Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > California  > The latest stimulus 'deal' -- a deal or a steal?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 151
view profile
History
Back to the StimulusPage 7 of 17    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)

The Interstate Highway System was authorized by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 popularly known as the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956 – on June 29. It had been lobbied for by major U.S. automobile manufacturers and championed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was influenced by his experiences as a young Army officer crossing the country in the 1919 Army Convoy on the Lincoln Highway, the first road across America.


Planners associated with the New Deal had also discussed a national highway system years earlier. But with the continuing Depression and then WWII, other demands for resources made it impractical. President Eisenhower, for the reasons you mentioned, believed the country needed a highway system and was mostly responsible for re-kindling interest in it.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 152
view profile
History
Back to the Stimulus
Posted: 8/22/2009 10:38:16 PM

it has centered around perverting the commerce clause



Ace and fz, you in particular may be interested in this article on the history of the Commerce Clause. I apologize for citing to something by Judge Bork, but it's the best I could scrape up. It seems that Bork used to teach this stuff at Yale. When the Clintons were there, he says they almost never came to class. I don't blame them--even then, they could probably see what a right-wing extremist he was. Not empathetic at all.

Besides the Commerce Clause, two other major government-inflaters come to mind. In Schechter Poultry (1935), the Court struck down the NRA--the crown jewel of the New Deal--as an "unlawful delegation" of Congress' authority to the Executive Branch. It used unlawful delegation in three decisions the next year. But after FDR threatened to pack the Court with 12 Justices, it abandoned this doctrine and has never used it since. That's been a big factor in Congress' ability to delegate so much power to administrative agencies. In effect, these agencies have grown into an entire fourth branch of our government, with many hundreds of thousands of employees.

Another thing that's expanded the reach of the federal government in a very big way is the Court's use of the "incorporation doctrine" to apply one provision of the Bill of Rights after the other to state governments. The Court started doing that about 1890 and was still doing it about 1975. It's way too late to undo the mistake now, but a lot of legal analysts believe the Court first began to apply the Bill of Rights to the states out of a basic misunderstanding of the intent of the 14th Amendment. But that's another story.


http://www.constitution.org/lrev/bork-troy.htm
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 153
Back to the Stimulus
Posted: 8/23/2009 7:28:41 AM
No worries about Bork as a scholar. I'm sure his credentials are impeccable for that job.


<div class="quote">But after FDR threatened to pack the Court with 12 Justices, it abandoned [the unlawful delegation] doctrine and has never used it since. That's been a big factor in Congress' ability to delegate so much power to administrative agencies. In effect, these agencies have grown into an entire fourth branch of our government, with many hundreds of thousands of employees.


Hmmm ... Was that a doctrine of an activist Court unduly interfering with both Congress and the Executive's exercise of legitimate power under the Commerce Clause? After all, a lot of those NRA projects were roads. And if it was, didn't FDR's threat to bring on more justices who had a more mainstream viewpoint amount to an effective check on an overbearing Court?


<div class="quote">a lot of legal analysts believe the Court first began to apply the Bill of Rights to the states out of a basic misunderstanding of the intent of the 14th Amendment. But that's another story.


If the federal government and the federal courts can't be used to ensure that states don't abridge the rights of individuals guaranteed under the federal constitution, why do we have a federal government in the first place? Or is it just to act as the financial arm of the military-industrial complex?
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 154
Back to the Stimulus
Posted: 8/23/2009 7:32:37 AM

Seed money? That didn't happen. It went to banks, financial institutions, insurance companies, auto companies and community groups that Obama like such as ACORN.

Then these same companies handed out millions of dollars in bonuses to the same jack balls that made them insolvent.

The LEFT supported it because they own the senate, the house, and the presidency.

This is corporate welfare on a scale never seen before.


If only 10% of it has been spent, then there is still hope the rest will be spent on the right things. What has gone to corporate welfare was throwing good money after the bad money Bush first through in. As Bush would have said, we needed to stay the course if we wanted to have any hope at all of recouping the bad investments he made for us.

No one on the left supports that. We're tolerating it for the moment in hopes that we'll soon get far enough out of the hole to stop digging and start rebuilding.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 155
Back to the Stimulus
Posted: 8/23/2009 7:59:54 AM

I'm going to have to defend Bush for a moment here re: his first bailout,


Of course you are.


as i would any preseident.


Except the current one of course.


Now as far as I'm concerned we should have cleaned house, GM, Chrysler, AIG, various banks would all be footnotes of history if I were king, but that decision could have waited for the folloing weeks.


Until it came to the actual firing of a CEO. Then it would be undue interference in the free market and an irrevocable step toward socialism.


Our primary objections as a people should be the ongoing bailout spend of clearly broken companies and institutions. But then again we don't have time to read the bill....


Well, at least you got that part right. A stopped clock?
 Petrified_Wood
Joined: 7/29/2009
Msg: 156
Back to the Stimulus
Posted: 8/23/2009 8:34:08 AM
We have been using the wrong term. The American citizen has NEVER been just a “taxpayer” and the bail outs have proved this. In the past, but especially from now on, Americans must be considered, indeed must consider themselves, INVESTORS in America. We always have been. And each and every American is our PARTNER in America. We Americans expect and deserve a return on our investment… and we want to invest in the things we think are good investments. Bailing out failed business are not good investments. Investing in the future while restoring our national economy IS a good investment.
 Petrified_Wood
Joined: 7/29/2009
Msg: 157
Back to the Stimulus
Posted: 8/23/2009 8:42:45 AM
Feel free to exclude yourself from any plan you consider a nightmare without any obligation, expressed or implied, to notify me.

Scientists tell us we are on the verge of literally hundreds of breakthrough technologies that will change the world. Investing in these technologies is a very smart thing for the American Investor to do. These technologies will drive the economic recovery. We want the breakthroughs to happen HERE in America, and the products coming from breakthroughs to be developed HERE in America – so we can all share in the profits. To ensure this happens, I believe it is a wise investment to subsidize the development of new American products - thereby allowing them to come to the international marketplace at very competitive prices.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 158
Back to the Stimulus
Posted: 8/23/2009 9:19:09 AM

See what you don't get Ace is free market informs the decision process that keeps what happened from happening. After the damage is done by mixed economy, can't we all get along, let's wash hands together statists, the tactical decisions are the same for anyone with common sense.

Your mixed economy thinking gets us there, after the crash, it's just making the best of uniformly bad choices.

Surprised? You wouldn't be if you actually understood what I am talking about.


The only thing that suprises me about you is the random times that you post something that acually shows some thought.

I'm not yet ready to push the reset button, but I understand the sentiment. He did right in Iraq by scaling back. He did right in Afghanistan by scaling up. I'm not sure anyone can get an economic implosion right in the first six months--especially with the same advisors Bush had.

As far as your nonsense about the perils of a mixed economy, if you can show me one functioning free market economy that does not include some form of regulated monopoly, I'll concede your point. Good luck with that.
 Petrified_Wood
Joined: 7/29/2009
Msg: 159
Back to the Stimulus
Posted: 8/23/2009 9:29:51 AM
Jack - you of all people should have gotten the date correct - 2012 - hehehe


Your final item ...allow them to come to market with competitive prices is laughable and indicates you have no understanding of the economics of new product introduction, government or otherwise.


The economic plan I'm describing (invented) was interesting enough that it was purchased by a sovereign government. Perhaps you are the one who needs to step back and consider how much you may not know about economics my friend. Listen in order to learn.

Continuing-

We must acknowledge that the American Investor already has a significant investment in business and the products they have produced. We have, in the past, bailed out many industries. Business has been the silent partner of Americans for decades. We’ve invested heavily. Can we recover that investment or is it lost forever? I believe we can recover what Americans have invested in bailing out and cleaning up after companies for decades. This requires looking at our economy in a new way.

When government obtains working revenue DIRECTLY from products, the American investor is relieved from paying taxes. “Products” must no longer be seen as the “property” of business. They are shared ownership with the American investor. While this may sound unfair, the truth is, the way we have worked in the past has been unfair. This IS the only fair way for our economy to work because taxpayers can no longer support business without getting a return on their investment.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 160
Back to the Stimulus
Posted: 8/23/2009 3:01:11 PM
Hong Kong is a good example. Good for you! So is the comparison between South Korea and Haiti. But in both of your shining examples I believe you'll find the infrastrcuture operated by regulated monopolies. Some things just work better that way. Certainly not everything, as I have conceded before.

I'm aware of your sarcasm. It's what you do.
 Petrified_Wood
Joined: 7/29/2009
Msg: 161
Back to the Stimulus
Posted: 8/23/2009 6:14:05 PM
Here's how to fix the economy - the guy who wrote this is frickin' brilliant:
***
It starts with a building project that we can afford… and launches new way of looking at ideas… that begins a chain reaction… that changes the way we finance our nation.

We all know where the recovery of our economy will eventually come from – emerging science and technology. The sooner we invest in our future, the sooner it will realize our investment.

Q: How do we jump-start this future recovery?
A: We begin by developing an environment where new ideas in science and technology flourish, and by subsidizing good ideas that lead to technological breakthroughs - especially new products. We want to develop the emerging new ideas as well as the ideas we have been unable to develop in the past. We do this by changing the way we think about things like ideas, intellectual property, patents, and taxes.
Q: Who pays for this?
A: NOBODY… that’s right! The ideas themselves pay for their own development. Not only that… but the American people (formerly called taxpayers) benefit from paying less or no taxes.
Q: Wait WHAT?
A: The purpose of the project is nothing less than to utilize America’s limitless national reserves of creativity and ingenuity to restore the national economy, eliminate the national debt and completely eliminate taxes for the American taxpayer – forever. Oh, and we can feed the world and save the planet while we’re at it.
Q: How?
A: We, the people, provide a new environment that facilitates and streamlines the rapid development of new ideas and products. Because we are subsidizing this operation, America’s products come to market very competitively – with regard to a global market. When American products are sold, we the people get a cut – after all, we were partners in the development of the products… venture capitalists if you will. Our “cut” runs our government. It works similar to a casino, the house gets their cut, but in this case, the games are all rigged to WIN.
Q: How about in the mean time? Will people still pay taxes?
A: Yes, you could call them “taxes” – but really, the way to look at it from this point on is that the American citizen will be paying into a partnership for which there is a visible return on investment in the future – namely, a healthy economy and NO taxes.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 162
view profile
History
Back to the Stimulus
Posted: 8/23/2009 6:47:39 PM

Was that a doctrine of an activist Court unduly interfering with both Congress and the Executive's exercise of legitimate power under the Commerce Clause? After all, a lot of those NRA projects were roads. And if it was, didn't FDR's threat to bring on more justices who had a more mainstream viewpoint amount to an effective check on an overbearing Court?


No, not at all--although the Court had certainly been activist during the thirty-plus years of the "Substantive Due Process Era" that began with its Lochner decision in 1904. It invalidated more than 200 laws during that period on the ground that they were fundamentally unfair.

But substantive due process wasn't in play in Schechter Poultry, and the decision's not known as an example of an overbearing Court. The Court almost certainly got it right. Schechter concerned a part of the National Recovery Act (which had strong overtones of fascism) that gave the President authority to establish prices for all the country's major industries. The Court found that authority was properly a legislative rather than an executive one. Therefore the price-setting law unlawfully delegated to the President a power the Constitution vested exclusively in Congress. "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States . . . ." U.S.C., Art. I. sec. 1.

Frustrated by the Court's opposition in this and other cases, Roosevelt floated his court-packing proposal. Someone's probably written a book on the personal reactions to this of Justice VanDeventer and a couple others who irked FDR, but I believe one of them soon retired. Beyond that, I don't know exactly why the Court made such a complete turnaround--but it sure did. An unlawful delegation claim was made in the American Trucking case a few years ago, and the Court rejected it. Too bad for us conservatives, because it could be a useful way to keep overreaching government in check.



If the federal government and the federal courts can't be used to ensure that states don't abridge the rights of individuals guaranteed under the federal constitution, why do we have a federal government in the first place? Or is it just to act as the financial arm of the military-industrial complex?


As all good Stalinists know, the main purpose of the U.S. government is to oppress non-white people everywhere, killing and torturing as many as possible in the process. Making the weapons to accomplish this slaughter and mayhem, whether through our own military or by sales to the world's worst despots, provides a source of revenue our government that it's committed to maximizing. Saddam, Pol Pot, and other genocidal psychopaths were only small-time thugs before the U.S. taught them how to butcher people the way the pros do it--on a vast scale, inflicting the greatest possible suffering. Why? Original sin's my guess.

Now for a more serious answer. Read the Federalist. It explains better than anything else the various advantages of the federal government of limited and enumerated powers that was being formed. I realize it sounds shocking today, but the usefulness of a federal government in coercing states and individuals to do its bidding was not one of the advantages mentioned. The various rights in the Bill of Rights were guaranteed as against the United States--not individual states. That's how things were before the Civil War.

Of course the federal government and courts are used today to guarantee most of the Bill of Rights against state governments, thanks to the Supreme Court. The question is whether the 14th Amendment, which it used to accomplish this through the "incorporation doctrine," ever authorized it to do so. The argument's way too long and complex to go into here, but it doesn't look like the 14th Amendment's proponents ever meant it to be used the way the Court's used it. And why did it exclude anything in the Bill of Rights, if this process was so wonderful? Why leave states free to dispense with indictment by grand jury for felonies, or granting bail, for example?

The Court's 1873 decision in the Slaughter-House Cases (another of those Substantive Due Process gems) killed the 14th Am.'s Privileges and Immunities Clause (there's another one in Article IV, sec. 2) in its infancy. The Court revived it in one decision in the 1930's, which it overruled a few years later. Otherwise, it's dead. And yet the Pr&I Clause seems to have been intended to be the main clause in the 14th Amendment, with the Equal Protection Clause secondary to it. If the Court had relied on the 14th Am.'s Pr&I Clause to extend federally-guaranteed rights to the states, the list of them would probably have been much more limited. But instead, it used (or misused) the Equal Protection Clause to do the job--and nearly killed off the 10th Amendment in the process.
 Petrified_Wood
Joined: 7/29/2009
Msg: 163
Back to the Stimulus
Posted: 8/23/2009 7:29:06 PM
Now you're all grown up and you're whining at government to give you free health care and a make believe job.


You're the one without a plan sitting here whining. I've got a plan at least. It's smarter than the people here - but that's not saying much. Where's your plan? No government? Can't be done. My plan is free government. And it CAN be done.


YA and what happens when the government decides they want a bigger cut.


What do you care? You understand that the government's cut is OUR cut, right? Our share runs the government. If "they" want a bigger share, it's WE who are getting a bigger share.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 164
Back to the Stimulus
Posted: 8/23/2009 7:47:42 PM
The various rights in the Bill of Rights were guaranteed as against the United States--not individual states. That's how things were before the Civil War.



I understand that. I also understand how useless it would have been to rely on states to guarantee individual rights. I still remember George Wallace's stance.

If the price we have to pay to guarantee the rights of individuals over and against the operation of misguided states is a big federal government, it's worth it.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 165
Back to the Stimulus
Posted: 8/23/2009 7:58:02 PM
As all good Stalinists know, the main purpose of the U.S. government is to oppress non-white people everywhere, killing and torturing as many as possible in the process. Making the weapons to accomplish this slaughter and mayhem, whether through our own military or by sales to the world's worst despots, provides a source of revenue our government that it's committed to maximizing.


Nah. That's all just collateral damage and the cost of doing business. Just ask GoGetter. If they could figure out a cheaper way to get the message across that there is no alternative to free-for-all market capitalism, they'd do that. It's just a lack of creativity--that's all. Now Star Wars, that was creative! Damned expensive though! Hmmm... That's Obama's problem! He didn't pitch the stimulus as a war. The wimp!

Don't get me wrong, I am so very grateful that the Soviet Union crashed. Gulags are not my idea of appropriate regulation. Bad as we've been at times, the communists were certainly, absolutely, undeniably worse. But any ideology that supercedes realistic compassion leads to atrocities--which is why I prefer to have checks on both state and corporate power. I also favor checks on federal power, and a soon as a conservative proposes some that do no render it ineffective in protecting me from both predatory state officials and predatory corporate operatives--rather than mindles and wholesale dismantlement doctrine y'all spew as if it were gospel--we could have a productive discussion. Wouldn't that be refreshing?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 166
view profile
History
Back to the Stimulus
Posted: 8/23/2009 11:10:20 PM

If the price we have to pay to guarantee the rights of individuals over and against the operation of misguided states is a big federal government, it's worth it.


The first problem with that, of course, is that it completely ignores the 10th Amendment. And the more general problem with it is that the Constitution doesn't authorize any such government for the United States. It authorizes a government of limited and enumerated powers, and all sorts of documents from the time prove that was the intent of the men who framed it. If most of the people want to change something, it provides for amendment.

As for Wallace, I don't remember exactly what his stance was. In 1957, Gov. Faubus refused to admit a black student to a Little Rock high school because he opposed the Brown decision on school integration. The decision's mostly mealy-mouthed ramblings about sociology, long on snow and short on facts.

Good news, though, for fans of that kind of half-baked thinking--there's a new judge in town. Judge Bork, whose legal credentials are far superior in every way to Judge Sotomayor's, didn't get on the Court because he's too much of a stand-up guy to lie to the Senate about his judicial philosophy. (And because Arlen Specter's too dumb to understand the fine points of it.) She, on the other hand, did almost nothing BUT lie to the Senate about hers, and it gave her a pass.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 167
Back to the Stimulus
Posted: 8/23/2009 11:50:53 PM

Americans are indentured servants, they just don't realize it, as of this moment you own the feds $116,000, every man woman and child.


That's what our government owes. Who holds the notes, and what recourse do they have if we decide to renegotiate the the terms of those loans?

A free person has the ability to do that in good faith. Our government's creditors don't own us.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 168
Back to the Stimulus
Posted: 8/24/2009 12:05:06 AM

On June 11, 1963, Wallace, surrounded by Alabama state troopers, confronted and blocked Assistant U.S. Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach and African American students from entering the university. He stood at the doors of a building at the University of Alabama, threatening to block the entrance of two black students to the school. Facing him was then Assistant Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, sent by President John F. Kennedy to enforce a federal court's decision to integrate the university. In his statement to Katzenbach and the press, Wallace said: "The unwelcomed, unwanted, unwarranted, and force-induced intrusion upon the campus of the University of Alabama today of the might of the central government, offers frightful example of the oppression of the rights, privileges, and sovereignty of this state by offices of the federal government."


This eloquent speech was in defense of segregation and the perpetuation of Jim Crow. I am so glad that the federal government was more powerful that day, and indeed every other day since that some racist ***hole tries to dress up his pure and simple bigotry in high-sounding words.

When the actual elite remembers the working people of this country: white trash, s, spics, gooks, queers, ****es, and all, with genuine gratitude on a daily basis, I'll be more than happy to take apart the federal government. Until then, forget it.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 169
Back to the Stimulus
Posted: 8/24/2009 12:21:06 AM

Ace you of all people should be able to imagine the freedom of a city micro economy, being able to trade with other cities, states and countries. All money stays put right in your county. 5% up to the states and 5 % to the fed.


This doesn't square at all with either the free market or the Constitution. If I live outside the county, want to invest there, and want to maximize the return on my investment in the form of profits that I take out, you and your little statist county government can't say a damned thing about it.

In fact, if I want to buy every official in your little burg, set up my cement plant, dump my radon tailings all over your countryside, and otherwise never visit the place without my HEPA-filtered limo, what is a little white-trash twerp like you going to do about it?

We're talking power politics my friend. There are two sources of power. One is money. The other is an organized effort. We're supposed to participate in our governance, not pretend it's a ****ing football game with "winners" and "losers."

Make a loser of a fellow citizen and you damage the country. That's what creeps like Rush fail to understand.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 170
view profile
History
Back to the Stimulus
Posted: 8/24/2009 12:57:09 AM

This eloquent speech was in defense of segregation and the perpetuation of Jim Crow.


Kind of pales, somehow, in comparison to President Roosevelt's internment of tens of thousands of Japanese Americans because of their race. I thought only uncouth hillbillies like George Wallace discriminated against people because of race. Question: Should the federal government be able to force a white man who openly hates blacks to associate with them in his home? Why should he be free to discriminate against them when he throws a party? Why should he even have a right to hate them?

Do you also disapprove so vehemently of racism by blacks against whites? Mr. Holder has declined to prosecute two members of the New Black Panther party for intimidating white voters at a polling place in Philadelphia last November. This, despite the fact the government already won a default judgment against them when they failed to appear in court. Why doesn't he have them arrested for the federal felonies they committed? Could it be because his boss is racially prejudiced?

It's amazing that you think it's more likely the "elite" will remember working people with gratitude if we have a strong central government. Why? It's hard to think of any more elitist, snobby couple than the Obamas. I notice they're careful to keep their own daughters from being exposed to the sorts of people you mentioned. One thing I always liked about Eleanor Roosevelt--pink though she was--was that her concern was genuine. She didn't mind getting out and rubbing shoulders with all sorts of everyday people.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 171
Back to the Stimulus
Posted: 8/24/2009 8:12:02 AM
fz, I think you've got that backwards. The federal government doesn't own us. We own it. And we've been so caught up on our competing ideologies and competitive need to "win" that we've let it get completely away from us.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 172
Back to the Stimulus
Posted: 8/24/2009 8:16:32 AM
Kind of pales, somehow, in comparison to President Roosevelt's internment of tens of thousands of Japanese Americans because of their race. I thought only uncouth hillbillies like George Wallace discriminated against people because of race.


Why do you think the ACLU and other liberals are so dead-set against confinement w/out habeas and military tribunals?

Unlike conservatives, when one of ours does wrong we still try to amend it.

This is about state powers vs federal powers, and I can't imagine what the feds would have done if a state had refused to cooperate with the internment order--kind-of like California's current demural to enforce federal marijuana laws.

Yes, the federal govt. can abridge rights, which is why its powers should be limited and the states need to be strong enough to resist it effectively.


It's amazing that you think it's more likely the "elite" will remember working people with gratitude if we have a strong central government. Why?


Not at all. Because they don't, there needs to be a force that even they will have to respect. Remember Leona Helmsley?
 Petrified_Wood
Joined: 7/29/2009
Msg: 173
Back to the Stimulus
Posted: 8/24/2009 9:30:30 AM

All of the natural resources in this country belong to the people and the people should reap the rewards of any contract that, not the government.


Under my stimulus plan - WE are the government.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 174
view profile
History
Back to the Stimulus
Posted: 8/24/2009 10:45:16 AM

Why do you think the ACLU and other liberals are so dead-set against confinement w/out habeas and military tribunals?


I'm not sure of their motives. No one favors those things for U.S. citizens, except under circumstances like those in which Lincoln applied them. But I don't see any reason not to apply them to unlawful enemy combatants. And there are very good reasons not to. I won't get into the details here, but anyone in a regular Article III court, inside the U.S., would have rights that would guarantee his release. So why even bother? We might just as well save the effort, and let all these people go free right now.

How can any American want that result, when nothing in the Constitution, or in the laws of war, or in our traditions demands it? Maybe they aren't aware of what these men have done, but that's not much of an excuse. A lot of it's been widely published. Or, they feel more empathy with brutal jihadists who are committed to killing Americans than they do with their fellow Americans.

The legal organizations (including most of the highest officers in the DOJ) who call for these things know very well that what they're really calling for is to let all these people go scot free. We know that the ones already released have since killed at least seventy people, some of them Americans. When people do things that are indistinguishable from what traitors would do, they shouldn't be surprised if someone wonders about their loyalty.

Everyone seems to be wailing about Scotland's release of the Lockerbie bomber. But this President has released several Islamists responsible for even worse acts of terrorism against the U.S., and it never even made the news. These included Laith Qazali, set free in May, who led an Iranian-planned operation that resulted in the capture and murder of four U.S. soldiers in Iraq in 2007. These men were shot to death while handcuffed together--a war crime.

At least 400 American servicemen have been killed in Iraq by powerful antitank mines made in Iran, planted by terrorist cells whose leaders Iranian agents trained inside Iran. The terrorists released also included the leader of one of the three covert operations "batallions" Iran's Revolutionary Guard established in Iraq. This man was directly responsible for planning the operations that killed a good part of these 400 Americans. He was released July 9, along with several other senior Iranian agents who had become known as the "Irbil Five," after the Iraqi city where the U.S. captured them.

This man had been captured long after they had, in another part of Iraq, and he was not closely associated with them. But on July 9, the administration portrayed him as one of the "Irbil Five," apparently to avoid possible public outrage over his release. It's clear the Obama administration has released all these terrorists in exchange for American and British hostages held by Iran. Could that be why candidate Obama was so eager to talk with the leadership in Tehran, and why President Obama was so reluctant to speak out against it during the rioting there in June?

Maybe Mr. Obama'd like to just quietly give the mullahs a couple of our nuclear weapons, while he's at it, to save them the trouble of making their own. After all, they seem to be such good pals.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/07/us_releases_iranian.php
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 175
view profile
History
Back to the Stimulus
Posted: 8/24/2009 12:00:55 PM
You probably know that treason's one of only two crimes defined in the Constitution. It's kind of interesting to read the history of treason cases in this country--there used to be a lot of them in the 1800's. And as often as not, the people convicted were pardoned or released early. The idea was more to put the mark of Cain on someone for life. Now, of course, a conviction for treason would be more likely to make someone a celebrity who'd make a fortune from public appearances and book sales.

It's always been somewhat of a political crime. Do you really think Ramsey Clark, that friend of everything anti-American, was about to have his DOJ build a case against Jane Fonda? And yet after WWII, several Americans who made radio broadcasts for the enemy were convicted of treason and served long prison terms. Two relatives of one of the Nazi saboteurs who landed by U-boat in Florida in 1942 were also convicted of treason for helping him, and imprisoned for it. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were convicted of violating the Espionage Act, rather than treason. I suspect the government couldn't come up with the two witnesses to the treasonous act that you need to have testify to it.
Show ALL Forums  > California  > The latest stimulus 'deal' -- a deal or a steal?