Paul Ryan and John Boehner, go **** yourself.
I'm done, as I've previously pointed out, when it comes to being an entrepreneur and thereby voluntarily assisting our government in screwing people for fun along with legislators' personal power and profit.
I'm done because the clowncar brigade embodied in this nation's marxist crapshow comprised of both the executive and legislature claims to offer "choice" but in fact one is simply asking if I'd like to be raped in the ass by an elephant or donkey. Not only does it steal from everyone in this country and refuse prosecution there it refuses to prosecute and incarcerate those in that clowncar brigade who literally lead to people being murdered -- in Benghazi, by Fast-n-Furious and more.
The Democrats and Republicans offer choice? Like hell -- assault is assault, and in any free nation assault results in prosecution and imprisonment, not praise or even simple re-election.
Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray, D-Wash., and House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis, the lead negotiators on the agreement, detailed the specifics of the proposal at an evening press conference.
The proposal would restore about $63 billion in funding that had been cut by the so-called sequester. Officials said the increases would be offset by a variety of spending reductions and increased fees elsewhere in the budget totaling about $85 billion over a decade, leaving enough for a largely symbolic deficit cut of $23 billion over the next decade.
You're hundreds of billions of dollars in the hole annually and claiming that tens of billions are "significant" -- over ten years.
Divide by ten and it's single digit billions, or less than 1% of the deficit.
You're all a bunch of liars, thieves, brigands and worse. In any just society deficit spending specifically and unbacked credit creation generally would lead to immediate incarceration because it is literal grand theft from the population at-large. It causes income inequality and is aimed directly at the lower-earning people in the nation, financially raping them repeatedly under false pretense of "helping" them.
Yeah, it's a help all right -- just like the showers at Auschwitz were a "help."
Quit*****ing on me while telling me it's raining. Your nostrums don't work any more for anyone but you.
As the president hosts a White House youth summit, a new poll from his alma mater shows a majority of young people aren't interested in signing up for his signature health care plan.
The Harvard "Millennials" poll found only 22 percent of young Americans -- defined in the survey as between 18 and 29 years old -- plan to sign up for ObamaCare. Even more troubling for the administration, fewer than a third -- only 29 percent -- of people who currently do not have health insurance plan to enroll.
Why should they?
I was once in that group. I had an $18,000 a year job, drove an AMC Pacer (yes, it really was a serious piece of crap but it got me to work and back), rented a one-bedroom apartment and had no assets to speak of. Why do I need "health insurance"? I was nominally healthy and if I got sick who cares if I can't pay?
What are they going to do -- sue me? That's nice. I have nothing. Go ahead and sue. I took the same approach with my car insurance -- minimum mandatory liability coverage only.
Hit me with a big judgment? I file bankrupcy. Screw you, not me.
Now go ahead and call me "irresponsible" if you want, but the fact of the matter is that insurance is to cover you against unlikely events that you would otherwise be ruined by. If I can't be ruined because there's nothing for an aggrieved party to take then what do I need insurance for?
EMTALA, incidentally, is a law I think should go away. But so long as it stands if I have an emergent condition it has to be treated. I thought it should go away when I was young too but even without it I was willing to take my chances.
The bottom line is that Obamacare is a screw job for the young; it is in fact explicitly designed to screw young people who could otherwise buy (if they decided to) decent catastrophic care insurance for well under $1,000 a year. Instead Obamacare expects them to spend twice or more that amount for something they are almost-certain to not use.
And it's not just young people who are ready to give the finger to -- or outright eject the government's "pushers" from their property.
A few houses later, Rhianna tries to straighten out an address on her list with two guys standing on a porch—one African American, wearing flip-flops and jogging shorts with no shirt, the other looking like the Cuban-American rapper Pitbull. They exchange pleasantries, and Rhianna asks if they both have insurance and are pleased with it. Yes, they assent.
But when I ask the gents if they have any intention of signing up for Obamacare, they start laughing—at first politely, then almost violently. “No!” says Pitbull. “And wait online 18 hours?” “Obamacare!” says Shirtless, elbowing Pitbull. Pitbull then starts making finger-pistol signs directing me down the street. “Keep on walking with Obamacare,” he says, still convulsing.
Reality is starting to intrude. The government has turned into a felons camp for theft, fraud and scam, backed up with guns and the people are taking notice of this.
It's about damn time.
Mr. Lew, I know you continue to say that the Congress has "no choice" but to raise the debt limit.
Congress has the choice to say no.
You have a credit card but the limit is set not by your King but rather by Congress.
And Congress has the right to cut that card up any time it so chooses.
So says the Constitution:
Article I Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
Congress has this power.
Congress also has the power to tell you and your presumptive King to go **** yourselves when it comes to spending money, whether funded with taxes or borrowed, and there is not jack you or King MaObama can do about it.
I don't give a damn how many times you repeat yourself that Congress "must" do something, you're wrong.
You're wrong on the facts and you're wrong on the law.
And at the point that you try to argue that your stance is more than jawboning and vehement argument you are committing a crime against The Constitution and so is the jackass standing behind you who is telling you to go out there and make these statements.
For same, should you do so or attempt to back up any such jawboning with threats, both of you deserve to be removed from office.
You took an oath to uphold and defend The Constitution.
Either honor it or resign.
So the NSA intercepting "some" data isn't enough -- now Obama is arguing that all data in, on, or associated with a handheld mobile device (e.g. your cellphone) is subject to search and seizure without a warrant:
Amid concerns from privacy advocates about the government’s sprawling surveillance programs, the Obama administration earlier this month petitioned the Supreme Court in support of a federal court ruling that allowed police searches of cell phones records without a warrant.
'SEC. 222. PRIVACY OF CUSTOMER INFORMATION.
'(a) IN GENERAL- Every telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to, other telecommunication carriers, equipment manufacturers, and customers, including telecommunication carriers reselling telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications carrier.
'(c) CONFIDENTIALITY OF CUSTOMER PROPRIETARY NETWORK INFORMATION-
'(1) PRIVACY REQUIREMENTS FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIERS-
Except as required by law or with the approval of the customer, a telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains customer proprietary network information by virtue of its provision of a telecommunications service shall only use, disclose, or permit access to individually identifiable customer proprietary network information in its provision of (A) the telecommunications service from which such information is derived, or (B) services necessary to, or used in, the provision of such telecommunications service, including the publishing of directories.
It is already unlawful for a carrier to use or provide location information for any purpose other than to provide the contracted services and the carrier has a legal duty to both protect that data and fight any attempted breach of said protections.
It is blatantly unlawful for a telecommunications carrier to give access to this data to anyone for other than the described purposes -- including the government -- until and unless presented with a warrant.
So says black letter law.
Oh by the way, the law defines that data too:
'(f) DEFINITIONS- As used in this section:
'(1) CUSTOMER PROPRIETARY NETWORK INFORMATION- The term 'customer proprietary network information' means--
'(A) information that relates to the quantity, technical configuration, type, destination, and amount of use of a telecommunications service subscribed to by any customer of a telecommunications carrier, and that is made available to the carrier by the customer solely by virtue of the carrier-customer relationship; and
'(B) information contained in the bills pertaining to telephone exchange service or telephone toll service received by a customer of a carrier;
In other words:
In other words all the data that your device exchanges with the network as a necessary part of providing you service is customer proprietary network information and is restricted from disclosure for any purpose other than to (1) provide you the service you bought and (2) to publish directories (e.g. your name and phone number.)
This is black letter law folks -- it went into effect when I was running MCSNet. We lived under and with it and honored it both in the letter and intent.
And it is important to note: This law has not been repealed.
Why isn't this the centerpiece of the discussion in the media and political sphere? Why isn't it your centerpiece of discussion? Do you think the government and media is unaware of this law? I sure as hell am very aware of it because it was debated and passed while I ran my ISP and we were subject to it -- and, incidentally, I thought then and still think now that it was good as it clearly defined where the line was.
The government is just as bound by this law as is everyone else. If the government is going to break the law and seek retroactive permission to do so why should the people treat the government any differently than any other criminal?
Time for this one again:
- The predicate to all of this appears to have been the giving of heavy munitions to militants that may have been related to or connected with (or may have actually been!) Al-Qaida, which then "leaked" beyond where the people who gave those munitions intended them to go and be used. Is it acceptable that our government gave heavy weapons to a publicly-sworn enemy of our nation? There are multiple credible reports that the reason the Benghazi safe-house was hit was because the CIA was attempting to recover those weapons through what amounted to buying them back (that is, bribery.) You must once again decide whether or not giving heavy weapons to known and declared enemies of the United State is acceptable under any circumstances, and if not, what you intend to do about it.
- This is not the first time we have armed belligerents on purpose; is thatacceptable? Specifically, "Gun Runner" or "Fast and Furious" armed belligerent Mexican Drug Lords when then used some of those guns to shoot a United States citizen. They also, it must be presumed, used them to shoot a lot of innocent Mexican citizens. The key question here is when we as Americans will have had enough of this crap -- it didn't start with Obama, but he sure as hell has taken to a new level of art. Back during the Iran-Contra days we indicted and convicted 11 but then sat back while George HW Bush pardoned all of those who didn't manage to beat the charges on appeal. Isn't that nice?
And even better, there is good reason to believe that the people we were arming are affiliated with Al-Qaida, which if you remember is an actual military enemy by the declaration of our government.
This means that if we were arming an entity connected to same all the people involved certainly appear to have committed black-letter Treason.
“We’re getting calls from people who are close to people who were [in Benghazi at the time] that they were moving guns. So where are the guns?” asked Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), a sub-committee chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Wolf also wonders what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi on that night. Stevens and three others were killed over the course of the attacks.
“Are they in a warehouse somewhere? Some people say they moved on to Turkey and then from Turkey to Syria," Wolf told Breitbart News on Thursday. "Did they fall into the hands of some of the Jihadis?"
Or were they given to some of the Jihadis?
Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency's missions in Libya, have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency's workings.
The goal of the questioning, according to sources, is to find out if anyone is talking to the media or Congress.
This situation is not, as commonly claimed, analogous to what happened with Iran-Contra. While that was clearly a criminal act (and people were actually indicted and prosecuted for it) the Contras were not active enemies of America nor were we engaged in military operations against them.
In the case of Al-Qaida we are -- in Afghanistan -- at least if you believe our government. Further, Al-Qaida has been declared an "enemy" by both Presidential and Congressional action. Yes, we didn't declare war against Al-Qaida but by declaring it an enemy of the nation the crime of Treason would logically attach to those who adhere or give aid and comfort to the entity and its offshoots. (Art III, Section 3.)
Arming them certainly fits that definition!
I hate it when I'm right.
Where We Are, Where We're Heading (2013) - The annual 2013 Ticker
The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.
NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.
The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.
Looking for "The Best of Market Ticker"? Check out Ticker Classics.
Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.
The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.
Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.