‘The threat from radical Islamic terrorism is very real, just look at what is happening in Europe and the Middle-East.
Courts must act fast!’
Drumpf, the ‘so-called president’
In a tweet coming shortly after Robart’s initial ruling, he called him a “so-called judge,” whose decision put national security in jeopardy.
The context of this bullish statement directed at the courts is that, on Tuesday, February 7, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will take up the issue of the legality of Trump’s presently suspended Muslim ban. This hearing comes as just one stop in an already long and winding legal battle between those opposed to the ban and those in favor of it.
Seattle Federal Judge James Robart ruled against the ban late last Friday, February 3, and the Trump administration has been up in arms ever since then, trying to get it reinstated.
Feb 4, 2017 8:55 PM
Drumpf launched an early morning Twitter offensive against a federal judge Saturday, February 4, after U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle declared a nationwide stay on Mr. Drumpf’s travel ban.
The ‘so-called president‘ defended his immigration order, which prohibits refugees or any citizens from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the U.S., in the series of tweets.
He also swore that Robart’s temporary restraining order, which effectively freezes the executive order’s most controversial provisions, would be “overturned”.
Federalist No. 68 (Federalist Number 68), the sixty-eighth essay of The Federalist Papers, was probably written by Alexander Hamilton and published on March 12, 1788 under the pseudonym Publius – the name under which all The Federalist Papers were published. Since all were written under this one pseudonym, we can never be certain of the authorships.
Entitled “The Mode of Electing the President,” the essay describes Hamilton’s perspective on the process of selecting the Chief Executive of the United States of America. In writing this essay, Hamilton sought to convince the people of New York of the merits of the proposed Constitution.
Federalist Number 68 is the second in a series of eleven essays discussing the powers and limitations of the Executive branch but the only one to describe the method of selecting a president.
The military–industrial complex, or military–industrial–congressional complex, comprises the policy and monetary relationships which exist between legislators, national armed forces, and the arms industry that supports them. These relationships include political contributions, political approval for military spending, lobbying to support bureaucracies, and oversight of the industry.
It is a type of iron triangle.
The term is most often used in reference to the system behind the military of the United States, where it gained popularity after its use in the farewell address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower on January 17, 1961, though the term is applicable to any country with a similarly developed infrastructure. In 2011, the United States spent more on its military than the next 13 nations combined.
The term is sometimes used more broadly to include the entire network of contracts and flows of money and resources among individuals as well as corporations and institutions of the defense contractors, The Pentagon, the Congress and executive branch.
President of the United States (and five-star general during World War II) Dwight D. Eisenhower used the term in his Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17, 1961:
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment.
Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction …
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government.
We recognize the imperative need for this development.
Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex.
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.
We should take nothing for granted.
Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.
The Danger of Ignoring Eisenhower’s Warning about the Military Industrial Complex
~Published on Jan 21, 2014~
Abby Martin remarks on the anniversary of President Eisenhower’s farewell address, citing his warning to the American people of the danger of the military industrial complex.
It Is What It Is 