Far Right UK Blogger Denies Connection to Oslo Terrorist (But Wanted to See Me Shot)

Desperately avoiding responsibility
World • Views: 54,930

The Guardian has an article about Oslo terrorist Anders Behring Breivik’s connections to a far right “counter-jihad” blogger named Paul Ray, who goes by the name “Lionheart” online. Ray is denying having anything to do with Breivik, of course, and vocally condemning the attacks: British rightwing blogger denies meeting Norwegian gunman.

A rightwing blogger who is a member of an anti-Muslim group with a similar name to the one Anders Behring Breivik claimed to belong to denies meeting the Norwegian gunman.

Breivik said in his 1500-page manifesto that he attended the founding meeting of the Knights Templar Europe “military order” in London in 2002 where he met a “mentor” who used the pseudonym Richard – after Richard the Lionheart.

Paul Ray, who writes a blog under the name Lionheart, says he belongs to an anti Muslim group called The Ancient Order of the Templar Knights but denies ever meeting Breivik and says he was horrified by the mass killings in Norway on Friday. In a telephone interview with Associated Press, Ray said he was not at the 2002 London meeting that Breivik described in his manifesto.

“I’d like to express my deepest sympathy to the people of Norway and to the families who have lost children,” Ray said. “It’s a horrendous crime that has been committed by someone what goes beyond the realm of human understanding.”

I noticed this article because I had my own encounter with Mr. Paul Ray, and I strongly suspect that his condemnations are anything but sincere.

In 2008, when I wrote an LGF post about “Lionheart” and his troubles with the British legal system (he was prosecuted for “stirring up racial hatred,” oddly enough), and noted that Paul Ray was a supporter of the white supremacist British National Party, he responded on his blog with this post:

Little Green Footballs you are a traitor, nothing less than the equivalent of a Second World War Nazi collaborator who would have been shot because of his treason - Iam sure there are many who would have obliged!

Yes, that’s right — the same guy who’s now pretending to be “horrified” by the Oslo atrocities wanted to see me shot for treason, like a Nazi collaborator, because I criticized him for belonging to a white supremacist group.

Jump to bottom

67 comments
1 Kragar  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 11:21:51am

They finally get a guy who fulfilled their every wish and they disown him. Whats up with that?

2 celticdragon  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 11:25:17am

Fun how the neo-Nazis call everybody else Nazis now.

Oh, that's right...

They now claim the Nazis are actually commies.

3 albusteve  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 11:28:25am

my, what a violent bunch...real tough guys, on the internet anyway

4 Jack Burton  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 11:29:08am

re: #1 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

They finally get a guy who fulfilled their every wish and they disown him. Whats up with that?

Can't explain that!

5 theheat  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 11:30:46am

re: #2 celticdragon

Gay godless commies.

6 Gus  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 11:32:09am

One of many death wishes and death threats directed at Charles. I know the last time I Goolged my name here I ran into one fellow at Pamela Geller's site that wanted to "throw me out a window". This behavior and rhetoric is not uncommon with these highly neurotic and anti-social individuals.

7 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 11:32:10am

Sitting here thinking about what historians believe and know about Richard the Lionheart.

Not sure I'd pick him as an idol.

Unless I thought the crusaders were right and just in what they did.

Hmmm.

8 Kragar  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 11:32:23am

re: #5 theheat

Gay godless commies.

Who had a few good ideas, but just didn't implement them correctly.

9 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 11:32:45am

re: #6 Gus 802

One of many death wishes and death threats directed at Charles. I know the last time I Goolged my name here I ran into one fellow at Pamela Geller's site that wanted to "throw me out a window". This behavior and rhetoric is not uncommon with these highly neurotic and anti-social individuals.


Yeah, well, I'd like to...um...serve you chocolate chip cookies that aren't quite done yet.

According to my husband, this is cruelty of the first order.

10 albusteve  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 11:32:55am

Hitler would sure be proud of the legacy people are gifting him

11 Spocomptonite  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 11:33:29am

re: #1 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

They finally get a guy who fulfilled their every wish and they disown him. Whats up with that?

