The NY Times editors thump the Obama/Holder presentation on targeted assassinations, even invoking the dreaded 'Bad as Bush' comparison:
The Power to Kill
President Obama, who came to office promising transparency and adherence to the rule of law, has become the first president to claim the legal authority to order an American citizen killed without judicial involvement, real oversight or public accountability.
That, regrettably, was the most lasting impression from a major address on national security delivered last week by Attorney General Eric Holder Jr.
There were parts of the speech worth celebrating — starting with Mr. Holder’s powerful discussion of why trying most terrorists in civilian courts is best for punishing them and safeguarding America. But we are deeply concerned about his rejection of oversight and accountability when it comes to killing American citizens who are suspected of plotting terrorist acts.
They can't quite buy what Holder was selling:
[The Administration] has even refused to acknowledge the existence of a Justice Department memo providing legal justification for killing American citizens, even though that memo has been reported by The Times and others. It is beyond credibility that Mr. Obama ordered the Awlaki killing without getting an opinion from the department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Even President George W. Bush took the trouble to have lawyers in that office cook up a memo justifying torture.
The administration intended Mr. Holder’s speech to address the criticism and provide a legal argument for the policy, but it was deeply inadequate in important ways.
...
All Mr. Holder did say was that the president could order such a killing without any judicial review and that any such operation would have “robust” Congressional oversight because the administration would brief Congressional leaders. He also said the administration provided Congress with the legal underpinnings for such killings.
In the Awlaki case, we do not know whether that notification was done in advance or after the fact, if it was done at all. We do know the administration has not given Congress the legal memo with the underlying justification for killing American citizens, because Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was asking Mr. Holder for it just the other day.
Perhaps most disturbing, Mr. Holder utterly rejected any judicial supervision of a targeted killing.
We have said that a decision to kill an American citizen should have judicial review, perhaps by a special court like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which authorizes eavesdropping on Americans’ communications.
Well, far be it from me to defend Team Obama, but those FISA courts did not simply fall out of the sky and land near the Washington Mall. They were created by an act of Congress and signed by a President willing to limit the power of the Executive Branch (that would be Mr. Peanut, natch.)
I suppose it's possible that Obama could simply volunteer to submit death warrants to the FISA courts, although I wonder whether they would accept jurisdiction without a legal foundation. The right way would be for Congress to amend the FISA Act and collect Obama's signature. And if the Times editors were clever they would vex Boehner and Reid with this very issue; I'm curious to see where the two sides would come out, and the threat of an Obama veto is not a bug, its a feature.
The Times' Big Finish:
The administration should seek a court’s approval before killing an American citizen, except in the sort of “hot pursuit” that justifies the police shooting of an ordinary suspect. There should be consequences in the event of errors — which are, tragically, made, and are the great risk. And the administration should publish the Office of Legal Counsel memo. We cannot image why Mr. Obama would want to follow the horrible example set by Mr. Bush in withholding such vital information from the public.
I need legal help - under what authority could a judge sign such a warrant?
By the way, did everyone notice that the presumed lesbian Fluke has a boyfriend? She's currently visiting him on the west coast, and he's the son of a major Dem contributor.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 11, 2012 at 04:23 PM
Sounds super, Jim.
DoT: " If we win in November, I will taunt the left with the claim that Sandra Fluke is what turned everything around."
We now have proof positive that DoT us a sadist.Honestly, they could have pulled this off not so long ago-they still misjudge the power of the IT to respond quickly to scotch B.S..
Posted by: Clarice | March 11, 2012 at 04:25 PM
"Is a sadist"*****
Posted by: Clarice | March 11, 2012 at 04:25 PM
This I did not know:
" At Senate.gov, all fifteen of the Senators who have been removed by the Constitutionally enumerated process of expulsion are listed. Please notice that the list doesn’t include Senator Shields who was removed by Congress in 1849.
Senator Shields was removed by the Senate after it was discovered that he was an alien by birth, and that when he was elected in January 1849 – from the State of Illinois, to serve as a US Senator – he had not been a US citizen for the requisite nine years. However, he was not removed pursuant to the Article 1 section 5 expulsion power.
Instead, the Senate held that his election was entirely “void”. Senator Shields even offered his resignation to the Senate, but his resignation was not accepted by the Senate who held that since Shields was never qualified, he was never a Senator even though he had been sworn in and had been serving as a Senator until March 1849 when his election was completely made void and the seat declared vacant.
Since Shields it was discovered – after Shields had occupied the Senate seat – that he didn’t meet the Constitutional qualifications for the office of Senate, the Senate held that he was never an actual Senator and so his removal is not recorded as an expulsion.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it explicitly state that the Senate may remove a Senator by making a determination that his election was void and that he was a usurper. But that’s exactly what happened. If the power to remove a usurper wasn’t Constitutionally allowed, the Senate couldn’t have voided Mr. Shields election and vacated his Senate seat. But they did.
The Congressional Globe account of the Shields removal is preceded by an account of a similar precedent regarding a Mr. Albert Galatin. Mr. Galatin was elected to the US Senate from Pennsylvania in 1793 and it was later found that he had never become naturalized. The Senate again voided his election stating that the election wasn’t just “voidable”, but that since there was no way to cure the qualification defect… the election was completely “void”… it didn’t happen.
It’s important to note that the first quo warranto statue enacted by Congress didn’t take effect until 1878 so in 1793 and 1849 the Senate chose to void the elections of the two usurpers.
So here we have precedent for Congressional authority to remove Senators other than by expulsion. Usurpation of office resulted in elections being voided and the Senate record do not even record usurpers as having been members of the Senate. If Congress can remove a usurper to the Senate without expelling him, this provides evidence that Congress can remove a usurper to the Presidency without impeaching him."
Supporting links at the link.
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2012/03/07/enough-with-the-birther-nonsense-joe-arpaio-fans/comment-page-2/#comment-1839037
Posted by: Threadkiller | March 11, 2012 at 04:25 PM
And in the water is wet, department, what was the first clue for you;
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/former-obama-economic-adviser-warns-unemployment-could-rise/
Posted by: narciso | March 11, 2012 at 04:26 PM
Awww Jim, that sounds fabulous.
Posted by: Jane (get off the couch - come save the country) | March 11, 2012 at 04:30 PM
The Duke and Duke dilemna in a microcosm;
Posted by: narciso | March 11, 2012 at 04:34 PM
Good for you Jim. Sounds like a rewarding goal for me to put on my list.
Posted by: Threadkiller | March 11, 2012 at 04:34 PM
If we win in November, I will taunt the left with the claim that Sandra Fluke is what turned everything around.
Heh.
Posted by: Extraneus | March 11, 2012 at 04:35 PM
I must add my applause for rse...she has helped enumerable times in my advocacy of my grandson with autism.
I now am known as the INFORMED crazy grandma, but most importantly, my grandson is no longer being ignored. A start.
Posted by: glenda | March 11, 2012 at 04:38 PM
Is Martina leading or following, Captain?
Not sure, matt. I find her very attractive in an athletic woman kind of way. I've always wondered how she'd have done against Serena Williams because she wouldn't have been physically intimidated by her at all.
Posted by: Captain Hate | March 11, 2012 at 04:39 PM
Clarice, I feel sure he is in the same place as Professor Bell. But I don't see where that gives people who believe the same as him the right to choose America's police chiefs.
Posted by: pagar | March 11, 2012 at 04:40 PM
Thank goodness Obama has his priorities straight.
Obama to attend NCAA March Madness basketball tournament in Dayton, Ohio (With David Cameron.)
Posted by: daddy | March 11, 2012 at 04:41 PM
His priority is what it always was, daddy, himself and his ability to gain and retain power. He will stick his and his wife's faces in front of the the low information types from now thru the election at every event where they can pretend to be just ordinary, happy Americans.
Posted by: Clarice | March 11, 2012 at 04:46 PM
It will be very interesting to watch if and where she vacations this year.
====================
Posted by: Camp David is cozy. | March 11, 2012 at 04:52 PM
During the evening's festivities, it occurred to me that neither my parents nor my grandparents ever had a birthday with their whole family together at such an advanced age. It was a real blessing.
Congratulations, Jim R. How wonderful for your family!
I believe George W. Bush is the only US President to have served two terms and left office with both his parents living. This is sort of the opposite of your situation, yet a blessing, all the same.
Posted by: Porchlight | March 11, 2012 at 05:00 PM
If we win in November, I will taunt the left with the claim that Sandra Fluke is what turned everything around.
Ha. Hell yes.
And if it happens let it be a lesson to the handwringers wrt Rush et. al.
Posted by: Porchlight | March 11, 2012 at 05:03 PM
Sorry daddy, for the unfortunate role the Terps had in Henson being injured; him in the lineup would've probably put the Holes over the Crims. Btw, if the Noles land a football recruit that would probably displace the ACC hoops championship from the top report.
Posted by: Captain Hate | March 11, 2012 at 05:05 PM
"this provides evidence that Congress can remove a usurper to the Presidency without impeaching him." Not really: separation of powers.
Note that in the cases of Gallatin and Shields it was the Senate--not the congress--that acted; it did so pursuant to its power to run its own affairs (such as its power to decide when it is or is not in recess).
In the case of a voidable presidential election, my guess is that the electors would have to do the voiding. But were such a thing ever to occur, a problem would be presented that didn't arise in the Senators' cases: what to do with the legislation signed into law by the president, and all the actions taken pursuant to that legislation. One of many reasons why no such thing will ever occur.
Keep hope alive, TK.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 11, 2012 at 05:06 PM
Have to preface this OT pic with the info that it's from a guy named Stephen Bodio who is an amazing writer out of New Mexico and is a falconry nut (had a recent article about him at AmSpec). Wrote a book on the Falconers in Mongolia. Having said that I thought this was quite funny;

Posted by: Ignatz | March 11, 2012 at 05:06 PM
No sweat Captain.
I missed all of the Tourney being gone except for the last 2 minutes or so today after waking up.
Like MarkO, excepting the Final Four Tourney, my Season is made or lost on the floor of Cameron Arena and the Dean Dome when mortal enemies come to visit.
Hope Henson gets well by the Sweet 16.
Posted by: daddy | March 11, 2012 at 05:11 PM
Also note, TK, that in the Senators' cases the facts giving rise to their ineligibility became known only after they were seated; there was never any question oftheir having been a knowing ratification of their eligibility. In Obama's case, the electors elected him with full knowledge that his father was not a U.S. citizen.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 11, 2012 at 05:17 PM
Buckeyes blew it. Sullinger has been a disappointment.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 11, 2012 at 05:30 PM
Yeah, sure, DoT, but not with full knowledge that that made him not a natural born citizen. Critical point there. And what, may I ask, do you think of JustiaGate?
=============
Posted by: Ask those who make -19 on Raz. Allegiance is at question here, and for a good reason. | March 11, 2012 at 05:33 PM
Izzo > Matta and it's not even close as far as bench coaching goes.
Posted by: Captain Hate | March 11, 2012 at 05:34 PM
"not with full knowledge that that made him not a natural born citizen"
They had all the facts and all the law available to them. Nothing has changed.
"Justiagate" had no effect on any of the official Supreme Court reporters. I don't think much about it all.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 11, 2012 at 05:42 PM
Steven Hayward:
"Meanwhile, I heard a very, very very prominent person predict this morning, in an off-the-record meeting (so I can’t tell you who, but trust me it’s a name everyone knows well), that Obama would dump Biden for Hillary on the ticket."
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 11, 2012 at 05:46 PM
Heh, official Supreme Court reporters compared with the public. 'All the facts, and all the law available to them', except as restricted by JustiaGate.
==============
Posted by: June of '08, and you don't think much of it at all. | March 11, 2012 at 05:47 PM
Another moment of reprieve as the chicken grills slowly and mrs hit and run and the kids are over at neighbors. I've got nothing to offer here, but can't not admit my travails on another thread.
Posted by: hit and run | March 11, 2012 at 05:51 PM
Finally caught up to Clarice's excellent essay on CRT.
Concur with all the above exclamations of praise. Beautiful and in-depth Clarice.
OT, Iditarod update:
Gal named Ally Zirkle, 42, is in the lead. Gal's haven't won it since 1990, so there's big interest with 220 miles to go.
Weather has been decent. 2 Volcano's (Cleveland and Iliamna have been rumbling this week, but not close to the Sled Dog route.
We've had 1 case of a dog saved by CPR from a Mushing Mortician, and the cute Wisconsin twins are caravanning along in a Kumbaya mode of comfortably finishing together.
Posted by: daddy | March 11, 2012 at 05:55 PM
Thanks. Keep your mukluks dry.
Posted by: Clarice | March 11, 2012 at 05:58 PM
Your LUN gave you away, hit.
Posted by: Extraneus | March 11, 2012 at 05:59 PM
Would this work?
FREE DOWNLOAD
Posted by: Sara | March 11, 2012 at 05:59 PM
"except as restricted by JustiaGate"
No one is compelled to use Justia. Far more important, the cases whose texts were affected by the Justia screwup do not determine the legal outcome of the eligibility question. Despite the never-ending assertions of the birthers, no case does--not Minor, and not Wong Kim Ark. The only appellate court ever to rule on the question was the Indiana Supreme Court, and it held that Obama is a natural born citizen. I really recommend reading that court's analysis.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 11, 2012 at 06:06 PM
This seems like a great feature too:
and
and
Posted by: Sara | March 11, 2012 at 06:06 PM
Obama would dump Biden for Hillary on the ticket.
Just curious - assuming this happens, what do people think? Will it make the difference?
Posted by: Porchlight | March 11, 2012 at 06:08 PM
Ignatz, as I sit in Austin surrounded by hipsters during Hipster Convergence Week a/k/a SXSW Film, Music & Interactive Conference 2012, I love your 5:06 and agree fully.
Posted by: Porchlight | March 11, 2012 at 06:10 PM
'screw up'.
======
Posted by: Oh, please. | March 11, 2012 at 06:17 PM
About time.
Scientists finally come up with a surefire way to help us cut down on our drinking.
Wonder if it would work for Janet and her cigarettes?
Posted by: daddy | March 11, 2012 at 06:17 PM
Oh I think it will make big difference. Hillary should say "no".
Posted by: Jane (get off the couch - come save the country) | March 11, 2012 at 06:17 PM
If you've never read any Bodio, I highly recommend it Porch.
BTW, them f***ing hipsters too shall pass. :)
Posted by: Ignatz | March 11, 2012 at 06:17 PM
For Ann - A bit more on that Kony2012 video.
Jake Tapper - “But the question is to what end. There are things in that video that are not factually accurate. He’s not in Uganda, Joseph Kony. A lot of this, there are not 30,000 child soldiers, there are probably between 150 and 300.”
Posted by: Janet | March 11, 2012 at 06:18 PM
Correction: it was the Indiana Court of Appeals, in the case of Arkenny v. Daniels. The opinion is at the LUN. The discussion of the natural-born issue begins at page 10.
I really recommend it.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 11, 2012 at 06:19 PM
How about them Spartans? 15 straight NCAA tourneys a a number 1 seed for a team NO ONE had ranked in the top 25 at the start of the season.
Go Green!
Posted by: Gmax | March 11, 2012 at 06:19 PM
"Obama would dump Biden for Hillary on the ticket."
New Campaign sticker:
"Why vote for just 1 Marxist from Chicago? Now you can vote for 2."
Posted by: daddy | March 11, 2012 at 06:22 PM
That's quite an article, daddy.
I knew a kid who took acid one time. After that, he didn't drink. In fact, all he did after taking LSD one time was stand outside a bowling alley, leaning against a wall. He did this every night for about a year before committing suicide.Drink up.
Posted by: Extraneus | March 11, 2012 at 06:27 PM
Some thoughts on the new world order that the leadership is trying to build without the whole "God" thing. LUN
I really can';t believe these people have built their entire philosophy upon Nietzsche, who has been discredited; Marcuse, Sartre, Derrida and a bunch of other worthless lip flappers.
Posted by: matt | March 11, 2012 at 06:40 PM
Spread the word and it is most definitely not Catholics only. This is a fight to protect freedom:
A Nationwide Rally for Religious Freedom will be held Friday, March 23 at 12:00 p.m., local time, outside of federal buildings, Congressional offices and historical sites across the country. CAN, Catholic News Agency, reports that there will be “thousands of people across the country. It may even reach tens-of-thousands” attending these rallies nationwide. Supporters will spread the message through peaceful protests outside government buildings “from Portland, Oregon to Portland, Maine and everywhere in between,” says Eric Scheidler, Executive Director for Pro-Life Action League and organizer of the Nationwide Rally for Religious Freedom.
Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York, and proponent for participation in this nationwide rally states that “we have become certain of two things: religious freedom is under attack, and we will not cease our struggle to protect it. Cardinal Dolan continues that “we did not ask for this fight, but we will not run from it.”
