Saturday, October 1, 2011

Saturday Reading

Yeah... It's a boring headline, but so what?  Everybody's tuned into football, leaf peeping, or enjoying the Indian summer.  Here are some interesting links I collected but ended up not blogging about.

Why Ron Paul Will Never Be Elected President

Praise Allah, we schwacked another turd in a turban who has been plotting America's destruction.  As a bonus, he was a traitor to America as well.

Instead of celebrating, Ron Paul called it an illegal assassination.  That's not presidential; unless you are president of an America-hating turd-world nation.  Dr. Paul is awesome on banking, economics and small government, but he loses me when he starts talking crap like this.

How Money Works

If you want a quick lesson on international currency, how one goes up and others down, and just what it means to have the dollar as the reserve currency (and why losing reserve currency status could be a good thing), read this article:  FP - An Exorbitant Burden

Ve hav Vays of making you stop talking...

Even Liberals are Fed Up with TSA.  Advice Goddess Amy Alkon, no conservative but a great blogger, has accused the TSA of rape.  In true Chicago fashion, HeimatlandSicherheit Kommissar Janet Napoleonitano looks on approvingly as the accused TSA groper threatens to file a defamation lawsuit against blogger Alkon for writing about the incident.

How to Balance the Budget

John Stossel explains how to balance the federal budget

Cosmetology Cartel Kills Jobs
George Will tells a true story that illustrates how government regulation protects big business and guards the prerogatives of special interest cartels, killing jobs in the process.

Clearing out the job-killing regulations would give us an immediate economy stimulating jobs program without the half-trillion price tag.

Finally, the Quote of the Week

The honor goes to the plain-spoken and always on his A-Game, 98ZJUSMC

I never brag about my paltry foreign adventures, but our leftist friend Ducky will nonetheless zero in on them from time to time, for some strange reason.  On this particular day, he was chiding me for my service in Colombia, a beautiful country full of wonderful people and an excellent military and police force.
How much did we pay you to guard the pipeline in Colombia?
98ZJUSMC Responded:
But, everything's just ducky when Shanks McMulligan, Lightbringer of the Receeding Oceans, Possessor of the Magic Key, Guardian of the Idiot Realm and purveyor of Keynesian economic nonsense pulls off another teleprompter enabled coup of Fordian dimensions.


Also Known As Anonymous said...

I hope you are right. He could be as bad a Obama is.

Fuzzy Slippers said...

We usually see eye-to-eye, but I have to say that one of the things that sets America apart from "turd-world nations" is the fact that we don't execute citizens without a due process (it's in that Constitution thing we all talk about). Am I glad that terrorist is dead? Of course, but there's a reason we don't allow the government to start killing American citizens without due process and worse, on the order, of one man.

Let's say, for giggles, that we had a weird unAmerican president who was dead set on fulfilling some kind of communist pipe dream he's been holding to his resentful, hate-filled heart for his entire life. A life spent learning to hate America and Americans at the knees of post-colonial Marxists? Let's further say, just randomly, that this president also kept appointing people to, oh say, the TSA who stated earnestly that the biggest threat to national security was . . . wait for it . . . white Christians, especially them thar radical types who love their country and prefer the Constitution to tyranny. What if that same imaginary president literally believed that anyone who opposes him or expresses dissent is not only "not who we are" but is also an "enemy" who must be "punished"? Or . . . oh, I don't know, a "terrorist" engaged in "sedition"?

Now, we all know that would never happen, but what if it did. And what if that man had, in essence, a free reign to murder American citizens he deemed to be "terrorists"?

This is rather new thinking for me, but then, I never much bothered with the Patriot Act when President Bush passed it. I didn't see the threat to our liberties that have ramped up under BO (those turd-world nations you mention don't sexually-molest you and your child in the airport just because you have a plane ticket). They may stone you to death in the street, but probably only because they can't afford to send a drone. :p

Anonymous said...

Fuzzy said it better than I could. On a better day, I would say off with his head. The precedent with this Dictator of our? Maybe not so fast. At least some "show" charge with documented evidence just for the record.

Always On Watch said...

Stossel has some good ideas. But I can't imagine that most of them will ever be considered. **sigh**

Silverfiddle said...

Fuzzy: I appreciate your analogy, and as my fellow Right Blogistanis know, the constitution is my guide in these matters.

I believe this was completely constitutional, and here's why.

This rotten stain of a human being joined an organization that has declared war on America and has in fact killed Americans. Innocent ones in their workplace as well as soldiers on the battlefield.

He is an enemy combatant.

