Judge Andrew Napolitano slams Obama’s potential Syria intervention on Fox News…
Although marijuana is often described as an overall harmless substance, Colorado lawmakers have shown some clouded judgment in the months since legalizing the drug statewide.
Andrew Napolitano, respected judge and fierce critic of liberal lunacy, recently appeared on a Fox News program and offered his expert opinion on one of the state’s more ridiculous proposals.
Along with several other outlandish gun control measures, one suggested law would allow victims to hold both gunmakers and retailers accountable in court for crimes committed with their product.
The left insists guns – and now those who manufacture and sell them – are responsible for crimes, which is like holding Ford liable for injuries to an individual who drove his Taurus off a bridge.
Both companies produce products which, if used correctly, offer a great service. We cannot set the dangerous precedent of targeting unrelated parties in a misguided rush to justice.
Echoing the concerns of state law enforcement officials, Napolitano called the proposed law “unenforceable.”
He and host Megyn Kelly discussed similarities to the vitriol with which legislators and litigators attacked tobacco manufacturers and a subsequent federal law prohibiting similar lawsuits against gunmakers.
Napolitano said the Colorado lawmakers behind the proposal are “either woefully ignorant of federal law or just making a political statement.”
While contending the proposal “will be stopped by a federal judge,” he said if it is somehow passed, “it will make the ownership of guns so expensive that ordinary people who want to protect themselves won’t be able to afford them and that very act will be unconstitutional.”
Leftists always want to punish the innocent periphery while ignoring – or supporting – the true causes of this nation’s moral and financial decline.
Colorado, it seems, is stepping up its game to take on states like California, Illinois, and Massachusetts for the dubious designation of most ridiculous representation.
This is just another reason I don’t plan to leave Texas any time soon.
Click here to get B. Christopher Agee’s latest book for less than $5! Like his Facebook page for engaging, relevant conservative content daily.
Photo credit: Gage SKidmore (Creative Commons)
After four years of the Obama administration’s increasing use of remote-controlled, unmanned drones to kill our enemies, there are suddenly a few more in the media feeling obligated to report on the policy.
A new set of ethical issues is being discussed. The FAA is looking into how to regulate what some call ‘the drone age.’ When liberals say things like ‘Bush would have been impeached if he did what Obama is doing,” rest assured it’s newsworthy and conservatives should jump on the story.
Tina Brown, editor for the Daily Beast/Newsweek basically admitted to media hypocrisy saying:
“He’d be impeached by now for drones if he was George W. Bush… a Republican president; the outcry about drones would be far greater.”
Recently, memos on the president’s drone-use policy were released, perhaps to make Obama look stronger in fighting terror. Ironically, when first elected, Obama used the word “terror” only once in his 2009 inaugural address. Times have changed. The Obama administration has openly carried out more than six times the drone attacks approved by the Bush White House; and the main reason most Americans are unaware is the media looks the other way.
Obama made closing the Guantanamo Bay prison a campaign issue and has been unable to follow up on his promise. Instead, he now seems to favor a policy of killing to avoid prisoner detention. With few exceptions, the media has apparently been fine with openly using drones – that have killed many innocent bystanders – when they feverishly protested the use of enhanced interrogation techniques under Bush. They and Obama considered waterboarding prisoners to be ‘torture’; but they justify this policy of bombing suspects with no judicial review or trial.
The drone controversy has been brewing for months now. Judge Andrew Napolitano recently emphasized that the government’s legal memos on Obama’s policy to kill people overseas includes American citizens. Memos were released after a year of stonewalling federal judges who were seeking legal justification on drone use. What is this administration’s legal basis for claiming the right to kill without due process, thus suspending guaranteed constitutional protections?
The undated and unsigned 16-page document leaked to NBC refers to itself as a Department of Justice white paper. Its logic is flawed, its premises are bereft of any appreciation for the values of the Declaration of Independence and the supremacy of the Constitution, and its rationale could be used to justify any breaking of any law by any “informed, high-level official of the U.S. government.”
Under the Constitution, the president can only order killing using the military when the United States has been attacked, or when an attack is imminent. Obama and his advisers have used the word “surgical” to defend the use of drones as humane and necessary; but the fact is that out of the 2,300 drone-caused deaths, approximately 14 percent have been innocent civilians.
Such gravitas caused PBS’s Bill Moyers to question those who gave Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, implying it has become tarnished. Moyers now feels the president is indifferent to collateral damage and even called Obama’s drone use “cold-blooded.”
Ultra-liberal Columbia University professor Marc Lamont Hill even admitted the media refuses to hold Obama accountable, saying “I think the problem is we [Democrats] have convinced ourselves that Obama’s drones are somehow softer and kinder and gentler than Bush’s drones.”
Eric Holder’s Justice Department provided justification for killing the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, born in New Mexico, in an American drone strike in September 2011. Note that Obama and Holder had the audacity to denounce the legal method of interrogating terrorists by waterboarding, decrying former VP Dick Cheney’s defense of the policy. The double standards are astounding.
For once, I give the ACLU credit for calling the new memo a disturbing document, saying it’s a “stunning overreach of executive authority.” In his confirmation hearing for the CIA, John Brennan defended Obama’s counterterrorism program; and despite evidence, he stated that drone attacks are carried out “as a last resort, to save lives when there is no other alternative.”
Where is the line drawn? It should alarm us that our government also has the authority to use drones against its own people. During the Obama administration, conservatives, Tea Party participants, and even our veterans can be scrutinized by as dangerous or suspicious.
Referring to a 2012 DHS report, retired Army lieutenant colonel Robert Maginnis writes:
Is this a slippery slope whereby the government might turn drone technology on Americans at home it labels “terrorists”? That’s an alarming thought, but so are past statements made by this government… [The 2012 report advocates] warning police to be suspicious of anyone that feels their way of life is endangered, anyone that is religious, and anyone that might be interested in “personal liberty” and/or firearms.
The domestic drone market is now expected to grow quickly. Congress must debate this controversial policy and set clear boundaries before it gets out of hand. I’m all for defending America, but not at the expense of increased government power and authority over the very citizens they’ve pledged to protect and serve.
Evangelist Ray Comfort produced a documentary (180 movie) in which he gets people thinking about ethical dilemmas involving life. Comfort asks: “It’s 1939, you have a high-powered rifle, and you have Hitler in your sights. Would you pull the trigger?” After most respond “yes,” he then asks: “If it was 30 years earlier, would you have killed Hitler’s pregnant mother knowing what you know now?”
If drone killing isn’t controversial enough for the media to report on, either they don’t value all life – including life in the womb – or they prioritize protecting the president they voted for over telling American citizens the truth. Maybe it’s both.
*To catch up on the first three articles in this media malpractice series, click here.
Photo credit: axeman3d (Creative Commons)
A friend of mine, Republican consultant Matt Mackowiak, tweeted on Tuesday night that if immigration reform goes through Congress this year, “it will almost solely be due to” Florida Senator Marco Rubio.
To which I replied: “you break it, you buy it.”
There are two different conservative narratives about Rubio’s dalliance with John McAmnesty and the other senators on board with his plan. The first is the glowing words coming from Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and now Rush Limbaugh. Just one day after Limbaugh made national news by trashing Rubio’s plan, he praised the senator effusively when Rubio appeared on his show to defend himself. That’s a big win for Rubio. Going on offense to defend himself is a much better approach to this scalding hot issue than Monday’s photo op with McAmnesty, Charles “we don’t need no stinking Constitution” Schumer, and Bob “where the underage hookers are” Menendez that I was critical of in my latest Business Insider column.
But while winning the support of three of the biggest name conservatives when it comes to the air war is important, perhaps even more crucial is winning the support of organizations that actually put conservative boots on the ground. And Rubio still has a ways to go where that’s concerned.
For example, Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, one of the largest grassroots conservative organizations in the country, said that Rubio has essentially “kneecapped himself for 2016″ (referencing the senator’s presumed presidential ambitions). In a column titled “Rubio Amnesty Plan Way Worse than I Thought,” AFA’s policy director referred to Rubio’s plan “as the same old bait and switch” conservatives have fallen for in the past.
Fischer adds “the solution Rubio is offering is the same one that created the mess we’re trying to clean up right now. It’s impossible not to think of the reigning definition of insanity as you listen to Republicans gamely expect magical results to come from ‘solutions’ that have never worked in the past and will never work in the future.”
Erick Erickson of Red State, who just signed on to become a Fox News contributor, says “I don’t like Marco Rubio’s plan.” What’s particularly interesting about that is Erickson admits immigration is one issue where he leans to the left of most of his readers; and even he says “I think this plan is warmed over McCain-Kennedy and will do nothing to solve the problem.”
Specifically, Erickson says the Rubio plan “is clearly written by a group of men who seemingly love government, but do not love free markets, small businesses, or individuals. It is a plan based on faith in government, not free enterprise or the American people. It does nothing to actually solve our immigration problems, but hides behind the construct of ‘comprehensive’ reform. Along the way, it potentially adds more people to already overwhelmed entitlement programs, but then that too is another kicked can.”
It appears to me the GOP is split into three evenly divided camps on the issue. To be the GOP presidential nominee in 2016, Rubio needs to win two out of three.
The first camp is comprised of party establishment people and libertarians like Judge Andrew Napolitano. Those two camps want Rubio’s plan to happen for different reasons. Pandering is in the bloodstream of the feckless Republican Party establishment. On the other hand, Napolitano and other libertarians are philosophically for open borders. Remember when Ron Paul said during the last presidential campaign he was against a border fence because he’s more concerned about a government trying to keep people from getting out more than letting people in? Although Rubio has won over these people, this is not an issue that drives them to the polls in a primary.
This next third does get out and vote on this issue; and this third is against anything that even sniffs of amnesty. As Congressman Steve King said on Twitter Monday morning, they don’t want to “pardon lawbreakers.” They not only think mass deportation is feasible; they think it’s a must. If getting something passed that a leftist President of the United States was willing to sign into law is Rubio’s goal, then he was never going to win over these people no matter how he approached the issue from there.
The jury is still out on the third and final group, and this is the group Rubio cannot afford to lose if he has any hopes of being the 2016 nominee. These people are mostly principled conservatives who believe in the rule of law, as well as national security/sovereignty. At the same time, they either don’t think mass deportations are feasible and/or moral given how entrenched some of the families in question are. They’re also concerned about the GOP’s much-discussed Hispanic problem, but they also vehemently opposed McCain-Kennedy in 2007. Therefore, the main reason these people would be willing to go along with Rubio’s risky gambit here is their belief in Rubio himself.
This is why I’ve been following how he’s approaching the issue so closely; because for this third and decisive group, the issue isn’t the issue at this point. The issue is Rubio, and the question is do you really believe he’s the transformative leader you’ve been told that he is, or are we falling yet again for another amnesty banana in the tailpipe?
Put it all together, and it’s clear this will either make Rubio a future President of the United States or yet another tombstone in the graveyard of lost conservatives hoodwinked by the beltway culture.
You can friend “Steve Deace” on Facebook or follow him on Twitter @SteveDeaceShow.