Tagged: fuzzy logic Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • just a conservative girl 3:33 PM on 07/12/2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: fuzzy logic, ,   

    Fuzzy’s Open Letter to President Obama 

    Since she didn’t post it here, I am going to.  Too good to miss.

    Dear President Obama,

    Despite your valiant efforts to cast the pearls of your vision for a “fundamental transformation” of America before the loutish, bitterly-clinging swine who call themselves Americans, you seem to have failed.  And oh, no, Mr. President, please don’t misunderstand me, this is not your failure; you are a man above all others, a visionary who sees the past and strives to achieve regressive goals where all others failed.  No, this is America’s failure.

    Despite one hundred years of conditioning, Americans just aren’t ready for your efforts to breath new life into an agenda once laughably believed to be dead because of its utter failure (and sure, a few hundred million dead, but hey! that’s the price you pay for Utopia. I get that).  But America, this woefully backward failed nation, is just not worthy of your efforts.  It’s a nation of horrors, war-mongering, greed, and . . . a bunch of other really bad stuff.

    We know this because look at the resistance your courageous and bold efforts for The Greater Good have been met with:  “people waving tea bags around,” people who don’t “thank” you for your efforts to increase their taxes and ensure that more and more people are on food stamps, unemployment, and welfare, people who–let’s face it–simply refuse, stubbornly and against their own best interests, to embrace your most excellent and backward-looking brand of “change.”  These people don’t want your help, Sir, they just want to bumble along with that ridiculous “Constitutional Republic” and their “document of negative liberties.”  They are rigidly determined to thwart your best efforts to guide them, to show them that they are much better off, like the fabulous Julia–who depends on no man, only the government for assistance (was there ever a more compelling example of women’s equality and ability?) accepting your guiding hand and your benevolent, absolute authority.

    Instead, these people, these so-called Americans, these capitalist swine, these lovers of “freedom” (how over-rated is that?! How dated!) insist on defending their tired old selfish ways, insisting that equal justice and equal opportunity are better than social or environmental or racial justice and opportunity.  I mean, really!  How nuts is that?  These ignorant people with their fanciful ideas about a free market and a free people are beneath you.  Have you heard them mumbling inanely about how they get rights not from you, our President and Dear Leader, but from . . . wait for it! . . . their “Creator”?  How can you work with these “pro-America,” “pro-God” types who keep willfully misunderstanding your carefully-crafted message?  Why would you even want to do so?

    Mr. President, this nation simply doesn’t deserve you.

    Look at the way they reject your brilliant take-over of 1/6th of the economy with your “Affordable Healthcare Act.”  Look at the way they stomp their feet when you simply try to “rule” them as is your rightful place!  Look at the way they point to your logical attempts to ensure utter control over their lives and call it “overreach.”  Look at the way they call you a liar simply because you know best how to explain things to them so they’ll like them (and they still don’t! Such disobedience!).  Look at the way they mock you and everything you do; you, the man who inspired such elementary school hits as the “Mmm mmm mmm” song!  It’s unconscionable.

    No, Mr. President, you are a man of and for a different era, an era in which the masses understood that they needed a supreme ruler.  You are, after all, a man of such historic and unprecedented potential that even the Nobel committee acknowledged it!  You are a man who wants to force your benevolence and vision on an undeserving nation.  That, I respectfully submit, is beneath you both as a Global Citizen, Visionary, and Ruler and as a man.  Why would you want to lift up and help these despicable rubes?  Why would you waste your time on a people who neither recognize your greatness nor respect it?  Why would you, in short, seek to impose your miraculous vision on such undeserving, ungrateful, unwashed masses?

    No, Mr. President, your calling, great and wondrous as it is, must be greater, perhaps to lead the greater nations of this world: the Irans, the Venezualas, the Egypts, and the Syrias.  Heck, I imagine that the EU would be thrilled to have your most excellent, most high understanding of the world and the order you seek to establish.  Ignore these American ingrates, and set your sights on your higher calling where you can pursue your deepest desires amongst throngs who not only acknowledge your greatness but embrace it.  Go global.  America, so horribly out of touch with the rest of the world, is simply beneath you.  Leave it be.  They’ll fall under their own twisted ideas of “freedom” and that quaint notion of “American exceptionalism” . . .  not to mention that the whole checks and balances / three co-equal branches thing is truly hampering your ability to “get things done.” “Co-equal” is just not acceptable.  You must “rule”!

    You belittle yourself by associating yourself with the people of America, with the nation of America.  Best to turn your back on her, her people, and her past.  It’s time, Sir, to move on to greener and redder pastures.  Your boundless greatness is wasted here, your magical presence rejected by the stubborn and “free-spirited” American people.  This cannot be tolerated, you must renounce your American citizenship in favor of global citizenship, set an example for the brave who know that globalism is the future!  You must turn your back on a nation that will never support you or your vision.

    Mr. President, with all due respect, it would be best for you and for the world if you rejected your party’s nomination for a second term.  There is much to be done in the world, Sir, and only you–let’s face it–can get it done.  America is weighing you down, embarrassing you with its wealth, ideals, opportunity, morality, and exceptionalism.  You can do better.

    Sincerely hoping you choose not to seek a second term,


    • signpainterguy 4:17 PM on 07/12/2012 Permalink | Reply

      Well, that is an absolutely GRAND IDEA, Fuzzy ! Were this in the form of a petition, I`d be happy to ad my interwebs code name !

      No, we do not deserve the vision of the ManChild Who Would Be King ! Please, move on to another country, ANY other country !

      SPG, Clinger to My Bible and Guns

    • fuzislippers 7:58 AM on 07/14/2012 Permalink | Reply

      Thanks, JACG! :)

  • just a conservative girl 3:22 PM on 10/02/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: fuzzy logic, , , , the rule of law   

    I’m Team Fuzzy 

    There is much going around the blogosphere regarding the death of Anwar al-Awlaki.  I am not at all interested in hearing about the people who say he was innocent.  He clearly was not.  He was very clear that his intentions were to not only to kill Americans, but to bring this country to its knees.  There is more than enough video in both English and Arabic to back up it up, these are not claims, but simply the proof.  The man was terrorist scum.  That isn’t the real issue, though. 

    The real issue is how the kill happened.  The U.S. and Yemeni government worked in tandem to bring the man down.  The details of exactly what happened are still a little fuzzy, but it seems like it was a joint effort that culminated in his death.  But, what is not fuzzy is the lack of due process in the U.S. Court system. 

    Silverfidlle, a very smart blogger and true conservative feels that this was a legal and righteous kill.  He lays out some very interesting facts to back up his claim:

    Awlaki Renounced his Citizenship

    Finntan did his usual yeoman research and provides the following results (Finn’s words are italicized):

    Loss of nationality, also known as expatriation, means the loss of citizenship status properly acquired, whether by birth in the United States, through birth abroad to U.S. citizen parents, or by naturalization. As a result of several constitutional decisions, §349(a) of the current Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) provides that U.S. nationality is lost only when the U.S. citizen does one of the specified acts described in INA §349, voluntarily and with the intent to give up that nationality.

    “taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof after having attained the age of eighteen years.”

    “entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serves as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer;”

    “performs an act made potentially expatriating by statute accompanied by conduct which is so inconsistent with retention of U.S. citizenship that it compels a conclusion that the individual intended to relinquish U.S. citizenship.”

    “committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of Title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of Title 18, or violating section 2384 of Title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.”

    Ok, I can buy that as a matter of law his actions lead one to believe that he has given up his American citizenship.  But, does President Obama alone get to make that determination?  Wouldn’t this have to go in front of a court?  I say it should have. 

    Fellow Potluck blogger Fuzzy and Fiddle had a going back and forth about this issue.  They decided to each do a post to describe their viewpoints in a more logical and easier to follow way then going back and forth from just the comment box on Fiddle’s earlier post.  Here is a taste of what Fuzzy has to say:

    The rights I care about are ours, those granted us in our Constitution.  Those deliberately withheld in that glorious document of “negative liberties” from the federal government, in this case, from the executive branch.  If you read the Constitution (and I know anyone reading this has done so, more than once. And recently), you know that nowhere in that document is the executive branch granted the right to issue death warrants on American citizens.  No where.  It’s not there.  There’s no if the citizen is really evil clause, no if the citizen has killed “x” number of people exemption, not in any circumstance.  And the founders knew a thing or two about traitors.  Yet they still didn’t vest in one person, not even the president, the power to try, convict, sentence, and hang (or otherwise execute).

    We know why they didn’t.  They didn’t trust one person, they trusted the people.  They knew from personal experience what tyranny looked like, how it manifested . . . and how to keep it at bay.  And we know something that even they didn’t, we know about progressivism, about the insidious baby steps toward tyranny.  We pride ourselves in having awakened, and rightly so, we have.

    Fiddle has laid a good case based on laws and logic.  I get what he is trying to say.  What I don’t get, what I am having a hard time understanding, is how is it that President Obama got to make the decision, all on his own, that said scumbag was indeed guilty of the crimes and did renounce his citizenship?  That is not just the job of the president to make those choices.  While I am sure that there were some lawyers involved in discussions of this, but no court was involved.  The likeliest scenario is that those lawyers are administration lawyers who are paid to protect the president, not the American people.  Fiddle goes on to say that indicting him would have muddied the waters, but getting him declared an enemy combatant wouldn’t have so muddied.  That was not done.  His citizenship was not revoked in an open and legal fashion as it should have been. 

    For those of you who are afraid to speak up on these issues because you maybe accused of being soft on terrorism are being shortsighted.  Terrorism is a danger to this country, that cannot be denied.  But I firmly believe that we are more at risk in this country if we walk away from our constitutional principles and the rule of law. 

    Allowing any chief executive the power to decide for him/herself who is and who is not an enemy combatant is a slippery slope that we should not be allowing.  It wasn’t all that long ago that returning war vets and members of the tea party were classified as potential terrorists by our own government.  By overlooking the rule of law in this case is only asking for trouble down the road.  We have to demand that our president, regardless of party, be responsive to the rule of law.  When they are not, we need to demand an answer of why not. 

    Therefore, in this case, I must be team Fuzzy.

    • fuzislippers 8:20 PM on 10/02/2011 Permalink | Reply

      Thanks, JACG for this post. It beautifully summarizes both viewpoints.

      The problem with the he gave up his citizenship thing is that we don’t know if he said the things he did “with the intent to give up his citizenship.” It’s pure, and reckless, speculation. If that’s the criteria, then what’s to stop this president from saying that because the TEA Party doesn’t like his version of “who we are,” we, by speaking out against tyranny, are renouncing our citizenship in “his America”? This isn’t about one incident, it’s about the power this president just took upon himself (as you explain so clearly).

      We’re either for the Constitution, always, or we’re not. We don’t get to pick and choose which parts we like and which we don’t. Isn’t that our primary complaint against the progressives? Well, guess what, a progressive just violated our Constitution, setting a very dangerous precedent, and there are constitutional conservatives who support that. We’re in real trouble in this country, much much worse than I’d imagined.

    • Dave Lindesmith 10:11 AM on 10/08/2011 Permalink | Reply

      Revolutionaries always shift from codified law to personal preferances, this radical in chief is the epitomy of ‘Man not Law’ in doing what needs doin. I’m a fuzzy as well, not because he the terrist in focus didn’t need taken out; but because an unstable decision maker can turn round and come for political detractors. If I remember 30’s,40’s and 50’s Russian style, it was that goverment shifted from Law rule to Joe’s decision. I think the radicles in our present have the same agenda. I use to say that evil is so boring, it’s repetitive in the extreem. This group of extreem politicos in and around the O are more scarry than O. Were not Russians and will not just lay down for order.

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc