Dear Mark Kirk (R - IL), re: the National Defense Authorization Act

Dear Mr. Kirk:

 One of your constituents shared your response to an inquiry about you and the National Defense Authorization Act publicly, here. As your opinion has been made public, and as in a democracy one voice is no louder than another, I hereby voice my response to your justifications for your part in the rape of the Constitution of the United States of America.

President Obama said that he would veto this legislation if it contains overly broad powers for the U.S. military to arrest U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. He is right on this issue and I will support his veto on this question.
So, like a good Republican you TRUSTED OBAMA WITH DECIDING WHAT THE MILITARY CAN TO CIVILIANS????!!!

The remainder of this long piece of legislation, the National Defense Authorization Act, is beneficial for the country. 

1. The bill provides a pay increase for Americans in uniform. 
Which costs more tax dollars, this pay increase or the benefits to veterans on the chopping block for budget cuts to reduce the deficit?

2. It fully funds special operations forces across the world.
Fully funds eh? Well, maybe our tax dollars could be better spent here in America dealing with American problems. Oh wait, you like to make all developing countries hate us so you have insurgencies to crush. That way you can send more American citizens to die later while filling the pockets of those who profit from war; i.e. the people who own Congress. You know, the ones you sold out your grandchildren's country to?
3. It also helps clean up troubled and wasteful defense construction and procurement programs.
So - you spend tax dollars to go in and construct and procure stuff (do a wasteful thing) and pretend it's beneficial to kill the programs and spend more tax dollars cleaning it up (another wasteful thing). So where exactly do all those tax dollars go - to the companies owned by the people that own Congress?
4. The bill also contains the Menendez-Kirk amendment, passed by a vote of 100-0, to impose crippling sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran in an effort to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
This one is my favorite! It's not only wrong on the same level as these other crimes, but it's also blatantly ignorant! So, let's pretend this 100-0 action doesn't have anything to do with starting another useless war to line the pockets of your owners, Mr. Senator. Nudge, nudge; wink, wink. 

  There once were two little boys. One boy was named America. He bought a book on how to build slingshots. He built those slingshots, and he even shot another boy in the face with one. 

One day, he heard another little boy had gotten a book on how to build slingshots. The other little boy's name was Steve. Steve didn't seem to like America very much, he thought America was a bit of a bully.  America gets worried Steve will shoot him in the face when Steve finishes building his slingshot.

So, America confronts the boy! He pounces down on Steve pinning him to the ground.
America says, "Don't build a slingshot Steve!" 

Steve tries to get up. America starts tickling him, saying:"I won't stop tickling you until you promise not to build a slingshot!" 

 You see, Mr. Kirk, sanctions are tickling, Steve is Iran, and slingshots are nuclear weapons. This big complex adult situation can be seen as something so simple because governments and their leaders usually behave like little boys.

If you tickle someone until they make a promise, they're going to break that promise the first chance they get. 

America shouldn't be tickling Steve. America's dad has a gambling problem and has lost his job, and the family's health and dental insurance were through dad's work. If Steve punches him and America chips a tooth, his family can't afford to get it fixed - and that'll be really embarrassing at school.

America should probably let Steve up right away, and say he was just teasing. He should tell Steve that while slingshots are cool, if they work together they could build a treehouse - or a rocket or something. He should convince Steve and himself that it's time to grow up a little and learn to get along with each other.

Therefore, I voted to move the bill forward to a House-Senate conference, secure in knowing that the President will be able to strike the provisions I outlined on our rights while advancing the provisions I outlined just above.

Therefore, you voted to trust the first amendment rights of not only your children, but also your children's children (and ours), to one man. One man who you claim to not even agree with on most issues. One man who fundamentally opposes your professed view of how government should be run. Your children's first amendment rights! One man!

Therefore, you voted in the one provision that conveniently sounds enough like "supporting the troops" to get the bill past people not paying attention.

Therefore, you voted to spend our tax dollars on making sure other countries hate us for another century.

Therefore, you voted to bully another nation into a war rather than bringing peace - because your masters profit from it.

I feel sorry for you, Mark. I can't imagine how awful it must be to have to pretend you don't feel terrible about what you've done. I can't imagine of how it feels to allow yourself to be convinced it won't do any good to stand up for what you believe. I'm so sorry. If you want to talk about it privately, I'd be happy to listen.

With Love,

Grizwald Grim