Tag: Politics

The American Jobs Act

Obama has revealed his plan for America in the form of the American Jobs Act. Although he’s urging Congress to pass the legislation without reading it I believe the American people would like a chance to actually see what’s in the bill. Finding a copy of the bill has been a bit of a pain since it hasn’t been uploaded to any of the usual websites as far as I can see. Thankfully somebody uploaded a copy to Scribd. Although you can download a PDF of the document from Scribd they require that you sign up for an account first. I decided to save you the trouble and have a straight PDF version of the document [PDF] for you to download and read.

I haven’t had time to read through the bill as it’s rather long (as are most of Obama’s initiatives) but I’ll carouse it when I get a chance and report on anything interesting I find.

The Real Reason for the PATRIOT Act

Although our government claims that the PATRIOT Act is necessary to fight terrorism it’s more apparent every day that terrorism is the secondary consideration of this legislation:

So how has the Patriot Act fared as a defense against terrorism? The act has been used in 1,618 drug cases and only 15 terrorism cases.

So the PATRIOT Act has been used ~107 times more often to fight the war on drugs than the war on terror (I wonder if they can use it to fight the war on illiteracy or the war on poverty). This demonstrates that the PATRIOT Act isn’t seen as a last ditch piece of legislation to be used sparingly against only the most dangerous enemies of America. It’s obvious that this legislation was meant to be an all encompassing tool used to fight any and all crime.

In the eyes of the government civil rights too often get in the way of their agents enforcing laws against behaviors decreed illegal because some politician needed to manufacture something for the American people to fear in order to justify yet another expansion of government power.

Perry’s Ties to Merck

During CNN’s Tea Party debate Bachmann called Perry out for his use of an executive order to force the Gardasil vaccination on 12 year-old girls living in Texas. She pointed out the fact that the executive order followed some rather expensive lobbying to which Perry claimed he only received a $5,000.00 campaign contribution and then feigned offense at the accusation that he could be bought so cheaply. As anybody with a brain was able to figure out Pertty wasn’t being honest:

But campaign disclosure records portray a much deeper financial connection with Merck than Perry’s remarks would suggest.

Perry’s gubernatorial campaign, for example, received nearly $30,000 from the drugmaker since 2000, most of it prior to his decision in 2007 to order young girls to obtain Merck’s vaccine against the human papillomavirus, or HPV.

Merck has also given more than $355,000 in donations to the Republican Governors Association since 2006, which was the year that Perry began to play a prominent role in the Washington-based group, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

Perry served as chairman of the RGA in 2008 and again this year until he decided to run for president. The group also ranks among Perry’s biggest donors, giving the Texas governor’s campaign at least $4 million over the past five years, according to Texans for Public Justice.

Although politicians pass laws putting apparent caps on the number of dollars that can be donated to their campaigns what they know is such laws only shift money around. If somebody wants to donate $300,000 to your campaign but can only legally donate $2,500 then that person will donate $2,500 to the campaign and $297,500 to some affiliated organization. It’s actually a great method for the two major parties to stay in power since most third parties lack any sizable affiliate organizations which can receive larger than legally allowed campaign contributions that will go to specific candidates.

So while Perry’s statement was technically correct it was a lie through omission as much of Merck’s money went to affiliate organizations that helped power Perry’s campaign. Finally I wish to close this post by leaving you with the following:

No that’s not a serious political criticism, the picture just makes me laugh.

CNN’s Tea Party Republican Debate Summary

Last night’s debate was more pointless than the one previous. What follows is a summary of what I took away from the debate:

Perry seems to be the chosen one as far as the Republican party is concerned. Although his record is stained with more statist agendas than some socialists he seems to have read Ron Paul’s books and is trying to make himself sound like the good doctor. He’s a typical neocon, promising small government and liberty but will provide none of it.

Romney is the other “front runner” according to the mass media. He’s so statist that he was able to get elected governor of Massachusetts which I believe is all that needs to be said about him.

Bachmann knowns here ratings are slipping and is acting like an injured animal. She’s thrashing about and lashing out at anybody and everybody who attempts to move in to finish her off. It makes for entertaining debates.

Santorum wants to become president to move his holy crusade against the enemies of Israel forward. If were up to him we’d turn the entirety of the Middle East (excluding Israel) into a giant glass bowl. Thankfully he doesn’t have a chance at this point.

Huntsman is also a neocon piece of shit. I really don’t know what else to say about him as he’s so trivial as to be non existant.

Cain is the former head of the Kansas Federal Reserver. Although he says many of the right things his past association with the Fed made him an absolute no-go in my book.

Gingrich is the prototypical neocon. He talks about small government and liberty but his past voting record shows the exact opposite. Like most politicians this man can’t be truest any further than he can be thrown.

Paul is the one guy in the race that makes sense. His record demonstrates a strong support of liberty and he’s got enough balls to say things during the debate that no other candidate will even whisper.

Johnson wasn’t even invited. I think it’s because the major media networks are afraid of having two libertarian candidates on stage.

And that’s that. I would like to congratulate CNN on being extremely large dicks. A question about the Federal Reserve came up and, I shit you not, every candidate on stage except Ron Paul was allowed to answer. The man who literally wrote a book on the subject wasn’t asked about the Federal Reserve. What the fuck?

Proof Once Again That It’s Not About Protection, It’s About Extortion

Numerous rants on this site can be found regarding the “justice” system in this country. Case in point we have the following court ruling in which a woman was prosecuted for selling counterfeit Cisco equipment:

A Virginia woman was sentenced Friday to five years in prison for leading a “sophisticated” conspiracy to import and sell counterfeit Cisco Systems networking equipment, the U.S. Department of Justice said.

I’m not going to complain about the charges or case itself but the punishment placed upon the perpetrator. This woman was nailed for selling counterfeit equipment which you can argue grants a legitimacy to Cisco’s claim of damages so I understand why she was made to pay restitution. What I don’t understand though is the rest of her punishment:

In addition to the prison time, Judge Gerald Bruce Lee of U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia also ordered Chun-Yu Zhao, 43, of Chantilly, Virginia, to pay US$2.7 million restitution and a $17,500 fine.

The emphasized parts are the source of my confusion. As this woman wronged Cisco I can see why she would be made to pay restitution to the company but I see no reason why she should be thrown in prison and made to pay a fine to the government. In this case prison makes no sense since the supposed purpose of incarceration is to separate dangerous people from the rest of society. Somebody dealing in counterfeit goods is not a danger to society as no act of violence has been made. She didn’t assault or murder anybody, she simply committed acts of fraud.

Then there is the fine. Why should the government receive any money in this case? The courts are already paid for using tax dollars so a claim of funding can’t be legitimately made. The woman in no way wronged the government or “society” either so why the Hell do they get any cut from the ruling? It’s because our “justice” system is simply another funding mechanism for our government.

Some people may ask why this kind of thing bothers me. The reason it bothers me is because it creates a conflict of interest. Courts are argued to be impartial arbitrators whom can peacefully solve disputes between two entities. This impartiality is jeopardized when the government (who own the courts) receives money based on their ruling. In such cases a situation is created where the government gains if a guilty verdict is decided and therefore it’s in the best interest of the government to proclaim judgements of guilt.

When the government stands to receive $17,000 from a fine why would they entertain any idea of the accused being innocent? If the accused is ruled to be innocent the government receives nothing but if the accused is ruled to be guilty the government receives money. How can any claim of impartiality be made in such a system?

Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter Here

It seems the California senate has voted, not surprisingly, in favor of shitting all over the rights of its citizens again. This time the California senate voted in favor of banning the act of openly carrying an unloaded firearm:

The state Senate acted Thursday to prohibit California handgun owners from openly carrying their weapons in public, siding with law enforcement officials who say it wastes their time responding to false alarms of armed suspects and creates a risk of confrontation.

