Category: Politics

The United States is Threatening Sanctions Against India

The United States has had sanctions against Iran for ages now but India hasn’t been playing ball and now the federal government is threatening to declare war on one of supposed allies:

WASHINGTON: The Obama administration is threatening to impose sanctions on India over its continued economic ties with Iran amid disagreements between Washington and New Delhi over how much and how soon the latter is reducing oil imports from the (in US eyes) pariah nation.

India has “failed” to reduce its purchase of Iranian oil and if it doesn’t do so, President Barack Obama may be “forced” to impose sanction, unnamed administration officials were cited as telling Bloomberg wire service. A decision in this regard could come as early as June 28, they added, implicitly offering New Delhi a ten- week window to show a decline in Iranian oil imports.

I said threatening to declare war because sanctions are an act of war. When a country declares sanctions against another they are saying that they will not allow any business within the borders of the state declaring sanctions to trade with the state the sanctions are being declared against. Furthermore the state declaring sanctions is also stating that they are willing to use force to prevent, not only their own businesses from trading, but businesses in other country’s from trading with the target of the sanctions.

India isn’t rolling over and being a good little slave so we’re flexing our muscles. This is the United States foreign police, either do exactly what we tell you or you will suffer greatly. On top of the fact that sanctions are a declaration of war there is also the fact that it’s the people living in the country against who sanctions are being declare, people entirely uninvolved in the politics of the game, who suffer:

High rates of malnutrition, lack of medical supplies, and diseases from lack of clean water were reported during sanctions; at least some of these results were anticipated in advance of the imposition of sanctions.

The modern Iraqi economy had been highly dependent on oil exports; in 1989, the oil sector comprised 61% of the GNP. A drawback of this dependence was the narrowing of the economic base, with the agricultural sector rapidly declining in the 1970s. Some claim that, as a result, the post-1990 sanctions had a particularly devastating effect on Iraq’s economy and food security levels of the population.

Shortly after the sanctions were imposed, the Iraqi government developed a system of free food rations consisting of 1000 calories per person/day or 40% of the daily requirements, on which an estimated 60% of the population relied for a vital part of their sustenance. With the introduction of the Oil-for-Food Programme in 1997, this situation gradually improved. In May 2000 a United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) survey noted that almost half the children under 5 years suffered from diarrhoea, in a country where the population is marked by its youth, with 45% being under 14 years of age in 2000. Power shortages, lack of spare parts and insufficient technical know-how lead to the breakdown of many modern facilities.

To think the megalomaniac we have in the Oval Office won a Nobel Peace Prize shows how meaningless that prize really is.

The Classic Voting Debate

Election season is that special time that comes to us living in American every two years (although the really “important” elections are only every four years). During this time we’re given the choice between evil of one variety and evil of another variety and asked to choose which type of evil we want to rule over us for four years. With election season comes debates regarding the process of voting, a debate that’s going down at Tam’s blog and Linoge’s.

The debate has three sides; those who believe you should vote for the “lesser” or two evils, those who believe you should vote you conscious, and those who don’t believe in the voting process. I’ve written about my opinion regarding the voting process and I fall squarely in the third camp. I don’t believe voting can change a damn thing, the system is rigged too well to ensure the current political power maintains its, well, power. Every challenge to the establishment has been crushed and with each victory won by those in power they’ve learned how to keep people’s input from ruining their chances of ruling the American people. They’re specialists, they spend a large majority of their time scheming, plotting, and planning new ways to fuck over the grassroots movements, the political dissidents, and the radicals. Voting is their system, they know and understand it, they control it, and we can’t win by playing by their rules.

But this post isn’t about the futility of voting, it’s about the debate raging between the first two sides; those who believe you should vote for the “lesser” or two evils and those who believe you should vote your conscious. While I hold no regard for the voting process I also have no desire to prevent those who wish to participate in the voting process from doing so. If you believe the system can be changed at the ballot box then certainly vote; I do believe in a diversity of tactics after all. What I will ask of those who wish to use the ballot box is this: don’t be part of the problem, be part of the solution.

What I mean by this is don’t be in the camp that votes for the “lesser” of two evils. Do you know what I refer to the camp that votes for the “lesser” of two evils as? A bunch of socialists. Let’s assume that Romney gets the nomination and this year’s presidential election winds up being a battle between Obama and Obama, err, Romney. Looking at the situation we have two candidates whose only differentiating feature their skin color. Politically Romney and Obama hold nearly the same beliefs, they both love big government and spit on individual liberty whenever the chance presents itself.

The “lesser” of two evils camp will claim numerous reasons why you should vote for Romney instead of Obama. These reasons range from the danger of Obama being allowed to pick new Supreme Court justices to the economic devastation wrought by Obama’s policies. What these individuals have failed to state is how Romney will be any different. Who would Romney appoint to the Supreme Court? What economic policies would Romney implement? Nobody in the “lesser” of two evils camp ever provides solid answers to such questions. They often say that Romney is a socialist but not as much of a socialist as Obama. What does that get us? A socialist judge nominated to the Supreme Court, perhaps not as socialist of a judge, but a socialist judge nonetheless. Romney’s knowledge on economics is almost zero, a fact made apparent by his statements that the president is in any position to fix the economy. The only fix to the economy is through an entirely free market and that necessarily requires a complete abolition of government involvement, something Romney doesn’t support.

At least those voting their conscious have a leg to stand on because they’re trying to be part of the solution. If people would abandon the idea of supporting the “lesser” or two evils and began voting on their principles we’d likely have a far better situation than that currently faced. Gary Johnson isn’t likely to fix everything, he’s not even likely to fix some things, but he’s likely to cause little damage.

What this entire argument boils down to is the following: those voting for the “lesser” or two evils will accomplish nothing while those who vote their conscious will likely solve nothing but at least stand a chance. Putting Cthulhu into office will only result in evil being brought against the people of this country. No matter how you shake it voting for the “lesser” of two evils accomplishes nothing. At most, at the very most, it staves off total economic collapse by a few minutes, but the faster we get the collapse over with the fast we can recover. The longer we allow the government to work the longer the pain of recovery will last as demonstrated by the Great Depression. Therefore voting for the “greater” of two evils will serve us better in the long wrong as it’ll get the pain over with more quickly.

Those voting for the “lesser” of two evils are part of the problem, they’re prolonging the pain. A vote for a third party may very well be a vote thrown away but it’s not helping perpetuate the problem and, therefore, is far better than a vote cast for the “lesser” evil.

Another way to look at things is that we’re probably better off, in the long run, with a completely authoritarian president who can get this police state ramped up to 11 because the faster the average individual is inconvenienced the faster they’ll get pissed off and work on changing things instead of just bitching about them. Really, in the grand scheme of things, those voting for the “lesser” or two evils are the biggest problem causes of them all. Those who vote for the “greater” or two evils are getting us to collapse and recovery faster, those who vote their conscious are attempting to get people into office that have a chance of rolling this country back before the collapse happens, and those of us who have given up on the idea of voting are a null sum in the equation.

If you’re going to scream at me and claim I’m part of the problem because I won’t vote for the “lesser” evil all I can say is kindly bugger off. As much as you’re convinced that I’m part of the problem I’m convinced that you’re part of the problem. You think I’m a terrible person because I won’t play your game and I think you’re an equally terrible person because you’re playing the game. Bitch and moan about Obama all you want but Romney isn’t one iota better. Your belief that Romney is the “lesser” evil is delusional. The only way one could possible come to such a conclusion in my opinion is if they lied to themselves so much that they started believing their lies, in other words they are practicing cognitive dissonance. I don’t believe there is any way to stave off the collapse and the longer we prolong our agony the more severe the recover will be.

To those of you voting for the “lesser” of two evils, your doing nothing more than prolonging agony so don’t claim any moral high ground over me. Shove off. Go tell yourself bedtime stories about how great you are and use me as the villan, frankly I don’t give a damn. Your plan sucks, it’s the worst of the worst, and you will get no support from me. Unlike you, those voting their conscious are at least trying to fix things, they’re doing something different because they have the ability to use reason and through that ability have realized the current plan, your plan of voting for the “lesser” evil, hasn’t accomplished anything. What did voting for Bush accomplish? Further economic failure, bailouts, a more prominent police state, and war. What will Romney give us over Obama? Nothing but more of the same; more economic failures, more bailouts, a more prominent police state, and more wars. If that’s your idea of better then I will have no part in your scheme. Like children you ignore what you don’t like and simply scream “NOT UH!” whenever somebody points out the failure of your plan. Go play in your sandbox and let us adults get to work.

Strong Bipartisan Support

We often hear a bill has strong bipartisan support as if that’s a good thing. Truthfully strong bipartisan support is a fancy of way of saying legislation that will fuck us in the ass. Remember the bill I mentioned that would effectively make it illegal to protest anywhere people protected by the Secret Service were speaking? It broke the laws of physics when it passed through the legislature faster than the speed of light. It flew threw the Senate on February 5th, made its way through the House on February 28th, and was finally signed by the emperor president on March 7th. All told the bill went from passing its first part of congress to being signed into law in roughly one month.

The statement released by the White House is laughable:

H.R. 347, the “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011,” which makes it a Federal crime to enter or remain knowingly in any restricted area of the White House, the Vice President’s official residence, or their respective grounds without lawful authority.

No justification, no attempt at bullshitting the public about why this bill is needed, just a short statement that might as well read, “Shut up slaves.” The statement also entirely missed the fact that this bill extends well beyond the White House or the Vice President’s residence:

‘(1) the term ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area–

‘(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds;

‘(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or

‘(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and

‘(2) the term ‘other person protected by the Secret Service’ means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.’.

The bill applies to any location where persons “protected by the Secret Service” are at. Beautiful isn’t it? That means this bill applies to any location the president or vice president are currently stalking about.

Legislation I Can Actually Support

It’s not often that I see a piece of legislation that I can support in its entirety but that what House Congressional Resolution 107 is:

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

A resolution that is aiming to actually enforce a clause in the Constitution that restricts the president’s power by moving to impeach our warmonger president? Hell yes, sign this damn thing and get the impeachment hearings underway! After this gets done I hope to see every member of the legislature bring impeachment hearings against one another until all of the three branches of government lie entirely empty.

I know the chances of any of my hopes happening are almost nil but I’ve always believe a man should dream big.

My Slight Change in Attitude

I strongly opposed the passage of laws that attempted to regulate what consenting adults did in the bedroom but no more! With the recent uprising of anger I’ve witnessed due to proposed laws that would regulate what people did in the bedroom, who would be made to pay for contraceptives, whether or not abortions are legal, and all that jazz I’ve decided I want every one of those laws to pay. Every. Single. One. I also want the state to actually attempt to enforce these laws. I also want these tongue-in-cheek laws to pass:

Delaware: By an 8 to 4 vote, the Wilmington, Delaware, city council recognized the personhood of semen because “each ‘egg person’ and each ‘sperm person’ should be deemed equal in the eyes of the government.”

Virginia: As the state Senate debated requiring transvaginal ultrasounds for women seeking abortions, Sen. Janet Howell proposed mandating rectal exams and cardiac stress tests for men seeking erectile dysfunction meds. Her amendment failed by just two votes.

[…]

Texas: Contesting a bill mandating sonograms before abortions, Rep. Harold Dutton unsuccessfully offered three amendments in a row. The first would have required the state to pay the college tuition of children born to women who decide against an abortion after seeing a required ultrasound image. The second would have subsidized the children’s health care costs until age 18. When that failed, he lowered the age to 6. That didn’t fly, either.

Pass them all! Enforce them all! Make the sex lives of every person in the United States a living hell of regulations, red tape, fines, and court cases. Stop all this political pussyfooting around and get all this idiotic bullshit through the legislative process.

Look at how pissed off people are getting over laws affecting sex. People who sat aside while the PATRIOT Act was passed, who did nothing when the NDAA was passed this year, and didn’t even give a shit that a bill was introduced that would grant the government power to revoke citizenship are outright fuming over the recent slew of sex regulations being presented. Nobody seems to give a shit until they are personally inconvenienced and if that’s what it takes I say do it. Pass every one of these laws and finally get people pissed off enough to give the state the finger. I want to see rampant civil disobedience, I would be overjoyed to witness juries refusing to declare a man guilty because they found the law unjust, nothing would make me happier than seeing everybody in the United States finally standing up and refusing to be oppressed by the state.

Those of you in congresses of the individuals states I urge you to ramrod these bills through as if they were bills that granted you more benefits for being politicians! Treat these bills as if they would grant you even more power to expand the police state! Make passage of these laws top priority! Get everybody good and pissed off so I can finally stop trying to wake people up and get to the part where we actually change things.

Let’s just make everything illegal and get this police state to it’s ultimate conclusion. Nothing will turn liberals (using the modern definition of the word) and conservatives (using the traditional definition of the word) into hardcore libertarians like encroachments into their bedrooms.

Taking Back What is Rightfully Theirs

Utah is looking to take back what is rightfully theirs:

Lawmakers who want to seize control of federal lands are pushing a legal battle they insist is winnable despite multiple warnings their effort is highly unconstitutional and almost sure to fail in court.

Utah is poised to become the first state to pass a package of bills that demand the federal government relinquish claims to huge sections of public land. A proposal that advanced Wednesday demands that by 2014 the federal government cede control of nearly 30 million acres — nearly 50 percent of the entire state.

It’s surprising how much land the federal government claims ownership over when you get into the western states. The federal government claims ownership over 70.2% of all land in Utah and they want it back.

The article made a good point that the passage of this bill will likely fail to be recognized by federal courts. Such a ruling is almost guaranteed because of the conflict of interest involved in allowing a court controlled by the federal government to rule on matters directly benefitting the federal government. I don’t see this succeeding but I believe it’s important because it brings to light a problem, the amount of land and natural resources the federal government claims to own.

This is How the State Treats Its Employees

When people sign up for the United States military they’re promises many things including a pension and lifelong health benefits. What the state giveth, the state taketh away. Unlike private institutions, the state is able to violate any contractual agreements it’s made without consequence and I’m sure this is why active and retried military personnel are getting their health benefits reduced:

The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.

So the men and woman in this country’s military have just had their contractual agreement voided as far as I’m concerned and that means they should be allowed to leave the service immediately without paying the early termination fee. Since the state maintains a monopoly on the court system though it is unlikely any military personnel will be able to sue for breech of contract.

Another interesting thing about this is that the health benefits of military personnel are being reduced while said benefits aren’t being touched for unionized government employees. Interesting. It’s almost as if Obama is punishing military personnel for their large support of Ron Paul’s campaign while keeping the unions happy as they’ve been playing ball with the current president. That may just be me being a cynical asshole though.

Without Rearview Cameras in Automobiles Everybody will Die

It’s a good thing we have the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to keep a watchful eye on us. Without their great concern for our safety we may not have life saving rearview cameras mandatorily installed in our automobiles. Wait… haven’t we been getting along just fine since the invention of the Ford Model T without rearview cameras? I guess that fact is entirely irrelevant to NHTSA since they’ve now trying to make the installation of such cameras mandatory:

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 228 people die and around 17,000 people are injured annually in backover accidents involving cars, trucks and SUVs. What’s worse is that nearly half of the fatalities are children. In 2010, NHTSA proposed a rearview camera mandate for all passenger vehicles, and The New York Times is reporting that the agency will send a final version of the plan to Congress on Wednesday.

If passed, automakers would be required to put rearview cameras in all passenger vehicles by 2014. “Adoption of this proposal would significantly reduce fatalities and injuries caused by backover crashes involving children, persons with disabilities, the elderly and other pedestrians,” NHTSA said in its proposal.

Yup, yet another mandatory expense included in the cost of automobiles. I’m still waiting for the mandatory inclusion of a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device in each automobile that can be activated whenever some punk law enforcement officers wants to know your location.

Protesting at Presidential Events Soon to be Illegal

Remember all the gun we’ve had protesting at places where Obama made appearances? Those were the days and sadly those days are fast approaching a permanent end:

The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347 late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. In the bill, Congress officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House, which, on the surface, seems not just harmless and necessary, but somewhat shocking that such a rule isn’t already on the books. The wording in the bill, however, extends to allow the government to go after much more than tourists that transverse the wrought iron White House fence.

Before I start on my little adventure of looking at the bill let me first give some major kudos to Russia Today. Not only did they give the bill number but they also tried to link to the bill itself (unfortunately they linked to temporary results from the Thomas Library of Congress, but they at least tried). Now let’s take a look at the bill’s text:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011’.

SEC. 2. RESTRICTED BUILDING OR GROUNDS.

Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

‘Sec. 1752. Restricted building or grounds

‘(a) Whoever–

‘(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;

‘(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;

‘(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or

‘(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds;

or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

‘(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is–

‘(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if–

‘(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or

‘(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and

‘(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.

‘(c) In this section–

‘(1) the term ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area–

‘(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds;

‘(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or

‘(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and

‘(2) the term ‘other person protected by the Secret Service’ means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.’.

Beautiful huh? This bill is the exact thing I’ve been warning people about whenever a protest in Washington DC takes place. As I’ve said the king doesn’t like it when the peasants gather at the castle and this bill is a result of unruly peasants daring to take their message to the White House. Now going to the White House or any other location where somebody protected by the Secret Service is and “knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions” can face up to a year in prison. Our favorite Arizona protester with a gun would not face up to ten years in prison for his exercise of free speech.

I would echo the statement made in the Russia Today article and say that the First Amendment is dead but it died a long time ago. The Bush initiated “free speech zones” were bad but this is even more ridiculous, and it’s already passed the House and Senate so it merely requires a signature from Emperor Obama (who will absolutely love this bill since it will shield him from people with differing opinions to his own).