A Geek With Guns

Chronicling the depravities of the State.

Archive for the ‘Politics: The Reality Television Show for Suckers’ tag

Watching the GOP Crash and Burn

without comments

When people ask me to describe the Republican Party I generally compare it to the villains of Saturday morning cartoons. Its plots tend to be rather harmless but are perceived as being extremely evil to the children watching Politics: The Reality Television Show for Suckers. Like a Saturday morning cartoon villain, nobody is actually afraid of the Republican Party because it’s always defeated at the end of the episode.

Besides impotency, the Republican Party has another problem: an alarming number of their members are very loud assholes. By loud assholes I mean they can’t keep their mouths shut when it comes to their moral indignation. I try to withhold moral judgements unless somebody is hurting other people. Your religious beliefs, sexual orientation, gender identify, drug of preference, etc. don’t harm anybody in any way. More and more the population of the United States is turning in this direction. Previous generations held a lot of hatred for members of minority religions, homosexuals, transgenders, and drug users. That attitude is dying. Publicly hating against any of those groups is a surefire way to achieve political suicide. When people see shit like this, they get angry:

Many people will correctly point out that Mr. Kincannon has the right to express his beliefs. I agree but I also have to point out that actions have consequences. When members of the Republican Party go around saying they want transgenders put into camps it turns people away from it. Let’s be honest, putting people into a camp is pretty severe. You don’t toss around such things in an official manner unless you’re trying to drum up bad publicity. So long as members of the Republican Party keep saying shit like this their party is going to burn like Rome.

Also, on a purely personal level as a person who respects almost everybody, Mr. Kincannon is a fucking asshole. I wouldn’t even wish my enemies to be rounded up and placed in camps.

Written by Christopher Burg

October 18th, 2013 at 10:00 am

The Political Game of Sequestration

without comments

Those who had been paying attention to the world of politics know that this entire sequestration drama is nothing more than political theater. We’re told that sequestration will lead to massive layoffs and furloughs even though the “cuts” will increase the federal budget by $110 billion. A recently leaked document from the Agriculture Department shows just how much of a game sequestration really is:

A leaked email from an Agriculture Department field officer adds fuel to claims President Obama’s political strategy is to make the billions in recent federal budget cuts as painful as possible to win the public opinion battle against Republicans.

The email, circulated around Capitol Hill, was sent Monday by Charles Brown, a director at the agency’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service office in Raleigh, N.C. He appears to tell his regional team about a response to his recent question on the amount of latitude he has in making cuts.

According to the partially redacted email, the response came from the Agriculture Department’s budget office and in part states: “However you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.”

In other words the doomsday scenarios described by Obama are to be carried out even if departments have no need to do so. I think this leaked document does a marvelous job of demonstrating how politics is nothing more than Kabuki.

It’s a Big Club

without comments

Most people still seem to believe that there is an ideological war between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. Every political issue seems to be starkly divided between the Republicans and Democrats. We’re told that Republican support gun rights whereas the Democrats oppose them, Republicans oppose same-sex marriage whereas the Democrats support them, Republicans hate the poor whereas the Democrats love them, and Republicans are fiscal conservatives whereas the Democrats are big spenders. None of this is true, there is no ideological divide between the two parties, both parties are in total agreement that they want to take your shit and that doing so is easier if the populace is divided. This fact becomes more prevalent when things become difficult, as with the current budget debate:

Days before the March 1 deadline, Senate Republicans are circulating a draft bill that would cancel $85 billion in across-the-board spending cuts and instead turn over authority to President Barack Obama to achieve the same level of savings under a plan to be filed by March 8.

The five- page document, which has the tacit support of Senate GOP leaders, represents a remarkable shift for the party. Having railed against Senate Democrats for not passing a budget, Republicans are now proposing that Congress surrender an important piece of its Constitutional “power of the purse” for the last seven months of this fiscal year.

The Republicans are making a dictator out of the Democratic President (who is already a dictator is everything but name). If there really was an ideological divide you would think both parties would be working hard to ensure the other party doesn’t gain more power but the opposite is happening, both parties are working hard to ensure the other party gains more power.

This is why working in the political system will never change anything of importance. All of the major players, the actual decision makers, are best friends. They pretend to hate each other to create the illusion of choice but almost come to an agreement, and that agreement always ends with the state and its cronies getting more while the general populace gets less.

Banning What is Already Banned

with one comment

It appears that a politicians from New York has discovered the fact magazines can be printed and is moving to make the manufacture of standard capacity magazines on a 3D printer illegal:

On Wednesday New York Representative Steve Israel issued a statement on his website promising to include a ban on 3D-printed high-capacity magazines–ammunition-feedings devices that attach to firearms and carry more than ten rounds–in his proposed renewal of the Undetectable Firearms Act. Israel’s statement comes just days after Texas-based Defense Distributed posted a YouTube video showing its demonstration of a 30-round magazine it 3D-printed and tested over the weekend, using it to fire 86 rounds through a semi-automatic rifle.

