Tag: Politics

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.

A Majority of United States Foreign Aid Is Used for Military Purposes

The United States gives a lot of money to foreign countries in the form of aid. Truthfully this aid is usually a cheap way of buying off allies in other countries. If you don’t believe me then you should read this:

A new bill approved by Congress last week would again make the Defense Department the premier funder of security assistance to foreign countries, giving it more than double the comparable budget of the agency popularly associated with America’s foreign aid, the State Department.

The $17 billion Pentagon aid budget for the 2012 fiscal year is the second in a row to exceed the State Department’s by $10 billion, a disparity that has begun to provoke debate among foreign policy experts in Washington. Seven years ago, circumstances were reversed, with the State Department spending triple the amount the Pentagon spent on such aid.

Your country doesn’t have enough money to build buildings? No problem, let us give you some money to blow up some of the buildings you already have!

Obama Believes Himself Above the Law

I know you read the title of this post and thought, “No shit Sherlock.” While the title of this post is pointing out the bloody obvious overall, this post is referring to a recent development:

The funding provision for the federal health agency says that “none of the funds made available in this title may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.” The language aims to ban taxpayer dollars from supporting gun safety research.

“I have advised the Congress that I will not construe these provisions as preventing me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibility to recommend to the Congress’s consideration such measures as I shall judge necessary and expedient,” Obama said in a statement as he signed the bill into law.

The president’s signing statement also says he could end up ignoring a provision that bars taxpayer funds for paying for the “salaries and expenses” of so-called White House czars, including the director of the White House Office of Health Reform. The office was abolished earlier this year.

That provision “could prevent me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibilities, by denying me the assistance of senior advisers and by obstructing my supervision of executive branch officials in the execution of their statutory responsibilities,” Obama said. “I have informed the Congress that I will interpret these provisions consistent with my constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

Did Obama seriously claim he has the Constitutional authority to ignore Congress? That’s how I interpreted his statement. While I’m not a “constitutional scholar” as Obama claims himself to be I can read and comprehend basic English. Let’s look at what the Constitution has to say about federal funding:

Section. 7.

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

I read two things in this section; any bill involving money must originate in the House of Representatives and if a President finds any legislation passed by the House and Senate not to be to his liking he can refuse to sign it and send it back. In other words Obama doesn’t get any say in how money is spent and if he didn’t like the prohibition against using money to advance gun control he can only refuse to sign the legislation and tell the House and Senate why he doesn’t approve.

When a bill saying money can’t be used for a specific task hits the President’s desk it doesn’t mean he can simply say, “LOL, this part doesn’t apply to me.” Upon signing the bill the President must either agree to the entirety of the document or toss the entire bill back to Congress. It’s all or nothing.

Recalling Federal “Representatives”

Something I’ve often recommended over the years has been initiating recalls on politicians who attempt to expand the powers of the state (be it an individual state or the federal state). People in Montana are attempting to recall their senators who voted in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA):

(HELENA) – Moving quickly on Christmas Day after the US Senate voted 86 – 14 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA) which allows for the indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial, Montanans have announced the launch of recall campaigns against Senators Max Baucus and Jonathan Tester, who voted for the bill.

It appears as though my recommendation has been for naught as recalling a federal “representative” isn’t a straight forward as I first believed. Each individual state is able to set internal policy including settings grounds for which “representatives” can be recalled or otherwise removed from office before their term is up. Unfortunately those working on the federal level believe themselves to be immune to any for of early removal not initiated by the House or Senate [PDF]:

The United States Constitution does not provide for nor authorize the recall of United States
officials such as United States Senators, Representatives to Congress, or the President or Vice
President of the United States, and thus no United States Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives has ever been recalled in the history of the United States

[…]

Although the Supreme Court has not needed to directly address the subject of recall of Members
of Congress, other judicial decisions indicate that the right to remove a Member of Congress
before the expiration of his or her constitutionally established term of office is one which resides
within each house of Congress as expressly delegated in the expulsion clause of the United States
Constitution, and not in the entire Congress as a whole (through the adoption of legislation), nor
in the state legislatures through the enactment of recall provisions

Not surprisingly this interpretation on individual state power was produced by the Senate. The bottom line is clear, according to the federal government a federal “representative” can only have his or her stay terminated early if a federal body initiates the expulsion. Some people are quick to bring up the Tenth Amendment as it reserves all powers not expressly mentioned in the Constitution for the individual states. Unfortunately the Constitution does describe how to send a “representative” home early in Article I, Section 5, Clause 2:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Nowhere in the clause does it state that expulsion of a member is solely reserved for the respective House but our federal “representatives” are interpreting it that way. Their justification is since removal of a federal “representative” is mentioned in the Constitution that power is exempt from the Tenth Amendment. I always find it funny how selectively the Constitution is interpreted. In the case of removing a federal “representative” the Constitution must be interpreted exactly at written, that is to say no unmentioned powers may be used. Meanwhile the Second Amendment clearly states, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” yet, according to our “representatives” and the Supreme Court it leaves room for some infringements.

Sadly the Constitution wasn’t a well written document and contains a lot of vague language that can be twisted to grant the federal government more power than was originally intended. The purpose of the Constitution was to restrict the powers of the federal government but that intention was entirely lost when the individual states allowed the federal government sole authority in interpreting the foundational document. Now that the federal government reserves sole power of constitutional interpretation they have effectively made themselves immune to constituent scrutiny.

I Think the Obama Reelection Headquarters in Minneapolis Looks Much Nicer Now

There seems to be almost universal hatred of the Occupy movement within the gun blogging community. I still maintain a fairly neutral stance as for every anti-capitalist mouth breather that gets air time on the major media news shows there are protests like this that I fully support:

Think bad thoughts about the government and you could go to jail…forever. That may sound like a Soviet-era law, but civil libertarians say it’s possible under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which is awaiting President Obama’s promised signature.

The NDAA, was passed by the US Senate 86 to 13. Minnesota senators split on the act, Franken opposing and Klobuchar voting for it.

OccupyMN organized a pre-Christmas protest at the Minneapolis Obama Reelection Headquarters.

Part of their protest involved taping signs to the front window of the headquarters. My favorite sign is the one that reads, “POLICE STATE WE CAN BELIEVE IN.” The Occupy movement still seems to be a bring your own grievance movement and there are times when the grievances brought are ones I entirely agree with. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) should never have been voted for or signed into law. Its passage demonstrates the fact our “representatives” don’t care about defending the values this nation was founded on but prefer to strangle the populace with ever more draconian laws.

Kudos to OccupyMN for protesting this legislation and making a little trouble for the local Obama reelection robots. If you still believe Obama deserves to be reelected then I can honestly say you’re not paying attention to his actions. Granted most of the alternatives don’t look to be any better but if we start voting out bad politicians perhaps we can send a message and they’ll keep their tyrannical desires a bit more in check (by a bit more I simply mean they’ll be less blatant, there is no way to stop them from attempt to increase their power over us).

How the System Works

Several times I’ve stated that the United States is no longer land of the free but a fascist state. When people read the term fascist state it instantly brings to mind cattle cars full of Jews being sent off to death camps. Those atrocities aren’t what defines a fascist state anymore than they define a communist state. Fascism is a fairly loose ideology that involves strong nationalism (America, fuck yeah) and a marriage of state and business. Our country meets both of these characteristics and the latter can be easily demonstrated by stories of government officials getting plush private sector jobs in exchange for government contracts:

Siemens AG, Europe’s largest engineering company, hired Stanley McChrystal, a former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, for a new unit seeking U.S. government contracts.

McChrystal, 57, will serve as chairman of Siemens Government Technologies, which spans security systems to engineering software for defense equipment, the Munich-based company said in a statement today. Siemens appointed former U.S. Army Lieutenant General John Sylvester and Robert Coutts, a former Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) executive, as board members.

If you’re a company that is looking for big money government contracts you need to play the game. The game isn’t played by offering the best product or best prices but by buying off political actors. By hiring McChrystal Siemens has sent a message to the United States military, “Buy our stuff because there is great high-paying sluff jobs waiting for you if you do.” When record companies want horrible legislation pushed through they send in their lobbyists, many of whom are former Washington politicians who were granted big money lobbyist positions in exchange for shoving through horrible legislation. Seeing their former comrades get such jobs encourages other politicians to follow suit in the hopes of receiving the same treatment.

Environments such as this breed conflict of interest. Instead of representing the wants of the people politicians are encouraged to represent the wants of large business who can afford to pay former politicians to be lobbyists. Nothing but corruption can spawn from this twisted marriage. Capitalism can’t work under fascist economic conditions as the profit motive is entirely eliminated, replaced by this gross beast known as the political means of acquisition.

