Think politics doesn't matter? That you can just ignore politics and go do something else?
Do you wish you could buy a Congress to do this for you? Can you tell we've shifted from a 'one-person-one-vote' system to a 'one-dollar-one-vote system?
Saturday, May 28, 2011
You've Been Robbed
Think politics doesn't matter? That you can just ignore politics and go do something else?
Do you wish you could buy a Congress to do this for you? Can you tell we've shifted from a 'one-person-one-vote' system to a 'one-dollar-one-vote system?
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Impeach Obama
The Libyan Itty-Bitty, Kind of, Sort of, Quasi War by Doug Bandow at NationalInterest.org
Let's make it real simple. "Regime Change" = "War".
If one King decides another King shouldn't be on his throne, and sends his army to go kick him off his throne, then that's a war.
If the two King's can sit and settle a dispute between them, then maybe that isn't a war. Maybe that was just a 'border dispute' that can be resolved by the Kings. But when the King of one country says the only solution is for the King of the other country to be gone, and that there can't be peace short of that, then that's a war. Sending your armies to achieve "regime change" is a "war".
President Obama speaking at a press conference in Britain...
The United States is at war with Libya. The war is illegal. There is no Declaration of War, even though Congress would certainly give one if President Obama asked Prime Minister Netanyahu to ask Congress to do so. The War Powers Act allows the President to engage in military action for the long period of 60 days, but then requires the President to either have withdrawn from the fighting or to have obtained Congressional approval for the action. Neither has happened.
The President of the United States has violated the law and the constitution, and done so in a way the founding fathers would have considered quite serious.
This is why James Madison, as one of the primary authors of the US Constitution, was so careful to put the power of a Declaration of War clearly in the hands of the US Congress. This is not a small technicality that's being violated. This is one of the fundamental guarantees of freedom and liberty in this land being thrown away. The President is not to have the power to launch wars by himself. It takes a vote of the people's representatives in Congress. That's not a technicality, that's liberty. As the protesters chant, that is what democracy looks like. Well, in a real democracy it would take a referendum approved by the people to go to war. But, at the very least, that's what a republic should look like.
The President of the United States has begun an illegal war. Mr. Madison provided a remedy for that as well.
Since Mr. Madison regarded war as the most dreaded threat to the public liberties that his generation has just fought and died to win, it does seem rather likely that he would regard a President launching an illegal war without the approval of Congress as an impeachable offense.
Many presidents have been lawyers. Barack Obama is one of the few to have been a constitutional law professor. But he is no less ready to violate the Constitution.
President Obama took the country into war against Libya without a declaration of war. He continues to bombard Libya contrary to the War Powers Resolution. He has compounded one of America’s stupidest wars by making it indisputably illegal.
Let's make it real simple. "Regime Change" = "War".
If one King decides another King shouldn't be on his throne, and sends his army to go kick him off his throne, then that's a war.
If the two King's can sit and settle a dispute between them, then maybe that isn't a war. Maybe that was just a 'border dispute' that can be resolved by the Kings. But when the King of one country says the only solution is for the King of the other country to be gone, and that there can't be peace short of that, then that's a war. Sending your armies to achieve "regime change" is a "war".
President Obama speaking at a press conference in Britain...
"I believe that we have built enough momentum that, as long as we sustain the course we are on, he (Gaddafi) will step down. Ultimately this is going to be a slow, steady process in which we are able to wear down the regime forces."
Mr Cameron added that there was no future for the country - which has seen two months of intense fighting between pro and anti-government forces - with Col Gaddafi in power, and he should step down.
"The president and I agree we should be turning up the heat in Libya," he said, adding that "all options" for intensifying the pressure on the regime were being considered. -- BBC News
The United States is at war with Libya. The war is illegal. There is no Declaration of War, even though Congress would certainly give one if President Obama asked Prime Minister Netanyahu to ask Congress to do so. The War Powers Act allows the President to engage in military action for the long period of 60 days, but then requires the President to either have withdrawn from the fighting or to have obtained Congressional approval for the action. Neither has happened.
The President of the United States has violated the law and the constitution, and done so in a way the founding fathers would have considered quite serious.
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
— James Madison (Letters and Other Writings of James Madison)
This is why James Madison, as one of the primary authors of the US Constitution, was so careful to put the power of a Declaration of War clearly in the hands of the US Congress. This is not a small technicality that's being violated. This is one of the fundamental guarantees of freedom and liberty in this land being thrown away. The President is not to have the power to launch wars by himself. It takes a vote of the people's representatives in Congress. That's not a technicality, that's liberty. As the protesters chant, that is what democracy looks like. Well, in a real democracy it would take a referendum approved by the people to go to war. But, at the very least, that's what a republic should look like.
The President of the United States has begun an illegal war. Mr. Madison provided a remedy for that as well.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Since Mr. Madison regarded war as the most dreaded threat to the public liberties that his generation has just fought and died to win, it does seem rather likely that he would regard a President launching an illegal war without the approval of Congress as an impeachable offense.
Does Israel have nuclear weapons?
by Sam Husseini and Washington Stakeout
Here's the thing. Everyone knows Israel has nuclear weapons. They openly threaten the "Samson Option" to destroy enemies or the whole world if they are threatened. One of their less-successful prime ministers even said it openly.
And, here's the real kicker, under US law, the US would have to suspend aid to Israel were it found that Israel has a 'roque' nuclear weapons program. That's the non-proliferation policy of the United States.
Thus leading to this rather funny video of watching many high ranking Americans go to great lengths not to be caught on video acknowledging that Israel has nuclear weapons.
Here's the thing. Everyone knows Israel has nuclear weapons. They openly threaten the "Samson Option" to destroy enemies or the whole world if they are threatened. One of their less-successful prime ministers even said it openly.
"Iran openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons as America, France, Israel, Russia?" --Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert
And, here's the real kicker, under US law, the US would have to suspend aid to Israel were it found that Israel has a 'roque' nuclear weapons program. That's the non-proliferation policy of the United States.
Thus leading to this rather funny video of watching many high ranking Americans go to great lengths not to be caught on video acknowledging that Israel has nuclear weapons.
US Senate debates Mubarak Law
Senate debates president’s power during cyber-attack
In Egypt, as the protest started to erupt and spread, the first thing President Mubarak did was to shut off internet communications.
That must have made Washington jealous. Now we are seeing a debate over how much new power our President should have to do his own Mubarak.
You know you are hearing BS when Sen. Lieberman is saying we need a sweeping new law because the one the administration is using old and archaic and dates back to WWII. Sen. Lieberman was of course the Senator who originally was pushing for an open Mubarak Kill Switch on the US internet, until public outcry made him backpedal. Now it sounds like they are trying to do something similar, but more subtly, by giving the President power to respond to a 'cyber-attack'. With this spin of 'we need to replace an outdated law' as cover and smoke.
Personally, I could deal with the power grid going down for a day. Or, at least I'm willing to risk it in order to have some semblance of civil liberties. So, I go sit on the porch and listen to the birds for a day instead of playing on the computer. Big deal. In fact, I did that last summer. It wasn't from a 'cyber-attack'. Instead, the local power company decided to accidently blow up a transformer station and I was out of power for a day. Went for a walk instead. I survived, and it wasn't a big deal.
I'd rather risk living without electricity for a day than risk giving the President the authority to do his own Mubarak on the American people.
In Egypt, as the protest started to erupt and spread, the first thing President Mubarak did was to shut off internet communications.
That must have made Washington jealous. Now we are seeing a debate over how much new power our President should have to do his own Mubarak.
You know you are hearing BS when Sen. Lieberman is saying we need a sweeping new law because the one the administration is using old and archaic and dates back to WWII. Sen. Lieberman was of course the Senator who originally was pushing for an open Mubarak Kill Switch on the US internet, until public outcry made him backpedal. Now it sounds like they are trying to do something similar, but more subtly, by giving the President power to respond to a 'cyber-attack'. With this spin of 'we need to replace an outdated law' as cover and smoke.
Personally, I could deal with the power grid going down for a day. Or, at least I'm willing to risk it in order to have some semblance of civil liberties. So, I go sit on the porch and listen to the birds for a day instead of playing on the computer. Big deal. In fact, I did that last summer. It wasn't from a 'cyber-attack'. Instead, the local power company decided to accidently blow up a transformer station and I was out of power for a day. Went for a walk instead. I survived, and it wasn't a big deal.
I'd rather risk living without electricity for a day than risk giving the President the authority to do his own Mubarak on the American people.
John Kerry's War
When speaking to people on the left, John Kerry likes to remind people of his opposition to the Vietnam war. He likes to remind people of his "winter soldier" days when he was an activist against wars.
When you hear a politician talking about what they did 40 years ago, beware. The reason they are talking about what happened 40 years ago is because they don't want you to know what they are doing today.
John Kerry, the winter soldier, has turned into one of Washington's old men who tells younger men to go die for their useless wars. When the US violates its own laws and its own Constitution to go fight yet another war in Libya, its John Kerry who's up in Washington DC making sure one more person dies for his wars. And then another. And then another.
Who will be the last man to die for John Kerry's wars? And will they be as pissed about the idea as John Kerry was back in the days when he wasn't an evil old man ordering younger men to die?
When you hear some Democrat telling you they were a decent, caring human 40 years ago, you should be asking what's happened to them since? You should be asking why are you trying to BS me with stories from 40 years ago?
When you hear a politician talking about what they did 40 years ago, beware. The reason they are talking about what happened 40 years ago is because they don't want you to know what they are doing today.
John Kerry, the winter soldier, has turned into one of Washington's old men who tells younger men to go die for their useless wars. When the US violates its own laws and its own Constitution to go fight yet another war in Libya, its John Kerry who's up in Washington DC making sure one more person dies for his wars. And then another. And then another.
Who will be the last man to die for John Kerry's wars? And will they be as pissed about the idea as John Kerry was back in the days when he wasn't an evil old man ordering younger men to die?
When you hear some Democrat telling you they were a decent, caring human 40 years ago, you should be asking what's happened to them since? You should be asking why are you trying to BS me with stories from 40 years ago?
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Who's in Charge Here?
Netanyahu's real message to Congress: There will be no peace talks from Christian Science Monitor
I saw some of Netanyahu's speech to the joint session of Congress. There was one thing that was obvious.
When the President speaks to Congress, only half the Congress stands and applauds.
When the Prime Minister of Israel speaks to Congress, the entire Congress stands and applauds.
If it seems our government pays more attention to the interests of Israel than the interests of Americans, then its our own damn fault. We've made two mistakes. The first was that we let our elections be driven and controlled by money. We've allowed money such access to our democratic processes that it now seems to dominate all else. The second mistake is that we've gone to the polls and consistently voted for candidates that take money from Israel's backers and who openly say that they strongly support the interests of Israel.
We elected these fools.
We get a chance to change this every two years. Here's two things to look for. Look for candidates that strongly support campaign finance reform, and especially public financing of elections. And, don't vote for candidates that take money from pro-Israel PACs and who openly support Israel. Hint, the people applauding Netanyahu fail both tests.
This speech was a call for war. It said peace can only be had on Israel's terms. Israel does not recognize the right of an independent Palestinian state to exist. Israel does not recognize the right of Palestinians to defend themselves. Israel has long laid down these markers as pre-conditions to any peace talks. Israel has always insisted that their state be recognized and that their need to defend themselves be recognized. Surely its obvious that if they won't do the same, there can not be peace.
I saw some of Netanyahu's speech to the joint session of Congress. There was one thing that was obvious.When the President speaks to Congress, only half the Congress stands and applauds.
When the Prime Minister of Israel speaks to Congress, the entire Congress stands and applauds.
If it seems our government pays more attention to the interests of Israel than the interests of Americans, then its our own damn fault. We've made two mistakes. The first was that we let our elections be driven and controlled by money. We've allowed money such access to our democratic processes that it now seems to dominate all else. The second mistake is that we've gone to the polls and consistently voted for candidates that take money from Israel's backers and who openly say that they strongly support the interests of Israel.
We elected these fools.
We get a chance to change this every two years. Here's two things to look for. Look for candidates that strongly support campaign finance reform, and especially public financing of elections. And, don't vote for candidates that take money from pro-Israel PACs and who openly support Israel. Hint, the people applauding Netanyahu fail both tests.
This speech was a call for war. It said peace can only be had on Israel's terms. Israel does not recognize the right of an independent Palestinian state to exist. Israel does not recognize the right of Palestinians to defend themselves. Israel has long laid down these markers as pre-conditions to any peace talks. Israel has always insisted that their state be recognized and that their need to defend themselves be recognized. Surely its obvious that if they won't do the same, there can not be peace.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Did He Really Say That? The Obama Edition.
"So we will continue to work to prevent these actions, and we will stand up to groups like Hezbollah, who exercise political assassination and seek to impose their will through rockets and car bombs," said Obama.
This from the same man who just sat and watched his own death squads assasinate Osama Bin Laden. And, who also used his own 'rockets' to try to assasinate Qhaddafi, but missed and killed his son instead.
And of course, remember that there have been mysterious car bombs going off in Iran for the last few years while US Special Forces work inside the country and Congress funds 'regime change' there.I hope Tehran TV has their own equivalent of Jon Stewart, because surely the only response to this is laughter.
Of course, this wasn't the only portion of this speech that made an easy target for satire.
Obama also pointed to Iranian "hypocrisy" in "claiming to support the rights of protesters while treating its own people with brutality."
Meanwhile, the US 'friends' in the region are brutally suppressing any protests in Iraq, Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi Arabia. Israel shot and killed 16 Nakba protesters, and wounded hundreds, to the open cheers and approval of the Obama White House.And of course, Obama's FBI and federal grand juries are busy going after people in the US who dare to protest against Obama's wars.
If Obama was Pinochio, the Secret Service would be having to cut away doors and walls in every room so the man's giant nose could fit.
Are you really going to vote for him again?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)