-
Recent Posts
Archives
Categories
- Art (88)
- Behavior and Psychology (20)
- Business, Industry and Finance (63)
- Constitution and Law (370)
- Consumer Affairs (4)
- Culture (17)
- Deep State (5)
- Economy (3)
- Education (238)
- Environment (74)
- Fraud Alert (8)
- Global Issues (1)
- Health and Medicine (149)
- History (8)
- Humour (94)
- Military (115)
- Morals and Ethics (149)
- News Media (11)
- Police, Crime, Security (215)
- Politics and Government (144)
- Religion (91)
- Science and Technology (19)
- Veterans' Issues (13)
- World (12)
Recent Comments
- ClayPidgeon on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Michael Davis on Life In Chico and Other Places Infected by Bums
- Patricia Lieder on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Dawn on Thaddeus Kerns Boy Aviator
- scott sproat on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
Recent NorCal Blogs Posts
This Video Explains Every Problem in America
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
At least there’s one who gets it. If Romney does win I hope he appoints West to a cabinet position.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zckx1QLf0BQ&feature=player_embedded
West? The guy who lied, falsely accusing 80 members of congress of being members of the Communist Party? That McCarthyite is a guy who “gets it” to you, Peggy?
The crazies have taken over the Republican party.
Over the years I’ve seen a lot of these “man on the street” interviews…this one is the saddest I’ve ever seen. There’s no way to know how many of these people vote but it’s scarey just thinking about it.
Yup, I sure do and I hope Palin gets the director of Energy position so she can do for the lower-48 states what she did for Alaska. Any profits from oil and natural gas coming out of Federal land should be shared with the people just like the citizens who live in Alaska.
She forced Exxon Mobile to not only adhere to their contract from 30 years ago she was able to work it out so the oil company, the people and the state benefited.
Obama instead shut down the gulf and off-shore oil drilling. He’s still fighting court orders to drill again, the last I heard. Plus, he gave millions to Brazil and just turned over several US owned islands with off-shore drilling rights to the Russians so they can drill in the Artic Ocean very close to Prudhoe Bay.
We need people in charge who are looking out for the welfare of US citizens instead of all the other countries in the world.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/18/obama-surrenders-gulf-oil-to-moscow/
Part of Obamas apparent war against U.S. energy independence includes a foreign-aid program that directly threatens my states sovereign territory. Obamas State Department is giving away seven strategic, resource-laden Alaskan islands to the Russians. Yes, to the Putin regime in the Kremlin.
The seven endangered islands in the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea include one the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined. The Russians are also to get the tens of thousands of square miles of oil-rich seabeds surrounding the islands. The Department of Interior estimates billions of barrels of oil are at stake.
The State Department has undertaken the giveaway in the guise of a maritime boundary agreement between Alaska and Siberia. Astoundingly, our federal government itself drew the line to put these seven Alaskan islands on the Russian side. But as an executive agreement, it could be reversed with the stroke of a pen by President Obama or Secretary Clinton.
The agreement was negotiated in total secrecy. The state of Alaska was not allowed to participate in the negotiations, nor was the public given any opportunity for comment. This is despite the fact the Alaska Legislature has passed resolutions of opposition but the State Department doesnt seem to care.
Peggy:
“Plus, he gave millions to Brazil”
Oh my god, for the last time, NO HE DID NOT.
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2011/dec/12/george-allen/allen-says-us-lent-2-billion-brazil-oil-and-gas-ex/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/01/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-obama-delivered-2-billion-brazil-h/
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/bogus-brazilian-oil-claims/
Obama had nothing to do with the Brazil loan.
I am so sick of seeing this lie repeated on this website over and over.
For Christians, you people sure do like to bear false witness a lot.
Oh, and by the way? Oil production in the U.S. is at an eight-year high right now.
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2012/apr/09/barack-obama/barack-obama-ad-says-us-oil-production-eight-year-/
Ok, you’re right and I’m wrong on Obama’s connection to Petrobas, but I still don’t get why Ex-Im bank, which is a federal bank had to loan them $2 billion, of which they’ve received over $300 million to buy our goods. If I remember correctly and the information was factual Petrobas is fiscally sound, so what was the motive for the loan other than giving them a line of credit?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-20/obama-tells-rousseff-he-wants-u-s-to-be-among-brazil-s-best-customers-.html
The U.S. president highlighted Brazils recent offshore oil discoveries, the largest in the Americas since 1976, as an area where the two countries can vastly expand their economic relations.
We want to help you with the technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and when youre ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers, he said.
Obama said he chose Brazil to kick off his first-ever visit to South America in recognition of the countrys ascendancy. He was joined in Brasilia by business leaders seeking to profit from Brazils oil discoveries and $200 billion in road, airport and hotel improvements needed before the 2014 World Cup and 2016 summer Olympics. Brazils $2.2 trillion economy grew 7.5 percent last year, the fastest pace in more than two decades.
