If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
by Joseph DeMaio, ©2016
(Jan. 20, 2016) — There exists in the world garden-variety hypocrisy. This form of the mental disorder is typically seen in the everyday comments and claims of liberals, progressives, most college “professors,” virtually all non-Fox media outlets and, of course, the vast majority of registered Democrats.
Then there is mendacious hypocrisy, that more refined form of garden-variety hypocrisy which has been fortified with intentional deceit and dishonesty, then peddled to the electorate like snake oil in bold and direct contradiction of factual reality. This isotope of the disease is normally seen in the statements and behavior of the Chief Usurper of the United States (the “CUOTUS,” as discussed here as well as in the hyperbole of his anointed successor to the office, Hillary (“We-are-going-to-arrest-that-vile-video-producer!”) Clinton.
And, BTW, if you have not yet seen “13 Hours,” the cinematic review of what actually happened in Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11-12, 2012, and discover for yourself as the next general election approaches “what, at this point in time, difference does it make?”, stop reading these words on your monitor, tablet or phone and go see it. Now. You can finish reading this post later. Here is the official Paramount trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m84z-GWwa58.
In addition to the other versions of hypocrisy already noted, however, a new and even more virulent, turbocharged form has burst on the scene: New York Times turbocharged hypocrisy. This species of the disorder is merely mendacious hypocrisy on steroids, but with a turbocharged shot of methamphetamine for good measure.
Pravda on the Hudson – sometimes also known as The New York Times – has suffered an epiphany. It has seemingly deduced, now that the CUOTUS’s second term shredding the nation is almost done, that maybe… just maybe … the issue of presidential eligibility under the Constitution is not, after all, “settled.”
It has also concluded that maybe… just maybe…, since the issue now affects certain GOP candidates for the office – as opposed to Democrats or Socialists – the issue should be taken up by the United States Supreme Court. It will be interesting to see if now the Court, after the Justices and clerks have read The New York Times, experiences a similar epiphany and determines to stop “evading” the question.
The NYT now seems to believe – as opposed to what it once coughed into the nation’s ear – that “it may be time to resolve the meaning of ‘natural born.’” What the NYT really means is that, now that the damage to the Constitution and the Nation – not to mention the child abuse that has been committed by the CUOTUS by saddling future generations of American kids with a debt burden that will make them lifetime tax slaves just to pay the interest on the debt – has been done, the issue of whether a person is eligible to the presidency under the “natural born Citizen” clause of the Constitution, Art 2. Sec. 1, Cl. 5, should be addressed and clarified by the Supreme Court. This is apparently more important now, given that some GOP candidates’ eligibility bona fides are in question. Festooning its hypocrisy with a final flourish, it notes that, while Ted Cruz or others might not “… appreciate the attention, the plight could serve a purpose by finally delivering a legal answer that is long overdue.” And the print version is captioned “Three Little Words Rattling the G.O.P.”
These folks are truly unprincipled, mendacious hypocrites. The only reason one should any longer read the NYT is to identify advertisers appearing on its pages or online website, and then make “informed decisions” as to where their money should be spent or invested.
In conclusion, this post is intended to be merely a precursor to a much longer and extensive one addressing not the continuing slide of the NYT into journalistic oblivion, but instead the substantive issue – once again – of what the Founders intended when they drafted Art. 2, Sec. 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution. This issue, of course, is to be distinguished from what Professors Laurence Tribe, Paul Clement, Neal Katyal and even Mr. Jack Maskell – Legislative Attorney at the Congressional Research Service (“CRS”) – think the Founders meant.
And, speaking of Mr. Maskell, your humble servant will, in that future post, address and attempt to analyze for interested P&E readers (and even disinterested critics at the NYT) the newest CRS “product,” a January 11, 2016 “Report” produced by Mr. Maskell entitled “Qualifications for President and the ‘Natural Born’ Citizenship [sic] Eligibility Requirement.” As in his prior memoranda and reports, he concludes in this one that a “native-born” citizen is the equivalent of a “natural-born Citizen” and that therefore, if one is “born” a citizen of the United States, one is constitutionally eligible to the presidency. Respectfully, there is a contrary argument, so stay tuned…. much more to come.
Finally, if you disregarded the prior instruction to stop reading this if you had not yet seen “13 Hours” and have read to this point without stopping, now you should stop and go see it. And in any event, you should see it before November 8, 2016, particularly if you love your country and want to see its decline arrested and reversed.