moonbattery logo

Sep 30 2011

Open Thread

empty-hope

Via The Looking Spoon.

Email this to someoneShare on FacebookShare on Google+Pin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on Twitter


  • http://scottthong.wordpress.com Scott
  • AC

    Communist Dictator Kim Jong-II spends £120,000 on food for his dogs, as six million North Koreans starve

    Kim Jong-Il isn’t the only dictator living the high life. African dictators really know how to spend Western aid: Embarrassing moment playboy son of an African dictator (whose people live on £1.50 a day) has £5million in supercars seized from outside his home

    Collectivism doesn’t work, so it’s time to give the UN the boot.

    The foreign cash giveaways should be precisely zero. If it benefits America, then America will spend and oversee the money itself.

  • AC

    Surprise, surprise, the playboy dictator’s son owns a $31 million home in Malibu, California

  • AC

    Van Jones Promises ‘October Offensive’ Against Capitalism

    Fortunately we already have a picture of his first October march

  • AC

    Man To Admit To Shipping Unsolicited ‘Erectile Pumps’ In Medicare Scam, leaving the taxpayers, well you know, screwed

    The enlargers (which he admitted were his, baby) were marked up a mere 11 times, which is still possible as the Medicare Ponzi isn’t quite out of cash yet.

  • http://genelalor.com Berlet98

    We Are All Jews, Sort of, on Rosh Hashanah

    In a certain sense, Americans are all Jews, that is, if we only consider our Judeo-Christian heritage and disregard the millions of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc. who are American citizens. Semi-Jews at heart or no, it hasn’t been smooth sailing between those who adhere to the religion of Abraham and Christians.

    The late Pope Pius XII and, by inference, the entire Catholic Church, have long been accused by Jews and the Jewish media of not merely sympathizing with WWII fascists and Nazis but of actual complicity in the Holocaust.

    That calumny still exists three generations after the Holocaust and despite the historical record that Pope Pius condemned anti-Semitism, interceded on behalf of Rome’s Jews and Jewish people in Slovakia and other nations, and was even cited as a conspirator in the attempted assassination of Hitler in 1944. Still, he was accused of not doing nearly enough and not publicly denouncing the Nazis.

    Living in Benito Mussolini’s fascist, an ally of Adolph Hitler’s Nazi Germany, it’s entirely possible that had he protested much more the Vatican could have been reduced to a mass of rubble.

    Not to be forgotten either is that hundreds of Catholics protected and saved the lives of thousands of Jews and literally hundreds of thousands of Catholics surrendered their lives during the Second World War in the cause of freedom and, not incidentally, freed millions of Jews from oppression and concentration camps.

    The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) marked a watershed in Catholic-Jewish relations by instituting reforms which included an outreach to Jews in an attempt to salve the wounds of centuries of antipathies, misunderstandings, and lack of inter-communication.

    Whether all of Vatican II’s reforms and changes were beneficial to the Church is still a matter of conjecture although the effort to institute a dialogue with Jews and dispel age-old beliefs of Jews as Jesus-killers who subsequently committed atrocities against Christian children in the Middle Ages was clearly a step forward but, apparently, some Jewish people wanted more and bigger steps.

    Some years ago, the radical Jewish Defense League adopted the slogan “Never Forget!” meaning Jews would never forget the horrors of the Holocaust and, by implication, would never tolerate its repetition. Both were eminently reasonable, if unnecessary, goals.

    They were reasonable for obvious reasons but unnecessary since Jews and Jewish groups the world over have never forgotten and, in fact, all too often invoke memories of Hitler’s “Final Solution” whenever an issue arises which they perceive as somehow exhibiting anti-Semitism.

    A major drawback to those repetitive, kneejerk reactions is that they serve to worsen rather than alleviate the problem, especially today when anti-Jewish sentiment and incidents are becoming increasingly common in various European nations.

    In addition, when Jews use the Holocaust as an instrument to interfere with the internal affairs of the Catholic Church, they are foolishly overstepping the bounds of reconciliation.

    Unfortunately, some Jewish groups have done precisely that by protesting the Vatican’s attempt to heal its own house by engaging in dialogue with the traditionalist Society of Pius X and trying to reunite that “breakaway” sect with the Church. . . .
    (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5593.)

  • Bob Roberts

    Would have been just as true, yet funnier, if the “selected area” was Obama’s head.

    Noggin full o’ nuttin!

    How’s this for lib-tard logic?:

    Women in a Brooklyn neighborhood on edge over a spate of sex attacks are being told by police that wearing skirts and dresses might not be a good idea.

    The surprising message from the NYPD is not being taken well.

    “I think that women should be able to wear whatever they want,” said Theresa Troupson, a Park Slope resident. “I don’t think that they should be held responsible in any way for the actions of criminals.”

    ————————-

    They are not holding the victims “responsible” in any way. They are pointing out that if you wear the sort of things that A) Attract some pervert’s attention and B) Provide easy access to your happy fun parts then C) You’re just the sort of person the pervert will grab next so D) Maybe you better take an active part in doing things to protect yourself and make yourself less vulnerable/less of an easy target if you don’t want to be raped.

