Do you ever read Phyllis Schlafly? Probably not, I doubt most of you have even heard of her. I myself first became aware of her during Reagan's campaign of 1980. I was a senior at TIT (Tickbite Institute of Technology...I keep having to mention that!) and my professors, believe it or not, HAD heard of her, and they HATED her living guts! You know the emotion of hatred is rarely invested in those you believe powerless or intellectually inferior. Hatred is reserved for those you loathe and fear, and so it was (and is) for Mrs. Schlafly. But she always was a feisty old broad so she can handle it. I would put her on the same plane as Maggie Thatcher in regards to temperament and intellect, and Ann Coulter LOVES her! Anyway she's got a column out urging our new and improved Speaker (a Mr. Paul Ryan) to take back Congress' Constitutional power (obligations) that our previous chain-smoking, alcoholic Speaker chose to not exercise.
What I found especially interesting in the column was she mentioned Congress' power to regulate "inferior" courts, meaning all federal courts apart from the Supreme Court. Imagine if Congress had showed some balls and fired the Carter appointee (eliminated the court, no court no judge) who struck down Prop 187, which was perfectly within their purview? Then of course it becomes a MAJOR political battle but what argument could be made against a plebiscite? The opposition's position could very easily be turned into an argument against democracy itself. What is one person's opinion against the vote of the people? And if this had indeed happened how many judges would think twice before they flew off into progressive land where disgrace and unemployment awaits? Now before you say it I am well aware this is a radical departure from tradition. So what? We've seen a lot of radical departures from tradition in the last 30 years, all from the opposition. They never let things like tradition and fair play get in the way of their agenda. Their rule is if you can do it, do it, we'll sell the thing and fix the politics later. Furthermore how "radical" is it for a Speaker to give away every last Constitutional power to an authoritarian "radical" President? All I counsel is using our Constitutional powers to advance OUR agenda, no more no less. Our reticence (cowardice actually) is why we are constantly on the defensive and how's that been working out for us since Reagan? Buy a clue and grow a pair Mr. Ryan, we'll all be better off.
A big shout out to CW who is running with the big boys these days. He recently testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee and did some shit out at the Reagan Library. I always knew he would make good. CW has the full package; he's smart, he's ambitious and he's short. Now don't sell being short short. The fire that burns in the belly of short mofos must be intense. Look at Napoleon, Stalin...eh, Gary Coleman. These are guys who never let the indignity of shopping in the boys department impact their lives. Now I know what you're thinking, "But Hammer, CW's opinion is useless these days. He's too interested in being Secretary of the Navy to give an honest appraisal of current events". Well that may be true my friends, and he may be a careerist jerk but he's our friend and we must support him in every way possible. Some of us are born to greatness and some born to obscurity (me for example). Besides, if things do work out can you imagine going to DC and dropping in on our "good friend" the Secretary of whatever? Hell I may even be able to get that ugly incident with the street walker and the fire hydrant expunged from my service record. How the hell was I to know who some damn carabinieri is related to? The Army was real uptight in those days! Anyway well done CW, we're all proud of you.