Tag Archives: surveillance state

Bipartisanshitt

There is an urban myth out there that needs to be addressed.

“Binge drinking is bad.”  No, wait.  Wrong one.

“Compromise is good.”

If you’re a product of the public schools (like I am) it should be expected you believe we should all get along.  You probably think our elected representatives should be having dinner together, holding hands and making out in the back of dark movie theaters.  You might even think it is GOOD when they all get together and create legislation effecting the rest of us.

In other words, you might believe passing lots of bills is a terrific way to judge their productivity.  You think the government should “do something”… You might have been taught that the founders of this country wanted our leaders to strip down and embrace each other every time they met so they could create lots of really cool law.  If any of this rings true for you, what you “know” is wrong.  You should demand a refund on that free public education.

Here’s the truth, our system of government was designed specifically to be slow, cumbersome and rarely produce laws.  It was created to make sure no single branch could run rampant over the others with this purpose in mind.  It was designed for a fight… over everything… in the hopes that whatever came out was only what was absolutely necessary.  Less was more.  Nothing getting done was fine, if not preferred.  (I’ve floated this idea around the house but have not had much traction.)

We have come a long way from that original intent.  Over the last 100 years we have entitled our politicians to do whatever they want.  They have learned to routinely create law outside of the Constitution because they know that the odds are no-one will challenge it.  And, if their law does get challenged it will take too long and the American people will lose interest, or more often think they are owed whatever the law might “give” them.

These same politicians also know they can slow down the process of any legal challenge by appointing judges who also don’t care what limitations the Constitution puts in place.  Such judges then present their rulings utilizing previous unconstitutional rulings they or their fellow travelers passed down earlier.  Amazingly, they are also not above using foreign law for validation… which I’m very sure the Founding Fathers did not intend.  The fact that we revel in our lack of understanding and promote such behavior in our leaders should be frightening.  It has brought us to a very scary place.  Haven’t you wondered why alcohol sales are up? We’re frightened, but too uninformed to know why.  It’s like a horror movie where the person about to get killed runs around the house and turns all the lights… off.

There has been a determined movement over the last 80 years to position the U.S. Constitution as too restrictive.  (Our current president is on the record promoting this very idea.)  But you will most often find it repeated by the “open-minded” who have not taken the 5 minutes needed to read it, let alone try to discuss and understand it. (They don’t need to read it… their hearts tell them what they need to know… what’s scary about that is they vote…)   These are also the people who think we should all give each other big wet sloppy kisses… all the time.  To them, getting along to “help the country” sounds so nice it requires no further exploration on their part.

To make things worse, there are too many people who want to be led and then insist you must be led as well.  These people have found a home on both sides of the aisle.  The Founders were aware this would always be a reality. The defense they gave us against such people was an extremely well-defined and very restrictive document, that could be changed, in other words amended, if needed… but it would take an act of congress. (Yes, that’s where the phrase came from.)

What it comes down to is that you have two sides to choose from.  One side subscribes to individual freedom and one does not.  What makes one side somewhat sinister is that it wants to control you with “the best of intentions”.  Bear in mind, those who believe the sheep need to be led never seem to count themselves among the sheep….

So there must always be a war between those who know you are too stupid to make decisions for yourself  (Statists/Socialists) and those of us who think you are the only person who knows what’s best for you. (Free-market Capitalists)   If you give it a moment of thought, does it  make sense that a person who subscribes to individual freedom be buddies with a person who believes in the soft slavery of statism?  It’s really as simple as that.  The line in the sand is Force.

In conclusion, we are not supposed to get along.  We are not supposed to compromise our individual freedoms.  Ever.

If you need proof, compromise with Socialists is what got us here today… bankrupt, having our e-mail and phones call tapped, “intelligence agents” looking at our daughters cell phone pictures and Facebook pages while your grandmother is getting molested at the airport.  And the useful idiots continue begging for more Bipartisanshitt…

(Originally Posted 012012.  Reposted yet again because it needs to be.)

Advertisements

Bipartisanshitt

There is an urban myth out there that needs to be addressed.

“Binge drinking is bad.”  No, wait.  Wrong one.

“Compromise is good.”

If you’re a product of the public schools (like I am) it should be expected you believe we should all get along.  You probably think our elected representatives should be having dinner together, holding hands and making out in the back of dark movie theaters.  You might even think it is GOOD when they all get together and create legislation effecting the rest of us.

In other words, passing lots of bills is a terrific way to judge their productivity.  You think the government should “do something”… You might have been taught that the founders of this country wanted our leaders to strip down and embrace each other every time they met so they could create lots of really cool law.  If any of this rings true for you, what you “know” is wrong.  You should demand a refund on that free public education.

Here’s the truth, our system of government was designed specifically to be slow, cumbersome and rarely produce laws.  It was created to make sure no single branch could run rampant over the others with this purpose in mind.  It was designed for a fight… over everything… in the hopes that whatever came out was only what was absolutely necessary.  Less was more.  Nothing getting done was fine, if not preferred.  (I’ve floated this idea around the house but have not had much traction.)

We have come a long way from that original intent.  Over the last 100 years we have entitled our politicians to do whatever they want.  They have learned to routinely create law outside of the Constitution because they know that the odds are no-one will challenge it.  And, if their law does get challenged it will take too long and the American people will lose interest, or more often think they are owed whatever the law might “give” them.

These same politicians also know they can slow down the process of any legal challenge by appointing judges who also don’t care what limitations the Constitution puts in place.  Such judges then present their rulings utilizing previous unconstitutional rulings they or their fellow travelers passed down earlier.  Amazingly, they are also not above using foreign law for validation… which I’m very sure the Founding Fathers did not intend.  The fact that we revel in our lack of understanding and promote such behavior in our leaders should be frightening.  It has brought us to a very scary place.  Haven’t you wondered why alcohol sales are up? We’re frightened, but too uninformed to know why.  It’s like a horror movie where the person about to get killed runs around the house and turns all the lights… off.

There has been a determined movement over the last 80 years to position the U.S. Constitution as too restrictive.  (Our current president is on the record promoting this very idea.)  But you will most often find it repeated by the “open-minded” who have not taken the 5 minutes needed to read it, let alone try to discuss and understand it. (They don’t need to read it… their hearts tell them what they need to know… what’s scary about that is they vote…)   These are also the people who think we should all give each other big wet sloppy kisses… all the time.  To them, getting along to “help the country” sounds so nice it requires no further exploration on their part.

To make things worse, there are too many people who want to be led and then insist you must be led as well.  These people have found a home on both sides of the aisle.  The Founders were aware this would always be a reality. The defense they gave us against such people was an extremely well-defined and very restrictive document, that could be changed, in other words amended, if needed… but it would take an act of congress. (Yes, that’s where the phrase came from.)

What it comes down to is that you have two sides to choose from.  One side subscribes to individual freedom and one does not.  What makes one side somewhat sinister is that it wants to control you with “the best of intentions”.  Bear in mind, those who believe the sheep need to be led never seem to count themselves among the sheep….

So there must always be a war between those who know you are too stupid to make decisions for yourself  (Statists/Socialists) and those of us who think you are the only person who knows what’s best for you. (Free-market Capitalists)   If you give it a moment of thought, does it  make sense that a person who subscribes to individual freedom be buddies with a person who believes in the soft slavery of statism?  It’s really as simple as that.  The line in the sand is Force.

In conclusion, we are not supposed to get along.  We are not supposed to compromise our individual freedoms.  Ever.

If you need proof, compromise with Socialists is what got us here today… bankrupt, having our e-mail and phones call tapped, “intelligence agents” looking at our daughters cell phone pictures and Facebook pages while your grandmother is getting molested at the airport.  And the useful idiots continue begging for more Bipartisanshitt…

(Originally Posted 012012.  Reposted yet again because it needs to be.)


On the Heels of Rand Paul’s filing a Lawsuit against the NSA, We Make a Few Suggestions.

Senator Rand,

We are out here rooting for you!  But we’re also concerned, particularly after the story that our intelligence services wanted Edward Snowden Dead.  So here is a brief list of recommendations…

Might we suggest getting a Food Taster?

A Personal Mechanic? Preferably one willing to start your car in the morning.

Think strongly about staying out of wide open spaces with tall buildings or plentiful ground cover.  Stay away from windows.

When considering heading out to Lunch or Dinner pick several places and then flip a coin.  Keep that coin handy.

Vary your sleep schedule.

Take different routes to get around the Capital.

Get rid of your internet connection.

Toss the Phone.

Buy a typewriter.

Wear reversible clothing.

If it looks a little greasy and smells faintly of almonds, don’t open it.  Don’t even pick it up.

Read up on Polonium.

Find some guys that look like you and send them out for errands.  Often.

From ALL of US, we wish you the VERY best with your law suit.
Seriously, Good luck!