Shh, don't tell anybody...

Obama Authorizes Covert Operations in Libya, as U.S. Considers Aiding Rebels, Sources Say


I hope the administration, for whatever reason, intended this to be leaked (i.e. Gaddaf, buddy, the writing is on the wall). 
 
Two other points...
 
1) Is you serious? A couple days after Obama claims the United States is handing over to the United States NATO, and that the President doesn't have to go to Congress for this action, but other Presidents do...now we are going to arm the rebels...but not quite yet because, "not enough is known yet about the rebels."  Is this a joke? SNL could not have done better than that line.  
 
The President, who was going to sit down with Iran, soothe North Korea, and be better than Bush - is just going to arm the rebels, once he figures out who they are.  Right or wrong is not the issue, its that this guy can say and do whatever he wants, he will get votes.
 
I have a plan - lets send them stinger missils, how could that backfire?  (Interesting note, while I was Google'n "stinger missils" because the spelling just didn't look right...I see that I am not the only one that came up with the idea). 
 
2)  What is going on with FoxNews - these articles are brutal.  I know I don't spend alot of time poofreeding my blog, but if you are going to speak for the vast-right-wing-conspiracy, spend a little time on it, do some research, ask direct questions to people you are interviewing:
 
"A senior military official told Fox News that the Pentagon is planning how and with what weapons it might arm Libyan rebel forces, but questions of legality have prevented the administration from springing the plan into action."


Derned legality - getting in the way of what may be a terrible idea.

...while I was out invading people's privacy last night, I heard an interview of PJ Crowly on the radio.  It was OUTSTANDING.  The interviewer didn't appear FOR or AGAINST Crowly's stance, but he pressed him with multiple follow-up questions, refusing to allow Crowly to not answer questions.  Crowly did well too.  It wasn't combative, it was respectful.  It was Stephen Sackur from the BBC - smashing job Stephen, I've never heard him before, and the show is HARDTalk...can we trade for Chris Matthews?

A Quick Thought...

I haven't watched the State of the Union in a while. I just can't stand to hear that guy talk. I guess it's how liberals felt when "W" was in the White House. When it's your guy, and he is a bumbler, he's still spouting your values for the most part.

But...Libya is an interesting, and difficult topic. The uproar that caused this bumbler (I love watching him get lost on the teleprompter) to give a speech last night, was partly by MEMBERS OF CONGRESS on both sides. They, like several Sunday morning talk show hosts, wanted to know why he hasn't addressed Congress. Even if he was afraid to get a "no," and just wanted to check a box, why didn't he invite leaders of both parties (both chambers) to the White House, and tell them what he was going to do.

And...they wanted to know what the "endgame" was. And therein lies the answer.

Just like in Iraq...just like in Afghanistan, the endgame might not look like what he said it would. Even with our massive superior military and technological capabilities, war has risk.

I'm torn on Libya. I support the President's action. I think it was late. Or if not the action, his words are late. I think he is STILL being indecisive. He is gambling on Gaddafi going the way of Mubarak...although being pushed by a couple hundred Tomahawks. If Gaddafi stays, and the battle goes on-and-on...what then? We'll see. I support the action, because I believe that Gaddafi is evil (and clearly demented), and that others in the Middle East were paying close attention.  And we got their attention.  But I don't support going half-way. This is a war - ask the people in Libya. If you are going to take out military installations, tanks and planes...take them out - all of them, or until it is over.  Not just until NATO takes over (yes, we are NATO). 

(NATO being told to take over something)

What is most upsetting - is Obama's open and obvious hypocrisy. All the teleprompter reading and ("finally" the leftists are saying) change in 'intonation' and 'emotion' in his reading, can't hide the fact that he is doing exactly what he campaigned against.

This is a war for oil, that can't be denied. That is why France and the rest of Europe jumped on it, and that is why Russia doesn't mind ripping us about it. But it is in the context of the upheaval in the Middle East. In the totality of the circumstances - Gaddafi had to be stopped. But just like in Egypt, we don't know what we are going to get. In the totality of the circumstances, Saddam had to be stopped. What happened, what Iraq turned into, was not what Bush and the "neo-cons" would have wanted, but I'm sure it resembles at least one possible outcome that is described in some analyst's report.
 
 

 
BTW - I forced myself to watch the speech, then I forced myself to watch the lefty channels' analysis (so I get double points).  It seemed like they all got that tingle up their leg...yet they all mentioned 'no endgame', 'no strategy.'  We'll see how events play out, and we'll see how the analysis plays out...

Can't we all just get along...

Taking Liberties: Montana Lawmaker Wants Feds to Alert Sheriffs on Arrests


Summary:  Republican State Senator from Montana wants to pass a state law that would require Federal Law Enforcement to notify County Sheriffs before taking action.  
 
I'm not sure where he is coming from, or what got him all riled up.  I would suspect, that this guy believes in State's Rights...so do I.  This guy lives in Montana...I wish I lived in Montana.  I'm sure we agree on other things, but so far, that's where they end.  Cases should be worked on what is called a "Need to Know" basis, and if the Sheriff needs to know - he will be notified. 
 
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  It's not just a fancy saying, that is what makes it work. Whatever is NOT delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, is retained by the states.  But if it is in the Constitution, sorry Montana.  Article VI of the Constitution gives federal law supremacy over state laws. 
 
The lawmaker is quoted as saying “How on earth could the states not challenge federal law? That's the way our system of government works.”   Senator...you would have to change the constitution.  Which is allowed.  On his other quotes in the article - Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc., had nothing to do with notifying State or Local authorities, they had to do with tactics, etc.


If he doubts the meaning of Article VI, take it from these guys:

Alexander Hamilton:

"...But it is said that the laws of the Union are to be the supreme law of the land. But what inference can be drawn from this, or what would they amount to, if they were not to be supreme? It is evident they would amount to nothing. A LAW, by the very meaning of the term, includes supremacy. It is a rule which those to whom it is prescribed are bound to observe. This results from every political association. If individuals enter into a state of society, the laws of that society must be the supreme regulator of their conduct. If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies, and the individuals of whom they are composed. It would otherwise be a mere treaty, dependent on the good faith of the parties, and not a goverment, which is only another word for POLITICAL POWER AND SUPREMACY. But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union, like the one we have just before considered, only declares a truth, which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution; which I mention merely as an instance of caution in the convention; since that limitation would have been to be understood, though it had not been expressed..."

James Madison:

"...The indiscreet zeal of the adversaries to the Constitution has betrayed them into an attack on this part of it also, without which it would have been evidently and radically defective. To be fully sensible of this, we need only suppose for a moment that the supremacy of the State constitutions had been left complete by a saving clause in their favor. In the first place, as these constitutions invest the State legislatures with absolute sovereignty, in all cases not excepted by the existing articles of Confederation, all the authorities contained in the proposed Constitution, so far as they exceed those enumerated in the Confederation, would have been annulled, and the new Congress would have been reduced to the same impotent condition with their predecessors. In the next place, as the constitutions of some of the States do not even expressly and fully recognize the existing powers of the Confederacy, an express saving of the supremacy of the former would, in such States, have brought into question every power contained in the proposed Constitution. In the third place, as the constitutions of the States differ much from each other, it might happen that a treaty or national law, of great and equal importance to the States, would interfere with some and not with other constitutions, and would consequently be valid in some of the States, at the same time that it would have no effect in others. In fine, the world would have seen, for the first time, a system of government founded on an inversion of the fundamental principles of all government; it would have seen the authority of the whole society every where subordinate to the authority of the parts; it would have seen a monster, in which the head was under the direction of the members..."

Now, if the Senator doesn't get it, I, having worked in Law Enforcement on both the State and Federal Level, will agree to move to Montana, and work with him on this.  I'm just sayin'...

BTW - I don't know any Montana songs...and I like this one

Oh, and this...

But wait...

...there's this:

The Syfy Channel's Fact or Faked show has started is second season...

Team Leader:  Former FBI Agent Ben Hansen

...many people don't appreciate Hansen's use of the title "Former FBI Agent."  I don't think it should bother them.  I think Former FBI Agent Ben Hansen will do well in Hollywood...

Delivery...

...when I was a kid, I delivered papers.  When I was a young adult, I delivered pizzas.  Now, I'm busy delivering Justice...

(trackers don't put themselves on...though, in the future...)

Holder on a Minute....

DOJ Weighs Supreme Court Challenge in GPS Surveillance Dispute


At issue - should the government be able to use an electronic device to track your whereabouts?  More specific to the case, should government agents be able to stick a GPS device (not the Garmin on your dash...) on your car without you knowing it, so that they can track you?
 
They can.  But, without an order from a judge? Don't we need an "impartial judge" from the Judicial Branch to check (or balance?) the Executive Branch's agents.
 
The Supreme Court of the United States has said yes, the government agents can do it, without a judge's approval.  Why?  Because a cop can follow you around - surveillance.  He can watch you with his eyes - if you are out in public. He has the same rights as any other individual.
 
But the cop doesn't have to use his eyes, he can use technology.  Your car, your highly regulated car...built to government standards, registered and titled by the government, traveling on roads built and monitored by the government, following strict governmental traffic laws...has a lower expectation of privacy when its subjected to so much regulation, and its out in public view.  So instead of watching you, the cop can put a device (on the outside) of your car, and watch his computer instead.  The Supreme Court has ruled so.
 
However, the District Court of Washington D.C. ruled differently.  So as it has stood since November, law enforcement in the District of D.C. - had to ask a judge.  Do judges say no to cops? No.  Part of the reasoning behind the Supreme Court's previous rulings. 
 
Also, any case in which a bad guy's car has a GPS on it, and it passes through the District of DC - you have to jump through some hoops, close one eye, and present your case to a committee.
 
Do you think cops should be able to do this? 
 
HOLD ON...That is not the point of the article.  The Department of Justice, under Attorney General Eric Holder, may not even put up a fight on this one. 
 
What side is he on?

2nd Times a Charm....

...or third, etc.

Florida Governor to Sign Teacher Merit Pay Legislation


The Bill was started by Republican Governor Jeb Bush, passed later in the Florida congress, but vetoed by Rino Governor Charlie Christ, after protests by unions and teachers.  This time, it passed 80-39 in the Florida State House and 26-12 in the Senate, and Republican Governor Rick Scott will sign it. 
 
Guess that the arguement from the left is? Guess!

Yup..."Democrats...said it has problems including the lack of funding source for the merit pay. They predicted that would lead either to tax increases or layoffs and reductions in the base pay."

No wait, that wasn't what you guessed.  Since when do Democrats care about where the funding comes from or tax increases - that's their bread and butter.

"It's amazing to me that the members in this chamber see no harm in paying those to whom they entrust the minds of their children a smaller wage than is paid to those to whom they entrust the plumbing care of their toilets," said Rep. Scott Randolph, D-Orlando.

Uh, one is a government job, the other is not - THEY DON'T GET THE DIFFERENCE, and these are the people setting the salaries?

Democratic Rep. Elaine Schwartz, though, said merit pay "is just a euphemism for killing unions" and part of a national movement to diminish public employees' collective bargaining rights. This process is a way of making unions useless in the school environment..."

There it is, that is more like what you probablly guessed. Again, they don't get it.  Yes we want public employees' collective bargaining rights diminished - they don't have to take those jobs.  Yes we want the unions useless in our schools - they have nothing to do with teaching.

The Source of All Goodness...

Amid Protest, Florida School Stands Behind Tough New Peanut Allergy Regulations

...I went to school.  For 16 years.  I don't remember any kids not being able to eat peanuts.  I remember I did want to buy the school lunch when it read "...and peanut butter pie."  I remember alot of kids eating peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.  I remember choosy mom's choosing Jif.

This whole peanut allergy thing sounds made up.  Until you talk to somebody who thinks their child may die if they smell peanuts. 

How did this come about?  Is there a conspiracy to be uncovered in the legume industry?

I don't know.  I will admit, that until I am physically effected by something, I usually have doubts...even though I have a very low pain threshold.  I have a low tolerance for pain.  I won't tolerate it.  Especially when other people are whining on and on about it.

But you anti-peanutites...I really have doubts.  Not that people are allergic to peanuts, but how many are, and how severe each case is.

Are the dangers of childhood food allergy exaggerated?

"The Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (who, by-the-way make money off of allergies - I'm just sayin'...) estimates that peanut allergy is the most common cause of food-related death. However, there is an increasing body of medical opinion that, while there definitely are food sensitivities, the dramatic uptick in frequency of nut allergies and more particularly the measures taken in response to the threat show elements of mass psychogenic illness, hysterical reactions grossly out of proportion to the level of danger: "Dr. Christakis points out that about 3.3 million Americans are allergic to nuts, and even more — 6.9 million — are allergic to seafood. But of 30 million hospitalizations each year, just 2,000 are due to food allergies, and about 150 people die annually from serious allergic food reactions. That’s the same number of people killed by bee stings and lightning strikes combined. About 10,000 children are hospitalized annually with traumatic brain injuries from sports, 2,000 children drown each year, and about 1,300 die in gun accidents, he writes." Media sensationalism has also been blamed."

Leave it to the MSM to try and thwart the people's access to the Source of All Goodness....peanut butter.

George Washington Carver

Why Not?

These are the headlines today:

CNN - Wisconsin State Assembly passes bill that curtails the bargaining rights of most state workers.


MSNBC - Wisconsin anti-union bill passes final test


FOX - Wis. State Assembly Approves Bill Stripping Unions' Collective Bargaining Rights

Why not...

Wisconsin Senate Passes Cost Saving Bill


Wisconsin Law Allows State Employees More Rights Than Federal Employees

Despite Mob Removed by Police, Assembly AND Senate Pass Bill

Contract With America...

...no wait, that's taken.  But I was thinking.  Actually reading.  It was an email that I received, several times over the last couple years.  The beginning is different this time, but it ends the same.  It has to have gone around the Internet a few times, and somebody changes it, and it goes around a few more.  But it got me thinking. 

This time, the email was titled Congressional Reform Act. I don't see a member of Congress proposing it.  But a Presidential Candidate could run on it (unlikely), or, a President could push it after being elected (still unlikely, but a possibility).

Among the things I liked:

Term Limits - I've heard the argument against, and I don't buy it.

No Pension - get term limits and you've pretty much taken care of this one.

Pay raises tied to inflation - they do need pay, otherwise normal folk won't run.

No special medical - make they pay for the same plan other government employees pay for.  And make it against the law for a government employee staffer to do anything, ANYTHING, in assisting with this.  Once they find out how hard it is to figure your plan out, see a doctor, change plans, etc., they would work to fix it. (Ohio, Aetna HMO, for a family, Federal Government employee pays 25% of the cost - take that Wisconsin State employees)
The argument often heard from the left for the nonsense in Wisconsin is that they were promised something - the right to negotiate for their salaries, and for their benefits.  The argument some on the right make is that when the unions negotiate with the left...there is no negotiation.  The union votes left, the left votes union pay and benefits.

The American people did not make past contracts with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.

These clowns in Washington (Republicans included) are asking us to sacrifice.  I'm ready - for them to lead!

Members of Congress did not receive a salary until 1855.  It hasn't always been this way.  It CAN change.

Shhhhhut Up!

Court Clears Delaware Cinema of Racial Bias in Telling Black Patrons to Stay Quiet

A movie theatre manager made an announcement to the movie going audience to silence their cell phones, and remain quiet while the movie played.  Immediately, a patron informed the manager that he did not like the way the manager said it (manager-white, patron-black).  Immediately, the manager apologized to the audience and stated it was standard, as the theater was packed.
 
A woman in the audience informed the other patrons that indeed the comments were racist, and that she represented an attorney.  She collected contact information from people who felt offended.
 
She was not an attorney, she did not represent one.  She was the director of the Human Relations Commission for the State of Delaware.  She filed a complaint with her own commission, and the State of Delaware Human Relations Commission had a hearing.
 
***PAUSE***
 
Clearly, if the State of Delaware wants to do this, have at it.  But DOES the State of Delaware want this happening.  Tax Payer funded employees on this commission, are hearing a case where a movie theater manager asked people to be quiet.  We all know you CAN'T shout 'FIRE'! in a crowded movie theatre, but can you tell people to be quiet?
 
***RE-START***
 
The Human Relations Commission...despite the theater company's testimony that the announcement was standard at packed showings, and two witnesses who stated they were not offended...ruled that it was racist, and ordered the theater to pay almost $80,000 to the black people who attended the movie.
 
The Supreme Court of Delaware overruled the verdict.
 
My first take - get rid of this commission, after their budget covers all the expenses of the movie theater, ban the commission members from ever holding public office, or receiving a government paycheck again. 
 
My second take - the theater needs to fire their lawyer.  How could you lose that?
 
Google
 
Blacks and Talking in Movies (I actually found this topic on this post completely entertaining, and non-politically correct.  As several pointed out, if you want to enjoy the movie alone and in quiet, rent it.  If you want to see a good show, and be entertained, go with a predominantly black audience - its interactive).