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......

 

Yet another week in incredibly stupid

You know, one thing I have noticed, every time congress goes on vacation, the amount of stupid things I have to hear about every week skyrockets. Yet one more reason congress needs to take less recesses.

Anyways, we kick off this edition of this week in stupid, with a special honorable mention. It would have made the normal list, except that, in hindsight, it might be a poorly executed stroke of genius not stupidity.

See a Tea Party group named Faith2Action has come up with a new way to force the republicans to shut down the government in order to defund Obamacare. If the GOP refuses to shut it down, they will start calling the program “BoehnerCare.” based on the idea that “If he [Boehner] funds it, he will own it,” and that by naming it after him people will know who to blame for it.

Now of course, Obamacare isnt actually called Obamacare. It's real name is the  "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act". The name Obamacare was created by the Tea Party so that people would know who to blame for the bill and it would help turn people against the bill.

And clearly that worked....*sarcasm*

BUT heres the reason this might not be as stupid as it seems. Consider how badly the initial rebranding as Obamacare backfired: the president embraced the name change and used it himself, EVERYONE started calling it that, even supporters of the law, and should the law be as successful as Democrats claim it will be, it will be intimatly associated with Obama in ways Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security never were with the presidents who passed them into law. Which means if the law is a success, Obama will likely be catapulted into the pantheon of all time great presidents for that one law alone.

A law, which again, started life in the 1990's as a right wing republican idea, which a "liberal" democratic president will be seen as a hero for. So maybe thats the real idea behind the “BoehnerCare” push, actually make sure the "correct party" or someone in it is seen as getting the credit, so it might be a great PR idea in the long haul.....if they could make it work.

Granted no matter what, they are going to have to convince people that the party that voted 40 plus times to repeal the law, is actually responsible for the law. No matter if “BoehnerCare” is a poorly concieved threat or a stealth way to take credit, its not gonna work and they are going to look ridiculous.

Staying on Obamacare we move to our first actual nominee Canada Cruz....err I mean Senator Ted Cruz:

So basically what Cruz's argument comes down to is "if the house will pass it Obama will sign it". Well not only does that totally dodge the question as to why ANY president would repeal his signature law, its also pretty fucking stupid.

I mean lets be honest, the house has voted 40+ times to repeal Obamacare, and nothings happened.....I guess Cruz is actually stupid enough to believe 50 times is the charm?  Also there is this whole other chamber called the Senate....you know the chamber that Cruz is a member of, that happens to be controlled by Democrats who also wouldnt pass bill to defund Obamacare. But I guess according to Cruz his own chamber is basically just for show and should have no roll in lawmaking.

On the flip side, I do give Cruz credit for at least admitted some (read most) of Obamacare is Mandatory Spending meaning the Budget Bill congress is working on wont affect it, nor would a government shut down...but he loses that credit given that his entire strategy/idea is premised on that very fact not being true.

So yea when you dont pay attention to your own stated facts, you become an nominee for stupidest person in the world.

Up next,  continuing our Obamacare theme, Former Republican Governor and presidential contender Mike Huckabee, who has his own alternative solution for Healthcare after Obamacare is repealed: Cure Cancer.

No seriously he said the government should do a massive Manhattan Project style thing to help find cures for caner and other diseases.

"The national commitment to curing diseases like cancer, Alzheimer’s, heart disease and diabetes has to be largely government funded because the government is the only entity that doesn’t have to have a return on investment, You put it in the hands of the private sector… [that] doesn’t make sense because here is no money long-term if you cure the disease."

Now look I'll be honest. I agree with everything Mike Huckabee is saying. But again remember the whole reason the Republicans want to repeal Obamacare, they object to a massive government take over of healthcare and ripping it out of the private sector. Now of course Obamacare doesnt do any of that. BUT what Huckabee just proposed is EXACTLY the thing he says is wrong with Obamacare. And apprently either doesnt realize it, or thinks you are too stupid to realize it.

Up next. we move away from healthcare, but get even stupider. Which means its time for Rep. Gary Miller of Califorina. Also wow, my second California Republican in two weeks. For a group believed to be extinct they are crazy.

Anyways, when discussing illegal immigration and dreamers two of Rep Miller's constituents tried to explain to him the difficulty they face finding jobs/having careers/lives because they are illegals and were brought here as children, and therefore feel like they cant be part of their country.

to which Rep Miller said:

"I understand the difficulty…I was born in Arkansas, I came here [to California] when I was a year old. Come on, I don’t know. There’s nothing to vote on. See, the [Senate] bill’s going nowhere in the House."

Now actually look, I understand Rep Miller's point and its a good one. I mean Arkansas is a completely different country than California, or at least it was briefly in 1861-1862. And can I just say for a guy who's 150 years old Rep Miller looks AMAZING!!!!!.

And of course they dont speak the same language either, so sadly Rep Miller will never be able to return to his homeland and actually speak the language. after all he grew up in California, and only knows how to speak Californian, not Arkansasan.

And the culture is totally different too. I mean they have nothing in common AT ALL.

  

Ok so maybe there is some truth to that last one :P ...... erhm, anyways most importantly we know anyone from Arkansas could never EVER EVER fully integrate or succeed in the American System

No idea who this guy is. He's from Arkansas though so cant be that important.

So yea, you can clearly see, being from Arkansas is totally like being from a different country....

Up next, our runner up, with what is shockingly only his 2nd ever nomination (mostly because it usually takes a full article to explain his bullshit, so he doesn't get included in "stupid") Rand Paul.

When discussing food stamps and why he is against them Rand Paul said this:

"I think we as physicians have an obligation. As Christians, we have an obligation. . . . I really believe that, and it's a deep-held belief, But I don't think you have a right to my labor, You don't have a right to anyone else's labor. Food's pretty important, do you have a right to the labor of the farmer? As humans, yeah, we do have an obligation to give people water, to give people food, to give people health care, But it's not a right because once you conscript people and say, 'Oh, it's a right,' then really you're in charge, it's servitude, you're in charge of me and I'm supposed to do whatever you tell me to do. . . . It really shouldn't be seen that way."

Now this raises a very interesting question, namely where the fuck is my gun?

No I dont mean I want to shoot Rand Paul, I mean it literally, where exactly is my gun. I looked in my closet its not there. Its not in my car, or my sock drawer or under my bed, I can't find it anywhere.

Now those who know me are probably saying right now "Dude you never bought a gun" and they are right. I have never once in my life EVER set foot in a gun store.

But that doesnt matter, I know my rights. The Second Amendment to the US Constitution, part of the Bill of RIGHTS says and I quote " [T]he RIGHT of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Now since my having a gun is a RIGHT, then I've been conscripted and I have told you that you are in change and you have told me I WILL have a gun, and that I will be given this gun if I want it or not.

Yet I still dont have my gun. So where the fuck is my gun?

Now of course if you have a functional brain and no sense of irony you are probably yelling at your computer monitor (or cell phone) right now "THATS NOT HOW RIGHTS WORK! IT ONLY MEANS YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO DO IT" to which I say "Bingo!".

Yea see, a right means you have the right to do something or you know the right to choose NOT to do it. Which is a good thing, cause otherwise trying to balance your right to remain silent and your right to free speech would be in total conflict with each other. After all you cant be forced to shut up AND talk at the same time.

So having a right to food doesnt mean the government (or anyone else) is going to force feed you, it means the government (or some other group) is going to make sure its possible for you to get food.

And thats the other thing. Going back to my gun example, even if I wanted a gun I cant just walk into a place and say "Gun me" and get handed a gun. If I want a gun I have to go somewhere and purchase a gun. Having it be a right doesn't entitle me to have it for free.

So that poor concerned Farmer Rand Paul is worried about because He's loosing all his Labor for nothing because of my right to food?

