  
You’ve been had by a jackass, Mike.
If that’s the best CTH can do, they’re farking retards.
They’re obviously not a reliable source.

If anyone has CTH on speed dial, tell them to change their underpants, and check their basement, because clearly their batshit crazy retarded cousin has chewed through the straps, made his way to the keyboard, and gotten hold of the password to post content on their site.

I'm second to no one in my dislike of Bitch McC, but if CTH can't get basic facts straight, maybe poker's not your game, Ike.











And if you're going to rival ABCNNBCBS for "Worst FakeNews Story Of The Week", take "Conservative" out of the name, and change the website address to HuffPo or something.
Or get a job with Alex Jones.

I feel sorry for Mike for repeating this twaddle, but CTH is the one with merde all over their face.


Nice going, buttheads.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

We DID watch the speech. First time in a decade if not a generation. Bitch was sitting there like one of the white-clad bitches across the aisle, looking like he sucked a huge lemon. Masterful speech, though the spending bothers me still.
Boat Guy

Lee Van Queef II said...

AIDS, kids with cancer, Jews & The Holocaust, unfair sentencing for blacks, wombyn power, I kept asking myself WTF, did Melanie and Ivanka write this? What's with all the props? Where is the damn Wall? The number of miles constructed were not mentioned.

Most importantly, how are you going to pay for all this touchy-feely shit and turn the debt (existential threat to all) clock backwards? The number of federal bloodsucking parasite bureaucracies eliminated should have been toted to deafening wailing, gnashing and clothes renting of The Commie Cunt Clan gallery.

Damn the SOTU clown & freak show, dance with the Deplorables that brung ya!

BTW, CTH has always been a pedant's lotionboy. Now line up to worship Sundance's immeasurable prognosticating intellect. Trust The Plan™ Three-D Chess™

Baldrick said...

I think this is where the founders screwed up a little. Article 1, Section 8 grants congress some vague power to declare war. It's pretty vague because there's no specific format for them to declare war. They did their best with what they had for WW2, WW1, etc.

However, in Article II, Section 2, Clause I, the President is the CIC.

From Wikipedia (not everyone has access to the Britannica and all of the debates at the convention - though again, there are some GREAT books on the subject): Pierce Butler of South Carolina was only delegate to the Philadelphia Convention who suggested giving the Executive the power to take offensive military action.[9] He suggested the President should be able to, but in practice would have the character not to do so without mass support. Elbridge Gerry, a delegate from Massachusetts, summed up the majority viewpoint saying he "never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war." George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, and others voiced similar sentiments.[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Clause)

A ton of court cases later, we're still in some weird territory, but based on precedent alone that goes back ages, the CIC can do exactly that - call everyone back home and not a damn thing Congress can do about it except POSSIBLY impeach (and even THAT'S vague - what is a high crime and misdemeanor and in what cases?). Would it be TREASON to call the armed forces back home? In what case? It's a muddle. So yep, Trump can call everyone home right freaking now and not a thing Congress can do, especially since they never declared a war on Afghanistan in the first place.

ADS said...

The Constitution doesn't say anything about federal judges blocking the executive orders of the POTUS either. Nor does it permit the fed.gov to do anything except the very few powers explicitly enumerated therein.
It's been a dead document for about 200 years now, but recent events have made it impossible to ignore that all legal matters are now who, whom instead of the rule of law.
Playing by the "rules" is the same as forfeiting. I wish Trump would go full Pinochet.

Anonymous said...

This was not about the removal of troops from wars. This was a signal from the establishment that they have the votes in the senate to pass the impeachment of Trump.

Spend the next two years preparing wisely.

Badger said...

The McConnell amendment, number 65 out of 106 amendments tacked onto this thing by a variety of leeches on both sides, simply expresses "the sense of the Senate." This is the Senate version of the petulant child saying they're really mad about something & might hold their breath... This is what the uproar is about? Maybe some folks should go find an adult who will help them on locating something productive to do.

I'm also one of those who doesn't think they're going to get to impeachment; what, then deal with Pence? and, obtw, they have no case. Personally, and it's only a hunch based on the layers of slime in the archaeological dig called "DC", there are likely more than a few things that would be on the table to be admitted in the discovery portion of that trial the Dems would prefer left buried. Much longer odds than the Rams only scoring 3 points, which was 400:1.

Anonymous said...

Just to add insult to injury, there was segment on Fox covering the testimony before one the Armed Services committees of the Commanding General of CENTCOM pissing in his Wheaties saying he was not informed or consulted beforehand about the troop withdrawal order.

Well Boo Fucking Ho. From what I remember of the Chain of Command, when a superior officer issues an order, the proper response is Yes Sir or Aye Aye sir. Said subordinate officer then proceeds to carry out the order.

'Course the current CENTCOM commander is an Obozo holdover, so what would one expect. I'm thinking the current CENTCOM Commander isn't long for that job.

Nemo

Kent said...

I think you need to take a step back and take a deep breath. You and Sundance are on the same team.His work on the FBI and DOJ FISA abuses and criminality was the best on the web. He goofed here on the McConnell thing, but I for one am willing to cut him a little slack for his past efforts.

Hal Gore said...

Someone did not read CTH. SD is top notch and thorough (with a good sense of humor).

Unknown said...

I must not that nowhere in the linked CH article did Sundance endorse or approve of what McConnell did. He brought it up as an example of the overall design and strategy of the Uniparty™ that CH talks about all the time, of which McConnell is a leading, if not the leading member.

Sundance has talked at length about how McConnell is a prime mover in the GOPe strategy to deflect and mitigate the rise of the grass roots parties that had started to be a threat to the established interests of the Uniparty™.

Read the prior articles on McConnell linked in that story. CH did not in any way endorse what the Senate did, and did not say what you think he said.

Your party, ergo, your prerogative, but I think you're off base here.

Stealth Spaniel said...

"I wish Trump would go full Pinochet." +1000

Aesop said...

For those who would apologize for CTH and Sundance: tough shit.

They should get the story right, or GTFO.
There's no "sorta almost kinda" true.

Sundance wrote, point blank, that McConjob's amendment "required" the US to keep troops in Afghanistan and Syria.
It does no such fucking thing.

IDGAF what he wrote about in the past, one "AwShit!" cancels 100 "Attaboy!"s.

Facts are stubborn things, and bullshitting online, and getting caught doing it, brings its own reward. In this case, a shit sandwich, and a dunce cap.
CTH owns that.

The only acceptable remedy is to own up to it, take the b.s down, and not fuck up like that any more.

When you can't tell the difference between your own hyperbole and actual facts, you're just a noisemaker, not a truth-teller.

The internet knows no shortage of noisemakers.
#Notafan
#Stayoffofmyteam

MMinLamesa said...

You're way off base here. sd is showing us what a shitweasel McConnell is with this obviously pointless legislation. If you think that just because Cory Gardener or Joni Ernst or John Cornyn or Murkowski or Collins or Blunt or Sasse or another 10 or 20 senators call themselves Republicans that they won't jump at the chance, if given the right cover, to vote for conviction, you're not getting it.

Hell Gardener along with Phil Anshultz(an old client BTW) organized a "conference" at Sea Island while Trump was after the nomination to use a number of things to derail his campaign because they knew he would upset their apple cart. Do you think they've changed their views or do you think they see the success President Trump is having with the economy and are seething?

The fact is and sd has pointed this out for years, President Trump is fighting a cabal of DC swamp creatures from both parties that are going to do anything to protect the trillions of dollars they control. People like Tom Donahue have spent decades & Lord knows how many millions buying the right to effectively write the laws that have closed down over 70,000 businesses and sent millions of good paying jobs out of our country while at the same time fabulously enriching themselves.

This was no more then a shot across the bow and about as subtle as a hammer to the forehead. It had nothing to do with keeping our troops in Syria.

The CTH is my first read every morning because I consider him to be the best political analyst on the interwebs. He's been nailing it dead on the money for a long time.

Aesop said...

No sale.

Lying never gets you to the truth.

Get it right, or get lost.

I don't compromise on reality.

It's possible to be a good guy, and still step on your dick.
He is, and he has.

The only fix for that is to return to reality, and apologize for losing your mind.
I note for the record that not a single apologist for CTH has come up with an actual excuse for the actual quote (though IIRC, one commenter tried to tell me not to believe the black-and-white reality of my lying eyes), which quote is batshit crazy-wrong.

The amendment "requires" nothing, and is worth a wet fart in telling the president anything but the fond fever-swamp wishes of a bunch of spineless, feckless, has-beens and never-will-bes. Trump listens to them with about as much curiosity and concern as he does to the offerings of YouTube commenters.

Once again, this is why no part of congress is entrusted with anything resembling leadership, something of which 98% of them at any given time are completely incapable. On thier best days, they're caretakers of a republic that seldom needs nor wants anything out of them but somnolence, indolence, and indifference, and if we elected 535 narcoleptics, we'd be no worse off 729 days out of any 730.

The CinC commands, and the troops will go or stay at his sole discretion; the congress, on their few, best days, merely advises and consents, or not.
That. Is. It.

Any assertions to the contrary by CTH are farcical bullshit, and reading those tea leaves of their toothless amendments as anything but something to clean out of dirty dishes is three steps beyond sanity.

You can yell at the umpire all day long (or as long as he'll put up with your outgassing before tossing you), but you'll never swing at and miss a pitch by a yard, and then get it called as a "ball".

MMinLamesa said...

I believe you're using sd's mistaken interpetation of McConnell's amendment and his own words-McConnell said his troop amendment would “urge continued commitment from the U.S. military and our partners until we have set the conditions for the enduring defeat of these vile terrorists.” as a caricature.

The amendment calls on the administration to certify that conditions have been met for the defeat of al Qaeda and ISIS “before initiating any significant withdrawal of United States forces from Syria or Afghanistan.”

Dude, he's firmly on our side and is a 1,000% supporter of President Trump. Whether or not McConnell used require or urge is irrelevant to the point sd was making. I know you're a stickler for proper reporting, it's the reason you're my second stop every morning. I guess this wasn't important to me when I step back and consider not the content but the in Trump's face vote clearly telling Trump that his "wall" of a Republican senate blocking an impeachment conviction is illusionary.

I went back and read the post and sd makes the point I made above which is McConnell is beholding to shitbird traitors like Tom Donahue and was signaling Trump that he controls the senate.

Confirmation of this was made again in CTH a couple days later with this post.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/02/07/larry-kudlow-discusses-the-state-of-the-u-s-economy-while-decepticon-caucus-makes-anti-maga-moves/

Yes, sd misrepresented McConnell and rightfully deserves admonishment but that wasn't the point.

Aesop said...

The direct quote in question from CTH:

"Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announces he is 'especially proud' of passage for his amendments requiring the U.S. military to continue operations in Afghanistan and Syria:"

Webster's:
Require:

1: to claim or ask for by right and authority

2a : to call for as suitable or appropriate
//the occasion requires formal dress

b : to demand as necessary or essential : have a compelling need for
//all living beings require food

3 : to impose a compulsion or command on : COMPEL


There is no amount of lipstick available for this pig:
Sundance trampled his wedding tackle with cleats on.

Bitch McConjob's amendment requires nothing, nor could it.
Saying otherwise isn't a misrepresentation, it's a falsehood.
Amendments from Congress are nothing but spin declaring their earnest and entirely toothless requests for something they have no more say in than tomorrow's weather.

McConjob is a jackass.
So is anyone claiming McConjob compelled the president, as CinC, to do anything whatsoever.

Period. Full Stop.

If Sundance is on our side, he should stop lying in print, and retract the earlier lie.
Falsum in unum, falsum in omnibus: jurisprudencial wisdom with a long, and glorious past.
Easy problem to solve.

MMinLamesa said...

I get that.

This is just not the hill I'd choose to die on. Especially when I consider sd's track record which for years has been singular and prescient.

And then this, "IF" sd is on our side..." c'mon dude, that's really uncalled for.

Aesop said...

So is dishonesty.
That's my point.
If you can't damn McConjob without telling whoppers, the internet isn't your game.

I'm not asking for perfection.
Just honesty.

That's a pretty low bar, and still he fails.

MMinLamesa said...

I wouldn't label this dishonesty. Maybe hyperbole. And you are asking for perfection. I say keeping in mind his(?) many years of no where else to be found analyzing the DC swamp, he's got a pretty damn fine track record.


Once(more?) he failed to make your grade. For the many years of fabulous reporting, he's got a hall pass from me on this one.