Category: Politics

Rick Perry and Guns

Rick Perry was scrounging for some brownie points from the gun community at the end of ABC’s debate by brining up the fact he likes to unwind by hitting the shooting range:

“Just relaxing a bit @ Red’s Range before we leave for New Hampshire!” @governorperry tweeted Friday along with a photo of himself wearing a green sweatshirt and a baseball cap with a firearm in hand.

On the campaign trail, Perry, a staunch defender of second amendment rights, has not been shy about talking about his “long love affair” with guns.

“It was a long love affair with a boy and his gun that turned into a man and his gun, and it turned into a man and his son and his daughter and their guns,” Perry told reporters before a pheasant hunting trip with Iowa Rep. Steve King in October. “It’s, I think, one of the great American traditions is taking your family hunting.

Now numerous people in the gun community are jumping on the Rick Perry 2012 bandwagon. Let’s all take a second to step back and remember what Rick Perry is, a tyrant. Rick Perry is the same candidate who advocated an invasion of Mexico as a strategy in the War on Drugs and issued an executive order forcing girls to be injected with the HPV vaccine, which could possibly cause paralysis (sadly it’s such a new drug we don’t know enough about possible side-effects but hey drug company campaign contributions cay make such pesky details vanish).

Politicians pander to communities in order to get votes. They do this because pandering works and many single issue voters exist in the world. Yet even if Rick Perry is an advocate of the Second Amendment facts are none of us will be able to afford new guns or ammunition if the economy entirely collapses and Perry has no fucking clue about economics. On top of that if he’s willing to send troops into Mexico to enforce a United States prohibition you can guarantee he’s in favor of seeing troops into other countries we have no business being in. Don’t like the fact Perry goes to the shooting range and supports the Second Amendment fool you into supporting him, on every other ground he’s horrible.

On the other hand there is another pro-gun candidate (I’d argue far more pro-gun than Perry) who actually understands economics and supports every civil liberty running for presidential candidate named Ron Paul. I’m just saying why support a tyrant when you can have a true supporter of liberty?

Flag This Website

The European Union is feeling a bit jealous of Joe Lieberman’s ability to bring tyranny down upon a populace and have decided if they can’t beat him they’ll just join him:

Internet users may soon be asked to ‘flag’ for police review any web content they believe might incite terrorism, under new counterterrorism proposals put forward in Europe.

The ‘flagging’ mechanism is one of a number of initiatives proposed by a group of European Government officials participating in the ‘Clean IT Project’.

When (these things are no longer a matter of if) this passes I’m sure my site will get flagged as promoting gun rights, liberty, and unregulated commerce is likely an act of inciting terrorism in the European Union. In fact I would feel downright horrible if my site didn’t get flagged because I try really hard to be against everything the European Union is for (namely tyranny).

Asking people to flag ‘terrorist’ websites is nothing more than an evolution of asking neighbors to spy on their fellow neighbors. Only the introduction of anonymity is really different and that anonymity may make things far different as neighbors no longer have to worry about being caught spying on their fellow neighbor before turning them into the Stasi. On the other hand the denizens of the Internet are a notoriously fickly and anarchistic group and will likely use any flag feature to troll the living shit out of those who read through the reports. How many times do you think a reviewer is going to be stuck reviewing a Rick Astley video or horrible porn?

United States Government Looking for Power to Revoke Citizenship without Charges

During the passing of the PATRIOT Act so many years ago many people were arguing the act violated the Bill of Rights. As this debate went on many “representatives” in government claimed that the Bill of Rights only protected citizens of the United States. It appears as though out government is sick of even this restriction and are moving to enact legislation that would grant the government power to revoke American citizenship:

Congress is considering HR 3166 and S. 1698 also known as the Enemy Expatriation Act, sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA). This bill would give the US government the power to strip Americans of their citizenship without being convicted of being “hostile” against the United States. In other words, you can be stripped of your nationality for “engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.” Legally, the term “hostilities” means any conflict subject to the laws of war but considering the fact that the War on Terror is a little ambiguous and encompassing, any action could be labeled as supporting terrorism. Since the Occupy movement began, conservatives have been trying to paint the protesters as terrorists.

Information related to the bill including the full text can be found here. As it common for these tyrannical pieces of legislation Joe Lieberman is one of the primary sponsors. The exact text of the legislation is as follows:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Enemy Expatriation Act’.

SEC. 2. LOSS OF NATIONALITY.

(a) In General- Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481) is amended–

(1) in subsection (a)–

(A) in each of paragraphs (1) through (6), by striking ‘or’ at the end;

(B) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘; or’; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

‘(8) engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

‘(c) For purposes of this section, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war.’.

(b) Technical Amendment- Section 351(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1483(a)) is amended by striking ‘(6) and (7)’ and inserting ‘(6), (7), and (8)’.

Once you citizenship is revoked Obama no longer has to worry about his empty promise to not detain American citizens as he can first have their citizenship revoked.

The war on terror has resulted in some of the most idiotic actions being labeled as terroristic meaning grounds for revocation of citizenship may become something as minor as insulting the government of the United States. With the way things are going I wouldn’t be surprised to see a return of the Alien and Sedition Acts with a new clause claiming those in opposition of the government be labeled terrorists and treated as such.

We live in dark times where we no longer enjoy any rights whatsoever. Free speech, protections against illegal search and seizure, and protection against self-incrimination are nothing more than illusionary.

Sending All the Wrong Messages

People are lambasting the Syrian government for the violence actions they’ve been taking against protesters. Don’t get me wrong what they’re doing is despicable but when you look at the situation you can understand why they’re responding as they are. The end of these peaceful demonstrations have almost all ended up in the death of those in power or the threat of future death after arrest. In the case of Egypt the message they’re trying to send is if you step down we’re going to kill you anyways:

Prosecutors in the trial of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak have demanded he be given the death penalty.

