MJ's 29g Barrel 'O Monkeys

[Militant Jurist]

Don't forget about chaining yourself to a tree.

[bitts]

but thats not in the book.

[Militant Jurist]

Hey folks. Not much to update on the tank, since it's just been running on autopilot. I'll try to take some pictures this week though.

 

I had a pretty busy weekend. Went to the Ohio State vs. Ohio University game on Saturday, which was a good time. OSU crushed OU, so toward the end of the game, OSU was busting out some trick plays, like snapping the ball to the running back. I also went to see The Expendables, and it was a classic Stallone film. I was a bit disappointed that Arnold and Bruce Willis only had a few minutes in the movie, but other than that, it was great. Lots of blood and guts, just like you'd expect with Stallone as a director.

[Militant Jurist]

From the new "Pledge to America":

 

In a self-governing society, the only bulwark against the power of the state is the consent of the governed, and regarding the policies of the current government, the governed do not consent.

 

An unchecked executive, a compliant legislature, and an overreaching judiciary have combined to thwart the will of the people and overturn their votes and their values, striking down long-standing laws and institutions and scorning the deepest beliefs of the American people.

 

An arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites makes decisions, issues mandates, and enacts laws without accepting or requesting the input of the many.

 

Rising joblessness, crushing debt, and a polarizing political environment are fraying the bonds among our people and blurring our sense of national purpose.

 

Like free peoples of the past, our citizens refuse to accommodate a government that believes it can replace the will of the people with its own. The American people are speaking out, demanding that we realign our country’s compass with its founding principles and apply those principles to solve our common problems for the common good.

 

The need for urgent action to repair our economy and reclaim our government for the people cannot be overstated.

 

With this document, we pledge to dedicate ourselves to the task of reconnecting our highest aspirations to the permanent truths of our founding by keeping faith with the values our nation was founded on, the principles we stand for, and the priorities of our people. This is our Pledge to America.

 

It works, although not quite as elegant as T.J. would have said it:

 

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

 

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

 

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

 

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

 

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

 

And to end with a flourish, T.J. would have written something like this:

 

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

[spanko]

Decepticons. Read farther into it about what it is they want to do to "preserve" your liberty.

[Deleted User 6]

look at my thread too!

[Militant Jurist]

Decepticons. Read farther into it about what it is they want to do to "preserve" your liberty.

 

What part are you referring to? I haven't read it in depth yet, but from a cursory glance, I didn't notice anything objectionable as far as principles go. Maybe a few economic policies I don't quite see a foundation for, but that's it so far.

[spanko]

"America is an idea – an idea that free people can govern themselves, that government’s powers are derived from the consent of the governed, that each of us is endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. America is the belief that any man or woman can – given economic, political, and religious liberty – advance themselves, their families, and the common good."

 

So far so good.

 

"With common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops, we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone and putting us on a path to balance the budget and pay down the debt."

 

They must think we are stupid, Trillions of dollars in programs have been run up and they want to save a measly 100 billion. GET REAL!

 

" We will launch a sustained effort to stem the relentless growth in government that has occurred over the past decade. By cutting Congress’ budget, imposing a net hiring freeze on non-security federal employees, and reviewing every current government program to eliminate wasteful and duplicative programs, we can curb Washington’s irresponsible spending habits and reduce the size of government, while still fulfilling our necessary obligations."

 

Oh have you read the constitution and its 18 enumerated powers? Huh? Have you? If you had then 100 billion in cuts means nothing!

 

"We will also prevent Washington from forcing responsible taxpayers to subsidize irresponsible behavior by ending bailouts permanently, canceling the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), and reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

 

Reforming Fannie and Freddie, how bout them enumerated powers, abolish Fannie and Freddie!

 

"Instead of pushing off our long-term fiscal challenges, we will reform the budget process to ensure that Congress begins making the decisions that are necessary to protect our entitlement programs for today’s seniors and future generations."

 

Entitlement programs for future generations. Have you read the constitution? Figure a way to take of those who have paid in so far and abolish entitlements for the future.

 

I could go on but I think you see my reasoning here. Do not be deceived, they are just more of the same but only a little less of it.

 

GOPagenda.pdf

[Militant Jurist]

"With common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops, we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone and putting us on a path to balance the budget and pay down the debt."

 

They must think we are stupid, Trillions of dollars in programs have been run up and they want to save a measly 100 billion. GET REAL!

 

First, and this holds true for the whole document, it's been labeled as a non-exclusive plan. Essentially, this the overall framework for the GOP. You'll have "moderates" ala Castle, et al. who will want to take the "pull off the band-aid oh so slowly" and more hardcore types who want to just rip off the darn thing. If you look at things like Cantor's "YouCut" program, they have found hundreds of billions they can cut. Also, the deficit and the debt can't be paid overnight under anyone's proposal. By going back to an earlier level, they are setting a benchmark from which further cuts will be made. We got to this point by a lot of small projects being funded, and it will take a lot of small projects being unfunded to fix it.

 

 

" We will launch a sustained effort to stem the relentless growth in government that has occurred over the past decade. By cutting Congress’ budget, imposing a net hiring freeze on non-security federal employees, and reviewing every current government program to eliminate wasteful and duplicative programs, we can curb Washington’s irresponsible spending habits and reduce the size of government, while still fulfilling our necessary obligations."

 

Oh have you read the constitution and its 18 enumerated powers? Huh? Have you? If you had then 100 billion in cuts means nothing!

 

I think the concern here is that if they cut too much, they will have backlash from the voters. The whole point of this Pledge is to show that they are listening to the American people. Sadly, a large portion of the American people like their Social Security checks, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. I think the emphasis is on "curbing" the spending. It's like using methadone, rather than trying to quit narcotics cold turkey.

 

"We will also prevent Washington from forcing responsible taxpayers to subsidize irresponsible behavior by ending bailouts permanently, canceling the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), and reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

 

Reforming Fannie and Freddie, how bout them enumerated powers, abolish Fannie and Freddie!

 

Well, Freddie and Fannie are private enterprises that are "government sponsored entities." As such, they can't just abolish them without violating the Fifth Amendment (not to mention the investment backed expectations of the bond holders). I believe the plan is to drop the government sponsorship, which would be a reform.

 

"Instead of pushing off our long-term fiscal challenges, we will reform the budget process to ensure that Congress begins making the decisions that are necessary to protect our entitlement programs for today’s seniors and future generations."

 

Entitlement programs for future generations. Have you read the constitution? Figure a way to take of those who have paid in so far and abolish entitlements for the future.

 

I could go on but I think you see my reasoning here. Do not be deceived, they are just more of the same but only a little less of it.

 

GOPagenda.pdf

 

Actually, they have a bit of a point with certain entitlement programs. Under the Constitution, once the government has raised revenue it has the power to spend it for the "general welfare." When the Constitution was ratified, that term meant happiness, health, or prosperity. The concern under the Constitution was the exercise of power (commands, regulations, taxation, etc), rather than spending. So although the popular rhetoric is about spending, the root of the problem is the government's ability to raise money, through taxation or borrowing.

 

T.J. had it right:

 

I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government; I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing. I now deny their power of making paper money or anything else a legal tender. I know that to pay all proper expenses within the year would, in case of war, be hard on us. But not so hard as ten wars instead of one. For wars could be reduced in that proportion; besides that the State governments would be free to lend their credit in borrowing quotas.

[spanko]

General welfare is defined by the enumerated powers.

 

They are the ones that helped to triple the debt during the GW years, why not cut back to 2000?

[Militant Jurist]

General welfare is defined by the enumerated powers.

 

That's the interpretation I would like, and I'm sure it's one that T.J. and Madison would push for today. However, their view wasn't the only one. Hamilton and many others pushed for the version that has been accepted by the Supreme Court since the 30's.

 

Hamilton wrote:

 

``The constitutional {test} of a right application must always be, whether it be for a purpose of {general} or {local} nature. If the former, there can be no want of constitutional power.... Whatever relates to the general order of the finances, to the general interests of trade etc., being general objects are constitutional ones for {the application} of {money}.'' Source: What Is The "General Welfare"?, American Almanac, May 15, 2000.

 

They are the ones that helped to triple the debt during the GW years, why not cut back to 2000?

 

It all goes back to not cutting too hard too fast. If they were acting on principle, yes, that's what they'd do. However, since they are pushing a principled AND representative agenda, they have to balance their priorities. It's no different than with Obamacare. Do the American people hate it? Yup. Do they like a lot of its provisions anyways? Yup. So even though regulating health care isn't in the Constitution, if the GOP wants to represent the American people, they are going to need to do their best to operate within the Constitution, while still representing those they serve.

[Deleted User 6]

hamilton was kinda an idiot and stuff.

[Militant Jurist]

hamilton was kinda an idiot and stuff.

 

Well, duh. But idiots get to vote. Unless they are in Ohio.

 

Section 6, Article 5 of the Ohio Constitution: No idiot, or insane person, shall be entitled to the privileges of an elector.

[spanko]

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

 

James Madison Federalist 45

 

And an unelected group of me in robes made this pronouncement, that if the congress had any balls could have overturned......

 

Nonetheless, the promise of limited federal power eventually succumbed to the pressures of expanding federal power in the 20th century, most notably during the New Deal era and President Franklin D. Roosevelt's "court packing" scheme.[3] The turning point in Supreme Court jurisprudence on the subject is widely seen as United States v. Butler (1936). Although that decision struck down provisions within the Agricultural Adjustment Act as violating the Tenth Amendment, the court found that

...the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.

—Justice Owen Roberts (1936)[4]

 

The beginning of the end....................................Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated, WE ARE BORG!

[Militant Jurist]

I think that's the Democrats new theme: Resistance is useless.

 

[Militant Jurist]

Halloween is coming, and we need some October shenanigans in here.

 

 

I'm thinking of a new av for the month.

 

A)

 

 

C)

 

or

 

D)

[Deleted User 6]

classic A, imo

[Militant Jurist]

classic A, imo

 

That's kind of the direction I was leaning. I'm not sure if the young whippersnappers will get it though, since the Wizard of Oz was old when I first saw it. Although, Scifi Channel did a really good remake of it in Tin Man.

 

 

Did you hear what the Democrats are going to dress up as for halloween?

[ap123]

Definitely A.

 

And what r the Democrats dressing up as?

[Militant Jurist]

Definitely A.

 

I think I'll make the change then.

 

And what r the Democrats dressing up as?

 

Thanks for playing along.

 

The answer is:

 

 

Zombie donkeys!

 

 

And what do zombie donkeys eat?

 

BRAINZ!!

 

[MrIcky]

B ) gives me the freakin' heebie jeebies

 

edit because B ) =

[Militant Jurist]

B ) gives me the freakin' heebie jeebies

 

edit because B ) =

 

 

B does seem like something out of a bad horror flick. I think it's fake, but it's the kind of thing that, in a C-list horror flick, would come alive at night and eat your brains.

[MrIcky]

 

B does seem like something out of a bad horror flick. I think it's fake, but it's the kind of thing that, in a C-list horror flick, would come alive at night and eat your brains.

 

I think it's one of those 1800s taxidermy specialties that were so popular for the victorians. I've seen a few of those and they all have this LSD vibe that makes you shudder.

[Militant Jurist]

I think it's one of those 1800s taxidermy specialties that were so popular for the victorians. I've seen a few of those and they all have this LSD vibe that makes you shudder.

 

 

 

Some of the products turned out by taxidermists are just down right scary!

[wimby]

A I like A voting A