Archive for the ‘Wordpress Political Blogs’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Fines proposed?

September 8, 2009

So? The Democrats are not fascist? Yet, they are going to fine you for not goose stepping along their road to disaster, and helping them to destroy your own liberty?

Read on…

WASHINGTON – Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy health insurance under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday as divisions among Democrats undercut President Barack Obama‘s effort to regain traction on his health care overhaul.

As Obama talked strategy with Democratic leaders at the White House, the one idea that most appeals to his party’s liberal base lost ground in Congress. Prospects for a government-run plan to compete with private insurers sank as a leading moderate Democrat said he could no longer support the idea.

The fast-moving developments put Obama in a box. As a candidate, he opposed fines to force individuals to buy health insurance, and he supported setting up a public insurance plan. On Tuesday, fellow Democrats publicly begged to differ on both ideas.

Democratic congressional leaders put on a bold front as they left the White House after their meeting with the president.

“We’re re-energized; we’re ready to do health care reform,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., insisted the public plan is still politically viable. “I believe that a public option will be essential to our passing a bill in the House of Representatives,” she said.

After a month of contentious forums, Americans were seeking specifics from the president in his speech to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night. So were his fellow Democrats, divided on how best to solve the problem of the nation’s nearly 50 million uninsured.

The latest proposal: a ten-year, $900-billion bipartisan compromise that Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., a moderate who heads the influential Finance Committee, was trying to broker. It would guarantee coverage for nearly all Americans, regardless of medical problems.

But the Baucus plan also includes the fines that Obama has rejected. In what appeared to be a sign of tension, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs pointedly noted that the administration had not received a copy of the plan before it leaked to lobbyists and news media Tuesday.

The Baucus plan would require insurers to take all applicants, regardless of age or health. But smokers could be charged higher premiums. And 60-year-olds could be charged five times as much for a policy as 20-year-olds.

He said Tuesday he’s trying to get agreement from a small group of bipartisan negotiators in advance of Obama’s speech. “Time is running out very quickly,” he said. “I made that very clear to the group.”

Some experts consider the $900-billion price tag a relative bargain because the country now spends about $2.5 trillion a year on health care. But it would require hefty fees on insurers, drug companies and others in the health care industry to help pay for it.

Just as auto coverage is now mandatory in nearly all states, Baucus would a require that all Americans get health insurance once the system is overhauled. Penalties for failing to get insurance would start at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. Households making more than three times the federal poverty level — about $66,000 for a family of four — would face the maximum fines. For families, it would be $3,800, and for individuals, $950.

Baucus would offer tax credits to help pay premiums for households making up to three times the poverty level, and for small employers paying about average middle-class wages. People working for companies that offer coverage could avoid the fines by signing up.

The fines pose a dilemma for Obama. As a candidate, the president campaigned hard against making health insurance a requirement, and fining people for not getting it.

“Punishing families who can’t afford health care to begin with just doesn’t make sense,” he said during his party’s primaries. At the time, he proposed mandatory insurance only for children.

White House officials have since backed away somewhat from Obama’s opposition to mandated coverage for all, but there’s no indication that Obama would support fines.

One idea that Obama championed during and since the campaign — a government insurance option — appeared to be sinking fast.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters a Medicare-like plan for middle-class Americans and their families isn’t an essential part of legislation for him. Hoyer’s comments came shortly after a key Democratic moderate said he could no longer back a bill that includes a new government plan.

The fast-moving developments left liberals in a quandary. They’ve drawn a line, saying they won’t vote for legislation if it doesn’t include a public plan to compete with private insurance companies and force them to lower costs.

Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., who once supported a public option, said Tuesday that after hearing from constituents during the August recess, he’s changed his mind.

“If House leadership presents a final bill that contains a government-run public option, I will oppose it,” Ross said.

House Democrats are considering a fallback: using the public plan as a last resort if after a few years the insurance industry has failed to curb costs.

Obama’s commitment to a public plan has been in question and lawmakers hoped his speech to Congress would make his position on that clear.

