House to Sue the Prez…(We the People, Still Ignored)

Talking Points Memo Headline: 

House Votes To Sue President For The First Time In History

Here’s a purely rhetorical question, because it makes too much common sense for the government to actually acknowledge the hypocrisy and give us a direct, non-convoluted answer:

WE the people– the constituents– can’t sue the government:

“Sovereign immunity has carried over to modern times in the form of a general rule that you cannot sue the government — unless the government says you can.” (source)

In the United States, the federal government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit. See Gray v. Bell, 712 F.2d 490, 507 (D.C. Cir. 1983). The United States as a sovereign is immune from suit unless it unequivocally consents to being sued.  (Wikipedia)

Well, these douchebags would never consent to us suing the collective pants off of them, (I mean, these are the same guys who get to vote on their own paychecks)  but they can sue the President? Doesn’t he get “sovereign immunity?”  Well, Congress, especially the Republican party, has done their best to block his every move in regards to this healthcare debacle anyway.  But regardless of whether or not you support the healthcare bill, these jokers in Congress do not have best interests of the majority of their constituents in mind.  (Those interests were already bought and paid for by the lobbyists and 1%.)

I call bullshit.  I think the whole lot of them should be kicked out on their overpaid keisters.  Or maybe the President can counter-sue for Treason.  The whole congressional process is a is a fucking joke now anyhow.

*grumble grumble*  I’m going to go eat some damn ice cream now.

 

Advertisements

No. Just…No.

This is one of the gems making the rounds on Facebook right now… (and by “gems,” I really mean ignorant, entitled bullshit…)

310095_591798744168035_530634446_n

I find it amusing that hundreds of thousands of federal employees just got an unrequested “vacation” without pay because Congress couldn’t get their shit together, and STILL, everyone, including other middle class Americans, are still focusing on blaming the poor people in America.

(I’ve written about this before, and anyone interested in actual facts can check out that link…)

Or, if facts don’t really matter much, I’ll leave you with this little ode to misrepresentation and straight up lies. (I’ll reprint the caption that’s tagging along with this particular incarnation of an old pic, but please, don’t hold me responsible for the dumbassery…)

"What the hell is this... A picture is worth a thousand words. SOMEONE WAS AT THE RIGHT PLACE AT THE RIGHT TIME WITH A CAMERA. IT WAS REPORTED THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS FURIOUS THAT HE WAS CAUGHT ON CAMERA AND IT WAS PUBLISHED AND TRIED TO BLOCK IT. The name of the book Obama is holding is called: The Post-American World, and it was written by a fellow Muslim.(Fareed Zakaria) "Post" America means: The World "After" America !" If each person sends this to a minimum of twenty people on their address list, In three days, all people in The United States of America would have the message. I believe this is one photo that really should be passed around."

“What the hell is this… A picture is worth a thousand words. SOMEONE WAS AT THE RIGHT PLACE AT THE RIGHT TIME WITH A CAMERA. IT WAS REPORTED THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS FURIOUS THAT HE WAS CAUGHT ON CAMERA AND IT WAS PUBLISHED AND TRIED TO BLOCK IT. The name of the book Obama is holding is called: The Post-American World, and it was written by a fellow Muslim.(Fareed Zakaria) “Post” America means: The World “After” America !” If each person sends this to a minimum of twenty people on their address list, In three days, all people in The United States of America would have the message. I believe this is one photo that really should be passed around.”

‘Kay, guys…  I hope no one ever post pix of the stuff I read for entertainment!

Also…Obama is Christian…

Also…ah fuck it…  http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/postamerican.asp

One Nation, 313.9 Million Opinions….

I’ve been embroiled in a pretty irritating (and endlessly ongoing) debate on social media lately, especially amid all the DOMA stuff and rampant, misinformed patriotism going on…

“One nation UNDER GOD!”  ‘Murica!

Was our nation founded on “biblical” ideas, or the idea of religious freedom?

As I research, it seems there are conflicting ideas at work even as the country was founded.  According to some sources, the country was founded by settlers fleeing the “tyranny” of the Church of England, for the purpose of being free to worship God how they felt fit.  SO in that sense, you could say the US was founded on biblical beliefs…

And yet, in OUR CONSTITUTION, it expressly states that

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; […]and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Apparently, the word “Christianity” does not appear in the constitution.  Now, I’m not sure about the word “bible.”  But when it comes to the constitution, a lot of people (conservatives…eek!)  are especially fond of quoting the part about the right to bear arms, but not so interested in upholding the “no law respecting an establishment of religion” part.

To word the initial question in a different way… was this country founded on religious freedom, or merely the “freedom” to be Christian?

And apparently the sad truth is that some states have constitutions that forbid atheists from holding public offices.  You have to declare at least a belief in God.  This seems to be in direct contrast to the  idea of separation of church and state posed at the federal level, and while I admit a fairly rudimentary knowledge of politics, it’s been ingrained in my head since grade school that the states were not supposed to pass any laws that violated federal law.  Somehow, there are many laws today that get around that somehow.

What I don’t understand is why it’s so difficult for anybody to just leave others alone.  Still there are some people that insist this country is going to shit simply because things are not being done their way, whether that be with religion infused into everything or because gay people are allowed to marry, or…whatever!

Now, I had been requested by a close friend to “research” this further before rendering an opinion.  While I don’t have hours to go through the constitution line by line right now, I’ll admit there seems to be conflicting ideas as to what this country is founded on, depending on where you look.  But… what I am not conflicted on is the idea that people have “adapted” both the constitution and the Bible to fit more into their modern lives.  Whether it be gun laws, laws and mores governing divorce, the use of birth control, etc, there are may passages that are interpreted only “loosely” or in a way that is more palatable to the morals we’ve actually internalized.  My point is, while either or both of these texts might be good guidelines for how to live your life, as society and the human species changes, ideas need to change with it.  For instance, the ideas of continuation of species, identification of parentage , reproductive survival, etc, may have been served better at one time by the ideas of marriage as between “one man ad one woman.”  Historically speaking:

In Comanche society, married women work harder, lose sexual freedom, and do not seem to obtain any benefit from marriage. But nubile women are a source of jealousy and strife in the tribe, so they are given little choice other than to get married. “In almost all societies, access to women is institutionalized in some way so as to moderate the intensity of this competition. (wikipedia)

But now that model is not nearly as relevant, in an over-populated world where reproductive technology allows even single or infertile people to have children if they want.

Please don’t take this as an attack on religion.  While I do not personally ascribe to any, I would not deny someone else their beliefs. But for the love of God (see what I did there? ) stop trying to use it to write or keep laws for a nation that is not any one religion!  There are 313 million people in the US, and they don’t all think like you.  The real idea behind America is supposed to be that they don’t have to.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-meyerson/religious-freedom-in-americas-founding-moments-_b_1632067.html

 

EDIT: 7/18/13  This clears things up some, for me anyway.  http://inphasemag.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/separation-of-church-and-state-is-in-the-constitution/comment-page-1/

You Have the Right to Shut the F*ck Up

I think this is the last I’ll say on this topic (and that includes responses to any irate gun owners.)

Do I think rights are important?  Yes.

Do I think they are guaranteed or owed?  No

Do rights really exist?  One would think a right is something that can’t be taken away or given.  Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, bearing arms… all can be taken away.  They are not guaranteed.

Unfortunately, there is little in this world that can not be taken away.  Most of the “rights” we have are “rights” that were given to us, either by law or religion.

We are born into this world naked.  We don’t come from our mothers equipped with a full set of rights.

According to Wikipedia and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, rights are defined as follows:

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.

To me, the key word in this passage is entitlement.  I see a fair amount of abuse directed at Americans online, especially by non-Americans.  We’re “bullies,” we’re ignorant, we’re arrogant.

While I do largely agree with that assessment, it still rankles me to see an entire nation discriminated against based on the actions of a few, namely the government.

But, America does have a problem, and I think it comes largely from a sense of entitlement.  I honestly think our problem with violence in this country largely stems from that feeling of entitlement.  And we got that sense of entitlement from our own government and judicial system.  Our country was founded on some “fundamental rights”enacted by Congress.  Fast forward a couple hundred years to the land of frivolous lawsuits, some of which are actually won.

Between laws set forth and court rulings (judgments) on criminal cases and civil suits, our country has set a dangerous precedence.  They have given a lot of people in this country the mentality of a three year old, that being, “I deserve to be happy, I deserve to get my way, and if I don’t, I’m going to have a temper tantrum sue.”

I am sick to fucking death of seeing all the people who have been proselytizing about their “right to bear arms” in the wake of Newtown.  Between the gun rights advocates and the gun control advocates, it seems there can be no middle ground either.  You would think some of the gun control laws being proposed or already in place are common sense.  But lately it feels like people are immune to common sense, or even facts and statistics.

You’re pissed about your “right to bear arms?”  Well, guess what.  Those 20 dead little kids should have had a right to go to school without fear of gruesome death!  I’ve  got news for you; most of the rights you have were given to you by the government, and thus, can be taken away by the government.

Some people would argue our “rights” are what separate us from less civilized people and places.  I agree that rights are important, but what I am trying to get across is that people are letting their perceived rights make them arrogant and ambivalent to the plights of others.  Believe it or not, I actually support the right to bear arms.  That said, I do not think that right should be without restrictions.  My problem is with the people placing their “right to bear” over the safety of our children, with lame arguments that “guns don’t kill people,” and opposition to even statistical data that supports the fact that easy access to weapons means the weapons get used more often in crimes of violence (case in point, the statistics on victims of lethal domestic violence and gun ownership.)**Someone the other day argued with me that by this logic, since his whole family owned guns, I was insinuating that one of them must be an abuser.  Such ignorant misinterpretation of the facts is a symptom of the arrogance I mentioned.  This person simply did not want to acknowledge any factual data that ran counter to his own desire to “keep his guns.”**  What this basically boils down to is, in the case of domestic violence, if a gun is around to be used, there is a higher chance it will be used.  I realize most gun owners are not abusers, but I’m going to extrapolate to violent crime in general and say if a person has easy access to a gun (whether it’s their own or a family member’s or friend’s), they are more likely to use said gun.

Maybe it seems like I’m picking on the “gun people.”  It’s only because the news and social media sites have been flooded with knee-jerk speeches about gun rights and gun control since the Newtown tragedy.  But the basic idea applies to everyone.

Maybe it’s a stretch, but I think if you take the idea of entitlement one step further, you are on your way to understanding the cause of a lot of violence too.

“I want something, you can’t keep me from having it, I have a right to have it, I’m going to take it. “

It seems to be pretty obvious that all the media coverage on mass killings like this seem to encourage other unstable people to air their grievances in a similar manner.  People who are dissatisfied, feel “wronged,” are unhappy with their lot in life, now feel entitled  to be noticed, to force their pain on others.

Anyway, though I digressed (at length) and maybe vented a bit, everyone is entitled to their opinion…and that’s about the only “right” you have that can’t be taken away.

*** Like I said, everyone is entitled to their opinions (the above is my opinion,) and you are welcome to share yours as long as it’s respectful.  Just please don’t expect a response from me regarding “gun rights,” because I think I’ve said all I have to say.