My Witness Against the Corrupt FCC and Obama Administration

I do not believe my comment will be heard. I believe this because we, the people, have spoken again and again on this matter. TWICE we elected a man as president who promised a free and open internet (truly free, not the garbage 'free' the current chairman claims to support). We campaigned against SOPA, and PIPA and the TPP and numerous attempts, COUNTLESS attempts to put a fence around the internet and put up toll ways and basically take away the medium of freedom of the people. It is now scientifically proven that this is an oligarchy. Obama put a man who is a known lobbyist for the corrupt and hated broadband industry in charge of the regulatory body and the first major thing he does is turn around and say that he wants to do what broadband wants. Give him two or three years and then he'll leave for a nice well paid job that pays millions of dollars as a reward for his brazenly selfish actions. It appears we can't stop you this time around. Obama AND the republicans are bought and sold, but since Rule of Law is important to the illusion of freedom we have this will be kept as public record, so for future generations know that we did not let this corruption go unnoticed. We did not take to the streets because of visible evidence that federally coordinated strikes on peaceful protestors go entirely unpunished and have reason to fear for our lives. We have made our wishes known countless times, and they are still ignored. Let this be witness and evidence to the corruption of the Republic of the United States of America, never perfect but at one time much more moral than it is now.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/confirm?confirmation=2014516188817

Comment yourself if you want: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=w969v

[Cons] Article 1, Section 9 - Titles of Nobility (4 of 4)

Sir Paul McCartney?  Sir Alec Guinness?

England has this wonderful opportunity to grant brilliance in a field with a title of nobility.

Yet our constitution forbids it, primarily to get away from the European tradition of Monarchy.  You see the monarchies were often tyrannical entities that took away the rights of the colonists that fought for independence to get away from them.

Really? Well, it's true that I'm free to write this blog, but god forbid we protest in the streets because we'd be beaten to death, and the people doing that beating would never suffer the consequences for it.  

But really?  How about the idea that we should basically just Carthage the concept of a Republic.   Why? Because we've had some evil dictators and evil organizations in history....Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Ida Amin, Ghengis Khan, but NONE of them....not one of them have ever tried to deliberately wipe all life on earth just to make a quick buck.

All a Republic is is a country ruled by 'the people' instead of a king.  What's so great about having the Head of State in the hands of the Presidency anyway?  Every single one of our presidents to Carter have been, as near as I can tell, Immoral in one way or another...and Carter?  Yeah, not Immoral so much as Paralyzed at a time of critical crisis...then Ford who pardoned Nixon, Nixon, LBJ....

Hardly moral pillars even if all did good and bad things.  But why NOT elect a moral bedrock as our king?

A monarchy does not mean a HEREDITARY monarchy.  Why not elect the king every ten years?  Or Queen?

We don't need a house of Lords, but we could have a moral foundation of individuals recognized by society to have great worth and performance.  They should have ZERO power...and of course it could be abused...but if they did, then a democratic society can take the institution away or remove the title from those who espouse evil views.

And really...explain to me what moral superiority men who said that it was OK to own people have over anyone else anyway? If they didn't want titles of nobility maybe we should take a second look.

Note: Giving them actual LAND or power, would be absolutely stupid nonsense of course.  Our own house of Lords, the Senate, is also corrupt and evil.

[Rant] Disproving yet another lie from filth

"Even if you took all the income from the top 1%, it would barely pay for the government for a single year."

Net Family Wealth US: $54 Trillion.

Wealth held by the Upper 1%: 42% of all wealth.

54 Trillion * .42=22 Trillion.

That was a 2 minute google search.

So it's true if you just take the amount they earned from income and interest and capital gains that might not pay for a year, but if you look at how much they have STOLEN thanks to a bankrupt, corrupt and unequal system, looks like they could fund the US government for about 20-25 years, more if you established a sovereign wealth fund like Norway....

[Wall of Shame] Liberal or Progressive

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  But I really doubt the numbers will compare.

Cartoon: Get well gifts for the unvaccinated

[Revolution] An Alternative to my last post

I saw "House of Cards" yesterday where in one episode an officer randomly shot a gun at a fleeing bystander and it nearly cost him his badge...

And I got to thinking, we want anyone acting in a police capacity to be well trained.

This does not solve the problem that there seems to exist the feeling that they are 'a separate class', and also the default desire to please authority that the majority of society has has allowed officers who have clearly committed egregious abuses to get away with it because a jury won't hold them to account.

Step 2 involves fixing State Law Enforcement and Prosecutors....

But non violent revolution is not going to be easy, perhaps not even possible until law enforcement feels it is PART of the citizenry, rather than opposed to it - And I'm sorry....the blue wall of silence against fellow police, as well as the fact that the officers who crushed occupy as coordinated by the DHS proved that this is not the case.

All efforts of reform of this seem to fail....so I advocated simply dissolving professional police departments.

Random selection ala Jury won't cut it, even if it is only for beat patrol officers leaving core professional teams intact....BUT

We already have citizen soldiers, ala the National Guard.  They're both military and 'us'.....so why not do this with the police? They're only police 3 days a week and paid as much as national guard even though they're controlled by governors ala Militia?

It's not perfect, but its better than what we have now.  A LOT better.

[Cons] Article 1, Section 9 - Bills of Attainder and Ex Post Facto (3 of 4)

So first of all, what the hell are they?

