After pledging to kill our enemies, Newt Gingrich returned to one of his favorite themes: violating the United States Constitution. In Greenville, South Carolina, Gingrich again said that he would ignore Supreme Court decisions that he disagreed with. We have previously discussed the flaws in Gingrich’s legal and historical views, but my concern is that pledging to violate the Constitution would make Gingrich an enemy of our constitutional system. Does this mean that his first act would be to add his own name to the presidential hit list?
Gingrich told the crowd “The president interprets the Constitution as president. If the court makes a fundamentally wrong decision, president can in fact ignore the courts.”
The question is what threatens our nation the most, destroying a building or a constitutional system? With President Obama continuing the claim of absolute power to kill Americans, the added claim to ignore the check and balance of judicial review would complete our shift toward authoritarian powers.
For Gingrich to pledge to attack the Constitution while pledging to kill enemies of our country seems a textbook case of autophobia. It raises the question of what constitutes an enemy to our system.
A personality disorder is defined as an “enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectation of the individual’s culture, is pervasive and inflexible (unlikely to change), is stable over time, and leads to distress or impairment in interpersonal relationships.” Legally, a pledge to kill enemies and then declare oneself an enemy to core principle of the country constitutes a serious and a dangerous disorder in a president.
Source: CBS
This is a very interesting reflection by David Swanson: “You are hereBlogs / davidswanson’s blog / Booing the Golden Rule
Booing the Golden Rule
By davidswanson – Posted on 19 January 2012
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. An important rule to live by. So is this corollary: Friends don’t let friends watch presidential primary debates.
I think the clip at this link is a safe dose bit.ly/xVAIF6 and I have survived it myself or I would not urge it on others.
I recommend it to you only because I believe it is important for us to stop and ask what it means for a group of people who tend to promote both Christianity and the combination of Christianity with politics to have just booed the golden rule.
In this video Congressman Ron Paul describes Pakistan as a sovereign nation and suggests that the United States should not be bombing it. Paul also proposes that there should have been some attempt to capture Osama bin Laden rather than murdering him. Paul promotes the rule of law and goes so far as to advocate that the United States only fight wars that have been declared by Congress (a standard that would eliminate the past 70 years’ worth of wars). To that the response is cheering from at least some section of the audience.
Then Newt Gingrich says that the proper thing to do with enemies is “Kill them.” That, of course, receives ecstatic applause.
What could Paul say in response? He could have quoted almost anything Jesus Christ or Ronald Reagan or Ayn Rand had ever said and been booed for it. He chose a response that further guaranteed booing: he opposed U.S. exceptionalism. He suggested that other nations might merit the same respect as our own. If another nation were doing to ours what we do to others, we wouldn’t like it, Paul pointed out. Perhaps we should follow the golden rule, he said. And he was booed for that.
And yet Paul goes on to speak against launching a war on Iran, and in support of ending our current wars; and some group of people — not necessarily, but possibly, some of the same individuals who had just been booing — start cheering instead.
I don’t think the audience members, by and large, dislike the golden rule in personal relations. And I don’t think they dislike peace. They seem neutral or positive toward demanding an end to wars and avoidance of more wars. What they object to is the notion that national enemies deserve any respect. They are fiercely opposed to loving national enemies, much less turning the nation’s other cheek. But they’d be totally fine with avoiding wars if uppity foreign nations agreed to stay in their place.
People may all have value, in this non-world-view, but only one nation has value, and its value is supreme. Fall under suspicion of hostility toward the United States, and the proper treatment for you is murder. Belong to a nation other than the United States, and the significance of losing your life as collateral damage is negligible.
Now, we do erroneously apply lessons from personal relations to politics all the time. We try to relate to elected officials as friends rather than constituents. We imagine politicians driven by emotions and social relations when they are clearly driven by financial bribery or partisan pressure.
But I don’t think applying the golden rule to international relations involves this sort of mistake. Paul is not here analyzing what drives government officials, but rather proposing what ought to. It’s hard to argue that the golden rule ought not to guide our collective behavior toward other populations. That is to say, if we had a government that represented our wishes, we ought not to wish for it to treat large numbers of foreign people in ways that we would not like foreign nations to treat us. This is a point that Paul has made more powerfully in this advertisement: bit.ly/l1xej1
The golden rule in foreign relations conflicts dramatically with almost everything about U.S. foreign policy from the Monroe Doctrine down through the Carter Doctrine and right up to our kinetic overseas contingency operations, extraordinary renditions, indefinite detentions, enhanced interrogations, surgical strikes, and all the other weasel words we use to mean the kidnapping, imprisonment, torture, and murder of human beings. But that doesn’t prove the golden rule is wrong. On the contrary, it proves our foreign policy is wrong.
Our military is in some 150 other countries. We would never stand for another military in our country. Therefore, we should get out of everybody else’s.
We bomb and invade and occupy nations we falsely accuse of possessing weapons. We would never stand for being bombed and invaded and occupied even though we really have those weapons. Therefore we should stop doing that to other nations.
We rain hell from the sky on families to protect women’s rights and spread freedom. But if our roofs were being blown off, and our limbs as well, we would not feel we had gained any rights or freedom. Therefore we should stop treating war as an acceptable instrument of national policy.
The golden rule is, in fact, an excellent guide to foreign policy. It even goes places Ron Paul would not. If we were starving or struggling to make loan payments to international sharks or finding it impossible to compete against subsidized foreign goods while forbidden to invest in our own products, we would appreciate some relief from any nation willing to offer it. The problem is not foreign aid or international involvement. The problem is pushing instruments of death on the rest of the world’s peoples because an elite at home and abroad profits from weapons sales. The problem is imposing our will by force and the threat of force on people who are not threatening us.
The golden rule is of less help in shaping domestic policy, in which there is not a domestic we and a foreign they, and on which agreement among the domestic us is often more divided. While virtually all of us would prefer not to be bombed, not all of us favor creating a decent civilized healthcare system or education or energy system or retirement security. Ron Paul favors the position of whoever backs doing nothing, no matter how large the majority of the people who prefer to jointly create something that makes each of them better off. Where there is not unanimity, you have to violate the golden rule in favor of majority rule with protections for individuals. But on foreign policy there is unanimity. None of us want a Chinese military base in Texas. Therefore we should stop building them around the borders of China.
There is another rule I would much rather break than the golden rule. It is the rule that says that because Ron Paul has disastrous domestic positions we are forbidden to point out how revealing his excellent foreign policy stands are in presidential primary debates.
Swarthmore mom,
I read about that interview on Huffington Post yesterday.
*****
Exclusive: Gingrich Lacks Moral Character to Be President, Ex-Wife Says
ABC NewsBy BRIAN ROSS and RHONDA SCHWARTZ | ABC News
http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-gingrich-lacks-moral-character-president-ex-wife-135852543–abc-news.html
Excerpt:
Newt Gingrich lacks the moral character to serve as President, his second ex-wife Marianne told ABC News, saying his campaign positions on the sanctity of marriage and the importance of family values do not square with what she saw during their 18 years of marriage.
In her first television interview since the 1999 divorce, to be broadcast tonight on Nightline, Marianne Gingrich, a self-described conservative Republican, said she is coming forward now so voters can know what she knows about Gingrich.
In her most provocative comments, the ex-Mrs. Gingrich said Newt sought an “open marriage” arrangement so he could have a mistress and a wife.
She said when Gingrich admitted to a six-year affair with a Congressional aide, he asked her if she would share him with the other woman, Callista, who is now married to Gingrich.
“And I just stared at him and he said, ‘Callista doesn’t care what I do,'” Marianne Gingrich told ABC News. “He wanted an open marriage and I refused.”
Marianne described her “shock” at Gingrich’s behavior, including how she says she learned he conducted his affair with Callista “in my bedroom in our apartment in Washington.”
“He always called me at night,” she recalled, “and always ended with ‘I love you.’ Well, she was listening.”
All this happened, she said, during the same time Gingrich condemned President Bill Clinton for his lack of moral leadership.
Follow BrianRoss on Twitter
She said Newt moved for the divorce just months after she had been diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis, with her then-husband present.
“He also was advised by the doctor when I was sitting there that I was not to be under stress. He knew,” she said.
Gingrich divorced his first wife, Jackie, as she was being treated for cancer. His relationship with Marianne began while he was still married to Jackie but in divorce proceedings, Marianne said.
I have contended for some time that the GOP offerings are bogus.
