Categories

Archive for the ‘Fourth Amendment’ Category

Those of us old enough to recall Richard Nixon’s time in office know that he didn’t respect the Constitution, especially the Fourth Amendment. That wasn’t the only way he broke the law but it’s certainly the most famous. That being said, this president is the greatest scofflaw-in-chief in American history because he just doesn’t care about the Constitution or the Supreme Court.

Even liberal constitutional law professors like Jonathan Turley are noticing:

The unanimous decision of the Supreme Court late last month that President Obama violated the separation of powers in appointing officials is the type of decision that usually concentrates the mind of a chief executive. Obama, however, appeared to double down on his strategy — stating in a Rose Garden speech on Tuesday that he intended to expand, not reduce, his use of unilateral actions to circumvent Congress. Summing up his position, the President threw down the gauntlet at Congress: “So sue me.”

This is just the latest proof that this president doesn’t give a damn about the rule of law or the Constitution. Apparently, he thinks he’s America’s king. Institutions like the Supreme Court and the Constitution don’t mean much to him.

Those things don’t mean much to Eric Holder, his Attorney General:

On June 26, in National Labor Relations Board v. Canning, all nine Justices ruled that President Obama’s “recess” appointments to the NLRB violated the Constitution.

Not only did Obama’s own judicial appointees vote against him (including his former solicitor general), but the majority opinion was written by Stephen Breyer, a liberal stalwart of the Court.

The Administration also lost United State v. Wurie, in which the Holder Justice Department claimed that the police and federal authorities did not need a search warrant to seize all of the information stored in the cellphone of someone who had been arrested.

Putting this in more schoolyard terms, the Obama administration and Eric Holder have gotten their butts kicked when facing the Supreme Court. The number of unanimous decisions that’ve gone against President Obama’s administration is the highest in history.

Let’s summarize these cases. In NLRB v. Noel Canning, President Obama, the CEO of the executive branch, argued that he, not the Senate Majority Leader, should determine when the Senate was in session. In US v. Wurie, Holder argued that the Fourth Amendment didn’t apply to cell phones. (That rationale escapes me entirely.) In both cases, the Supreme Court justices voted unanimously that “the constitutional scholar in the Oval Office” and his attorney general were wrong.

In fact, there have been 20 such cases during this administration — and even more if you include cases in which the administration filed an amicus brief, such as in McCullen v. Coakley, the free-speech case that was handed down the same day as the recess appointments case.

The Obama administration filed an amicus brief in that case supporting the Massachusetts law in question and helped argue the case before the Supreme Court.

But all nine justices found the Massachusetts law, which created a 35-foot “buffer” zone around abortion clinics, violated the First Amendment by restricting speech in public areas “that have historically been open to the public for speech activities.”

Here’s Dictionary.com’s definition of scofflaw:

a person who flouts the law, especially one who fails to pay fines owed.
a person who flouts rules, conventions, or accepted practices.

That definition fits President Obama perfectly. The constitutional law professor at George Washington University disagreed with the “constitutional scholar in the Oval Office”:

In our system, there is no license to go it alone. Rather, the Republic’s democratic architecture requires compromise. The process is designed to moderate legislation and create a broader consensus in support of these laws.

Nor is congressional refusal to act on a particular prescription of how to fix the economy or repair immigration laws an excuse. Sometimes the country (and by extension Congress) is divided.

When that happens, less gets done. The Framers understood such times. They lived in such a time.

Moderation isn’t this president’s hallmark. Apparently, ignoring the Constitution this president’s hallmark.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

David Shuster’s monthly op-ed seldom disappoints in terms of questionable thinking from a leftist perspective. This month’s op-ed is titled “Now corporations could have religious rights, too?” Here’s part of Mr. Shuster’s column:

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court gave corporations the individual right of free speech.

Energized by this success and the boundless loathing of the conservative movement for President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, for-profit companies are manipulating the judicial system for the right to practice a religion.

