Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Monday, June 28, 2010
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court held Monday that the Constitution's Second Amendment restrains government's ability to significantly limit "the right to keep and bear arms," advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Friday, June 25, 2010
Thursday, June 24, 2010
For his part, Admiral Mullen spoke of the pre-eminence of civilian control of the military.
“We do not have the right, nor should we ever assume the prerogative, to cast doubt upon the ability or mock the motives of our civilian leaders, elected or appointed,” Admiral Mullen said. “We are and must remain a neutral instrument of the state, accountable to and respectful of those leaders, no matter which party holds sway or which person holds a given office.” More...
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Chicago-Style Political Shakedown
Washington, Jun 16 - Republican Study Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-GA) issued the following statement after the White House announced it had reached a deal with BP to require the oil company to place $20 billion into an escrow fund to pay claims filed against the company in the wake of the Gulf oil spill.
“We all agree that BP should be held fully responsible for its complicity in the oil tragedy in the Gulf,” said Chairman Price. “In fact, BP has already begun paying claims. Any attempt by the company to sidestep that responsibility should be met with the strongest legal recourses available. However, in an administration that appears not to respect fundamental American principles, it is important to note that there is no legal authority for the President to compel a private company to set up or contribute to an escrow account.
“BP’s reported willingness to go along with the White House’s new fund suggests that the Obama Administration is hard at work exerting its brand of Chicago-style shakedown politics. These actions are emblematic of a politicization of our economy that has been borne out of this Administration’s drive for greater power and control. It is the same mentality that believes an economic crisis or an environmental disaster is the best opportunity to pursue a failed liberal agenda. The American people know much better.” More...
Both the Republican Study Committee statement and Representative Joe Barton's statements speak for themselves.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Friday, June 18, 2010
I think President Obama should be receiving more credit than he has for standing up for the average American against the very powerful interests of big business. In less than one and one half years in office he has stood up to the large Wall Street banks, the automobile titans GM and Chrysler, the health care industry and now BP. What American president since Roosevelt has had such a strong record of supporting the common interest instead of caving in to corporate greed? If the so called "Tea Bag Party" followers would look at the Obama record and not remain sidetracked by narrow-mindedness, bigotry and foggy headed thinking they might see that Obama's use of big government power actually has served their real interests. Remember that statutorily BP is only obligated to pay of maximum of seventy-five million for damages caused by their oil spill. Under pressure from the Obama administration they have committed to a minimum of twenty billion dollars. Granted even more money will probably be required to make injured parties whole. In spite of this fact Obama achieved a remarkable success this week. America should take note.
John H. Armwood
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
President Barak Obama spoke live to the nation tonight, from the oval office, to address concerns which have arisen as a result of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The president outlined steps which his administration has already taken to handle the disaster and plans which his administration has put in place for the near future. Early on in his approximately fifteen minute speech Obama assured the nation that B.P. would be held responsible for the costs of the damage resulting from the spill. In his most forceful statement he said that B.P. would have to set aside a sum of money, managed by an independent third party, to pay out damages to injured parties. There will be more to come as reaction to the speech pours in.
John H. Armwood
Monday, June 14, 2010
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Friday, June 11, 2010
Thursday, June 10, 2010
The narrative that President Barack Obama is expected to control is that of his presidency.
That wasn’t a problem for Josef Stalin. And Kim Jong-Il seems to handle it pretty effectively these days. But in a country with a free press and a vigorous political opposition, it’s impossible. That cliché should be retired, the way announcers have stopped saying “the name of the game is third and short.”
This is not to say that Obama has handled the public part of his job with the same skill he showed in his campaign. He hasn’t.
He lost momentum on health care and allowed lies to take hold because of his naive belief that, if he was patient, he could get Republican cooperation. On the oil spill, he hasn’t successfully connected the government he heads with the constituents, who are suffering.
But there are two huge fallacies in the idea that he somehow could control the narrative. The first is “control.” The second is “narrative.” More...
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
Saturday, June 05, 2010
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
The Miranda warnings remind suspects of their right to remain silent but were never particularly clear on what happens when a suspect actually stays silent. Can the police question the suspect? If so, can they do they so for just a few minutes or as long as they want?
A five-justice majority on the Supreme Court addressed the issue in an opinion on Tuesday, but it did not provide much clarity. This was not a burning issue crying out for the court’s attention, and the justices left so many crucial questions unanswered that it is hard to see how they protected the rights of suspects who do not read complex court decisions. More...
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
By AMOS OZ
FOR 2,000 years, the Jews knew the force of force only in the form of lashes to our own backs. For several decades now, we have been able to wield force ourselves — and this power has, again and again, intoxicated us.
In the period before Israel was founded, a large portion of the Jewish population in Palestine, especially members of the extremely nationalist Irgun group, thought that military force could be used to achieve any goal, to drive the British out of the country, and to repel the Arabs who opposed the creation of our state.
Luckily, during Israel’s early years, prime ministers like David Ben-Gurion and Levi Eshkol knew very well that force has its limits and were careful to use it only as a last resort. But ever since the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel has been fixated on military force. To a man with a big hammer, says the proverb, every problem looks like a nail. More...