If you don't know, here's the wikipedia definition:

Bill of Attainder: A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of pains and penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without privilege of a judicial trial. As with attainder resulting from the normal judicial process, the effect of such a bill is to nullify the targeted person’s civil rights, most notably the right to own property (and thus pass it on to heirs), the right to a title of nobility, and, in at least the original usage, the right to life itself. 

Or to Summarize: A penalty just for being somebody or a member of a specific group.

Ex Post Facto: An ex post facto law (Latin for "from after the action" or "after the facts") is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed. Conversely, a form of ex post facto law commonly called an amnesty law may decriminalize certain acts or alleviate possible punishments (for example by replacing the death sentence with lifelong imprisonment) retroactively. Such laws are also known by the Latin term in mitius.

Or to Summarize: It's about changing the rules after the fact so that even if you think you're obeying the law, it can still mean you're not.

Both of these are really important for the rule of law, because even though that rule of law is an illusion, it's a REALLY important illusion.  And if the law is not fair, then its almost impossible to believe in it.  So to the degree the law is fair, or at least gives the illusion of fairness, the law is strong.  That's why when we know the law is not fair, the law starts to lose strength and civilization itself is threatened.  That's the problem with being a Republic.

So, we should definitely include these in any constitution, and probably in the 'always' part, not the Hierarchy of Rights or the BrundleStaag, no matter how much I might want to punish Conservatives merely for being Conservatives.  After all, they might do the same thing to me...(in fact they probably would.)  

And yet....AND YET...

If the primary argument against Ex Post Facto and Bills of Attainder is that it makes the law seem unfair, what about instances where behavior of the offending parties in question also threatens the rule of law?  For those of you who have seen the movie, "Lethal Weapon 2" you likely remember the moment where the racist South African villain laughs that he will get away with murder because he has Diplomatic Immunity? Or what about the fact that millions of people are losing their homes but the bankers got away with it?  Or how I hear my entire life about how a war criminal is the worst thing EVER and they hunt them down until the end of time, and yet we let them get away with it.

The argument can be made that as bad as these things are, the alternative is worse.  This why we need to let Nazis and Racists and Liars have their political speech, because it helps keep the speech free for everyone.  I can see this.  It might be fun to imagine a world with blurry Rule of Law where Batmans whirl around and solve the grey areas, while the law still keeps the glue apart for everyone else.  But without script writers, I really doubt that would work out too well. 

But I think the argument can be made that there might be some areas where the willful ignorance is so high, so deliberate, and so evil that even if the law doesn't cover it, punishment still needs to be applied to cover the rule of law itself.  I think one excellent example of this was the efforts by the Tobacco Lobby to cover up the truth causing millions to die of cancer.  Yes, its true conventional laws were used to punish them....but what if that had failed? EVERYONE knew they were guilty and patently evil...I mean selling cigarettes to children....

And, quite frankly, I think we need to punish conservatives for AGW denial.  This isn't a joke any more.   There is no ambiguity and their willful ignorance is threatening all life on earth.  The cost will be in the TRILLIONS to fix it, and there is a deliberate effort not only to cover it up by the Koch brothers, but to ignore the consequences thereof...

I think they should pay.

Right now, I assure you, I am in the vast vast minority....but what about in the future? What about when the sea levels rise and every day is hot, August Hot?

What's better...a rampaging mob that moves to the south and tears the conservatives limb from limb...or a process...an organized threshold to actually PUNISH an organization so evil and destructive that everyone hates them, like the Westboro Baptist Church?

When people are sufficiently pissed off, there is going to be action....whether or not they have a loop hole in the law...so why not allow a mechanism in the rule of law?

I'll set the barrier at a simple one: 80%.  If a national vote (not a legislature because legislatures suck) can find 80% of the people voting against you? Yeah.  You're gone.

Banishment is the best alternative.  And yes, it can be abused, which is why I think it should also require voting over three years to make it happen, but it might also make some groups who abuse our hospitality...calm down a little.

[Wall of Shame] If a Conservative Is Speaking, a Conservative is Lying

This is my wall of shame for conservatism, not just the lies they tell. 

The 10 Most Corrupt States

Inaction over Climate Report highly likely.

Gun Advocates Spook Fast Food Workers Into Hiding in Freezer

Thailand court ousts prime minister after abuse-of-power verdict

How Censors Killed the Golden Age of Comics (Race, Women)

NRA threatens Surgeon General confirmation unless it gets what it wants

If conservatives are so concerned about the families, why did Mitt Romney make political hay of Benghazi before the families were even notified?

ABC and FOX lie by omission about false 'wind turbine sickness'

Bundy Militia thugs deny threatening Federal Agents

Spending by the Monster Brothers in Context

What if we stopped talking about Benghazi and started talking about what matters?

Top Conservative Blogger Gloats to "Libs" That Nigerian Girls Have Probably Been Sold

Will the BLM Reward Terroristic Threats, Desecration & Vandalism in Utah's Recapture Canyon?

GOP's Benghazi mob must support release of Senate torture report now

Christianists launch campaign to get HGTV to put Benhams back on the air

Allen West: Focus on Boko Haram Is Obama Ploy to Distract from Benghazi

Al Gore Explains The Real Motivation Behind Republicans' Climate Change Denial

Retired Army Col. Harry Riley expects that somewhere between 10 million and 30 million people will help him shut down Washington on Friday for Operation American Spring.

[Turkey] Image of Conservative PM's aide kicking protester stokes anger over Turkey mine fire

x