Capitalism at Work

Capitalism is a great system as it makes consumers the ultimate decision makers of company actions (unless the government gets involved of course). If you’re outraged by the actions of a private company you can let them know but taking your money elsewhere. It’s really a case of rational self-interest as companies who fail to meet the demands of consumers can only find themselves in a state of insolvency. GoDaddy recently came out in support of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), the current piece of legislation being worked on to censor the Internet:

Website hosting company GoDaddy has officially voiced its support for the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) Bill in 2012, which is designed to thwart movie and music piracy on the Internet by empowering copyright holders to effectively shut down websites or online services found with infringing material. If passed, the U.S. government could blacklist any website it deems in violation of copyright, which could range from a few posts in a Web forum to a few links sent in an e-mail.

As you can guess many of GoDaddy’s customers were pissed. In response to GoDaddy’s support of SOPA many customers transfered their domains and hosted websites to other providers. Seeing this loss of money GoDaddy finally yielded and listened to their customers:

Go Daddy is no longer supporting SOPA, the “Stop Online Piracy Act” currently working its way through U.S. Congress.

“Fighting online piracy is of the utmost importance, which is why Go Daddy has been working to help craft revisions to this legislation – but we can clearly do better,” Warren Adelman, Go Daddy’s newly appointed CEO, said. “It’s very important that all Internet stakeholders work together on this. Getting it right is worth the wait. Go Daddy will support it when and if the Internet community supports it.”

This is the beauty of capitalism, the decisions of companies can be changed without the need for violence. Instead consumers can voice their concern and take their business elsewhere. Unlike the state companies can’t initiate violence in order to force their customers to continue paying.

If You Vote to Reelect Obama This is What You’re Supporting

Many of my progressive friends are still jumping on board the SS Reelect Obama. While their ship is most likely already sunk I have been informing them, in no uncertain details, that by reelect Obama they’re supporting this:

Shakira was one year old when Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Barack Obama ordered the 2009 drone strike in Pakistan’s Taliban-infested Swat valley that nearly killed her. With two other burned little girls, she was put in a trash bin to die. A volunteer doctor with House of Charity discovered the three babies and attempted to save them. Two of the little girls died from their injuries, but Shakira, who is now four, lived to be disfigured.

CNN reports that Shakira arrived in Houston last week with her caretaker for a series of surgeries that “will make it easier for Shakira to grow older.” (“She will never look fully normal,” CNN adds.)

Thanks to drone strikes ordered by Obama Shakira will live the rest of her life disfigured. Obama is a warmonger who is more than happy to send a drone off to blow up a tent full of people to nail one man. He even went so far as to assassinate Anwar al-Awalki, an American citizen, and his 16 year-old son without giving either so much as the benefit of a trial. I don’t think the previous Warmonger in Chief even went so far as to actually order the assassination of an American citizen (I won’t be surprised if I’m wrong about this though).

If you reelect Obama you’re saying, “I want four more years of innocent people being killed or permanently disfigured by hellfire missiles launched from automated drones.” With the exception of Ron Paul, the other options don’t looks much better but I can at least say they haven’t ordered the death of anybody yet (not because they don’t want to, but merely because they haven’t had the chance). Granted the first act Rick Santorum wouldn’t probably make as president is to launch a nuclear strike on the Middle East, which would be followed up by his second act, the rounding up and execution of every homosexual in the United States.

Unless Ron Paul wins we’re all fucked (while I don’t think he can save this sinking ship we call the United States, at least he wouldn’t be warring with other nations needlessly), but if Obama wins we know for a fact more innocent people will be murdered and disfigured because he has a pretty nasty track record of making such orders.

Democratic Political Action Committee Buys newtgingrich.com

I don’t care who you are this is funny:

The campaign of Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich has seen the domain name newtgingrich.com fall into enemy hands: a Democratic political action committee called American Bridge 21st Century.

The results are either amusing or not, depending on your politics and opinion of Gingrich. But in either case they are a cautionary tale about the importance of controlling your brand online, a task that’s about to get more difficult for everyone thanks to the impending expansion of generic top-level domains.

I’m pretty sure they stole this idea from us over in the Ron Paul camp, but kudos regardless. The last person I want as president it a person who openly advocates letting terrorist attacks succeed to scare the American people into obedience and charging judges who don’t rule in the way Gingrich wants them to.