Posted on 07/14/2009 3:46:38 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Krauthammer's take from last night's All-Stars Panel on Special Report with Bret Baier:
On Eric Holder possibly appointing a prosecutor to investigate Bush-era interrogation techniques:
If he does this, it is a terrible mistake. What we heard today, that [the special prosecutor] will only be for rogue interrogators who went outside the law—presumably, you know, [for] sadists who wanted to have a good time out of the rubric of interrogation. I'm not sure there are a lot of those.What will happen is once you appoint a prosecutor, as we know from past history, he's out of control. There are no limits on what he or she can do. And that means it will not stop with the rogue interrogator. It will go all the way to lawyers. It will go up to politicians.
And what this would be would be a criminalization of policy differences with a previous administration in the middle of two wars—in a way that will create open warfare (a) with the CIA, and (b) between Democrats and Republicans. This is a declaration of war if it...does actually come to pass.
With all due respect, I'm not sure the public was as spontaneously sickened as you recall. Most of that attitude, I felt at the time, was generated by a sympathetic media encouraging them to be "sickened"
That is exactly what Obama wants to do...create a war.
I have come to the following conclusions, for which I offer no apology:
1. Democrats are the enemy of freedom.
2. It is past time for the reset button to be pushed for DC. This is the original inalienable right.
3. It is time for a new birth of freedom, as the Federal government is officially out of control.We have to again define ourselves as Americans, as free men and women, not as subjects of the State.
I’ll sign my John Hancock to that.
quite possibly so, sir.
I'm not sure this would bother the rest of the country right now.
When Texans start removing the "drive friendly" signs, look out.
Confused?
Actually, I think the spirit behind these [state sovereignty] resolutions may be the last, best hope for recovering a constitutional form of government short of all-out chaos.
My fear is that:
- elections maybe too compromised by outright fraud,
- the electorate has been too dumbed-down,
- the Executive branch has abandoned any pretense of respect for the rule of law,
- representation is lost due to "lifetime" Senators & Representatives whose main focus is perpetuating the lobbying/campaigning system, and
- a judaical system - dominated by Progressives - that would need a thousand lifetimes to trace the status quo back through stare decisis to a legitimate Constitutional foundation.
The last standing institution that may be capable of plowing the monster under is a united effort of a large number of sovereign state governments (all 3 branches) loudly proclaiming the Federal government has violated its contract with the States and is no longer legitimate. And we'd probably have better odds placing all our chips on 00 and spinning the wheel.
Does anyone else see a way back to the Constitution? Please tell me I've missed something.
It seems that making a laughingstock of media figures may be an easier way to get traction than targeting those politicians they protect. The media’s already headed that way anyhow...
In the end I don’t think Bush was listening to Rove, either. He acted more like he was listening to his dad.
Democrats creating a political war over this straw-man issue while simultaneously slamming the CIA would be bizarre and markedly odd strategy.
All excellent points!
I support the state sovereignty movement. I think it has potential. Where I see a problem for the states in that regard is in receiving payment from the federal government for social programs. The federal government could effectively bankrupt a rebellious state by refusing to reimburse the state for the cost of administering federal programs.
Texas has a $9b rainy-day fund and a balanced budget. We’re not hurting financially as California and other states are. So Texas is the only state I can think of who could rebel and still get by financially until the dust settled and the fed backed down. Even then, without taking military action, the fed could block our ports and still hurt us to some extent.
If their financial records were gone over with a microscope, looking for evidence of bribery, kickbacks, inurement, or other prosecutable offenses, how many would come out as being utterly clean?
Bammy is playing GOOD COP to Holder’s BAD COP, however Bammy WANTS Holder to go after Cheney and any OTHER Republicans so that in the future less and less Republicans get into government!
I think you're right. A single state could not go it alone due to the incestuous relationship between the Feds and the state - something that never should have been allowed to happen.
It would definitely have to be a well coordinated move by a substantial block of states. At that point, if the Feds didn't back down, secession would have to be thrown into the pot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.