Tag Archives: government

Does the United States still exist when the government shuts down?

communication

What is the United States, anyway?  It’s a government that exists by virtue of an agreement between the various ‘states’.    It’s the only thing keeping Hawaii, Guam and Samoa from going off on their own and bombing the bejesus out of Japan.

The US Government is the only thing keeping Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands from attacking Spain and taking away all its possessions.

And the US Government is the only thing keeping the secular state of Israel afloat year after year with its foreign aid.

I’m only pointing this out so you understand the gravity of the situation.   When the US Government shuts down people all over the world will have to tend their own affairs, learn to get along with their neighbors or end up in endless wars the US isn’t even involved in.

So why, exactly, did the government shut down?   We have to ask ourselves this.    And the answer is obvious.    The government shut down because not everyone was standing up for the National Anthem.    Not everyone put their hands over their hearts to say the Pledge of Allegiance.    And not everyone gazed at the US flag and gulped in veneration and awe.

So here we are living in the geography once occupied by the United States.   What the hell should we do next?

I’m thinking if we’re going to start it all again, we need to begin with a new flag:

jolly roger

And a new National Anthem:

Never mind the Pledge of Allegiance.   If you’ve got the money you can buy loyalty, votes, and every elected official.

Old Jules

Tough call, this Ferguson thing

Hi readers.  Thanks for coming by for a read.

The Internet’s buzzing with opinions about the original Ferguson, MO, incident, and the rioting afterward.  Everyone feels qualified at this stage to have an opinion.

I don’t have an opinion, but here it is.

I don’t like cops.  I think they are a gang of bullying thugs attracted to the job because of personality deficiencies.  I believe they see themselves as a ‘brotherhood [gang] and use phrases such as ‘authority figure’ to explain to themselves why nobody likes them.  But deep down they know why.  They demonstrate the truth of this most profoundly when one of them gets killed on the job.

However, under the current structure of this society it’s a job that satisfies a necessary need in society, probably marginally keeping things from going completely off the rails by other gangs of thugs taking over and doing even worse.

Such as the gang of thugs who are setting fire to homes and businesses in response to Ferguson, opportunistically running off with stolen booze, television sets, anything they can take and run.  Here’s what a couple of black men have to say about all that:

For beginners, the store camera just before he was killed proved to my satisfaction the dead youngster was a bullying thug and a thief.  If he’d run into you or run into me anywhere adversarial such as a dark alley he’d happily make us sorry some cop hadn’t offed him sometime earlier.  In a year or two when he went to prison [as he was certainly going to do] he’d have been big enough to be on the happy end of the raping of his cell mate.

So the issue isn’t whether the world is any better off or worse off with him dead.  I’m personally satisfied there are people all over the place he didn’t live to occupy who are being spared a lot of pain and heartache as a consequence of his demise.

So the issue is really not him getting killed.  Nobody would be rioting if he’d been one of the far more numerous black men being killed by other black men.  Nobody is lamenting those, partly because a huge percentage of them might be suspected without prejudice to have ‘needed killing’ in the same sense this one did.  Gangsters, street hoods, living and behaving in a way to invite getting shot in a war zone.

So the real issue is cops.  Police officers coldly and deliberately killing blacks, not all of them as needful of being killed as this one.  And getting by with it.

My opinion is that whenever a black kills a black it’s an equal offense to a black killing a cop, a cop killing a black, anyone else killing a cop or black.  It needs to stop.  Cops need to be thrown under the bus whenever they kill anyone and it’s not clearly self-defense [against an armed suspect].  Same as a black gets thrown under the bus the instant a cop dies.

And blacks need to belly up to the bar and take some responsibility for the way their kids are behaving out there on the streets.  Same as white people need to.  One of the ways they need to do that is to make certain the black folks getting shot are the right ones to eradicate all this street shooting.  Whether they are cops or gangsters.

But what the hell do I know.

Old Jules

Homeland Security: Just wait ’till you see the False Flag we’ve got for you 9/11/2014

Hi readers.  Thanks for coming by for a read.

Support the Troops

As I’ve made perfectly clear on this blog, I don’t trust this 21st Century US government and I don’t believe there’s a lowest common denominator the folks running it would stoop to.  Have probably already stooped to, to manipulate the minds of the citizenry, give themselves more power, and blame it on someone else.

Seems to me there’s enough going on today, and plenty of confusion for a setting, so’s the 9/11/2014 might be the next BIG DAY for them to roll out a new piece of theater.  I’m not saying it will happen, but I’m saying if it does, the possibility exists that having the day earmarked and frowning at it as it develops might lead to greater understanding after-the-fact.  Might seal off the emotions it’s contrived to create and allow clear thinking while examining it from the front.

Could be something with this silly Ebola thing they’ve been waving the bloody flag about seemingly trying to work up to something, but that doesn’t seem a likely candidate.  Too difficult to twist it around and blame it on the Arabs, or the Russians.  Or Iran, or North Korea.  Those have the best potential as boogiebears, but these folks are sneaky.  It could turn out to be something entirely unexpected.

But if someplace gets hit, say Japan, or the Golan Heights, or Paris, Edinwossname, Scotland [because of that Independence vote coming up] with a small thermonuclear device, say, hold in your mind the possibility it’s not as it seems.  That the Arabs, or the Russians, or the Persians, or whatever other usual suspect they point the finger at, aren’t the guilty parties.

Assuming this twitching at the back of my neck is correct and someone’s going to take advantage of the day to burn another one in your memories, it mightn’t be a nuke.  It might be something else calculated to have everyone running around in increasingly smaller circles giving up any constitutional rights standing in the way of destroying the alleged responsible parties.

And if it does transpire, probably we’ll all be doing precisely as we’re expected to do.  Those folks have studied us for a long time.  They know where to punch all the right buttons to make us salivate.

But they are doling out a few hints.  The Russian thing lately seems a good possibility, something about ISIS, North Korea is always good, maybe nuking Seoul or Tokyo.  And Israel’s been hoping for some really compelling means of getting us into a war with Iran for the LONGEST time.  And there’s ISIS.

Anyway, maybe keeping some distance, retaining some skepticism and analytical ability is the best any of us can hope for.

Or better yet, maybe it won’t happen.

Old Jules

 

Elderly Lobbyist Always Droning On About How Little Legislation Cost In His Day

 The Onion – NewsPoliticspoliticiansISSUE 50•34Aug 27, 2014

Foraker once again tells colleagues the same story about how he only needed $5,000 and some moxie to manipulate a Senate vote on automobile fuel economy standards back in 1979.

WASHINGTON—Citing his habit of haranguing younger colleagues about the way things used to be, sources confirmed Wednesday that 74-year-old veteran ExxonMobil lobbyist Hank Foraker is constantly droning on about how much cheaper legislation was back in his day.

The longtime Washington power broker is said to rarely miss an opportunity to hold forth on “the good old days” of the 1970s and ’80s, often repeating the same long, rambling stories about a time when lobbyists and their clients reportedly received a lot more political influence for their dollar than they do today.

“Let me tell you, back when I was a young man, you could get a half dozen bills pushed straight through both houses for what a single congressman’s vote will run you nowadays,” said Foraker, who remarked that 30 years ago, acquiring an exemption from the Clean Water Act cost a tiny fraction of what it does today. “And you’d still have plenty left over to purchase the loyalty of a Cabinet member or a handful of senior White House advisers, too. You don’t even want to know how little it took to buy off a governor back then. You probably wouldn’t believe me if I told you.”

“It was just a simpler time,” Foraker added. “A quick phone call, a small payoff, and in no time at all, your client could be extracting oil from a federal wildlife preserve. Those were the days.”

According to sources, Foraker often grows wistful for a past in which an eager young lobbyist on a shoestring budget could secure basic legislative carve-outs and tax loopholes for the industry he represented. He noted that a person equipped with the same resources today “wouldn’t even be able to get a simple poison-pill amendment passed.”

Several coworkers stated that on multiple occasions, Foraker has lectured them at length on how there was once a time when it was unheard of for Big Oil interests to pay $500,000 for a House Energy Committee chairman’s cooperation over a two-year term. Additionally, they said he often grows irritated when lobbyists in their 20s and 30s complain about campaign finance restrictions, insisting that at their age, he’d had to surreptitiously pay lawmakers in person to ensure passage of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act of 1973.

“These guys have it so much easier today,” said Foraker, explaining how modern oil industry lobbyists can, with the click of a button, electronically funnel millions of dollars to a super PAC running television ads in support of the Keystone Pipeline. “In the ’80s, you’d take a lawmaker out to a nice steakhouse, look him in the eye, hand over a briefcase with $10,000 in cash toward a reelection campaign, and promise him a highly paid position on your company’s board of directors if he worked to repeal the crude oil windfall profit tax. And in those days, a handshake and your word actually meant something.”

“Now, you’re lucky if organizing a $5,000-a-plate campaign fundraiser gets you 20 minutes alone with a ranking senator on an energy subcommittee to discuss ways to weaken nationwide renewable fuel standards,” Foraker added. “It’s just not as personal as it used to be.”

Many fellow lobbyists conceded to reporters that while Foraker’s tendency to nostalgically reminisce can be endearing at first, it quickly becomes tiresome listening to him talk endlessly about how expensive it has become to hire former high-level officials from the Department of Energy and use their bureaucratic connections to obstruct new offshore oil rig safety regulations.

“Hank’s a nice guy, but I don’t really need to hear about how the amount we recently paid to get the ban lifted on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico would have been enough to gut 10 anti-pollution bills back in the ’70s,” said Nick Tennelly, a 28-year-old government relations associate at ExxonMobil. “And I think he exaggerates a lot. He once stopped me in the hallway to tell me about this time when, for just a few million dollars, they got the vice president of the United States to convene a secret task force to block green energy initiatives. C’mon. I know things were cheaper in the past, but I have a tough time believing they were that cheap.”

“To be honest, I don’t even see what the big deal is,” Tennelly added. “Even if the industry’s now spending a couple hundred million dollars on lobbying every year, it’s still a drop in the bucket compared to our annual tax breaks.”

Veterans Administration assigned responsibility for preventing Ebola outbreak inside US

Hi readers.  Thanks for coming by for a read.

Most of you will have already seen the news that the VA Medical Centers have been given complete responsibility for preventing spread of the Ebola pandemic to the US.  The White House issued the statement Tuesday that, “the facilities are in place all over the nation and are under utilized.  Recent new attention to possibly funding the VA Medical Centers and providing physicians who have not had their licenses to practice medicine suspended yet provides a solution to two problems.  And a possible solution to a lot of others.”

Workers in VA Medical Centers are numerous and if Ebola or some other contagion doesn’t prevent it, many will enjoy Federal retirement benefits within twenty years.  Potential fiscal saving spinoffs for giving Ebola to the VA are enormous.

Old Jules

Why is the US taking sides? Well, there’s the PAC bribes, for beginners

Hi readers.  Here’s some other interesting stuff I came across while researching the Israel/Palestine troubles.  Did you know the US is taking sides and sponsoring it to the tune of $130 billion?

http://www.wrmea.org/congress-and-us-aid-to-israel.html

Congress and U.S. Aid to Israel

U.S. Aid to Israel

Congress

Pro-Israel PAC Contributions to Congressional Candidates

Congressional Voting Records

Other

Palin and Clinton’s surprising similarities

Hi readers.  I don’t know much at all about politicas and political figures.  But I lived through the Clinton years and couldn’t avoid a middling familiarity with Clinton’s wife, wossname.  Margery?  Anyway, the woman who was such good friends with, and a supporter of Janet Reno.

A business partner with her old man in all the real estate dealings in Arkansas that would have landed me, or you readers, in jail.  I’d sum the Clinton woman up as a selfish, venal female at worst, and someone who oughtn’t be involved in politics, at best.

But now that there’s been a black American in the White House female Americans have begun digging around to find some warm body of almost any description, minus male genitals, to occupy it next.  And I’ve seen the name of this one bandied about, seen people I’d ordinarily attribute good sense to, people I’d otherwise respect, mention her name in the same sentence with the phrase Oval Office.

Okay, so the black American occupying the White House is something of a mangy dog we all expected a lot better from.  Or most of us did.  I don’t recall expecting more myself, but I know I heard people talking at the time as though they expected a lot.  Ore at least expected SOMETHING.  It came as something of a shock to a lot of people that they’d elected a black white man.

 But equally surprising is the evident need on the part of otherwise potentially sane American womanhood to trump the whole thing downward.  To elect a white man woman to the White House who will almost certainly neutralize the concept of electing a woman to the office might make things better.

In the interest of fairness, I thought I should learn something about the woman the other party was excited about somewhat recently.  Palin.  Attractive, intelligent looking woman about whom I know almost nothing.

So I watched a couple of movies on Netflix about her.

Sarah Palin: The Undefeated2011PG-13117 minutes This documentary recounts the sudden and surprising emergence of Sarah Palin as a national political figure after two years as Alaska’s governor. Cast: Sarah Palin, Andrew Breitbart, Mark Levin  Genre: Documentaries, Biographical Documentaries, Social & Cultural Documentaries, Political Documentaries  This movie is: Controversial, Provocative

Sarah Palin: You Betcha!2011NR91 minutes Filmmaker Nick Broomfield tracks down friends, relatives and colleagues of polarizing Alaska politician Sarah Palin in this irreverent documentary. Cast: Nick Broomfield, Chuck Heath, Sarah Palin Genre: Documentaries, Biographical Documentaries, Political Documentaries This movie is:  Irreverent, Controversial

I came away puzzled a lot worse than I was when I began.  I’m left with the distinct impression that in all ways that matter the Palin woman is indistinguishable from the Clinton woman.  Shallow, venal, malicious, probably insufferable at a personal one-on-one level.

Can’t help wondering whether all women in politics are just cardboard cutouts with everything inside being everything nobody ought to want in a politician.  Same, probably, as black men.  White men, too, for that matter.

Old Jules

 

 

 

%d bloggers like this: