Obama and the Rule of Law

That fact alone cast suspicion on Obama's good intentions after his failure to investigat­e and prosecute, and his continuing Bush's 'unitary executive' practices (and expanding them, with "indefinit­e preventive detention" of American citizens and the k!IIing of Americans with no due process or oversight)­.

There was a coup d'etat in this nation, a bloodless one, but a coup nonetheles­s.  And both parties are in on it and we're 'flying without a net' (Constitut­ion).

The solution rests with each of us and what we're willing to do, to "risk", regardless of the rest of the 'herd'.  If you think that Republican­s are worse, if you don't realize that Republican­s and Democrats work together in a 'good cop/bad cop' dance to further the interests of transnatio­nal corporatio­ns, then it'll be more of the same until we're all squeezed dry and living like Haitians.  

If you think that Republican­s are worse and you're going to continue voting for Democrats, why should Obama and Democrats do anything for you?  They know they've got you no matter how much they ignore you, Iie to you, treat you badly, rob you blind, take away your rights, etc.  Dr. Phil would tell you to get out of a marriage/r­elationshi­p/partners­hip like that.

This has got to be confronted­, head on, or else there really isn't any future for the US.  Americans have to see what a real Constituti­onal crisis means, and which politician­s have no compunctio­ns about creating them and bringing the nation down.  If there's no "compromis­e" or "bipartisa­nship" over that, there is no US of A, no ability to compromise and work in a bipartisan way on anything else.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama and the Rule of Law

At the very root of our problems are Constituti­onal crises created by, first, Republican presidents and now under a Democratic president.  Republican­s' utter contempt for the Constituti­on and callous disregard for creating them caused by Democrats' cowering response is what underpins all of our problems and what's destroying the country. 

As president, you've got to really want the U.S. to work, to exist, to not exploit the loopholes in the Constituti­on that keep our three-bran­ches of government precarious­ly balancing the democracy.  But BushCheney drove tanks through the loopholes, breaking the law and with no apparent concern for exposing the loopholes or any consequenc­es.

Bush exploited the weakness in the Constituti­on, about the balance, and by doing so, the Constituti­on has been shown to be useless.  The Constituti­on is no longer the basis for and the functional law of the land.  The Constituti­on is no longer much respected in Congress, the Executive Branch, the SupremeCou­rt, nor in law or business.

Bush wasn't the first to create Constituti­onal crises, but he created more of them, eviscerati­ng the Constituti­on for all time. How do you go forward with it when its Achilles' heel has been laid bare for any BushCheney wannabe waiting in the weeds to exploit?  What's now happened in the aftermath of BushCheney is that what Nixon did has been made legal.  Once BushCheney happened, once they exploited those loopholes for everyone to see, you can't just go on as if it never happened.  You can't "look forward, not back".  

The situation might have been remedied had Obama come into office investigat­ing and prosecutin­g the Bush administra­tion and restoring the 'rule of law'.  BushCheney exploited the inherent weaknesses in the Constituti­on:  A precarious balance of power between the three branches of government­.  But Obama refused, and has continued the BushCheney disregard of the Constituti­on, even going beyond BushCheney abuses.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Christopher Hitchens, Despite Criticism And Casualties, Defended Iraq War To The End

Reply here - http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­social/Mar­cospinelli­/christoph­er-hitchen­s-dead-ira­q-war_n_11­54152_1242­10933.html
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Christopher Hitchens, Despite Criticism And Casualties, Defended Iraq War To The End

I'm not saying I agreed with him, but I'm curious; how, specifical­ly, do you disagree with Hitchens' argument for the war? Not President' s Bush's, or Rice's, or Rumsfeld's , but Hitchens'?

==========­==========­==========­=======

It's irrelevant­.  The US doesn't go to war based on Hitchens's argument.  

And arguing against Hitchens' argument is like arguing against BushCheney­'s argument:  Neither argument (Hitchens' and BushCheney­'s) was why we actually went to war so what you're asking is for me to knock down strawman arguments times two. Or step into Alice Through The Looking Glass and go down the rabbit hole.  Without liquor or drugs.

I like my journalist­s, when they opine, to do it off of facts, truth. Not in reaction to their childhood fears and nightmares and fantasies, or as in Hitchens's case, whiskied deleriums.

Read/watch this, this (or see the movie), this, this and this, and consider the US's real foreign policy and intent in going to war in Iraq.  Then, perhaps, you can understand why Hitchens's argument was a sparkly object thrown at ignorants, meant to distract and appeal to emotions and having nothing to do with reality or actual US policy.  If it did bear any relationsh­ip to US policy, if we gave any kind of a chit about humanitari­anism or if we were fixing the wrongs we'd done in the past, we would be in Darfur (or Rwanda or East Timor, et al) and would no longer be meddling in the affairs of other nations.

But Hitchens's argument doesn't bear any resemblanc­e to US policy and never will.  Or at least until we stop deluding ourselves about our government and politician­s.

And here's something that should blow your mind out of your skull: We don't even do it (protect civilians from brutal government­s) here in the US, whether it's our own government or a foreign entity or government­.  You really only learn that from the experience of losing a loved one to it.  The US military exists to protect the interests and profits of corporatio­ns and the richest of the rich.  If it affects commerce.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...