Then why bother, Barry?

Our Imperial President, Lord of the Americas and Protector of the Weak, has deigned to issue His Imperial Edict that Congress shall be allowed to pretend to debate the issue of War in Syria like those old white slave-owners that preceded His Sublimeness, Barry Soertoro Obama I, His Imperial Loftiness, pretended to do in Ages of Yore.

Obama to the American Public: "I'm going to ask Congress"
Obama to his advisers: "Blow them up anyway, even if Congress says not to"

So if Congress decides not to give him his Declaration (or AUMF, which is what Bush got), he's going to do it anyway.

“That’s going to happen, anyway,” the source told me, adding that that was why the president, in his rose Garden remarks, was careful to establish that he believes he has the authority to launch such strikes even without congressional authorization.

Bolded for emphasis. Hey, let's see what Senator Obama said about that very thing, back in 2007, shall we?

They told me that if I voted for Romney that we would have an Imperial Presidency waging war without authorization and spying on American citizens without warrants. Turns out they were right, even though I never voted for him.

Just to keep things clear

The Constitution explicitly grants the power to Declare War to Congress. Article I, Sect. 8

The Congress shall have Power ..

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Now, remember that this power is granted to Congress, not either the House or the Senate. This means that BOTH chambers of Congress must debate the issue and agree with the necessity by not less than a majority in both chambers - 218 in the House and 51 in the Senate. What do you want to bet that when Obama fails to show that we shouldn't randomly bomb a country that hasn't attacked us, and poses no strategic importance to the US, the MSM immediately starts blaming the Republicans, rather than the idiot who wants us to go to war? (And who else wants to put down money that someone nominates him for another Nobel Peace Prize when he DOESN'T go to war?)

Let's pretend that we actually had a dog in this fight, just so that we can discuss the issue...Which side are we supposed to be assisting? We have two sides to choose from: 1) the side that used the chemical weapons, and 2) the side that is made up of the Muslim Brotherhood and its assorted anti-Western terrorist cliques. This is a lose-lose-lose if the US gets involved. (Not to mention the fact that Reagan had a bigger fucking coalition invading Grenada than Obama has for going into Syria.)

 

What we should really do is airdrop in a shitload of AKs and ammo, then seal the borders for not less than five years. No one gets out (no planes, no cars, no trucks, no people - turn back ALL of them), and only food goes in. When things have settled down, we will go in and see what options will serve us best going forward. If no option looks good, we seal the borders again for another five years. And then another, if need be.

I see not a single reason to hazard a single US service member to support what was basically Obama shooting off his lip during a moment when his teleprompter was down, and then having to blow something up so as to not appear weak. Especially when the whole world sees him as weak anyway.

Pauper's Oath?

Would it be considered gauche to offer an uncomfortable topic for discussion?

Back during the Great Depression, anyone asking for help from the Federal Government had to take a "Pauper's Oath", swearing that they had no assets, and nothing expected at a given future date, before they would be eligible for aid.

People needing to file a lawsuit without having the necessary funds to pay the court fees can swear something similar to receive a waiver from such fees, and prisoners do the same thing when they have to file their cases, since they don't have an income, and no expectation of earning one.

But with the exception of the prisoners, THEY ALL GET TO VOTE.

Why do they have a say in the fiscal policies of the very nation they are asking to pay their bills? Isn't that a conflict of interest? If they are basically asking to live in Uncle Sam's spare room, eating out of his refrigerator, and using up his (read: "our" ) precious resources without adding anything into the pot, why shouldn't they be treated just like a kid living at home?

When I was a kid, we never got to decide what was for supper. We rarely got to decide what was on TV (once we finally got one). We never got to tell Dad to demand a raise so that we could have more money to spend on those rad new iPads. We were told, and responded, "Yes, sir."

But today's welfare recipients DO get that say. And politicians pander to them, promising to deliver ever larger slices of a pie that neither of them had anything to do with baking, in exchange for their support and vote. We have passed the point where 51% of households receive some sort of government payment (although that does include the earned pensions and disability checks).

So why not remove that corruption and conflict of interest out of the equation?

You get government aid? You surrender your vote until you are no longer receiving aid for at least six months. I am not talking about retirement or disability benefits, but things like welfare and food stamps and housing for those who are physically capable of working, but choose not to, especially those who treat it as a generational hammock, rather than an interim safety net. (I refer to the incident where three women - mother, daughter and teen/tween granddaughter - were interviewed on national news following Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, demanding to know how they were supposed to get their welfare checks, now that they couldn't get to their home.)

It's easy: if you want taxpayers to pay your bills, you lose your right to tell those taxpayers how to live their life and spend their money. Because it IS their money.

I'm really glad I don't live in Washington, DC

I'd spend my entire day wandering around the halls of Congress and the various Executive Departments/Agencies and saying, "You really ought to be ashamed of yourself" to anyone who is unlucky enough to catch my eye.

And I'd punch the 537 elected ones, right in the mouth, because I can't see that any of that group have any shame remaining. Not. One.

How Many Divisions Has The Pope?

In the waning days of WW II, during a discussion of the future of Eastern Europe, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill cautioned Joseph Stalin to consider the views of the Vatican. To this the Soviet leader responded, "How many divisions does the Pope of Rome have?"

He was giving a harbinger of Mao's famous dictum, that "power grows from the barrel of a gun". When you issue orders, you have to be able to force others to obey those orders, or they are meaningless. Conversely, when forbidden from doing something, there have to be people willing to back up the prohibition and punish the offenders, or there might as well not be any mention.

If people knew that the State Police were no longer issuing traffic citations, what do you think would happen to the speed limits used?

So when the President violates his oath of office, violates the very spirit of the document that gives his office any authority, and contemplates ever more egregious violations of the rights and privileges of the citizens of his country, what recourse remains?

And here is the interesting question, what happens when no one has both the authority and willingness to put a stop to it? When the nation's chief law enforcement officer routinely lies to both Congress (earning a contempt citation) and the American People, who issues the order? When the nation's chief diplomat is openly contemptuous of the military that will have to bear the brunt of his screwups, what's next?

When the Speaker of the House won't even consider overturning the most destructive and unpopular piece of legislation (that the Executive Branch routinely ignores), and the Supreme Court has ruled that no one has any standing to overturn what he described as a "tax" (even though the authors said explicitly to the contrary - that means it wasn't "interpreting", but rather "deleting and replacing the text", which means legislating from the bench), and State Supreme Courts rule that we have to surrender our civil rights in favor of politically-protected whims, who do we turn to?

Four kinds of boxes - soap, jury, ballot and the final arbiter.

Update: The Most Transparent Administration in History (tm) reports, "Why of course it isn't any of your business who the President and his staff talk to in that taxpayer-funded building", and the Federal Courts back them up.

So the President no one wants to stop from destroying this country can now meet openly with whoever he wants, and no one will ever know. The drumbeat continues apace...

So Muir asks

or one of his characters ask, "Do you like Peanut Butter or Chocolate better?', and the answer is "Chocolate"


Well then....

I really don't know what to say about this...

Well, I suppose I might know what to say, but every time I try to say it, it gets all garbled and comes out sounding a bit like "Fuck every one of those god-damned cock-gargling bitches up the ass with a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire".  Funny, that.

As it turns out, the FBI quietly released the emails in an unclassified report on the shooting, which was produced by an investigative commission headed by former FBI director William H. Webster last year. And, far from being "benign," they offer a chilling glimpse into the psyche of an Islamic radical. The report also shows how badly the FBI bungled its Hasan investigation and suggests that the Army psychiatrist's deadly rampage could have been prevented.

Let me put it bluntly - the FBI, despite having proof that Nidal Hasan was talking to a radical terrorist iman about killing US Soldiers, allowed Hasan to continue being a FUCKING MAJOR IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY, and that allowed him to murder people at Fort Hood while screaming "ALLAHU ACKBAR".

So, to state the obvious - we now have a spy network in this country that spies on it's citizens but will not (not cannot, but WILL NOT) prevent a terrorist shithead from killing unarmed Soldiers on a military base.

Bra-fucking-vo.

On second thought, cover the baseball bats with broken glass.  Use the barbed wire to flog the fucking shit-eating assholes until they're dead.

Looked at the thermometer at work

It read 106.







That's about as much proof as I need to know that this place is right next to hell.

