Police in Schools? Republican or Democrat? Big government or ... big government?

I almost missed this one, but I'm glad I didn't.  Did you hear what Mark Meadows, Republican congressman from Western North Carolina, had to say last month?  Read on, but as you do I want you to ask yourself if you can discern any sign, anything at all, that would lead you to believe that Republicans support small government.

From the Asheville Citizen-Times:

"Meadows calls for more police in schools" by Jon Ostendorff

http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20130216/NEWS/302160035

ASHEVILLE — U.S. Rep. Mark Meadows on Friday asked the federal government to divert money to help pay for more police in schools in the wake of the massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

The freshman Republican from Western North Carolina wants to take $30 million annually in unspent money from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and use it to fund the Cops in Schools grant program.

Meadows said the idea came from the district and has support of local law enforcement and some school leaders.

Great, so government officials want MORE money.  What a surprise.  Another tragedy is used to increase the size of government.

The National Rifle Association in December called for placing armed police officers in all schools after a gunman killed 20 first-graders and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

The NRA simple doesn't get it, either.

During the primary race, Meadows told a tea party group he would not accept federal grants. In an interview months later, he said he was not against all grants and would pursue them for law enforcement and first responders.

I'm SHOCKED.  A politician who lied?  Shocked, I say.

On Friday, he said he was for limited government but this bill was more along the lines of setting spending priorities as opposed to increasing the government’s role.

Bullshit.  What a scumbag liar--a politician, in other words.

Chris Cooper, a political scientist at Western Carolina University, said conservatives likely won’t oppose the new grants. They don’t require a tax increase, he noted.
“I think they will love it,” he said.

I had to hold my nose while reading this paragraph.  Shows you what university professors know.  True conservatives will oppose such new grants.  It is those who claim to be conservative, but aren't, who will love these grants.  And all this money comes from taxes.

From BlueRidgeNow.com:

"Meadows: Cops in Schools bill has bipartisan appeal" by Nathaniel Axtell

http://www.blueridgenow.com/article/20130219/ARTICLES/130219789

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats shouldn't oppose U.S. Rep. Mark Meadows' NRA-backed bill to place more cops in schools, the Republican congressman said Tuesday, since they supported it during the Clinton years. 

“Nancy Pelosi's district was the first one to receive money from this program,” Meadows said Tuesday, describing how he sought to give the bill he introduced Feb. 15 bipartisan appeal. “We did that on purpose. She's going to be hard-pressed to oppose it.” 

The Protect America's Schools Act would resurrect the “Cops in Schools” program started by President Bill Clinton in 1998. The program was cut in 2005 after placing more than 6,500 police officers in schools.

I want you to think about those paragraphs for a moment.  THIS is what big government is.  The constant increase in the size of government, because neither side realizes that the other side can simply use the structures of big government to their own ends when in power.  You have to oppose all such spending because sooner or later the other side will be in power, and they WILL use it for purposes other than what you intended.  Just because Republicans and the NRA support this bill shouldn't make it any more acceptable to so-called fiscal conservatives who claim to want smaller government.

And in Meadows' own words, from Politico.com:

"A common-sense approach for protecting our schools" by Rep. Mark Meadows

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/a-common-sense-approach-for-protecting-our-schools-88526.html

In the wake of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School and many just like it, it is time for Congress to take action. As a legislator, I was elected to make the tough decisions and produce solutions to the problems facing our country.

Blah, blah, blah.  Look at me, the big congressman.  I'm important.

According to a recent Gallup Poll, 53 percent of Americans believe that increasing police presence at schools would be very effective in preventing tragedies. I agree with this stance, which is why I have introduced H.R. 751, the Protect America’s Schools Act.

Well, that just proves that 53 percent of Americans (probably more, actually) are stupid.

This measure would revitalize the Cops in Schools grant program, which has not been funded since fiscal 2005, and fund it at $30 million annually. The CIS program is specifically designed to assist local law enforcement agencies in the hiring of officers with the primary goal of policing and providing education to our schools.

Maybe we should spend even more money, and put police officers in every house.  Wait, no, not every house.  Just those with kids.

While I believe it is absolutely critical to provide funding for this program, Congress cannot ignore our nation’s $16.7 trillion debt. Under the Protect America’s Schools Act, the $30 million to pay for this critical grant program would be offset by taking unspent funds from the operations budget of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Last year, the House voted to fund NOAA at $4.9 billion, and I believe this agency can spare $30 million to assist in the protection of our nation’s children.

Yeah, they can spare $30 million ... and return it to taxpayers.  Not waste it on another stupid government program.

The Protect America’s Schools Act is a bipartisan, solutions-oriented approach to addressing school shootings that should transcend party lines. More than 14 years ago, President Bill Clinton announced the then $60 million grant program, which was included in the Department of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. After the 1999 Columbine High School shooting, Clinton’s support for the program only grew, as did the support of many Democrat lawmakers.

Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s district was one of the first to receive funding from the program. And in 2004, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) praised the program, saying, “Getting more police officers on school grounds will go a long way toward making sure our kids stay out of harm’s way.” Even anti-gun activist Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) stated in 2007 that it was “probably one of the best programs I have seen in my underserved schools.”

As mentioned above, be careful.  The programs you approve now will only cause government to grow, and be used for things you never imagined in the future.

I encourage lawmakers from both sides of the aisle to endorse this common-sense legislation. The Protect America’s Schools Act is not the only answer, but it is a positive step forward in preventing tragedies. Keeping our children safe is not only an area where both political parties can find common ground, but as lawmakers, it is our moral obligation.

Yeah, of course they'll agree.  Because legislators from both sides of the aisle favor large government.  Excuse me, I think I need to barf.

The right solution is to let teachers carry concealed weapons, if they choose.  Just as a robber fears to enter any house, because he's not sure which house has armed occupants, a criminal intent on harming children wouldn't be sure which school might have armed teachers.  Re-read my blog post, Gun Control, from January 2, 2013, which quoted extensively from this article from Monster Hunter Nation:

"An opinion on gun control" by Larry Correia
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

Honestly, what the hell is the difference between Democrats and Republicans anymore?  Do they have any principles at all?

Issues like this separate the men from the boys.  These issues demonstrate whether you have firm principles about government or whether you simply want large government--but only for the things that you like.  I have principles.  Republicans, and the NRA, do not.

There is a role for government.  Spending more and installing a police state is NOT it.  Putting police officers in all schools won't solve the problem.  Criminal wackos who want to hurt kids will just attack amusement parks or daycare centers or any other place there are kids.

Let teachers carry guns.  Don't make schools target zones (otherwise erroneously known as gun-free zones).  Don't fall victim to thinking that larger government will solve this, because it won't.  It will slowly erode both our freedom and our strength.

There is no role for the federal government to do this.  If you think this is a good idea, you should really be advocating for a smaller federal government and lower taxes, and pushing for such solutions at the state or local level.

Song of the Day: Dragonette - Run, Run, Run

Did you ever feel like you just needed somewhere to run?
"Dragonette - Run Run Run (Official Video)" from DragonetteBand
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMa_mMTyZGw

What can I say?  I love the mood of that song.

And then at other times you just need to let it go?

"Dragonette - Let it Go (Official Video)" from DragonetteBand
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KsPIJK17uk

"We don't need a cure for the weight of the world."

I had a chance to see Dragonette play in Atlanta a little over a week ago.  They opened for Major Lazer, whoever he is.  Show was at 9p at The Masquerade.  But Dragonette didn't hit the stage until 11p.  They only played until 11:45p.  Nonetheless, I enjoyed it.  They broke into a little "Time After Time," a song I love, during "Pick Up the Phone," another song I love.  Fantastic.  Glad they came to Atlanta.

Stale and Moss-Covered

Amen, Rand Paul.  This is exactly what I'm seeing here in Cobb County, Georgia.  Gotta support the old guard, the good old boy network, as they ignore all small government principles.

From RealClearPolitics:

"Rand Paul: 'The GOP Of Old Has Grown Stale And Moss-Covered'"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/03/14/rand_paul_the_gop_of_old_has_grown_stale_and_moss-covered.html

SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): The GOP of old has grown stale and moss-covered. I don't think we need to name any names, do we? Our party is encumbered by an inconsistent approach to freedom. The new GOP will need to embrace liberty in both the economic and the personal sphere. If we're going to have a Republican party that can win, liberty needs to be the backbone of the GOP. We must have a message that is broad, our vision must be broad, and that vision must be based on freedom.

There are millions of Americans, young and old, native and immigrant, black, white and brown, who simply seek to live free, to practice a religion, free to choose where their kids go to school, free to choose their own health care, free to keep the fruits of their labor, free to live without government constantly being on their back. I will stand for them. I will stand for you. I will stand for our prosperity and our freedom, and I ask everyone who values liberty to stand with me. Thank you. God bless America.

Based on freedom.  AMEN.

And from the Washington Times:

"CPAC 2013: Youth-favorite Rand Paul chastises ‘stale and moss-covered’ GOP" by David Sherfinski and Seth McLaughlin

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/14/cpac-2013-rand-paul-gop-old-has-grown-stale-and-mo/

Fresh off his filibuster that captured the hearts of libertarian conservatives, Sen. Rand Paul told attendees Thursday at the Conservative Political Action Conference that the Republican Party has become “stale” and must return to basic constitutional principles if it wants to ignite a political revolution.

“The GOP of old has grown stale and moss-covered,” Mr. Paul said. “The new GOP, the GOP that will win again, will need to embrace liberty in both the economic and personal sphere. If we are going to have a Republican Party that can win, liberty needs to be the backbone of the GOP.” 

It all comes down to the fundamental principle of liberty.  And liberty cannot flourish under big government.

But Mr. Paul, who impressed senators on both sides of the aisle with his recent information-seeking filibuster over the Obama administration’s policy on drone strikes, appeared to have the most enthusiastic support in attendance.

“I came with a message — a message for the president,” he said. “A message that is loud and clear. A message that doesn’t mince words.”

“Don’t drone me, bro!” shouted one audience member. 

“Well,” Mr. Paul said with a laugh, “that’s not exactly what I was thinking. However, I think he might have distilled my 13-hour speech into three words.”

I think that audience member NAILED IT!   :)

The Chart That Proves That The Mainstream Media Is Lying To You About Unemployment

We're in a recovery, right?  The unemployment rate is going down, right?  Wrong.  The media are (yes, I prefer the Latin usage) lying to you.

From The Economic Collapse Blog:

"The Chart That Proves That The Mainstream Media Is Lying To You About Unemployment" by Michael

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/the-chart-that-proves-that-the-mainstream-media-is-lying-to-you-about-unemployment

The mainstream media is absolutely giddy that the U.S. unemployment rate has hit a "four-year low" of 7.7 percent.  But is unemployment in the United States actually going down?  After all, you would think that it should be.  The Obama administration has "borrowed" more than 6 trillion dollars from future generations of Americans, interest rates have been pushed to all-time lows, and the Federal Reserve has been wildly printing more money in a desperate attempt to "stimulate" the economy.  So have those efforts been successful?  Well, according to the mainstream media, the U.S. unemployment rate is falling steadily.  Headlines all over the nation boldly declared that "236,000 jobs" were added to the economy in February, but what they didn't tell you was that the number of Americans "not in the labor force" rose by 296,000.  And that is how they are getting the unemployment rate to go down - by pretending that huge numbers of unemployed Americans don't want jobs.  Sadly, as you will see below, the truth is that the percentage of working age Americans that have a job is just 0.1% higher than it was exactly three years ago.  And we have not even come close to getting back to where we were before the last economic crisis.  For example, more than 146 million Americans were employed back in 2007.  But today, only 142.2 million Americans have a job even though our population has grown steadily since then.  So where in the world is this "economic recovery" that they keep talking about?

At this point, the "unemployment rate" has become so meaningless that it really isn't even worth paying much attention to.  If you really want to know what the employment picture looks like in the United States, you need to look at the employment-population ratio.

...the percentage of Americans with a job fell from about 63 percent to below 59 percent during the last economic crisis.  Since that time, it has not risen back above 59 percent.  This is the first time in the post-World War II era that we have not seen the employment rate bounce back following a recession.  At this point, the employment-population ratio has been below 59 percent for 42 months in a row.

Just consider these numbers...
-The number of homeless people sleeping in homeless shelters in New York City has increased by 19 percent over the past year.
-The number of Americans on food stamps has risen from 32 million to 47 million while Barack Obama has been in the White House.
-According to the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 146 million Americans are either "poor" or "low income" at this point.
-Median household income in the United States has fallen for four consecutive years.
No, the truth is that everything is most definitely not fine.
If everything is fine, then why did the Federal Reserve inject another 100 billion dollars into foreign banks during the last full week of February?

Bottom line: You can't trust a word that our government tells us.  They are only interested in propping themselves up to stay in power.  Nothing more.

Rand Paul's Filibuster, and Democratic Myths

By now you've heard of Rand Paul's old-fashioned (he actually took the floor of the Senate and talked) filibuster a week or two ago.  Paul asked perfectly reasonable questions, and the Obama administration (the most transparent in history, according to its supporters) didn't answer.  So he filibustered the nomination of John O. Brennan to lead the CIA.

I found one of the best interpretations of what this all means on The Guardian's site.

"Three Democratic myths used to demean the Paul filibuster" by Glenn Greenwald

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/10/paul-filibuster-drones-progressives

I'd like to just select a few key quotes, but the whole article is packed with good points.  Consider this, then, a slight trimming of the article, paring it down to the essentials..

Commencing immediately upon the 9/11 attack, the US government under two successive administrations has spent 12 straight years inventing and implementing new theories of government power in the name of Terrorism. Literally every year since 9/11 has ushered in increased authorities of exactly the type Americans are inculcated to believe only exist in those Other, Non-Free societies: ubiquitous surveillance, impenetrable secrecy, and the power to imprison and even kill without charges or due process. Even as the 9/11 attack recedes into the distant past, the US government still finds ways continuously to increase its powers in the name of Terrorism while virtually never relinquishing any of the power it acquires. So inexorable has this process been that the Obama administration has already exercised the power to target even its own citizens for execution far from any battlefield, and the process has now arrived at its inevitable destination: does this due-process-free execution power extend to US soil as well?

Last week's 13-hour filibuster of John Brennan's confirmation as CIA director by GOP Sen. Rand Paul was one of the first - and, from the perspective of media attention, easily among the most effective -Congressional efforts to dramatize and oppose just how radical these Terrorism-justified powers have become.

All of this put Democrats - who spent eight years flamboyantly pretending to be champions of due process and opponents of mass secrecy and executive power abuses - in a very uncomfortable position. The politician who took such a unique stand in defense of these principles was not merely a Republican but a leading member of its dreaded Tea Party wing, while the actor most responsible for the extremist theories of power being protested was their own beloved leader and his political party.

All of those Democratic Senators other than Merkley and Leahy (and Sanders) voted to confirm the torture-advocating, secrecy-loving, drone-embracing Brennan as CIA chief.

Meanwhile, a large bulk of the Democratic and liberal commentariat ... degraded all of the weighty issues raised by this episode by processing it through their stunted, trivial prism of partisan loyalty. They thus dutifully devoted themselves to reading from the only script they know: Democrats Good, GOP Bad.

To accomplish that, most avoided full-throated defenses of drones and the power of the president to secretly order US citizens executed without due process or transparency. They prefer to ignore the fact that the politician they most deeply admire is a devoted defender of those policies. After stumbling around for a few days in search of a tactic to convert this episode into an attack on the GOP and distract from Obama's extremism, they collectively settled on personalizing the conflict by focusing on Rand Paul's flaws as a person and a politician and, in particular, mocking his concerns as "paranoia" (that attack was echoed, among others, by the war-cheering Washington Post editorial page).

Besides, they claim, Attorney General Eric Holder has now made crystal clear that Obama lacks the authority to target US citizens on US soil for execution by drone, so all of Paul's concerns are nothing more than wild conspiracies.

The reality is that Paul was doing nothing more than voicing concerns that have long been voiced by leading civil liberties groups such as the ACLU. Indeed, the ACLU lavishly praised Paul, saying that "as a result of Sen. Paul's historic filibuster, civil liberties got two wins". In particular, said the ACLU, "Americans learned about the breathtakingly broad claims of executive authority undergirding the Obama administration's vast killing program."

But almost without exception, progressives who defend Obama's Terrorism policies steadfastly ignore the fact that they are embracing policies that are vehemently denounced by the ACLU. That's because they like to tell themselves that only Big, Bad Republicans attack the ACLU...  It's remarkable indeed how frequently, in the Age of Obama, standard partisan Democrats embrace exactly the policies identified by the ACLU as the most menacing.

I want to highlight three key points from all of this, centered around myths propagated by Democrats to demean Paul's filibuster and the concerns raised by it:

(1) Progressives and their "empathy gap"

The US government's continuous killing, due-process-free imprisonment, and other rights abuses under the War on Terror banner has affected one group far more than any other: Muslims and, increasingly, American Muslims. Politically, this has been the key fact enabling this to endure. Put simply, if you're not Muslim, it's very easy to dismiss, minimize or mock these issues because you can easily tell yourself that they don't affect you or your family and therefore there is no reason to care. And since the vast, vast majority of Democratic politicians and progressive media commentators are not Muslim, one continuously sees this mentality shaping reaction to these issues.

When you combine what Teju Cole describes as this selfish "empathy gap" among progressives with the authoritarian strain in American liberalism that worships political power and reveres political institutions (especially when their party controls them), it's unsurprising that they are so callous and dismissive of these issues (I'm not talking about those who pay little attention to these issues - there are lots of significant issues and one can only pay attention to a finite number - but rather those who affirmatively dismiss their significance or rationalize these policies). As Amy Goodman wrote in the Guardian: "Senator Paul's outrage with the president's claimed right to kill US citizens is entirely appropriate. That there is not more outrage at the thousands killed around the globe is shameful … and dangerous."

For a political faction that loves to depict itself as the champions of "empathy", and which reflexively accuses others of having their political beliefs shaped by self-interest, this is an ironic fact indeed. It's also the central dynamic driving the politics of these issues: the US government and media collaborate to keep the victims of these abuses largely invisible, so we rarely have to confront them, and on those rare occasions when we do, we can easily tell ourselves (false though the assurance is) that these abuses do not affect us and our families and it's therefore only "paranoia" that can explain why someone might care so much about them.

This is a common theme among Democrats and other progressives.  Their standards change radically depending on whether they are personally affected.  For example, gay marriage and women's rights are so important to them ... here on U.S. soil.  But not when oppressive regimes overseas trample those rights.  Or, to name another example, when they sell guns to Mexican drug cartels and see those guns kill teenagers in Mexico.  Again, doesn't affect us personally, and who cares about Mexicans anyway?  Hypocrites.

(2) Whether domestic assassinations are imminent is irrelevant to the debate

The primary means of mocking Paul's concerns was to deride the notion that Obama is about to unleash drone attacks and death squads on US soil aimed at Americans. But nobody, including Paul, suggested that was the case. To focus on that attack is an absurd strawman, a deliberate distraction from the real issues, a total irrelevancy. That's true for two primary reasons.

First, the reason this question matters so much - can the President target US citizens for assassination without due process on US soil? - is because it demonstrates just how radical the Obama administration's theories of executive power are. Once you embrace the premises of everything they do in this area - we are a Nation at War; the entire globe is the battlefield; the president is vested with the unchecked power to use force against anyone he accuses of involvement with Terrorism - then there is no cogent, coherent way to say that the president lacks the power to assassinate even US citizens on US soil. That conclusion is the necessary, logical outcome of the premises that have been embraced. That's why it is so vital to ask that.

Once you embrace the US government's War on Terror framework, then there is no cogent legal argument for limiting the assassination power to foreign soil. If the Globe is a Battlefield, then that, by definition, obviously includes the US.

Second, presidents change, and so do circumstances. The belief that Barack Obama - despite his record - is too kind, too good, too magnanimous, too responsible to target US citizens for assassination on US soil is entirely irrelevant. At some point, there will be another president, even a Republican one, who will inherit the theories he embraces. Moreover, circumstances can change rapidly, so that - just as happened with 9/11 - what seems unthinkable quickly becomes not only possible but normalized.

That's why it is always the tactic of governments that seek to abuse power to select the most marginalized and easily demonized targets in the first instance (Anwar Awlaki): because they know that once the citizenry cheers for that power on the ground that they dislike the target, the power then becomes institutionalized and impossible to resist when it expands outward, as it always does.

That's what Thomas Jefferson meant when he wrote: "In questions of power . . . let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." It's also what Frederick Douglass meant when he warned:

Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them."

Human nature means that once you vest a power in political leaders, once you acquiesce to radical theories, that power will inevitably be abused. The time to object - the only effective time - is when that power theory first takes root, not later when it is finally widespread.

Great quotes, and great warnings from our forefathers.

(3) Holder did not disclaim the power to assassinate on US soil

Defenders of the Obama administration now insist that this entire controversy has been resolved by a letter written to Paul by Attorney General Eric Holder, in which Holder wrote: "It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: '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." Despite Paul's declaration of victory, this carefully crafted statement tells us almost nothing about the actual controversy.

As Law Professor Ryan Goodman wrote yesterday in the New York Times, "the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, has acted with an overly broad definition of what it means to be engaged in combat." That phrase - "engaged in combat" - does not only include people who are engaged in violence at the time you detain or kill them. It includes a huge array of people who we would not normally think of, using common language, as being "engaged in combat".

Indeed, the whole point of the Paul filibuster was to ask whether the Obama administration believes that it has the power to target a US citizen for assassination on US soil the way it did to Anwar Awlaki in Yemen. The Awlaki assassination was justified on the ground that Awlaki was a "combatant", that he was "engaged in combat", even though he was killed not while making bombs or shooting at anyone but after he had left a cafe where he had breakfast. If the Obama administration believes that Awlaki was "engaged in combat" at the time he was killed - and it clearly does - then Holder's letter is meaningless at best, and menacing at worst, because that standard is so broad as to vest the president with exactly the power his supporters now insist he disclaimed.

The phrase "engaged in combat" has come to mean little more than: anyone the President accuses, in secrecy and with no due process, of supporting a Terrorist group. Indeed, radically broad definitions of "enemy combatant" have been at the heart of every War on Terror policy, from Guantanamo to CIA black sites to torture. As Professor Goodman wrote:

"By declining to specify what it means to be 'engaged in combat' the letter does not foreclose the possible scenario - however hypothetical - of a military drone strike, against a United States citizen, on American soil. It also raises anew questions about the standards the administration has used in deciding to use drone strikes to kill Americans suspected of terrorist involvement overseas . . .

"The Obama administration's continued refusal to do so should alarm any American concerned about the constitutional right of our citizens - no matter what evil they may or may not be engaged in - to due process under the law. For those Americans, Mr. Holder's seemingly simple but maddeningly vague letter offers no reassurance."

Indeed, as both Law Professor Kevin Jon Heller and Marcy Wheeler noted, Holder, by deleting the word "actively" from Paul's question (can you kill someone not "actively engaged in combat"?), raised more questions than he answered. As Professor Heller wrote:

"'Engaged in combat' seems like a much broader standard than 'senior operational leader'. which the recently disclosed White Paper described as a necessary condition of killing an American citizen overseas. Does that mean the President can kill an American citizen inside the US who is a lower-ranking member of al-Qaeda or an associated force? . . . .

"What does 'engaged in combat' mean? That is a particularly important question, given that Holder did not restrict killing an American inside the US to senior operational leaders and deleted 'actively' from Paul's question. Does 'engaging' require participation in planning or executing a terrorist attack? Does any kind of direct participation in hostilities qualify? Do acts short of direct participation in hostilities - such as financing terrorism or propagandizing - qualify? Is mere membership, however loosely defined by the US, enough?"

Particularly since the Obama administration continues to conceal the legal memos defining its claimed powers - memos we would need to read to understand what it means by "engaged in combat" - the Holder letter should exacerbate concerns, not resolve them. As Digby, comparing Bush and Obama legal language on these issues, wrote yesterday about Holder's letter: "It's fair to say that these odd phrasings and very particular choices of words are not an accident and anyone with common sense can tell instantly that by being so precise, they are hiding something."

At best, Holder's letter begs the question: what do you mean when you accuse someone of being "engaged in combat"? And what are the exact limits of your power to target US citizens for execution without due process? That these questions even need to be asked underscores how urgently needed Paul's filibuster was, and how much more serious pushback is still merited. But the primary obstacle to this effort has been, and remains, that the Democrats who spent all that time parading around as champions of these political values are now at the head of the line leading the war against them.

More weasel words from the scum that occupies the Attorney General position.  Did you expect anything different?

Incidentally, you also saw the fallout within the Republican Party, right?  You can see where RINOs like McCain and Graham truly stand--they want more and bigger government, without a care in the world for our rights.  Or for winning elections, for that matter.  You know how I feel about the likes of them--no respect at all.  I stand with Rand.