Happy Birthday, Bill [of Rights]: Obama Breaks Promise To Veto Bill Allowing Indefinite Detention of Americans

There was a brief moment when civil libertarians were stunned to see President Barack Obama actually take a stand in favor of civil liberties after years to rolling back on basic rights of citizens and moving beyond the Bush Administration in building up the security state. Obama said that he would veto the defense bill that contained a horrific provision for the indefinite detention of American citizens. While many predicted it, Obama has now again betrayed the civil liberties community and lifted the threat of the veto. Americans will now be subject to indefinite detention without trial in federal courts in a measure supported by both Democrats and Republicans. It is a curious way to celebrate the 220th anniversary of the Bill of Rights.

This leave Ron Paul as the only candidate in the presidential campaign fighting the bill and generally advocating civil liberties as a rallying point for his campaign. Paul offered another strong argument against the Patriot Act and other expansions of police powers in his last debate. He also noted that the Patriot Act provisions were long advocated before 9-11, which was used as an opportunity to expand police powers. As discussed in a prior column, Obama has destroyed the civil liberties movement in the United States and has convinced many liberals to fight for an Administration that blocked torture prosecutions, expanded warrantless surveillance, continued military tribunals, killed Americans on the sole authority of the President, and other core violations of civil liberties.

The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is facially ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality. THe Administration and Democratic members are in full spin — using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.

At least Senator Lindsey Graham was honest when he said on the Senate floor that “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

I am not sure which is worse: the loss of core civil liberties or the almost mocking post hoc rationalization for abandoning principle. The Congress and the President have now completed a law that would have horrified the Framers. Indefinite detention of citizens is something that the Framers were intimately familiar with and expressly sought to bar in the Bill of Rights. While the Framers would have likely expected citizens in the streets defending their freedoms, this measure was greeted with a shrug and a yawn by most citizens and reporters. Instead, we are captivated by whether a $10,000 bet by Romney was real or pretend in the last debate.

Even more distressing is the statement from sponsor Senator Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee that “The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved … and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section.”

Source: Guardian

FLOG THE BLOG: Have you voted yet for the top legal opinion blog? WE NEED YOUR VOTE! You can vote at HERE by clicking on the “opinion” category. Voting ends December 31, 2011.

—————————————————————–
Section 1031:

Subtitle D–Detainee Matters
SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘covered persons’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

330 thoughts on “Happy Birthday, Bill [of Rights]: Obama Breaks Promise To Veto Bill Allowing Indefinite Detention of Americans

  1. Today is the 220th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. I’d enjoy the irony of this if it weren’t all so damn depressing

  2. You’re surprised…..At least with Bush we knew or thought we knew we distrusted him…at least he was more honest in asking the American people for his support….Here we have another clandestine operation in effect….that affects maybe not me or you….but people like Julian Assange…oh so sorry…he is not an American Citizen…..but none the less….what is that old saying by…oh yeah I found it……

    “In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Catholics, and I
    didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.

    Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to
    speak up.”

    –Pastor Martin Niemöller, 1945

  3. White House Caves on Defense Bill Veto Threat

    The administration had said that the military detention provisions of an earlier version of the NDAA were “inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets.”

    The revised NDAA is still inconsistent with that fundamental American principle. But the administration has decided that fundamental American principles aren’t actually worth vetoing the bill over.

  4. I can’t listen to President Obama speak any longer. His words ring hollow. I am losing hope for this country. Carl Levin and the Democrats should hang their heads in shame.

  5. Approve Disapprove Spread
    Obama 45.1 48.1 -3.0
    Congress 12.0 82.5 -70.5

    At least..Obama is beating out Congress on a 3 to one basis….I am unsure of the Spread on this one….Looks like its a 2/3’s either way….

  6. This is evil. This nation is run by people who are willing to do evil towards others. It is therefor incumbent upon us as citizens to stop them. No more excusing evil because it’s done by “my” party. There is such a thing as right and wrong. Right and wrong are independent of party affiliation. We the people need to stop being good Germans. We need to speak out on behalf of what is good and right. We need to peacefully protest this evil govt.

    I have little hope of success but we ought to have the personal courage and integrity to try. Those who would excuse this evil are complicit in it.

  7. This issue can make you like Ron Paul until you look at other issues.

    Frankly and Stacey, you may be violating Fed law. I am sure the DOJ reads this blog carefully if for no other reason to study reason and rational thought concerning the interpretation of OUR Constitution.

  8. It’s time to stop thinking “Obama is better than the other guy.” Obama IS the other guy. This bill was drafted by a Democrat. They’re all working for the same things. This financial crisis is an engineered distraction being used to ensure that representatives can’t speak publicly about anything but jobs, and that, away from the limelight, they have their way.

  9. I used to look forward to Obama’s speeches with their soaring rhetoric and beautiful, high-sounding goals. I watched a few minutes of his speech before a group of paratroopers yesterday and had to turn it off. The disconnect between what he was saying and what he has been doing was never more apparent to me.

    To say that I am disappointed is an understatement. Sadly, Thomas Jefferson was again more prescient than even he could have imagined. I doubt, however, that Jefferson thought it would happen this quickly.

  10. What about this?

    “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”

    Section 1031(e)

  11. Wall to wall media coverage? No, in fact barely any.
    Huge crowd of protestors outside the White House? No, in fact no crowd at all.
    White House and Congressional phone lines overloaded? No, who has the time to call? Email boxes overloaded by demands to stop NDAA? No, what’s the use? Besides there is a good reality show or sporting event on TV.
    Our Constitution has been deemed null and void.
    America yawns.

  12. “Americans will now be subject to indefinite detention with trial in federal courts…”

    Is that supposed to be “without”?

  13. This article is misleading, if you read the actual Bill, no where in there does it allow indefinite detention and this Bill cannot overwrite current laws.

    (d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force. (e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

    The bill is not affect American citizens:

    (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
    (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

    In plain English, before the bill was revised: suspected domestic terrorist will be handle by military. The revised bil allows Law Enforcements, not military, to deal with domestic terrorists.

    Get informed before you make a fool out of yourself.

  14. Well; here we are again. It is still hard to believe. Everytime they take away another right, I am still shocked. This is that thing that was never supposed to happen. This is what the Constitution was designed to protect us against.This government; Democrat and Republican have officially placed themselves in direct opposition to the Constitution. I call them all Traitors. Legal definition be damned.
    And I agree that this is something we would expect of the Republicans but Obama?
    What a terrible disappointment he has proved to be. I don’t have words to express my emotions. I feel like someone kicked me in the stomach.
    Rather like William Wallace when he realizes that his strongest alies have betrayed him and gone over to the side of the tyranical Edward I. (“Brave Heart” the film)
    Pollish your eagles and start practicing the Goose Step.
    So Ron Paul is the only one left in opposition to this Bill huh?
    So suppose everyone is so dissapointed in Obama that they run out and vote for the only guy still defending the Constitution (so to speak).
    Perhaps this is all just a ruse to get Ron Paul elected. perhaps Ron Paul; the intellectual Father of the Tea Party is to be our Dictator.
    It has always seemed odd to me that a person ewho holds that Exalted title should come accross as so moderate in many areas and is seen now as the last defender of our rights while our “Liberal?” President has now declared himself publically to be a destroyer of that venerable document.
    Almost as if we were being driven towards him.
    We are in great danger my friends. How long will it be before they are arresting and detaining citizens such as us. Those who speak out. Free speach is the next victim of the abomination.

    The Declaration of Independence states clearly:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
    they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
    these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these
    rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from
    the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes
    destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
    it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles
    and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
    effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that
    Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient
    causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more
    disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by
    abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of
    abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to
    reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to
    throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
    security.

    Perhaps the time has come. So hard to say. So obviously true.

    I would say Impeach the Son of a Bitch but not only would the Congress never vote to impeach their Patsy but I am 99% sure Gene will tell us that we have no grounds under our legal system for such a measure. That damn Gene. Always killing my fun with legalities. Oh well, I guess somebody has to do it.

    Besides the more I see the more I am convinced that any action instituted within the bounds of our current legal and political system is bound to fail. The corruption runs too deep now. You can’t salvage an apple once the rot has reached the core. You throw it away and get a new apple.

    Damn I am a very angryman this morning. I spent alot of years going along; assuming that this could never happen. That the Constitution would protect us from this sort of measure. As though words on paper ever stopped a despot from his plans. I feel a lttle bit ashamed. Ashamed of Obama; of the government as a whole; of myself for not paying attention for so long.
    But I don’t think it’s too late; if we take action to stop it now. I admit I wouldn’t know what action to take to solve this. Our own historical documents provide what appears to be a great big nasty “Catch 22″. The Decalaration says it is the peoples right and responsibility to remove a tyranical government and replace it. If however, you were to take action to do so; the Constitution says you are committing Treason and Sedition.
    because I am not naive enough to think that a few thousand protesters are going to walk to the White House gates and convince the current Traitor…eh….President to give up the reigns.

    Protest Representative: President Obama. As the people of the United States of America have become aware of a Seditious plot to take control of the Nation by a group of Fascist, Uber-wealthy, Right-wing corporations and their CEOs; and as said people have determined through the actions you have taken in direct opposition to the Constitution of the United States; and by your failure to protect the Constitution as specified in the oath of office you have taken and sworn to: that you have committed crimes against the Constitution and the People of the United States of America and have given aid and comfort to her enemies.

    It is therefore resolved by a majority of………..well by a whole bunch of us folks here that you, your Administration and the Congress must turn the control of the Government and the Country over to a select committee of these citizens until such time as a New Constituion or the Existing Constituion; amended to secure our rights and freedoms can be agreed upon by a Plebisyte of the American people; and a new government established in accord with the provisions of said new Constitution.”

    President Obama: “Oh. Ok you caught us. Damn; if only you hadn’t seen through our clever disguise. Oh well. Here you go. Keys to the front door and you better take these nuclear codes as well. Wait! better take the whole Secret Service agent instead.”

    How’s that for Graveside Humor. It’s a shame it’s our own grave.

  15. a834346@nwldx.com 1, December 15, 2011 at 11:47 am

    This article is misleading … Get informed before you make a fool out of yourself.
    ===============================
    Well, that advice is too late for you.

    The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

    Proper statutory construction mandates that in such cases the text be read in pari materia, in which case the outcome is:

    American citizens are not required to be detained indefinitely without trial, but may be at the discretion of the administration.

    Going from “absolutely not” per the constitution to “it is up to you” is why people who can read and think are outraged.

  16. angryman,

    Actually I think that Obama’s previous announcement that the Executive has the unilateral power to execute American citizens without Due Process is a crime worthy of impeachment. It’s every bit a betrayal of his oath of office to protect the Constitution as Bush and Cheney’s treason in attacking Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia were. This latest betrayal is merely icing on the fascist cake.

  17. I could of sworn that the US hung traitors. No? That’s right, we elect liars & let them do whatever they feel like. I forgot.

  18. Presidents can do such things as detain 110,000 Japanese people because the broader public made no outcry. So what can we learn from Roosevelt? That it is right and honorable and necessary to speak up, not excuse, what is happening.

    The past does not make what is happening in the present OK. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. The past teaches us that we must confront the abuse of others. We should be better people than those citizens who silently stood by while their neighbors were arrested. Speak up or stand complicit.

  19. The “CAVE MAN” has struck again.From what I hear from the radio people are really tired of it.The president needs a challenge from a progressive candidate.

    The next “CAVE ” will be on the Unemployment and Payroll Tax Cut funding.

  20. By davidswanson – Posted on 08 December 2011

    The current President and Congress are destroying our Constitutional rights, our planet’s climate, and the vestiges of a social safety net, and you are obsessing over a freak show of self-hating homosexuals and anti-intellectual intellectuals jumping through hoops in a corporate media circus with Ringmaster Donald Trump. Is this a good use of your time?

    The “Bush tax cuts” are still called that, while Bush has been gone for years. The corporate trade agreements are rolling through at a pace Bush couldn’t have managed. While Social Security was protected by anti-Bush agitation, it now has its neck on a chopping block and the progressive position is that the taxes that pay for it should be cut — rather than expanded to apply equally to large incomes. President Obama has repeatedly blocked serious global efforts to address climate change. And you’re concerned about which Republican buffoon doesn’t know the difference between Iraq and Iran, or which other one thinks the United States has an embassy in Iran. Are you kidding me?

    President Obama, the United States Congress, and the Federal Reserve are united in their generosity toward Wall Street and the war machine — both financial generosity and the equally generous provision of immunity from legal prosecution. In the Bush era we were locked in free-speech cages, and we raised hell about it. Now we’re locked in jails, beaten, tear gassed, pepper sprayed, and otherwise brutally assaulted, and . . . wait! Look over there! Is that a presidential candidate who wants to publicly declare his desire to secretly murder Iranians? How outrageous!

    For the love of everything decent, the current president is right now murdering Iranians, and it’s not very secret. What in the hell is the matter with you people?

    Illegality is over, says Harold Koh (“the good John Yoo”). This is the same guy who claims massive slaughter by bombing of foreign nations is neither war nor an act of hostility as long as no significant number of U.S. citizens die immediately in the process.

    How can illegality be over, when the crimes have not been prosecuted and have in fact been legalized? The current Department of Justice, at the direction of President Obama, has radically expanded claims of state secrets and made greater use of the Espionage Act to punish whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined. The current president has formalized, legalized, systematized, and normalized warrantless spying, lawless imprisonment (Bagram is booming!), prisoner abuse, assassination (including of members of the 5% of humanity we’re supposed to care about), war making in direct violation of the will of Congress (Cf. Libya), and the radically expanded use of drones to do much of this dirty work. And you want me to care that some house-broken elephant who’s been trained to parrot platitudes is in favor of child labor? Really?

    It is not pleasant to face, but our children are done for if we proceed down either of the paths you are obsessing over the choice between. Behind curtain A is increased plutocratic militarization. Behind curtain B is the same damn thing. It’s an evil choice. Choose which of your children should be shot. This one. No, wait. This one. It is not a choice we have time to dignify with our attention. It is not something we should waste 10 months of inaction and misdirected resources on.

    We must do what has finally, finally, finally been begun. We must occupy public space. We must move the entire culture. We must reshape this society. We must drag both political parties and everybody in them and the majority of the population which has long since grown sick up to the eye balls of both of them, we must drag everyone kicking and screaming to a better place, to a place where we do not choose between putting 65% or 62% of discretionary federal spending into war preparation without an enemy in sight. What kind of a range of options is that?

    This government will halt the foreclosures only after we have halted the forclosures. This government will forgive student debt only after we have blocked its payment. This government will regulate Wall Street only after we have divested from it. And this government will stop dumping our hard-earned pay into wars we don’t want and cannot survive only when we have made that path (that running of the gauntlet of K Street’s opposition) easier for every type of misrepresentative than continuing on the current trajectory.