The goal of the rally is to mobilize people who care passionately about the issue of religious freedom. Eric Scheidler says “We need to take this issue outside of the very narrow lines painted by the mainstream media. This is not just a few pundits and a few bishops.” Cardinal Dolan also insists that “this is not just about sterilization, abortifacients, and chemical contraception. It’s about religious freedom, the sacred right of any Church to define its own teaching and ministry.” Father Richard concurs with Cardinal Dolan and further responds to the idea of government interfering with religious freedom that “We Catholics object on moral grounds as well as Constitutional grounds. We do not accept it and we have a right to protest it on both grounds.”
Posted by: Gmax | March 11, 2012 at 06:40 PM
"Will it make the difference?"
As the resident pessimist, I believe it would do so by firing up the female voters, including Indys. I hope she would say no.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 11, 2012 at 06:41 PM
I think it's more than religious freedom. It's freedom for all of us.
Posted by: MarkO | March 11, 2012 at 06:42 PM
Why Didn't More Women Vote for Hillary?
These were Democrats - natural tribal voters. Why should independents be more swayed by Hillary's gender? I don't think large numbers of them were swayed by Palin's.Posted by: Extraneus | March 11, 2012 at 06:48 PM
A look back down down the 'way back machine'
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=39161
Posted by: narciso | March 11, 2012 at 06:48 PM
When you are done reading the opinion of the court, please proceed to the dissection of the same.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/02/all-that-is-wrong-with-georgia-state.html?m=1
Posted by: Threadkiller | March 11, 2012 at 06:50 PM
TK, I've read dissections of everything from Brown v. board to Roe v. Wade to Bush v. Gore. They all remain good law.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 11, 2012 at 07:00 PM
Posted by: Janet | March 11, 2012 at 07:26 PM
Good federal law. Ankeny has not elevated itself to supreme law, that I know of.
Posted by: Threadkiller | March 11, 2012 at 07:29 PM
Still puzzled by the RAS uptick? Rush will explain it to you:
Posted by: Gmax | March 11, 2012 at 07:33 PM
I'm on record for what it's worth, that the decisions in Minor and Wong Kim, were wrongly decided, not to the same degree as the Justices other decisions in the Civil Rights
cases, and or Plessy, which I further posit
led to the circumstance we find ourselves today. It is a very cramped version of the conception of citizenship, sorry to say.
Posted by: narciso | March 11, 2012 at 07:36 PM
Yeah, get a court approval before someone flies a plane into a building....
Posted by: jorod | March 11, 2012 at 07:37 PM
Funny stunned confusion coincides with a featherman free weekend. Coincidence or outlier? You make the call.
Posted by: Gmax | March 11, 2012 at 07:37 PM
If this is all they have, it isn't likely to help.
CBS: President Obama Strikes Back At GOP Critics On Gas Prices
Economists say. Is there a Critical Race Theory of economics that discounts supply and demand as a ruse to keep white people in power? Surely the alternative energy grants and loans weren't predominantly reparations like CRA. Or were they?Posted by: Extraneus | March 11, 2012 at 07:38 PM
I have no link saying so, but I suspect that Hillary has damaged herself with some voters by her actions since being named SOS.
--------------------------------------------
Those hoping for a brokered Republican convention might keep this linked fiasco in mind.
http://hillbuzz.org/ron-pauls-devious-plan-to-steal-the-presidency-63749
"Yesterday I attended the Republican organizational convention for my Senate district here in Minnesota, and what I witnessed was an organized take-over of our nomination process by Ron Paul cultists. They came to this convention with the sole intent to take over as many of the delegate seats as they could, and sadly, they succeeded."
I suspect there is some real serious skullduggery being planned.
Posted by: pagar | March 11, 2012 at 07:39 PM
At the nation's beginning, the framers saw more clearly than is perhaps possible in our more enlightened and infinitely more complex time the essential need to accept what has become the American contradiction. The framers made a conscious, though unspoken, sacrifice of the rights of some in the belief that this forfeiture was necessary to secure the rights of others in a society embracing, as its fundamental principle, the equality of all. And thus the framers, while speaking through the Constitution in an unequivocal voice, at once promised freedom for whites and condemned blacks to slavery....
