ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, December 19, 2015

A Republican self-throat-cutting ritual

Even the cuckservatives at National Review are aghast at the Republicans in office:
It would be bad enough had Republicans merely acquiesced to foolish policies, but in this bill they actively advanced them. The bill’s most egregious proposal will temporarily expand the H-2B visa program, quadrupling the issuance of visas to foreign workers for nonagricultural or temporary service jobs in 2016 — and it was a Republican initiative from start to finish.

What is the rationale? There is strong evidence that large-scale hiring of foreign workers depresses wages for Americans, and it’s not as if Ferris wheels and ski lifts will go unmanned if we stop importing Peruvian labor.

Clearly, Republican leaders bent to the demands of a tiny segment of employers. Meanwhile, they capitulated on a host of other proposals. Despite serious concerns about the integrity of our refugee-vetting procedures in the wake of terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, the bill fully funds the government’s refugee-resettlement program, facilitating the president’s promise to settle 10,000 Syrians in the U.S. over the coming year. Despite revelations about outrageous criminal activity in America’s 340 “sanctuary cities,” the bill permits federal grants to those cities without adding any qualifying conditions.

And despite a bipartisan effort to reform the cronyism-riddled EB-5 visa program, under which foreigners can obtain a green card if they invest a certain amount in a business that creates or preserves ten jobs for U.S. citizens, Republican leadership dismissed the reform effort and extended the EB-5 program as is through September.
You know it's bad when they can't even bother trying to claim that this is just a tactical defeat that is cleverly setting up a long-term conservative strategic victory. You know, one of those long-term strategic victories that are apparently measured in centuries, because I've yet to see one come to pass.

Labels: ,

122 Comments:

Anonymous WillBest December 19, 2015 11:15 AM  

Sure, but if the GOP didn't do this, the NYT would publish a picture of a dead child on a beach and say nasty thing about them.

Blogger Ron December 19, 2015 11:16 AM  

Its obvious that the sponsors of the bill have either been bought and paid for or are being blackmailed.

Anonymous Takin' a Look December 19, 2015 11:18 AM  

You know it's bad when they can't even bother trying to claim that this is just a tactical defeat that is cleverly setting up a long-term conservative strategic victory.

The Cuckservative and Crystal Methodist plebians will roll over and present with a minumum of spergy fuss, because ray-ciss and reasons.

Blogger Caffeineforge@gmail.com December 19, 2015 11:22 AM  

To paraphrase, those who make productive employment impossible will make profitable unemployment inevitable.

Blogger dc.sunsets December 19, 2015 11:26 AM  

Every day the markets hold up digs the hole we're in a little deeper.

Only once stocks & bonds crater will the prevailing political somnolence end.

The hole is already so deep that looking upward is like the sky on a moonless night with but a single tiny star.

Blogger dc.sunsets December 19, 2015 11:27 AM  

Every day the markets hold up digs the hole we're in a little deeper.

Only once stocks & bonds crater will the prevailing political somnolence end.

The hole is already so deep that looking upward is like the sky on a moonless night with but a single tiny star.

Blogger Nate December 19, 2015 11:28 AM  

They aren't conservative people. The Republican Party is, and always has been, based on the core idea of strong central government.

If you keep that in mind... everything they do makes more sense.

It only gets confusing when you expect them to do conservative things.

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr December 19, 2015 11:32 AM  

If any Republican presidential candidate calls on Paul Ryan to resign, he'll score points.

And the entire GOP leadership needs to be facing determined, well-funded primary opponents. Cowardice in the face of the enemy is intolerable.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan December 19, 2015 11:38 AM  

I think the SJW should be the primary targets when the Cuckservatives intervene then obliteration is called for. I think that would make better political theater if conducted in that order

Blogger Danby December 19, 2015 11:42 AM  

No, cucks first, then SJWs
SJWs are what they are. theymake no bones about it. Cucks pretend to be conservative and foll an awful lot of people

Blogger Danby December 19, 2015 11:44 AM  

The H2B thing looks like a loyalty exercise, "shit test" if you will, from the Chamber of Commerce. It's not that anyone really wanted it, but hte CoC demanded it as a proof of loyalty.
And the GOP failed the shit test. Because Ryan and Scalise are a couple of Gamma cucks.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan December 19, 2015 11:47 AM  

No Danby by making a show of targeting the SJW that will be used to cut them from the herd isolate them and then eliminate them. Without the Cuckservatives then a large portion of the SJW legitimacy is taken away and we slaughter them group by group

Anonymous Godfrey December 19, 2015 11:55 AM  

@10
Agreed. SJWs are just mindless drones. We get control of the culture and they'll believe anything we feed them. The cucks? They're back-stabbing collaborators. They're paid-off defenders of the current oppressive corrupt system.

Blogger Seal Of Lion December 19, 2015 12:15 PM  

Almost like the idiots in DC can feel a tsunami coming and are trying to lock in all the goodies before it hits. Problem is for them, if its a real tsunami then everything gets washed away.

Blogger dienw December 19, 2015 12:24 PM  

O.T. but this is the level treason done by the Republicans:
In a late-night session of Congress, House Speaker Paul Ryan announced a new version of the “omnibus” bill, a massive piece of legislation that deals with much of the federal government’s funding. It now includes a version of CISA as well. Lumping CISA in with the omnibus bill further reduces any chance for debate over its surveillance-friendly provisions, or a White House veto. And the latest version actually chips away even further at the remaining personal information protections that privacy advocates had fought for in the version of the bill that passed the Senate.

Blogger Timmy3 December 19, 2015 12:28 PM  

This laid bare the bankruptcy of the Republicans in Congress. This makes Trump likelier to become the nominee and president and get his way via executive actions and nonexistent shutdown threats. We are still in trouble with Obama here for another year. I bet he will pardon a few Jihadists.

Blogger Elocutioner December 19, 2015 12:38 PM  

I think this was the final straw. Every Senator saw the outrage over the House passing the bill and then plenty of them still piled on and passed it without any debate. When the jig is up there's no use in even pretending. Note that McConnell solely controls when a bill goes to the floor. I expect we'll see a lot of retirements in next year and even more in the next cycle. The GOP just Whig'ed itself.

Blogger Nate December 19, 2015 12:40 PM  

"O.T. but this is the level treason done by the Republicans:"

again... its a party that was formed on treason. Its like complaining that communists do communist things.

Blogger darkdoc December 19, 2015 12:44 PM  

We are still in trouble with Obama here for another year.

You aren't thinking big enough.

There is WAY too much happening to just think we need as few muslims bean pickers in the fields, or cheap programmers or whatever.

Imagine there is already enough muslims for 1000 terror attacks in the US in one day. Or 5000. Law enforcement is overwhelmed.

Imagine martial law proclaimed just to "deal" with it. Maybe elections are "temporarily" cancelled.

Imagine everyone being ordered to bring your guns to the center of town and turn them in.

Something very dark and evil is arising in the country (and Europe), and we have until the next election to see what it will be.

Just imagine anything except the status quo and things ticking along like before.

Anonymous KoranBurningFaggot December 19, 2015 12:45 PM  

if the GOP didn't do this, the NYT would publish a picture of a dead child on a beach and say nasty thing about them

I am not sure if they child was dead, but I know he didn't drown like they said. His fingers were pink, with no cyanosis, while taqiyya dad said mommy was dead in the ocean long enough to be bloated. His arms and legs where STR8 and uphill from the water, along with his hair not being affected by the water. I don't think anyone who has been a lifeguard and possesses working brain cells would be fooled but women in healthcare have to be trained to look at the woman with 2 black eyes and question if she fell.

Blogger kurt9 December 19, 2015 12:47 PM  

This importing of labor, and of low skill labor in particular, is utterly asinine. Paying more for labor will drive automation and robotics which, in turn, increases productivity which is the basis of real wealth creation. Since many of these jobs are going to get automated anyways, we might as well stop the continued import of labor that will only make the problem worse.

The U.S. economy has created only 5 million new jobs in the past 15 year. Yet we've had an increase in the working age population of 16 million. This is just nuts.

Anonymous Susan December 19, 2015 12:52 PM  

This is why I tend to call these cucks GOPE because they are no longer serving the country, only their own interests and their donors. The old Country Clubbers on steroids.

But when you shock the democrats into publicly admitting that "hey, this goes far beyond what we asked for", you know this is revenge for the public supporting Trump. They are going to inflict their lumps, but the voters will have the last laugh. They have gotten a taste of honesty and forthright truthfulness in their political discourse and they aren't ready to give that up yet.

Blogger Derek Kite December 19, 2015 1:07 PM  

Vox, being a dark lord and all, but do you have to stage a $1.2 trillion dollar stunt like this just to sell your new book?

Blogger David-093 December 19, 2015 1:13 PM  

"If you keep that in mind... everything they do makes more sense."

It's the party of Lincoln, after all. They're just following in their forefather's footsteps.

Blogger Cataline Sergius December 19, 2015 1:14 PM  

The Republican Establishment Thinks It's the Forbidden Fucking City


The Republican echo chamber in Washington now resembles life in the Forbidden City. Complete with court eunuchs. Pointless rituals are performed endlessly. Microscopic transgressions against the existing order are viewed as world shaking events. A constant unending stream of fawning praise is heaped on each other.

And all the while, the Tai-Ping rebellion that is about to beat down gates and slaughter them to a man is viewed as but a distantly troubling thing.

But then one day the gates give in.

Anonymous Sigh December 19, 2015 1:37 PM  

"O.T. but this is the level treason done by the Republicans:"

again... its a party that was formed on treason. Its like complaining that communists do communist things.


You went full retard on that one, pinhead.

The GOP was founded on two things:

1. Abolition. Detestable though negroes were and are, wanting to free them was not treason.

2. Suppression of treason, i.e., armed revolt against the government.

It is unusually stupid, even by your low standards, to describe the suppression of treason as treason.

Anonymous Viidad December 19, 2015 1:41 PM  

Sigh: "It is unusually stupid, even by your low standards, to describe the suppression of treason as treason."

Retard.

The treason was in usurping the legitimate government of the states in favor of a federal government over all.

Blogger Were-Puppy December 19, 2015 1:42 PM  

@1 WillBest

Sure, but if the GOP didn't do this, the NYT would publish a picture of a dead child on a beach and say nasty thing about them.
---

And we'd all call it an anchor baby.

Blogger Rantor December 19, 2015 1:44 PM  

It is enough to make many turn to Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders. The candidates strongest against immigration and improving the condition of American workers.

Blogger Were-Puppy December 19, 2015 1:47 PM  

@10 Danby

No, cucks first, then SJWs
SJWs are what they are. theymake no bones about it. Cucks pretend to be conservative and foll an awful lot of people
---

I agree.
1 - Cucks
2 - SJWs
3 - Invaders

that's the layers of the onion as I see it. Each of them provides defense for the lower number groups.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 December 19, 2015 1:50 PM  

This is a result of the growing gap between rich and middle class due in large part to the banksters. Because the middle class doesn't have enough money to lobby in Congress, all that is left is are the top 0.1% who will lobby to destroy the US.

Blogger totenhenchen December 19, 2015 2:02 PM  

Cuckservatives are just SJWs with decent hygiene and grooming.

Blogger totenhenchen December 19, 2015 2:03 PM  

Cuckservatives are just SJWs with decent hygiene and grooming.

Anonymous Wyrd December 19, 2015 2:04 PM  

You went full retard on that one, pinhead.

What Nate contends is historically accurate. Just because white conservatives fled to the GOP after the their previous party went full retard in the 60s doesn't negate what the Republican party is and was.

Blogger Were-Puppy December 19, 2015 2:08 PM  

@33 totenhenchen

Cuckservatives are just SJWs with decent hygiene and grooming.
---

If that was true then there was no point in making one book about SJWs and one about Cuckservatives. Look a little deeper and you will see the difference.

Blogger bob k. mando December 19, 2015 2:13 PM  

26. Sigh December 19, 2015 1:37 PM
You went full retard on that one, pinhead.

The GOP was founded on two things:
1. Abolition. Detestable though negroes were and are, wanting to free them was not treason.



you went full retard on that one, pinhead.


is wanting abolition, treason? no.

abolition, by New Yorkers FOR New Yorkers is wholly reasonable and Constitutional.

it is, however, treason to the 10th Amendment for New Yorkers to demand abolition in South Carolina.

and it is also treason to the 10th Amendment for New Yorkers to presume to define for South Carolinians the terms under which SC will leave the Union.



26. Sigh December 19, 2015 1:37 PM
2. Suppression of treason, i.e., armed revolt against the government.



a - so, all of the Revolutionaries should have been hung, for treason to the Crown?

b - only a faggot would assert that South was trying to 'over throw' Sodom-on-the-Potomac. the South never did any such thing, could not have done as they, even today, don't have the manpower or manufacturing base for it.

the cold hard facts are these:
* the Constitution does NOT define or delimit the question of Secession anywhere in the document
* the Constitution does NOT forbid this power to the States
* therefore, the controlling legal authority for the question of Secession is the 10th Amendment which states, in full:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


Secession, as with the infinitude of OTHER subjects not addressed by the Constitution, is "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".

and if you don't like that?

then YOU are committing treason to the Constitution.

OpenID joeholocaust December 19, 2015 2:17 PM  

@7 What does conservatism even mean? A look for a definition of political conservatism offers:
"1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.

2. A political philosophy or attitude that emphasizes respect for traditional institutions and opposes the attempt to achieve social change though legislation or publicly funded programs.

3. Caution or moderation, as in behavior or outlook."

Wasn't it conservative of Lincoln to preserve the existing order? Would 19thC abolitionists disqualify themselves from the label of conservative? Since 20th century legislation set the US on the path of white decline if not full out gradual white extinction is it not sufficiently entrenched after 50 years to permit todays 'conservatives' from carrying on the process that was initiated before their time? Certainly, the plutocracy that the GOP establishment is bent on preserving and strengthening is as old as the USA. What is there about this omnibus bill that is inconsistent with what the GOP has been doing for decades and can therefore be reasonably be called unconservative?
The only thing that matters is race and I don't know of any widely accepted conservatism that includes the right of whites to exist and for whites to have our own nations. Conservatives have accomplished nothing to halt white decline and therefore should get out of the way of those who will.

Blogger bob k. mando December 19, 2015 2:27 PM  

37. joeholocaust December 19, 2015 2:17 PM
Wasn't it conservative of Lincoln to preserve the existing order? Would 19thC abolitionists disqualify themselves from the label of conservative?




so. much. ignorance.

no, the Republican Party was *founded* as a Progressive party.

in fact Teddy Roosevelt, when he split from Taft and ran as an independent, called his new splinter party ( more Republican than the Republicans ) the
...
wait for it
...
Progressive Party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_%28United_States,_1912%29

OpenID joeholocaust December 19, 2015 2:35 PM  


the cold hard facts are these:
* the Constitution does NOT define or delimit the question of Secession anywhere in the document
* the Constitution does NOT forbid this power to the States
* therefore, the controlling legal authority for the question of Secession is the 10th Amendment which states, in full:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


Secession, as with the infinitude of OTHER subjects not addressed by the Constitution, is "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".

and if you don't like that?

then YOU are committing treason to the Constitution.


Agreed. Anything that the Constitution's framers did not have the foresight to mention requires the full process of adopting amendments to permit the federal government to pass any legislation that concerns those matters not already covered. The alternative that Trump, if elected, could use in tradition going back to at least FDR is to have a cooperative SCOTUS to define that the constitution already did cover it but you have to read between the lines at what the FFs really meant. I don't believe the changes necessary to preserve the republic can be made without a pliable SCOTUS or emergency powers and suspension of the Constitution. I wouldn't mind it because the survival of the white race could not be more imperiled than by merely sitting back and letting the status quo continue.

Blogger tublecane December 19, 2015 2:35 PM  

@7-Yes, and the trouble is that doesn't distinguish them. The other party is for a strong central government, too. There hasn't been an opposition party since the William Jennings Bryant faction took over the Democrats, I think. Ideology is merely public relations. The parties exist for the purposes of power and patronage.

OpenID joeholocaust December 19, 2015 2:43 PM  

@38 Ok, so does this mean that conservatism is or was opposed to the progressive stance of abolition? Did that ever change? If so, when?

Blogger Nick S December 19, 2015 2:46 PM  

A lesbian lawyer once, and several cuckservative SJWs since, told me "you cant legislate morality."

I contend, morality is the only thing you can legislate.

Anonymous Dave Gerrold's Cabana Boy December 19, 2015 2:53 PM  

Nate, I get that the GOP is treasonous toward Conservatism, but in terms of being formed in treason are you referring to Civil War/War of Northern Aggression?

Anonymous farmer Tom December 19, 2015 2:54 PM  

Speaking of Trump.

Iowa Caucus Turnout

Not looking so good for "THE DONALD".

Anonymous Dave Gerrold's Cabana Boy December 19, 2015 2:57 PM  

NVM, missed the follow-up. Agree on the point that the 10th amendment reserves the power to secede to the individual States.

Anonymous redsash December 19, 2015 2:58 PM  

The mayors and councilmen voting for sanctuary cities should answer to the charges of treason either by jury or mob. Very easy targets in our now lawless land.

Blogger praetorian December 19, 2015 3:02 PM  

It is unusually stupid, even by your low standards, to describe the suppression of treason as treason.

The Confederacy did nothing wrong.

Anonymous DissidentRight December 19, 2015 3:10 PM  

@26 2. Suppression of treason, i.e., armed revolt against the government.

I think you mean 'practice of treason, i.e., armed suppression of states exercising their soverign rights'.

Blogger bob k. mando December 19, 2015 3:12 PM  

39. joeholocaust December 19, 2015 2:35 PM
Anything that the Constitution's framers did not have the foresight to mention



it's worse than that.

the Articles of Confederation considered the union to be 'perpetual'.

the Constitution REMOVED this clause.

IF you have a preliminary contract with another party during the negotiation phase which includes a certain clause
AND in the final contract, that clause is excised
THEN what is the logical reason for the exclusion of the clause under question?

A: one or more parties to the contract found the clause unacceptable and forced it's removal.

there is, always, the possibility of lawyerly incompetence and simply forgetting to transcripe the clause in question
...
by the hallowed Founding Fathers.

so, let us examine if retaining the right of Secession might have been something that could have simply 'slipped their minds', being as the subject was so insignificant:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Union
"Nowhere in the Constitution can language be found that empowers the federal government to coerce States to remain in the Union, or force military action upon other States. During the ratification of the Constitution, ratifications by New York, Virginia and Rhode Island included language that reserved the right of those States to exit the federal system if they felt "harmed" by the arrangement. In Virginia's ratification, authored in part by none other than James Madison, the reservation is stated thus; "[7] the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression... " New York and Rhode Island had similar language"


no less a personage than James Madison himself, the "Father of the Constitution", considered Secession to be a *right* reserved to the States and the People.

and so we lay to rest, with ease, the assertion that the exclusion of the clause was a mere clerical oversight.

Anonymous Tyler Durden December 19, 2015 3:21 PM  

In the secret debates of the Federal Convention of 1787 it was argued that only the consensus of all the states should dissolve the union and that no minority of states should be able to dissolve it. This was significant because at the time several states were opposing the idea of a union, particularly in preference to the Virginia Plan, but those states did indeed ultimately sign the Constitution.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1845 that all states were bound by the terms of the Constitution and this implied their subjection to Congress. Article V of the Constitution allows any convention of states to amend the Constitution in any way with a 3/4ths majority. This means that 3/4ths of the States constitute a quorum to dissolve the Union (or alter it in any way they choose) by right and by law.

James Madison considered that actual nullification required the expressed will of the nation. The idea that a single state could nullify a federal law was denied by Madison: "For this preposterous and anarchical pretension there is not a shadow of countenance in the Constitution."

This written statement by Madison perhaps sums up in nutshell the consensus of the founding fathers as a whole. The 3/4ths requirement of the Constitution itself reflects what majority Madison and others considered to be the "will of the nation".

The question of a state's legal right to secede was addressed in the 1869 Supreme Court decision of Texas v. White. In that decision, the Supreme Court stated that beginning with the Articles of Confederation the agreement between the states to form a union was to "be perpetual." The court went so far as to state that when the states agreed to "form a more perfect Union" there was nothing that more clearly asserted the belief in their indissoluble unity. The significance of this decision was reinforced by Justice Antonin Scalia, who in 2006 wrote that if there was any single right decided by the Civil War it was that there is no right for a state to secede from the union. This position, asserted by the founding documents of the United States, remains the position the United States and its Supreme Court maintain to this day.

Blogger newanubis December 19, 2015 3:31 PM  

I'd relish even a drop of partisanship in leadership. This would indicate, of course, a difference of objectives and
positions.
As ever, it's 2 heads growing from the same snake body and at long last, even the sleepwalkers are beginning to see such.

Anonymous Anonymous December 19, 2015 3:32 PM  

Jeff Sessions (R-AL) - supposedly the conservative firebrand of the GOP, and who has spent the last few days trashing Ryan?

He voted for it anyway. Now you know how many grains of salt you need to take him with!

Blogger Jack Ward December 19, 2015 3:47 PM  

@50
And, yet, this can be considered, in this day and time, a suicide pact. Would not imminent suicide of the country cancel any such agreements and high case law? I think so. Ultimately, it is the people, remember 'We the People' who decide. And, if enough of them decide not to go the route of civil suicide then the expectant of civil disobedience? Time will tell, and soon at that, whether there is stomach for the work.

Blogger Nate December 19, 2015 3:50 PM  

"Jeff Sessions (R-AL) - supposedly the conservative firebrand of the GOP, and who has spent the last few days trashing Ryan?

He voted for it anyway. Now you know how many grains of salt you need to take him with! "

Don't be a naive little douchebag.

Before you go slamming sessions you should probably consider that he freaking WROTE trumps immigration policy.

Blogger Nate December 19, 2015 3:52 PM  

"Nate, I get that the GOP is treasonous toward Conservatism, but in terms of being formed in treason are you referring to Civil War/War of Northern Aggression?"

The party wasn't formed to fight a war.

It was formed by men who were obsessed with creating a supremely powerful centralized government.

That, in and of itself, is treason.

Blogger Nate December 19, 2015 3:54 PM  

the war was just the unavoidable consequence of their treason.

Blogger Nate December 19, 2015 3:57 PM  

"who in 2006 wrote that if there was any single right decided by the Civil War it was that there is no right for a state to secede from the union. This position, asserted by the founding documents of the United States, remains the position the United States and its Supreme Court maintain to this day."

This is possibily the single stpupidest thing ever written.

How could a war decide a right?

I mean holy shit... a group of people who seceded from England are going to assert that no one can secede from them?

Are you really that retarded?

And back to the war thing. Might Makes Right is actually an argument in your mind?

I mean I just want to make sure so I know who to ignore completely from now on.

Anonymous Rolf December 19, 2015 4:01 PM  

@57 - Nate, yes. Yes they are. And they pray you are too.

But as Claire Wolf (I think) said, we are at that awkward state where it's too late to work within the system, but to early to shoot the bastards without getting talked about.

Anonymous cincinnatus December 19, 2015 4:05 PM  

Jeff Sessions (R-AL) - supposedly the conservative firebrand of the GOP, and who has spent the last few days trashing Ryan?

He voted for it anyway. Now you know how many grains of salt you need to take him with!


No, he didn't.

Blogger Raggededge #0057 December 19, 2015 4:44 PM  

Sessions most definitely did not vote for the omnibus. My two TN traitor senators did.

Anonymous Susan December 19, 2015 4:52 PM  

@60

Ben Carson pretty much nailed the lid shut on his political coffin by coming out in support of Obama and this deal too.

Blogger G-S. December 19, 2015 5:14 PM  

When something is done in a bipartisan manner it is quite often needed for the country. 5% unemployment is pretty low (despite naysayers, it likely really is 5%). Inflation must be coming soon as well, the feds are ready to slowly raise rates. The writing is on the wall if you are prepared to read it.

Anonymous WillBest December 19, 2015 5:16 PM  

Carson will make a fine diversity hire as head of HHS.

The founders didn't see enough, but I think one of their top 5 misses was not sticking a page limit on the bills Congress was allowed to pass. Something like "No act of congress shall contain more characters than the constitution nor may it refer to any other act of congress"

Blogger Were-Puppy December 19, 2015 5:24 PM  

@60 Raggededge #0057

Sessions most definitely did not vote for the omnibus. My two TN traitor senators did.
---

So did the two in Georgia. David Perdue has only been there a minute and already joined the Cucks.

Blogger Feather Blade December 19, 2015 5:37 PM  

I am encouraged to see that three out of the four congresscritters from my state voted "nay" on this bill.

Unfortunately, the one who voted "yea" is not of my district, so I can't vote against him next time he's up for election.

Blogger SciVo December 19, 2015 5:47 PM  

Nate @7: They aren't conservative people. The Republican Party is, and always has been, based on the core idea of strong central government.

So how did conservatives get shoved out of the Democrat party? The way that the coalitions are so screwed up smells like how the lines in Africa were drawn, and since wealthy Englishmen were involved with both, may have the same motive: to weaken us.

Anonymous redsash December 19, 2015 5:56 PM  

Nate: The no secession allowed crowd is one reason the South and other rebels should think about Russia as an ally for no other reason than to have the ability to threaten nuclear retaliation for those who will not leave us in peace. For that matter all US Christians should rethink Russia as a protector of our Christian faith as our current governing elite is now so hostile toward our faith.

For those dim and dimmer wits, the Declaration of Independence trumps the Constitution, dependent of the amount of blood shed.

Blogger SciVo December 19, 2015 5:59 PM  

Nick S @42: A lesbian lawyer once, and several cuckservative SJWs since, told me "you cant legislate morality."

So many people misunderstand that. It just means that you can't make people have good hearts; only Jesus can do that. Of course legislation should be based on morality; anything else would be literally inhuman.

Anonymous Currently watching The Outlaw Josey Wales December 19, 2015 6:03 PM  

Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

Blogger Nate December 19, 2015 6:13 PM  

"So how did conservatives get shoved out of the Democrat party? "

They didn't get shoved out.

You know what happens when you're in a room with your friends and a bunch of retards show up and start rubbing feces on the walls?

You leave.

That's exactly what happened.

The reagan democrats are no longer democrats at all. They are republicans and have been ever since 1988.

Anonymous Definitely not Dr. J December 19, 2015 6:13 PM  

Marginally off-topic, but now Trump is joining Rand Paul as the only sane republican candidate vis-à-vis Putin's Russia.

Blogger SciVo December 19, 2015 6:24 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger James Dixon December 19, 2015 6:28 PM  

> 2. Suppression of treason, i.e., armed revolt against the government.

You need to read your history a bit more carefully.

> 5% unemployment is pretty low (despite naysayers, it likely really is 5%).

Two utterly moronic posts in one thread with less than 100 comments? That may be a record.

Blogger SciVo December 19, 2015 6:35 PM  

redsash @67:

Wait. Are we seriously talking about the possibility of a Confederate/Russian alliance? I get it, since the godless commies are in D.C. now, but you have to admit it's pretty funny given how Cold War sentiments ran.

Anonymous DT December 19, 2015 6:41 PM  

At this point I hate the Republican party every bit as much as the Democrat party and wish both would burn straight to the ground.

The only glimmer of hope right now is that Trump will take the white house and actually do what he says he will do. Only I can't help but think this might prove negative in the long run, that he might give life to a political party that deserves to die.

Blogger Nate December 19, 2015 6:41 PM  

" Are we seriously talking about the possibility of a Confederate/Russian alliance? "

Why wouldn't we be?

Two of the last Christian nations left.

Blogger Nate December 19, 2015 6:42 PM  

"Two utterly moronic posts in one thread with less than 100 comments? That may be a record."

90 million americans are no longer in the world force.. but no man... seriously... unemployment is really at 5%!

Blogger Nate December 19, 2015 6:43 PM  

"So did the two in Georgia. David Perdue has only been there a minute and already joined the Cucks."

Both Alabama Senators voted Nay.

Roll.

Tide.

Anonymous Wyrd December 19, 2015 6:50 PM  

It's amazing Russia today is a champion of Christianity and nationalism while the US is atheistic and international. It's a complete flip-flop of the situation of my childhood, at least from what I was taught back then. Only the study of history comforts.

Blogger praetorian December 19, 2015 7:03 PM  

Two of the last Christian nations left.

My face when he's right.

Blogger tz December 19, 2015 7:27 PM  

Well, my Grandfather came here on a Russian Passport. Perhaps if the US dissolves, we can have something like that ambassador in Victoria...
Oh, and Hungary is also explicitly Christian in its constitution and is fighting, as it appears Slovakia. Much of Eastern Europe's experience with Marxism is too close within living memory for them to adopt the EU variant.

Anonymous Ain December 19, 2015 7:57 PM  

@8, "Cowardice in the face of the enemy is intolerable."

It's more like collusion.

Anonymous Anonymous December 19, 2015 8:02 PM  

I stand corrected - Nate, although here is precisely where I found the information.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/15/house-passes-1-1t-omnibus-spending-bill/

Cincinnatus - you source proved otherwise

Anonymous Something I saw December 19, 2015 8:32 PM  

@82 Ain

See Matt Tabi "The Great Derangement" 2009

“Washington politicians basically view the People as a capricious and dangerous enemy, a dumb mob whose only interesting quality happens to be their power to take away politicians' jobs... When the government sees its people as the enemy, sooner or later that feeling gets to be mutual. And that's when the real weirdness begins.

Blogger So Meh December 19, 2015 9:37 PM  

It just doesn't matter. Last years of the looting. Mentioned on the news that a Fed. increase of interest rates just to 1% (just did 0.25) spending on the National Debt interest will exceed Defense spending. right or wrong that's the direction. best to pay down all personal debt, if possible stock up on guns and bullets, and join a church of trusted people. interesting next couple of decades.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Blogger James Dixon December 19, 2015 9:45 PM  

> It just doesn't matter. Last years of the looting.

We've still got a ways to go. $18T is only $900B at 5% interest. At the current 2% or so it's only $360B. Things won't get interesting until we hit about 1.5B or so in interest payments. That will be about half of our spending (revenues last year were claimed to be $3.1T), and once you pass the 50% mark, things go exponential quickly.

Blogger 1337kestrel December 19, 2015 9:48 PM  

The founders didn't see enough, but I think one of their top 5 misses was not sticking a page limit on the bills Congress was allowed to pass.

"The sponsor of a bill must carry a leather-bound copy of the United States Code up the steps of the Capitol with no assistance. If the Code touches the ground, the sponsor shall be hanged by the neck until dead."

Anonymous Takin' a Look December 19, 2015 10:03 PM  

@84

Matt Taibbi, as pozzed as he is, has his moments.

Anonymous Tyler Durden December 19, 2015 10:28 PM  

“It was formed by men who were obsessed with creating a supremely powerful centralized government. That, in and of itself, is treason.”

The Republican Party emerged to combat slavery from reaching the American territories and to forge an agenda to modernize the economy.

“the war was just the unavoidable consequence of their treason.”

The Civil War was to preserve the Union and stop slavery.

“How could a war decide a right?”

The Revolutionary War led to the creation of a new country, America, whose citizens made a list of liberties to be protected.

“a group of people who seceded from England are going to assert that no one can secede from them?”

That is not what was stated. You made that up.

“Might Makes Right is actually an argument in your mind?”

Hoss, the cultural war going on in America embraces that philosophy to a tee. Kill or be killed.

Anonymous Takin' a Look December 19, 2015 10:55 PM  

@89

The Republican Party emerged to combat slavery from reaching the American territories and to forge an agenda to modernize the economy

I keep coming back to that 3/5ths Compromise....to me, it's the Antebellum Southrons' hubris. How can you count human chattel as part of your census for legislative and other purposes? A slave is at best, a human-hue-man, color of Man, not a real Man. He has no rights, no responsibilities, both in Man's laws or Biblical Law. So how can he be represented as anything other than a bipedal Man-speech-parroting Ape-of-Burden?

Blogger Skylark Thibedeau December 19, 2015 11:13 PM  

Slaves should have counted as 0/5ths of a person for apportionment or Yankees should have been allowed to count oxen and mules as 3/5's of a person.

Blogger Skylark Thibedeau December 19, 2015 11:15 PM  

Slaves should have counted as 0/5ths of a person for apportionment or Yankees should have been allowed to count oxen and mules as 3/5's of a person.

Blogger Desiderius December 19, 2015 11:19 PM  

Nate,

"I mean holy shit... a group of people who seceded from England are going to assert that no one can secede from them?"

Not without getting what the originals got from England, no.

Aside from the merits in either case, your analogy doesn't get you as far as you were hoping it would.

Anonymous map December 19, 2015 11:32 PM  

OT

New Star Wars sucked

Blogger bob k. mando December 20, 2015 12:04 AM  

50. Tyler Durden December 19, 2015 3:21 PM
In the secret debates



i do so love the appeal to unstated codicils and 'penumbra' of the law.

the black letter of the law ( that is, the governmental contract to which the states agreed ) stands diametrically opposed to you.

IF
the Founders had intended for the law to be THE OPPOSITE of what it reads
THEN
the Founders should have signed a document which *states* the opposite of what it reads.

go on, read the 10th Amendment. it really doesn't take very long.


50. Tyler Durden December 19, 2015 3:21 PM
James Madison considered that actual nullification required the expressed will of the nation.



nice goal post shifting.

this would be the same Madison, who i already pointed out, added a clause to version of the Constitution which Virginia ratified that gave Virginia the 'right' to UNILATERALLY leave the union.

of course Madison was against 'nullification' of Federal Law ... WHILE a state was still in the Union.

"secession" and "nullification of Federal law by a State which is part of the Union" are two separate questions.

nice attempt at a bait-and-switch though.



50. Tyler Durden December 19, 2015 3:21 PM
...this decision was reinforced by Justice Antonin Scalia, who in 2006 wrote that if there was any single right decided by the Civil War it was that there is no right for a state to secede from the union.



OR the Federal Government will murder the fuck out of the citizens of said State until such time as the survivors agree to kiss the ring of power.

and you wonder why the FedGov is out of control?



50. Tyler Durden December 19, 2015 3:21 PM
The question of a state's legal right to secede was addressed in the 1869 Supreme Court decision


Thus sprach Leviathan ... and who shall gainsay him?



89. Tyler Durden December 19, 2015 10:28 PM
The Revolutionary War led to the creation of a new country, America, whose citizens made a list of liberties to be protected.



that's not the question, you fuckwit.

how does a WAR establish a 'legal principle'?

if your answer is just going to be "might makes right", then hang on, we just need to get some bigger guns.

and THEN States seceding will be 'Legal'.




89. Tyler Durden December 19, 2015 10:28 PM


That is not what was stated. You made that up.



because, of course, that was completely different in meaning from what you stated.

except that it's a difference that nobody here seems to be intelligent enough to discern.

perhaps you'd like to explain the difference to us?



93. Desiderius December 19, 2015 11:19 PM
Not without getting what the originals got from England, no.
Aside from the merits in either case, your analogy doesn't get you as far as you were hoping it would.




it got us far enough that you are openly comparing the US FedGov to a tyranny against which these States declared war for oppressing them and violating their rights.

funny, that.

Blogger Feather Blade December 20, 2015 12:41 AM  

not sticking a page limit on the bills Congress was allowed to pass.

If a presidential candidate promised to reject any and all bills that were longer than the US Constitution, and return them to the houses of Congress with "TL;DR" emblazoned on the front, I would vote for that candidate in a heartbeat.

Anonymous Takin' a Look December 20, 2015 1:04 AM  

92. Skylark Thibedeau

Slaves should have counted as 0/5ths of a person for apportionment or Yankees should have been allowed to count oxen and mules as 3/5's of a person

No, slaves should have counted for zilch. They have NO RIGHTS, NOR RESPONSIBILITIES in society. The Yankees should have said all livestock, indentured servants and pets should equal 3/5ths of a man as well. But I agree, it is our Original Sin. The Yankees should have held fast against the Southrons. Both sides failed. The Yankees caved in and the Southrons were too damn greedy "cake and have it too".

This is why the North will always maintain the moral high ground, even though it was mostly Yankees and (sorry Vox) Red Sea Pedestrians peddling slave-flesh.

Anonymous Takin' a Look December 20, 2015 1:10 AM  

"We should have picked our own damn cotton"

Anonymous Ain December 20, 2015 1:50 AM  

@94, it went exactly as predicted.

Blogger SciVo December 20, 2015 3:30 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous SevenCrimes December 20, 2015 6:01 AM  

We can no longer call Leftist/Statist Republicans "RINOs" with a straight face. The RINOs are us conservatives and traditionalists who still maintain ties to the party for some reason. The true Republican party -is- a Leftist/Statist organization to its very core.

Blogger dienw December 20, 2015 8:07 AM  

@ 98. Takin' a Look
"We should have picked our own damn cotton"
There were those in the early years of this nation who upon seeing the import of Blacks as slaves declared that only Whites should build this nation even if some were slaves: that is Irish or indentured "servants." As you can see they lost the argument; but there were still some White slaves.

One of the creators of Central Park wrote of traveling past a loading steam boat in the South and seeing White slaves (Irish); he stopped to ask about it and was told that White slaves were less valuable than Black slaves. Poor Irish, tsk tsk.

Blogger James Dixon December 20, 2015 8:23 AM  

> The Republican Party emerged to combat slavery from reaching the American territories and to forge an agenda to modernize the economy.

Since slavery was already in the American territories, I'd say your history is somewhat askew.

> I keep coming back to that 3/5ths Compromise....to me, it's the Antebellum Southrons' hubris.

Sigh. How can so many people not know anything about history. It was the north who demanded the 3/5 compromise. They didn't want the slaves counted at all. The didn't want the south to have that many representatives.

> if your answer is just going to be "might makes right", then hang on, we just need to get some bigger guns. ... and THEN States seceding will be 'Legal'.

That's what it always comes down to, Bob. That's the one thing Mao had right.

Anonymous Mr. Rational December 20, 2015 8:34 AM  

@103 They didn't want the slaves counted at all. The didn't want the south to have that many representatives.

This is a problem today in areas where the immigrant presence is heavy; they're counted for apportionment but they can't vote, so they throw political power to the citizens (who may be a minority).  IIRC VDARE calls this the "rotten boroughs effect".

Blogger dienw December 20, 2015 9:31 AM  

This is for all you Southrons fascinated with trains.

A synopsis from Denninger:
Then you have this sort of proposed law coming from, believe it or not, South Carolina!

"Assault weapons" bans.
Mandatory registration of all firearms.
Mandatory fees and permits to purchase any weapon.
Mandatory "background checks" (which, I remind you, can make it unlawful for you to let someone fire your gun at a range, for example, even if you both own other guns, without a fee being paid and a check being run in each instance.)
Criminalizing you if your weapon is lost or stolen and you don't report it, which means if you're unaware of the theft you could be charged.


A yes, freedom in the South!

Blogger Desiderius December 20, 2015 10:08 AM  

Bob,

"it got us far enough that you are openly comparing the US FedGov to a tyranny against which these States declared war for oppressing them and violating their rights.

funny, that."

I had thought we were already there.

Blogger Were-Puppy December 20, 2015 10:13 AM  

@78 Nate

"So did the two in Georgia. David Perdue has only been there a minute and already joined the Cucks."

Both Alabama Senators voted Nay.

Roll.

Tide.
---

Roll Tide, one rumor even has it I was born in Tuskaloosa.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling December 20, 2015 10:34 AM  

@105 dienw:

A black Democratic state senator from 1/4 black Charleston files an anti-gun bill and this is supposed to be news?? A few minutes with Google didn't find any part of the state run by Democrats, all partisan statewide executives are Republicans and the party has healthy Republican majorities in the legislature. As of now most Republicans, especially in Red states, know better than to mess with gun control.

Anonymous Mr. Rational December 20, 2015 10:38 AM  

@108 I tried to post a link to the pol's picture with the text "no surprises there", but the auto-zapper nailed it.  It may re-appear as the new @106 if somebody de-spams it.

Blogger Gerry Tork December 20, 2015 11:47 AM  

@67 We used to pray for the conversion of Russia, now we need to pray for ourselves.

Anonymous Takin' a Look December 20, 2015 8:20 PM  

@ 103


Sigh. How can so many people not know anything about history. It was the north who demanded the 3/5 compromise. They didn't want the slaves counted at all. The didn't want the south to have that many representatives

Face/palm

I'm not letting, or appropriately, God didn't let the North off easy on this. Slavery has been a part of humanity since the beginning. But come on! it's one thing to have human chattel, but to count them for your political representation?!? That's a satanic low.

Anonymous Quartermaster December 20, 2015 8:21 PM  

@50
Lincoln's war forced the south back into the union. It did not decide that the union is indissoluble, no matter what Scalia thinks. Imperial conquest is simply something one more powerful gang does to a weaker party. It does not change the rights of the weaker party, it simply subjugates the weaker party. Scalia is a fool if he thinks otherwise.

The south did not dissolve the union. The southern states withdrew from it and it was their right to do so. The states remained sovereign entities with the power and right to leave if their rights were being denigrated. The 10th amendment hump is one that the forceable unionists have never been able to climb.

The nullification ploy is simply a squirrel that is not germane to any discussion as to whether or not a state may leave the union. A federal law is supreme only when it is within its enumerated powers. FedGov has no power to say who will/will not remain in the union. Only the state itself has the right to say it will/will not remain in the union.

Bob (@49) is correct.

@74
When Mississippi was being forced to integrate Ole Miss, there was a political cartoon with Khrushchev asking if they could send MiGs to Mississippi.

@76
Russia is far form a Christian nation. Its people hardly go to church and the country is basically run by the Mafia. Putin is a massive kleptocrat who makes African dictators look like pikers.

@97
At the time of the Constitutional Convention, all states were slave states. As those states abolished slavery, most slaves were sold further south. New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and Kentucky remained slave states during Lincoln's war. The only reason Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois were never slave states was the Northwest Ordinance. Slaves, however, were shuttled in and out of the state to work. They could not remain permanently, however.

@102
The US inherited the black slave trade form the British.

@103
Mao didn't have it right, even if that was what he said. He did say power comes from the barrel of a gun. On that, however, he was right.

What territories were slaves in at the time Lincoln's war started?

Anonymous Tyler Durden December 20, 2015 10:37 PM  

Bob S.--

"how does a WAR establish a 'legal principle'?"

The victors of a war create it, not war itself. Do you even understand nuance?

"OR the Federal Government will murder the fuck out of the citizens of said State until such time as the survivors agree to kiss the ring of power."

Likewise, the state government will slit the throat of anyone within or outside its borders who dares question its authority. Tit for tat.

"this would be the same Madison, who i already pointed out, added a clause to version of the Constitution which Virginia ratified that gave Virginia the 'right' to UNILATERALLY leave the union."


Wikipedia...

The fact that a new union was lawfully formed in the 1780s by secession from the old confederacy did not mean that a new confederacy could be lawfully formed in the 1860s by secession from the old union.

Writing in 1824, John Marshall summarized: "Reference has been made to the political situation of these states, anterior to [the Constitution's] formation. It has been said that they were sovereign, were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a league. This is true. But, when these allied sovereigns converted their league into a government, when they converted their congress of ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, and to recommend measures of general utility, into a legislature, empowered to enact laws on the most interesting subjects, the whole character in which the states appear underwent a change."

Anonymous Tyler Durden December 20, 2015 10:40 PM  

Furthermore, just because states have the liberty under the Constitution to create their own policies via the Tenth Amendment does not necessarily mean those policies 1) are constitutional and 2) are supported by the majority of the citizens there. In these specific instances, those citizens can petition the federal government for redress of grievances.

Blogger SirHamster December 21, 2015 4:09 PM  

A slave is at best, a human-hue-man, color of Man, not a real Man. He has no rights, no responsibilities, both in Man's laws or Biblical Law.

Slaves have no rights or responsibilities in Biblical law?

Are you sure?

Anonymous Takin' a Look December 21, 2015 10:01 PM  

@115

Aside from obeying your master, what responsibilities do they have? Follow the Sabbath? What real "rights" do they have?

Dont be a mealy-mouthed asshole, spit it out.

More importantly, where in the Bible does it say a slave may be counted for political representation?

Blogger James Dixon December 21, 2015 10:17 PM  

> But come on! it's one thing to have human chattel, but to count them for your political representation?!? That's a satanic low.

How are slaves different than children in that regard? In both cases there is a responsible adult. Should children not be counted for the purposes of representation?

Anonymous Takin' a Look December 21, 2015 11:02 PM  

@117


How are slaves different than children in that regard? In both cases there is a responsible adult. Should children not be counted for the purposes of representation?


For that matter, why not wives or freedman who have no land?

But you have a rather interesting point. Why not just feed and work your spawn until whenever emancipation age r/selected society requires? Cast them forth as a sentient r/selected critter might, a sauropod dinosaur, a sea turtle, a shrimp or an anemone. Or perhaps a "King Rat" scenario?

All hail the Libtardian pozz. Go Galt as Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum commands you.

And like all r/selected critters, expect to die, alone. Or will you have drones and contracts to force the hired mourners to weep over your rotting corpse after you've passed?

Blogger SirHamster December 22, 2015 3:05 PM  

@116:
Dont be a mealy-mouthed asshole, spit it out.

Why so hostile?


Aside from obeying your master, what responsibilities do they have? Follow the Sabbath? What real "rights" do they have?

"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

Right to not be killed as property.

"An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth."

Right to not be permanently injured as property.

"If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master."

Right to remain free if he doesn't want to be a slave and flees his master.


More importantly, where in the Bible does it say a slave may be counted for political representation?

Don't care. I only wanted to check if you actually believe that slaves have no rights or responsibilities in Biblical law.

Anonymous Takin' a Look December 24, 2015 7:44 PM  

@119

Well, if a bullock falls in a neighbor's well, you're responsible for that too.

The Bible has plenty of restrictions regarding the Beasts of Burden, does that mean "all is vanity?"

Anonymous Takin' a Look December 24, 2015 7:46 PM  

The Bible has plenty of restrictions regarding beasts of burden, shall we say "all is vanity?"

Anonymous Takin' a Look December 24, 2015 7:55 PM  

Again SirHamster

Where is the Slave's responsibility and rights in any of this? You are using the arguments of Free Men here.

Absolutely nothing you've brought forth has shown anything other than a slave is a Beast. "Follow the Sabbath" so what? You can tie up a horse or a chicken in a synagogue to listen to the rabbi/cantor. Does that mean he is free to choose?

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts