Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

All I am saying is that they are not some evil shadow army or barbarians ready to topple civilization. They offer a service that is apparently required by many countries.
They're not waiting to topple it; the military-industrial complex already controls everything maaannnn. ;)

.... apparently Blackwater themselves felt so uneasy about this that they changed their name.
I believe they specifically stated as much in the release they issued afterwards. The whole point was to distance themselves from the reputation of Blackwater.

Stupid question - why not offshore as well as outsource should be able to get some third world people to risk their lives for much less wonga - more 'caching' for Blackwater?
We already do that (in a round about way) by funding Pakistan to go fight in the Swat valley, for instance. In Iraq (in Al Anbar) the US military paid sheikhs to reign in insurgents and use them to establish security forces.
 
Barack Obama?s Top Ten Foreign Policy Follies
By Nile Gardiner Last updated: December 23rd, 2009

This has hardly been a stellar year for the projection of American global power. Weakness, rather than strength, has been the hallmark of US foreign policy under Barack Obama, from the Iranian nuclear crisis to dithering over the war in Afghanistan. Instead of strong American leadership, the White House has all too often offered humiliating apologies for America?s past and embarrassing gaffes.

Here is a list of the ten biggest foreign policy follies of Barack Obama?s first year in office. I?ve tried to make the list inclusive of all corners of the world, ranging from Tehran to Tokyo to Khartoum, and frankly could easily have expanded it to a top 20 or even top 30 list. There are plenty to choose from, including some of the most cringe worthy moments in modern American history.

1. Surrendering to Russia over Missile Defence

The White House?s betrayal of US allies in eastern and central Europe by reneging on the deal to establish Third Site missile defences sent a clear signal that Washington was more concerned about appeasing Moscow than defending its friends. It symbolized all that is wrong with Obama?s foreign policy ? including the willingness to curry favour with brutal enemies while giving the boot to some of America?s closest partners.

2. Appeasing the Mullahs of Iran

If Barack Obama makes a New Year?s resolution, I hope it will be that he stops appeasing Tehran. The White House?s strategy of engagement with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been nothing short of a spectacular failure. While Obama has been busy emulating the European Union?s dismal Common Foreign and Security Policy and sending polite video messages, the Mullahs and their puppets have been busy advancing their nuclear weapons programme, enriching uranium, supplying arms to the Taliban, capturing British sailors, test-firing long-range missiles, threatening the annihilation of Israel, and killing pro-democracy protestors.

3. Ending the War on Terror

Not only did Barack Obama order the closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay within hours of becoming president, but he also embarked upon ending the entire War on Terror, which was swiftly renamed an Overseas Contingency Operation. Nearly a year later the threat from al-Qaeda remains just as great, if not greater, but President Obama refuses to describe the battle in terms of a global war, and balks at identifying the enemy ? Islamist terrorists. At the same time he has given the enemy a huge propaganda victory by endlessly castigating the Bush administration for supposedly ?torturing? terrorist suspects, and apologizing for the counter-terror strategy of the previous US government.

4. Announcing a Surge while Declaring an Exit

There can be no doubt that the three months of dithering by President Obama over whether to deploy more forces to Afghanistan was highly damaging to the United States, and sowed considerable uncertainty within the NATO alliance. When Obama finally made an announcement in December to send an additional 30,000 troops to the battlefield, a huge step in the right direction, his decision was immediately undercut by the simultaneous announcement of an exit timetable, starting in 18 months. It is hard to imagine Churchill or Roosevelt declaring in the middle of the Second World War that they would fight the Nazis for another year and a half, and then start withdrawing their forces on the grounds of cost.

5. Apologising to France for America?s ?Arrogance?

Barack Obama?s Strasbourg speech will go down in history as one of the most embarrassing moments ever for a US president on foreign soil. As I wrote earlier, ?The President of the most powerful nation on earth traveled to France to deliver a grovelling, massive mea culpa for US foreign policy, including the War on Terror. Utter humiliation for America on European soil in front of a largely French and German audience who bitterly opposed the liberation of Iraq ? not even Jacques Chirac could have dreamt it up.?

6. Giving DVDs to the British Prime Minister

I?m no fan of Gordon Brown, but the treatment of the Prime Minister at the hands of the White House on his visit to Washington in March was an appalling humiliation for Great Britain. The PM was received as though he were the leader of a third world banana republic rather than America?s closest ally, denied an official press conference and even a dinner. To add insult to injury, Brown was packed off with 25 discount DVDs ranging from Toy Story to The Wizard of Oz, which couldn?t even be played in Britain.

7. Siding with Marxists in Honduras

The Obama administration has certainly been consistent in its strategy of cuddling up to America?s enemies while kicking its friends. True to form the White House and State Department rushed to condemn the constitutional removal of left-wing, America-hating, Hugo-Chavez-backed despot Manuel Zelaya from power in Honduras, and his temporary replacement with pro-American Speaker of the House Robert Micheletti. Whatever happened to the good old days when the United States actually fought against Marxist tyrants in Latin America and backed anti-communists?

8. Bowing to Emperors and Kings

The last time I checked, Barack Obama was not a subject of imperial Japan, but his bow before Emperor Akihito was a scene straight out of the 1930s. A simple handshake with the descendent of Emperor Hirohito would have sufficed, but the president opted for a full-blown bow when the two met in Tokyo in November. It is one thing to pay respect to a monarch, but quite another for an American president to prostrate himself and his nation before a foreign leader. Needless to say, eyebrows were raised not only in America but across Asia as well. This was far from an isolated incident. Obama did exactly the same when he met with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at the G-20 in April.

9. Embracing Genocidal Killers in Sudan

I?ve included this in the list because it illustrates the extraordinary lengths to which the Obama administration will go to appease the most evil tyrannies on the face of the earth. In October Obama extended the hand of friendship to the brutal regime in Khartoum led by Omar Hassan al-Bashir, responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands in Darfur, offering to lift sanctions if there were ?concrete steps in a new direction?. The moral bankruptcy of this approach was summed up by Obama?s hugely controversial special envoy to Sudan, retired Air Force Major General J. Scott Gration:
?We?ve got to think about giving out cookies. Kids, countries ? they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement.?

10. Throwing Churchill out of The White House

Barack Obama?s decision to throw a bust of Sir Winston Churchill out of the Oval Office within days of taking power set the tone for his foreign policy. It sent a clear signal that the president cared little about the Anglo-American Special Relationship and the transatlantic alliance in general. It spoke volumes about Obama?s disdain for Britain, a nation that he has never mentioned in a major policy speech, as well as his scorn for the kind of powerful, assertive leadership that Churchill embodied.
 
1. Surrendering to Russia over Missile Defence Not starting a new cold war.

2. Appeasing the Mullahs of Iran Talking to an enemy instead of blowing them away?

3. Ending the War on Terror So he ordered the closeing of a prison that made The United States of America a de facto outlaw in international law? And the threat from al-Quida got smaller during Bush? Really?

4. Announcing a Surge while Declaring an Exit He promised to end the war in Iraq, and send troops to Afghanistan, which he has begun.

5. Apologising to France for America?s ?Arrogance? So the the White House doesn't serve Freedom Fries anymore? Really? That's really sad. America WAS arrogant, bloody arrogant. That is, the American government was..

6. Giving DVDs to the British Prime Minister "Mr. Prime Minister, can I buy you dinner?" - G. W. Bush to Tony Blair.

7. Siding with Marxists in Honduras Respecting a democraticly elected government that isn't marxist, that is.

8. Bowing to Emperors and Kings He was polite instead of being unpolite. Bu hu.

9. Embracing Genocidal Killers in Sudan

How has he done that?

10. Throwing Churchill out of The White House

How?
 
Last edited:
I?ve tried to make the list inclusive of all corners of the world, ranging from Tehran to Tokyo to Khartoum, and frankly could easily have expanded it to a top 20 or even top 30 list. There are plenty to choose from, including some of the most cringe worthy moments in modern American history.
Really? Those 10 things are the some of the most cringe-worthy things in American history? I knew Nile Gardiner was a reactionary conservative blowhard, but I thought he'd at least opened a history book at some point in his life.

This is why the US has such bitter partisanship right now, ladies and gentlemen; "giving DVD's to Gordon Brown" ranks right up there with the Iran-Contra Scandal or Watergate. "Greeting foreign leaders by bowing", which isn't even unprecedented, is on the level of Abu Ghraib. "Announcing a surge while declaring an exit", which is also known as "making a plan", is on the level of "invading two countries without a real plan".
 
Last edited:
Osama bin Laden?s missing family found in secret compound in Iran


Osama bin Laden?s closest relatives are living in a secret compound in Iran, members of the family said last night. They include a wife and children who disappeared from his Afghan camp at the time of the 9/11 attacks on the United States.

There has been uncertainty about the family?s whereabouts for the past eight years, with reports that some of the children had been killed in bombings, while others had joined their father in planning terrorist attacks. However, relatives said that they found out last month that the group, including one of Osama?s wives, six of his children and 11 of his grandchildren, had been kept in a high-security compound outside Tehran.

They have been prevented from contacting the outside world while Iran has repeatedly denied that any of the relatives were living in the country.

Members of the bin Laden family are now appealing for the group to be allowed to leave Iran and described them as the ?forgotten victims of 9/11?.
Omar Ossama bin Laden, 29, the al-Qaeda leader?s fourth-eldest son, said he had no idea that his brothers and sisters were still alive until they called him in November. They told him how they had fled Afghanistan just before the 9/11 attacks and walked to the Iranian border. They were taken to a walled compound outside Tehran where guards said they were not allowed to leave ?for their own safety?. The eldest of the children, Saad, was 20 at the time, Ossman 17, Muhammad 15, Fatma 14, Hamza 12, Iman 9, and Bakr, 7.

There had been speculation that Muhammad was second in command of al-Qaeda and that Saad also instigated and plotted terrorist attacks until he was killed about 18 months ago by an American drone. The relatives, however, said that Muhammad is still living in the compound and that Saad ran away less than a year ago in an attempt to find his mother.

A week after making contact with her brother, Iman escaped during a rare trip outside the compound and made her way to the Saudi Arabian Embassy. She is now living there while seeking permission to leave Iran.

Mr bin Laden said that his relatives live as normal a life as possible, cooking meals, watching television and reading. They are allowed out only rarely for shopping trips. As a number of families are being held in the compound some of the older siblings have been able to marry and have their own children. ?The Iranian Government did not know what to do with this large group of people that nobody else wanted, so they just kept them safe. For that we owe them much gratitude, and thank Iran from the depth of our heart,? he said.

Mr bin Laden, who had lived with his father in exile in Sudan and Afghanistan but left before the 9/11 attacks, now hopes that the family will be given permission to leave Iran and join his mother, brother and two sisters in Syria, or himself and his wife in Qatar.

He said: ?They are all just innocent victims, just the same as anyone else hurt by the dreadful events of 9/11 and 7/7. These babies and children have never had any education, never hurt a single soul, never trained with any weapons or ever been part of al-Qaeda. We just want to be together as a family. I have now got 11 nieces and nephews, born either in Afghanistan or Iran that I have never seen.

?Some may find this story unnerving, but the child can?t be judged by the sins of their father.?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article6965756.ece

What else is Iran hiding? Also why did the US never find out or share their location?
 
I knew Nile Gardiner was a reactionary conservative blowhard, but I thought he'd at least opened a history book at some point in his life.
Like you said, he's a conservative blowhard. Some people just see things in absolutes. So if we're not blowing people up and invading countries we must be appeasing terrorists and hanging on "pansy-ass" Europe's dick.

What else is Iran hiding? Also why did the US never find out or share their location?
If we did know, and someone probably did (if it's true) I'm not surprised that the CIA didn't hold a press conference to tell everyone :lol:.
 
On the one hand, he's right. You can't judge the sons by the sins of the father.

On the other hand, he's the most hunted man in the world. A life exiled from general society is the life he chose to lead. He brought their suffering on them.
 
On the one hand, he's right. You can't judge the sons by the sins of the father.

On the other hand, he's the most hunted man in the world. A life exiled from general society is the life he chose to lead. He brought their suffering on them.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but what the hell are they supposed to do with them? Deport them? Hold them hostage? Make a reality TV show?
 
Leave them alone.

I'm thinking simple thoughts tonight.
 
I'm not disagreeing with you, but what the hell are they supposed to do with them? Deport them? Hold them hostage? Make a reality TV show?
The Real Housewives of al Qaeda!
 
From the 'Our Government Is Run By Idiots' category, and a great example why no bill should ever have a clause stating that it cannot be amended/modified/etc.:

Typo in Law Establishes Mandate to Lock Gun-Toting Train Passengers in Boxes

By Chad Pergram

- FOXNews.com

Because of a typo, President Obama signed a bill into law Wednesday that requires passengers who carry firearms aboard Amtrak be locked in boxes for their journey

Harry Houdini made a career escaping from locked boxes. So did David Copperfield and Doug Henning.

And now, add to that list Amtrak passengers packing heat in their luggage?

It may sound absurd. But President Obama signed a bill into law Wednesday that requires passengers who carry firearms aboard Amtrak be locked in boxes for their journey.

It's a mistake in the law's wording. But for now, the clerical error is the law of the land.

Earlier this week, Congress sent the president a massive spending bill that funded dozens of federal departments. Tucked into the transportation section of the legislation are safety requirements for Amtrak customers who carry firearms on board the government-backed train system. The bill Congress passed mandates that passengers with firearms declare they have weapons with them in advance and stow them in locked boxes while on the train.

The bill text was correct when the House approved the legislation last week. The Senate followed suit Sunday, but somewhere along the line, the language that referred to putting the guns in locked boxes morphed into stuffing "passengers" into locked boxes.

Aides to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., became aware of the problem Wednesday night as the House voted on its final slate of bills for the year. Pelosi's staff tried to negotiate with Republican aides to see if they would agree to change the text of the bill without revoting the entire piece of legislation. But it was all for naught as Obama had already signed the measure into law.

It's clear the typo alters the legislation's mandate. But no one quite knows the origin of the mistake.

Senior Congressional sources familiar with the error suggested the problem may have been introduced in the "enrolling" process of bills. Once both the House and Senate approve the final version of a bill, the text of the legislation is sent to an "enrolling clerk" who actually copies the bill onto parchment paper. The parchment version of the package is then sent to the White House for the president to sign into law.

Another theory is that the mistake could be something as simple as a printing error. The House and Senate run multiple versions of bills before they send the final copy to the White House to become law. Another possibility is that Congress sent President Obama the wrong, non-proofed version of the bill to sign.

The misfire is fixable. But probably not until early next year. The House late Wednesday completed what it expects to be its final session of the year. The Senate remains in session debating health care reform. But both the House and Senate would have to agree to a technical correction of the text that missed its mark.

The law, though, states that Amtrak has six months to implement the policy. So it's unlikely that any gun-toting passengers would have to travel in a box.

The error is reminiscent of $289 billion farm bill President Bush vetoed in May, 2008. In that instance, both houses of Congress inadvertently sent Bush an incomplete bill, leaving out a 35-page chunk. The president then vetoed an incomplete bill. Congress discovered the error when lawmakers attempted to override the president's veto.

In that case, House re-passed the entire farm bill and overrode Bush's veto.

"This bill is one of the most-passed bills we've done," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., quipped at the time.

The rules to allow Amtrak passengers to carry weapons with them are new. Airline passengers have long been permitted to transport weapons in checked luggage. But Amtrak banned firearms from its trains after Sept. 11. Only police officers are now allowed to board Amtrak trains with guns.

Rep. John Fleming and Sen. Roger Wicker, both Mississippi Republicans, are the primary advocates of the Amtrak gun provision.
 
From the 'Our Government Is Run By Idiots' category, and a great example why no bill should ever have a clause stating that it cannot be amended/modified/etc.:

I'm not on a wind-up here, because I've I've seen you say this a few times.

Genuine question: Is it even possible for the US to pass a law that cannot be amended?

I thought the whole "checks and balances" thing comes into play. Like rock, paper, scissors.

Congress requires a 2/3rds majority to beat a Presidential veto. So POTUS can stop Congress.

Senate can strike down a bill passed by Congress and vice-versa. So both Houses cancel each other out.

Senate and Congress can strike down bills proposed by the President.

And the Supreme Court beats all.

So forget party lines and all that, this is strictly a theoretical question - how can a law be passed in the US that cannot be changed, ever?
 
I'm not on a wind-up here, because I've I've seen you say this a few times.

Genuine question: Is it even possible for the US to pass a law that cannot be amended?

I thought the whole "checks and balances" thing comes into play. Like rock, paper, scissors.

Congress requires a 2/3rds majority to beat a Presidential veto. So POTUS can stop Congress.

Senate can strike down a bill passed by Congress and vice-versa. So both Houses cancel each other out.

Senate and Congress can strike down bills proposed by the President.

And the Supreme Court beats all.

So forget party lines and all that, this is strictly a theoretical question - how can a law be passed in the US that cannot be changed, ever?

I think you're confusing the House with the whole Congress. Congress consists of the House of Representatives (similar to the House of Commons) and the Senate (similar to the historical House of Lords).

In theory, no, it shouldn't be possible.

In practice? Well, we're about to find out. The "Healthcare Reform Bill," as passed by the Senate, contains the following text in Section 3403:

?it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.?

If passed by the House (by inclusion in a reconciliated bill introduced in both the House and Senate) and signed by the President, it means that not only could the House or Senate not modify the bill, they couldn't even discuss it! Of course, the President will sign whatever bill his party-mates in Congress send his way (he was willing to sign the House version, he is also willing to sign the Senate version, a compromise/reconciled bill would be a no brainer) so that check and balance is out. (This is why I like having the Presidency and Congress controlled by different parties.) There will be no veto to override, so that check is out too.

The only remaining check would be the Supreme Court, which on this matter is pretty divided. There are four conservative justices, four liberal justices, and one justice who sometimes goes way off the reservation and consults foreign (and I don't mean English or any law that's in the direct line of progenitorhood of US law) codes and laws to reach a decision. Some (like me) suspect that this justice (Anthony Kennedy) may even decide which side of an issue he wants to be on based on where the dart hits the board in his chambers. I have no idea where he's going to come down on this issue, and his will be the deciding vote. He may say that this part is unconstitutional and that the whole law must be stricken, he may say that only this part should be stricken, or he may say that it is legal/Constitutional (for whatever reason) and let it pass. Any of these positions would either tip the balance for institutional approval of the law, for disapproval of the law, or the court may deadlock 4-4-1 and the law will go forward until another challenge to it can be heard.

While it is possible for the Supreme Court to reverse itself or even revisit an issue, it is in fact very unlikely to do so; in cases where it has, typically decades have passed since the original decision - see the Dred Scott case for example.

So basically, we'll find out if it is in fact possible soon enough.
 
Last edited:
So basically, what you are saying is "You can't pass a law that cannot be changed".*

I'm desperately trying to keep party politics out of this. I'm not interested in "if, buts and maybes", I'm interested in whether, fundamentally, it can be done.

And the answer appears to be "no".



*Ugh. Double negative.
 
So basically, what you are saying is "You can't pass a law that cannot be changed".*

I'm desperately trying to keep party politics out of this. I'm not interested in "if, buts and maybes", I'm interested in whether, fundamentally, it can be done.

And the answer appears to be "no".



*Ugh. Double negative.

Actually, the answer is probably, "Yes, it could possibly happen." The law could, in fact, be passed. The question is whether it would be struck down by the Supreme Court (which, by the way, cannot just reach in and review a law directly, it must wait for someone to file suit on the issue), which is up in the air. If not struck down by the Supreme Court, then yes, it would then be the law of the land and unmodifiable.

It isn't supposed to work that way, but it's possible for it to happen. IIRC, this also appeared in some Bush-era Republican legislation or other (like I said elsewhere, everyone in Washington appears to be idiots regardless of party) but that one never got out of committee so there's no telling if it would have flown.

That said, it's just a bad idea to even think about making an unalterable, unmodifiable law. You'll notice that in keeping with your desire, I have not discussed the rest of the bill that section came from and I have no intention of doing so here. This is almost nothing to do with the issue of healthcare, and everything to do with the people in Washington being idiots.

As for the law; I wasn't going to ride Amtrak before (it's faster to just drive someplace, and not by a small margin), but now, if I wanted to check my hunting rifle and go to South Texas to hunt deer, they would take my rifle, store it in the separate baggage car/carriage under lock and key where I would have no access until I disembark... then they would take me and lock me in a box for the duration of the trip, because that's what the law says for them to do. :rolleyes:

Strangely, this might actually be an improvement in Amtrak's normal long-distance service experience, given how terrible the experience of riding an Amtrak train anywhere but the East Coast is. At least being locked in said box makes it less likely that some vagrant is going to wander past and puke (or worse) on my shoes. :p
 
Last edited:
OK, say such a bill passed. And someone filed suit and the Supremes OK'd it. Can the Supremes revisit that decision at a later date and subsequently revoke their own decision?
 
Oh man... I've just found that clause.

I might be reading the legalese wrong, but all those who think this means the Bill cannot be repealed is talking absolute shite. There is taking out of context and then there is this... which is not so much taking it out of context as taking it out, giving it a nice meal and then flying it First Class to Aruba.

Going to double check it right now...
 
Right, this took longer than I wanted to do due to Real Life intervening. And I've even turned it into a blog post but the relevant bit is (hopefully) quoted and formatted correctly below.

As I've often done before, I've looked at the disconnect between the truth and the media - whether it is the hysterical ranting of a Rush Limbaugh or a Faux News, to the blogosphere where any old crank can set up a webpage and get noticed. ("Guilty, your honour!")

Given that a large part of the success of the Obama campaign was its use of the Internet, it is surprising just how incredibly good The Republican Party are at utilising blogs and forums to disseminate information. I mean, seriously good. Their best tactic is to plant a specific quote or idea and then let the many blogs, who spend their time complaining that they don't have a voice, take over.

The latest to hover on the radar concerned the recently passed Health Care Bill. The quote in question is

"it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."


This quote is being used as "evidence" that the evil Nazi that is the current President has not only passed the Bill, but done so in such a way that it is impossible for subsequent Governments to overturn it in the future. According to the right wing blogosphere, once this is made law, it cannot be overturned... ever.

The LaRouche Public Action Committee in a blog posting entitled Reid Did It! Nazi "Eternity" Section in Health Bill Put in Secretly Behind Closed Doors says "The fascist secret clauses in the Senate health-care bill ? attempting to forbid any future Congress from changing any of the provisions relating to the dictatorial, genocidal Independent Medicare Advisory Board ? were inserted into the bill during closed-door meetings in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's office, not by an amendment duly considered by the Senate."

The blog at The Weekly Standard - "Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) pointed out some rather astounding language in the Senate health care bill during floor remarks tonight. First, he noted that there are a number of changes to Senate rules in the bill--and it's supposed to take a 2/3 vote to change the rules. And then he pointed out that the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses:"

You can Google for 12,500 references to this by clicking here.

My Spidey Sense tingled like crazy. Blimey, this is pretty huge, even if it is impossible to pass a law that cannot be overturned. So I went to the Library of Congress, clicked the link to search legislative information, and had a look for H.R.3590 - atient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Engrossed Amendment as Agreed to by Senate). Right, now search for "Sec. 3403 Independent Medicare Advisory Board" or similar and click on it - it should take you to that part of the Bill. This part of the Bill is about oversight, what has to be reported, finances and so on. It is about the legislature checking that the Bill is working as it should. And sure enough subsection (d) (3) (C) says:

`(C) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THIS SUBSECTION- It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.

Wow. Blimey, so it is true then. They put this in and it can't be repealed ever. Ever, ever, ever.

Except...

Except...

Let's look at the quote.

"`(C) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THIS SUBSECTION- It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change"

Pretty heavy, eh? The Senate nor the House of Representatives can change this bill. Ever. Shit. That's a lot. Does this mean that it can't be changed?

Well, no, because it ignores the President or the Supreme Court. But still, pretty shitty?

I admit it. I've tricked you. I've pulled the same trick the bloggers have, except in a more blatant way. I've taken the quote out of context but also I've omitted one very, VERY crucial word. I deliberately cut it out when I quoted it above.

"Subsection"

That quote in full:

"(C) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THIS SUBSECTION- It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.

If you read it properly, you realise the clause only applies to Subsection 3403. This doesn't apply to the entire Bill. That is why it says "subsection". It specifically mandates the oversight part of it cannot be changed. It enshrines that the legislative MUST ALWAYS be able to change the Bill.

The right wing crazies ared jumping up and down, trying to tell people that black is white. That this clause means the Bill cannot be changed, when in fact it solidifies that the Senate/Congress must always be able to change it.

This is how the media works - they decide on a sound bite, take it out of context and jump up and down about it. It is like when you see a quote on a cinema poster that says "EPIC - Some Twunt, Sunday Mirror" when the review actually says "The director has served up an epic turkey, a pile of rancid pus that darkens the cinema screen."

The problem is, as Mark Twain said, "A lie can be halfway around the world before the truth has got its boots on". And on the Internet, that is a lot of willing liars and a small world.
 
Top