Current law allows the open carrying of unloaded handguns in public, and many activists have exercised their right by showing up in large numbers at their local Starbucks or other public places, wearing their firearm in a holster. Sen. Kevin DeLeon (D-Los Angeles) said there is no reason for that to happen in 2011.

Yeah there’s absolutely no excuse for those stupid peasants to exercise what few rights their rulers allow them to have! How dare they abide by the law in a manner their princes and barons disapprove of! The act of openly carrying unloaded firearms may slightly inconvenience a police officer on a power trip! This will not stand!

Seriously Mr. DeLeon what the fuck is your problem:

“This is not the wild west,” DeLeon said during the floor debate. “How discomforting can it be if you walk into a restaurant, a Starbucks, a Mickey D’s and all of a sudden you see someone with a handgun?”

Yeah that’s pretty discomforting. I know I freak right the fuck out every time I see a police officer enter a restaurant or coffee shop. Oh I forgot, because of their sanction from the state it’s OK when they do it, it’s just not OK for any of the peasants to do it. I keep forgetting about the government’s double standards.

Considering the real problems California is facing it’s rather sad to see their government spending time further restricting the rights of the citizenry. Perhaps if those “representatives” spent half as much time working on real problems California wouldn’t be as much of a shit hole as it is. Never mind since working to “fix” problems is what got that state in the position it currently is.

If you live in that state you should give serious consideration to moving out while you still can; you never know when the state Soviet will decide to erect a wall between California and the rest of the United States.

Emperor Obama

The head asshole in Washing D.C. isn’t even trying to hide his delusions of emperorship anymore. From a live blog I was able to pull out parts of Obama’s speech he gave last night (because I certainly wasn’t going to waste my time watching that dumb ass like on television) and the following statement from him almost floored me:

What kind of country would this be if this chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do?

We’d have a country of law, opportunity, and liberty. I honestly can’t believe (OK I can believe it but I don’t want to) that an elected official would be so brazen as to openly state on public television that he doesn’t give two fucks what the laws say government can and can’t do. He might as well have flat out said, “Fuck the Constitution, I’ll do whatever the Hell I want and you stupid peasants are going to like it!”

What else did the chief asshole say? Well This quote was interesting:

Obama again stirs the pot with the GOP, noting that Abraham Lincoln – the first Republican president — also “mobilized government to build the transcontinental railroad; launch the National Academy of Sciences; and set up the first land grant colleges.”

He also mobilized a nation to invade another nation which killed hundreds of thousands of American citizens just so he could keep his petty little union in place. And the first person to say he did it to free the slaves can take a seat over in the corner because you get a timeout for not knowing your American history. If you actually read the Emancipation Proclamation you’ll note that it would have only freed the slaves in seceded states (not the Northern slave states) if they didn’t return to the Union by January 1863. It was a purely political move to coax the Confederate states into returning to the Union.

Our chief asshole also introduced his new legislation, the American Jobs Act, which he urged Congress to pass without reading just like he urged them to pass his Health Insurance Company Enrichment Act:

Some of you have sworn oaths to never raise any taxes on anyone for as long as you live. Now is not the time to carve out an exception and raise middle-class taxes, which is why you should pass this bill right away.

Emphasis mine. Personally I’d like our “representatives” to actually read the damned bill before taking any action. Likewise if that bill does anything besides getting the government out of the economy it will be pointless and shouldn’t be passed.

Obama should write a book titled I’m Above the Law: Why the Rules Don’t Apply to Me.

Republican Candidate Debate Roundup

Last night I had the… opportunity… to partake in watching the Republican Presidential Debate with a surprisingly large group of awesome people. First of all let me sum up the debate in one sentence: everybody on the stage besides Ron Paul was a fucking idiot.

Now that my bias is out there for all to see let me talk briefly about the debate. First of all as per the usual Ron Paul was mostly ignored during the debate. He was asked something around four questions, none of which were asked of other candidates and all of which were loaded. For example the inquisitors guys with the questions asked all the candidates if they would keep Ben Bernanke as the head of the Federal Reserve then they asked Ron Paul why he hated children (technically they worded the question around welfare to which Dr. Paul answered that such things were the responsibility of each individual state because he actually read the Constitution).

General consensus of my group was that Michelle Bachmann looked like a vampire. I believe bets were taken at some point on whether or not she would turn into a bat and fly away at the conclusion of the debate.

Gary Johnson performed admirably… wait he wasn’t invited because he’s one of the very few people who the media hate more than Ron Paul (or Ron Paul is simply too popular and the media knows there is no way to silence him completely at this point).

Romney was on the war path yet again. If he had his way we’d storm over to the Middle East and kill every man, woman, and child there which would then be followed by the construction of a huge palace as a testament to the greatness of the American war machine and as a warning to the rest of the world to submit or die.

I have no idea why Huntsman was there considering the percentage of votes he’s not been receiving in recent straw polls. The same can also be said of Herman Cain but at least he’s kind of entertaining on stage. Santorum was there but for the life of me I can’t remember anything memorable that he did.

Finally we have Rick Perry. Perry was an interesting person to watch in last night’s debate because I’m pretty sure he just had Ron Paul’s books sitting up on his podium for his notes. It’s amazing that a man who issued an executive order to force 12 year-old girls to be injected with Gardasil after being lobbied by large pharmaceutical companies all of the sudden has a message of liberty.

The debate was concluded by asking each candidate (except Gary Johnson of course, because he’s not cool enough to be invited to the party) what they would do about illegal immigration which is where Ron Paul made the most memorable statement of the night. With the exception of Ron Paul I think each candidate supported building a giant demilitarized zone fence between the United States and Mexico. Ron Paul was the only candidate to bring up the fact that a fence used to keep people out can also be used to keep people in. That was a brilliant observation considering the tyrannical direction this country keeps continuing towards. My biggest problem with the idea of building a fence between American and any other country is the fact that it could be used in the same manner as the Berlin Wall.

On a final note I think a new debate rule should be put into place for future Republican debates. From here on out each candidate should only be allowed to play the Reagan card three times during a debate. Seriously, after last night I’m thoroughly convinced that a great number of Republicans believe Reagan died on the cross of our sins. Once again Ron Paul was the only person that had enough balls to say Reagan’s message was good but the results of his presidency were not (massive deficit spending after preaching fiscal conservatism for instance).

Meta Censorship

South Korea seems to be a bastion of free speech these days:

In South Korea, even the censors are being censored. Professor K.S. Park, who sits on South Korea’s nine-member Internet content regulatory board, has found his own blog under threat of censorship when he used it as platform to speak out for transparency and free expression.

Did you get that? Even the censors are being censored. That’s about a meta as you can get without being censored in South Koera.

If anybody can read this blog in South Korea let me know because I’ll have to step up efforts to get on their censor list. It’s not because I don’t want people from South Korea reading my blog, it’s because I want to get on as many government lists as possible around the world.

The Graphics Suck

Jay shows us a very classy new video game called Tea Party Zombies Must Die. The objective of the game is to walk around and kill zombified versions of… I guess supposed tea party members although I’m not sure when Bill O’Reilly started being considered a member of the tea party.

I have to say the effort put into this game is so half-assed that it’s depressing. Here’s some advice for those out there who want to make a game around a political message, just write a mod for a popular existing game. Tea Party Zombies Must Die has shitty graphics and the gameplay is more repetitive than an infinite loop. The creators of this game could have made something awesome (in other words fun to play) by writing a Left 4 Dead mod or something along those lines. Instead they put out a shitty Flash game with no replay value.