My rhetoric goes in, violence comes out. You can't explain that!

12 Spocomptonite  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 11:34:02am

re: #4 ArchangelMichael

aww you beat me to it!

13 dch84  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 11:34:36am

Ugh... hypocrisy is pandemic.

OT: Starting to get concerned about the debt ceiling talks and we haven't had an open thread here in a while. Anybody else thinking the 14th amendment sounds pretty good about now?

14 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 11:35:34am

re: #7 EmmmieG

Sitting here thinking about what historians believe and know about Richard the Lionheart.

Not sure I'd pick him as an idol.

Unless I thought the crusaders were right and just in what they did.

Hmmm.

These guys engage in a lot of revision about the Crusades.

Richard wasn't a bad guy by the standard of his age, and was widely respected as a great warrior.

Not much of a king, though.

15 Vicious Michigan Union Thug  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 11:37:12am

re: #14 SanFranciscoZionist

These guys engage in a lot of revision about the Crusades.

Richard wasn't a bad guy by the standard of his age, and was widely respected as a great warrior.

Not much of a king, though.

But he was gay, wasn't he?

16 Spocomptonite  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 11:37:42am

re: #13 dch84

Ugh... hypocrisy is pandemic.

OT: Starting to get concerned about the debt ceiling talks and we haven't had an open thread here in a while. Anybody else thinking the 14th amendment sounds pretty good about now?

There's never a bad time to invoke an amendment. 1st, 5th, etc etc. Republicans are always going on about their 2nd amendment rights. How about we go on about our 14th?

17 makeitstop  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 11:38:19am

re: #13 dch84

Ugh... hypocrisy is pandemic.

OT: Starting to get concerned about the debt ceiling talks and we haven't had an open thread here in a while. Anybody else thinking the 14th amendment sounds pretty good about now?

I'm waiting to see what the House Repubs do once they're done play-acting and pass the Boehner plan and watch it killed in short order in the Senate.

What do they do at that point? Besides run to Fox News and blame Obama again...

18 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 11:38:47am

re: #15 Alouette

But he was gay, wasn't he?

Thought to be, yeah.

19 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 11:38:48am

re: #15 Alouette

But he was gay, wasn't he?

I was thinking more of the slaughter of Jews right after he was crowned, but some think he was.

20 Lidane  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 11:39:09am

re: #13 dch84

Ugh... hypocrisy is pandemic.

OT: Starting to get concerned about the debt ceiling talks and we haven't had an open thread here in a while. Anybody else thinking the 14th amendment sounds pretty good about now?

At this point, anything sounds better than a default, even if it means that the GOP will try to impeach the POTUS in an election year.

Also, the legal nerd in me wants to see an impeachment debate that doesn't center on the definition of "is". I'd like to see Law Professor Obama in action. Might be fun.

21 ProMayaLiberal  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 11:42:35am

Weird crap going on in Libya.

The Rebels have made gains in To the North of Zintan and Nalut.

Unfortunately, weird reports from Benghazi.

BREAKING! Abdul Fatah Younis, Naser Almadkoor & Mahammed Kameais were assassinated. via Libya.tv

?????

22 wrenchwench  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 11:43:00am

re: #13 dch84

Ugh... hypocrisy is pandemic.

OT: Starting to get concerned about the debt ceiling talks and we haven't had an open thread here in a while. Anybody else thinking the 14th amendment sounds pretty good about now?

And you've been waiting so patiently.

dch84

(Logged in)
Registered since: Jan 16, 2011 at 7:17 pm
No. of comments posted: 1
No. of Pages posted: 0

Blog pimp?

23 lawhawk  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 11:43:48am

re: #16 Spocomptonite

Frankly the 14th (Clause 4) should make the whole debt ceiling talk moot. We have to go through this every few years and the ceiling gets raised, even though the Constitution says that:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

That's what makes the whole discussion so infuriating because few seem to understand what's going on here, including the talking heads who spout off endlessly on what this means.

24 Kragar  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 11:43:51am

re: #22 wrenchwench

And you've been waiting so patiently.

Blog pimp?

ITS BEEN HOURS SINCE WE'VE HAD AN OPEN THREAD!

HOURS!

25 wrenchwench  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 11:44:52am

re: #6 Gus 802

One of many death wishes and death threats directed at Charles. I know the last time I Goolged my name here I ran into one fellow at Pamela Geller's site that wanted to "throw me out a window". This behavior and rhetoric is not uncommon with these highly neurotic and anti-social individuals.

I see those kinds of comments in a new light since 7-22-11.

Kind of a flashing red light.

26 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 11:48:55am

re: #6 Gus 802

One of many death wishes and death threats directed at Charles. I know the last time I Goolged my name here I ran into one fellow at Pamela Geller's site that wanted to "throw me out a window". This behavior and rhetoric is not uncommon with these highly neurotic and anti-social individuals.

BTW, the correct term is "defenestrate."

27 Prononymous, rogue demon hunter  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 11:49:48am

I'm so tired of hearing the term traitor thrown around. It implies we at some point swore fealty to their bullshit. Here's a clue to the bigots, unless I am legally obligated to or I affirmed in writing or words, I don't owe you a damn thing, much less my loyalty.

28 wrenchwench  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 11:50:17am

re: #26 EmmmieG

BTW, the correct term is "defenestrate."

That's such a cool word. The concept, not so much.

29 HAL2010  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 11:50:18am

I would email the Guardian and point that out, they could at least update the online article with this info.

30 Lidane  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 11:50:30am

re: #23 lawhawk

That's what makes the whole discussion so infuriating because few seem to understand what's going on here, including the talking heads who spout off endlessly on what this means.

That's what would make any potential impeachment debate hilarious. Obama would basically have to stand there and point to the Constitution and what it actually says. It would be up to the GOP to argue that the Constitution is flawed and/or wrong.

31 JamesWI  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 11:52:23am

So, after all the complaining on Fox News about people calling Breivik "Christian," I turn over there to see if they have anything on the AWOL soldier caught near Fort Hood.

What do I see crawling across the ticker on the bottom of the screen?

"AWOL Muslim soldier caught........."

32 makeitstop  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 11:52:50am

OT: More News Corp. hacking of dead kids' phones:

Britain was awash in a new surge of outrage over the phone hacking scandal on Thursday, as news emerged that Scotland Yard had added to the list of probable victims a woman whose 8-year-old daughter was murdered by a repeat sex offender in 2000.

The Guardian was the first to report Scotland Yard’s alert to Mrs. Payne, but the e-mail newsletter Popbitch suggested earlier this month that Mrs. Payne’s voice mail had been hacked and that the phone in question may have been provided to her by the onetime editor of The News of the World, Rebekah Brooks, as part of the campaign for the law.

In a statement, Ms. Brooks confirmed that The News of the World had provided Mrs. Payne with a cellphone “for the last 11 years.” But she said she found the allegations that Mrs. Payne’s voice mail had been hacked “abhorrent and particularly upsetting as Sara Payne is a dear friend.”

I'll bet you say that about all the people whose phones you hack, Rebekah.

/spit

33 Kragar  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 11:53:47am

re: #30 Lidane

It would be up to the GOP to argue that the Constitution is flawed and/or wrong.

They can get the guys at WND to give them their materials.

34 Lidane  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 11:57:51am

Looks like Boehner has lost 20 Republicans so far. If he loses 4 more, it's all over:

[Link: hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com...]

35 Spocomptonite  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 11:58:42am

re: #23 lawhawk

Frankly the 14th (Clause 4) should make the whole debt ceiling talk moot. We have to go through this every few years and the ceiling gets raised, even though the Constitution says that:

That's what makes the whole discussion so infuriating because few seem to understand what's going on here, including the talking heads who spout off endlessly on what this means.

What I'd really like is for Obama to walk into the house, unannounced, take the mike, and say, "Y'know, I've spent over 2 years trying to compromise with you guys. Not because I had to, but because it was the right thing to do with respect to representing everyone in this country, not just the ones that agree with me. And this meaningless bickering, grandstanding, and hostage-taking is what I, and the rest of the country get in return? No. Not this time. This is something I don't need your approval on. The constitution specifically says this so no selfish politician can use the economic fallout of a debt default as a bargaining chip to get everything they want *strikes gavel with just a bit of angry flourish* The debt ceiling is hereby raised. *walks away without another word, shaking head in dismay*"

36 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 12:00:27pm

re: #31 JamesWI

So, after all the complaining on Fox News about people calling Breivik "Christian," I turn over there to see if they have anything on the AWOL soldier caught near Fort Hood.

What do I see crawling across the ticker on the bottom of the screen?

"AWOL Muslim soldier caught..."

That's SIGNIFICANT. Breivik's religion is not.

//

37 wrenchwench  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 12:02:15pm

re: #27 prononymous

I'm so tired of hearing the term traitor thrown around. It implies we at some point swore fealty to their bullshit. Here's a clue to the bigots, unless I am legally obligated to or I affirmed in writing or words, I don't owe you a damn thing, much less my loyalty.

That word gives justification to the treatment traitors deserve. As some wingnuts said about the kids on Utoya.

38 Randall Gross  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 12:02:19pm

Not surprised that the Luton hatemonger would be disavowing full force, but he was the first one I thought of when I read that segment of the manifesto.

39 Gus  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 12:03:00pm

re: #31 JamesWI

So, after all the complaining on Fox News about people calling Breivik "Christian," I turn over there to see if they have anything on the AWOL soldier caught near Fort Hood.

What do I see crawling across the ticker on the bottom of the screen?

"AWOL Muslim soldier caught..."

What was Loughner's religion? How about the guy that just shot and killed 6 people at a skating rink including himself? Oops, no "religion" news about that. Obviously they weren't Muslim!

40 Sol Berdinowitz  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 12:03:49pm

re: #36 SanFranciscoZionist

That's SIGNIFICANT. Breivik's religion is not.

//

Let me repeat The Muslim Talking Point:

Christ does not condone violence, Muhammad commands it.

ergo,

True Christians do not commit mass murder, Muslims who do not commit mass murder are not True Muslims.

41 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 12:04:00pm

re: #7 EmmmieG

Sitting here thinking about what historians believe and know about Richard the Lionheart.

Not sure I'd pick him as an idol.

Unless I thought the crusaders were right and just in what they did.

Hmmm.

It's a British thing.

42 Spocomptonite  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 12:04:54pm

re: #23 lawhawk

Frankly the 14th (Clause 4) should make the whole debt ceiling talk moot. We have to go through this every few years and the ceiling gets raised, even though the Constitution says that:

That's what makes the whole discussion so infuriating because few seem to understand what's going on here, including the talking heads who spout off endlessly on what this means.

Hey, for irony, does anyone know who read the 14th amendment when they did that stupid recitation of the Constitution on the floor?

43 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 12:05:44pm

re: #40 ralphieboy

Let me repeat The Muslim Talking Point:

Christ does not condone violence, Muhammad commands it.

ergo,

True Christians do not commit mass murder, Muslims who do not commit mass murder are not True Muslims.

There sure are a hell of a lot of really lousy Muslims out there. Like, practically everyone who's a Muslim is a bad Muslim. What's up with that?

44 lawhawk  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 12:07:02pm

re: #31 JamesWI

Indeed.

More details about Abdo's arrest, including the claim that he wasn't going to target the base directly. Instead, he was going to bomb a restaurant frequented by base personnel. He intended to murder soldiers,their families, and anyone else who might be in the restaurant - all to protest what he considered was an "unjust war" in the ME even as he was trying to separate from the Army as a conscientious objector but facing child porn charges.

Yeah, no comparison to Breivik whatsoever. None. /[deleted] one and all.

