Democrats will introduce legislation to completely phase out the use of gasoline-powered cars by mandating that only zero-emissions vehicles can be sold by 2040.
“When I take a lungful of air in this moment, it has 30 percent more carbon in it than when I was born,” Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley, the bill’s main sponsor told The Huffington Post on Wednesday. “That is a change that has never happened in a single generation of humankind on this planet.”
The bill is co-sponsored by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Kamala Harris of California, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Bernie Sanders of Vermont. California Rep. Mike Levin will introduce a House version of the bill, HuffPo reported.
NBC News has learned the Trump campaign is moving into a new phase of the running mate search: the interviews. Today, Indiana Governor Mike Pence will travel to meet with Donald Trump this weekend. Sources tell NBC News Pence is being formally vetted for consideration to join the Trump ticket.
“Not just because of the optics and the bad appearance, but also because Bill Clinton is a potential target, a potential witness intricately involved in the second part of the investigation,” Baier said. “And that is the corruption investigation into the possible mishandling, misdealings with the Clinton Foundation.”
[Alex Le Roux] want to 3D print houses. Rather than all the trouble we go through now, the contractor would make a foundation, set-up the 3D printer, feed it concrete, and go to lunch.
Sue is concerned that these universities have missed the point. It was never about shaming or punishing people, he says. In fact, he doesn’t think that people who commit microaggressions are necessarily racist or sexist.
An Artificially Intelligent (AI) pilot developed by a doctoral student defeated a top Air Force pilot in a series of simulated long range, tactical air battles.
A driver so enamored of his Tesla Model S sedan that he nicknamed the car “Tessy” and praised the safety benefits of its sophisticated “Autopilot” system has become the first U.S. fatality in a wreck involving a car in self-driving mode.
The SJWs appear to have crossed over into new territory. This half Croatian, half Lebanese college student gives a speech about how she is a “white woman of color”, and how she is not judged or profiled like other students who wear hijabs. She feels guilty that she is seen as “an innocent doe eyed white girl… I feel a tremendous amount of guilt for not receiving the same treatment that my fellow Arabs are given. And it hurts me, knowing that I cannot feel the same pain that my people possess”
To accomplish this they had to ignore the text of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Bill of Rights, misinterpret the Supreme Court decision District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and cite English laws going back to 1299.
After a New Jersey sixth-grader criticized a classmate’s vegetarianism last year — noting, among other comments, that “vegetarians are idiots” — the school district is allowed to punish the student for #bullying, the Asbury Park Press reported.
“Carmen was embarrassed that she was being called out in front of her bosses and fellow employees,” states the #lawsuit. “The shame caused Carmen to momentarily attempt to pedal faster.”
The House Select Committee on #Benghazi has demanded a top Defense Department official testify after the committee interviewed a witness Thursday who says he was a drone sensor operator on the night of the attacks — and is a person the official had said in late April the department could not find.
I never really thought of my #iPhone as a product of the United States government, because my iPhone works most of the time and I wasn’t required by law to buy it. But, as always, Nancy #Pelosi knows better.
Attorney General Eric Holder plans to announce Thursday that he is resigning from the Obama administration, officials confirmed to Fox News. The decision would capa tumultuous six-year term for the nation’s top law enforcement official.
An employee at the U.S. Office of the Trustee — an arm of the Justice Department charged with overseeing the integrity of the bankruptcy system — spent up to five hours a day on the job looking at pornography, visiting more than 2,500 adult websites during 2011, investigators found.
“We certainly offer an apology to our veterans and anyone else we offended,” Superintendent Dr. Rallie Liston told FOX Carolina last Thursday. “That is the last thing we would do. This community is God-fearing and flag-waving. We love God and country here.”
The thermometer showed a 103.5-degree fever, and her 10-year-old’s asthma was flaring up. Mary Bolender, who lives in Las Vegas, needed to get her daughter to an emergency room, but her 2005 Chrysler van would not start.
I really hope somebody calls me or emails me and says I’m in trouble for anything I say about Roger Goodell. Because if one person says that to me, I’m going public. You leave me alone. The commissioner’s a liar and I get to talk about that on my podcast. … Please, call me and say I’m in trouble. I dare you.
Ronald Ritchie is the pile of crap that called 911 saying Crawford was aiming the gun at children and other Wal-Mart customers. He then gave statements to local news after the shooting confirming that Crawford was indeed a threat. He later recanted those statements in an interview with The Guardian. In other words, he lied. We also learned that he was lying about his military background. As a result of his lying to 911, police believed they had an active shooter at the Wal-Mart when they only had a man who was innocently shopping.
The debate has raged for some days now … was the killing of al-Awlaki in Yemen illegal?
Rep. Ron Paul says it was, but he says everything is illegal.
There are two primary arguments alleging the illegality of al-Awlaki’s killing.
First, he was a US citizen, and as such, was due a trial.
Second, the US violated international law by assassinating him in Yemen.
Neither argument holds up, both morally or legally.
First I’ll address international law.
Neither the Hague Convention of 1899, or the Protocol Addition to the Geneva Convention of 1949 forbid al-Awlaki’s killing by international law. Right off the get go, proponents of this argument are off to a bad start. In fact, the international law community has often taken the stance that killing an adversary can often fall within the confines of international law.
The clauses that traditionally have been construed as prohibiting “targeted killings” are far from clear prohibitions. In the Hague Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land (29 July 1899), Article 23b states that it is prohibited “to kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army.” Treachery is not explicitly defined, and it can be argued that using missiles to attack a car in which a target is traveling, while brutal and having a high probability of injuring bystanders, does not fall within the purview of treachery. Similarly, targeted killings can be argued to fall outside the Protocol I Article 37 prohibition on killing, injuring, or capturing “an adversary by resort to perfidy”—described as “acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence.” Article 37 gives examples of perfidy including “the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or surrender” and “the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status.”
Basically, you can’t ‘assassinate’ under false-flag circumstances. No such circumstance existed with the al-Awlaki killing. It should be noted that this provision addresses someone belonging to a hostile nation OR army. While al-Awlaki did not belong to a hostile nation, he did belong to a hostile army. This is important later when I argue the relevance of his US citizenship.
In addition to this international law, the US has NO LAW forbidding foreign assassinations. We do, however, have a policy of not undertaking assassinations. Policy does not equal law.
The second component to this operation is that Yemen fully approved, and supported the killing of al-Awlaki. So no argument can be made that we violated the sovereignty of a foreign nation.
The other argument making its way around is that al-Awlaki’s killing was illegal because he was a US citizen. As such, an assassination order by the President of the United States would violate his constitutional right of due process. It should also be noted that al-Awlaki was not the only American killed in the attack.
Al-Awlaki’s ties to terrorism are not in dispute, his actual influence is. So can the president order his killing, or not?
8 U.S.C. § 1481 addresses the issue of US citizenship in situations like this.
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention ofrelinquishing United States nationality –
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years;
The law also addresses taking up arms against the United States in section 7. Considering al-Awlaki’s Yemeni citizenship, which does not recognize dual-citizenship, and his taking up arms against the US, it would appear that he renounced his US citizenship long ago.
Section 7 automatically revokes his citizenship because of his terrorist activities, but requires capture and tribunal. Since he was in Yemen, we revert to international law which permits his killing in order to prevent a further loss of life. More relevant is local Yemen law. Again, they assisted in the killing of al-Awlaki.
Is his killing a gray area? Only in the perpetually unrefined laws of US citizenship. Laws that most Americans agree need to be revamped, but the law nonetheless.
The only component missing to classify al-Awlaki as a non-citizen appears to be a mere formality of choreographed theater that would only serve to satisfy the selfish needs of third party citizens, not the parties directly involved. It’s pretty clear that al-Awlaki, the US, and Yemen were all on the same page.
Both al-Alwaki and Yemen agree that he is a citizen of Yemen. The US agrees that he revoked his citizenship. Who are you to swoop in and negate those facts?
The only sources of outcry appear to come from the ignorant, and those with a vested interest in ideological pacifism. Not from a position of morality or legality.
Ultimately, this is a debate that will fall upon opinion. If you think al-Awlaki’s killing was illegal, you’ll likely never change your mind. Same goes for those who think it was legally justified. Each individual will have to decide for themselves if international law, US law, or Yemeni law should reign supreme.