Like the Wizard bestowing a heart to the Tin Man, the court’s decision to hear two cases — Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius — may magically grant corporate America a religious conscience. Unlike the “Wizard of Oz,” this would not have a happy ending.

Independent voters, think about this before voting. In Mr. Shuster’s mind, the Supreme Court “gave” corporations the same right to influence elections as individuals have. It didn’t take long to find out that they didn’t give corporations anything. They clarified the fact that corporations had that right all along. Here’s the text of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There’s nothing in the First Amendment’s text that says it pertains exclusively to individuals. In fact, there is a reference in the text that protects an institution. Specifically, it says “the press” has the same rights as an individual.

That’s why it’s disheartening to hear Shuster talk about “magically grant[ing] corporate America” religious rights. In the eyes of the Constitution, there isn’t a difference between churches and the Little Sisters of the Poor and corporations run by people of faith. That’s because, like churches, corporations aren’t inanimate buildings. They’re groups of people.

I’ve used this argument repeatedly but it’s still pertinent. Does the Fourth Amendment protect only individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures or does it protect corporations, too? Thoughtful people wouldn’t dispute that corporations have the right to due process. Why should speech and religion pertain only to individuals?

Shuster makes the argument that incorporation creates a wall between a person’s assets and a corporation’s assets. I won’t dispute that. Material things, however, aren’t the same as God-given rights.

It isn’t exactly rare to see leftists misunderstand what the Constitution permits or limits. Still, this LTE shows the Left’s lack of understanding of the Constitution:

The Supreme Court decision called “Citizens United” is a gross misnomer. The court ruled corporations have the same rights as people when it comes to voting rights.

This decision allows corporations to spend millions of dollars to influence elections. This makes it virtually legal to buy elections.

The editorialist is right in that the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. the FEC decision said that corporations have the same right of free speech as citizens. That’s because corporations aren’t buildings. They’re a collection of citizens. As such, they have just as much right to expressing their political opinions as your next door neighbor.

The editorialist is wrong, however, in saying that corporations “have the same rights” as it pertains to “voting rights.” Corporations can’t vote. They can buy ad time to talk about the things that matter most to them. That isn’t the same as casting a vote.

Is this leftist going to argue that corporations aren’t protected by the Fourth Amendment just like a private citizen is protected by it? Where in the text of the First Amendment or the Fourth Amendment does it say that only individuals are protected by these constitutional amendments? Here’s the text of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Here’s the text of the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment at least mentions “people” being “secure in their persons.” The First Amendment doesn’t mention any limits to “people.” The fact that the text of the Fourth Amendment mentions “people” being “secure in their persons” hasn’t prevented the courts from rightly ruling that corporations and small businesses and nonprofits are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. Apparently, this LTE writer doesn’t grasp the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to everyone, not just individual citizens.

Technorati: , , , , , ,

A federal judge ruled that New York’s Stop, Question and Frisk program is unconstitutional:

U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled in the case of four men who say police unfairly targeted them because of their race. There have been about 5 million stops during the past decade, mostly of black and Hispanic men.

Scheindlin appointed an independent monitor to oversee changes to stop-and-frisk.

The New York Police Department deliberately violated the civil rights of tens of thousands of New Yorkers with its contentious stop-and-frisk policy, and an independent monitor is needed to oversee major changes, a federal judge ruled Monday in a stinging rebuke for what the mayor and police commissioner have defended as a life-saving, crime-fighting tool.

Mayor Bloomberg’s disdain for the Bill of Rights is apparent:

Mayor Michael Bloomberg is vowing to appeal a federal judge’s ruling that the New York Police Department violated the civil rights of tens of thousands of New Yorkers with its stop-and-frisk policy. Bloomberg said at a news conference Monday that the judge displayed a “disturbing disregard” for the “good intentions” of police officers.

The “good intentions” of New York’s police officers is irrelevant. This is relevant:

During the trial, Judge Scheindlin indicated her thinking when she noted that the majority of stops result in officers finding no wrong doing.

“A lot of people are being frisked or searched on suspicion of having a gun and nobody has a gun,” she said. Only 0.14 percent of stops have led to police finding guns. “So the point is suspicion turns out to be wrong in most cases.”

By every definition imaginable, these constitute unreasonable searches. When one-seventh of 1% of searches find something, that’s a fishing expedition. Mayor Bloomberg’s good intentions notwithstanding, this doesn’t pass constitutional muster. One of the only times when police don’t need a search warrant is when something is in plain sight.

Clearly, that doesn’t apply to these cases.

Bloomberg will appeal the case but he’ll lose that appeal. This isn’t complicated. The Fourth Amendment is quite clear. It protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. By appealing, Bloomberg is essentially arguing that police officers have the right to go on fishing expeditions without a warrant. The Constitution states quite clearly that that’s prohibited.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Yesterday, George Will was asked about the feud between Sen. Paul and Gov. Christie. Here’s his succinct response:

Here’s the transcript of what Brother Will said:

“Let’s be clear what libertarianism is and what it isn’t: It is not anarchism; it has a role for government,” Mr. Will said.

“What libertarianism says; it comes in many flavors and many degrees of severity, and it basically says before the government, it bridges the freedom of an individual or the freedom of several individuals contracting together, that government ought to have, A) a compelling reason and B) a constitutional warrant for doing so. Now, if Mr. Christie thinks that’s a dangerous thought, a number of people are going to say that Mr. Christie himself may be dangerous.”

Balancing the U.S.’s national security needs and the imperative of protecting people from government run amok is tricky on the best of days. During war, the task becomes nearly impossible. Gov. Christie’s hyperemotional response is understandable, especially considering his proximity to Ground Zero.

That consideration aside, it’s imperative to maintain our national vigilence against administrations from abusing their authority by collecting information it doesn’t have a right to look at without a warrant. It’s imperative that courts uphold the Fourth Amendment. It’s imperative that the intelligence community respect the Fourth Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. It doesn’t protect from reasonable searches or seizures.

Is Gov. Christie worried about intel agencies overstepping their authority? At this point, it’s impossible to know. That’s alarming considering how frequently this administration has overstepped its authority.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

This past week, lots of pundits from across the political spectrum have warned Republicans not to overreach on the AP story. They’re warning that this is a national security issue. That isn’t exactly accurate. It’s time to unravel the DOJ’s disgusting behavior.

At the heart of the scandal is this statement from Attorney General Holder:

Here’s what Attorney General Holder said that isn’t accurate:

HOLDER: This was a serious leak, a very, very serious leak. I’ve been a prosecutor since 1976 and I have to say that this is among, if it isn’t the most serious leak, it is among the top 2 or 3 leaks I’ve ever seen. It put the American people at risk. And that is not hyperbole. It put the American people at risk and trying to determine who was responsible for that required very agressive action.

First, this wasn’t a leak. Here’s the real story:

Although the Justice Department has not explained why it sought phone records from the AP, Pruitt pointed to a May 7, 2012, story that disclosed details of a successful CIA operation in Yemen to stop an airliner bomb plot around the one-year anniversary of the May 2, 2011, killing of Usama bin Laden.

The AP delayed publication of that story at the request of government officials who said it would jeopardize national security.

“We respected that, we acted responsibly, we held the story,” Pruitt said.

Pruitt said the AP published the story only after officials from two government entities said the threat had passed. He said the administration still asked that the story be held until an official announcement the next day, a request the AP rejected.

This wasn’t a leak. The AP apparently got word that the CIA asset wasn’t in danger. The CIA said they wanted another day to issue a press release on spoiling this terrorist plot. At that point, the AP decided that they didn’t need to hold their story any longer.

It’s believable that the CIA was upset that they didn’t get to issue their press release first. Based on the fact that the DOJ hasn’t disputed the AP’s statements, it’s fair to assume that the AP acted appropriately in terms of taking the national security and intelligence gathering needs of the nation into serious, sober consideration.

