Archive for June, 2011
I know I’ve filled out a few government forms incorrectly. Evidently I should be expecting a federal SWAT team to break down my door at any moment.
A federal indictment states that Dawkins started to fill out a passport application in 2004, didn’t complete it, then filled out a new application two years later. On that new application, he checked a box “no” for the question, “Have you ever applied before?” according to the indictment. Dawkins got the passport, but three months ago, the government issued a warrant for his arrest. He was taking photos for the Navy at the time.
So far he has spent two months in jail, and faces up to ten years in prison.
We don’t need Congressional approval for the war in Libya, because it’s not a war. But we’d like Congress to approve it anyways. And if they don’t, it’s because they want to help Ghadafi.
Obfuscation followed by what are essentially accusations of treason directed at anyone who disagrees with the president. Hail, Caesar!
A clip-art gag inspired by our president’s clip-art worldview:
Obama claims ATMs and kiosks at airports have eliminated some jobs.
“If you see it when you go to a bank you use the ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller. Or you go to the airport and you use a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate,” he said.
How and why is there “debate” concerning Obama’s war in Libya?Â The decision to go to war is neither at the president’s whim, nor a majority decision based on public opinion polls.Â Ignoring the Constitution for the moment (we all seem to be these days anyways) and ignoringÂ anything “Bush did” (because his actions are not relevant to this issue) — what is going on with the war in Libya?
Evidently the Speaker of the House has now issued an “ultimatum” to Obama concerning Libya.Â Are the standing laws of the United States not ultimatum enough?
From the Washington Times:
â€œThe Constitution requires the president to â€˜take care that the laws be faithfully executed,â€™ and one of those laws is the War Powers Resolution, which requires an approving action by Congress or withdrawal within 90 days from the notification of a military operation,â€ Mr. Boehner said in the letter.
Is this a misquote, or does Boehner not understand the relevant law that ought to be guiding his and the president’s actions?
In a letter sent Tuesday afternoon, Mr. Boehner, the top Republican in the constitutional chain of succession, said Mr. Obama must provide a clear justification by Friday for committing troops to Libya.
If the president has not provided any clear justification for the war in Libya, he is in violation of the War Powers Resolution which states:
(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief toÂ introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situationsÂ where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by theÂ circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2)Â specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created byÂ attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armedÂ forces.
(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is requiredÂ to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, theÂ President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless theÂ Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for suchÂ use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-dayÂ period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attackÂ upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not moreÂ than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies toÂ the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting theÂ safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armedÂ forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.
Has the president certified in writing anything concerning Libya?Â Â Withdrawing our troops would not put any of them in danger, the Libyan military simply doesn’t pose any kind of threat.
Why is Congress out of the loop, when they are supposed to have absolute final say on military action?Â There isn’t room for ambiguity or interpretation here.Â Speaker Boehner is giving the president time that isn’t his to give.Â By Friday Obama will be in violation of even the loosest interpretation of the War Powers Resolution,Â not to mention he is now, has been, and assuredly will continue to violate his oath to uphold the Constitution.Â We should be talking about impeachment, not deadlines and “ultimatums”.Â But not even the president’s political “enemies” seem to care.
UPDATE:Â About damn time.Â It’s too bad Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul (and a few others) are the only ones worried about protecting the Constitution.Â Doubly unfortunate that they are so consistently ostracized.
The police state is encroaching with incredible speed.Â Things that could be handled with phone calls are now being handled with SWAT teams.Â America’s totalitarian state isn’t going to conveniently clothe itself in swastikas to clue us in on what’s really going on.Â We’re going to have to pay attention, and guard our liberties jealously if we wish to keep them at all.
At 6 AM on Tuesday, a federal SWAT team (evidently the militarized law enforcement arm of theÂ Department of Education)Â broke down the door ofÂ Kenneth Wright’s homeÂ in Stockton, California.Â They had a warrant (who is issuing these warrants?) for…something.Â Evidently it was to look for a woman concerningÂ defaulted student loans.Â The woman is the estranged wife of Kenneth Wright.Â She was not there, but the federal SWAT teamÂ decided to drag Mr. Wright, who has no criminal record,Â out of his home in handcuffs and stick him in a police car for six hours while his three young children waited.
Did even the Gestapo — and I’m not just being facetious — rise to this level of intimidation over something so trivial?Â A SWAT team to enforce non-payment of student loans?Â Is this appropriate to anyone of any political persuasion here in America?Â Unbelievable.Â But we’d better start believing it.
Check out Groupon’s S-1 when you get a chance. In less than 3 years, the company has accumulated losses of over $500 million.
I don’t doubt that there’s a sustainable business model buried beneath all the mirthful irreverence, but there are troubling signs that Groupon’s performance is deteriorating in mature markets– and it’s never a good sign when early investors have already jumped ship with nearly $1 billion.
The Wall Street Journal asks, “Will Investors Take Groupon’s Andrew Mason Seriously?”
UPDATE: Brett Arends at MarketWatch writes,
During the dot-com bubble, I once heard a story from a venture capitalist about a start-up that wanted to be valued at a multiple of headcount. At $5 billion, Groupon would be valued at nearly 10 times accumulated losses. Who’s to say that’s too much?