Here is another reason to vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein. Even if they do not win, it will send a clear message to Obama and Romney that we are not happy with their actions and positions.

We are stuck between horrific R & R and Obama. After such a grand convention, this report is an ominous view of who Obama really is but then just as horrible and oppressive are Romney and Ryan. We emailed obama at whitehouse.gov expressing our outrage and deep dissapointment in his wanting to deny us of one of our most cherished rights.I think everyone should email him letting him know how outraged we are about this. There are strength in numbers. This nation has survived many decades without our right to due process being taken away. And Obama as a constitutional lawyer and community organizer should be the last person to support this.

This is just another reason why many progressives are sitting this election out. Obama is all smooth and liberal sounding except when you check the actual record and what this administration is doing in terms of basic rights. Trust him? Why? That's something you earn and prove yourself worthy of. He's caved in to the dark side.

The victories in the Hedges v. Obama lawsuit, along with the defection of Chief Justice Roberts on Obamneycare, encourage me to hope that lawsuits to get the money-givers out of politics can convince one of the five conservative Supreme Court Justices to vote in favor of reversing the Court's absurd "corporations are persons" and "money is speech" decisions.

That Justice would go down in history as a true American patriot, just as will Chief Justice Roberts for having courageously stepped forward to avoid thrusting the nation into a chaotic health-care situation.

As those lawsuits move forward, we will have the support of at least 80% of the citizenry who are disgusted with the legalized corruption of our politicians by obscene amounts ofmoney-in-politics.

Although the initiative's chances of success may be low, a victory would be a tremendous first step toward peacefully rebelling against corporate rule. Hence I conclude that the nation cannot afford NOT to try it. Even if we lose this attempt, pursuing this initiative is quite likely to have great educational value to inform the public.

We will need to identify some social activists -- especially some expert attorneys to refine the legal strategy -- who want to help advance this initiative, including convincing the Occupy Movement people to help implement it.

You can contact me by clicking on my photo, then linking to my Web site, where you can send me an e-mail.

Part of the problem starts when we confuse candidate Obama with President Obama. The presidency is an institution that transcends individual presidents. In order to serve as president one must also serve the institution. We're in an unstable era. The climate is changing and key resources are now or soon will be in short supply. The elites know that civil unrest is accelerating from a simmer to a boil. One of the functions of government is to protect the elites from turmoil. This is perhaps Obama's highest priority. Small wonder the president is trying to concentrate ever more power to serve those ends. I wonder if there is a correlation between the diminishment of our liberties and the anticipated disruptions to elite privilege. One might be able to get some idea to what lengths they are willing to oppress we the 99%.

After reading the other comments, I again am writing to encourage readers to email the white house with your concerns and outrage.Thanks Vardoz, for the info. I have never written to a president before, but this issue is very important and needs to be addressed directly to the president.

Part II
Consider structure, a feature of learning, in a text called The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics the necessary item of its 'discovery' is w/r the electron. It is a definition of stability in the universe, an offshoot of conservation of mass, energy, and time, and nothing more. What is this 'separation' for? Consider the meaning of very basic AI in parallel configurations that the late, or missing Indira Singh had discovered its use for 'following the money' and cornered the worst cabals of our day, now permanently removed from her very authorized position of knowing.

Over the course of time, the history is the conflagration of relatively simple code pursuint to the statutes effecting the enforcing body that becomes more and more misaligned with the fairly basic outline of law, in the first place. Consider Larkin Rose treatise on the voluntary tax code and what has occurred over time to separate statutes from regulations, or how this relates to better judgement. Formally, the problem stems from the relationship between the mathematician Frege's Truth Theorem which proves truth can be found out with a modicum of effort, every time, and its relationship to much more broad aspects of a worldly or universal unity, that of which would be, necessarily, somewhat more complex, with basins to consider even more formally. Consider the text, Laws of Form by G. Spencer Brown and Francisco J. Varela's application of it describing autopoiesis and much more on a biological basis. Consider structure, a feature of learning, in a text called The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics the necessary item of its 'discovery' is w/r the electron. It is a definition of stability in the universe, an offshoot of conservation of mass, energy, and time, and nothing more. What is this 'separation' for? Consider the meaning of very basic AI in parallel configurations that the late, or missing Indira Singh had discovered its use for 'following the money' and cornered the worst cabals of our day, now permanently removed from her very authorized position of knowing.

Once voted an outrageous right to behave corruptly no government will give it back. You may recall that having sworn to uphold the constitution GW Bush said that it was just a piece of paper and consequently proved that his oath was not worth the breath he wasted making it.

Eric Holder has made the excuse that due process can occur within the Justice Department prior to dentention or assassination. In other words the Executive can act as judge and jury. Even a judge and jury usually give a length of sentence in the case of detention. Oh yes, the NDAA does give a length of sentence. Until hostilities have ceased or the detainee becomes no longer a threat. And who determines this? Why the justice department or the military, of course. Now, who wouldn't trust these fine organizations. So, what the military wants to do is set up Abu Graib, Bagram, or Guantanamo like facilities in the US. Maybe they will just use Guantanamo, who knows. The War on Terror is open ended and involves not one but any force, even one not currently existing, deemed to be dangerous. So, they can hold a person forever without judicial review. Just like the detainees currently at Guantanamo, many of whom have been ackowledged to be innicent. Now, I am not a lawyer, but my take on due process, which is I think is a English Common Law term, is that it is solely judicial. If we take Attorney General Holder's, an eminent lawyer along with Barack Obama, statement as plausible, then any sherrif's department along with the DA could detain anyone in their county indefinitely, simply on the belief they were an iminent danger.
Tommy Rimes