Try this on:
What if a few hundred "Americans" formed an AQ brigade and went to battle in Iraq or Afghanistan? Could we engage them militarily? Or would we have to send in the FBI to try to arrest them?

What if they were simply plotting our demise? What if they were providing ideological and material support to other terrorists who attack us?

You can call this a criminal case, but when they voluntarily join a paramilitary outfit that has declared war on America, they are enemy combatants and therefor a legitimate military target.

Fuzzy Slippers said...

I didn't argue, for a second, that the terrorist wasn't a terrorist; however, if it were that "simple," there would be no need for the president to have acquired the power to sign death warrants on American citizens.

I'm not defending the dead terrorist, but I wonder why you are defending the president of the United States, keeping in mind we're talking about THIS president, being able to order to death of Americans without so much as consulting a judge to so. This is a dangerous precedent, it's a slippery slope, it's a problem.

But think about it: what are the requirements that the president has put on himself in determining--on his own--which American citizen he wants to kill?

And even if you trust this president not to abuse this new power, what about the next or the next? There's a reason that the Constitution was set up the way that it was; a president with the power to "legally" murder any citizen he wants, anytime he wants, for any reason he wants is . . . well, what would YOU call him?

Silverfiddle said...

Let's focus on the issue, and not the president.

You did not answer my question. If American traitors join an organization that is at war with America, is it legal to kill them?

If it is not legal to kill the American AQ member, is it legal to kill Saudi AQ member sitting next to him?

Fuzzy Slippers said...

Here's the thing that worries me most: look at it this way: how many terrorists have we killed? Either our regular military, special forces, or the CIA? And how many of those do you think we know about? How many civilians? I'm no international lawyer (or any kind of lawyer), but I'm guessing if an American terrorist working in a foreign country with foreign agents, enemies of this country, was blown up in an attack on a cell or was taken out by some clandestine op, that . . . well, what? Everything you've said would be just as true, and he'd be just as dead. And the president wouldn't have a shiny new power.

Why did BO need the power to, on his own authority, determine which Americans should be killed by the United States government, with no trial, no due process, no nothing. That is a power I don't want any American president to have, not this one (especially), not any future one.

Fuzzy Slippers said...

If a person commits treason, they are tried for treason. The penalty for treason is death. That is already the law. We don't just randomly decide this in this country. We just don't. You may want to have one person deciding who is guilty of what and what their penalty should be, but that's not the way our Constitutional republic was set up. The founders rejected that kind of absolute power divested in one person for a reason.

You think there've never been American traitors before? That they've never committed their treasonous acts in other countries? Colluded with the enemy to slaughter American troops and civilians? You can't honestly believe this is the first traitor in our nation's history, so what are you arguing?

Silverfiddle said...

My argument is simple:
Join a foreign army we are at war with and you are a legitimate military target.

Fuzzy Slippers said...

Then Congress should pass a law stating that, as is required by the Constitution.

The president should not be drafting and signing death warrants on American citizens. Period.

Geez, that I even have to type that sentence boggles my mind. Love ya to pieces to Silver, but we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. :)

Silverfiddle said...

I understand where you're coming from after reading the CBS article.

Your concern seems to focus on the legal decision. OK, I understand. It could be viewed as a presidential assassination order, or it could also be viewed as due diligence, which is done all the time for operations like this, and even for smaller, routine military operations.

That they did this in the open in a deliberative manner and reported the results to the public is to their credit.

So we have a gray area.

I still ask anyone to show me how this broke the law. Enemy combatants get no special privileges due to citizenship status.

And no worries, Fuzzy. I don't take debates like this personally!

Anonymous said...

Fuzzy and Silver, This from the Washington post:

The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials. The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said.

“What constitutes due process in this case is a due process in war,” said one of the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss closely held deliberations within the administration.

Silver, I loved the "how money works" link. Thanks.

Speedy G said...

How to Balance the Budget

Don't you have to START with the intention of actually PASSNG a federal budget? When was the last time that the Democrats in Congress ever started with THAT?

Fuzzy Slippers said...

CoF, (snark alert ;) )

oh, why didn't you say that the same DOJ that and WH that dreamed up Fast and Furious to use taxpayer money to run guns to violent gangs in a foreign country (apparently to set up a means of arguing for strict gun laws) said it was okay! What a relief. Guess we'll just drop those lawsuits calling ObamaCare unconstitutional, too, I mean these same lawyers already told us that it's okay.


Silverfiddle said...

*** Cease Fire ***

I'd like to request a cease fire on the Awlaki killing. Fuzzy has raised some excellent points, causing me think way more than I usually do on a Saturday morning.

My Sunday post will be on this issue, giving me and everyone else a chance to collect our thoughts and our information.

Thank you the management

Finntann said...

Loss of nationality, also known as expatriation, means the loss of citizenship status properly acquired, whether by birth in the United States, through birth abroad to U.S. citizen parents, or by naturalization. As a result of several constitutional decisions, §349(a) of the current Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") provides that U.S. nationality is lost only when the U.S. citizen does one of the specified acts described in INA §349, voluntarily and with the intent to give up that nationality.

"taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof after having attained the age of eighteen years."

"entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serves as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer;"

"performs an act made potentially expatriating by statute accompanied by conduct which is so inconsistent with retention of U.S. citizenship that it compels a conclusion that the individual intended to relinquish U.S. citizenship."

"committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of Title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of Title 18, or violating section 2384 of Title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction."

I think Al-Awlaki personally made his position quite clear. He hasn't been an American citizen for years and it doesn't take a court or judge to formally renounce your citizenship. It can occur automatically based on your words, writings, or actions.


Anonymous said...

I agree Ron Paul was out of line with his criticism of the Bin Laden killing. This is very different.

I have no doubt that this guy is guilty and had it coming; what I fear is the precedent it sets. You simply can not allow the government to be the judge, jury and executioner. Today it is a terrorist tomorrow it is a drug runner, then it is anyone who does not play by their rules.

Z said...

Fintann and Silverfiddle are right; The guy's THERE, he's at least PLOTTED against us, he's made his choice and it wasn't with America.

What are we supposed to do, somehow find him at his local Starbucks, read him the Mirandas and bring him here and get Harvard lawyers to defend him? REALLY? Or, maybe we can take him out and prevent thousands of us dying?

That guy whose last name is Johnson(It think?) the Conservative who's running for Pres. thought this kill was illegal, too.. Some Harvard type is probably already working on a lawsuit against the country he loves to hate : US.

Trekkie4Ever said...

Your title actually caught my attention, since I love to read.

Nice job on all the links! John Stossel has pretty great ideas. And since I normally travel on the train, that would save me a pretty penny.

Ducky's here said...

he was chiding me for my service in Colombia, a beautiful country full of wonderful people and an excellent military and police force.


Not exactly, I curious whether you were enlisted or mercenary (Blackwater type).

Yeah Colombia i your type of place highest rate of murdered trade unionists in the world.

I bring up the mercenary question because that's probably something you feel is worth defending.

Silverfiddle said...

Are you sure it's the highest in the world?

Do you have a source on that?

Ducky's here said...

The article is in this week's "Progressive".

You seem shocked.

Ducky's here said...

@Trestin - I have no doubt that this guy is guilty and had it coming; what I fear is the precedent it sets.


Exactly, giving the president the power to overrule due process is a bad step to take.

Anonymous said...

Ron Paul is right -- inprinciple. If a political leader can do it to this to an admitted piece of rotted manure for what-we-deem a "good" purpose, then ANY political leader in future can do it for ANY purpose that suits his fancy.

By bowing to the instantly gratifying "feelgood" expedient, we walk straight into a trap. Our future enemies -- many far more fiendish than al-Putrid, or whatever his stupid name is, and Oboohoo -- are better armed than ever before to tyrannize and torment us at will.

After all even Julius and Ethel ROSENBERG were given a fair trial -- despite what Marxian"revisionists" would have you believe today.

Of course, in pragmatic reality -- the world of REALPOLITIK -- the worst aspect of this barbaric act is the way our Dear Leader will cynically EXPLOIT it for political gain in the next election.

Does anyone here sincerely believe B. Hussein Obama truly cares what this man's crimes against our nation may have been?

Don't be silly. Both this -- and the long-awaited-but-anti-climactic death of Bin Ladin -- were acts of cheap political grandstanding at best.

It's all nothing ore than a rotten GAME that's being played against OUR best interests -- part of the wearing and whittling down we've been subjected to for over a hundred years.

Our true enemies are clever, ruthless -- and above all -- PATIENT. Patience is virtue that sadly appears to have been bred out of us. It's absence will be our undoing.

~ FreeThinke

Ducky's here said...

Our future enemies -- many far more fiendish than al-Putrid, or whatever his stupid name is, and Oboohoo -- are better armed than ever before to tyrannize and torment us at will.


Better box cutters?

Crotch bombs that do more than burn your nuts?

Detonators that work?

Why don't you explain.

Tammy Florczak said...

Governor Christie is a fine potential candidate. I hope he decides soon what he would like to do. If nominated, he would have an excellent chance to defeat President Obama. I think Romney, Christie, and possibly Cain would all be successful contenders versus Obama. The country is in a big mess, and Obama's socialist policies have made it worse. Barring a giant upswing in employment between now and the elections, Obama and Democrats generally are likely to experience another shellacking in 2012.

As for Ron Paul, he's only going to hurt the party if he continues to spew his nonsenses. He's the closes thing to a lunatic that I've seen in politics yet.
Another lefty sympathizer like John McCain.

Anonymous said...

"Why don't you explain?" [punctuation duly corrected]

As surely you must have noticed, Ducky, I have clearly and consistently expressed a particular point of view since coming on board here. You can't possibly be serious in pretending not to know where I stand and what I mean by now.

Please remember, I arrived here several months ago after having been banished by a blogger with all the deep understanding possessed by one of yesteryear's typical parlor pinks -- even though that individual loudly professes to embrace a view diametrically opposed to Marxism.

Unfortunately willful misunderstanding and calumny are devices that serve the treasonous Cultural-Marxist-Statist-Internationalist amalgam of State and Big Business all too well.

Tyranny thrives on ignorance and confusion.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...


While all of us have every right to express our opinions, it’s not a good idea to hold definite, condemnatory views when we are in fact ignorant or possessed only of scant knowledge or faint impressions.

Here are two links that quote Ron Paul extensively. You might want to look them over, and arm yourself with greater knowledge of a man you’ve accused of idiocy and outrageous conduct.

A sample or two:

“We need to understand the more government spends, the more freedom is lost...Instead of simply debating spending levels, we ought to be debating whether the departments, agencies, and programs funded by the budget should exist at all.”

“Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.”

“Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less.”

Don’t steal. The government hates competition.”

The last is one of my favorites.

Ron Paul’s much vilified stance against our endless, hugely expensive series of military interventions in the internal affairs of other nations is hardly different from that of Dwight D. Eisenhower's. It’s just a little more strongly worded.

These military adventures profit no one other than the producers of war materiel, and they please no one, except foreign interests who lobby fiercely on behalf of their parochial interests -- not ours.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

The cosmetology case involved live fish that nibble away dead skin from tired feet deserves more attention than it's gotten here so far.

The crux of the matter lies in this brief quotation from the article:

"CON laws began with early-20th-century progressives who, like their ideological descendants today, thought that resources should be allocated not by markets but by clever, disinterested experts — themselves."

That established, large-scale enterprises, who have been the traditional targets of such legislation, have done their best to gain a measure of control of the levers of power is only natural. Bad policies tend to foster bad behavior.

"Good laws lead to the making of better ones; bad ones bring about worse. As soon as any man says of the affairs of the State, 'What does it matter to me?' the State may be given up for lost."

~ Rousseau (1712-1778)

Of course there will always be people who abuse their freedoms and privileges, but removing liberty and opportunity from everyone to compensate for the malefaction of a few leads us only to disaster.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

In my never humble opinion Ms. Vong deserves to collect compensatory -- and punitive -- damages from the government who is engaging both in oppression and unwarranted restraint of trade.

If Ms Vong's methods prove successful and become popular, her rivals should seek to EMULATE not OBLITERATE them.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

The cosmetology case smacks -- in spirit -- of the recent spate of children's lemonade stands being forcibly shut down by "jack-booted thugs" for ostensible infringements of the Pure Food and Drug Act or some such crapola.

If we don't begin to stand up to this kind of government overreach, it won't be long before government monitors (i.e. BIG BROTHER) will be able to see into your bathroom to make sure you are not exceeding your daily allotment of toilet paper.

And no I am NOT kidding.

~ FreeThinke

Ducky's here said...

I have NO IDEA where you stand, Freethinker.

Other than being a punctuation maven you are an enigma.

Thanks for the correction you freaking old queen.

Les Carpenter said...

Yeah Silver, all great stuff.

EXCEPT: Ron Paul does have a strong Constitutional argument. Whether one agrees or disagrees the argument stands on firm constitutional principals.

I commented on this issue over at LCR. Great discussion with varying points of view.

If you haven't already check it out.

Speedy G said...

A very principled argument FreeThinke.... but sometimes you just need to let the Nocturnal Council do its' work.

Bd said...

So. Obama gets Osama, Kadaffi and now Awlaki. You go Barry!

Silverfiddle said...

Bd: I agree. It's cool how President Obama enjoys success when he follows Bush's foreign policy

MathewK said...

Ducky would only approve if u were working for chavez next door, doing harm to the cause of freedom.