Angry Youth! Blog

April 18, 2008

Barney Frank introduces bill decriminalizing marijuana

Filed under: General Politics — Tags: — mikeyc252 @ 11:00 pm

You heard me. Yesterday Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) fulfilled his promise to introduce a pot decriminalization bill. The bill, nicknamed the “Make Room for Serious Criminals Bill,” is cosponsored by my favorite Congressman, Ron Paul. (R-TX) The legislation aims to remove federal penalties for individual possession of marijuana and fits along with Rep. Frank’s earlier efforts to make medical marijuana federally legal on doctor’s permission

I don’t know if this will get passed With Obama (hopefully) in office, who has previous expressed that he’s in favor of medical marijuana.
POT

April 11, 2008

Trust in polls surging, according to latest poll

Filed under: General Politics — Tags: — mikeyc252 @ 2:12 am

Note-this is totally fake

According to the latest Gallup poll, American’s trust in polls is at an all-time peak. 143% of those surveyed reported a trust in poll results as “very high.” 129% said the government should base its decisions solely on the latest polls and 107% favored replacing the legislative branch and signing poll results into law the next business day.
Says one polled citizen: “I just keep trusting pollsters more and more. Every poll is an accurate description of every aspect of this country.” Says poll expert Mark Turpen: “What we’re seeing here is a blind religious belief in apparent facts. Both the media and the average American are being bombarded with obviously fair polls.”
Pollsters like Steven Hitchens are excited about polling. “The more advanced the technology becomes, the more accurate the poll results.” Many pollsters credit internet polls for the surge in reliable polling data; obscure online polls have been hailed as the most accurate description of the country since the country itself.
Some politicians downsize poll results, calling them unreliable. According to the latest Fox News poll, their approval rates are plummeting. Hitchens cites polls as a great way to evaluate politicians and explains how polls can reveal hidden terrorists in the government. “If the majority believes a public figure is a terrorist or commie, he probably is.” He continues with the possibility of the “mindpoll” which continuously polls the brainwaves of unsuspecting citizens. “Polls-they’re the new fact” Hitchens excitedly added.

House passes AMERICA Act, nullifying Constitution

Filed under: General Politics — Tags: — mikeyc252 @ 2:10 am

Note-this is totally fake.

Last night the House of Representatives passed the AMERICA Act 405-30, giving unrestricted power to the executive branch. The bill, sponsored by Frank Leher (R-MI) will take effect July 4, in honor of our nation’s independence from monarchial tyrants. The bill provides the president with the tools he needs to combat terrorist forces across the globe by eliminating the lengthy legal process and red tape needed to amend the Constitution.
The AMERICA Act, or Aiding the Righteous Executive branch by Enabling it to Destroy Opposing Masses, allows the president to protect this country from numerous terrorist sets. The bill is composed of nine pillars:

  • Allowing the president to infinitely veto any bill, regardless of Congress
  • Allowing the president to write and introduce bills
  • Allowing the president to pass and repeal bills
  • Allowing the president to reverse Supreme Court decisions
  • Amending the Constitution to allow the president to indefinitely suspend certain clauses
  • Permanently repealing the Bill of Rights
  • Subsidizing all state, city and county governments into one terrorist-busting executive branch
  • Allowing the president to ban or censor any media posing a threat to America
  • A federally mandated “moment of prayer” in all schools
  • The God-hating minority that oppose the FREEDOM Act claim the bill is unconstitutional and grants the executive branch too much power. Said Brian Jones as the bill was being debated: “This might be reasonable if we had a Democrat in power. But with George Bush we can’t afford to take any chances. Let’s wait until general elections.” Jones is currently being detained for possibly radical thoughts.

    The bill’s author and its many supporters, including President Bush, fervently rallied against the terrorists and held a late-night prayer marathon in favor of the bill. Said Larry Hagel (R-AL) “We’ve already voided parts of the Bill of Rights, surrendering now will throw this country into chaos. America is not going to cut and run. We’ll restore the original Constitution when the danger has passed and the country is stable again.”
    President Bush addressed the nation last Thursday, tearfully pleading “If you don’t pass this bill, it sends a message to the terrorists that they have won. Unless you give me unlimited power, democracy will be dealt a horrendous blow. Also, terrorists will invade this country, rape your wife, enslave your children and blow up you and your house.”

    April 7, 2008

    2032

    An assignment for Humanities-visually create a Fascist state

    February 19, 2008

    This week in politics

    Filed under: General Politics — Tags: , , , , , , , , — mikeyc252 @ 1:57 am

    The Department of Homeland Security is pending executive approval to use spy satellites for domestic surveillance, according to an anonymous department source disclosing to the Associated Press. The program would utilize existing domestic imagery to aid law enforcement. The source affirmed the program would respect existing laws and a warrant would be needed to obtain the imagery. The program was put on hiatus lasr year among the wiretapping controversy.
    In wake of six Guantanamo Bay detainees facing the death penalty, Cuba’s foreign minister Felipe Perez Roque has demanded the U.S. close the camp and return the territory. The United States leased the island in 1934 but the Communist Regime refuses payments. Pereze Roque accuses the camp of violating human rights and exercising unfair trials. The contract can only be changed with the agreement of both countries.
    Republican presidential frontrunner and former POW John McCain has attracted criticism for voting against a bill that would extend to the CIA a 2006 bill prohibiting the inhumane treatment of prisoners by the military. McCain sponsored the 2006 Detainee Treatment Act. He said on the campaign trail in October that based on his first-hand experience, there are “much better ways to get information” than torture. McCain recently praising the anti-torture Army Field Manual at a November debate. He explained Thursday that the CIA needs ways to interrogate terrorists, while still “abiding by the rules, including the Detainee Treatment Act.” McCain argued that same day that tying the CIA to the Army Field Manual would be a mistake.
    Despite a Republican walk out, the House passed contempt charges against two Bush administration staff. House Republicans wanted the Democrats to revise the controversial FISA bill to fit the Senate’s version, which includes legal protection for telecom companies that provide customer info to the government. The contempt charges came from failure to respond to congressional peonas concerning last years federal attorney firings but Attorney General Michael Mukasey said he will not prosecute the charges because Bush ordered the staff not to appear.

    February 10, 2008

    Compromise-The Bane of Modern Political Parties

    My great US History teacher Ron Cunningham quizzed us once on what three principles the Constitution was drafted on. I got the question wrong-the answer was “compromise, compromise, and compromise.” This makes sense-opposite ends of the spectrum, the Federalists and Democrat-Republicans, were arguing about political philosophy. The Federalists wanted a strong federal government and weak states rights. The Democrat-Republicans wanted the opposite.
    But in case you haven’t noticed, we already have a Constitution. It works great. Our job is to interpret it. How you interpret the Constitution forms of your political leaning, which determines your position on issues. It’s not the other way around.
    If you believe in less federal government and more states rights, and are hostile to spending and taxes, you’re conservative. If you believe there should be more government and less states rights, and approve of higher taxes and spending, you’re liberal.
    From there you have sub-categories-centrists and independents have no underlying political philosophy but address issues and candidates individually. On the far right are the libertarians, who believe the government should only exist to protect the citizens from each other. On the far left are the progressives, who believe the government should serve the people. There are obviously several different political philosophies in the US but these are the main ones.
    But where do today’s Democrat and Republican parties fit into these political philosophies? They don’t. They’ve compromised their core beliefs in hopes to get independent votes and have destroyed their political base in the process.
    The Democrat party has suffered the lesser of the two. Their ancestors are the Federalists. They were based in the Industrial north, while their opponents the Democrat-Republicans were based in the agrarian South. The same trend exists today.
    The highlight of the modern Democratic party was the New Deal. The ultra-liberal programs that FDR engineered to help the country out of depression are rarely disapproved of. The core party remained the same through the seventies. Then two things happened-the unpopular Vietnam War, escalated by Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, and the rise Ronald Reagan.
    Reagan rocked the independent vote and made the Democrats change their strategy. He appealed as a friendly approachable guy, a grandfather you could look up to. More important was that he appealed to the religious voters. He was not conservative-he introduced social security and raised taxes. This began decades of Republican domination of the increasing hordes of Evangelists and “family values” voters.
    The Democrats responded by simply opposing whatever unpopular things the Republicans did. They sculpted themselves into the cultured, smarter, more worldly party that remains today. Their core base still exists but many of their positions have changed-they have got ten the US involved in every major war in the twentieth century besides the first Iraq war. They favor abolishing programs, cutting spending and reducing US military world presence. They no longer enforce strong government control on moral issues because the Republicans do that.
    The Republican party is a disaster. Reagan made a bet to get elected-he left the shrinking niche of conservative voters and appealed to a new niche-family values voters. A political leaning not based on political philosophy had entered the mainstream.
    Families and religious voters flocked to these new Republicans. It began a Republican domination of the White House and Congress. The term for these Republicans is “neoconservative.”
    The damage is massive. Fiscal conservatives are now a dying breed-the Democrats are traditionally a spending party. The Republicans have totally ditched their traditional limited spending-I don’t have to remind you how much the Iraq War has cost. Both parties favor strong federal government and federal bans on moral issues. Either you’re a liberal favoring a strong central government or a neocon favoring strong central government.
    A neocon is not conservative. They have no underlying political philosophy. They please the corporations that fund them and the church-goers that adore them. They take a stand on issues case-by-case so hypocrisy runs amok. They must be viewed as the party with ideals and morals so they aren’t allowed to change their minds. This betrayal of values has created the modern mainstream Republican party. It’s plagued by foolish foreign policy, out-of-control spending and cowtowing to moral values voters has created a trainwreck quickly losing support.
    Despite Bush’s fantastic criticisms, the mainstream Republican party will not back down-same platform, same bad ideas, same trainwreck. Voters are STILL getting duped by the GOP’s false logic about terrorism, national security and the economy. Worse, they believe claiming to have moral values will make you a better president. Almost every Republican candidate claims to have “moral values” which have been historically irrelevant.
    Fortunately, many independents are leaving the party. The Democrats are playing the “Not Bush or anything like him” card and it’s working. The public thirst for change has twisted this election into a contest for two things-competence and change. Whoever can harness both will win the election.
    Perhaps now the Republicans will come to their senses and realize their once-potent claims of family values aren’t being valued. The damage will continue if the party doesn’t go back to its conservative roots.
    The party needs a true conservative with a clean background with real experiece. This country needs someone that can control spending, limit the government and pull out of Iraq.

    I’ll give you three guesses who.

    February 5, 2008

    The Libertarian Manifesto

    Filed under: General Politics — Tags: , , , , — mikeyc252 @ 12:53 am

    The history of political parties in this country and political opinions can be expressed in the question of how much power the federal government should have. Ever since the formation of this county, that question has determined political parties, been the base of citizen’s political leanings whether they’re aware of it or not, and fueled the issues that entangle our nation.
    These leanings are liberal and conservative, or in the more extreme cases, progressive and libertarian. The former terms are sometimes used by their users to distance themselves from the main party. Liberals/progressives favor a strong central government, more spending and more taxes. Conservatives/Libertarians favor more states rights and less spending and taxes.
    Ony may argue that liberal or conservative is an opinion, and that neither is more “right.” In a limited perspective this is true. But in order for this country to remain a world power 100, 200 years from now, a libertarian doctrine must be enforced.
    Simply liberal or conservative as a political philosophy is too general and easily catered to voters whims instead of the country. A progressive doctrine is labeled “compassionate” or “humanitarian” and is anti-war and pro-most civil liberties but will fail because the over-extension of the government. A progressive doctrine regulates the economy too much and spends too much to survive recessions and wars. A progressive government can easily be corrupted.
    The belief that the government exists only to protect it’s citizens from other people lies at the heart of the libertarian doctrine. This was embodied in the Constitution but comes from Rousseau’s social contract-the government exists only to protect it’s citizens from other people, and the people control the government. It holds Locke’s concept of natural rights in high regard. The structure of Libertarianism allows the most freedom of all kinds within the limits of the Constitution.
    The Libertarian platform:

