Dispatches from the Creation Wars

Ellis Washington is Confused

I’m really enjoying Ellis Washington. He’s such a reliable source of stupidity. His latest column is no exception. After asking “where are the men who would stand for truth” he says:

In September 2009, Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., yelled out, “You lie!” during President Obama’s State of the Union address. The incident came directly after Obama said, “There are also those who claim that our [universal health-care] reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”

Even though the entire country knew Wilson was right and that Obama was planning to give a blanket amnesty to over 30 million illegal aliens by executive order, Wilson bowed to pressure even from his fellow Republicans and apologized to Obama.

Cowardice beats courage.


Except that none of this is true. The health care reform bill does not cover illegal aliens. And there aren’t 30 million of them. And Obama has not, and will not, issue an executive order giving any “blanket amnesty” to them. In fact, deportations have gone up under Obama, not down.

Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., held up a spending bill in early March until Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid declared in writing where the money would come from to pay for the $10 billion in additional spending – meant to extend unemployment benefits and other programs.

Mr. Bunning courageously said, “If we can’t find $10 billion to pay for something we all support, we will never pay for anything on the floor of this U.S. Senate.” However, bowing to mounting pressure from Democrats, Republicans and the state-controlled media, Rep. Bunning relented and signed onto the unconstitutional spending bill.

Out of 535 members of Congress, one man stood up for America and then was intimidated by hundreds of political hacks who care little for constitutionalism in the budgetary process. No taxation without representation is dead!

The italics were his, believe it or not. He actually wanted to emphasize that obviously false statement. He’s talking about our representatives debating publicly what to do about taxes, and then claims that taxation without representation is dead. Sorry Ellis, no taxation without representation does not mean that our representatives have to agree with you on matters of taxation. If our representatives pass the tax, then it’s taxation with representation, whether you agree with it or not.

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, during a congressional hearing last week, referred to the fact that BP bosses summoned to a meeting with President Obama had then agreed to set up a $20 billion oil-spill disaster (slush) fund: “I’m ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday,” Barton told BP CEO Tony Hayward. “I apologize. It is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown, in this case, a 20-billion-dollar shakedown,” said the Texas representative.

His remarks about the fund, meant to pay for environmental and economic devastation from the worst ecological catastrophe in U.S. history, caused an immediate firestorm from the vice president, who said Barton’s comments were “outrageous and incredibly out of touch,” and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, who castigated Barton for favoring big business above the devastated fishing communities.

However, at the National Public Radio website (a bastion of liberalism), Mike Weaver eloquently defended the constitutional separation of powers doctrine:

How interesting that [those who] cry out against the executive branch’s expansion of power are now criticizing what Barton said. If you read his entire comment, Barton correctly points out the role of the rule of law. How many of those speaking out against the executive branch’s overreach of power will complain when the executive branch directs the IRS to tax your carbon-footprint SUV?

Journalist Michael Barone echoes this constitutionalist view in “Obama’s thuggery is useless in fighting oil spill”: “But the Constitution does not command ‘no person … shall … be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law except by the decision of a person as wise and capable as [Obama’s pay czar] Kenneth Feinberg.’ The framers stopped at ‘due process of law.'”

When the GOP leadership threatened Rep. Barton with a loss of his chairmanship as a ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee, Barton quickly recanted his original comments in defense of free-market capitalism, private enterprise and constitutional separation of powers and cowed to socialist pressure.

Now remember, this passionate defender of the separation of powers and the constitution supported George W. Bush when he claimed the authority to arrest American citizens and hold them forever in military prison without charging them with anything. And supports the use of the state secrets privilege to insulate the executive branch from all judicial scrutiny when it violates the constitution, effectively creating an unbounded and lawless executive branch.

What does it take to get him to fly the flag of separation of powers? It takes an arrangement negotiated and agreed to by BP to establish a fund to help people whose livelihoods were destroyed by the oil spill. A voluntary move by BP, one they are now using to great PR effect, that provokes his concern about separation of powers; the president suspending habeas corpus in individual cases on his say so alone, that doesn’t bother him a bit.

The punchline to all of this is that, while he fervently supports the right of the president to kidnap American citizens and throw them in an American military gulag, he accuses his opponents of being part of the “Stalinist-controlled media.” Talk about weapons-grade projection.