http://washingtonexaminer.com/eric-holder-drone-strikes-against-americans-on-u.s.-soil-are-legal/article/2523319Attorney General Eric Holder can imagine a scenario in which it would be constitutional to carry out a drone strike against an American on American soil, he wrote in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul, R-KY.“It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,” Holder replied in a letter yesterday to Paul’s question about whether Obama “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”Paul condemned the idea. “The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening – it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans,” he said in a statement.* FOLKS... PAUL ISN'T TALKING ABOUT THE EQUIVILANT OF A SWAT TEAM COMMANDER AUTHORIZING SNIPERS TO TAKE OUT CRIMINALS WHO HAVE TAKEN HOSTAGES AND ARE HOLED UP IN THE BANK THEY TRIED TO ROB. NO... PAUL'S TALKING ABOUT TARGETED - PREMEDITATED - ASSASINATIONS OF "SUSPECTS" - AMERICAN CITIZENS ON AMERICAN SOIL - WHO RETAIN CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS.* HERE... SEE THIS: http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2523425?slideout=1Paul said that all presidents must honor the Fifth Amendment. “No American should ever be killed in their house without warrant and some kind of aggressive behavior by them,” Paul said on the Senate floor. “To be bombed in your sleep? There’s nothing American about that . . . [Obama] says trust him because he hasn’t done it yet. He says he doesn’t intend to do so, but he might. Mr. President, that’s not good enough . . . I will not sit quietly and let him shred the Constitution." Paul added, ”No person will be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process,” quoting the Fifth Amendment.* YOU KNOW... THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS...* FINALLY... HERE'S NANCY FRIGGIN' PELOSI... http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/18/pelosi-obama-doesnt-have-confess-drone-kills/House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said the White House doesn’t necessarily have to confess to killing American citizens by unarmed drones.(*STUNNED SILENCE*)* FOLKS... AMERICA IS NO LONGER AMERICA. YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THIS.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/03/06/cruz-goes-after-holder-about-constitutionality-of-using-drones-to-target-americans-on-us-soil/Attorney General Eric Holder and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, got into a heated discussion during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing about the use of drones against American citizens.Questioning Holder about a letter he sent to Sen. Rand Paul, R-KY., in which the attorney general said it would take an “extraordinary circumstance” to use a drone to kill an American on U.S. soil, Cruz asked if such lethal force would be constitutional.“If an individual is sitting quietly at a café in the United States, in your legal judgment, does the Constitution allow a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil to be killed by a drone?” Cruz asked Holder.Holder responded tongue-in-cheek: “For sitting in the café and having a cup of coffee?”Cruz continued pressing, asking again, “If that individual is not posing an imminent threat of death or bodily harm, does the Constitution allow the drone to kill that individual.”Holder said that he does “not think that would be an appropriate use of lethal force.”Cruz was left unsatisfied with Holder’s answers.“I find it remarkable that in that hypothetical which is deliberately very simple you are unable to give a simple one word, one syllable answer: no. I think it is unequivocal that if the U.S. government were to use a drone to take the life of a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil and that individual did not pose an imminent threat that would be a depravation of life without due process,” Cruz stated.* FINALLY... FINALLY... HOLDER GAVE A STRAIGHT "NO" ANSWER. * HERE'S THE VIDEO -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jsy01ljGcy0
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/03/06/study-shows-more-americans-are-raiding-401k-accounts-to-pay-bills/A new national study shows that too many of us are cashing out 401(k) accounts to pay bills.(*CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*)* THE OBAMA "RECOVERY" PROCEEDS APACE!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-the-expensive-amtrak-fantasy/2013/03/05/4224bfe6-85de-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_story.htmlThere is something about Amtrak — perhaps the romance of railroads or the promise of relieving traffic congestion and economizing on oil and greenhouse-gas emissions — that causes otherwise sensible people to lose contact with reality. The reality is that Amtrak has been a waste of taxpayer money since its creation in 1970. It doesn’t significantly reduce congestion, fuel use or greenhouse gases. Amtrak is too small to have any appreciable effect in any of these areas, yet it retains an aura of respectability with much of the public and many “experts,” who believe it should survive and, perhaps, expand. The latest example is a report from the Brookings Institution, one of Washington’s premier think tanks. The report points out that Amtrak’s 2012 ridership of 31 million was a record and that some of its most heavily traveled routes have an operating profit (what Brookings calls a “positive operating balance”). Amtrak is undergoing a “renaissance,” said Brookings. It adds: “Passenger rail is a vital component of the country’s national transportation network.”Actually, it isn’t.To see why, dissect that historic ridership of 31 million. The number looks impressive, but on any given day, it’s about 85,000. Not much. Even if it doubled, it wouldn’t be much. Domestic airline passengers total about 1.8 million a day. More important are the 140 million Americans who commute daily to work, about 85% of whom drive. (And then there’s personal, vacation and pleasure driving.)If Amtrak vanished, hardly anyone would notice except Amtrak’s workers and its small number of daily riders.Before World War II, intercity rail passenger service flourished. But postwar changes caused rapid decline. Air travel was faster and cheaper for long distances. Suburbanization hurt shorter trips, because travelers usually needed cars to get to their final destinations. Passenger losses mounted for railroads, imperiling their essential freight operations. In 1970, Congress allowed the railroads to abandon intercity passenger service by creating Amtrak, which would become profitable by preserving the most promising routes. That was the theory.It hasn’t worked.Still, it can be argued that some passenger trains should be saved if they can pay their own way. The Brookings report notes approvingly that some heavily traveled routes — led by the Northeast Corridor between Washington and Boston, which represents about half of Amtrak’s revenue — more than cover their operating costs. In 2011, the surplus was a hefty $205 million, says Brookings.The trouble is that “operating” costs is a limited concept. It covers labor and fuel expenses of running trains but excludes many other costs: most importantly, Amtrak’s costs of acquiring passenger cars and locomotives, and also major improvements to tracks and bridges. It’s unclear whether any Amtrak routes would be profitable if all costs were included. * OH... AND BY THE WAY... (READ ON!)Amtrak’s annual federal subsidy has recently totaled about $1.5 billion.(*SIGH*)* THAT'S "WITH" THE... er... "PROFITS."Amtrak is a prime candidate for the budget guillotine. Deficit reduction should focus on programs that are unneeded, ineffective or wasteful... Choices need to be made. Sure: If some Amtrak routes can stand on their own, let them be privatized. Sure: If states and localities want to subsidize rail projects — including high-speed rail — let them. After all, the benefits of most transportation projects (roads, mass transit, rails) are local. But the federal government should leave the train business.
https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/341194/life-liberty-and-free-phone* IF YOU WANNA RISK GETTING SICK TO YOUR STOMACH... READ THIS ONE IN ITS ENTIRETY.(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
Post a Comment