State Dept. Proposes "Biographical Questionnaire" For Passport Applicants
http://www.papersplease.org/wp/2011/03/18/state-dept-proposes-biographical-questionnaire-for-passport-applicants/
"The U.S. Department of State is proposing a new Biographical Questionnaire for passport applicants. The proposed new Form DS-5513 asks for all addresses since birth; lifetime employment history including employers’ and supervisors names, addresses, and telephone numbers; personal details of all siblings; mother’s address one year prior to your birth; any 'religious ceremony' around the time of birth; and a variety of other information. According to the proposed form, 'failure to provide the information requested may result in ... the denial of your U.S. passport application.'"
Never, ever interact with a government official without having a recorder running.
There was an error in this gadget
0
 | Supreme Court: Banks who received Taxpayer Bailouts must be disclosedScotty Starnes | March 21, 2011 at 3:23 PM | Tags: bank bailouts, Bloomberg, Fox News, Freedom of Information Act, liberal media, SCOTUS, Supreme Court | Categories: Political Issues | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-4O2 |
Those 'fat-cat' bankers, as Obama is fond of calling them, do not want their names out in the public. Too bad.
CNBC.com reports:
The Supreme Court let stand a ruling that the U.S. Federal Reserve must disclose details about its emergency lending programs to banks during the financial crisis in 2008.
A group representing major commercial banks had asked the high court to reverse a ruling by a federal appeals court that required disclosure of the lending records.
The justices rejected the banks' appeals. The Obama administration said the appeals should be denied.
It said the financial overhaul law adopted last year set new standards on releasing information about emergency lending programs and the law required the disclosure in December of much of the data at issue in the cases.
Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg News, and News Corp's [NWS 17.69
0.54 (+3.15%)
] Fox News Network had sought the bailout details under the federal freedom of information law, which requires government agencies make certain documents public.
Where was the liberal media? ABC, CBS and NBC didn't feel this was important information for Americans to have?
The two news organizations opposed the appeals, telling the Supreme Court the appeals court decision was correct on the merits and that further delay in releasing the remaining records would be unwarranted under the law.
The appeals court ordered the disclosure of borrowers' names, loan amounts and loan dates for transactions at the Fed's discount window and from its emergency lending facilities.
The Clearing House Association, representing the largest commercial banks that hold more than half of all U.S. deposits, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the emergency lending data should be kept secret.
They wanted to hide how much $$$ they received from the taxpayers.
 | WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! |
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Here are 7 reports of police misconduct in the United States and Canada as tracked by the National Police Misconduct News Feed:
- Cop Slams Female To The Ground ...a bystander caught the actions of this Savannah-Chatham Metropolitan Police Department officer on their cell phone.
- A Bloomington IL police officer was placed on that state’s list of potential child abusers but was not criminally charged on allegations that he lifted a 7-year-old special needs student by the throat and slammed him against a wall while he was having a seizure and being held down by the school counselor and then asked “who’s next?” He apparently did this without being asked to help after he had responded to a different unrelated call from that school.
- The Darby PA police chief is under investigation for allegedly injuring a Colwyn PA police officer by slamming his leg in a car door while the two were having a dispute about jurisdiction.
- An investigative report found that the New York NY police department is currently retaining 300 police officers on city payrolls at a cost of $22,000,000 to taxpayers even though these officer are no longer trusted to enforce the law due to misconduct. In fact, if they see a crime they are required to call 911.
- Two Fairbanks AK police officers are under investigation over unspecified criminal complaints about their conduct at a bar on St. Patrick's Day.
- An Albany NY police detective, who happens to be the department’s public information officer, has been arrested on a drunk driving charge while behind the wheel of a police department vehicle.
- And finally, a Shreveport LA police officer was arrested on drunk driving charges after being stopped by state police for speeding while off duty.
Never, ever interact with a government official without having a recorder running.
"American politicians, along with most people in the country, prefer to remain in denial about this connection. Are they even aware that some government officials and entities have acknowledged that it is U.S. foreign policy that produces radicalization and terrorism?
"The Pentagon's own Defense Science Board Task Force came to this conclusion in 2004 when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld asked it to evaluate the Bush administration's war policies.
""American efforts have not only failed [to separate the vast majority of nonviolent Muslims from the radical-militant Islamist-Jihadists]: they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended. "
Muslim Radicals Strike at U.S. Foreign Policy
by Sheldon Richman, March 21, 2011
U.S. Rep. Peter King's recent hearing on the domestic radicalization of Muslims was an act of misdirection. While King, a New York Republican, no doubt exaggerates this phenomenon, he might as well have held a hearing on why objects drop when let go. The answer is obvious. The violence the U.S. government inflicts on the Muslim world is the source of hostility to America. If it's true of people in the Middle East and North Africa, why wouldn't it also be true of Muslim Americans?
But did King take a critical look at U.S. foreign policy? No, he didn't. That policy is sacrosanct. Thus when witness Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, told King's Homeland Security committee, "The U.S. has a significant problem with Muslim radicalization," without mentioning the death, injury, and mayhem inflicted by the U.S. government on Arab countries, no member of the committee spoke up.
American politicians, along with most people in the country, prefer to remain in denial about this connection. Are they even aware that some government officials and entities have acknowledged that it is U.S. foreign policy that produces radicalization and terrorism?
The Pentagon's own Defense Science Board Task Force came to this conclusion in 2004 when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld asked it to evaluate the Bush administration's war policies. The report is worth quoting at length:
"American efforts have not only failed [to separate the vast majority of nonviolent Muslims from the radical-militant Islamist-Jihadists]: they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended.
"American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies.
"Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states....
"[Since 9/11] American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims...."
The scholar Robert Pape's exhaustive studies of suicide terrorism confirm this claim.
We have further evidence that it is U.S. policy that radicalizes Muslims. From whom? From the radicalized Muslims themselves.
Osama bin Laden issued his 1996 fatwa against the United States, "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places," after the U.S. government stationed troops in Saudi Arabia, regularly bombed southern Iraq (long after Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait was reversed), and enforced an embargo that would kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. "Terrorising you, while you are carrying arms on our land, is a legitimate and morally demanded duty," he wrote.
According to the 9/11 Commission report, plot mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's "animus toward the United States stemmed ... from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel," a policy that supports the subjugation of Palestinians.
Mohamed Atta, one of the 9/11 suicide hijackers, committed himself to martyrdom on April 11, 1996, the day Israel attacked Lebanon in Operation Grapes of Wrath, writes Lawrence Wright in The Looming Tower.
Ramzi Yousef, a planner of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, lashed out at U.S. foreign policy during his sentencing: "[You] are more than terrorists; you are the one who invented terrorism and using it every day."
Richard Reid, the would-be shoe-bomber, told his sentencing judge, "Your government has killed two million children in Iraq.... Your government has sponsored the rape and torture of Muslims in the prisons of Egypt and Turkey and Syria and Jordan with their money and with their weapons."
And Faisal Shahzad, who tried to ignite a car bomb in Times Square, said in court, "[Until] the hour the U.S. pulls its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan, and stops the occupation of Muslim lands, and stops killing the Muslims, and stops reporting the Muslims to its government, we will be attacking U.S."
When will Congress investigate the true cause of Islamic radicalization?
http://www.fff.org/comment/com1103j.asp
"The Pentagon's own Defense Science Board Task Force came to this conclusion in 2004 when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld asked it to evaluate the Bush administration's war policies.
""American efforts have not only failed [to separate the vast majority of nonviolent Muslims from the radical-militant Islamist-Jihadists]: they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended. "
Muslim Radicals Strike at U.S. Foreign Policy
by Sheldon Richman, March 21, 2011
U.S. Rep. Peter King's recent hearing on the domestic radicalization of Muslims was an act of misdirection. While King, a New York Republican, no doubt exaggerates this phenomenon, he might as well have held a hearing on why objects drop when let go. The answer is obvious. The violence the U.S. government inflicts on the Muslim world is the source of hostility to America. If it's true of people in the Middle East and North Africa, why wouldn't it also be true of Muslim Americans?
But did King take a critical look at U.S. foreign policy? No, he didn't. That policy is sacrosanct. Thus when witness Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, told King's Homeland Security committee, "The U.S. has a significant problem with Muslim radicalization," without mentioning the death, injury, and mayhem inflicted by the U.S. government on Arab countries, no member of the committee spoke up.
American politicians, along with most people in the country, prefer to remain in denial about this connection. Are they even aware that some government officials and entities have acknowledged that it is U.S. foreign policy that produces radicalization and terrorism?
The Pentagon's own Defense Science Board Task Force came to this conclusion in 2004 when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld asked it to evaluate the Bush administration's war policies. The report is worth quoting at length:
"American efforts have not only failed [to separate the vast majority of nonviolent Muslims from the radical-militant Islamist-Jihadists]: they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended.
"American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies.
"Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states....
"[Since 9/11] American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims...."
The scholar Robert Pape's exhaustive studies of suicide terrorism confirm this claim.
We have further evidence that it is U.S. policy that radicalizes Muslims. From whom? From the radicalized Muslims themselves.
Osama bin Laden issued his 1996 fatwa against the United States, "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places," after the U.S. government stationed troops in Saudi Arabia, regularly bombed southern Iraq (long after Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait was reversed), and enforced an embargo that would kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. "Terrorising you, while you are carrying arms on our land, is a legitimate and morally demanded duty," he wrote.
According to the 9/11 Commission report, plot mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's "animus toward the United States stemmed ... from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel," a policy that supports the subjugation of Palestinians.
Mohamed Atta, one of the 9/11 suicide hijackers, committed himself to martyrdom on April 11, 1996, the day Israel attacked Lebanon in Operation Grapes of Wrath, writes Lawrence Wright in The Looming Tower.
Ramzi Yousef, a planner of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, lashed out at U.S. foreign policy during his sentencing: "[You] are more than terrorists; you are the one who invented terrorism and using it every day."
Richard Reid, the would-be shoe-bomber, told his sentencing judge, "Your government has killed two million children in Iraq.... Your government has sponsored the rape and torture of Muslims in the prisons of Egypt and Turkey and Syria and Jordan with their money and with their weapons."
And Faisal Shahzad, who tried to ignite a car bomb in Times Square, said in court, "[Until] the hour the U.S. pulls its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan, and stops the occupation of Muslim lands, and stops killing the Muslims, and stops reporting the Muslims to its government, we will be attacking U.S."
When will Congress investigate the true cause of Islamic radicalization?
http://www.fff.org/comment/com1103j.asp
Congressional ignorance of law, history and reality
Published 03/16/2011 - 2:20 p.m. EDT
Everyone says stupid things from time to time and most times the flubs can and should be forgiven. When those gaffs come from those who presume to be leaders, one can either laugh at them or get angry. Sometimes both reactions come out at the same time and are equally appropriate.
Members of the US House of Representatives made a big deal of reading the US Constitution when the 112th Congress convened in January. We were critical later when many of them proved they would not pay heed to constitutional principles when those members voted to continue provisions of the unconstitutional Patriot Act.
Now members are showing more ignorance that can be funny, sad and scary.
Consider first US Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., far from a history scholar. While speaking before a group of tea partiers in New Hampshire Saturday said, "You're true lovers of liberty. You're the state where the shot was heard around the world in Lexington and Concord."
New Hampshire? Really? Wrong. Lexington and Concord are in Massachusetts.
When she was called on the error, Ms. Bachmann admitted to the mistake but reportedly pointed the blame up Pennsylvania Avenue: "That will be the last time I borrow President Obama's teleprompter!"
Cute, but it was her foot in her mouth. She needs to think before speaking…and read some history.
There is also the genius Harry Reid, the Democratic Party senator from Nevada who, in the face of a $14.2 trillion federal debt wants US taxpayers to continue funding a cowboy poetry festival.
Take away that funding, he said and "The thousands of people who attend wouldn't even exist."
The senator should get a grip.
Then there was a comment from US Rep. Danny K. Davis, D-Ill.: "As I've listened, I've heard the Constitution being mentioned a number of times. And I thought of the preamble that simply says that 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'"
Those lines are from the Declaration of Independence, Rep. Davis. Please get your act together or you'll have to attend summer school with Rep. Bachmann.