I wonder if his buddy Soros was one of the business leaders seeking to profit from Brazil’s oil?
Also, you didn’t address the islands and land in Alaska that Obama or his underlings did give to Russia. Want to venture why we would give our oil rich land to the Russians who are also going to be drilling off of the shores of Cuba just miles away from Florida and the gulf. Wouldn’t you also like to know why this “agreement was negotiated in total secrecy,” by the president that said he would be the most “transparent” president ever.
There you go again calling me a liar and attacking my faith now. I really wish you would stop doing that. I’ve told you before I do not lie and, therfore, would not knowingly “bear false witness.” I believed the information I presented was the truth otherwise I wouldn’t have stated it.
I was told years ago Moses was considered one of the meekest individuals in the bible, which is not how I envisioned him to be. I’d always considered him to be strong for his demands made to the pharaoh and for leading the Israelites home to their promised land. The difference being meek doesnt mean weak. He wasnt weak because he stood up and fought for what was right, but he was meek because he followed Gods commands.
So, in the future please remember I too will do what I believe is the right thing to do keeping in mind my beliefs. I may be wrong sometimes, and when I am I will admit it and correct my mistakes, just dont ever question my sincerity or rights to state them.
Peggy, thank you for acknowledging your error regarding the loan. (That makes you more honest than Tina, who still maintains that Obama was responsible despite all evidence to the contrary.)
“Also, you didn’t address the islands and land in Alaska that Obama or his underlings did give to Russia.”
I didn’t address this claim at first, Peggy, because it sounded too absurd to be true and I didn’t have time to research it. After a few minutes of Googling, I found that I was right; the claim is too absurd to be true:
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/03/alaskan-island-giveaway/
“Q: Is President Obama giving away several Alaskan islands to Russia?
A: No. The U.S. has never claimed ownership of the islands identified in viral emails and websites. They lie far closer to the coast of Siberia than to Alaska.”
Peggy, you come across as very sincere in your posts. But you need to take a hard look at the people you get your information from. You continue to rely on laughably bad sources such as World Net Daily, whose journalistic ethics are second to the Sun. I didn’t like bringing your faith into the discussion, but I think you need the wake-up call. “Bearing false witness” as I understand it, doesn’t just mean intentional lying. When you make claims about people, you have a responsibility to make sure those claims are true. If you repeat false rumors about people, you are to blame for the impact of those rumors, even if you really believed at the time that they were true. The information is out there for you, you just need to know where to find it. Don’t be so eager to believe the worst in those you see as your political opponents. Just because it fits the narrative doesn’t mean it’s true.
Peggy I think President Obama was right in encouraging trade with Brazil. I find it offensive that he chooses to encourage oil exploration in Brazil while at the same time punishing oil producers in America. To me it looks like he used the Gulf spill as an excuse to give a lot of money in support of green energy technology. It isn’t just oil either…it is also coal.
Green alternatives will not replace oil, coal and gas in the amounts needed for decades if at all. It doesn’t make sense to do this except as a political tactic. I think he wants America failing so that it will be equal in terms of production with second and third world countries. It isn’t “fair” that the US has been successful and he, being a powerful elite socialist/Marxist leaders, is determined to cut us down to size. His political ideology drives the agenda and the agenda will be served even if it means 88 million Americans are without jobs and hurting financially.
He inspires nothing but poverty and dependency.
America has been feeding ourselves and the world for decades. We have done it with an open heart because we have been so blessed. Cutting America down to size will hurt developing countries. The Obama vision is of a zero sum game…a single pie that must be divided among the nations. I suppose this is because he has never produced anything. His every achievement has been subsidized and promoted.
Chris had no problem believeing the worrst about President Bush. He has no problem holding the leader of our country responsible for Abu Ghraib but when the leader of the country encourages oil exploration in the deep waters off Brazil’s shores and tells them we want to be one of their best customers while at the same time we offer them loans to “help them drill in a more environmentally safe way” he’s not responsible. He had no cause in the matter.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html
Bearing false witness against the Bush administration was and continues to be, a party game for the party and leadership Chris continues to support. His admonition to you suggests arrogance and a need to look in the mirror.
As for the islands this move by our State Department is in line withcozy relations built on accomodation…Hillary calls it “reset” which is code for we give and get nothing in return. Russia is laughing its butt off while grabbing up oil that we could have at least fought and negotiated to share with them.
I think your sources are fine, Peggy. Chris is just very intolerant of opposing views and opinions.
Tina, I do not believe the worst about President Bush. I am sure he was as shocked and dismayed as anyone when he saw the pictures from Abu Ghraib. However, I do think his aggressive policies when it comes to what you call “enhanced interrogation techniques” led to a climate which made such atrocities much more likely to happen.
