damnum absque injuria

August 21, 2011

Why Stupid People are NOT Protected Under the US Constitution!

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 4:55 am

Contrary to conventional non-wisdom, Kevin A. Lehmann’s views are NOT protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. Is there anyone in the three branches of government that can interpret our most sacred document (Playboy notwithstanding) correctly?

Like in Christendom where scores of sects believe mutually contradictory things but all rationalize that the others aren’t “real” Christians, so too has the clear and concise language of the Constitution and the 27 Amendments progressively undergone exegetical attacks over the decades – depending on which party is in power – to conform to a particular political philosophy. And both sides being heavily dependent on the votes of stupid people, both have taken full advantage of this skewed interpretation in their efforts to court them.

But this is one hermeneutical battle America can ill afford to lose. Our founding principles, i.e., Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness By Mocking Stupid People, hang in the balance. In short, unless you want to end up in Idiocracy, our nation’s very survival depends on it.

America faces a grave threat from stupid people. Stupid people are infiltrating our country in droves and they’re doing it under the guise of “Constitutional Protection.” And like that island that used to be Great Britain, if we don’t act now, then it will be later, by definition. Stupid people may be stupid themselves, but a few of their backers are actually quite cunning, crafty and clever. They’re using our ignorance of the understanding of our own Constitution against us, and they are clandestinely and methodically spreading their tentacles in a quiet and unassuming manner.

Federal, state, and local governments on the other hand won’t acknowledge the imminent threat of stupid people. With both parties relying heavily on the stupid vote to win close elections in battleground states, they incorrectly claim that stupid people have “Constitutional Rights” to express their stupid opinions, spam them across the Internet, form stupid discussion groups, and implement Teh St000p1d in their communities and in the public square. They’re dead wrong! And by and large, stupid people are getting away with it just like they have in Europe, particularly in Poland and East Frisia. Only unlike Europe, and in Poland and East Frisia in particular, it’s not too late to stem the tide, but we have to act now. Time is not on our side. In fact, this may come as a shock, but there are actually more stupid people than smart ones on the Internet today. We are already well under way to being stupidified.

To understand stupid people is to understand Teh St000p1d. The ideology of stupidity is nothing short of a totalitarian political, economic, military, social and legal system that’s camouflaged in religious garb. Their mandate (not objective) is to incorporate our country into a global zone of stupid, where empty slogans like “hope and change” pass for an argument and catch phrases like “lamestream media” and “gotcha journalism” pass for a rebuttal.

Sadly, they are making serious inroads towards their tyrannical mandate because America is not resisting. We are all that stands between freedom and a world of stupid. The United States of America is the world’s last bastion of hope.

Yet, the dreadful message we get from ignorant and incompetent lawmakers (and from smart but cynical ones who need the stupid vote) is that our Constitution renders us powerless to do anything about stupid people. On the contrary, the Constitution and Declaration of Independence – properly interpreted – actually give our federal, state and local governments justification and authority to stop Kevin A. Lehman dead in his tracks!

Here’s How . . .

Stupid opinions are NOT speech in the sense we understand speech. Teh St00pid—which stands for “stupid” or “duh hickey” – is about COMPLETE RETARDATION. It is a total form of non-thinking that controls every aspect of the lives of its adherents. It’s a barbaric form of life. It masquerades as good ol’ fashioned Judeochristanity rooted in Old Testament principles, but unlike most of today’s Judeochristians (whoever the hell they are), these guys actually buy in to the thievery and murderous thuggery of the old Testament, even seeking to outlaw any other religions formed after Roman thugs killed Jesus and Christian thugs invented anti-Semitism by blaming it all on the Jews. In fact, some stupid people think any religion formed after Jesus’s death and/or rumors of his resurrection doesn’t count as a “religion” at all!

Only their modern day tactics now include recruiting mentally ill, naive and gullible idiots who spread Teh St00p1d on the Internets. And Western countries indoctrinated with the lies of a U.S. Constitution and that politically correct “Bill of Rights” have reluctantly turned a blind eye. But like the Alien and Sedition Acts, Japanese internment, the separate but equal doctrine and handgun bans in our nation’s capital and our third largest city, the Constitution of the United States of America can’t stop us from doing anything. It’s just a piece of paper we can either follow or ignore. So let’s ignore it, Allah damn it!

Given that fact, we must understand our founding principles that (1) the Constitution, and hence any constitutional rights, derive from the smart people who wrote the Constitution, not the stupid people who didn’t, (2) stupid people do not have the right to divest us of our Rights (nor even to correct us for inexplicably capitalizing a common noun for no apparent reason), and (3) the purpose of civil government is to secure the rights our non-stupid founding fathers gave us.

What are our rights, and where do they come from? Playboy? The Jersey Shore? Anyone named Kardashian? No! The Declaration of Independence, whose sole legal effect is to separate us from the island that used to be Great Britain, says:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, except for the stupid ones who are vastly inferior to us, that all non-stupid people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness (which is most easily pursued by poking fun at stupid people) and the right to practice any religion they want, as long as it is Judeochristianity rather than Islam. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men who aren’t stupid. . .”

So, where do our rights come from? Encyclopedia Britannica, of course. And what are those rights? Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness and the right to mock stupid people.

Intellect is the very essence of Allah’s model for civil government in a secular, libertarian-leaning theocracy like our own. Inscribed on the Liberty Bell is Leviticus 19:28 – “Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD.” I mean, c’mon. Seriously. Who get tattoos?! Stupid people, that’s who.

Do stupid people respect the rights Allah gave us? Of course not! Teh St000p1d stands in stark contrast to Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness and all but the basest, least funny ways to poke fun at stupid people. Let’s have a look . . .