“Background checks and gun regulations will do little good if criminals can print high-capacity magazines at home,” Israel said in his statement. “3-D printing is a new technology that shows great promise, but also requires new guidelines. Law enforcement officials should have the power to stop high-capacity magazines from proliferating with a Google search.”

Did I say he wanted to make 3D printed magazines illegal? I mean to say illegaler since standard capacity magazines are already illegal in New York. How much more pointless can grandstanding be?

Fiscal Cliff Deal Increases Government Spending

without comments

If you’ve been following the latest episode of Politics: The Reality Television Show for Suckers you’ve likely heard that Congress has agreed to a deal to avert this country’s falling off of the so-called fiscal cliff. We’re lead to believe that the deal included tax increases and spending cuts the truth, as usual, is different than the propaganda we’re being fed. While the deal does include tax increases it doesn’t include spending cuts. In fact the deal includes spending increases:

The “fiscal cliff” deal that was designed to save money actually includes $330.3 billion in new spending over the next decade, according to the official estimate the Congressional Budget Office released Tuesday afternoon.

CBO said the bill contains about $25.1 billion in new cuts, but those are swamped by the new spending on extended unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless and other new refundable tax credits that President Obama fought for.

Of those cuts, only $2 billion are scheduled to take effect in 2013.

I doubt anybody expected otherwise. The state is a machine to enact wealth redistribution. It expropriates wealth from the general populace and gives it to those who wield political power. This is why we’ll likely never see any real tax cuts or spending decreases. Tax cuts would really mean a reduction of the rate of expropriation and spending cuts would really mean a decrease in the money transfered from the general populace to those with political power. In other words tax cuts and spending decreases are the antithesis of the state and therefore almost impossible to attain through political means. When this so-called fiscal cliff deal is over you can be assured that more wealth will be stolen from you and me and more money will be give to those with political influence. This entire fiscal cliff nonsense is nothing more than a production put on by the state in order to get the people to agree to having more of their wealth stolen.

We’re Already Over the Fiscal Cliff

without comments

The current story arc of Politics: The Reality Television Show for Suckers deals with the so-called fiscal cliff. Republicans and Democrats are trying to rally support for the causes of spending cuts and tax increases respectively. Anybody who has watched Politics for any length of time knows that these arguments are illusionary and that the Republicans and Democrats are working together to soak the people for more tax money without truly entertaining any idea of spending cuts:

Mr Obama meets business leaders at the White House on Tuesday and members of middle-class families on Wednesday.

He wants Republicans to accept tax increases on the wealthy, while extending tax cuts for families earning $250,000 (£155,000) or less.

[…]

John Boehner, the top Republican in Congress, has said he would consider increasing tax revenue by closing loopholes, though he remains opposed to raising taxes.

“Closing loopholes” is merely a fancy term for curtailing freedoms and, ultimately, an insidious way to increase taxes without technically increasing taxes. Effectively John Boehner has stated a willingness to cooperate with Obama but is using language that perpetuates the myth that the Republicans and Democrats oppose one another.

This is nothing new. What is worth discussing though is the idea of the fiscal cliff. The fiscal cliff, like the Republican-Democrat opposition, is a mirage created by the state. When politicians discuss the fiscal cliff they are actually talking about measures placed in the Budget Control Act of 2011 taking effect, which include supposed spending cuts and tax increases. The Budget Control Act, like the fiscal cliff, is also a mirage created by the state. It was supposed to be a compromise between the Republicans and Democrats to resolve budgetary issues facing the federal government. These budgetary issues can be boiled down to the fact the federal government spends far more than it bring in. Put into actual terms the federal government is insolvent.

Insolvency is the real issue facing the federal government and it won’t go away even with the most audacious tax increases. America has two options before it. Either spending must be slashed or the debt must be repudiated… again:

Although largely forgotten by historians and by the public, repudiation of public debt is a solid part of the American tradition. The first wave of repudiation of state debt came during the 1840s, after the panics of 1837 and 1839. Those panics were the consequence of a massive inflationary boom fueled by the Whig-run Second Bank of the United States. Riding the wave of inflationary credit, numerous state governments, largely those run by the Whigs, floated an enormous amount of debt, most of which went into wasteful public works (euphemistically called “internal improvements”), and into the creation of inflationary banks. Outstanding public debt by state governments rose from $26 million to $170 million during the decade of the 1830s. Most of these securities were financed by British and Dutch investors.