That’s the front end of this scandal. The next part is what makes this one of the most disturbing scandals in recent history. Based on what we know from the first part of the scandal, we know that there wasn’t a need for urgency in stopping a leak that might’ve compromised a CIA asset in the Middle East. That means the DOJ wasn’t entitled to grab the records it did without telling the AP about this massive grab of AP phone records. That means the DOJ was obligated to going to court to apply for a search warrant and for the AP to contest the scope of DOJ’s phone records grab.

The federal government’s need to protect intelligence-gathering assets in harms way isn’t disputed. In fact, the AP apparently acted responsibly in this respect.

Now that we’ve determined these basic, undisputed facts, it’s time to question DOJ’s actions. Did the DOJ need to sieze 2 months of the AP’s phone records? Did DOJ need 2 months of phone records of over 100 AP reporters and editors? If it didn’t, why did DOJ sieze these sensitive records, especially without giving the AP the chance to contest the DOJ’s actions?

Unless new facts emerge that support DOJ’s actions, Americans of all political stripes should question DOJ’s ham-handed behavior in this matter.

UPDATE: Follow this link to read more on the DOJ-AP scandal.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Minutes after President Obama said that it’s too early to tell who detonated the Boston Marathon bombs, David Axelrod suggested that the White House thought it was a white guy because of Tax Day. Barney Frank then used the terrorist attack as an opportunity to say that the terrorist attack was proof we needed to raise taxes. This morning, Salon’s David Sirota wrote this column to say that he hopes the terrorist is a white guy:

As we now move into the official Political Aftermath period of the Boston bombing, the period that will determine the long-term legislative fallout of the atrocity, the dynamics of privilege will undoubtedly influence the nation’s collective reaction to the attacks. That’s because privilege tends to determine: 1) which groups are, and are not, collectively denigrated or targeted for the unlawful actions of individuals; and 2) how big and politically game-changing the overall reaction ends up being.

This has been most obvious in the context of recent mass shootings. In those awful episodes, a religious or ethnic minority group lacking such privilege would likely be collectively slandered and/or targeted with surveillance or profiling (or worse) if some of its individuals comprised most of the mass shooters. However, white male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for those shootings, even though most come at the hands of white dudes.

Likewise, in the context of terrorist attacks, such privilege means white non-Islamic terrorists are typically portrayed not as representative of whole groups or ideologies, but as “lone wolf” threats to be dealt with as isolated law enforcement matters. Meanwhile, non-white or developing-world terrorism suspects are often reflexively portrayed as representative of larger conspiracies, ideologies and religions that must be dealt with as systemic threats, the kind potentially requiring everything from law enforcement action to military operations to civil liberties legislation to foreign policy shifts.

Let’s be clear about something important from the outset. The FBI’s investigation should go only where the forensic evidence takes them. If forensic scientists determine that the bombs’ markers suggest that the bombs were patterned after the Iranian-manufactured IEDs that were detonated against US troops in Iraq, then that’s where their investigation should take them.

If the bombs’ components suggest they were the work of a lone wolf domestic terrorist, that’s the direction the investigation should head in.

Next, in the aftermath of 9/11, President Bush made clear that his national security team would welcome US mosques’ help in tracking down terrorists. As the investigation into terrorist networks gathered information, he talked about specific Saudi, Pakistani and Egyptian madrassas as producing terrorists.

In other words, the accusations were based on the information that was gathered during their investigation, not because the Bush administration had it in for Muslims.

By contrast, the FBI hasn’t uncovered a system of white guy training grounds to kill abortionists and others they don’t agree with. For instance, the FBI didn’t find a string of militias started in Tim McVeigh’s honor. That means white guys who’ve committed acts of terror have acted without a network of support, thus fitting the description of acting as lone wolf terrorists.

Sirota then made this reference:

By contrast, even though America has seen a consistent barrage of attacks from domestic non-Islamic terrorists, the privilege and double standards baked into our national security ideologies means those attacks have resulted in no systemic action of the scope marshaled against foreign terrorists. In fact, it has been quite the opposite, according to Darryl Johnson, the senior domestic terrorism analyst at the Department of Homeland Security, the conservative movement backlash to merely reporting the rising threat of such domestic terrorism resulted in DHS seriously curtailing its initiatives against that particular threat. (Irony alert: When it comes specifically to fighting white non-Muslim domestic terrorists, the right seems to now support the very doctrine it criticized Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry for articulating, the doctrine that sees fighting terrorism as primarily “an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement, public-diplomacy effort” and not something more systemic.)

The Crooks and Liars post refers to Jared Loughner, the man who attacked Gabby Giffords in Tuscon. The Loughner attack on Giffords was tragic but it wasn’t the act of a terrorist. It was an attack by a crazed madman who didn’t have control of his faculties. Comparing Loughner’s attack with the Boston Marathon terrorist attack is foolish.

First, there’s no proof that Laughner pre-planned his attack. There’s tons of proof that the Boston Marathon terrorist attack was pre-planned. Loughner bought ammunition for his gun, then went out and shot a bunch of innocent people. The Boston Marathon terrorist or terrorists bought the bombs’ components, put them together, deployed them to specific locations designed to create the most bloodshed and fear possible.

It’s right to say that the Boston Marathon terrorist attack was pre-planned while the Loughner attack, though tragic, didn’t require any planning.

Second, as to the point about then-Candidate Kerry being right, that’s laughable. Reading terrorists their rights isn’t being right. Passing a global test isn’t being right. Pretending that killing the Taliban in Afghanistan was all that was needed to end the war isn’t being right.

When a domestic terrorist is captured, like the Lackawanna Six, the Bush administration used law enforcement. They applied for and got search warrants through the FISA Courts. When the NSA picked up chatter about a terrorist network while they surveiled terrorists in Pakistan or Afghanistan, the Bush administration used the CIA or other special forces to roll up entire networks of terrorists.

In other words, the Bush administration policy towards terrorists was complex and multi-faceted whereas the Kerry plan wasn’t multi-faceted. It relied on reading all terrorists their Miranda rights, then hoping they could find out about the terrorists’ networks by having a conversation with the terrorists.

Treating Jared Loughner and Tim McVeigh differently than foreign terrorists makes sense because the specifics are dramatically different. Loughner didn’t pre-plan his attack. McVeigh pre-planned his attack but he wasn’t assisted by a vast network of like-minded terrorists. Only time will tell whether the Boston Marathon terrorist attack was supported by a network of like-minded terrorists.

Simply put, let’s hope the FBI captures the terrorist or terrorists before they can strike again.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday night, I was flipping through the channels at about 10:30. Lou Dobbs was discussing gun violence with Bill O’Reilly so I thought I’d take a moment to hear what they’d have to say.

O’Reilly said that background checks were good but that it was necessary for legal gun owners to register guns. Then he said something that frightened me and angered Dobbs. O’Reilly said that there should be a law that gave a 10 year mandatory sentence to people who didn’t register their guns. Here’s O’Reilly’s explanation/’justification’ for his law:

O’REILLY: But if you had the registration and the cops went out and stopped and frisked and grabbed the gun, that’s a 10 year penalty.

Later, he said that this would be done as a preventative measure. There’s just one sticky problem with O’Reilly’s law. It’s unconstitutional. The first time it got challenged in the Supreme Court, it’d be ruled unconstitutional with a near-unanimous vote. The Fourth Amendment prohibits searches of this kind. Here’s the text of the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I’m not a constitutional attorney but I’d argue that requiring probable cause to be proven prohibits ‘preventative searches’.

Imagine police being able to search a person without obtaining a warrant. Without the Fourth Amendment’s protections, law officers would be able to go anywhere and search for anything at any time for any reason. That isn’t American. That’s what Third World dictators do in a police state. It’s what they did in the former Soviet Union or Saddam’s Iraq. It’s what they’re doing in China and North Korea.

I don’t doubt that Mr. O’Reilly’s intentions are sincere. There’s no question in my mind that he genuinely wants to protect children from gun violence. That said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. O’Reilly is a reactionary. He doesn’t think things through. It isn’t likely that he ever will.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

After watching last night’s debate on national security, I’ve reached the conclusion that it’s time to write off Crazy Uncle, aka Ron Paul. Like Herman Cain, Crazy Uncle is totally out of his element the minute the subject shifts to national security.

His statement that he doesn’t remember voting for going to war simply isn’t credible. The AUMF clearly states that it’s giving President Bush the authority to wage war:

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Approved September 18, 2001.

Clearly, Congress voted to give President Bush the permission to wage war “against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

That’s pretty clear in its intent. Congressman Paul, like his supporters, insist that this isn’t Congress approving going to war. What part of “the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force” and that “the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution” doesn’t Congressman Paul understand?

Does Congressman Paul think that that isn’t sufficient because it doesn’t follow a mythical form letter that’s to be used in declaring war?

Crazy Uncle was at it again when he talked about Timothy McVeigh in the context of the Patriot Act. Thankfully, Newt Gingrich explained that there’s a difference between criminal law and acts of war and that the Constitution makes clear the differences. Here’s Byron York’s take on the exchange:

Better to treat terrorism as a crime, Paul argued. “I think the Patriot Act is unpatriotic because it undermines our liberty,” he said. “I’m concerned, as everybody is, about the terrorist attack. Timothy McVeigh was a vicious terrorist. He was arrested. Terrorism is still on the books, internationally and nationally, it’s a crime and we should deal with it. We dealt with it rather well with Timothy McVeigh.”

At that point, it was Gingrich’s turn to look like a man who couldn’t believe what he had heard. “Timothy McVeigh succeeded,” Gingrich said incredulously. “That’s the whole point. Timothy McVeigh killed a lot of Americans. I don’t want a law that says after we lose a major American city, we’re sure going to come and find you. I want a law that says, you try to take out an American city, we’re going to stop you.”

First, the Presidential Oath of Office says that, as Commander-in-Chief, he’ll protect against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It doesn’t say that he’ll prosecute them after they’ve killed hundreds of people.

Second, there’s a distinction between reasonable searches and unreasonable searches. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches. It doesn’t prohibit reasonable searches.

Among the things that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t prohibit are items in plain sight or gathering intelligence in times of war.

Last night’s debate showed why Ron Paul shouldn’t and won’t be president. That’s why this article shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Still, Ron Paul keeps moving steadily toward a position of strength in the early voting, especially in Iowa. So he may yet surprise the pundits writing him off today.

Ron Paul will have a decent finish in Iowa. The minute he gets to New Hampshire and especially South Carolina, though, he’s history. Northeastern libertarians are more centrist than Dr. Paul. South Carolina is home of conservatives, not libertarians. Dr. Paul’s faithful followers will show up but there aren’t nearly enough of them to make a difference.

That’s why I’m certain that the Ron Paul boomlet won’t happen. It’s time for Crazy Uncle to retire.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bill Kristol made several good points in this video:

Still, the thing that he didn’t do is what I’ll do here: The U.S. closing its embassy in Yemen is the U’S. government’s equivalent of Mark Dayton shutting down his office a week before the 2004 elections based on information that no one else got.

This is yet another embarrassing moment for the Obama administration’s national security team. Earlier this week, the Obama administration announced that they were working closely with the Yemeni government in shutting down AQY. Days later, they’re shutting down the U.S. embassy in Yemen.

This is a huge propaganda win for the jihadists. Democrats repeat the mantra that closing Gitmo is imperative because the jihadists use it in recruiting new jihadists. Obviously, the Democrats didn’t learn from their Murtha/Clinton cut and run episode in Somalia.

If they’d learned from that, they’d know that the U.S. cutting short military operations told bin Laden that we were, in his words, “a paper tiger.” It’s impossible to think that the jihadists don’t believe that the Obama administration is the newest American paper tiger.

Couple the embassy closing with arresting Abdul Mutallab instead of capturing and interrogating him and it’s been a disastrous week for the Obama administration’s national security team.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative