"I have not yet begun to fight!"

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976?Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. Unless you are in this field of investigative journalism, especially covering extremely sensitive subjects and potentially dangerous subjects as well, you simply cannot understand the complexities and difficulties involved with this work that I face every day.

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Obama Asks Mayors to Help Him Bypass Congress

It has been apparent during recent months that President Obama holds little regard for the decisions of Congress. His actions and his words have proved that he would much rather govern our country autonomously, with no one to check or balance his power.
Obama has threatened Congress on multiple occasions, and though he famously claimed on March 1, 2013, “I’m not a dictator,” his disregard for the constitutional structure of our federal government has never been more obvious.
America has three branches of government for a reason – to check and balance each other and ensure the protection of all our liberties. When one branch attempts to usurp the other two, chaos ensues. Obama simply cannot expect to go behind Congress’s back on a regular basis and not have to answer for it.

He has threatened to sign executive orders and claims that he “won’t wait for legislative action.” Obama claims that he wants to work to achieve bipartisan solutions, but his threats have proved that he would much rather just make the rules for himself.
During a winter meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors at the White House on Thursday, the President tasked the group of 250 mayors with “helping his administration move forward.”
ABC news reports:

“I want to work with Congress whenever and wherever I can. But the one thing I’m emphasizing to all my Cabinet members is we’re not going to wait,” Obama told a group of 250 mayors at the White House. “Where Congress is debating things and hasn’t been able to pull the trigger on stuff, my administration’s going to move forward, and we’re going to … do it in partnership with all of you.”
“Every day mayors are proving that you don’t have to wait for the gridlock to clear in Congress in order to make things happen,” he said.

If President Obama thinks he can get his agenda accomplished without the input of Congress, he is sorely mistaken. Americans should not and will not stand for such blatant trampling of the Constitution. We must all do our part to elect local officials and Congressional representatives who will stand up to Obama and keep our liberties and the Constitution intact.
Please share this article on Facebook and Twitter to spread the word and prevent Obama’s agenda from being carried out in your communities.

Obama Administration Seeks to Head Off Spending Transparency

By Jim Harper

Congratulations to Cato’s media staff who worked though the night last night to produce an excellent Cato response to the State of the Union speech. It’s a lot of work, and they make it look easy.
At minute 10:00, my appearance in the video pivots from NSA spying and secrecy to a transparency issue that is just as important to the long-term maintenance of freedom in our country. It’s an issue you might not have heard about.
Leaked documents revealed this week that President Obama’s Office of Management and Budget is seeking to gut spending transparency legislation that is making its way through Congress. The DATA Act is intended to transform the U.S. government’s spending information from inaccessible documents buried in the executive branch into open data, available for the public to use. The House has passed one version. A Senate committee has forwarded another version of the bill to the floor.
State of the Union 2014: http://youtu.be/o11MkwyEmaY via @youtube

Open spending data has potential to improve public oversight of the government massively. You can see a hint of that potential at the Washington Examiner’s “Appropriate Appropriations?” web page. There, for the first time ever, you can easily find what bills in Congress would spend taxpayers dollars. You can look up who from your state has introduced bills that plan to spend your money. The page is powered by Cato data.
While bipartisan support for spending transparency has built up over years in the House and Senate, the Obama Administration has never taken an official position on the DATA Act. Now we’ve learned that the Obama OMB is working to undercut this transparency legislation. The chief Senate sponsor of the DATA Act, Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), has rejected the administration’s moves in no uncertain terms.
President Obama didn’t talk about transparency in the State of the Union, but it’s a 2008 campaign promise he could still deliver on. His OMB is working behind the scenes to prevent that.

Topics:

Telecom, Internet & Information Policy

Tags:

transparency, DATA Act, Mark Warner

GAME-CHANGER: U.S. intelligence assessment says Iran can now build and deliver nukes. Now what?

In Uncategorized on January 30, 2014 at 3:10 am

An Iranian worker at the Uranium Conversion Facility at Isfahan, 410 kilometers, south of Tehran. The conversion facility in Isfahan reprocesses uranium ore concentrate, known as yellowcake, into uranium hexaflouride gas. The gas is then taken to Natanz and fed into the centrifuges for enrichment. (photo credit: AP Photo/Vahid Salemi/Times of Israel)

(Washington, D.C.) — In a game-changing development, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence delivered Senate testimony on Wednesday stating that the Iranian regime has all the scientific and technical information, industrial infrastructure and practical know-how to build nuclear weapons. The Director said Iran also has ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads against regional actors, including Israel, and is developing long-range missiles capable of hitting the United States.
The long-expected and long-feared news does not mean Iran has operational nuclear weapons yet — at least U.S. intelligence doesn’t think they have them yet — but Washington now believes that once the Ayatollah makes the political decision to build them his scientists and engineers will be fully able to carry out his orders.
The sobering news comes one day after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned the P5+1 deal with Iran merely set back the Iranian nuclear weapons program by six weeks.
“Although there are internal disagreements in Iran, there is no dispute in the regime about developing nuclear weapons and the goal of wiping Israel off the map,” Netanyahu told the crowd at a conference of the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, reported the Times of Israel. “This agreement merely set Iran back six weeks — no more — according to our assessments, in relation to its previous position, so that the test, as to denying Iran the ability to manufacture nuclear weapons, has been and remains the permanent agreement, if such [a deal] can indeed be achieved.”
The big question is: Now what — will the U.S. or Europe take decisive action to neutralize the Iranian nuclear threat, will Israel, or will Iran be allowed to build The Bomb unimpeded?
There seems little evidence the U.S. will attack Iran in 2014, given how deeply invested the Obama administration is in this newly negotiated deal with Iran. Europe won’t act on its own. Does that mean Netanyahu will, or as the deal tied his hands for the foreseeable future?
“Iran now has all the technical infrastructure to produce nuclear weapons should it make the political decision to do, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper wrote in a report to a Senate intelligence committee published Wednesday,” noted a separate Times of Israel report. “However, he added, it could not break out to the bomb without being detected.”
In the “US Intelligence Worldwide Threat Assessment,” delivered to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Clapper reported that Tehran has made significant advances recently in its nuclear program to the point where it could produce and deliver nuclear bombs should it be so inclined.

“Tehran has made technical progress in a number of areas — including uranium enrichment, nuclear reactors, and ballistic missiles — from which it could draw if it decided to build missile-deliverable nuclear weapons,” Clapper wrote. “These technical advancements strengthen our assessment that Iran has the scientific, technical, and industrial capacity to eventually produce nuclear weapons. This makes the central issue its political will to do so.”
In the past year alone, the report states, Iran has enhanced its centrifuge designs, increased the number of centrifuges, and amassed a larger quantity of low-enriched uranium hexafluoride. These advancements have placed Iran in a better position to produce weapons-grade uranium.
“Despite this progress, we assess that Iran would not be able to divert safeguarded material and produce enough WGU [weapons grade uranium] for a weapon before such activity would be discovered,” he wrote….
Clapper told the Senate committee that the interim deal will have an impact on Iran’s nuclear weapons program’s progress and “gets at the key thing we’re interested in and most concerned about,” namely, Iran’s 20 percent enriched uranium.
Iran had also worked hard to advance its program at the Arak heavy water facility, wrote Clapper. Its ballistic missiles, he noted, of which it has “the largest inventory in the Middle East,” are “inherently capable of delivering WMD.” And its space program gives it the means to develop longer-range missiles, including intercontinental ballistic missiles.
“We do not know if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons,” Clapper wrote. But he noted that Iran’s overarching “strategic goals” were leading it to pursue the capability to do so.
The national intelligence director reiterated that imposing additional sanctions against Iran would be “counterproductive” and would “jeopardize the [interim] agreement.” He advised that additional sanctions against the Islamic Republic should only be kept “in reserve.”
The report was released a day after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that the interim nuclear agreement only set back the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program by six weeks.
“This agreement merely set Iran back six weeks — no more — according to our assessments, in relation to its previous position, so that the test, as to denying Iran the ability to manufacture nuclear weapons, has been and remains the permanent agreement, if such [a deal] can indeed be achieved,” Netanyahu said at a conference of the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv.
Last Wednesday, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif accused the Obama administration of mischaracterizing the terms of an interim nuclear deal. “We did not agree to dismantle anything,” Zarif told CNN.

————————

About these ads

U.S. Terror Threat From Obama’s Syrian Rebels- Recruits in U.S. Preparing To Attack from Within

January 29, 2014 by Kevin Lake | News

28 1 Google +0 0 2

obama-funding-syrian-rebels-al-qaeda-benghazi

The head of the CIA, James Clapper, reported to Congress on Wednesday that a Syrian terrorist network linked to Al Qaeda, a group which has been heavily funded and armed by U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama in recent months, is planning an attack on the U.S. The group is known as the al-Nusra Front, and they are said to currently be recruiting and training members from Europe, the Middle East, and even from within the United States.
From the Associated Press (AP) as reported through Yahoo News:

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told the Senate Intelligence Committee that such al-Qaeda groups in Syria have started training camps “to train people to go back to their countries” — one of the newest threats emerging in the past year to U.S. security. He said “al-Nusra Front, to name one …. does have aspirations for attacks on the homeland.” Clapper didn’t elaborate or offer any evidence of al-Nusra’s desire to attack the U.S.

Clapper described the Syrian militants as one of the newest groups to join a diverse and widely dispersed network of al-Qaeda-affiliated and other extremists bent on carrying out attacks in the U.S. He said more established groups like Yemen’s al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula are still more capable of carrying out attacks against the U.S., but described steep growth in numbers of fighters in Syria.
Clapper said out of an estimated 75,000 to 110,000 rebels overall battling the government of Bashar Assad in Syria, some 26,000 are extremists, and about 7,000 of them foreigners from some 50 countries, including Europe.

“Not only are fighters being drawn to Syria, but so are technologies and techniques that pose particular problems to our defenses,” said committee chairwoman Dianne Feinstein. She warned Syria could become “a launching point or way station for terrorists seeking to attack the United States or other nations,” in the annual hearing Wednesday to hear the U.S. intelligence committee’s assessment of worldwide threats.

U.S. intelligence officials have said a handful of American foreign fighters, and hundreds of European militants have already returned to their home countries. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the topic.

The extremist fighters belong mainly to two major groups, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Jabat al-Nusra — both allied with al-Qaeda. The State Department has no estimates of how many Americans have gone to fight with Syrian rebels, but British defense consultant IHS Jane’s puts it at a few dozen. An estimated 1,200 to 1,700 Europeans are among rebel forces in Syria, according to government estimates.

U.S. analysts fear more of those militants will tire of the battle against Assad, whose government shows no signs of collapsing, and they will take their newly acquired, battlefield-honed terrorist skills back to Europe or the U.S., where even a small bomb in a shopping mall can grab much greater headlines than the now-routine reports of car bombs in Syrian cities.

The continued threat to U.S. interests from the al-Qaeda brand also shows that though weakened after the 2011 killing of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, the group is proving resilient.

“They’ve gone to school us, on how we try to track them,” he said. “So the combination of …the geographic dispersal and the increasing challenges in collecting against them, makes Al Qaeda, in all of its forms, a very — in total, a very formidable threat.”

Still, U.S. intelligence analysts say core al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahri and his lieutenants are too preoccupied by the constant threat of U.S. drone strikes to plot 9/11-style attacks, so Zawahri has empowered the various “nodes” of his organization to choose their own, often local targets, though he encourages them to focus on the “far enemy” of the U.S. when they can.

U.S. intelligence officials say Zawahri so far has not called on the Syrian branches to attack U.S. targets, allowing them to focus on the war against Assad.

Getting the lead out, literally: US Army plans switch to ‘green’ bullets

but dhs has billions of bullets why dont our troops while they are fighting in wars with islamic terrorist why does obama fund terrorist Bullets Photo by George Frey/Getty Images

Bullets Photo by George Frey/Getty Images

Getting the lead out, literally: US Army plans switch to ‘green’ bullets

9:21 PM 07/24/2013

Michael Bastasch

The U.S. Army is taking the expression “get the lead out” quite literally and switching to lead-free, environmentally-friendly bullets.
The Army’s Picatinny Arsenal is working on a “green” version of the M80A1 7.62 mm bullet, which troops are supposed to start being issued in 2014, according to an Army press release.
The Army has been looking to “green” small caliber ammo for some time now. In 2010, the Army switched to the greener 5.56 mm M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round.
“The EPR replaces the lead slug with a copper slug,” said Lt. Col. Phil Clark, product manager for small caliber ammunition in the Program Executive Officer Ammunition. “This makes the projectile environmentally-friendly, while still giving soldiers the performance capabilities they need on the battlefield. So far we have eliminated 1,994 metric tons of lead from 5.56 ammunition production.”
“Thirty-two grains of lead are eliminated per M855A1 projectile, and 114.5 grains of lead will be eliminated per M80A1 projectile,” according to the Army.
The Army projects that the use of green 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm ammunition could eliminate the purchase of 3,683 metric tons of lead between 2013 and 2018.
Green bullets, like the M855A1, have been touted for their enhanced performance standards, such as better hard-target penetration, more consistent performance against soft targets and significantly increased distances of these effects.
Officials also expect a similar “greening” to occur with the 7.62 mm version. However, reports from after the M855A1 ammo came out cast some doubts on green bullet performance.
Fox News reported that Army officials conceded that the M855A1 “has not been providing the ‘stopping power’ the user would like at engagement ranges less than 150 yards” in a 2005 briefing.
Ballistic experts also noted that the green M855A1 would not be substantially more deadly than its lead predecessor.
“There is not a bullet in this world that will do that,” said Dr. Martin Fackler, former director of the Wound Ballistics Laboratory at the Letterman Army Institute of Research. “Even if you take the guy’s heart apart, he can still shoot back at you for 15 seconds because he’s still got enough oxygen in the blood in his brain to do it.”
Follow Michael on Twitter
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Tags: United States Army

SEALs slam Obama for using them as 'ammunition' in bid to take credit for bin Laden killing during election campaign

By Toby Harnden
PUBLISHED: 18:35 EST, 30 April 2012 | UPDATED: 10:42 EST, 1 May 2012

683

View
comments

Serving and former US Navy SEALs have slammed President Barack Obama for taking the credit for killing Osama bin Laden and accused him of using Special Forces operators as ‘ammunition’ for his re-election campaign.
The SEALs spoke out to MailOnline after the Obama campaign released an ad entitled ‘One Chance’.
In it President Bill Clinton is featured saying that Mr Obama took ‘the harder and the more honourable path’ in ordering that bin Laden be killed. The words ‘Which path would Mitt Romney have taken?’ are then displayed.
Besides the ad, the White House is marking the first anniversary of the SEAL Team Six raid that killed bin Laden inside his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan with a series of briefings and an NBC interview in the Situation Room designed to highlight the ‘gutsy call’ made by the President.

Scroll down for video

Taking credit: President Obama has used bin Laden's death as a campaign tool

Mr Obama used a news conference today to trumpet his personal role and imply that his Republican opponent Mr Romney, who in 2008 expressed reservations about the wisdom of sending troops into Pakistan, would have let bin Laden live.
‘I said that I'd go after bin Laden if we had a clear shot at him, and I did,’ Mr Obama said. ‘If there are others who have said one thing and now suggest they'd do something else, then I'd go ahead and let them explain it.’

More...

Ryan Zinke, a former Commander in the US Navy who spent 23 years as a SEAL and led a SEAL Team 6 assault unit, said: ‘The decision was a no brainer. I applaud him for making it but I would not overly pat myself on the back for making the right call.
‘I think every president would have done the same. He is justified in saying it was his decision but the preparation, the sacrifice - it was a broader team effort.’
Mr Zinke, who is now a Republican state senator in Montana, added that MR Obama was exploiting bin Laden’s death for his re-election bid. ‘The President and his administration are positioning him as a war president using the SEALs as ammunition. It was predictable.’

Target: Bin Laden, pictured in his compound in Pakistan, was killed a year ago

Mission: Senior figures gathered to watch Navy SEALs invade the compound

Mr Obama has faced criticism even from allies about his decision to make a campaign ad about the bin Laden raid. Arianna Huffington, an outspoken liberal who runs the left-leaning Huffington Post website, roundly condemned it.
She told CBS: ‘We should celebrate the fact that they did such a great job. It's one thing to have an NBC special from the Situation Room... all that to me is perfectly legitimate, but to turn it into a campaign ad is one of the most despicable things you can do.’
Campaigning in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Mr Romney responded to a shouted question by a reporter by saying: ‘Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order.’
A serving SEAL Team member said: ‘Obama wasn’t in the field, at risk, carrying a gun. As president, at every turn he should be thanking the guys who put their lives on the line to do this. He does so in his official speeches because he speechwriters are smart.
‘But the more he tries to take the credit for it, the more the ground operators are saying, “Come on, man!” It really didn’t matter who was president. At the end of the day, they were going to go.’
Chris Kyle, a former SEAL sniper with 160 confirmed and another 95 unconfirmed kills to his credit, said: ‘The operation itself was great and the nation felt immense pride. It was great that we did it.
‘But bin Laden was just a figurehead. The war on terror continues. Taking him out didn’t really change anything as far as the war on terror is concerned and using it as a political attack is a cheap shot.
‘In years to come there is going to be information that will come out that Obama was not the man who made the call. He can say he did and the people who really know what happened are inside the Pentagon, are in the military and the military isn’t allowed to speak out against the commander- in-chief so his secret is safe.’

Rival: Mr Obama has questioned whether Mitt Romney would have done the same

Senior military figures have said that Admiral William McRaven, a former SEAL who was then head of Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) made the decision to take bin Laden out. Tactical decisions were delegated even further down the chain of command.
Mr Kyle added: ‘He's trying to say that Romney wouldn't have made the same call? Anyone who is patriotic to this country would have made that exact call, Democrat or Republican. Obama is taking more credit than he is due but it's going to get him some pretty good mileage.’
A former intelligence official who was serving in the US government when bin Laden was killed said that the Obama administration knew about the al-Qaeda leader’s whereabouts in October 2010 but delayed taking action and risked letting him escape.
‘In the end, Obama was forced to make a decision and do it. He knew that if he didn’t do it the political risks in not taking action were huge. Mitt Romney would have made the call but he would have made it earlier – as would George W. Bush.’
Brandon Webb, a former SEAL who spent 13 years on active duty and served in Iraq and Afghanistan, said: ‘Bush should get partial credit for putting the system in place.
‘Obama inherited a very robust package with regards to special ops and the intelligence community. But Obama deserves credit because he got bin Laden – you can’t take that away from him.
‘My friends that work in Special Operations Command (SOCOM) that have been on video teleconferences with Obama on these kill or capture situations say that Obama has no issue whatsoever with making decisions and typically it's kill. He’s hitting the kill button every time. I have a lot of respect for him for that.’
But he said that many SEALs were dismayed about the amount of publicity the Obama administration had generated about SEAL Team Six, the very existence of which is highly classified.
‘The majority of the SEALs I know are really proud of the operation but it does become “OK, enough is enough – we’re ready to get back to work and step out of the limelight.” They don’t want to be continuously paraded around a global audience like a show dog.
‘Obama has a very good relationship with the Special Operations community at large, especially the SEALs, and it’s nice to see. We had the same relationship with George W. Bush when he was president.’
It was ‘stretching a little much’ for Mr Obama to suggest only he would have made the decision. ‘I personally I don't think Romney would have any problem making tough decisions. He got a very accomplished record of making decision as a business professional.
‘He may not have charisma but he clearly has leadership skills. I don’t think he'd have any problem taking that decision.’
Clint Bruce, who gave up the chance of an NFL career to serve as a SEAL officer before retiring as a lieutenant after nine years, said: ‘We were extremely surprised and discouraged by the publicity because it compromises the ability of those guys to operate.
‘It’s a waste of time to speculate about who would and wouldn’t have made that decision. It was a symphony of opportunity and intelligence that allowed this administration to give the green light. We want to acknowledge that they made that decision.
‘Politicians should let the public know where they stand on national security but not in the play-by-play, detailed way that has been done recently. The intricacies of national security should not become part of stump speeches.’

Watch the ad

951 F. 2d 359 - Devere v. Falk

951 F.2d 359

Andrew Lee DEVERE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Harold FALK, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 90-16367.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and submitted Nov. 4, 1991.
Decided Dec. 20, 1991.

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

Before ALARCON, D.W. NELSON and CANBY, Circuit Judges.

1 MEMORANDUM*

Andrew Lee Devere, a state prisoner, appeals from the district court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A jury convicted Devere of first-degree murder in a Hawaii state court. He was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole.

Devere claims that his conviction was obtained in violation of the federal Constitution. He contends that he was denied the right to a fair trial under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the state court admitted evidence of a psychiatrist's opinion regarding the credibility of other witnesses. We disagree and affirm.

DISCUSSION

Devere contends that the state trial court erred in allowing a psychiatrist to testify concerning his opinion of the credibility of various witnesses. Devere argues that this error deprived him of his federal constitutional right to a fair trial under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

We review de novo the denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Dickson v. Sullivan, 849 F.2d 403, 405 (9th Cir.1988); Weygandt v. Ducharme, 774 F.2d 1491, 1492 (9th Cir.1985). We begin our analysis by noting that we have no authority to review a state's application of its own laws. Jackson v. Ylst, 921 F.2d 882, 885 (9th Cir.1990). As we stated in Jammal v. Van De Kamp, 926 F.2d 918 (9th Cir.1991), "[w]e are not a state supreme court of errors; we do not review questions of state evidence law." Id. at 919. On a petition for writ of habeas corpus, we consider only whether the petitioner's conviction violated constitutional norms. See Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 119 (1982) (state prisoner is entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 only if he is held in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States); Milton v. Wainwright, 407 U.S. 371, 377 (1972) ("The writ of habeas corpus has limited scope; the federal courts do not sit to re-try state cases de novo but, rather, to review for violation of federal constitutional standards"); Jammal, 926 F.2d at 919; Ylst, 921 F.2d at 885; Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 613 (9th Cir.1990); Kealohapauole v. Shimoda, 800 F.2d 1463, 1464-65 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied 479 U.S. 1068 (1987); Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695 F.2d 1195, 1197 (9th Cir.1983). Therefore, the dispositive issue in this case is whether the admission of Dr. Hall's testimony rendered the trial so arbitrary and fundamentally unfair that it violated due process. Reiger v. Christensen, 789 F.2d 1425, 1430 (9th Cir.1986).

We conclude that the admission of the disputed testimony did not deprive Devere of due process. Dr. Hall did not directly testify as to the credibility of the testimony of witnesses at trial, thereby encroaching on the role of the jury. He testified concerning the data underlying his report. While Dr. Hall testified that he disregarded as unreliable the statements of a person who testified for the defendant, he was not commenting on that person's in-court testimony. The trial judge twice gave a cautionary instruction that Dr. Hall's testimony was not to be considered by the jury as evidence of the truth of his information; it was only to be considered as an explanation for the basis of his opinion. In light of those instructions, we cannot say that the admission of Dr. Hall's testimony rendered the trial arbitrary and fundamentally unfair.

We have also considered the effect of Dr. Hall's testimony in the context of the entire trial. After reviewing the record in this matter, we are persuaded that Dr. Hall's testimony did not deprive Devere of due process because Devere's own statement to the police, introduced at trial, provides sufficient evidence to conclude that he was not under emotional duress at the time of the killing. See Gutierrez, 695 F.2d at 1199 (defendant not deprived of due process by state court evidentiary ruling where his own statement of facts reveals that he was not under duress at the time of the killing).

The Hawaii Penal Code explains the emotional distress defense as follows:

In a prosecution for murder it is a defense, which reduces the offense to manslaughter, that the defendant was, at the time he caused the death of the other person, under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is a reasonable explanation. The reasonableness of the explanation shall be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant's situation under the circumstances as he believed them to be.

Haw.Rev.Stat. § 707-702(2) (emphasis added). This defense is not available, however, where the defendant deliberately "set out to kill" his victim. State v. Russo, 734 P.2d 156, 160 (Haw.Sup.Ct.1987). As the court explained in State v. Tyquiengco, 723 P.2d 186 (Haw.Ct.App.1986):

[m]alice and heat of passion cannot coexist. The mere fact of passion on the part of the slayer will not reduce the crime from murder to voluntary manslaughter where he entertained a previous purpose to kill, unless it is made to appear that such purpose was abandoned before the homicidal act was committed.

Id. at 188 (citation omitted).

Devere's inculpatory statement to the police demonstrates that he deliberately set out to kill Boyer. In his second interview with the police following his arrest, Devere stated that he attempted to obtain a gun a week before the killing. When he was unable to obtain a gun, Devere stated that he decided to "take [Boyer] out some other way." Devere further told the police that he intended to wait until Boyer fell asleep before killing him, but Devere fell asleep first. The next morning Devere stood over Boyer's bed holding the hammer, but he stated that he was initially too scared to kill Boyer and put the hammer down. Finally, Devere stated that "I wasn't mad at him at the time that I did it.... But I knew I had to do it because.... later on ... I knew that I would, you know, I would forget about how he treated me."

In addition, none of Devere's proffered justifications for the killing constitute a reasonable explanation. Devere told the police that he killed Boyer because (1) Boyer was killing a friend of Devere's by supplying that friend with drugs; (2) Boyer embarrassed Devere and put him down in front of other people; (3) Boyer had developed a habit of farting in Devere's face; (4) Boyer once attacked Devere with a knife, slicing Devere's finger; (5) Boyer made Devere beg for drugs; and (6) on the morning that Devere killed Boyer, Boyer had refused to give Devere money to buy medication to soothe Devere's sore throat. Although the reasonableness calculation is made by "viewing the subjective, internal situation in which the defendant found himself and the external circumstances as he perceived them at the time, however inaccurate that perception may have been," State v. Dumlao, 715 P.2d 822, 830 (Haw.Ct.App.1986) (citation omitted), generalized anger at another person is not considered reasonable. See Tyquiengco, 723 P.2d at 188 (defendant not entitled to a manslaughter instruction where he killed the victim because she did not want to make love to him and she pointed an air rifle at him in order to get him off her property). Instead, a defendant's anger may be considered reasonable when, for example, short of severe mental illness, the defendant suffers from persistent delusions or pathological emotions directed at the victim. Dumlao, 715 P.2d at 831-32 (defendant entitled to manslaughter instruction in a trial for the killing of his wife where he was diagnosed as having an extreme and irrational jealousy concerning his wife for many years).

The record does not support Devere's contention that the admission of the psychiatrist's statement violated due process. Devere's own statements amply demonstrated that he acted with premeditation and that he did not suffer from extreme mental and emotional disturbance. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Cir.R. 36-3

Mike Lee Gives Eric Holder the Grilling of a Lifetime Over Obama’s Use of Executive Orders: ‘I Respectfully, but Forcefully, Disagree’

Jan. 29, 2014 4:02pm Jason Howerton

Attorney General Eric Holder was unable to explain to Congress why President Barack Obama was within his constitutional limits when he issued an executive order to delay Obamacare’s employer mandate. The nation’s top law enforcement officer said he hasn’t looked at the analysis in “some time” and thus was unsure of where along the constitutional spectrum the order is permitted.

Mike Lee Grills Eric Holder on Obamas Executive Orders, Obamacare

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

The surprising admission came after Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) grilled Holder for several minutes on the constitutional limits of executive orders and the executive branch during a Senate hearing on Wednesday.

“I’ll be honest with you, I have not seen — I don’t remember looking at or having seen the analysis in some time, so I’m not sure where along the spectrum that would come,” Holder replied after Lee pressed him about the employer mandate delay.

Lee came prepared, prefacing his question with an explanation of the standard legal test for executive orders. The test, first discussed by Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, argues the president’s authority to issue executive orders is strongest when he “does so with the backing of Congress (category one), more dubious when he issues an order pertaining to a topic on which Congress has not passed a law (category two), and weakest when the executive order is “incompatible with a congressional command” (category three), to use Lee’s paraphrase,” the Washington Examiner reports.

After Holder’s “not sure” answer regarding the employer mandate, Lee asked about the president’s constitutional authority to unilaterally raise the minimum wage for federal contractors.

“Again, without having delved into this without any great degree—“ Holder began.

“But you’re the attorney general, I’m sure he consulted you,” Lee interrupted.

Holder admitted there have been consultations with the Justice Department. He said the minimum wage executive order would probably fall under category one and relates to the president’s ability to regulate things that involve the executive branch.

“I think there’s a constitutional basis for it, and given what the president’s responsibility is in running the executive branch, I think that there is an inherent power there for him to act in the way that he has,” Holder said.

Lee then asked Holder about the president’s decision to unilaterally delay Obamacare’s employer mandate a second time — and he got the same answer.

Watch the tense exchange below:

After Lee was done questioning Holder, he proceeded to lecture the attorney general on the importance of ensuring no one person in government is allowed to accumulate too much power.

“This is very, very important,” he said. “It could be very helpful for you to release legal analysis produced by the office of legal counsel or whoever is advising the president on these issues. It’s imperative within our constitutional system that we not allow too much authority to be accumulated in one person.”

“It’s one of the reasons why we have a Constitution, is to protect us against the excessive accumulation of power.”

In response, Holder argued that Obama would never abuse his executive authority and act outside of the Constitution. He also claimed that President Obama has utilized executive orders less than his predecessors.

“General Holder, I respectfully, but forcefully, disagree with the assertion — if this is what you’re saying — that because the number of executive orders issued by this president might be comparable to the number of executive orders issue by previous presidents, that that means he hasn’t made more use of it than other presidents have.”

First He Walks Out of the President’s Major Speech – Now He’s Thinking About Filing Articles of Impeachment

Jan. 29, 2014 6:30pm Becket Adams

Just hours after he stormed out of President Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday, Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) announced he’s considering filing articles of impeachment against the president.

First He Walks Out of the Presidents Major Speech Now Hes Thinking About Filing Articles of Impeachment

Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas), right, participates in a mock swearing-in ceremony with Speaker of the House Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) (AP)

“I’m considering filing Articles of Impeachment against Barack Obama,” Stockman announced on a website backing his senate run.

“You see, I walked out of Obama’s State of the Union address last night,” Stockman’s announcement added. “Obama defiantly vowed not only to radically expand the reach of government from cradle to grave, but to smash the Constitution’s restrictions on government power while doing it.”

The Texas congressman explained that he left the president’s speech early because he was upset after “hearing how the president is further abusing his Constitutional powers.”

“I could not bear to watch as he continued to cross the clearly-defined boundaries of the Constitutional separation of powers,” Stockman said in a statement released shortly after the president finished his address. “Needless to say, I am deeply disappointed in the tone and content of tonight’s address.”

Stockman accused the president of promising to “break his oath of office and begin enacting his own brand of law through executive decree.”

“This is a wholesale violation of his oath of office and a disqualifying offense,” he said, adding that the president has steadfastly refused to admit “his policies have failed.”

He continued, accusing the president of advocating a “blueprint for perpetual poverty.”

Not long after releasing the anti-SOTU statement, Stockman raised the issue of impeachment.

“Obama defiantly vowed not only to radically expand the reach of government from cradle to grave, but to smash the Constitution’s restrictions on government power while doing it. His goal is to eliminate our constitutional republic,” he said Wednesday. “Last year I said I would consider impeachment as a last resort to stop Obama’s abuse of power. And, quite frankly, we’re running out of options.”

Stockman’s impeachment threat comes shortly after his return from an unexplained absence that kept him from voting in the House and campaigning against Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).

He claimed Monday that he wasn’t “missing in action,” but that he was busy partaking in a House-sanctioned international trip.

However, the House Foreign Affairs Committee said that Stockman’s overseas trip began Jan. 17 and ended on Monday. He didn’t cast a single vote between Jan. 9 and Jan. 28. Further, every other lawmaker on the international trip managed to participate in House votes prior to leaving the United States.

The Texas congressman missed a total of 17 straight votes, including a vote to approve a $1 trillion omnibus spending bill.

–

Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter