Archive for the ‘Government’ Category

 

Supreme Court rules prosecutors can lie and fabricate evidence

Washington Post
By Robert Barnes

An ideologically divided Supreme Court on Tuesday stripped a $14 million award from a wrongfully convicted man who had spent 14 years on death row and successfully sued New Orleans prosecutors for misconduct

Conservative justices prevailed in the 5 to 4 ruling, which shielded the district attorney’s office from liability for not turning over evidence that showed John Thompson’s innocence.

Justice Clarence Thomas said Thompson could not show a pattern of “deliberate indifference” on the part of former district attorney Harry Connick Sr. in training his staff to turn over evidence to the defense team.

It was the first decision of the court term that split the justices into ideological camps, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg emphasized her disagreement by reading a summary of her dissent from the bench.

“I would uphold the jury’s verdict awarding damages to Thompson for the gross, deliberately indifferent and long-continuing violation of his fair trial right,” she said, adding that she was joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

She said the actions of prosecutors under the control of Connick, who left office in 2003 and is the father of the famous singer of the same name, “dishonored” the obligation to turn over evidence favorable to the accused established in Brady v. Maryland nearly 50 years ago.

But the court has protected prosecutors from civil liability when they take cases to court to allow them to go about their work without fear of being sued. The question for the justices was whether a chief prosecutor could be sued for not ensuring that those who worked for him were properly trained and followed the law.

There is no dispute that one of Connick’s prosecutors did not turn over a blood test that would have shown Thompson innocent of one of the charges against him. But Thomas said that a single incident is not enough to prove liability for the district attorney’s office and that Thompson did not show a pattern of similar violations.

Lawyers are trained and ethically bound to honor Brady, Thomas wrote, regardless of whether additional training is provided. “A district attorney is entitled to rely on prosecutors’ professional training and ethical obligations,” Thomas said.

The court’s decision marks the apparent end of a decades-long trip through the legal process for Thompson, whose experience has produced a book, a potential movie deal and a dying confession from the prosecutor who withheld the evidence.

Thompson was convicted of armed robbery in 1985, before he stood trial for the murder of Raymond Liuzza, the son of a prominent New Orleans hotel owner. Prosecutors used the armed robbery conviction as a way to coerce Thompson not to take the stand in his own defense, and, after conviction, to secure the death penalty.

A pair of lawyers at a large Philadelphia law firm took up his case to spare him death; at one point, Thompson came within weeks of execution.

But in 1999, an investigator discovered that a blood test conducted in the armed robbery case showed that Thompson was not the perpetrator. Prosecutors acknowledged that it was withheld from Thompson’s attorneys.

The armed robbery charge was dismissed. A new trial in the murder case introduced new evidence and resulted in a verdict of not guilty. Thompson then sued the district attorney’s office, and a jury awarded him $14 million. In all, he was imprisoned for 18 years, 14 of them in isolation on death row.

Thompson returned to New Orleans, where he runs an organization to help exonerated inmates and travels frequently to speak about wrongful convictions.

Thomas was joined in his opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr. Scalia and Alito wrote separately to emphasize their position that additional instruction from the district attorney would not have changed Thompson’s case.

It “was almost certainly caused not by a failure to give prosecutors specific training but by [a] miscreant prosecutor” determined to railroad Thompson, Scalia wrote.

But Ginsburg said there were other instances of prosecutors withholding evidence, such as a police report’s description of the shooter in the Liuzza killing that did not match Thompson.

“Ample evidence presented at the civil rights trial demonstrated that Connick’s deliberately indifferent attitude created a tinderbox in which Brady violations were nigh inevitable,” she wrote.

Thompson attorneys J. Gordon Cooney Jr. and Michael Banks said in a statement that the evidence showed “multiple constitutional violations by multiple prosecutors.”

“If prosecutors’ offices cannot be held accountable under the facts of this case, it is difficult to imagine when they would be accountable,” they said.

The case is Connick v. Thompson

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme_court_rules_against_exonerated_death_row_inmate_who_sued_prosecutors/2011/03/29/AF8tZPwB_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage

I keep telling you people that believe elected millionaires are in our best interest. $38 billion is sad number compared to the $3.7 trillion dollar budget that is proposed. $353 million is even worse.

$38 Billion In Cuts? Make That $353 Million

Submitted by Tyler Durden

Warning: people on blood pressure medication are urged not to read this.

Yesterday the media had a field day when it was uncovered that the hard fought $38 billion in budget “cuts” which almost caused America to shut down were in reality $14 billion. We, thus, can’t wait to find out what the response will be when it is uncovered that the actual cuts were… $353 million. Yes: the ongoing functioning of the government was a pawn in a soap opera whose benefit to the US debt is $353 million, or about what Goldman’s trading desk makes in less than one day.

From Washington Post:

A new budget estimate released Wednesday says that the spending bill negotiated between President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner would produce less than 1 percent of the $38 billion in claimed savings by the end of this budget year.

The Congressional Budget Office estimate shows that the spending bill due for a House vote Thursday would pare just $352 million from the deficit through Sept. 30. About $8 billion in cuts to domestic programs and foreign aid are offset by nearly equal increases in defense spending.

The House began debate on the measure Wednesday with a test vote slated for the early afternoon. The measure appears on track to pass the House and Senate this week before a stopgap spending measure expires Friday at midnight despite opposition from some of the GOP’s most ardent budget cutters.

The budget deficit is projected at $1.6 trillion this year.

The CBO study confirms that the measure trims $38 billion in new spending authority, but says many of the cuts come in slow-spending accounts like water-and-sewer grants that don’t have an immediate deficit impact.

Republicans say they wish the measure would cut more but that the cuts negotiated by Boehner are about as good as can be expected giver that Democrats hold the Senate and the White House. In his February budget, Obama pressed a freeze on domestic agency accounts.

“We continue to push this president to places he never said he would go,” said House GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy of California. “The president said he would freeze spending. Our Speaker negotiated, outnumbered 3-1. We have cut spending.”

Speechless yet? You should be. And for those confused how B.H.O. picked the arbitrary number of $4 trillion in “cuts”, John Lohman summarizes it best.

How Washington Cuts $38 Billion in 5 Simple Steps:

1.    Announce spending bill that claims $38 billion in cuts
2.    Wait for CBO to announce it only cuts $353 million1
3.    Realize you only do 0.0093% of what you say2
4.    Divide $38 billion by 0.0093% to get necessary target3
5.    Round to the nearest trillion and announce result

1 : Source: Washington Post, April 13, 2011
2 : $353 million divided by $38 billion
3 : $38 billion divided by 0.0093 = 4.1 trillion

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/38-billion-cuts-make-353-million

 

Congress Delivered Articles of Impeachment for tyrant Obama

Bruce Fein

THE IMPEACHMENT POWER

1. Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution provides: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

2. According to James Madison’s Records of the Convention, 2:550; Madison, 8 Sept., Mr. George Mason objected to an initial proposal to confine impeachable offenses to treason or bribery:

Why is the provision restrained to Treason & bribery only? Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of Treason. Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason as above defined–As bills of attainder which have saved the British Constitution are forbidden, it is the more necessary to extend: the power of impeachments.

3. Delegates to the Federal Convention voted overwhelmingly to include “high crimes and misdemeanors” in Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution specifically to ensure that “attempts to subvert the Constitution” would fall within the universe of impeachable offences. Id.

4. Alexander Hamilton, a delegate to the Federal Convention, characterized impeachable offenses in Federalist 65 as, “offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the violation or abuse of some public trust. They are of a nature which with peculiar propriety may be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done to society itself.”

5. In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee voted three articles of impeachment against then President Richard M. Nixon for actions “subversive of constitutional government.”

6. Father of the Constitution, James Madison, observed that, “Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other…. War is the true nurse of executive aggrandizement.”

7. James Madison also instructed that “no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

8. The exclusive congressional power to commence war under Article I, section VIII, clause XI of the Constitution is the pillar of the Republic and the greatest constitutional guarantor of individual liberty, transparency, and government frugality.

II.
THE “DECLARE WAR” CLAUSE

9. Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI of the United States Constitution provides: “The Congress shall have the power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”

10. Article II, Section II, Clause I of the United States Constitution provides: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”

11. The authors of the United States Constitution manifestly intended Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI to fasten exclusive responsibility and authority on the Congress to decide whether to undertake offensive military action.

12. The authors of the United States Constitution believed that individual liberty and the Republic would be endangered by fighting too many wars, not too few.

13. The authors of the United States Constitution understood that to aggrandize power and to leave a historical legacy, the executive in all countries chronically inflates danger manifold to justify warfare.

14. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, in Federalist 4 noted:

[A]bsolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people.

15. Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 69 that the president’s Commander-in-Chief authority

…would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the constitution under consideration would appertain to the Legislature.

16. In a written exchange with Alexander Hamilton under the pseudonym Helvidius, James Madison wrote:

In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture to heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man; not such as nature may offer as the prodigy of many centuries, but such as may be expected in the ordinary successions of magistracy. War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honours and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered, and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honourable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.

Read more here:

http://www.infowars.com/bruce-fein-articles-of-impeachment/

Usually this is a sign of a last ditch effort. Anyone ever notice into all the countries we invade illegaly, the leaders at the time will destroy the natural resources? Are Americans so stupid, that they don’t realize the country we are invading is destroying these natural resources as so our Mega Conglomerate Multi National Corporation friends can’t get to them and profit off of them?! Do Americans know our military guards poppy fields in Afghanistan? Poppy fields which are a multi billion dollar industry and a natural resource to it’s country. And in Iraq we deply airborne and air assault soldiers not first to enemy lines and battle but to oil lines?

Gaddafi Starts Bombarding His Own Oil Fields

Submitted by Tyler Durden

Back in February we were wondering how long before Gadaffi starts a scorched earth policy on his own country, and primarily his oil infrastructure, in a repeat of Hussein’s non-triumphal departure from Kuwait. Turns out the answer is about a month and a half. With it now becoming painfully clear that the whole purpose of the humanitarian intervention is to procure preferential terms of oil imports from Libya’s rebel alliance, the “humanitarian” force has forgotten that despite no airplanes, Gaddafi will likely not take too kindly to not collecting revenues from what he perceives as his natural resources. From the FT: “Oil production in rebel-controlled eastern Libya has stopped after troops loyal to Muammer Gaddafi bombarded several oilfields, the opposition said on Wednesday. The assault came hours after the rebels exported their first cargo of oil into the international market, potentially opening the door to millions of dollars of funding to sustain their uprising against Colonel Gaddafi’s 41-year rule. The attack against oilfields in the east was the first against production facilities. Previously, only port facilities and crude oil storage tanks in the Es Sider and Ras Lanuf, also in the east, were damaged during the conflict.” We are confident that this escalation will give NATO the caed blanche to commence a land-based campaign and prevent further infrastructure destruction before Gaddafi causes irreparable damage to even more facilities (although Halliburton naturally couldn’t care less).

More here:

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/gaddafi-starts-bombarding-his-own-oil-fields

I love it when politicians get into a pissing match. While we Americans sit and suffer, they decide how much money of ours they will steal and spend misappropriately.

Dems: $4 trillion dollars

Reps: No no $2 trillion dollars

Paul Ryan: All of you are insane, here is a budget from 2 years ago, when it was only in billions.

Both Parties: Are you insane?!

I am glad Obama will veto it. These budget extensions are Bullsh-t! Let’s come to an agreement and get it done. The democrats failed to do this which was thier job during election time. And republicans don’t want to do it after all the lies they made (I mean campaign promises) and look like the spenders they now are. I say let the US government shutdown. The country will probably be able to function properly without Big Brother, DAD, Big Sister, MOM, and Uncle Sam constantly making decisions for us and breathing down our necks.

Y’know when we were teenagers, we were all dying to get the hell out of the house. Now, it seems when it comes the government to take place of our parents and WORSE! We beg for it!

Obama threatens to veto GOP budget extension plan

AP

By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Andrew Taylor, Associated Press 18 mins ago

WASHINGTON – House Republicans advanced a bill Thursday that would avoid a government shutdown for one more week, cut spending and fully fund the Pentagon, but the White House labeled the measure a distraction and said President Barack Obama would veto it.

Obama said in a statement he believes “we need to put politics aside and work out our differences” on a spending plan that covers the government through September, when the current budget year ends.

The president has signed two short-term extensions, but negotiations have proceeded fitfully.

The veto threat marked a sour turn in talks that Obama, House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday night were showing promise.

With a partial shutdown looming for Friday at midnight, it was not clear whether it represented a breakdown in the negotiation or a final round of maneuvering before a deal was struck.

Obama called Reid, D-Nev., and Boehner, R-Ohio, back to the White House for more talks Thursday afternoon.

Before departing the Capitol, Boehner urged the House to pass legislation to cut $12 billion, fund the Pentagon through the end of the year and keep the government running for a week.

“There is absolutely no policy reason for the Senate to not follow the House in taking these responsible steps to support our troops and to keep our government open,” he said.

Boehner accused the White House of backsliding, adding that there hadn’t been as much progress as it appeared after the late-night meeting Wednesday.

“It’s really just more of the same. We’re going to have real spending cuts. I don’t know what some people don’t understand about this,” he said.

Reid said otherwise, although he, too, made it clear he wants to avoid a shutdown that the White House says would cause problems for combat troops overseas and delay Internal Revenue Service refunds for taxpayers at home.

“The issue is ideology, not numbers,” he said.

More here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110407/ap_on_re_us/us_spending_showdown

 

Treasury may borrow federal retirement funds in debt emergency

By SEAN REILLY

The government could temporarily tap tens of billions of dollars from two federal employee retirement programs if Congress fails to raise the federal debt ceiling next month, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told lawmakers.

The government expects to hit a $14.3 trillion debt ceiling on May 16 or before, Geithner said in a Monday letter.

Geither implored Congress to extend the debt ceiling by that deadline and said that if Congress does not, Treasury will be forced to borrow money from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, and the Thrift Savings Plan’s Government Securities Investment Fund, or G Fund, both of which are invested in U.S. Treasury securities. Those two moves could free up $142 billion through early July

Read more here:

http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20110405/BENEFITS02/104050306/1001

Reality check with Joe Rogan

Posted: April 6, 2011 in Politics

N.H. House Asserts State’s Right to Nullify Federal Laws

Written by Jack Kenny   

If the Republican majority in the House of Representatives in Washington, D.C., wants to shake up the political establishment, lawmakers there might look for inspiration to the Republican majority in the House of Representatives in Concord, New Hampshire. The rebels in New Hampshire did not fire the “shot heard ’round the world” — not yet anyway — despite Michelle Bachmann’s Midwestern confusion on that subject. But they have fired a few salvos that may be worth Washington’s attention.

The New Hampshire House recently passed resolutions calling for the United States to withdraw from the United Nations and from the North American Free Trade Agreement, more commonly known by its acronym, NAFTA. And on Wednesday the New Hampshire House approved a resolution asserting the right of the state to nullify within its borders any act of the federal government it finds unconstitutional. If John C. Calhoun had lived to see this day, he would be rejoicing. He would be 229 years old, but he would be rejoicing.

The nullification resolution, passed by a vote of 242-109, holds that the state is not obliged to follow any federal law that exceeds the constitutional authority of Congress to enact, and declares such laws “altogether void and of no force” in New Hampshire. Opponents of the measure derided it as a foolish effort to re-fight the Civil War. Christopher Serlin (D-Portsmouth) noted that 40,000 New Hampshire men served and 4,500 of them died fighting on the side of the Union. “I don’t think it is appropriate for this Legislature to mock the memory of those who died,” he said.

But the sponsor of the resolution, Rep. Daniel Itse (R-Fremont), offered a spirited defense of the state’s right to stand in defiance of what he described as federal usurpation. “It is our power and duty to stand between the people of New Hampshire and the government of the United States,” he declared. The purpose of the measure, he continued, is to tell “the world in general and Washington, D.C. in particular” that when it comes to “usurpation of rights” and of the power of the people, the answer in New Hampshire is, “Not here, not now, not ever.”

The House Concurrent Resolution, which requires passage by the Senate as well, calls for the House clerk to notify President Barack Obama, all members of Congress, and all state legislators of the bill upon passage. State Democratic Party chairman Raymond Buckley called the resolution a waste of taxpayers’ money and evidence of extremism on the part of House Republicans. 

“This new, out-of-control and extremist Republican majority voted to waste taxpayer money sending letters all across the country,” Buckley told the New Hampshire Union Leader. The party chairman claimed the money could be better spent to “keep teachers in the classrooms, police officers on the streets, create jobs or reduce taxes.” 

Read More:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/6935-nh-house-claims-states-right-to-nullify-federal-laws

Yeah we are full of money, just ask Uncle Bernanke. We need it, he prints it or digitizes it. We’ve committed to war for what a week now, and we are already up to 1/2 billion dollars in tax payer money killing people in other nations in a 3rd war. Which should be called World War 3. It’s two continents and more than 10 countries involved. But we won’t until 30 years down road when this is all blown over. It’s imperialism is what it is. Resource grab for oil, water, and dividends on country repair and rebuild, plus add in the financing of the rebels war and once they win and take over only after months and months of running up an unpayable debt. Then, then…they will be apart of the club and begin to pass war reperations for supporting them in their time of need, even though they didn’t want us there.

Pentagon: Libya mission has cost US $550M so far

AP 

// <![CDATA[By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Pauline Jelinek, Associated Press ]]>

WASHINGTON – The military intervention in Libya has cost the Pentagon an extra $550 million so far, mostly for bombs and missiles, officials said Tuesday.

The figure is not a full picture of the price tag for the operation in that it does not include such money as pay for U.S. sailors, airmen and other forces, who would have been deployed somewhere in the world anyway, officials said. But it is the first official figure released on the cost of setting up the no-fly zone in the North African nation and protecting civilians from strongman Moammar Gadhafi as he resists a movement to oust him.

Of the $550 million in added spending through Monday, about 60 percent was “for munitions, the remaining costs are for higher operating tempo” of U.S. forces and of getting them there, Cmdr. Kathleen Kesler, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said Tuesday.

As of Monday, the 10th day of the intervention, the U.S. had launched 192 long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles from naval positions in the Mediterranean Sea — at a cost of about $1 million to $1.5 million each. The U.S. also had flown 983 sorties, 370 of those bombing missions against Gadhafi military sites and forces and the rest for surveillance, refueling and so on.

The spending only addresses the U.S. part of the costs in Libya, where an international coalition has been operating and NATO is now taking over command.

“Future costs are highly uncertain,” Kesler said. But officials estimate that they’ll see added costs of about $40 million over the next three weeks as U.S. forces are reduced and NATO assumes more responsibility for the operation started March 19, she said.

After that, officials expect to spend about $40 million a month, “if U.S. forces stay at the levels currently planned and the operation continues,” Kesler said.

With the U.S. already stretching to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan amid difficult financial times, the operation has drawn mixed opinions among lawmakers, including one who estimated last week that Libya could be a $1 billion campaign

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110329/ap_on_re_us/us_us_libya_cost

I mentioned in an earlier post there were only several countries left that opposed the oil and banking capitalism of the west, and did not allow a private central bank to run the country much like the Federal Reserve. These countries were Iran, Iraq, Afganishtan, Libya, Venezuela, North Korea, Syria. There may be more like Cuba but I am not sure. Argentina may have pulled out. I do know they told the Central Bank to GTFO at one time and did not pay their debts. I am not sure if this has changed or not. We are in war in Iraq, Afghan, and now Libya. Bush tried to go to war with Iran and Syria but was fought with only 6 mths left in office.

Wow That Was Fast! Libyan Rebels Have Already Established A New Central Bank Of Libya

The rebels in Libya are in the middle of a life or death civil war and Moammar Gadhafi is still in power and yet somehow the Libyan rebels have had enough time to establish a new Central Bank of Libya and form a new national oil company.  Perhaps when this conflict is over those rebels can become time management consultants.  They sure do get a lot done.  What a skilled bunch of rebels – they can fight a war during the day and draw up a new central bank and a new national oil company at night without any outside help whatsoever.  If only the rest of us were so versatile!  But isn’t forming a central bank something that could be done after the civil war is over?  According to Bloomberg, the Transitional National Council has “designated the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and the appointment of a governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi.”  Apparently someone felt that it was very important to get pesky matters such as control of the banks and control of the money supply out of the way even before a new government is formed.

Of course it is probably safe to assume that the new Central Bank of Libya will be 100% owned and 100% controlled by the newly liberated people of Libya, isn’t it?

Most people don’t realize that the previous Central Bank of Libya was 100% state owned. The following is an excerpt from Wikipedia’s article on the former Central Bank of Libya….

The Central Bank of Libya (CBL) is 100% state owned and represents the monetary authority in The Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and enjoys the status of autonomous corporate body. The law establishing the CBL stipulates that the objectives of the central bank shall be to maintain monetary stability in Libya , and to promote the sustained growth of the economy in accordance with the general economic policy of the state.

Since the old Central Bank of Libya was state owned, it was essentially under the control of Moammar Gadhafi.

But now that Libya is going to be “free”, the new Central Bank of Libya will be run by Libyans and solely for the benefit of Libyans, right?

Of course it is probably safe to assume that will be the case with the new national oil company as well, isn’t it?

Over the past couple of years, Moammar Gadhafi had threatened to nationalize the oil industry in Libya and kick western oil companies out of the country, but now that Libya will be “free” the people of Libya will be able to work hand in hand with “big oil” and this will create a better Libya for everyone.

Right?

Of course oil had absolutely nothing to do with why the U.S. “inva—” (scratch that) “initiated a kinetic humanitarian liberty action” in Libya.

When Barack Obama looked straight into the camera and told the American people that the war in Libya is in the “strategic interest” of the United States, surely he was not referring to oil.

After all, war for oil was a “Bush thing”, right?  The Democrats voted for Obama to end wars like this, right?  Surely no prominent Democrats will publicly support this war in Libya, right?

Surely Barack Obama will end the bombing of Libya if the international community begins to object, right?

Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize.  He wouldn’t deeply upset the other major powers on the globe and bring us closer to World War III, would he?

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has loudly denounced “coalition strikes on columns of Gaddafi’s forces” and he believes that the U.S. has badly violated the terms of the UN Security Council resolution….

“We consider that intervention by the coalition in what is essentially an internal civil war is not sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council resolution.”

So to cool off rising tensions with the rest of the world, Obama is going to call off the air strikes, right?

Well, considering the fact that Obama has such vast foreign policy experience we should all be able to rest easy knowing that Obama will understand exactly what to do.

Meanwhile, the rebels seem to be getting the hang of international trade already.

They have even signed an oil deal with Qatar!

Rebel “spokesman” Ali Tarhouni has announced that oil exports to Qatar will begin in “less than a week“.

Who knew that the rag tag group of rebels in Libya were also masters of banking and international trade?

We sure do live in a strange world.

Tonight, Barack Obama told the American people the following….

“Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different.”

So now we are going to police all of the atrocities in all of the other countries around the globe?

The last time I checked, the government was gunning down protesters in Syria.

Is it time to start warming up the Tomahawks?

Or do we reserve “humanitarian interventions” only for those nations that have a lot of oil?

In fact, atrocities are currently being committed all over Africa and in about a dozen different nations in the Middle East.

Should we institute a draft so that we will have enough young men and women to police the world with?

We all have to be ready to serve our country, right?

The world is becoming a smaller place every day, and you never know where U.S. “strategic interests” are going to be threatened next.

The rest of the world understands that we know best, right?

Of course the rest of the world can surely see our good intentions in Libya, can’t they?

Tensions with Russia, China and the rest of the Arab world are certainly going to subside after they all see how selfless our “humanitarian intervention” has been in Libya, don’t you think?

In all seriousness, we now live in a world where nothing is stable anymore.  Wars and revolutions are breaking out all over the globe, unprecedented natural disasters are happening with alarming frequency and the global economy is on the verge of total collapse.

By interfering in Libya, we are just making things worse.  Gadhafi is certainly a horrible dictator, but this was a fight for the Libyan people to sort out.

We promised the rest of the world that we were only going to be setting up a “no fly zone”.  By violating the terms of the UN Security Council resolution, we have shown other nations that we cannot be trusted and by our actions we have increased tensions all over the globe.

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/516/283/Wow_That_Was_Fast_Libyan_Rebels_Have_Already_Established_A_New_Central_Bank_Of_Libya.html