Eight days — eight days – after Obama called for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in his SOTU address, Dems seem to be caving, again:
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Thursday she’s unsure whether the House will overturn “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this year before the Pentagon completes its review on implementing repeal.
“I don’t know,” she said during her weekly press conference. “I’ll have to examine. We’ll take a look. We’ll sit down together and see what is the advantage of going first with legislation or would the legislation more aptly reflect what is in the review — or is it a two-step process?”
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
Implement rules of behavior and etiquette that everyone has to follow. People who violate them are out. Period.
Why is this so hard?
We don’t need another “review.” Call the British, the Israelis or the other 20+ countries who’ve figured out how to do this and get ‘er done Dems! We aren’t reinventing the freakin’ wheel here.
February 4, 2010 at 7:40 PM
Posts will be sporadic today and tomorrow. I have a severe case of outrage overload so I’m trying to take a short break from politics and the news.
February 4, 2010 at 4:47 PM
This is what it would look like.
Okay. There you have it. My one and only Super Bowl post.
February 4, 2010 at 3:52 PM
For those of you interested in food and food sustainability issues, check out PoliticsofthePlate. Post aren’t put up on a daily basis but when they are, they tend to be pretty darn interesting:
February 4, 2010 at 2:54 PM
Scott Brown is going to be sworn in today.
The stock market is down 200+ points.
February 4, 2010 at 2:15 PM
Today’s must-read by Glenn Greenwald:
Remember when we were squirming about George W. Bush eavesdropping on people without going through the proper channels to obtain authorization? Well, Obama has taken the power of the president to a new level. He has decided that he can order the assassination of American citizens:
not on an active battlefield during combat, but while they are sleeping, sitting with their families in their home, walking on the street, etc. That’s basically giving the President the power to impose death sentences on his own citizens without any charges or trial. Who could possibly support that?
But even if you’re someone who does want the President to have the power to order American citizens killed without a trial by decreeing that they are Terrorists (and it’s worth remembering that if you advocate that power, it’s going to be vested in all Presidents, not just the ones who are as Nice, Good, Kind-Hearted and Trustworthy as Barack Obama), shouldn’t there at least be some judicial approval required?
[...]
Shouldn’t we be at least as concerned about the President’s being able to assassinate Americans without judicial oversight? That seems much more Draconian to me. It would be perverse in the extreme, but wouldn’t it be preferable to at least require the President to demonstrate to a court that probable cause exists to warrant the assassination of an American citizen before the President should be allowed to order it? That would basically mean that courts would issue “assassination warrants” or “murder warrants” — a repugnant idea given that they’re tantamount to imposing the death sentence without a trial — but isn’t that minimal safeguard preferable to allowing the President unchecked authority to do it on his own, the very power he has now claimed for himself?
[...]
The current controversy has been triggered by the Obama administration’s attempt to kill U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen. But al-Awalki has not been accused (let alone convicted) of trying to attack Americans. Instead, he’s accused of being a so-called “radical cleric” who supports Al Qaeda and now provides “encouragement” to others to engage in attack…
[...]
The Court held that the First Amendment protects advocacy of violence and revolution, and that the State is barred from punishing citizens for the expression of such views. The Brandenburg Court pointed to a long history of precedent protecting the First Amendment rights of Communists to call for revolution — even violent revolution — inside the U.S., and explained that the Government can punish someone for violent actions but not for speech that merely advocates or justifies violence…
[...]
From all appearances, al-Awlaki seems to believe that violence by Muslims against the U.S. is justified in retaliation for the violence the U.S. has long brought (and continues to bring) to the Muslim world. But as an American citizen, he has the absolute Constitutional right to express those views and not be punished for them (let alone killed) no matter where he is in the world…
But our new president, a “Constitutional lawyer,” has decided that he can assassinate anyone he wants. Imagine where this could go.
February 4, 2010 at 12:47 PM
