.“EN MI OPINION” ‘IN GOD WE TRUST’.
. Viernes,
Febrero 8 2013 No 313 Editor Lázaro R González Miño .
$16”432,567’939,377 and counting. Complete,
Absolute, Liar, Empty talk.
Democrats Introduce Bill ‘HJ RES 15′ To Give Obama A Third Term
[Congressional Bills 113th Congress][From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.J. Res. 15 Introduced in House (IH)] 113th CONGRESS 1st Session
H. J. RES. 15 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 4, 2013 Mr. Serrano introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary _______________________________________________________________________
JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
“Article– “The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.”. source – Congress.gov
Nota: Si no
te vas a revelar, vete agachando y buscando la vaselina… Lázaro
R González Miño
· LAS ELECCIONES CUBANAS*
7:51 AM
Las elecciones cubanas.
Ha terminado otra farsa mas. Los resultados del
proceso electoral, son sencillamentes aberrantes,
solamente el 4,6% de las boletas fueron en blanco,
y el 1,2% anuladas. No existe en el mundo un proceso
que pueda reflejar estos resultados, son increibles
pero desgraciadamente son ciertos. Son el resultado
de la degradacion de una sociedad, que ha sido
sometida con una crueldad extrema, traicionada , y
enganada. Una sociedad que ha perdido las esperanzas
y que solo piensa en sobrevivir, ha perdido todo el
sentido de credibilidad. No cree en nada ni en nadie.
Muy triste pero es la realidad cubana.
La oposicion, sencillamente fue totalmente destruida
los mejores hombres de la patria, fueron fusilados,
sometidos a largas condenas de prision, y/o obligados
por la feroz persecucion a abandonar la patria que
defendian de forma heroica.
Para su imagen internacional, el propio gobierno
dictatorial creo su oposicion a la imagen y conveniencia
de sus propios intereses. Una oposicion controlada
y disenada para los medios de comunicacion externos.
Marchas totalmente pacificas, con aviso previo a los
medios, incluso internacionales. Muchas organizaciones
totalmente abiertas, muchas reuniones, muchas banderas
y sobre todo muchas fotos. Estas actividades, totalmente
toleradas y a veces acompanadas de una represion
ligera, golpes, y actos de repudios a casas que parecen
fortalezas; y detenciones y mas detenciones, muchas
de ellas por espacio de solo horas. Se fueron convirtiendo
con la complicidad de la Iglesia, en un espectaculo
y en una forma de vida.
Una dictadura no puede derrocarse, con una huelga de
hambre o con el espectaculo de la recogida de un
pasaporte, o con un estudiante, que ha tomado el
camino de vender "durofrio" reclamando su
derecho a viajar.
Siempre se ha dicho, que en Miami se sabe mas de
lo que esta pasando en Cuba, que los propios vecinos
donde se realizan estas actividades [siempre en
pueblos y si son observadores en barrios de la perisferia
donde la calles ni estan asfaltada]. Hago la justa
excepcion de las Damas de Blanco, que han desafiado
en el corazon de La Habana.
Es que no se dan cuenta, que todas estas actividades
estan elaboradas y disenadas para Miami, para que
el exilio sirva de caja de resonancia, y sobre todo
de financiamiento.
Hablando del Exilio, tampoco esta exento de la
influencia del gobierno dictatorial, aqui tambien
conviven los que quieren tumbar a la dictadura
enviandoles cartas, los que quieren hacer negocios
para fomentar el capitalismo como respuesta al
ineficiente socialismo, los eternos colaboracionistas
del Zanjon. Y tambien una inmensa mayoria de
hombres y mujeres que estan dispuestas a participar
lo mismo en un acto de caracter politico que a
repudiar los castristas que inundan los teatros.
Y desde luego, nuestro orgullo, los guerreros de
siempre, que nunca han dejado de luchar, en las
calles, carceles, donde quiera que esten. Perseguidos
alla y aqui, la verguenza nacional.
Resulta interesante, al menos que yo conozca, que
en Cuba no exista una organizacion clandestina,
secreta, cuyo objetivo sea penetrar al gobierno,
conspirar; todo es para la difusion por Intenet.
