sticking to principle
one of the more curious frustrations of "liberal" folks loyal to the democrat party (i can't say democratic, because they have bogus "voting" practices at their conventions, and don't make me link the video again 'cuz i will if i have to) is that they are (right and properly) outraged at the idiocy spewing from the mouths of so many elected republican party members (the two that have me this week are the statements that, first of all, slavery couldn't have been a real problem, since jesus and the prophets weren't all up in arms against it, and, second of all, that science is evil intended only to deny "the saviour" and needs to be eradicated) who are propped up by the complicity of those otherwise reasonable would-be representatives (e.g. scott brown) who need to be defeated at the polls lest the idiocy be given the support to take over. i do believe elizabeth warren, if she is to win this upcoming election, will do so on this "guilt by association" card that she is currently playing, and good for her for playing it. (scalia? really???). and fair is fair, is it not?
so, see, that's my point: i've got a bone to pick with their presidential nominee, and a pretty big one at that.
the ndaa, or "national defense authorization act", is an annual exercise in appropriating the resources that will be necessary for the defense of this great nation. and this past go-round, the incumbent to this upcoming election actually SUED to ensure that indefinite detention without trial was "authorized" as a part of it.
W
T
F
but before we argue any more about this, and subject ourselves to yet another round of "but mitt is worse!!!", let's digress a moment to include a little history lesson, shall we?
in 1950, a democrat politician from nevada, pat mccarran, for whom the las vegas airport is named, by the way, sponsored a bill called the "internal security act", which has also been known as the "subversive activities control act", or, for brevity, kinda like "santorum" is short for "rick santorum", the "mccarran act". it was unsuccessfully opposed by harry truman's futile veto, and required "communist organizations" to register themselves with the us attorney general so that they could be subject to immediate investigation by the newly-created "subversive activities control board". membership in these groups, in addition, precluded citizenship, as well as passage into and out of the country. not only that, but citizenship under this act could be REVOKED just for such association. and, for its kicker, it introduced language that the president at his whim could arrest and indefinitely detain "each person as to whom there is a reasonable ground to believe such person probably will engage in, or probably will conspire with others to engage in, acts of espionage or sabotage". i think we can all agree, substituting "terrorism" for "communism", we are just about where we started, aren't we. (oh, and among other more trivial excesses, the law made picketing federal courthouses a felony...)
so, anyway, even though 1993's supreme court struck down whole sections of this "law" as being unconstitutional and contrary to our Bill of Rights, vast swaths of it serve as the foundation of our present ndaa, and our military still utilizes precedent of this bill to incorporate language like "senior commanders have specific authority to regulate privately owned weapons, explosives and ammunition" in defiance of our second amendment and into their standing doctrine. (in a coincidence i hope real liberals can respect, it was the law that was used to go after russo and ellsberg during that "pentagon papers" thing in 1972).
so, back to the subject of guilt by association...
the incumbent president, darling of "liberals" and democrat party members everywhere, was sued earlier this year over the clearly (at least to me) unconstitutional ndaa he signed. (props to chris hedges). so what was the first thing done by his administration after being told indefinite detention was unconstitutional? why, of course, they filed an appeal of the ruling and sued to have the provision put back into effect.
W
T
F
yes, i know, all you warren folks, you're right--electing a republican only lends support to the dangerous lunatics currently hoping to legislate dangerous policy. we shouldn't vote for scott brown. but, see, this is where i have a problem--sticking to such a principle, any responsible "liberal" and democrat must vote against the sitting president because he is dangerously legislating dangerous policy as well, and, unlike the republican lunatics to whom you are so adamantly opposed, the sitting president wields nigh-on despotic power to arrest, detain and even assassinate citizens as he damn well pleases.
this is not right.
and i'm seriously concerned that you will resort to the "but romney" is worse argument to blindly sell us all out and drive us down that primrose path to the day when one of those republican loonies, with all their delusions and dangerous thinking, will be sitting in an office with the power to do whatever they want to atheists, homosexuals, and anyone else they feel is against their scripture.
and it will be YOUR FAULT.
yes, i'm voting for gary johnson. i believe in the bill of rights, and freedom from the tyranny of my own government, and the importance of due process for ALL. i'm all for locking 'em up--sincerely i am. tight. with thrown away key. but the power to detain without limit or judicial review, not to mention torture and assassinate, does NOT belong in the hands of any government official, elected or otherwise. we don't stand for it in other countries. why do we let dangerously paranoid people insist upon it here? because, as sure as someone will include reference to hitler on the internet, (doh, there, i did it myself), some politician in the US will find it convenient to avail him or herself of the power at some inopportune time in our future, and the results will not be pretty.
pay now, or pay later.
gary johnson is more to the principles of what was once the democrat party than most anyone you could name today. that democrat lemmings (sheeple is my favorite word for this) will not wake up and see the truth staring them baldly and boldly in the face is high irony, given their sputtering spluttering outrage at what is going on across the aisle.
seriously. it's wrong on both sides. so pick a new one.
or it will be your fault.
so, see, that's my point: i've got a bone to pick with their presidential nominee, and a pretty big one at that.
the ndaa, or "national defense authorization act", is an annual exercise in appropriating the resources that will be necessary for the defense of this great nation. and this past go-round, the incumbent to this upcoming election actually SUED to ensure that indefinite detention without trial was "authorized" as a part of it.