The Constitution has survived for two centuries and, despite earnest efforts by committed people, the contradiction remains, shielded and nurtured through the years by myth. This contradiction is the root reason for the inability of black people to gain legitimacy -- that is, why they are unable to be taken seriously when they are serious and why they retain a subordinate status as a group that even impressive proofs of individual competence cannot overcome. Contradiction, shrouded by myth, remains a significant factor in blacks' failure to obtain meaningful relief against historic racial injustice.
Derek Bell's work, edited by Elana Kagan
Posted by: Jane (get off the couch - come save the country) | March 11, 2012 at 07:45 PM
Glad to see Obama still hammering the green energy gong. Understanding is growing that the only catastrophe in AGW is CO2 mitigation attempts.
===============
Posted by: A warmer world increases biodiversity and sustainability. And we face another Ice Age. | March 11, 2012 at 07:47 PM
A follow-up on daddy's 4:41 comment re Obama and Cameron coming to Dayton for the NCAA early games to be played at the University of Dayton (a Catholic institution, although their employee health insurance is mostly in line with the HHS mandate).
According to the local paper, calls from the White House to city and university officials were placed just this last Tuesday to set this up, with security people showing up Wednesday morning.
Seems very spur of the moment.
Posted by: Ms. Trish | March 11, 2012 at 07:48 PM
Not they don't say which economists in that piece, ext, probably the one handed ones,
Meanwhile, Kurtz notices as he did on an earlier occasion that Schmidt's account fails
the Crichton test;
One of the scenes in the film Kurtz thought took some liberties was when Steve Schmidt is confronted at the 2008 Republican National Convention by a mob of reporters asking him about every little controversy surrounding Palin. Kurtz recalled his own experience covering the campaign and said the mob never happened. Strong said it definitely happened, just at different times during the convention, and they just meshed it all together into one big scene to make it look more dramatic.
Kurtz asked the two men about scenes where all the dialogue is between members of the Palin family, and how they could have fairly written those scenes if none of the Palins talked to them. Strong cited interviews he did with members of the campaign, as well as details they gleaned from Palin’s autobiography Going Rogue. Kurtz brought up a Palin spokeswoman’s comments about how the movie is “sick.” Roach said he doesn’t think she actually saw the movie before criticizing it anyway, while Strong said he made sure to corroborate all of the stories about the campaign with several other people before going ahead
Posted by: narciso | March 11, 2012 at 07:52 PM
I haven't followed it lately, but there was a time several years ago, primarily from my interaction with one Paulbot, that I wondered if they weren't Deaniacs doing Taqiyah.
====================
Posted by: Pagar, that was Putsch. | March 11, 2012 at 07:53 PM
It looks like the anabolic steroids have taken their toll on Tiger's 36 year old achilles tendon. There's a sucker born every minute.
Posted by: scott | March 11, 2012 at 08:04 PM
"But the best part was filling the 14 seats on the Clark County Republican Party Executive Board. These are the people who set local policy. Each of the candidates was given only 30 seconds to speak.
Are you ready for this?
ALL 14 SEATS WERE WON BY RON PAUL DELEGATES! A total sweep!
When the results were announced a Ron Paul cheer went up and if the Romney people were balloons you would have heard the air draining out of every one of them with a big, sad whoosh."
http://www.dailypaul.com/219926/breaking-las-vegas-nevada-ron-paul-delegates-sweep-the-clark-county-convention
As Butch said to Sundance: "Who are these guys?"
Posted by: Threadkiller | March 11, 2012 at 08:05 PM
Chubby,
Sorry for the delay -- I wrote my quick note from the Denver airport and now am in Bethesda (quick trip, no time for socializing).
Refbase is not cloud-based. You install the software on a local computer, and that can be the one you use or one that is accessible from your network.
I've found it to be pretty easy to use and maintain, and we use it a lot -- we must have about 5,000 references in it by now (that includes patents and other stuff too).
Now it may not be the right program for you. I've simply found it to be very good for my needs. Those may not be the same as yours.
Posted by: DrJ | March 11, 2012 at 08:06 PM
Well we know that certain one time Goldwaterites like Karl Hess and Gary Wills,
moved to the left, so it's not entirely improbable that the same process would work in reverse, take Walter Jones, please, the NC Congressman, who came up with 'freedom fries'then later switch on the war,
Now what one finds with the likes of Schueur, who wrote that cloying biography of Bin Laden last year, is apparently he wasn't really involved in the nitty gritty of the actual Bin Laden hunt, there was another, to whom I've alluded to in the past,
Posted by: narciso | March 11, 2012 at 08:06 PM
Big DC rally end of the month:
Later this month, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments about the constitutionality of some aspects of the President's health care bill. That's why Americans for Prosperity will be holding a Hands Off My Health Care Rally on March 27th across the street from the Supreme Court. This rally will be the most important event yet to protect health care freedom. Speakers will include Sen. Pat Toomey, Sen. Jim Demint, Rep. Michele Bachmann, Americans for Prosperity's Tim Phillips, 60 Plus Association's Jim Martin, Concerned Women for America's Penny Nance, Tea Party Express's Amy Kremer, breast cancer survivor Tracy Walsh, and many more!
Join us, and let's remind the Court and all of Washington that the President's health care takeover is an affront to our Constitution and our liberties!
Posted by: Gmax | March 11, 2012 at 08:07 PM
Ben Shapiro on Breitbart has more on CRT.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/11/What%20Is%20Critical%20Race%20Theory
Posted by: Clarice | March 11, 2012 at 08:16 PM
Q. I'm going to come back to this. But I want to touch on two more areas first. What do you think in general about the influence of people with your means on the political process? You said shame on the politicians for listening to the CEOs. Do you think the ultrawealthy have an inordinate or inappropriate amount of influence on the political process?
A. I think they actually have an insufficient influence. Those who have enjoyed the benefits of our system more than ever now owe a duty to protect the system that has created the greatest nation on this planet. And so I hope that other individuals who have really enjoyed growing up in a country that believes in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – and economic freedom is part of the pursuit of happiness – (I hope they realize) they have a duty now to step up and protect that. Not for themselves, but for their kids and for their grandchildren and for the person down the street that they don't even know ...
At this moment in time, these values are under attack. This belief that a larger government is what creates prosperity, that a larger government is what creates good (is wrong). We've seen that experiment. The Soviet Union collapsed. China has run away from its state-controlled system over the last 20 years and has pulled more people up from poverty by doing so than we've ever seen in the history of humanity. Why the U.S. is drifting toward a direction that has been the failed of experiment of the last century, I don't understand. I don't understand.
Posted by: Neo | March 11, 2012 at 08:18 PM
I can just see those pinheads at the wh machinating this one--"O, we get a shot of you at a football game at a Catholic University-gets the bubbas and Catholics thinking you're just one of the guys..Great photo op ""PHEH
Posted by: Clarice | March 11, 2012 at 08:18 PM
The most motivated faction fills the vaccuum,
I can't imagine they didn't figure this out.
Posted by: narciso | March 11, 2012 at 08:18 PM
A small peak behind the numbers, hint, it aint good for Zero:
The rapid decline in the jobless rate in the past few months has defied expectations; some economists argue that the widely-followed seasonally-adjusted numbers may be too good to be true.
Some suspect the government’s formulas for smoothing out seasonal factors may be inadvertently inflating the numbers. Gallup chief economist Dennis Jacobe figures that, without those seasonal adjustments, the jobless rate has actually been rising for the past three months, hitting 9.1 percent in January.
“We think that the improvement over the last few months dramatically overstates the underlying improvement,” said Goldman Sachs economist Andrew Tilton. “You will not see that rate of improvement going forward.”
Posted by: Gmax | March 11, 2012 at 08:24 PM
Heh, March Madness has hit Clarice.
=============
Posted by: It was football, it was. | March 11, 2012 at 08:24 PM
After backing Fisker and Solyndra it would be just like Zero to show up to the football stadium in March! Incompetence on display!!
Posted by: Gmax | March 11, 2012 at 08:26 PM
neo, it would be courteous and more helpful if you told us at least who you are quoting.
Posted by: Clarice | March 11, 2012 at 08:28 PM
Wow,Jane. It's a tangled web they weave.
Daddy, did you get my info on Utah? Caucus night is next Thursday,the 15th.
Posted by: Caro | March 11, 2012 at 08:29 PM
neo, it would be courteous and more helpful if you told us at least who you are quoting.
He linked it: Ken Griffin.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | March 11, 2012 at 08:32 PM
Even the terminally dense at the far far left Nation mag have figured out the boomerang at this point:
We suspect that his audience is increasing now. The irony is that Limbaugh’s advertising is probably worth more than ever. But unless you believe that the American advertising industry has a high bar for standards and taste, then there will [eventually] be more advertisers coming on. We’re talking about nobody advertising on the number-one show in the business. How likely is that?”
Posted by: Gmax | March 11, 2012 at 08:34 PM
Yes, but I first found it through Kos, which is not where you want to end up, the template in that piece is problematic, although the sentiment is correct.
Posted by: narciso | March 11, 2012 at 08:34 PM
"Good federal law." Of course. My point is simply that cases at every level get dissected all the time, to no effect at all. Arkenny is still good Indiana law. There is no appellate law to the contrary, anywhere.
Narciso, Minor decided that a woman in Missouri had no constitutional right to vote. If you think it was wrongly decided, why?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 11, 2012 at 08:40 PM
This portion, regarding the EPA wsa a little troubling, for what it suggests;
A. When a company creates a product that directly or indirectly adversely impacts the health of people, that product must be regulated. The process by which it's created must be regulated. No company has the right to injure people. No company
Posted by: narciso | March 11, 2012 at 08:40 PM
unless you believe that the American advertising industry has a high bar for standards and taste,
If they did MSNBC would have to go all Air America and steal from a Boys and Girls Club or go all NPR and get a handout from the taxpayers, cuz there would be no advertisers!
Posted by: Gmax | March 11, 2012 at 08:41 PM
Thanks, cecil. I don't see the link at his recent post and I scrolled up some way and saw nothing.
Posted by: Clarice | March 11, 2012 at 08:48 PM
"Good law" has a meaning to the legal profession it doesn't necessarily share with laymen.
Posted by: Ignatz | March 11, 2012 at 08:48 PM
--Thanks, cecil. I don't see the link at his recent post and I scrolled up some way and saw nothing.--
It was LUNed.
Posted by: Ignatz | March 11, 2012 at 08:49 PM
Jane, I'm not sure what you can make of Kagan editing Bell..It's not necessary a sign of agreement with the author's writing too edit it. I think the Ben Shapiro article today at Breitbart on CRT is more significant--a linking o CRT to Obama's words, policies, appointees and his appointees actions--like Holder dropping the black panther case and Sotomayor claiming some special qualification by reason of her sex and ethnicity.
Posted by: Clarice | March 11, 2012 at 08:50 PM
ah, thanks. Sorry, neo.
Posted by: Clarice | March 11, 2012 at 08:51 PM
Well i was speaking to that rather narrow interpretation, that someone who is born here, but their parents are not citizens at
the time, who arrived legitimately are second
class citizens, at best
Posted by: narciso | March 11, 2012 at 08:54 PM
It's not necessary a sign of agreement with the author's writing too edit it.
True although I think most reputable scholars who had serious disagreements with someone's work would not accept the job.
What this does mainly is lop off their future argument options on one side. They can't say that Bell was just a lone crackpot in the Harvard woods, representative of nobody and nothing, when POTUS taught him and USAG edited him.
Posted by: Porchlight | March 11, 2012 at 08:59 PM
Ex parte Lockwood is another good read, narciso.
"In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word 'citizen' is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since; but that the right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment did not add to these privileges and immunities. Hence, that a provision in a state constitution which confined the right of voting to male citizons of the United States was no violation of the federal constitution."
Minor's holding was about citizenship also, as acknowledged by the supreme court in Lockwood.
Posted by: Threadkiller | March 11, 2012 at 08:59 PM
Here is the piece you are referencing, Clarice, there were instances when he let
his facade fall, some of which like the radio
interview emerged during the campaign, in the LUN
Posted by: narciso | March 11, 2012 at 08:59 PM
Is a citizen who is 30 years old a "second class" citizen until he/she turns 35?
Posted by: Threadkiller | March 11, 2012 at 09:05 PM
Clarice, I agree with you, but if CRT is as pervasive as I suspect it is, my guess is Kagan is all in.
Posted by: Jane (get off the couch - come save the country) | March 11, 2012 at 09:05 PM
Oh, that is for certain, Jane, that's why she was picked, as with Sotomayor,
Posted by: narciso | March 11, 2012 at 09:10 PM
Tiger was jucing all the time. But, today he looked like a bush league shortstop who muffed a play and came up limping.
He's just ordinary as a PGA player. A great talent, wasted.
Posted by: MarkO | March 11, 2012 at 09:18 PM