They realized that Obama would be re-elected, so they choose a bunch to make space in the media for them. Ho-hum. Sigh.
It’s also good market testing for sound bite selection for use by congressional candidates.
Newt is articulating the opinion of most major candidates: ““The president interprets the Constitution as president. If the court makes a fundamentally wrong decision, president can in fact ignore the courts.” He would not be killed for this opinion, he would be offered an ambassadorship in the Obama administration! He could even be a special adviser to the OLC!!!
I’m not sure Romney will get the nomination. He carries much baggage and has proved to be fairly unlikable to many Republicans. The media is anointing him, but if we go back in time a bit the media also anointed Bachman, Cain
and Newt as front runners. Even without a recount the notion he won Iowa, by 8 votes is nonsensical being called a “win”. In this horse race mentality that has destroyed our political system my bet is Jeb Bush, coming from the back of the pack to win by a nose.
Blouise, I heard finally got cold up there. One of my sisters from Chicago made it to Florida before the cold hit. She saw Bush out on the golf course. He looked tan, fit and rested, she said. He had six secret service with him. It is nice here today, and I need to get out and jog or walk. Read it fights dementia in old age. I know you said you walk three miles a day.
http://insidetv.ew.com/2012/01/19/interview-with-newt-gingrichs-second-wife-to-air-on-abc/ Here you go, Elaine.
Blouise, Conventional wisdom has him picking Rubio or Portman for the obvious reasons. I do think the Romney camp is a bit nervous about SC now.
Elaine M.
Blouise,
And we could also start speculating about whom Newt will pick for his next mate.
😉
===========================================
lol! Thanks for that … it’s cold, bleak, and we are expecting a lot of snow … I needed your humor this morning.
Blouise,
And we could also start speculating about whom Newt will pick for his next mate.
😉
The revised vote count in Iowa is a hoot as is the RNC’s refusal to name a winner. It’s true that the Republicans are really concerned for the turn out in Iowa was really, really low … only the crazies showed up and the vote reflects that fact … November looms.
SwM … let’s start speculating as to who Romney will pick for a running mate
We need to get Andrew Jackson off the $20.
Possibly to be replaced by George Washington Harkins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Harkins
BTW, I neglected to compliment Professor Turley for a spot on analysis of the psychological dynamics of many of our politicians who currently are exhibiting obvious mental problems.
Most likely that political discourse is happening because substantial portions of our culture is awash in falsehood, unawareness, and mythology.
Agree, Roger Campbell. Perry endorsed Gingrich. Now if they can get Santorum out, Gingrich might have a chance. They don’t like Santorum in the south too much.
The Iowa results have changed, and so will the promises of those making the promises.
Reminds me of that lyric in “Hurricane” by Dylan, “Oh My God they’ve killed them all.”
Your right, Blouise. Newt exemplifies their mindset.
The GOP needs to flush this year’s selection and start over.
Blouise, Yesterday Erik Erickson told Perry to drop out. Since Ericson was a supporter, I guess he took his advice. He only has about 5% in SC but if Newt could pick that up, he might have a chance. Romney did not even win Iowa. Newt has been bashing Bain. He and Perry were shamed for that. Wall St. might not want him anymore.
Newt seems to be doing some serious damage to Romney. It appears there is an outside chance he could upset Willard in S.C. In one of his own recent statements, Gingrich acknowledges that if Willard wins S.C. he’s pretty much locked up the nomination. If, however, Newt can win there, he may be able to drag it all the way to the convention.
This is such great fun. Watching Newt blow up the Romney image as carefully coifed as his hair is truly entertaining. Questioning Mitt’s business model as being something other than exemplary of job growing capitalism, his veracity about when he left Bain, his constant flip-flopping, etc. are all legitimate issues. I think there may well be enough rednecks in South Carolina to give Newt a surprise victory. At least I hope so. I think Mittens will ultimately get the GOP nomination, but having Gingrich brutalize him for several months with one volley of uncomfortable truth after another can only help the President.
On the other hand, should Newt pull off a miracle and actually get the GOP nod, Mr. Obama can campaign from a lanai in Maui and be assured a second term.
Perhaps, when this is all over, Wall Street will hire Newt. He really is their kind-of-guy.
So long Rick Perry … gosh, the clowns are dropping like flies … who is going to clean up the elephant dung?!