During the deflationary 1840s succeeding the panics, state governments faced repayment of their debt in dollars that were now more valuable than the ones they had borrowed. Many states, now largely in Democratic hands, met the crisis by repudiating these debts, either totally or partially by scaling down the amount in “readjustments.” Specifically, of the 28 American states in the 1840s, 9 were in the glorious position of having no public debt, and 1 (Missouri’s) was negligible; of the 18 remaining, 9 paid the interest on their public debt without interruption, while another 9 (Maryland, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida) repudiated part or all of their liabilities. Of these states, four defaulted for several years in their interest payments, whereas the other five (Michigan, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Florida) totally and permanently repudiated their entire outstanding public debt. As in every debt repudiation, the result was to lift a great burden from the backs of the taxpayers in the defaulting and repudiating states.

[…]

The next great wave of state debt repudiation came in the South after the blight of Northern occupation and Reconstruction had been lifted from them. Eight Southern states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia) proceeded, during the late 1870s and early 1880s under Democratic regimes, to repudiate the debt foisted upon their taxpayers by the corrupt and wasteful carpetbag Radical Republican governments under Reconstruction.

State debt has been repudiated in the United States before and it can be done again. Many people will claim that repudiating the debt would lead to catastrophe but that wasn’t the outcome of the above mentioned cases:

Rothbard’s History demonstrates how the repudiations of the 1830s and ’40s did not cause the sky to fall. In fact, the return to sound money coupled with a liberalization of the economy spurred a tremendous amount of growth. Rothbard explains:

It is evident, then, that the 1839–1843 [monetary] contraction was healthful for the economy in liquidating unsound investments, debts, and banks, including the pernicious Bank of the United States. But didn’t the massive deflation have catastrophic effects — on production, trade, and employment, as we have been led to believe? In a fascinating analysis and comparison with the deflation of 1929–1933 a century later, Professor Temin shows that the percentage of deflation over the comparable four years (1839–1843 and 1929–1933) was almost the same. Yet the effects on real production of the two deflations were very different. Whereas in 1929–1933, real gross investment fell catastrophically by 91 percent, real consumption by 19 percent, and real GNP by 30 percent; in 1839–1843, investment fell by 23 percent, but real consumption increased by 21 percent and real GNP by 16 percent. (p. 103)

Repudiating the debt had the opposite effect that most people would lead to you believe, it actually caused economic boon instead of of bust. Iceland, which recently repudiated its debt, is now experiencing economic growth as well.

It’s obvious that the federal government isn’t going to cut spending and it can’t tax its way out of the fiscal hole it has dug, which means the only other option is bankruptcy.

Dissuading the Liberty Movement from Participating in the Republican Party

without comments

This year’s presidential election demonstrated that the Republican Party has no interest in fighting for liberty. From the very beginning the Republican Party barred Gary Johnson from participating in the Republican Presidential Debates. During the presidential nomination process the Republican Party worked hard to prevent delegates for Ron Paul from making it to the Republican National Convention (RNC). At the RNC the Republican Party actually cheated to ensure Romney received the nomination even though there was no need for such shenanigans since Romney had a majority of delegates.

In what is likely a response to the liberty movement’s hijacking of the Minnesota Republican Party Ben Golnik is looking to reform the state party’s nomination process. His reason? Ron Paul delegates were able to use the current system to their advantage:

With the complicated process, a well-organized minority can defeat a poorly organized majority. At the Republican caucuses in February 2012, Ron Paul received about one-quarter of the votes cast. At the Republican state convention a few months later, Paul supporters represented more than half of the delegates. Bills, a teacher and first-term state representative, was selected by the ardent Paul supporters as the U.S. Senate candidate.

As Republicans look to run serious challengers to Dayton and U.S. Sen. Al Franken in 2014, strong candidates must be recruited — from both inside the existing structure and from outside. Prospective candidates should skip the endorsement process and run in a primary, rather than focusing solely on the endorsement process. Credible candidates must be able to demonstrate an ability to raise money and communicate a message to a broader audience than 2,000 Republican delegates.

The rules put into place by the Republican Party failed to prevent the liberty movement from interfering with the party’s statist agenda. Impromptu rule changes were successful at preventing liberty advocates form gaining too much influence in the nation Republican Party. Now the party bigwigs are looking to change the rules to ensure impromptu rule changes won’t be necessary during the next election. The establishment now recognizes the dangers of the delegate system. It allows a crafty and motivated group of individuals to gain influence. A straight primary system is harder to influence as the candidate with the most money and influence in the Republican Party has a much better chance of winning.

