Saturday, March 31, 2012
A Fistful of Euros
Washington, DC
This week, my congressional committee will hold a hearing to examine how the Federal Reserve bails out European banks, propping up spendthrift European governments in the process. Unfortunately this bailout comes at the expense of American citizens, in the form of higher prices and diminished savings down the road.
A good analysis of the Fed’s “swap” scheme first appeared in the Wall Street Journal back in December, in an article by Gerald O’Driscoll entitled, “The Federal Reserve’s Covert Bailout of Europe.” Essentially, beginning late last year the Fed provided U.S. dollars to the European Central Bank in exchange for Euros-- sometimes as much as $100 billion at a time. The ECB then funneled those dollars to European banks to provide liquidity and prevent crises from bank insolvencies. Since the currency swap was not technically a loan, the Fed did not have to embarrass itself by openly showing foreign bank debt on its balance sheet. The ECB meanwhile did not have to print new Euros and expose the true fragility of big European banks.
The entire purpose of this unholy arrangement was to obscure the truth: namely that the Fed was bailing out Europe with U.S. dollars.
But why is it the business of the Federal Reserve to bail out European banks that find themselves short of dollars to pay their dollar-denominated contracts? After all, those
contracts often were hedges taken to protect banks against weakness of the Euro. Hedges are supposed to reduce risk, but banks that miscalculate should suffer their own losses accordingly. It’s not our business if the ECB chooses to create moral hazards by providing liquidity to European banks, but why should the Fed prop up Europe’s bad decisions!
The Fed has promised to provide unlimited amounts of dollars to the ECB, should circumstances require it. It boggles the mind. Of course when Fed officials first entered into these swap agreements with the ECB last September, they did so quietly. The American public only found out via websites of the ECB, the Bank of England, or the Swiss Central Bank.
The Fed already has pumped trillions of dollars into the economy since 2008, and US banks currently hold $1.5 trillion of excess reserves. So why don't American banks lend those excess trillions to European banks if they really need dollars? If US banks could earn 1 or 2 percent on those loans, they might just be interested. But they can't compete with the ½ percent interest rate charged by the Fed to the ECB. That's one glaring example of the harm caused by the Fed's ability to create money and loan it at below-market interest rates.
The Fed argues that these loans will be temporary, merely providing a little boost to get Europe over the hump. But that's what they thought a few years ago when such lines of credit to the ECB were set to expire, only to see the Fed reauthorize them. What happens if the European financial system collapses? Will the Fed be left holding a bunch of worthless Euros? Will the ECB simply shrug and turn over the collateral it received from European banks, maybe in the form of bonds from Ireland, Italy, or Greece? Have the 17 individual central banks backing the ECB pledged their gold holdings as collateral?
The Fed has placed a hundred-billion dollar bet on the future of the Euro, with the strength of the dollar on the line. This is absolutely irresponsible, and directly contrary to market discipline. Let private banks, European or otherwise, take their own risks. Let foreign central banks inflate their own currencies and suffer the consequences. In other words, it’s time to apply market principles to banks and money.
Congressman Ron Paul of Texas
Fox Guarding The Chicken Coop
Twin Falls, Idaho
The problem with a local
county Republican Central Committee is that it is controlled and run by county
employees. The D.A., Grant, and Assistant D.A., who recently resigned (thank
you, Jennifer) should not be involved in the local political process of
overseeing the election of committeemen or committee chairman. This is a huge conflict of interest and
reminiscent of having the fox guarding the chicken coop, and is a county-level
dictatorship. Representative government should come from the people up not from
the government down.
The Idaho GOP has
committed suicide by disenfranchising all military members, the elderly and
over two-thirds of their own constituents who could not attend the caucus to
vote for a presidential candidate of their choice. They certainly do not need
any help from Dan or Rick and my intentions are far from “taking over the Twin
Falls Party”.
The “Republicrat” system
is a Hegelian two-party system of thesis, antithesis, synthesis -- create the
problem… come up with the solution to the problem… and the solution is always
predetermined and usually means… more control and more government.
The outcome will be the
picking of an establishment candidate (i.e. McCain in the previous campaign)
who is a predetermined loser and the elimination of any viable
non-establishment candidate who has real crossover votes and grass-roots
support by disenfranchising the majority of their own Party. The synthesis will
be four more years of Obama and a country in great peril.
The only reason I am a Republican is because
of Ron Paul. When Ron Paul is no longer
in the Republican Party, I believe the Republican Party will die from
self-inflicted wounds and this free Republic could suffer the same fate. Despite our disagreements, Mr. Billington, we
are all in the same boat.
Dan Gill
Friday, March 30, 2012
New Bible Study in Buhl
Buhl, Idaho
According to John Collins, Jr. a new Bible study is planned for the West End. Bible Panorama is the name of the study, and is a brand new Bible study that has never before been used in Idaho. They will be meeting every Tuesday evening at 7pm, beginning April 3, 2012. They will be using the southeast entrance of the building, which accesses the basement meeting room. This is a free service and is open to all, regardless of how much or how little Bible knowledge one possesses. The main thing is a desire for God to speak to one's heart through His Word. There will be time allotted for questions and discussion.
Location: 728 14th Ave. N in Buhl (Corner of Fruitland and 14th Ave. N)
For more information: pastorctwinfalls@gmail.com
According to John Collins, Jr. a new Bible study is planned for the West End. Bible Panorama is the name of the study, and is a brand new Bible study that has never before been used in Idaho. They will be meeting every Tuesday evening at 7pm, beginning April 3, 2012. They will be using the southeast entrance of the building, which accesses the basement meeting room. This is a free service and is open to all, regardless of how much or how little Bible knowledge one possesses. The main thing is a desire for God to speak to one's heart through His Word. There will be time allotted for questions and discussion.
Location: 728 14th Ave. N in Buhl (Corner of Fruitland and 14th Ave. N)
For more information: pastorctwinfalls@gmail.com
Monday, March 26, 2012
What are Voting Precincts?
Voting Precincts
are
geographic areas within each county which eligible residents vote to elect their party representatives
known as a precinct committeeman. Everyone in Twin Falls County
Why Do
Redistricting?
Redistricting is the
redrawing of legislative districts. By federal law, redistricting must occur
following a census for two reasons. First, new districts must be drawn when a
state gains or loses congressional districts as a result of the apportionment of
congressional districts to the states. Second, even if the number of districts
does not change, governments must redraw districts so that the districts have
equal populations. These are the reasons why redistricting must occur. Some
governments may choose to conduct redistricting for political reasons. The most
infamous case in recent times was the 2003 re-redistricting in
Apportionment
Article 1, Section 2 of the United States constitution requires the federal government to conduct a census of its population every ten years for the purpose ofapportioning U.S. House of Representatives seats among the states. Each state is given a number of seats roughly equal to their population, with every state guaranteed at least one seat. Since the number of U.S. House seats is fixed at 435, a new apportionment results in some states gaining congressional seats and some states losing congressional seats. Since all states today have single-member congressional districts, changing the number of seats a state has forces a state to redraw their districts.
Balancing District Populations
When districts have unequal populations, this is known as malapportionment. For example, persons living in a district with 1,000 persons would have ten times more representation than a district with 10,000 persons.
In the 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court made two landmark rulings, Wesberry v. Sanders and Reynolds v. Sims, requiring congressional and state legislative districts to be redrawn in a timely manner following the census so that their populations would be roughly equal. Some states had failed to draw new districts for as many as sixty years, which had provided slow growing rural areas with more representation than fast growing urban areas. At the time of the so-called reapportionment revolution, balancing district populations was predicted to shift government policies towards those favored by urban interests and even to limit gerrymandering.
These rulings and many others effectively nullified state practices of apportioning their state legislative seats among their counties or towns; for example, providing every county one seat and apportioning the remainder among the larger population counties (ironically, a process similar to the apportionment of congressional seats to the states). Many states amended their constitutions to revise their redistricting processes, so that the federal courts would not nullify this section of their state constitution.
How Often Can a State Redistrict?
In 2003, the nation was captivated by a group of Democratic Texas state legislators who fled the state to prevent Republicans from gerrymandering the state's congressional districts. At stake was Democratic-favored redistricting plan adopted by a court for the 2002 congressional elections, adopted after the state legislature failed to enact a redistricting plan. Eventually, Democrats relented and returned toTexas
The Supreme Court ruled in LULAC v Perry that there is no federal prohibition on mid-decade redistricting. Some states have prohibitions on mid-decade redistricting written into their constitutions, statutes, or their state courts have ruled the practice is illegal.Texas is not one of these states, so the U.S. Supreme
Court let the Texas districts stand, at least
on these grounds (a Voting Rights challenge to the Texas
Article 1, Section 2 of the United States constitution requires the federal government to conduct a census of its population every ten years for the purpose ofapportioning U.S. House of Representatives seats among the states. Each state is given a number of seats roughly equal to their population, with every state guaranteed at least one seat. Since the number of U.S. House seats is fixed at 435, a new apportionment results in some states gaining congressional seats and some states losing congressional seats. Since all states today have single-member congressional districts, changing the number of seats a state has forces a state to redraw their districts.
Balancing District Populations
When districts have unequal populations, this is known as malapportionment. For example, persons living in a district with 1,000 persons would have ten times more representation than a district with 10,000 persons.
In the 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court made two landmark rulings, Wesberry v. Sanders and Reynolds v. Sims, requiring congressional and state legislative districts to be redrawn in a timely manner following the census so that their populations would be roughly equal. Some states had failed to draw new districts for as many as sixty years, which had provided slow growing rural areas with more representation than fast growing urban areas. At the time of the so-called reapportionment revolution, balancing district populations was predicted to shift government policies towards those favored by urban interests and even to limit gerrymandering.
These rulings and many others effectively nullified state practices of apportioning their state legislative seats among their counties or towns; for example, providing every county one seat and apportioning the remainder among the larger population counties (ironically, a process similar to the apportionment of congressional seats to the states). Many states amended their constitutions to revise their redistricting processes, so that the federal courts would not nullify this section of their state constitution.
How Often Can a State Redistrict?
In 2003, the nation was captivated by a group of Democratic Texas state legislators who fled the state to prevent Republicans from gerrymandering the state's congressional districts. At stake was Democratic-favored redistricting plan adopted by a court for the 2002 congressional elections, adopted after the state legislature failed to enact a redistricting plan. Eventually, Democrats relented and returned to
The Supreme Court ruled in LULAC v Perry that there is no federal prohibition on mid-decade redistricting. Some states have prohibitions on mid-decade redistricting written into their constitutions, statutes, or their state courts have ruled the practice is illegal.
How Do We Do
Redistricting?
Article
1, Section 4 of the
U.S. Constitution states, "The Times, Places and Manner of holding
Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State
by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or
alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators."
Effectively, this means that state legislatures are granted primary authority to regulate federal elections, including how their congressional district lines are to be drawn. However, Congress is the ultimate authority, and may supersede state laws. Congress has exercised this authority, for example, to require single-member districts and to enhance racial and ethnic minority groups' representation. The federal courts have interpreted the federal constitution to require equal population districts. Congress has not mandated a congressional redistricting procedure, despite many bills that have been introduced. States thus retain their authority to draw districts -- congressional, state legislative, and others -- within these federal guidelines.
States decide how they will redistrict. The state constitution and statutory requirements may be found here.
Effectively, this means that state legislatures are granted primary authority to regulate federal elections, including how their congressional district lines are to be drawn. However, Congress is the ultimate authority, and may supersede state laws. Congress has exercised this authority, for example, to require single-member districts and to enhance racial and ethnic minority groups' representation. The federal courts have interpreted the federal constitution to require equal population districts. Congress has not mandated a congressional redistricting procedure, despite many bills that have been introduced. States thus retain their authority to draw districts -- congressional, state legislative, and others -- within these federal guidelines.
States decide how they will redistrict. The state constitution and statutory requirements may be found here.
State
Redistricting Procedures
The procedures vary among the
states, and can even vary within the same state for congressional and state
legislative redistricting. States generally use one of two methods.
- States that use
the regular legislative process, the same for any bill.
- States that use
a commission somewhere in the process. These commissions come in three
flavors:
- The commission
as the sole redistricting authority
- The commission
in an advisory role to the legislature, offering redistricting plans that
the legislature may adopt through the legislative process.
- The commission
as a backup to the legislative process, if legislative gridlock occurs.
Commissions further generally
vary on their membership and voting rules.
- Partisan
commissions have an unequal number of partisan members who adopt a
redistricting plan on a majority vote.
- Bipartisan
commissions have an equal number of partisan members and either adopt a
redistricting plan on a majority vote or select a tie-breaking
commissioner by a majority vote.
- Nonpartisan
commissions in
If a state fails to draw a legal redistricting plan, the
federal or state courts will impose a redistricting plan that satisfies
constitutional requirements. Often, courts become involved when a state fails
to act, and a court must intervene to ensure a new redistricting plan with
equal population districts is implemented for the next election. Courts may
also become involved when a state adopts a map that is deficient in some other
way, such as failing to adhere to the Voting Rights Act or a state requirement.
Redistricting Requirements
The federal constitution and statutes impose requirements
that apply to all states: equal population districts, single-member
congressional districts, and some provisions of the Voting Rights Act.
Additional provisions of the Voting Rights Act apply to only certain
jurisdictions.
States may impose additional requirements beyond the federal requirements, such as drawing districts that respect existing political boundaries, physical boundaries, or communities of interest; districts that are compact; and districts that are politically fair. These criteria vary among the states. Links to state constitutional and statutory requirements are available on our State Resources pages.
We provide an overview of these requirements in the links below. Please understand that we cannot provide nuances to all the federal and state law regarding redistricting.
Federal Requirements
States may impose additional requirements beyond the federal requirements, such as drawing districts that respect existing political boundaries, physical boundaries, or communities of interest; districts that are compact; and districts that are politically fair. These criteria vary among the states. Links to state constitutional and statutory requirements are available on our State Resources pages.
We provide an overview of these requirements in the links below. Please understand that we cannot provide nuances to all the federal and state law regarding redistricting.
Federal Requirements
State Requirements
- Contiguity
- Compactness
- Respect
Existing Political Boundaries and Geographic Features
- Respect
Communities of Interest
- Political
Fairness and Political Competition
- Nesting
- Multi-member
districts
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Freedom Cannot Exist Without Morality
Curry Crossing, Idaho
CARTER KILLINGER
Curry Crossing
Much of our society copies the immoral lifestyle portrayed by Hollywood of adultery and fornication. Save the wild horses, save the whales and kill the babies. Back in the ’50s, it was a crime to kill a baby (abortion). Now it is legal to kill a baby before a certain age. A quick way to take care of the abortion and ultrasound issue is to just raise the age of when it is legal to kill a baby. Maybe to two years old or? Why the concern about a sonogram being invasive? Was it a non-consent invasive act that initially caused the pregnancy?
Since morality is rejected by many, perhaps we need to repeal the laws against adultery, alienation of affections, child abuse, drunkenness, drugs, murder, rape, sodomy, etc. God is not silent on those issues, but who cares about God anyway?
Why the hullabaloo about Santorum being a Catholic or Romney being a Mormon? Even though I am a Baptist, I would vote for a moral Catholic or Mormon before I would vote for the likes of a serial adulterer like Newt Gingrich. A candidate with a good history of morality and integrity presumably would be a much better candidate than a lying, cheating adulterer.
Of course God wants all to come to repentance and God does forgive those that do repent, but I believe first consideration should go to the candidates with good history and a morality that is pleasing to God.
CARTER KILLINGER
Curry Crossing
Martial Law, Confiscation of Private Property and Forced Labor
Filer, Idaho
Concerned
friends and elected officials:
We
are rapidly becoming a fascist/Marxist police state. President Obama
on March 16th issued another unconstitutional Executive Order
which calls for Martial Law, Confiscation of Private Property and Forced Labor
without due process under Janet Napolitano and the Department of Homeland
Security. This is another blatant violation of the
Constitution as all legislative powers were granted to
Congress. Obama is openly bypassing Congress to accomplish his
socialist/marxist's goals.
We
see the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto being implemented
openly. Saul Alinsky’s, “Rules for Revolution” are being used
to implement Marxist totalitarianism by working to destroy our Constitutional Republic
A
global information surveillance grid is being constructed. CIA
director, David Petraeus has indicated the Smart Meters and “smart” appliances
and gadgets are effectively bugging devices in our own homes. This
makes US spy agencies job easier to spy on “persons of
interest.” New processors give practically every
household appliance an internet connection. The National Security
Agency (NSA) is building a heavily fortified $2 billion facility in Utah
Petraeus
said, “Items of interest will be located, identified, monitored and remotely
controlled through technologies such as radio-frequency identification , sensor
networks, tiny embedded servers, and energy harvesters – all connected to …
high-power computing.” The result is warrantless wiretapping of
domestic communications as NSA plugs into telecommunications and utility
companies switches.
Congress
must overturn un-American Executive Orders which attack our privacy
and individual rights guaranteed under our
Constitution. Socialism/Marxism/communism/
A concerned citizen,
Adrian L. Arp, Ph.D.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
The Freedom Between Your Ears
Jack Wayne Chappell, Buhl, Idaho
A while back I mentioned that the John Birchers used to be considered paranoid
schizophrenic, and it turned out they were more correct than paranoid. Shortly thereafter I got an
email from a reader who asked:
“Why is it that when I talk to God it’s called prayer, but if God answers me back, it’s
called schizophrenia?”
The answer is, I don’t know. It always seemed to me that God speaks to man through
the human conscience. Whether the conscience is innate or acquired may be a mystery to some,
yet, it had to have originated somewhere. And, it appears to be easy to lose, given the proper
motivation. Take the Wall Street bankers, for example. Or, better yet, Jon Marvel and the
Watersheds girls.
We have institutions for nearly everything these days. We need yet another; and
we should start one right here locally to bring some big bucks into our region. Let’s call it
the “Institution for the Environmentally Insane” or IFTEI. That sounds nifty.
It would take a lot of acres to build a big enough camp to house all of these
environmental lunatics in politics, but given the opportunity to put all those people on a funny
farm, the real farmers hereabouts would be altogether likely to donate us enough land. Or, we
could get a special land grant from the BLM.
Just a short hop to the west and a bit south they wanted to lock half of Owyhee County
into a Wilderness Area and give the other half to the snails. So, they did. Up north a ways,
Carole King and her band of renown want to appropriate 24 million more acres of designated
Wilderness in the northwest, nine million more right here in Idaho. That’s all the rest of the best
recreational country that we’ve got.
Between their spotted owls, desert tortoises, and multi-million dollar wolves, they’ve
been taking over entire states with their idiotic environmental agenda. They claim they have
around a hundred and eleven million acres of designated Wilderness, but that’s not anywhere
near accurate.
Early on, the U.S. Geological Survey shot all our mountain country in linear square
miles. Well, one square mile out here on the flat is 640 acres. But up in those mountains, a linear
square mile can be several thousand acres in actual surface area. Depends upon how high the
mountains are and how steep the terrain is.
In reality, they have closer to three hundred million (or more) acres in their wilderness
system, and that amount of country is bigger that some nations. There’s enough resource wealth
included to pay off the national debt who knows how many times over again. And, if we’re not
careful, that land could be serendipitously signed over to the U.N.’s Biosphere program, which
would likely make it a bargaining chip (a rather large one) for the International bankers.
Well, that’s what we get for electing lawyers to the Congress. They misplace the human
conscience even more frequently than the Wall Street bankers do.
A while back in this column there was mention of a particular Heavenly Ghost that
sometimes stops by my camp to haunt me. He showed up again last night, and this is what he had
to say:
“Now to tell you what Dirk the Butcher said in Shakespeare’s version of King Henry
The Sixth ~ which is directly related to the problem here ~ Shakespeare’s Butcher said: The first
thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers!
‘Now I want you all to know that we have a drastic shortage of lawyers up in Heaven, so
would you please not do that. Every time one of them fills out an application form, Mark Twain
uses it for inspiration to write another funny story, and the application never even crosses Saint
Peter’s desk. One of ‘em even tried to fax in his application, but Wily Post had to proof read it,
and he thought it was from an ex-Marine who wanted to get into the Job Corps. . .
‘So you can see that the reason that we have this loco environmental movement is because the
lawyers have a very tuff time getting into Heaven, and if you think that your environmentalists are into
recycling, you had ought to see how quick Saint Peter can recycle a busload of lawyers!
‘They all have to be reincarnated and they start over as bugs so that it will take them a
long enough time to get to be men again. Saint Peter hopes that this type of republicanism will
give them time to think about it some during the twenty million years from the bug stage when
they have lived long enough to warrant evolving into true human beings again. Don’t worry. If
they go sideways and become lawyers the next time, well, it’s back to microbes and forty million
years for them!”
I don’t know what kind of spiritual fate awaits the environmental lunatics that should be
confined to the tent city of the IFTEI, but it is safe to reckon this much. They should check in
with an environmental lawyer under each arm.
You may contact Mr. Chappell at jackwaynechappell@gmail.com
http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/18042/jack-wayne-chappell
A while back I mentioned that the John Birchers used to be considered paranoid
schizophrenic, and it turned out they were more correct than paranoid. Shortly thereafter I got an
email from a reader who asked:
“Why is it that when I talk to God it’s called prayer, but if God answers me back, it’s
called schizophrenia?”
The answer is, I don’t know. It always seemed to me that God speaks to man through
the human conscience. Whether the conscience is innate or acquired may be a mystery to some,
yet, it had to have originated somewhere. And, it appears to be easy to lose, given the proper
motivation. Take the Wall Street bankers, for example. Or, better yet, Jon Marvel and the
Watersheds girls.
We have institutions for nearly everything these days. We need yet another; and
we should start one right here locally to bring some big bucks into our region. Let’s call it
the “Institution for the Environmentally Insane” or IFTEI. That sounds nifty.
It would take a lot of acres to build a big enough camp to house all of these
environmental lunatics in politics, but given the opportunity to put all those people on a funny
farm, the real farmers hereabouts would be altogether likely to donate us enough land. Or, we
could get a special land grant from the BLM.
Just a short hop to the west and a bit south they wanted to lock half of Owyhee County
into a Wilderness Area and give the other half to the snails. So, they did. Up north a ways,
Carole King and her band of renown want to appropriate 24 million more acres of designated
Wilderness in the northwest, nine million more right here in Idaho. That’s all the rest of the best
recreational country that we’ve got.
Between their spotted owls, desert tortoises, and multi-million dollar wolves, they’ve
been taking over entire states with their idiotic environmental agenda. They claim they have
around a hundred and eleven million acres of designated Wilderness, but that’s not anywhere
near accurate.
Early on, the U.S. Geological Survey shot all our mountain country in linear square
miles. Well, one square mile out here on the flat is 640 acres. But up in those mountains, a linear
square mile can be several thousand acres in actual surface area. Depends upon how high the
mountains are and how steep the terrain is.
In reality, they have closer to three hundred million (or more) acres in their wilderness
system, and that amount of country is bigger that some nations. There’s enough resource wealth
included to pay off the national debt who knows how many times over again. And, if we’re not
careful, that land could be serendipitously signed over to the U.N.’s Biosphere program, which
would likely make it a bargaining chip (a rather large one) for the International bankers.
Well, that’s what we get for electing lawyers to the Congress. They misplace the human
conscience even more frequently than the Wall Street bankers do.
A while back in this column there was mention of a particular Heavenly Ghost that
sometimes stops by my camp to haunt me. He showed up again last night, and this is what he had
to say:
“Now to tell you what Dirk the Butcher said in Shakespeare’s version of King Henry
The Sixth ~ which is directly related to the problem here ~ Shakespeare’s Butcher said: The first
thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers!
‘Now I want you all to know that we have a drastic shortage of lawyers up in Heaven, so
would you please not do that. Every time one of them fills out an application form, Mark Twain
uses it for inspiration to write another funny story, and the application never even crosses Saint
Peter’s desk. One of ‘em even tried to fax in his application, but Wily Post had to proof read it,
and he thought it was from an ex-Marine who wanted to get into the Job Corps. . .
‘So you can see that the reason that we have this loco environmental movement is because the
lawyers have a very tuff time getting into Heaven, and if you think that your environmentalists are into
recycling, you had ought to see how quick Saint Peter can recycle a busload of lawyers!
‘They all have to be reincarnated and they start over as bugs so that it will take them a
long enough time to get to be men again. Saint Peter hopes that this type of republicanism will
give them time to think about it some during the twenty million years from the bug stage when
they have lived long enough to warrant evolving into true human beings again. Don’t worry. If
they go sideways and become lawyers the next time, well, it’s back to microbes and forty million
years for them!”
I don’t know what kind of spiritual fate awaits the environmental lunatics that should be
confined to the tent city of the IFTEI, but it is safe to reckon this much. They should check in
with an environmental lawyer under each arm.
You may contact Mr. Chappell at jackwaynechappell@gmail.com
http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/18042/jack-wayne-chappell
West End Cemetery District
West End Cemetery District in Buhl, ID is a public taxing district categorized under Cemeteries. Our records show it was established in 1977 and incorporated in Idaho.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Demolishing Due Process
It is ironic but perhaps sadly appropriate that Attorney General Eric Holder would choose a law school, Northwestern University, to deliver a speech earlier this month in which he demolished what was left of the rule of law in America.
In what history likely will record as a turning point, Attorney General Holder bluntly explained that this administration believes it has the authority to use lethal force against Americans if the President determines them to be a threat to the nation. He tells us that this is not a violation of the due process requirements of our Constitution because the President himself embodies "due process" as he unilaterally determines who is to be targeted. As Holder said, "a careful and thorough executive branch review of the facts in a case amounts to 'due process.'" That means that the administration believes it is the President himself who is to be the judge, jury, and executioner.
As George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley wrote of the Holder speech:
"All the Administration has said is that they closely and faithfully follow their own guidelines — even if their decisions are not subject to judicial review. The fact that they say those guidelines are based on notions of due process is meaningless. They are not a constitutional process of review."
It is particularly bizarre to hear the logic of the administration claiming the right to target its citizens according to some secret selection process, when we justified our attacks against Iraq and Libya because their leaders supposedly were targeting their own citizens! We also now plan a covert war against Syria for the same reason.
I should make it perfectly clear that I believe any individual who is engaging in violence against this country or its citizens should be brought to justice. But as Attorney General Holder himself points out in the same speech, our civilian courts have a very good track record of trying and convicting individuals involved with terrorism against the United States. Our civilian court system, with the guarantee of real due process, judicial review, and a fair trial, is our strength, not a weakness. It is not an impediment to be sidestepped in the push for convictions or assassinations, but rather a process that guarantees that fundamental right to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
I am encouraged, however that there appears to be the beginning of a backlash against the administration's authoritarian claims. Just recently I did an interview with conservative radio talk show host Laura Ingraham who expressed grave concern over using these sorts of tactics against Americans using the supposed war on terror as justification. Sadly, many conservative leaders were silent when Republican President George W. Bush laid the groundwork for this administration's lawlessness with the PATRIOT Act, warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention without trial, and other violations. Similarly, as Professor Turley points out, "Democrats previously demanded the 'torture memos' of the Bush administration that revealed poor legal analysis by Judge Jay Bybee and Professor John Yoo to justify torture. Now, however, Democrats are largely silent in the face of a president claiming the right to unilaterally kill citizens." The misuse of and disregard for our Constitution for partisan political gain is likely one reason the American public holds Congress in such low esteem. Now the stakes are much higher. Congress and the people should finally wake up!
US Representative Ron Paul
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)