Baucus is calling for nonprofit co-ops to compete in the marketplace instead of a public plan.

An 18-page summary of the Baucus proposal was obtained by The Associated Press. The complex plan would make dozens of changes in the health care system, many of them contentious. For example, it includes new fees on insurers, drug companies, medical device manufacturers and clinical labs.

People working for major employers would probably not see big changes. The plan is geared to helping those who now have the hardest time getting and keeping coverage: the self-employed and small business owners.

SOURCE


Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on Fines proposed?

Mack Daddy Report Update

September 5, 2009

Nothing like united support for the Long Legged Mack Daddy! H/T No Compromise

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

The Next Bailout

September 5, 2009

The Wall Street Journal reports on yet another government bailout at taxpayer expense. It seems that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is burning through its reserves. In the last year the FDIC has paid out in excess of $34.8 billion. Additionally, the FDIC’s list of troubled banks has increased from 305 to 416, even as it has closed 84 since the beginning of this year. The true scope of the problem is unfathomable. Now the FDIC is letting Congress and the nation’s bankers know that they may need more cash from either increased insurance premiums, special assessments or perhaps even the Treasury itself.

Deposit insurance premiums are (supposed to be) risk based. The CAMEL ratings (for risk factors Capital adequacy, Asset quality, Management competence, Earnings and Liquidity) are between one (best) and five (worst) and averaged for a composite value. But don’t ask your local banker his CAMEL rating because he can’t tell you — it’s a secret. That is one component of the moral hazard that accompanies deposit insurance. With a bank’s level of safety and soundness concealed, depositors must base their decisions only upon expected rate of return.

In a supposed attempt to keep the insurance fund solvent, FDIC hit the nation’s banks with a special assessment in the fourth quarter of 2008, causing a further depletion of capital from the banking system as a whole and forcing even more marginal banks into the red. Banking trade associations have been advising their members to expect a similar special assessment in 4Q2009. These increased expenses reduce the net income of individual banks, thus further straining their ability to retain earnings to improve their capital adequacy. To control cost and preserve earnings, bankers are giving deposit rates hard scrutiny. Couple this with FDIC’s quiet request to Congress for the authority to borrow up to $500 billion from the U.S. Treasury (five times its regular borrowing limit,) and one can see taxpayers squeezed, on the one hand, by lower interest rates on savings and, on the other hand, higher taxes to service increased federal debt.

Bottom line is that deposit insurance is not free, and as with all insurance, there are inherent risks. After a 15-year expansion in the U.S. economy (1992-2007) with banks being encouraged (or, perhaps more accurately, extorted) to engage in increasingly risky loans, (sub-prime mortgages, community re-development and re-investment) the current economic contraction has exposed bankers to increased risk, which may ultimately be borne by the taxpayer.

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 4 Comments »

Another stupid is as stupid does redux: Gun Control California style

September 5, 2009

Despite California’s bans on “assault weapons,” “unsafe” handguns, private gun sales, and sales of two handguns in a 30-day period; its 10-day waiting period on all gun sales; and its denial of carry permits to people who don’t have the right connections, the Golden State’s murder and robbery rates are 12 and 20 percent higher, respectively, than in the rest of the country.

Nevertheless, the Brady Campaign calls California’s “assault weapon” ban “a model for the nation,” and gives the state a high “grade” just for having more gun control than other states. Washington, D.C.’s city council adopted California’s “assault weapon” ban and “unsafe handgun” ban whole cloth in January, backtracking on handguns this summer only in the face of court challenges.

And then there’s Garen Wintemute, of the University of California (Davis), who in September released another of his “studies” in favor of gun control. His new piece is called “Inside Gun Shows: What Goes On When Everybody Thinks Nobody’s Watching.”

