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.

The Democrats as well as many different Hispanic coalitions up in arms saying that the bill is unconstitutional and racially bias. How can a bill that targets people who are here illegally (Russian, Canadians, Mexicans and many other) be racially bias? Yes the bill passed in the state of Arizona and they do have an extreme problem with the illegal Mexican population. Before you get annoyed by the comment of “problem”, let me list the issues that Arizona is having with the illegal population in their state.

* 22% of the felonies in Maricopa county are committed by illegal immigrants.
* The federal government has estimated that the illegal population in Arizona has grown from 330,000 in 2000, to 560,000 in 2008.( http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2008.pdf )
* 17% of those arrested by the Border Patrol in the Tucson area already have criminal records in the United States.
( http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/the-krentz-bonfire/Content?oid=1945848 )
* In 2007, the Center for Immigration Studies estimated that 12 percent of workers in Arizona are illegal immigrants.
( http://www.cis.org/immigrants_profile_2007 )

These are just four that I have listed, but the issues go on forever. Issues that include some illegal immigrants being on welfare, having no insurance, as well as their U.S. born children (which shouldn’t have been born here if their parents stayed in their own country) in the school system. I won’t even go into the issue of these illegal immigrants paying taxes.

The problem is not they want to come here and take part in the American dream, it the fact that they are not coming into this country through the legal system. I am a second generation American, my grandparents came here to this country through Ellis Island. I agree with the law that Arizona’s Governor has passed and as Americans we all should.

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.

Speaking of the left, seems a growing number of them are dissatisfied with Obama. Josh Gerstein from Politico writes;

Barely four months into his presidency, Obama is confronting growing dissatisfaction among members of his liberal base, who feel spurned by a series of his early decisions on issues ranging from guns to torture to immigration to gay rights. A few, like MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, have even hurled the left’s ultimate epithet – suggesting that Obama’s turning into George W. Bush. For liberals who viewed Obama as something of a savior after eight years of Bush, the discontents are piling up.

A growing number of organizations, bloggers and pundits, many of whom kept quiet about slights in Obama’s first few months, are now going public with their disillusionment.

Michael Meyers of the New York Civil Rights Coalition said many Obama supporters (with support from voices on the right) built him up to be more of a liberal icon than his public speeches and writings ever justified.

“They invested in Obama everything they wanted the next president to be. They thought, ‘He’s black, liberal, anti-Iraq War… urban, young.’ He was all of that and smart and he went to a radical church. They just knew,” Meyers said. “They exaggerated him. They saw him as a messiah. No president is a messiah.”

“He’s not the person that people thought he was,” Meyers said. “The left is finding that out and the right is finding that out.”

Also from Politico, Andy Barr writes about Republican leaders who are backing Cheney’s criticism of Obama;

Republican leaders on Sunday backed Dick Cheney’s attacks on President Barack Obama, calling the former vice president
a strong asset for the party.

“It doesn’t hurt us, it helps us,” House Minority Leader John Boehner said on CNN’s “State of the Union,” calling Cheney a “big member in our party.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said ” We know Obama changed his mind in Iraq and decided to follow the advice of the military generals, and we also know that he’s now ordered a surge in Afghanistan just like the one that was successful in Iraq. So I think the administration has responded to the critique of the vice president” that the country is moving in the “wrong direction on national security issues.”

Lynn has the experience to do the job that he was appointed to, but my problem is that William Lynn III is presently the Senior Vice President of Raytheon Co.

Why is that a problem? The problem is that Raytheon has defense contracts with the United States. In my opinion, that makes it a conflict of interests. How can this be allowed that Obama can go ahead and appoint a person who might not hold the American taxpayer’s interest as his main concern.

How can you expect a man to do the right thing with the protection of the American people when he also has responsibilities to the company that he works for to make money? You can’t. He makes his bonuses by the amount of money the company makes. If he has to choose between protecting this country the best way possible or making his multi-million dollar bonus, how can you expect him to put himself second?

If he wants to take the position of Deputy Secretary of Defense, he must resign from his position at Raytheon Co. He is human and is bound to make mistakes, but to avoid a defense issue he must do the right thing first, which is to leave Raytheon and all his responsibilities to the company

Another kick in the pants is that the Democrats had a problem with Dick Cheney getting elected to office while he still had interests in Halliburton, but have not problem of William J. Lynn III being given the position. The American people didn’t get the right to vote for this man to be put into this office. I know that it’s two different position, but isn’t the President’s job to serve this country? Or is it his duty to go ahead and give positions to people who helped get him into office?

Just as a side note, Goldman Sachs has upgraded the the stock of Raytheon to a buy from a hold. What does that tell you?

I don’t know what’s to come of this, but I will say that I will be keeping an eye on it and posting about here on this blog.

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — The leader of a jihadi group in Iraq argued Friday that the election of Barack Obama as president represented a victory for radical Islamic groups that had battled American forces since the invasion of Iraq.

The audio statement came amid a very public discussion in the Middle East over what Mr. Obama’s election meant for the future — and what it said about the past. Most of the public reaction, in newspapers and on television and radio stations, was euphoric, with many commentators marveling at the election of a black man whose father was from a Muslim family. There was a general assessment that Mr. Obama’s election was a repudiation of the course taken by President Bush and his inner circle over the past eight years.

“It would be no exaggeration to say that we Arabs and Muslims were the main unseen voters who decided the outcome of these elections,” wrote Abdelbari Atwan in Wednesday’s issue of the London-based pan-Arab daily newspaper Al Quds Al Arabi.

Read the rest at the above link.