Archive for June 2009
It’s been a little over 5 months since Obama took office. Now that he’s approaching half a year as our commander-in-chief, I feel as if we can begin to judge his actions thus far and project his future measures. I have been met with much dissent upon my criticism of Obama, usually from his supporters who claim I shouldn’t expect him to solve all of our problems within a few measly months. For those who use this excuse, I would like to point out that this type of argument is a red herring that would be very characteristic of the typical Bush supporter.
I am, of course, not expecting him to fix all of our country’s problems within 6 months. To be honest, judging by his rhetoric and campaign promises, I never expected Obama to fix anything. However, very complex problems, such as the ailing economy, aside, we can begin to evaluate Obama based on the approaches he has been taking compared with his promises.
The Washington Post is reporting that the White House, worried about Congress curtailing efforts to close Guantanamo, is trying to drum up support for a reassertion of an executive order that would once again give the president the authority to incarcerate “terrorist suspects” indefinitely.
Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. Obama advisers are concerned that an order, which would bypass Congress, could place the president on weaker footing before the courts and anger key supporters, the officials said.
As Glenn Greenwald points out, this Washington Post article is only calling attention to a policy still being considered and is unable to point out specifics. However, gathering information from Obama’s speech he hypocritically gave in front of the original US Constitution, we already know he wants a preventative detention system put in place giving him the authority to hold prisoners indefinitely without charges. It’s a sad situation when the American people must now choose the lesser evil of the government’s law breaking. Is it better for the president to break the law himself through executive order, or use Congress to do it?
Due to the negative press the US has gotten over its military reports concerning the air strikes in the Farah Province in Afghanistan and their “possible” murder of 86 innocent civilians, General McChrystal has issued a tough new order for his troops: don’t fight so close to innocent people.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who took command of international forces in Afghanistan this month, has said his measure of effectiveness will be the “number of Afghans shielded from violence,” and not the number of militants killed.
Of course, the problem could be the simple ignorance of the rules of engagement with total impunity. However, It seems Gen. McChrystal may be on to something. Perhaps, his new goal of low civilian exposure to violence will be best achieved by simply leaving Afghanistan. I believe then the civilians there would be under no threat of violence from US forces whatsoever. You want less violence and less death Gen. McChrystal? How about stop bombing (and torturing) the world.
So evidently Ron Paul makes an appearance in Sacha Baron Cohen’s new movie, Bruno. The movie is about a gay Austrian fashion commentator. In the movie, Bruno drops his pants in front of Dr. Paul during an interview. Of course, Dr. Paul very quickly storms off the set.
I’m not sure why Cohen picked Ron Paul. Possibly having to do with Austrian economics (seeing as how Bruno is supposedly Austrian), which Ron Paul thought the interview was going to be about. But who knows, even though the scene is rather disrespectful and seems to make a mockery of the serious nature of Dr. Paul’s ideals, it might help with exposure. I guess it just depends on what lengths you’re willing to go for publicity.
John Stossel reveals a few myths about universal healthcare in other countries.
What do Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire all have in common? In the midst of such nationwide uproar, each of these states has passed laws legalizing same-sex marriage. Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire are not currently allowing it within their state, but they have passed legislation putting a date on when the marriages can legally begin to be performed. So what is Mississippi to do about the issue of same-sex marriage?
Well, we have a few options. Either we can repeat our hardened stance against allowing equal rights towards people who are perceived as different, or we can be the first southern state to allow the practice. Mississippi has some bad history when it comes to issues such as this. Our state was definitely a huge obstacle in the civil rights era. Our very own campus played a major role in the movement. Looking back on it now, aren’t we still ashamed of the violence shown towards a black man who simply wanted an education?
In his article for the Daily Times, Brian Cloughley argues that the sanctions the US uses to try and put an end to nuclear ambitions from “rogue” nations only succeeds in punishing the already destitute civilian population of the targeted country. However, the leaders of those countries continue to ride high with lifestyles MTV Cribs should consider for their next episode.
[Sanctions] penalise the poor, and not their leaders. One only has to look at the appalling situation in Zimbabwe, where President Mugabe, a corrupt and brutal dictator, is disgustingly rich (as are his evil henchmen), while the majority of citizens are starving.
Cloughley also argues that the US is extremely fickle in its implementation of sanctions. While Madeleine Albright says the benefits received from US sanctions are worth the deaths of half a million Iraqi children, Washington is quick to remove them when they are need of help from our not-so-fortunate Middle Eastern “allies.” Cloughley uses the US’s on-again-off-again sanction policy toward Pakistan to explain this concept: as Pakistan’s assistance is needed in US foreign policy blunders, sanctions are conveniently lifted. However, when Pakistan’s usefulness has run out, sanctions are quickly reapplied.
As of today, Ron Paul‘s Federal Reserve Transparency Bill has received its 222nd co-sponsor. It only takes 218 to pass, so presumably the bill should pass the House. We now need to work on the Senate.
The idea that the Fed should continue to operate in complete secrecy is baffling. Consider this: Big Government and Big Business enjoy an incestuous relationship….The Chairman of the Fed can (and does) expand the money supply at will…. The Fed rigs the banking industry……all in secret. Congress literally is not entitled to demand information. It’s hard to imagine something more inimical to republican government.
218 is a majority!
HR 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, is Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve.
“…Federal Reserve, you have a lot of power, you have too much power, you’re spending a lot of money, we have no idea what you’re doing. We and the Congress have a responsibility to know exactly what you’re doing. This bill, HR 1207, will allow us once and for all, to have some supervision of the Federal Reserve.”
-Congressman Ron Paul
To learn more, watch this video:
And check out this website.
HR 1207 is now in the House Committee on Financial Services. This is THE MOST IMPORTANT STEP in this legislation! If it doesn’t get out of committee it will not come to a vote! There are 71 members on this committee and they are all listed below. Read the rest of this entry »