Scanlyze

The Online Journal of Insight, Satire, Desire, Wit and Observation

Vote for Hillary Clinton to continue these Bush-Obama policies

Vote for Hillary Clinton to continue these Bush-Obama policies:

Eternal, undeclared, illegal, aggressive war. In Libya, Syria, Iraq, Mali, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Chad, Somalia, Nigeria, Philippines, Honduras, and Yemen. Universal surveillance. General Warrants. Secret courts. National Security Letters. Endless imprisonment without trial or charge. Effective abolition of the writ of habeas corpus, notwithstanding that it is in the US Constitution Article I, Section 9. Black sites. Rendition. Special Ops death squads. Assassination of US citizens without trial or charge. Including juveniles. Robot bombs sent to assassinate more than 2,000 civilians so far in neutral countries with which we are not at war. Mercantilist trade policies such as TTIP, TPP, NAFTA. Okay, Hillary was for TPP and helped write it, until she was suddenly against it a few months ago. Fracking. Bailing out Wall Sreet, AIG to the tune of $318 thousand million dollars, then also bailing out big banks like Citi, who were already re-insured by AIG. But Obama could not find $20 billion to bail out Detroit’s pension funds, nor $60 million for public works to replace all the lead pipes in Flint.

Copyright © 2016 Henry Edward Hardy

30 March, 2016 Posted by | election, eternal war, hypocrisy, media, politics, scanlyze, US, USA, war | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Blunder-headed US Republicans can’t find a way out of the mess they created

I continue to watch with astonishment at the juvenile, dunderheaded tricks the Republicans are playing.

First they force a shutdown of the federal government and the unimaginable scenario of unwarranted and unnecessary bankruptcy of the United States and subsequent collapse of the world economy to try to force the Democratic majority in the Senate to retroactively defund the Affordable Healthcare Act. Then they decide that defunding healthcare isn’t achievable. And declare they will continue the shutdown and forcing a default anyway!

That is demented, irrational, and verging on treasonous.

The 14th Amendment says that “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned”

That is a Constitutional Amendment. It trumps what is in the main text of the Constitution and it certainly overcomes that of statutory requirements of the debt ceiling. The Constitution doesn’t require or impose a debt ceiling, the first one was passed as part of the 2nd Liberty Bond Act of 1917. The debt ceiling has no Constitutional basis, it is statutory law only.

Obama should announce that in accordance with the Constitution there will be no default and to the unruly house, impeach me and be damned!

Copyright © 2013 Henry Edward Hardy

14 October, 2013 Posted by | bankruptcy, default, economy, government, politics, Republicans, scanlyze, shutdown, stupidity, United States | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Letter to the Ambassador from Bahrain to the US

Letter to the Ambassador from Bahrain to the US

To: Her Excellency Ms. Houda Ezra Ebrahim Nonoo, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the United States of America

Your Excellency,

It is with great concern that I have read of the suppression of peaceful protesters on Lulu Square by armed force. Such violent and extra-legal actions by the security forces damage the standing of Bahrain in the world community and threaten its internal stability.

I strongly urge you to inform the King and his Government of the concerns of the American people in this regard, and to urge His Majesty to step in to dismiss the current Government and to hold those responsible for the armed and violent attack on peaceful protesters in the square accountable to the full extent of the law.

I thank Your Excellency in advance for her prompt attention to these matters.

sincerely,

Henry Edward Hardy
(street address)
USA

Copyright © 2011 Henry Edward Hardy

Submit to del.icio.usSubmit to BluedotSubmit to ConnoteaDigg it!Submit to FurlSubmit to newsvineSubmit to RedditSubmit to FurlSubmit to TechnoratiSocial Networking Icons Help

17 February, 2011 Posted by | Ambassador, Bahrain, Lulu, Majesty, Nonoo, peaceful, Pearl, protesters, scanlyze | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

US using illegal mercenary forces in Pakistan?

US using illegal mercenary forces in Pakistan?

The use of mercenaries or mercenary-like private armed forces by the US is forbidden by Anti-Pinkerton Act of 1893 (5 U.S.C. § 3108). See Weinberger v. Equifax, 557 F.2d 456, 462 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1035 (1978). The use of mercenaries is forbidden under international law by the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries.

However, the New York Times reports today that the US is making use of mercenary forces in Pakistan, including a group allegedly under the control of Duane “Dewey” Claridge, notorious for his alleged role in the Iran-Contra scandal: “One of the companies employs a network of Americans, Afghans and Pakistanis run by Duane Clarridge, a C.I.A. veteran who became famous for his role in the Iran-Contra scandal. Mr. Clarridge declined to be interviewed. ”

See:
International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries
U.S. Is Still Using Private Spy Ring, Despite Doubts

Copyright © 2010 Henry Edward Hardy

Submit to del.icio.usSubmit to BluedotSubmit to ConnoteaDigg it!Submit to FurlSubmit to newsvineSubmit to RedditSubmit to FurlSubmit to TechnoratiSocial Networking Icons Help

16 May, 2010 Posted by | Anti-Pinkerton Act, Duane Clarridge, Equifax, illegal, mercenaries, mercenary, Pinkerton, scanlyze, UN | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Civilian Control of the Military?

This was written in response to a thread on the facebook group, The Constitution of the United States of America, titled, Do you think a President should have to serve in the military because he is Commander in Chief?

To ask, “Do you think a President should have to serve in the military because he is Commander in Chief?” is completely the wrong way of posing this question. The proper way of framing it is, “Do you think that the Commander-in-Chief should always be a civilian, elected President, in order to secure a democratic republic from military control?”

As James Madison said: “In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive, will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.” [1]

This principle of civilian control has been and remains the fundamental precept upon which the command and control of the US Armed Forces depends and from which it draws its legitimacy:

“From the birth of democracy in ancient Greece, the idea of the citizen-soldier has been the single most important factor to shape the Western way of war. In a democracy, combatants bear arms as equals, fighting to defend their ideals and way of life. They are citizens with a stake in the society they have vowed to defend. They do not fight as mercenaries, nor are they guided by coercion or allegiance to the whims of a dictatorial leader. Rather, their motivation stems from a selfless commitment to an idea that far exceeds the interests of any individual member of the society. For the armed forces officer of the United States, this ethos began with the militiamen who defended their homes, secured the frontier, and won a war of independence against the most formidable military power of that era. The American military tradition has since been governed by a strict adherence to the primacy of civilian control and, within that framework, has continued to champion the role of the citizen-soldier as the defender of the nation’s ideals.” [2]

[1] Max Farrand. 1911. Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1:465. Civilian control of the military

[2] The Armed Forces Officer. Chapter 1
The Citizen-Soldier—An American Tradition of Military Service p. 21

Copyright © 2010 Henry Edward Hardy

Submit to del.icio.usSubmit to BluedotSubmit to ConnoteaDigg it!Submit to FurlSubmit to newsvineSubmit to RedditSubmit to FurlSubmit to TechnoratiSocial Networking Icons Help

14 April, 2010 Posted by | armed forces, commander-in-chief, Constitution, control, democratic, government, military, officer, politics, President, republic, scanlyze, tradition, US, USA | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment