And "Land of the Free" Update — Oh, I can already imagine the howls.
First, the bit about that weight loss is buried in one or both of the videos—but you have to find it if you want, which is going to piss some people off (but you get what you pay for). There's also a mention of misled vegan, enlightened libertarian John Mackey (see, contradictions do exist) and Whole Foods Markets, but in a different context—which is a bit dot-connecting interesting.
Second, I hate how the first part of the first video has to take a minute out to assure all the conservative children in the audience that libertarians are not out to threaten their imaginary friend (quite telling, that, if you ask me—it's nice to hold such compelling ideas in general that people will cheat on their master).
Third, some of you might find very interesting Napolitano's take on the adverse legacies of Woodrow Wilson (D) and Theodore Roosevelt (R) in changing the burden of proof for the federal government in terms of extra-Consitutional actions on its part (essentially, "progressivism"). Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom.
But anyway...here you go and let the howling begin (here's the link to the page).
Your browser does not support iframes.
Your browser does not support iframes.
FWIW, I don't know much about Genn Beck but that a lot of people either love him or hate him. I used to catch his radio show way back when, spinning the dial in the car, and I actually got the impression in my mind's eye that he was a long haired, former hippy guy, somewhat akin to Ted Nugent, and who went somewhat libertarian/conservative. Ha!
And by the way, another bit of coincidence is that I received a link today from a popular blogger you all know. So when you get to the part about the Nobel Peace Prize winning American President's Hit List (of Americans), here's what they're talking about, from TheGuardian: Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens.
The most extremist power any political leader can assert is the power to target his own citizens for execution without any charges or due process, far from any battlefield. The Obama administration has not only asserted exactly that power in theory, but has exercised it in practice. In September 2011, it killed US citizen Anwar Awlaki in a drone strike in Yemen, along with US citizen Samir Khan, and then, in circumstances that are still unexplained, two weeks later killed Awlaki's 16-year-old American son Abdulrahman with a separate drone strike in Yemen.
Since then, senior Obama officials including Attorney General Eric Holder and John Brennan, Obama's top terrorism adviser and his current nominee to lead the CIA, have explicitly argued that the president is and should be vested with this power. Meanwhile, a Washington Post article from October reported that the administration is formally institutionalizing this president's power to decide who dies under the Orwellian title "disposition matrix".
When the New York Times back in April, 2010 first confirmed the existence of Obama's hit list, it made clear just what an extremist power this is, noting: "It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing." The NYT quoted a Bush intelligence official as saying "he did not know of any American who was approved for targeted killing under the former president". When the existence of Obama's hit list was first reported several months earlier by the Washington Post's Dana Priest, she wrote that the "list includes three Americans".
What has made these actions all the more radical is the absolute secrecy with which Obama has draped all of this. Not only is the entire process carried out solely within the Executive branch - with no checks or oversight of any kind - but there is zero transparency and zero accountability. The president's underlings compile their proposed lists of who should be executed, and the president - at a charming weekly event dubbed by White House aides as "Terror Tuesday" - then chooses from "baseball cards" and decrees in total secrecy who should die. The power of accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner are all consolidated in this one man, and those powers are exercised in the dark.
In fact, The Most Transparent Administration Ever™ has been so fixated on secrecy that they have refused even to disclose the legal memoranda prepared by Obama lawyers setting forth their legal rationale for why the president has this power. During the Bush years, when Bush refused to disclose the memoranda from his Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) that legally authorized torture, rendition, warrantless eavesdropping and the like, leading Democratic lawyers such as Dawn Johnsen (Obama's first choice to lead the OLC) vehemently denounced this practice as a grave threat, warning that "the Bush Administration's excessive reliance on 'secret law' threatens the effective functioning of American democracy" and "the withholding from Congress and the public of legal interpretations by the [OLC] upsets the system of checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches of government."
But when it comes to Obama's assassination power, this is exactly what his administration has done. It has repeatedly refused to disclose the principal legal memoranda prepared by Obama OLC lawyers that justified his kill list. It is, right now, vigorously resisting lawsuits from the New York Times and the ACLU to obtain that OLC memorandum. In sum, Obama not only claims he has the power to order US citizens killed with no transparency, but that even the documents explaining the legal rationale for this power are to be concealed. He's maintaining secret law on the most extremist power he can assert.
But I'm sure you already now all about this because for how it's been all over the news for months, just like when Bush tried to pull similar shit—y'know, the media being so unbiased & shit.
Popular Paleo Blogger writes about the link:
To me, the interesting part isn't exactly who was killed: it's the blanket assertion by the executive branch that they have the power to kill anyone they want.
To me, this isn't a source of moral outrage...it's the inevitable endpoint of government in general. He who has the guns, makes the rules. No matter how you dress it up, any system in which the mass of people is constrained in what weapons they can own ("gun control", "gun-free zones") by another class, which reserves the right to use all the weapons they prohibit for others, inevitably ends with "We can do whatever we want, because you can't stop us."
That's why I found the article interesting, anyway...the admission that even a constitutional republic born with checks, balances, and the noblest of intentions will reach the point of "We can do whatever we want, because you can't stop us."
Finally, back to Napolitano's nice weight loss, shame on all the pettifogging purists who made a big deal over certain inaccuracies in: Wheat Belly: Lose the Wheat, Lose the Weight, and Find Your Path Back to Health, or who've slammed the heroic Dr. William Davis. While he's out saving lives and helping people to improve their health in the tens of thousands in a very PGP (Pretty Good Paleo) way, useless pettifoggers did squat. Oh, that the world could be as pure lilly white as the driven snow, and nobody ever got any good help but from Snow White.