Mr Mubarak is on trial in Cairo, accused of ordering the killing of protesters during unrest which led to his overthrow in February.

On one hand I understand the desire for revenge if Mubarak did order the death of protesters but on the other hand every other despot in the Middle East is going to see this and Libya and say, “Well fuck stepping down, they’re just going to kill me anyways.” Putting Mubarak to death certainly isn’t going to help convince the Syrian government to find more peaceful ways to resolve the country’s turmoil nor will it send a positive message to countries where the government is more open to positive changes.

Bachmann Exits Presidential Race

Some good news managed to come from Iowa, Michelle Bachmann is dropping out of the race:

Michele Bachmann Wednesday morning announced in Iowa that she would suspend her presidential campaign after a disastrous finish in the first in the nation caucus voting Tuesday, the Associated Press reported in advance of a 10 am press conference.

That’s one less war monger in the race. On one hand I’m glad to see her drop out of the race but on the other hand it’s kind of sad. Bachmann was well aware of her position and was acting like a cornered animal by lashing out at every other candidate. Her commentary made for great entertainment during debates and her status as mostly harmless (in other words she didn’t have a chance in hell of winning) made me OK with her staying in the race.

Unfortunately this news means she’s coming back to Minnesota and it’s possible she’ll run for Congress again meaning we’ll still be dealing with her crazy shit.

Rick Santorum’s Nephew Endorses Ron Paul

Rick Santorum has been my personal punching bag for the last month or so. I can’t get over how much a douche that man is, in fact he’s so bad members of his own family are endorsing competitors:

If you want another big-government politician who supports the status quo to run our country, you should vote for my uncle, Rick Santorum. America is based on a strong belief in individual liberty. My uncle’s interventionist policies, both domestic and foreign, stem from his irrational fear of freedom not working.

[…]

It is because of this inability of status quo politicians to recognize the importance of our individual liberties that I have been drawn to Ron Paul. Unlike my uncle, he does not believe that the American people are incapable of forming decisions. He believes that an individual is more powerful than any group (a notion our founding fathers also believed in).

It’s no secret that I don’t like Romney or any other Republican candidate besides Ron Paul but Rick Santorum holds a special place on my list of people I strongly dislike. Somehow he’s managed to advocate war and hatred of gays more than even Michelle Bachmann, a feat that shouldn’t be matched. Either way when you can’t even get your own family members to endorse you you’ve got major problems.

Ron Paul may not have won Iowa but I think winning Santorum’s family member is a pretty good consolation prize.

It’s My Birthday

It’s my birthday today and all I wanted was to see Ron Paul’s victory in Iowa, instead I got this:

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has narrowly won the first vote by US Republican party supporters in the process to choose a presidential candidate for this year’s election.

He finished just eight votes ahead of former senator Rick Santorum in the rural Midwest state of Iowa.

It’s not too late though because those of you in Iowa who voted for Santorum can make it up to me by killing yourselves.

Alaska “Representative” Chris Tuck Informs American Populace of Their Right to Opt Out

Seldom do I ever have cause to say something nice about a “representative” but once in a while one of them gets a spine and actually does something useful. In this case Alaska “Representative” Chris Tuck did something useful by informing people of their right to opt out of Transportation Sexual Assaulters Security Administration (TSA) radiation dosers full body scanners:

It’s too bad he never mentioned the fact that the body scanners have never been independently studied and therefore nobody knows exactly how much radiation they expose a victim to. Yet it’s something and I would like to see more “representatives” informing their constituents of applicable rights. Wouldn’t it be great to see a Public Service Announcement (PSA) by a “representative” explaining how juries have the right to nullify laws they disagree with? I’d also love to see a PSA explaining to the American populace that they are not required to submit to a police search unless a warrant is presented.

That’s OK We Don’t Need Any Oversight

It’s not secret that the Obamessiah has been ordering assassinations of suspected terrorists using drones. A few congress critters decided a little oversight may be required before ordering the murder of untried individuals with drones to which Obama replied, “LOL, no thanks.”

White House officials are rejecting calls by top Congressional leaders for details about the ongoing drone assassination programs around the world, insisting that calls for oversight “don’t hold water.”

This shouldn’t be surprising considering the fact Obama views himself as a king and thus feels he is answerable to no man. Of course if Congress had any balls they would bitch clap Obama with the threat of an impeachment hearing, following by an actual impeachment hearing if he didn’t submit to the call for oversight.

Obama Signs the National Defense Authorization Act into Law

The savior of civil rights and advocate of peace signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law, effectively neutralizing the Bill of Rights and placing further economic sanctions on Iran:

The White House had said that the legislation could lead to an improper military role in overseeing detention and court proceedings and could infringe on the president’s authority in dealing with terrorism suspects. But it said that Mr. Obama could interpret the statute in a way that would preserve his authority.

[…]

The White House also wrestled with Congress over requirements that the United States punish foreign financial firms that purchase Iranian oil, including through Iran’s central bank. Such a step would greatly increase the pressure on Iran over its nuclear program.

But the administration feared that if the measures were imposed too hastily, they could disrupt the oil market, driving up prices and alienating countries, including close allies, that the United States is seeking to enlist in its pressure campaign against Iran.

It’s OK though because the President has given us is word that he will never order the indefinite detention of American citizens:

The president, for example, said that he would never authorize the indefinite military detention of American citizens, because “doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.” He also said he would reject a “rigid across-the-board requirement” that suspects be tried in military courts rather than civilian courts.

After all Obama is a candidate you can trust! Sarcasm aside he may actually keep this promise, instead of indefinite detention he seems to favor ordering the murder of suspected terrorists and their children.