Thursday, June 7, 2012

Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, June 7, 2012


A blast from the past... funky soul, baby! 


Posted by at

10 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_next_bank_bailout_blame_game_aiBm4HYUTUVfmlmz284NLL

Twenty-three months after President Obama gave us Wall Street “reform,” the results are in — and they’re not pretty.

The Dodd-Frank law didn’t end “too big to fail”; it just gave Washington someone new to blame for the next blowup-and-bailout, namely the hapless regulators.

Yesterday, the Democrat-led Senate Banking Committee hauled four big-bank watchdogs to Capitol Hill to find out how JPMorgan Chase lost at least $2 billion gambling taxpayer-guaranteed deposits on derivatives.

* SEE, FOLKS... THAT'S THE POINT - "TAXPAYER-GUARANTEED."

Nearly a month after JPMorgan announced its loss, nearly two years after Congress enacted Dodd-Frank and nearly four years since Obama started working on the problem, no leading light from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau could say whether Dodd-Frank should have prevented JPMorgan from making these trades.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

Yes, Dodd-Frank prohibits “proprietary trading” — that is, banks speculating on stocks, bonds and other instruments for themselves, not for customers. But nobody knows what proprietary trading is, exactly — or whether JPMorgan was doing it.

* FOLKS... YA CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP! (KEEP READING!)

Congress created big loopholes.

* A DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED CONGRESS. OH, YES, FOLKS... JULY 2010... DEMS CONTROLLED BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS PLUS THE WHITE HOUSE. THAT'S THE REALITY! THAT'S THE FACT!

A bank can trade for itself in order to “hedge” other risks — that is, to (try to) reduce its overall risk.

But reducing risk through complex derivatives is proprietary trading — a bet that things are about to get worse instead of better, and that your derivatives will work.

Indeed, it’s risky to hedge — and the bigger you are, the riskier it is. JPMorgan has $1.8 trillion in assets — and Dodd-Frank theoretically allows it to hedge them all, not one by one, but on an “aggregate” basis via huge trades like the derivatives bets that got it in trouble.

* YOU'RE FOLLOWING THIS - RIGHT?

Yet the bank can’t possibly do such trades without posing a risk to the rest of the financial system.

* YEP... WE'RE TALKING $1.8 TRILLION... SO... YEP.

In short, Dodd-Frank told regulators to do something that is impossible — to take the risk out of something that is a risk.

* HMM... WHERE'S CHRIS DODD NOW? OH, YEAH... HE'S A HIGHLY PAID LOBBYIST! AND BARNEY FRANK? HE'S DECIDED TO RETIRE FROM THE HOUSE AFTER THIS TERM; I WONDER WHAT "JOB" HE'LL TAKE TO "KEEP HIMSELF BUSY" DURING HIS "RETIREMENT?"

* FOLKS... READ THE FULL PIECE. THIS IS SOME SCARY SHIT.

June 7, 2012 at 10:48 AM
William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302030/non-citizens-voting-florida-katrina-trinko

In Florida, state officials are encountering stiff resistance to their efforts to take non-citizens off the voter rolls.

* STIFF RESISTANCE FROM WHOM... OR WHAT...? (READ ON!)

The Sunshine State’s recent history provides a compelling case for why voter rolls must be accurate: In the 2000 presidential election, George W. Bush won the state by a mere 537 votes. So last year, when Florida officials realized there was a way to check voter rolls to make sure every voter was a citizen, they jumped at the opportunity.

* SOUNDS REASONABLE!

Because the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles tracks the legal status of those who obtain driver’s licenses — i.e. whether the license holder is a citizen or legally present through a visa or some other method — officials were able to compare this list with the list of registered voters. It wasn’t a foolproof method. Someone could have been a legal alien at the time he obtained a driver’s license and yet could have become a citizen by the time he registered to vote years later. Still, the comparison between the voter-registration records and the driver’s-license records seemed like a reasonable starting point.

* YEP. MAKES SENSE.

