[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

[Wall of Shame] The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

Citizens Storm a Public Meeting in Protest at City Council Indifference over Police Brutality.

A Refresher for someone who thought the police beat down of Occupy wasn't a big deal.

Judge Rules Citgo Petroleum owes nothing for 10 years of criminal pollution.

Family of Affluenza drunk driver to pay millions.

Judge halts investigation into corrupt politician.  (Reconfimed.)

Texas Officer Shoots 93 year old woman after having previously shot someone else a year previous.

USPO Grants Patent To Amazon for "Photographing Something with a White Background"

Why Nordic Countries are Better than America...and not because "Homogenous Populations" 

Oligarchy Judge ignores please from ignorant jury to spare Occupy victim harsh justice

Cops Raid Family Party, Pepper Spray Children, Taser Grandma

NSA, Metadata, and Congress

Just Because You Weren't Dancing is No Reason for Us Not to Beat You Up and Then Throw You in Jail.
x

[Cons] Article 1, Section 9 - Habeus Corpus/Revolution (2 of 4)

I'm starting a new thread in this blog called [Revolution] because we don't live in a democracy.  The conservatives are right...we live in a Republic.  A Roman Republic with corrupt, elite senators that report to royal houses who only throw some bread and circuses to the plebes to keep them from revolting.

I mean, take something as innocent as this article about the army taking Apache helicopters from the national guard for budget reasons.  Well, we definitely need a smaller military,but the question is, do we want our lethal weapons all in the hands of the federal government or shall the state militias retain any actual fire power?  See, the problem with being so psycho about the 2nd amendment that you interpret it only for self defense (it does apply there) you ignore the right of states to defend themselves if the Federal government goes berserk.  Where are the conservatives howling about the defanging of the national guard? I'll tell you where...they're too busy defending a thief in Nevada to care about preserving the actual organization most likely to protect us in a military coup.  Who are the citizen soldiers?  The national guard, that's who.

Whatever.

The constitution does not allow for the dissolution of congress by the president.  Lots of other countries do this.  Its a bad idea.  While legislatures suck, separation of powers are necessary.  Rights are rights, always and forever, so the idea that the Habeus Corpus or Hierarchy of Rights can ever be suspended is ludicrous.  It should NEVER be allowed.

But Tom, what if there's an emergency? I hear you say.

Well first of all, let's understand that emergencies are the first weapon of tyrants.  Hitler used them to take over Germany.  The dictator of Egypt used it there.  George W. Bush used the emergency of 9/11 to get us into a war with Iraq.  (Conservatives STILL will not admit Iraq was awful or still blame cowardly liberals as being 'co guilty'.  Victims all forever.)

If the separation of powers should never be abrogated to keep democracy in place, so too should rights. I argue that there is NEVER an instance where the rights as determined by a people shall be 'suspected' in secret courts.  Now, war is war, and sometimes you have to do extreme things.  But if they are extreme enough to actually be needed, then they are extreme enough that you should face the consequences of them.

Let me say that again because I cannot emphasize it enough.

IF YOU HAVE A SUFFICIENT EMERGENCY TO THROW THE HIERARCHY OF RIGHTS OUT THE WINDOW, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO JUSTIFY YOUR ACTIONS IN A COURT OF LAW.

No blanket immunity for cops, for soldiers, for government officials or anyone else.  How do you keep them from being drowned in nuisance conservative style law suits? Very carefully.  Part of the whole reason I think we need to eliminate professional police departments as they currently exist is because cops are never basically held to account unless someone dies or they hack off a limb, and even then there is no guarantee.  Our public servants need enough latitude to do their job, not a blank check to set up Guantanamo Bay.

[Revolution] The First Domino to Fall

This post is in reaction to a series of thoughts I've had, ever since the DHS coordinated crushing of Occupy, and heightened recently by two articles I mention in this post.  The two articles, to summarize, basically state that a) We do live in an Oligarchy where we no longer have a say in our government and b) the most effective way to get our government back is for the left and the right to unite.  In that post, I explain why this is an incredibly stupid idea, mainly due to the fact that the right are largely populated by pathological liars. 

Nothing worth accomplishing anything was ever accomplished by liars.

• So if we can't wait for the mythical third party....
• And non violent revolution has and will be crushed in this country...
•  And armed revolution without the aid of the military is functionally impossible...
•  And revolution fostered BY the military is a horrible horrible idea...
•  And John Galt isn't going to save us...
•  And a mythical charismatic leader rising up from nowhere isn't going to save us...

Then where do we start? 

• Because doing nothing is only going to make it worse.  The elite are taking more power and wealth, not less.
•  Non violent revolution IS possible, but it does require a truly free society in which it possible.  

So where do we start?

We start by eliminating the police.

Now, now, I know I sound like I'm insane, and I do not think all police individually are evil or against us.  But there is instance after instance after instance where it seems AS AN INSTITUTION the police are in a perpetual state of us vs them, as if they were in permanent Stanford prison experiment mode.   Why else do you think the Oligarchy is arming our police departments? 

OK, you might argue, granted the police might be the first tool in the arsenal of oppression, and there might be some bad apples, but surely reform is possible.

What kind of reform might you be proposing?

Civilian Oversight?  Many of the police departments that took part in the nationally coordinated strike against Occupy had Civilian oversight boards.

Monitoring? Lots of police abuse has been caught on camera and nothing has been done about it.  Also, sometimes the monitoring equipment is tampered with.

Getting better leadership might remove corruption, but it will not remove the 'us vs them' mentality of police units in riot gear.  For a peaceful revolution to succeed, the police need to have enough cohesion to stop a legitimate riot, but side with people making a legitimate protest against the oligarchy.

In short, when the Department of Homeland Security calls them up and says, "We're going to crush the first amendment rights of Americans," the police say, "Go F*ck Yourselves."   Let us also not forget that in union states, police unions are highly conservative and are often the only union to ally themselves with conservatives.  If we are to hope for change, it will never come from conservatives.  Conservatives are by definition against change.  Look at the vast majority of conservative attitudes toward Occupy.

So what we need is a democratization of police forces, and not a political democratization, but an ACTUAL democratization.  After all, at the federal level, the Democratic party is indeed part of the oligarchy, even if they're the less lying part.

So how might this goal be accomplished? Well...have you ever had your bike or scooter stolen? Maybe your house robbed or maybe your car?  Were the police able to do much there?  No.  But they're fairly good at solving murder (when they're not pinning it on minorities that is but that's really a prosecutor problem)   They're also pretty good at solving traffic accidents.  But, come on, haven't you ever wondered, if you are driving on the highway, if the cop sitting there with a laser gun didn't have something better to do?  Are they working for you or the insurance companies? 

Before professional police forces, militia often handled investigations and matters of domestic abuse etc.  If your house is in the process of being robbed, you want the police to show up.  If a bunch of bank robbers are taking people hostage, you want the police to show up.

So let's think about this then: Homocide detectives, SWAT, administration and maybe in certain cases (MAYBE) counter terrorism, police efforts are genuinely appreciated (though I suppose if your religion makes law and order part of your creed then ALL law enforcement efforts are appreciated, Oligarchy or not), but traffic enforcement and vice and riot control are all some of the areas of the worst abuse by people who seem to have far too much time on their hands.

Here are some solutions I have thought of so far:

A core professional core, with the national guard performing non professional functions.  This would entail removing the national guard from the pentagon's command in all events save invasion by an actual foreign army.  The problem with this is that Washington is Corrupt, and so this will not happen.  It could maybe happen after we rewrite the constitution...but not now.

Again, a core professional series of units, who can handle legitimate police function, but for large scale operation like riot control, citizens are called up in reserve units ala Jury Duty.  If it is a legitimate riot, then the 'posse' concept would work quite well.  You might have over enthusiasm, but at the same time if it is Occupy or a non violent protest, as long as you didn't have too many conservatives in your ranks, you'd be fine.  The key to this is that you need to have large scale things like this done by CITIZENS, not citizen oversight, which means protection of their jobs while they do their stint and ACTUAL PAY unlike Jury Duty which is complete crap.

Those are the only two I've thought of so far.  Electing all cops won't work, it's just not realistic.  Electing all police core officers of captain or above won't work, because most District Attorneys are elected, and they're often corrupt and withhold evidence from the defense, so that would only make the problem worse.  Civilian oversight doesn't work.  Cameras really don't work unless the abuse is flagrant.

