In defense of the Pope....

Ok so upfront, I'm an atheist. And not really a huge fan of religion either. So the title of this piece is 5 words I never thought I would ever actually have to write. But then Fox News happened.

So before I go any farther, let me just send a personal message to Fox News: DAMN IT LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO!

Now with that out of the way, we can look at WHY I'm actually defending the Pope. Earlier this week Fox News published an article entitled "Pope Francis is the Catholic Church’s Obama – God help us", and unfortunately for me, it's adherence to  logic, fact and history, and knowledge about the subject the author claims to know about was up to Fox's usual standards (which is to say, the words are in English and spelled correctly).  Which means it tripped my anti stupid alarms, and now I have to dissect the piece and defend the Pope (again, thanks for that FOX....)

So here we go, lets dive right in to the full unedited article as presented by FOX News:

"Pope Francis is undergoing a popularity surge comparable to the way Barack Obama was greeted by the world in 2008. And just as President Obama has been a disappointment for America, Pope Francis will prove a disaster for the Catholic Church."

Yep. Which is why America replaced President Obama in 2012 with this guy named Mitt Romney, because that's what this country does when our leaders disappoint us. Oh wait no, I forgot THAT DIDNT HAPPEN.  But anyways, continuing with your delusion;

"My fellow Catholics should be suspicious when bastions of anti-Catholicism in the left-wing media are in love with him.

Much is being made of his ‘compassion’ and ‘humility,’ but kissing babies and hugging the sick is nothing new. Every pope in recent memory has done the same, yet only now are the media paying attention. Benedict XVI and John Paul II refused to kowtow to the liberal agenda, and so such displays of tenderness were under-covered."
Yea, Pope John Paul II never kowtowed to the liberal agenda. In fact I'm sure he never would have been the first Pope to declare Gay People are entitled to the same inherent rights and dignity as everyone else.  He also never pushed the idea of religious liberty, or was a major player in the Vatican II conference that helped modernize and liberalize the Church on many issues. Oh wait....I just did a Google search, apparently he actually did all of that.

"But Francis is beating a retreat for the Catholic Church, and making sure its controversial doctrines are whispered, not yelled – no wonder the New York Times is in love.
Just like President Obama loved apologizing for America, Pope Francis likes to apologize for the Catholic Church, thinking that the Church is at its best when it is passive and not offending anyone’s sensibilities."

So Francis is not saying anything controversial and is shying away from any church teachings that might be so......actually lets save this thought for later, I dont want to give anything away, but this gets funnier by the end.

But yea I do agree, clearly the catholic church has nothing to apologize for, like child rape or anything like that (by the way, guess whats on the list of things Francis (and the Church) havnt apologized for?)

"In his interviews with those in the left-wing media he seeks to impress, Francis has said that the Church needs to stop being ‘obsessed’ with abortion and gay marriage, and instead of seeking to convert people, “we need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us.”"
So your mad because the Pope thinks its a good idea to figure out what Catholics believe in compared to other Catholics? Again, I'm an Atheist, so correct me if I'm wrong, but isnt the whole point of religion supposed to be about shared belief in a series of universal "truthes?"


I'm just saying, making sure you all still believe the same things, and that therefore you are in fact still catholic, seems like it might be kinda important.......

"This softly-softly approach of not making a fuss has been tried before, and failed. The Second Vatican Council of the 1960’s aimed to “open the windows” of the Church to the modern world by doing just this.

The result was the Catholic version of New Coke. Across the West where the effects were felt, seminaries and convents emptied, church attendance plummeted, and adherence to Church doctrine diminished.

John Paul II and Benedict XVI worked hard to turn this trend around, but now Pope Francis wants the bad old days to resume."
You know who actually part of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960's? Bishop Karol Wojtyła and Father Jospeh Ratzinger. Also known as John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Thats right, they worked SO hard to turn around the trend of Vatican II, they wrote the damn thing. In fact in 2011, then Pope Benedict declared the year between October 2012 and end of November 2013, a Year of Faith that provided "a good opportunity to help people understand that the texts bequeathed by the Council Fathers, in the words of Blessed John Paul II, 'have lost nothing of their value or brilliance. They need to be read correctly, to be widely known and taken to heart as important and normative texts of the Magisterium, within the Church's Tradition ... I feel more than ever in duty bound to point to the Council as the great grace bestowed on the Church in the twentieth century: there we find a sure compass by which to take our bearings in the century now beginning."
Yea, sounds like Benedict was trying REAL hard to backpedal away from Vatican II there.

Anyways, now that your done botching the history of your own religion over the course of your own life time (give or take a decade maybe, depending on how old the author of the piece is), what else you got for us?


"Proof of this is Francis’ aforementioned statement of the Church being obsessed with controversial issues and the need to rebalance by talking about it less.

That Francis didn’t see that this would be translated into headlines of “Pope tells Catholics to shut up about things that offend Sandra Fluke” by every left-wing media outlet shows a terrifying naivety.

Nor do his comments reflect reality.

For years, the majority of priests didn't dare cover controversial topics in their homilies in fear of getting angry letters from pick-and-choose Catholics outraged that their pastor dared to say something out of line with the Democratic Party."

So lets see, your pissed because Francis called on the Church to do something your claiming it was already doing? (not being controversial).

Ok so if the Church is already doing it, whats the problem again?

Also, your claiming the reason the Church is already noncontraversial is because of fear of Democrats.
This either means you have no idea the Democrats are an AMERICAN political party, and dont exist outside this country, or you dont realize Catholics exist outside this country. In fact Pope Francis exists outside this country, or do you not know where the Vatican is?

"Most parishioners therefore haven’t heard the Church’s argument on controversial topics. Consequently, usage of contraception is only slightly lower in Catholics than in the general population, and support of gay marriage is actually higher in Catholics than the general population. Perhaps talking about it even less isn’t the answer?"

Ok so if your own practitioners ignore you, and you cant seem to communicate with them the ideas they are supposed the AGREE with you on, why the fuck do you think the rest of us would give a shit about your belief on any issue.

Oh and by the way, I have an answer to your rhetorical question. Talking about it less isnt the answer, you know what is, finding ways "to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us.” By the way if that sounds familiar, it should. Its from your own article about 6 paragraphs back. In was Pope Francis' suggestion for how to deal with that very problem.

Which means basically your entire article to this point has been you attacking the Pope for addressing the problem you want him to address in a manner you imply you'd like him to address it. Just saying, I'm half way though your piece, and I still dont understand your complaint, and I'm strongly starting to suspect you dont either.




"In trying to please the media and the modern world, Francis mistakes their glee for respect. Just like Obama thought he’d won over Putin by promising a reset, Francis thinks by talking vacuously about the poor, he will be respected. And it is vacuous -- the pontiff recently asked why it’s news that the stock market drops but not when an old person dies. When your leader is asking, “Why isn’t the newspaper a laundry list of obituaries?” you know you elected the wrong guy.

What effect is this having? For all we’re being told about how ‘disenfranchised’ Catholics are being brought back by Francis ‘reaching out,’ a recent Pew Research study showed that in America, the number of people who identify as Catholic has actually decreased. Lesson: rubbing the egos of Church-hating left-wingers doesn’t make more Catholics, it just makes the Church less respected."

I'm going to leave the link in your piece intact, that way people can click on it, and go see what that poll says for themselves. Like say this part where they summarize the findings "But attendance at Mass and Catholic identification in the U.S. has been steady since 2007". Also known as not what you claimed the poll said. But hey kudos to you for providing your own readers with a link that proves your lying to them. I guess at this point anyone who believes anything in this article really only has themselves to blame.

And to be honest, its not really surprising Pope Francis is having no affect on Church Attendance in either direction yet, given that he's only been Pope about 6 months, thats not a statistically significant period of time really.

"Francis not only panders to enemies and professional grievance mongers, but also attacks his allies. Just as Obama snubs Britain and Israel, Pope Francis swipes at practicing Catholics. 
So not only has he insulted, and severely damaged the work of, pro-life and pro-marriage groups with his comments, he has also gone on the attack, dismissing Catholics who attend the older rites in Latin as ‘ideologizing’ and being guilty of ‘exploitation.’ Apparently “Who am I to judge?” doesn’t apply here."
Now without quotes we have to just take your word that these comments exist (odd how you couldn't seem to find any when the rest of your piece is full of them), so I can only really comment on example you claim about the Latin Mass. Which was done away with/severely curtailed by Vatican II, under Popes John Paul and Benedict, the same guys you've been lionizing. But hey we already established you actually dont know the history of your own religion in your life time, so moving on




"On world matters, Francis’ statements are embarrassing. About communism, a destructive ideology that slaughtered millions of Catholics, he said:

“Learning about it through a courageous and honest person was helpful. I realized…an aspect of the social, which I then found in the social doctrine of the Church."

Not such kind words for the free market, however. In his recent apostolic exhortation he slammed unfettered capitalism, calling it ‘a new tyranny.’

Apart from the fact that there is no major nation practicing unfettered capitalism (like Obama, Francis loves attacking straw men) there is more real tyranny in socialist cesspools like Francis’ home of Argentina than in places where capitalism is predominant.

In the document he rejects the free market and calls for governments to overhaul financial systems so they attack inequality. In doing so he shows himself painfully misguided on economics, failing to see that free markets have consistently lifted the poor out of poverty, while socialism merely entrenches them in it, or kills them outright.

Like Obama, Francis is unable to see the problems that are really endangering his people. Like Obama he mistakes the faithful for the enemy, the enemy for his friend, condescension for respect, socialism for justice and capitalism for tyranny."
You remember when I said I would come back to your earlier claim Francis wants the church passive and not offensive? What happened, I mean you seem to think those comments are pretty offensive.

Could it be your just outraged about being on the wrong side of the offensive comments this time? Could that really be what this temper tantrum is all about? cause we've already established its not about Church History, or solving Church problems.

So is that it? did the Pope hurt your feelings when he dismissed a good chunk of your world view?  I hate to break it to you....so did the last guy.  And the ones before him too. Because again, as you yourself pointed out, most Catholics dont believe in their own churches teachings. That seems to include you.

If only you had a Pope who would take your suggestion and do something about it. One who could, as you put it "see the problems that are really endangering his people." Oh wait, you do. But you just think he's a meany poopoo head.

Anyways lets finish this up.

"As a Catholic, I do hope Francis’ papacy is a successful one, but from his first months he seems hell-bent on a path to undo the great work of Benedict XVI and John Paul II, and to repeat critical mistakes of the past."
Great works that you seem to know nothing about, since apparently you were in a Coma between 1978 and March of last year, and missed the papacy of the last couple of guys.

In fact the only critical mistake I've seen made in this whole article in the 5 minutes I spend reading it I could have devoted to other, more intellectual pursuits like watching paint dry or seeing if I can touch my nose with my tongue..

Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go bleach my brain and try to disinfect it from your stupidity.... 

The United States House of Representatives is unconstitutional

Ok first a disclaimer and then a backstory.
The disclaimer: this has absolutely nothing to do with the current House at all, or anything that the current House is voting.....the only connection between this and the current House, is that there is only 435 of them, which is unconstitutional.

Now the backstory: I have a co-worker who likes trivia, and is usually impossible to stump. And today I got him. The question I asked him was how many amendment were SUPPOSED to be in the bill of rights? the answer, which he didnt know, was 12.

Two of the proposed amendments failed because not enough states would ratify them, the proposed 1st and 2nd amendment. Now a while ago I wrote a blog about the fate of the proposed 2nd amendment, and how it actually DID finally become an amendment. But after stumping my coworker, I thought about the proposed 1st amendment, and realized that without it the US House of Representatives is unconstitutional.

See Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3 of the US Constitution deals with the composition of the U.S. House of Representatives, and states in part

"The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative;"

Now further amendments have changed some of the other wording of Art 1, Sec 2 Clause 3, namely removing the 3/5th clause with the 14th amendment, but the part I quoted stayed untouched.

So at one Representative per every 30,000 people as mandated by the Constitution, would mean the House of Representatives needs to have 10,570 members.

Which for those bad at math is a bit over 24 times it's current membership.

So why don't we have 10,135 more members of congress?

Because it turns out there are times where we all think the Constitution needs to suck it, and because we god damn said so.

No really thats it. in 1921, the Census revealed that the new make up of congress would require 483 seats, which the House physically didnt have room for in its chamber, and most of those seats would be in brand new districts, displacing many incumbent members. So congress passed a law changing the size of districts

So in 1929, just prior to that census, congress passed the Reapportionment Act of 1929 that basically said "fuck it, we are sticking with the current number of seats" because they didnt want to keep dealing with the problem of size and shifting geographic centers of population and changed the system totally, where seats could be taken away from and given to states based on population, but no more could be added or subtracted from the total.

Which is the system we have today, even though it openly flies in the face of the US Constitution.

Of course, in order for that the matter someone would have to sue the government, and bring a case to the Supreme Court, as only then, with a case in front of them could the SCOTUS use the process of Judaical Review to declare the system controlling the size of the House unconstitutional and force compliance with the Constitution.

But since most everyone is happy with 435 members of congress, and NO ONE thinks 10570 members of congress is a good idea, no one really wants to sue, so nothing can be done about the current issue with the House.....we just all ignore it and pretend nothing unconstitutional is going on because its a hell of a lot easier.

Which brings us back to the proposed 1st amendment. It reads as follows:

"Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every forty thousand persons , until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons."

Basically what that means in layman's terms is for every 100 representatives we need to seat, we increase the amount of people allowed to be represented by a single Representative.
0-99 Representatives: 1 Representative for (up to) every 30,00 people
100-199 Representatives seated: 1 Representative for (up to) every 40,00 people
200-X Representatives seated: 1 Representative for (up to) every 50,00 people

Now I put X because the amendment stops at 200+ Reps and 50,00 people. Which would still be 6342 members with todays population.

But if we applied the idea behind the amendment it would work like this
300-399  Representatives seated: 1 Representative for (up to) every 60,00 people
400-499  Representatives seated: 1 Representative for (up to) every 70,00 people
And so on and so forth

Now no matter what, we are still looking at more than 1000 Members under that standard.

So I fully admit we would need an additional amendment to modify the pattern set up in the proposed amendment (say by multiplying the cap by a factor of 10....which incidentally by the way would get us pretty close to the current numbers in the house, on average each members district is made up of 709,760 people, just a hair over the what would be 700,000 person limit) to keep things reasonable.

And I'll be honest, I dont really expect either the proposed first or the additional needed tweak amendment to ever actually become law (in part because why would you pass an amendment you'd instantly have to amend?) so I dont think it will follow in the footsteps of the proposed 2nd/27th.

But I got to be honest, I do find it fascinating that no only did the founders very quickly see this flaw in how they wrote the original Constitution AND even laid out a way to fix the problem....only to have that fix totally ignored in favor of a "what constitutional limit...we will set our own arbitrary limit" approach.

Usually we are pretty careful to at least we as a country are claiming we are following the example and vision of the Founders.  However they say every rule has an exception......and the US House of Representatives is apparently that exception.

A series of weird Presidential coincidences that dont have to do with the JFK and Lincoln murders.....

So if I told you I was writing a blog about a president who is normally thought of being from Illinois, but wasnt born there, who am I talking about?

How about if I tell you he only served 2 years in national office before becoming President of the United States?

Or if he served in the Illinois Statehouse for 7 years before he was elected to national office?

What about if I added he used to be a laywer?

He lost a parent early in life and was raised by his step parent?

Ok what about if I told you his election caused the opposition party, which was focused in the south to go bat shit crazy and talk about secession?

Or that he ended a war that started under his predecessor?

And that his predecessor was of the other party, and had made his party unpopular.

Or that that predecessor was viewed as one of the worst presidents of all times and as a traitor by some of his contemporaries?

What if I tell you his first came to national attention because of his speaking skills?

Or how about that he was considered a dark horse candidate, taking the nomination from a person who everyone insisted was the "sure fire lock" to win it?

What if I tell you he actually named that person he "took" the nomination from as his secretary of state?

And if that person after being secretary of state, returned to New York?

Or how about if I tell you one of this persons biggest election surprise was being able to win Indiana in his first election, a state, that traditionally is solidly behind the other party?