45 Gus  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 12:08:03pm

re: #40 ralphieboy

Let me repeat The Muslim Talking Point:

Christ does not condone violence, Muhammad commands it.

ergo,

True Christians do not commit mass murder, Muslims who do not commit mass murder are not True Muslims.

Or another...

There is but on political religion and that is Political Islam!!11ty

Oops, wait a second.

46 Prononymous, rogue demon hunter  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 12:08:17pm

re: #37 wrenchwench

That word gives justification to the treatment traitors deserve. As some wingnuts said about the kids on Utoya.

Yep. Treason and murder are the few crimes where most societies justify the death penalty. So wingnuts use treason in the same way that they call abortion doctors murderers - hoping that some "vigilante" will dispense "justice".

47 Gus  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 12:19:38pm

re: #44 lawhawk

Indeed.

More details about Abdo's arrest, including the claim that he wasn't going to target the base directly. Instead, he was going to bomb a restaurant frequented by base personnel. He intended to murder soldiers,their families, and anyone else who might be in the restaurant - all to protest what he considered was an "unjust war" in the ME even as he was trying to separate from the Army as a conscientious objector but facing child porn charges.

Yeah, no comparison to Breivik whatsoever. None. /[deleted] one and all.

So I would say that clearly it was not Islam that motivated him to conspire to commit these acts. It was obviously "secular" in nature. Ever if one were to say that he was motivated by a "unjust war" that would still fall into the secular category or more specifically a political motivation. Much the same as I felt what motivated Osama bin Laden was more secular in nature than Islamic. Islam didn't motivated Osama. It was politics and to some extent his own personal life.

Al Qaeda isn't fighting for Islam they're fighting for political power and obviously have an Islamic nature because they are in fact Muslims. Clearly the West has proven that they are not out to oppress the Muslim religion and this can be seen with our actions in Bosnia which was in effect a defense of Muslims and Iraq where we did not undertake any action that could be perceived as the oppression of the Islamic faith.

48 makeitstop  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 12:27:17pm

re: #34 Lidane

Looks like Boehner has lost 20 Republicans so far. If he loses 4 more, it's all over:

[Link: hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com...]

It ticked up one since you posted the link.

He's not even going to get that fish wrap out of his own house. Unreal.

49 wrenchwench  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 12:30:38pm
50 lawhawk  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 12:35:53pm

re: #47 Gus 802

Except that other reports indicate that he had jihadi materials as well. That runs against the secular aspect.

51 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 12:42:02pm

re: #49 wrenchwench

GoV found Breivik posts on their website. From October 2008.

Saw that -- I searched our users table for any matches to '2083' or '2183', and found nothing.

52 ThomasLite  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 1:39:53pm

re: #23 lawhawk

Frankly the 14th (Clause 4) should make the whole debt ceiling talk moot. We have to go through this every few years and the ceiling gets raised, even though the Constitution says that:

That's what makes the whole discussion so infuriating because few seem to understand what's going on here, including the talking heads who spout off endlessly on what this means.

sorry if I'm wrong here, but you're leaving a rather essential part un-bolded, as far as I can see: "as authorized by law" which is the raising of the debt ceiling by congress.

so no, it's not to be questioned ... up to the amount authorized as the debt ceiling. raising that is entirely up for debate, as I read it?

(if I've got this entirely wrong, please explain)

not to say I'm not just as sick of this TP posturing, of course.

53 Obdicut  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 3:23:20pm

re: #52 ThomasLite

sorry if I'm wrong here, but you're leaving a rather essential part un-bolded, as far as I can see: "as authorized by law" which is the raising of the debt ceiling by congress.

Why? Why isn't it incurring the debt itself through legislation?

54 ThomasLite  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 3:33:19pm

re: #53 Obdicut

Why? Why isn't it incurring the debt itself through legislation?

hmm, I suppose you have a point there.

I'd argue that leaves the common practice of congress authorizing a debt ceiling meaningless, and since (at least it seems to me that) that's been generally accepted to be the correct way to deal with national debt since (again, AFAIK) the 14th came into power it would (especially in a common law system, then again, decidedly out of my comfort zone there) be established and agreed upon practice, which is not something you just throw out the window because there's a technicality in the text.
(with my sincere apologies for this monster of a sentence)

however I see how it's not so black and white as it first seemed to me.

I primarily saw an analogy to how we deal with phrases like these under Dutch law, where something like "authorized by law" means a black and white specification of that exception/other authorization, not some implication found in an otherwise not directly related piece of legislation.

I do realise that analogy holds little authority in US constitutional law, to say the least, so thanks for clarifying why it's at least a grey area to me.

it'll be interesting to see what happens if the white house has to play that card though understand (see the established practice argument) why pres. Obama would be reluctant to go that route as a constitutional scholar himself. oh well, it might just come to it; at least the fireworks will be interesting, worst come to.

55 Obdicut  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 3:36:19pm

re: #54 ThomasLite

I'd argue that leaves the common practice of congress authorizing a debt ceiling meaningless

I think it is meaningless.

be established and agreed upon practice, which is not something you just throw out the window because there's a technicality in the text.

But that's not why. The clear purpose of the clause is that the debt and creditworthiness of the US not be questioned. That's the intention and purpose of the paragraph. Agreed?

Remember, this is existing debt we're talking about. The US government owes these monies. This is debt that's coming due.

56 ThomasLite  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 3:56:31pm

re: #55 Obdicut

I think it is meaningless.

hmm, all right. I'd even tend to agree with you. however, there's a long-standing consensus otherwise. that can't just be deemed irrelevant without further argument.

oh well, before you get me completely wrong:

But that's not why. The clear purpose of the clause is that the debt and creditworthiness of the US not be questioned. That's the intention and purpose of the paragraph. Agreed?

Remember, this is existing debt we're talking about. The US government owes these monies. This is debt that's coming due.


no argument from me; that debt ceiling should just be raised. period.

point of contention is not whether to pay off this debt which is basically already owed anyway, it's whether the US executive branch has the authority to do so.

as I understand the general interpretation of article 1 section 8 of the constitution is not just that congress has the power to incur debt, but the sole power. now I like the way you bypass that by stating they incurred it by enacting the law in the first place; it does however seem to me that is not the standing interpretation of these provisions.

you are bypassing a hell of a lot of standing interpretation here.
once again, I like it. I just wonder if it's gonna fly.

not trying to get into a debate here, we basically agree on the end anyway. I just find your solution... creative. (which coming from anyone in the legal field, tends to be a compliment in more than one way ;) ).

57 Obdicut  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 4:00:14pm

re: #56 ThomasLite


you are bypassing a hell of a lot of standing interpretation here.
once again, I like it. I just wonder if it's gonna fly.

When has there ever been a supreme court case about this?

58 ThomasLite  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 4:05:51pm

re: #57 Obdicut

When has there ever been a supreme court case about this?

not to my knowledge. which is why I'm wondering. if there had been I'd probably been reasonably sure.

can't see the current court ignore that kind of standing tradition out of hand, as well as giving the executive branch such an expanded discretion easily though. again, I don't know. maybe we'll see, maybe you're right!
I'm not defending some ironclad legal argument here, hell, US constitutional law isn't exactly taught in these parts that much. I saw a post from sergey romanov which I found intriguing, so I asked into that, and you elaborated. I never said your idea *won't* fly; just that it's not entirely uncontroversial. hell, I'm sure you'll agree these are uncharted waters! not saying my (rather more skeptical) arguments would win out.

anyway, thanks for elaborating; always interesting reading material around here ;)

59 Obdicut  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 4:19:10pm

re: #58 ThomasLite

not to my knowledge. which is why I'm wondering. if there had been I'd probably been reasonably sure.

If there hasn't been a Supreme Court case about it, then there is zero precedent, unless there's any state court case that's similar.

can't see the current court ignore that kind of standing tradition out of hand, as well as giving the executive branch such an expanded discretion easily though.

"it's tradition" isn't a legal argument.

I never said your idea *won't* fly; just that it's not entirely uncontroversial.

It's not my idea. It's just that it seems really clear that clause is supposed to ensure the creditworthiness of the United States. Since that's a very, very important thing, it seems more likely that's the meaning, rather than that the US has to go through complex shennaningans in order to not be doubted as to its creditworthiness.

60 ThomasLite  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 4:45:06pm

re: #59 Obdicut"it's tradition" isn't a legal argument.

not generally, no.
"it's clear in practice and in long-standing general agreement in the legal community that this interpretation is as intended" however, certainly can be.

once again I agree ensuring creditworthyness is important; I agree it should be done somehow; I also agree your argument that any debts incurred in execution of law as enacted by congress should be backed in full, as a matter of course.

do you agree however, that in the US separation of powers, giving the executive branch power to raise the debt ceiling could potentially upset a lot of checks and balances that are currently in play? or at least give the white house a lot more power than it has under the assumption that congressional approval is required to raise the debt ceiling (or as most sources I've found through google put it, congress has sole authority to incur debts on behalf of the US)?

please if I'm mistaken, enlighten me. this is turning out to be quite educative :)

61 Obdicut  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 4:52:15pm

re: #60 ThomasLite

"it's clear in practice and in long-standing general agreement in the legal community that this interpretation is as intended" however, certainly can be.

I'm sorry, but how? Can you name a case where that was cited as authority?

once again I agree ensuring creditworthyness is important; I agree it should be done somehow; I also agree your argument that any debts incurred in execution of law as enacted by congress should be backed in full, as a matter of course.

I'm not asking you to agree with that. I'm pointing out that that is the purpose of that clause.

do you agree however, that in the US separation of powers, giving the executive branch power to raise the debt ceiling could potentially upset a lot of checks and balances that are currently in play?

No. It upsets nothing at all. This is debt. It is not spending. This is paying off things congress already authorized, things where the bills are coming due.

Congress decided to buy a big fancy phone and get a premium data package. They decided they wanted a lot of other shit too. That costs money.

The debt ceiling would be raised in order to raise funds to pay for expenses that have already been incurred by congress.

There isn't actually the legal option of saying that we won't pay those debts.

62 ThomasLite  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 5:46:55pm

re: #61 Obdicut

pff, sorry it's 2:17 AM here, looking up US case law for something like that is a bit too much of an enterprise now. the argument would fly to some extent at least here; I'll look into US precedent (if I can find any) or literature on the subject as best as I can tomorrow/this weekend.

the federal government is obligated to pay those debts, that's obvious. I agree there should be no dispute to that.
allowing the pres. to raise the debt ceiling however does much more than that! there's a lot of expenses that can be made at the discretion of the executive branch, without consulting the legislature. both a budget *and* a debt ceiling are meant to confine that to reasonable limits, am I right?
now the idea of president Obama doing that, well, fine by me. the general idea of any president having that power, however, not so much. (just as untested, if I'm not mistaken) war powers act et al notwithstanding.

come to think of it, now if the administration would take your interpretation, I'd be all for that.
that is, stating the debt ceiling does not apply as interpreted up to this point.

hell, that whole debt ceiling thing is peculiar at least. I don't know of a single European country working that way, for sure. then again, the balance of power here is divided in a rather different manner.

all I'm saying is, that debt ceiling is there for a reason. it's a good idea, in principle.
now even very good legislation is usually vulnerable from one angle: too many crazies in the legislature.
if it wasn't the debt ceiling, they'd use something else.
now your suggestion to not let paying standing debts be hampered by congress anymore, great!
if that gives the executive branch (same which would do the actual borrowing, mind you) the power to raise that debt ceiling when they feel like it, that would remove a safeguard which has, AFAIK, been taken for granted in the last, what? 150 or so years of legislation?

some lizard (I honestly can't remember who) put it quite succinctly a while ago: now pres. Obama with that power, sure, we all trust him with that. but what if it were, say, I dunno, pres. Palin (G-d forbid!)?

sorry, I'm probably nitpicking all the way.
I just feel that sometimes, however great the problem faced, some rash solutions only make things worse.
that debt ceiling was meant as a means for congress to limit executive authority. it's been embedded in the system for ages.

now how would you go about allowing the US to borrow above the current debt ceiling without raising it (I presume that's your primary intent?) in a way that would keep the debt ceiling meaningful?

for example, what expenses should the gov. keep making and for which ones should the debt ceiling remain a fixed boundary?
and how would you go about setting a meaningful ceiling if suddenly, a lot of debt which has always fallen under the debt ceiling is suddenly in some other account, so to say?

and do you realize at least some of those things require congressional cooperation (something they're not willing to do now, let alone after apocalypse has been averted by ignoring them flat out, which means they have no political reason, in their perverted little game, to cooperate anymore)?

now to avert a default in the short run, it's a good idea. it does however create such a shitstorm of other problems that pretty much any other option would probably be a better one.

oh well, I'm really still hoping&praying it won't come to that.

63 Obdicut  Thu, Jul 28, 2011 6:59:47pm

re: #62 ThomasLite

allowing the pres. to raise the debt ceiling however does much more than that!

Not really, no.

there's a lot of expenses that can be made at the discretion of the executive branch, without consulting the legislature

This isn't true. Why do you think it is?

both a budget *and* a debt ceiling are meant to confine that to reasonable limits, am I right?

No, you're wrong.

if that gives the executive branch (same which would do the actual borrowing, mind you) the power to raise that debt ceiling when they feel like it, that would remove a safeguard which has, AFAIK, been taken for granted in the last, what? 150 or so years of legislation?

Since 1914, actually.

And again, the 'power to raise the debt ceiling' is 'the power to pay money we already owe'. How is that power?


some lizard (I honestly can't remember who) put it quite succinctly a while ago: now pres. Obama with that power, sure, we all trust him with that. but what if it were, say, I dunno, pres. Palin (G-d forbid!)?

Yes, of course I'd want Palin to be able to raise the debt ceiling if it were being blocked.


for example, what expenses should the gov. keep making and for which ones should the debt ceiling remain a fixed boundary?

You keep thinking the debt ceiling is about incurring new expenses. It's not. It's about paying money that's owed.

You really seem mixed up.

64 Obdicut  Fri, Jul 29, 2011 3:47:18am

re: #62 ThomasLite

I'd just like to point out that if we go into default, the decision on what programs get funded, where the money goes, and who gets stiffed is entirely up to Obama.

So, allowing the nation to go into default actually enhances the power of the presidency in a significant way.

65 ThomasLite  Fri, Jul 29, 2011 4:31:47am

@obdicut

oh dear, you're totally right. seems I somehow assumed the debt ceiling took care of some things which really are constrained by the budget already. my bad, I apologize.

Yes, of course I'd want Palin to be able to raise the debt ceiling if it were being blocked.

that particularly got me thinking I must've had something wrong, haha. and of course I now see you're entirely right.

seems I've got some more reading to do though: now I'm having some trouble understanding what the debt ceiling is for in the first place. oh well, my bad for 'just assuming'. seems some TP rhetoric somehow got to me? ah well.

re: #64 Obdicut

I'd just like to point out that if we go into default, the decision on what programs get funded, where the money goes, and who gets stiffed is entirely up to Obama.

So, allowing the nation to go into default actually enhances the power of the presidency in a significant way.

haha, true. A temporary thing, not a permanent shift of power but you're right.

okay, I'll go take some basic civics classes now, I guess. thanks for enlightening me on these points.

66 Obdicut  Fri, Jul 29, 2011 5:12:20am

re: #65 ThomasLite

It's not your fault, there's been tons of disinformation going around, and, as usual, the Democrats have managed not to communicate the truth in simple terms, either.

67 Øyvind Strømmen  Fri, Jul 29, 2011 8:31:15am

Newspaper article and video interview with Ray at dagbladet.no:
[Link: www.dagbladet.no...]


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 152 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1