After this current political storm calms

Regardless of your feelings on the 2016 elections, I think that we have uncovered a hole that is not covered on a constitutional level.

What is the appropriate remedy for a fraudulent election?

We need to have this gap filled. For the sake of argument, let’s say that we discover that a foreign nation was found meddling in our election. and that a candidate and staff was involved. We had to ponder this with the birther movement. I know I contemplated it. What if we found out that the President was not eligible to hold the office?

Considering the damage that can be done by this fraud of a President, what is the best remedy? Yes, we have an impeachment process for high crimes and misdemeanors, but that is just a removal from if the Senate so decrees it.

I think that it should be more serious. I think that the Presidency should be voided. all appointments rescinded, even if they were confirmed by the Senate. It is fruit form the poisonous tree.  Void all executive orders, and any bills that the fraudulent President signed would be placed on hold pending the swearing in of the new president.

The tricky is this… do you install the other Presidential candidate? it seems to be the most fair process. Since the normal path of succession would place the Vice President int he Presidency, this would not work since they are enjoying that same poisoned fruit.

This is not an easy issue to wrestle with. Of course we know that in our current situation we are not going to see any change. This needs to be written now, and once the current administration is out, we can put it forth. I think that after this calms we have a shot seeing both side being able to tackle this objectively. I hope that it would never be used.

One school shooting you WON’T see on the national stage or in the media.

The best way to deal with a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.


So why won’t the media give praise to this officer, when they are more than willing to condemn gun owners for one persons actions when it isn’t stopped quickly?

Smoking cannabis in bars?

Well here is a fun topic to play with.

According to KATU News the Washington State Legislature has a proposal to legalize smoking cannabis in areas governed by a liquor license.

Lets think about all of the different directions that this can take.

There are a ton of positions that an individual can stand on, along with internal rips.

Here is a substance that appears to not have carcinogenic concerns, not physically addictive, is legal within the state for adults…

Is this an issue of liberty, state rights, health, state revenue, business rights, parental rights, or something that I have not thought of yet?


Is the state looking to do this to put business back in the bar to help with the losses from the liquor not being sold by state run stores? Could it be so that cannabis has an even stronger sales base from which they generate revenues for the state coffers?


Personally, I am pro-cannabis and pro-liberty, but I have to stand against this idea.

How much second hand smoke does it take to cause someone to fail a UA?

I know that I would be pissed if I lost my job because I spent too long in a bar with people smoking pot in close proximity. I remember sweating bullets when I saw Pink Floyd in RFK Stadium and the place was all a buzz so to speak. I did not smoke it myself, but only because I had an Army physical the Monday after the show.

It is great to have rights and privileges, but we cannot infringe on other’s rights in the process of enjoying ours.


Here is a notice form the Liquor Control Board on the proposal:


I hope that it stays up, the page from KATU and KOMO have been pulled down.


stealing the text, just in case. This writing does belong to Noah Bond and the KOMO Staff.

OLYMPIA, Wash. – A proposal to legalize marijuana use in bars could drastically change night life in Washington state.

The state Liquor Control Board discussed the issue Wednesday morning in Olympia and is taking public comment on the proposal.

The mood inside the meeting was somber and slightly contentious. One man spoke up when he should not have to make a statement – but was met with flat stares by members on the board.

Marijuana use could become more commonplace in Washington if the board decides to allow marijuana consumption in bars licensed to sell liquor.

Currently, state law prohibits smoking marijuana in public view – but that could change under a proposed revision to Washington state code made last October. The proposal would allow anyone the right consume any type of marijuana in a liquor-licensed business.

The revision was proposed since some bars are already letting customers smoke pot. And many people are OK with the idea.

“My biggest issue with marijuana is with kids being exposed to it. And if it’s in bars and stuff and can be monitored legally, you know, maybe that’s the best way to go,” says Randy Reeves of Olympia.

But not everyone is supportive.

“I like going into a bar and not having cigarette smoke, and I don’t want to get into a bar and smell marijuana,” says Suzy Scuderi of Olympia.

Marijuana consumption in bars could be commonplace as early as late January if the rule change gets the green light.

Wednesday is the deadline for Washington state residents to comment on the proposal.


Hello…. To the asshats on the hill:

To the following Senators;

Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chiesa (R-NJ)
Collins (R-ME)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Cowan (D-MA)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Flake (R-AZ)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hirono (D-HI)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

I would cordially like to invite you to kiss my ass for your near treasonous support of this overly bloated and anti-American bill.

I am not ashamed to be an American, in fact I am a proud disabled American veteran.

Though I am ashamed of some of the stupid fucking shit that my legislative and executive branches subject our fine country to.


523 pages, a fair chunk of it is crap, and a fair chunk makes sense, it is a shame that what President Reagan put forth on the last amnesty was abandoned but subsequent sessions of Congress and Presidential administrations. It is yet another case where the people are in the end lied to by the government to garner votes. I have to wonder if the weasels that passed the bills were sincere in their voting.


What we are learning about a bill that was passed likely without the Senators even reading it. (even the sponsors)

Okay, just who was the retard that thought that it would be a good idea to permit people to forge up to two passports?

Have you read the text? probably only a few have been able to read every word of it, even though 68 Fuqtards voted for this piece of… work.

Here is a fun section that to leading Senators could not address because they seemed to not even have a clue that it was in the bill.


12 ‘‘§ 1541. Trafficking in passports
13 ‘‘(a) MULTIPLE PASSPORTS.—Subject to subsection
14 (b), any person who, during any period of 3 years or less,
15 knowingly—
16 ‘‘(1) and without lawful authority produces,
17 issues, or transfers 3 or more passports;
18 ‘‘(2) forges, counterfeits, alters, or falsely
19 makes 3 or more passports;
20 ‘‘(3) secures, possesses, uses, receives, buys,
21 sells, or distributes 3 or more passports, knowing
22 the passports to be forged, counterfeited, altered,
23 falsely made, stolen, procured by fraud, or produced
24 or issued without lawful authority; or
1 ‘‘(4) completes, mails, prepares, presents, signs,
2 or submits 3 or more applications for a United
3 States passport, knowing the applications to contain
4 any materially false statement or representation,
5 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than
6 20 years, or both.


So If the House passes this bill (and not blue slip it like they should since the Senate is not to put forth bills that collect revenue (that is the job of the House of Representatives)) and the President signs it into law it will be in my eyes a near treasonous act. Only Congress can define the act of treason though so the definition can change at their whim.

States and Nullification of Enforcement of Federal Laws

Does anyone else see this trend of states getting fed up with the federal government and enacting legislation (or coming close to anyway) that nullifies federal laws?

I find it interesting but a little unnerving.

Does this bring us closer to my concerns of civil unrest or rebellion?

  • More than a dozen state may be nullifying Obama Care
  • Missouri – The governor has a bill to consider nullification of federal gun laws
  • Kansas (and others)- passed a law that guns made and owned in Kansas were exempt from federal firearms laws
  • Washington and Colorado legalized recreational marijuana possession and use.
  • Washington legalizes gay marriage
  • Pennsylvania –  may be nullifying federal bans on some weapons and ammunition
  • or even the opposite, states try to help the feds by trying to enforce voting or immigration law and the feds can’t permit THAT.

I am sure that there are other examples.

So if states won’t enforce the federal laws, then I guess the feds will have to ramp up their staffing to be able to enforce their own laws.. What a concept.

At some point, the federal government went feral and now the states have decided that they need to take back some of their domain.

Do we see an end to this? What other areas will states start to take back?

How will the feds compensate for their losses in power?
The federal government need to constrict its size and power.

Will they have a flippin’ temper tantrum and over-react?


Amending amendments

I am curious about the process and authority of altering amendments.

The process of making an amendment is pretty well known and not the easiest of tasks.

We have seen them get pretty well gutted, by legislation and the court, but I am wondering more of HOW they get screwed with.

The First Amendment is pretty clear, but yet we have thrashed over the years.


Amendment I

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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


We know that religion is not is not really free in this country, nor is speech, the press has quit being an investigative tool. People’s rights to peaceably assemble has been nipped, and what is the federal petition process?


Some of this is cultural, but most of it has been the government just fucking us over, left and right.

BTW: for today we are containing this to the First Amendment.

IRS claims it can read your e-mail without a warrant

Anyone for a forth amendment discussion? Does, or should, the government have the right to peruse individual’s e-mail accounts, and chat history, without cause or a warrant?

If they are allowed to continue this practice, how long before corporations are given the same “rights”?


By, Eyes_Open

Violence Against Women Act – sexist or not?

I have to preface this with my support of victims of domestic violence, REGARDLESS of gender and this post is not intended to be misogynistic in any way.

The title alone begs the question of this legislation being gender based.

What is in this bill that is for women only? Why isn’t the title and wording more uni-sexual? Anti-Domestic Violence Act perhaps? Is the bill title to try to be something to brag about for women voters? “hey look what we passed, we actually give a shit!”

I would be interested in the response from any legislator when asked: “How will this help my brother, who is being abused by his wife?” I would also like to know how many resources that are in a city the size of Portland Oregon to help men that are being abuse today, then after the signing of this act into law.

Are there any centers for battered men? The answer is yes, but there are not many of them. Yes the numbers of abused women are staggering. some one and a half million women, but 830,000 men are domestic violence victims as well.

Concerned Women for America was noted as to have called it a boondoggle and created “an ideology that all men are guilty and all women are victims.”

Do we need more laws on the books for this, or do we have sufficient legislation in place? Does it just need to be enforced more, or correctly?

There were concerns by Sen Rubio over potential Constitutional issues having tribal courts prosecuting non-indians on indian lands. (If my white ass is arrested on tribal land, am I supposed to ask to speak with an ambassador?)

There are sections that specify women, but not men such as:

“. . .designed to assist Indian women and the dependents of those women who are victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking;. . .”

or we can look to section (45):

‘(45) RAPE CRISIS CENTER- The term ‘rape crisis center’ means–

‘(A) a nonprofit, nongovernmental, or tribal organization that provides intervention and related assistance, as specified in section 41601(b)(2)(C), to victims of sexual assault without regard to the age of the victims; or

‘(B) a governmental entity that–

‘(i) is located in a State other than a Territory;

‘(ii) provides intervention and related assistance, as specified in section 41601(b)(2)(C), to victims of sexual assault without regard to the age of the victims;

‘(iii) is not a law enforcement agency or other entity that is part of the criminal justice system; and

‘(iv) offers a level of confidentiality to victims that is comparable to a nonprofit entity that provides similar victim services.

Did you see any mention of not discriminating based on gender? I only saw age…


I did find a pair of sections that seem to alleviate my concerns:

‘(A) NONDISCRIMINATION- No person in any State shall on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or disability be denied the assistance of, or excluded from receiving services from, a grantee under any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds made available under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (title IV of Public Law 103-322; 108 Stat. 1902), the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 (division B of Public Law 106-386; 114 Stat. 1491), the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (title IX of Public Law 109-162; 119 Stat. 3080), the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2012, or any other program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds appropriated for grants, cooperative agreements, and other assistance administered by the Office on Violence Against Women.

‘(B) REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION- Nothing in this paragraph shall prevent consideration of an individual’s gender for purposes of a program or activity described in subparagraph (A) if the grantee involved determines that gender segregation or gender-specific programming is necessary to the essential operation of such program or activity. In such a case, alternative reasonable accommodations are sufficient to meet the requirements of this paragraph.

I have not read every word, because I have not found a true full text form. The “full text” form gives direction to insert, strike, or edit the original text.  With what I have read,  I don’t see much of a reason for it not to pass provided that it applies to all and benefits equally based on gender.