You're Not Gonna Like This

    I sure don't, but facts are facts.

    A group of six senators and congresspeople, called the "Seditious Six"

Not to be confused with...
Although The Vulture is bald. 

are catching deserved flak over a video they made exhorting the American military not to obey illegal orders.  They did not mention which specific orders were illegal, but they kept up a consistent drumbeat.

    I suspect they meant whacking drug boats in the Caribbean or deployment if the National Guard to crime-ridden cesspools cities.  But, they didn't give specifics.

    One of the six, retired Navy captain Mark Kelly, is in especially hot water.  There are threats to have him brought back to active duty where he would then be court-martialed on charges of sedition.  This may, in fact happen, as the Attorney General and Secretary of War want to make it so.

Frankly, as it should be.

    Now, Kelly knows (or should know) that, even though he is retired, he is still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  When I retired wayyyyyy back in 2005, I knew that to be a fact.  For instance, were I to lead a rebellion against civil authority, I could very easily find myself being tried by the military.

    NOTE:  To be honest, at 67, the only thing I want to lead is myself to bed.

    Here's the problem, though.  Kelly stated something which is drummed into every servicemember in boot camp: that we are not to obey unlawful orders.  He did not say anything false and any lawyer worth his or her salt will get him off on the technicality.

    Another problem:  we all know what those seditious pieces of shit were doing.  They hoped to undermine the chain of command and cause dissension.

    But, what we think we know and what was said are completely different, legally speaking.

    It's like the 14th Amendment.  We all know they were talking about slaves, but that's not how it reads.

"Subject to the jurisdiction of" can be "lawyered," I suppose.

"Everyone will know we're talking about the slaves, right?"
"Duh, of course."
"Oh, I don't know.  This could be interpreted to mean others."
"Really?  Like who?"
"Well, Mexicans, for example."
"PFFFFTTTT!  Mexicans.  Are you retarded?"

    I'd love to see that piece of shit busted and thrown in jail.  But, I predict it won't happen.  He may go to a court-martial, but he'll be acquitted.

    It makes me sick, but it is so.  

    Bet me.

Jimmy Carr NAILS It

Enough is Enough

 

"It's your fault."
"No, it's your fault!"
"Hey, who let the media in here?"
"Don't worry.  He's with us."

      It is well past time to reopen the government.

    Before we get started, allow me to present a lesson in American government to the well-meaning ignorant (of course, there are more than a few stupid folks out there, too) whipped up into a frenzy by the likes of Senator Chuck Schumer.

AKA "Dead Man Walking."

  Ole Hawknose certainly knows better, but he hopes to prey on those who skipped Civics Class by laying the blame for the shutdown at the Republicans’ feet.

    Nothing could be further from the truth...

    Sixty votes are required to invoke cloture (i.e., stop a filibuster), thus allowing a vote on the clean Continuing Resolution (itself its own version of cowardly incompetence) sent to the Senate by the House of Representatives.

    The Republican Party does not have sixty Senators.

    Therefore, the deadlock continues.  A deadlock which is not caused by the Republican Party.  The power-hungry jackasses of the Democratic Party could end the shutdown today.

    What is a “filibuster,” you might ask?

    Taken from the Spanish “filibusteros” or “freebooter,” it is a procedure which allows unlimited debate on a bill before it can be voted on.

Which is another way of saying "pirate." 
Well, isn't this appropriate since we're talking Congress?

    Originally, there was no such procedure.  A vote to end debate on a bill was held and approved by a simple majority.  After that, the bill was voted on to determine whether it would pass.

    However, in 1806, Vice-President Aaron Burr thought that whole way of doing things was redundant (I have to admit, he had a point).  He believed that unlimited debate should be allowed before a vote could be held.

Yep.  That Aaron Burr.

    A Senator (or Senators) could yak on and on and on, potentially never allowing a vote on a bill.

    This continued until 1917, when Senate rules were changed to require 2/3 of the body to vote for cloture.

    So it stayed until 1975 when it was changed to 3/5.  So, since there are 100 Senators, that meant 60 would be required to stop the blather. 

Hey!  I did math!

    Interestingly, a fact I didn’t know until I researched this, Senators don’t even need to talk.  Using the concept of a “Silent Filibuster,” they could just threaten to drone on to keep the Senate stymied.

Which is probably a good thing. 
I mean, who really wants to hear this imbecile shoot his mouth off for hours?

    Even more interesting, the filibuster isn’t even a part of the Constitution.  Meaning, no one is holding a gun to the head of the Senator Majority Leader, John Thune.  That he has allowed this to go on for over a month is astonishing.  He could just say, “Fuck it.  You know what?  You butthurt bastards have had your fun.  We’re voting on this thing now.”

    Skeptics point out that, if he did that, what would stop the Democrats from doing the same thing if they became the majority (which they very well could be after the mid-terms)?  True.  However, if you don’t think those assholes won’t try to get rid of the filibuster anyway, then I have a bridge to sell you.

    Maybe set a limit on debate for a month?  A compromise, perhaps?

    At any rate, the government is shut down now.  Let’s worry about January, 2027 in...January, 2027.

    What was meant to be a way for the minority to protect itself from the majority has evolved into the minority using the filibuster as a weapon.

    Seriously, enough is enough.