After all, the government only targets those with something to hide, right? Well, what is it, Associated Press, what sort of terrorism are you guilty of?
Tag Archives: Barack Obama
I don’t have much free time to write anything about the bombings yesterday, but the LRC blog is full of good content. See William Anderson’s take, along with Ryan McMaken‘s, and Lew Rockwell’s thoughts, here and here.
A few notes: I’ve heard several people denounce the president for declaring something along the lines of “we’ll find out why this happened.” For these folks motive is no longer relevant, and looking to the root of a problem is irresponsible. Maybe if someone cared to look at motive, instead of blindly demanding “we punish” the terrorists, the invasion and destruction of Iraq could have been prevented.
As for some of the theories being shared about a false-flag, I’ve never understood this one point: if the mainstream media is not to be trusted as a general rule, why are they considered credible enough to be used in putting together a conspiracy narrative?
Robert Higgs on the presidents’ murder spree and Rand Paul’s filibuster:
The discussion related to Sen. Rand Paul’s recent filibuster seems in nearly every case to be premised on a misunderstanding of the U.S. Constitution, the ostensible basis for any powers the president or his subordinates may lawfully exercise. The Constitution’s Fifth Amendment states, ‘No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.’ This provision obviously prohibits the president or anyone else in the government from peremptorily killing anyone without due process of law. Note that this part of the Bill of Rights, like all of the others, does not apply only to U.S. citizens or, as Sen. Paul and others repeatedly put it, to ‘American citizens on U.S. soil.’ The Bill of Rights constrains the government across the board and provides areas in which all persons subject to its authority are to have freedom of action — or, at least, it purports to do so. Nothing in these provisions restricts them to U.S. citizens.
Like so many others I was happy to see coverage of Rand Paul’s filibuster yesterday, against the morally repugnant appointment of torture-advocate and drone promoter, John Brennan. Five minutes before the start of the filibuster Lew Rockwell referred to the Washington establishment as a “marble wedding cake of death.” What followed over the next twelve hours certainly confirmed the dark marriage of the two parties, as an overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans waited on the Senate floor, hoping the junior senator from Kentucky would take his seat.
Ryan McMaken offered this analysis of the event, noting that for at least two reasons, it was a positive thing. In the first place it was a filibuster, and anything that gums up the works is almost always a net positive. Secondly, he argues, it “has been specifically used to oppose and discredit one of the worst abuses of the presidency in many years.” Specifically he meant the utterly reprehensible use of drone strikes abroad, as well as the claimed authority to use them against civilians far from any battlefield.
Radley Balko tweeted: “In an alternate universe, Sen. Obama just joined Sen. Paul’s filibuster against President McCain’s use of drones against U.S. citizens.” The Simple Voluntaryist asked whether Rand Paul would still have filibustered had Mitt Romney won the election. I’m less than optimistic that he would. However, it seems pretty clear that had the roles been reversed, and McCain was nominating some sociopath, the filibuster would have gone on much longer. This would be due to the Democrats’ steadfast concern for human rights, which has proven to be the most transparently partisan and wholly bankrupt effort, with few notable exceptions.
…is all of it.
1) The GOP is just as guilty of allowing taxes to increase. They set the sunshine on the Bush tax cuts and plenty of them voted to raise taxes in January.
2) “America” didn’t take anything back yesterday. The sequester is a creature of both parties (plenty from each party voted for it) and it’s not as if spending is decreasing; it’s still going up.