And it revealed that up to 180,000 Florida voters were potentially not citizens.

* WOAH...!

But the state wanted a more accurate way of determining voters’ citizenship status. So last year, Florida asked the Department of Homeland Security for access to the department’s citizenship records, which have more current information.

* AGAIN... SOUNDS PERFECTLY REASONABLE.

Despite repeated requests, the department has yet to give the state access, prompting Florida secretary of state Ken Detzner to write a letter to Secretary Janet Napolitano late last month, asking that DHS cooperate with Florida.

“Federal law expressly requires your agency to respond to state inquiries seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within its jurisdiction for any purpose authorized by law,” Detzner wrote. “Additionally, DHS has recently stated that the SAVE database could be used for voter-registration purposes. . . . Yet after nine months of requests, we have not been granted access to that information or any other available DHS database.”

(*FROWN*)

Meanwhile, Florida had sent letters to 2,600 voters notifying them that the state had reason to believe they were not citizens. If the voters were citizens, they could contact their local elections supervisor and provide proof of their citizenship. If they were not, or did not respond to the letter, it was up to the local elections supervisor to decide whether the person should be left on the voter rolls for now or not.

* ACTUALLY, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE LOCAL ELECTIONS SUPERVISOR SHOULD BE GIVEN NO CHOICE IN THE MATTER. THOSE WHO DO NOT RESPOND TO THE LETTERS SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE VOTER ROLLS - IMMEDIATELY!

* TO BE CONTINUED...

June 7, 2012 at 11:10 AM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

Detzner spokesman Chris Cate says there have been some instances of “people who are actually non-citizens contacting the supervisor of elections and saying, ‘Remove me from the rolls.’”

* GOOD! AND THESE ARE PEOPLE WHOM I WOULD HOPE TO SEE APPLY FOR AND GET CITIZENSHIP!

In Miami-Dade County, for instance, the supervisor of elections “informed us of 13 people last week who had contacted her office and requested to be removed from the voter rolls.” “The last thing we want to do is remove an eligible voter from the voter rolls,” Cate stresses. “We’re not aware of anyone who’s an eligible voter that has been removed as a result of this process.”

* AGAIN... THIS MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO ME. (HOW'BOUT TO YOU?)

But Detzner’s efforts have stirred controversy nonetheless. Florida Democrats highlighted the case of 91-year-old World War II veteran Bill Internicola, who received a letter asking him to verify his citizenship if he wished to remain a Florida voter. Several Florida Democrats serving in Congress, including current Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, signed a letter to Governor Rick Scott, requesting that the process be ended.

* HUH...?!?! I GOT PROOFED THIS PAST WEEKEND IN RICHMOND, VA., PRIOR TO BEING ALLOWED TO PURCHASE ALCOHOL BEING OFFERED DURING A STREET FAIR! I'M 50 YEARS OLD AND THOUGH I LIKE TO THINK I LOOK YOUNG... I DON'T LOOK THAT DAMN YOUNG! COM'ON... NO HARM, NO FOUL - BETTER OVERKILL THAN UNDERKILL IN ATTEMPTING TO ADMINISTER A FAIR VOTING PROCESS!

“Providing a list of names of questionable validity — created with absolutely no oversight — to county supervisors and asking that they purge their rolls will create chaotic results and further undermine Floridians’ confidence in the integrity of our elections,” wrote the Democrats.

* BULLSHIT. POINT BLANK, DEMS LIKE WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ WANT ILLEGAL ALIENS TO VOTE BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE "THE MATH" FAVORS DEMS GETTING MORE OF THEIR VOTES THAN REPUBLICANS.

Further fuel was added to the controversy when the Miami Herald released an analysis “of the list [of 2,600 voters that] found it was dominated by Democrats, independents and Hispanics.”

* WELL... LIKE I WAS SAYING... (*SNORT*) (*WRY CHUCKLE*)

Last week, the Department of Justice sent a letter to Detzner, suggesting that Florida was acting illegally. T. Christian Herren, chief of the voting section of the department’s civil rights division, wrote that Florida needed to obtain approval before taking any such action in five counties that are “subject to the requirements of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.”

* FOLKS... (*SIGH*)... WE COVERED THIS THE OTHER DAY. THIS HERREN DUDE IS FULL OF SHIT. AGAIN... THIS IS ABOUT DEMS WANTING TO SUBVERT DEMOCRACY FOR PARTISAN GAIN. IT'S DISGUSTING!

June 7, 2012 at 11:11 AM
William R. Barker said...

* THREE-PARTER... (Part 1 of 3)

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/06/06/killing_it

Last week, two blockbuster New York Times stories cast perhaps the most unfavorable light on President Barack Obama's foreign-policy performance since he took office.

First, there was the revelation that Obama maintains a "kill list" of potential al Qaeda targets and signs off personally on major drone strikes in the continuing global war on terror. While Obama's involvement suggests a certain level of rigor in target selection, the article also highlighted the fact that the president is ordering military strikes, including against U.S. citizens, without any congressional or judicial oversight.

Next came the revelation that under Obama's presidency the United States has not only continued but ramped up a de facto war with Iran, with cyber-tools intended to disrupt Iran's efforts to create a nuclear weapon.

* A STRATEGY I APPLAUD... BUT... ONLY IF CONGRESS SIGNS ON. UNILATERAL PRESIDENTIAL ACTIONS OF THIS TYPE ARE BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Both stories speak to the lack of transparency in the Obama White House on matters of national security - as well as to the president's somewhat promiscuous use of force against declared and undeclared enemies of the United States.

But if one puts aside the many good reasons to be concerned about such policies on legal and moral grounds, it's highly unlikely that Obama will be hurt politically by these revelations: if anything, quite the opposite. While some members of the president's own party might be offended by Obama's actions, the great majority of Americans seem blithely unconcerned.

* THIS IS BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION. (*SHRUG*)

The stories will, in fact, neutralize Republican attack lines and bolster the president's already strong public ratings on national security. In a country that still maintains ill will toward Iran for the hostage crisis 30-plus years ago and fears the potential machinations of jihadi terrorists, Obama's actions are political winners.

* TRUE. (*SHRUG*)

* TO BE CONTINUED...

June 7, 2012 at 2:24 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 3)

To understand why the existence of a presidential kill list won't do much to dent Obama's strong foreign-policy standing, it's important to remember that Americans don't just like drone warfare - they love it. A Washington Post poll this February found that 83% of Americans approve of Obama's drone policy. (It's hard to think of anything that 83% of Americans agree on these days.) In addition, a whopping 77% of liberal Democrats support the use of drones -- and 65% are fine with missile strikes against U.S. citizens, as was the case with the Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, killed last September by a drone.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

* WHAT THESE FOOLS DON'T UNDERSTAND IS THAT TO HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF FOREIGNERS SUCH ACTIONS ON OUR PART JUSTIFY TERRORISM AGAINST US.

The popularity of unmanned vehicles is not difficult to understand. They're cheap; they keep Americans out of harm's way; and they kill "bad guys." That unnamed and unseen civilians may be getting killed in the process or that the attacks stretch the outer limits of statutory law are of less concern.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

Indeed, rare is the American war where such legal and humanitarian niceties mattered much to the electorate.

(*SIGH*)

And, in fairness to Obama, nothing about the drone war should be a major surprise to the American people. Throughout the 2008 campaign, then-Senator Obama was a loud, uncompromising advocate of ramping up cross-border drone attacks against al Qaeda in Pakistan. His August 2008 acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention didn't feature a passionate call to close the Guantánamo Bay prison or wind down the war on terror. Rather, Obama said this: "I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. You know, John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the gates of Hell - but he won't even go to the cave where he lives."

* TRUE... (*SHRUG*)

Not a lot of subtlety there, but then again not much in the way of ambiguity about Obama's plans as president.

As for cyber-warfare with Iran, this falls into a similar category as drones.

Americans don't like Iran; they are deeply concerned about Tehran getting a nuclear weapon and have demonstrated a surprising willingness to countenance a military solution to stopping Iran from getting a bomb. In fact, a March 2012 poll indicated that 53% of Americans support taking military action against Iran "even if it causes gasoline and fuel prices in the United States to go up." And no one likes when gas prices go up. Given those numbers, it's not hard to imagine that an overwhelming majority of Americans would be fully supportive of a stealth cyber-campaign as a cheap and efficient way to thwart Iran's nuclear aspirations. That such a move might represent an act of war by the United States against Iran is again likely of peripheral concern.

(*SIGH*) YEP. THE AVERAGE AMERICAN DOESN'T EVEN CONSIDER THAT ACTS OF WAR COMMITTED IN THE NAME OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MAY ONE DAY BITE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ON THE ASS.

* TO BE CONTINUED...

June 7, 2012 at 2:26 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 3 of 3)

If anything, it's a mark in Obama's political favor - a sign of his seriousness in keeping Americans safe from terrorists, from Iranians with nuclear weapons, or from other hyped-up potential threats to the United States.

Beyond the immediate political benefit of proving Obama's toughness, both New York Times stories have the added benefit of undercutting a key Republican critique. If there is any one issue on which Obama is somewhat vulnerable to GOP attack it is on Iran and the notion that he has not been tough enough in preventing that country from developing a bomb. Indeed, Republicans have been clamoring for increased covert action against Iran for months. Now, the cyber-war story demonstrates that Obama is doing precisely that. And the drones story is a further reminder that Obama has taken the fight to al Qaeda, which includes the killing of Osama bin Laden and now the terrorist group's No. 2, Abu Yahya al-Libi. The White House can hardly go wrong in reminding Americans of that fact.

* I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH KILLING TERRORISTS. I JUST WANT IT DONE WITHIN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK! I WANT CONGRESS TO BEAR THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES! I WANT THE PRESIDENT - ANY AND ALL PRESIDENTS - TO ACT WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION AND NOT GO BEYOND IT!

The final piece of the puzzle for the White House is that neither Obama's drone war nor his secret war against Iran engages any serious partisan passions. Republicans are hardly going to be critical of kill lists or covert war against Iran. They might keep their praise to a minimum, but these are precisely the sorts of policies that Republicans have long supported. Even presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who has been anything but consistent in his attacks on Obama, would find it difficult to hit Obama on these fronts. In reality, there is a disquieting political consensus in support of these policies.

(*SIGH*) (*NOD*) THIS IS BECAUSE BIPARTISAN CONTEMPT FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND THE RULE OF LAW IS WIDESPREAD.

If there is any place where Obama is likely to get grief, though, it is from his own liberal base.

* HMM... I WOULDN'T CALL RON PAUL "OBAMA'S LIBERAL BASE." (*SNORT*) (*SMIRK*) (*SNICKER*)

* YEAH, YEAH... I KNOW WHO THE AUTHOR WAS REFERRING TO. BUT THAT LINE WAS PURE PARTISAN MANIPULATION. THE TRUTH IS, PELOSI AND REID ARE MOSTLY SILENT AND CERTAINLY WHEN IT COMES TO ACTIONS... THEY'VE DONE NOTHING TO CONSTRAIN OBAMA'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS. (UNDERSTAND, FOLKS... FP MAGAZINE IS A JOURNAL OF THE CENTER-LEFT.)

Since the revelations appeared in the New York Times, the outcry from the president's left wing has been unremittingly harsh.

* OH, PLEASE! I'LL BET THE ONLY TIME MOST OF YOU FOLKS HERE SUCH CRITICISMS ARE FROM ME HERE AT USUALLY RIGHT!

But it's hard to imagine that the Obama campaign in Chicago is worrying much about such criticism. That Obama's national security policies upset liberals only further confirms his image as not your typical Jimmy Carter/Michael Dukakis/John Kerry liberal afraid to use American power. These, of course, are political canards, but potent ones - and they have clearly shaped the Obama administration's thinking on foreign policy since the day he took office.

In the end, there are plenty of legitimate policy reasons for the course that Obama has set in fighting terrorism and restraining Iran's nuclear program. But it doesn't take a cynic to recognize there is a tangible political benefit here as well. After all, these stories weren't leaked to the New York Times by accident.

* THAT'S TRUE!

June 7, 2012 at 2:26 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/07/morning-bell-dysfunctional-washington/?roi=echo3-12235879580-8840674-80706e920f0cdb135c56cbde3787d865&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

Within one year of being elected, Governor Scott Walker (R) reformed [his] state’s public sector pension system, eliminated a $3.6 billion budget deficit without raising taxes, saved taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, and helped create the conditions that have allowed Wisconsin’s economy to grow again.

Meanwhile, thanks to the dysfunction in Washington, America [as a nation] continues to suffer high unemployment, out-of-control spending, and faces a historic tax hike that could send the country over a fiscal cliff.

Last week, Americans received more bad news on the country’s economic performance.

According to the latest Department of Labor jobs report, the U.S. economy created only 69,000 net jobs in May, and the unemployment rate increased to 8.2%.

To add insult to injury, it was also reported that employers created 49,000 fewer jobs than originally estimated in March and April.

(*SMIRK*)

Put it all together, and we see that the U.S. economy is approaching stall speed.

If Washington doesn’t act, things could get much worse...

[A] massive $494 billion tax increase [is] set to hit on January 1, 2013.

Known as “Taxmageddon,” the tax hike will be the result of the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, the termination of other tax policies, and the imposition of new taxes, such as those under ObamaCare.

* YEAH, FOLKS... REMEMBER... OBAMA AND THE DEMS IN CONGRESS BACKLOADED PAYING FOR OBAMACARE! NICE, HUH?!

Economists say that Taxmageddon will spell further doom for the U.S. economy, and this week, even former President Bill Clinton agreed that Washington should temporarily extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

* ONE... MORE... TIME...

[E]ven former President Bill Clinton agreed that Washington should temporarily extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has said the House will vote on extending the tax policies before the November election, but President Barack Obama and Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) have so far ignored the pending crisis.

Meanwhile, the economy is in limbo...

June 7, 2012 at 2:38 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://lewrockwell.com/napolitano/napolitano57.1.html

* BY JUDGE ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO

For the past few weeks, I have been writing in this column about the government's use of drones and challenging their constitutionality on Fox News Channel where I work.

[Also,] for the first time since the Civil War, the federal government will deploy military personnel inside the United States and publicly acknowledge that it is deploying them "to collect information about U.S. persons."

* SO MUCH FOR POSSE COMITATUS!

It gets worse. If the military personnel see something "of interest" from a drone, they may apply to a military judge or "military commander" for permission to conduct a physical search of the private property that intrigues them.

* SO MUCH FOR THE BILL OF RIGHTS!

[A]ny "incidentally acquired information" can be retained or turned over to local law enforcement.

(What's next? Prosecutions before military tribunals in the U.S.?)

The photos that the drones will take may be retained and used or even distributed to others in the government so long as the "recipient is reasonably perceived to have a specific, lawful governmental function" in requiring them.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

Did you consent to the government having [this] power?

* NOT I!

Did you consent to the American military spying on Americans in America?

* NOT I!

I don't know a single person who has, but I know only a few who are complaining.

If we remain silent when our popularly elected government violates the laws it has sworn to uphold and steals the freedoms we elected it to protect, we will have only ourselves to blame when Big Brother is everywhere.

Somehow, I doubt my father's generation fought the Nazis in World War II only to permit a totalitarian government to flourish here.

Is President Obama prepared to defend this?

Is Gov. Romney prepared to challenge it?

Are you prepared for its consequences?

June 7, 2012 at 3:02 PM
William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/napolitano/napolitano56.1.html

* ALSO BY JUDGE ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO

This is not from a work of fiction...

This...is not describing a series of events in the Kremlin or Beijing or Pyongyang.

* READ ON!

The leader of the government regularly sits down with his senior generals and spies and advisers and reviews a list of the people they want him to authorize their agents to kill.

They do this every Tuesday morning when the leader is in town.

The leader once condemned any practice even close to this, but now relishes the killing because he has convinced himself that it is a sane and sterile way to keep his country safe and himself in power.

The leader, who is running for re-election, even invited his campaign manager to join the group that decides whom to kill.

* AGAIN...

This is not from a work of fiction...

This...is not describing a series of events in the Kremlin or Beijing or Pyongyang. It is a fair summary of a 6,000-word investigative report in The New York Times earlier this week about the White House of Barack Obama.

Two Times journalists, Jo Becker and Scott Shane, painstakingly and chillingly reported that the former lecturer in constitutional law and liberal senator who railed against torture and Gitmo now weekly reviews a secret kill list, personally decides who should be killed and then dispatches killers all over the world – and some of his killers have killed Americans.

We have known for some time that President Obama is waging a private war. By that I mean he is using the CIA on his own – and not the military after congressional authorization – to fire drones at thousands of persons in foreign lands, usually while they are riding in a car or a truck. He has done this both with the consent and over the objection of the governments of the countries in which he has killed. He doesn't want to talk about this, but he doesn't deny it.

Can the president legally do this?

In a word: No.

* TO BE CONTINUED...

June 7, 2012 at 3:19 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

The president cannot lawfully order the killing of anyone, except according to the Constitution and federal law.

Under the Constitution, he can only order killing using the military when the U.S. has been attacked, or when an attack is so imminent and certain that delay would cost innocent American lives, or in pursuit of a congressional declaration of war.

Under federal law, he can only order killing using civilians when a person has been sentenced lawfully to death by a federal court and the jury verdict and the death sentence have been upheld on appeal.

If he uses the military to kill, federal law requires public reports of its use to Congress and congressional approval after 180 days.

The U.S. has not declared war since World War II. If the president knows that an attack on our shores is imminent, he'd be hard-pressed to argue convincingly that a guy in a truck in a desert 10,000 miles from here – no matter his intentions – poses a threat to the U.S. so imminent and certain that he needs to be killed on the spot in order to save the lives of Americans who would surely die during the time it would take to declare war on the country that harbors him, or during the time it would take to arrest him.

Federal laws against murder apply to the president and to all federal agents and personnel, wherever they go on the planet. Under no circumstances may [the president or one of his subordinates] use civilian agents for non-judicial killing.

* AND YET... (*SHRUG*)... THIS IS WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING.

Since 9/11, the United States government has set up national security systems that function not under the Constitution, not under the Geneva Conventions, not under the rule of law, not under the rules of war, not under federal law, but under a new secret system crafted by the Bush administration and [now] personally directed by Obama - the same Obama who condemned these rules as senator... and then extended them as president.

In the name of fighting demons in pick-up trucks and wars that Congress has never declared, the government shreds our rights, taps our cellphones, reads our emails, kills innocents abroad, strip searches 87-year-old grandmothers in wheelchairs and 3-year-old babies in their mothers' arms, and offers secrecy when the law requires accountability.

President Obama has argued that his careful consideration of each person he orders killed and the narrow use of deadly force are an adequate and constitutional substitute for due process. The Constitution provides for no such thing.

* AGAIN, FOLKS... HERE'S THE PROBLEM: MOST POLITICIANS DON'T CARE WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS!

* FOLKS... ABSENT FIGHTING FIRE WITH FIRE - TAKING THE LAW INTO OUR OWN HANDS AS THE POLITICIANS DO - HOW DO WE RESTORE CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE AND THE RULE OF LAW TO AMERICA?

June 7, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)