“Gun shows” are just the hook, however. While repeating gun control supporters’ mantra about the need to run instant background checks on people who buy guns from private parties at gun shows, Wintemute admits important factors that undercut his goal. First, he notes that straw purchases—the very purpose of which is to thwart the background checks he pretends to be concerned about—”are a major source of crime guns.” Second, he admits that “The proportion of all gun sales nationwide that occurs at gun shows is relatively small” and that “most sales at gun shows involve licensed retailers,” who are already required to perform background checks.

As you probably have already deduced, Wintemute has his sights on something more than just requiring background checks on all gun sales at shows. Eventually getting to the bottom line, he concludes that “Regulating private party sales just at gun shows will not end the problems associated with these anonymous and undocumented transactions. Most of them occur elsewhere already. … It would be preferable to regulate private party gun sales generally.” That’s the law in California, where private sales are prohibited, transfers of firearms are delayed by a 10-day waiting period, and sales are permanently recorded by the government.

If you think you’ve heard it before, you’re right. In 1976, the Brady Campaign, then named National Council to Control Handguns, advocated delaying handgun sales and registering handguns, before banning the possession of handguns altogether. Let’s hope Wintemute is as successful today as the Brady Campaign was a generation ago.

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, mysandry, Politics, Stupid is as Stupid Does, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

The Cowboy Libertarian: Post Turtles

September 2, 2009

After a somewhat stressful week I flipped over to the Google News page, and about fell over laughing at this one. Enjoy!

The days of fancy speeches and adoring rallies are over. The American people have been aroused from their infatuation and will now be judging President Obama on the cold hard facts not his rhetorical flourishes.

With President Obama taking some well deserved vacation on Martha’s Vineyard, that well known summer playground of the rich and famous, it might be a good time to evaluate the current state of the Obama Phenomenon.

By the time of the November 2008 election the country had became so angry at the failures of the Bush administration and of Republicans in general that John McCain was doomed. Fiscal mismanagement, a crumbling economy, rising unemployment and war seemingly without end, was just too much weight for the old fighter jock McCain to carry.

Republican congressmen, senators and pundits like to lay all the blame for their descent into the minority on George Bush’s presidency and John McCain’s campaign, conveniently forgetting that their own arrogance, lust for power and spendthrift ways had a lot to do with it.

The American humorist of the 1930s and 40s, Franklin Pierce Adams once said, “Elections are won by men and women chiefly because most people vote against somebody rather than for somebody.” And Barack Obama is no exception.

But that lesson was lost on the Obama folks almost from day one. They did what all politicians and their supporters do after a big victory– completely misread the mood of the electorate interpreting their victory as a mandate to radically reshape American society. They actually believed in their “Yes We Can” agenda — and with their amen corner in the mainstream media calling him the greatest leader since FDR who could blame them?

But from where I sit, Barack Obama is a”post turtle.” What is a”post turtle” you urbane urbanites and city slickers might ask?

Well one day an old cowboy was out ridin’ fence and he saw a turtle balanced on top of a fence post. When he got back to the bunkhouse he told the other fellas that he saw a “post turtle”. They all asked, “What the hell is a ‘post Turtle’? And he said it was a turtle settin’ on top of a post! He then went on to explain that “you know he didn’t get up there by himself, he doesn’t belong there, he doesn’t know what to do while he’s up there and you just wonder what kind of dang fool put him up there to begin with!”

Obama was never really vetted by the adoring media, he has never had his nose bloodied in a real political fight, in the Senate he perfected voting “present” to an art form, he has no real understanding or knowledge of the struggles of his countrymen, and he has had no real hard life experiences that are the hot steel needed to forge and shape leadership qualities.

During the campaign when he made the comments about some Americans”clinging to their guns and their religion” to a crowd of well-heeled San Francisco Democrats, it was almost as if he was giving them an anthropological lecture on the people of the rest of America. What he said demonstrated a total lack of understanding of his fellow citizens, but the way he said it was worse. It was as if he was saying, “You know I just returned from the hinterlands and I would like to tell you about the strange natives and their quaint customs I encountered in my travels.”
And they wonder why health care is in trouble.

There is also a growing perception about Obama being in over his head and that his inexperience, once seen as a not being a problem by his admirers, has become a problem.

Still, Obama appears to enjoy BEING president–throwing out the first pitch of the baseball season, cracking jokes at the White House Correspondents Dinner and having a NASCAR Day at the White House. The more important question is does he really know how to BE president?

Well, over the next few months we are about to find out. His health care plan is in deep trouble, the economy has too much “whoa” and not enough “giddyup,” and critical foreign policy questions will need to be answered on Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran — to name just a few.

He is either going to stand up and grab the standard of leadership or he will show that he really is a “post turtle” after all.

The days of fancy speeches and adoring rallies are over. The American people have been aroused from their infatuation and will now be judging him on cold hard facts not his rhetorical flourishes. It’s about to get very interesting.

As Obama’s hero old Abe Lincoln said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”

And the American people are showing they ain’t no fools.

SOURCE

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

Crosshairs: How do you like being in them?

September 1, 2009

From nitwits denying the holocaust to idiots that call Islam a religion of peace to a CnC that would rather conquer America than go after the people that have sworn to destroy us the world is becoming a very dangerous place to be in.

Full Story Here


Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, Men's Issues, Military Science, mysandry, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, War, Warfare, Wordpress Political Blogs | 2 Comments »

Journalistic standards and false reporting

September 1, 2009

Most of the MSM have lowered their journalistic standards quite a bit over the past decade or so. False reporting is now the norm. Thankfully, there are still some in the profession with a sense of moral obligation. Read on…

EDITORIAL: False reports about guns

CBS and MSNBC peddle phony stories about arms, race and violence

Many media outlets have misfired about guns. Countless newspapers and television networks — from CBS to MSNBC — have misreported that conservative protesters are threatening President Obama with guns at public events. It hasn’t happened.

In Portsmouth, N.H., a man carrying a gun, William Kostric, joined an Aug. 11 health care protest. This was blocks away and hours before Mr. Obama’s town-hall meeting in that city. Mr. Kostric was given permission to be on church property where the protest occurred and was not at the place the president visited. What most of the coverage left out was that Mr. Kostric didn’t carry his gun only for the protest; he legally carries a gun with him all the time for protection.

While the media regularly used terms such as “hotheads” to mischaracterize the situation, the coverage ignored that union members who opposed the protest had attacked Mr. Kostric and a friend, kicking, pushing and spitting on them. Despite violence against him by Mr. Obama’s supporters, Mr. Kostric did not draw his gun or threaten anyone.

On the CBS Evening News, Katie Couric asked, “Are we really still debating health care when a man brings a handgun to a church where the president is speaking?” Deliberately or not, she got the facts wrong. As we know, Mr. Kostric did bring a gun to the church, but the president was not there and never was scheduled to speak there. Mr. Obama spoke at a separate event at a local high school at a different time. Not letting facts get in the way of her hysterical story line, Ms. Couric linked Mr. Kostric’s gun to “fear and frankly ignorance drown[ing] out the serious debate that needs to take place about an issue that affects the lives of millions of people.”

In another case in Arizona, a black man staged an event with a local radio host and carried a semiautomatic rifle a few blocks away from another Obama town-hall meeting. According to the radio station, the staged event was “partially motivated to do so because of the controversy surrounding William Kostric.” This occurrence was not an example of an outraged gun-toting Obama protester, but a stunt to garner attention for a shock jock. Of course, this inconvenient truth was ignored by most news outlets.

MSNBC misrepresented the facts to try to back up a bogus claim about racism being behind opposition to Mr. Obama’s agenda. On Donny Deutsch’s Aug. 18 show about the Arizona town-hall meeting, the producers aired a clip of the anonymous black man carrying the so-called assault rifle — but the network edited the tape so the man’s race was obscured. Truth be damned, MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer said, “There are questions whether this has a racial overtone. I mean, here you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists.” Another commentator on the same show worried about the “anger about a black person being president.” The supposed result: “You know we see these hate groups rising up.”

MSNBC’s irresponsible behavior is more than just bad journalism; it sows distrust between races. Ernest Hancock, the radio host who staged the event, was hoping to get some free publicity for himself and his show. Whatever one thinks of this PR stunt, it had nothing to do with race. MSNBC misrepresented a black man carrying a gun as a white man to invent a racial dynamic that didn’t exist.

Media disinformation about guns is a sad sign of the drastic action liberals will take to undermine support for gun rights for law-abiding citizens. It’s also an indication of liberals’ extreme desperation as Mr. Obama’s agenda unravels.

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, Men's Issues, mysandry, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

“White House Fires Back at Enzi” So what?

September 1, 2009

One of my Senators figured out that the people of Wyoming simply don’t want the federal government involved any more than absolutely necessary in our health care. Not to mention that if Senator Enzi goes over to the dark side it will be political suicide. So, despite the WaPo story some Senators might just have figured out that we, the people, are who they work for. Not the President…

President Obama’s spokesman accused congressional Republicans on Monday of “stepping away” from attempts to reach a bipartisan agreement on overhauling the U.S. health-care system.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs took issue with Sen. Mike Enzi’s national radio address Saturday, in which he warned that Democratic proposals would allow for the “intrusion of a Washington bureaucrat in the relationship between a doctor and a patient” and “will actually make our nation’s finances sicker without saving you money.”

Enzi (Wyo.) has been one of three Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee negotiating a possible bipartisan health-care compromise, and Gibbs called his address “tremendously unfortunate but in some ways illuminating.”

Full Story

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

Get the evil bastards!

August 31, 2009

Get general Motors for supplying the vehicles that are used by drunk drivers to kill and maim all across the land! While you are at it, get Ford Motor Company as well!

Alright, I twisted a few things. So be it. Beat me with a wet noodle so I can sue a pasta manufacturer into oblivion… When I first read about this I was reminded of a televised debate between Ari Armstrong and the hopeless hopolophobe and criminal Tom Mauser on PBS one evening. The essence is about being able to put the blame on one party, due to the sole actions of another person. I find that immoral to the extreme…

Tracking new cases: Suing gun makers

Sunday, August 30th, 2009 7:39 am | Lyle Denniston | Print This Post
Email this • Share on Facebook • Share on LinkedIn • Digg This!

NOTE: From time to time, the blog will examine significant new cases as they are filed at the Supreme Court.  This post is one in that series.  Some of these cases very likely will appear later in the blog’s Petitions to Watch feature when the Court is ready to consider them.

———————————–

Seeking to revive a lawsuit against a gun manufacturer over a teenager’s accidental but fatal shooting of a friend, lawyers for the Illinois parents of the dead boy have asked the Supreme Court to strike down a four-year-old federal law that shields the industry from many — but not all — lawsuits.  The petition in Adames, et al. v. Beretta USA Corp., filed last Monday and docketed as 09-253, can be downloaded here.  That file includes the appendix.  For a link only to the Illinois Supreme Court decison rejecting the constitutional challenge, click here.

The 2005 law – titled the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act — was controversial when passed, and has been attacked repeatedly since then in court.  The challengers have argued variously that Congress either had no power to wipe out already-filed lawsuits against gun makers, or that it went too far in doing so. So far, the Supreme Court has not been willing to get into the controversy, and the first issue facing the new lawsuit is whether it is sufficiently different that it can not only draw the Justices’ interest, but also overcome likely resistance from the federal government.

Last March 19, the Court denied review in two cases challenging the Act — New York City, et al. v. Beretta (08-530) and Lawson, et al. v. Beretta (08-545).  The federal government joined in both of those cases to defend the law, and successfully urged the Court not to hear either one, arguing that neither one raised clearly the issues it sought to put forward.  In the new case, the Justice Department was not involved as it went through Illinois courts, but because a federal law could be at stake, it could do so in the Court.

The narrower issue in the Illinois case is whether the specific lawsuit by the dead boy’s parents fits within an exception in the 2005 law that permits some cases to go ahead.  The broader issue is whether Congress has intruded too deeply into the way states craft their own laws, barring those that test issues arising under state common law, allowing at least some that test a state statute.  The petition quotes at length from congressional floor debates, with lawmakers blasting juries and judges for fashioning “novel” ways to attack the gun industry while showing respect for laws that emerge from state legislatures.

The tragedy that led to the Adames lawsuit in Illinois occurred eight years ago, when 13-year-old Billy Swan aimed and fired a Beretta pistol at a friend who had come over to play, Joshua Adames, who also was 13. The gun belonged to Billy’s dad, a Cook County sheriff’s deputy. Billy had taken out the gun’s clip before aiming it, believing that would make it harmless. A bullet that had remained in the gun’s chamber killed Joshua.

Billy’s parents sued Beretta, among others, contending that the gun manufacturer failed to warn users of this kind of pistol that removal of the magazine did not make it safe.  Without a cheap device to prevent just such accidents, and without a specific warning about the hazard, the pistol was too dangerous, the lawsuit contended. (There were other claims, but that one is the center of the case now.)

While a lower state court allowed that claim to proceed, the Illinois Supreme Court blocked the lawsuit altogether.  It ruled that, because Billy had intentionally aimed the gun and pulled the trigger, the incident did not come within the exception Congress had made to the lawsuit ban.  But it also went further, and found that the law did not run afoul of the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, and its protection of state laws, because it did not “commandeer” state officials or processes to carry out some federal order or duty.

Taken to the Supreme Court by some of the same lawyers who pursued one of the earlier challenges, the Adames petition puts its primary stress on the Tenth Amendment issue. That Amendment, leaving states free to create their own laws when the powers have not been assigned to Congress, bars Congress from dictating to states “which branch of state government may authorize  liability against a particular industry so long as the federal enactment does not ‘commandeer’ state officials,” the petition argues.

The Illinois court, like the Second Circuit Court (in one of last Term’s cases), deferred to Congress “when it determined which branch of state government it would recognize as the authoritative expositor of state law, as well as limiting the scope of the Tenth Amendment to its anti-commandeering principle,” the filing contends.  That “cannot be reconciled with our system of federalism,” it says.

On what kinds of lawsuits are affected by the 2005 law, the petition argues that the reach of that law “is an issue of pressing national importance that courts nationwide are continually struggling with and which requires this Court’s definitive construction.”

The Beretta company’s response to the appeal is now due by Sept. 28, unless the time to file is extended.

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, mysandry, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 4 Comments »

The War on the CIA: Do you sleep well at night?

August 29, 2009

If you sleep well at night, the chances are that it is a result of rude men doing rude things that nevertheless keep you and yours safe.

On Monday, the Obama administration opened up a new, multi-pronged front in their war on America’s security. The White House announced that a special terrorism interrogation team, supervised by the White House and restricted to using the relatively benign Army Field Manual’s interrogation guidelines, would be created to take the lead from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) on terrorist interrogations. Also, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Department of Justice (DOJ) would reopen some terrorist detainee abuse cases, which could expose current or former CIA employees and contractors to prosecution for alleged “torture” of terrorism suspects.

Holder’s decision was supported by the DOJ’s laughably titled Office of Professional Responsibility, which has been whining about the CIA for five years and now has an advocate in Obama’s America-hating Attorney General. The DOJ also released a 2004 report — held up for security reasons — that described the CIA’s interrogation and detention techniques. CIA Director Leon Panetta, who has at least tried to stand up for his people, reportedly was so upset at the CIA being made a left-wing target that he threatened to resign. After all, as The Wall Street Journal writes, “Interrogations were carefully limited, briefed on Capitol Hill, and yielded information that saved innocent lives.”

The ultimate result of targeting the CIA will be a hesitant, demoralized intelligence agency. But since when has Obama cared about national security?

SOURCE


Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Warfare, Wordpress Political Blogs | 2 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »