Will Obama Ever Leave Office?

Paul Rand

Rand Paul’s has sent a third Letter to the CIA nominee Brennan asking: Can You Kill with Drones in the USA?

There is a very disturbing trend emerging whereby instead of reforming and restructuring the debt where the NY bankers would lose for once, it appears the government would rather wage war against American citizens. Rand Paul is threatening to filibuster Barack Obama’s nominee for the CIA, John Brennan, because Brennan has refused to answer a simple question that any real American would say no way!

 

Do you believe that the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial?

There can be only one reason Brennan refuses to answer – he supports the view that the President can order troops to kill American citizens without any due process right under the constitution to be heard. This is just unbelievable and in any other century would constitute an act of war against its citizens. This is not by any means a complicated question to answer. It should be a no brainer. The fact Brennan will not answer is very alarming. One has to question whose children do they think are fair game? Their’s or our’s? If Obama is putting people like this up for nomination, we must also ask the unthinkable. Will Obama leave office when his term is up or will he use this new power to stay there?

Adams-Inauguration

We are holding our Sovereign Debt Crisis Conference on March 16th in Philadelphia. This is the place where it all began. Here is a picture of where Congress met before Washington DC. This is the very spot where John Adams was sworn in as the Second President of the United States. It was the first time power was transferred willingly without war to depose a sitting tyrant or monarch post-Dark Age (it happend once in Roman history when Diocletian retired).

One of the most successful forms of government was actually the Republic of Genoa. The state was run by a rich family. However, each year, that executive position rotated among the families. The interesting aspect that emerged was that no one would dare pass any law that was unfair for they knew when power shifted they would be on the receiving end.

Consequently, this begs the question what is Obama doing? He has children. Does he really what his own family to grow up in such a country? Expand power in this way allowing the president to just kill Americans under any pretense, what will happen in 20 years or after he is dead? Does he even think about this? Why will nobody just say of course, it is unconstitutional to use troops or drones on American soil against American citizens? The curious thing is they will not even lie. That presents another series of haunting questions that never end.

Reprinted below in Rand Paul’s letter. This is becoming a very disturbing event. Is this why our computer has been forecasting the rise of a Third Party for 2016?

BLUEBAR
February 20, 2013
John O. Brennan
Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. Brennan,
In consideration of your nomination to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), I have repeatedly requested that you provide answers to several questions clarifying your role in the approval of lethal force against terrorism suspects, particularly those who are U.S. citizens. Your past actions in this regard, as well as your view of the limitations to which you are subject, are of critical importance in assessing your qualifications to lead the CIA. If it is not clear that you will honor the limits placed upon the Executive Branch by the Constitution, then the Senate should not confirm you to lead the CIA.

During your confirmation process in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), committee members have quite appropriately made requests similar to questions I raised in my previous letter to you-that you expound on your views on the limits of executive power in using lethal force against U.S. citizens, especially when operating on U.S. soil. In fact, the Chairman of the SSCI, Sen. Feinstein, specifically asked you in post-hearing questions for the record whether the Administration could carry out drone strikes inside the United States. In your response, you emphasized that the Administration “has not carried out” such strikes and “has no intention of doing so.” I do not find this response sufficient.
The question that I and many others have asked is not whether the Administration has or intends to carry out drone strikes inside the United States, but whether it believes it has the authority to do so. This is an important distinction that should not be ignored.

Just last week, President Obama also avoided this question when posed to him directly. Instead of addressing the question of whether the Administration could kill a U.S. citizen on American soil, he used a similar line that “there has never been a drone used on an American citizen on American soil.” The evasive replies to this valid question from the Administration have only confused the issue further without getting us any closer to an actual answer.

For that reason, I once again request you answer the following question: Do you believe that the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial?

I believe the only acceptable answer to this is no.
Until you directly and clearly answer, I plan to use every procedural option at my disposal to delay your confirmation and bring added scrutiny to this issue and the Administration’s policies on the use of lethal force. The American people are rightfully concerned, and they deserve a frank and open discussion on these policies.

Sincerely,
Rand Paul, M.D.
United States Senator

Friday – Cuts at Last?

It appears the cuts will take place. The president’s purpose in calling the meeting at the White House Friday morning is just theater. Obama is doing what he thinks the public expects on the brink of an important budget deadline. The Republicans may not have the votes to stop the cuts for their own members want austerity. Obama thinks everyone wants spending and believes his main point of leverage is a public backlash. This will be interesting to say the least. The stocks have been rallying and gold declining on this backdrop.

Petition to White House to Impeach Prosecutor

swartz-Aaron

A petition to the White House has been filed asking for Assistant US Attorney Stephen Heymann be removed from office. Good luck on that one. It is extremely rare for a prosecutor to ever be dismissed no matter what they do unless it is against the government. Thomas Jefferson included in the Declaration of Independence this same problem. The king protected his agents and rigged trials so they would not be prosecuted.

“For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:”

So unfortunately, good luck. Government will not prosecute its own. When they have to, they will NEVER dismiss a prosecutor unless he goes against the government. So do not expect much including any real response from the White House. As Thomas Paine explained in Common Sense, people confuse government and society. Society springs from the positive attributes of mankind to work together and develop by synergy. Government evolves from the process of restraint upon the people. The two are not the same. Government is always in confrontation with society. It lives to extract power and deny rights. If that were not true, there would be no need for a Bill of Rights because if there was respect for the people there should be no question about disciplinary actions. When government employees know they will never be prosecuted, they have no restraints.

http://rt.com/usa/swartz-prosecutor-petition-response-163/

http://www.justice.gov/criminal/about/oia.html

There have been thousands of complaits filed against prosecutors and to the best of my knowledge only 3 involved any discipinary sanction. Just under the Patriot Act, there were 834 complaints filed, but only 13 were reviewed for 6 months covering the period of January 1, 2005, through June 30, 2005.

Complaints processed: 834 

Unrelated complaints: 624
Complaints within OIG’s
jurisdiction warranting review: 210
Non-Section 1001 matters
Management issues: 186
Referred to DOJ components
for investigation: 7
OIG unsuccessfully sought
further details: 4
Section 1001 matters
warranting review: 13

http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/0508/final.pdf

Here is an a review of disciplinary action against US Marshals.

From a universe of 560 misconduct cases adjudicated between FY 1998 and FY 2000, we selected 50 cases to review for consistency and timeliness. We found 25 cases where the consistency of the discipline or the degree of discipline imposed raised serious concerns, and the reasons for the final discipline decisions were not adequately documented. In 8 of the 50 cases, we also found no documented evidence in the employees’ official personnel folders that discipline actions had been enforced. 

In 14 of the 50 cases, we found significant periods of unexplained elapsed time 
that appeared to prolong case adjudication. The overall adjudication timeline for these 14 cases ranged from 89 days to 330 days, with unexplained elapsed time periods ranging from 61 days to 217 days. Because of incomplete or inaccurate information in case files and the automated database, ERT personnel could not reconstruct case events to account for these time periods.”

http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/USMS/e0111/final.pdf

Here a report on disciplinary actions with the FBI:

http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/FBI/e0902/final.pdf

For further reports see:

http://searchjustice.usdoj.gov/search?q=number+of+complaints+oia&btnG.x=-1100&btnG.y=-98&btnG=Search&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=iso-8859-1&oe=UTF-8&client=default_frontend&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&site=default_collection

Why Pension Will Collapse

Shakespeare’s Polonius offered this classic advice to his son: “neither a borrower nor a lender be.” Ben Franklin commented on the subject of debt saying: “Rather go to bed supperless than rise in debt.” The politics of debt has always ruined the state. The celebrated British economist John Maynard Keynes said it like this: “If I owe you a pound, I have a problem; but if I owe you a million, the problem is yours.” Indeed, the problem is the bondholders. It is our problem only until government cannot squeeze blood from a stone. Then with the uptick in interest rates, the slight rise will have a doubling effect on interest rates because they are artificially too low.

We will be publishing The Solution and Why Pensions Will Collapse. These will be two vital reports for the future that we now face. We will let you know when these are available.

 

Some People are Confused

First: Hamilton’s comment demonstrates that EVEN the Federalists were more respectful of the limitations on government than what we have today. Of course, Jefferson’s arguments would be the best. That is not the point. The point is even the worst at the birth of the USA was far better than what we have today.

Secondly, one person commented “You seem to be confused. The other day you were saying that the bondholders who were stupid enough to lend to obviously bankrupt nations deserve to lose their money and today you are lamenting [t]hat not all debts have to be repaid. Which one is it?” Government always default and never pay back their debts. The most popular is change the government structure and previous debts magically vanish. The USA never paid the debt of the Continental Congress just as any government in Europe never paid off the debts of the previous government before a war. So, those who invest in sovereign debt are fools and we should just admit that governments do not have to honor their debts – they are always exempt from the law.

Hamilton – Intent of Real Government

Hamilton - 5

Alexander Hamilton (1755-1804) was a Federalist. He was in favor of creating a strong federal government. Yet when we look at the REAL extent of power that even the Federalists advocated, we would pray for such rights today. Hamilton’s celebrated communication to the Senate of January 20th, 1795, said it all:

“[W]hen a government enters into a contract with an individual, it deposes, as to the matter of the contract, its constitutional authority, and exchanges the character of legislator for that of a moral agent, with the same rights and obligations as an individual. Its promises may be justly considered as excepted out of its power to legislate, unless in aid of them. It is in theory impossible to reconcile the idea of a promise which obliges, with a power to make a law which can vary the effect of it.”

3 Hamilton’s Works, 518, 519

Can you imagine that the idea of a Federal Government was that when it promised something, it laid down its mantle of supreme power and then it was on equal footing with the individual? Oh! If only this could be restored.

Another long forgotten principle was by the Act of May 1878, all debt had to be established with a sinking fund. In other words, debt could not be entered into without an intent to pay it off. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress even had the power to compel such fiscal responsibility upon corporations, see In Re Sinking Funds Cases 99 US 700 (1878). If we only had statesmen today instead of irresponsible dictators who stay in office forever and pretend to be representing the people. Only old age gets rid of them. Can you imagine that BEFORE the United States turned Marxist in 1890 with the first passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the attempt to create an Income Tax that was held to be unconstitutional in 1895, Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), you actually had a law that said debts had to be paid off? Oh, what fiscal irresponsibility has led us to today. All rights, privileges, and immunities are gone all because government needs money perpetually.

The Golden Rule of Reactions

Those who are new readers are probably unfamiliar with what I have called the Golden Rule of Reactions.  When it comes to TIMING, it is vital to understand the basic tenets of cyclical analysis. That fundamental principle is where do we draw the line between a change in trend and a mere reaction. That line is drawn in units of 2 to 3 maximum. In other words, a reaction making a counter-trend move is limited to a maximum unit of time being 3 regardless of the level of time be it daily to yearly. After that period of time, trends then emerge. Right now, we have a 3 day reaction in gold from the low of last week. To establish a change in trend, we must continue BEYOND merely 3 days. Failure to do so warns of only a reaction counter-trend.

DJ20-40

Even when there are free markets and a dramatic panic takes place, the same timing emerges during Phase Transitions. We will go over these points at the Princeton Conference. Nevertheless, even look at the Great Depression, you see a 90% decline still contained by the Golden Rule of Reactions – 1929 to 1932.

You must understand that the news is interpreted according to the trend – never in the reverse. US stocks rebounded from their worst decline since November on Tuesday after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke defended the Fed’s bond-buying stimulus and sales of new homes hit a 4 1/2-year high. The focus on Italy’s stalemate in the general election failed to give any party a parliamentary majority, was interpreted as prolonging instability and financial crisis in Europe. Of course this will be the case, but then Bernanke’s comments were interpreted as easing investors’ concerns about the Italian mess and refocused on the US economy.

Bernanke, in testimony on Tuesday before the Senate Banking Committee, strongly defended the Fed’s bond-buying stimulus program and quieted rumblings that the central bank may pull back from its stimulative policy measures, which were sparked by the release of the Fed minutes last week. Keep in mind BECAUSE of turmoil in Europe and Japan the capital flows are pointing into the US right now. The U.S. markets shifted from the Italian political circus to Ben Bernanke and the gains in housing because rates have fallen thanks to cash inflows. This should help housing short-term and banks write mortgages right at the bottom once again. Economic reports that showed strength in both housing and consumer confidence. The US home prices rose more than expected in December, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller index, and this should continue into February. Consumer confidence rebounded in February, also jumping more than expected, and new-home sales rose to their highest in 4-1/2 years in January.

Ben Bernanke put in the plug for Obama urging lawmakers to avoid sharp spending cuts set to go into effect on Friday, which he warned could combine with earlier tax increases to create a “significant headwind” for the economic recovery. Our models have been warning about high volatility going into March and April where it should peak. So far, the computer has been pretty good.