I’ve never promoted conspiracy theories about Bush, as you have about Obama. I don’t make ridiculous assertions like this one:
“I think he wants America failing so that it will be equal in terms of production with second and third world countries. It isn’t “fair” that the US has been successful and he, being a powerful elite socialist/Marxist leaders, is determined to cut us down to size.”
That’s crazy! You really think the President of the United States wants the country to look like a second or third world country? That he wants America to fail?
That’s just removed from reality, Tina. There’s no reasoning with someone who believes such a ridiculous position.
You can continue to try and paint me as a snob for pointing out the idiocy and lack of credibility of many of your claims and sources. Do whatever you like. I am giving up on ever getting you to acknowledge when you go too far.
Like my grandma says, “You can’t argue with crazy.”
Well Chris, we seem to have hit upon a very conflicting issue as to who does or does not have ownership to the land. While the US is saying its not ours and we dont want it the Russians in 1990 refused to sign the ratification treating because they felt, it is the Russians who have sought to renegotiate the terms of the boundary treaty on grounds that their side gave up too much to the United States.
So, if Im confused about what country this land belongs to I seem to be in good company with more informed individuals then little ole me.
Once again Chris, while you may not agree with what I say, and if I make an honest effort to be informed about an issue or subject, you need to stop telling me I am wrong because my views differ from yours. While facts alone can not be disputed, interpretation is subject to our personal biases.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/obamas-giveaway-oil-rich-islands-to-russia/
The imperiled Arctic Ocean islands include Wrangel, Bennett, Jeannette and Henrietta. Wrangel became American in 1881 with the landing of the U.S. Revenue Marine ship Thomas Corwin. The landing party included the famed naturalist John Muir. It is 3,000 square miles in size.
Northwest of Wrangel are the DeLong Islands, named for George Washington DeLong, the captain of USS Jeannette. Also in 1881, he discovered and claimed these three islands for the United States. He named them for the voyage co-sponsor, New York City newspaper publisher James Gordon Bennett. The ships crew received a heros welcome back in Washington, and Congress awarded them gold medals.
In the Bering Sea at the far west end of the Aleutian chain are Copper Island, Sea Lion Rock and Sea Otter Rock. They were ceded to the U.S. in Sewards 1867 treaty with Russia.
From your link:
For one thing, the maritime boundary treaty has never been ratified by the Russians, which is required for it to take full force. By the time the U.S. Senate had ratified the treaty (signed by the Soviets the previous year), the Soviet Union was near collapse. Shortly afterward, the Russian Federation notified the U.S. government by diplomatic note that it would continue to abide by the terms of the agreement on a provisional basis, however.
Ironically, in view of claims of a U.S. giveaway, it is the Russians who have sought to renegotiate the terms of the boundary treaty on grounds that their side gave up too much to the United States. A history of the matter, by Vlad M. Kaczynski of the Warsaw School of Economics, published in the May 1, 2007, edition of the Russian Analytical Digest, details why the new Russian Federation refused to ratify the treaty:
Kaczynski, 2007: Many accuse Gorbachev and Shevardnadze of ceding Russias rightful fishing areas in their haste to negotiate a deal for signature at the 1990 White House Summit. Russian parliamentarians understood perfectly well that the agreement infringed upon Russias interests and therefore the document has never been ratified by the Russian parliament, these critics say. Other Russian officials have voiced their opposition to the treaty not only because of lost fishing opportunities, but also due to the loss of potential oil and gas fields and naval passages for submarines.
Hope I’ve proven my point once again about, “Not bearing false witness” or “Lying.”
Chris I think your inclusion of Abu Ghraib in previous comments made quite clear your position was to blame Bush for something he did not encourage in any way or condone. His general demeanor was serious, commanding respect from his troops, and his political posture was cooperative toward detractors in Congress and the Supreme Court.
In my opinion personal political smears, attacks, and antiwar rhetoric from the left created a climate that undermined strict discipline in the military. I think the unnecessary public uproar over Abu Ghraib (the administration was handling it within the military) on a national scale gave America and the Bush administration a black eye around the world it didn’t deserve. I think there are elements of the party you support that refuse to put America ahead of their designs for power and control even in times of war. As an American, proud of my country and the disciplined way we use our military and conduct war, I resent it. As an American, proud of the hard work and humanity of our service men and women, I deeply resent it.
My remarks about what I think president Obama wants is based on what Obama says and does. It is based on his admitted ideology. It is not a conspiracy theory; it is my opinion. He would never say he wants America to fail but he would adopt policies, in oil for instance, that give other countries and edge while blunting ours to produce. I do think his actions will, and have, caused us to fail.
Nice work Peggy!
I suspected these islands were either considered our lands or at the very least subject to re-negotiation but I didn’t have time to investigate earlier.
What do communists like Putin, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hillary and Obama have in common? …ideology!
Since taking office President Obama has bent a knee toward these while giving the brush off to our traditional allies.
Oh boy, I’ve got to weigh in on this Abu Ghraib thing. Nobody in their right mind can now say Bush had anything to do with Abu Ghraib. Chris had more to do with it than Bush! Abu Ghraib was at least done by people of his generation.
There were 9 soldiers convicted. Not even an entry level officer, just 9 military police soldiers of low rank.
The scandal did NOT go up the chain of command as so many professional liberal liars and our nations enemies have falsely claimed!
Despite all sorts of media attention and several Congressional investigations and 9 court marshals… not one wit of evidence exists to even imply this happened because of anyone else except those charged. Over five years have passed since then and every lead has been followed and still there is nothing to indicate anyone other than those young soldiers were responsible for the (mild) prisoner abuse.
“During her unsworn statement to the jurors who will determine her punishment, England blamed Pvt. Charles Graner Jr. for what she did.
“I was used by Pvt. Graner,” she said. “I didn’t realize it at the time.”
England, the most recognizable of the nine enlisted soldiers charged in the scandal after photos of the abuse became public, was convicted of six of the seven counts she faced. She faces a maximum of nine years in prison.
Her defence has maintained throughout the trial that she took part in the prisoner abuse to please Graner, who prosecutors have labeled the ringleader of the abuse by a group of U.S. troops.” End of news story.
I could be mistaken but I think President Obama later pointed out, “If I had a son, he would look just like Pvt. Graner.” Anyone?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2005/09/27/lynndie_england_apologizes20050927.html
Fantastic reporting Jack!
Regarding the question…still laughing…more of a smirk actually.
Regarding England’s excuse…an indication (my opinion) that mixing women and men in the military is not a good idea.
I notice there has not been front page sensationalized news to inform the public that the Bush administration was not in any way involved or exposing those who accused the administration falsely.
Loose lips sink ships…loose, snarky lips also give America, and her fine military, an undeserved black eye…they also make it harder to defend freedom, the one thing that truly offers people around the world a shot at a good life free from oppression.
Thanks Tina, At times I wish we had highlighting or bold print capabilities to draw attention to key points.
Every time I get into these dialogs with Chris I remember your telling him his age/youth hasn’t provided him with life’s experiences to give him an adult’s point of view.
Chris, You’re a very intelligent young man, but your lack of experiences limits your ability to accept others views as viable too. Hopefully, this will change with time.
1 Corinthians 13:11 it says When I was a child I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child, but when I became a man I put away childish things.
Tina, the media did what they wanted to Pres. Bush, the truth be damned. They lack the character to print any retractions or apologies. Abu G. is just one thing in a long list of offenses the liberal media concocted to frame Bush.
So Jack, you think rape is only “mild” prisoner abuse?
Tina, you think the lesson to be learned from this is that men and women shouldn’t serve together in the military?
“What do communists like Putin, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hillary and Obama have in common? …ideology!”
You this abomination of a sentence counts as trenchant political analysis?
I just…I have to reiterate. There is no arguing with stupidity this profound. It is borderline insanity.
Your party is going to destroy itself with your own crazy words. Obama should send you people a thank you note in November.
Chris I think it is a lessons from a distance. Actually I called this incident an “indicator” which by itself wouldn’t mean much but as part of a package of arguments, yes.
The military has a very important function, the defense of our nation. I think that the natural differences between men and women create the potential for problems that can detract from the mission. I think men and women can both serve I just think they should serve in seperate brances or units. I think their differences and the basic skill levels of each could be utilized to the best advantage that way.
I think my opinion is as good as yours or anyone elses. I wasn’t attempting to be an expert analyst.
If you think your expressed opinion qualifies you as a sharp political analyst I’d have to insist that you are full of yourself.
As far as I’m concerned your party has been destroying itself since the 1930’s. Sometime around 1965, when communist caught the fancy of those college kids that taught and mentored the current president and party faithful it went over the edge. Between Marxist ideology, thug methodology, and a pretense of caring (for votes) your party has turned away from just about every founding ideal and principle there is.
I notice it took no time at all for you to fall back on insults and name calling. Do you think of this as trenchant personal analysis or just normal, everyday intellectually superior chat?
Chris: No I don’t, but I think you hold your own country (make that only while under republican leadership) to a standard never met by any country ever in the world.
Now getting back to what you said. If I may remind you Chris, we were talking about Abu Ghraib and the 9 convicted soldiers of prisoner abuse and that is where my comment about mild abuse was directed.
Yes, there was other prisoner abuse earlier at AG and at other prisons. President Obama said he looked into these allegations and when these crimes were discovered the persons responsible were brought to justice. What do you want now…a lynching? You want to stir things up and get soldiers killed who had nothing to do with those war crimes?
In total there have been about 400 cases of alleged prisoner abuse between 2001 and 2005 in Abu Ghraib and six other prisons. THERE WAS NOT ONE CHARGE OF RAPE LEVIED AGAINST THE 9 SOLDIERS WE WERE TALKING ABOUT!!! In those cases the prisoners, some of them terrorists and killers, were stripped or threatened with a dog or made to wear a hood or womens panties on their head…and the soldiers involved were charged with that and they were convicted. That was what I referred to as mild prisoner abuse and nothing else.
I STRONGLY RESENT THE IMPLICATION THAT I SOMEHOW WAS SAYING RAPE WAS MILD PRISONER ABUSE. That was a cheap shot Chris.
Jack, you clearly haven’t seen the most vile pictures from Abu Ghraib. The prisoners were raped, repeatedly. I assumed you knew this, because I thought everyone who is into politics knew this. Google it if you don’t believe me.
Tina: “I think my opinion is as good as yours or anyone elses. I wasn’t attempting to be an expert analyst.
If you think your expressed opinion qualifies you as a sharp political analyst I’d have to insist that you are full of yourself.”
Tina, the problem wasn’t simply that it wasn’t great political analysis–that was just my nice way of saying it was batsh*t crazy. I shouldn’t have softpedaled it the way I did.
“I notice it took no time at all for you to fall back on insults and name calling. Do you think of this as trenchant personal analysis or just normal, everyday intellectually superior chat?”
I consider it the result of exhaustion. I’ve tried reasoning with you. But if you still believe things like “Putin, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Barack Obama all share a central ideology,” then you’re idiot, plain and simple. This is a belief that no amount of evidence or rational argument will be able to persuade you out of; I know, I’ve tried.
You’re entitled to your opinions, no matter how ridiculous they are. But if you’re going to express your dumbest and craziest beliefs on a public forum, and you expect them not to be met with the mockery they so richly deserve, then…tough.
Chris, I am aware that there were about 400 alleged incidents of prisoner abuse during a 4 year period. Some were at Abu Ghraib, done by individuals acting on their own and some were done at other Iraqi prisons. The alleged rapes you talk about was not part of the discussion we were having about what became the A.G. scandal. However, in each criminal case of abuse, include several rape allegations, President Obama has said they were all investigated and if there was wrong doing, then the appropriate action was taken against the offenders. Justice was served, to dredge things up now, to make inflammatory pictures public and turn more Muslims against us serves what purpose? Some of those former soldiers are still in Leavenworth and will be for years to come, so what’s your point? What do you want from us, grobble at the feet of our enemy who behaves a thousand times worse than anything we’ve done, including rape?
Jack, I don’t quite remember how Abu Ghraib came up, but if I recall I was talking about how using any kind of torture–and I include waterboarding when I use that word, as do the heads of most Western nations and all major human rights groups–can lead to extremes like what happened there. I was not talking about a specific incident, I was talking about all of the abuses that occurred there cumulatively. I’m not sure where we miscommunicated on that.
What do I want? I think I’ve been very clear on that. I want things like this never to happen again. That requires that people on the right, as well as people on the left, stop advocating and implementing national security measures that violate our freedoms and go against every principle this great nation was founded upon. Obama took one step forward when he got rid of waterboarding, but he took two or three steps back when he legalized targeted assassination and indefinite detention of U.S. citizens. All of these measures are gross violations of constitutional and human rights, and all Americans, whether they are conservative or liberal, members of the Tea Party of Occupy Wall Street, should be out there protesting against them..
I’m not asking for any more officials to be arrested, or for us to grovel to the enemy–you know that. I’m asking for America to come to it’s senses.
Okay Chris, then I’ll take your word for it. You don’t want this to happen again, me either. But, it probably will because there are so many mean, sick, idiots running loose and we just can’t watch all of them all the time. When it happens we just try to make the best of a bad situation and then hope innocent people will not pay the price for another person’s wrong doing.
When we think of AG we think of the big show trial and the 9 defendants, but there were others, many others, and they were prosecuted out of the spotlight. I wish they could stay there too, but it is what it is.
Could someone please explain to me how it was wrong for Bush and his administration to water board terrorist, but acceptable for Obama and his administration to KILL them and others (collateral damage) with drons?
Enhanced Interrogation is bad, but killing is good. My god, our world has gone crazy.
Where is the outrage?!! Where are the protesters for the killing of a US citizen denied his constitutional rights?!!!
Here is just a sample taken from pages and pages listed on Google.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17967249
The drone fired missiles at a suspected militant compound in the Shawal area of North Waziristan, close to the Afghan border, officials said.
Pakistan said the drone strike was illegal and counterproductive.
Security officials in North Waziristan told the AFP news agency that the compound, which militants were using as a training centre, was completely destroyed.
The US does not normally comment on individual drone operations, which have killed hundreds of people in recent years.
http://www.wgal.com/news/national/Drone-strike-kills-eight-militants-in-Yemen/-/9360498/13048682/-/a9r4ofz/-/index.html
(CNN) – A U.S. drone strike killed eight militants in southern Yemen on Thursday morning, the latest hit in an intensified U.S. air camaign against al Qaeda and its affiliates in the area, security officials said.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2012/05/us_drones_kill_10_in.php
The US launched its second drone strike in a week, hitting a Taliban compound in Pakistan’s Taliban-controlled tribal agency of North Waziristan.
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=8253
As most people know, President Obama has expanded drone operations in Pakistan and Yemen, and it has been, to some extent, the weapon of choice. But just how does that accord with international law? Is it really in the interest of American people to be known as the country that rains down death on villages in many countries around the world?
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2011/09/30/a-dark-day-for-the-constitution-american-killed-by-drone-strike/
After months of speculation, the U.S military has killed an American-born cleric in what is probably the clearest indication that the U.S Constitution has been set aside for another (ever-evolving) piece of paper called the Authorized Use of Military Force (AUMF). Now the military has truly become judge, jury and executioner, with the full blessing of the White House and the other branches of government behind it.
Peggy, my answer is that it’s NOT acceptable. And I think it’s a damn shame that these tactics aren’t getting more attention from the left, right, and center.
I think the drone strikes aren’t getting any attention because they don’t fit into anyone’s narrative. The liberal media likes to portray Obama as rejecting of the aggressive foreign policy of the Bush years, while the conservative media likes to portray him as soft on terror. Neither depiction bears any resemblance to reality, but it makes both sides feel superior.
Even if one believes that drone strikes are legal and effective, it is a fact that they’ve caused a lot of collateral damage and civilian deaths.
I am glad to know that there are conservatives out there who are speaking out against the drone strikes and the authorized assassinations of people, including American citizens. If the Tea Party would focus on constitutional violations such as this one, I might have more respect for the movement. Occupy Wall Street has spoken out against such tactics, as have some liberal blogs such as Salon. But in general this issue is not receiving anywhere close to the level of outrage that it deserves. Thank you for speaking up about it; we need more people to do so.
Chris, I agree it is completly unacceptable, but I don’t think it’s being covered because it’s being done by Obama and because it is a Tea Party/Conservatives issue.
“If the Tea Party would focus on constitutional violations such as this one, I might have more respect for the movement.”
I’m not a member of the TP, but my understanding is one of their causes is to support our Constitution. There was a little news coverage about the killing of the US terrorist, but it died down quickly and little to nothing I’ve heard of lately has been in the news.
I believe the issue once again is unbiased coverage by the media is just not happening. EVERY media source covers the OWS’s events, but even with the recent election results where TP supported candidates won seats held by incumbents of 30 years get a one-liner at best.
These wins tell me the TP is out there and they are active, maybe as active as the OWS. But since it’s not being covered we may just not know. Better to keep the TPrs out of sight, out of mind, and present them as unorganized and just a bunch of “astro-turf” radical right-wing individuals.
My gut feeling on this is the constitutional rights issue is very high on the TP agenda. No US citizen should ever have a dron be his/her judge and jury, and no US president should use them to avoid capturing suspected terrorist and housing them at GITMO for military trial.
Obama can’t keep his promise to close GITMO if he keeps sending more people there.
Chris: “I’ve tried reasoning with you. But if you still believe things like “Putin, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Barack Obama all share a central ideology,” then you’re idiot, plain and simple.”
I didn’t say they “shared a central ideology”. I asked what they have in common.
They all believe in arrogant authority; authority being vested at the top. they all believe that authority figures should decide how life should be. This is true, whether or not you can see it…and whether or not you are exhausted.
Believe me, Chris, you are just as great a challenge for those of us on the right as we are for you…perhaps more so because you are such an infant in terms of having life experience.
“Obama took one step forward when he got rid of waterboarding, but he took two or three steps back when he legalized targeted assassination and indefinite detention of U.S. citizen…”
Obama the candidate was an infant. Obama the president had to learn how to be an adult. Adults have to make hard decisions in real time. They don’t have the luxury to exist in the intellectual realm where they can sound so magnificently loving and good.
You cannot defeat evil and protect the innocent with marshmallows and warm blankets. Sometimes it takes a messy war where terrible things happen. I know that is a great shock to the imagined superiority of the progressive mind.
What bothers me about your position, Chris, is not that you expect America to always uphold a high standard. I believe America does stand for the highest standards and I believe we have demonstrated we do since our founding. My objection is that you expect an impossible standard, perfection, which is unrealistic in war and which renders the mistakes and hard choices we’ve had to make equal to the evil intentions and actions of those who overtly wish to kill and destroy others simply because they will not bend to their religion.
I have to go to a ball game…back later
Peggy: “Chris, I agree it is completly unacceptable, but I don’t think it’s being covered because it’s being done by Obama and because it is a Tea Party/Conservatives issue.”
I don’t think it’s a Tea Party/conservative issue. You’re one of the only conservatives I’ve ever seen speak out against drone warfare. I would wager that there are many, many more progressives against the drones then there are conservatives. I’m basing this not on polls, but on the general premise that conservatives are far more accepting of expansions of military power and aggressive foreign/national security policy, while liberals are much more likely to protest such measures. (I’m also basing it on Tina’s remarks, which I’ll get to later.)
“I believe the issue once again is unbiased coverage by the media is just not happening.”
Very true. There are too few sources these days that can be relied upon to provide objective analysis.
“EVERY media source covers the OWS’s events, but even with the recent election results where TP supported candidates won seats held by incumbents of 30 years get a one-liner at best.
These wins tell me the TP is out there and they are active, maybe as active as the OWS. But since it’s not being covered we may just not know. Better to keep the TPrs out of sight, out of mind, and present them as unorganized and just a bunch of “astro-turf” radical right-wing individuals.”
I think this is incorrect. The Tea Party movement received a ton of media attention when it first began, especially in comparison with left-wing protests. Occupy Wall Street may be getting more attention now, but that makes sense for two reasons: it’s newer, and their protests are more disruptive. But even that movement isn’t getting as much media attention as it was before, and I think that’s normal given the media’s short attention span.
“My gut feeling on this is the constitutional rights issue is very high on the TP agenda.”
In a sense, yes. But not on the issues we’re talking about right now. Tea Party members are very pro-military, often to a fault. For instance, I’ve criticized Tina many times for the way she abandons her skepticism of government when it comes to military and police power, and I don’t think she’s an outlier in the Tea Party movement when it comes to those issues. On the contrary, I think the right wing has made it clear that they are all for the most aggressive national security and foreign policies out there.
“No US citizen should ever have a dron be his/her judge and jury,”
I totally agree. Unfortunately, Tina is completely dismissive of your opinion on this. By her own words, she considers the anti-drone position to be that of an “infant.” She thinks it equates to “marshmallows and blankets.” According to her, you and I both are indulging in “the imagined superiority of the progressive mind.” She thinks we’re holding America to an “impossible standard, perfection,” for thinking that we should actually arrest U.S. citizens and give them proper trials instead of allowing the government to kill them at will. And she’s not alone; this is the official position of the Republican party when it comes to issues such as this. AND it’s the official position of the Democratic president. When it comes to our choices in 2012, America is basically screwed.
We have rarely agreed, Peggy, but I’m glad to see that we can find common ground on this one. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue.
“and no US president should use them to avoid capturing suspected terrorist and housing them at GITMO for military trial.”
Frankly, I think Gitmo shouldn’t exist. It’s a taint on the legacy of the U.S.
I’ve got no problem with military trials for suspected terrorists as long as they are handled legally and constitutionally. Indefinite detention decreases the likelihood of that happening, and greatly increases the likelihood of innocent people being held prisoner without cause. This has happened before, plenty of times. I’ll read the David Mamet book you recommended me if you read “Guantanamo: Honor Bound to Defend Freedom,” a play which uses real transcripts from people who were wrongly imprisoned in Gitmo.
http://www.amazon.com/Guantanamo-Honor-Bound-Defend-Freedom/dp/1840024747/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336699056&sr=8-1
“Obama can’t keep his promise to close GITMO if he keeps sending more people there.”
Very good point.
Tina: “I didn’t say they “shared a central ideology”.”
OK, so you didn’t say “central.” My bad. Your statement was still too ridiculous to merit a response.
Chris: “Tea Party members are very pro-military, often to a fault.”
Glad to see we do and can agree on certain things, but on this we don’t.
I believe there are a lot of republicans that are not pro-military. Just look at all the Ron Paul supporters who are mostly young republicans, and a lot of the TPrs are grandparents like me who have lived through some kind of a war just about every 10-15 years since WWII.
Yes, sometimes wars are required to control some lunatic like Hitler to save millions of people, but never ending wars with no objective to win and get out have no value to anyone and only bankrupt us faster then flushing billions down the toilet.
Based on both Ron and Rand Pauls popularity I believe there are lots more like me who agree in part with their platforms. I want our military bases shut down all over the world except to support OUR military where needed. Bases that have been located in nations since the end of WWII should be funded as foreign aid and not military defense. I want OUR borders secure and our immigration laws changed and enforced to facilitate legal immigration for those who want to live by our laws and our constitution. Open arms, but closed boarders!
I agree to reading the book you recommended. Let me know what you think of mine.
Ron Paul:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
The foundation of Paul’s political philosophy is the conviction that “the proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else.”[124] He has been nicknamed “Dr. No,”[16] reflecting both his medical degree and his insistence that he will “never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.”[21]
Paul’s foreign policy of nonintervention[136] made him the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate to have voted against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002. He advocates withdrawal from the United Nations, and from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, for reasons of maintaining strong national sovereignty.[137]
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/30/cair-decries-killing-american-militant-without-due-process/#ixzz1uX0Ped33
Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who is running for the Republican presidential nomination, cried foul Friday over the killing of a radical U.S.-born cleric in Yemen without a trial, joining a chorus of civil liberties groups raising “due process” concerns over the drone attack.
“No one likes these kind of people, but I also like the rule of law and I like our
Constitution, that you don’t just target people, assassinate them, someone who has not been charged and you have no proof of anything,” Paul told Fox News. “So if we want to protect American citizens from that type of justice, we have to be more cautious.”
Rand Paul:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senator_Paul
On March 2, Paul was one of nine senators to vote against a stopgap bill that cut $4 billion from the budget and temporarily prevent a government shutdown, citing that it did not cut enough from the budget.[115] One week later, Paul voted against the Democratic and Republican budget proposals to keep funding the federal government, citing that both bills did not cut enough spending. Both bills failed to pass the senate.[116] He later voted against stopgap measures on March 17 and April 8, both of which passed the senate.[117] On April 14, Paul was one of 19 senators to vote against a budget that cut $38.5 billion from the budget and fund the government for the remainder of the fiscal year.[118] Paul voiced opposition to U.S. intervention in the Libyan civil war and has criticized President Obama for not gaining congressional consent for Operation Odyssey Dawn.[119] During the debt ceiling crisis, Paul stated that he would only support raising the debt ceiling if a balanced budget amendment was enacted.[120] Paul was a supporter of the Cut, Cap and Balance Act, which was tabled by the Democrats.[121] On August 3, Paul voted against a bill that would raise the debt ceiling.[122]
On September 7, Paul called for a vote of no confidence in Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.[123] Later that month, Paul blocked legislation that would strengthen safety rules for oil and gas pipelines because he felt the bill was not strong enough.[124] In October, Paul blocked a bill that would provide $36 million in benefits for elderly and disabled refugees, saying that he was concerned that it could be used to aid domestic terrorists. This was in response to two alleged terrorists, who came to the United States through a refugee program and were receiving welfare benefits, were arrested in 2011 in Pauls hometown of Bowling Green.[125] Paul lifted his hold on the bill after Democratic leaders promised to hold a congressional hearing into how individuals are selected for refugee status and request an investigation on how the two suspects were admitted in the country through a refugee program.[126]
Paul holds that the primary Constitutional function of the federal government is national defense, and that the greatest national security threat is the lack of border security. He supports eliminating issuance of visas to people from about ten rogue nations. He supports trying terrorists caught on the battlefield in military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Paul believes that when the United States goes to war, Congress must declare war as mandated by the United States Constitution.[151]
During his 2010 Senate campaign Paul questioned the idea that U.S. Middle East policy is “killing more terrorists than it creates.” He supported the war in Afghanistan and opposed rapid withdrawal from Iraq.[152] He says he would have voted against the invasion of Iraq and questioned whether the intelligence was manipulated.”[153]
He also spoke against U.S. overseas military bases.[154]
Peggy, I admire your stance on these issues. Ron Paul and his views are indeed becoming more popular than they were in previous years, but I still think they are outside the mainstream of the Republican party. My only point was that the majority of Republicans are very hawkish when it comes to these issues. But I am glad to see you’re not just going with the crowd on that one.
I disagree with Ron Paul probably more than I agree with him, but I admire his contribution to the discussion of war and foreign policy. I am not quite as anti-interventionist as he is, but he was the ONLY major voice in this campaign that was speaking out on this issue. I found myself hoping he would win the Republican nomination, just so we’d have someone to challenge Obama’s horrible record on war and national security policy. Romney won’t criticize Obama on the drone strikes, leaving Gitmo open, indefinite detention or targeted assassinations, because these are the only things he and Obama actually AGREE on. It’s a shame.
Thanks for agreeing to read the book I recommended. I will definitely check out that David Mamet book, though I have to say his diss on English majors gets me even more than his diss against liberals. 😉
Chris: “though I have to say his diss on English majors gets me even more than his diss against liberals. ;)”
My son’s major was English. He got his BA and teaching credential from Chico State, his MA from San Jose State, became a HS English teacher, then a HS Dean and V. principle and finally a elementary and junior high VP and principle.
He’s now a firefighter for Sac. Metro fire department and loving it. He loved working with the kids when he was a teacher, but got fed up with the BS of being an administrator. Now he’s helping people again and says he’s glad he made the change.
Oh, and the fire academy at Butte Com. Col. and paramedic training he did was harder academically, according to him, then all the classes he took to get his BA, credential and Masters.
Good luck with your chosen major and profession.
Peggy, you’re a class act. Thank you.