Tag Archives: Rand Paul

The Longest Six Hours in Human History

09 Friday Feb 2018

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on The Longest Six Hours in Human History

Tags

, , ,

Did you make it? I assume that, if you’re reading this, you survived the horrid, Earth-shattering, 6-freaking-hour government shutdown.

I know, I know, my world was shaken too.

I found it hard to breath. The sun was a little off schedule this morning. Few birds chirped. I felt disconnected from the gentle, reassuring hand of omnipotent and benevolent governance.

Thank God government that is over!

It’s all Rand Paul’s fault:

“When the Democrats are in power, Republicans appear to be the conservative party. But when Republicans are in power, it seems there is no conservative party. The hypocrisy hangs in the air and chokes anyone with a sense of decency or intellectual honesty.”

-Rand Paul, Senate Floor, February 8, 2018.

The man is crazy, out of control. If only some kind neighbor would step in and sucker punch the doctor for the sake of the people. Another doctor maybe.

Anyway, life will now go on as God government intended. All praise and glory be to the government, from wince all freedom, happiness, prosperity, gravity, energy, and matter flows. I suggest you immediately fall to your knees and send up a prayer (type “Amen!”) to God government for the gifts and glory of government. Repent of your selfish, wicked ways. If not for the government, you wouldn’t even exist.

Next time we might not be so lucky. Next time life could be suspended for … what? … seven hours?! The thought crushes the very (government provided) soul and tortures the (government enriched) mind.

* I occurred to me, as I wrestled with the technology related to a forth-coming video this morning, that I might make another on this subject: something about the Gospel of Government Prosperity. Eh? It could be like an inspirational sermon/documentary wherever the state is worshipped. For the other 3%, it could be a standup routine.

Government+Shutdown15

NBC15, Madison, WI.

The General Stands Again

08 Thursday Feb 2018

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Sen. Rand Paul, the only sane man left on Capitol Hill, is derisively dubbed “General*Paul” by Lindsey Grahamnesty. Lindsey was himself described recently in Taki’s Mag as “suspiciously swishy.”

Today Dr. Paul, the General (I like that, let’s take it away from them), took a hard stand against the bizarre, if predictable, new budget proposal.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is preventing a two-year budget deal from passing, as the White House advised federal agencies to prepare for the government to start shutting down at midnight.

Congressional negotiators were scrambling earlier Thursday to lock in enough votes in the House, and that was before Paul, a Republican, made public his dissatisfaction with the deal, which would raise government spending, avert a government shutdown and lift the debt ceiling.

A senior administrative official said the White House is instructing agencies to begin shutdown preparations in the event that Congress fails to pass a budget before the midnight deadline.

Paul is pushing for an amendment to maintain budget caps, but Senate sources say leaders have no plan to give Paul such a concession, meaning that he can continue to prevent a vote until after midnight, when government funding runs out.

The colossal bill, which lawmakers have been negotiating for months, would be a game-changing piece of legislation, clearing the decks for Congress in dealing with major spending issues as well as doling out disaster relief money.

The overall deal also does not address the high-profile issue of immigration, a key sticking point for many Democrats; but it does increase spending caps by $300 billion for the Pentagon and domestic priorities, a crucial incentive for getting enough votes from both parties.

The Convertible of State is aimed at the edge of a cliff. The Elephant at the wheel floors the gas pedal. The Donkey passenger shouts, “Go, Man, Go!” This is the bipartisanship the people claim to be all crazy about – “gettin’ the people’s business done!” Most don’t realize they’re in the backseat behind the two dumb animals, headed for the edge at high speed.

I guess Rand is more like a traffic cop than a general. Hey, still a man in uniform, right? Maybe that’s what Grahmnesty meant by the remark; you know, what he digs…

The uniparty hasn’t been able to pass a whole and complete annual budget for about a decade. Stopgap after appropriation after special package after… Now! Now, they’ve got us a twofer in store, doubling down (up) to make up for lost responsibility. Deficits and the debt be damned.

Go ahead. Shut her down. Leave her down.

American history repeats itself: There stands Paul like a stone wall!

nimbus-image-1518139305235

CNN (sightly modified).

*Lindsey ridiculed Dr. Paul for wanting to bring our standing armies home and end the oldest war in US history. (I’ve never used the term “cuck” here, you know). Neocons like Grahamnesty should favor the idea, giving the troops a breather before the next war with Iran and/or North Korea and/or Russia and/or China and/or Whomever it is. You know, the war just after the depression and before the civil…

War, War, Forever More

13 Wednesday Sep 2017

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Were my debt-trimental plan from the previous post enacted and followed, there would theoretically be money for everything under the sun: Universal Healthcare; universal income; welfare unending; chickens on pot; a starship to get me to a saner planet, and; funding for wars the world over.

As is the wars (and all that other spending) are bankrupting the country. There are also funny, lingering Constitutional issues, holdovers from when the Old Parchment meant something.

Rand Paul is about the only man left in D.C. who still throws around the “C” word, the dirtiest 12 letters in the English language. Today he again pushed the antiquated idea of Congress, not the White House, declaring war:

The Senate on Wednesday rejected a bipartisan push for a new war authorization against the Islamic State and other terrorist groups, electing to let the White House rely on a 16-year-old law passed after the Sept. 11 attacks as the legal basis to send U.S. troops into combat.

Senators voted 61-36 scuttle an amendment to the annual defense policy bill by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., that would have allowed war authorizations, created in the wake of al-Qaida’s 9/11 strikes, to lapse after six months. Paul, a leader of the GOP’s noninterventionist wing, said Congress would use the time to debate an updated war authority for operations in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and elsewhere before the old ones expired.

Paul criticized his colleagues ahead of the vote, urging them to embrace their war-making responsibility instead of surrendering their power to the White House. He and senators who backed his amendment said former President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump have used the war authorizations from 2001 and 2002 for military operations in countries that Congress never voted to support.

“We are supposed to be a voice that debates and says, ‘Should we go to war?’ It’s part of doing our job,” Paul said. “It’s about grabbing power back and saying this is a Senate prerogative.”

Debates? Doing their job? The Constitution? Such craziness.

All know that the purpose of the Senate is to collude with assist the House with cobbling together “budgets” for the spending of money we don’t have. The wise executive apparatchiks handle the details – “healthcare” for the kiddies, billion$ for banks, and wars without end.

And the wars are really going so well. Rand is in an irrational dizzy about Afghanistan. Why? We’re having so much fun there, we’ve made it a multi-decade party.

Then, there’s the … whatever kind of meddling it is … in Syria. A Christian Bishop from Syria (yes Alabama, there are and have been Christians in the Middle East) explains the sheer brilliance of U.S. policy in his country:

acma2000/YouTube.

The man seems a little distressed about something. Calm down, Padre. They’re raising the debt ceiling!

nimbus-image-1505351163623

And, you. You keep a votin’ for all this. Doing such a swell job.

Rand Paul says the GOP Senate will just Keep ObamaCare

13 Thursday Jul 2017

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

This is the most pitiful crowd of governing idiots ever assembled. Tacitus’s recitation of Tiberius’s mocking condemnation of the Roman Senate seems kind and weak by comparison to what must be said of this rabble.

I miss the old days, when Republicans stood for repealing Obamacare. Republicans across the country and every member of my caucus campaigned on repeal – often declaring they would tear out Obamacare “root and branch!”
What happened?

Now too many Republicans are falling all over themselves to stuff hundreds of billions of taxpayers’ dollars into a bill that doesn’t repeal Obamacare and feeds Big Insurance a huge bailout.

Obamacare regulations? Still here. Taxes? Many still in place, totaling hundreds of billions of dollars.

Insurance company bailouts? Those, too. Remember when Republicans complained about Obamacare’s risk corridors? Remember when we called the corridors nothing more than insurance company bailouts? I remember when one prominent GOP candidate during a presidential debate explicitly called out the Obamacare risk corridors as a bailout to insurance companies. Does anyone else?

Now, the Senate GOP plan being put forward is chock full of insurance bailout money – to the tune of nearly $200 billion. Republicans, present company excluded, now support the idea of lowering your insurance premium by giving a subsidy to the insurance company.

Remarkable. If the GOP now supports an insurance stabilization fund to lower insurance prices, maybe they now support a New Car stabilization fund to lower the price of cars. Or maybe the GOP would support an iPhone stabilization fund to lower the price of phones.

The possibilities are limitless once you accept that the federal government should subsidize prices. I remember when Republicans favored the free choice of the marketplace.

The Senate Obamacare bill does not repeal Obamacare. I want to repeat that so everyone realizes why I’ll vote “no” as it stands now:

The Senate Obamacare bill does not repeal Obamacare. Not even close.

In fact, the Senate GOP bill codifies and likely expands many aspects of Obamacare.

…

Thank you, again, Senator Paul. Much like his father and, unfortuantely, probably doomed to Ron’s effectiveness. There is no hope in either conservatism or in the utterly failed GOP.

Rand-Paul-J.-Scott-ApplewhiteAP-640x480

All we have left? Applewhite/AP.

My Republican friends, please, please, please, please remember this (and more) come the next election – I’ll be here to remind you. Kindly retire the mantra that you, “have to vote Republican or else the Democrats will win.” You did and they have. The GOP, by this measure at least, is the worst offender of the two.

Just pathetic. Men not even fit for slavery.

TrumpCare Tribulations

21 Tuesday Mar 2017

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

I’m considering putting “ObamaCare” to rest as a central reference. Now, it’s TrumpCare, the AHCA, instead of the lingering ACA. The GOP owns it now. And, now, they need to decide how to handle the matter. Rand Paul has some ideas:

Paul, one of the leading senators out of more than a dozen Republicans in the upper chamber criticizing the bill there, told Breitbart News in this exclusive interview he believes there are at least 35 House Republicans ready to vote against the bill in its current form. And he predicted that, unless some major changes come to the legislation between now and the scheduled vote on Thursday, Ryan will need to withdraw the bill and Republicans will have to start from scratch with a new bill and a new strategy on Obamacare.

Paul said in the in-person interview at his U.S. Senate office in the Russell Senate Office Building:

I think there’s easily 35 no votes right now so unless something happens in the next 24 hours, I would predict they pull the bill and start over. I think if conservatives stick together, they will have earned a seat at the table where real negotiation to make this bill an acceptable bill will happen. But it’s interesting what conservatives are doing to change the debate. We went from keeping the Obamacare taxes for a year—hundreds of billions of dollars—but they’re coming towards us because we’re standing firm. So we have to stick together, and if we do stick together there will be a real negotiation on this. The main goal I have is not to pass something that does not fix the situation. If a year from now, insurance rates and premiums are still going through the roof and it’s now a Republican plan it will be a disservice to the president and all of us if we pass something that doesn’t work.

There are choices: the ACA as is (failing); the AHCA (ACA-lite?); the previous repeal bill (vetoed by Obama, perhaps not by Trump?); complete socialized medicine (not popular but perhaps cheaper than the cobbled-together rat’s nest we have now), or; free market medicine (no longer in American vogue). Pick one, GOP.

C7dhen7XQAEvJA9.jpg

Sergio Go / Twitter / Breitbart.

Trump was on the Hill this morning in an attempt to strong-arm support for the AHCA. Paul makes clear that may not have worked, at least not in the Senate. Still, pick one or the other. Ball’s in your court. It’s going to be the second or third choices or a hybrid, so get cracking.

 

Rand to the Rescue?

08 Wednesday Mar 2017

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Rand to the Rescue?

Tags

, , , , , ,

The GOP offers an Amend and Replace for ObamaCare, the ACA. Rand Paul is in hot pursuit of a full repeal:

Though Ryan insisted Tuesday that he’d be able to get the 218 votes he needed to pass the bill in the House and McConnell optimistically predicted Senate passage, Paul’s army made clear that the bill didn’t go far enough to scale back former President Barack Obama’s signature Affordable Care Act.

Instead, Paul said lawmakers should first vote on the same repeal bill that passed Congress but was vetoed last year by Obama, then vote on competing replacement proposals from the Republican leadership and conservatives.

“We are united on repeal, but we are divided on replacement,” Paul said. “What’s the best way to get past this impasse? Let’s vote on what we voted on before: a clean repeal.”

If Paul’s coalition holds, it could doom the leadership’s replacement bill in both chambers.

C6AW5h0UwAAkncd

Rand Paul / Twitter.

Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio echoed Rand’s position:

On Wednesday’s Morning Joe, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said Congressional Republicans should introduce and vote on the “exact same” legislation that repeals Obamacare that was sent to President Obama when he held the presidency. Jordan called on his Republican brethren to “do what we told the voters we were going to do.”

“Let’s do this right and, more importantly, let’s do what we told the voters we were going to do,” Jordan said. “That’s why today I’ll be introducing legislation which just says clean repeal. Let’s vote on the exact same thing — 15 months ago, every single Republican in the House, every single Republican in the Senate voted on. We put it on President Obama’s desk.”

Jordan, like GOP Senator Rand Paul, said the current ‘repeal and replace’ legislation being touted by Speaker Paul Ryan is “Obamacare in a different form” and keeps some of the taxes from the original bill.

It almost makes sense: They were in the minority with a hostile President and they almost passed a full repeal. Now, in the majority and with a Chief Executive itching to sign off, they go soft. Almost. Smells like Republicans alright. And only Republicans could make something so simple into such a problem when confronting something so serious. Maybe Mitch and Paul should switch titles with Rand and Jim.

Better do something quick! The Russian moles are coming…

The Incredible Obamacare Whack-A-Bill

02 Thursday Mar 2017

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Now you see it. Now you don’t. Actually, you just don’t. Even if you’re a member of Congress, a Republican member, you can’t see whatever passes for Obamacare reform.

This is getting ridiculous. Well, it’s been ridiculous for years – now they’re just adding to the spectacle.

House Republicans thought they were writing a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare. Instead, on Thursday, they found themselves running a traveling circus.

Following reports that a major chunk of their health-care legislation was being held for House GOP review in a secret room somewhere in the Capitol complex, Democrats and Republicans who hadn’t been invited started the hunt. Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, was first on the scene of the supposed secret location.

“It’s the secret office of the secret bill,” Paul told a gaggle of reporters. After being denied entry by a security guard and staff aide, he quickly turned the moment into an impromptu press conference about legislation transparency.

“I suspect public pressure will make them release it,” he said.

Except, as it turned out, the bill wasn’t there. House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady was in the room, but the Texas Republican said the bill wasn’t.

Where’s the Bill? Who’s got the Bill? Anybody seen a Bill?

c57xffixqaay2wl

Sen. Rand Paul on the hunt (with portable copier). Steve Kopack / Twitter.

Why the secrecy? The Draft circulated a week ago was obviously that – a draft – or a ruse. Allegedly the authors were not happy it got out. An, now, they’re making it impossible for anyone to see what they’re doing. Why? Do we have secrecy in our government? The answer is, “yes, of course”. But that doesn’t feel right, it’s not the way it’s supposed to be.

The original legislation, which gave us the doomed ACA, was shrouded in secrecy. It was rushed through the process. No one bothered to read it (or had time). That didn’t work out so well. Had they read it, they might have concluded it was a giant, stinking boondoggle, voted it down, and spared us (and themselves) the present worry.

After what … 100 years? … of promising to fix or get rid of the mess, one would think Republicans would be proud if their efforts. Why hide them? Do really have anything this time? Someone pointed out that they did pass a repeal Bill through previously. It met an Obama veto. Why not redo the exact same Bill? Trump would sign it. Stupidity on top or secrecy on top of incompetence.

Similarly, the TPP legislation was kept “locked up and under armed guard in the Capital basement vault”. That, also, was a complete disaster waiting to happen. The Bill stalled in the Senate (maybe someone read it), only to have Obama okay it anyway. Trump killed it earlier this year with great ceremony – one of the few laws undone, ever. A win for the people.

The people need another win with Obamacare. At the least, they deserve a little trust from their employees in Congress. Let’s see what is in the damned repeal, repeal and replace, prop-up, or whatever it is.

It’s really a shame we don’t have a “no confidence” voting measure for our government. That’s no secret.

Gunning For Votes: A Look At Candidate Positions On The Second Amendment

20 Sunday Sep 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Last week Donald Trump added a white paper to his presidential election campaign materials: PROTECTING OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.  Until then The Donald had been a one note Donny – his note was all immigration reform.  I decided to make a professional examination of his paper.  Then I decided to review the positions of major candidates from all parties on the subject of the Second Amendment.  Not all of them, of course; there is something like 170 Republicans seeking the party’s nomination.  I don’t have that kind of time.  Trump gets the spotlight.  Not because he’s Trump but because he published a white paper.

Now, this examination draws together two concepts which, for me, are diametrically opposed: I love and cherish firearms rights and all individual freedom; I detest electoral politics and government in general.  Herein, though, I attempt to keep a neutral attitude towards the subject.  You will soon realize my failure.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1791)(entirety).  I have expounded, in great detail, on the Second Amendment.  While a part of the Federal Constitution, establishing another government to plague mankind, the Second Amendment is the part that embodies the spirit of natural self-preservation, a branch of Natural Law.  It embodies protecting oneself from small-scale, “ordinary” predation as well as from the tyranny brought about by politics.

Politics involves the people setting themselves up for disaster one election at a time.  It’s usually a contest to see who is the biggest and worst rat – the rats usually win.  “The most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.”  J.R.R. Tolkien, 1943 The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien.

Let’s get started with…

The Republican Field

Donald Trump

Trump begins his dissertation: “The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.”  He soon forgets the infringement and the period and explains why some abridgment is okay.

trump

donaldjtrump.com.

Well, he doesn’t throw The 2A under the bus immediately:

The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple.

That’s his way of kinda sorta acknowledging Natural Law.  I might add, here, that it’s not just about self-defense.  It’s also about tyranny prevention and resolution – through armed and extreme measures if necessary.  The Founding Father knew about that too; The Supreme Court wouldn’t exist without it either.

Trump then moves on to enforcing “the laws on the books.”  That’s great so long as those laws are valid – most are not.  “We need to get serious about prosecuting violent criminals,” Trump says.  He gives examples of local violent crimes.  The man is not running for any local office but for President of the United States.  There are only two (potentially) violent federal crimes mentioned in that Constitution nobody reads: piracy and treason.  And, those are almost exclusively committed (alone with counterfeiting), these days, by the federal government itself.

States and localities should enforce laws that prevent violence against the innocent or which punish such violence.  My view is if a man commits a violent crime, then he should be prevented from further interaction with society, either via a prison sentence or a well placed shot.  This approach would necessarily remove him from the pool of persons capable of bearing arms.  Otherwise, the issue of crime is as completely removed from the Second Amendment discussion as violent crimes are removed from federal jurisdiction.

Speaking of well placed shots … Trump advocates self-defense.  That’s good!  He boasts, “that’s why I have a concealed carry permit, and that’s why tens of millions of Americans have concealed carry permits as well.”  That’s bad!  Who needs a “permit” from anyone (least of all from political and bureaucratic rodentia) to exercise a right??  Free people must be free to arm themselves if they like, without any government involvement – infringement if you will.

Trump wants to fix our broken mental health system.  Again, that’s great.  It’s also not part of his desired employment as set forth in Article Two of the Constitution (I keep coming back to that thing…).  I assume he means using his personal financial and celebrity status to help the mentally ill.  For that I commend him.  Otherwise, like crime mental health is irrelevant to the Second Amendment.

He gets back to guns: “Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own.”  By itself this is his piece de resistance! However, he immediately murkifies the white right out of his paper by praising federal background checks (infringement) and by advocating a national carry permit (we have that now, it’s called the Second Amendment).  He also says driving a car is a privilege, not a right but that is another can of white papers.

The Donald ends by praising the military (yes, he’s running as a Republican) and proclaiming the rights of servicemen to carry arms.  I wonder if he caught the word “militia” in the text of The 2A?  The militia is the people. The people have the right to arms.  Trump’s military is the national standing army, known bane of freedom and limited to a two-year duration by that Constitution (am I dreaming all this????).

If pressed I don’t think trump would stand he forceful claim about people owning the firearm of their choice.  Suppose my choice is belt-fed and electrically operated.  Who Donald permit that or would he fire me? I don’t care to find out.

Carly Fiorina

Carly doesn’t have a white paper though she has much better looks that Trump (sure he would agree).  Her Second Amendment views may be found on her website, including a video from Fox News!

She notes that her husband has a government permission slip to carry a gun and she thinks that is fine and Constitutional.  I don’t think she’s read the document nor does she grasp the concept of a right.

Rand Paul

Dr. Paul is the son of Dr. Ron Paul, the man who should be President now. Outside of the Libertarians (see below), Rand has the best stance of The 2A.

As President, I vow to uphold our entire Bill of Rights, but specifically our right to bear arms.

Those who support the second amendment must also vehemently protect the Fourth Amendment. If we are not free from unreasonable and warrantless searches, no one’s guns are safe.

I will not support any proposed gun control law which would limit the right to gun ownership by those who are responsible, law-abiding citizens.

In the White House, I will remain vigilant in the fight against infringements on our Second Amendment rights.

Excellent!  However, to be true to his word, Rand would have to seek to repeal numerous federal laws in place now (NFA, ATF, 1986 “tax” act, etc.).  He’s also right about protecting rights in tandem.  That’s really the only valid reason to have a government.  He must also know that, sadly, every government in human history has immediately departed from this objective.  This trend will not abate anytime soon, Rand or no.

Jeb Bush

Yeah.  Another Bush.  Bush number three.  Not to worry, there’s a Clinton down below (not like that, Bill…).

I could not find an issue statement from George…er…Jeb’s website.  I did find an interesting exchange between the former governor and Stephen Colbert on The Late Show:

Stephen Colbert: Well, the right to have an individual firearm to protect yourself is a national document, in the Constitution, so shouldn’t that also be applied national…

Jeb Bush: No. Not necessarily…There’s a 10th amendment to our country, the Bill of Rights has a 10th amendment that says powers are given to the states to create policy, and the federal government is not the end all and be all. That’s an important value for this country, and it’s an important federalist system that works quite well.

Once again the comedian gets it right, the politician wrong.  Bush is aware of the tenth but not the second? Firearms and defense are universal rights not just national rights.  The right to self-preservation exists even in the absence of any government (imagine that for a minute..aaahh).  Bush didn’t even get number 10 quite right; “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”  Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1791)(entirety).

This means the federal government is strictly limited to those very few powers specifically written in the Constitution.  The States have some power outside the scope of the federal leviathan – concerning violent crime for example.  And, The People themselves retain political power.  By the way, government is a mix of powers and rights. The body politic is empowered only insofar as it may preserve the rights of the individual.  None of this power, federal, state or personal may (legitimately) infringe the freedoms of the people.  Illegitimately, it happens all the time.  Use your personal power – save us from another Bush presidency.

The Democrats

The days of Zell Miller and Sam Nunn being behind us, many write off the donkey party as wholly anti-gun.  Anti-freedom is more accurate.  They are generally a mirrored image of their anti-freedom elephant counterparts. Losing my objectivity, yes.

Hillary Clinton

Clinton.  Yes, one married to that other Clinton.  Like so many leftists, Hillary couches firearms issues in backwards thinking and words.  To her guns in private hands are bad and result in bad things.  Instead of “firearms rights” she talks about “gun violence prevention.”

“I don’t know how we keep seeing shooting after shooting, read about the people murdered because they went to Bible study or they went to the movies or they were just doing their job, and not finally say we’ve got to do something about this.”  Hillary, August 27, 2015.  Part of her something would be reinstating the assault weapons ban.  That would be infringement as prohibited by the Second Amendment.

Like Hillary I too deplore violence.  That’s why I support a ban on government.

Bernie Sanders

Bernie’s list of issues is devoid of anything for or against the Second Amendment.  I glanced over it and it rather reminded me of Karl Marx, maybe with a friendly Vermont bent.  Moving on…

Joe Biden

Crazy Joe is apparently just about to get into the race.  He has no papers or issue statements yet.  However, some of his positions on guns may be found here and here.  Mind you, should he enter the race, his positions are subject to magically change depending on who he’s talking to.  Buyer beware.

Despite having voted against gun rights in the past, at a press conference in 2013 Biden enthusiastically demonstrated his prize, imaginary shotgun for reporters.  Trump has a point about mental illness.

Libertarians

Americans love their “two-party” system despite its none-existence.  We all tend to forget about the lovable, pot-loving Libertarians.  In addition to legalizing (decriminalizing, geesh) whacky tobacky, the LP is pretty decent on gun rights as far as it goes…

Darryl Perry

Darryl Perry is running for President.  He has a list of issues in his platform among which is “Self Defense.”  “As a Life Member of the Second Amendment Foundation, I support the right to privately own and possess firearms or any other weapon deemed appropriate for self-defense.”  Perry.

Deemed appropriate by whom, Mr. Perry?  “Deemed appropriate” sounds like the talk of the permit set.  What about offensive weapons designed to rid the people of a tyrant.  Ah.  That would go against the LP’s pledge, “I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.”

That’s fine and dandy during civilized times.  But, suppose there’s a government on the loose?  What then?  Defense?  Defense against government is best accomplished by government prevention, which may require a little initiation of force – see the American Revolution, Thomas Jefferson, New Hampshire Constitution, etc.

Gary Johnson

Mr. Johnson was the LP candidate during the 2012 election.  No word on whether he’s in for this bout.  Nonetheless I have included his position.

“I don’t believe there should be any restrictions when it comes to firearms. None.” Johnson, April 20, 2011, Slate Magazine.  If he means firearms for the people, then that’s the best Second Amendment support statement of the 21st Century.

The only way to improve on a position like that is to declare there should be no government.  None.  But that would deprive us of white paper analysis and fun articles like this one.  Cheers!

***Note*** Nothing in the preceding article should be construed in any way as supporting any candidate for any office.  Perrin Lovett does not support government (outside of theoretical discussion and fun poking).

Secrets of the Trade (and other Bullsh*t)

14 Sunday Jun 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Recently I wrote of the coming wave of destructive evil from Washington (the latest, as that tide ever brings the same).  Courtesy of Barry Obama and John (the tan smoker) Boehner “your” federal government is moving towards new, secret, and purely ruinous foreign trade powers.

Frequently I deride the horrors of politicians and politics in general – see these links for details.  The New York Times and NPR report that, as of Friday, the malicious train of ObamaTrade has been temporarily derailed.  I say temporarily because things like this are usually a done deal once they start.

“Eighty-six Republicans voted for the program, more than double the 40 Democrats who supported it. But the trade adjustment assistance bill failed when 303 voted against it.

Republican leaders then passed, in a 219-to-211 vote, a stand-alone bill that would grant the president the trade negotiating authority he sought. But that measure cannot go to the president for his signature because the Senate version of the legislative package combined both trade adjustment and trade promotion.”  New York Times.

I was pleased the popular press reported on this issue – they lacked the zeal these reserve for important stories (say, about Caitlyn Jenner) – but they did, at least, report.  I was a little dismayed they left off important reference information for the inquisitive public. The Bill in question is H.R. 1314(EAS), the Trade Act of 2015.

This gem of K Street legalese would, among other things, amend the Tax Code of 1986 in order to help large organizations make more money at your expense.  It would also grant the President new and unprecedented unilateral trade powers.  Pay no heed to that Congressional consent nonsense in the Constitution.

Get a load of this:

(b) Principal Trade Negotiating Objectives-
(1) TRADE IN GOODS- The principal negotiating objectives of the United States regarding trade in goods are–
(A) to expand competitive market opportunities for exports of goods from the United States and to obtain fairer and more open conditions of trade, including through the utilization of global value chains, by reducing or eliminating tariff and nontariff barriers and policies and practices of foreign governments directly related to trade that decrease market opportunities for United States exports or otherwise distort United States trade; and
(B) to obtain reciprocal tariff and nontariff barrier elimination agreements, including with respect to those tariff categories covered in section 111(b) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3521(b)).
(2) TRADE IN SERVICES- (A) The principal negotiating objective of the United States regarding trade in services is to expand competitive market opportunities for United States services and to obtain fairer and more open conditions of trade, including through utilization of global value chains, by reducing or eliminating barriers to international trade in services, such as regulatory and other barriers that deny national treatment and market access or unreasonably restrict the establishment or operations of service suppliers.
(B) Recognizing that expansion of trade in services generates benefits for all sectors of the economy and facilitates trade, the objective described in subparagraph (A) should be pursued through all means, including through a plurilateral agreement with those countries willing and able to undertake high standard services commitments for both existing and new services.

            – H.R. 1314, Sec. 102. TRADE NEGOTIATING OBJECTIVES.

More:

(4) AGGREGATE REDUCTION; EXEMPTION FROM STAGING-
(A) AGGREGATE REDUCTION- Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the aggregate reduction in the rate of duty on any article which is in effect on any day pursuant to a trade agreement entered into under paragraph (1) shall not exceed the aggregate reduction which would have been in effect on such day if–
(i) a reduction of 3 percent ad valorem or a reduction of 1/10 of the total reduction, whichever is greater, had taken effect on the effective date of the first reduction proclaimed under paragraph (1) to carry out such agreement with respect to such article; and
(ii) a reduction equal to the amount applicable under clause (i) had taken effect at 1-year intervals after the effective date of such first reduction.
(B) EXEMPTION FROM STAGING- No staging is required under subparagraph (A) with respect to a duty reduction that is proclaimed under paragraph (1) for an article of a kind that is not produced in the United States. The United States International Trade Commission shall advise the President of the identity of articles that may be exempted from staging under this subparagraph.
(5) ROUNDING- If the President determines that such action will simplify the computation of reductions under paragraph (4), the President may round an annual reduction by an amount equal to the lesser of–
(A) the difference between the reduction without regard to this paragraph and the next lower whole number; or
(B) 1/2 of 1 percent ad valorem.

            – H.R. 1314, Sec. 103, TRADE AGREEMENTS AUTHORITY.

Make any sense to you?  Of course not. And, this is the part that is open for public inspection.  A shadow bill, the real law, is still locked up and under armed guard in the Capital basement vault.  What kind of government operates like this?  Sadly, “ours’ does.

secret-doors-matt-boyle-breitbart-640x480

(Breitbart.)

Members of the respective houses of Congress can (allegedly) enter the vault to read the shadow text.  Rand Paul did so.  “’I think I am not supposed to reveal the details of it, but I can tell you it was about 800 pages long,’ Paul said.” Breitbart.  “Paul said he thinks the secretive process makes it look like the government has “something to hide” and that he thinks if Obama opened up the process it’d make it easier for several Senators—and the American people—to truly understand what it is they’re voting on.” Id.

They do have something to hide.  They always do.  The details are in the vault, so to speak.  The fact that a U.S. Senator has to keep mum about the text demonstrates this without question.

Another telling facet is the desperation among Republicans and the White House to pass this filth.  “The fate of the trade legislation now depends on Obama’s ability, along with business-friendly interests, to persuade dozens of Democrats to switch their votes before a planned do-over vote early next week.”  Washington Post.

The President is literally pleading with his own party to help him screw the American People.  He’s already won over many of the “loyal opposition.”  At a Washington Nationals ballgame last week “a bizarre scene unfolded as the crowd crammed inside Nationals Park lurched into a chant about the legislation. ‘TPA! TPA! TPA!’ chanted Republican congressional aides seated near the first base dugout when Obama stepped onto the field at the top of the fourth inning.”  Fox News. “TPA” refers to Trade Prostitution Act.

Another telling feature is the desires of large U.S. corporate interests to pass the Bill. The more power their political puppets have, the more money they can make.  You and your retirement plans be damned.  “’Manufacturers will not back down in this fight for expanded trade, for the future of our industry and our country,’ the National Association of Manufacturers said in a statement.”  Business Leaders React With Dismay to Defeat of Trade Bill, New York Times.  Naturally, they have yachts to buy.

Some out here in the real country get it.  “Do you remember back in the 1990s when the United States entered into the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)? And the subsequent Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA)? These trade agreements have not worked out well for American workers. American jobs went to Mexico. American workers were laid off and communities devastated. American companies, just to increase their profits, built their production plants in Mexico and paid their workers pennies on the dollar for their labor.”  Remember NAFTA and CAFTA? Well, here comes SHAFTA, Economy in Crisis.

Unfortunately, we have not learned our lesson — even after two decades of failed trade agreements. Right now Congress is considering entering into another trade agreement with South Pacific countries named the Trans Pacific Partnership, otherwise known as TPP. However, this trade agreement is even more onerous than previous failed trade agreements.

* The TPP was constructed in secret by corporations. Congress and the public had no input. This is fundamentally undemocratic and undermines transparency in government.

* It is a trade deal that increases corporate power and CEO bonuses.

* Thousands of jobs out-sourced to countries that do not respect human rights or worker’s rights.

* It allows transnational corporations to sue countries if they believe they have been harmed (sometimes speculatively) in a trade agreement written by corporations and behind closed doors.

* Expands the deregulation of banks, hedge funds and insurance companies. Remember the Wall Street crash of 2008 due to deregulation? Regulations keep corporations honest and prevent them from harming us.

* Harms environmental regulations in counties that are part of the TPP.

The corporations are now done writing their secret trade agreement, and Congress now has to vote up or down on the law. The Obama administration is seeking “fast track” authority from Congress in order to complete the negotiations. This means there will be no committee hearings, expert testimony or amendments. The Obama administration is taking this anti-democratic approach because they know if this treaty was debated, it would never become law.

              – SHAFTA, Id.

Read that again.  Let it sink in.

Last week, prior to the vote and temporary corporate profit defeat, I called my Congress Critter, one Rick Allen, for his input.  While I live in his District, he does not necessarily represent me.  Since the departure of Ron Paul I have had no semblance of representation in Washington.  So it goes.

Amerika being what it is these day I was unable to speak directly with my employee. Rather, I had a conversation with a polite young fellow named Eric.  He laughed and admitted, yes, much of the Bill is secret. (F’ing hilarious!) He did note that I could read all about the public parts – see Thomas quotes, above.  True to his position and the nature of his work he would not say definitively whether my boy Allen was in favor of sending more jobs oversees and more money to Wall Street.

As an aside, Allen did vote against the Bill.  Then he immediately voted to keep it alive for future consideration.  How very political of him.

Eric was well aware of the TPA chant at the baseball game.  Though he was not present he did state that several of his office mates were.  I warned him of what Marcus Aurelius said about this kind of thing.  The Roman leader and philosopher was solidly against jingoistic public displays of partisan passion.  My warning was likely lost – then and now.

If you care you may contact some staffer of your “representative,” whoever that may be.  Just click this little link to locate your dedicated servant: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/.

You may be able to visually pick him/her out of the following picture.  This photograph is of a general Congressional pow-wow over the Bill last week:

Rats-Caitlin-Mitchell

(They do all look the same.  Google.)

 

 

 

 

Political Party Time!

24 Sunday May 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Political Party Time!

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I hate politicians.  In Christian terms it is wrong to hate any man.  Politicians are less men than rodents.  Thus, I feel exonerated in my feelings.  Elections are exercises in stupidity and herd-think.  Presidential elections are the worst.

H. L. Mencken summed it up best: “All of the great patriots now engaged in edging and squirming their way toward the Presidency of the Republic run true to form. That is to say, they are all extremely wary, and all more or less palpable frauds. What they want, primarily, is the job; the necessary equipment of inescapable issues, immutable principles and soaring ideals can wait until it becomes more certain which way the mob will be whooping.”  Mencken, 1920.

The difference between 1920 and 2015 is that, back then, there were people pretending to be true patriots.  At some point they dropped the pretense and proceeded from a desire for pure, unadulterated power.  The mob of the American people conveniently ignore this fact.  The television is just too entertaining to disagree with.  The country sinks lower into the sewer of politics.

A political “party” sounds like a fun time until one realizes the term refers not so much to an event as to a lowest, dumbest degenerates ever assembled under the sun (in truth, like all roaches, they prefer the darkness).  Washington warned against them. Mencken ridiculed them.  The people, ever plumbing the depths of stupidity, embrace them with jealous fervor.  It’s “us” Democrats against “them” Republicans and visa versa.  Spare the sane the idiocy of it all.

America is dominated by two predominate political parties.  They are nominally referred to as conservatives and liberals.  As I see it they both liberally dispense what may be conservatively described as bullshit.  The people seem to like it.

Third parties exist, apparently to provide comic relief for the big two.  I experimented with what I thought the most honest of these alternatives, the Libertarians.  Given the choice I would gladly be ruled by Libertarian politicians than those which currently plague us.  However, given power, I am sure they would be corrupted by the mainstream of political discourse.  Anarchy is the only happy solution.  The people do not like happy solutions.  Thus, we are suck with the rats and the roaches.

These parties care nothing about you.  They’re priorities are: bankers, Israel (Likudniks), and anyone else.  Not you.  Not me.

I am sick of this G*****ned nonsense and what it to f**king stop.  Okay? There is no difference between Democrats and Republicans!  They respect and represent neither democracy nor any republic.

fiscal-irresponsibility

(Different approach, same results.  Google.)

An illustrative story from the popular news presses:

If the God-fearing Republicans exist to save us from the Godless, communist Democrats, then why are Republicans Rallying to Save Obama’s Secret Trade Deal?  You can read more about this phenomenon here and here and here.

I’m not entirely sure what this new “secret” trade deal means for America.  But, first, it’s secret.  That means bad when it comes from Washington.  Second, it’s a trade deal. NAFTA and CAFTA, etc. have given American the SHAFTA.  I remember being lied to about NAFTA.  The dirty manufacturing jobs of old, they said, would give way to a new world of high-paying service jobs which would benefit everyone.

In truth, we have lost the industrial work, pay and all.  In exchange we have gained menial minimum wage employment serving hamburgers and such.  Robots and immigrants and Indians now do the productive work for real pay.  What a change.

I’m sure the new law – sure to happen – will be more of the same.  It supposedly grants the President new powers concerning foreign trade.  I understand Obama caught wind of a few, final high-paying jobs left in American and is determined to stamp them out. The displaced workers will receive healthcare and cell phones for the bargain – at a cost.

A few Democrats and Rand Paul (son of the mighty Ron Paul), realizing the potential liabilities of robbing the people of their last shot at the American Dream, have stood in the way.  Paul filibustered against the deal in the Senate.  His speech fell of deaf and stupid ears.  The President will get his way, supported by the “conservative” opposition.  Trade will be geared ever towards non-American interests.  Americans will lose jobs.  Reality TV will continue to be popular among the uneducated rabble.

Just remember this when the election rolls around and the Bush/Romney/Christie machine makes the usual patriotic rumblings.  Remember it when Hitlary bashes the GOP for being unsupportive of freedom.  Blah, blah.  Sounds like the same old BS to me.

Remember, if you can, how the various Democratic Congresses and Bill Clinton ran up the national debt, creating new and useless government programs along the way.  George Bush, the dimmer, was elected to change all that.  He promptly created new agencies and doubled the debt while commencing new wars everywhere.  His Excellency, Barack Hussein Osama, was elected to reverse course.  Dutifully, he doubled the debt again while continuing and adding to the wars.  Now he wants to finish off the trade work began by Clinton and Bush the Vomiter.  I see a conspiracy.

The people, bloated by beer and television see nothing.  They hear nothing.  They say nothing.  One of the new fools (or an old fool) foisted upon us by the elite will be the next President.  Business will continue as usual.

Spare me your partisan rhetoric this year and next.