The Obligatory Miley Cyrus post

Look, I don't even own a TV, but I've been inundated with enough Miley Cyrus crap, and vids, and pictures, and "twerking" references to last me a lifetime.

There is no reason on God's green earth why a psycho 20-year-old skank who looks like a pubescent crack whore should generate that much attention, other than to call attention to just how far and how fast this country and it's culture have fallen.  Somebody please yank her ovaries out before she can breed. 

I found out about this story

over at Ace of Spades (here's the link), and it has a funny bit, and a point to ponder.

First, the humorous quote (this was from the run-up to the 2008 election that put Joe a heartbeat from the Presidency):

November 29, 2007 5:03 PM

PORTSMOUTH — Presidential hopeful Delaware Sen. Joe Biden stated unequivocally that he will move to impeach President Bush if he bombs Iran without first gaining congressional approval.

Biden spoke in front of a crowd of approximately 100 at a candidate forum held Thursday at Seacoast Media Group. The forum focused on the Iraq war and foreign policy. When an audience member expressed fear of a war with Iran, Biden said he does not typically engage in threats, but had no qualms about issuing a direct warning to the Oval Office.

"The president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach," said Biden, whose words were followed by a raucous applause from the local audience.

I'm not sure of the difference between Libya and Iran, except that one had just been taken off the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism, never mind Syria.

The part that makes me go all facepalm-y is that last sentence. This moron had (at that time) spent the preceding 34 years in the Senate. I mean, he was elected right at the beginnings of Watergate, orated relentlessly during Clinton's Impeachment and trial (where he served as a fucking JUROR) and has to be presumed to know how the system works.

And he still says stupid shit like this. Anyone who was paying attention in 5th grade Social Studies KNOWS that Impeachment MUST begin in the House. Must. Article I, Sec. 2:

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

and in Article I, Sec. 3:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Can we start the proceedings for involuntary commitment now, as posing a danger to himself and others? Or are we going to have to wait until he steps up to the window of his bedroom and fires off a few shotgun blasts into central DC?

Updating the Federalist Papers

I had a thought, and it deserves some airing, if only to start people thinking.

When the Founders were making their best arguments in favor of the Constitution, they were operating in an essentially pre-Industrial America, where the primary means of transportation was the horse, or shanks-mare. Iron plows were just entering common usage, and water power was the most efficient source available.

Two hundred-plus years later, the government owes more than the entire planet is worth, abusive oppression and illegal acts by the President are so common that people argue over which justifications they should put into the history books. For the children. I listed just the Bill of Rights last week.

Congress has failed in its duty to act both as a check on and a balance to, the Executive Branch, by allowing unelected pencil-pushers and bean counters to write and enforce regulations so pervasive that no man has been able to even count the number of pages accurately, with thousands of pages more every year. They have let the size of the budgetary items grow automatically without any oversight or correction from them, despite the disparity of day-to-day circumstances, and declaring other parts of the budget "off limits". This despite the fact that they describe the cutting of about 16 hours worth of operating budget as "severe" (the equivalent of skipping dessert at lunch time once a year, and bragging about how much you had lost because of it).

The Judiciary has broken faith with the citizens by writing laws where none exist, taking away the very nature of "property", allowing clearly unconstitutional laws to stand by reinventing the legal arguments used by its authors and proponents, and finally telling the citizens that not only do their beliefs not count, but that they have no right to petition the government to redress those grievances. And then a State Supreme Court says that people are mandated to violate their religious beliefs in favor of the secular beliefs of others, "as a price of citizenship" (I guess having to buy health insurance as a condition of Federal citizenship isn't enough, now we have to buy it from homosexual agents, otherwise they can sue for discrimination). Because of the tolerance.

What normally happens when a contract has been so violated by one party that nothing within it can be relied upon?

I think it's time that we start figuring out which forms of government will best serve us, going forward into the 21st Century.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 Any ideas?

Two jokes I laughed at

I told my Bishop this joke at Mass this morning, and he laughed and went to send it to all his priests.

 I'll hit him up with this one tonight, when we meet him and some other parishioners.

Via Trog, who headlines it with "If only “history nerds” get these, then the historical knowledge of average internet users really, really sucks."

Well, duh.  Have you seen the average internet user?