Monthly Archive

You’ll All Pay #43 

(c) Joe Conat 2006

It’s tempting, when thinking about the upcoming November elections, to frame it in terms like “David vs. Goliath”; The plucky underdog Democrats stepping into the arena, the irrefutable truth acting as a simple sling and stone and slaying the bumbling tyrannical Republican giant.

But more and more it’s looking like Democrat David can’t find any rocks, and has poor aim.

I present to you House Resolution 861 for the 109th congress, a primarily self-congratulatory piece of work which accomplishes two things: 1) links the War on Terror with the War in Iraq and 2) declares it “not in the national security interest of the United States” to set a deadline for troop withdrawal from Iraq.

So, okay, here’s the nastiness the Republicans played with this one: no amendments to the resolution. So to vote no is to also vote no to “honor[ing] all those Americans who have taken an active part in the Global War on Terror, whether as first responders protecting the homeland, as service-members overseas, as diplomats and intelligence officers, or in other roles;” “honor[ing] the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces and of partners in the Coalition, and of the Iraqis and Afghans who fight alongside them, especially those who have fallen or been wounded in the struggle, and honors as well the sacrifices of their families and of others who risk their lives to help defend freedom;” and “declares that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.”

To recap: to vote “no” would be to say we don’t honor our troops’ sacrifice, our allies’ troops’ sacrifice and we do not declare the U.S. will win the war on terror. Also, a no vote probably means you like to kick puppies, hate springtime and Christmas and secretly worship Adolf Hitler while sodomizing goats. It’s a trick. “Hey, Democratic Party…have you stopped beating your wife yet?”

So, I guess it’s understandable that *42* democratic representatives voted a hearty “hell yes!” on H.R. 861. the same way it’s understandable that Nazi concentration camp guards were “just following orders”.

I am so tired of my political party being timid little panty-waists! C’mon…look, you know the vote for the damnable thing is going to pass with or without your vote; at least abstain. Vote “this is horseshit”. And then have some balls, walk out to the steps on the Hill and tell the press “This is a bogus resolution. H.R. 861 stands for ‘Horseshit Resolution 861′ and I refused to sully my standing with my constituents or stain my soul by partaking in this blatantly manipulative vote.”

Because, really, what is this resolution other than a Loyalty Pledge? Go read it. “Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary” and “Whereas the United States and its allies are engaged in a Global War on Terror, a long and demanding struggle against an adversary that is driven by hatred of American values and that is committed to imposing, by the use of terror, its repressive ideology throughout the world” and such self-back-patting verbiage as “Whereas the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other terrorists failed to stop free elections in Afghanistan and the first popularly-elected President in that nation’s history has taken office;” “Whereas the steadfast resolve of the United States and its partners since September 11, 2001, helped persuade the government of Libya to surrender its weapons of mass destruction;” etc. etc. and moving on to resolving to honor our troops and our allies’ troops and congratulating the prime minister of Iraq and finally declaring that America will prevail in the Global War on Terror and…I mean, seriously. Who could say no? Oh, and in there is the whole “and we resolve that it would be a bad idea to say exactly when our soldiers are coming home”. If you agree with Mom, the Flag and Apple Pie, you have to also agree to shut up about troop withdrawal deadlines. Vote no…you’re a troop-hating, unpatriotic, Hitler-worshipping puppy-kicker. Vote yes…MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!! Gotcha, sucker!

So 42 of my party’s representatives tucked their tails between their legs and sold their manhoods cheap and whispered “aye” with shameful voices. They caved to the bullies and I wouldn’t be surprised if they forked over their lunch money without protest both in school as children and again in the cafeteria on Capitol Hill.

Even the “Democratic presidential nominee hopeful” Hillary Clinton (and, I must admit, that phrase leaves a vile acidic taste on the back of my tongue) has been so bold as to state unequivocally “I have to just say it: I do not think it is a smart strategy either for the president to continue with his open-ended commitment, nor do I think it is smart strategy to set a date certain. I do not agree that that is in the best interest of our troops or our country.”

In other words, “I want my cake and I believe it is in my best interests to eat it, too.” Hillary evidently paid very close to the “double speak” portions of Orwell’s “1984″.

I’m tired of the Dems doing this pussy-footing around, afraid to alienate the moderates while being afraid to alienate the left. “I think not having a deadline is a bad idea; on the other hand, I think *having* a deadline is a bad idea.” “I voted for the war before I voted against the war.”

Or maybe I’m the dimwitted one, here. Maybe it’s a kind of Zen koan, like “the sound of one hand clapping”. Their answer is occult, but not a non-answer…it is shrouded in mystery, like the ineffable will of God or something. “Ponder this riddle…how does one not have a deadline to withdraw troops while not NOT having a deadline to withdraw troops? When the answer is clear to you, you shall have attained Political Enlightenment.” Like suddenly the Democratic Party is comprised of Shaolin Politicos. “Snatch the resolution from my hand, Grasshopper…”

November is not that far away, people. We don’t need obfuscatory speech and shifty-eyed evasion. We don’t need “depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.” What we need is direct action, a clear path, a viable and attainable goal.

And we sure don’t need 42 Democratic representatives licking GOP wingtips by voting yes on what is clearly a crap resolution.

Of course we support the troops. Of course we honor their sacrifice, and the sacrifice of our allies. Of course we want the United States to prevail in the Global War on Terror. But that doesn’t mean if somebody tacks on “And if you support those things you have to support a lack of deadline for troop withdrawal” you should shrug and go “Okay, I guess.” It’s like saying “Do you support breathing?” “Yes. Yes, I do.” “Then you also support the mandatory attachment of leeches to one’s private parts.” “Wh–? Okay. That makes sense.”

Because, 1) No, it doesn’t. and B) NO. IT DOESN’T.

So, please, Democratic Party…can we please go out and find somebody with a spine? Actually…can we get 43 somebodies with spines? 42 for the House and 1 for President?

We need a true David with a good slingin’arm and decent aim. David wouldn’t have won if he’d been too busy debating where to hit Goliath, you know? “Well, if I hit him in the head, I’ll annoy the Head Lovers Associations, but if I get him in the heart there’s the whole Heart Aficionados coalition to contend with and I could really use their support…I don’t even want to think about the headaches a groin shot would bring down on me…”

Meanwhile, GOP Goliath has moseyed on up and just tromped on David’s spinning little head and moved on to pillage and rape.

For the love of God…pick a direction. After the total SNAFU Bush has turned this country into, any direction that isn’t “Further into the quagmire!” would be welcome.

The giant is that way. Here’s a rock…it’s called The Truth.

Hit somebody, will ya?

You’ll All Pay was discovered buried in the desert near Yemen on some rotting papyrus. Parts of this translated “gospel” have been extrapolated using the scientifically approved “well of course he meant to say ‘sodomizing a goat’” method. You can reach beyond the veil of dust and time to tell the author he’s no prophet, just a madman in the desert here. Please be sure to phrase your comment in Aramaic.

Like what you read? Click here for updates.

You’ll All Pay #42

(c) 2006 Joe Conat
First, I have to start off by retracting something from last week’s YAP.  According to the Washington Post, Karl “Turd Blossom” Rove will not be charged in the Valerie Plame CIA leak case.

They say in Hollywood, you fail upwards.  In D.C. you have to break the law to get anywhere.  But our government is not corrupt.

…in Bizarro World.

Moving on:   The Supreme Court has decided that, even if police officers broke the law by not waiting and giving fair warning before busting open a door and serving a warrant to search a private residence…the evidence they collected can still be used.

Hrrr?

The Exclusionary Rule was established in 1914, in Weeks v. United States on a federal level and brought down to the state level with Mapp v. Ohio in 1961.  Evidence obtained illegally, like, say, in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, would not be permissible as evidence in a criminal trial.  Okay?  Simply put:  If the cop breaks into your house without a warrant and discovers four hundred kilos of horse tranquilizers with big “For Sale to Pre-Schoolers” stickers on the packages…tough titty.  He can’t present that evidence in trial.  Shoulda got a warrant.

Tied into that was the common law “knock and announce” rule, that said the police had to knock on the door, announce their presence and identity…the old “Open up!  Police!” we’re so familiar with from the teevee…and give the occupants the chance to open the door and let them in.  Police have generally waited 20 seconds or so before opening the door.

Today’s Supreme Court ruling poo-poos that old technicality of knock-and-announce.  Naw, forget that.  If police violate knock-and-announce, well, that’s not nice…but any evidence they collect is just dandy.

Michigan law is clear on the service of a warrant:  MCL 780.656 clearly states an officer can bust open (or, presumably, just open) any outer door or window after giving notice of his authority and purpose and being refused admittance.  Or if necessary to liberate himself and anyone helping him; so does California Law (sections 1531 and 1532); and New York Law (section 690.50).

So tapping on the door and saying “Openuppolice” and walking in doesn’t cut it.

But now there’s no disincentive.  There’s no reason to not do that.

Let’s put it this way:  We all agree that it’s not legal to hit a guy in the face with a shovel, right?  No matter how cool the sound it makes (”Ptang”) the act of smacking a guy in the physiognomy with a spade is just against the law.

If you smack a dude in the mug with a shovel, you go to jail.  Right?

Now, what if the law was changed.  What if it was more…”Well, hitting a guy in the face with a shovel is against the law…but there’s no real penalty, if you see what I mean.  We’ll frown upon it, sure.  We’ll think less of you.  We may even say ‘We’re very disappointed’.  But you won’t go to jail, no.”

I’ll tell you what would happen.  I got a list.  Ptang!

So, now what?  There’s no reason a cop shouldn’t just do a whispered “openuppolice” and smash your door in a with a battering ram.  Sure, he might get a stern talking-to, but the collar is still good and his record looks spiffy.  “Look at all these busts!  And they all stuck!  Man, am I Super-Cop, or what?”

Jackboots in the streets, children.   Hear the clomp clomp clomp.

Listen real hard for that clomp clomp clomp.  It may be the only warning you get before “Hands up, scumbag!” as you sit on the john with the morning paper.

It may be the only warning that lets you hide behind the door before they kick it in.

With a shovel.

You’ll All Pay is written on scraps of paper towel and smuggled out of his cold and stony prison cell on patiently trained carrier pigeons to his few supporters.  You can send him messages of hope and flyers for Home Depot (”Shovel on Sale!”) here.

Like what you read?  Sign up to be notified of updates here!

You’ll All Pay #41

(c) 2006 Joe Conat

Are you kidding me?!

From the Associated Press:

“In a debate with powerful echoes of the turbulent civil rights era, four Republicans running for Alabama’s Supreme Court are making an argument legal scholars thought was settled in the 1800s: that state courts are not bound by U.S. Supreme Court precedents. The Constitution says federal law trumps state laws, and legal experts say there is general agreement that state courts must defer to the U.S. Supreme Court on matters of federal law.

Yet Justice Tom Parker, who is running for chief justice, argues that state judges should refuse to follow U.S. Supreme Court precedents they believe to be erroneous. Three other GOP candidates in Tuesday’s primary have made nearly identical arguments.

“State supreme court judges should not follow obviously wrong decisions simply because they are `precedents,’” Parker wrote in a newspaper opinion piece in January that was prompted by a murder case that came before the Alabama high court.”

(Story can be found here.)

So…what are the state supreme court judges supposed to do…flip a coin? Make it up as they go? “I know there’s a ‘precedent’ that says murder is illegal, but we’re gonna ignore that because everybody knows Jim Bob was a sonuvvabitch, so you know what? Case dismissed. YEEEEEE HHHHAAWWWWW!!!”

There’s a perfectly valid way for Alabama to not adhere to the Supreme Court’s pesky ‘precedents’. It’s called “secession” and would anybody really *miss* Alabama if they left the union? I mean, really? Granted they’re geographically inconvenient, being mostly surrounded by, you know, the rest of the United States, but if we can put up a wall along the border with Mexico we can put a wall around Alabama. And good riddance to them, really.

Hey, ‘bama. Just to let you know, sort of a friendly FYI from a stuck up citified Yankee…here’s Article III of the Constitution of the Country You Should Probably Consider Just Leaving, It Would Be Better For Everyone, Really:

(pertinent bits bolded for Alabama’s edification. Edification. Go look it up in the dictionary, Alabama. Dictionary. It’s a big book with–oh, forget it.)

Article III.

Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;– between a State and Citizens of another State;–between Citizens of different States;–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.  The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

So, according to the Constitution, State courts are totally superceded by the Supreme Court in matters of federal law. Whether or not you agree with “precedent” is immaterial…it’s the law and you have to follow it. If you don’t like the law appeal it, you backwards redneck morons!  There are steps you can take! GAAAAHHHH!!!

This is just typical of what we’ve been seeing from most of the Republican party lately. Don’t like those annoying “laws” and “ethics” and all that? Ignore them! Wanna listen in on private citizens’ phone calls? Go ahead! Forget FISA! War in Iraq? Let’s lie about WMDs! What? No WMDs? Just shrug and mug and keep shootin’, by golly.

I mean…I know it’s hardly topical anymore, but Dick Cheney SHOT A GUY IN THE FACE and there was no investigation, no real legal repercussions, no anything. They wait hours and hours before having the local Roscoe P. Coltrane doofus sherriff mosey on up to the ranch. “Mr. Vice President…did you shoot that man in the face?” “Yes, but I didn’t mean it.” “Good enough for me! Want some barbecue?”

Does law mean nothing to the GOP? Seriously. How many Abramoffs and Scooter Libby’s do we need to have before we just round up all the party controllers and march them off to the hoosegow? “You did something, just ‘fess up.”

Oh, now I remember why we don’t do that: The Democratic Party has decided to be complete wusses.

C’mon, Dems! John Lewis calls for impeachment and the Democratic Party’s response seems to be embarrassed shushing. “You’re being too loud! Inside voices! Somebody call him a cab, get him to sleep it off.”

Oh, and would somebody in the “mainstream media” please report on Karl Rove’s indictment?  The curtain’s been pulled back, the Wizard is exposed as a conman, a cheat and a liar! Dude, this is big news for all of Oz, not just the Emerald City! Munchkinland must hear of this!

Blatant disregard for the laws of this land has characterized just about every aspect of this administration, from its shady allegedly stolen elections to its vengeful treatment of naysayers to its deception intended to lead the country into a misguided war to its misuse and shuffling of funds. If this were a business, Bush and Co. would be lined up next to Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling in some prison jumpsuits singing “Swing Low Sweet Chariot”. But we do nothing because, according to one excuse I’ve heard, we “wouldn’t get the votes we need to do it.”

We don’t need votes. Send the POLICE!

Oh, wait…that’s right. The Democrats have their own scandal to deal with in the form of Rep. William Jefferson.

Man…how can the Democrats, in good conscience, scream for the blood of the administration due to its incompetence and corruption while screaming just as vehemently against law and order when one of their own is found to be (allegedly) corrupt?

Let’s be clear. The raid on William Jefferson’s office was, in my view, entirely legal and justified. I’m no lawyer or constitutional scholar, but it’s apparent that the Constitution does not protect Congressmen from criminal prosecution or investigation; it only protects them from civil actions brought by private citizens that would call them away from performing the duties of their elected office and disenfranchise the people they represent.

Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution states:

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

I’m pretty sure the bribery charges Jefferson is facing are felonies, and this article does not protect Congressmen from investigation.

It’s embarrassing, and it’s embarrassing that my party is questioning the DoJ on what, to me, appears to be a perfectly valid investigation. Plus, Bush seals the records for 45 days…which means the Dems now owe Bushie Baby a *favor*. Way to handle that one, dumbasses.

It would be better, I think, if the Dems would just step up and say “Yeah, okay, it appears he’s a bad bad man” and accept his investigation with good grace rather than squee like indignant little girls that the G-Men kicked in a door on the Hill. Get over it. A crime has been committed…the dude had $100K in his *freezer*, like, what…he’s one of those dudes that doesn’t trust banks? “I know it looks bad, but I like to keep my legitimately earned money in odd places. Don’t look in the toilet tank, heh heh, that’s where I keep my bonds.”

So now the whole shebang is even more suspect. Is there not one good soul in D.C. who can, I don’t know, be a good and ethical leader for the country? Makes you yearn for the days of Bill “O Face” Clinton, doesn’t it? Semen on a dress seems kinda trite in comparison to $100K all Reynolds Wrap-ped in the freezer, let alone what the feds might have found in the representative’s office.

Given all this…well. Now I come to think of it, maybe we should all secede from the United States. Take some of the leftover Mexican Wall material and just build a border around my house. Declare my house the United State of Joe. National Motto: Truth, Justice and Get the Hell Offa My Lawn!

It’ll be me an’ Alabama, I guess.

Roll tide, bitches.

You’ll All Pay is written by Joe Conat who is even now designing his own flag. It has stars on it. And a monkey. Who knows with this guy? You can send him design suggestions here.

Like what you read? Click here to receive notification of (rare) updates.