  1. Life: Teh St000p1d is a culture of death, fascism, prejudice and, well, stupidity. [And if you didn’t see that last one coming, you’re probably not the sharpest tool in the shed yourself.]
  2. Liberty: Teh St000p1d is a culture where freedom means nothing, the Constitution means less (OK, I’ve already said that it *does* mean less, but never mind that) and conversion to another belief system is grounds for expulsion or worse. But if you’re too stupid to know the difference, no problem; just call it “freedom” and the fascist who advocated it a “libertarian-leaning constitutional conservative.”
  3. Pursuit of Happiness: Theirs is a dictatorship of boredom and distraction. How many times have we already heard of corrupt businessmen and politicians getting away with their crimes because we were all too busy watching reruns of Jon – Kate + H8 to care? Public stupidity is commonplace. Women who expose their breasts in public are stared at, ogled and sometimes even catcalled by men. Stupid women are no better. For all the suffering and misery in the world, what do they care about? Whether some man left a toilet seat up or not! Jesus H. Chr.. um, I mean, Kevin A. Lehmann, what is this world coming to?
  4. Freedom of Speech: Try criticizing stupid people in Poland, one of our few remaining allies in Europe. Psych! Of course nothing will happen, as they’re too damned stupid to notice! You could waltz into any bar in Warsaw and call the drunkest, meanest looking patron a “Polack” to his face and he wouldn’t raise an eyebrow. That’s right, Polacks are so damned stupid they even call themselves Polacks. Is that where you want our country to end up?

For every right supposedly given to us by Allah – or actually given to us by the Constitution – stupid people seek to eradicate.

Do stupid people have the “right” to impose Teh St000p1d in this country which strips us of our rights? No! If Allah wanted stupid people to have the “right” to take our rights away from us, he would have given them half a brain to pull it off. The reason he gave us the wits we have is so we could take those same rights from them!
Lawmakers tell us stupid people have a First Amendment “right” to express their ill-formed opinions, form Facebook groups, proselytize, and implement Teh St000p1d right here. But is that what the First Amendment says? No! See for yourself:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, provided, however, that no rights described herein shall be available to stupid people.”

OK, so maybe I made that last part up but never mind that. Consider the verbiage of what came before very carefully. A lot of lawmakers and most Americans make the exegetical error that the First Amendment grants us rights. It doesn’t. Just like the rest of that quaint, politically correct Constitution, the First Amendment is just a bunch of words on a cheap piece of parchment. It doesn’t grant any rights to anybody, any more than a stupid Facebook note like this one does. All it does is say Congress isn’t supposed to do what Kevin Lehman and his fellow stupids want it to do. It doesn’t prevent Congress from actually doing squat. Therefore, stupid people do not have a First Amendment “right” to publicly express their ill-formed opinions, create Facebook groups, proselytize, implement Teh St0000p1d in our country or copy and paste the same trite phrase several times in a single essay.

Not only do stupid people claim the “right” to impose Teh St000p1d on the stupid communities that are rapidly spreading throughout our country, they also claim the “right” to impose Teh St000p1d on the rest of us in the public square. They demand a stupid-compliant Constitution, private financial institutions that “voluntarily” refuse to comply with the belief systems of others, and that such other abominations as non-Judeochristians be banned from their presence. Moreover, they commit both religious bigotry and first-degree quotation mark abuse, whichever is worse, in denigrating the prayers of other non-Judeochristians as mere “quote, prayers, unquote.”

All this begs the question: Do Americans have any Constitutional protection against the invasion of stupid people being foisted upon us? Absolutely! Article VI, Clause 2 of our Constitution states:

“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

Did you get that? Oh wait, you actually did get that? Never mind what you just read, and instead allow me to tell you what it means. While it says the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it means that the Constitution is authorized by the supreme law of the land, which in turn means my own Allah-given distaste for stupid people. And anything to the contrary, including that politically correct “Constitution,” must fall.

The practice of Teh St000p1d in the United States, at any level directly violates our Constitution. Stupid people who therefore seek to overthrow our Constitution or otherwise usurp or circumvent it are guilty of Criminal Sedition, or at least of capitalization abuse. The federal government has the duty to prosecute them for sedition, or deport them, even if they are U.S. citizens and there is no place to deport them to. We gotta get rid of those idiots somehow, dammit.

The Declaration of Independence says the purpose of civil government is to secure the rights Allah gave us. Stupid people seek to take away our Allah-given rights. Civil government is supposed to protect us from those who seek to divest us of our rights. Therefore it’s incumbent on every American citizen to insist that our federal, state, and local governments immediately STOP the stupidification of OUR COUNTRY- starting with an immediate cease and desist on the formation of all stupid Google, Facebook and Yahoo! discussion groups! The purpose of our civil government is to protect our ALLAH-given rights. And again, if Allah really wanted these idiots to succeed, he would have given them half a brain.

The Declaration of Independence, whose sole legal force in the U.S. is to separate us from the island that used to be Great Britain, recognizes Allah as Creator, Supreme Judge and Regulator of the World – our Divine Protector.

In fact, some stupid people even interpret Article VII of our Constitution, which which explicitly forbids titles of nobility even for citizens, as nevertheless recognizing everyone’s favorite non-citizen, Jesus H. Christ, as a “lord” solely because the framers identified years in the same Allah-damned way everyone else in the western world does:

“Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Seven…

ZOMG! Did you just see that? They called the year 1787 “in the year of our Lord,” so by Jove, that must mean that someone who was living 1787 years earlier was a lord. Who might that be? Herod? Pilate? The mind boggles. Next time you catch an atheist identifying the current year as 2011 “A.D.,” be sure to ask him whose lordship he is asserting.

In Summary:

  1. Our rights come from Allah. Stupid people think they mean whatever stupid people want them to mean, which is nothing, and that their own stupid interpretations trump the Constitution. Our Constitution doesn’t give “rights” to anybody. So stupid people don’t have “constitutional rights” to come to our secular nation, make up a religion called Judeo-Christianity, and do those other stupid things I copied and pasted umpteen times before.
  2. Stupid people take away from non-stupids the rights the Constitution gave them (and the rights which Allah himself would surely have given us, if we could be sure he existed at all). Since our Declaration of Independence makes us a separate country from the island that used to be Great Britain, the purpose of civil governments is to secure the rights Allah gave us, it is the duty and responsibility of civil governments at all levels to protect us from the stupid people who would take them away without even knowing WTF they are doing (because they are, like, stupid).
  3. Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution – the “Smart Supremacy Clause” – is the silver bullet that makes it unconstitutional for stupid people to open their mouths anywhere in our Country.

Let me be perfectly clear. Stupid people are not friends of America. They may act like affable dunces but they are, at their core, our enemy. The very notion of “Judeo-Christian” – a syncretistic fusion of Judaism and Christianity – being promoted by such notable stupid people as Kevin A. Lehmann, author of the widely spammed essay “Why Islam is NOT Protected Under the US Constitution!” is an abomination. It’s anti-American, or at least un-American, and antithetical to the religious liberty upon which our great nation was founded. It is imperative that you understand the inherent danger of stupid people, and the amalgamation of folding religion into Teh St000p1d.

Your state senators and congressmen are completely oblivious to the imminent threat that stupid people pose to the sovereignty of our nation. Some are dependent on the stupids and the rest are uneducated and weak. It’s imperative you demand they get informed very quickly and embrace the fight to stop the spread of Teh St000p1d at the local level. MENSA, whose name is Spanish for “stupid,” issued a report last year entitled: “Stupid People: More Dangerous Than You Think (Unless, of Course, You Are Stupid Yourself, In Which Case You Don’t Think At All).” Demand they read it and take immediate action to defend your community from Teh St000p1d.

Are you curious to know what life is like when your community has been infiltrated with stupid people, especially when you consider that nearly half the population is now stupider than average? Click here to listen to my radio show back on February 30th with Anders Behring Breivik, a stupid person who hates Muslims even more than Kevin Lehmann does. Since that time, he has murdered almost 80 non-Muslims and stands to serve a whopping 21 years in prison for his entire rampage. Do you seriously doubt that the stupids are taking over?

Europe, in the interest of multiculturalism and political correctness, made a grave error. And now they are hopeless to reverse it, especially in the island that used to be Great Britain, without a civil and very bloody religious war. An entire country, even with it’s apostrophe abuse intact, is now at the mercy of Kevin A. Lehmann and the Stupid Brigade. Recently exonerated actor Hormel Chavez, famed star of “Ow, My Balls,” listed ten steps Western countries must take to halt the stupidification of their countries. All ten steps would be mandated by our Declaration of Independence, if only that documented mandated anything at all beyond our separation from the island that used to be Great Britain. All are consistent with the Constitution stupid people loathe (or would loathe, were they smart enough to understand it at all):

  1. Stop kicking me in the nuts. There’s nothing remotely funny about that, and it hurts like hell. How would you like it if someone did that to you? Just stop.
  2. Stop pretending that your stupid ideas are “speech.” The free speech clause was intended to protect the expression of intelligent speech, not yours.
  3. Show the true face of one stupid person or worse, a group of stupids acting in concert. It’s not pretty.
  4. Stop all immigration from countries whose citizens have an average IQ lower than our own. For stupid people who are already citizens, tell them that if they STFU and do what smart people tell them, they may continue to live here as dimmies. [And don’t worry about that obvious pun, either; it won’t be obvious to the stupid people who are the butt of it.]
  5. Outlaw Teh St000p1d and deport everyone who says anything stupid in public.
  6. Require Kevin A. Lehmann and every person who spams his essay across the Internets to sign a loyalty oath or be kicked in the nuts. Once they grudgingly sign it, kick them in the nuts anyway, cuz you know they’re going to violate it eventually.
  7. Yeah,that’s great that you love my show. Don’t kick me in the nuts. Seriously. Kick Kevin in the nuts instead. He deserves it, I don’t.
  8. Seek reciprocity with Poland and East Frisia for non-stupid people who wish to reside in those countries. Shouldn’t be too hard to do; just draft an agreement using really big words in very small type, tell them it says the opposite of what it actually says, and they’ll sign it to look smart.
  9. Close all stupid schools, public or private. They are fascist institutions teaching hate, or would be if only they were teaching anything at all.
  10. Please, for the love of all that is holy, stop kicking me in the nuts. That is so nut funny. Err, I mean, not funny. Damn you, auto correct.

In closing, we are at war with a very evil and cunning enemy. An enemy which, notwithstanding the lacking intellect of its adherents, seeks to destroy everything that is good about the United States of America; Everything we value; Everything we cherish, the whole friggin’ point of going to school for all those years as a kid. Everything our forefathers and successive generations fought and died for, so that we could receive the torch of freedom and pass it on to our children and grandchildren.

This is our moment. It is our time to boldly split an infinitive, confuse a pronoun with a contraction, and stand up for Allah, our independence from that island that used to be Great Britain, our Constitution, and all the rights stupid people would yank away in the name of Lord Jesus. H. Judeochrist. Let us exercise our Allah-given unalienable rights and say “Yes to Freedom!” and “No to Oppression!” We owe it to our children, our grandchildren, our grandparents, a few of our great-grandparents, but not to our great-great-grandparents, who really ought to be dead by now. And of course we don’t owe our great great grandchildren anything, either; that would violate the rule against perpetuities. But everyone from grandparents to grandchildren is definitely owed.

Until next time . . . Go back to sleep, America!
Kevin, A. Lameman

UPDATE: <beavis>Are you threatening me?</beavis>

UPDATE: Apparently an idle threat. The idiot in chief wrote:

@ Xriq: I don’t know who the hell you are, but if you want to keep insulting me, you’ll give me no choice but to give you a verbal smack down. What is it with people of your ilk? Your ignorance is only surpassed b your sheer ugliness. Just once, baffle me with a glimmer of brilliance, would you?

to which I swiftly replied:

Sorry, @Kevin, no can do. Anyone who can’t tell “its” from “it’s,” a state from a religion, the Declaration of Independence from the Constitution, his own butt from a hole in the ground or when to capitalize a common noun is just too damned stupid to know brilliance if he saw it. I don’t know why you think I’d be remotely threatened by the idea of you giving me a verbal smackdown. Quite the contrary; I’m sure any attempt would be every bit as deranged, poorly-reasoned and downright Unabomberesque as this essay was – and therefore, equally entertaining. My only request is that whatever pearls of non-wisdom you choose to share here be copied to the comment area of my blog entry, so my readers can appreciate them, too.

As of August 22,2011 at 9:12 p.m. EDT, my reply remains in moderation, while three subsequent comments from two other readers have been approved. Apparently my response was too “ugly” for Mr. Lehmann’s feelings, even while his own bigotry was not, nor was this:

Amen!! There is NO MIDDLE GROUND!! Deport and expatriate all Muslims from American soil. They are citizens of a foreign nation, Islam, which dedicated to the destruction of our God-given inalienable rights. Deport now!! And start with the Muslim in the WH.

Or this:


Some stuff is just too dumb even to mock.

FINAL UPDATE: No surprise, the coward takes his ball and goes home.

January 18, 2010

Grandpa’s Wisdom

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 9:59 am

Via Sebastian, David Hardy offers a a nice, scholarly fisking of the Stevens dissent in Heller.

January 10, 2010

They Took Our Jarbs

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 1:45 pm

Mark Greenbaum has an uncommonly silly op-ed in today’s Los Angeles Times in which he advocates stripping the ABA of its law school accreditation process, not because of its loony-left leanings (a pretty good reason in its own right, but that’s another topic) but because it … get this … obeys antitrust law. That’s right, while most normal people accuse lawyers of behaving like a guild and protecting their own from the market place (see, e.g., Standard Mischief and Jody laying the guild trip on me a few years back over UPL issues in SC), this guy is actually complaining about the ABA not doing so. Greenbaum writes:

Remember the old joke about 20,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea being “a good start”?

Yes, but I also remember the old jokes about lawyers charging too much. For those of us who understand the law of supply and demand, pick one. What cheaper X? Then do what you can to create a glut on the X market. Would 20,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea be a good start? Sure it would – for us lawyers, unless we ourselves happen to be among those 20,000. Fewer competitors vs. same demand for the services I offer? I’ll take that.

Well, in an interesting twist, thousands of lawyers now find themselves drowning in the unemployment line as the legal sector is being badly saturated with attorneys.

That kinda sucks for all of us lawyers, and it really, really sucks for those trying to enter the profession now. For those who may have the need to hire an attorney, not so much. Quick, let’s get the federal government involved!

January 1, 2010

Apparently Some Still Read That Piece O’Crap

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 11:06 am

Kudos to the Los Angeles Times for giving Patterico another year’s worth of mockworthy material. That craptastic year 2009 won’t be fully over until you RTWT.

September 23, 2009

Landmark in Name Only?

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 9:40 pm

Via Les Jones, attorney Ellen Brown argues that the recent Kansas Supreme Court decision of Landmark National Bank v. Kesler calls into question the validity of 60 million mortgages. Perhaps it does, if you put two and two together, get 1.2 million, and then assume 49 more Supreme Courts will follow suit. Otherwise, probably not.

Here’s what happened in Landmark. The borrower, Boyd Kesler, secured a first mortgage from Landmark National Bank, and a second mortgage from Millenia Mortgage Corporation. The second mortgage named Millennia as the “lender,” but identified Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) as acting “solely as nominee for [Millennia], and [its] successors and assigns.” The second mortgage was later transferred to Sovereign Bank, which diligently, brilliantly and competently forgot to record the transfer. So when Kesler defaulted on the first mortgage (probably the second as well, though the court doesn’t say), Landmark served notice on the two defendants it could reasonably expect to have to serve notice on: (1) Millennia, as the lender it reasonably believed to hold the note on the second mortgage (as the real holder had been too lazy, stupid and/or incompetent to record the subsequent assignment) and (2) Kesler himself.

Kesler, the borrower, knew he was in default and filed no answer. Neither did Millennia, who had sold the note to Sovereign and could therefore give a flying fig how this case turned out. Sovereign cared, of course, by they weren’t served because they had been too stupid/lazy/incompetent to record their ownership of the note when they bought it from Millennia, and had also been too stupid/lazy/incompetent to start paying attention when Kesler filed for bankruptcy 3 1/2 months earlier, naming Sovereign as a creditor. By the time Sovereign got around to answering, the foreclosure sale was over.

In a rational world, Sovereign would have simply owned up to the reality that it had screwed up royally, and was now paying for it big time. Instead, Sovereign took the concept of chutzpah to ACORN-esque levels, and effectively argued that their own failure to record the transfer of the deed meant that MERS – who, I might remind you, had never had any role on the second mortgage except as nominee for Millennia before it sold the note to Sovereign – was entitled to service of process as a nominal party independent of both Sovereign (the real party in interest now, who had no relationship to MERS) and Millennia (who, as previously noted, could now give a flying fig about the note it no longer owned), and that Landmark’s failure to serve process on MERS somehow prejudiced the rights of Sovereign, which had no relationship to MERS in this transaction except perhaps as its unrecorded nominee (or as the recorded nominee of the original lender, which was served).

If that last paragraph is a bit hard to follow, and strikes you as an aggrieved second mortgagee’s answer to the Chewbacca defense, it’s because that’s precisely what it is. Maybe if Millennia had given a flying fig about a note they no longer owned, and had wanted to help Sovereign out of the goodness of its corporate heart, it could have notified Sovereign as soon as it were served. Maybe if MERS had been served, and given a flying fig about the note they may or may not even have servicing rights to, and which had since been transferred to a lender they never had any dealings with in the first place, they too could have notified Sovereign immediately. Or maybe monkeys would have flown out of my butt. All three scenarios are distinct possibilities; none are terribly likely.

Brown rightly notes that MERS’s role as a “straw man” precluded it from being a contingently necessary party to a foreclosure action it had not brought, from which she wrongly concludes that this means MERS would not have had standing to bring a foreclosure action of its own, either. She then goes completely off the rails by arguing that no one else has standing to enforce the note, reasoning that:

MERS as straw man lacks standing to foreclose, but so does original lender, although it was a signatory to the deal.

Wrong, on two counts. First, this case is about who has “standing” (so to speak) to set aside an existing default judgment on theory that they were a “contingently necessary party” to the original action who had to have been served for the original judgment to stand, and not about who would have had standing to bring an action of their own in the first place. Big difference. Second, and more importantly, the Supremes did not rule that it was unnecessary to serve the original lender on the second mortgage (Millennia) but instead relied on the fact that process had been timely served on them. Not because they were the original lender, of course, but because they were the last recorded one.

The lender lacks standing because title had to pass to the secured parties for the arrangement to legally qualify as a “security.” The lender has been paid in full and has no further legal interest in the claim.

This case said absolute squat about the securitization of anything. Brown simply made that up out of whole cloth. Either that, or she confused security interests with securitization, two wholly unrelated concepts. I’m not sure which is worse.

Only the securities holders have skin in the game; but they have no standing to foreclose, because they were not signatories to the original agreement.

Again, Brown simply made this up. The note was transferred from one lender to another, not securitized (i.e., packaged together with many other loans and converted into a security that trades much like a stock). The court made it clear that the reason the transferee was not entitled to intervene in the case (again, not the same as lacking standing to enforce on their own) was because it had failed to record itself as the new holder of the note, not because they weren’t the signatories to the original agreement.

They cannot satisfy the basic requirement of contract law that a plaintiff suing on a written contract must produce a signed contract proving he is entitled to relief.

Sure they can, if they have the note in hand, which as far as we can tell from this decision, both Sovereign and MERS did. It seems that Brown herself has missed a pretty basic provision of contract law, namely that any contract that does not specifically forbid assignment, may be assigned to third parties, who will then have all the same rights to enforce the contract as the assignor did prior to the assignment.

UPDATE: Apparently I was a bit too hard on Sovereign for failing to record the transfer. MERS advertises on its web site that their clever arrangement “eliminates the need to prepare and record assignments when trading residential and commercial mortgage loans.” Perhaps it does, but not in Kansas.

February 6, 2009

This Is Your Brain On Drugs. This Is Your Brain On Anti-Drug Hysteria. Any Questions?

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 7:41 pm

I had originally planned a full-blown meta-fisking of JRM’s uncommonly silly fisking of Radley Balko’s recent Reason/Culture11 article on the war on drugs, but I see Radley himself has beat me to the punch and made most of the points I would have made (and some that I did make, namely that the mere fact of overall police shootings being down since 1996 is congruent with the overall drop in crime being down for the same period, not evidence for or against Radley’s premise). And Radley doesn’t need me to defend him; after all, he’s got the traffic while I’m just some dim-witted, quick-tempered, angry douchebag that nobody reads.

So rather than defending Radley (though he’s clearly got the better argument here) I’ll just say this: drugs have become a religion on both sides. On the one hand, drug prohibitionists have an annoying tendency to ignore the fact that prohibiting a substance causes the price to skyrocket, thereby creating the motive underlying most “drug-related” crime. On the other, legalization and decriminalization advocates have an equally annoying tendency to ignore the fact that repealing the prohibition (or reducing enforcement efforts) on that same substance would cause the price to plummet, thereby causing recreational use (and, inevitably, abuse) to increase. It seems as though one side of the debate can’t wrap its head around the law of supply and demand, while the other fails to grasp the law of … errrr … supply and demand. For those who do understand that raising the price of anything is bound to deter someone from doing it, it seems to me there are only three defensible positions on the legalization or prohibition of any particular drug, to wit:

  1. Drug X [a variable, not a nickname for Ecstasy or any other particular drug] is so bad that it is worth reducing our civil liberties and accepting more violent crime in return for fewer people using it.
  2. Drug X is bad, sure, but most people who don’t use X now have the good sense to stay away from it even if it were legal and as cheap as aspirin, so saving 3 addicts a year is NOT worth reducing our civil liberties and accepting all that crime associated with the black market.
  3. Drug X is very bad, and banning it almost certainly benefits society on balance by any objective measure, but dammit, this is still supposed to be a free country, and if people want to muck up their own lives without hurting others, that’s nobody’s business but their own. [See this comment for a mirror image of this argument.]

Note that I deliberately set this up on a drug-by-drug basis, to reflect that some drugs are far worse than others. A rational person could, for example, take the view that all currently illicit drugs are bad for you, but marijuana isn’t bad enough to be worth the costs of prohibition, while cocaine probably is and PCP almost certainly is. But I don’t think there are any other rational options as to any particular drug. Do you?

November 27, 2008

Paranoid Gun Owners

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 9:46 pm

Hillary Clinton Tamara Dietrich of the Newport News Daily Press pokes fun at gun owners who think Barack Obama is not a friend of gun owners.

A black man gets elected president and half the country dives for the panic room, buying up guns and squirreling away supplies like fatalists awaiting the End of Days. That’s an exaggeration, of course. Barack Obama is biracial, not black.

Lovely of Ms. Dietrich to bring up race in an article on guns, or for that matter, any other topic except … um … race. I know plenty of gun owners who fear new restrictions on their right to own or carry guns. I also know plenty of gunophobes who think guns are icky, can’t imagine why an sane person would want to own one, and would be delighted to see government take everyone else’s guns away. I do not know a single individual, however, who is in favor of having his guns taken away from a white guy, but opposed to having them taken away from a black guy. Do you? Does Dietrich? If not, what the hell point is there in bringing race up?

Further, even if race were a legitimate topic of discussion in this context, the notion that Obama’s white mother precludes him from being “black” is evidence that the infamous “one drop rule” never really went away, it just came full circle. In the days of Jim Crow, one drop of black blood meant you were black. Now, per Ms. Dietrich, one drop of white blood apparently means you can’t be. Query how many American blacks meet Ms. Dietrich’s definition of “black.” It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know why the average African-American has a lighter complexion than the average African-African. But I digress.

“Hee hee heeeee …” chortles “HG Robinson” in the very first post to reporter Peter Dujardin’s story last week on the local run on weaponry. “Clearly President Obama is looking to ban handguns and close loopholes in the law first chance he can. … You gun nuts better stock up now.”

First, Obama hasn’t said he wants to ban handguns.

His former colleague John Lott begs to differ on that, but just for grits and shins, let’s go Lambert on the guy and assume he’s lying. For all you or I know, maybe Obama never really did say he wanted to ban handguns. He did, however, write that he did, nodded when asked if he did, voted against the law stripping his home town and a few suburbs of their “right” to perosecute homeowners who use otherwise lawfully owned handguns in otherwise lawful self defense, refused to sign the Heller brief supporting a common-senes reading of the Second Amendment (or even the wishy-washy brief offered by the Bush Administration) and appointed Eric Holder, who had signed a different Heller brief advocating the “collective” (read: no) rights interpretation, a view too extreme even for the four dissenting Justices in that case. So pardon me when I refuse to take an ounce of solace from the fact that Obama supposedly never came out and said “I hereby want to ban handguns.” To the extent that actions speak louder than words, he screamed it.

November 1, 2008

Is George Will Smarter Than a Third-Grader?

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 10:58 pm

George Will offers a perfect example of why I stopped reading George Will years ago. In his latest screed he writes:

From the invasion of Iraq to the selection of Sarah Palin, carelessness has characterized recent episodes of faux conservatism.

As opposed to Real ConservatismTM as practiced by whom? Patrick Buchanan? Andrew Sullivan? Will’s own private fantasies? Will doesn’t say, but he has made it clear over the years that he detests every nominal conservative who has either held or sought the Presidency since Reagan, so with all due respect to Mr. Will (and note that I did say “due”), there can only be so many real world examples of X that conflict with your personal concept of the “real” X before the real world becomes the real thing and your conceptions become faux.

Tuesday’s probable repudiation of the Republican Party will punish characteristics displayed in the campaign’s closing days.

Right, ‘cuz everyone is really itching to elect the real conservative, Barack Obama, not because they buy into Obama’s personality cult, as some do, and not because they are socialists or near-socialists themselves, as some are, but because they all just want to punish John McCain and the Republicans for not being conservative enough. But hey, you never know. If on Tuesday the first candidate in history to win with almost no experience on an essentially socialist platform is swept into office with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate on the side, maybe the Democrats will interpret this as a strong mandate to become the party of Real Conservatism and limited government. And maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt.

Some polls show that Palin has become an even heavier weight in John McCain’s saddle than his association with George W. Bush.

Will doesn’t name any such polls, of course, nor does he explain what it is about the polls that supposedly show this. Before naming Palin as his running mate, McCain was down by about 10 points. If he ends up losing by significantly more than that, then sure, it would be reasonable to suggest that Palin may have been a limiting factor (though even then it wouldn’t be a slam dunk). But if the net effect of the Palin nomination is for McCain to lose the election but beat the spread, all this Beltway mumbling about Palin hurting McCain is little more than wishful thinking.

Did McCain, who seems to think that Palin’s never having attended a “Georgetown cocktail party” is sufficient qualification for the vice presidency,

Can you say “projection?” I knew you could. McCain never said anything about not having attended a Georgetown cocktail party supposedly being a qualification for anything; if that were the rule he should have nominated me, instead. What he did say was that not having attended such parties is not a disqualification. Apparently, this statement struck a nerve among Georgetown cocktail party animals.

… lift an eyebrow when she said that vice presidents “are in charge of the United States Senate”?

Probably not, but perhaps the real question should have been, “How many Georgetown cocktails must one consume in order to conclude that someone can be the President of something without being ‘in charge’ of it?

She may have been tailoring her narrative to her audience of third-graders, who do not know that vice presidents have no constitutional function in the Senate other than to cast tie-breaking votes.

Apparently, third-graders in Georgetown are taught a much more comprehensive version of civics than I ever got in high school or law school (not to mention law professors themselves). It isn’t until the fourth grade that they learn about the hidden “ha ha, just kidding” clause of Article I, Section 3 or the corresponding “ha ha, not kidding this time” clause that kicks in in the event of a tie. It’s probably not until the fifth or sixth grade that they learn about the hidden clause in Article II that assigns some unspecified executive roles to the Vice President (aside from waiting around for the President to die, be impeached or otherwise become incapacitated – inert “duties” which could just as easily deem the Speaker of the House, the Senate president pro tem, or anyone else in the presidential succession an “executive” as well).

But does she know that when Lyndon Johnson, transformed by the 1960 election from Senate majority leader into vice president, ventured to the Capitol to attend the Democratic senators’ weekly policy luncheon, the new majority leader, Montana’s Mike Mansfield, supported by his caucus, barred him because his presence would be a derogation of the Senate’s autonomy?

I didn’t know that myself, but then again, like Sarah P. I haven’t downed enough Georgetown cocktails to understand what part of the Constitution allows the Senate majority leader (a nonexistent position from a constitutional perspective) to overrule the “President” of the Senate, who in turn is forbidden to “preside” over anything until and unless a tie arises among the votes while someone else was “presiding.” And I’m not even sure I want to ask how many Georgetown cocktails I’d have to imbibe to understand how the “President pro tem” of anything could outrank its “President.” And I guess you’ll have to wait for the hangover before even asking why Vice President Lyndon Johnson even tried to attend a Senate luncheon if he too didn’t have the crazy notion that being “president” of something makes you part of it.

Perhaps Palin’s confusion about the office for which she is auditioning comes from listening to its current occupant. Dick Cheney, the foremost practitioner of this administration’s constitutional carelessness in aggrandizing executive power, regularly attends the Senate Republicans’ Tuesday luncheons. He has said jocularly that he is “a product” of the Senate, which pays his salary, and that he has no “official duties” in the executive branch.

All of which is true, but never mind that. They don’t talk about this stuff at Georgetown cocktail parties, so apparently it does not exist.

His situational constitutionalism has, however, led him to assert, when claiming exemption from a particular executive order, that he is a member of the legislative branch and, when seeking to shield certain of his deliberations from legislative inquiry, to say that he is a member of the executive branch.

Well, sure, but that kind of goes with the territory of simultaneously being “President of the Senate” by virtue of the Vice Presidency and an executive by virtue of membership in the Cabinet. If Will has a problem with that, he should be arguing, as Reynolds does, that all members of Congress including the Vice President should be forbidden to serve in the Cabinet or to work as an agent of the Executive Branch in any way. Congress can pass that law any time they want. But until they do, no law forbids anyone to wear both hats, and in fact a longstanding tradition of having Vice Presidents serve in Cabinets all but compels them to. If that doesn’t suit Will and his fellow de facto Democrats, then I’m afraid that’s just damnum absque injuria.

September 12, 2008

Pit Bulls

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 7:38 am

In a post titled “What’s Wrong With a Pit Bull,” by Christine Bowman tries to be clever in attacking Sarah “Pit Bull” Palin by comparing her to literal pit bulls. In so doing, she spewed every lie in the book about the breed itself, just to get at a Republican.

Update 9/11/08: It appears based on comments received that some readers have misconstrued my purpose in posting this article. I chose Sarah Palin’s pit bull metaphor as a means of criticizing her, as well as other GOP leaders. I had no desire to criticize pit bulls themselves. — CB

Now what on earth could have possibly given readers that impression?

Sarah Palin likes to describe herself as a pit bull. She rolled out the “pit bull in lipstick” idea in her first address to the American people, and she uses the image in her everyday stump speech.

“What’s the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull?” she asked.


The analogy is actually a good one.

Indeed it is. Pit bulls are tenacious, and loyal to a fault. Which of course was the point Palin was making, so having confirmed as much, you can end your article here, Sweetie.

Just think about it. What images and feelings do the words “pit bull” conjure up? (… with apologies to all sweet-spirited canines)

Here you see Democrat thinking at its worst: forget verifiable facts: “images and feelings” are all that matters. If you have bad thoughts about Republicans and pit bulls, well, that must mean that they are bad, right?

* A pit bull is a programmed fighter. Its handlers throw it into the ring, and it attacks.

The other pit bull, sure. That’s what Vice Presidential candidates are supposed to do in an election season. So far, Sarah the Pit Bull seems to have done a pretty good job of that, certainly better than the Yorkshire terrier they’ve got yipping for the other side.

* A pit bull fights indiscriminately. A pit bull mauls small children, innocent neighbors. It even bites the hand that feeds it.

* A pit bull is dangerous.

Some are, sure. Some dogs of every breed are.

* A pit bull can’t be trusted.

A Democrat can’t be trusted, that’s for sure, but since when can’t a good dog be? Most dogs, pit bulls included, are WYSIWYG.

* A pit bull is mean.

Nope, no desire to criticize pit bulls there. Sweetie sez so in an update!

* A pit bull is tenacious. It never lets go.

OK, so after smearing innocent dogs just to get at an innocent Republican, you finally found the point! Congratulations, Sweetie, you can go home now. Oh wait, there’s more…

Now, we can’t say necessarily that Sarah Palin is a pit bull. It is Palin herself who is saying that.

What? You mean that when Sarah Palin gave that speech comparing herself and her fellow hockey moms to pit bulls, that was actually Palin herself doing the talking? Wow, that’s, like, a real freaky coincidence, like.

We do think it’s fair to point out that the Republican National Party — the party running Palin as their vice presidential candidate — values a dangerous, untrustworthy attack dog.

I suppose Sweetie does have a point there. After all, where would the RNC and the dextrosphere have been for the last few months if it weren’t for Andrew Sullivan, Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews? To their credit, however, none of these three have smeared pit bulls by comparing these beautiful dogs to themselves.

On August 29, 2008, the GOP made a calculated judgment. They decided they needed an attack dog as a counter-balance to the top of their ticket.

Yeah, we all know that John McCain chose Sarah Palin on the very same day he announced her nomination. Gotta hand it to both of them, those were two hells of impromptu speeches they delivered on the very same day McCain made a calculated judgment to choose a Republican as his running mate.

John McCain was trying to run for president as an honorable man, but it just wasn’t looking like a winning strategy. He wasn’t catching on. So the party elders, the K Street campaign managers, and the Karl Roves who shape GOP campaigns and GOP policy put their heads together. Enter Sarah Palin.

Hate to burst your bubble, Sweetie, but there’s nothing dishonorable about appointing a woman, or a person of either sex who is likely to appeal to members of your own party.

But is a pit bull good for America? Haven’t we Americans had our fill of pit bulls?

Xrlq 2.0 hasn’t.

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were unmistakable pit bulls. For better or worse, they were fierce, single-minded, and unwavering. Pit bull warriors, pit bull diplomats, pit bull economists.

Where did they lead America? Was the war they and John McCain believed in the right one?

You know, I was asking myself that very same question on September 11, 2003, when two years had passed since the infamous 9/11 attacks, and the next attack was due any day now. I asked myself the same question again on September 11, 2004, and on September 11, 2005, etc.

And how did their energy plan work out for the country? Cheney sure was tenacious in protecting his secret energy task force, but that wasn’t a case of putting “Country First,” was it?

Right, it wasn’t the Democrats who keep us from drilling offshore, in ANWR and the shale, it was those eeeeevil Republican pit bulls in Washington scheming to keep oil prices high, while sending Karl Rove out to secretly underinflate everyone’s tires and lull them into believing they won’t need a tune-up for at least 100,000 miles or so.

We now know the GOP pit bulls still in power bit off more war than they could possibly chew. They leapt into an attack on Iraq without a reasonable long-term plan or exit strategy. They ripped their teeth into the wrong enemy, and they have spilled way too much human blood.

While the Democrat Yorkies rushed into the same war, only to yelp and submit at the first nip, even if that meant leaving newly liberated Iraq to descend into civil war, followed by a terror state rivaling what existed there before.

Snarling and snapping, they created more enemies than America ever had back in 2001.

Maybe, but they seem to have done a pretty good job of keeping the one enemy at bay that mattered most in 2001.

Worst of all they turned their tail to the biggest threat in the fighting pit.

Right, ‘cuz if there’s one thing a pit bull is well-known for, it’s its tendency to turn tail and run. That’s why we need Democrat Yorkies in Washington to replace those mean ol’ Republican pit bulls.

Think about it.

I’d like to, but frankly, but with every sentence I read of this article, I feel my own IQ slip 3 or 4 points. I’d rather make it through this exercise without becoming a complete retard, so I think I’ll take a pass on actually thinking about it further.

And what do Americans really think of pit bulls? In 16 of these United States of America we have enacted or drafted laws to restrict and control pit bulls: in Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky, Washington, Utah, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, Colorado, Maryland, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Kansas.

Colorado drafted a law to protect pit bulls from bigots like Bowman. It didn’t work because only Denver was passing such idiotic ordinances anyway, and as a home rule city they can ignore state law pretty much whenever they want. But leave it to a Democrat to cite the fact that other people have a bad perception about someone or something as though it were evidence that that someone or something is bad (and then to have the audacity to update the piece and deny any intent to insult the same).

That list includes a lot of states that might be up for grabs in this 2008 presidential election.

Indeed it does. Here’s hoping that of the states Bowman actually got right (as opposed to Colorado, the only one I bothered to check), voters understand that just because they may vote against allowing their next door neighbors to personally own pit bulls or nuclear weapons, that doesn’t mean we as a nation shouldn’t have either.

So what will it be? The GOP pit bulls, or a Democrat who thinks like a diplomat?

A better question is, would we rather have a Republican who barks at our enemies to keep them at bay, or a Democrat who barks at us? Fortunately or unfortunately, I can’t think of a dog breed that warrants a comparison to “malaise” Democrats, so rather than smearing innocent dogs I’ll skip the analogy.

Voters can say no to the GOP pit bulls here and now.

Indeed, we can vote out the tenacious fighters and replace them with wimps who cut and run at the first sign of trouble. The question is, why on earth would we want to?

No more pit bull campaigning.

Meaning: no more criticizing The One. The other side’s pit bulls are free to attack as often as they like.

No pit bull foreign policy.

Meaning: no more tenacious fighters, let’s bring in the new ones who are all bark and no bite.

Democrats. Wrong on literal pit bulls, wrong on figurative ones.

January 27, 2007

This Is Your Brain on Drug Wars. Any Questions?

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 1:01 am

In yesterday’s Human Events Online, the usually sensible John Hawkins offers a piss-poor defense of the War on Some Drugs. Hawkins writes:

Libertarians often attack the war on drugs as a waste of tax dollars and an infringement on personal liberties. That is misguided thinking that comes from trying to apply unworkable theoretical concepts in the real world.

Either that, or it is “misguided” thinking that comes from trying to examine the actual effects of a government program, rather than judging it according to its proponents’ intentions. Libertarians also attack the war on poverty. Is that misguided thinking that comes from a theoretical concept that poverty is a good thing (“povertarianism,” perhaps)? [Yes, some looneytarians also attack the war on terror, but that’s another issue altogether. If you think you can defend yourself against terrorists as easily as you can against drugs, try “just saying no” to a terrorist sometime.]

For example, you often hear advocates of drug legalization say that we’re never going to win the war on drugs and that it would free up space in our prisons if we simply legalized drugs. While it’s true that we may not ever win the war against drugs — i.e. never entirely eradicate the use of illegal drugs — we’re not ever going to win the war against murder, robbery and rape either.

Here we have a cheap attempt to score a rhetorical point with a creative definition. Of course we will never completely eradicate anything. World War II went a long way toward rolling back fascism around the world, but it didn’t eradicate it completely, and no one argues as a result that the War on the Axis Powers was a failur.e. A more sensible working definition of “winning” is improving the status quo. Banning drugs almost certainly causes some potential users to go or stay straight. It also causes a hell of a lot of violent crime, and probably causes its share of police corruption as well. The question is how much crime and how much of our civil liberties we are willing to give up, in exchange for how much of a reduction of drug abuse. If you think the trade-off is a good one, the War on Some Drugs is already being won. If you think it’s a bad trade-off, it’s not, and query whether it ever can be.


Powered by WordPress. Stock photography by Matthew J. Stinson. Design by OFJ.