Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Love it

I took a brief break from watching or listening to politics altogether as a personal experiment. As I thought, my life changed none, and I am way more relaxed now. This was the first day I listened again and immediately heard something stupid:

Six attorneys are going to decide if a law a state made is legal or not. The six attorneys should stay out of the state’s business because that messes with the Democratic process.

The six attorneys being denounced as useless and in the way happen to be the Supreme Court of the US, and the law that was made legal was the gay marriage law. Now it gets interesting if you know how to argue.

The person I was listening to clearly had no skill in framing his position, almost to the point that he could not justify why he thought this way. I hate but cannot remember what radio talk show I was listening to when I heard this. This was a Republican Congressional member from the West somewhere, possibly CO or WY making this statement. He is suggesting that judges are participating in judicial activism, and they would never do that (sarcasm intended). The odd thing was he was defending gay marriage rights, which I care neither way. I say let them marry, who does it harm? Anyway, this guy was suggesting that if a state passes a law, then the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction which = absurdity. If that were the case, then there would be all sorts of oppressive laws out there (and that is a guarantee). It is the judicial branch’s job to check the power and Constitutionality of laws created by the legislator. If the dispute is not resolved at the lower courts – for you dummies out there, I am talking about the States themselves – then it goes Federal. That is the process and always has been. Is this Congressional member (someone who represents others) suggesting the Supreme Court should not exist or is only in existence to clear up Federal disputes? Once again, absurd.

Second, the democratic process – voting for something – is not a fail proof way of making laws. Remember everyone before you go off pissing in my drink, there used to be laws like this and if I remember correctly, women and colored people were excluded because of a law like this. The white men said they were the only ones who could vote, passed a law by popular vote due to the fact that only they could vote, and by popular vote, they won. Go figure.

For the record, where I am concerned, the “six attorneys” are very relevant although a small amount of judicial activism is unavoidable. Reason I say that is everyone has an opinion. I staunchly disagreed with Obama Care, but the Supreme Court upheld it as a tax. Granted this was sold as something and argued as something else, that is not what the Supreme Court took into account. They looked at the fact that Obama Care was a tax and said Congress could do it. Not being overly happy about that decision did not make me say the Supreme Court should not exist or that the twelve judges are somehow outdated or irrelevant.

I guess after being away from politics for a couple of weeks, and coming back today, I immediately picked up on something extremely stupid. A false anger and fake argument. I did agree with his overall assessment that marriage should be between anyone who wants it and meets a certain age (18 without parental consent). I just would have argued this differently and noted how many judges actually sit on the Supreme Court.

– Me


No Gun Ban

As if this were new… (D) Feinstein’s anti gun bill never made it past CNN and MSNBC. To hear the media heads talking, the entire country WANTED guns banned. So in response to that country-wide outcry, Feinstein created a gun ban law that had overwhelming support!!!

Until it did not have overwhelming support. Amazing the media would have you believe this was coming down the pipe, and then the day of the introduction, NOBODY supported it! It did not even make the Senate, much less anywhere else. Reid did not take it up or allow it – and for good reason. It is stupid and against the Bill of Rights (Which still do matter).

What an idiot this lady is. What idiots the media are. I wonder now if they feel like dopes being proved wrong that everyone wanted this? Probably not because it just doesn’t work that way. They tell you what your information is – so you soak it up. What about when they are wrong, like in this scenario? Will there be an apology of sorts? Nope, just more of the same and I bet a little blame to go around. I have always wondered when the media gets it so blatantly wrong, and starts pointing fingers, how they conveniently miss the mirror pointing back at them?

Anyway, enjoy your gun non-ban Feinstein

– Me


President Obama is meeting with Congressional Republicans showing a good faith “bipartisanship”. What sort of tard believes this crap? I just love (not really) how my local news channel is spinning this in Obama’s favor by stating that the Pres is desperately reaching across the aisle. Where was he for the last couple of years? I say tell him F*&^ off and do your business as usual. Anything else allows this jackass to play politics again with something everyone knows is not genuine. My prediction is this:

Congressional Republicans will spend a LOT of time with POTUS, and nothing will come of it. Then, POTUS will take to the air blaming the R for refusing to compromise, all the while refusing to compromise himself. Just stupid, and the Republicans should not be falling for it. The Republicans do not owe this man anything, certainly not the false impression that he is trying to be bipartisan – that is simply laughable.

– Me

Hunting Humans is LEGAL…

We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines.

I had no idea that hunting humans was legal. CA D Dianne Feinstein made that comment in another poor attempt to explain why anyone needs more than 10 bullets. I am not getting into the weeds with this idiot. I think most know my stance on gun control. The Bill of Rights guarantees it and that’s that. What is truly scary is this CA Senator has been in Congress since 1992. Granted, she is from California, so her brain does not work properly, but hunting humans is legal? I am quite sure she was referencing the USE of what she refers as high capacity magazines, but that is not what she said. She said “. . .it’s legal to hunt humans. . .”

I find it insulting these very people like Feinstein are acting as though we normal folks are too dumb to figure out how to use a weapon, while she thinks its legal to hunt humans. I think whatever “test” or “qualification” she and other legislators place on the citizens to purchase weapons, they should have to pass as well to serve in the Congress. I would almost recommend some to a psychological screening as phrases like this spew out of their head leak. Wow, hunting humans now… I know some idiot out there agrees with her – and is probably a voter to top it off.

– Me

Obama Claus Explained

As the title suggests, Obama Claus needs a little explanation. Like Santa and his magical elves working diligently for little to no reward, just to give the fruits of their labors away, the Progressives on the left are trying to fill those shoes in a modern and more adult fairy tale manner. Jello brains say that electric cars are pollutant free and cost efficient while ignoring the fact that you have to plug these things in somewhere. Electricity is not free and the power is not generated from the magical wires in the sky or underground. That juice comes from power plants (nuclear, coal, etc). While the emissions from the actual driving is significantly less while on battery power, the power plant is being overwhelmed by the uptick in electrical demand and is producing more. I wonder which of the two produces more waste now – the electric plant powering your car partially or the car that is self-sufficient. A debate surely worth investigation. Free stuff, it’s already paid for! Once again, the Jello brained adults who believe this are either stupid or blind. Let us take the lifeline free cell phone. A low income person gets a FREE cell phone from the government with 250 talk minutes and 250 texts per month. This is the elf-produced free product that brings about the conversation.

How does the progressive left explain the FREE cell they are GIVING to the masses of underprivileged voters? Short answer is word salad, which I will give you – I will also explain that word salad for those lacking gray matter. This “FREE” cell and usage is actually a tax. This is a redistribution policy where everyone who pays for their cell service pays a tax called the Universal Service Charge. Universal service charge is intended to sound official enough so you do not ask questions. Who would question a universal service charge? It is universal, so no matter the cell company you use, you pay it. Another crafty name for this is all-end-user-surcharge. Basically if you pay a phone bill monthly, you pay the fee to your provider, who then transfers the money to the state, who then purchases cell phones and minute plans to give to the oppressed.

You see how that works? If you work, you pay for those who do not. Interestingly, that is the exact method used for all government programs. Santa Claus and his magical elves are hard at work building you goodies while asking for no pay in exchange. The only pay they require is to see your happy mug receiving your much deserved free stuff. Obama and his magical elves (progressives in government) are “hard at work” making sure those who work pay for those who do not. Obama Claus will punish those who work harder in order to make those who do not receive the same quality of life. After all, shouldn’t the unemployed high school drop out be entitled to a home, car, money to spend, nice clothes, and a cell phone? Why not when Obama Claus and the magical elves are giving it to you for the low price of your loyalty in the voting booth. Your vote is the equivalent of the smiling face for Santa – it is a fairy tale. Santa is not real and if he were would more than likely be exhausted from making toys for the world in exchange for a bit of a cheap cookie and warm milk at every home. Obama Claus is not real either, he does not GIVE anyone anything, he can’t – so he takes from some to give to others…

Maybe it should be Obama Hood instead?

– Me

Attack on Constitutional RIGHT

Roe -v- Wade (abortion) is under attack in Arkansas according to Geraldo Rivera! According to the radio show host, this is the most blatant attack on a Constitutional RIGHT he has ever witnessed and a slippery slope to more scary things. I agree that attacking a Constitutional right is a slippery slope, and that doing so is a tendency toward more scary events. I also disagree with his assertion that abortion is a Constitutional right. It is not. It is a Supreme Court ruling. That is why its not know as the right to abortion, but Roe -v- Wade.

What I find interesting about this Geraldo’s selective acknowledgment of what is a right and what is not. Guns for instance, are not a right according to Geraldo, but abortion is. Right to bear arms is actually in the Bill of RIGHTS, so I am a little confused about the mindset here. How is a Supreme Court ruling more of a right than a RIGHT in the Bill of Rights? Can anyone explain this to me because I just can’t wrap my head around it.

What a ridiculous man with stupid thoughts. He tries so hard to be popular and have the majority thoughts that he can no longer form his own opinions. He is actually contradicting himself now and does not even realize it. I guess I just take it as entertainment at this point.

– Me

Crazy Talk

During the Rand Paul filibuster yesterday (From around 10:30 AM – 12:30 AM) Democratic Senator Dick Durben (IL) asked Rand Paul this:

was Osama bin Laden an imminent threat when U.S. Navy Seals killed him in his bedroom?

This was an attempt to show cause for using a drone strike in the Continental US against US citizens. What a stupid remark, and I will explain why.

First, Bin Laden was killed during a combat mission over-seas. He is not a US citizen and was an active combatant. At the time of his death, he was not wielding a rocket launcher or something stupid like that, but apparently warranted return fire from the assault team. This was a military operation, in a foreign country and did not involve bombing anyone with a drone. This was set up as an extraction no matter the outcome. So was he an imminent threat? All I can say is he must have been or he would be alive right now.

Let us hypothetical this for a second. Let us say that Osama Bin Laden was a US citizen IN the US. They knew where he was and sent in the FBI or ATF or SWAT team to apprehend him. Oh, wait, that IS what they would do. That is what they DID do. They attempted to arrest him, but deadly force was deemed necessary for whatever reason. Same goes here. The arrest would be attempted and the fact that he was shot or would need to be shot in his bedroom would really depend on his reaction during the raid. Osama Bin Laden was an imminent threat and a drone was NOT used against him. For that fact, I am not sure what Durben was attempting to say.

Now, let us say he is sitting at your local Starbucks having coffee since that is the example that continues to come up on the Senate floor. Why, in this scenario, would you entertain a drone strike? You can not argue intelligently that a drone strike in a city is better than sending in law enforcement. There are too many variables in using a drone attack against someone in a populated area. The lives of everyone surrounding this person are going to be taken. The property damage will be extensive, and the lack of due process for the accused and those around him is undeniable.

What about a fugitive hiding in the mountains? Well, if you can not go get him, then wait for him to come down from the mountain. If you want the person arrested bad enough, you will go get him, not kill him.

Eric Holder stated the possible remains for a drone strike in circumstances referenced like the attack on Pearl Harbor or the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Once again, unless the person is actively (ACTIVELY) posing a threat, how can you justify this? Is that to say the government can randomly pick someone they accuse as guilty of a crime, and then go kill them? The attackers of 9/11, the actual people on the planes were suicidal, and swift in their actions. How would a drone strike have prevented this? Would you theoretically strike them before they commit a crime? The FBI handles investigations and arrest of this nature, and due process takes place.

I don’t think anyone out there is arguing against using deadly force when needed DURING the act of a crime when deadly force is being perpetrated. That is a normal response. Deadly force begets deadly force. This is NOT what we are talking about here. Do not be fooled, the administration is not talking about active terrorist attacks, they are talking about punishing their enemies with deadly force. Why should you be worried? Obama has repeatedly stated his political opposition is his enemy. The absence of due process is the introduction of sanctioned government killings. I think someone else did that; Hitler.

– Me

%d bloggers like this: