White People Can't Win

I'm white so I guess I suck and can't make any judgments whatsoever without being racist. It is like making a comment these days and having everyone say "That's what she said". You just walk into situations where an innocent comment can be taken as racist or out of context and made offensive in some way.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/ed-cain-says-what-white-gopers-want-hear

"Break" in relation to word meanings isn't in and of it self a racist term. In fact the word and meaning existed well before Slavery in North America. I really really dislike Mr. Dyson because he sees everything in terms of race and cannot get out from behind that polarizing field.

Breaking someone means what it means regardless of the racial context and is only "racist" in that it was used by racists. In that same context any town names where slave owners lived would be considered racist by association even if they are not...assholes.

See the reason that the black democrats hate Herman Cain is because he overcame adversity WITHOUT their help and promotion. He obtained a Math and Master's degree and has constantly been involved int eh political process including a town hall debate with former President Bill Clinton.

Cain is called an Oreo, an uncle tom and other names by the leftists who are merely trolls baiting him with incendiary statements.

MSNBC in its "Lean Forward" campaign is a water carrier for all progressive organizations and the Obama Admin

My dream ticket this time around

President Ron Paul and VP Herman Cain.

Bu...bu...but you're crazy man!

No no I'm not.

Ron Paul has more foreign policy experience and has a long history of domestic policy experience. Herman Cain is only good on domestic policy. He would be better as head of the senate to help the President achieve his goals.

That is all.

Internal Monologue

My Internal Monologue will forever be: Mike Rowe - Dirty Jobs and others on the discovery channel. And I think Ford Trucks...

Herp and Derp - Why I Am Accused of Being An Idiot

Alright, let us accept that at the most 20% of US Citizens are of a Libertarian bent. That isn't insignificant and it is likely equivalent to the number that are ardent socialists/communists or other hardcore leftists.

The vast majority of people in the United States are "conservative" in that they are more conservative than even the most conservative people elsewhere in the western...and possibly eastern world. This country is an oddity in that its very founding is built on the notion that government should be limited in scope. In that sense we were founded on radicalism...just not the leftist anarchy kind of radicalism.

Our core values (at least at the end of the 18th century) were Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

So I suppose I will start there.

If you have the right to Life (and like all rights are subject to due process), then one would consider an abortion at least after a certain point in gestational development to be an imposition on that right.

I can see the medical need for abortions for a limited series of scenarios, but oops I didn't mean to get preggers isn't one of them. I believe that women should have access to the service in cases of rape, incest or the health of the mother would be endangered by the pregnancy. In all other cases proper birth control exists and should be used prudently. And ladies...don't trust the guy...supply your own and if he won't wear a condom then just tell him to fuck right off.

The death sentence: As long as due process is observed to the letter and spirit of the law then I'm ok with this.

Life is an essential right for without it none of the others are obtainable. For the oops I got preggers crowd there are plenty of people waiting to adopt a child...help them out and quit being a shit head.

Liberty: Liberty is an interesting concept based on the Locke-ian idea of self-governance. And implied in that also is personal responsibility. Your rights (liberties) are only so valid as to the extent that they do not violate the rights of others to exercise those same exact rights as completely as you would have done.

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
- attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

I may not agree with everything that man said, but it eloquently establishes where rights end. The Bill of Rights (1st 10 Amendments of the US Constitution) only establishes those rights that exist irrespective of your state. Any other rights that we as people deem to take are ours for the taking...the constitution even says so. Implicit again however is the responsible use of those rights.

At one point it was illegal to manufacture, sell or distribute alcohol and in some locales even today there are "dry" counties, campi and even states restrict the abv % that can be sold.

I believe you have a firm right to imbibe, smoke, inject, absorb whatever food or toxin you like. I happen to enjoy nearly every form of alcohol available. I choose not to partake of any others even though I have the option to do so. On the responsibility side I have the duty to not abuse the alcohol, to not put others in danger to my recreational use of it...i.e. don't drink before work, don't drink and drive, don't get so drunk I am impaired (ok that last one...I've not really lived up to once in a while...but I listed it last because it is least important).

The same goes for any drug including those we don't normally associate with being a drug like caffein, aspirin and other mundane drugs. Amphetamines (Speed) have their use when regulated by a doctor. Steroids are often proscribed by doctors for a myriad of conditions including migraine headaches, immune-deficiency, and to aid in recovery from reconstructive surgery. Popularly steroids are viewed negatively thanks to the abusers and some nice fascist campaigns and PR ads warning people away from using them.

Liberties are at risk from abusers. They are the bad apples that cause the rest to rot. Collective punishment strikes even the responsible; this breeds contempt and fosters ill will among men and women who would otherwise be good to each other. There was a time when each citizen was allowed to own without question up to 5 lbs of black powder for their own personal use.

9/11 took that away. Did the terrorists use black powder? Nope...they flew commercial jet liners into commercial towers in NY City. Were they US Citizens? No. They overstayed visas from the US Govt. 17/19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia...our ally don'tcha know. But you lost that ability to own that amount of black powder because of an unrelated incident.

Let us pretend however that there was a rash of incidents across the USA where youngsters were blowing their hands...feet...heads, whatever, off because they didn't know how to handle the stuff properly. What is the solution? Here are 3 options and one I will highlight as the most common.

1) Ban the use
2) License/permit and require training before being able to buy/use
3) Don't be an idiot and educate yourself on how black powder works so you can handle it safely and not die or get injured.

2) makes sense to most people and I can't say that it is a bad idea
3) I prefer over them all. Use your head or suffer the consequences. Some people need to get burned to find out the stove is hot...

1) is the common answer because it appears simple, it signifies action! You are really DOING something about the perceived problem. Except you aren't. The problem wasn't the powder. The problem was the idiot who didn't use it right. Again, self governance is the key. To expand on my earlier point about collective punishment let us talk about mobs and group-think.

Mobs are very easy to persuade via an emotional argument. And when they get whipped up it is dangerous to stand in their way or speak out and attempt to be rational. If you try to be rational you become the enemy and it only gets worse. Communities are like mobs. These towns and villages and even cities have collective identities and a good demagogue can play on this quite effectively as can any family member play politics enough to shut another member out.

Mobs will 99% of the time do the wrong thing. Mobs have leaders. And sometimes mobs will even out mob those people.

Let us examine the recent riots in Britain:

A drug dealing youth (re: gangster, jackass, threat to no one in particular but likes to appear threatening) was shot by London police in the northern end of the city. The family rightfully protests the actions of the police. Then riots break out. The Mob takes over.

They could care less if some guy was shot. Some of them claim to be protesting against the "unfairness" of the cutbacks in govt services in the welfare depts. Others (who probably never paid taxes) were "getting their taxes back" via looting. So...they stole from their own countrymen who paid taxes and paid for their welfare benefits for a long time because the government taxed em...wait no that isn't it.

They were getting their taxes back. These people feel they have an entitlement to YOUR tax money. That is what they meant...not that they had been unfairly taxed, but that you hadn't paid enough of your taxes so they are getting them back through violence. It is laughable if it weren't the fridge logic that these junkies use.

In britain 10% of all its citizens have been on welfare since Bush was first elected back in 2000. Some of these kids rioting had parents who had never had a job! It is astounding! In 2011 Britain spent 16% of all its money on welfare, or roughly 3x that of national defense. There are many here in the USA who would like to see that sort of turn come about. But as we can see it only makes matters worse not better.


A Dumbass Mother of 10 is reported on here.

This is the sort of idiocy that is cropping up here. Govt is responsible for EVERYTHING (as it should be some say). This smacks of totalitarianism...no not evil secret police stepping on you, but rather that there is nothing outside of the state's purview or authority. It is a dangerous attitude for it justifies anything...yes even well intentioned things (especially those) because the people who think them up want to control that aspect of your life...for your own good. You can't be trusted to do it yourself so we have to free you from that responsibility. It is for the good of the community!

I'm not wrong and I'm not an idiot. People are dumb, panicky and irresponsible. Individuals are smart, resourceful and responsible. Just compare the political parties to those individuals you know and associate with every day. yes one or two might be a bit off, but most are reasonable rational human beings. And then they join a group. Then it all goes to hell.

- later

When a cut is not a cut

A cut is not a cut when it is still an increase in spending.

For example: The govt spends 2T this year
The govt intends to spend 3T next year
- citizen outrage -
The govt agrees to only spend 2.8T and says hey look we cut spending 200B!

That isn't a cut...

For the more domesticated: Your wife spent $200 on shoes this year
Your wife wants to go shopping at Sax 5th Ave and wants to spend $500
- You explain your displeasure -
Your wife spends $350 and says but honey I SAVED you $150

So she still increased spending by 50% but "SAVED" $150 and declares that she "cut" her spending.

See how that doesn't work?

Here is how they do this: Baseline Budgeting

So they created a law...for themselves that lets them get away with calling an objective increase a theoretical cut...just because its a smaller increase!

Aaaaaand that is why pundits should be shot...they don't explain this shit to people. Of course this is also where the glib attitude of the politicians comes from as well. They don't explain this shit to you because you would be in a constant state of pout-rage and might actually decide to throw a revolution. The govt takes money from you by force and legislatively mandates increases. You can't extricate money from your employer by force of law and require increases just because you want to spend more.

See how this works? Yep this post is nearly over.

Base 0 Budgeting: Zeroing out your expenditures at the end of the year. This is how you and I do it. We have income year to year and we pay based on our yearly income and we budget based on that and not on theoretical increases that may or may not materialize because we cannot through simply saying "I EARN 1 MILLION DOLLARS" actually earn 1 million dollars.

So to get the govt budget under control...perhaps we ought to repeal the 1974 budget act. Perhaps amend it.

Either way, calling a smaller increase a cut is being disingenuous and ought to result in the speaker of such ambiguity being bitch-slapped for a solid hour while being recited lines from War & Peace or something like that. A real unusual but not entirely cruel punishment for being a douche-bag.

fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.” Rep. (D-Pa.) Mike Doyle

Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists,” according to several sources in the room.


Joy oh joy of days! You know how you are getting screwed when people are fighting their own propositions and pretending that someone else is responsible. The Tea Partiers supposed extremism is that they want a balanced federal budget.

nearly every state has that...most local communities and damnit...your budget is automatically balanced as an individual because you CAN'T PRINT YOUR OWN MONEY WHEN YOU WANT IT.

But its TERRORISM when someone simply wants some responsibility. And yet people fall for it. The whole argument for MORE debt ($2.6T of it) is based on the presumption that incurring more debt is good for the economy. And in the short term it might be, but the whole deal with the credit rating is based on a long term outlook...and long term there is no plan to pay back the debt, simply continuing interest payments and churning old debt back into newer debt.

Fuck you whale! fuck you dolphin and fuck you Biden!!!!!

Malice v Incompentence: A case for Malice

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. - Robert J. Hanlon, Hanlon's Razor.

Recently the debt ceiling talks have shown me that Malice is indeed a driving force behind the effort to raise the ceiling on the part of the "establishment" on both the right and the left in the US House and Senate chambers.

Proof: Rep. James Clyburn D-SC

"I've said time and time again, if the President gets up to August 2nd, without a piece of legislation, he should not allow this country to go into default. He should sign an Executive Order invoking the 14th Amendment and send that to all the governmental agencies for us to continue to pay our bills. He could do that with a stroke of a pen."

Evidence of Malice: The 14th Amendment as below:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. 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. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The relevant portions of the bill are in sections 4 and 5. The executive branch is nowhere authorized to do anything with the 14th amendment. Indeed section 5 specifically states that "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

So, should this President or any other President attempt to "invoke" the 14th amendment he or she is 100% usurping the power of Congress and should be impeached, tried, removed from office and thrown in jail for an attempted coup. I'm not even exaggerating a little bit. On top of that the 14th amendment in no-way authorizes NEW spending. Section 4 exists to guarantee current debt lawfully incurred by acts of congress. No independent spending authority is granted.

Example 2: excerpted from a Mary Bruce blog on the ABC blog website. (link to full story at the end)

President Bill Clinton said that if he were in President Obama’s shoes, he would use the 14th amendment to raise the debt ceiling “without hesitation.”

Clinton told The National Memo’s Joe Conason that he would invoke the constitutional option and “force the courts to stop me” if “it came to that” and a deal could not be reached with Congress.


There are many more examples but this should suffice. Now in that same article the Obama White House denies that the 14th amendment usurpation isn't being considered at all (good), but rather the point is that this is being done as a test balloon. There is a purpose to these shenanigans. This is how they build up the public's tolerance for complete shiat before its shoved down your throat. It may not happen this time, or even with this President, but the idea is out there and it is very very tough to kill an idea.

I do believe I have proved Malice over Incompetence in this case. I mean what else would you attribute it to coming from an asshole like Clyburn and a disgraced/impeached President who had his law license revoked after being convicted of perjury. Gee I dunno. Herp Derp.

War Powers

The War Powers Act of 1973

As seen there...you can read for yourself. Some debate its very constitutionality but let us not take that route yet.

Consider this; The current administration (President Obama e. al.) cited at the beginning of the Libya campaign that the War Powers Resolution gave him the ability to commit forces for a limited time which has now exceeded the legal limit of 60 days after which is is required by law to seek congressional approval.

Now, having had congress nicely ask him to ask them for permission he refuses and says that the act which enabled him to begin these hostile acts now no longer applies simply because the USA is not in "the lead".

The law makes no distinction about "leadership" or some other ambiguous term that the administration would pass off as legalese.

Here is the relevant text:

CONGRESSIONAL ACTION

SEC. 5. (a) Each report submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1) shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate on the same calendar day. Each report so transmitted shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate for appropriate action. If, when the report is transmitted, the Congress has adjourned sine die or has adjourned for any period in excess of three calendar days, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, if they deem it advisable (or if petitioned by at least 30 percent of the membership of their respective Houses) shall jointly request the President to convene Congress in order that it may consider the report and take appropriate action pursuant to this section.

(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

Despite it being written by lawyers...it is actually pretty clear that in any circumstances that US armed forces are committed that the President is required to make a report to Congress after those 60 days have elapsed and at least once every 6 months thereafter.

At the same time Congress has to get its own act together and demand that the President submit a report and get statutory authorization... or else remove the troops post haste.

The law is not a trick to be used. I.E. the war powers act was used to authorize the involvement of US forces in a NATO action...and now that they are introduced the President claims that their use with NATO means he doesn't need any authorization.

It is a crap argument and falls on its own face. Even Clinton got statutory authorization from Congress for Kosovo. Bush had congressional authorization twoce (Afghanistan and then Iraq). This guy...like him or not is acting worse than Bush in terms of his abuse of Presidential powers.

Prove me wrong... I dare anyone.