Monthly Archives: February 2013
To Drone, or not to Drone …
Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution
“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”
When citizens become operatives for terrorists organizations they are in “rebellion” against the United States; further, the “public safety” of the citizens requires action being taken – as habeas corpus may be suspended in these circumstances taking them out by drone is not in violation of the Constitution. In short, we don’t have to bring them to trial. And yes, I know the difference between incarcerating someone and executing them, but the point is, the government can suspend certain “rights” under a given set of circumstances, “rebellion”, “invasion” or interests of the “public safety” being those times.
These two “citizens” had American blood on their hands, and I have no issue with the President having them “removed” from the world stage, nor do I have issues with drone strikes against terrorist leaders in Pakistan or elsewhere, the alternatives are do nothing – not acceptable – or sending boots on the ground, placing American lives at risk. The individuals in question chose to rebel, they chose their fate when they did so, and I will not support sending US troops into harms way on foreign soil to “arrest” someone who’s chosen to side with terrorism, sorry, but when they make that choice they’re denouncing their citizenship in favor of 72 virgins, and the Constitution nor its protected rights no longer apply.
We are not talking about drone strikes against tin foil hat wearing tea party members, we’re talking about drone strikes against known terrorists, there’s a big whopping difference. And if the tea party’s worried about being “taken out” they should be more concerned with Karl Rove than President Obama.
War is ugly, and innocent civilians are going to die, that’s why the United States should never go running gleefully into making war on anyone; however, conversely, the rest of the world should think long and hard before it makes war on us, or before it allows terrorist groups to establish training bases or safe havens within their borders. 9-11 changed forever how the United States will turn a blind eye to such activity. You don’t want drones raining missiles from the sky into your villages? Take out the terrorists yourselves, or better yet, don’t let them in to begin with.
Of course in an effort to make everyone feel better, I suppose we could just carpet bomb the villages like we did in WWII and Vietnam.
All-in-all, I think a drone strike is much more preferred.
Hannity’s television audience has fallen to half since President’s re-election?
The New York Daily News has reported Nielsen – the company responsible for gathering and releasing data regarding television-viewers’ viewing habits – is showing, in its figures for the fourth-quarter of 2012, that FOX News’ little leprechaun Sean Hannity’s television program has lost almost half of its audience since President Obama pummeled Mitt Romney in the general election in November.
Why have so many viewers stopped watching Hannity? Because he’s a schmuck who spent the entire summer and fall predicting – unsuccessfully – how the President was going to lose to Romney and lose big. When things didn’t quite work out that way, Hannity and his usual gang of political misfits (Dick Morris, Ann Coulter, Karl Rove, and Sarah Palin to name a few) looked obtuse and incredibly out of touch with the smallest shred of political reality. Anyone willing to look objectively at the polling data knew Romney was going to lose, anyone, except for Hannity and crew.
But wait, there’s more, Nielsen’s also reporting Hannity’s lost more than half of his 25-to-54-year-old audience members of angry white Christian gun loving tin foil hat wearing couch potato crunching men, a demographic crucial in relation to advertising dollars for his program and thence FOX News.
Hannity isn’t losing his audience simply because he blew political chunks where the election was concerned, he’s losing it because of his incessant whining, moaning and complaining about everything the President does. He’s losing it because of the company he keeps agreeing with Ann Coulter’s one thing (as bad as that is), but setting up house with the likes of Ted Nugent? Hannity’s become a hateful little man, with an annoying little whiny voice and if his ratings continue to slide at the current rate the nation will soon be blessed without his program. Perhaps FOX News will continue chopping heads, and Sean’s will be next; first Palin, then Morris and next Hannity? One can only hope.
NRA’s LaPierre’s claiming the President’s ‘Trying To Take Away’ Americans’ Guns?
According to his appearance, and subsequent spanking, on “FOX News Sunday”, Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association (NRA) is accusing the President of the United States of wanting a universal gun registry, “trying to take away” guns and believing his children deserve security while others do not. The spanking then ensued at the hands of host Chris Wallace.
Wallace begin LaPierre’s comeuppance by asking the NRA “spokes head” to explain – if he could – the NRA’s video accusing President Barack Obama of wanting armed Secret Service Agents for his own children but allegedly opposing armed security for others. Wallace was quick to point out the President’s children face a larger threat than most – if gee, I don’t know? All other American children?
“Tell that to the people at Newtown,” LaPierre brazenly replied attempting to deflect the fact the so-called “right” for private citizens to own the XM-15 assault rifle used in the monstrous massacre of 20 first graders is being protected by his organization.
“Do you really think that the president’s children are the same kind of target as every schoolchild in America?” Wallace asked. “It’s ridiculous, and you know it, sir.”
LaPierre wasn’t able to defend his asinine argument so he attempted to change the subject by claiming while there could be more severe law enforcement against gangs, measures such as regulating certain semi-automatic weapons would have dire consequences. Just one problem Mssr LaPierre, gangs weren’t responsible for any of the mass shootings using assault rifles in America.
“If you limit the American public’s access to semi-automatic technology, you limit their ability to survive,” he weakly mewed. Because we’re likely to be invaded any minute by North Koreans, or perhaps you were referring to the conspiracy theory threat of the federal government coming to throw its citizens into secret prisons?
LaPierre also attempted to prophesy a universal gun registry’s next; a measure, Wallace reminded him, has not been proposed.
“Forgive me, sir, but you take something that is here and you say it’s going to go all the way over there,” Wallace said. “There’s no indication — I mean, I can understand your saying that’s the threat, but there’s nothing that anyone in the administration has said that indicates they’re going to have a universal registry.”
LaPierre’s falling back on the same old tried and true method of the uber-right, fear monger. You don’t need to tell the truth, you don’t need facts on your side, just fear monger. He’s a liar, and sooner or later the majority of Americans, members of the NRA, and hopefully the members of Congress will call him on it; hopefully before anymore of our children are lost.
Arming Janitors …
Just one reason why arming janitors could be a potentially really bad idea.
Violence in the work place + workplace filled with kids = catastrophe
The Liberty Tree 