The only way we're going to have a peaceful revolution is if the cops are on OUR side, and while it came close in New York, they still have to feed their families and have jobs, so when DHS leans on mayors (conservative or liberal alike) and threatens to remove all federal funds if they do not comply, the police sided with the Oligarchy.  We still have control at a local level...we can do this.  Change at the federal level seems impossible.  But change at a local level, in non conservative areas is something that CAN happen, though it is a risk.

[Phil] OK, so both sides are bad. That doesn't mean both sides are EQUALLY bad.

Two articles recently have come to my attention.  The natural response from bothers is of course being to be that both sides are the same, and that the elite simply use our divisions to keep us apart.  Well, to a certain degree that is true, but that also doesn't mean that Shruggers and Conservatives are not pathological liars and that they're the REASON the elite are able to play us like fiddles.

The first article is a fascinating study by Princeton that pretty much tells us what those of us paying attention already knew.  That the elite are in charge, and that we on the ground are worth nothing in terms of affecting power.  Or in other words, exactly what Occupy Wall Street was talking about.  But Shruggers and Conservatives have insisted that they had no actual agenda or effect on the national dialog and were basically bunch of hippies.  Nothing could be farther from the truth, and the fact that this article was even published is to me proof they have affected the dialog.

The second was posted by this rather interesting youtube channel called Stormclouds Rising that basically proves that Harry Reid had his hand in the cookie jar regarding the ranch confrontration.  Does that change the fact that Mr. Jolly Ranger has had his OWN hand in the federal cookie jar getting free grazing for 25 years? No.  It does not.  Both are scum, and Stormcloud's rightfully had quite a bit of skepticism given the people defending Jolly Rancher.  Shruggers love to talk about the importance of contract law, but the fact is Mr. Jolly Rancher had a contract with the federal government to PAY HIS TAXES and broke it with the rest of us for 25 years.  I have no sympathy for Mr. Rancher.

So what do these two articles teach us? Something we knew already.  Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  So what?  Just because the elite are money grubbing f*cktards, doesn't change the fact that they are still people. In fact, that proves they are even MORE like people, which means that they all still have their own political beliefs.  I mean, seriously, if you had a chance to talk to the Koch brothers or Mr. Boner or Harry Reid in a locked elevator, they might eventually admit to stealing billions from US tax payers, but they would still have substantially believe that their own publicly admitted political platform was right.

The 'elite playing both sides against the middle' smacks of RandGoldOwl, and it's pretty f*cking rediculous.  Why ascribe to compotence what we can just ascribe to greed?  Greed trumps ideology in government service with Harry Reed, and Greed trumps ideology in the terms of small government or fiscal responsibility in the Koch brothers.  That doesn't mean they all get along.  Sure, they lie to us an manipulate us, but there is no 'special accord' between the two factions of Cowardly and Corrupt and Corrupt and Crazy that actually rule this country.

Both sides are not the same.  So let's call a spade a spade here.  Special special special snowflakes say, "Calling half the country stupid is just empowering the MAN, man" but really, the special special special snowflakes are actually empowering their own jailers.  We *DO* need to unite, and we do *NOT* have to agree.  There are a handful of Shruggers and Conservatives who only lie about things like AGW but actually understand that the minimum wage is not evil and taxes are not theft. 

We're in a war for our survival, a war for the soul of this nation, and in a war, do you want someone who pathologically lies to you to be your rifle buddy?  If you're a gamer, imagine if you had to play blind but the other guy could see your cards all the time.  Liberals may be too fragmented and occasionally too cowardly but conservatives are totally self deceptive to the point of their own destruction. It is not liberal competence that has kept the middle class from imploding all this time but conservative Incompetence in selecting tea party candidates.

NOTHING will be accomplished until the bothers finally stop pretending both sides are the same and admit that lies will accomplish nothing.

Glossary

I will update this as time goes on, but I feel the time has come to add this.

Bother - Also known as a Bothsider Freak An individual who insists that both sides of the political spectrum of the same no matter what evidence is provided to the contrary.  See also Truther or Birther.