W
T
F
but before we argue any more about this, and subject ourselves to yet another round of "but mitt is worse!!!", let's digress a moment to include a little history lesson, shall we?
in 1950, a democrat politician from nevada, pat mccarran, for whom the las vegas airport is named, by the way, sponsored a bill called the "internal security act", which has also been known as the "subversive activities control act", or, for brevity, kinda like "santorum" is short for "rick santorum", the "mccarran act". it was unsuccessfully opposed by harry truman's futile veto, and required "communist organizations" to register themselves with the us attorney general so that they could be subject to immediate investigation by the newly-created "subversive activities control board". membership in these groups, in addition, precluded citizenship, as well as passage into and out of the country. not only that, but citizenship under this act could be REVOKED just for such association. and, for its kicker, it introduced language that the president at his whim could arrest and indefinitely detain "each person as to whom there is a reasonable ground to believe such person probably will engage in, or probably will conspire with others to engage in, acts of espionage or sabotage". i think we can all agree, substituting "terrorism" for "communism", we are just about where we started, aren't we. (oh, and among other more trivial excesses, the law made picketing federal courthouses a felony...)
so, anyway, even though 1993's supreme court struck down whole sections of this "law" as being unconstitutional and contrary to our Bill of Rights, vast swaths of it serve as the foundation of our present ndaa, and our military still utilizes precedent of this bill to incorporate language like "senior commanders have specific authority to regulate privately owned weapons, explosives and ammunition" in defiance of our second amendment and into their standing doctrine. (in a coincidence i hope real liberals can respect, it was the law that was used to go after russo and ellsberg during that "pentagon papers" thing in 1972).
so, back to the subject of guilt by association...
the incumbent president, darling of "liberals" and democrat party members everywhere, was sued earlier this year over the clearly (at least to me) unconstitutional ndaa he signed. (props to chris hedges). so what was the first thing done by his administration after being told indefinite detention was unconstitutional? why, of course, they filed an appeal of the ruling and sued to have the provision put back into effect.
W
T
F
yes, i know, all you warren folks, you're right--electing a republican only lends support to the dangerous lunatics currently hoping to legislate dangerous policy. we shouldn't vote for scott brown. but, see, this is where i have a problem--sticking to such a principle, any responsible "liberal" and democrat must vote against the sitting president because he is dangerously legislating dangerous policy as well, and, unlike the republican lunatics to whom you are so adamantly opposed, the sitting president wields nigh-on despotic power to arrest, detain and even assassinate citizens as he damn well pleases.
this is not right.
and i'm seriously concerned that you will resort to the "but romney" is worse argument to blindly sell us all out and drive us down that primrose path to the day when one of those republican loonies, with all their delusions and dangerous thinking, will be sitting in an office with the power to do whatever they want to atheists, homosexuals, and anyone else they feel is against their scripture.
and it will be YOUR FAULT.
yes, i'm voting for gary johnson. i believe in the bill of rights, and freedom from the tyranny of my own government, and the importance of due process for ALL. i'm all for locking 'em up--sincerely i am. tight. with thrown away key. but the power to detain without limit or judicial review, not to mention torture and assassinate, does NOT belong in the hands of any government official, elected or otherwise. we don't stand for it in other countries. why do we let dangerously paranoid people insist upon it here? because, as sure as someone will include reference to hitler on the internet, (doh, there, i did it myself), some politician in the US will find it convenient to avail him or herself of the power at some inopportune time in our future, and the results will not be pretty.
pay now, or pay later.
gary johnson is more to the principles of what was once the democrat party than most anyone you could name today. that democrat lemmings (sheeple is my favorite word for this) will not wake up and see the truth staring them baldly and boldly in the face is high irony, given their sputtering spluttering outrage at what is going on across the aisle.
seriously. it's wrong on both sides. so pick a new one.
or it will be your fault.
posted by kad barma at 8:50 AM
1 Comments:
As someone who has voted 'blank' and third party in the past and present, I've never regretted the decision.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home