Barack Obama has become a monster [Reader Post]

Loading

And Obama again proves that only gullible, stupid people vote for him.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI[/youtube]

Posted on the pomposity that is the site of the “Office of the President Elect” it says this:

Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.

That, as is just about everything else about Barack Obama, is chock full of manure. It is as phony as he is.

Baack Obama promised to protect whistleblowers and instead has done absolutely the opposite. This must have come as quite a shock to the liberal media. Tears likely washed on the fingers of Jane Mayer as she wrote:

When President Barack Obama took office, in 2009, he championed the cause of government transparency, and spoke admiringly of whistle-blowers, whom he described as “often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government.” But the Obama Administration has pursued leak prosecutions with a surprising relentlessness. Including the Drake case, it has been using the Espionage Act to press criminal charges in five alleged instances of national-security leaks—more such prosecutions than have occurred in all previous Administrations combined. The Drake case is one of two that Obama’s Justice Department has carried over from the Bush years.

Gabriel Schoenfeld, a conservative political scientist at the Hudson Institute, who, in his book “Necessary Secrets” (2010), argues for more stringent protection of classified information, says, “Ironically, Obama has presided over the most draconian crackdown on leaks in our history—even more so than Nixon.”

“More than Nixon”

In the Atlantic Wire John Hudson writes:

The Justice Department’s subpoena of New York Times reporter James Risen Monday was the latest sign of how aggressive the Obama administration is being in its campaign against government whistle-blowers. The purpose of Risen’s subpoena is to force him to testify that Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA agent, gave him confidential information about the CIA’s efforts to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program. The extent to which the administration is prosecuting leakers has troubled those who see leakers as speakers of truth to power. “In President Obama’s 26 months in office, civilian and military prosecutors have charged five people in cases involving leaking information, more than all previous presidents combined,” reports the Times. Here’s a list of prominent leakers with various agendas currently under pressure from the government.

Obama’s war on whistleblowers also includes those who would tell us the truth about Fast and Furious:

Senator Grassley pointed out that the documents DOJ released to smear Dodson were actually supposed to be so sensitive that the DOJ wouldn’t provide them to congressional investigators. But then, to harm a whistleblower, someone from the DOJ provided these specifically selected documents to the press. In fact, the name of the criminal suspect in the documents was redacted, but Agent Dodson’s name was left for all to see. “This looks like a clear and intentional violation of the Privacy Act as well as an attempt at whistleblower retaliation,” said Grassley.

Now Obama trains his sights on those who would uncover the biggest fraud of our times- climate change. Obama is joining the British government in trying to identify the leaker of the climtategate emails. Christopher Horner in the Washington Examiner:

I have seen apparent proof that the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), Criminal Division, is working with United Kingdom police to pursue the leaker of the 2009 and 2011 “Climategate” emails.

I have learned that last week DOJ sent a search-and-seizure letter to the host of three climate-change “skeptic” blogs. Last night, UK police raided a blogger’s home and removed computers and equipment.

The leaked records derailed “cap-and-trade” legislation in the U.S. and, internationally, as well as talks for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. The emails and computer code were produced with taxpayer funds and held on taxpayer-owned computers both in the US and the UK, and all were subject to the UK Freedom of Information Act, the U.S. Freedom of Information Act and state FOIA laws.

They also were being unlawfully withheld in both the UK (by the University of East Anglia) and the U.S. (Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), including stonewalling me for two years, and three other requesters for longer).

The hunt involving U.S. and UK law enforcement agencies is now escalating. On Wednesday night UK time, six detectives with the UK police (Norfolk Police Department) raided the home of at least one blogger, removing his equipment to look for clues to the identity of leaker “FOIA 2011.”

……..

To review: The UK police and the US DOJ, Criminal Division, are pursuing a leaker of public records subject to one or more FOIA, records that were unlawfully withheld under those laws, which leaks indicate apparent civil violations (tortious interference by seeking dismissal of certain “skeptics”), and raising reasonable questions of fraud against taxpayers.

And they are pursuing the leaker.

This is the President who promised to protect whistleblowers but now pursues them with a vengeance. This is the President who refuses to prosecute those who break the laws and promises to prosecute those who enforce the laws. This is the Preisdent who demanded all Americans be subject to indefinite detention without trial.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHaJrnlqCgo[/youtube]

Obama has proven that not only is he was awful as many of us thought him to be, not only has he brought the slime of Chicago to Washington, not only has he stripped all the dignity from the office of the Presidency, he has become a monster. If he is re-elected, he will likely remain in office for the rest of his life.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
58 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

If he is re-elected, he will likely remain in office for the rest of his life.

You had me up until that line. You know I have nothing but contempt for the man, but I don’t believe he would try such a thing.

Come on, Hard Right.
Pay attention.
The election of Obama to a second term is a matter of national security. Thus his election must be mandated. The Attorney General of Blacks has already announced that every breathing body in the United States WILL vote. He needs no law. He is the law.
And besides, the fundamental change to a Socialist Utopia is not yet accomplished. Individuals still own property. This must be stopped. Property and life belong to the State. The State will decide who gets to live and who gets what. This is Utopianism, and you will just have to ignore the fact that Utopias have never succeeded.
So it will be All Obama, Forever.
Until he dies. Then you will see Holder take over.
Ugh.

What I’m looking forward to is when you hardliners with ODS get Romney as your nominee.Holding your nose while you vote may cause further brain damage. lol

PALIN SAYS on Fox “I’ve got no enthusiasm for anyone in the field” There it is.

@Hard Right:

There is a bill waiting for his signature that will allow the military to arrest any one, without due process that appears to be a terrorist. Big sis deems terrorists as returning soldiers from Iraq, tea party members, white people, those expressing their religion. – need I go on? In addition Barry wants to repeal the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. This act limits the powers of the president in using the military. To go on Barry is a supporter of the occubrats. These are his brown shirt army, his useful idiots. Do not be so naive to believe he won’t pull something to call Marshall Law and stop the elections. This man wants to remain forever, not to work but to party which is done on a weekly basis, play golf and go on 4 MILLION dollar vacations like the one he is now enjoying. You are no longer in Kansas. This man means to bring out country to her knees and force his Marxist policies down her throat. God help us.

@Richard Wheeler:

I will support who ever the Republican candidate is because the freedoms that I embrace are at stake if I do not. The future of my family and their families is at stake too. ABO

These are very scary times. For the first time in my life I am considering buying a weapon and taking lessons. I fear I will need it for protection. Revolution in the United States might not be a random thought, but a reality if Barry is re elected.

Disenchanted says #5 Right on cue. Beautiful Severe ODS
Revolution U SAY Ready to take on the USMC

@Disenchanted: Ah….ding dong. It was the GOP who first implemented these measures. Idiot. Yes, go buy a weapon. You may need to use it on yourself if the GOP take the White House and further destroy our civil liberties and the middle class.

I agree with HR. People afflicted with BDS were saying the same thing about Bush crapping on the Constitution and launching into hysteria, hyperbole, and conflated, conspiratorial distortions.

Also, just a question Dr. John: Are you only commiserating amongst the amen chorus of far right conservatives on this site, who already agree with anything and all things anti-Obama? Or do you seek to win more converts and influence on-the-fence voters? The moderates and independents in the center? Because with attention-grabbing headlines like the one in your post (and I admit to using similar sensationalist, attention-getting blurbs myself), I’d bet $10,000 in monopoly money that most people in the mainstream center won’t bother to take the post seriously if they bother to give this the time of day at all. I understand FA is a partisan, conservative blog. But if all we are is the right-wing version of DU or Daily Kos, then our sphere of influence will always be pretty much limited to shouting into an echo chamber of likemindeds.

And that’s not enough votes to win elections.

Sorry for the long paste, but I think this is “A Must Read.”:

‘When the Legend Becomes Fact, Print the Legend’
December 16, 2011 – 12:17 pm – by Victor Davis Hanson

Obama Mythologos

Barack Obama is a myth, our modern version of Pecos Bill or Paul Bunyan. What we were told is true, never had much basis in fact — a fact now increasingly clear as hype gives way to reality.

“Brilliant”

Presidential historian Michael Beschloss, on no evidence, once proclaimed Obama “probably the smartest guy ever to become president.” When he thus summed up liberal consensus, was he perhaps referring to academic achievement? Soaring SAT scores? Seminal publications? IQ scores known only to a small Ivy League cloister? Political wizardry?

Who was this Churchillian president so much smarter than the Renaissance man Thomas Jefferson, more astute than a John Adams or James Madison, with more insight than a Lincoln, brighter still than the polymath Teddy Roosevelt, more studious than the bookish Woodrow Wilson, better read than the autodidact Harry Truman?

Consider. Did Obama achieve a B+ average at Columbia? Who knows? (Who will ever know?) But even today’s inflated version of yesteryear’s gentleman Cs would not normally warrant admission to Harvard Law. And once there, did the Law Review editor publish at least one seminal article? Why not?

I ask not because I particularly care about the GPAs or certificates of the president, but only because I am searching for a shred of evidence to substantiate this image of singular intellectual power and known erudition. For now, I don’t see any difference between Bush’s Yale/Harvard MBA record and Obama’s Columbia/Harvard Law record — except Bush, in self-deprecation, laughed at his quite public C+/B- accomplishments that he implied were in line with his occasional gaffes, while Obama has quarantined his transcripts and relied on the media to assert that his own versions of “nucular” moments were not moments of embarrassment at all.

At Chicago, did lecturer Obama write a path-breaking legal article or a book on jurisprudence that warranted the rare tenure offer to a part-time lecturer? (Has that offer ever been extended to others of like stature?) In the Illinois legislature or U.S. Senate, was Obama known as a deeply learned man of the Patrick Moynihan variety? Whether as an undergraduate, law student, lawyer, professor, legislator or senator, Obama was given numerous opportunities to reveal his intellectual weight. Did he ever really? On what basis did Harvard Law Dean Elena Kagan regret that Obama could not be lured to a top billet at Harvard?

That his brilliance is a myth was not just revealed by the weekly lapses (whether phonetic [corpse-man], or cultural [Austria/Germany, the United Kingdom/England, Memorial Day/Veterans Day] or inane [57 states]), but in matters of common sense and basic history. The error-ridden Cairo speech was foolish; the serial appeasement of Iran revealed an ignorance of human nature; a two-minute glance at an etiquette book would have nixed the bowing or the cheap gifts to the UK.

In short, the myth of Obama’s brilliance was based on his teleprompted eloquence, the sort of fable that says we should listen to a clueless Sean Penn or Matt Damon on politics because they can sometimes act well. Read Plato’s Ion on the difference between gifted rhapsody and wisdom — and Socrates’ warning about easily conflating the two. It need not have been so. At any point in a long career, Obama the rhapsode could have shunned the easy way, stuck his head in a book, and earned rather than charmed those (for whom he had contempt) for his rewards. Clinton was a browser with a near photographic memory who had pretensions of deeply-read wonkery; but he nonetheless browsed. Obama seems never to have done that. He liked the vague idea of Obamacare, outsourced the details to the Democratic Congress, applied his Chicago protocols to getting it passed, and worried little what was actually in the bill. We were to think that the obsessions with the NBA, the NCAA final four, the golfing tics, etc., were all respites from exhausting labors of the mind rather than in fact the presidency respites from all the former.

“Healer”

Take away all the”‘no more red state/no more blue state,” “this is our moment” mish-mash and what is left to us? “Reaching across the aisle” sounded bipartisan, but it came from the most consistently partisan member of the U.S. Senate. Most of the 2008 campaign was a frantic effort on the part of the media to explain away Bill Ayers, ACORN, the SEIU, Rev. Wright, Father Pfleger, the clingers speech, “get in their face,” and the revealing put downs of Hillary Clinton. But those were windows into a soul that soon opened even wider — with everything from limb-lopping doctors and polluting Republicans to stupidly acting police and “punish our enemies” nativists. The Special Olympics “joke,” the pig reference to Sarah Palin, the middle finger nose rub to Hillary — all that was a scratch of the thin shiny veneer into the hard plywood beneath.

The binding up our wounds myth had no basis in reality, but was constructed on the notion (to channel the racially condescending Harry Reid and Joe Biden) that a charismatic and young postracial rhetorician seemed so non-threatening. The logic was that Obama took a train from Springfield to DC; so did Lincoln; presto, both were like healers. The truth? The Obamites — Jarrett, Axelrod, Emanuel, etc. — were hard-core partisan dividers, who had a history of demonizing enemies, suing to eliminate opponents, and leaking divorce records, in addition to the usual Chicago campaign protocols.

If one were to collate the Obama record on race (from Eric Holder’s “my people” and “cowards” to Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” and Van Jones’s racist rants), it is the most polarizing in a generation. The Obama way is and always was to create horrific straw men: opponents of health care reform are greedy doctors who want to rip out your tonsils; opponents of tax increases jet off to Vegas to blow their children’s tuition money; skeptics of Solyndra-like disasters want to dirty the air; those against open borders wish to put alligators and moats in the Rio Grande as they round up children at ice cream parlors. There were ways of opposing Republicans without the demonization, but the demonization was useful when followed by the soaring, one-eyed Jack rhetoric about reaching out, working together, and avoiding the old politics of acrimony.

“Reformer”

The notion that there was anything in Obama’s past or present temperament to suggest a political reformer was mythological to the core. Almost all his prior elections relied on a paradigm of attacking his opponents rather than defending his own record, from the races for the legislature to the U.S. Senate. He shook down Wall Street as no one had before or since — and well after the September 2008 meltdown. He was the logical expression of the Chicago/Illinois system of Tony Rezko, Blago, and the Daleys, not its aberration — from the mundane of expanding his yard to melting down opponents by leaking sealed divorce records.

The more Obama badmouthed BP and Goldman Sachs, the more we knew he received record amounts of cash from both (were the bad “millionaires and billionaires” snickering that this was just part of the game?). He renounced liberal public financing of campaigns of over three decades duration, as only a liberal reformer might, and got away with it. Obama raised far more money than any candidate in history, and will go back to the same trough this time around. On a Monday the president will vilify Wall Street, on Tuesday host a $40,000-a-head dinner for those who apparently did not get his earlier message that at some point they had already made enough money and this was now surely not the time to profit — or did they get it all too well? Wait, you say, “They all do this!” Well, perhaps most at any rate; but most also spare us the messianic rhetoric and so do not win the additional charge of hypocrisy. Reforming the system is hard; reforming the reformers of the system impossible.

So when Obama speaks loudly about Wall Street criminality, we now snooze — only to awaken knowing Corzine’s missing $1 billion, or George Soros’s felony conviction in France, or Jeffrey Immelt’s no-tax gymnastics were not just never raised, but are exempted through the purchase of liberal penance, in the manner that John Kerry never really docked his gargantuan yacht in a less taxed state, or Timothy Geithner never really pocketed his FICA allowances.

As far as the vaunted promises to end the revolving door, lobbyists, and earmarks and usher in a new transparency, well, blah, blah, blah. Obama did not merely violate his proposed reforms, but excelled in the old politics as few others had. The career of a Peter Orszag or the crony machinations of the Solyndra executives attest well enough.

As far as medical transparency, I care only that my president seems healthy enough to get up in the morning for his grueling ordeal and can be spared the how part; but I do recognize that we have a history of disguising maladies (cf. Wilson’s incapacity, FDR’s last year, or JFK’s numerous prescription drugs), and that, in recent times at least, we have demanded a new transparency. Was that why the media harped on McCain’s melanoma, his age, and his injuries? So I thought we would get the now mandatory 24-look at 500 pages of thirty years of Obama’s doctors visits, medications, vital signs, diseases, all the treatments that the watchdog media goes ape over — whether Tom Eagleton’s shock treatments or Mike Dukakis’s use of Advil or the Bush thyroid problem.

Instead, we got a tiny paragraph from Obama’s doctor assuring us that he’s healthy, and this from the most “transparent” president in history, in an age when the press is frenzied over a presidential Ambien prescription. To this day, I have no idea whether our president smokes, or ever did, or for how long and how much, or if he ever took a prescription drug, or if his blood pressure is perfect or under treatment. Again, I care only that he gets up in the morning — and that the de facto rules of disclosure that have applied to others apply to him.

We will never know much about Fast and Furious, and even less about Greengate. Obama — and this was clever rather than brilliant — gauged rightly that not only would liberals’ hysteria about ethics cease when he brought them to power, but in a strange way they would grin that one of their own had out-hustled the supposed right-wing hustlers. Or was it a sort of paleo-Marxist idea of using the corrupt system to end the supposedly corrupt system? Those who vacation at Vail, Martha’s Vineyard, or Costa del Sol are supposedly insidiously undermining the system that allows only the millionaire and billionaire few to do so?

“Magnanimous”

This was the strangest chapter of the myth, the idea that Obama the Olympian was above the fray. He lobbied the Germans for an address at the Brandenburg Gate, settled for the Prussian Victory Column, and, as thanks, then skipped out as president on the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall — but managed to jet to Copenhagen to lobby for the Chicago Olympics.

There was never a peep that Obama’s present anti-terrorism protocols — Guantanamo, renditions, tribunals, Predators, the Patriot Act, preventative detention — came from George Bush. Much less did we hear that had Bush for a nanosecond ever listened to the demagoguery of then state legislator and later senator Obama, none of these tools would presently exist. How did what was superfluous, unconstitutional, and possibly illegal in 2008 become vital in 2011?

Ditto the Iraq War. We went in a blink from the surge that failed and made things worse and all troops must be out by March 2008 to Iraq was a shining example of American idealism and commitment. It was as if the touch-and-go, life-and-death gamble between February 2007 and January 2009 in Iraq never had existed. Bombing Libya was not warlike, and those who sued Bush on Iraq and Guantanamo now filed briefs to prove that we were not at war killing Libyan thugs. We hear only of reset; never that Obama has now simply abandoned all his “Bush-did-it” policies and is quietly going back to the Bush consensus on Russia, Iran, Syria, and the Middle East in general. We will not only never see Guantanamo closed or KSM tried in a civilian court, but never hear why not. Are we to applaud the hypocrisy as at least better than continued ignorance?

On the domestic front, we are forever frozen on September 15, 2008. There is never an Obama sentence that the Freddie/Fannie machinations (both agencies were routinely plundered for bonuses by ex-Clinton flunkies) gave a green light to Wall Street greed — much less that both empowered public recklessness either to flip houses or to buy a house without credit worthiness or any history of thrift. Did we ever hear that between the meltdown and the inauguration, there were four months of frantic stabilization that, by the time of Obama’s ascendancy, had ensured that the panic had largely passed? Instead, blowing $5 trillion in three years is to be forever the response to the ongoing and now multiyear Bush crash, all to justify a “never waste a crisis” reordering of society.

I could go on, but we know only that we know very little about Barack Obama, and what we do know is quite different from what is alleged. All presidents have mythographies, but they also have a record and auditors that can collate facts with fiction. In Obama’s case, we were never given all the facts and there were few in the press interested in finding them.

To quote Maxwell Scott in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”

@Nick Bolanis:

To quote Maxwell Scott in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”

And eventually you suspend disbelief.

@DrJohn: When I read Day-by-Day this morning, I was wondering how many readers actually understood the meaning of “living room” (e.g. Lebensraum). I see that you got it. Kudos.

Another fine example of Liberals doing exactly the [opposite] of what they “preach”….why does this not surprise anyone…. Phonies, Hypocrites…

Gee, [and] if you are not doing anything “wrong”….well, people with virtue know the rest…

@Nick #11 – Very well worth reading…Bravo! I think you have encompassed everything I could never articulate in writing…you hit so many nails on the head…I believe I am a pretty good judge of Character…Obama never did come off as ‘honest’ more like a phony, especially when [hope and change] was never explained and never questioned….by the Liberals, MSM and many independents.

Now, those who did question [Presidential aspirations and his background, experience] were vehemently labeled [Racist]….Now that is a huge red light – HUGE! His whole election is how he knew he had [Many Americans] and the playing field became wide open…. Man-God Obama…Many people are really as stupid as he [and his administration thinks] and Oh, so petty too.

@Liberalmann:

I truly feel sorry for people like you who are too blinded by marxist barry, his communist czars and useful idiots to realize that your freedoms will be decimated too. Research the old USSR, and figure out where you would stand if barry gets his way. Unless your nose is so far up his backside (and he might like that), or you are a huge contributor, you will be standing in line with the rest of us regardless your political affiliation. barry doesn’t care one iota about you, only how useful you can be – and then like a used tissue, will toss you down the toilet when you are no longer of use.

Purchasing a weapon and stockpiling are something I once thought was something that conspiracy theorists did; but today, I am not so sure. Am I afraid of losing my life to protect the freedoms of my country? yes I am, but my children and their children’s future is something too great to lose.

If he is re-elected, he will likely remain in office for the rest of his life.

sorry, speaking as an ultra conservative who despises zero as destructive to america and whos damaging time in office may be impossible to repair,

that is hysterical. and not in the wow thats so funny its hysterical sense, but in the hey you might need xanax becuase your so tightly wound you might have an anurism.

is zero and his lawless henchmen dangerous? yes. could they irreparably harm this country yes. but it is at this point in time hysterical to imply he will throw out our whole system of government and hold the presidency for life.

disenchanted you should have owned a weapon already. plenty of reasons why owning at least one good rifle and one good handgun with ammunition was and is a respectable and important thing for you and family.

I dont mean to negate any of the other things written by dr.john about zero’s alarming abusive autocratic thuggish behavior. just that tacking the hysterical ending on it kills the rest of the message.

Nick Well written and gives reason for pause.
Word As always a respected voice of reason
Dr. J.and Disenchanted It appears even the choir isn’t buying your preaching.

I don’t see how he would endeavor to remain in office past the term limits set on the POTUS now.

One of the bloggers in question, who’s house was raided and computers taken was one of our buddys in the UK. If you want the full story, go over to the “Pointman” blogger, a great site regarding the climate e-mails, but also what these govt officials did to this man and his family.

@anticsrocks: The Constitution is being bent to the point of failure now and who is objecting? Woud you have believed possible many of the things you just read above two years ago?

@Richard Wheeler: That wasn’t the point of the post. Look back at what I have written over the last 18 months or so and see how accurate it has proven to be.

I want to know who is the Gepeto that is pulling Obama’s strings?

I cannot shake those words from my head:

“…fundamentally transform this nation….”

“Why don’t we let the American people decide if I should have another term?”

How many “terrorist threats” would need to find themselves detained indefinitely without trial for this to happen?

NBC doesn’t report a single thing about Fast and Furious all year as it is now. What if the media chose not to report “detentions”?

It’s something to think about.

The NY Times would let Obama do anything he wants and they would defend it:

The New York Times Paints Holder As A Victim Of Fast And Furious

The best part, though, was Mr. Holder taking a jab at people like Sharyl Attkisson, Cam Edwards, Katie Pavlich, Matthew Boyle, and myself. [Bold my emphasis.]

But Mr. Holder contended that many of his other critics — not only elected Republicans but also a broader universe of conservative commentators and bloggers — were instead playing “Washington gotcha” games, portraying them as frequently “conflating things, conveniently leaving some stuff out, construing things to make it seem not quite what it was” to paint him and other department figures in the worst possible light.
Of that group of critics, Mr. Holder said he believed that a few — the “more extreme segment” — were motivated by animus against Mr. Obama and that he served as a stand-in for him. “This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him,” he said, “both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.”

@ drjohn:
Dr J., this is really no better than the loonies on the left saying the same about Bush. And I have to agree with Rich, for those that feel this way, if they have to hold their nose and vote for Romney, it could send them to tin-foil-hat-land.
As for the NDAA, I’m not really a fan, but Mata has already debunked have the conspiracy theories out there. Just to sum it up:

Section 1031 of the NDAA authorizes the US military to detain members of al-queda, the Taliban, and associated forces, and persons who supported aggressive acts against the US. Persons who are detain may be held indefinitely without a trial. This section makes no mention of where the US military can take such actions, so presumably, actions by the US military within the US are authorized. This measure is highly controversial because it appears to undermine the US Constitution Article III guarantees to a trial by jury, habeus corpus protections, and Amendments V, VI, and VIII. However, this section includes paragraph (e), which says:

“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.”

This language indicates that Section 1031 of the NDAA can not be used to weaken or remove constitutional protections for US citizens against indefinite detention, or the right to habeus corpus, or a trial by jury.

Section 1032 of the bill requires the US military to hold persons captured during the course of hostilities in military custody. However, the bill includes language in paragraph (1) and (2) that plainly states this measure does not apply to US citizens and does not apply to lawful resident aliens regarding their conduct occurring in the US. So no one can claim this measure nullifies constitutional guarantees for US citizens regarding a trial by jury, access to legal counsel, habeus corpus, or indefinite detention.

People on the right said Bill Clinton wouldn’t leave office. And he didn’t want to go. Hell, the man is still trying to get the constitution changed so he can run again. But he’s trying to do it through the CONSTITUTION!
Get a grip.

@rumcrook:
I was once married to a career U.S. Marine and we had more brownings (I know that is a name brand), rifles, shotguns, and pistols than you could shake a stick at. I suppose after the departure I had my fill of weapons – but now realize how important it is to be protected.

@Aqua: ,

You are right the bill stated it would only be applicable to illegals and those legally in the United States but not a citizen. However the bill has been changed. I didn’t realize it myself until listening to a speech made by Ron Paul in the Senate about how detrimental ths bill is to U.S. citizens. It reminds me of the wizard behind the curtain – this is scary in that sites like this could come under attack or rather the people that post could, under this bill based on their disagreement with the current dictatorship be arrested and taken to either one of the interment cams within the US or to Guantanamo Bay itself . I forgot to add, without due process. This means you could be arrested and forgotten.

. This is not fantasy, this is reality. Unfortunately so many people for so long kept their heads in the sand and refused to recognize that bad things, sometimes really bad things are done by the government on a routine basis. Yes I realize some of it is to alleviate “bad” people but all the same .

Also, the court’s holding pertained only to U.S. citizens captured in combat in Afghanistan. Hamdi does not address non-combatants captured in the United States. The argument in Congress this week was about whether we should expand the possibility of indefinite detention to include U.S. citizens accused of association with terrorism. This could conceivably apply to non-combatants. This could also conceivably include U.S. citizens falsely accused of association with terrorism.

If you allow the government the unlimited power to detain citizens without a jury trial, you are exposing yourself to the whim of those in power. That is a dangerous game.

The FBI publishes characteristics of people you should report as possible terrorists. The list includes the possession of “Meals Ready to Eat,” weatherproofed ammunition, and high-capacity magazines; missing fingers; brightly colored stains on clothing; paying for products in cash; and changes in hair color. I fear that such suspicions might one day be used to imprison a U.S. citizen indefinitely without trial. Just this year, the vice president referred to the Tea Party as a bunch of terrorists. So, I think we should be cautious in granting the power to detain without trial.

Nevertheless, Mr. McCarthy avers that presidents are “highly unlikely to abuse this particular power.” I am more of the Madison persuasion than Mr. McCarthy; I am worried that since governments are not constituted of angels, we must take care to restrain government with specific rules of conduct.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/284937/indefinite-detention-and-american-citizens-sen-rand-paul?pg=1

S. 1867 originally contained language to the effect that citizens are not subject to detention solely to the extent forbidden by the Constitution. Put simply, that was a backwards way of saying that citizens are subject to detention, except of course where the constitution forbids it. That drew lots of heat, and the language was altered. Now, in the current bill, things work as follows:

First, section 1031 is the explicit grant of detention authority. It no longer says anything about US citizenship, one way or the other. It is just like the AUMF in that respect. Of course, we need to recall that the Supreme Court in Hamdi had no trouble concluding that insofar as the AUMF provided detention authority for persons captured in combat in Afghanistan, that authority extended to US citizens (Hamdi left open the question whether the AUMF provided detention authority to other contexts, and if so whether citizenship would remain irrelevant in those other contexts). In any event, against this backdrop, section 1031 as currently written–and if examined in isolation–would not alter the somewhat uncertain status quo regarding the availability of detention for citizens. But 1031 does not stand in isolation. Consider section 1032.

Section 1032 is the supposedly-mandatory military detention provision—i.e., the idea that a subset of detainable persons (“covered persons” in the lingo of the statute) are not just detainable in theory, but affirmatively must be subject to military detention (though only until one of several disposition options, including civilian custody for criminal trial, is selected). Section 1032 then goes on, in subpart (b), to state expressly that US citizens are exempt from this “mandatory detention” requirement (though lawful permanent residents are not).

This obviously rules out the idea of a mandatory military detention for US citizens. But note that it tends to rule in the idea that the baseline grant of detention authority in 1031 does in fact extend to citizens. Otherwise there would be no need for an exclusion for citizens in section 1032, since the 1032 category is a subset of the larger 1031 category.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/does-the-ndaa-authorize-detention-of-us-citizens/

I didn’t realize it myself until listening to a speech made by Ron Paul…

Disenchanted, I wouldn’t trust Ron Paul as a source for anything. Check for yourself.

Here is the version of of the bill as of 5 days ago. There doesn’t appear to be anything more recent. So changed again? Doesn’t seem like it.

SUBTITLE D. SEC. 1021. (p. 655)

(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.

SUBTITLE D. SEC. 1022. (p. 657)

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(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.
http://www.americansoldierswife.com/2011/12/dispelling-myths-and-misinformation.html

Lets not become the black helicopter crowd.

@Hard Right:

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement
to detain a person in military custodyunder this section does not extend to citizens
of the United States.

H.R. #31 “Black helicopter crowd”.Some of you guys and gals already are.Any 9/11 truthers among you?
Here’a a thought. If Newt slips to third behind Romney and Paul in iowa AND N.H. Sarah mounts her snow mobile with Todd and kids(do they have sidecars?) waving wildly and begins a glorious ride to energize Conservs. a la 08 and challenge Mitt for Repub. nom.

BTW Has anyone other than his current wife endorsed Newt?

(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.

Dr. John, I take that to mean it does not apply to U.S citizens-as in they are protected.

Rich, ask the Ron Paul people about 9/11.

(The Hill) — Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) said Tuesday that President Obama “absolutely” should use his executive power to continue the unemployment benefits and payroll tax cut extension and said she hoped to discuss the option with the White House later in the day.

“It is extraordinary, don’t get me wrong. But I’m feeling the pain of the constituents I left [at] home,” Jackson Lee said, speaking on the progressive Ed Schultz’s radio show. “I consider this a crisis. I consider leaving Americans without unemployment insurance for January and February a crime. I consider not extending the payroll tax cut . . . a crime.”

Jackson Lee slammed the move by House Republicans to call for a House-Senate conference as a “ridiculous procedural calamity.”

Boehner has called on Obama to bring the Senate back to appoint negotiators so that the House and Senate can pass a one-year bill.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/200585-jackson-lee-urges-obama-to-use-executive-power-to-extend-payroll-tax-cut-?utm_campaign=briefingroom&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitterfeed

@Hard Right:

Dr. John, I take that to mean it does not apply to U.S citizens-as in they are protected.

What about civilian custody?

@Disenchanted: “I truly feel sorry for people like you who are too blinded by marxist barry, his communist czars and useful idiots to realize that your freedoms will be decimated too. Research the old USSR, and figure out where you would stand if barry gets his way. ”

Man, you ARE a loon! Lol!

@drjohn:

My understanding is that they still have Constitutional protections as a citizen.

@Hard Right: OK, let’s talk about that for a second.

The law says

SUBTITLE D. SEC. 1021. (p. 655)

(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.

SUBTITLE D. SEC. 1022. (p. 657)

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(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.

So…..

H.R. 1540: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, as passed by the House on Dec. 15, still contains the provisions that have garnered criticism, outrage and panic from citizens and groups like Oath Keepers, Infowars and Anonymous. While it is much less threatening than previous versions, the criticism falls largely on Subtitle D – Detainee Matters, especially in sections 1031 and 1032.

Section 1031 subsection A reaffirms the president’s authority to use “all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force,” which includes the power “to detain covered persons … pending disposition under the law of war.” Subsection B gives the definition of “covered persons” as any person (which of course would include U.S. citizens by the wording) that aided in 9/11 or supported “al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”

What “disposition under law of war” means is that someone accused of affiliation with a terrorist group can face “detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities,” or a military trial, where citizens aren’t guaranteed rights such as trial by a jury of peers.

The only difference between being treated as a citizen and an enemy combatant becomes the accusation by the executive branch that you aided or abetted terrorists.

Here’s where things get confusing. Section 1031 subsection E was added, which states, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens … or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” But Section 1032 subsection B, Applicability to U.S. Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens is specifically included to note that the executive branch is not required to treat citizens as enemy combatants. Stripping a citizen of rights is, instead, purely optional.

But the most appalling apart of the NDAA is seemingly snuck in with semantics. Section 1032 also includes subsection A, paragraph 4, Waiver for National Security, which apparently allows the Secretary of Defense to waive the requirement criteria of being terrorist-affiliated. And paragraph 3 says that section 1032’s definitions apply to section 1031, the section that stated that the rights of U.S. citizens wouldn’t be affected.

It’s enough to make heads spin.

gambit 8

I guess we’re going to have to pass it to find out what’s in it.

SUBTITLE D. SEC. 1022. (p. 657)

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(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.

The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the “requirement” of military detention. For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/

Greenwald is not normally a black helicopter guy

It could perhaps be argued that the wording sucks, but there it is.

@liberalmann:

I can always tell a liberal because since they really have no facts to back up their tirades they start calling people names.

my comments about the detainment bill is correct (re US citizens being included). This link will provide proof.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZN-scEZX1k

Actually I can recall claims that Clinton was going to stay in office unconstitutionally also…
and then Bush…
and now Obama…

While the possibility of this occurring is next to nil IMO…and the inevitable response of the military to such a blatantly unconstitutional move (and veterans who consider their oaths still binding if the military wouldn’t reach a conclusion) would put the breaks on such a move made by anyone of any party.

However, it is instructive that there is this undercurrent, this fear, that exists…even from people who are not consciously aware of the precedent that transformed the Roman oligarchical republic into an imperial dictatorship.

@drjohn: I’m not saying that I don’t understand what you are getting at, but what I am asking is by what mechanism would he try to remain in office past the term limits?

As poorly as Obama has done and considering the outstanding choice of Repub. opponents why are you folks WASTING TIME worrying about what BLACK OPS might occur after a 2nd TERM?.

@anticsrocks: I’ve posted an example of a democrat Congresswoman encouraging Obama to ignore the Constitution. Obama himself has hinted plainly at circumventing the Constitution numerous times. Imagine he wins a second term and gets to stuff SCOTUS with left wing whackjobs like Sotomayor and Kagan. They would not rule according to the law. They would rule according to a “progressive” philosophy.

As I wrote above, imagine he says “Shouldn’t the American people decide who they want for President?” With a fully compliant press and judiciary and half the Congress who would stop him if he said he chose to run for a third term? I could see Brian Williams asking America- “Why not?” We know what Sissy Matthews would say- “Sure, it departs from the usual but this is one unusual guy! We’d be crazy to let him go.”

Let’s also imagine the possibility that anyone who challenges him is a racist and a terror threat.

You simply ignore the Constitution.

I don’t think it’s all that far fetched.

Glenn Greenwald? Mr. Sockpuppet? He got that name because he threw out some BS claim and when it started to unravel he signed in as different people in the comments to defend himself and his claims.
Infowars? If you want to see paranoid delusionals by the ton, go to that site.
Anonymous? Do I need to say anything?
Anything from Patterico or Rhiel on this? How about a Conservative lawyer who isn’t a Ron Paul lover?

@anticsrocks: Who would do something about such an action?

Eric Holder?

@Hard Right:

Glenn Greenwald?

Mr. Sockpuppet normally does carry as much Obama water as possible so such a harsh reaction from him is highly unusual and that’s kind of the point.