Quoting Obama: "I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists."
President Obama signed the controversial NDAA into law, and issued a long signing statement that includes sanctions on Iran, 12/31/11. (photo: Jason Reed/Reuters)
Obama Signs Homeland Battlefield Bill Into Law
31 December 11
President Obama today signed the highly controversial Defense Spending Bill. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), with its so-called Homeland Battlefield provisions, allows, according to many legal scholars, the indefinite detention of US citizens by the US military. What is most striking is a lengthy signing statement by Obama, in which he maintains his reservations about the Homeland Battlefield provisions, saying, 'I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.' His defense of civil liberties in the signing statement was passionate. Nonetheless, at the same moment, he signed the bill into law. -- ma/RSN
resident Obama signed on Saturday the defense authorization bill, formally ending weeks of heated debate in Congress and intense lobbying by the administration to strip controversial provisions requiring the transfer of some terror suspects to military custody.
"I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists," Obama said in a statement accompanying his signature.
The White House had originally threatened to veto the $662 billion bill, considered must-pass legislation, over the language that requires mandatory military custody for suspects linked to al-Qaida or its affiliates, even if they are captured in the U.S. Just before the House and Senate passed the bill comfortably, the White House said it would support the bill’s compromise language that, as tweaked by conference committee, would not impede the administration’s ability to collect intelligence or incapacitate dangerous terrorists.
Still, administration officials have admitted publicly the final provisions were not the preferred approach of this administration.
"Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people," Obama said in Saturday's statement.
Responding to the White House’s concerns that the provisions would limit the flexibility of law-enforcement and counterterrorism officials, lawmakers added written assurances the bill would not affect existing waivers of the FBI or any other domestic law-enforcement agency. They also gave the president the authority to waive the military-detention provisions, and dropped language requiring military tribunals for all cases.
Many Democrats and human-rights groups have decried the bill’s language that would allow indefinite detention for suspected terrorists without a trial - including Americans arrested in the United States. Supporters of the detainee provisions argue that the bill merely codifies existing law as it applies to Americans and legal resident aliens, as they retain the right to challenge their detention in court.
The bill also sets in motion strong sanctions against Iran’s Central Bank, in an attempt to rein in Tehran’s nuclear program, by impeding Iran’s ability to process payments for the roughly $90 billion in oil and gas it sells each year. The measures, which would penalize any foreign financial institution that does business with the central bank, sparked threats by Iranian officials to cut off access to the Strait of Hormuz, which could block transportation of most oil exports from the Persian Gulf.
The administration retains a national security waiver for the sanctions - and one to waive the petroleum sanctions if it determines there isn’t enough global supply to offset the lost Iranian oil - but has said it opposes being held to a timeline that could fragment to the international coalition working to isolate Iran or potentially spike oil prices.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 20 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
it is far worse to be betrayed, and have one's country betrayed by someone who claimed to know better -
I fell for his b.s., as did everyone who voted for him.
YOUR AREA OF CONCERN HAS LITTLE TO DO WITH DEFENSE. HOW DO YOU SUGGEST THAT HE FORCE BANKS AND CORPORATIONS TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE AVERAGE AMERICAN? WE DON'T WANT TO INSTIGATE WHICH JUST CAUSES CONFUSION AND PUSHES US FURTHER A WAY FROM THE GOAL.
Is there any politician that isn't part of the problem these days.
He was put forth to run for U.S. prez to take up where Bush left off. They knew he could bs his way through everything to make we the people think he was working for us. But if you listen, he doesn't say anything. Just well-crafted, meaningless phrases.
I saw through him during his campaign so voted for myself.
Don't vote for either party! Vote for Jill Stein - Green Party. She stands with the 99 percent!
Not sure about Rocky A. He's a politician so that's a bad sign for starters.
I read that MT is going to recall Dem senators who voted in favor of the detention law. So instead of bitching all over the Interenet, why not get together and do the same in each state?
I remember a great article in the NY Times Magazine section some time ago which described what kind of law professor he was - chilling - appears he is a bit cold-blooded - he should f*ck himself.
voterocky.org
I have not gotten through all the material on his website yet, but what I have heard/read so far is enlightening.
Turley is an American unlike his subject who has proven this by destroying the most fundamental American values and laws. No birther issues here, I simply see a man proving he cares not one wit for our most precious of freedoms and protections from the absolute tyranny which spurred the founding of our nation.
Maybe Obama signed it to let the court decided. But me I would have gone on national TV and vetoed it live and say why.
You are right a coward and liar. He wants the court to make the decission.
Look into Jill Stein for U.S. prez. She support a singlepayer health care system and is on our team with all else.
If Rocky doesn't support singlepayer, that's not good.
Perhaps a dose of "man juice" is needed.
What I found was this book putting me in Obama's shoes. It is a powerful experience, and until you can do that, calling him a "coward and a liar" is a cowardly act in itself. Please be honest enough with yourself to consider that there is more to being thrust into the Presidency than anyone can know without being there yourself.
Try to imagine being presented with the responsibility for Iraq and Afghanistan, one war an unnecessary horror, and the other a neglected mess, and having to make the decisions necessary to clean up the situation. It was not easy, and it still isn't easy, and then add in the screwballs in the Republican Party who still hanker for more Bushwhacking. Read the book.
Since Democrats have failed to act intelligently or responsibility to put up a Primary Candidacy against Obama, ...
I encourage all voters to register Republican and vote for Ron Paul -- or Gary Johnson, or maybe Huntsman -- in the Republican Primaries.
There is no reason to stay as a Democrat anyway, and this will allow progressives to at least impact the 2012 Presidential Election in a more positive way.
Happy New Year!
The Congressional dynamic is very important; so it depends upon how much they could get done. For instance, outside the Presidents executive authority, how much would Congress allow Ron Paul to do?
However, in terms of worse, there is nothing POLITICALLY worse than vindicating Obama's marginalization of progressives and their issues... NOTHING WORSE!!! ... than allowing that strategy of calculated betrayal to be politically successful, which leaves voting liberals, progressives, and independents with (what many consider) no choice at all.
Never mind the fact that RON PAUL IS -- and Gary Johnson (less likely to be a viable contender) -- ABSOLUTELY MORE PROGRESSIVE than Obama on MANY key issues.
And unlike the Obama apologists, I am not ruled by fear. I will not relegate objectivity and clarity for (delusion) when it is simply (psychologicall y or emotionally) convenient, or rationalize everything political into a comparative, nor will I accept what they call "political realities" when I know it is chosen -- or preferred -- capitulation.
Read Glenn Greenwald, at http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/ . If not for the numskull mindset of the modern-day nitwit Democrat, he would be the number one source of relevant news and objective opinion on politics, civil liberties, and media for the left.
Noam Chomsky has an interesting rejoinder to someone who decried the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils. "If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you get less evil."
The key is in evaluating which is less evil.
Would you say that killing hundreds of children with drones is less evil than any Ron Paul stance you hate? How about assassinating people, including Americans, without even charging them with a crime, much less trying them in a court? Multiple aggressive wars (waged even when Congress votes against war)? Claiming infinite presidential powers? Protecting torturers and destroying the lives of whistleblowers?
If Ron Paul were elected president, there is no way any of us could just go about our lives and assume that he’d represent us. We’d have to organize constantly to keep and expand our rights that he opposes. But the same is true for Obama. And whereas Ron Paul would actually represent me on some issues of vital importance to me, Obama does not and will not.
That said, I like Rocky Anderson and agree with those posting that we should organize around him. But I’d like to see Ron Paul win the Republican primary. That way he’ll at least keep important issues in the conversation.
I think that if we organize around and vote for the person with a solid record of legal, moral, common sense actions that benefit the people of the United States (as well as the rest of the world) and the planet itself, instead of for whomever we might think has the best chance of winning, then we’d all be better off. Of those people running, Rocky Anderson fits that bill best. If we organize around him instead of Obama he has a good chance of winning.
Ron Paul, regardless of whether you’d want him for president, has ideas that should be heard. He’s raising subjects that all the Republicans candidates and Obama are avoiding. Having him in the mix will force candidates to discuss issues that a lot of us want addressed.
You don't have to vote for either since they are really one in the same. Jill Stein is running. btw, she ran against Cadillac Deval Patrick and Repuke Charlie Baker in the last gubernatorial election.
Democrats are no less evil than Republicans. Look at what they're doing! Killing us while they cry all over themselves.
..."I supported this fool, and he fooled me once, but not twice".
Can you expound on voting Republican to bring the system down faster...what would happen and is there no other way?
His baggage is the same as many libertarians would have -- naiveté . It is simple-minded to believe that business will regulate itself; in finance and on environmental issues, regulation is key.
But not all eggs are in the Executive basket. People need to vote out Congressional incumbents -- in PRIMARY ELECTIONS -- and elect principled candidates (and Democrats need to NOT use the Rahm Emanuel approach, which works against true progressives and better candidates and forwards Blue Dogs and establishment candidates).
Voters really have the power to change things. But they must think and draw conclusions and strategize outside beltway and Party (propaganda) conventional wisdom, much in the way the Occupy Movements are doing.
But the Occupy Movements are in jeopardy in many ways. Many in Occupy are young and enthusiastic but do not understand how they will be subtly manipulated and tweaked over time and on direction to undermine the effectiveness they have and the goals they could otherwise achieve.
2013 should (could) be a great year for politics, even with the disappointments . Let the hammer come down.
Vote Ron Paul in the 2012 Republican Primaries.
HNY, JL
_________________________________________
nice2blucky 01:08 AM on 07/09/2008
Senator Obama,
Just the idea of McCain, or any other Republican as a future President, is dreadful.
However, voting for a weak, bending, professor of "political realties," politically calculating, facilitator of the neo-con agenda is far too painful to bear.
Your justification and words, on this issue, are as hollow as anything Joe Lieberman has to say.
When you win, it won't be because you buckled on telecom immunity.
So pardon me if I save me vote for you for your second term; that is, should you earn it.
___________________________________________
Well, Obama did not earn it.
As for why I will vote Republican in 2012: Primary Elections are the only elections with choice. Democrats do not have any choices different than what we have. Republicans do.
The proper mindset for voters should be "from Primary to Primary." Not, "Our side won so in eight years we will decide on another." What's missing from the DNA of partisan voters is the understanding that party loyalty absent of objective scrutiny and accountability is foolishness and the cause of poor or non-represetation.
In the 2008 General Election for President, I voted for Cynthia McKinney. This time, I will likely vote for Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party.
I quit the party about the same time Elizabeth Warren did, when a fund raiser told us we had to fight dirtier than Democrats. A recent example of how dirty they have gotten s at http://www.readersupportednews.org/news-section2/319-67/9185-alec-linked-group-revealed-as-major-secret-donor-in-referendum-on-maine-voting-rights, where they spent 3/4 of all funds spent hyper-hypocriti cally claiming to be wanting to counter out of state secret money sources influencing the election (while they were the ALEC backed out of state secret money doing exactly what they were supposedly complaining about).
For me, it's like shopping at Wal-mart, which I almost never do, as well as patronage of other questionable organizations and for using certain products. I just first try to find other alternatives, and beyond that only go to Wal-mart, etc. when it's necessary (or a hassle to do otherwise) for me.
Yes, I have an occasional streak of convenient rationalized selfishness at the expense of others whom I deem otherwise lacking or unworthy.
To your interesting question:
While it would be far more appropriate (honest) for Obama to run as a Republican, you should be careful about disqualifying your entire ballot by that action -- voting write-in on another Party's Primary. Check the rules beforehand. Prior to Rocky Anderson's appearance in the new Justice Party, many people were going to write-in Elizabeth Warren on their Democratic Primary ballot.
In terms of effectiveness, I would say that a Republican Primary vote for Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, or Huntsman would be better, especially since Ron Paul could win the nomination, which incidentally frightens many establishment Republicans and their media henchmen and (in-the-pocket) hack journalists.
I recently watched the 49th Star (http://www.the49thstar.org/)about how Alaska became a state (before Hawaii, where I'd attended a few 49th State fairs, and was totally shocked when Alaska managed it before them). Their careful crafting of a constitution and electing a complete shadow slate of legislators, ready to be fully operational from day one, seems an excellent model to follow. Perhaps, as some others have suggested, we should have a fully fleshed out progressive shadow legislature that gets candidates elected where possible, but also votes (unofficially, to be sure)on all actual legislation and proposed legislation tied up by those who manipulate the regular legislatures. I'd like to see a fully fleshed out comparison of the actual legislature with an item by item comparison of how a more progressive government would have voted.
Recent research shows an ancestor was Jon Washburn, the 1st Secretary of the Plimouth Company (before the Speedwell was sent) and others who as part of the Committees of Correspondence. Lets see if how they did it can be applied today.
But realistically speaking, it is a wasted vote or vote of negation which strikes me as passive-aggressive.
I think it would be better to be proactive and try to accomplish a definitive goal. There are options here.
1). Get another democrat on the primary
by signing a petition requesting that Obama step down and hand over the mantle to a democrat who believes in democracy.
2). Vote for a Republican for the reason John Locke has stated.
GREEN is good but not realistic or a high priority at a time when Obama as POTUS has signed a fascist bill into law.
I'm even more incensed that these very same people, Raul Grijalva, Dennis Kucinich & Bernie Sanders, & others like them, continue to remain silent while Barack Obama & the Congressional Dems continue on this dangerous path as if they haven’t learned any lessons from the past. We all know the definition of insanity, don’t we? I’m even more surprised that, after the unmitigated disaster of Nov/2010, that both Nancy Pelosi of the House & Harry Reid of the Senate have not learned their lessons and continue on a path that will inevitably spell the end of the Democratic Party as we know it.
I like Ron Paul's stated foreign policy of stopping these stupid illegal wars of aggression by the U.S. for world empire & his stated purpose of closing a large number of our military bases overseas. I like his stated purpose of restoring our Constitution & our Bill of Rights. The question one has to ask oneself is whether or not he's being sincere about these stated purposes.
But Ron Paul's domestic policy of survival of the fittest, getting rid of the entitlements & other govt agencies that are important to our health & welfare is totally unacceptable & crazy. And to vote for any of the other Republican candidates would be absolute sheer lunacy if survival of the common man in this country is important to us.
Barack Obama & the Congressional Dems that have supported his very weak leadership against the Repubs or his purposeful complicity with them, whatever the case may be, have placed their voting base into a very delicate & precarious position. What to do come Nov of 2012? If we support Obama & the Dems, we are then awarding them for massively betraying us, & if we punish them by voting for another political party outside of the Dems & the Repubs, we may be cutting our noses off to spite our face. So what is there for us to do? That's the question.
Dr Paul is an individualist - your rights come from the fact that you are a human being. You get no more or less rights if your white/black/mal e/female/theist /atheist/gay/st raight .. your rights are because YOU exist.
as Dr Paul points out one of his heroes says you are to be judged by the content of your character.
Look into Jill Stein and some other Greens who are running.
What I keep wondering is WHERE IS THE THREAT???!!! Seems that the ONLY persons who will be detained are those who have any "objections" to the way the US threatens its own citizens!!! [You want examples?. . .Look no further than "Occupiers!"]
And, assuming that Obama is "thoughtful" and "considerate" what happens when we have a person of "lesser ethical standards". . .Such as Mad King George or his henchman, Curly-Lipped Cheney??!!!
Yes, it sucks. How much worse would it have been if Mitt Romney or (gasp) Newt Gingrich were in charge?
Sad but true. Your freedomn is now the property of the military industrial complex and the fat cat corporations.
Hogwash ! If Mr Obama was as passionate as his rhetoric was formulated to suggest ... why did he betray what he claimed to have been his convictions? The answer may be as simple as "political expediency".
Look for a lot of other voters to give you a thumbs-up: people like me, who voted for you enthusiasticall y, believing the promises and sighing great breaths of relief after an unbearable Bush Jr. Presidency, will not be snookered again.
Which Republican congress person said not to long ago that Americans are so fearful that if they were asked to spend 99cents on each tax dollar on national defense they would agree.
We've recently discovered that the wealthy own national security and are doing everything they can to squash dissent. It is my prediction that "they" will not hesitate to put anyone in jail, fabricate a national security threat and build prisons to hold anyone they want. The war has come home.
Is his signing statement a message, an argument for use by "we the people" in a time when courts are not corrupt and presidents don't have guns at their heads and justice and executive power are used for the good of everyone?
Or should I just get over hoping Obama is a good man?
This new homeland battlefield law is every bit as bad as everyone is describing it.
I remember you stating very clearly that you intended to be the President of EVERYONE.
When you were elected, voted into office by a sweeping majority, each voter had any number of reasons for voting for you. But I am sure that EVERY voter had one reason in common--- We hoped that we were electing a LEADER.
How sad this has turned out to be a false hope, a dashed hope.
So am I correct to assume there are many people who want a totalitarian state to rule every aspect of your pathetic lives?
That Freedom and personal responsibility are scary and unnecessary since we have Lord Obama to take care of us????
Nope. Just you.
Everytime I think you might find your way, you waffle again. I have decided that I will NOT Vote in the coming elections for any American, and Most Certainly, NOT For You!
You have proved beyond a doubt that you are not even remotely qualified to be CINC. You lay claim to being a Constitional scholar but then you crap on the bill of rights and Support Fascism... There is something seriously wrong with you Mr. President. I used to think that no one could equal GDubya, but you just keep on, keepin' On.
After having lived for over 73 years, most of it in Uncertainty, and Dissoulution, among the lies and corruption. I thought that you as a bi racial person would be bringing a new future and honor back to the White House.
I had so very much wanted to believe.....
Never More!
Kenneth R. Jackson
CPO USN Ret.
French National and Damn Proud OF It.
Even worse, why is the issue only about the detention of Americans on American soil? What about the rest of the world's population, whose potential for (and more likely) arrest who are also subject to this American law?
Since when did American law apply internationally ?
"Constitutional scholar", my distal digestive orifice!
Shame on you President Obama. Shame on you!
What a shame that this is happening, aided and abetted by a turncoat and spineless Democratic administration.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
example of theatrical absurdity!
I stupidly voted for Bush, more in opposition to Lieberman for his role in overcoming Clinton's Veto of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Lieberman has revealed himself as more of a foul, big finance supporting, Republican than even I could have imagined, but may have been less "evil" on other issues I also are about. The only cure may be preferential voting that would more clearly block candidates most voters don't want (LePage in Maine for example). I'd probably add Nader in for 2nd choice over any of the candidates I now see running.
That both Dems and Repugs conspired to betray our Constitution should put to rest any serious thought that there is a significant differences between the parties and certainly between Obama and the Cheney/Bush cadre.
The NDAA is proof positive of just how much the Occupy protests rattled the establishment. With the NDAA the judicial cattle prod is now poised to quell any serious challenge to the military-corpor ate state. Likewise, you can consider the NDAA proof positive that we are going into Iran. When that debacle ramps up under some pretense of national security we will see the usual fear mongering jingoism of the police state used to justify filling up those FEMA camps.
I supported Obama in '08. The level of betrayal he has displayed is of Shakespearan dimensions.
We need to mourn the final passage of our democracy ... and then begin to organize because the fight for America is now on!
Wake up.
Speak out.
Act.
Why build more prison when The Homeland can just use its borders as walls? The mere fact you are US citizens will soon make you suspect in other countries. Look, they'll say; "some of the cattle/chattel from the US are trying to jump the fence again."
During WWII, the US military detained 110,000 Japanese Americans, 11,000 German-American s and 3,000 Italian-America ns, all deemed potential terrorists. A Japanese-Americ an senator has just voted for a law that negates the 1971 Non-Detention Act, created specifically to make another mass detention impossible. Sadly, itʻs now again possible, with the help of Dan Inouye.
The Senate has just passed the National Defense Authorization Act with provisions specifically requested by Obama that void core constitutional protections: the right to be assumed innocent unless proven guilty and the right to be argue your innocence in front of a judge or a jury of your peers.
The military now has authority to detain anyone, anywhere, forever, for any vague activity deemed in support of terrorism. This “support of terrorism” does not even need to be directed against this country. Americans supporting Arab Spring uprisings against the ruthless dictators of US client states may be subject to the same indefinite military detention in Guantanamo-styl e prisons — for life.
The bill itself, opposed by the heads of the FBI and the Dept. of Defense, is an act of terrorism against the constitution. Those who voted for it should be the ones subject to “indefinite military detention.”
Obama lies for what reason?
What are his real intentions? Maybe we should inspect his birth certificate more closely. Or at least talk to his grandmother
He lacks character and a strong core. He's a man of rhetoric without the conviction to make good on his spin or feigned promises.
I don't think I have ever been more disillusioned than by "our" President. Even over finding out about Santa Claus was not nearly so painful!
I think I am going to look more closely at Huntsman. He may switch and run as an Independent.
We absolutely must get rid of the two parties we have if this "Democracy" is going to survive!
Obama is one hell of an actor. It is my belief that he has contracted the very same disease that afflicted George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the strong desire to be two-bit dictator, not just over the American people but over the world as well.
John, you know that old saying; "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I don't really know why Obama became a turncoat against the very people that won him the presidency in 2008, but it obviously became too much of a temptation for him not to accept the power he had inherited from the Bush administration and to build on it as he has.
God help us all!!
Those who can't, teach...Constit utional Law.
Then Betray its Foundations
No, the courts are, by and large, run by repuglican political appointees.
Be careful what you wish for.
Isn't the general rule that if there is any doubt that it isn't the right thing to do NOT TO DO IT?
Surely we aren't going back to
"Lettre de cache",first used in 1718,often by the wealthy to get rid of certain persons via imprisonment without trial or appeal
To understate this "Aw Heck"
McCarthy in power,detention of Japanese Americans during WW2. Quantanamo Bay are SOME recent examples brought to mind.
This law APPEARS to be designed to quell dissent but hopefully it will have the opposite effect as those opposed to the war in Vietnam had and those who fought for Civil Rights.
What the hell did you sign it for then?
Just when he almost had some of us fooled that, even though he had NO regard for the ideals of those who elected him, he was willing to do what they wanted because they elected him, he pulls this, last minute before the New Year, fast one. Did he think we'd be so busy with our noise makers and cute hats we'd stop paying attention? I hope the next brave citizen who hands him a note simply writes, "Mr. President, we are paying attention". I'm sure that statement is now enough to be tortured indefinately, but who knows? Maybe someone will let him know what he'll be in for when he occupies a seat next to nixon and the bushes in the afterlife.
As far as I'm concerned this is the worst display of political cowardice and/or duplicity I've ever seen. This makes the lies leading up to single-payer suddenly being "off the table", appear palatable in comparison.
Linda? Are you out there? Any thoughts, that don't involve "never vote repuglican"?
Exactly how are we supposed to avoid voting repuglican? It seems to me that that's all we have running for president right now.
SOMETHING TELLS ME CHENEY IS STILL THE "VICE" PRESIDENT.
He was carrying a bigger shovel.
Since that won't happen, we need to seriously figure out how we can get a 50 state referendum to change the electoral process to allow meaningful 3rd party participation.
We need:
1. ONE national intra-party primary
2. an automatic runoff between the top two vote getters.
If we had this, right now, Anderson would probably be the left-wing representative and Obama would represent the far right.
Instead, what we have is Obama representing the far right and the presumptive repug representing the lunatic fringe of the extreme far far far off the edge psychotic far right.
Oh... and people like Anderson sitting on the sidelines wishing they could somehow participate.
Barack Obama coming full circle.
Warren, et al are not realistic options. Obama has betrayed the citizens of the US by signing ina fascist law. If not HRC, who and why? We are facing a bloody revolution. Let's stop it or at least try to detain it.
he knows, though, he's the only alternative to reactionary republican't craziness. if progressives sit out the election, then amerika will send in a clown.
hopefully, in 2016, we can fund a progressive that can stand up to the hypochristian, goose-stepping greedsters and economic know-nothings and end this madness. as we fall deeper and deeper into a black hole with no safety net in sight.
DID YOUR REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS AND YOUR SENATOR VOTE FOR THIS? DID THEY FIGHT IT? ARE YOU GOING TO REELECT THEM? ARE YOU GOING TO WORK FOR THEIR DEFEAT? DO THEY KNOW IT?
Let's spread the blame in the numerous ways it also deserves!
pointed to himself and said:
"The responsibility stops here" and he was respected for doing so. Blaming others and continually making excuses for oneself is beneath the kind of character and dignity we have always expected in a POTUS. Signing a fascist bill is something many did not expect even from a spineless "empty suit" like Obama. Can you even imagine JFK, FDR or Bill Clinton signing a bill like that. If GWB had signed it, he would've been ridiculed and threatened with impeachment.
He boasts of getting Osama Bin Laden, but even that was accomplished in a cowardly manner.
We need a leader with some courage and stamina. It's sure not him!
The important facts in history will not be al Queda or the US oil quest, but rather the conversion of the US from a nation where people had civil and legal rights to one in which people have no rights. There government and the police can do anything to them it wishes, including killing them or disappearing them into secret prisons anywhere in the world.
Just ask a right-winger, in a candid moment what he/she thinks of Native Americans, African Americans, Muslims, or various Christian denominations he/she disagrees with and you'll get essentially the same answer you would have gotten 500 years ago.
The only difference between victory and defeat is in how we fight the right-wing. The right is inherently (by definition) more violent and more spoiling for a fight. The left, however, has the upper hand by standing up en masse - if it dares.
I wonder if anyone is bothering to listen. If a Democrat ran against Obama he'd be caught off guard.
In any real universe Obama would be the conservative candidate and would be far behind in the polls against a slew of left-wing challengers speaking for the majority against the interests of his puppeteers.
doctoruth
The rights of citizens were placed in the same bill as, who owns the oil flowing out of Iran? Which one is more important to corporate America, your rights or oil? Ownership of these rights & oil is not in question here, they own everything. You'll only retrieve them by prying them out of their cold dead hands.
If you pull back for a moment and examine the negative hysteria about Obama it should occur that right now the Democrats stand a good chance of trouncing the Republicans next November. It seems to me to make more sense that we work hard at pushing for a complete Democratic takeover of the government for at least 2-4 years. This would be a saner and more practical way of saving our country from further chaos and strife. I'm really disappointed and upset at the nihilism and paranoia exhibited in much of this discussion.
Bush, et al, were traitors with Patriot Act. Obama is a traitor with the NDAA. There shall be no excuses. No exceptions. Especially from our "own." We are not like them.
I have read all the legal arguments in support of this travesty and each one is easily defeated by any first year law student. Any advocate of the Act could drive a semi-tractor trailer through the language which supposedly limits it's application to AQ.
There was no excuse for signing it. Obama could have *EASILY*, with NO adverse repercussions from the people, put his foot down and said NO, with a infallible argument for doing so; receiving a new and proper Bill. But instead, his original veto threat was solely based on a perceived loss of his discretion in matters of detention and persecution. His veto threat had nothing to do with defense of civil liberties for Americans.
Even Dianne Feinstein's proposed amendment to except American citizens on American soil was defeated. What does that tell you?
Along with the NSA placing child porn in your hard drive, or spooks finding your dalliance with young girls (ala Scott Ritter and Julian Assange) this is another arrow in the quiver of those who are out to silence YOU when you finally wake up. By then, it will be too late. When "they came . . ."
In other words, you are correct about it being "creepy" but you are dead wrong about it being a metaphor.
======================
"I want to clarify that my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in a statement Saturday. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."
Obama lies when he speaks, tells truth when he signs legislation.
==========================
I feel for her and her daughters because Obama will go down in history as the president who allowed the 1% to take over this country, limit our civil rights and give free reign to the military industrial complex to colonize any country with resources.
If Mrs Obama were president I am not so sure she would go along with the status quo. Unfortunately TPTB have diminished her as a fashionista and a spokeswoman for military families families who have been torn apart because of Obama's policies.
Personally, I find no comfort in Obama or "a complete takeover by the Democratic party of U.S. Government". The vast majority of the Democrats, not all, but most are just like Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Carl Levin. They are at the beck and call of big money, foreign cash-ladened-lo bbyists and the military-indust rial crowd. I do love and appreciate Dennis K, and those of his stripe but they are few and far between. Obama certainly isn't one. When Obama broke ties with his truth telling pastor, Jeremiah Wright, he said all we really needed to know about him. He wants to get elected no matter if he has got to sell his soul or our civil liberties. He will be hanging around the Bush Compound just like Billy Graham and Bill and Hillary once the Trilateral Commission dismisses him with a certificate saying, "Job well done there , BOY".
What traitors. But hey, oh well, BOA, CITIGROUP et. al. are smiling and we all know that's all that matters.
Obama a CIA agent?(RMDC & J Locke post)That doesn't surprise me at all.
Like many people I feel betrayed, cheated, violated by Obama. What a deception! How well he convinced so many of us with his good looks, his amazing oratory skills, his intelligence and brilliance.
Lots of great ideas about what to do next but even though I agree wholeheartedly with Ron Paul's foreign policy I cannot help but feel that little tug in my belly telling me not to fall for the rhetoric.
I think this defense bill he just signed also considers the fact that there are many militia groups forming all across the country. To the gov't they are considered "terrorists" just like members of the OWS movement. Left, Right, atheists, fundamentalists etc..people are angry. How do we find common ground as Americans and save it from becoming a fascist state?
RSS feed for comments to this post