Once again I reiterate that advancing liberty through the political system is hopeless. Third parties are prevented from gaining influence and the two major parties have the exact same agenda: maintain the powerful federal state. Since the two major political parties control everything from federal campaign funds to presidential debates there is no hope for third parties to gain a foothold. Likewise since both major parties have the same agenda there is no hope in achieving liberty through either of them. Using the political system requires that the current establishment play by a consistent set of rules but the current establishment has demonstrated to willingness to change the rules whenever it suits them.

Written by Christopher Burg

November 15th, 2012 at 10:00 am

People Take Politics too Seriously

without comments

Politics is a joke, and not a very funny one at that. Yet people take it very seriously. I had several people defriend me on Facebook (Whatever shall I do?) when the election was heating up because I was viciously ridiculing their candidates. People got to the point of screaming at me because I expressed distain for their candidates. There were even a couple of instances where I thought somebody was going to resort to physical violence because of what I said about their candidates. Matt Tanous brought yet another example to my attention of people taking politics too seriously:

Holly apparently believed that Daniel’s failure to exercise his right to vote had caused President Barack Obama to win re-election, and thought that a second Obama term would be bad for their family, according to local news sources.

Witnesses said Holly chased Daniel in her Jeep while he was on foot, all the while yelling at him.

“Daniel reportedly took refuge behind a light pole while Holly drove around the pole several times while continuing to yell at him,” the ABC affiliate reported.

Holly then struck her husband with the SUV, pinning him between the car and the light pole.

How ironic. Holly claims that Obama’s reelection will be bad for their family so she attacks her husband, who is a family member. I guess hypothetical threats to her family are more worrisome than direct acts of violence against her family.

Considering Romney received 902,831 votes in Arizona and Obama only received 713,858 votes I think it’s pretty hard to claim Obama’s victory was caused by Daniel not voting. His state went to Romney by a notable margin, his vote wouldn’t have changed anything.

Written by Christopher Burg

November 14th, 2012 at 10:00 am

Obama’s Lies About the Wars

without comments

Thanks to one of my Obamabot friends on Facebook I came across a speech given by His Majesty, Barak Obama, in Green Bay, Wisconsin. The speech was notable because Obama is now trying to make himself appear to be both a great military leader and an advocate of peace:

Thanks to the service and sacrifice of our brave men and women in uniform, the war in Iraq is over. (Applause.) The war in Afghanistan is winding down. Al Qaeda has been decimated. Osama bin Laden is dead. (Applause.)

When Obama announced America’s withdrawal from Iraq my first prediction was that United States soldiers would merely be replaced by private contractors. That prediction held out. Obama can claim that the war has ended in Iraq all he wants but so long as American foot soldiers are there, whether they be military or mercenaries, there is a war. Furthermore the fact that Obama is lying about the war in Iraq makes any claim that the war in Afghanistan is winding down is completely empty. During his speech Obama also forgot to mention the war in Pakistan.

What’s sad is that many of Obama’s supporters, including my Obamabot friend, are allowing themselves to believe Obama’s lies. When I posted the above information in response to my friend’s post she deleted my comment. Apparently full cognitive dissonance is now being practice by those trying to ensure Obama’s reelection.

The New GOP High-Speed Stupid Train

with one comment

The Republican Party improving their stupid train. Things started out well when the Todd Akins unveiled the prototype coal-powered stupid train when he said women seldom become pregnant from “legitimate” rape. Improving the stupid train immensely Jon Hubbad and Loy Mauch announced the diesel powered version when they went on record saying slavery was a blessing in disguise. Last week Richard Mourdock released the diesel-electric version of the stupid train saying children resulting from rape were gifts from God.

Today, thanks to the diligent work of reader and commenter Matt Tanous, I’m proud to announce that Charles Fuqua introduced a new high-speed version of the stupid train by stating support for enacted the death penalty on unruly children:

The maintenance of civil order in society rests on the foundation of family discipline. Therefore, a child who disrespects his parents must be permanently removed from society in a way that gives an example to all other children of the importance of respect for parents. The death penalty for rebellioius children is not something to be taken lightly. The guidelines for administering the death penalty to rebellious children are given in Deut 21:18-21:

The cited passages were omitted in the linked article to save space, fortunately I looked them up:

18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Fear not citizens, Fuqua’s support for enacting the death penalty on unruly children isn’t as bad as it sounds. He understands how dire such a situation is and believe there should be stringent oversight:

This passage does not give parents blanket authority to kill their children. They must follow the proper procedure in order to have the death penalty executed against their children.

See, it’s OK, very strict procedures must be followed before a child is put to death for being unruly. Fuqua may be harsh but he’s certainly benevolent!

As the election gets closer I expect the Republican Party to release a new flying version of their stupid train. Perhaps it will even be powered by burning the bodies of freshly executed children. It’ll be innovative and powered with renewable resources!