  • Libertarians are strict noninterventionalists. They never strike first, and when they retaliate, declare war. They oppose empire-building of all kinds. They talk with all nations, trade with some, and fund and police none.
  • Libertarians are strict Constitutionalists-anything in the Constitution that doesn’t violate rights is set in stone. Libertarians exercise a great respect for rights granted in the Constitution.
  • Libertarians never infringe on an individual’s right to privacy. Spying or wiretapping without a warrant is explicitly unconstitutional.
  • Libertarians have a great respect for property. Your income is your property, thus it must be untaxed and free to spend on healthcare as you choose. Your land is your property, thus anyone else that pollutes it is liable.
  • Libertarians do not regulate or run the economy. They lower taxes and create sound money through the gold standard then let the people run the economy themselves.
  • Anything that is not clearly defined in the Constitution or any issue marred by religion like abortion or the death penalty should be left to the states to determine. Banning civil unions is unconstitutional.
  • This allows the citizens to develop and spread an economy on their own. This reduces the countries impact on the world and vice versa. It reduces the impact of an incompetent or corrupt government.
    The best, most competent government will simply enforce strict Libertarianism. This means they will do as little as possible-spending as little as possible, getting the least entangled in other countries, passing the most restrictions.
    Just as the patriots and the loyalists created the bureaucrat politician, the bureaucrat and the middle class active voter will create the Libertarian government with one class: voters. The government is made up of voters, who enforce an existing policy.
    The steps towards a Libertarian government:

  • Enact strict nonintervention. Interact negatively with as few countries as possible, but don’t respect foreign treaties and laws-only what is Constitutional. Do not attack or provoke Iran and withdraw from Iraq. War is a last resort.
  • Abolish the IRS, lower taxes and go back to the gold standard. This will allow the economy to regulate itself.
  • Government programs and agencies are to be minimized in both funding and power. This includes welfare and No Child Left Behind. Only ones which protect citizens from themselves are to exist.
  • Liberties granted in the Constitution must not be infringed-exercise of religion, right to bear arms, etc.
  • The federal government cannot rule on issues of morality, and previous rulings and laws must be reversed/appealed.
  • The federal government must not control citizen spending in any way besides the sales tax. This includes any sort of universal healthcare.
  • Or-Vote Ron Paul

    January 31, 2008

    The Truth About Iraq

    Filed under: General Politics — mikeyc252 @ 9:17 pm

    We’ve all heard about the Iraq war. One side says Saddam had WMDs and was cooperating with Al Queda but we just didn’t find them. He was still dangerous. The other side (which was almost nonexistent at the time-save patriots like Paul and Obama) said there were no WMDS and Iraq wasn’t dangerous.

    It’s obvious the later group was right be now. Yet another question remains-why didn’t Hussein cooperate? First off, he did. Iraq submitted a 12,000 page report to the UN detailing how they destroyed their WMDS. They allowed inspectors in.

    But to the US and the world, Hussein was defiant. He didn’t want anyone in his country poking around labs. He was unclear to the US about his nuclear program.

    Now the answer has emerged. Yesterday on 60 Minutes, a former FBI agent was interviewed who debriefed Hussein. He says the reason Hussein was defiant was because he didn’t want Iran attacking them. That’s right. He was afread of Iran and he wanted them to be afraid of him.

    I hate Bush as much as the next guy, but it seems this gives him credit-Hussein was purposely misleading him.
    I’m not saying it was a good decision, but it makes the evidence to go to war go from 0 to 1.

    Consortium

    Blog at WordPress.com.