Carthaged - Burying an idea so far deep in history that it becomes forgotten or lost or irretrievably changed, like how the Romans not only burned Carthage, but salted the earth around the city so it could never rise again.  Sure, the memory of Hannibal and the Alps lives forever...but check a map...Rome lives.  There is no Carthage except Carthage, IL maybe...and I doubt that's what Hannibal fought for....

Shrugger - Follower of or one sympathetic to Objectivism, specifically Atlas Shrugged.  They also typically believe they have secret secret knowledge that none of the rest of us have ala RandGoldOwl.

11/30/2024

Murdercop - In a society without accountability of Law Enforcement, Cops aren't Cops, they're Murdercops

Windowfucker - A person who asks, "How much property was damaged in a riot?"rather than "How many people were hurt in the Riot?" or "Why did the Riot Happen?"

Virus Ally - See also RFK JR, people who think Vaccines are false or claim to just want a different vaccination schedule but everything they say or do clearly indicates that they're just murderous virus ally freaks

[Cons] Article 1 Section 9 (1 of 4) The Migration or Importation of Persons

In general, this section is a good idea.  Listing out what a legislature (if you must have one) cannot do is mandatory.  If my idea listed in my comments on Section 8 are used, then you want to list explicitly those items not chosen for local OR Federal government in the Brundlestagg.  I almost skipped this part, because it doesn't deal with my biggest issues with the constitution but there are some very VERY important things here, so I'm breaking the post into four parts; Migration, Habeus Corpus/Rebellion, Bills of Attainder/Ex Post Facto, and Titles of Nobility.

This post shall deal with Migration.

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

This little turdlet staining the shining gem that are the ideas behind our constitution is precisely why we need a new one.  In the current constitution, you can 'amend' to your heart's content, but the old language is still in the original document.  Forever, shall the nation of the United States of America bear the shame of being a haven for slavery...and quasi slavery after that in the form of Jim Crow and Sharecropping.

How can we ever move beyond the mistakes of the past if the very foundation of our country enshrines them?  No one is talking about forgetting or white washing here.  After all, does anyone seriously believe that humanity (except conservatives) would actually forget slavery?  Hell, even conservatives wouldn't because they love to gripe about the civil war and the civil rights act so much.

But so MANY people were not in that room with the founding fathers when they put that document together. How many were not Christian? Not White? Not Men? Not Rich?

The list goes on and on.  If a room full of proportionally representative population groups of every race, creed, region and religion were drafting a new constitution; how likely would you be to get a 2/3rd majority that says tiny little population specs like Wyoming get as many senators as California which has 1/6th of the population?  Also, we're not a tiny nation anymore, which means things like the Conneticut Comprise, which we had to have to band together for protection against Britain just aren't necessary.

Rural areas of the country wield FAR AND VAST disproportionate representation in the senate.  And there are many many other flaws, including the seeming inability for 3rd parties to get anywhere, the inability for the elite to be held accountable for crimes, etc etc etc.  I'll be addressing them endlessly in posts to come, but HERE the point is that without the 50 year cycle of revising the constitution, the system can be (and is) rigged against those who weren't there to begin with.

A conservative would like to say that someone who ISN'T conservative has just as much of a vote as they do, but like so many things they say, that's a total lie.  A citizen of Wyoming has just 30 times more influence in the senate, and even at a Presidential level, the population per member of the electoral college is vastly different, since Wyoming gets 3 representatives when it might not even normally merit a third of one in any rationally conceived system.

Slavery is one of the great abominations of human history.  And yet even now, Christians in an effort to defend the bible, and conservative confederate neo confedeate apologists speak about how it wasn't 'that bad.'  Very VERY few of the people making these kind of comments had ancestors that they relate personally to as slaves.  Yet the efforts of conservatives to white wash history are essentially never ending.

This clause, this nasty disgusting little clause 'for the greater good' led to millions more still being sold into slavery, being born into captivity.  You cannot tell me about how awesome and special the prelude of the document is "All Men are Created Equal" and "We the People" when this black mark of shame still stains the document.  A barely passed amendment in a civil war does not undo the disgusting nature of this clause.

NO amendment will ever undo it.  It tarnishes the entire document forever.  THIS clause, Article 1, Section 9 Clause 1 BY ITSELF argues for a new constitution, much less all of the other reasons we have for starting over.