Cuando analizo esta situacion, siempre me viene
a la mente, que haria Marti, nuestro apostol,
nuestro guia, que haria?
El proximo 24 de febrero, veremos a los opresores
en un nuevo show de un Congreso, elegido y
preparado de forma obediente y sumisa para
servir a sus intereses. Y pregonando una estancia
en el gobierno de solo 10 anos. Cuando han
creado un sistema para perpetuarse en el poder
ellos y sus elegidos. Cuanta infamia y cuanta
desverguenza. Desgraciadamente todos tenemos
una cuota de culpa en esta ignominia, LA
DESTRUCCION DE UN PUEBLO.
DHS Purchases 21.6 Million More Rounds of Ammunition
Posted
on: February 7th,
2013
The Department of Homeland
Security is set to purchase a further 21.6 million rounds of ammunition to add
to the 1.6 billion bullets it has already obtained over the course of the last
10 months alone, figures which have stoked concerns that the federal agency is
preparing for civil unrest.A solicitation posted yesterday on the Fed Bid website details how the bullets are required for the DHS Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Artesia, New Mexico.
The solicitation asks for 10 million pistol cartridge .40 caliber 165 Grain, jacketed Hollow point bullets (100 quantities of 100,000 rounds) and 10 million 9mm 115 grain jacketed hollow point bullets (100 quantities of 100,000 rounds).
The document also lists a requirement for 1.6 million pistol cartridge 9mm ball bullets (40 quantities of 40,000 rounds).
NOTE: HOW THEY EXPLAINED THAT YOU CAN
NOT HAVE A GUN OR ADMUNITIONS BUT THEY BUY 21.6 MILIONS MORE ROUNDS OF
ADMUNITIONS. UNTIL I NOW THIS IS NOT FOR EAT. LAZARO R GONZALEZ MINO. “EMO”
Benghazi Attack: Can you believe they said this?
By
Bobby Eberle February 8, 2013 7:13 am
The attack against the
American consulate in Benghazi, Libya which resulted in the murder of four
Americans is one of the great failures of leadership in American history. And
yet, because it's the Barack Obama administration, the media are willing to
give everyone a pass. Just listen to some of the insane information that has
come out during the congressional hearings.The Weekly Standard put together a collection of videos from the testimony. It actually sounds like a collection of junior high student council representatives rather than supposed leaders of the United States.
In the first video, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta reveals that neither he nor the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, had any contact with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the prolonged attack.
In the next clip, Dempsey reveals his surprise that Sec. Clinton would have no knowledge of a cable sent by U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens warning of the danger in Libya.
See the pattern? No one seems to know what's going on. And yet, for weeks after the attack, the entire Obama administration was adamant that these murders were the direct result of a spontaneous uprising to an anti-Muslim Internet video. We know that story is not true and that the administration had evidence as the attack was occurring that it was a planned attack. But we are still no closer to holding people accountable.
In this next clip, Sen. Lindsey Graham gets to the heart of the failure (not the cover up) when he asks if ANY military personnel or aircraft was deployed to help those Americans who were under attack. It takes a while for Graham to get an answer, but eventually he does. No. Not a single asset was deployed to help rescue these people during the attack.
That video is shocking when one realizes that for eight hours, Americans were under siege, and no one was sent to their rescue. Not one person.
But there's more. In this clip, we learn of the complete and total failure of Barack Obama to be involved in the situation.
If it takes you watching that video several times, please do so, because what it reveals is shocking. As Sen. Ayotte's questioning reveals, even after Obama was notified the Ambassador Stevens had been killed, Obama made NO follow-up inquiries about the situation that entire evening. He didn't ask for status. He didn't ask about a rescue. He didn't ask about assets in the area. Nothing!
Here's what the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol wrote about that night regarding Barack Obama:
"While Americans were under assault in Benghazi, the president found time for a non-urgent, politically useful, hour-long call to Prime Minister Netanyahu. And his senior national security staff had to find time to arrange the call, brief the president for the call, monitor it, and provide an immediate read-out to the media. I suspect Prime Minister Netanyahu, of all people, would have understood the need to postpone or shorten the phone call if he were told that Americans were under attack as the president chatted. But for President Obama, a politically useful telephone call—and the ability to have his aides rush out and tell the media about that phone call—came first."
This was a failure of leadership from the very top, and yet no one seems to care. The president of the United States, while Americans were under attack, was not engaged in the situation at all. And this man was then reelected?
Obama Gives Himself Permission To Kill
By
Andrew P. Napolitano February 7, 2013 12:30 pm
After stonewalling for more
than a year federal judges and ordinary citizens who sought the revelation of
its secret legal research justifying the presidential use of drones to kill
persons overseas -- even Americans -- claiming the research was so sensitive
and so secret that it could not be revealed without serious consequences, the
government sent a summary of its legal memos to an NBC newsroom earlier this
week.This revelation will come as a great surprise, and not a little annoyance, to U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon, who heard many hours of oral argument during which the government predicted gloom and doom if its legal research were subjected to public scrutiny. She very reluctantly agreed with the feds, but told them she felt caught in "a veritable Catch-22," because the feds have created "a thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret."
She was writing about President Obama killing Americans and refusing to divulge the legal basis for claiming the right to do so. Now we know that basis.
The undated and unsigned 16-page document leaked to NBC refers to itself as a Department of Justice white paper. Its logic is flawed, its premises are bereft of any appreciation for the values of the Declaration of Independence and the supremacy of the Constitution, and its rationale could be used to justify any breaking of any law by any "informed, high-level official of the U.S. government."
The quoted phrase is extracted from the memo, which claims that the law reposes into the hands of any unnamed "high-level official," not necessarily the president, the lawful power to decide when to suspend constitutional protections guaranteed to all persons and kill them without any due process whatsoever. This is the power claimed by kings and tyrants. It is the power most repugnant to American values. It is the power we have arguably fought countless wars to prevent from arriving here. Now, under Obama, it is here.
This came to a boiling point when Obama dispatched CIA drones to kill New Mexico-born and al-Qaida-affiliated Anwar al-Awlaki while he was riding in a car in a desert in Yemen in September 2011. A follow-up drone, also dispatched by Obama, killed Awlaki's 16-year-old Colorado-born son and his American friend. Awlaki's American father sued the president in federal court in Washington, D.C., trying to prevent the killing. Justice Department lawyers persuaded a judge that the president always follows the law, and besides, without any evidence of presidential law breaking, the elder Awlaki had no case against the president. Within three months of that ruling, the president dispatched his drones and the Awlakis were dead. This spawned follow-up lawsuits, in one of which McMahon gave her reluctant ruling.
Then the white paper appeared. It claims that if an American is likely to trigger the use of force 10,000 miles from here, and he can't easily be arrested, he can be murdered with impunity. This notwithstanding state and federal laws that expressly prohibit non-judicial killing, an executive order signed by every president from Gerald Ford to Obama prohibiting American officials from participating in assassinations, the absence of a declaration of war against Yemen, treaties expressly prohibiting this type of killing, and the language of the Declaration, which guarantees the right to live, and the Constitution, which requires a jury trial before the government can deny that right.
The president cannot lawfully order the killing of anyone, except according to the Constitution and federal law. Under the Constitution, he can only order killing using the military when the U.S. has been attacked or when an attack is so imminent that delay would cost innocent lives. He can also order killing using the military in pursuit of a declaration of war enacted by Congress.
Unless Obama knows that an attack from Yemen on our shores is imminent, he'd be hard-pressed to argue that a guy in a car in the desert 10,000 miles from here -- no matter his intentions -- poses a threat so imminent to the U.S. that he needs to be killed on the spot in order to save the lives of Americans who would surely die during the time it would take to declare war on the country that harbors him, or during the time it would take to arrest him. Under no lawful circumstances may he use CIA agents for killing. Surely, CIA agents can use deadly force defensively to protect themselves and their assets, but they may not use it offensively. Federal laws against murder apply to the president and to all federal agents and personnel in their official capacities, wherever they go on the planet.
Obama has argued that he can kill Americans whose deaths he believes will keep us all safer, without any due process whatsoever. No law authorizes that. His attorney general has argued that the president's careful consideration of each target and the narrow use of deadly force are an adequate and constitutional substitute for due process. No court has ever approved that. And his national security adviser has argued that the use of drones is humane since they are "surgical" and only kill their targets. We know that is incorrect, as the folks who monitor all this say that 11 percent to 17 percent of the 2,300 drone-caused deaths have been those of innocent bystanders.
Did you consent to a government that can kill whom it wishes? How about one that plays tricks on federal judges? How long will it be before the presidential killing comes home?
BATTLE PLANS
The Middle East is in chaos with war imminent and terrorists are
emboldened by the weakness of our President who has a foreign policy that
consists of apology and appeasement. As a result, Americans both at home and
abroad are in greater danger than ever. Iran will soon have a nuclear weapon
and North Korea will have the capacity to deliver its own nuclear weapons to
the west coast of the United States.
The U.S. economy is heading into a probable double dip recession,
federal spending is out of control and many Americans, including the middle
class that Obama vowed to protect during his reelection campaign, are finding
their taxes going up dramatically. To make things even worse the prices of
food, energy, and other essentials are rapidly rising.
In other words, our country is facing one crisis after another and
Obama’s response to all of this is to disarm the American people and set us up
for destruction. He is using his office to attack us and our Constitution. The
EPA has come out with 4,000 new regulations that cater to environmental
extremists and the now disproven theory of climate change and will use these
regulations to destroy American businesses and put thousands out of work.
The question I am often being asked by angry and frustrated Americans
is, what can we do besides complain and preach to the choir? To answer that I
have come up with some battle plans that involve both short and long term
tactics and goals. Because this is an article for the blog I will outline the
ideas here and plan on elaborating with more specific details in a small
booklet I am working on.
First, we have to keep the pressure on members of Congress when issues
like gun control are being considered. It is unlikely that the so called
assault weapons ban will pass in the Senate or the House of Representatives,
but other bills are more problematic. The universal background check bill is
nothing more than a nationwide gun registration program in disguise, yet there
are some Republicans considering supporting it and the same is true of the
restrictions on the size of magazines. We also need to urge Congress to reverse
Executive Orders issued by the President. It has the power to do this, but of
course any such bill passed by the House will probably not pass the Democrat
controlled Senate, but the House does have the ability to deny funding to many
of Obama’s initiatives.
We need to stop thinking defensively and concentrate on attacking instead.
This is what the left has been doing to us for years and we have either failed
to recognize it or responded defensively when it is too late. So our second
line of attack is through our state legislatures. We need to get the
legislatures and governors in the red states to pass legislation refusing to
comply with illegal and unconstitutional actions by the Federal government.
This is completely legal under the 10th Amendment to the
Constitution.
For example, the Texas legislature is considering legislation proposing
that the state refuse to enforce any new control laws or even allow them to be
enforced by the Feds. Texas is also moving to block enforcement of the
thousands of new EPA regulations that were hidden from the American people and
the Congress until after the election. The purpose of these regulations is to
implement by Executive Action the Cap and Trade bill that Congress failed to
pass.
We also need to go on the attack at the local government level. People
need to be made aware of the efforts to implement the United Nations Agenda 21
and we must aggressively oppose it. We also have to take back our school boards
so we can ensure that our children are getting a proper education and learning
about American history and the importance of our Constitution. This can be done
even if you live in a so called blue state. A relatively small group of people
can win local victories
Last but not least we need to be relentless in fighting in the courts to
defend our Constitutional rights. That is where I am focused and the United
States Justice Foundation and other conservative legal groups are going to be
resisting the dismantling of our Republic and the violation of our God given
Constitutional rights, including the 2nd Amendment. We are involved
in lawsuits at every level from state courts to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The important thing is to join with the groups and individuals who are
willing to do what it takes to resist tyranny. We have to fight for short term
victories and for the long term. It took the leftists years to get our country
to the point of imminent collapse and tyranny. They were patient and never gave
up, but the battle is not over yet. As patriots you can provide financial
support to the cause, attend rallies, write letters to the local newspapers,
and spread the word to friends and neighbors.
During the American Revolution on approximate one third of the colonists
actively supported it while another third opposed it. The final one third tried
to stay neutral and some people tried to profit from it by selling goods or
services to both sides. George Washington’s ragtag army fought every battle
outmanned and outgunned yet won the war. I firmly believe that “We the People”
outnumber both the bad guys and those who just don’t care. We can prevail, as
our forefathers did, if we have the will to persevere and maintain our faith in
God, our Constitution, and each other.
Michael Connelly,
Constitutional Lawyer
Executive Director of the United States Justice Foundation. (www.usjf.net)
http://www.radiosandysprings.com/showpages/OurConstitution.php
http://libertyfirstclass.com/
Constitutional Lawyer
Executive Director of the United States Justice Foundation. (www.usjf.net)
http://www.radiosandysprings.com/showpages/OurConstitution.php
http://libertyfirstclass.com/
A la hora de los Mameyes
Creo que se está exagerando las diferencias entre los
Republicanos, creo que los epitafios del partido republicanos, están
exagerados, son más bien una percepción que estimula la mediática complaciente
de los Demócratas.
Hay diferencias entre nosotros, como puede haber diferencia entre
las denominaciones cristianas, pero a la hora de los puntos básicos de la
filosofía conservadora, todos estamos unidos bajo una misma idea.
Una de las pruebas de esto, es que el tradicional partido
Republicano, ha escogido a nuestro compatriota Marco Rubio para responder al
discurso del Estado de la Unión del presidente Obama.
Es la primera vez que un hispano, en este caso un cubano para
nuestro orgullo, responde al discurso del Estado de la Unión, algo reservado
para las figuras prominentes del partido. Pero todavía más novedoso es el
hecho que responderá en inglés y en español.
La diferencia que la prensa complaciente hace más énfasis es entre
los tradicionalistas del partido y la nueva ola del Tea Party. ¿Es esto una una
realidad? ¿O más bien una percepción exagerada?
Vemos que el partido escoge a un hispano, conservador y apoyado
por el Tea Party. ¿Qué nos enseña esto? Simplemente que a la hora de los mameyes,
como decimos los cubanos, no habrá diferencia esenciales ni se dividirá el
partido, como pronostican en sus noticias la prensa mediatizada, con noticias
que son simplemente una fantasía de sus deseos.
Lo que pasa dentro del partido solamente quiere decir que
aunque tiene que haber diferencias, porque precisamente lo que determina la
filosofía Republicana es la libertad, cada uno tiene el derecho a discrepar en
ciertas situaciones. Como en el Cristianismo, Cristo y su sacrificio es
el común denominador, en el partido Republicano la libertad de pensamiento
dentro del conservadurismo es el común denominador, y esto es algo que los que
tienen el fanatismo rígido de la filosofía socialista paradójicamente mal
llamada liberal no entienden
Assassin In Chief?
Exercising a power that no prior president ever thought he possessed — a power that no prior president is known to have exercised — President Obama admitted that he ordered the execution of American citizens, not on a battlefield, based on his belief that they were involved in terrorist activities. It is known that at least three U.S. citizens, including a 16-year old boy, were killed on the president’s order in drone strikes in Yemen in 2011.
As the worldwide drone program ramps up, there have been increasing calls for the president to reveal the basis for his claimed authority. Only a few weeks ago, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon denied both the ACLU’s and New York Times‘ requests under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain any and all legal documents prepared in support of the president’s claim of unilateral powers. While Judge McMahon was concerned that the documents “implicate serious issues about the limits on the power of the Executive Branch under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and about whether we are indeed a nation of laws not of men,” she felt constrained by precedent to withhold them. Now, a bipartisan group of 11 senators has written a letter to president Obama asking for “any and all legal opinions” that describe the basis for his claimed authority to “deliberately kill American citizens.”
However, not until the Senate began gathering information for hearings on John Brennan’s confirmation as CIA director, to begin February 7, has public attention finally been focused on this remarkable presidential usurpation of power.
On the night of February 4, the walls of secrecy were breached when NBC News released a leaked U.S. Justice Department White Paper entitled “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa’ida or An Associated Force.” Now we can see why the Department of Justice has been so reluctant to share the basis for its legal analysis. It is deeply flawed — based on a perverse view of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. Additionally, the white paper completely ignores the procedural protections expressly provided in the Constitution’s Third Article — those specifically designed to prohibit the president from serving as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner.
The white paper does not seek to delimit the federal power to kill citizens, but simply sets out a category of “targeted killing” of American citizens off the battlefield on foreign soil which it deems to be clearly authorized. Moreover, this power is not vested exclusively in the president, or even the secretary of defense, or even officials within the Department of Defense — rather, it can be relied on by other senior officials of unspecified rank elsewhere in government.
According to the white paper, there are only three requirements to order a killing. First, “an informed high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.” Second, capture is “infeasible.” And third, the ” operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with the applicable law of war principles.” Indeed, from the white paper, it is not clear why killings of U.S. citizens on American soil would be judged by a different standard.
Mimicking a judicial opinion, the White Paper employs pragmatic tests developed by the courts to supplant the plain meaning of the Fifth Amendment Due Process and Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure texts. Balancing away the constitutionally protected interests of the citizen in life, liberty, and property against the more important “‘realities’ of the conflict and the weight of the government’s interest in protecting its citizens from an imminent attack,” the Justice Department lawyers have produced a document worthy of the King Council’s Court of Star Chamber — concluding that the U.S. Constitution would not require the government to provide notice of charges, or a right to be heard, “before using lethal force” on a U.S. citizen suspected of terrorist activity against his country. How very convenient. The Obama administration lawyers appear to have forgotten that the Star Chamber was abolished by the English Parliament in 1641 in order to restore the rule of law adjudicated by an independent judiciary, terminating the rule of men administered by the king’s courtiers.
Also, conspicuously missing from the Justice Department’s constitutional analysis is any recognition that the Founders already balanced the life, liberty, and property interests of an American citizen suspected of “levying war against [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort,” and provided them the specific procedural protections in Article III of the Constitution. When a U.S. citizen is suspected of treason, the constitutional remedy is not to invent new crimes subject to the summary execution at the pleasure of the president and his attorneys. In Federalist No. 43, James Madison proclaimed that the Treason Clause would protect citizens “from new-fangled and artificial treasons … by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it[.]“ To that end, the Constitution does not permit the Obama lawyers to invent an elastically defined offense of “an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States,” in substitution for the constitutionally concrete definition of “levying war against [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”
Moreover, Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution requires trial in “open court” — not in some secret “war room” in an undisclosed location. That same section of Article III requires proof by “the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession” — not by a unilateral “determin[ation] that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of an attack against the United States.” Finally, as is true of “all crimes,” Article III, Section 2 requires “trial … by jury” on a charge of treason, not trial by some unidentified “high-level official of the U.S. government[,]” no matter how well-”informed” he may be. In short, the Constitution provides that an American citizen must be tried and punished according to the judicial process provided for the crime of treason, not according to some newfangled and artificial executive “process” fashioned by nameless collection of lawyers.
These nameless lawyers have also ignored the Justice Department’s own venerable precedents. The White Paper relies on the “laws of war” — but laws of war do not control here. On August 21, 1798, U.S. Attorney General Charles Lee — serving under President John Adams — directed to the U.S. secretary of state an official opinion in which he determined that in the undeclared state of war between France and the United States, “France is our enemy; and to aid, assist, and abet that nation in her maritime warfare, will be treason in a citizen[, who] may be tried and punished according to our laws[, not like a French subject, who must be] treated according to the laws of war.”
It is a measure of how far we have fallen as a nation — not only that President Obama asserts and exercises such a terrible power, but that only 11 U.S. senators would be willing to affix their names to a letter to ask the Obama administration to provide its legal reasoning. If John Brennan is confirmed as CIA director, and the killings of U.S. citizens continue based on this whitewash of a white paper, then the U.S. Senate will have yielded up to the president without even a fight the power to kill citizens without judicial due process — a power that has been unknown in the English-speaking world for at least 370 years.
Missouri Speaker Of The House Accepts Obama’s Forged Birth Certificate
Obama Impeachment Over White House Leaks?
http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-impeachment-over-white-house-leaks/
No comments:
Post a Comment