Rant: Learning to Love the Imperial Presidency
How conservatives made peace with executive power.

GENE HEALY | FROM THE OCTOBER 2007 ISSUE

"I took an oath, and I take that oath to the president very seriously," former White House aide Sara Taylor told the Senate Judiciary Committee during the summer hearings on the U.S. attorneys purge. Taylor's statement prompted an indignant clarification from Sen. Patrick Leahy (D'"Vt.): "No, the oath says that you take an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States!"

Leahy was right, of course. But it's not surprising that the 32-year-old Taylor, born the month after Nixon's resignation, had some trouble locating the object of her sworn fealty. For as long as she's been alive, the conservative movement has prioritized the expansion of presidential power, often at the expense of the Constitution.

https://reason.com/2007/09/12/rant-learning-to-love-the-impe/

Principles of Marriage

1Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me:

It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. 3Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. 7For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.

8But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; 9but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.


To the Unmarried and Widows

25Now concerning virgins: I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgment as one whom the Lord in His mercy has made trustworthy. 26I suppose therefore that this is good because of the present distress—that it is good for a man to remain as he is: 27Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28But even if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Nevertheless such will have trouble in the flesh, but I would spare you.

29But this I say, brethren, the time is short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none, 30those who weep as though they did not weep, those who rejoice as though they did not rejoice, those who buy as though they did not possess, 31and those who use this world as not misusing it. For the form of this world is passing away.

32But I want you to be without care.He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord—how he may please the Lord. 33But he who is married cares about the things of the world—how he may please his wife. 34There is a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she who is married cares about the things of the world—how she may please her husband. 35And this I say for your own profit, not that I may put a leash on you, but for what is proper, and that you may serve the Lord without distraction.

It was a key talking point during President Trump’s 2016 campaign, and even before it: The idea that other countries were laughing at the United States. “The world is laughing at us,” he said in May 2016. “They’re laughing at us, at our stupidity,” he said of Mexico in his campaign launch speech. He used the phrase “laughing at us” more than 50 times between 2011 and his election as president. Trump, the argument went, was going to make it stop.

Instead, Trump has been the object of repeated jest and even mockery by fellow world leaders. And it’s been caught on tape — again.

The most recent example came Tuesday, when the leaders of Canada, France, Holland and the United Kingdom seemed to be recounting Trump’s lengthy — and occasionally wild — interactions with reporters earlier in the day.

Even more world leaders appeared to join in mocking Trump last year during his speech at the United Nations. Trump made one of his characteristically hyperbolic claims about his achievements as president — “In less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country” — and drew audible laughter.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/04/brief-history-world-leaders-laughing-trump/

No where was that passion for filling Trump’s pockets more apparent than at his DC hotel, which brought in more than $3 million from Republican political organizations during Trump’s term in office, more than at any other Trump property. During that time, Trump’s businesses were being used by foreign governments and special interests to gain access and influence not just over Trump and his administration, but also the powerful lawmakers who could be found bumping elbows in the lobby.

However, since becoming a Waldorf Astoria in 2022, GOP spending at the largely unchanged luxury hotel in the Old Post Office building has all but disappeared. This directly conflicts with how Republicans explained their choice of venue at the time. When questions arose about their patronage of the then-president’s business, Republicans brushed off concerns of corruption saying that Trump’s DC hotel was simply a convenient location near Capitol Hill for lawmakers and political operatives to socialize, that they would be there regardless of who owned it.

As such, it would be reasonable to expect that Republicans would continue to frequent the hotel after Trump sold it and it rebranded as a Waldorf Astoria in June 2022, leaving many of the building’s luxury public spaces largely unchanged from its time as a Trump property. Yet political spending by GOP groups at the new hotel is virtually nonexistent, clocking in at a measly $37,878, according to the FEC’s most recent data covering the 17 months from June 2022 to the end of November 2023. For comparison, GOP groups spent $1,570,239, or 40 times that, in the interval between June 2018 and November 2019—the last comparable period when the building was still under Trump ownership. In fact, the amount spent since it opened is just a quarter of the $154,500 that then-Speaker Paul Ryan’s joint fundraising committee spent there in a single day in 2018, and a fraction of the $435,034 that Republican groups have spent at Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s private club and residence, since the Waldorf Astoria opened.

Last year, CREW reported that from its opening in June 2022 to the midterm elections, Republican officials, candidates and fundraising committees spent less than $2,000 at the Waldorf Astoria. In the same five-month period in 2018, Republicans spent more than 400 times that amount with $867,000 paid to the Trump Hotel.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/republicans-said-they-spent-millions-at-trumps-dc-hotel-out-of-convenience-theyve-all-but-deserted-its-replacement/

Days after Democratic nominee Joe Biden was projected by all major media outlets as the winner of the presidential election, Trump has yet to concede the race, and his campaign is pursuing legal efforts to challenge the results in numerous battleground states. Though experts say there's essentially no chance of these legal options affecting the outcome of the election, one Republican official told The Washington Post they're fine with entertaining Trump while being confident his efforts won't succeed.

"What is the downside for humoring him for this little bit of time?" a senior Republican official told the Post. "No one seriously thinks the results will change. He went golfing this weekend. It's not like he's plotting how to prevent Joe Biden from taking power on Jan. 20. He's tweeting about filing some lawsuits, those lawsuits will fail, then he'll tweet some more about how the election was stolen, and then he'll leave."

https://news.yahoo.com/republican-official-asks-downside-humoring-135240153.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAH00vXXsA7ajLSmnMpn1zkAWsClO-P3V14HiH1GzbF9O5EZYOIiowYRCsmPLQkJjPOmPRY_HF0fL3PffH45BJzEySWWkUNBm6hDeLYmbPFH655w3342A5P3IrNBAbLIj5Xo7Tmo1Xh6MMcoM5d6RXlmq5lNlmOEkwC0IJfUszDEl

Large group of migrants encountered were misinformed
Release Date Fri, 03/31/2023

EL PASO, Texas – More than 1,000 migrants, mostly from Venezuela, surrendered themselves to Border Patrol Agents in the El Paso Sector, on Wednesday, after reports indicated that migrants may have been misinformed regarding current immigration policies and initiatives.

At approximately 3:30 p.m. on March 29, U.S. Border Patrol in El Paso Sector received reports of a large group of migrants walking eastbound, in Mexico, paralleling the international border from the Bridge of the Americas Port of Entry. At approximately 4:00 p.m., agents from the El Paso Station began to encounter groups of migrants, 20-30 at a time, with more than 1,000 entering the U.S. illegally and surrendering to Border Patrol Agents at the border gate, near Barker Street and Cesar E. Chavez Border Highway.

The migrants encountered were primarily citizens from Venezuela, but were also from other various countries including Nicaragua, Colombia, and Ecuador. Throughout the night and into the early morning hours, agents continued to encounter groups attempting to make illegal entry into the United States.

Many of the migrants claimed that they received information regarding CBP immigration policies via various social media platforms. Migrants indicated social media posts stated that if they surrendered to agents in El Paso at a certain location, they would be allowed to remain in the United States. That information was not correct.

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/large-group-migrants-encountered-were-misinformed