Wow, is all I have to say. Paul’s Filibuster has been an amazing piece of politics. Now there are two questions that we should ask ourselves and that we should be asking our government officials. The first being, does the US government have the right to attack non-combatant on US soil with unmanned drones? The Attorney General has already states this, no. Clear, concise, and to the point. Now a better question to ask would be this, “why did Paul have to filibuster to get a straight answer?” I think this filibuster says something about the nature of government, with all its want for transparency, there is none. Hopefully this filibuster will be a public display of stupidity and things will change. One can only hope.
I enjoy my YouTube subscriptions here in China and I watched this video today that made me ask these questions,
So in short a Sequester is a mandatory cut in federal spending to help with the long-term budget problem. This took effect because Congress isn’t willing to compromise with each other and they didn’t create a budget that cut 1.5 trillion dollars over ten years. This is a very important thing to remember, that news agencies try to not remind people of, the president, it doesn’t matter if it’s Bush, Obama, Reagan or whoever don’t set the tax rate and don’t set the budget. They can ask Congress nicely and they can put in their suggestions, but when all is said and done it is up to Congress, and when Congress can’t work together we get a bill like the Budget Control Act of 2011, that has a ticking time bomb in it. And that is what this Sequester is, the explosion of a time bomb that wasn’t averted by our congressmen and women. Oh how I love that congress allowed this to happen, in a recession allowing for something to take effect that would allow for greater job loss. I am curious what will happen next. The national news seems to be focusing on the fact that the White House has shut down tours, while they aren’t focusing on the human impact of the choices they make. I can’t wait to see what happens at election time.
And why is Sequester fun to say, because it has a “Q” in it. New word for Words With Friends I guess.
I know that I may receive a lot of criticism for this article, but I really don’t care. When I read all of these article from law makers saying that people will be upset because laws that were enacted by a popular vote can be deemed unconstitutional I think of the cry of popular sovereignty. Now for those of you without History Degrees, or who don’t remember from your history classes in High School or University, the cry of popular sovereignty was given in the battle of slavery, allowing the people in each state to choose whether or not they wanted slavery in their state. Sound familiar? I understand not wanting judges to overturn our rights to make laws left and right, but what about bad, or immoral laws? Should there still be laws banning interracial marriage, Jim Crow laws, or any other judicial decision made in such a way? It is crazy to think about it but it was only 2003 when sodomy was finally decriminalized all across America. The will of the people, I’m sorry to say, isn’t always fair. Large groups of people can discriminate against other people, and who’s out there to protect the rights of those people when the majority is against them? In America it’s the courts.
White House issues answer after Senator’s 13-hour speech
Mar 7, 2013
Today, following a historic 13-hour filibuster on the Senate floor that ended early this morning, Sen. Rand Paul received correspondence from the White House regarding the legality and constitutionality of the U.S. government using lethal force, including drone strikes, on Americans and in U.S. territory. Sen. Paul’s repeated correspondence to President Obama’s nominee to be CIA director, John Brennan, was finally answered today, in part, with the following response from Attorney GeneralEric Holder: “‘Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’ The answer to that question is no.”
“This is a major victory for American civil liberties and ensures the protection of our basic Constitutional rights. We have Separation of Powers to protect our rights. That’s what government was organized to do and that’s what the Constitution was put in place to do,” Sen. Paul said. “I would like to congratulate my fellow colleagues in both the House and Senate and thank them for joining me in protecting the rights of due process.”
Readers tell me what you think about Paul’s filibuster. Do you think it was necessary? Do you think it changed anything? Or do you think, as I believe was his intention, it was about publicity.
Rand Paul, Republican Senator from Kentucky and son of Ron Paul, has been filibustering, yes I will say that’s the verb, the confirmation vote for John Brennan, who would head the CIA. What is prompting this filibuster is the letter from Attorney GeneralEric Holder which states that the US has the authority to use unmanned droned strikes on American soil but has no intention of doing so. The letter was prompted by Mr. Brennan’s written answer last month to questions from the Senate Intelligence Committee, in which he had written: “This Administration has not carried out drone strikes inside the United States and has no intention of doing so.” It seems as though Paul’s filibuster won’t stop Brennan’s confirmation, but what it is doing, which the Paul family is good at, is raising awareness for an issue and garnering press attention. And I am glad that there are some politicians who have the guts to do that sort of thing.
How can a church that is so deeply divided between so many issues reunify. This pope’s departure comes at a time when the Catholic Church needs a strong leader. I can see himself believing at his age that he wouldn’t be able to perform these duties, but does leaving show the lay people strength or weakness. I feel as though he gave up. I don’t know maybe that’s just me. I didn’t like this pope, but then again that is my prerogative. I did respect him, and the position that he held. I wonder who the church will pick to be the next leader, because he really has to come in and clean house.
Did you ever think that we would ever hear the term “papal retirement plan?” But we have with this pope, along with multiple media sources discussing what the Pope will wear and his shoes when he steps down from office today. While there is much speculation about why the Pope decided to step down as he did. I mean who doesn’t remember the media circus around the Vatican when John Paul II died, it seriously felt like the news people were saying, as Margret Cho put it brilliantly, “He’s not dead yet, but he might be after this commercial break.” So it is strange to the minds of lay people and some Catholics that a Pope would step down. But what we do have to remember is that first and foremost the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, and he has the right to retire. Also, something was told by a more religious friend of mine, the Pope isn’t the infallible word of God, unless he invokes “ex-cathedra” which has only been done once since 1870, and not by this current Pope. He is a man, not a superhero. I have always felt that the position of Pope has been treated like a king. While one can technically abdicate, nobody ever does, and that is why it is a shock when one does. I am curious to see who the next Pope is and in what direction the church decides to go.
So in 2011 rapper Pitbull released a song called “Give me Everything,” where he says, ”So I’m tiptoein’ to keep flowin’ / I got it locked up like Lindsay Lohan,” And Lohan’s people sued. The judge ruled that Pitbull’s song was protected by the first amendment, and that even though the rapper was making money off of the song that he wasn’t using her name specifically to make money. Judge Hurley stated that “does not mean that plaintiff‘s name was used for ‘advertising’ or ‘purposes of trade’.” Do you agree with this? Does becoming a public figure mean that your likeness can be used in art or music to express a point or idea? Would the ruling be the same if Lohan was a regular private citizen?
So, unless you live under a rock, I am sure you have heard that the Pope has announced his plans to abdicate his position as pope on February 28th. The church will then have a conclave in early March to then choose a new Pope. And of course just like when JP2 died there is talk about a non-European becoming Pope, but I really don’t see that happening. Here is the real kicker, the Pope quit his job. This hasn’t happened since the middle ages. He says he is leaving his job because of the difficulties that come with age. JP2 moved midnight mass to 10 pm because of the advance of age, he didn’t quit his job. I smell something fishy. I see a scandal. Just saying. I am also enjoying the articles that talk about the meteor that hit Russia and asking, “is this the end of the world.” I am not saying the Pope shouldn’t leave office, his entire tenure as Pope has been marked with controversy and sex abuse scandal, maybe some fresh, over 50 blood will be good for church. But how will devout Catholics feel about the head of the church just quitting his job? Will that be even worse for the church?
We over here at Petdal have finished up the long awaited delivery of The Sexy Politco website. We gave the site it’s own scheme of purple and orange and made it 100% interactive with the users. It’s not just a blog, it’s a place for real knowledge developed by great political commentators. We would like [...]