    Yet another reason to dislike Ron Paul

    This loser was not an American citizen, he was by his own choices and actions clearly an enemy combatant who needed to be terminated with extreme prejudice and I, for one, hope every one of his ilk gets exactly the same end. The quicker we can help them get to see Allah in person the better!

    Moonbats and their deceptive headlines

    It may well be true that the current all time high temperature for some place or other in the U.K. will fall. However, that does not mean that the month of October will be the hottest ever. Hottest ever and coldest ever temperature records fall all the time and prove nothing. Once again uneducated greeniac moonbats are mistaking WEATHER for CLIMATE.

    Maybe it’s BECAUSE IT SUCKS?

    Democrats are done. We need a third party quick because Democrats need to disappear. The mainline Republicans are far enough left that they can go ahead and take their place and we’ll let the true conservatives, the libertarians and other right-thinkers band together and forge the path for this nation for the next 50 years or so. We need to also start cleaning up the courts – impeaching or recalling where possible all the leftist, revisionist judges that Democrats have appointed.

    Yeah? And what about Michael Moore? I guess among moonbats you don’t need a clue, you just have to look good?

    Now besides “bless you” what other class disruptions are students being punished for engaging in?

    Flushing $5 billion more of our money down the toilet.

  • ZEP

    I liked you better when you were Van Helsing. Can we change it back? Dave Blount, just doesn’t sound as intimidating and it feels as if this site doesn’t have that feeling it once gave me since you decided to go all Dave Blount on us. For good times sake, make your next entry as Van Helsing.

  • http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com Reaganite Republican

    Gr8 advice “Zep”… who the F are you

    Time to get back to your bong, headphones, and doritos then

  • Smorfia48

    Pakistani girl is gang raped over several days. The Best of All Men have condemned her as a “kari” (a black woman) and are outraged that her family refuse to kill her:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/09/pakistani-family-refuses-to-kill-daughter-who-was-raped-drawing-anger/245691/

  • SR
  • SR

    Hispanic students have started vanishing from Alabama public schools

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-09-30/alabama-immigration/50619602/1

  • http://kurlander.blogspot.com lao’s flat rotting colon

    Diane Sawyer/illgeals/Moonbats cry about new Alabama illegal immigration law

    http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/alabama-immigration-law-threatens-kids-14636818

  • Adam

    Reaganite says:
    “Gr8 advice “Zep”… who the F are you”
    I believe it’s another sockpuppet attempt for “fez,” one of our dumbest and most obnoxious trolls. He’s been trying to use various different sockpuppets over the last couple days.

  • http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com Reaganite Republican
  • AC

    Yet another reason to dislike Ron Paul

    This loser was not an American citizen, he was by his own choices and actions clearly an enemy combatant who needed to be terminated with extreme prejudice and I, for one, hope every one of his ilk gets exactly the same end. The quicker we can help them get to see Allah in person the better!

    As usual, Ron Paul is standing up for the letter of the Constitution, even when it’s unpopular.

    The Fifth Amendment states:

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    The Fourteenth Amendment states:

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Article III, Section III states:

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

    The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

    It’s fairly clear that the scumbag goathumper was a traitor, and we’re safer with him no longer walking around.

    That being said, there is a specific process required to convict an American of treason or deprive him of life. Obama has had more than enough time to try Al-Awlaki in absentia, convict him of treason, strip him of his citizenship, and make the whole process lawful.

    Timothy McVeigh was tried and convicted, as was his co-conspirator, based on allegations proven through evidence in public court. If the government had started handing out kill orders for suspected participants it could have easily wound up summarily executing a militia/survivalist type who ran in the same circles as McVeigh but was indeed innocent of the crime. Clinton followed the law and brought the terrorists to justice.

    Think long and hard about who DHS has labeled “suspected terrorists” under guidance from the would-be socialist dictator in the White House.

    Due process means that the innocent have an opportunity to confront their accuser and exonerate themselves. If somebody you vaguely knew or maybe had met once or twice did something extremely evil, and the government responded will kill orders to immediately neutralize the terrorist cell before it strikes again, how would you feel if you were misidentified as part of the cell based on a friendly conversation (and nothing more) with the attacker at the gun range? To the clowns in the DHS, two white guys casually chatting at the gun range is pretty much proof of a conspiracy.

    Obama and the left whined long and hard about the execution of convicted cop killer Troy Davis after 20 years of judicial procedure, yet made no provision for any judicial procedure whatsoever in this case.

    Don’t get me wrong, it’s good this creep was aced, but Obama shredded the Constitution in the process. The precedent here is horrible. Obama chose to ignore the Constitution when he felt it inconvenient then completely bypass the judicial branch in sentencing an American citizen to death, without benefit of judge, jury, trial, or appeal. It’s one thing to kill the guy in self-defense if he engages in lethal hostility during an apprehension attempt (as would be the case with any normal civilian suspect), however Obama signed an order authorizing his execution under all circumstances.

    The evidence on this guy was overwhelming. Complying with the Constitution would have presented no problem in making the process lawful.

  • AC

    The action took place in Yemen, a country far more cooperative and aligned with our interests than Pakistan.

