I love the fact that people are upset about the small percentage of Jay’s lies, misrepresentations, and logical errors that have been called out here. So I am making a more prominent appeal than I have in my reply to comments on previous posts: Come blog with me!
If you want to be a Severin Watch correspondent, with your own byline on posts to this blog, please send an e-mail to david @ schrag . net and we’ll work out the details.
I was taken to task recently by a couple readers for not posting here more frequently. They suggested that a low volume of posts on an anti-Severin site might imply a low volume of lies and other misstatements on Severin’s part. The problem is that I can’t listen to Jay very often, at least when I’m near a computer. Because if I do, my head starts to explode, I keep having to create more posts, and I don’t get any real work done.
Here’s the latest … Jay just said there is a “strong suspicion” that Bill Ayers is the true author of at least one of Barack Obama’s books. Does Jay ever bother to read anything that debunks some ridiculous rumor he once heard? I don’t mind that the folks at WTKK want to broadcast someone with opinions that are different from mine, but don’t they care that someone is using their name to spread lies?
Jay just said of author Roald Dahl, “now he writes children’s books.” I don’t think so, Jay. Roald Dahl died twenty years ago.
Jay Severin has been calling for President Obama’s impeachment for some time. Today he’s taken the level of intensity up a notch on news of the revised protocols for the use of nuclear weapons by the United States.
Jay asked of the President’s decision: “Can someone explain to me how this is not impeachable?”
I’ll try. For the record, here’s what the Constitution says:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
I think we can safely set aside bribery for the time being, so let’s consider “treason” and “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
The Constitution itself defines treason:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Now I suppose one could argue that Obama has been giving “aid and comfort” to “enemies” of the United States by being weak on defense. But I don’t think any reasonable person would consider a change in defensive strategy to be treason, particularly when that strategy has been approved by the duly appointed and confirmed Secretary of Defense.
So can Obama’s actions – whether on nuclear policy or on anything else that has Jay’s knickers in a twist – be considered “high crimes and misdemeanors?” That’s a trickier question. Good resources on the “high crimes and misdemeanors” provision in the Constitution can be found here and here and here. As far as I can tell, high crimes and misdemeanors are in the eye of the beholder, and in this case the beholder is the House and Senate. It appears that the founding fathers wanted to give the legislative branch pretty wide latitude in terms of finding a reason for impeachment, but they also wanted to make it damn hard to actually remove someone from office.
So I must reluctantly conclude that what Obama has done is “impeachable.” But then, so was just about everything newsworthy that any president has ever done. The question is not whether something is impeachable. The question is whether impeachment proceedings are worth the time.
Jay offered two reasons today why no one in Congress will introduce articles of impeachment:
1. Nobody [in the Republican party] has the guts.
2. They know it won’t go anywhere as long as the Obamunists still control the Congress.
That’s right, Jay. Obama is not going to be impeached by this House of Representatives and is not going to be convicted by this or any future Senate.
So why is this not an impeachable offense? Because the founding fathers, in their wisdom, didn’t want it to be.
Coda: Jay also asked “Is there a time in your lifetime when impeachment has been more appropriate than it is now?” Yes, there is: When Ronald Reagan broke the law in the Iran-Contra scandal. Or when George W. Bush took us to war based on terrible intelligence. And let’s not forget that Richard Nixon was this close to impeachment when he resigned. Do you disagree?
Today, a little before 5:00 pm, he called the new health insurance legislation “the biggest redistribution of wealth in the history of humankind.” Jay, Social Security will pay out almost $800 billion NEXT YEAR ALONE, and it’s been running for 75 years. You’re telling me the health care legislation involves a bigger transfer of wealth than that? I don’t think so.
A while back I noted that Jay Severin has a Facebook page. I said then that “there’s no way I’m inviting Jay to be my friend.” Well, folks, I broke my word. You see, Jay stopped tweeting in mid-January. And to my knowledge not a single comment has ever been posted on Jay’s blog. So I was having an awfully hard time trying to point out Jay’s falsehoods, contradictions, and other misstatements to the people who really need them pointed out: his fans. So I “friended” him on Facebook, and he accepted.
It can be fairly entertaining. Yesterday Jay posted this:
One frustration to which I admit is being First and Right on so many stories <check it out sometime: the topics/angles we cover are days/weeks ahead of other national/network media, including ntl talk radio) but, alas, as local show/host, no recognition for our prescience. So I am going to use my daily blog to start going "on the record"; we still won’t get credit – but there will be proof we were first/right.
I responded:
Refresh my memory … what exactly have you been first and right about? Where should I "check it out?" Perhaps you are referring to how you reported that Chicago was an absolute lock for the 2016 Olympics?
In the colloquy that ensued, I learned from other friends of Jay’s that I have “a very strong case of jealous rage against Jay,” I am a “petulant whiner and nobody,” I can be pictured “as a sociopath, paper tearing delusional,” and I feel “impotent.” It’s good to know that Jay’s fans are open to opposing views and that they don’t resort to personal attacks in order to defend their positions.
I’ve made comments on a half-dozen or so of Jay’s status updates and the man himself has not responded to any of them. I’m not surprised.
… when he learned that Scott Brown is helping John McCain’s campaign. And it seems that Jay’s BFF Mitt Romney has also endorsed McCain. Jay, how do you explain this?
One of Jay Severin’s many oft-repeated epigrams is that the role of the United States military is to “kill people and break things.” Given our armed forces’ tremendous efforts in the wake of the Haitian earthquake and the view among many high-ranking retirees that the military should be given even a more prominent role, will Jay admit that the military can appropriately be used for humanitarian aims? I wouldn’t bet the house on it.
Check out the comments from ClearCase_guy in this thread at FreeRepublic. Hilarious!