Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Context: U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Samantha Power, holds the U.N. Security Council's rotating chair this month. Powers'  claims a right for the U.S. to wage war against ISIL in Syria on grounds of the collective security exception to the U.N. Charter's prohibition; that is, that the U.S. has a collective security agreement with the nation of Iraq, that makes it lawful for the U.S. to strike ISIL. True enough as a matter of international law, ignoring the fact that Obama has yet to obtain permission from the U.S. Congress, which the U.S. Constitution requires him to do. But ISIL is not the nation of Syria; hence to attack ISIL in Syria, an additional exception is necessary for both Iraq and the U.S. The only other recognized exception that might seem to do deals with the situation when a nation in which a private organization inflicting harm on another nation  is "unwilling or unable" to protect the second nation (Iraq) from the depradations of the private organization. And that is where Powers' legal analysis dissembles because the U.S. has been actively attempting to overthrow the Syrian government via proxy terrorist organizations including ISIL. So the U.S. lacks clean hands in claiming any lawful right to invade Syria on the theory that the Syrian government is unwilling or unable to put down the ISIL organization. The Syrian government is certainly willing and has been attempting to do so. But its inability to do so thus far is entirely due to the U.S., its Gulf Coast state allies, and its ally Turkey continuing to supply ISIL and other terrorist groups in Syria with weapons, training, and supplies, aimed at overthrowing the Syrian government. The doctrine of unclean hands has limited applicability in international law governing human rights. See Lisa LaPlante, The Law of Remedies and the Clean Hands Doctrine: Exclusionary Reparation Policies in Peru's Political Transition, 23 Am Univ Int Law Rev 50 (2007), https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cg

"  1 THE LEGAL LIMIT: THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S ATTEMPTS TO EXPAND FEDERAL POWER  Report No. 4: The Obama Administration's Abuse of Power By U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) Ranking Member Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on The Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights Of all the troubling aspects of the Obama presidency, none is more dangerous than the President's persistent pattern of lawlessness, his willingness to disregard the written law and instead enforce his own policies via executive fiat. The President's taste for unilateral action to circumvent Congress should concern every citizen, regardless of party or ideology. The great 18th-century political philosopher Montesquieu observed: "There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates." America's Founding Fathers took this warning to heart, and we should too. Rule of law doesn't simply mean that society has laws; dictatorships are often characterized by an abundance of laws. Rather, rule of law means that we are a nation ruled   by laws, not men. No one-and especially not the president-is above the law. For that reason, the U.S. Constitution imposes on every president the express duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." R ather than honor this duty, President Obama has openly defied it by repeatedly suspending, delaying, and waiving portions of the laws that he is charged to enforce. When President Obama disagreed with federal immigration laws, he instructed the Justice Department to cease enforcing the laws. He did the same thing with federal welfare law, drug laws, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act. In the more than two centuries of our nation's history, there is simply no precedent for the White House wantonly ignoring federal law and asking others to do the same. For all those who are silent now: What would they think of a Republican president who announced that he was going to ignore th

"  1 THE LEGAL LIMIT: THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S ATTEMPTS TO EXPAND FEDERAL POWER  Report No. 4: The Obama Administration's Abuse of Power By U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) Ranking Member Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on The Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights Of all the troubling aspects of the Obama presidency, none is more dangerous than the President's persistent pattern of lawlessness, his willingness to disregard the written law and instead enforce his own policies via executive fiat. The President's taste for unilateral action to circumvent Congress should concern every citizen, regardless of party or ideology. The great 18th-century political philosopher Montesquieu observed: "There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates." America's Founding Fathers took this warning to heart, and we should too. Rule of law doesn't simply mean that society has laws; dictatorships are often characterized by an abundance of laws. Rather, rule of law means that we are a nation ruled   by laws, not men. No one-and especially not the president-is above the law. For that reason, the U.S. Constitution imposes on every president the express duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." R ather than honor this duty, President Obama has openly defied it by repeatedly suspending, delaying, and waiving portions of the laws that he is charged to enforce. When President Obama disagreed with federal immigration laws, he instructed the Justice Department to cease enforcing the laws. He did the same thing with federal welfare law, drug laws, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act. In the more than two centuries of our nation's history, there is simply no precedent for the White House wantonly ignoring federal law and asking others to do the same. For all those who are silent now: What would they think of a Republican president who announced that he was going to ignore the law, or unil

It ain't just Republicans. Note the central role played by Democrat Barack Obama. It's the War Party, which crosses visible party boundaries in the U.S. And of course Obama wants to beef up intelligence-gathering, And tighter security at airports, of course, so that the American public realizes that the threat of  terrorists™ trumps rights secured by the Constitution. 

Finally out in the open. The U.S. DoD document released by Judical Watch makes it crystal clear that the U.S. and allies in 2012 were supporting al-Nusrah (al Qaeda in Syria) and the Islamic State in Iraq (Salafist predecessor to the proclaimed Islamic State). In Pogo's words, "we have met the enemy and he is us." This is confirmation of a mountain of evidence that the U.S. and its allies have supplied and provided command and control for ISIL and al Qaeda/al Nusrah foreces in Iraq and Syria. The document admits a similar relationshp with the Muslim Brotherhood fighting forces in those nations. More importantly than the confirmatiion, the document constitutes an admission by the U.S. that it is waging a proxy war against the nations of Iraq and Syria. The emergence of the Islamic State can no longer credibly serve as justification for U.S. military action in Syria because that justification depends on a combination of the right to militarily aid a nation at war that requests it and the doctrine that when a nation (Syria) is unwilling or unable to control civilian actors who inflict harm on another nation (Iraq), the injured nation has the right to invade the other nation to the extent necessary to remove the threat. But with this document in the open, we have a doctrine of unclean hands barrier to the U.S. assertion of right to invade Syria's sovereign territory; the U.S. is concurrently backing the civilian force in Syria that is threatening Iraq. Therefore, the U.S. has unclean hands and may not lawfully invoke the doctrine permitting a state to invade a state unwilling or unable to control civilian actors who injure another state. U.S. invasion of Syria is now established as a war of agression, the most serious of war crimes. This also means that President Obama has been far less than candid in requesting a retroactive Authorization for Use of Military Force in Congress that would encompass military invasion of Syria, raising the issue of an impeachable abu

So the cure is supposedly "better messaging" rather than substantive reforms in Israel. Anything but behave as a civilized nation. 

Empire of Debt was published in 2006. It stated bluntly that the housing market occupied the center of an inflated bubble. The authors asserted the bubble would pop, leaving a sticky residue everywhere. They were right. The authors stated that Alan Greenspan's policies were detrimental to the U.S. economy. They were right. Empire of Debt not only identified the problems, but it provided a solution. Invest in gold or the Japanese yen. It would appear that once again they were right. The yen is strong and gold has made a phenomenal run, selling for over $1000 per ounce.

excerpt: The fact that the wealthiest already pay their fair share and more is borne out by this from the IRS: Individuals earning in the top one percent paid 40 percent of all income taxes, while those in the top 10 percent paid 71 percent of all income taxes. The fact that going after the wealthiest for even more isn't going to generate significant additional revenues - certainly not enough to make a dent in the debt - isn't mentioned by the President in his letter. And if Obama is so determined to be "fair", why doesn't he simply offer to write a check to the IRS for the part of his income that he feels he doesn't deserve? He doesn't say. The President did get one thing right: The middle class is the target of any deficit-reduction plans likely to come out of Washington in the next few days: "It's just not right to ask them to pay the whole tab - especially when they're not the ones who caused this mess in the first place." He's right: The middle class didn't create the financial crisis; the Ruling Class did. Instead, the middle class, by and large, just want to be left alone to work out their own lives. Whenever possible, they resist further government intrusions into their lives - witness the growth of the Tea Party - and are waiting to see if Washington will, for the first time in memory, not listen to the siren song of entitlement protection and class warfare being sung by the President, and instead ignore him and start some serious cutting back of Leviathan. Perhaps what the President should be saying to the American people is what he said as Senator in railing against raising the debt ceiling back in March, 2006: The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. In

Why would the Obama administration actively send 30,000 sniper rifles, assault weapons and firearms into Mexico even while claiming to follow an anti-gun stance back in the USA? To answer that question, you need to understand P.R.S -- Problem, Reaction, Solution. It is the "playbook" that governments use to get what they want, which usually involves: 1) Disarming their populations, 2) Taking away all their rights and freedoms, and then 3) Ruling over their people as tyrants with complete power. Precisely such an effort is now underway in the United States, led by the Obama administration which has repeatedly demonstrated itself to be an enemy of the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of rights. How Problem, Reaction, Solution really works If you're the U.S. government, you can't just announce a new program to disarm the country, end the Bill of rights and install yourself as the King. People won't go for it if you try to sell it that way. Instead, you need to find a way to get people to BEG you to do all that. So you need a way to put people in a state of mind where they are terrified of drugs, terrified of guns and terrified of the border violence -- to the point where they insist that somebody in Washington do something about it. Therefore, you first need a way to cause the problem that results in all the violence that people react to. You effectively need to create violence and then wait for people to beg you to stop it. This is where the Obama administration's program to send 30,000 firearms into Mexico comes into play. If you want to cause gun violence and drug war violence, what better way to accomplish it than to just arm all the bad guys?

Peggy Noonan writes about Paul Ryan's "The American Idea" speech he recently gave at the heritage Foundation.  It's a beautifully written summary that goes right to the heart of the matter:  the ruling elites have been enriching themselves, feeding at the public trough of corporate welfare and crony capitalism.  Washington DC is corrupt and rotten to the core, and the hand maiden of Banksters, Global Corporatist, Big Unions, and Big Bearucracy.   One things for sure.  Congressman Paul Ryan is a brilliant thinker aho believes in the great promise he calls "The American Idea".   Funny how, as the presidential primary race rolls on, my hopeful attention is being drawn towards four men:  Herman Cain, Paul Ryan, Ron Paul and Marco Rubio.   Herman unfortunately is soft on Banksters, totally unaware and oblivious to the need to take back the currency, and end the Federal Reserve Bankster Cartel.  I also have some difficulties with the "revenue neutral" aspects of his 999 plan.  We need less government, not more.  The private sector needs to keep more money, not less.   Too bad because everything else about Herman excites me.  Especially his authentic, from the heart love of America, American exceptionalism and opportunity, and the founders truly unique "American Idea". Ron Paul has an awesome "American Recovery" plan.  Awesome.  But his remarks on terrorism and foreign policy stray far from his usual reliance on the Constitution and the 10th Amendment.   He's right about the connection between global corporatism and the never ending militarism they push.  But he's dead ass wrong about our enemies and their intentions.  And that's scary.  If RP had stuck to the Constitution and 10th Amendment, i would fully support him.   If it's not an enumerated power, it belongs to the States and individual citizens.  End of story.   Marco Rubio is awesome in the same way Herman is.  He connects with a special authenticity that screams the principles and val

A very brief summary of the way that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are continuing to bail out mortgage investors through their guarantee programs. Total bailouts to keep these bankster clowns in business is $169 Billion paid to mortgage investors via GSE's. And climbing. excerpt: When you get a mortgage, the rights to your loan payments are typically sold to a secondary source. There is a lot of debate over whether the originator of the loan should keep some of the risk, but currently they can make a loan, sell it, and basically be done with it unless they have lied about its contents and are forced to by it back down the road. So the mortgage is sold to the secondary market, likely Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. In fact, the GSEs and FHA bought or guaranteed 95% of all new mortgages in fiscal year 2011! Mind blowing numbers compared to when 40% market share was seen as high in the early 2000s.  The GSEs then take your loan and put it in a package with other loans they buy and sell rights to the mortgage payments in that package (a mortgage-backed security). The investor is buying rights to part of the principal and/or interest payments, depending on the structure of the deal, on your and many other mortgages. 

Another "charity" to cross-out from your charitable contributions list of candidates.

The established New York credit agencies would play a strategic role in this post-1971 dollar system. During the 1970's the US Government's Securities & Exchange Commission, charged with oversight of bond and stock markets, issued a ruling giving the then-dominant New York credit rating agencies-Moody's and Standard & Poor's (and later Fitch Ratings)-a de facto guaranteed monopoly in an unregulated market, when they ruled that only "Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations" would be qualified to issue appropriate ratings, i.e. only Moody's and S&P. Corruption was made endemic to the US ratings game and Washington was party to the dirty deal. By the end of the 1970's, using the vast amount of OPEC "petro-dollars" from the two oil price shocks in 1973 and 1979, New York international banks, using London, began to loan to the rest of the world to finance imports of oil and other essentials. The New York credit rating agencies, previously primarily rating US corporate bonds, expanded into the new foreign debt markets as the largest and only established rating agencies in the new phase of dollarization and globalization of capital markets. They set up branches in Germany, France, Japan, Mexico, Argentina and other emerging markets much like the US Big Five accounting firms. During the 1980s the rating agencies played a key role in down-rating the debt of the Latin American debtor countries such as Mexico and Argentina. Their ratings determined if the debtor countries could borrow or not. Financial market insiders in London and New York openly spoke of the "political" rating agencies using their de facto monopoly to advance the agenda of Wall Street and the Dollar System behind it. Then in the 1990's, the New York rating agencies played a decisive role in spreading the "Asia Crisis" of 1997-98. With the precise timing of its downgrades they could worsen the panic because they had been suspiciously silent right up un

Economic havoc looks to be about to break Greece's two-party political system as a third party, Syriza rises to take control of government. Might a similar event happen in the U.S. if the economy gets much worse, as seems about to happen because of the collapse of the petro-dollar? If so, what might the new coalition look like in the U.S.? This article points out that in Greece, Syriza is uniting demographic elements viewed as leftist. But the what is regarded as the left in the U.S., progressives, liberals, socialists, and communists, historically has been incapable of organizing in a way to assert political power for decades because they invariably fall for the choice of two evils argument and vote Democratic in general elections. It seems to be much the same story on the right in the U.S. For example, the Tea Party was co-opted by the Republican Party in general elections from the Tea Party's inception. What has been particularly troubling to me is that the American left and right actually agree on very many issues, but the divide-and-conquer strategy of the corporate/globalist/war machine of the oligarchy has so instilled hatred between the right and the left that it's been impossible to form a third-party that pushes an agenda driven by majority public opinion. To me, a new party that focuses on areas of broad agreement and avoids areas of disagreement seems to be the most likely candidate to break the the rule of our present usurpers of democracy. But if we are to create a new Majority Party (I like that name) based on majority opinion, how do we get past the hatred, particularly given that the usurpers will do their level best to fan the fire of hatred even more as the Majority Party gains numbers? And what to do about majority opinions that are formed by false usurper propaganda, e.g., the current propaganda campaigns that drive the pro-war agenda? They've been able to create majorities, e.g., for renentry of the U.S. military into Iraq to fight ISIL,

The State Department's Privacy Act excuse for withholding the location of Sharif Mobley is a load of bull puckey intended for media consumption, not as a serious legal argument. The Privacy Act has an exception for just such situations: "(b) Conditions of Disclosure.- No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, *unless disclosure of the record would be-* ... (8) to a person pursuant to a showing of compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of an individual if upon such disclosure notification is transmitted to the last known address of such individual;" 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a. This is an outrageous cover-up!

If you follow the "November" link you'[l learn that yes, indeed, the UK government lawyers were happily getting the content of their adversaries privileged attorney-client communications. Conspicuously, the promises of reform make no mention of what is surely a disbarment offense in the U.S. I doubt that it's different in the UK. Discovery rules of procedure strictly limit how parties may obtain information from the other side. Wiretapping the other side's lawyers is not a permitted from of discovery. Hopefully, at least the government lawyers in the case in which the misbehavior was discovered have been referred for disciplinary action.