Limbaugh, Fluke, Maher, Romney + Obama

Will this ever end?

Current and former White House aides on Thursday rejected demands by a conservative group that a Super PAC supporting President Obama refund a $1 million check from comedian and talk show host Bill Maher because of coarse comments he’s made about Sarah Palin and other Republican women.  …

Carney said “language that denigrates women is inappropriate,” but it is not the President’s place to be the “arbiter” of every controversial statement.

“He chooses to lead by example or tries to,” Carney said of the president, adding that “he chooses to try to practice that civility himself and he calls on everybody to do just that.”

Earlier on Thursday, Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America sent a letter to White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew charging Maher is a “serially vile misogynist” because of a list of nasty comments directed at conservative women.

Nance noted that since Obama recently reversed his own opposition to Super PACs by giving his public blessing for Democrats to donate unlimited sums to Priorities USA Action, he should direct that the Maher contribution be rejected and tell top White House aides like David Plouffe to stop raising money for the group.

via Fox News.

Two odds things about the White House’s reaction to this:

  • If the president wanted to “lead by example” then shouldn’t he give back the money?  Or is Obama setting the example such that when someone goes on TV and calls women all the horrible things as Bill Maher has done, and then when that person donates $1 million to your Super PAC that you’re supposed to keep the money?
  • Wouldn’t a far better response by to say that, “Well, the law says that there cannot be any coordination between the campaign and the Super PAC.  As such, it’s not our decision — and would illegal for us to make such a decision — to return the money.  So the next questions is, did Obama just admit to illegal coordination between his campaign and the super PAC?

So Now What That the G-8’s Gone?

Yesterday’s news:

The White House abruptly announced Monday that it had scuttled plans to hold the upcoming G-8 economic summit in Chicago, and would instead host world leaders at the presidential retreat at Camp David in Maryland.  …

A spokeswoman for Emanuel said the Chicago mayor was informed about the location change in a Monday phone call from a White House official.  …

The summits have become a target for large, and sometimes violent, protests in recent years, making security costs a concern for host cities.  …  But Joe Iosbaker of the United National Antiwar Committee in Chicago said protests would still go on during the NATO summit.

via The Washington Post.

This Iosbaker fellow received more than a passing mention in this article here yesterday about the G-8.  It seems he’s quite the professional rabble-rouser.

I would be curious if Eric Holder thinks that the “Government” could order his execution for creating violence on U.S. soil.

Holder: Your Government Can Kill You

He said the legal right to kill U.S. citizens overseas without benefit of a trial was based in Congress’ authorization to use all necessary and appropriate force against the perpetrators of 9/11 or those who helped them and the president’s power “to protect the nation from any imminent threat of violent attack.”

That authority is “not limited to the battlefields in Afghanistan,” Holder said, adding that “We are at war with a stateless enemy, prone to shifting operations from country to country.”

via Chicago Tribune.

This is just about the craziest thing I have read in weeks.

Never before has a presidential administration been so completely inconsiderate of the Constitution.  A United States Citizen’s rights do not simply vanish because they leave the country.  In fact, our courts have held that you are still subject to U.S. laws even when out of the country. When the criminal laws apply so do the protective laws.

The Constitution provides:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

I don’t care what Congress passes; if you want to change the Constitution then you have amend it.  There’s a procedure for that.

Until that procedure is followed, the 6th Amendment still applies.

Obama and Holder and just plain wrong, very very wrong on this issue.

G-8 Summit Moved to Camp David

Big News!!

The Group of Eight meeting will be moved to Camp David, according to the White House, but the gathering of NATO allies and the International Security Assistance Force will go on in Chicago as planned in mid-May.

Camp David will more closely approximate the remote settings in which the G8 leaders prefer to gather. Summits in large cities typically see clamorous protests, while those in the countryside are calmer and more sedate.

via Chicago Tribune.

Of course this has absolutely nothing to do this this:

The Occupy movement is likely to escalate months before the Sept. 3-6 event. A slew of extremist organizations, some tied to Obama, are preparing protests to coincide with major NATO and G-8 summits slated for Chicago in May.

Foreshadowing possible violent confrontations, some of the same radical trainers behind the infamous 1999 Seattle riots against the World Trade Organization have been mobilizing new protest efforts geared toward world summits.  …

One endorsing group, which calls itself the Committee to Stop FBI Repression, is also a main organizer of the protests being scheduled for Chicago’s NATO and G-8 summits in May.

via Klein Online.

And then there’s this:

“To facilitate a free-flowing discussion with our close G-8 partners, the President is inviting his fellow G-8 leaders to Camp David on May 18-19 for the G-8 Summit, which will address a broad range of economic, political and security issues,” the White House announced this afternoon. “The President will then welcome NATO allies and partners to his hometown of Chicago for the NATO Summit on May 20-21.”

Maybe I’m reading English here, but that sounds like the president concluded it would be harder to have a “free-flowing discussion” in Chicago—yet still wanted to throw Rahm Emanuel a bone. NATO summits don’t generally excite people as much as meetings of the most powerful money guys in the world.   …

Not even a carefully crafted statement from the City Hall press machine could conceal his disappointment: “We wish President Obama and the other leaders well at the G8 meeting at Camp David and look forward to hosting the NATO Summit in Chicago. Hosting the NATO Summit is a tremendous opportunity to showcase Chicago to the world and the world to Chicago.”

So far, aldermen haven’t been briefed. “Do you think this administration tells us anything?” says Second Ward alderman Robert Fioretti, who for months has been wary of Emanuel’s behind-the-scenes summit planning.

via  Bleader @ Chicago Reader.

It’s safe to say there is a LOT more to this story than we’re being told.  Of course we’ll never find out.  But it can be a lot of fun to think about.

And lastly… only time will tell if this move will reduce the protests.

Obama Offers Legal Backing for Targeted Killings

The Obama administration on Monday plans to outline how U.S. laws empower the government to kill Americans overseas who engage in terrorism against their home country, a source familiar with the matter said, months after a drone strike killed a U.S.-born cleric who plotted attacks from Yemen.  …

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder plans to address the issue and the underpinning legal principles for using lethal force during remarks at Northwestern University School of Law on Monday afternoon in Chicago, the source said Sunday on condition of anonymity.

via Chicago Tribune.

What?!  This is just crazy.  The only way to handle this is the stop this insanity and issue a new policy that simply states, “The United States government does not — will not — knowingly kill any American citizen without a conviction of a capital crime at a trial by jury.”

Look at this another way, would the U.S. allow a foreign government to kill a foreign citizen on U.S. soil?  Of course not.  The notion is absurd.

There are so many legal problems with this that books will be written on the topic.