American Citizens Split On DOJ Memo Authorizing Government To Kill Them...The Onion
- After watching some of the testimony at the Senate hearing into the Benghazi disaster, it's clear many questions still remain. For example, no one---not even Defense Secretary Leon Panetta---came close to answer who was truly responsible. In addition, we still don't know who knew and when did they know? In fact, when Panetta was asked point-blank who was in charge, Panetta said no one in particular and added, "It's not that simple." Not that simple? Folks, they had 5 months to figure this out. In short, he was stonewalling and covering up for the administration plain and simple
- But Panetta may have also highlighted another serious problem. When critics asked why we didn't send, at a minimum, air cover, he said "it was clear it would take up to 20 hours to get them there." We have an AFB in Aviano, Italy. Distance from Italy to Libya is about 1100 miles and shorter to Benghazi. If we couldn't get air cover to our guys in Benghazi from Italy in less than 20 hours then we have some real problems.
- In summary, we've been getting a lot of double-talk and 4 heroic Americans are dead.
- Do you need more evidence? John Brennan, nominee for the CIA and a spook for 3 decades, said this when asked about enhanced interrogation techniques: "I do not know what the truth is." You gotta be kidding me (us). The political class really does think we're stupid (well, about half the country is).
- Quinnipiac Polling reported today that Pres. Obama's numbers are tanking. As recently as several weeks ago, he was in the mid-50's on many polls. Now, his job approval rating, according to QP, is 46%. And guess who polls higher? Hillary Clinton.
- Considering it's now clear she was an utter failure as Sect. of State, it shows the country has lost its mind.
- More evidence we're lost our minds: Former Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards, who served 8 years for his role in a riverboat casino licensing scandal, will be getting a reality show on A+E. USA Today
Obama Blanks On What He;s Ineffectually Urging Congress To Take Action On Now...The Onion
- When the news broke last week (via a leaked Justice Department report) that we target al-Qaeda and terrorist linked American citizens, it was too early for me to decide if these strikes were appropriate and legal. Quite frankly, even legal scholars are all over the map when it comes to the legality of this White House policy. So allow me to offer my own opinion (and I don't even play an attorney on TV). In short, I believe when American citizens associate with terrorists and turn their gun on Americans, they should be taken out. I sincerely believe it's the duty of our country to protect its citizens before a terrorist does harm to us even if it's an American citizen. In fact, an American citizen, in my opinion, who turns his guns, bombs, etc. against Americans, immediately loses the shield citizenship. The principle of self-defense applies. If a criminal points his weapon at a police officer or a civilian and refuses to drop the weapon, police have the right and duty to shoot him to protect others. So, as long as a terrorist, even an American affiliated with a terrorist organization like al-Qaeda, poses an imminent threat to us---it's the duty of the government to kill him.
- Having said all that, I still have some major concerns about this policy. My position above might seem a tad simplistic to many. I recognize that. It's why I entitled this piece, "Drones: Is Technology Overtaking Moral Imperative?" One concern is specific to the definition of imminent threat. Who decides who is an imminent threat? What kind of evidence is the government relying upon to take an alleged American terrorist out? The fact that there was very little transparency with this policy (after all, it was leaked), as Americans, we have to be concerned about how much power we grant the executive branch of government. In other words, who will oversee the executive authority associated with a this policy? Since it was a secret policy, right now, it appears the executive branch was acting on its own. For these questions and more, it's important this debate continue. It's important our judicial and legislative arms review it. If not, would the executive branch violating the very rights it's supposed to safeguard? And what does this policy mean for future warfare?
Report: Peanut Butter Contains Traces of Rat Feces But Life's Weird Like That Sometimes...The Onion
- In my post yesterday I pointed how how progressives use language to divert our attention from the truth. As an example, I pointed out the language used in the illegal immigration debate. Instead of referring to illegal immigration; they use "undocumented immigrants." And Congressman John Conyers, one of the many in Congressional progressives dumber than a load of bricks, said this yesterday at a House Judiciary meeting: "I hope nobody uses the term illegal immigrants here today." Instead, he referred to illegal immigrants as "out of status." Folks, you can't make this sh!t up even if you tried.
- As I wrote some weeks ago: we already have a pathway to citizens. It's called legal immigration.
Baltimore Looking For Safer City To Hold Super Bowl Parade...The Onion
- I like to study the use of language by progressives. In fact, conservatives should be mindful of the way they use language. For example, instead of saying the truth that they want amnesty for illegal immigrants; they prefer to use the phrase: a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. More recently, they are morphing the phrase "gun control" to "gun safety." They prefer to use the term "assault" weapons when assault weapons have been illegal in the U.S. for decades. When "assault" weapons is not used, they change it to "military type" weapons. They do the same with "tolerance" "diversity" and multiple other uses of language they know will persuade the stupids. But even more disturbing, changing language to uphold politically correct ideology can also be dangerous.
- Baby Boomers have been assaulted with information on how to either remain healthy or get healthier for many decades now. We've been told to watch what we eat, watch what we drink, don't smoke, and exercise regularly, etc. etc. In fact, we have the likes of Mayor Bloomberg actually making laws restricting the use of certain foods and beverages. Yet, with all of these warnings, Baby Boomers are unhealthier than their parents. A new study by West Virginia University found Boomers are unhealthier than their parents' generation. How could that be? Many Boomers recall most of our parents smoking incessantly, eating foods full of fats, sugar and salt, and rarely exercising. For example, researchers found that 39% of Boomers are obese compared to 29% of adults in the previous generation. Boomers were also more likely to have diabetes, high blood pressure and higher cholesterol readings than their parents. CBS
- Harvard University found that men who watch more than 20 hours of TV a week have lower levels of sperm counts compared to men who watch TV less than 4 hours per week.
- A big Hooah to a real hero. Malala Yousafzai, the 15-year old Paki school girl who stood up to the Taliban and was shot said she will continue her fight for girl's education. She continues to do well in a British hospital.
- Developing: Dept. of Justice released a document that makes a legal case for whacking American citizens who are believed to be senior operational leaders of al-Qaeda and/or their associate groups. I've not had the time to review the entire report. But as anyone who reads me regularly knows, I agree with very little of what this administration does. However, on the surface, I don't have a problem with killing these kind of scumbags if it's proven they are a threat to our national security. Having said that, I want to read and listen to reviews by Constitutional attorneys before I come to any final analysis and conclusion. For example, one question that comes to my mind immediately: Does the president have the authority to do this?
Donald Trump is claiming Obama is not legally president since Beyonce lip sinced the National Anthem during inauguration...paraphrasing Leno
- As many in the presstitute, knee-pad media continue to praise Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State for the sole purpose of positioning her for a 2016 run, I have to give one pundit credit. She proved pigs do fly on occasion. Trudy Rubin, an outstanding columnist from the progressive rag The Philadelphia Inquirer was bold enough to write the truth (and there have been many times I have not agreed with Ms. Rubin and let her know. She's one of the few who will respond and take you on too. I respect that). In her piece this week, she wrote: "...Clinton produced no diplomatic breakthroughs nor any new strategic doctrine..." Later in her piece, she went on to write: "But she has no major foreign policy success." In my opinion, Rubin pointed out correctly that Hillary promoted "soft power." Yet, she also added, "we won't know how she {Hillary} would exercise hard power {if she became president}."
- And keep in mind, reports regarding Benghazi made it very clear the f$%k up was the result of poor leadership and systemic failures. Yet, Hillary appears to be skating from that fiasco that resulted in the death of four great and brave Americans.