Yea well, just like guns, turns out that guy would be getting something. It's called money. And heres the thing about Money. Money IS money, no matter what. If I buy my food from him with cash, that's money. If I use Credit Card, thats money too. And shockingly if I use food stamps...thats actually ALSO money. Its just money from another source (tax payer dollars).

So at the end of the day, the Farmer gets money for his Labor, no matter how the food is bought and who buys it. And of course, he also has the right to not sell his food in the first place.....just means more money goes to the Farmers who will sell.

So yea to sum up, lets add "basic understanding of rights" to the ever growing list of things Rand Paul doesnt understand.

And finally, our winner this week. Professional Religious Wackjob Pat Robinson.

Now look I was going to show you Pat Robinson's stupid comment, but I cant. Because he's company had the clip wiped from the archives and filed a copyright claim with most video posting websites.

That alone by the way should give you an idea of the epic level of stupidity you are about to encounter.

Luckily a few people, including Box Turtle Bulletin got a full transcript

Robinson had just been asked a question by a woman looking for guidance about AIDS. specifically a man she had been driving around between places for several weeks ago found out he had AIDS and hadnt told her. She got pissed because she figured if shed had an accident she might have gotten AIDS and she asked Robinson what to do. This is his reply, which actually to be fair, started off fine:

“I must confess, I don’t know all the ramifications of the infection of AIDS. I just to think it was trasmitted by saliva and another things and now they say it may be sexual contact. So, what you want to say is if you are driving with a man who’s got AIDS, don’t have sex with him. But that’s a little too simplistic. I don’t necessarily think you can get AIDS unless there’s a cut or some bodily fluid transmission I think you’re not going to catch it. But it’s a horrible thing and I don’t know what to say.

The laws now… the homosexual community has put these draconian laws on the books that prohibit people from discussing this particular affliction. You can tell somebody they’ve had a heart attack, you can tell somebody they’ve got high blood pressure, but you can’t tell anybody they’ve got AIDS.

So I’m going to say, you didn’t catch anything, keep going to church and praise the Lord. You got any thoughts on that one?”

Now I dont think its part of the secret gay agenda that you actually cant tell anyone they have AIDS, but other than that, that would have been a perfectly fine answer. But then his Co-host tried to anwser

Well, you know I think you were doing a good thing by transporting this man. I have known many people with AIDS and have never felt fearful of a scenario like this. I guess I think even if you have had a car accident …

At which point Robinson cut her off and added this:

You know what they do in San Francisco, some in the gay community there they want to get people so if they got the stuff they’ll have a ring, you shake hands, and the ring’s got a little thing where you cut your finger? [...]I mean it’s that kind of vicious stuff, which would be the equivalent of murder. But anyhow, for that one, you go back to your church, you’re fine.

So yea, Gay people carry rings around that secretly infect you with AIDS. I mean it didnt happen in your case so just go back to church, but generally those gay people are DANGEROUS AIDS ASSASSINS!!!!!!

Gay AIDS Ring!
And all I ever got as a kid was a decoder ring :(

Now of course after being criticized for being bat shit insane by pretty much everyone AND having his own company pull the clip off the internet to try to make it disappear forever Robinson sent out an email defending his comment

”In my own experience, our organization sponsored a meeting years ago in San Francisco where trained security officers warned me about shaking hands because, in those days, certain AIDS-infected activists were deliberately trying to infect people like me by virtue of rings which would cut fingers and transfer blood."

AIDS? THIS IS SPARTA (not really part of email)

“I regret that my remarks had been misunderstood, but this often happens because people do not listen to the context of remarks which are being said. In no wise (sic) were my remarks meant as an indictment of the homosexual community or, for that fact, to those infected with this dreadful disease.”

So yea, some random security guy told me about the AIDS ring so it must be true, random people dont lie. And I didnt mean to defend gays even if they all are AIDS ASSASSINS.

AIDS Ring, Deluxe edition, for when you absolutely must infect on the first try. 

So yea. For basically being stupid AND gullible and HOMOPHOBIC, Pat Robinson YOU are the stupidest person in the world for this week.

Your prize for winning? why a handshake of course.....