The Butthurt Effect

The United States of America seems to have lost the set of brass balls it was born with during its revolution.  There was a time when if a set of easily offended people got all butthurt we'd encourage them to get mad.

Example:  Declaration of Independence - The Founding signers knew that they stood the chance to lose everything just based on the signing.  Ethan Allen's property and house were bombarded by a warship from the coast then his house and property were razed and pillaged by the British.  Just for signing.  His wife was in hiding and she died basically of a broken heart.  He was imprisoned on a British warship inside a small wooden box and shipped across the Atlantic...then to Ireland...and then was released as a part of prisoner exchanges at the end of the war.

Today:  Some schmuck makes a video and we The President and Secretary of State go out apologizing for...what a private citizen did in his spare time (and badly).  Yeah.  That is a shift I must say.

We should just shut all consular facilities in these nations and have only embassies in the capitals.  Then  we will tell all nations that we will not apologize for our citizens private actions that are in-line with the law.  If they wish to protest they are of course free to do so as long as they do not resort to violence.   Once that is said...we supply the OR ELSE portion of the speech.

Or Else would feature these points

• A reprisal will take place in several stages
• Stage 1) Diplomatic/Economic Sanctions taken Unilaterally
• Stage 2) Ejection of diplomats from the USA and a closing of embassies
• Stage 3) Complete trade shutdown (unilateral...other nations can do as they wish)
• Stage 4) Wait until they squeal and become more conciliatory
• Iraq/Afghan Special:  For those two nations that have benefited from our investments...no more investments, we simply pack up and leave leave a sign that says thanks for all the fish.

There is no reason to invade or waste our troop's lives in these backwards nations.  We can simply cease doing business with them.  Oil is sold on a world market...we don't need to embargo that at all.  Basically we can remove our presence and stop giving them fodder.  At some point the people will likely overthrow their current governments and what they put in its place may be better or worse (Egypt I'm looking at you).  The reality is that eventually when they are tired of failing they will find a way to create a benevolent form of government.  So far we have simply bankrolled their failures and put an artificial floor so that as bad as things might seem they are actually far worse.  

It is simply tough love.  We don't need to be violent, but we do need to show them that violence will not be tolerated without responding in kind.  At some point they will likely become less butthurt and move out of their fundamentalist phase towards an enlightenment that the west had three hundred years ago.

Critical Failure

This post is in response to Graeme McMillan's post on Time.com about his opinion on why the 'Bourne Leagacy' has no story.

Original Article featured HERE.

For those who haven't seen the movie this post is full of spoilers, so please do not read beyond this point unless you don't otherwise care.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Jeremy Renner plays a U.S. Government Assassin part of a top secret program called "Outcome" which is a progression from "Treadstone" which birthed Jason Bourne.

At the start of the movie Aaron is seen diving into freezing water to retrieve a cannister with a map inside. Clearly he has some sort of amazing metabolism to achieve this and we see him taking some pills...green and blue.

It is later revealed by that character that the green are for physical enhancement and blue are for mental enhancement. He is however running out of meds.

Meanwhile the whole treadstone/blackbriar incidents are being exposed by Bourne and Pamela Landy (Bourne is causing havoc and Landy is testifying before Congress). So connections and call backs are being made.

Multiple characters in the intelligence divisions including edward norton's character are present and have their own struggles to keep things together. They decide to terminate all programs that Landy may know about including Outcome. Various assassins are poisoned by their handlers claiming the new pills are 2 drugs in 1. In the remote alaska wilderness where cross was last seen he arrives at a checkpoint of sorts, submits bloodwork and other things and here is where his story really kicks off.

He seems to have a more independent mind than other agents and he reveals that he was sent here as a punishment for going off grid when no one would answer his questions. He's quite curious and affable but you can sense he is cautious and always observing for others' motives.

He on the second or third day there he steps outside and hears a noise...he tells his compatriot to sit in "the nest" while he scouts out so they aren't both taken by surprise. a cruise missile launched from a CIA/DIA predator drone lands and explodes in the cabin with only Cross left alive. His instincts and training kick in and he outsmarts the pursuers and kills the drone with a well placed rifle shot after shielding the tracker they had implanted in him.

He is able to get the implant out in time and force it in the mouth of an alpha male wolf that has been tracking him (he no longer seems human to them) in time for the second drone to kill the wolf thinking it is Cross.

Now he begins his journey back to the mainland US after absconding with a plane...his objective is to get more meds...especially the mental ones.

Part 2) Steracyn-Morelanta is a biotech pharmaceutical company that produces these drugs and we follow a female scientist in her job for a short bit as she examines people similar to Cross. As she (and others in that lab) are aware of parts of the Outcome program, Edward Norton's move to wipe out all of those involved comes to the lab in the vein of a co-worker that goes "postal" and starts killing everyone in the lab. The doctor manages to stay alive until authorities can break intot he lab and the co-worker kills himself...clearly a product of Outcome himself, but she is rather bewildered.

This story gets into the papers about the work place killings and Cross sees this...recognizes the doctor (who inspected him 5 or 6 times before in their history it is later revealed) and so he makes his way to save her as he knows that the CIA will not give up after just one attack.

After saving her he helps her to assume a new identity and they flee the country (after convincing her to help him due to the nature and result of withdrawal from the chems he's been on) to the Philippines where he can be "viraled out" of being dependent on the drugs...and it turns out he was already viraled out of the physical ones secretly over a year ago. All of these technologies are by the way being researched by the lovely folks at www.darpa.mil

So they get there, negotiate their way past the guards (who know the doctor) and she manages to cobble together something she thinks will work for him. They have been tracked by the CIA now and have to fight their way out and disappear into the crowd.

Meanwhile the B-story continues with Jason Bourne being in the USA now and escaping the feds again and Pamela Landy beginning her testimony. Other refences to Bourne are made in the movie and it is clear that Bourne's insurrection has a sort of underground mythos and inspiration attached to it that motivate Cross.

Also we learn that Aaron Cross is really Kenneth James Kitsom during some flashbacks as he is sick from the virus and coming down from the drug's influences.

Big chase scene with a more advanced assassin program called LAR-X and action doctor shows she's got the chops to stick it out.

Ending stuff: The B-story rolls on with Bourne's stuff perhaps in another movie and we get a clip of Aaron/Ken looking beat-up and not seemingly himself being talked to by none-other than Edward Norton's character behind a camera trying to recruit him for the project. Cross has made up the story about his recruiter fudging his ASFAB/IQ score to get in the Army...it turns out he was from a state home in nevada and the motivation to not go back to that state is much more powerful and we understand his desperation in the movie all the more.

A lot of this also explains Norton's character feeling so familiar with cross and having his flashbacks in the movie.

There is real story, and heart in the film. And at least unlike the previous Bourne films the female love interest has some bearing on the story rather than being the unfortunate individual that the protagonist accidentally meets. Less serendipity and more reason.

There is plenty of story here and room for more expansion in that world including for Bourne and Cross to meet.

The author of the OP probably didn't really sit down and think during the movie...or was too busy sexting.

Spiderman is a pussy

Spiderman...well Peter Parker is a massive pussy. reason 1: He'd rather have his aunt may (who is like 110 years old or something at this point) survive a gunshot attack than his hot red haired super model wife. Yeah cause fuck her right? reason 2: he never EVER finishes a fight. All his old enemies are running around still causing havok and property damage. reason 3: he never learned how to fight properly in hand to hand combat relying mainly on his powers to serve him over technique. reason 4: he's a giant emotional bag of fail

Bad Practices

As I have gotten older I have increasingly distrusted police and the government. Not to the point that I am paranoid or I think anyone is out to get me, but I do think that those with authority have the tendency to abuse it without proper oversight.

So in this post I will be adding links to stories showing or providing evidence of police misusing their powers which are designed to protect us, but instead victimize otherwise law abiding citizens.

December Update

NEWEST UPDATE - FUCK YOU BLOOMBERG, FUCK YOU BLOOMBERG II

HERE

HERE

HERE

This will be updated

Update:

HERE

HERE

HERE (in the UK)

HERE
HERE

The Real Ron Paul (RON PAUL)

In this political season there are a great number of misconceptions about Congressman Ron Paul. One of the biggest is that no one knows what his foreign policy positions are or that they are somehow inherently dangerous.

So let us deal with his foreign policy positions:

Eliminate Foreign Aid to EVERYBODY: De Facto not dangerous...unless said foreign aid is proping up a torturous banana republic regime whose populous hates us for proping up said regime. Which would likely back fire on us anyway at some point.
Bonus: saves the tax payer money and gives less political ammo by various nationalist lobbying groups from afar. Yes both Israel and Palestine must be weened off of our money.

Reduce US footprint overseas: We have military bases in 63 countries. We can likely stand to close a few and consolidate to save some money and impose less on other nations' sovereignty. Bonus: saves the US tax payer money and feeds less to the military industrial complex. not in and of itself dangerous. This is usually painted as RON PAUL WILL DESTROY THE US MILITARY!!!!

expanded: Ron Paul would like to be rid of a standing army in theory, but even he knows that it isn't practical to do.

On the Diplomatic Front: Iran and Nukes: He understands why Irean is in a rush for nukes. Example: - Pakistan and N. Korea (Best Korea) both have nukes. Do you see the USA invading either country? No you do not. Iran has seen a nation to it's east and west invaded by the USA. If Ran had invaded Canada and Mexico and occupied them...we might want nukes as well if we didn't have em...y'know as a deterrent.

The current power structure wants to prevent Iran from getting nukes so they CAN invade. That is the reality. They will say they don't want turrists to get nukes or Israel to get asploded from afar. however that seems unlikely and more talk than reality even if they do sabre rattle at israel every other day.

The worry about terrorists is real but likely overblown considering Iran's first nuke will not be as sophisticated as what the USA or Russian Federation has in it's own inventory. To top it off the war drums for invading Iran have been beating for over a year at this point and it would surprise no one if we invaded. Obama would likely attempt this.

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.

Joel Rogers - The Man Behind the Curtain

A little Background: Joel Rogers is teaching lam,political science and sociology at the university of Wiscons in Madison, and also an American academic and political activist.
He wrote about American politics and public society.A contributing editor of The Nation and Boston Review, and a social activist as well as an academic, Rogers was identified by Newsweek as one of 100 Americans most likely to affect U.S. politics and culture in the 21st century.
He was awarded genius grant named MacArthur foundation fellowship in 1995

Just quotes for now:


ROGERS: I sort of think of carbon at this point would invite you all to think of carbon not just as another commodity that's we'll be willing to let people bribe us to spend but think of it more like a neurological poison like mercury. And in the same way that you wouldn't say, "Okay, if you give us the money, we'll let you expend more mercury into the atmosphere." I wouldn't get too excited about the money aspect of the carbon. You can do everything in the U.S. to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions and it won't make much of a dent actually. I hope you all realize that you could eliminate every power plant in America today and you can stop every car in America. Take out these higher powered generation sector, take out all of the transportation sector and you still wouldn't be anywhere near 80% below 1990 levels. You would be closer to 60%, around 68%. And that's bringing the economy to a complete halt basically.

ROGERS: On the dimensions what attracts me about the opportunity is not just its size, which is difficult to overstate, but the fact that given its extent, it really extends our politics from just a redistributive politics into the organization of the economy itself. It really is concerned with production.


Again... Joel Rogers on Cap and Trade.

Thaaaaanks.

Cynthia Kinney thinks Obama is king of the wrold

You can read it HERE.

The Census

Section 2 The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. [Representatives and [direct Taxes] shall be apportioned among the several States [which may be included within this Union,] according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.]*(Changed by section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment.) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three. When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies. The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

The Unfairness Doctrine

Life is unfair.

I happen to agree with a character from Babylon 5 in his summation of why this is good and this is a paraphrase... "Imagine if we actually DESERVED all of these horrible things that happen to us and life was fair! I for one welcome the general hostility of the universe" - Marcus

So now on to the Fairness doctrine:

Whenever a liberal/progressive/socialist/whatever label is attached for identity purposes speaks about "fairness" what they are actually saying is that they want to force themselves into a market that they could not get into otherwise/ want to make it harder on those who are successful to stay successful because of jealousy or ideological differences.

The fairness doctrine is intolerant: It forces radio stations to balance content ideologically regardless of what makes money. FYI NPR is "balanced" to the left and it makes no money. Radio America that syndication station that Al Gore and others started to 'counter' the conservative talk radio shows failed miserably with multiple money raising scandals including misappropriating funds from a Boy Scout Troop.

The fact that they couldn't compete in an open market restarted the idea that they ought to force their point of view on the air in the name of "fairness". It isn't fair, it is distinctly unfair to force programming upon a private industry that largely consists of family safe programming...more so than TV.

They are jealous to the point of disgust or hatred amongst the rabid. And so they ask themselves "if they can do it why can't we?"

They then answer themselves within their own ideology..." its those damned big corporations keeping us down "

The fact is that they ran their stations like a damned charity and it never ever ever ever made money because they were not entertaining and couldn't sell advertising revenue.

So now they seek to limit the free expression of those who CAN sell advertising and entertain radio listeners. It is a simple plan to remove any free speech that they don't approve of.

Then they talk about accountability:

What responsibility (if any) do radio stations have to 'balance'* the content going out over their transmitters and riding upon the (and here's the clincher) public air waves.

The answer, aside from keeping the programming generally decent, is to let the listening public decide what they want to hear. Radio stations do extensive surveying of their public and determine what to carry based on the market. Some Democrats believe that they have an additional responsibility to be a mouth piece for the DNC. This is based upon a flawed perception that it is currently a mouthpiece for the RNC (which it is not) None of the top 3 Talk Show hosts are registered Republicans...and republican congressmen seldom vote how those in talk radio would like. And that is why it is entertaining.

Rush Limbaugh puts callers that disagree with him on at the head of the line over those that will just agree with him...because it isn't entertaining to have someone agree with you...its just bad radio.

Glenn Beck does the same and Sean Hannity I believe has the most people on from the opposing point of view of any host...even letting a liberal guest host for him on vacation.

Here's the thing: The fairness doctrine it made AM radio suck for a long time (1949-1987).

from Wiki "In August 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision, which was upheld by a different panel of the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in February 1989.[11] The FCC stated, "the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists," and suggested that, because of the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional."

Here...an honest quote also from wikipedia citing Senator Tom Harkin:

A week later, on February 11, 2009, Senator Tom Harkin (Democrat of Iowa) told Press, "..we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again." Later in response to Press's assertion that "...they are just shutting down progressive talk from one city after another," Senator Harkin responded, "Exactly, and that's why we need the fair — that's why we need the Fairness Doctrine back."

So the only reason they want it is to FORCE their point of view on the public because they aren't entertaining enough to make enough money even to subsist the program much less make a profit.

It is stupid, selfish, unconstitutional, and lame. I live in one of the most left of center states in this country and Rush Limbaugh is on the air, a local host proceeds him and it is followed by Dennis Miller. All three are relatively conservative with Rush being the king of em all. There is no clamor in any station here to get rid of Rush. The reason that these shows are successful isn't just their point of view. It is how they present it, in a format that is entertaining and (most importantly to the broadcaster) profitable.

It would be unfair to artificially lower the profitability of an entire industry just because you can't come up with a good idea Democrats.

Really Mr Krugman?

As seen HERE Paul Krugman continues to fellate Barak H. Obama. Why "temporary government spending increases are good". See what he FAILS to see is that this isn't temporary...this is continuing the never stopping increases in government spending...and we aren't talking about just keeping up with inflation or repairing a single bridge or stretch of highway.

Government spending since the inception of the income tax in 1913 has never decreased. Any time there has been a shortfall of revenue from TAX RECEIPTS the government has gone out and BORROWED MONEY from PRIVATE BANKS AND SOVEREIGN WEALTH FUNDS in addition to issuing treasury bonds.

Now one of the chief criticisms leveled at former President George W. Bush was that he exploded federal deficit spending. You can read all about that HERE and that is by Paul Krugman as well. President Obama has not stated how this will be paid for...not it won't stimulate teh ecoomy to 1.14 trillion in additional tax revenue much less GDP as all it does is redistribute wealth and give away money for sex education programs and union payoff's a la the Davis-Bacon provision in Obama's Huge and Stimulating Package. You can read details of it HERE.

This stimulus plan is not a one time thing. Obama has already said he wants to spend much more of taxpayers money on government projects including socialized healthcare.

Paul Krugman believes whatever is appropriate for the time and has no real core values or beliefs. He is a classic Progressive/Fascist because he believes that government should do everything just because he thinks it can. He would call himself a pragmatist, but that is just salesmanship. It is a line that is the same as "its for the children" or some other emotionally appealing line of argumentation that doesn't hold up to fiscal scrutiny much less consistency internally.

The "Because Milton Friedman Says It, Then It Must Be True Because I Usually Disagree With Him, And I Agree With Him Because it is My Candidate that Won and I am A Hack Journalist."

Go pound sand Mr. Krugman.

ah crap me another eugenics conference...I mean environmentalism.

PHILADELPHIA — The biggest issue facing the presidential candidates
should be energy and environmental responsibility, according to
internationally known environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Kennedy, equally well known for his family lineage, got a standing
ovation Saturday even before he began speaking at the Philadelphia
Energy Summit.

He got a Standing O...for being a Kennedy? Well isn't that speeaacial. And then he opened his craw.

The CBS Radio-sponsored event was held to educate people about
sustainable energy at Holy Family University's Northeast Philadelphia
Campus.

His speech and those of others, including Kathleen McGinty, former
chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, made a
case for moving away from carbon-based fuels as quickly as possible.

"The biggest issue we're facing in the presidential campaign is: How
do we allocate our energy resources?" Kennedy told about 120
listeners.

No our biggest challenge is securing a supply of energy that we can grow with the ever increasing demand for energy while lowering consumer prices and modernizing the system of delivery.

Environmental responsibility isn't just for the sake of saving a few
trees or animals. It is inextricably tied with enriching the overall
economy, because a truly free market without subsidies for coal and
oil industries would level the playing field, creating enormous job
markets in alternative energy arenas like the burgeoning wind and
solar industries, he said.

The playing field would most definitely NOT be level without subsidies as Wind, Solar and others are currently HEAVILY subsidized even more so than gas, coal, oil et. al. He starts off by stating the obvious...and then connects it with an outright lie. It is brilliant for those that don't pay attention.

"Free market capitalism promotes efficiency and elimination of
waste," Kennedy said.

"[Coal and oil industry] supporters say you have to choose between
the economy and the environment. That is a false choice."

He is both right and wrong...again he is confusing the issue. One cannot plop down wind or solar on the same sized footprint and get the same energy as a coal power plant. Renewable energy sources aren't omnipresent and we've been too stupid to figure it out. The choice for renewables vs other types of energy depends largely on geography and weather patterns. I guarantee that solar power will never...ever supply enough energy in say...a place like Vermont or New Hampshire...but will work in places like New Mexico, Florida, Arizona and others. The reasons are obvious to anyone ...except Mr. Kennedy. PENIS.

Fossil fuel-based energy producers don't spread the wealth, he said.

What? Does he have any idea as to how many jobs producers actually provide? Oh hell look at what all that oil wealth is being used to do in Dubai...BUILDING A MAP OF THE WORLD OUT OF SAND FOR A LUXURY RESORT IN THE OCEAN. I mean nevermind the amount of products that are oil derivatives and oh heck it makes no sense. He's just a demagogue.

Kennedy blamed the Bush administration for giving breaks to coal and
oil companies that pollute ecosystems and literally destroy the face
of the country while getting rich. Several are using illegal means to
strip land of natural resources, he said.

Yeah the rivers smell like a chemical soup and Bush is sitting at the illegal drainage pipe smoking a big cigar and drinking whiskey while sitting on a throne made of little boys. You'd think he was the Marquis DeSade the way Kennedy speaks. Like Strip Mining and Open Pit mining never happened before Bush or had ceased prior to his Administration. GAH!

For example, he said, the explosives used to mine coal in the
Appalachian Mountains are blasting away the mountains. The rubble is
clogging nearby rivers, upsetting the ecosystem of the region.

I don't see any better ideas here for mining coal so that was a useless criticism.

Every American should have access to a national energy grid, he said.
The system should allow households to sell energy they don't use
during the day back to the grid.

"You can make money. Turn every American into an energy
entrepreneur. ... Let everyone access a national marketplace for
electricity," said Kennedy to a round of applause.

Fine...good I like where this is going its solution oriented.

It would cost about $150 billion to reconstruct the national energy
grid and use it to harness America's enormous untapped natural wind
and solar resources, a plan that Kennedy hopes the next president
endorses. It would make our country energy-independent, he said, a
step to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

good idea but chock full of bullshit. It will cost a lot more than $150 billion, most of the energy used to produce such things will be derived from oil or other petroleum based products. On top of that it does NOTHING to make us independent of oil, which represents like 3% of all power generation in the USA. His brain does not comprehend logic..math or anything aside from unicorns and leprechauns because it all is supposed to happen magically. Even if it costs $150 billion...WHERE WILL THAT MONEY COME FROM? WHO WILL PAY FOR IT? It won't be a free fucking market I'll tell you that.


In the first 100 days of the new presidency, the administration
should craft an energy policy that allows the country to regain its
leadership and economic and energy independence, he said.

Kennedy cited countries that are doing well economically after
switching to alternative energy, such as Sweden, Brazil and Iceland.

"Iceland has great financial underpinnings because they de-carbonized
very quickly, [despite the recent effects of the credit crisis
there]," he said.

Iceland is highly volcanic and not a good example for the rest of us that don't live on top of a giant steam producing HOLE.

Listeners said afterward that they were surprised to learn about the
relationships between fossil fuel use and the economy.

"It was a real eye-opener. He brought out a lot of facts people
didn't realize," said Laraine Andrews of Northeast Philadelphia. She
works in the natural gas industry.

Derek Washington, of Philadelphia, attended the summit and Kennedy's
speech to investigate developments in energy technologies, including
the alternative fuel vehicles featured at the event.

"There's a lot of money to be made in the new technologies," he said.

The roughly six-hour summit included other presentations about energy
alternatives, ranging from the latest hybrid auto innovations to a
panel of experts discussing the future of energy.

Kennedy is chief prosecuting attorney for Hudson Riverkeeper, which
protects the Hudson River, and president of Waterkeeper Alliance, an
organization dedicated to preserving the world's waterways, according
to his Web site, www.robertfkennedyjr.com. Time Magazine has named
him one of its "Heroes for the Planet" for his success in
Riverkeeper's fight to restore the Hudson River, which helped produce
more than 130 worldwide Waterkeeper organizations, the site said.

He is a professor and supervising attorney at Pace University School
of Law's Environmental Litigation Clinic and was assistant district
attorney in New York City, according to his Web site. Kennedy was a
political campaign operative for the presidential campaigns of Edward
M. Kennedy in 1980, Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004.

They forgot to add that he sniffs Unicorn farts and pixie dust every 4 hours just to maintain the illusion that he knows anything he's talking about.

Go...Pound...Sand.

Socialists give it to you at both ends...a sexual metaphor for getting a raw deal...so raw your ass feels chapped.

Barack Obama...or "La Bamba" as one of my less than astute friend calls him is a professed and unabashed "progressive."

Now, in and of itself there is nothing inherently wrong with having those beliefs...among which are:

Progressive Tax:

The more you make, the more you pay with no apparent threshold on how much of your income should be confiscated/taxed/whatever. It, like all progressive policies are subject to arbitration and short-term/sighted emotionally driven "facts".

Social Engineering:

Government can and should be the tool of choice to change society. The change that should be effected is: Reduction in class stratification and economic stratification to achieve an arbitrary notion of social and economic "justice" based on racial, political and economic identity.

Government Function:

Government, and more importantly those in the government, know better than the common citizen about how life should be lived on a day to day basis and should take over such functions as are deemed appropriate at the time. any failure on the part of the government to succeed is not a failure of the idea itself, rather incorrect implementation of the idea. The entire concept revolves around the idea that one can perfectly engineer government to do whatever is necessary as long as the right people are running it.

So, let us say you are one of those few who are sick, no not a cold but something more deadly, and you do not have any insurance because you are any of the following:

A) Unemployed and cannot afford COBRA, or have not filed for Social Security Disability/Medicare becuase you are a lazy f'ing bum.

B) Work only part time jobs so you do't get benefits.

C) Are an illegal immigrant/wage slave/slave

D) Feel you are entitled to health-care as a right so you have purposefully NOT bought insurance...OR

E) Are young, dumb, and stupid and think you won't get sick..so you elect to not take insurance that is offered in order to pocket more cash...yay a new iPod/consumer good!

A Progressive believes that you should be covered by tax money for every level of care as a fundamental right. Who pays? Those that the have the money to pay...will pay. Those that do not have the money will (to the theoretical benefit of all) leech off those that have the money at no benefit of form or function to those that pay.

Even then...the people that have no money won't be "getting away with it" because those entitlements will not be tax free...you as the payee will have to pay taxes on those benefits. So really this is just a ploy for the state to get more control and more money all in the guise of benevolence.

Social security recipients get taxed...even though it was money that was taken long ago and inflation has devalued every dollar in the fund to the point of the benefits having to be cut, retirement age raised and the talk about buying out 401K's and merging them into Social Security as a hodgepodge way of trying to shore up an entitlement that is leaking like a siv!

Progressivism is no different in practice than Marxism/communism/syndicalism/corporatism/fascism, rather it appears benevolent and appeals emotionally to the lowest common denominator that always feels like it gets the shaft.

it does not lift people up, or inspire people to do great things, rather it lowers those at the top to make them closer to misery.

Rights are low level concepts:

Low level means that it is something that is not mutually exclusive, like you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The caveat to that is that all those rights are contingent that they not interfere with the rights of another to have those same rights.

Free Speech: You have this right as long as you do not prohibit the safe and free expression of political speech of another...talking does not prohibit another talking.

Bearing of Firearms: You owning a firearm does not prohibit another from doing the same.

Quartering of Troops: not without owner's consent, even in war-time, rather a lawful manner that is consistent shall be provided for troop housing.

Search and Seizure: Warrants are required for everyone

Due process: Everyone is entitled to due process to make sure all other rights are respected and you have as a result of Amendment 1 not to be compelled to incriminate yourself...but they can still trick you ;)

from wiki..

Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment – Powers of states and people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

It is the last two that give progressives a real issue with the Constitution.

See the idea that government is the solution...gets cut off by saying any powers not enumerated here are reserved for the States or the People...which is a backwards way of saying: "If it isn't here the Federal Government can't do it...but the States can...as long as it doesn't unreasonably regulate the aforementioned rights".

so someone will say..."but the government ALREADY does stuff that isn't in the Constitution! so NYAH!"

and I say, "Well that doesn't make it right now does it? That is like saying...you sholdn't rob a bank...but your neighbor did it...so you can too." Bad behavior doesn't excuse or make acceptable further bad behavior and it is the fault of the average citizen for not taking responsibility for his/her own life that this crap is going on.

Progressivism doesn't free anyone...it makes slaves of us all...slaves with chapped asses.