    If the convoy was positively identified, it could have been tracked by the drone while a combination of Yemeni and American forces are directed to make the capture.

    If he resists and imperils the lives of troops, then kill him.

    If he doesn’t, then ship him and his buddies off to Gitmo to extract useful intelligence which might save lives. Reportedly, a top Al-Qaeda bombmaker was also killed in the strike. That man would also be useful to our forces in an interrogation room. We had a need to know what he knows. Apprehending the targets could have saved lives of civilians and troops.

    Signing kill orders long in advance then using drones to carry it out is a very lazy and politician-friendly way of fighting a war. It figures it suits Obama perfectly, because all he has to take responsibility for is signing a piece of paper and directing someone else to push some buttons in a fancy remote flight simulator.

  • KHarn

    Re: the muslim traitor to America.

    We are AT WAR. Save trials for peacetime. Targets of opportunity.

  • AC

    We are AT WAR. Save trials for peacetime. Targets of opportunity.

    There is no provision in the Constitution to allow autocratic leaders to ignore whatever they want at will. Obama took an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution, not wave it when it becomes inconvenient.

    We’re at war with drugs, so can he suspend the Second Amendment to fight the cartels?

    If we go to “cyberwar”, will he be able to suspend the First Amendment and censor the Internet as he pleases?

    What if WWIII breaks out? Can he revert to concentration camps like socialist strongman FDR?

    What if the Tea Party obstructs his agenda? Can he declare a national emergency and suspend elections?

    The problem with waiving the Constitution when it becomes an alleged impediment is that it is always the least savory of types who demand the right to determine when they get to ignore it. This is how the Nazis and countless other dictators and strongmen rose to power.

    Just like censorship boards, when the power is granted, it will eventually end up in the hands of abusers.

    If we’re to deal this man in a way other than due process then we need an amendment to empower us to deal with threats not envisioned by our founders while still preserving the natural rights of man they chose to recognize.

  • lao
  • http://kurlander.blogspot.com GoY

    US Attorney for North Dakota sues oil companies over 28 bird deaths. 440,000 bird deaths due to windpower… not a big deal.

    Could the agenda be any clearer?

  • Bob Roberts

    Deadly force was compatible with the 5th Amendment in this setting for two reasons:

    1) Al-Awlaki was located, purposefully, in a place where neither the host-state government nor the United States had a plausible opportunity to capture him

    2) His operational role in active terrorist operations and the resultant premise that he posed an imminent threat to life.

    Paul’s blathering is just political posturing. He is correct that we must be on guard against government making arbitrary decisions about who lives and who dies, as this administration is admittedly prone to do, but he is wrong to raise this issue in the context of Al-Awlaki.

  • SNuss

    Like it or not, we are at war with Al-Qaida. In war, you kill the enemy, preferably with minimal risk to our own troops. You don’t stop a group of armed combatants, and explain their Constitutional Rights to them, before engaging them in a fight. You are trying to blur the obvious difference between enforcing civil law against criminals, and engaging in war against our enemies.

  • Bob Roberts

    It is also true that one has to follow some sort of due process. But there’s due process, and then in exceptional cases there is due process.

    What constitutes due process in this case is a due process in and of war.

    And did you know? A second American killed in Friday’s attack was Samir Khan, a driving force behind Inspire, the English-language magazine produced by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. The CIA did not know Khan was there but they also considered Khan a belligerent whose presence would not have stopped the attack.

    While the Constitution cannot be dismissed lightly, there are other considerations which clearly apply in this and similar situations, such as the 2002 U.S. drone strike in Yemen that targeted Abu Ali al-Harithi, a Yemeni al-Qaeda operative accused of planning the 2000 attack on the USS Cole. That strike also killed a U.S. citizen who the CIA knew was in Harithi’s vehicle but who was a target of the attack.

    certain belligerents aren’t shielded because of their citizenship.

    As a general matter, it would be entirely lawful for the United States to target high-level leaders of enemy forces, regardless of their nationality, who are plotting to kill Americans both under the authority provided by Congress in its use of military force in the armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces as well as established international law that recognizes our right of self-defense.

    I am an outspoken critic of this administration and believe me, if there were ANYTHING wrong with taking this scumbag out I’d be shouting about it.

    There was not. GOOD JOB OBAMUNISTS! Credit where due. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

  • Bob Roberts

    SNuss says: October 1, 2011 at 7:17 am
    ————–

    No, actually he’s engaged in blind following of Ron Paul, which is a disturbing trait of many who follow Paul.

    Whatever Paul says is automatically golden.

    Homey don’t play that.

  • Bob Roberts

    NOTE that arabic names often have multiple “correct” spellings.

    Al-Awlaki was born in 1971 in New Mexico, where his Yemeni-born father was attending school. This highlights part of what is wrong with the way American citizenship is automatically granted to some simply on the basis of where they are when they were born. But that’s another argument for another discussion.

    Al-Awlaki has had direct ties with multiple terror operations and was a key terrorist leader. He had direct ties to both the 9/11 attack and the attack on the U.S. Cole.

    AC, many of the issues you raise are substantive and would be worth extensive discussion if we were raising them in connection with just about anyone BUT this particular scumbag. It so happens that in this particular case your objections are irrelevant and immaterial due to the circumstances of this case.

    The 5th Amendment issues are difficult but not insurmountable.

    The 14th Amendment issues are covered by the words of that Amendment including but not necessarily limited to: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, “of the State wherein they reside” and “any person within its jurisdiction”. This scumbag deliberately kept himself outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. He was involved directly in at least 19 terror attacks.

    And finally, obviously, the issues of Article III section III were easily resolved in this particular case. If you can’t see that, go back and reconsider until you do. I can lead you to knowledge but I can’t make you think.

  • http://kurlander.blogspot.com GoY
  • Austin
  • Bob Roberts

    AND SOME DON’T UNDERSTAND WHY WE CANNOT ALLOW THESE PEOPLE TO EVEN HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONSIDER ATTAINING NUCLEAR MATERIALS:

    “Today the West is standing on a crossroad and it should either leave its age-old bullying and recognize the rights of the Palestinians or wait for harder blows in the near future.” Iran’s “Supreme Leader” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

    He also has stated that Western support of Israel is ineffective because Israel’s obliteration is imminent according to the will of God.

  • http://zillablog.marezilla.com Zilla
  • Austin
  • AC

    I don’t blindly follow Paul, but I refuse to concede the power for summary execution to a president who would like to become a socialist strongman, especially when that president laments his inability to block the execution of convicted cop killer Troy Davis after 20 years of judicial process.

    “Fundamental transformation” is about the socialist left replacing our Constitution with their vision of socialist power. This administration is full of people who either consider the Constitution antiquated and unnecessary or a “living” document which exists to rubber stamp their grabs at power.

    Just a few days ago we had a moonbat governor seriously contemplating the supposed wisdom of suspending elections in the name of finishing the fundamental transformation of this nation.

    It wouldn’t be that difficult to indict Al-Awlaki for treason and conspiracy, try him in absentia, then have a jury of twelve strip him of his citizenship and sentence him to death. If he doesn’t like it, then he can surrender himself to authorities to fight the charges. Once convicted, then we ram a hellfire up his ass.

    This level of unchecked power is detrimental to our liberty.

    We need a constitutional amendment for situations like this, which can place wise restrictions on the use of power, such as limiting it to situations off American soil, or to persons stripped of benefit of citizenship for becoming enemy combatants, after judicial review. If we start ignoring the Constitution when it becomes inconvenient then eventually it will be ignored for other issues, like this: Man ordered to surrender guns – just for blogging!

    Even if we don’t put him on trial, why not at least have some judicial review of what happened, such as how FISA requests are judicially reviewed in a special court set up for that purpose?

    Our system of government is based on checks and balances. Where were those here?

    We can raise these issues with this scumbag to avoid the slippery slope. First it’s him, a terrorist leader, then it will be a terrorist minion, then it will be a veteran, gun owner, or someone else deemed by DHS to be a threat. While they might not be summarily executed, is it within the realm of possibility that a “Tenther” gets sent to a military prison for thoughtcrime, without benefit of trial?

    There was more than enough time to try and convict him in absentia, in accordance with our Constitution, and its wise limits on summary justice and treason by fiat. Pick twelve people at random off the street and there will be no problem sentencing him to death and loss of citizenship. Hell, twelve random people could be convinced he deserves castration with rusty scissors first.

    The imminency card cannot be played here. He was in Yemen, which is cooperative, unlike Pakistan. He isn’t going to run from a drone which is tracking him. The drone could have stayed fixed on his position while a US/Yemeni team moved in to apprehend the convoy and bring the terrorists to justice.

    By killing him and the bomb expert, we have denied ourselves the ability to harshly interrogate them and obtain useful intelligence. These two will be quickly replaced now that they’re dead, whereas the information gathered from an interrogation could be used to disrupt the operational capacity of other terrorist cells and potentially prevent future terrorist attacks.

    Terror cells ply their death and horror under cover of information asymmetry. We can’t spot their advance from the sky like we could with a column of Soviet tanks. Intelligence is vital.

    The bottom line is he was not engaged in hostilities at that moment in the same manner as terrorist insurgents firing rockets at a NATO position. We can’t compare this situation to the imminency of smoking a terrorist launching rockets or dispatching an armed burglar in one of our homes.

    Courts were good enough for McVeigh. McVeigh was captured and brought to justice for his monstrous crimes before he could harm anyone else. The intelligence gathered from McVeigh helped investigators determine that the McVeigh/Nichols cell had been disrupted, and that there weren’t other co-conspirators still actively plotting more harm against the people.

    If Al-Awlaki could not be captured, then fine – neutralize him in the course of military operations. Even in that case Obama should not be handing down orders like this well in advance of the military determining that capture is not possible. It’s fine to put a bounty on Al-Awlaki, dead or alive, but not write out an order that he will not be brought in alive no matter what the circumstances.

    Declaring him an enemy combatant allows the use of force to neutralize the threat, if necessary. Declaring him dead by executive order, no matter the circumstances, is over the line.

    Only a court may pronounce a sentence of death. Any deaths occurring without court order must be supported by the necessity of the situation, not a declaration made well in advance.

  • AC

    Al-Awlaki has had direct ties with multiple terror operations and was a key terrorist leader. He had direct ties to both the 9/11 attack and the attack on the U.S. Cole.

    All of these are well documented and will easily survive judicial review or trial by jury, without the need for an autocratic president to shred the Fifth Amendment.

    AC, many of the issues you raise are substantive and would be worth extensive discussion if we were raising them in connection with just about anyone BUT this particular scumbag. It so happens that in this particular case your objections are irrelevant and immaterial due to the circumstances of this case.

    I would hardly call a concern of who this mentality might be used on next “immaterial.”

    If the Fifth Amendment can be suspended to declare Al-Awlaki dead by fiat, then can they suspend the First, the Second, or our right to elections?

    This is why we have a Constitution and why our civil servants and armed forces swear an oath to uphold it, regardless of personal feelings.

    The 14th Amendment issues are covered by the words of that Amendment including but not necessarily limited to: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, “of the State wherein they reside” and “any person within its jurisdiction”. This scumbag deliberately kept himself outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. He was involved directly in at least 19 terror attacks.

    Baloney. US citizens are subject to the jurisdiction of US law. If an American pedophile goes to Asia to molest children, he can be imprisoned for his horrible crimes when he returns home. Drug lord Edgar “La Barbie” Valdez was a US citizen. He’s under arrest in Mexico, and will shortly be brought back here to face trial for his monstrous crimes.

    According to the IRS, US citizens owe taxes on their worldwide income, even if they leave the US with no intention of returning.

    And finally, obviously, the issues of Article III section III were easily resolved in this particular case. If you can’t see that, go back and reconsider until you do. I can lead you to knowledge but I can’t make you think.

    Those issues are easily resolved by the very clear requirements our founders established for a conviction of treason. We have those restrictions because an autocratic British king used executive power and kangaroo courts to denounce patriots for insufficient loyalty to a foreign monarch.

    Those same restrictions protect us from a future where socialist autocrats might want to denounce individuals as enemies of workers, as was done in the Soviet Union, whose irrelevant and unenforced constitution actually provided for things like free speech and due process, which were never enforced.

  • http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/131christians/activists/wilberforce.html Wilberforce

    Very well-put, AC. Here’s a nice adjunct to what you’ve said.

    Orders We Will Not Obey.

  • Festivus

    This (AC’s argument, with all respect) is precisely why Ron Paul will never get the nomination.

    Al-Awlaki has been waging a war against the US for years. The Constitution in no way prevents a President from eliminating an enemy combatant, particularly one that is an imminent threat and has gone to great lengths to conceal himself inside the belly of the beast. I don’t care what nationality he happens to be.

    I give kudos to Obama and his administration for green-lighting Al-Awlaki’s extermination.

    Instead of a prominent Republican publicly decrying the Al-Awlaki hit, I am waiting for all of those liberals to denounce Obama (although I’m not holding my breath).

    War is an ugly business.

  • SR

    ‘Bird-Brained’ Hypocrisy: Oil Companies Prosecuted for 28 Dead Waterfowl While Wind Companies Get Away with Offing 400,000+ Every Year

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/bird-brained-hypocrisy-oil-companies-prosecuted-for-28-dead-waterfowl-while-wind-companies-get-away-with-offing-400000-every-year/

  • SR

    “Video of Tiangong-1 space station is distributed with US patriotic song as background music in latest Chinese propaganda gaffe”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/30/china-launch-america-the-beautiful

  • AC

    The Oath Keepers are an inspiration. We need more people like that dedicated to the letter and spirit of our Constitution instead of partisan politics or expediency.

  • Festivus

    And I’ll just add this about the “show” trial proposition, that’s exactly what it would be – a “show trial.” It demeans our judicial system and I think it also demeans our country in the eyes of the international community. It’s just bad policy and makes us look foolish (not to mention weak).

  • Festivus

    Somehow, I don’t think the Oath Keepers are against this. I could be wrong since I’m not a member and I’m not going to register for the forum to find out.

    But the over-arching motivation behind this attack was to protect Americans and preserve those Constitutional guarantees they have given an oath to defend. #3 on the list is the only one that might apply to this situation, in my judgment, and I just don’t think this case is on point with it.

  • AC

    This (AC’s argument, with all respect) is precisely why Ron Paul will never get the nomination.

    I’m certain he won’t, foreign policy heresies aside. He’s too irreverent towards the party-first, business as usual attitude.

    Al-Awlaki has been waging a war against the US for years.

    This means we’ve had more than enough time to conduct some sort of due process or judicial review to act as a check and balance on executive power.

    The Constitution in no way prevents a President from eliminating an enemy combatant, particularly one that is an imminent threat and has gone to great lengths to conceal himself inside the belly of the beast. I don’t care what nationality he happens to be.

    The laws of war and common sense support his elimination if he poses an imminent threat and must be neutralized in the course of combat.

    That’s not what happened here. The military was not ordered to take Al-Awlaki out of commission. They were ordered to enforce a fiat death warrant issued long before the circumstances of this situation were known.

    My problem is with an unconditional death warrant being issued by one man, with no judicial review, not with the dead terrorist scumbag.

    The military, not a Marxist president, should have had the authority to make a determination based on the specifics of the situation. He was a high value target of enormous intelligence value, worth more to us captured and interrogated than blown to bits. What he knows could save lives.

    I give kudos to Obama and his administration for green-lighting Al-Awlaki’s extermination.

    What else will they greenlight long before it is carried out?

    Make no mistake; this administration views our entire Constitution as an impediment to their social justice agenda. They’ll send it through the shredder piece by piece until we’re fundamentally transformed.

    When we’re staring into the abyss of a fundamental transformation into an authoritarian socialist nation, one of the few comforts we should have left should be the words of our Constitution, and the hope that one day they might be restored by men who honor their oaths even if they don’t find it convenient or expedient.

  • AC

    And I’ll just add this about the “show” trial proposition, that’s exactly what it would be – a “show trial.” It demeans our judicial system and I think it also demeans our country in the eyes of the international community. It’s just bad policy and makes us look foolish (not to mention weak).

    I’m not calling for a Soviet show trial. He was more than welcome to surrender himself to the authorities, receive due process, mount a pathetic defense, and receive a just sentence, probably death.

    Show trials have a predetermined outcome in spite of actual innocence. It demeans our Constitution to suggest that judicial review as a check and balance on executive power is on the same level as NKVD or KGB oppression.

  • Jodie

    For what it’s worth, whenever I open the Bible to a random passage, it is ALWAYS something pertinent to what I’m thinking about at the time. This is what I read just when I opened the Bible. This is about people who worship another god, such as this “Allah” character:

    Deuteronomy 13
    New International Version (NIV)

    Worshiping Other Gods
    1 [a]If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. That prophet or dreamer tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.

    6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

  • KHarn

    “AC says:October 1, 2011 at 6:49 am”

    Just one question, I believe it will cover all of that.

    What COUNTRY or GROUP have we formaly declaired “war” on in this “war on drugs”?

    You know full well that the muslims are at war with the entire world, even with other muslims. If an American citizen (As in PAST wars) joins the fight against his/her country, we treat them as any forigne solder: KILL ON SIGHT. If they are captured, treat them according to internationallaw and the rules of war: no uniform, question then execute. In uniform: Try and execute as a TRAITOR.

    I am tired of this “police action” crap; that was a STUPID idea from the 1940s when people thought that the UN, useing AMERICA’S military might, would prevent dictators from getting too powerfull and prevent the spread of communism. It didn’t work in Korea or Viet Nam or in many other places. We need to stop acting like PUSSYS and FIGHT to destroy their will and/or ability to wage war. That is the only thing muslims will respect and the only way to end a war.

    But American-hateing ASSHOLES like LAO will oppose any common sense in order to destroy America and bring in their communist dream world.

    HEY STUPID LAO;
    The muslims will continue to spread their murderous cause even after America falls. what will YOUR REGRESSIVE “HEROS” do about it? Or do you morons WANT to live under a REAL totalitarian theocracy?

  • SPURWING PLOVER

    Bob Hope is spinning in his grave

  • AC

    What COUNTRY or GROUP have we formaly declaired “war” on in this “war on drugs”?

    None, just as we haven’t formally declared war in the Middle East, and just like we’ve danced around other police actions which Congress won’t call war.

    The reason I brought it up is because calling something a “war” shouldn’t give the president authority to unilaterally butcher the Constitution. The Constitution is clear; only Congress can declare war.

    That is a formal declaration we need to make, against AQ, its allies, and those who support them. None of this soft War Powers crap being (ab)used in Libya. Either we do it or we don’t, and if we do it, only Congress has that authority.

    Obama is using the situation in Mexico to undermine the Second Amendment, as revealed by his continual lies (e.g., the 90% statistic) and fast and furious. Some of the cartels, especially Los Zetas, rival or exceed AQ in certain measures of evil, such as body count, grotesque mutilations, willingness to cause collateral damage, and operational capacity.

    There’s a case to be made that the paramilitary capacities of Los Zetas, Gente Nueva, and La Linea substantially exceed that of AQ and pose a direct threat to national security (not just civilian law and order) on both sides of the border. Some analysts have labeled these organizations using the controversial term “narco-terrorist.”

    So, we could definitely be at “war” with them in the same sense. Many have even called on the Pentagon to send in the drones and smoke the cartel convoys which operate openly. Does that give Comrade Chairman the right to suspend the Second Amendment or run it through the shredder of ATF bureaucracy as he deems fit? What about warrantless searches near the border? Warrantless phone taps on suspicion of cartel activity?

    There has to be some sort of restraint on the government when it comes to an explicitly defined Constitutional right afforded to a US citizen or person within the US, whether it’s a presumption of innocence, a right to due process, or even an entity such as the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to restrain executive power.

    Otherwise we get this “anything for safety” mindset which tramples our rights, often in very visible places like airports. When there is no balance the government does anything it pleases regardless of how many children get felt up at security checkpoints or elderly grandmothers shot by SWAT teams on bad information from a felony cooperator seeking sentence reduction.

    If Obama can waive the rights of a US citizen because he unilaterally deems it necessary to fight paramilitary terrorists in the Middle East, then what stops him from unilaterally suspending other rights he deems necessary to fight paramilitary cartels in Mexico?

    If that is held to be the case, then people within x miles of the border might as well move out of the Constitution-free zone, and hope that cartel cells don’t come to where ever they move.

    Have you read about any of the cartel activity spilling over the border? The situation is not good.

    Upholding the rule of law means denouncing these unwritten exceptions in the name of unaccountable executive behavior. I’m not sure that even something like a secret FISA court upholds the spirit of the Constitution, but if the executive is going to claim necessity, a second branch’s review is a hell of a lot better to nothing.

    Remember the “exceptions” they conjured up to screw GM bondholders, and so on, and so forth?

    Whatever the rules are we need to stick to them, and if they’re out of date, then we go through the proper procedure to change them. Socialist dictators like Hugo Chavez are the ones who make things up and reinterpret as they go.

    We need only look at the legacy FDR’s “emergency” measures left us. His destruction of constitutional originalism has poisoned our case law to this day. I don’t want a modern day Obamunist ruling gutting one of my rights like Wickard gutted the Commerce Clause.

  • Festivus

    Congress did authorize the WoT (which is why Al-Awlaki was taken out) and they’ve continually authorized it by appropriating money for it.

  • AC

    Just so there are no misunderstandings:

    I am glad he is gone. He is an enemy of all mankind.

    I have no problem that he was terminated by the military in the field.

    My problem is with the president giving an unreviewed order that Al-Awlaki is to be terminated, no matter the circumstance, and only because this is a huge Constitutional problem.not

    If someone breaks into my home, I will not hesitate to shoot and stop the threat. If the threat is stopped, and I am certain the threat is stopped, I will not go up to a prone burglar and put one in his head.

    I understand that in the real world, shooting to stop a burglar (and ensuring the threat is stopped) usually means a kill, which I would have no problem delivering if my life were in danger and it were me or him. I hope I am never in that situation.

    What I will never do is adopt the attitude (which many Internet toughguys display) that a burglary is an “opportunity” in which a homeowner is “entitled” to waste an intruder. That’s not why we defend ourselves.

    The just objective is terminating Al-Awlaki as a threat to the world. In his case, with him being a Muslim terrorist, that probably means he won’t be taken alive, even though that’s how we got KSM. Saddam also vowed he would not be taken alive, yet we apprehended him, and delivered him up for justice from the people of Iraq.

    What is not okay is issuing a premeditated kill order long in advance, against an American citizen, for allegations not yet reviewed under due process of law.

    If he has to be killed, then that decision must be made on the battlefield during the encounter, by the commanding officer evaluating the situation, not many months before by a politician who lacks the right to suspend a person’s due process rights by writing out a death warrant.

    If he’s killed evading capture or engaging in war then his death is justified by reason of self-defense. If that comes to pass then we remain righteous for attempting to preserve life up until the last moment where the situation gave us no choice, rather than condemning him to death by fiat long in advance.

  • AC

    Congress did authorize the WoT (which is why Al-Awlaki was taken out) and they’ve continually authorized it by appropriating money for it.

    They authorized the use of military force, which is the slippery spin way of saying “go get them, but we’re not at war.”

    We are at war, and the enemy is fundamentalist Islam.

    Shame on them for refusing to recognize that fact.

  • http://genelalor.com Berlet98

    The President’s Worn-Out Clothes

    . . . Not that it will get any more attention from Obama’s MSM than any of his many previous gaffes and unrehearsed revelations of fallibility and stupidity but The Anointed One really lost his ointment when he was caught with his pants, that is, teleprompters, down in front of an audience at D.C.’s Benjamin Banneker High School.

    He confessed not only that he was “not always the very best student” but that ethics “would not have made it on the list” of his favorite subjects. He elaborated by saying, “I did not love every class I took. I wasn’t always paying attention.”

    Most school kids don’t pay an awful lot of attention to their teachers but at that point Obama dropped his Obamabomb by fessing up to what has been obvious thoughout his career: “I remember when I was in 8th grade I had to take a class called ethics. Now, ethics is about right and wrong, but if you’d ask me what my favorite subject was back in 8th grade, it was basketball. I don’t think ethics would have made it on the list.”

    That admission was the equivalent of Ted Kennedy conceding he was an immoral rake and Jimmy Carter agreeing he was inept. Why bother mentioning what is self-evident? The man who announced a string of “ethics rules” after his election has led an administration that has breached more rules of ethics in just the last year than Richard Nixon could ever have dreamed of.

    It was nice of Obama to reveal that his ethical shortcomings date back to his childhood. Now it’s time to get out of his imperial clothes and get out of the White House. (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5614.)

  • born in 76

    So I was just watching some of the Global Revolution live stream chat and a comment from one of the mods was grand…The chat started getting aggressive when the NYPD started arresting some of the protesters after the protesters started hitting on the police(conveniently the live stream cuts out at that moment)

    “””FloridaMom: Ok, calm down people
    FloridaMom: REmember this is a non-violent protest
    FloridaMom: The protestors are sitting and doing the right thing as they have been trained to do.
    FloridaMom: Breathe
    FloridaMom: Breathe”””

    haha, “trained to do”, what good little progs.

  • hiram

    Hate to say this, as it’ll make me a target, but I have to agree with AC on this one.

    As much of a sick F### this Al-Whatshisname was, and as much as he deserved a much worse death than he got (“I’m gonna get MEDIEVAL on your ass” comes to mind), allowing the executive branch the power to execute stroke-of-the-pen execution has has a nasty backside.

    DHS considers all of the regular posters here as potential terrorists. You really want them to decide if a drone strike is warranted?

    Sticking to the letter of the Constitution is what makes a true conservative… even when it’s morally repugnant. The progs just ignore the Constitution. Shouldn’t we be the opposite? Or is all that “imperialist, warmonger” propaganda a little more accurate than we’d like to admit?

  • Festivus

    How is blowing up Al-Awlaki any different than putting a bullet in the head of an AQ combatent in the field?

  • AC

    How is blowing up Al-Awlaki any different than putting a bullet in the head of an AQ combatent in the field?

    The problem is not that he was blown up.

    Sure, it would have been nice to capture him like we did with KSM or Saddam, but I realize that we can’t expect to do so.

    The problem is that the president signed what amounts to a death warrant, against an American citizen, with absolutely no judicial review.

    The reason he can be shot and killed while engaged in hostilities on the battlefield is because an active hostile target poses a threat. That threat determination must be made by the CO assessing the situation, not by a Washington politician months before. On a battlefield, guilt is irrelevant so long as the threat is active.

    The order given well before the recent events was to hunt and kill him regardless of circumstances. Once again, that is a warrant for execution, absent any due process or judicial review, not a battlefield necessity. The president does not get to make a premediated call like that because the timing is wrong and he isn’t the CO on the battlefield.

    He may have been as good as dead when he decided to resist our military might, but that still doesn’t give a single politician the right to deem people as condemned.

    We’ve captured and hung Nazi monsters responsible for far more carnage than this guy.

    The liberties enshrined in our Constitution were bought and paid for with millions of American lives lost in the cause of freedom. It would be foolish to shred those words in the name of convenience, only to waste a few terrorists, and even more so when we have an administration doing everything it can do to undo the literal meaning and judicial originalism standing in the way of their authoritarian socialist society. I’m not willing to sacrifice it all, not for this guy. If he is responsible for yet another case where the words of our Constitution are twisted to the point of mootness, then he has caused us far more long-term damage than he ever could inciting a few jihadists.

    I will stand by the words of the Constitution, even when they are inconvenient, and even when I disagree, because it is the meaning of those words which stands between us and the end of this great experiment in liberty and empowerment of the people.

    If we want to condemn US citizens in such circumstances without due process then we need a constitutional amendment, otherwise we are buying into the “living constitution” nonsense being pushed by the judicial activists. If we say it is alive on this (relatively minor) issue, then they come back with the fairness doctrine, gun confiscation, affirmative action, and who knows what else.

    Even if it were the only way to get Al-Awlaki (and it isn’t), I still wouldn’t trade him for a constitutional theory which lets them take away our semiautomatic guns and censor our Internet because the founders never anticipated better machinery or mass communications.

    I’ll put up with a bit of extra government paperwork trying this scumbag in absentia and condemning him with due process before I give in to the living constitution theory.

  • AC

    This situation is exactly why I respect Ron Paul and why I’ll be voting for him in November 2012 regardles of who the GOP good ol’ boys nominate.

    Paul knew his statement would be unpopular with the Republican base, and his aides knew it too, but he stuck to his guns because he takes seriously his oath of office and his duty to uphold and defend the Constitution.

    He will take a beating in the polls for this, but he doesn’t care, because it was the constitutional thing to say.

    This attitude is why we need to elect him president. He won’t hesitate to use the constitutional power of the presidency to eliminate unconstitutional, counterproductive bureaucracies like the Department of Education and HUD, unconstitutional programs like Social Security, and the litany of unconstitutional administrative regulations currently strangling business and job creators.

    If Congress wants to give him a proposal for unconstitutional government then he will shut it all down until they follow the Constitution.

    Are any of the poll-watching career politicians willing to aggressively handle these third rail issues?

  • Ex-bat

    Some of you may remember a while ago I made comments about the “shovel ready” stimulus road-project-from-hell in my town? Thought you might be interested to see the results (scroll down to the picture of Church Street and the moonbatty explanation for why the rotten job they did was so clever…):
    http://www.smithfieldtimes.com/

  • Jodie

    Ex-bat,

    Although I haven’t been able to find a job for three years and I struggle every day to come up with ways to pay my bills, I am so comforted to know that my tax dollars are going to build that ever-so-important curvy road project. (Kidding of course – thanks for the laugh!)

  • Ex-bat

    Jodie, glad you got a laugh out of it! So sorry to hear of your struggles, I’ve been laid off once and it was no picnic even then… but I did not go as long as you have. I cannot fathom how difficult that must be!

    Don’t give up trying though, the only way to ever find work is keep looking. I wish you the best!

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy