Its like choosing chocolate ice cream or Vanilla Ice cream
Even after the election. I am still confused at the Obama voters who thought Romney was in some way different then Obama. Same goes for Mitt Romney supports who thought Romney was different then Obama. There will be a lot of crying and a lot of gloating going on.
Us independents know better then is. Knowing they are both bad for our health. Its like choosing chocolate ice cream or Vanilla Ice cream. In the end it all gets crapped out and will make you fat and lazy if you have to much.
Very disappointed in Rand Paul
I’ll join the chorus of libertarians who are disappointed in Rand.
In my opinion he is putting party ahead of principle. I completely understand why he is endorsing Romney. Rand Paul wants to grow his political power. But I think he is going at it the wrong way. He would grow more support putting principle before party.
My problem, as a principled non-interventionist, non-aggression principled libertarian I can’t and could never support someone who supports big war and government intervention. I could look past a lot if a candidate was anti-war, anti-intervention, and adhered to the non-aggression principle.
But as the same time that Rand Paul is endorsing Romney the likes of Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan, and other war mongering neo-cons like Karl Rove are endorsing and praising Romney.
Nothing grows the size and scope of government like war. War takes power and freedoms away from the people and centralizes it with the government. This is something that should be an absolute deal breaker.
I will never support any pro-war candidates.
When it comes down to it, do you think Romney is going to listen to Rand Paul or the dozen and dozen of war mongering neo-cons advising him?
Obama’s Secret Kill List
The essence of our values is the rule of law, not the rule of presidents.
By Judge Andrew Napolitano | May 31, 2012
The leader of the government regularly sits down with his senior generals and spies and advisers and reviews a list of the people they want him to authorize their agents to kill. They do this every Tuesday morning when the leader is in town. The leader once condemned any practice even close to this, but now relishes the killing because he has convinced himself that it is a sane and sterile way to keep his country safe and himself in power. The leader, who is running for re-election, even invited his campaign manager to join the group that decides whom to kill.
This is not from a work of fiction, and it is not describing a series of events in the Kremlin or Beijing or Pyongyang. It is a fair summary of a 6,000-word investigative report in The New York Times earlier this week about the White House of Barack Obama. Two Times journalists, Jo Becker and Scott Shane, painstakingly and chillingly reported that the former lecturer in constitutional law and liberal senator who railed against torture and Gitmo now weekly reviews a secret kill list, personally decides who should be killed and then dispatches killers all over the world — and some of his killers have killed Americans.
We have known for some time that President Obama is waging a private war. By that I mean he is using the CIA on his own — and not the military after congressional authorization — to fire drones at thousands of persons in foreign lands, usually while they are riding in a car or a truck. He has done this both with the consent and over the objection of the governments of the countries in which he has killed. He doesn’t want to talk about this, but he doesn’t deny it. How chilling is it that David Axelrod — the president’s campaign manager — has periodically seen the secret kill list? Might this be to keep the killings politically correct?
Can the president legally do this? In a word: No.
The president cannot lawfully order the killing of anyone, except according to the Constitution and federal law. Under the Constitution, he can only order killing using the military when the U.S. has been attacked, or when an attack is so imminent and certain that delay would cost innocent American lives, or in pursuit of a congressional declaration of war. Under federal law, he can only order killing using civilians when a person has been sentenced lawfully to death by a federal court and the jury verdict and the death sentence have been upheld on appeal. If he uses the military to kill, federal law requires public reports of its use to Congress and congressional approval after 180 days.
The U.S. has not declared war since World War II. If the president knows that an attack on our shores is imminent, he’d be hard-pressed to argue convincingly that a guy in a truck in a desert 10,000 miles from here — no matter his intentions — poses a threat to the U.S. so imminent and certain that he needs to be killed on the spot in order to save the lives of Americans who would surely die during the time it would take to declare war on the country that harbors him, or during the time it would take to arrest him. Under no circumstances may he use civilian agents for non-judicial killing. Surely, CIA agents can use deadly force to protect themselves, but they may not use it offensively. Federal laws against murder apply to the president and to all federal agents and personnel, wherever they go on the planet.
Since 9/11, the United States government has set up national security systems that function not under the Constitution, not under the Geneva Conventions, not under the rule of law, not under the rules of war, not under federal law, but under a new secret system crafted by the Bush administration and personally directed by Obama, the same Obama who condemned these rules as senator and then extended them as president. In the name of fighting demons in pick-up trucks and wars that Congress has never declared, the government shreds our rights, taps our cellphones, reads our emails, kills innocents abroad, strip searches 87-year-old grandmothers in wheelchairs and 3-year-old babies in their mothers’ arms, and offers secrecy when the law requires accountability.
Obama has argued that his careful consideration of each person he orders killed and the narrow use of deadly force are an adequate and constitutional substitute for due process. The Constitution provides for no such thing. He has also argued that the use of drones to do his killing is humane since they are “surgical” and only kill their targets. We know that is incorrect. And he has argued that these killings are consistent with our values. What is he talking about? The essence of our values is the rule of law, not the rule of presidents.
Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written six books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is “It Is Dangerous To Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom.”
Lt. Col. Terry Lakin Discusses Obama’s Eligibility and His New Book Officer’s Oath (by BirtherReportDotCom)
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/30/businessman-faces-backlash-after-appearin… | Frank VanderSloot grew up a poor kid in rural Idaho. His father made $300 a month. His clothes came from the Salvation Army. Yet through determination and hard work—and with the help of America’s free-enterprise system—today he’s the successful CEO of a global supplier of wellness products.
VanderSloot said his life changed forever on April 20. That’s when President Obama’s campaign created the first presidential “enemies list” since the Nixon era. Eight private citizens were singled out for their donations to Romney. They committed no crimes, sought no attention, and yet they became the subject of Obama’s scorn.