What’s interesting in the news today?
As always, Open Thread.
Here’s a few to start.
____________________________________________________
Senator Rand Paul ended his filibuster of the Brennan nomination after almost 13 hours. That’s the first old-fashioned one I’ve seen since I started paying attention to politics. I watched an hour or so off and on and the Senator made some excellent points. The Senator stood up for his beliefs, and I give him credit for that. So a tip of the hat to the good Senator from Kentucky. And just a quick question. Where did all the Jose Padilla supportin’ lefties go? Isn’t this just the sort of thing (only worse) that they railed against during the Bush presidency? I guess like the rest of the anti-war crowd, they’ve changed their tune. You would think that this extreme was something we could all agree on, regardless of leanings. But no.
From TheWashingtonTimes
“After years in the shadows, the administration’s secret drone program burst into very public view Wednesday with lawmakers grilling the attorney general over legal justification for targeted killings and Sen. Rand Paul launching an old-style one-man filibuster to demand answers from President Obama.
The Kentucky Republican held the floor for almost 13 hours, effectively blocking a vote on the nomination of John O. Brennan, whom Mr. Obama has tapped to be CIA director. He said he would relent only if the administration publicly vowed not to target Americans on U.S. soil.”
““This is a long, drawn-out day, but it’s to try to get some answers,” Mr. Paul said after he crossed the eight-hour mark late Wednesday evening. “It’s to try to shame the president into doing the right thing.””
Sorry Senator, but you can’t shame the shameless.
____________________________________________________
The drone issue is not going away. And it shouldn’t.
Senator Cruz pressed AG Holder on whether Pres. Obama’s plan is constitutional. The AG had little choice but to admit that it’s not.
From HotAir
“A must-see via Mediaite, not just because this is the right question to ask after Holder’s letter on drone policy yesterday but because it fell to Cruz, the new bete noire of the left, rather than a Democrat to press the civil-libertarian case. Simple question: Is it a violation of due process to fire a missile at a guy on American soil if he’s not engaged at the moment in carrying out a terrorist attack? He might be a member of Al Qaeda; he might be planning an attack; but if he’s strolling down Main Street in some American town, is there any constitutional justification to toss a Hellfire at him rather than send the cops in to pick him up? Watch Holder’s reaction. Cruz has to browbeat him for three minutes to get him to shift from saying it wouldn’t be “appropriate” — which implies that the government might have the power to do it but would refuse to exercise that power for prudential reasons — to finally saying that, constitutionally, it doesn’t have that power. That’s an important admission; unless I missed something, it’s the first time anyone at the top has acknowledged a legal limit to drone strikes under certain circumstances. Here’s hoping we don’t have to point back to it someday.”
Now the President could have ended the filibuster by acknowledging what the AG did, and agreeing to support legislation banning such uses. He chose not to accept the Senator’s offer. In fact, he’s not even acknowledged it. He was busy having dinner with Republican “leaders” and RINO’s.
____________________________________________________
Well call this one “Message Fail”.
From ABCNews
“For all the dire warnings, most Americans welcome a five percent cut in overall federal spending this year. But the defense budget is another matter.
The public by nearly 2-1, 61-33 percent, supports cutting the overall budget along the lines of the sequester that took effect last Friday. But by nearly an identical margin, Americans in this ABC News/Washington Post poll oppose an eight percent across-the-board cut in military spending.
See PDF with full results, charts and tables here.
Why it’s almost like they support the Republican ideas, and not President, or something.
____________________________________________________
This one is just pathetic, but not surprising.
From TheWeeklyStandard
“On Friday March 8, Michelle Obama will join John Kerry at a special ceremony at the State Department to present ten women the Secretary of State’s International Women of Courage Award. The award, says the press release, is given to “women around the globe who have shown exceptional courage and leadership in advocating for women’s rights and empowerment, often at great personal risk.”
“Five of these awards are being given to women from Muslim-majority countries, underscoring the unique plight of women in those countries. The only problem is that one of the women to be recognized is an anti-Semite and supports the 9/11 attacks on the United States.”
“Ibrahim holds other repellent views as well. As a mob was attacking the United States embassy in Cairo on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, pulling down the American flag and raising the flag of Al Qaeda, Ibrahim wrote on twitter: “Today is the anniversary of 9/11. May every year come with America burning.” Possibly fearing the consequences of her tweet, she deleted it a couple of hours later, but not before a screen shot was saved by an Egyptian activist.”
She claims her Twitter account was stolen.
Sure. Let me guess, it musta been the Jews. 🙄
But don’t worry, it’s not like radical muslims have undo influence in this admin or anything. Now move along, nothing to see here.
____________________________________________________
A disturbing new trend for cash strapped people struggling to make it in this economy.
From PhiladelphiaCBSLocal
“A new national study shows that too many of us are cashing out 401(k) accounts to pay bills. If that retirement account is calling your name, a financial expert advises you to stop listening.”
“When the bills pile up and money is tight, many people turn to their 401(k) accounts to help ease the bind.
Downingtown, Pa. CPA Jacquelyn Basso says it’s not a good idea to raid your retirement; you’re getting money now that you’ll need to live on when you’re older.”
Unfortunately they need it to live now.
____________________________________________________