What's not funny, however, is the setting in which Mr. Davis made the comment. It came during the hearing held by US Rep. Peter T. King:"The Extent Of Radicalization In The American Muslim Community And That Community's Response"
This is frightening in its potential. Even local Republicans (who will not be named) believe that singling out of one group of people such as Muslims represents a new wave of McCarthyism.
It's worse than that. By singling one group of people, the specter of Japanese interment camps rears its ugly head. It is racist, pure and simple, completely ignoring the Timothy McVeighs and other homegrown terrorists who happen to be white and Christian.
Mr. King, a New York Republican, would do well to heed the advice of fellow Republican Ron Paul, of Texas, and look to American foreign policy as the root cause of terrorism that targets the United States.
http://www.chaddsfordlive.com/article/Editorial_Opinion/Editorial/Congressional_ignorance_of_law_history_and_reality/73979&authorizedAccess
War in Libya: Barack Obama Gets in Touch With His Inner Neocon
Doug Bandow
Posted: March 19, 2011 10:51 PM
Candidate Barack Obama ran for president on a platform of change. Many policies deserved reform, none more than President George W. Bush's propensity to initiate unnecessary wars of choice. Iraq was a debacle from the start; the shift from counter-terrorism to counter-insurgency in Afghanistan turned that conflict into a second disaster.
Since taking office President Obama has left U.S. troops in Iraq and expanded the war in Afghanistan. Now he has taken America into its third war in a Muslim nation within a decade -- to promote "global peace and security," he claimed, the usual justification used by presidents to enter conflicts which serve neither. President Obama obviously has found his inner Neocon and joined Washington's RepubliCrat Party.
The president received much criticism for taking so long to decide to enter the Libyan civil war. But war is a momentous decision which deserves more consideration than the length of time it takes for one of Washington's many think tank warriors to dash off a pro-war op-ed. As expected, the potential whiff of gunpowder in the air brought out the famed Sofa Samurai who pushed America into the two other wars in which the U.S. is still entangled. President Obama was right to take longer to decide.
Now he deserves criticism -- for deciding wrongly.
What is the U.S. doing in Libya? It is hard to imagine, given the dearth of American interests in that nation.
The administration's purported humanitarian concerns are charming, but curious. The Western powers knew Muammar Gaddafi was a nasty dictator a couple months ago when they were feting him for having reformed and joined the international community. Humanitarianism didn't matter much so long as the Crazy Colonel was serving allied interests.
When the popular uprising failed to quickly eject him, an extended fight became likely. Such conflicts are never pretty, as America well knows, having lost more than 600,000 people in its own Civil War. Nor has Washington worried much when its allies did whatever was necessary to resist challenges to their authority. For instance, the U.S. didn't object to the Turkish military using U.S.-made weapons to brutally crush the long-running Kurdish insurgency. Nearly 40,000 people died in that conflict, but demands to "stop the violence" never passed the lips of American policymakers.
Now Washington is standing by as the authoritarian Bahrain monarchy, backed by the totalitarian theocracy in Saudi Arabia next door, kills demonstrators and arrests opposition leaders. An embarrassed Obama administration has expressed its aversion to violence and desire for negotiation. But there have been no press conferences by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proposing to pull the U.S. Navy out of its base in Manama and advance a Bahraini no fly zone resolution at the United Nations. Human rights and democracy? Well, we obviously shouldn't go overboard.
What happens if troops sent in by the Sunni monarchies of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates shoot down Shiite demonstrators in Bahrain? Will the Obama administration do anything more than clear its collective throat?
Even more dubious is the claim that Washington must intervene since the Libyan conflict is destabilizing the region. The Libyan uprising was triggered by the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, not vice versa. Africa has suffered far worse conflicts for decades without affecting America or Europe. Continued U.S. support for Israel despite the latter's authoritarian rule over millions of Palestinians weighs far more heavily on the Arab Street than whether America is willing to push Gaddafi out of power. And Bahrain is today's most dangerous regional spark, with the potential of triggering a Gulf-wide conflict between Shia and Sunni.
Anyway, getting involved in someone else's civil war is a curious way to promote stability. A simple no fly zone, especially at this stage, wouldn't likely alter the balance of power on the ground. Hence the more expansive resolution and French action against Libyan ground forces. But this means the allies are taking sides in a civil war, not protecting civilians. The ultimate objective is to take Tripoli, not safeguard Benghazi.
Gaddafi is not likely to retreat, let alone surrender, however. Unless the allies are prepared to accept a stalemate they likely will have to escalate. After all, they can ill afford to demand Gaddafi's departure and deploy military force, and then fail to achieve their objective. What if air strikes aren't enough? The UN resolution authorizes "all necessary force excluding a foreign occupation force." Does that mean ground support so long as it is not intended to occupy?
In his address to the nation the president said he did not intend to send in troops, but what if doing so is the only way to end the conflict to America's satisfaction? What if the British and French say they are going in, with or without Washington's support? Outside governments would end up taking over the opposition in Libya's civil war.
What happens if Gaddafi is defeated? The winners may not be as ready to forgive and forget as Washington seems to assume: witness the mass ethnic cleansing committed by ethnic-Albanians after NATO ousted Serbian forces from Kosovo. Sporadic violence has continued against the minority Serbian population over the years. Today the U.S. is tied to a government headed by onetime guerrillas linked to regional crime networks and charged with harvesting organs for profit from Serb prisoners.
Who would triumph in a revolutionary Libya? Most American policymakers know nothing about the intricacies of the societies which they invade and occupy -- look at Afghanistan and Iraq. Libya is divided by tribe and region; the opposition ranges from Western-style liberals to terrorist-minded jihadists to onetime pro-Gaddafi opportunists. The endgame is not likely to be simple. Having ousted Gaddafi, the U.S. and Europeans could not let just anyone succeed him. Which likely means years of meddling in the politics of a fragile new client state.
No more plausible is the claim that having angered Gaddafi by ineffectively backing his ouster, the allies should not risk leaving him in power, lest he return to his old anti-Western practices. It's a shameless bootstrap argument: our approach to Libya has been entirely unnecessary, ineffectual, and counterproductive, so now we must go to war. No one making this argument should be entrusted with running American foreign policy.
Anyway, the fact that Gaddafi previously abandoned both terrorism and nuclear developments demonstrates that he responds to outside incentives. He wants to regain control of Libya. However much he may desire revenge against the West, that objective likely would be only secondary. The threat of allied military retaliation would likely keep him in check. Iraq demonstrates the practical case against preventive war: Far better to attack another nation only if it actually becomes necessary than because someone thinks there is a vague chance that some day war might possibly become necessary.
Perhaps the most foolish case for American military action is that Washington has to go to war to make friends in Libya and the Arab world. The opposition in Libya understandably wants support, but so would most any other guerrilla force around the world. For instance, the Kurds probably would have welcomed an offer of American airstrikes on Turkish military installations. Wanting people on one side of a conflict to like you is a bizarre justification for raining down death and destruction on other people, who aren't going to like you very much.
Will killing Arabs to help Arabs improve America's image among other Arabs? The answer is not clear. Although the Arab League endorsed a no fly zone, opinion throughout the Middle East appears split. Even many Arabs who favor action against Gaddafi believe Turkey should have taken the lead. Yet the United States again plans on determining the destiny of a Muslim and Arab nation.
Moreover, positive opinion today could quickly swing negative. The operation could go bad: Launching errant and deadly air strikes, arbitrarily picking winners and losers within the opposition, imposing policies on a new government, triggering a second civil war after Gaddafi is deposed. Given grievous allied blundering in Afghanistan and Iraq, there's no reason to believe that the West will do significantly better in Libya.
As the Kennedy School's Graham Allison argued, American acquiescence in the UN resolution could have been beneficial if Washington had left the campaign to the Europeans. Let them finally take on international security responsibilities commensurate with their interests and wealth. However, that isn't proving to be the case. The U.S. already has launched numerous Tomahawk cruise missile strikes against Libyan air defense installations. If the Europeans falter in their anti-Gaddafi campaign, they are likely to call on America for additional help.
Perhaps most curious are the legislators who paraded about Capitol Hill demanding action. Where is their declaration of war? The Constitution puts the decision for war in the hands of Congress, not the United Nations. Yet again American legislators have avoided political responsibility for sending young Americans into combat. If the conflict misfires, they will parade about Capitol Hill criticizing the administration.
Nevertheless, the chief blame for this unnecessary war falls on the president. He abandoned his responsibilities to the American people for yet another foolish international crusade. The long-term costs are uncertain but likely to far exceed the benefits.
Candidate Obama never claimed to be a dove. Rather, he allowed peace-minded voters to assume he was on their side because of his prescient opposition to the Iraq war. It turns out that may be the only significant, substantive foreign policy difference between him and his predecessor. President Obama apparently is a liberal hawk. He may be a little less enthused about going to war than is the Neoconservative Greek Chorus that cheers every conflict everywhere, but in practice he is no less willing to use the military.
Libya is not America's war. It is justified neither on security or humanitarian grounds. Nor can Washington, overwhelmed with current deficits and future liabilities, afford to be world's permanent 911 number. Americans should not be expected to pick up every bill and fight every war around the globe.
We need change, real change. We need a president who doesn't believe his legacy requires him to launch his own war, killing foreigners and risking American lives in return, irrespective of American interests. Now the change that might most promote peace is the defeat of Barack Obama in 2012.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-bandow/war-in-libya-barack-obama_b_838049.html
Candidate Obama vs. President Obama On The Use Of Military Force
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/candidate-obama-vs-president-obama-a-message-on-the-use-of-military-force/
By · Friday, March 18, 2011
Four years ago, the Junior Senator from Illinois had this to say about the use of military force:
2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Hey, President Obama, doesn’t that statement mean that your own decision to authorize action against Libya is prohibited by Constitution?
I think it does.
Never, ever interact with a government official without having a recorder running.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/candidate-obama-vs-president-obama-a-message-on-the-use-of-military-force/
By · Friday, March 18, 2011
Four years ago, the Junior Senator from Illinois had this to say about the use of military force:
2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Hey, President Obama, doesn’t that statement mean that your own decision to authorize action against Libya is prohibited by Constitution?
I think it does.
Never, ever interact with a government official without having a recorder running.
| | Obama wants to kill US Energy while wanting to purchase more Oil from BrazilScotty Starnes | March 21, 2011 at 10:30 AM | Tags: Brazil, crude oil, drilling moratorium, George Soros, President Obama, President Rousseff | Categories: Political Issues | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-4NN |
Why is Obama against the U.S. drilling for our own oil while at the same time telling Brazil that America will be a 'major customer' for their oil? Obama has already approve a $2 billion dollars for oil exploration in Brazil. Yes, our taxdollars are being used to support Brazil's oil exploration.
I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that his boss, George Soros, has stock in a Brazilian oil company named Petrobras? It is just a coincidence that this Brazilian oil company received a rare drilling permit to drill in the Gulf as Obama refuses to issue permits to American oil companies.
watch?v=-_c-NI27IIU&feature=player_embedded
The Telegraph reports:
Prices for Brent crude hit more than $117 last week as the civil war in Libya continued and are likely to rise further after the start of UN-backed action against Col Gaddafi's forces.
Traders are also concerned about protests and tensions in a number of other oil-producing nations in the region.
Mr Obama spoke of the US's desire to secure more of its oil from Brazil in future after talks with his counterpart, President Dilma Rousseff, in Brasilia at the start of a two-day visit to Latin America's biggest country. "I have told her that the United States wants to be a major customer, which can be a win-win for both our countries," he said.
Brazil possesses some of the world's biggest offshore oil reserves in the pre-salt area off its south-east coast. Ms Rousseff has stated her desire to export the vast majority of oil from the fields as the country concentrates on using renewable sources of energy such as hydroelectric power and ethanol for domestic needs.
Thanks to Obama's drilling moratorium, several oil rigs packed up and left the Gulf of Mexico. One found its way down to Brazil. Coincidence?
Speaking in a newspaper interview just before Mr Obama's arrival, she made what seemed a clear sales pitch, asking "which other country in the world has the oil reserves that Brazil has, that is not at war, that does not have an ethnic conflict, which respects contracts, has clear democratic principles and vision, is generous and in favour of peace?"
Obama hates drilling for US oil but doesn't seem to have such a problem with Brazil.
| | WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! |
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Hi everyone!
We just updated our website with more information about ATLOSCon!
Detailed class descriptions can be found here: http://www.atlantaobjectivists.com/atloscon-classes/
Speaker bios (we still have a few pictures to add) can be found here: http://www.atlantaobjectivists.com/atloscon-speakers/
Check it out!
~Jenn
You received this message because you are subscribed to the AOS Announcements group. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
AOSAnnouncements+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
| | Hilarious: Allen West (R-FL) impersonates Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)Scotty Starnes | March 21, 2011 at 4:08 PM | Tags: Allen West, Allen West (R-FL), cultof personality, Harry Reid, President Obama, tea party | Categories: Political Issues | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-4O9 |
The more I listen to, and watch, Allen West, the more I hope this man runs for President in the near futue. Allen West impersonates Harry Reid after Reid's comment about the Tea Party fading away.
watch?v=oXieflLr63k&feature=player_embedded
Could you imagine Allen West, debating President Obama, and Obama not having the aid of his teleprompter? I'd pay good money to see this happen. It could be a pay-per-view bonanza.
West nailed the left with his "cult of personality' line. This is what we are suffering from now, thanks to those who fell for catchy campaign slogans. Let's all hope that Allen West runs for president in the near future...near as in 2012.
| | WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! |
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
TSA Security Protocal Comes Under Oversight Scrutiny
http://drscoundrels.com/2011/03/21/tsa-security-protocal-comes-under-oversight-scrutiny/
"Rep. Issa has been a busy boy lately, as is his style, first on the investigation we discussed in our first article today – the investigation into the BATFE, and now, the TSA."
Darrell Issa Investigating BATFE Project Gunrunner
http://drscoundrels.com/2011/03/21/issa-investigating-batfe-project-gunrunner/
Never, ever interact with a government official without having a recorder running.
http://drscoundrels.com/2011/03/21/tsa-security-protocal-comes-under-oversight-scrutiny/
"Rep. Issa has been a busy boy lately, as is his style, first on the investigation we discussed in our first article today – the investigation into the BATFE, and now, the TSA."
Darrell Issa Investigating BATFE Project Gunrunner
http://drscoundrels.com/2011/03/21/issa-investigating-batfe-project-gunrunner/
Never, ever interact with a government official without having a recorder running.
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
A 'Unique' Form of 'Terrorism'
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/a-unique-form-of-terrorism/87269/
"Here is a thought experiment concerning two men who have issued money. One issued gold and silver coins that will today bring more in dollars than he charged for them. The other issued paper notes that are today worth but a fraction the gold or silver they were worth at the time they were issued. One man is facing the possibility of years in prison after a federal jury found his issuing of money to have been a crime. The other man is walking around free and being treated by the authorities with great deference.
"Which is which?"
Never, ever interact with a government official without having a recorder running.
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/a-unique-form-of-terrorism/87269/
"Here is a thought experiment concerning two men who have issued money. One issued gold and silver coins that will today bring more in dollars than he charged for them. The other issued paper notes that are today worth but a fraction the gold or silver they were worth at the time they were issued. One man is facing the possibility of years in prison after a federal jury found his issuing of money to have been a crime. The other man is walking around free and being treated by the authorities with great deference.
"Which is which?"
Never, ever interact with a government official without having a recorder running.
Ben S. Bernanke: Chairman of the Board of Governors of Federal
Reserve. Term ends 2020.2) Donald L. Kohn: Vice Chairman of the Board
of Governors of Federal Reserve. Term ends 2016.3) Randall S.
Kroszner: Member of Board of Governors of Federal Reserve.4) Frederic
S. Mishkin: Member of Board of Governors of Federal Reserve. Term ends
2014.5) Alan Greenspan: Advisor to Board of Governors of Federal
Reserve
Reserve. Term ends 2020.2) Donald L. Kohn: Vice Chairman of the Board
of Governors of Federal Reserve. Term ends 2016.3) Randall S.
Kroszner: Member of Board of Governors of Federal Reserve.4) Frederic
S. Mishkin: Member of Board of Governors of Federal Reserve. Term ends
2014.5) Alan Greenspan: Advisor to Board of Governors of Federal
Reserve
On Mar 21, 11:49 am, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> Sovereign Man
> Notes from the Field
>
> Date: March 21, 2011
> Reporting From: Denver, Colorado, USA
>
> The United States Department of Justice delivered a very clear and
> unfortunate message on Friday:
>
> "Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are
> simply a unique form of domestic terrorism. While these forms of
> anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit
> as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic
> stability of this country."
>
> These remarks were released by the US Attorney's office in the western
> district of North Carolina following the conviction of one Bernard von
> NotHaus, the creator of the ill-fated Liberty Dollar.
>
> As you likely recall from a few years ago, Liberty Dollars were
> privately minted gold and silver rounds. Paper certificates, akin to
> warehouse receipts were also issued, effectively giving the bearer a
> right to claim a certain amount of gold or silver at the group's
> warehouse in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.
>
> This is traditionally how the system of money used to function--
> precious metals would be stored in private, secure storage facilities,
> and paper certificates were issued as a medium of exchange that entitled
> the bearer to redeem metal from the vault. Liberty Dollars represented
> a return to that system.
>
> Clearly, the Justice Department feels otherwise... instead viewing these
> silver rounds as an attempt by terrorists to undermine the US dollar.
>
> Interesting choice of words. Undermine? "verb [transitive]. to erode
> the base or foundation of something. to damage or weaken, especially
> gradually. "
>
> Funny, this sounds a lot more like quantitative easing than anything
> else. Ben Bernanke, in creating trillions of new dollars and debasing
> the value thereof, is guilty of the same insidious acts, and similarly,
> he represents a clear and present danger to the economic stability of
> the United States.
>
> Somehow, though, I doubt that Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano
> or Attorney General Eric Holder will end up labeling Mr. Bernanke as a
> domestic terrorist.
>
> Von NotHaus faces up to 15 years in prison on one count and 5 years on
> two others. Punitively, this is more serious than engaging in female
> genital mutilation (5-years, section 116 of Title 18, US Code), certain
> types of assault (as little as six months, section 113), or, ironically,
> bank robbery (10-years, section 2113b).
>
> The US government obviously has its priorities straight.
>
> As for the total amount of Von NotHaus' gold and silver booty? A
> whopping $7 million, roughly .000083% of Bernanke's $8.4 trillion money
> supply. Von NotHaus was so insignificant he wasn't even in the ballpark
> of a rounding error. By definition, this couldn't possibly constitute a
> danger to the economy.
>
> Realistically, the government's 6-year effort to bring him down had one
> single purpose: to send a message. Uncle Sam is telling us very clearly,
> "You WILL use our rapidly depreciating dollars... and anything we don't
> like in our sole discretion, we will label as domestic terrorism."
>
> If safeguarding the purchasing power of savings is considered domestic
> terrorism, what else is considered terrorism? I think this also begs the
> question of whether gold and silver confiscation is on the table... I'd
> love to hear your thoughts.
>
> Simon Black
> Senior Editor, SovereignMan.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Never, ever interact with a government official without having a
> recorder running.
>
> Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft
> <http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/>
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Obama's Mushroom Cloud Legacy
James Bovard
![[]](http://jimbovard.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/14_0_1878632198-libyan-blowup.jpg)
For years, we have heard that Obama is different than other politicians -- wiser, more compassionate, more prudent.
Bull.
Blowing the hell out of Libya settles any doubts about whether Obama is simply another deluded ruler who will use power however he pleases to burnish his reputation.
Obama is simply a high-falutin' version of George W. Bush. And any foreigner who is killed thanks to Obama's orders is irrelevant, because the U.S. President was merely trying to do good.
http://jimbovard.com/blog/2011/03/21/obamas-mushroom-cloud-legacy/
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