Or that his Vice President was a Senator from a small east coast state?

Or that his Vice President was also a lawyer?

Or that his Vice President remarried after the death of his first wife?

His terms in office were marred by his consistent trampling of American Civil Rights?

Or that he only ever Vetoed two bills that have come to his desk?

And that he passed a series of Tax increases?

Any idea who I'm talking about?

My guess is most of you out there read the first 5 or 6 statements and figured out who I was talking about, and you got the Secretary of State part and became sure. Now granted  you probably dont know half the points but they sound right. And a quick Google check would them all out anyways.

So lets be honest, their is only one choice here I must be talking about this man:

Nope. Wrong. Sorry.

Actually to tell you the truth EVERY single one of those above points is actually true and does apply to President Obama, Former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and Vice President Biden. But they were not the people I was thinking of when I wrote the comments.

See it turns out all of those facts applied just as truthfully to another American President.

This guy:

Lincoln, for those who dont know, was born in Kentucky. His mother died when he was 9, and he was raised by his father and stepmother (the reverse set up from President Obama). He served in the Illinois Statehouse for 7 years, then became a lawyer before serving a single term in the US House of Representatives (the mirror in that respect of President Obama in the Senate),

Lincoln was given his parties nomination instead of presumed nominee William Seward, in part because of his ability to win key [then] Northwestern states, specifically Illinois and Indiana as he did in the General Election (and unlike Obama, as he did twice, Obama lost Indiana the second time).

After he won, Lincoln turned around and made Seward the Secretary of State. When Seward left the office he retired to New York, just like Hilary Clinton....although she may not stay retired so its not a perfect match.

And Lincoln original Vice President was a gentleman named Hannibal Hamlin, who had managed to pass the bar prior to entering politics, just like Vice President Biden. Hamlin spent the majority of his career as a senator from Maine, and early on in his life, lost his first wife to an early death.

And everyone knows the reaction the South had to Lincoln's victory. The Civil War/secession crisis however started during the lame duck session, under Lincoln's predecessor James Buchanan, who did nothing about it. Even before botching the reply to the Civil War, Buchanan, a native northern, was seen by many in the North as a traitor due to his views of slavery and took much of the blame for "bleeding Kansas", while the south hated him for not being pro slavery enough.

Lincoln's reaction to session was very different than Buchanan's, he suspended habus corpus and had dissenters arrested and spyed on for reasons we would now call "national security/ Government spying on its citizens? sound familiar to anyone else?

People love making Civil War comparisons these days. To how these days are the most tumultuous since the Civil War, the continued use of the Confederate Battle flag, to even outright mentions of secession (cough Rick Perry cough) or just general name dropping of that period.

And people love making presidential comparisons and looking for odd connections between them (most notably Lincoln and Kennedy). Well heres a nice way to combine the two, AND educate people at the same time.

That said, I leave you with one final question......do you think we should have seen this coming? After all President Obama was inaugurated with the Lincoln bible AND used the Lincoln Table during the festivities of both his inaugurations.

Just saying, even from day one the comparisons were striking.......

    

GOP Shutdown KO

So the Shutdown appears to be over (or close to it) as pretty much everyone agrees the new senate deal will pass the Senate and that the House will vote on it.

So what did the House Republicans and Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Rand Paul get for their shutdown?

Well the first offer they made was repeal Obamacare, then the second was delay Obamacare until after the next election.

Both offers were met with the same response by President Obama

And actually to be fair, the Senate backed up the President and passed the clean funding bill, after Senators Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Ted Cruz refused to actually filibuster the bill. (Instead they preferred to fake filibuster the bill by giving a long speech that had a set time limit but calling it a filibuster)

Of course the bill died in the House and the House tried to come up with a new plan to actually get some concessions out of the Democrats. The problem became that the House couldnt actually pass their own plan, in fact they spend most of the last 3 days killing off suggestions for their plan.

So finally Speaker Boehner had enough, and said that basically that the house will pass ANYTHING the senate agrees to....other than the clean bill.

At which point President Obama/Democrats stopped being Willy Wonka, and became Don Corleone:

And the Republicans became the Senator Don Corleone is talking to.

Basically they got the same offer.....BUT now they have to give something akin to the price of a gaming license to Don Corleone/Obama as well.

See heres the agreement as I understand it:

1) Debt limit extended until February 7, subject to vote of Congressional disapproval, which the President can veto.

In English what this means is next time around, unless congress says no, the debt ceiling automatically goes up. But even if congress says no, the President can veto their no. Unless they can override it with 2/3rd of each chamber voting "no", the debt ceiling automatically goes up.

So yea, Republicans just lost their leverage the next time around and ceded power to the President.

2)  A budget conference established to come up with long-term spending plans by December 13

So the reason we keep having these budget fights is because we dont have a budget, and therefore only pass short term continuing resolutions. This would require both chambers to appoint people to a committee to actually work out a budget based on the budgets that actually [separately] passed both chambers months ago.

In short, if a Budget passes it guarantees we wont have another budget fight till the end of the next fiscal year (October 2014, and that being weeks before an election no one is going to want to do anything remotely controversial on the budget).

Now it should be pointed out House and Senate Democrats and House Republicans (to be fair) have actually been asking for that conference committee for months. Senate Republicans have been filibustering the motion to go to committee.

So again this results in a removal of the republican ability to "take a hostage" and stopping republican obstructionism in the Senate.

3) Income verification for recipients of subsidies under Obamacare’s newly-established exchanges.

Now this is the one that republicans are going to claim is their big victory. This is what they fought to do. They actually successfully changed Obamacare.

Now what does this DO exactly? basically if you sign up for Obamacare you have to give your income and prove its low enough to qualify for the subsidy.

Now as its currently set, you get the subsidy right away. At the end of the year (2014 in this case) a "Statistically significant"  portion of people will be tested to make sure they qualify for the subsidies they are receiving. HOWEVER starting 2015, everyone would have to be checked prior to receiving the subsidy, basically the same process that will now go into affect immediately.  

Now I guess you can argue over if it was a good idea to use a different process for the first year or not (and Ive seen arguments both ways that sound good and I dont know enough to know which is right) but it doesnt change one simple immutable fact here.

The Republican party shut down the government to repeal or delay the implementation of Obamacare. They are now claiming a win for basically accelerating the implementation of Obamacare.

Yea thats how badly they got beat up, they are now claiming they won by doing the exact opposite of what their stated goals were.

Now to be fair its not ALL bad news for republicans, they did get one major win. The continuing resolution IS still set at sequester levels, which republicans wanted.

However that was also true of the original clean CR they refused to pass. They could have just taken that and called it a win. Instead they decided to take away a lot of their own power and speed up Obamacare....and call that a win instead.

Man talk about snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.....

Actually look to be fair, there are 2 republicans who actually DID win in this deal, and another who claims he did.

The two actual winners? Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell. See their is one last piece to this deal, and piece that increases the funding to the Olmsted Locks and Dam in Kentucky. Basically it gives 1.2 BILLION to the state of Kentucky for this project.

According to reports thats actually THE thing Mitch McConnell specifically asked for in order to allow his caucus to vote on the bill, and to get him in as a yes.

Now to be fair to Senator Paul, their is yet to be anyone who has suggested he had anything to do with this provision, but it might explain why he said yesterday that he "never really planned on trying to obstruct any of the process." You know this DESPITE helping Senator Cruz lead the fake filibuster and previously saying not raising the debt ceiling would give us the balanced budget (which is wrong but still) that he favors....or favored maybe.

Speaking of Ted Cruz he is our fake winner tonight. See earlier today Senator Cruz actually claimed he won, saying:

"We have seen a remarkable thing happen. Months ago when the effort to defund Obamacare began, official Washington scoffed. They scoffed that the American people would rise up. They scoffed that the House of Representatives would do anything and they scoffed that the Senate would do anything.We saw first of all, millions of millions of American people rising up across this country, over two million people signing a national petition to defund Obamacare. We saw the House of Representatives take a courageous stand listening to the American people that everyone in official Washington said wouldn’t happen."

Yep, thats how Ted Cruz defines a win....two million people signing a list to defund Obamacare (which you know they just failed to do....). Of course the list Cruz was talking about is on the website of "The Senate Conservative Fund" a political PAC that backs Ted Cruz.

So he did just get two million more people on his donor list, I guess thats a big win for him. In fact thats ALMOST as many people who live in his hometown of Houston, Texas.

In fact given the 16 days the government was shut down he got  125000 people per day! Thats basically the number of people who visit Disney land in a single day. Thats almost 1/3rd as many people per day as changed the television channel at the SECOND this sentence wrapped up:

Yea thats right a wrestling commentator trying to convince people NOT to change the channel accidentally convinced more people to do what he didnt want them to do in a single second, than Ted Cruz was able to convince people to do what he wanted them to do every 3 days

Thats a great win there for ya Ted...two and a half week shut down and only two thousand people to show for it.......

So yea, there it is the losers of the Shutdown, how they are going to sell it as a win, and why they are still losers...... 

This Shutdown in stupid.

So yea in case you have been living under a rock, 1 week ago the US federal government has shut down and ceased many operations. Luckily for all my fans out there this blog isnt federally funded and neither is stupidity. Which means I am able to bring you some of the stupidest things said during the shutdown thus far: 

Now very early on in the shutdown one of the major stories was about a group of WWII vets who came to Washington to see the WWII memorial, which they found closed due to the shutdown. So they kicked the gates in and stormed and took over the memorial. As an accidental side effect they also opened a Pandora's box of stupid.

WWII Memorial.

First up Senator Rand Paul, who when asked about the monument closing said this:

"Some idiot in the government sent goons out there to set up barricades so they couldn't see the monument. People had to spend hours setting up barricades where there are never barricades, to prevent people from seeing the World War II monument, because they're trying to play a charade."

Actually to be honest, Senator Paul is actually 100% correct here. In fact the only reason he made this list is because of a total lack of self awareness.

See the reason the barricades were set up is because the National Park Service doesnt have any money, so has to close, because some people in the government, including Senator Paul voted against funding the government, which includes the National Park Service.

In otherwords to paraphrase Obi Wan Kenobi, Senator Paul "you are the idiot you are looking for".

Following in Senators Pauls footsteps Rep. Steven Palazzo (R of Mississippi), who said this "Regardless of the shutdown, it makes no sense, Why close an open air monument?"

OOO! OOO! PICK ME! PICK ME! I KNOW! I KNOW!.....Maintenance. You dont think the grass cuts itself do you? And I'm pretty sure that fountain cant switch itself on and off or clean itself, And you know, we do have water bills that you made sure the park service couldnt pay. Oh but most importantly of all, someones definitely going to need to clean that place. I mean just imagine what that fountain will look like after weeks of people throwing things (like pennies) in it and they arnt cleaned out, whole damn system will clog. And I mean what if it rains again and people track mud all over the area? or even worse maybe, and litter everywhere?

Yea see thats the thing congressman, just because something is outside doesnt mean its self sustaining.

Next up, Congressmen Doc Hastings (R of Washington) Rob Bishop (R of Utah), and Darrell Issa (R of Cali), Natural Resources Committee Chairman, Public Lands and Environmental Regulation Subcommittee Chairman, and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman respectfully, and who are considering launching a congressional investigation into why the memorials are closed and who sent a letter to the the head of the park service asking him “ to take steps as necessary to keep and not destroy documents related to the decision this week to restrict public access.”
Given that the document that lead to that decision is the vote on a Continuing Resolution made by those 3 gentlemen, youd think they'd already have the information they need.

Or maybe what they are saying is that, despite two of them sitting on the committee that oversees the park service, they are all too damn stupid to realize the park service is part of the federal government.

Or maybe they are just saying they are illiterate. After all, here are shutdown contingency plans released by the park service in the days leading up to the shutdown. In otherwords all these guys had to do was read the briefing they would have been handed at their committee meetings and they would have known in advance what was going to happen.

I mean damn you chair a committee and have no idea what it does? just saying that takes a special kind of stupid.

And lastly for our World War II memorial section, Congressman Randy Neugebauer (R of Texas), seen here screaming at a Park Ranger and telling her she should be ashamed for turning people away from the National Parks....as in the same national parks that are closed because of the votes Rep Neuegbauer made.

I havent yet decided if your going to win the week in stupid yet congressman, but your a shoo-in for this week in being a massive dick.

Now of course after the republicans finally realized Obamacare was actually IN affect (sometime around day 3 of the shutdown) they realized they no longer had their demand for what they wanted to reopen the government. After all you cant stop something that already happened.

So they tried to come up with a few new demands, and like their original demand, it didnt go so well.

In fact this one quote from Congressman Marlin Stutzman kinda sums it up:

"We're not going to be disrespected, We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is."

So yea I'm not entirely sure what Rep. Stutzman is talking about when he says they were disrespected, but it seems he means the fact they didnt win the last election/no one likes their polices is "disrespect".

Which means his demand is basically "give me something/ANYTHING because everyone hates us"

So yea basically he's claiming the reason the government was shut down is because everyone hates republicans and they are tired of being picked on.

So yea, shutting down the government should really make more people like you *sarcasm*  And of course changing your social policies to be more popular would be unreasonable.

And Tea Party Express chairwoman Amy Kremer also showed the difficulties of the lack of a reason for the Shutdown, when asked why the House wouldnt just pass the clean Continuing Resolution passed by the Senate. She said

"President Obama keeps saying bring a CR — bring a clean CR to the floor let them vote on it,” Kremer said. “Well, my question is, why doesn’t [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid bring the clean defund Obamacare [bill] to the floor and let the Senate vote on it? Why doesn’t he bring the clean delay Obamacare bill to the floor and let them vote on that?”

Yea see heres the thing, you keep saying the word clean and well.....

See "clean" in the sense of a clean bill means a bill that has no amendments attached and is the same as what was originally introduced, which in the case of a CR is just a date the budget is extended too. So yea no matter if you like or hate the houses version of the bill, it is by its very definition NOT clean. A clean bill to repeal Obamacare is possible, in fact House republicans have voted on it 41 times, because all 41 times it was stand alone legislation.

So yea, keep in mind this woman runs the group that financially supports a lot of the tea party congresspeople.....guess we know why they dont know anything, they are just following her lead...

And its not just the republican rank and file who are having problems explaining why the shutdown was needed or the effects from it. The two architects of the shut down, Senators Mike Lee and Ted Cruz have also had some issues.

See many politicians, noting the bad image they are getting for getting paid while the rest of the government employees arnt, have decided to donate their pay for a cause. Some havnt. Only one has lied about it. That would be Senator Mike Lee.

See he had an interview with a Las Vegas radio interview where he appeared to say he was keeping his salary because he was still working.

His office denied it and said the radio station edited his remarks and claimed Lee was really donating his salary to charity. And then the radio station released the full uncut interview:

Reporter: Do you have any plans to do something like that?

Mike Lee: I don’t.

Reporter: So you will continue to be paid, right?

Mike Lee: I’m working, I’ll continue to be paid.

So not only are you stupid enough to think you can get away with lying about something you KNOW is recorded, you lied about giving money to charity. I think your giving Rep Neugebauer a run for his money as Asshole of the week.

Next up, the other leader of the shutdown movement, Senator Ted Cruz, who said this recently on the senate floor in reference to things affect by the government shutdown:

"If the Senate cooperates, we could get this passed by the end of the day. We could respond to the national security threat these two gentlemens [sic] have laid out. The only impediment to doing so is the prospects that Majority Leader Harry Reid would object to doing so. If, God forbid, we see an attack on the United States because the intelligence community was not adequately funded, every member of the committee would be horrified. So I hope issues of partisan politics can be set aside and we can all come together and pass, right now by the end of the day, a continuing resolution to fully fund the Department of Defense and intelligence community."

So yea, like Rand Paul earlier, the problem Cruz is bitching about is his fault. I mean think about it, the guy who pretended to lead a 21 hour filibuster in order to shut the government down is now worried about the impact of the government being shut down.

So I just want to know Senator Cruz, were you too stupid to know what happened in a government shutdown and pushing for one anyways? or were you just lying and trying to get attention by calling for a government shutdown and never really wanted one but cant admit you conned people? which is it?

After all of those comments (and others) kept floating around, the Republicans desperately needed a new reason to have actually shut the government down, so they settled on the Debt Ceiling. Now the Debt Ceiling hasnt happened yet, we will hit it approximately October 17th. But see they shut down the government in advance so as to force Obama to negotiate on the Debt Ceiling even though Speaker Boehner already admitted he wont allow a default. Or something, I honestly dont understand the republican strategy here myself.

Which is kinda ironic, because it turns out, many republicans dont understand the debt ceiling.

Leading off this segment once again is Rand Paul (and we can add this to the list of things he doesnt understand):

"If you don't raise the debt ceiling, what that means is you have a balanced budget. It doesn't mean you wouldn't pay your bills. We should pay the interest and we should never scare the markets. So, if I were in-charge, I would say, absolutely, we will never default. I would pass a law saying that the first revenue every month, the first revenue, has to go to pay interest."

Ok 2 things
1) Im not sure Senator Paul actually understands what a balanced budget is either, cause its not the opposite of a debt ceiling. A debt ceiling is an artificial cap on how much money we are allowed to borrow to help pay down out debts. A balanced budget means what we take in in revenue is the same as what we spend.
Its entirely possible that if we dont raise the debt ceiling we could be taking in more money in a month than we spend, or less money than we spend. Neither scenario is actually a balanced budget.....

2)You know why we are hitting the Debt Ceiling on October 17th and not October 1st? turns out not all of our bills are due the same day nor are they due the 1st of the month. Which we better hope Rand Paul is never in charge, because I guess if we have interest on the debt that wont appear until the 17th of the month Rand Paul is just not going to pay it. Oh one other thing, we dont take in all our revenue for the month on the first of the month either. So we are only going to be saving a small fraction of our revenue to pay off some interest on the debt weeks late if Rand Paul is in charge (so lets hope he never is)

Next up on not understanding the Debt Ceiling Representative Joe Barton of Texas who said this:

"We have in my household budget some bills that have to be paid and some bills that are only paid partially. I think paying interest on the debt has to be paid. I think paying Social Security payments have to be paid. I don't think paying the secretary of energy's travel expenses have to be paid 100 cents on the dollar."

Yea um, I have to ask, if we dont pay the Secretary of Energy's Travel Expenses who is? I mean we either pay them directly out of our tax dollars or we take them out of his salary......which comes directly out of our tax dollars. So yea, either way we kinda have to pay them.....unless you think we shouldnt pay for it AT ALL, at which point I suppose instead of pulling it from the Energy department budget we would just pay it straight from the federal governments budget....which comes out of our tax dollars.

You know, I kinda get the impression this idiot might actually think money grows on trees cause he doesnt seem to know where it comes from or how it works.

Next up Representative Justin Amash of Michigan:

"There's always revenue coming into the Treasury, certainly enough revenue to pay interest. Democrats have a different definition of 'default' than what we understand it to be. What I hear from them is, 'If you're not paying everything on time that's a default.' And that's not the traditionally understood definition."

You know what you find if you look up the definition of default in the dictionary?
"a failure to act, esp a failure to meet a financial obligation or to appear in a court of law at a time specified"

Yea turns out the "traditional" (read correct) definition of default is EXACTLY almost word for word what Rep Amash claimed it wasnt. Although I would also like to know what Rep Amash actually THINKS the traditional definition of default is...

Ok so, I thought long and hard about this, and I think this week, with so many candidates I have to declare a three way tie.

So sharing this weeks crown are Senator Rand Paul, for in the course of a single week adding "what the government does", "how the government works" "what the debt ceiling is" and "what a balanced budget" is to the ever growing list of things he doesnt understand, Representative Justin Amash for managing to be precisely 100% wrong, that takes skill, and our first ever two time winner Representative Ted Yoho, who said this in regards to the debt ceiling:

"I think we need to have that moment where we realize [we're] going broke. I think, personally, it would bring stability to the world markets."

Yea I got nothing. Like seriously, your stupidity has actually exceeded my considerable abilities at snark, smartassery and mocking. I mean hell its not even worth asking you how exactly a world in which out currency is the standard reserve currency would feel BETTER if we announced basically our currency isnt worth shit.

So yea, way to go Rep Yoho. You actually rendered me speachless en route to your second time being [one of the] stupidest people of the week......

The Republican party got Punk'd by Ted Cruz......again.

Ok so we dont have Aston Kucher, but we do have plenty of people who just got punk'd. For those unfamiliar with the concept Punk'd was a TV show where some poor sap had some horrible misfortune befall him and freaked out, only to have it revealed at the end that everything was actually an elaborate prank designed to fuck with his head.

As it turns out the Republican party has their own version of the show.

In this version how ever it turns out the victims are the ENTIRE republican party, and the pranksters are Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, both of whom are supposed to actually be republicans.

So heres what happened: For years now The republican party has been strongly against Obamacare, which is ironic, given it was their own idea from the 1990's.

But still they have decided to turn on their own idea, which in hindsight was probably the first sign of trouble.

Anyways, every time a funding bill comes up the Tea Party always threatens to derail the economy unless Obamacare is stopped. And every time they wind up caving. And they always cave the same way, their own leadership comes up with a face saving way to NOT defund obamacare but make it look like they are serious, then pledge to fight even harder next time.

Now it should be pointed out, the reason the Republican Leadership has to keep doing this is kinda their own fault anyways.

See the overwhelming majority of Obamacare is mandatory spending, which means its in the part of Spending that isnt included in Budget Bills or Continuing Resolutions, and still would be paid if we didnt raise the debt ceiling.

So none of the bills the Republicans keep threatening to refuse to pass to destroy Obamacare can actually do so. The problem is for the last 3 years or so, Republican Leadership lied about that to their own caucus and voters, all of whom now believe they actually can stop Obamacare this way.

Hence why the GOP leadership now has to trick them  

Which is what was all set to happen this time on the Continuing Resolution. See the plan was this, House Republican leadership would hold a simultaneous pair of votes. The first would be on a clean Continuing Resolution that would as a result leave Obamacare fully funded. The second would be a separate bill defunding Obamacare.

The idea was that because the two votes would be held at once, all Republican members of the House would techically vote for a Continuing Resolution that defunded Obamacare. But since it was two separate bills, the Senate would just not take up the defund bill and would pass the clean Continuing Resolution, which would then go get signed by the President.

It almost worked too, until Ted Cruz came along. Cruz started pointing out that actually republicans didnt have to go the two vote method. In fact as he had an aide suggest at a bicameral committee meeting, the Republicans could stick the defund Obamacare provision and anything else they wanted directly into the CR, then if the Senate refused to pass it and the government shut down the House could actually vote to restore funding only to specific segments of the government such as "the troops and other core priorities." (note this was actually done in years prior when the Department of Defense was fully funded separately from the rest of the government in case of shutdown).

And according to Ted Cruz, Obama might even be willing to sign the bill repealing Obamacare.

So republicans decided they liked that idea. And they did just that, in addition to loading up the new CR with all kinds of other republican goodies, like an abortion ban and fully funding and building the Keystone XL pipeline.

And lets be honest, with senators now willing to fight in the Senate for that bill, AND hold their ground and only fund the republican favored parts of the government later, why shouldnt they pass it? I mean we are all aware at this point of the power of the Filibuster and other obstructionist tactics in the senate.

BUT then the prank was revealed and the Punking occurred. the day after that new CR passed the House Senators Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Marco Rubio released a joint statement saying in part:

“Just a few weeks ago, this was deemed impossible. We commend House leadership and House Republicans for listening to the people and for taking decisive action to stop Obamacare, the biggest job-killer in America. Harry Reid will no doubt try to strip the defund language from the continuing resolution, and right now he likely has the votes to do so. At that point, House Republicans must stand firm, hold their ground, and continue to listen to the American people.”

Translation: "Nice job guys. Too bad the bill will die over here in the Senate, where we aint actually gonna do shit to help you out. But hey after you lose, keep trying."

And they were joined later by another possible GOP contender for president, Rand Paul is now siding with Ted Cruz saying "“We probably can’t defeat or get rid of Obamacare." even though Paul claims he will vote against it, he is basically unwilling to do anything else.

So that means 3 of the biggest names (Cruz, Paul, Rubio) being tossed around right now for the Republican nomination in 2016 are basically refusing to fight for what they all CLAIM can easily be done. I mean I guess the good news is, personally they are accepting the reality Obamacare is here to stay, even if they are still willing to lie about it to everyone else.

But yea, after being the one to SUGGEST the idea and got all the Republicans in the House to go along with it, then basically left them hanging and walked away from them.

Almost as if the entire idea was a joke and he was just trying to see how stupid he could make them look before he revealed the truth.....it wasnt going to happen. Translation "you got PUNK'D"

Now understandably republicans are furious. As one republican house member (Sean Duffy) put it on twitter:
"House agrees to send #CR to Senate that defunds Obamacare. @SenTedCruz & @SenMikeLee refuse to fight. Wave white flag and surrender."

Or as another told a reporter:
"House "defunder" responds to Lee/Cruz/Rubio: They've been telling us for 7 wks how to do our job, now it's their turn to fight"

Or as an aide put it:
"[Cruz's comment] exposes how [Senate conservatives] have deliberately misled their constituents and the grassroots for eight weeks. This isn't leadership, it's hypocrisy."

Another put it this way:
“Nancy Pelosi is more well-liked around here [than Cruz is now]"
But most damning maybe is this quote attributed to a member of House Leadership:
"Cruz is the leader of a secret cabal of leftists that are seeking control of the conservative movement, Their aim is to force the party to take on suicidal missions to destroy the movement from within."

Actually to be honest, that last guy might be on to something. After all, this isnt the first time Ted Cruz has Punk'd the GOP. That would be when he got them to filibuster a cabinet nominee for the first time ever in history based on a claim he pulled out of his ass that was so transparently thin anyone with a working brain should have known it was fake.  Especially since Cruz admitted later he had no evidence

And its not even the second time he's Punk'd the GOP. That would be after his name started to be mentioned for President and he decided for no apparent reason to release his Birth Certificate which showed he was born in Canada AND then decided he himself isnt sure he's eligible to be president but doesnt care since laws arnt his problem.

And its not even the Third time he's Punk'd the GOP. That would be after it was revealed he was born in Canada and therefore was a Canadian Citizen (as well as an American one) and said this about renouncing his Canadian Citizenship and why he actually hadnt known about it:

"Because I was a U.S. citizen at birth, because I left Calgary when I was 4 and have lived my entire life since then in the U.S., and because I have never taken affirmative steps to claim Canadian citizenship, I assumed that was the end of the matter,"
that also being almost word for word the excuse used by Dreamers....the same ones Ted Cruz believes should never be allowed to get citizenship AND should be deported.

So basically on every single issue Ted Cruz has gotten headlines for he manages to make Republicans look like fools, idiots and hypocrites by pretty much always throwing them under the bus. So its a bit hard to refute that unarmed member of leaderships claim about Cruz being a liberal plant.

In fact its looking like the truest statement Cruz has ever said is "I dont trust Republicans". Maybe after this they will stop trusting him?

So far looks like a no. In fact, in true Ted Cruz fashion he's about to punk them AGAIN.

See Ted Cruz is actually NOW, after all the criticism he received, willing to do something with that CR. he's going to Filibuster it.

That's right. Ted Cruz is about to Filibuster the bill HE asked the republicans to sent to the Senate and basically make sure it fails.

Why? well according to Ted Cruz, voting for the CR that defunds Obamacare is voting to fund Obamacare.
Which actually makes sense, as much as I hate to admit it.

See the only real functional difference between this bill and the original plan is what happens AFTER the defund legislation is stripped. in the original two bill plan, the actual CR would have been unchanged and therefore able to go right to the presidents desk.

Under the Ted Cruz suggested plan, after the Senate stripped the defund language (and other republican goodies) from the bill, the now changed CR would have to go to back to the House.

Which puts House Republicans RIGHT back in the very mess they originally wanted to avoid. Eventually the final bill will not have all the Republican goodies, and the Republicans will be forced to vote to pass it anyways, without any way to spin it to look like they tried to defund Obamacare (as they would have had in the original plan), making it quite clear to their base they sold them out.

The problem of course is this; The way Ted Cruz is explaining this, by claiming the version of the CR that the house passed actually funds Obamacare makes it seem as if House republicans were either too stupid to figure out how to correctly defund Obamacare or have already sold out their base, and that Ted Cruz (and any republicans who join him) are the only ones fighting to stop Obamacare and fighting for the Republican base.

So yea, thats the position House Republicans are now in. Because they listened to Ted Cruz, they will either be forced to sell out the base, or be perceived to have already sold out out the base, and Ted Cruz will be seen as the one and only person willing to take [what will eventually be a failed] stand to "protect" the base from Obamacare.

So no matter what happens, the Republican party will get punk'd for the 5th time by Ted Cruz as he throws them under the bus (again) in his quest for personal fame and popularity. Or thrown under the bus to complete his mission as the leader of the Leftist cabal to take down the republican party, your choice of what you choose to believe.

The complete(?) list of things Rand Paul doesnt understand.

Ok so those of you who have read my previous blogs (and hi to both of you by the way :P ) may have noticed a number of references to things Senator Rand Paul doesnt understand. Well it turns out I own my readers an apology, unbeknownst to me that was an abridged list. Heck to be honest, I assume even this is an abridged list hence the (?) in the title. When you have a man like Mr. Paul who understands so little its hard to be sure you found all the examples.

Now keep in mind as your reading this Rand Paul is one of two names EVERYONE just assumes is running for president in 2016 (the other being Hilary Clinton) and the only Republican. There are other names being tossed around, (Jindal, O'Malley, Cruz, Rubio, Biden, Cuomo, Christie ect) but they are just possibilities, unlike Paul who is assumed to be a lock to run. And people will likely support him during his 2016 run

Which is a bit of a problem, seeing as how Rand Paul has a very bad habit of not understanding his own political positions, let alone anything else.

For starters,  we have his most recent thing he didnt understand, namely how "rights" work. Now since I just did a bit on that 2 weeks ago, I'll let you go and read that and not recopy it here (tip search for Rand Paul and/or "where the fuck is my gun") I would like to add though as another example of his misunderstanding how rights work this second quote

"With regard to the idea of whether you have a right to health care, you have realize what that implies. It’s not an abstraction. I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery. It means that you’re going to enslave not only me, but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants who work in my office, the nurses.

Basically, once you imply a belief in a right to someone’s services — do you have a right to plumbing? Do you have a right to water? Do you have right to food? — you’re basically saying you believe in slavery.

I’m a physician in your community and you say you have a right to health care. You have a right to beat down my door with the police, escort me away and force me to take care of you? That’s ultimately what the right to free health care would be."

You know in the previous blog I linked to I pointed out how the inherent contradiction in the "right to free speech" and the "right to remain silent" might create a problem under Rand Pauls definition in how rights function (that you are forced to do it). I'm starting to think if anyone ever asked Rand Paul to explain how both those rights can coexist in his understanding of rights his brain would overload and his head would actually explode.

But his problems of not understanding his own opinions go much deeper than that. For example when Rand Paul first came to national prominence it was due to the 13 hour "old school/talking" filibuster he led against drone killings of Americans.

Quoting the key point of that filibuster Senator Paul said:

“I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court."
Now here's the thing, constitutionally Rand Paul is 100% correct here, and as a constitutional libertarian that is exactly the position he should take.

Which was a bit of a problem a few months later after the Boston Bombing, when discussing if drones could have been used to prevent that attack and/or apprehend the bombers when Paul said this:

“I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.”

Now not only is that a contradiction, since apparently in some cases the government can kill without first charging you with a crime and without first being found guilty by a court, it also shockingly shows Rand Paul doesnt actually know what a drone is.

See drones are basically computer guided missiles. Which means they explode on impact. Thats actually one other controversial parts of drone usage, we tend to kill a fair amount of innocent people, who happen to be standing near someone/some place targeted by drones.

So yea lets assume we did use a drone on this dude with $50 and a weapon, we WOULD kill everyone in the store he just robbed, and likely the stores on either side of it, even though its not clear the guy with the money and weapon actually committed a crime. turns out in a bunch of states its totally legal to carry a weapon into a liquor store....so maybe this guy lives in one of those states and the $50 is his change on his purchase.

So, to sum up Rand Paul's opinion: it's unconstitutional to kill an american citizen on american soil with a drone.....unless you know, you really want to.

Nor is that the ONLY one of his own opinions Rand Paul doesnt understand.

When running for Senate, Rand Paul penned an article defending his rational for being opposed to the Americans with Disabilities Act. From the Op-ed:

"Now the media is twisting my small government message, making me out to be a crusader for repeal of the Americans for Disabilities Act and The Fair Housing Act. Again, this is patently untrue. I have simply pointed out areas within these broad federal laws that have financially burdened many smaller businesses.
For example, should a small business in a two-story building have to put in a costly elevator, even if it threatens their economic viability? Wouldn’t it be better to allow that business to give a handicapped employee a ground floor office? We need more businesses and jobs, not fewer."

So everyone got that right, we need to tweak or get rid of the ADA because it unfairly forces non cost effective things like elevators in two story buildings.

yea about that, quoting from the ADA itself:

"(b) Elevator
Subsection (a) of this section shall not be construed to require the installation of an elevator for facilities that are less than three stories or have less than 3,000 square feet per story unless the building is a shopping center, a shopping mall, or the professional office of a health care provider or unless the Attorney General determines that a particular category of such facilities requires the installation of elevators based on the usage of such facilities."

Yea, turns out the exact example Rand Paul has used as the reason to repeal the ADA is actually EXPLICITLY not required by the ADA.

So, to sum up Rand Paul's opinion: We need to look into tweaking or repealing a law because the law might require someone to do something the law expressly says they dont have to do.

Next up on our list, The Department of Education.

Like his father Ron Paul, Rand Paul would really like to do away with the Department of Education and return control of the Curriculum to the states. Or and Senator Paul put it:
" I would rather the local schools decide things. I don’t like the idea of somebody in Washington deciding that Susie has two mommies is an appropriate family situation and should be taught to my kindergartner at school. That’s what happens when we let things get to a federal level. I think I would rather have local school boards, teachers, parents, people in Paduka deciding about your schools and not have it in Washington."

The problem? well it turns out, determining curriculum isnt what the US Department of Education does. In fact they are prohibited from doingt so by law

"No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, over any accrediting agency or association, or over the selection or content of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, except to the extent authorized by law. (Section 103[b], Public Law 96-88)"

So yea, who exactly is responsible for deciding that "Susie has two mommies is an appropriate family situation and should be taught to my kindergartner at school."? That would be the Local School Board and/or State Board of Education. In other words the very people Rand Paul believes should gain more power.

So, to sum up Rand Paul's opinion: Schools are teaching my kids things I object to, so we should do away with a group that has nothing to do with that so we can give the people who are actually responsible even more power to teach things to my kids I find objectionable.

Next up on the list of things Rand Paul doenst understand, the role of the United States Supreme Court, After the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare Paul said this:

"Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right." 
Actually yes, thats actually EXACTLY what the supreme court does, they gather to decide if a given law is constitutional. Thats kinda why they exist.

Now to be fair, Rand Paul is half correct, the Supreme Court ruling does nothing to make the law RIGHT, just to make it legal. Because Morality is subjective and therefore cant be ruled on.

For senator Paul's sake though, with his theory that everything that is Constitutional is also "right" I hope no one ever asks him if slavery was right prior to 1864.........

Next up, the Budget.

According to a spokesman for the candidate Paul as senator Rand Paul "will vote against and filibuster any unbalanced budget proposal in the Senate."

When asked about his stand on the Budget later as Senator, Rand Paul said this:

"You know, the thing is, people want to say it’s extreme. But what I would say is extreme is a trillion-dollar deficit every year. I mean, that's an extremely bad situation. I would say it's a very reasonable proposition to say that we would only spend what comes in."
now we have two problems: the first is that according to the Senate rules, one of the few restrictions placed on the Filibuster is that you can not filibuster a budget bill.  Which is going to make it hard to filibuster those bills.

The second problem revolves around those "trillion dollar deficits" here's a chart of the US deficits dating back to 1975

chart from the American Prospect

Notice anything missing? like say Trillion Dollar deficits? the highest deficit on that chart is in 2009, at 1,300 BILLION, or roughly a bit over 1/10th of what Rand Paul thinks the deficit is.

Much like his stand on the ADA, Rand Paul is taking a stand to stop a problem that doesnt actually exist.

 Finally we conclude with what has to be the biggest embarrassment of all for Rand Paul, and what should be the biggest red flag for all his supporters out there. It turns out that Rand Paul, the son of Ron "End the Fed" Paul has no understanding AT ALL of  economic policies.

A few weeks ago in an interview with Bloomberg Magazine was asked who he would pick to be Fed Chairman, the exchange went a little something like this:

(Bloomberg Mag):Who would your ideal Fed chairman be? 
(Rand Paul:)Hayek would be good, but he’s deceased.

Nondead Fed chairman.
Friedman would probably be pretty good, too, and he’s not an Austrian, but he would be better than what we have.

Dead, too.Yeah. Let’s just go with dead, because then you probably really wouldn’t have much of a functioning Federal Reserve.

Now I think I've previously busted on Senator Paul for being totally unaware Milton Friedman is dead (died in 2006), but it turns out that isnt actually the problem here, this is. Milton Friedman developed Monetarism.
Monetarism is a fiscal policy that believes in a massively strong actively involved central bank, is absolutely opposed to the gold standard (or any standard) and the consistent printing of more money at a fixed rate in an attempt to control prices of various goods, as well as the belief inflation was basically unpreventable.

In otherwords its pretty much exactly the opposite of standard Paulian libertarian economic thought, including the economic beliefs Rand Paul claims he has. Paul seems totally and utterly unaware of any of this when he suggested Friedmans name, likely on the basis that Friedman did agree with Paul on lowering taxes, and broadly on free markets.

Apparently agreeing on Spending issues to Rand Paul is the exact same as agreeing on ALL economic issues and the role of various economic institutions. Rand Paul doesnt seem to realize their is more to economics than spending.  Of course given that the previous example was of how Rand Paul doesnt even understand what the country is actually spending, it might just be a fluke that he agrees with Friedman at all on anything...

You know I'd love to say "and thats the list of things Rand Paul doesnt understand" but I already know there is more out there and/or will be soon, so I guess instead I'm just going to have to say "and thats the list of things I feel like pointing out today, that Rand Paul doesnt understand....more to come soon"

Syria brings out the crazy in Congress.

You know its often said war brings out the worst in people, and with our new possible war in Syria that definitely seems true of the US Congress.

Now quick disclaimer here, I'm not arguing for or against war with Syria, that would require a blog that goes much deeper and stays much more serious than I usually do.  What I am trying to show however is that even the possibility of war with Syria shows just how little our elected leaders actually know.

Case and point, Senator Rand Paul who recently said this:

'“I think the failure of the Obama administration has been we haven’t engaged the Russians enough or the Chinese enough on this, and I think they were engaged. I think there’s a possibility Assad could already be gone. The Russians have every reason to want to keep their influence in Syria, and I think the only way they do is if there’s a change in government where Assad has gone but some of the same people remain stable. So I think really the best outcome for all the major powers would be a peaceful transition government, and Russia could influence that if they told Assad no more weapons.”

Yea see about that whole Russia telling Assad no more weapons thing and the peaceful transition government issue.....Russia is the one selling Assad weapons because they want to keep him in power.

This is actually a major issue about whether or not the US should get involved in Syria. Involvement by us would likely trigger Russian involvement on the other side.

yet the fact that Russia is diametrically opposed to the US position in this case is apparently above Rand Paul's ability to understand, as he seems to think if we just ask them nicely they will help us do what we want to Syria.

Now to be fair this "situational stupidity on Syria" isnt limited to Rand Paul. Next up we have Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld who saw an opportunity to do some revisionist history.

When asked if the reason Americans are so opposed to intervening in Syria is because of the "specter of Iraq" and the "faulty intelligence" that got us into that war Rumsfeld said this:

"Well, I think that the intelligence community turned out to be wrong and the presentation made by Secretary of State Colin Powell proved out to be wrong. On the other hand, you had a brutal dictator in Iraq who had used chemical weapons against his own people, used them against its neighbors, rebuffed 17 U.N. resolutions. And President Bush went to the congress, got the support of the congress. Went to the U.N., got the support of the U.N. And fashioned a very large coalition. So it seems to me that all the appropriate steps were taken and the congress, a Democratic congress, voted for regime change in Iraq."

Translation, it doesnt matter that the intelligence was bad we did the right thing....and hell its all the democrats fault anyways since it was a democratic congress that passed it.

Problem is by democratic congress, Rumsfeld actually means Republican congress. See when the Iraq war resolution was passed it passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 297 to 133.  At the time their were 223 Republicans and 209 Democrats, meaning its a Republican controlled House

And of the Republicans only 6 voted no. So of that 297 who voted yes, 217 of them were Republicans, only 82 were Democrats.

Senate was no better, their the resolution passed 77 to 23. In fairness at the time it was actually during brief period of time in 2003 the Democrats who controlled the Senate with 50 Senators to the GOP's 49 (it would be another month before the GOP regained control of the Senate)and one independent. Even with that though the Resolution passed with 48 Republicans voting yes and only 29 Democrats. Now yes that is a majority of both parties.

So if you wanted to you could call the Iraq war vote Bi-partisan and argue that. But the one thing it was not was as frm Sec Rumsfeld put it "a Democratic Congress"

Granted unlike everyone else mentioned in this article, I'm pretty sure he knows that, he's just doing what he does best....lying.

Nor is Rumsfeld our only historical revisionist, next up we turn to Former House Foreign Affairs Committee chairwoman (and still committee member) Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) who said this on FOX recently while pushing for intervention in Syria:

It is against the norms of international standards and to let something like this go unanswered, I think will weaken our resolve. I — I know that President Reagan would have never let this happen. He would stand up to this. And President Obama — the only reason he is consulting with Congress, he wants to blame somebody for his lack of resolve. We have to think like President Reagan would do and he would say chemical use is unacceptable.
Yea about that. In my previous bit on Donald Rumsfeld their is one thing Rumsfeld told the truth about, when he said Saddam had used Chemical weapons on his own people and on his Neighbors. And of course Rumsfeld would know this, he's one of the guys who helped Sadam do it.

Special Envoy to the Middle East Donald Rumsfeld meets Sadam Hussein, in 1983 during the Iran Iraq war.

Its only a few weeks after that meeting that the US started to give tactical information to Iraq about the location of Iranian troops, knowing full well Iraq had, and were intending to use Chemical Weapons against the Iranian's.

Now of course Republican's long ago fictionalized President Reagan's stand on pretty much every single issue they believe in (since he's basically agree with them on none), but still maybe  Rep Ros-Lethinen might want to find a different President she wants Obama to model himself on? Just saying.

Now to be fair, the historical revisionism isnt limited to just one party, as Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi shows. When asked if Congress refusing the authorize force means the president cant proceed Pelosi said this:

"I don’t think Congress will reject. But I do want to remind you because the – I’ve been reading some of what some of you have written and say the president has never gone forward if Congress has not approved, when it has taken up the issue. I remind you that in 1999, President Clinton brought us all together, similar to this meeting here, but over a period of time to talk about going into the Balkans and the vote was 213-213, 187 Republicans voted ‘no,’ 180 Democrats voted ‘yes,’ about 30 on each side, something like that, went in a different way than the majority of their party. And that was when the planes were really ready to go into Bosnia [sic]. He went. And you know what happened there. So, I don’t – I don’t think that the congressional authorization is necessary. I do think it’s a good thing. And I hope that we can achieve it."
Except thats not what happened. Operations in Bosnia started March 24th, the House didnt vote on the use of force resolution until April 28th, weeks later.

Now granted on the wider point Pelosi is correct. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 says that as long as he notifies Congress of use of force within 48 hours, the president can authorize military actions not to exceed 90 days (60 days, with a 30 day withdrawal period).

Now the problem is, no President since 1973 has ever actually followed the 90 day limit part of that. And no president since June 5 1942 (when congress made 3 declarations of war against Romania, Hungry and Bulgaria respectively) has actually waited for Congress to declare war before starting an armed conflict.

In every single case, after the fighting starts, congress passes the resolution to continue it, no matter if the president followed the law or not before that point.

But still in theory, on paper, Mrs. Pelosi is correct that Obama doesnt have to follow congress, she is just trying to misinform to make it seem like a much smaller deal than it would really be, and not the first time that would have ever actually happened.

Nor is Pelsoi the only one intentionally misinforming on the War Powers Resolution. John McCain is also doing his part.

McCain wants to intervene in Syria, but doesnt want troops on the ground. And he has apparently decided that if he doesnt get his way the President WILL BE impeached.

"The fact is [President] Bashar Assad has massacred 100,000 people. The conflict is spreading … Iraq has now become a haven for al-Qaeda and the violence is greater than in 2008, the Russians are all in, the Iranians are all in, and it’s an unfair fight, And no one wants American boots on the ground. Nor will there be American boots on the ground because there would be an impeachment of the president if they did that.”

Now yes there actually are people who might be OK with american boots on the ground, I think the list starts with several of the people who proceeded McCain in this blog, and they are certainly not the only ones.

But the bigger problem is this: Impeach Obama for what? Constitution is pretty clear on this, the President can only be impeached for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". In other words you have to have broken at least SOME kind of law.

And again, the War Powers Resolution actually says Obama can do what he likes for up to 90 days. So yea, for at least 3 months he can put "boots on the ground" no matter what Cranky Old Man McCain has to say about it.

I suppose hypothetically on day 91, the House could vote to impeach, but lets be honest, the Senate would NEVER convict, so it doesnt really matter. History however suggests it much more likely both chambers would actually retroactively approve "boots on the ground".

Ok so I dont really have a transition for this next one, because we are kinda leaving sanity behind. So now we come to the crazy part of the blog, as embodied by Rep's Jeff Duncan and Joe "You Lie" Wilson and Senator Ted "Calgary" Cruz.

In the order they were uttered all 3 men said this"

"With the president's red line, why was there no call for military response in April? Was it delayed to divert attention today from the Benghazi, IRS, NSA scandals, the failure of Obamacare enforcement, the tragedy of the White House-drafted sequestration or the upcoming debt limit vote? Again, why was there no call for a military response four months ago when the president's red line was crossed?"- Joe "You Lie" Wilson

"I cannot discuss the possibility of the U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war without talking about Benghazi, The administration has a serious credibility issue with the American people, due to the unanswered questions surrounding the terrorist attack in Benghazi almost a year ago. When you factor in the IRS targeting of conservative groups, the AP and James Rosen issues, Fast and Furious and NSA spying programs, the bottom line is that there is a need for accountability and trust-building from the administration, The American people deserve answers about Benghazi before we move forward in Syria's civil war." - Jeff Duncan
"When [the Benghazi attack] happened, the president promised to hunt down the wrong-doers, and yet a few months later, the issue has disappeared, You don't hear the president mention Benghazi. Now it's a 'phony scandal.' We ought to be defending U.S. national security and going after radical Islamic terrorists." -Ted "Calgary" Cruz
 So basically, these 3 idiots wont take a stand either way or what is a MASSIVE current events and foreign policy issue until someone explains to them why nothing is happening with the fake scandals they made up (IRS, "failure of Obama-care (not even sure what that one is referring to)"  ect ect), namely the one they can never seem to let go of. Benghazi.

Even though they have already tried it. Again and Again and Again and Again. And that doesnt even count Mitt Romney getting destroyed on national TV for trying it.

Yet somehow, these three assclowns actually think taking YET another hard stand to get the answers on Bengahzi they want (as opposed to the ones that are based in reality) is a good idea.

Well that and they also seem to think trying to rebuild their own parties credibility/salvage Romney's is more important than deciding if they want to get people killed.

I mean I guess you cant be too surprised, war does bring out the worst, and the craziest, in people......