    Self-government is not a spectator sport. Elections are not reality shows. There is much more at stake than a soap opera. The first step, and it is a more difficult step than sleeping in a tent in the ice cold rain, is to cease giving a damn what some individual who is stripping away your rights and the fruits of your labors really feels in his heart of hearts. Stop it. We do not have the time. Politicians who make speeches opposing everything they do must be pushed to match action to words, not treated as if words speak more loudly than actions. That attitude is what leads us to focus on what a gaggle of misfits with no power and less wisdom have to say about each other, just because they’re on the teevee screen.

    Get serious. Get independent. Get principled. And stay nonviolent toward everything in the world except your television.
    0digg

  21. After they committ this kind of vile act – all Americans should rise up and revolt. Oh, yeah, that would make us ALL terrorists. US Military new mission: Kill All Americans Who Protest. (…After all, where were they when you were busy killing Iraqis? Shopping….)

  22. And now its time to veto Obama. The bad thing is that with electronic voting they will never allow us to vote Ron Paul into office. We really need to vote out every incumbent to bad our system is so corrupt this will never happen. Doesn’t mean we shouldnt try though.

  23. This is an incredibly ignorant article. They quoted the very point that debunks the whole argument. If anyone took the 2 minutes to actually read the provision, then maybe they would realize….

    e) Authorities- NOTHING in this section shall be construed to affect EXISTING LAW or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States

  24. “According to the Pew Research report, two-thirds (67 percent) of registered voters nationwide say “most members of Congress” should be voted out of office in 2012, while only 20 percent want most members reelected. This desire to fire all incumbents marks a record level of discontent since the Pew Center started asking the question 18 years ago, far exceeding previous highs of 57 percent in 2010 and 56 percent in 1994.” – Huffington Post

  25. […] Happy Birthday, Bill [of Rights]: Obama Breaks Promise To Veto Bill Allowing Indefinite Detention of… There was a brief moment when civil libertarians were stunned to see President Barack Obama actually take a stand in favor of civil liberties after years to rolling back on basic rights of citizens…… […]

  26. Alex Jones was right all along. Everyone who thought he was a conspiracy nut job is eating their words right now. His film “The Obama Deception” is pure prophesy come true. Go back and watch it. It will shock you.

    And if you still believe in the Left/Right political paradigm, it will set you straight.

    Welcome to 1984. Let’s hope we can all figure out a sane way out of this mess before they start imprisoning patriots.

  27. Another frustrating thing is to hear/read the members of the press who are not lawyers pontificating on the constitutionality of this law. Yesterday it was some idiot on the radio without a law degree just spouting crap. I thought to myself “which nowhere publication does he work for?” only to find out he’s a reporter for Time Magazine… I have to figure out a way to have the car radio switch off when theses non-lawyer idiots get going or I may drive off the road. NBC’s “chief legal correspondent” doesn’t have a law degree. You’d think in today’s awful job market the media would be able to hire lawyers to analyze legal issues.

  28. The only thing that I can think of is that Obama wanted the words re: American citizens to be thrown in there in order to increase the chances of the law being struck down as constitutional. If that’s the case, then it could actually be a shrewd move, because it would strike down the entire law, and he would be able to take away a GOP arg that Obama hates the US.

    I don’t know if that’s the case of course, but it’s a thought.

    As disappointed as I am in Obama, I’m even more disappointed in all of us. We elect him thinking that HE would take care of everything, but his election was just the start. We basically stopped running as soon as the gun went off, and stopped giving him the support and the mandate that he needed to get his way in Congress.

    Whether it’s writing letters to Representatives, occupying something, spending extra to purchase goods, or even really boning up on political topics and discussing them with neighbors and family members, we have allowed way too many of our countrymen to be duped by horribly untrue “facts” and opinions.

    We’re all in this together, for better or worse. We HAVE to start acting like it.

  29. The US Supreme Court has ruled in a line of cases ending most recently with Boumediene that the legal rights of US Citizens include not being arrested without cause and held indefinitely without charge.

    In fact, that case held that noncitizens being held outside of the country but in a place of de factor American control (Guantanamo) still have some due process rights.

    This is not killing the bill of rights.

    I am a lawyer.

  30. You people are just rabid and hungry for Obama’s blood, or any member of the government for that matter. Too bad you’re wrong, just as the lawyer here on the board spelled out for you. Learn to research your information better, just relying on some random schmucks blog to inform you, whether this one, or Alex Jones, or whoever you think is your information-hero, EVERYONE HAS AN AGENDA. That said, this President could literally walk on water and there would still be people calling him worthless. He is far from perfect, but he is busting his #$$ every single day, and putting his life on the line while doing it. Food for thought.

  31. […] defense bill signed by obama can now be detained indefinitly without trial.. rip habeous corpus. Happy Birthday, Bill [of Rights]: Obama Breaks Promise To Veto Bill Allowing Indefinite Detention of… occupy protesters are now terrorists Police include Occupy movement on   Reply […]

  32. […] “Obama said that he would veto the defense bill that contained a horrific provision for the indefinite detention of American citizens. While many predicted it, Obama has now again betrayed the civil liberties community and lifted the threat of the veto.”  –  Jonathan Turley […]

  33. Obama Admin Pushed for Indefinite Detention Provision
    Written by Raven Clabough
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10170-obama-admin-pushed-for-indefinite-detention-

    Excerpt:
    Amidst all of the controversy surrounding the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Obama administration attempted to paint itself as an oppositional force against the bill, threatening to veto it if it passed. Now, however, Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich., left), co-author of the bill, says that the administration in fact heavily lobbied to have removed from the bill’s language that would have protected American citizens from some of the bill’s provisions, such as indefinite detention without trial.

    According to Levin, who is Chairman of the Armed Services Committee: “The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved … and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section.”

    Levin continued: “It was the administration that asked us to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the committee … we removed it at the request of the administration. It was the administration which asked us to remove the very language the absence of which is now objected to.”

    The provision in question is outlined in Section 1031 of the NDAA, which in essence defines the whole world including the United States as a “battlefield” in the war against terrorism.

  34. http://www.tgdaily.com/security-features/60237-anonymous-targets-indefinite-detention-bill

    Excerpt:

    Cyber activists linked to the Anonymous collective are mobilizing to oppose legislation that would allow the military to indefinitely detain US citizens suspected of terrorist activity on American soil. 



    Known as NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) FY 2012, the legislation also permits the Pentagon to transfer suspected terrorists – even though they are US citizens – to Guantánamo Bay.

    Anonymous targets indefinite detention billIn response to the pending legislation, Anonymous has doxed Robert J. Portman, a Republican senator from the state of Ohio who supports the controversial Act.

    “He made himself a target as an advocate of the NDAA,” the group wrote in an online communiqué.

    “We are truly disturbed by the ludicrous $272,853 he received from special interest groups supporting the NDAA bill that authorizes the indefinite detention of [American] citizens on US soil. Robert J. Portman, we plan to make an example of you.”

    The Act, which President Barack Obama now supports, has come under heavy fire from both Democrats and Republicans, as well as human rights activists.

    “It’s something so radical that it would have been considered crazy had it been pushed by the Bush administration,” Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch told The Guardian.

    “It establishes precisely the kind of system that the United States has consistently urged other countries not to adopt. At a time when the United States is urging Egypt, for example, to scrap its emergency law and military courts, this is not consistent.”



    However, Senator Lindsey Graham believes the Act is necessary, simply because terrorism suspects should not be treated the same as regular criminals.

    “We’re facing an enemy, not a common criminal organization, who will do anything and everything possible to destroy our way of life,” said Graham.

    (end of excerpt)

  35. Does the bill allow indefinite detention of American citizens or does it not? The language would seem to say NOT. I’m not sure what everyone is on about.

  36. Dgibella 1, December 15, 2011 at 4:39 pm

    Does the bill allow indefinite detention of American citizens or does it not? The language would seem to say NOT. I’m not sure what everyone is on about.
    ========================
    For you and humpy and a834346: Tyranny For Fifth Graders

  37. Allahu Akbar. Blessed be the Prophet. Greater is Osama bin Laden than the mightiest of all Arab Warriors. Greater is Osama bin Laden than the mightiest of all Muslim Warriors. Destroyed is the land of the Free and the home of the Brave. Allahu Akbar.

  38. I have been working on something to say about this for the past two weeks, but my efforts to write temperately keep colliding with my outrage.

  39. Dredd, the language of the bill does not prohibit the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens. It simply does not make it mandatory. But what’s your point? The rights we are talking about are “unalienable.” They are not dependent upon citizenship.

  40. Yeah, so Ron Paul is good on this issue, but like many a libertarian looks a lot worse on social issues . . .

    So what’s worse, a guy who says some things that sound good, some that sound bad, and a system that makes implementing anything a crap shoot? Or a guy that says just about everything that sounds good, but proves he didn’t mean it, and either advances or doesn’t stand in the way of everything bad?

    I’ll take the one who hasn’t proven himself a liar, a rogue or spineless yet.

  41. Mike A says, “I have been working on something to say about this for the past two weeks, but my efforts to write temperately keep colliding with my outrage.”

    I know exactly what you mean.

  42. The 13 senators who voted against the bill were Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.).

  43. The government is obviously incapable of building legal cases against those citizens whom they suspect of terrorist activities.

    Grabbing suspects off the street and “disappearing” them has long been a tactic used by governments around the world.

    We are now, officially, one of those governments.

    And, as history has shown us over and over again, you can bet that “suspected terrorism” will gradually evolve into “suspected anything” and “disappeared” citizens will become commonplace.

  44. Blouise,I was thinking about voting for Paul in the republican primary. Started reviewing his record and came across this article in which Jonathan Chait in response to Sullivan’s endorsement calls Paul a “creepy bigot”. Can’t do it.

  45. So, to comfort myself, I thought I would come and read some responses from legal minds on this issue. Well, that was a mistake.

    The ‘Occupiers’ called all day on Wednesday, I can verify that the phones were tied up all day at the White House. I managed to get a person, once, they hung up as soon as they found out which issue I was calling about. Or maybe we just got ‘disconnected’.

    We really are a Banana Republic now. I can see any POTUS using this to knock out political competition, to end criticism, to stop movements against our increasingly fascist government. Or am I wrong?

    Shame on Obama. Now he is saying he is going to ‘fix’ it? Clarify the language? Why in the world was this slipped into a budget instead of going through a tedious discussion of the problems associated with the Constitution? It leaves me with more questions than answers…

  46. anon nurse:
    I’ve already fired off an email to my senator, Bill Nelson, to inform him that after many years, I will not support his re-election.

  47. I now feel as if I am between the proverbial rock and a hard place. If any of the clowns currently on the “R” side are nominated, we will have to vote for Obama to keep some batshit crazy ideologue out. Unless they have a brokered convention, the Republican rank and file voting in the primaries will never, ever, nominate someone sane.

    A third party candidate would have a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected, but if he or she drew enough votes away from Obama, we may end up with Bush III–or worse.

    Shit!

  48. […] Obama backs off his promise to veto indefinite detention of Americans. A few years in Washington has destroyed you Obama. I hate to say this (because the result would be another Republican president), but good luck on getting another four years. […]

  49. The MSM including Maddow (last night) was decrying Obama’s failure to veto the bill without explaining that Obama was objecting to a limitation on Presidential discretion regarding the arbitrary targeting of citizens for loss of their rights, not the loss if civil rights. That is outrageous. I am appalled at Maddow and hope she corrects the impression (of Obama as weak, as opposed to wanting dictatorial powers) tonight.

    This q&A between Michael Moore and Chris Hedges is relevant to what is happening with this bill and the loss of rights in general. Hedges puts a relevant historical spin on the situation. 8 mins max, and you can stop listening after the first two talking points. Imperial Capitalism takes it’s inevitable toll:

  50. Otteray Scribe:
    I completely agree. But perhaps the people should get what they want. The reaction to this law is likely to be a collective yawn.

  51. anon nurse : “The 13 senators who voted against the bill were … Bernie Sanders (I-Vt …”

    What I wouldn’t give for an opportunity to vote for him in 2012.

    By this time ia normal election cycle I am usually amused, or outraged or bored; This time I am just despondent,
    **

    Blouise: “And, as history has shown us over and over again, you can bet that “suspected terrorism” will gradually evolve into “suspected anything” and “disappeared” citizens will become commonplace.”

    and Shano: “We really are a Banana Republic now. I can see any POTUS using this to knock out political competition, to end criticism, to stop movements against our increasingly fascist government. Or am I wrong?”
    ______________

    Correct and correct. I just don’t think you can be too cynical about how this movie ends.

  52. Obama was selected in advance to be a one term resident…his rhetoric was designed to defuse the anger of the people that Bush and Cheney caused.
    It worked…he fooled most of the people including myself.
    We now know that Obama is an egregious LIAR.
    He isn’t just a liar, he is a traitor.
    He knows that if he isn’t re-elected, he will be on easy-street…full pension
    for life, free secret-service protection, free medical care, etc.
    He sold us out for a few pieces of silver.

  53. Like Mike Appleton I have been at a loss as to what to say about this, but have collected my thoughts, so hear goes. I have been writing about what I see as the return of Feudalism to the US in tandem with the domination by multi-national corporations. It has been my opinion, clearly stated, that to some degree this has already happened, with the only saving grace being the clash of ego’s among this Corporate Elite. From the death of JFK in 1963, through an amazing set of changes that have transformed our rights as citizens this is yet another small link in this chain of circumstance.

    Many including myself, mistook Obama as an agent of change. That was the victory of hope over despair. The mythology that we let ourselves buy into, though intellectually we knew better, was that Presidents have great power despite the negative evidence that exists all around us. When people rely on any “hero” to overcome the array of power aligned against the people of this or any other nation they are fooling themselves. The world has never worked that way. Indeed, in historical truth the “Bill of Rights” has for the most part existed only on paper and the government has oppressed those they wished to oppress, without any of the legal niceties. This article I’ve provided the link for gives a possible explanation of why the Obama Candidacy began in his hope for change and has come to this.

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/The-Military-and-Those-Str-by-Russ-Baker-111213-640.html

    Is the scenario suggested by this writer too far-fetched? I don’t think so.
    What would any of us do if elected President, especially someone who cherishes their family. If we are asking for heroics in the face of possible threats by the Military-Industrial Complex, perhaps we should elect someone, with no spouse, no children, no family and who doesn’t fear
    death.

    We can waste our time bemoaning our fates and finding those to blame, or we can try to discover a way to fight back that is effective. All of us here who have felt this way have spoken out time and again so it isn’t a question of lending a voice. They’ve got too many guns and the will to use them, so that kind of revolution is not going to change one damn thing, save for getting a lot of young people killed. OWS has showed us a glimmer of the way to go, but we’ve got to improve on it. Ghandi found a way to succeed against the intransigent British. MLK copied it with some success. Rather than bemoaning yet another sign of what we’ve known all along, Accept that this is now the reality, what the hell do we do about it?

  54. Bernie Sanders Constitutional Amendment to end corporate personhood and end corporations ability to give money to political campaigns is a good start.
    Get Money Out of Politics. That would cut off the power source of the MIC and all others.

  55. SwM,

    Yeah, he’s a creepy bigot alright but so are the rest of them so, perhaps voting for him in the primary isn’t such an out-there idea. I’d have to be a republican for awhile … until the next primary for state offices rolls around but, what the hell … it’s an idea I’ll think about.

  56. lotta,

    Thinking about taking the cynical move of jumping parties to vote for Paul in the primaries … gotta do something pro-active … unless I get disappeared for thinking cynical thoughts. If that happens I have instructed Tex to send you my Johnny Depp autograph. (It’s a A Nightmare on Elm Street poster from ’84)

  57. Blouise, I was watching the debate, and Gingrich called Obama a “Saul Alinsky radical”. I think I will stay out of their primary and let them decide on their candidate.

  58. Pretty damn sad when the “choice” candidate is the lesser of two evils… At least if somebody is in office “We” don’t trust then at least we know what we have…..

    The selling out the of the Constitution is an act of Treason which should be levied against all who supported this bill and the one signing the same……

  59. I am late to the party on this one, but I couldn’t resist making a comment. It is time to take our objections to Obama directly with an OWHS movement. Occupy the White House. Or if you prefer, Occupy the Bill of Rights. As was mentioned earlier, it would help to get money out of the election cycle, but this goes deeper. There seems to be a super secret rule for Presidents that makes them want to increase the power of the presidency instead of steadfastly guarding our liberties. The Bush mantra of “be afraid” of the Muslim has been changed to be afraid of everyone, including citizens. Sad day.

  60. We need Instant Runoff Voting instituted in ALL federal elections immediately to make third party candidates a viable decision now. Enough with this strategic voting BS! Let’s get people into every office that care about the things the American people care about!

  61. rafflaw, The really scary thing is that the power has been increased for a possible President Gingrich. Just listening to him in the debate….

  62. The republican candidates were asked to name their favorite Supreme Court justice in tonight’s debate. Santorum was first and named Clarence Thomas.

    Only Paul was unwilling to endorse any of the nine, calling them “all good, and all bad” on fundamental issues of liberty. As folks here know, Paul has previously mentioned Turley for the court.

  63. puzzling, Paul signed a pledge that he would only appoint anti-abortion judges. I don’t know the professor’s position on abortion but that pledge is very limiting.

  64. I wouldn’t want to see an anti-abortion judge but, from my vantage point, given where we’re headed, abortion-rights are the least of our worries… We need to be focusing on the rule of law, which is nearly non-existent for many, and civil rights, which are increasingly under siege.

  65. Blouise, I’ve done that myself. A repub operative I know was telling me some many years ago who his primary picks were and they were all dems! I was shocked, shocked, I tells ya’, and he patiently explained that it was all part of the game, everybody does it. LOL, I actually never considered such a thing, it was such a purely ideological (and cynical) move. I decided I was way too straight-laced and needed to start voting in ways that mattered strategically and were way more fun. :-)

  66. AN,

    That’s what I have said before. If our rights are taken away or even chipped away slowly what rights will we really have. What will the implications of the remaining rule of law mean anyway…. But that is just me… Thinking about the big picture rather than an individual brush stroke on the canvas…

  67. anon nurse, It is too limiting to have a litmus test for judges and cabinet members. I guess Paul would have many conservative catholics and christian fundamentalists to choose from. Paul makes some good points on the wars.

  68. AY,

    I’m a quarter of the way through Glenn Greenwald’s new book. I highly recommend it…

    A bad case of the flu…. and it’s time to get some sleep. I’m barely functioning.

    Night, all.

    Bad times… May we see some positive changes…

  69. I say Obama is worse than the rest because he is in my opinion better educated a former constitutional law professor and should know better. But he had proved in my opinion in the last 7 months to be more deceitful that Cheney or Rove….

  70. SM,

    Paul is wrong on abortion, we agree on that. State governments (and the federal government) do not own women’s bodies. Obama’s HHS recently overruling the FDA on Plan B contraceptive access is a real-world strike against choice as well that will impact thousands of women every year.

    I did see the anti-abortion pledge that Paul signed, but it does not introduce a litmus test for judges. It is a commitment “to nominate to the U.S. federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution.”

  71. Raff,

    A dishonest person with power is still more dangerous than a bullet…I’ll give you Cheney and power. I am beginning to think Shrub did not have a clue as to what power he had….. He was a puppet of the powers that were….but still responsible for what he did while there though…

  72. puzzling, It says pro-life appointees. It also says the goal is to get rid of planned parenthood. I hope Paul wins the republican nomination but he won’t.

  73. SM,

    I would normally let your comment pass, but in this case want to be clear the pledge Paul signed does NOT require a litmus test or appointment of known pro-life court appointees. There is no reason to think that Paul’s public endorsement of Turley has changed as you imply.

    The pledge is five sentences long, here.

  74. These elected officials were given the privilege of governing a free people but they all turned out to be cowards looking, like any criminal does, for the shortcut, the easy path outside the rule of law. They’ve formed their own governing mafia and are trying their damnedest to convince us we are safer under their leadership than we are under the umbrella of the Constitution. They’re like the parasites on Wall Street, selling us worthless bundles of chopped up freedoms no longer backed by the Constitution and thus of no real value.

    It’s a bubble and it’s going to burst.

  75. Rocky Anderson would be much better than Paul or Obama. I am going to see how the election takes shape. There could be a few dark horses on each side. Anything can happen, haha, as we see with Obama signing on to this travesty of a piece of legislation. they are all backpedalling now. In hindsight, no one is going to want this on their record, just like the Iraq war.

    Blouise
    1, December 15, 2011 at 11:30 pm
    “These elected officials were given the privilege of governing a free people but they all turned out to be cowards looking, like any criminal does, for the shortcut, the easy path outside the rule of law. They’ve formed their own governing mafia and are trying their damnedest to convince us we are safer under their leadership than we are under the umbrella of the Constitution. They’re like the parasites on Wall Street, selling us worthless bundles of chopped up freedoms no longer backed by the Constitution and thus of no real value.

    It’s a bubble and it’s going to burst.”

    Worth repeating, Blouise, well done.

  76. Ok… questions…
    1. Is the military going to enter EVERY home eventually and search every square inch of these homes or do they need substantial evidence that says that the people living in certain houses are terrorists?

    2. What must a member of the military find in one’s house to deem the occupants terrorists?

    3. Is the military just going to take one look at someone and say “yup, terrorist” and ship them away without a reason?

    4. Doesn’t the first part of congress say that if the government does this, we have the power to overthrow our government and start a new one?

  77. […] Cross-posted There was a brief moment when civil libertarians were stunned to see President Barack Obama actually take a stand in favor of civil liberties after years to rolling back on basic rights of citizens and moving beyond the Bush Administration in building up the security state. Obama said that he would veto the defense bill that contained a horrific provision for the indefinite detention of American citizens. While many predicted it, Obama has now again betrayed the civil liberties community and lifted the threat of the veto. Americans will now be subject to indefinite detention without trial in federal courts in a measure supported by both Democrats and Republicans. It is a curious way to celebrate the 220th anniversary of the Bill of Rights. […]

  78. “Democracy is a process by which the people are free to choose the man who will get the blame.
    Laurence J. Peter (1919 – 1988)”

  79. To those trying to claim that this bill does apply to citizens, and/or thereby implying that it is nothing to worry about:
    1) When it says it does not affect EXISTING laws…what ARE those existing laws? The DHS already has the ability to wiretap and surveil, and greatly expanded powers of all sorts. The law exists that makes it lawful to assassinate enemies of the state, including US citizens, in or out of country. Before saying everyone is being “fools” to be concerned about this, check up on what existing laws it does not (need to) affect.
    2) If it is so not-to-worry about, why is not a single member of Congress or the President addressing that and calming the public’s fears, and explaining what it DOES do? Riddle me that, if you please. I received a mass email from Diane Feinstein who, as a member of Congress seems like she should have some info on this, saying that all the amendments that would have afforded protection to US citizens and lawful residents were DEFEATED. Was she lying? Why would she lie about something like that?
    Consider these points, before you call everyone else fools, please. It’s quite rude.

  80. The problem with 99.99 per cent of all legislators….is that they do not read a damn thing except for the talking points memo that they are provided of what the bills intent is….How do I know that? I worked in mire….as well have been associated with it for a long, long time…..Some of these bills are 500 pages….and if you are passing 50 new laws or codifications a day….how long would it take you before you quit reading too…..

  81. So, the disbelief in evolution and racism disqualifies voting for a candidate but the killing of American citizens and the indefinite detention of other humans beings is O.K.?

    Wouldn’t any of these things rationally be a reason not to vote for a candidate?

    I strongly suggest quit worrying about who to vote for-vote third party. Then put your shoulder into the hard work of trying to undo the immediate mess we find ourselves in.

  82. Excerpt from:
    The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
    they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
    these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these
    rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers fromthe consent of the governed, –

    ***************************************************************************************
    That whenever any Form of Government becomes
    destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
    it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles
    and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
    effect their Safety and Happiness.
    ***************************************************************************************

    Prudence, indeed, will dictate that
    Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient
    causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more
    disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by
    abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of
    abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to
    reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to
    throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
    security

  83. Obama is also a huge racist. So why would you vote for one racist but not another one?

    As I said before, So, the disbelief in evolution and racism disqualifies voting for a candidate but the killing of American citizens and the indefinite detention of other humans beings is O.K.? You can add racism to Obama’s long list of atrocities. So are you saying that those qualities are O.K. to vote for in a Democratic candidate but wrong to vote for in a Republican candidate?

    Wouldn’t any of these things rationally be a reason not to vote for a candidate?

    I strongly suggest quit worrying about who to vote for-vote third party. Then put your shoulder into the hard work of trying to undo the immediate mess we find ourselves in.

  84. angrymanspeaks:

    From your blog and your piece:

    “Try Not to Think of a Newt by David Swanson Reposted from “War is a crime.org””

    Mr Swanson gives good advice with whats going on and the anger we feel toward these political hacks and keeps us in check.

    “Get serious. Get independent. Get principled. And stay nonviolent toward everything in the world except your television.”

  85. “Obama is also a huge racist.”

    Jill,

    Could you elaborate on this statement, perhaps providing some instances indicating his racism. There are enough critiques of Obama to go around. Calling him a racist, if there is no proof, only diminishes the issue of racism.

  86. Having slept all night, a usually sufficient time for me to quell even the greatest of outrages, I find that I am still too angry to address this fascism in depth. So in the alternative, just imagine a copious sting of profanity laden invective directed at both Congress and the President. It starts with “You traitorous un-American unconstitutional fascist douche bags . . .” and goes on from there. After the anger dies down and the depression sets in, I’m sure I’ll have more to say on this matter.

  87. I have a leather-bound copy of the Magna Carta on my bookshelf. Those twits in DC need to remember what can happen to any ruling class when the peasants finally wake up to the fact they do indeed have some power. It happened in 1215 and several similar events have happened since. King John got off light compared to Nicolae Ceaușescu and Benito Mussolini.

    I see that Julian Assange is being allowed to appeal his extradition order. One has to wonder if the current events in Congress and White House has anything to do with influencing the Brits to rethink this extradition matter. After all they DID write the Magna Carta.

  88. “Yet here we sit, more than three years after Obama’s win, and too many people are pulling me aside in private to ask why his standing in the African-American community has softened since his Inauguration. They also question whether the reduced excitement among young and new voters — with that lack of enthusiasm from African-Americans — might hinder Obama’s 2012 campaign.”

    http://www.thegrio.com/politics/revenge-of-the-clintonites-black-democrats-cling-to-the-first-black-president.php

    Newt Gingrich: Abolish Liberal, ‘Anti-American’ Courts

    “Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich went off on the American judicial system during Thursday night’s GOP debate, saying courts have become “grotesquely dictatorial, far too powerful and … frankly arrogant in their misreading of the American people.”

    Gingrich has called for the abolition of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which is despised by conservatives for many of its liberal rulings.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/15/2012-newt-gingrich-debate_n_1152705.html

  89. No one argues that Ron Paul is a racist. That’s a real reason not to vote for him and I would not vote for him. But Obama is also a racist. So basically we come down to Democrats saying, I will vote for a racist as long as he’s a Democrat.

    This idea must stop. There is wrong and right. These are independent of political party. If you are against racism, be against it even when it is in the actions of a Democratic president. You cannot confront what is happening in this nation by lying to yourself about “your” candidate and “your” party. You either have a consistent ethical standard or you are part of what allows racism and other horrors to occur in our nation.

    Other than this being a type of cult, I find it difficult to understand why people keep defending the indefensible. This vote was taken by Democrats and Republicans alike. It is president Obama, a Democrat, who wanted the protections of American citizens stripped from the bill. It is president Obama who feels he may declare anyone a terrorist and have them killed. Hell, he’s already killed people, including a 16 year old boy. This cannot be O.K. with people.

    The financial bill is being stripped of language taxing the most wealthy Americans and this is done by Democrats and Republicans alike. WAKE UP. They are playing for the same team. To keep ignoring evidence is dangerous.

  90. “The gist is that Paul is tied in deep and extensive ways to neo-Confederates, and somewhat less tightly to the right-wing militia movement. His newsletter, which he wrote and edited for years, was a constant organ of vile racism and homophobia. This is not just picking out a phrase here and there. Fear and hatred of blacks and gays, along with a somewhat less pronounced paranoia about Jewish dual loyalty, are fundamental elements of his thinking. The most comparable figure to Paul is Pat Buchanan, the main differences being that Paul emphasizes economic issues more, and has more dogmatically pro-market views.”

    SwM,

    Thank you for that link. Ron Paul has gained credence with some dissatisfied with Obama’s policies because of his opposition to the wars and because he is purportedly a “civil libertarian”. I would submit that you cannot be a civil libertarian if you are anti-choice, since that hits at one of the most personal decisions that can be made by a woman. From that position one can infer that if his “religious conscience” takes precedence over his civil libertarian ideals, he is capable of much more invasive sallies against freedom. Perhaps persecution of homosexuality can also be justified by his conscience.

    While Pat Buchanan is a worthwhile comparison to Paul, I also find similarities to Senator Prescott Bush, scion of the Bush Crime Family.
    P. Bush hated the New Deal reforms so much he tried to organize a military coup to replace FDR. He also helped finance the rise of the NAZI Party in Germany and was against our siding with the Brits in WWII. He of course strongly believed that government should not interfere with business.

    Another comparison from our past is Eugene McCarthy. In 1968 anti-war people anxious to be rid of LBJ supported him and helped oust LBJ from running again. Many didn’t realize that though a Democrat, McCarthy was rather Conservative politically, an intellectual snob, had disdain for the common folk and was a mediocre campaigner. They looked only at his opposition to the Viet Nam war. With RFK dead and Johnson out, Hubert Humphrey got the nomination. HHH had a long, courageous history as a staunch liberal and supporter of Civil Rights, when that support was unpopular by a public figure. Many in the anti-war movement refused to vote and HHH lost the Presidency, but not by much. Nixon came in and escalated the war far beyond the destruction that had already been wreaked. The “Southern Strategy” that brought RMN to power led him to
    halt the progress of the Civil Rights Movement as a payoff to his supporters.

    It brings to mind two old, but very true cliches:

    “Be careful what you wish for……….you might get it.

    “Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.

    I understand and feel the anger at Obama, but there is no-one on the horizon to make things better and all on the horizon will make things worse.
    Yes, a principled intention would be not to vote for him, that’s why Humphrey lost to Nixon.

    To use another cliche, that my Father constantly laid on me and that has also proven in my experience to be true:

    “The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions”.

  91. Mike S.,

    Why are you looking for someone to make things better? Why not do that yourself by joining with your fellow citizens to resist a corrupt system. True, we have little chance of success but the outcome is assured if you won’t even try. And have you really looked at other candidates? Jill Stein, no relation is running. You may think you can’t vote for her, but you could.

    If you vote for Obama than you are greenlighting everything he does. Is that what you stand for? Suppose you think he’s the LOTE. Well, every power you just gave him, you just gave to the next monster. The cycle of monsters in office must end. It ends when people understand they do have real choices and exercise them. This isn’t a guarantee of success, it’s saying I will not bring evil into the world.

  92. While thinking about the uprising of 1215, it occurs to me the OWS protests are our modern equivalent. That is, no doubt, one reason the oligarchs and banksters have leveraged their bought and paid for mayors and politicians to unleash the full fury of a militarized police on them. Some of these hyper-militarized police departments behave in a manner more reminiscent of the Brownshirts (Sturmabteilung, or SA) than the kindly Bobby on the beat.

  93. “Obama is also a huge racist.”
    Jill,
    Could you elaborate on this statement, perhaps providing some instances indicating his racism?”

    Jill’s answer:

    “But Obama is also a racist. So basically we come down to Democrats saying, I will vote for a racist as long as he’s a Democrat.”

    Jill,

    First of all stating Obama is a racist, in the absence of examples, does not
    make it so. Prove the statement first with examples and facts. Secondly, your implication that I am a cult like individual, who would vote for a racist just because he’s a Democrat is offensive, especially in light of your absence of proof that he is. I know you have expressed your opposition to Obama since he began his Presidential run and wrote many a comment detailing your opposition to it here. Have I ever implied that you were a racist in your virulent opposition to Obama? I have not and wouldn’t. Why then, when you are quite aware that I’ve said I will hold my nose and vote for Obama, do you feel justified in stating that I or anyone else here, would vote for a racist as long as they were a Democrat?

    Let’s get down to brass tacks though and ignore for the moment your unjustified attacks on me and others. I and many others have solid personal reasons for voting for Obama over anyone so far suggested. If I was to lose my social security/medicare benefits, or have them substantially reduced, I would be reduced to poverty. That’s a highly personal reason for me and many, many other Americans. This would also be true for millions of Americans, if there were no longer unemployment insurance, public assistance and food stamps. Many more women would be forced to have and raise unwanted children. Birth Control and birth control information would become unavailable. Women’s economic inequality would increase. Those without adequate health insurance would skyrocket. Corporate Feudalism would become the norm and the 1% would get richer. Homosexuals would again find their rights stripped and be subject to legal prosecution. People of color would find even more of themselves locked up by the Prison/DEA/LEO Complex. Every Republican candidate thus far would bring that about, especially because his/her negative coattails would ensure a compliant congress and we already have a compliant SCOTUS.

    That only represents my view of the situation and I can completely understand people whose consciences dictate otherwise. Give me a viable out and I’ll join with them. However, don’t give me another Ralph Nader tilting at windmills. Don Quixote was a great book, written by a man of conscience, but Cervantes recognized the ultimate ineffectiveness of his hero. Getting 3% of the vote and electing one of the present field of Republicans may be soul satisfying, but it would also make a bad situation worse.

  94. Yes I agree. I think we are past working witin the system. It has proven to be useless ne detrimental to our cause and our rights. “Occupy” sort of takes on a scary, beautiful new meaning; doesn’t it?
    It did for ma at least.

  95. Well said Mike. For anyone to think that there is a viable alternative to Obama is fooling themselves. To say he is a racist is just buying in to the Fox News crap that is spewed on a daily basis.
    That being said, it is becoming harder to hold my nose and vote for him. This latest omnibus bill cuts pell grants and heating assistance, but the military budget gets a raise. When will Congress and Obama grow a set and understand that the austerity that the Right is calling for is not only dangerous and flawed, it is purposeful in its intent to further tank an economy that is showing some modest improvement?

  96. rafflaw, It is tough but their goal is to chip enough of us so that the repubs win. Mike S, I usually like what Jonathan Chait has to say.

  97. “Mike S.,
    Why are you looking for someone to make things better? Why not do that yourself by joining with your fellow citizens to resist a corrupt system. True, we have little chance of success but the outcome is assured if you won’t even try.”

    Jill,

    I’m 67 years old and I have been involved in making things better and fighting the status quo in America since my teens, which I think is longer than you’ve been alive. Why in hell do you think I write here, using my real name, if not as a form of resistance. My entire working career was devoted to making things better for people as a social worker/psychotherapist/union activist/social service executive/creator of social service programs. How dare you in your “more politically pure than thou” attitude seek to counsel me to join in to oppose a corrupt system.

    You remind me of the “Trotskyite” faction of my Union in the late 60’s. Their
    slogan was: “Organize, we’ve got to Organize”. However, their method of organization was to alienate their potential support and in the end accomplish nothing.

    The French have long been plagued by the concept of “Le Beau Geste” (the Grand Gesture). This is to for instance attack and die but do so magnificently. Martyrdom is not my metier as a revolutionary plan. The Trotskyites were right in one sense in that we do have to organize, but 2012 is upon us momentarily and the only effective organization OWS, is only a few months old. Any real opposition has to begin now and look towards 2016, if it even matters by then if Republicans gain control in 2012. Had the country listened to you in the 2008 election we would have gotten McCain/Palin, do you really think that would have been a better alternative, or that their record would be better, not worse than Obama’s?

    In the words of John McCain:

  98. Someone posted this interesting list as a comment at HuffPo:

    The new incorporat­ed states of America check list, so far.
    Incarcerat­ion of the citizenry without trial.
    Cleanse the legal system of any opinions other than the party sanctioned ones.
    Vilify the media and try to close down NPR.
    Impose control of thought and free speech over the internet.
    Make the poor, Latino’s and blacks into bogymen.
    Blame the citizens for what Wall Street did.
    Deny the past.
    Speed up the eviction of struggling homeowners­.
    Name the next war for oil and the shedding of American blood they want to wage.
    Hide their agenda behind a faux religious banner.
    Remove the safety net we all paid into.
    Allow bridges to collapse, roads to crumble and the rail network to become increasing­ly fractured and uncompetit­ive.
    Run the risk of destroying the American water table with fracking and oil spills and usher in the golden era of rivers and lakes catching fire again.
    Destroy the natural beauty of heritage sites so their employers can make a large short term profit.
    Allow as many toxins as the atmosphere can hold for the same reasons.
    Cheer on the police crackdown on dissent and display the portent to our liberty this reflects.
    Disenfranc­hise any voter that might fall into a category that doesn’t support their position.
    Make it much easier for their fraudster, bankster criminal cartel partners, to operate outside the law.
    Break the unions and remove any obstacles that might get in the way.
    Force more people into poverty, so they become desperate enough to take a pittance salary.
    Make jingoistic rhetoric, lapel pin wearing, flag waving and displays of fervent patriotic imperialis­m a pre requisite and a mandatory exercise in schools along with saluting the flag, an oath to party allegiance and rewriting the school books to exclude the annoyance of facts polluting the mind of the next generation­.
    They are offering a corporate totalitari­an future and the blind don’t see it, because of the tactics of fear propaganda­.

  99. Hey SM,

    I don’t believe they really care who we elect. How much farther right can Obama go? What could a Republican do that Obama isn’t willing to do?

    The major Republican candidates and Obama are all being paid by a combination of the same banks. Well it would be more accurate to say that they are all paid by “The Bank”. Because all of these banks are owned by people who are in association by virtue of being members of the exclusive 1% club. They act in accord. Goldman-Sachs, BOA, Morgan-Stanley, etc.

    Obama has through a series of actions and failures to act managed to take most of the rights recognized by the Constitution and made others moot.

    No; I’m sorry. This has gone too far. Obama has gone too far.

    I would also point out the terrible irony that our first black President should turn out to be a betrayer of the American people. If I were black; after the struggle my race has gone through to get here; after the dream that a black man could be elected President one day; after I have been allowed to believe that the dream has come true; only to have those dreams dashed upon the rocks when I found that my president had done everything but repeal the Emancipation Proclamation and repeal the 13th amendment. because the result of his actions if left to continue is abject slavery to the 1% for all of the 99%.

    These things I see not from some insane desire to find conspiracies everywhere; but from my observations, experiences, and from my familiaity with history.

    Don’t worry about who to elect. Worry about stopping both parties i.e. the whole political system from reducing us to serfs and beggers.

    I love your comments and the links you so often provide. Talk with you later

  100. When the current right wing gets into power I expect to see WWIII. And an huge increase in Multinational corporate power with the resulting huge increase in environmental degradation everywhere in the world. What will they do with all those environmental refugees? Lock them up for the Prison Industrial complex.
    Now we have a choice between slim and none in regard to saving our habitable planet. Both parties do the bidding of the Multinationals, but as Grayson says, the GOP is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Multinationals, while the Democrats cater to them as well.

  101. Why are people surprised at what Obama is doing? He was not vetted by the press, but those who wanted to know found out prior to the election that Barack Obama is a Marxist-Socialist. Marxism and Socialism both have VERY poor records when it comes to human and civil rights.

    Also, study President Obama’s past and his mentors and it is easy to see why he does what he does. Obama may very well believe that people in this country are guilty of colonialism and that America needs to be punished for this ‘crime’.

    Who we elect is important and who runs is important. Our greatest need is to defeat Barack Obama. Hopefully we will elect a good president, but we MUST defeat Obama. If a third party candidate prevents this, America will not be able to recover from what will happen in Obama’s second term.

  102. Thank you angry man. You are sure correct about the banks, but I do think Santorum, Perry, Gingrich, etc. are way to the right of Obama. Don’t think we will be stopping either party in 2012 as the process is well underway.

  103. Again, Bravo,

    Not everyone is suited to do the same things. The attitude that my contribution is more important than yours is one of the main reasons for infighting among members of any group.
    The key to organization and team-work is for each person to do what he/she is best at. In that way no one is over taxed and maximum efficiency can be achieved.
    This battle will not be won in the voting booth. But I disagree with Jill when she says we don’t have much chance of winning. History has proven repeatedly that Movements like OWS have an excellent chance of winning. Recent history also. Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Libya, Poland, Chechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Chetchnia, etc. OWS is just such a Movement. We will prevail Jill.
    The battle though; must be fought on multiple fronts. We should be voting for the lesser of the available evils until the Occupation has succeeded to at least attempt to slow these Fascists down.

    Every; read that !!!Every!!! person is valuable to this struggle. Becuase struggle it will be. But America is on the move. We should all be encouraging participation in OWS. We should all be doing Whatever we can but if we do it with hate and competitiveness in our heart; we defeat the spirit of the Movement and the Purpose.

  104. “Barack Obama is a Marxist-Socialist.”

    Don’t use words you don’t know the meaning of, jlue. This is a blog populated with experts in law, language and political science (to name but a few of the specialties of the regular contributors). Inaccuracies such as yours will always be challenged.

    Obama is a corporatist fascist, just like Bush before him and every clown currently running for office. A Marxist would have nationalized the banks, the oil industry and the entirety of the health care industry (among other things). A socialist (specifically a democratic socialist – there are many types of socialism just like there are many types of democracy) would have nationalized health care insurance (but not the whole health care industry), re-regulated the banks and the oil industry (although given the role of the oil industry in both starting unnecessary wars and causing ecological disaster by cutting corners to boost profits, they might have been nationalized too) and if they believed in the rule of law they would have put the Bush administration and half of Wall Street on trial for their various crimes. A corporatists fascist would have simply rolled over and given industry a pass including forgoing prosecuting the traitors in the previous administration (because he works for the same masters they did). Just like Obama did. Much like Hitler, Obama promised social reforms in the vein of socialist practice, but instead delivered fascism. People believed his lies because most people think the government does not serve in their best interests any more but rather cater to themselves and wealthy/corporations that fund their political campaigns. He’s many things, including a liar and a traitor to his oath of office to protect the Constitution, but Obama is neither a Marxist nor a socialist (of any sort). Marxism and socialism are both political and economic models. Marxism is the only economic form that is plainly unconstitutional, but it is among several political models that are plainly unconstitutional such as monarchy, dictatorship and oligarchy. Capitalism as an economic model has just as poor a human rights record as any economic system, but capitalism is an economic model until it falls into lassez-faire capitalism which is a political/economic model – a political model that leads inexorably to Corporatist fascism. Corporatist fascism has the worst human rights record of all forms of political/economic models as that was the model of Nazi Germany. If you want to demonize Obama for his political and economic leanings, be accurate in your criticisms. A key part to confronting any demon is knowing their true name.

  105. Jill, posters have ask you to qualify your statements that Obama is a ‘racist’ (ridiculous), and now you say he is a Marxist/Socialist? Haha, wow you really are in fantasy land there. Obama has governed as a corporate centrist and that is the problem. I only wish he was a Socialist.

    Looking for OWS to expand and grow in 2012. Some very interesting actions planned for OWS, including the DC action in March.

  106. Mike S.,

    Your post at 12:10p today regarding the reasons for voting for Obama was very well said as were Swm, angryman, Gene, and raff’s responses.

    There are also deep lessons in the references you made to HHH/LBJ/Eugene in your 11:40a post today.

    LBJ pushed the Civil Rights platform yet at the same time sent a disproportionate number of young black men to die in his Nam war. (MLK Jr railed against this official killing of black men to the point that some say it cost him his life.)

    The Democrats knew they were losing the South due to Civil Rights and knew they were losing the North due to Nam and pushed out LBJ failing to give HHH enough time (a late nomination) to overcome the damage done by Johnson.

    Voilà … Nixon with his White House imperial uniforms, peace with no honor, Kent State Massacre, and Watergate.

    In my opinion, Obama is a shallow man who simply knows how to talk a good game. (The color of his skin has nothing to do with the caliber of his mind and those who wish to use color are operating under a totally hidden agenda.)

    The lack of a strong male influence in his early years makes him easy prey for his CIA/Wall Street type handlers. It is the influence of Biden that we should be looking at and concentrating on.

    We have been here before … we need to pay attention to the lessons learned.

  107. Gene H, Sorry you are so confused by what I said, however, you must be interested in demonizing and the best way many find to do this is try and find a connection to Adolf Hitler. The left enjoyed doing that to George Bush. I am interested in understanding the men and what they are actually trying to do. I think I am more accurate than you.

    America is not under a Marxist regime so Obama is unable to “nationalized the banks, the oil industry and the entirety of the health care industry (among other things)”. It isn’t because he doesn’t have a heart for that, but rather he doesn’t have the freedom right now and there is still the Constitution to slow him. He still has to run for re-election. During a second term he will do much more of what he has an inclination to do since he will not face re-election. He has nationalized as much as he felt safe doing with an executive order or could get passed in Congress.

    You coin the term ‘corporatist fascist’. Obama’s past associations, his books, and his speeches do not portray his as a fascist. A dictator wannabe – maybe, but his actions and words are those of a socialist. Think about his ‘American Jobs Act’ he talked about so much. I am not sure it was actually written, but he made many speeches about this ‘act’ that would include road projects, repair projects, hire government employees, etc. Consider the Healthcare Bill and what it would have been had there been no opposition to the original legislation. Look at the bills he has supported.

    Check out what Mr.Obama studied prior to becoming Sen. or Pres. Obama. Look at his past life. You may be a lawyer, but that doesn’t mean you are automatically right.

  108. Jlue, So, Obama was forced to appoint his cabinet by some ‘conservative’ forces hiding in the shadows? His pick of Tim Geithner was his own. Gad, your whole post is one of conspiracy theories that have no basis in fact, just speculation of the most abhorrent kind.

    The Savings and Loans were taken over by the government in the past. The banks should have been handled the same way but were not because Obama chose to handle the crisis in the way the banks preferred. That is fascism.

    America has had many, many “jobs programs” in our history. We built the Interstate Highway system, huge water projects like Hoover Dam, the intercontinental railroads and government brought electricity to rural areas all over the nation. These were not Marxist or socialist programs, they were investments in American infrastructure that we still rely on today.

    Knowing nothing about American history leads to this sort of wild speculation about Obama. Or is it somehow different when a black POTUS does the same thing?

    btw, I think the Health Care bill would have been much better without them caving to the corporate opposition. jmho.

  109. “Gene H, Sorry you are so confused by what I said”

    No. I wasn’t confused at all, Jlue. You were misusing words you don’t understand. And you did it again:

    “You coin the term ‘corporatist fascist’” I didn’t coin that term. Just because you don’t know what that means doesn’t mean it isn’t a real concept in the realm of political science, it just means you’re ignorant as to what it means. It’s a corporatist state with a fascist economic/political model. If you were competent in political science, the term wouldn’t be new to you. “Obama’s past associations . . . ” are irrelevant. His actions since taking office show him to be in the same corporate pockets as Bush was. “but his actions and words are those of a socialist. ” No they aren’t just because you say they are – you have demonstrated that you don’t know what socialism or a socialist is so you aren’t qualified to make that call.

    Socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. Such ownership and/or regulation can be implemented to varying degrees of control. That does not mean no private property. No private property is a tenet of Marxism or Communism which are the extremist forms of socialism . . . much like lassez-faire capitilism is the underpinnings of corporatist fascism.

    Corporatist fascism (which is what we’re really talking about here) is where there is ownership by private individuals with government control OR private business interests dictate the priorities of the state, both towards a nationalistic, militaristic and oppressive government that is anti-democratic– the second definition being exactly what both Bush and Obama have done, let business interests dictate the priorities of state against the will of the people.

    You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. If you want to make up the meanings of words, be ready to be called to task on it. “You may be a lawyer, but that doesn’t mean you are automatically right.” No, being being properly educated in the subject matter and right means I’m right. Don’t use words you don’t understand and you won’t have this problem in the future. Better yet, get educated on the subject matter and quit consuming and regurgitating ridiculous propaganda.

  110. The President and the members of Congres who voted for this piece of dung violated their oaths of office: “…to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States…” and in so doing committed treason. “We the people… do ordain.” Remember? And what ever happened to “one man, one vote?’ Now is the ash heap of broken promises in what is now Fourth Reich America.

  111. “In my opinion, Obama is a shallow man who simply knows how to talk a good game.”

    Blouise,

    I think you and are are pretty much on the same page. I see dealing with the impending Corporate Feudalism, not as a single thrust for freedom, but as a battle fought across the whole spectrum of needs to reform. Having worked my whole career dealing with people oppressed in one form or another, I know the deep misery felt by many in terms of grinding poverty and oppression. I’m not in favor of any revolution that would sacrifice those most badly affected by the economic and social disparities of this country, on the altar of expediency.

    The Marxists I knew in the 60’s wanted society to totally collapse to force a revolution. I called them assholes to their faces because we were in a Union that worked with the poor and oppressed. I am willing to resist the Feudalistic Corporate takeover openly as I have done here on this blog and in the organizations I openly belong to, but I’m not willing to allow further harm to be visited upon the 99% of this nation by grand gestures motivated by anger.

    As far as revolutions go, violent ones simply empower the the sociopaths on the winning side and in the end they become what “The Who” so eloquently sang:

  112. Blouise/Mike,

    I think anyone really interested in making effective change needs to read “Non-violent Resistance (Satyagraha)” by M.K. Gandhi, “Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict” by Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan, and “Nonviolent Struggle – 50 Crucial Points” by Srdja Popovic, Andrej Milivojevic and Slobodan Djinovic (available as a free .pdf download here).

    Knowing how to resist is as important as knowing when to resist. The time is now. The above books show how.

  113. Gene,

    First … thanks for the clip … you devil, you …

    Second … “Knowing how to resist is as important as knowing when to resist.” wise, wise words especially for the young … and the pdf was a generous act.

  114. Three myths about the detention bill
    BY GLENN GREENWALD
    Salon, 12/16/11
    http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/

    Excerpt:
    Condemnation of President Obama is intense, and growing, as a result of his announced intent to sign into law the indefinite detention bill embedded in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). These denunciations come not only from the nation’s leading civil liberties and human rights groups, but also from the pro-Obama New York Times Editorial Page, which today has a scathing Editorial describing Obama’s stance as “a complete political cave-in, one that reinforces the impression of a fumbling presidency” and lamenting that “the bill has so many other objectionable aspects that we can’t go into them all,” as well as from vocal Obama supporters such as Andrew Sullivan, who wrote yesterday that this episode is “another sign that his campaign pledge to be vigilant about civil liberties in the war on terror was a lie.” In damage control mode, White-House-allied groups are now trying to ride to the rescue with attacks on the ACLU and dismissive belittling of the bill’s dangers.

    For that reason, it is very worthwhile to briefly examine — and debunk — the three principal myths being spread by supporters of this bill, and to do so very simply: by citing the relevant provisions of the bill, as well as the relevant passages of the original 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), so that everyone can judge for themselves what this bill actually includes (this is all above and beyond the evidence I assembled in writing about this bill yesterday):

    Myth # 1: This bill does not codify indefinite detention

    Section 1021 of the NDAA governs, as its title says, “Authority of the Armed Forces to Detain Covered Persons Pursuant to the AUMF.” The first provision — section (a) — explicitly “affirms that the authority of the President” under the AUMF ”includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons.” The next section, (b), defines “covered persons” — i.e., those who can be detained by the U.S. military — as “a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” With regard to those “covered individuals,” this is the power vested in the President by the next section, (c):

    (NOTE: I couldn’t copy and paste section C, which was included in Greenwald’s article.)

    It simply cannot be any clearer within the confines of the English language that this bill codifies the power of indefinite detention. It expressly empowers the President — with regard to anyone accused of the acts in section (b) – to detain them “without trial until the end of the hostilities.” That is the very definition of “indefinite detention,” and the statute could not be clearer that it vests this power. Anyone claiming this bill does not codify indefinite detention should be forced to explain how they can claim that in light of this crystal clear provision.

    It is true, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, that both the Bush and Obama administrations have argued that the 2001 AUMF implicitly (i.e., silently) already vests the power of indefinite detention in the President, and post-9/11 deferential courts have largely accepted that view (just as the Bush DOJ argued that the 2001 AUMF implicitly (i.e., silently) allowed them to eavesdrop on Americans without the warrants required by law). That’s why the NDAA can state that nothing is intended to expand the 2001 AUMF while achieving exactly that: because the Executive and judicial interpretation being given to the 20o1 AUMF is already so much broader than its language provides.

    But this is the first time this power of indefinite detention is being expressly codified by statute (there’s not a word about detention powers in the 2001 AUMF). Indeed, as the ACLU and HRW both pointed out, it’s the first time such powers are being codified in a statute since the McCarthy era Internal Security Act of 1950, about which I wrote yesterday.

  115. “but I’m not willing to allow further harm to be visited upon the 99% of this nation by grand gestures motivated by anger.” (Mike S.)

    The mark of integrity

  116. Mr. Spindell,

    “I and many others have solid personal reasons for voting for Obama over anyone so far suggested. If I was to lose my social security/medicare benefits, or have them substantially reduced, I would be reduced to poverty.”

    With all due respect, I find it interesting that you believe if Obama receives a second term, this won’t happen.

    The global financial system is now on life-support. The U.S. bailouts have not eliminated this problem but exasperated it: there are now less tools in the arsenal to combat a problem that has grown and spread to European shores. There is a very real risk that the entire house of cards will come tumbling down.

    Obama betrayed us all, you think he’s going to care about your needs?

  117. I’m going to repeat … Obama is shallow … watch Biden for he is the one tasked to work with the Senate and House and thus the one who gets the job done for the Administration … he’s the bigger disappointment.

  118. Our much too recent history from the year 2000 and the election of Bush over Gore is too raw a wound I imagine. People are still pissed off at Nader for saying that there was no difference between those two candidates.

    Even if we all know very well these days that statement about only having one party in America, the Corporate Favors party, is more true than ever.

    It is a terrible conundrum that leaves us few choices in the election of 2012.

  119. Actually, the headline is a bit misleading. Obama set himself up as being on both sides of this issue. In 2009 Obama insisted on indefinite detention. The hoo-haw about the veto is b/c it DIDN”T include American citizens, but that wasn’t what he told us. He kept one promise and broke his smokescreen promise. Either way, he got what he wanted. I didn’t vote for him (or McCain) but i really was hoping for “his hope and change” Well, we didn’t get either, unless you consider that he went much further than Bush as the change – not what I was hoping for.

    Having trouble typing due to anger and frustration.

  120. Shano, When you interject race into a discussion where race has no place, I immediately wonder about your motives.

    Socialism, simply defined, is government ownership of means of production and distribution of capital. Obama began the mantra, “redistribute wealth” prior to being elected. It is true that Obama isn’t the first president who has shown an interest in social programs. FDR began many social programs. We have many socialist programs. How does this change anything about who Obama is or isn’t? It does not change that in any way.

    In 1996, Obama received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America for his Illinois state senate seat. Socialism’s roots may be traced to Marx. Is it fair to suggest Obama may be a Marxist? I think it is unfair unless there is evidence to back up the accusation. In Obama’s case, it is fair to say that he has Marxist associations and appears to have leanings in that direction. He had an interest in the writings of Marx in his early years. Obama, according to Obama, had as a mentor a man named Frank. All who study his past conclude this was Frank Marshall Davis. Davis was a communist. This does not make Obama a communist. It does, when taken with his friendship with men like Bill Ayers, lend credibility to charges that he is very far to the left in his political ideology.

    Americans should not fight over discussions about factual information of who a person is or isn’t. Americans should look carefully at candidates and political figures to decide what we want for America. This discussion began with the National Defense Authorization Act and whether or not it will allow citizens to be detained indefinitely. Forgive me for suggesting that we should not be surprised by the signing of the bill by Obama. If you, as an American do not want to know who Obama is, then don’t attempt to find out who he is.

    For those who do care, Obama may sign the bill, but we also need to look at who in Congress supported this legislation. It is time to clean house.

    Many who do not like things they learn about Barack Obama immediately begin to yell, “You don’t like him because he is black.” That is so lame.

  121. Nate,
    your comment alleging that the actions taken by the Obama Administration have worsened the global economic problems is blatantly untrue. The economy has improved since he took over. Europe is following the Republican mantra of austerity and they are making matters worse for Europe and for Wall Street. We have grown jobs for months even with the Right forcing state and local government job losses. The stimulus has helped our economy, but trying to emulate Europe will not improve the economy. Our stimulus was not designed to fix the World economy. Only ours. Check out the CBO and their numbers of actual job gains, not predictions.

  122. Raf,

    “…The economy has improved since he took over…”

    Improved for who? For you?

    It certainly hasn’t for me. I graduated college with a international business degree in December ’08, 3 months after the economy crashed. Without going into the details of the misery and pain I went through, do pray tell for whom the economy has improved. Homeowners? Pensioners watching their pensions shrivel? College graduates?

    The stock market, yes.

    Didn’t help me any, although in the big picture that’s besides the point. If Germany pulls out of the Euro because they want a strong currency and can’t get it any other way…

    The risk of a global meltdown is very real. Of course, I may be delusional.

    Still doesn’t change the fact that according to the Rule of Law, Obama ought to be on trail, not heading into another term of the highest office in the land. Maybe that’s a fact, maybe that’s an opinion, but that’s where I’m coming from and that’s where I’m heading to.

    There’s a difference between the economy improving and people’s lives improving. Has the sum of people’s lives improved? If not, I don’t give a fuck about the “economy.”

  123. Jlue, I used to read Science fiction in my past, I never do now. He also read many other philosophers, Niebuhru, am sure he read the Bible, etc. Obama is well read. Building infrastructure that helps business and commerce benefits everyone. So we try to do things in community to achieve things we could not on our own. It can create prosperity and does in many cases.

    Nate: I graduated during the recession of the 1970’s. It took decades for my generation to overcome, except for the trust fund kids. It is much, much worse now, then you could move to another state where things might be better. My business deals with the Euro, it is really appalling what is happening. We are all anxious. It could be a catastrophe.

    I am sincerely afraid that if OWS is not successful in wrestling our government from Wall Street, the world will become a very dangerous place.

  124. ah, thanks Gene H.

    Those riot helmets look like the lightweight, white (for hot climates) version of NYPDs riot gear. They bought them with ‘foreign aid’. Stylish.

  125. Nate,
    The world does not revolve around yours or my situations. Overall, it has improved. We were losing hundreds of thousands of jobs per month at the end of the Bush administration. We have produced 14 straight months of private sector jobs. Actually, the 401k accounts that lost during the 2007 and 2008 debacle actually have regained all or most of their losses, if they dd not divest prior to the Wall street comeback.

  126. Raf,

    I don’t believe you.

    I’ll believe what my eyes show me and what my experiences inform me as I search for the truth.

    Until all this “improvement” affects me and the people I love, it don’t mean shit to me.

    Glad to see a true believer. With all due disrespect.

  127. rafflaw: if I had a 401 K, I would see if I could divest from the stock market. 2012 is going to be a tenuous year, imho. Lots of uncertainty in all markets and huge problems in the global economy. ymmv.

    Nate has valid experiences in this recession. Some of the figures they use to predict inflation or unemployment are skewed. Obama could have handled the Wall Street bankers differently. Not that any other solution would have been effective in a few years. These problems have been 30 or 40 years in the making. I am not even all that sure they can be solved at this point besides muddling through like Japan with their ‘lost decades’.

  128. Nate,
    You are right to be sceptical but here’s the difference. The Republicans say they want to get rid of SS and MA, the Democrats say they don’t. With the R’s it’s a sure thing with the D’s it isn’t. Where are the better odds?

  129. Rafflaw wrote:

    We were losing hundreds of thousands of jobs per month at the end of the Bush administration. We have produced 14 straight months of private sector jobs.

    Government figures create an appearance of declining unemployment by changing the denominator used in the calculation, month after month after month. Since 2007 the government claims that the “labor force” has fallen from 62.7% of the population to 58.5% of the population. That’s millions of people who are no longer in the work force. Where did they go?

    Using an equivalent denominator to pre-recession levels, today’s unemployment rate is now over 11%.

    And that’s not counting those who are underemployed, or working part-time and want full time work. Include those, and the figure is closer to 20%. Nate is correct.

    Government unemployment figures are fraudulent. Only public sector workers have been insulated from this reality.

  130. 50 Economic Numbers About The US That Are “Almost Too Crazy To Believe”

    Since December 2007, median household income in the United States has declined by a total of 6.8% once you account for inflation.

    One out of every seven Americans is on food stamps and one out of every four American children is on food stamps.

    According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, 46 percent of all American workers have less than $10,000 saved for retirement, and 29 percent of all American workers have less than $1,000 saved for retirement.

  131. Mr. Spindell,

    If the two parties were a cohesive unit so that one could generally take at face value what is said, the better odds would be with the Democrats.

    That is not the case.

    What is said cannot be believed, that’s why we’re having this conversation at the 11th hour.

    But there is an individual that can be believed, whether one agrees in theory with said beliefs or not. And has furthermore proposed a system where those on social security that need it, ie old people, will have it, while young people would be encouraged in another direction.

    If we still believe Obama and the Dems after today, we deserve them.

  132. I am TOTALLY confused. DeMint voted against the bill, along with Durbin. Feinstein and Boxer voted for it. Sen. Rand voted against it as did Franken. Something was added at the last minute. I’m not a lawyer and I can’t determine who has the facts. The whole thing stinks and the worst of it is that neither the press, the Congress, nor the President is capable of giving us a straight answer in which I have confidence.

  133. puzzling,
    No one has suggested that things are not still tough out there, but the facts of the job creation that has occured is not in dispute. At least not in the figures released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
    Does that mean that people are not still hurting, no. But what it does mean is that things have improved. I am sorry if the facts don’t fit with your vision of the economy, but life is a bitch sometimes. The economy has improved, but it will not continue to improve if austerity is the chosen path. Europe is a good example why we should not follow the path of austerity.

  134. “But there is an individual that can be believed, whether one agrees in theory with said beliefs or not. And has furthermore proposed a system where those on social security that need it, ie old people, will have it, while young people would be encouraged in another direction.”

    Nate,

    I was young once. Orphaned, worked my way through college. I had relatively low-paying jobs until I was 38. Even had to declare bankruptcy in my 20’s. I’ve always been a pretty smart guy, but back then the money was so tight that I had nothing to save. When a family came along for some years it was even tighter, with me working two jobs and my wife working as a full-time executive. Early on if a child became sick and we had to spend $70 for antibiotics, some bill didn’t get paid. My family lived from paycheck to paycheck and we couldn’t build up any savings. We also were quite thrifty in our lifestyle and luckily didn’t use credit cards. It wasn’t until my 50’s that life became relatively comfortable.

    My experience is a fairly common one and really not much different from yours just starting out. Social Security and Medicare have literally saved my life and those of millions of others. This individual you talk of is nothing more than a con man who is drooling to get young peoples retirement savings into the stock market. It’s a game to grab your money and what looks good to you at this age will sour as you grow older. As to the stock market, it is little more than a casino, except that certain of the biggest players have the odds purposely skewed in their favor. The plan this man suggests gives you worse odds than if you went to Vegas and at least in Vegas the game is not rigged to benefit certain players, everyone loses.

  135. Curious & rafflaw,

    Adam Serwer is a reporter. Greenwald is a lawyer who has been a constitutional and civil rights litigator.

    *****

    Mike S.,

    “This individual you talk of is nothing more than a con man who is drooling to get young peoples retirement savings into the stock market.”

    You’re right. The wizards of Wall Street can’t wait to get their hands on the retirement savings of the young–as well as old people’s money. They’re sniffing around for all the cash they can find. Wouldn’t all the payroll deductions that would go to Social Security be a bonanza for them?

  136. Shano, I appreciate your opinion and even agree that what a person reads and sometimes even who he associates may have nothing to do with what he actually believes. In Obama’s case, I think since he is president of a world power and our nation we need to consider those things along with what he has done in the past and what he is doing in the present. We need to consider his words and actions.

    When I do that, I see a socialist, not a fascist (Not even a corporate fascist though he might take the role for awhile). Why is this important to distinguish? The next election will be very important. If the choices are clear it will be much easier, but if they are muddled, people will either not vote or think their vote really doesn’t matter. If the choice is between apples and apples, why vote. The choice is not!

    Americans are going to be told that all the candidates are the same. They are not.

    Obama changed or slowed down dramatically on his transformation process when the mid-term election occurred. He probably realized that he could not be re-elected if he continued on the path he was traveling.

    Painting Obama with a ‘new brush’ may be a campaign technique or it may be surreptitious on the part of his followers. It could be coincidental. I don’t know. I do know that we need to be very aware that Barack Obama has a different vision for America than what we have had before. For those who agree with Carl Marx and socialism, he may the person for whom to vote. For those of us who believe in capitalism, free enterprise, and the constitution he definitely is not. Check out where the money that came in from the first stimulus package was spent. Check out the people in his administration. Do not take other people’s word for this.

  137. “Why is this important to distinguish?”

    Because they are different things. It was good advice when Marcus Aurelius admonished us to “ask of each and every thing what is it in itself” and it’s still good advice today. Apples are not oranges even if you don’t like either.

    “For those who agree with Carl Marx and socialism”

    First, it’s Karl. Second, Marxism and socialism is a false equivalence. In Marxist theory, socialism (in its varied forms) is not an end form in itself, but a historical stepping stone to an inevitable communist form. Marxism is ultimately communism, not socialism. This is where Marxism fails. There are socialist governments/economies that are not communistic that work just fine as an end form (such as the democratically socialist Scandinavian countries – including Norway which has consistently one of the highest qualities of life of any industrialized country). However, where communism has been tried, it has failed because it has fundamental flaws regarding human psychology at its core. The last major bastion of communism, China, has resorted to state capitalism although the mechanisms of government are still under the control of the Communist Party.

  138. You’re right. The wizards of Wall Street can’t wait to get their hands on the retirement savings of the young–as well as old people’s money. They’re sniffing around for all the cash they can find. Wouldn’t all the payroll deductions that would go to Social Security be a bonanza for them?

    And what has the government done with the Social Security money? Congress constantly tries to find a way to increase taxes (get their hands on the worker’s money). How much money would each senior and disabled person now have if their money, rather than being taken by the government, had been invested in a safe interest bearing account over the years. Not all investors have lost money. We hear about those who lose, not the millions who earn money. Look at the big picture!

  139. “How much money would each senior and disabled person now have if their money, rather than being taken by the government, had been invested in a safe interest bearing account over the years. Not all investors have lost money. We hear about those who lose, not the millions who earn money. Look at the big picture!”

    Jlue,

    The “big picture” is that most Americans no longer have the disposable income to finance their retirement through savings, if in fact they ever did. Yes, Social Security is a forced savings plan, but unless you’re willing to see the untimely deaths and suicides of formerly productive working people as they retire, or end the notion of retirement for the 99% entirely, SS is the best option. It really is a question of how much do we care for our community and our fellow Americans?

  140. Well, I’m certainly pleased to see your post on this atrocious deconstruction of everything that America represents. The passive reaction of the brainwashed, mind-controlled, dumbed-down, fluouridated American public provides insight into the world of fascist nazi Germany circa 1936.

    What a travesty!

  141. Jlue, and who is this saviour of capitalism, free enterprise and the constitution? Because we have not had any of those things for a decade or so now. The GOP is worse than Obama on all these issues, so our choice is between the lesser of two evils yet again. The GOP mouth nice platitudes about ‘free markets’ and ‘individualism’ but when they get in power all they do is give even more wealth to the Multinationals that wreck our economy and create even more inequality. Everyone of them except for Buddy Roemer, and he cannot get any air time or consideration. Too bad Ron Paul is so wacky on womens issues, because it makes him look like a hypocrite.

    I’ve been investing since the early ’80’s and there is no way I would like to see Social Security go into this stock market as it is currently. The lack of regulation in the shadow banking system has jeopardized all of us around the world. The development of high speed trading with no change in the regulatory infrastructure rigs the market in favor of the big guys who run these systems.
    I learned investing from an old fashioned broker and none of the old rules apply to this market whatsoever. I exited the market in 2007 and saved my principal, but have been on the sidelines ever since because I truly think the game is rigged now.

    It also depends on things that are out of the control of most people. Sure, over time the market has a good return, but it depends on WHEN you invest your money and WHEN you need to take it out. Some people would be very unlucky to start investing at a market high and then need to take money out during a recession. Those people would lose their retirement.

  142. There is nothing socialist about Obama that I can see. Please enumerate his socialist acts.

    Obama promised us more war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He delivered. He also delivered unprovoked war in Yemen and Libya and a few other countries.

    He promised “only” 50,000 non-combat troops in Iraq – non-combatants to me are medics trained for the no longer existing battlefield injuries and chaplains, mostly Christian in a mostly Muslim country. The troops leaving Iraq are being deployed to other wars.

    He promised health care for all but gave a huge bonus to all the insurance companies by requiring everyone to buy from them.

    The “stimulus” went to banks and other financial institutions which caused the financial disaster and which held onto the money except for the huge bonuses they gave.

    The payroll tax deduction will have a negative impact on the people in the long run b/c their SS benefits are based on the amount of tax they pay now.

    He kept all the Bush repressive measures and extended them: PATRIOT Act; indefinite detention; tax cuts for the rich; directed assassinations, including US citizens. The list goes on…. and on…. and on.

    One more worth mentioning: no one guilty of war crimes or financial fraud has even been charged with a crime b/c the justice department must join him “looking forward” not back. But the job of the justice department is to look back, investigate and charge criminals. Or is this just his way of eliminating the justice department?

    The Bush administration was the worst in terms of oppression and war crimes and the Obama administration has managed to be worse.

    Don’t vote for any of these corrupt politicians. Break free. Vote for an independent. A vote for a lesser evil still results in an evil. To paraphrase a wise person: if you want a change, do something different.

  143. “The passive reaction of the brainwashed, mind-controlled, dumbed-down, fluouridated American public provides insight into the world of fascist nazi Germany circa 1936”

    Gillian,

    I know its easy to blame the victims for the mess we are in, but the fact is that billions have been spent to literally convince people to vote against their own self interest. Many people have been brainwashed and so we have this tragic state of affairs. However, your comparison to Germany in 1936 is apt.

  144. also what do you think taxes are ??? that’s SOCIALISM. i don’t get why people FREAK OUT over that word. those taxes would be fine if they did anything but pay of the interest on our country’s loan from the federal reserve but there’s not ONE law that states you have to pay federal “income” taxes on your wages. “income” is legally defined as CORPORATE profits & gains…..that tax you “think” you’ll go to jail for not paying is COMPLETELY voluntary…people are so brain-washed that they either: pipe in with some 16th Ammendment reference that has NOTHING to do with what they’ve been trained to FALSELY think it does…or they pipe in with the SAME Wesley Snipes crap not knowing the details of that case (which includes defrauding the government in writing a BIG no-no not to mention production company with CORPORATE structure)…or they pipe in with attacking the messenger like someone defending their master who’s whipping them on their plantation. the Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that the government dipping their hands in your “private property” is a totalitarian act. if that isn’t socialism i don’t know what is. do you have to give all 100% of everything so 40-50% does not count or something ??? & why is that relevant to this discussion….if you’re being lied to about that what else do you think is part of the lie ??? what are the other parts of that CONTROL ???

  145. it’s just SO ironic that the people most participating in the socialism here are the ones so desperately fighting anyone saying that because they’re sold on the lie that they’re “free” or “democratic” or whatever word suits their fancy. they think they’re SO smart while they show up for work like they’re supposed to like good worker bees that are CONVINCED that there’s some amount where they transcend that. then they pay an illegal unconstitutional tax every time they’re issued a paycheck (for literally nothing in return). AND they FREAK OUT on anyone who dares to cross their uninformed citizen line with mere words in this case SOCIALISM. whoever walked them into that line (by the way) is an evil genius. the national defense authorization act is just another branch in that tree to join Eugenics, financial tyranny, & the all-purpose scientific rationale. YES this is semantics in a sense BUT that’s what this game is ALL about. it’s word games on steroids & language is the best way to fool a mass majority.

  146. <blockquoteThere is nothing socialist about Obama that I can see. Please enumerate his socialist acts.
    His entire agenda is socialistic. His efforts toward a redistribution of wealth by increasing entitlements and taxing the rich is socialistic. He has been slowed on this by the election in 2010 and the house was no longer controlled by Democrats, but he continues to push this agenda. His takeover of GM in 2009 is an example. With each government bail-out came more government control in both industry and banking. Most people see the huge health care package as government control of what was once a private industry. This is socialism. Shano is partly right when he says we have been on the road to socialism for some time, but he is wrong when he says that it makes no difference which party is in control. It does make some difference and it makes a big difference if one party controls all three branches of government or if they do not.

    You are right-on about much of what you say about Obama, but I really do see him as a socialist and I have lived long enough to know that private enterprise is much better than government control. Someone here said that we should have social security if we are a compassionate people. If Social Security is to be a welfare program then he is right. If it is a retirement fund, he is wrong. The two should be separate and government should not be allowed to take one person’s retirement fund and use the capital for 30 yrs and return it without paying the person the dividends it has earned, but rather give it to those who are in need of welfare.There are ways to accomplish both of these goals, but not if career politicians are in charge of the money and not the way the funds have been used and abused that we currently have.

    Personally, I think we need term-limits and laws that require those who legislate to live by the laws they enact.

  147. We all know it is so much better to let Multinational Corporations run our government and all our government agencies. They are, after all, trying to make a profit!

  148. Amerika is the complete model of the police state, and entirely fascist, maintaining the pretense of private property with all control in the state, waging wars to support the economy and presenting noble visions of Amerikan exceptionalism to justify its quest for global empire and domestic totalitarianism. Of course, anyone who believes Obama is anything but a frontman is delusional anyway. The US government must be destroyed before it destroys the world.

  149. I am sorry but I do not know where Mr Turley thinks that liberals like Obama. They do not. I don’t know of any. They are very critical of him as he is of them. They do not see Obama as a liberal and never have. They saw his voting record before he ran and they knew then as they know now that he is a centrist Democrat. He never leaned toward the left but what he did was, he deceptively campaigned on liberal causes but never came through on those promises.

    Did he pass a stimulus package as large as liberal economists Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz and Nouriel Roubini said we needed? NO
    Did he pass Cramdown (relieving distressed homeowners from having their homes foreclosed on by predatory banks) or a WPA-style jobs program (Gov’t jobs to work on our broken down infrastructure)? NO
    Did he even put a single payer health care plan on the table? Did he fight for a public option? (No! Instead we got the Republican watered down version, that the GOP has been putting on the table for the past 40yrs.)
    Did he reject the generals’ request to further escalate the war in Afghanistan? NO
    Did he shut down Gitmo, secret renditions, or domestic spying? NO
    Did he even begin to address immigration reform? NO
    Did he pass Cap-and-Trade or respond to the BP oil disaster by ending deepwater drilling? NO

    The people who love Obama are centrist Democrats. He has disappointed a lot of people who thought he had better leadership skills – not just liberals.

  150. I’ve been saying this but it seems most people insist on clinging to the two party political model.
    In that model you either are Right or Left; Republican or Democrat. There are no gradations; no other possibilities.
    So Obama- The Liberal. Now from my point of view; Obama is just left of Hitler. Of course I stand to the left of center……..well Ok.. I stand to the far left of center but I’m also somewhere off to the side as well. None of these political chamelions have it right. None ever will because it isn’t in the interest of their a-political Masters.

    But you have it right.

    I say; bup, bup; highly irregular; what?

    Good show though. Jolly good; what?

  151. Lets assume everything you say is exactly correct. On the one hand we have a Republican/Tparty that is so far removed from individual rights (the real individual rights and not their idea of right to exploit people) and fundemental liberal principles; on the other we have a Democratic Party that often does not or cannot do all the liberal things we would like. We also have an American popluation that is increadibly ignorant and strikingly biogted. Add to that we have real danger from people at home and abroad who want to do us great harm.

    Given the complexity and reality of the world, nation, and politics we seem to have by your view a bad choice and worse choice. If Ron Paul speaks the language on this particular issue he is also completely out of touch with other important issues so he is no choice.

    So, stay at home and you have a Republican/Tparty. Vote for Obama and at the very least you buy time for the future.

    If nothing else, the past year has demonstrated the Republican/Tparty is no choice at all and to stay home might as well be a vote for them.

  152. 1zb1,

    I like your line of reasoning, especially: “So, stay at home and you have a Republican/Tparty. Vote for Obama and at the very least you buy time for the future.” I’ve been making the same point for a while hers.

  153. Well said 1zb1,

    This what I keep trying to explain to those who are so against Obama. I tell them that it just doesn’t matter. We have to keep him in for the next four years. Failing to do so and allowing one of the many boobs the GOP is submitting for approval would be a bold statement and testimony to the fact that they can do with us as they please. We have given up. At least if we re-elect Obama it maintains the illusion that we’re buying the load their selling.

  154. Oh Yeah! One more thing. There’s a message for you at the Prof’s desk. Some guy named c3po or something. I don’t know Must be a realative or something………………………………………..

    Oh Da hu-mah aroun he-ah just keeps on gettin’ bett-ah and bett-ah.

  155. I just got this in an email from an old friend. Hope you get a grin out if it. Speaks directly to public sentiment about the group with an 11% favorable rating.

    A driver was stuck in a huge traffic jam on the beltway around Washington, D.C.

    Nothing is moving. A man approaches with a very large canister and knocks on the window.

    The driver rolls down the window and asks, “What’s going on?”

    “Terrorists have kidnapped the members of Congress and they’re asking for a $100-million dollar ransom. Otherwise, they are going to douse them all in gasoline and set them on fire. We are going from car to car, collecting donations.”

    “How much is everyone giving, on average?” the driver asks.
    The man replies, “Roughly a gallon.”

  156. I’ve tried to look at this from a pragmatic view (an unnatural approach for me). For example, I know there are many Gay people who are very unhappy Obama hasn’t come out for Gay marriage even though he ended DADT and even given the reality the R/Tparty would put them all in jail if they got the chance.

    People are upset that he didn’t tear apart the banking industry for what they did. Seniors are upset he is making cuts to Medicare Advantage (which is actually a private insurance program subsidized by other Medicare receipients.

    I get that for every single issue there is a group very upset with what he did or didn’t do. Perhaps I saw from the beginning he was going to try and be a compromiser. When you think about it thats what he really promised. I don’t think he or anyone else anticipated how extreme the rightwing has become.

    What’s the worst thing Obama has done: get healthcare for 30 million people. For this they hate him? What has become of us.

    Personally I think he Obama has done a brilliant job of threading a needle against the most vial politics in decades. this kind of summerizes for me what has happened and what will happen. I’m of an age that I grew up when segregation was still the law of the land. We are not so far removed from those days and there are a lot of people who want to take us back to them. As far as I’m concerned the R/Tparty is nothing more then the party of the old civil war south. They want the government to be broken. Ultimately they want the union broken. As far as I’m concerned we are not just fighting politics as usual but fighting a second Civil War.

    WHAT OBAMA HAS ACCOMPLISHED:

    Saved the country from Republican caused full blown depression.; Healthcare for 30 million people. ; Rained in Insurance Companies ; Financial Regulation of Banking Industry. ; Killed Bin Laden. ; Courage to go after them in Pakistan. (Republicans did not) ; Got rid of Gadhafi in 6 months, 2 billion dollar cost, no American Lives. (Compare to Republicans 10 years in Iraq, trillion dollars, & thousands Americans lost) ; Beat Republicans holding country hostage over debt crisis. ; Ending Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy . ; 3 Trillion in deficit Reduction (Super committee, Bringing Troops Home, End of Bush Tax Cuts for Wealthy) ; Brought troops home from Iraq. ; Stabilized situation in Afghan (Republicans had abandoned) ; Ended Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (a vestige of Republican Bigotry) ; Payroll Tax cut for middle class. ; Extended unemployment benefits. ; Got China to reduce currency manipulation. ; Strengthened America’s Military Position in Asia to confront China. ; Financial support to states and local governments for police & teachers. ; Slowed illegal immigration and deported more criminal illegal immigrants then Bush/Republicans. ; Protected Social Security and Medicare from Republicans. ; Set back Iran’s nuclear program with software virus. ; Opening up Miramar. ; Fixing Republican Donut Hole Drug Plan. ; Saving 100 Billion Dollars on healthcare plan. ; Protecting Patients from coverage denial. ; More health and job help for Veterans.; Saved American Automobile Industry that Republicans wanted to abandon.; Helped get $20 billion Aircraft Sale for Boeing. and more!

    WHAT REPUBLICAN’S HAVE ACCOMPLISHED: ; Caused the worst economic crisis since Great Depression. ; Lied our way into a trillion dollar war in Iraq (that has killed or wounded nearly 50,000 Americans) ; Unfunded war in Iraq. ; Unfunded Tax Cut for Millionaires. ; Virtually abandoned Afghanistan. ; Did not get Bin Laden. ; Caused housing crisis. ; Turned a 3 trillion dollar surplus into a 5 trillion dollar Deficit ; Caused Banking Crisis ; Made the whole world angry at us. ; Sent millions of Jobs to China ; Killed millions of Jobs in America ; 911 ; Held the nation hostage over the debt ; No healthcare. ; Increased the wealth gaps between rich and middle class. ; Assault on personal liberties. ; Ignored China’s growing power. ; Did almost nothing to stop Iran nuclear efforts ; Unfunded drug plan with donut hole ; Gave Tax cuts to the wealthy even as we went to war. ; Republican Appointed Supreme Court gave Corporations more rights then citizens. ; Republican Appointed Supreme Court blocked campaign finance reform.;

    WHAT TO EXPECT IF REPUBLICANS WIN THE ELECTION:

    (Based on past actions and statements by candidates); More Tax Cuts for wealthy and big corporations;; Cuts to Social Security and Medicare and probable effort to eliminate;; Appointment of 2 new Supreme Court Justices like Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito;; Overturning a Woman’s Right To choose;; Deregulation of Financial Industry;; Elimination of regulation that protects the environment, consumers, minorities, workers.; Elimination of worker’s rights to organize;; Ending healthcare for 30 million people;; Elimination of regulation of the Insurance industry;;

  157. 1zb1,
    I like the way you sum up the situation in a concise manner. That makes a compelling closing argument.

    When I look at the panel the Republicans have running, it is a choice between dolts and fruitcake crazy. The frontrunners are a charming con man and a fat ugly con man. The Old Guy has a cult following but no chance at all of being allowed to get the nomination. Wow! What did the country do to deserve this?

  158. What Obama has accomplished?
    Healthcare for 30 million people. – but they have to buy insurance from bloated insurance companies that pay their top executives millions of dollars

    Rained [sic] in Insurance Companies – a bit of regulation in return for a nation of new customers.

    Financial Regulation of Banking Industry – no. It was Clinton that killed regulations and new regulations were compromised to be ineffective. Haven’t you heard that the banks are again gambling with derivatives?

    Killed Bin Laden – right. I got a great bridge in Brooklyn; it’s most probable that Bin Laden died of kidney failure years ago

    Courage to go after them in Pakistan. (Republicans did not) – another country invaded

    Got rid of Gadhafi in 6 months, 2 billion dollar cost, no American Lives. (Compare to Republicans 10 years in Iraq, trillion dollars, & thousands Americans lost) – Another country invaded. How many lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan since Obama took over? Bet folks on Main St. would find better use for the $2 billion.

    Beat Republicans holding country hostage over debt crisis – puleezez. It was a draw.

    Ending Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy . ; 3 Trillion in deficit Reduction Super committee – Exactly what did the super committee agree to?

    Bringing Troops Home – well, actually, they were kicked out by Iraq; good thing too they’re needed for redeployment. However, left lots of mercen- oops, private contractors behind. Also, about 50,000 non-combat troops left behind i.e. medics for battlefield wounds and pastors (mostly Christian in a mostly Muslim country) right?

    Stabilized situation in Afghan (Republicans had abandoned) – I just see more troops, more deaths (I also count the Afghans and Pakistanis that are killed)

    Financial support to states and local governments for police & teachers. – including military supplies to police departs. Ya just gotta love the tanks rumbling down Main Streets.

    Slowed illegal immigration and deported more criminal illegal immigrants then Bush/Republicans. – Agreed far more people being held in detention centers w/o any rights. More people incarcerated for medical marijuana growing/usage.

    Protected Social Security and Medicare from Republicans. – but reduced the amount of SS money being collected so the so-called SS fund shortfall can be exploited later.

    Set back Iran’s nuclear program with software virus – really? I thought that was from Israel

    I’m getting tired of typing and the topic is depressing but I must point out that Bush invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama continued in Iraq, expanded in Afghanistan, drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen, boots on the ground in Libya, Saber rattling in Iran. Troops in Africa.

    Let’s not forget TSA and its sexual assault on those who don’t want to be exposed to more radiation and others picked at random, and the extension of the PATRIOT act, and indefinite detention of American citizens w/o charge, trial, or conviction.

    I don’t see any good option unless an independent leader comes forward. Both parties are totally compromised. Ron Paul is good on the anti-war bit but devastating on domestic policy. A good start to turning the country around would be the passage of Bernie Sanders proposed constitutional amendment that clearly states that corporations are not people. Followed by a complete house- (and senate cleaning).

  159. bettykath,

    Your point is? Which one of the Republican candidates do you think will be better? You know, of course, there will be no viable third party candidate, and if there is, he or she will only drain off votes that could end up putting one of the merry trolls in the Big Office. We saw that happen in 2000. How do you like President Gore?

  160. Otteray Scribe,

    The Republican candidates are a bad joke; great fodder for the comedians. My point is: both parties are f*ing us b/c they are lackies for the corporations that paid for them. I didn’t vote for either McCain or Obama because it would have been picking a lesser evil and we end up w/ a lesser evil. McCain had the longer unsatisfactory record but I listened closely to Obama. He promised an escalation of war. (Why would he refuse to investigate for prosecution the war crimes of the previous administration? Could it be b/c he was going to commit a few himself? ok, it was after he took the oath to uphold the Constitution rather than a campaign promise.) It’s been decades since I’ve voted for a Democrat or a Republican. I’ve voted for independent candidates, mostly Greens, or a write-in, or not at all. My candidates haven’t done well but I hope that at some point you-all wake up and realize that by voting for them, you just encourage the bastards.

    Not only are the candidates corrupt so is the process with the advent of computer voter machines that pick the winner regardless of how the votes are cast and the decision that corporations can buy the candidates and the winners.

    I may not vote again. Participation is a form of endorsement.

    re: the 2000 race. Gore DID win. If you have a beef, take it up with the 5 Supremes that appointed Bush over the majority of the Florida voters.

  161. bettykath, it would never had gone to the SCOTUS had so many votes not been drained off by Nader. Gore would have had a big enough margin that the outcome would not have been so close as to trigger all that litigation and the circus about hanging chads.

  162. BettyKath,
    until we have run-off voting third parties will never be a viable answer. The lesser of two evils is better than letting the worst candidate win.

  163. Keep voting for the lesser evil and that’s what you’ll get. You aren’t going to get anything better until you start voting for it.

    Instant runoff voting would be a great help and for that reason those in power aren’t going to enact it.

    Frankly, I don’t see a lot of difference between what the 2 parties actually give us. The perception seems to be that the Democrats would be more people friendly, but look at what they did when they had both of houses of Congress and the WH. Obama allowed the Republicans to lead. He started every negotiation with a compromised position and let the Reps negotiate him down. Where was Pelosi? Instead of sending Boerner to negotiate with his (Boener’s) counterpart in Congress, he lowered Pelosi’s standing and increased Boener’s by leaving her out and negotiating directly with him as if he were a co-president.

    The Dems have friendlier rhetoric but they are just as nasty as the Reps.

    Nader. Oh, dear. You’ve bought the Democrats’ “bad Nader” bs. Never mind that there were lots of problems with the computer machines that swapped votes from Gore to Bush, machines that counted more votes for Bush than there were voters in the district, the “butterfly” ballot that caused lots of problems for voters, votes that weren’t counted b/c the Supreme’s cut off the recount. Even Pat Buchanan doubted that he got the number of votes he was credited with, votes that probably would intended for Gore.

    Nader wasn’t the only non-R/D on the ballot. There were several. Why not pick on Monica? She got more votes than the difference between Gore and Bush.

    Nader’s votes came from Greens, Republicans, Democrats, and lots of independents, many of them people who would NOT have voted for Gore if Nader had not been on the ballot. They most likely wouldn’t have voted at all. If Gore wanted the votes that Nader rec’d he should have paid more attention to what Nader was campaigning about and actually earned those votes.

    And who are you, or anyone, to suggest that only Democrats and Republicans deserve to be on the ballot? It’s very difficult in most states to get on the ballot if you aren’t a Dem or a Rep. And then, if you have the kind of recognition Nader has, you have to put up with personal attacks that have absolutely no basis in fact.

    I doubt that Nader will run again, but if he does, he’ll get my vote. He may get it anyway as a write-in if there is no acceptable candidate. Cynthia McKinney probably got my vote last time. (I’m not sure. I was soooo delighted to actually have a choice that didn’t involve a lesser evil: Nader or McKinney, that I didn’t make up my mind until I was marking my ballot.)

    If only the lesser evil folks would actually vote their hopes, not their fears, we might actually get a no-evil winner.

  164. bettykath, you live in a fantasy world. The real world of politics is kind of like making sausage. You really don’t want to know how it is made. It was the Nader fan club that gave us George Bush II. As far as I am concerned, that puts Ralph Nader into the top three or four of the Worst Persons of the Past Decade.

    You like the sound of President Gingrich? Keep treading the naive ideological purity path you are on.

  165. bettykath, I am affraid that you are factually mistaken on many of your statements. I won’t go through the whole list but here are a few examples and then I will tell you why you are completely wrong on your position to basically drop out because the system is broken.

    First, “Financial Regulation of Banking Industry – no. It was Clinton that killed regulations and new regulations were compromised to be ineffective. In fact, Glass Steagal was pushed through by the Republican controlled Congress. Many Democrats were opposed to it. Clinton signed it and claims it actually helped mitigate the 2008 crisis. (Personally, I am no fan of Clinton and he did much to undermine the Democratic Party. I am deeply offended by his personal doings. However, I also understand he had to deal with a Republican controlled Congress.

    In any event, most analysts believe the 2008 Crisis was not brought on so much by a lack of regulation but rather a lack of enforcement of regulation under the Bush/Republican control of government. You might notice that efforts to regulate the financial markets under Obama – Dodd-Frank – has met with fiearce attacks by the Republican/Tparty as have consumer protection laws. So however, badly you may think Democrats have done, compared to what you got and will get with the Republican/Tparty there is no comparison.

    Regarding the payfoll bill. In fact Obama proposed paying for it, in other words making up the contribution to SS, with the a small surtax on millionaires. Republican/Tparty blocked this.

    The Debt Crisis. This is one I really love. Obama Cleaned their Clock. think about it, the R/Tparty held the nation ransom. Obama settled it with the supercommittee. What was the outcome when it failed: 1.5 trillion in cuts mostly from defense; and SS and Medicare were protected. In another words, Obama got 1.5 Trillion in Deficit Reduction, the end of the Bush Tax cuts for another Trillion; Troops out of Iraq for another couple of hundred billion. Think about it, he got almost 3 trillion in deficit reduction, no hit on SS and Medicare, and the end of the Bush Tax cuts. The guy really is brilliant. He cleaned their clock on the Debt Crisis.

    The fact is if you can’t see the difference between what the Republican/Tparty wants to do and what Obama and the Democrats have done and trying to do, frankly, I beleive you are just not paying attention. Alternatively, you really are just buying into this invention that “government is broken”. Its not government that is broken, its the Republican/Tparty that is broken and what they want you to believe is that everything is broken because that serves their ends. Don’t by into it.

  166. 1zb1,

    There is not much daylight between the Paulites and the Naderites, psychologically speaking. They are True Believers, in the original Eric Hoffer sense of the term. Not to be shaken by logic, proof or even disastrous outcomes, they keep on the purity path and will not deviate because they Know The Truth. Kind of a combination of obsessive-compulsive and autistic thought process that cannot really be understood by most mortals.

    It is said that the difference between a neurotic and psychotic is that the neurotic builds castles in the air, but the psychotic lives in them. And the psychiatrist & psychologist collect the rent.

  167. Mr. Turley, Please don’t think I don’t share your passion for individual rights, or don’t grasp the implication of some of these laws. There is no doubt that the best way to protect all our rights is to protect the rights of those whose guilt we are feel most certain of or activities most offend us. But I also know there is a time when a tactical retreat is better then an all out defeat.

    It is certainly important to make clear our disappointments and hold our leaders accountable, but doing so in a way that can only make the road ahead more difficult is counter productive. Its seems to me that the best way to insure our rights is to take back congress, and retain the Presidency. As you well know the next president is almost certainly going to appoint at least one and possibly more USSCJ.

    Some people think the election is the ‘economy stupid” but if we really believe in Democratic Ideals its all about the Supreme Court. For those who think it doesn’t matter if Republicans or Democrats win I suggest you just say the words Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas over and over in your head.

    I’m sure, you, Mr. Turley know this better then most.

    I suggest people think about the coming election more in terms of the Battle of Gettysburg rather then just another election between parties more or less the same. If it was lost the world we have would have had would be very different from the world we do have and not for the better. It is the difference between hope for the future and a short road back to the dark ages. That is what is at stake and it is time people wake up to that fact.

  168. You’re the ones living in a fantasy world to think you can make change by continuing to do what you’ve always done. And you really think that the Democrats are working for you. You believe what the administration says. You need more sources. Check out their campaign contributors. They are paying their piper as they have always done.

  169. If you travel around the circle of politics the far right and the far left seem to sit right next to each other at times.

    I am not one for the cut the baby in half approach (ie compromises somewhere half way between the two sides). As we have seen this past year the R/Tparty has set their side so far over to one side that cutting the difference puts you in a place you don’t want to be.

    I guess I prefer the all out war approach as in we are fighting a second civil war. it means having clear objectives but understanding that to win a war you need to make tactical retreats at times; sacrifice some of your forces at times to protect your army, Washington won very few battles but he won the war. Its important to have a clear vision of what victory is about; that there is reason worth sacrificing for; who the enemy is.

    This is like the first battle of bull run. The North thought it was going to be a cake walk but it turned into a rout. People need to understand what is at stake but one still has to be smart about how you fight for your ideals. We are all part of something bigger then ourselves.

  170. bettykath, you know in those movies were a group of people find themselves in a very difficult situation – maybe even fighting for their survivial – and there is always someone who does nothing but complain, complain, complain, complain, and never has anything useful to say or do, and when the time comes to stand and fight they are the first to run. You know that charachter in the movie, well, guess what, its you.

    The world is not a perfect place for sure but still we make choices with what we we’ve got and do the best we can to make it better. You, I’m affraid want a perfect world but are unwilling to do anything that gets it there.

  171. You really don’t know me or what I do.

    I’ve spent more years than many working for change. Sometimes successfully, sometimes not. My energies go into areas where I have some hope for success. Trying to change the makeup of the Democratic and Republican parties is no longer on my list.

    Your comments are completely off base. Get over it.

  172. If you aren’t calling for less revenue, and ideally NONE, less power, less rules across the board on every issue, less government [actually NONE!] you are complicit in evil.

  173. bettykath, well of course I don’t know you. all i have to go by is what you have said here, but perhaps I know more then you think. Its all well and good what you have done, but the real question now is what you will do and what will happen if we all do nothing.

  174. A-c, there are very few countries where people can get away with not having to pay taxes if they don’t want to. Somalia is calling. I hear the weather there is good this time of year.

    There are a few small uninhabited islands scattered around the globe as well. Have fun.

  175. The stereotypical fascist authoritarian response. “Submit to unprovoked aggression and coercion, flee the tyranny I desire over you, shut up or else.” Fuck you. I’m going nowhere. Somalia has a government, first of all. The US government murders people everywhere and controls the escape routes and my property here is mine. I will defend myself and my property. Don’t tread on me you fucking fascists. I and many others and many more every day have had enough of your tyranny and eternal world war of empire. Fuck your empire, fuck your trillions of unjust rules, fuck your whole system.

  176. Pffft. I ran an international BBS long before there was the “web.” The technology would be more advanced without government. We don’t need rulers. We need equality under the law, the non-aggression principle.

  177. Sorry AC, you are obviousely dilusional AND ignorant of the facts. Your thinking and grasp of reality falls somewhere after the dinasours but before the cavemen.

  178. Dear Mr Turley, associates and Americans,

    It is good to see debate about the new power to do to everyone else soon upon the NDAA Bill becoming Law Mr. Turley, as it is an important step for the mainstream internet community that they will maybe now understand what the authorities have been doing to us is the same as the NDAA for several decades already.

    A relatively small vocal group including myself have been telling anyone who would listen about our being attacked in our homes by the authorities where essentially the country is a battlefield, we have received no due process and we are interned in this hell permanently just as the NDAA Bill proposes. The method they are using on us may not be traditionally recognized as the NDAA but it is the same in principle. The authorities have been developing and refining for some 75 years or more implantable (in vivo) devices placed in the body by surgery covertly without the knowledge or consent of the individual and since around the mid 1960’s has been doing so in great numbers to Americans. There is also the use besides these secret surgery devices the use of directed energy not unlike that from a microwave oven to attack people in their homes. We are being tortured yes in our homes by the authorities! We have been ignored by most internet reporting personalities and that may now change as those whom have not wanted to believe such could be happening or were afraid to talk about it for fear they too would be affected, may now with the NDAA on the horizon realize their silence will be foolish and do nothing but place themselves in danger from the same fate as well. There are millions of mentions on the net as to websites that talk specifically about these atrocities. Merely look up the following phrases “electronic torture in my home” “dew weapons attack” “mind control attack “victim” to name a few. It is time for such a topic to be the main topic of conversation or we may well wake up and find those internet personalities that may have been able to warn us have taken ill and cannot make even the decision to leave their bed, they can disable a person to the point where they are sidelined and not even aware f what has happened. For those whom realize too late to speak up now leave those of us fighting against it in a very bad position alone. You will find information of value on the following website http://www.us-government-torture.com as to symptoms of being attacked and other information that may be useful.

  179. A-c, I know all about you and how old you are. You are not old enough to have run a successful anything before there was such a thing as the Internet. BTW, the photograph is not particularly flattering. It does not matter, really, but no one cares about your bragging. You are not the first person busted here trying to invent a persona that does not exist. Your writing indicates a marked lack of maturity and judgment, as does some of your past behavior in the meatworld. Just give it up and get some help.

  180. If this law has been in place since 2001 then why has it taken until now to have this brought to our attention? I am not by any means justifying what Obama did, but I find the timing of this whole thing to be odd. It is possible, that this was done to turn the people on Obama? I predict that we will see another Democrat running for President–possibly and most likely Hillary Clinton. This whole thing wreaks of scandal–definitely something the Clintons are notorious for. Gawd help us all of another Clinton gets into office. Bill is already pushing for a constitutional amendment to allow more than 2 terms.

  181. lol at putting the words obama and innocent in the same sentence. He is totally and utterly evil. He has signed away the bill of rights in their entirety. He should be impeached and tried for [mass] murder. He is a psychopathic criminal.

  182. Hey Jonathan, were you this outraged when Bush originally wrote to strip our liberties back in ’06 with the Military Commissions Act of 2006? Why did you leave that party out? Why did you also omit how the (evil) ACLU tried to sue the government for taking away our civil liberties and ran into a corrupt Dept of Justice? “9/11 .. 9/11 .. enemy combatants … 9/11.”

    http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-letter-senate-strongly-urging-opposition-s-3930-military-commissions-act-2006

    The only thing Obama did was get the military, and courts, involved in a freedom stripping, flawed bill, by of course, George Bush!

  183. Kai, Truthfully, neither Bush nor Obama wrote either bill. Congress writes and passes legislation. If you really care about which party is responsible for writing what legislation go back to 2006 and find out who was on the committee and who voted for the legislation. Bush and Obama both signed the legislation that has been mentioned, however, the bill is different that Obama signed this year. There is no need for any of us to be ignorant and willfully partisan or to try to pretend the party in control now is for the rights of the common man. Find out what you need to know about who writes the bills, who votes for the bills and who signs them. Find out what was in the 2006 bill and what was in the bill this year. Just because we vote for someone or want to believe in someone, does not make that someone a good American fro either party. What they do is what is important. “The proof is in the pudding.”

    It is time for Americans to stop the partisan pandering and start acting like citizens who care about what happens to this country.

  184. It is the natural course of government. You cannot legalize crime and then expect the criminals to “limit themselves.” The concept of limited government is purely utopian.

  185. We need a constitutional amendment to limit government and stop leaving it up to the fox, in this case, to build the chicken coop. We, as citizens, really need to get more involved in limiting government, setting term limits (STEP ONE) and seeing to it that media doesn’t make our decisions for us with a one minute sound bite that is meaningless. Having 24/7 news has allowed us to believe that everything we hear from news is meaningful. Some of it is merely filling air-time that they have to fill. What Congress is doing – that is meaningful and we usually don’t know about it until it is too late.

  186. lmao. They don’t care what is written on that old piece of paper. That paper can’t stop them. That paper has no authority. That paper is irrelevant. Government cannot be limited. Government is the legalization of crime. If an individual can’t tax, regulate, license, register, conscript, etc., then they can’t delegate such rights. Government is an unnecessary evil. Its a simple matter to just privatize everything. No more rulers. Equality under the law.

  187. Actually it’s about the same in style but definitly worse in intensity.

    The People who pushed for the seperation from England in 1776 used propaganda and false reports of attrocities to convince the people to revolt in order to be able to control and feed their flourishing trade businesses (read that smuggling businesses) without interference or taxation.

    In the end; they were only able to convince about one third of the colonists to revolt. Fully two-thirds never desired to seperate and remained loyal to King George who had a reputation for being far beyond fair with his American Colonies taxing them at lower rates than any of his other colonies and alolowing them many freedoms.

    They and the 1% today are exactly the same kind of people. Only interested in money and power and a lust for war and the suffering of others.

    They will not rest untill they controll all. they will not rest untill all nations are a thing of the past and only theu determine the future of Mankind.

    The answer; no matter which angle you view it from is frightening. Politically; Religiously; when you strip away the trappings;the culprits look just alike. Act just alike. Talk just alike

  188. be prepared people.for the ndaa law will reach into web sites to find out who is against the united states gov.this is america to-day.bush started this after 9-11 when our own goverment attacked us and now obama just finisheds puting the last nail in the coffin of america.now do you think 9-11 is an inside job?

  189. 2012 isn’t the end of the world, its the end of our country. The end of our freedom. I feel bad for the children being born into the era of disaster.

  190. […] of the dishonest treatment of the issue by the White House since the law first came to light. As discussed earlier, the White House told citizens that the president would not sign the NDAA because of the provision. […]

Comments are closed.