ss_blog_claim=beb8d77763a778df008fbeb5e1dae37f

Left And Right Politics

…plus the cream in the center.

Obama Signs The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

Posted by Billy On January - 3 - 2012

For those of you that have been on vacation or just busy with your family, friends or your career, you may not have heard that Obama took the time out of his busy schedule on New Year’s Eve to sign the National Defense Authorization Act, also know as NDAA. What does that mean? It sounds good and that it would be something that us Americans would want for the security of the nation.

The problem with that is the fact that it has violated the U.S. Constitution, especially the fourth amendment. While the bill originated in the House of Representatives with good intentions of protecting the American people (I rather say person), the bill has had things added to it and altered to where now the freedom and liberties of the American person in question.

This new law now authorizes the military to indefinitely detain any person being suspected as a terrorist. the law allows the President to use “all necessary and appropriate force” to detain any person, including US citizens, who “was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces, under the law of war until the end of hostilities”

Obama stated a few weeks ago that he would veto the bill if it was brought to him because of certain provisions in the bill. After the bill was “altered” as to not remove any powers from the President, he didn’t seem to have a problem with it. In a written statement,Obama wrote: “The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists… My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.”

In my opinion, why would he sign a bill into law if there were provisions he and his administration want to change or remove? While I do understand that the military funding was due to expire on January 2nd, but that didn’t mean that Congress needed to right this entire bill. It wasn’t like they didn’t know there was new military funding bill that needed to be voted on by the end of 2011.

Now many have thought that the Patriot Act went too far into infringing on our freedoms and liberties, but this takes it to a whole new level. Even many of Obama’s supporter are not happy with his decision to sign this bill. The ACLU are one of them. “President Obama’s action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.”

Even those in the security division of our government feel that this is a clear violation of the Constitution The Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the FBI and the head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA are harmful and counterproductive.

William S. Sessions, a man who has served as FBI director under three Presidents, Reagan, Bush and Clinton, wrote in a letter to members of the conference committee working on the NDAA that the detention provisions “could pose a genuine threat to our national security and would represent a sweeping and unnecessary departure from our constitutional tradition.”

The Senate voted 38-60 on November 29th to reject an amendment to the NDAA that would have removed provisions authorizing detention without charge. The amendment offered by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), would have replaced those provisions with a requirement for an orderly congressional review of detention power. (Jurist, Jan. 1; WP, ACLU, Atlantic Wire, Dec. 31; NLG, Dec. 27; Constitution Project, Dec. 9; ACLU, Dec. 5; ACLU, Nov. 29)

For those of you who may not be aware of it, but none of this information is being spoken about on the main stream media outlets. They’ve made it a point to steer clear of the topic. So please share this with everyone you know.

Tags: , , , ,

Conflict Over The Libyan Conflict

Posted by Billy On June - 16 - 2011

Nearly three months ago, President Obama invaded Libya with the consent of the United Nations and NATO, but without Congressional approval. According to the U.S. Constitution the president has the authority to take military actions he sees fit, but only for sixty days along with thirty days for withdrawal. After that he must have Congressional approval to continued action in any foreign conflict.

The problem is that the ninetieth day of the Libyan conflict is this Sunday, June 19th, 2011 and no action has been taken to have the troops in Libya home in the next three days. Rep. John Boehner, speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, in a meeting with Obama, urged him to explain the legal issues of the continued military actions. The deadline for Obama’s response is Friday.

Now we have ten Congressman filing a law suit against the president for taking military action in Libya without Congress approval. The suit states that Obama bypassed the proper channels to take this step of going into Libya. The plaintiffs are Democratic Reps. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, John Conyers of Michigan and Michael Capuano of Massachusetts and Republican Reps. Walter Jones and Howard Coble of North Carolina, Tim Johnson and Dan Burton of Indiana, Jimmy Duncan of Tennessee, Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland and Ron Paul of Texas.

What annoys me about the whole situation is 1) Obama had no reason to send troops into Libya since there was no security threat to our country. 2) Congress is wasting time with this law suit and involving judges to take action when in fact they (Congress) hold the power to control funding of such actions. Instead of this latest step by Congress, they should be writing legislation to de-fund the military action to bring our troops home.

This past Monday, the House voted to prohibit any money for the Libya conflict, backing an amendment barring the use of any funds in contravention of the War Powers Act. The vote was passed 248-163 on a spending bill that still needs to be reconciled with the Senate. So why hasn’t the Senate done anything in the past three days? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the Senate is controlled by the Democrats and they’re just helping out the fellow Democrat in the White House. At the same time Sen. John Kerry stated that there will be a delay in a meeting to write a resolution so it would allow lawmakers time to review the White House report on the Libya conflict. A report that Congress has been asking for from the White House for weeks, and they are still dragging their feet on submitting it. Kerry also stated the possibility of some action on a resolution next week. “We just want everybody to see the information and see how it impacts their thinking,” Kerry said. Well guess what Senator, next week is after the deadline of ninety days the president was to remove the troops. What the hell were you thinking?

To add to the matter, Sen. McCain of Arizona is warning Republicans against taking any steps that would send a positive signal to Qaddafi. “I caution my friends, both here in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, that we don’t want to do anything or pass legislation which would encourage Qaddafi to remain in power,” McCain told reporters, even though there are continued signs that Qaddafi’s hold is deteriorating including defection from high level members within his regime. “I would say to my Republican friends: If this were a Republican president, would you be trying to impose these same conditions?” McCain said.

This is a clear case of following the money. There is no reason for us to be involved with having a military presence in Libya. Who is going to benefit from this action? I haven’t looked deep enough into it to really know, but then again since I’m not connected to anyone in Washington or the media, I doubt I’ll ever get to the bottom of it. I do know that Libya has two hundred miles of pristine beach front on the Mediterranean Sea where the climate is spectacular.

We saw with the involvement of U.S. troops in Iraq how Halliburton made a killing in being the private company to get the contract for the oil fields. So who is going to “win” in Libya? We need to see how this will play out since it took a while before we saw how Dick Cheney’s involvement with Halliburton helped the company make billions of dollars from President G.W. Bush’s actions. The one difference between Bush’s actions compared to Obama is that at least Bush received Congressional approval before going into Iraq. Say what you want about G.W. Bush, but at least he followed the necessary steps to do what he did. I’m not surprise by Obama’s decision to go to an international entity to hide behind for something he knew we had no right to be involved in.

Congress has not declared war with any country since WWII. Even though we’ve been in quite a few since. Presidents have taken some sort of military action throughout the world and Obama is no different than any other president even though he said during his campaign that there would be transparency in his Administration. He said he was going to do things differently. Well he has, by going into a military action without Congressional approval and according to the Constitution, that is an impeachable offense. So why isn’t Congress just taken action by either de-funding the Libya conflict or impeaching the president? Again like I said before…FOLLOW THE MONEY.

Tags: , , , ,

Obama: Welcome Back Carter

Posted by Joanne On July - 20 - 2009

The Washington Post had an interesting article yesterday. Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie wrote;

Barely six months into his presidency, Barack Obama seems to be driving south into that political speed trap known as Carter Country: a sad-sack landscape in which every major initiative meets not just with failure but with scorn from political allies and foes alike. According to a July 13 CBS News poll, the once-unassailable president’s approval rating now stands at 57 percent, down 11 points from April. Half of Americans think the recession will last an additional two years or more, 52 percent think Obama is trying to “accomplish too much,” and 57 percent think the country is on the “wrong track.”

As writers who inveighed against last year’s GOP candidate and called George W. Bush’s presidency a “disaster,” we’re equal-opportunity critics. As taxpayers with children and hence some small, almost certainly unrecoverable stake in this country’s future (not to mention that of General Motors, Chrysler and AIG), we write with skin in the game and the fear that our current leader will indeed start busting out the 1970s cardigans.

The key to understanding Obama’s predicament is to realize that while he ran convincingly as a repudiation of Bush, he is in fact doubling down on his predecessor’s big-government policies and perpetual crisis-mongering. From the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists to gays in the military to bailing out industries large and small, Obama has been little more than the keeper of the Bush flame. Indeed, it took the two of them to create the disaster that is the 2009 budget, racking up a deficit that has already crossed the historic $1 trillion mark with almost three months left in the fiscal year.

You can read the whole article by clicking the link at the top of the page.

Some of the comments are worth reading also. Of course there’s the 7th graders acorn crew with their “you lost nah nah” comments but you can skip over those. :)

Shocking to some to see the media doing their job for a change instead of being Obama’s bootlickers.

Beautiful piece. Bush was bad. Carter was horrible. And now we have Carter on steroids AND meth. It will take a decade to undo this mess Obama is making.

Obama is a socialist/marxist that wants to REMAKE this country; he has said so more than once. Those that surround him are of like mind. Of course, remember that the “rulers” will be miraculously insulated and immune from the chaos and misery that their policies will create. Carter was a least a decent, honest man with good intensions, but was a terrible president. I find nothing in Obama but a cold, arrogant, elitist, that has been raised and mentored to loath and despise this country.

What’s next? Cardigans? What may be next is what Presidents like Jimmah Cawter and Obama attract like offal to flies– an international crisis brought on by enemies who know how weak and ineffectual they are. It’s frustrating that in these times of real danger and challenge, we have a President who talks big, does little except spend money, and at the end of day winds up as soundbites on cable news. President Obama is the Peter Principal cubed. I hope all you rubes who voted for him are bleary-eyed and happy.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Terrorist Receive Miranda Rights

Posted by Billy On July - 10 - 2009

I have to say that I get my news from many different sources. I make it a point to listen to both the left and the right sides of political news shows. One show that I appreciate listening to is the Wilkow Majority with Andrew Wilkow. As he says in the beginning of his show, “The show for rational thought and political analysts”.

On his show today, one of his guest was Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) of the house of Representatives, a former F.B.I. agent as well as military officer. A gentleman who is well informed and aware of what it takes to deal with this type of situation.

The discussion was in regards to the terrorist having their Miranda Rights read to them on the battlefield. That’s right, non-American citizens are receiving the rights of American citizens. Thanks to the Democrats, our enemies are being protected by rights that they don’t even have the rights to.

We are at war with Jihadist who are firing at our solders, which makes them army combatants which gives them the rights of the Geneva Convention. In that case they should be tried under those laws, but because the Democrat’s defense is that the terrorist don’t wear uniform, they don’t fall under the guidelines. That’s well and good, but then why protect them under U.S. Constitution laws?

We can’t waterboard them because of the Geneva Convention and at the same time they’re not under the Geneva Convention laws. This has gotten totally out of control and the present Administration doesn’t have a clue as to what to do to protect this country. Which is what the main duties of the federal government is supposed to do.

Our government has lost sight of what our fore fathers had written out for this country. We have a little over a year to change the balance of power in Congress and about three years and four months to remove President Obama from the White House. That day can’t come soon enough for me.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Ads