Perhaps all this talk
about Rand Paul and his filibuster of yesterday was just a grand distraction
from the real news story of yesterday. According
to a new documentary or book or whatever, Dick Chaney was even more of a blood
lust killer than we all believed. It is
said that Dick Chaney’s appetite for blood and gore and death was nigh on
insatiable. That in the end Bush had to
sideline Chaney in his second term lest we be drawn into three or four more
wars with massive body counts. Dick
Chaney is an amoral blood-lust sociopathic killer, and the thing is he’s a
coward, too. Like Ted Nugent he too
dodged the draft. Apparently Dick Chaney
flip flopped on the whole Viet Nam war after claiming to witness some “anti war
protestors in white sheets drenched in pig blood”. Apparently something in him snapped and from
that moment on it was his desire to get into the highest echelons of
government. Of course when Dick Chaney
appointed himself as Bush’s aid in “seeking out Vice Presidential nominees’ he
never intended that that job be held by anyone other than himself. Apparently he played on George W’s fears of
being a whimp like his father was accused of being. And clearly it was Chaney’s War of aggression
in Iraq. Bush was just an empty headed
vessel and in the early days would have been lost without Chaney. When 9 – 11 occurred of course it was on Vice
President’s express orders that Flight 93 be shot down. What is said in that Movie is an elaborate
Hollywood lie made to distract from the guilty.
Chaney made sure that he was in control after 9 – 11 making all the key
decisions leading the President all around the country with one distraction or
another. So in reality this term of
Darth Vader is not far off the mark when it comes to Dick Chaney. Mike Meloy compared Dick Chaney to people
like Eichman and other of the world’s greatest killers. And I’ll tell you this. If people like Judy and other Christians
refuse to come out and comdemn people like Dick Chaney- - which they won’t. One of two things is apparent. Either these Christians who support Dick
Chaney are the world’s worst disobedient blasphemers, or else- - God himself is
a sociopath and hence is more appropriately to be cursed and shunned- - rather
than deemed worthy to worship. According
to Mike Meloy again, and I’ve heard it said previously, that Dick Chaney- -
like those Nazis hiding out in Brazil- - is so universally regarded as a War
Criminal of the first magnitude- - that he would be immediately arrested, or
worse, should he ever deem to take so much as a few steps outside the confines
of US borders.
There are more details
coming in about that lion attack. The
lady intern had been on the job two months and “Koos Koos” was her favorite big
cat. All her life her dream was to get a
job working with big cats. The owner
told the intern never to go onto the lion’s cage alone. But apparently there was an ajoining area and
the lion methodically lifted up the door of the cage, which was ajar, and then
bit the woman immediately breaking her neck.
She died almost instantly and she died “without suffering’. The lion continued to chew and maul the victim,
and others tried to distract the lion, not knowing that it was too late. Finally the authorities came and shot the
lion. They spoke of "Koos Koos" as "pampered ever since he was a cub" and only treated with kindness. Yet he turned into just another wild beast killer. I know what the Lion's excuse, but what is Dick Chaney's? Because similar to that Lion, Dick Chaney grew up in privelege without the slightest indication he would "turn vicious". Others on the "other side of the void" have put in their two cents on this issue. Actually “Bones” weighed in on
this story tonight and said that there are things they aren’t telling us- - but
Bones couldn’t tell me what they are. He
had talked to Jim Morrison already and Morrison said “Obviously there is a
story untold here”. I am not so
charitable. But on the subject of drones
it’s different. Bones said “Of course in
the Romulan Empire we have express treaties against this sort of thing as
conduct not tolerable in civil unread, or even an undeclared war, which all the
ones in your country are. But Bones
added “Still I don’t have a background in the cultural context behind the
conditions under which drone attacks are permissible, and I feel I’d be doing
an injustice to comment further on this without studying the situation much
more extensively than I have”. Once
again I am not nearly so charitable.
Clearly we need an express law that says “Drones shall never be used
inside the territory of the United States on US Citizens- whether they are
suspected of a crime or not”. I’d make
it just that simple. Clearly this
“window of opportunity” stuff is a bunch of crap because there is no danger of
their slipping into Pakistan or what not.
Also as Rand Paul pointed out this morning, you could drive a Mac Truck
through the hole in the definition about whether a certain thereat was
“iminent’ or not. It doesn’t take a genius
to figure out that the phrase “We must strike within the window of opportunity-
- if more conventional action would result in undo risk”. Yeah, these Admerals might mess up their
manicure if they had to actually go out and physically put themselves as risk
to get revenge. Now they say another of
Bin Laden’s sons was captured. So at
least this son wasn’t killed and so we can actually get information from him.
In the hour or so
before dinner I watched a four-pack of stations on C-Span. First it was the notion about cracking down
on straw purchasers at gun shows and the like funneling dangerous arms to
Mexican drug cartels and street gangs. I
guess there is a way of slapping on a really stiff sentence to the gun broker
who makes the purchase as aiding and abetting crime. But the exact wording of the legislation
hasn’t been worked out but there seems to be a broad concencus that it needs to
be done. Then there was North Korea. Now they are planning to shoot a nuclear
missile on us. There is more talk about
successfully engaging China in our cause and that they are “getting tired of
dealing with North Korea and would rather move on to more constructive
pursuits. This idea of their attacking
us is so silly that someone should sit their young punk leader down and inform
him of the facts of life. “You know what
we did to Iraq in two or three short weeks don’t you? We carpet bombed the country and leveled the
place and took out a half dozen or so of Saddam Hussein’s palaces, as well as
destroying a lot of archiological sites thousands of years old. We can easily shoot down any of your missiles
that by some flook miracle actually made it half way across the Pacific to the
United States”. You know you have a
point though. Maybe we should just drop
a half dozen bombs on your nation right now without waiting for further
provocation. And the world would side
with us, you know. Then we have Nancy
Pelosi and her news conference where she talked about the sequester and the
general economic rift between the tea party and the White House. And finally we have cyber crime and once
again, here there appears to be a general spirit of corporation between both
the various government agencies such as Department of Homeland Security and the
Justice and Defense Departments, but also between government in general and
corporate business in general.
Apparently there is a general willingness of corporations to share their
“classified information” with the government in the interest of stemming cyber
crime.
Yesterday was obviously a busy news day. One thing I completely missed yesterday was Rand
Paul’s filibuster that went on for nearly thirteen hours. It started just before noon yesterday and ran
till just past nidnight. But they don’t
have but a small half hour excerpt on C-Span and I’m puzzled as to why except
that nobody takes him seriously. I was a little flabberghasted by the way Ed Schultz handled this issue. Ed
Schultz didn’t take it seriously and Randy Rhodes was worse engaging in heavy
sarcasm on the subject. Apparently- - people like Ed Schultz and Randy Rhodes would rather name-call than deal with the real constitutional issues that were raised.
In the morning I watched John Mc Cain and Lindsey Graham in the senate-
- and some other guy who was saying that the Sequester not only had no harmful
effects upon the economy but that less public spending is actually good for the
economy. His point is well taken. Personally I think the whole sequester is rather oberblown by the media, and polls reveal that the American people at large are not buying into the panic. The stock market continues to make new highs and people's "personal worth" is now again equal to what it was before the Recession began. Mitch Mc Conell also spoke for
a while. As to Rand Paul himself- - it
was a thirty minute segment where he had a dialog with a Republican from Utah
on legal matters and precedent, and also with the new Texas Senator Ted Cruise,
who was more articulate on things of the law than I ever imagined. But some such as Stephanie Miller are calling
Paul a hypocrite because he is against drones being dropped in this country on
people who are United States citizens, yet won’t support abortion and gay
marriage rights- - as if the two were
the least bit connected. I don’t like my
intelligence being insulted even by those on my side of the political aisle. It is a technical fact that private business "Have the right to Refuse service to anyone" on any grounds - - except for that of race. That fact should be an eye opener. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that either gay marriage or abortion on demand is a right. Indeed the Constitutional Fathers would have cringed at the mere suggestion of either. What we are talking about here is rights Expressly guarenteed by the Constitution, and if I were Stephanie or Randy I'd at least have enough respect for constitutional principles to know the difference. We believe certain Rights- - come from the hand of God, and not from the state. No sane person would ever claim that a woman has the right to kill her unborn fetus and that "God told her it was OK". Just think about it. And by the way it's physically impossible for Marriage to be "discriminitory" because gays can't do it,m because Inherent in the Very Definition of Marriage- - is the Union between a Man and aWoman. Given this definition of marriage- - the inclusion of a non marriage element such as gay sex- - is completely irrelivent, because that is NOT what a Marriage consists of. (Selah) And in six thousand years of the history of the world it never has - - prior to this past decade. Apparently Ron Paul finally had to take a
bathroom break. Now they are saying “Did
you know that having a large bladder means you have a small brain?”
No comments:
Post a Comment