NaturalNews October 3 2013
Anyone looking for evidence of the impending total failure of the U.S. government need look no further than the shenanigans taking place right now in Washington D.C.
• As the nation hurtles toward an inevitable debt collapse, the Obama administration insists the answer is to pile on more debt by raising the debt ceiling. Anyone who disagrees with this is being characterized an “anarchist.”
• Unless the debt ceiling is raised, the U.S. Treasury will default on hundreds of billions of dollars in debt obligations in less than a month. Such a default would absolutely wreck the credit worthiness of the USA, causing the future debt burden to start wildly multiplying in a runaway mathematical blowout that can only end in financial collapse. Continue reading
NaturalNews May 31 2013
Like many Natural News readers, I was astonished when Sen. Rand Paul voted against a recent amendment that would have allowed states to enact their own local laws regarding GMO labeling. Rand Paul’s answer to why he voted against the amendment, however, is a coherent argument that deserves additional discussion. Paul is, it turns out, fully in favor of consumers being fully informed of what they’re buying, but he’s incredibly cautious about handing government new powers to regulate food labeling.
His response to why he voted down the recent amendment is as follows:
I am an opponent of the FDA’s war on natural foods and farmers. I’ve stood up for raw milk, hemp and natural supplements. I fought to take power AWAY from the government on these issues. So while there is evidence we should be concerned about GMOs, we should also be careful not to lose our constitutional perspective simply because the end result is one we may desire. That’s what we fight against. That’s what the statists do. Take a look at a pretty thorough rundown on the recent GMO amendment. There were many more problems with it, including the potential the FDA could have assumed broad new rule making authority if this badly written amendment had passed. - Sen. Rand Paul
This argument has merit. Let’s examine it more closely…
The proper role of government: people vs. corporations
Since the story on the GMO labeling amendment vote first broke, Natural News has ditched Facebook as its article comments engine and switched over the using Disqus. This has had the remarkable result of significantly raising the IQ of the discussions now taking place on articles we publish here at Natural News. Instead of the usual idiot blather that typifies Facebook comments, the Disqus comments are thoughtful, intelligent and informative. (It has very nearly restored my faith in humanity…)
Using the Disqus engine, a great many people have commented on why Rand Paul (and Sen. Ted Cruz) were both right to vote down that recent amendment on GMO labeling. They aren’t against GMO labeling, I’m told; they’re against expanding the power of the FDA in ways that might be even more dangerous down the road.
Government always abuses new powers
Yes, we all want consumers to know what they are eating, but there are different ways to achieve that result. Rand Paul wants to make sure government is not granted power that can be abused, and it is of course absolutely true that the FDA is essentially run by Monsanto, Big Pharma and other corporate interests. So we don’t want to give a criminal government more power, especially when that government is already grossly abusing its power with the DOJ-AP scandal, the IRS targeting scandal, Obama’s secret kill lists, secret military prisons and so on.
The Jeenyus Corner March 12 2013
Last week the US Senate took a break from debating the phony cuts known as “sequestration,” for Senator Rand Paul to hold a 13-hour filibuster to force the Obama administration to state whether it believes the President has the right to kill American citizens with drones on US soil. I find it tragic that there has to be a discussion on an issue that should be so self-evident.
However, feeling the pressure, the administration finally said “no,” but in language so twisted that no one should feel in the slightest bit reassured. According to Attorney General Eric Holder, the president does not believe he has the right to use the military to kill an American who is “not engaged in combat on American soil.” Left undefined is how the administration defines “combat.” As constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley wrote last week, “one can easily foresee this or a future president insisting that an alleged terrorism conspiracy is a form of ‘combat’.”
The administration’s outrageous response to the most serious Constitutional question of all — when a government can kill its own citizens — is clear evidence of an executive branch out of control.
Many of the drafters of the Constitution envisioned the presidency as an office with very limited powers, but even the most dedicated proponents of a strong presidency at the time would be shocked to see the concentration of power in the modern presidency.
Today the presidency is viewed as the center of the federal government, with each successive administration expanding the power of the executive at the expense of Congress and the people.
The Blogmocracy March 9 2013
Coldwater writes ~ And I hope he means it.
Sen. Paul ~ The Senate has the power to restrain the executive branch — and my filibuster was the beginning of the fight to restore a healthy balance of powers.
Read on, do you see those names listed by the good Senator from Kentucky? Those are your new Conservative Leaders. Those representatives still have spines, unlike Senators Graham and The Traitor John McCain and the rest of the ‘establishment’. Its time for the broken down, the sold out, the go along to get alongs to go. I hope they leave quietly into the night and let the these new, real leaders to get on with restoring America to its rightful place.
Sen. Rand Paul ~ My filibuster was just the beginning (published March 8)
If I had planned to speak for 13 hours when I took the Senate floor Wednesday, I would’ve worn more comfortable shoes. I started my filibuster with the words, “I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination for the CIA. I will speak until I can no longer speak” — and I meant it.
I wanted to sound an alarm bell from coast to coast. I wanted everybody to know that our Constitution is precious and that no American should be killed by a drone without first being charged with a crime. As Americans, we have fought long and hard for the Bill of Rights. The idea that no person shall be held without due process, and that no person shall be held for a capital offense without being indicted, is a founding American principle and a basic right.
Jonathan Turley’s blog March 8 2013
We previously discussed how Attorney General Eric Holder wrote a letter confirming that the President would have authority to kill citizens on U.S. soil without a charge or conviction. His answer triggered a principled filibuster by Sen. Rand Paul and another embarrassment to Democratic Senators who, again, chose personality over principle in staying silent. Now, Holder has issued a new statement. No, President Obama still claims the right to kill U.S. citizens on his sole authority. However, Holder now says that, if the citizen is “not engaged in combat on American soil,” the President cannot vaporize him. The answer leaves the constitutional claim of Obama even more confused and conflicted. Does this mean we have a third category now under the policy: citizen, citizen terrorist, and citizen non-combatant terrorist? The difference appears to determine whether you can be vaporized or speak to counsel but Holder is not explaining to the citizenry.
In his prior letter, Holder answered a question about whether the President was claiming the right to kill citizens on U.S. soil. This follows the release of a memo showing that Holder’s description of the policy at Northwestern University Law School was narrower than the actual policy described within the Administration. A memo leaked to the press shows that the Administration has adopted a virtual limitless definition of imminence: “The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”
Last week, Holder said “It is possible I suppose to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.”
After the filibuster, Holder wrote a short terse response to Paul: “It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: ‘Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’ The answer to that question is no.”
The answer is NO. The president cannot kill Americans on U.S. soil with a drone attack who are not engaged in combat. It took a gutsy 13 hour filibuster from Senator Rand Paul and some other Republican and Democratic Senators to get that answer from the White House. When liberal Democrat Ron Wyden joined the Republicans, it became very hard to blow it off as partisan politics. My question is where have the liberals been? Actually, some liberals stepped up today and applauded Senators Paul and Wyden for asking the tough questions–not just about killing Americans on U.S. soil, but killing Americans without “Due Process” abroad. Oddly, some of the harshest criticism about the filibuster came from Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain. Those two supported indefinite detention, and they also support killing Americans abroad without charge or trial.
The drone targeting killing program has exploded overseas under the Obama Administration. Thousands of attacks have occurred in countries that we have not declared war with. The Obama Administration has, in fact, killed Americans without charge or trial. Many say this is totally unconstitutional and want total transparency. This killing, or some say murder policy, is clouded in secrecy, and there is zero congressional oversight.
Jonathan Turley’s blog March 6 2013
Attorney General Eric Holder this week held out the possibility that the President could kill an American citizens with a drone attack on U.S. soil without any criminal charge or trial. After Holder announced President Obama’s kill list policy, many apologists for the Administration insisted that the policy was limited to targets outside of the United States and was subject to a form of due process of the President’s own making. At the time, I wrote that these arguments were nothing but spin by the Administration and its supporters since the underlying claim of authority would have no such limitations. Holder now appears to have confirmed that even they do not believe in such limitations. This follows the release of a memo showing that Holder’s description of the policy at Northwestern University Law School was narrower than the actual policy described within the Administration.
Holder was responding to a letter from Sen. Rand Paul concerning the nomination of CIA director John Brennan on the use of lethal force. Holder said “It is possible I suppose to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.”