Spintested: 07/26/12

Kate Middleton Preps For Olympics With Prince William & Prince Harry (PHOTOS)

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Agness, let's communicate.

I was speaking in terms of western values ('New World Order', and all that rot), and while I'm not a Brit, I am an Anglo-phile.

In an effort to try to build bridges, I looked at some of your other comments to find somewhere we might connect. You said this about an article on HP about a Vancouver man sought in dog beating death: "Well, I can't read this, but I can say that I once saw my step-father beat a dog and I've never forgotten it. Crimes like this demand jail time and a permanent registry, like the one for sex-offenders."

Do you see any parallels and why, as an American, commenting on people who make fortunes doing what is extremely enjoyable and luxurious instead of compensating laborers well who actually labor doing loathsome and difficult work and that really is more important to all of our survival, it might be my business?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Kate Middleton Preps For Olympics With Prince William & Prince Harry (PHOTOS)

What a life.

How we compensate people is completely backwards. In this case, we're talking about a family of people who are, essentially, models. They pose in front of cameras in expensive clothing and jewels (which they get to keep), play games, go to top notch entertainment venues and eat and drink the finest vittles in the world.

And those who perform back-breaking work picking vegetables in the hot sun we pay below minimum wage or lock them up indefinitely before deporting them.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Business Owners Disapprove Of Obama's Job Performance: Poll

Neither were Reagan or Clinton or JFK or Eisenhower or Roosevelt businessmen. Or GHWBush for that matter. And W was as failed a businessman as it gets.

To be fair, Obama worked both as a corporate employee (Business International Corporation) and for a law firm (Sidley & Austin).

Government is run by people who, overwhelmingly, have no business experience. And that's not a bad thing.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

It was Regan that eliminated the fairness doctrine in the media, and allowed concentration and monopolies over news casts.

===========================

Yes, it was Reagan who eliminated the Fairness Doctrine, which Clinton could have reinstated.

But not only didn't Clinton reinstate it, he consolidated conservatives' gain and hold on media with the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Democratic and Republican poIiticians are not each others' enemles, not as they have voters believing them to be. Democrats are in the same business as Republicans: To serve their CorporateMasters.

Think of Democratic and Republican politicians as working on the same side, as tag relay teams (or like siblings competing for parental approval). 'Good cop/bad cop'. Or like at the annual company picnic, the manufacturing division against the marketing division in a friendly game of softball. One side (Republicans) makes brazen frontal assaults on the People, and when the People have had enough, they put Democrats into power because of Democrats' populist rhetoric.

Once in power, Democrats consolidate Republicans' gains from previous years, and continue on with Republican policies but renamed, with new advertising campaigns. They throw the People a few bones, but once Democrats leave office, we learn that those bones really weren't what We, the People thought they were.

Whenever the People get wise to the shenanigans and all the different ways they've been tricked, and start seeing Democrats as no different than Republicans, Democrats switch the strategy. They invent new reasons for failing to achieve the People's business.

Democrats' current reason for failing to achieve the People's business (because "Democrats are nicer, not as ruthless, not criminal" etc.) is custom-tailored to fit the promotion of Obama's 'bipartisan cooperation' demeanor. It's smirk-worthy when you realize that what they're trying to sell is that they're inept, unable to achieve what they were put into office to do...And their ineptitude, like that's somehow "a good thing".

Obama's 'job', as he sees it, is to deliver to the top 1percent. No protesting, rallying, marching, begging, imploring, wishing, pleading with Obama is going to move him off of that. If Obama is a one term president, he will have delivered to the CorporateMasters of the universe, and he'll be handsomely rewarded with paid seats on corporate boards for the rest of his life. He'll just hand the baton off to a Republican for the fleecing to continue.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

One example of failure on women's economic conditions - Lily Ledbetter has been at the top of Obama's 'most ardent supporters' lists of his "accomplishments" and has gone unchallenged because to explain the ridiculousness of it as an "Obama accomplishment" can't be done in a 10-word sound byte.

To begin with, claiming Lily Ledbetter as Obama's achievement is like the driver of the winning car in this year's Le Mans race (Mike Rockenfeller) picking up a hitch-hiking Obama right before he crossed the finish line and saying Obama won the Le Mans. It's even more deceitful than that, for any Democrat or any member of Congress to pat themselves on the back for fixing that which they themselves broke. But even that doesn't quite explain it.

Obama and Democrats got into power on a pledge to change the way Washington works. Little is ever said or explained about what that really means. I'm going to attempt it:

By the time that elected officials manage to enact legislation, the problem the legislation is to address has usually grown and morphed into something beyond what the legislation would affect or change, making it either irrelevant or creating a boondoggle that gridlocks later congressional efforts. Or, something else.

With Lily Ledbetter, it took 45 years to have the legislature address a problem (statute of limitations for filing equal pay discrimination lawsuits in the Civil Rights Act of 1964) in what never should've been agreed to by Democrats in the first place in 1964. Lily Ledbetter really had nothing to do with "landmark sex discrimination". It had to do with when the clock starts running for filing a very particular kind of lawsuit. It doesn't affect statutes of limitation for any other kind of lawsuit. It doesn't apply to the filing of all lawsuits. It's just for a particular class of lawsuits - For the filing of an equal-pay lawsuit.

And it wasn't 45 years of Congresses trying to fix it. It was a year and a half. It was in response to the Supreme Court's decision in 2007 in one woman's lawsuit. It's not going to affect millions, or thousands or even hundreds of others - Ironically, if it were to affect more women, it never would have passed, no matter what party held the Congress (because it would have meant more money paid out from corporations to women, and Democrats work for corporations just as Republicans do).

If you want to tout passage of Lily Ledbetter then you're going to have to take the blame for not following it up immediately with legislation for transparency in pay. Being able to find out what everyone else is getting paid. It's a joke without it. It's like taking you to a Michelin star restaurant, blowing the aromas from the kitchen in your face, but not letting you eat anything at all.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

And women's issues?

Obama and Democrats have done a horrible job as women's advocates. Let's look at three of the most important issues affecting women - Reproductive choice, economics and children/families.

'Kids Count' Report: Child Poverty On The Rise - And it's not just in the past decade, but for the past 30 years children have been losing ground, more living in poverty, not getting educated, job training, and more.

Census figures for 2011 show poverty rate jumping to highest level since 1960s.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

Even the most pro-choice of Democrats in Congress, alleged stalwarts who've spent entire careers, decades in public office, have failed miserably to protect women's rights and have let it get to this point. One example would be Barbara Boxer.

In 2006, Democratic senators and the Democratic machine publicly supported Democratic candidate NedLamont who was running for senator in Connecticut against newly independent JoeLieberman. Privately, working behind-the-scenes, Democratic senators and former president BillClinton were working to help Lieberman raise money to beat Lamont, and Republican AlanSchlesinger. Before Lamont won the primary, when Lieberman was still a Democrat, Boxer stumped for Lieberman. She was asked how she could support him given that Lieberman supports hospitals receiving public monies refusing to give contraceptives to r@pe victims, and instead of dodging Lieberman, dropping him like the bad character he is, she dodged the issue.

During the Bush-Cheney administration, she wrote two murder mysteries, because "It was always something I wanted to do if I had the time."

In the 2010 midterm campaign, I asked rhetorically, "If Republicans win back control of Congress, do you think Democrats will be as effective at stymieing Republicans' agenda as Republicans have been the last two years at stymieing Obama's/Democrats' 2008 agenda?" If what Democratic politicians did during the BushCheney years is any indication, no. Let's look at some of the alleged champions of liberals' issues.

BarbaraBoxer has been a terrible champion of liberal issues, but only those paying attention know this.

For example, as a member of Congress, you can't just be for or against something (like abortion) when it comes up for a vote. You have to be meticulous and actively work to set up the conditions surrounding your vote, to make sure it counts. Your 'yes' vote means nothing if there are more 'no' votes to cancel your vote/voice out.

Knowing that, what did Boxer do the entire 8 years of the BushAdministration? She effectively went on sabbatical. She wrote murder mysteries ("Something I always wanted to do, if I ever had the time"). She, of course, took her senatorial salary all those years.

Boxer's support of JoeLieberman in 2006 exposed Boxer's very 'conditional' support of a woman's right to choose (and her general level of ignorance)
http://firedoglake.com/2006/07/24/the-boxer-meltdown/
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

Obama and Democrats have put us firmly on the path of ending all insurance coverage for abortions.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2009/11/17/gwu-study-yes-the-stupak-amendment-would-end-coverage-of-abortion-services-over-time/

Fairly soon, Roe and overturning it is going to be moot with all that Republicans have managed to get Democrats to "compromise" on, making getting an abortlon impossible. As it is now, you can't get an abortlon in 92 percent of the counties in the US.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

And as far as the chronically ill, health insurance ≠ medical treatment .

People who voted for Obama and Democrats voted to get affordable, quality medical treatment. That was NOT a vote to protect and further enrich the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Voters did NOT send Obama and Democrats into power to entrench the insurance industry as the gatekeepers to being able to get medical treatment. Voters did NOT send Obama and Democrats to Washington to continue tying insurance benefits to their employment.

Yet that is precisely what Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats did.

Obama's healthcare legislation doesn't control costs and doesn't deliver medical treatment to everyone (not even those who think they're going to get it). ACA Unlikely to Stem Medical Bankruptcies

Meet The New 1%: - Healthcare CEOs replace bankers as America's best paid:

Pity WallStreet's bankers. Once the highest-paid bosses in the land, they're now also-rans. The real money is in healthcare and drugs, according to the latest survey of executive pay. One example is JoelGemunder, CEO Omnicare, who had a total pay package in 2010 worth $98 million.

Obama's healthcare legislation is nothing more than a massive giveaway to the health insurance industry. It's one of the most corrupt pieces of legislation ever enacted by our government.

The health insurance industry provides no real service. All it does is take money out of the system. It's nothing more than a blood-sucking middleman.

Dr. MarciaAngell, a proponent of SinglePayerUniversal healthcare, testifying before Congress as to the reason our health care system is in such a shambles:

"It's set up to generate profits NOT to provide care. To pay for care, we rely on hundreds of investor-owned insurance companies that profit by refusing coverage to the sickest patients and limiting services to the others. And they cream roughly 20% off the top of the premium dollar for profits and overhead. Our method of delivering care is no better than our method of paying for it. We provide much of the care in investor-owned health facilities that profit by providing too many services for the well-insured and too few for those who cannot pay. Most doctors are paid fee-for-sservice which gives them a similar incentive to focus on profitable services, particularly specialists, who receive very high fees for expensive tests and procedures. In sum, health care is for maximizing income and not maximizing health..."

ACA does nothing to change that.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

One way to take much of the energy out of the opposition to repealing DADT is for the president to issue an executive order which would have the effect of getting people used to it so that when the vote does come after the Pentagon's report at the end of the year, deflating hom0phobes' worst fears.

WIth a stroke of a pen, Obama (as the Commander-in-Chief) can go a long way to healing some of the problems in this country in many different ways. It's good for gays, it's good for the military (we're having problems retaining troop strength, and gay soldiers skills' sets save all soldiers' lives), it's good for the war effort (it is "war time", or so we've been told often enough), it's good for the American people, and it's good for the world.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

Barack Obama, Gay Rights Groups Struggle Over Democratic Platform

White House dances around President’s failure to ‘evolve’ on marriage equality

Obama's Closest Adviser on LGBT Issues (WH Aide Valerie Jarrett): 15-Year Old Justin Aarberg “Made a Lifestyle Choice”

Obama didn't repeal DADT - Congress did. Obama could've ended DADT for the duration of his term in office with an executive order. And while DADT was suspended through executive order, Congress could continue to "work on" repealing its legislation, and the various court cases challenging DADT could also work their way through the judicial branch of our government.

Even after Congress passed DADT, its implementation was delayed and hinged upon the judgment of the Pentagon. During that time, gay soldiers were still being separated from military service and afterwards, Gay Military Members Have Tough Time Returning To Service

In May 2010, the House and a Senate panel passed a plan to repeal DADT, but with the usual slick out-clause or backdoor -- The plan was always to kick the can down the road as long as possible, keeping Gay Americans disenfranchised and politically active as long as possible.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-05-28/politics/gays.in.the.military_1_larger-defense-authorization-bill-repeal-white-house?_s=PM:POLITICS>

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

Any two things look the same when viewed from far, far away. It's when you get up close that you notice the differences - differences that become very personal if you are an immigrant, LGBT, a woman, or a person suffering from chronic illness. These differences, while seemingly inconsequential from far away, are so very *real* to the people they directly affect.

===========================

Absolutely true.

Obama's Broken 2008 Immigration Promises Create Dilemma For Democrats -- Obama is set to deport more people in one term than Republican predecessor George W. Bush did in two.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

Yet you're voting for Democrats that write and pass legislation and govern as "me, me, me Republicans".
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

How far back do you want to go, hows this one more recent
The Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a bill Thursday that would replace looming Pentagon spending cuts opposed by the GOP with a series of domestic program reductions opposed by congressional Democrats.

The bill passed in a strongly polarized 218-199 vote. No Democrats supported the measure.

just like you claiming democrats overwhelmingly support the invasion of Iraq when 126 (61%) of 208 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution!!! 61% AGAINST only 3% of GOP voted against it!! And in the Senate 29 dems vote and only 1 gop voted against the war resolutuon!!!!

======================

We're talking about legislation passed into law, not these 'show' bills.

What legislation has the GOP pass with no Democratic votes?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

What then does that make you: Paid or an idiot?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

Again you are doing nothing the spreading GOP lies and misrepresentations. Your bias is so evident. The GOP did such a snow job on the public with outright lies and fear mongering , more than 50% believed Iraq was behind 9/11 and it was a number Democratics that pushed for amended AUMF requiring Bush to go through the UN and have multi-national support before launching any attack on Iraq. The GOP had the public so convinced with their fear mongering making practically political suicide to vote against invading Iraq. And it has been the conservatives that have destroyed the separation of powers, with the Citizens United case which every GOP supported, giving them even more power and money to subvert Democracy. It was Regan that eliminated the fairness doctrine in the media, and allowed concentration and monopolies over news casts. And it was the GOP that wasted millions and distracted both the President and the nation with frivolous investigations into Clintons personal life all for politic gain that had nothing to do with the security of the US diverting attention and time from the real issues. And you have no idea how the Clinton's made their money or what investments they held after Bill Clinton left office and is total irrelevant when he left office! You also dont know what their net worth is. And you put forth a GOP candidate for office who refuses to disclose his taxes, net worth and even how he made it, but we do

=======================

You have the facts and timeline twisted into a pretzel, along with issues jumbled together as one would mix metaphors. Notice how I didn't accuse you of lying (because name-calling would be in violation of HP comment-policy) or of being hysterical (more name-calling).

Here are the facts of the AUMF. Initially, and because their constituents did not support Democrats' giving Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq (WASHINGTON POST, 10/11/2002), Democrats voted to give Bush the AUMF. Various amendments that would have slowed down the process, allowed facts against Iraq's having WMD to surface, were voted down, by Democrats.

Again, there were remedies which the Democrats have refused to do. And again, it appears you want to put more of the same rubber-stamping, ineffective and lazy cowards (that's the generous interpretation of Democrats' failure) into power.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

Again you distort and lie, It was democrats that insisted any action be multinational and approved by a UN voted, but Bush and Cheney kept up the fear mongering and had the public in a state of panic and even believing that Saddam was behind 9/11 and even went after anyone that could prove otherwise as the did with Valerie Plane and her husband for trying to expose the truth. You didnt need to read the NIE when Bush/Cheny made sure they every new outlet was reporting the major threat posed by Saddam and WMDS, they even lied in public to the UN!!And you are as bad defending the GOP and Bush while admitting they violated the laws!!! And trying to blame democrats because Bush and Cheney violated numerous law and then you defending the GOP party. Are you insane or just a really bad political hack!!!

=========================

Did you believe BushCheney's lies?

I surely didn't, nor did anyone else I know.

What were you doing in response to their lies and fear-mongering? Were you (like me and just about everyone else I know) lobbying Democrats and the media against the rush to war, protesting on the streets, community organizing and informing, etc.?

In this democratic republic, our elected officials (Democrats in this case) are and were the last line of defense and offense against a corrupted and criminal executive (BushCheney). If they didn't hold the line, if they didn't do the job, didn't counter the fear-mongering and the state of panic, because they were afraid of being "gone after", then they're useless for the job.

But you want more of that.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

BS!!! Bush Cheney lied!!! Such Bull when the GOP has passed legislation with no Democratic votes!!!

===========================

I repeat:

What legislation has the GOP passed without Democratic votes?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

Do you work for the NSA?

"Assembling" is exactly the word that NSA whistleblower William Binney used:

“They’re pulling together all the data about virtually every U.S. citizen in the country … and assembling that information,” Binney explained. “So government is accumulating that kind of information about every individual person and it’s a very dangerous process.”

Why would you defend this violation of Americans' Constitutional rights and privacy?

What's wrong with you?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

Under Obama -

NSA Whistleblower: They're assembling information on every US citizen.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

How do you know they're terrorists?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

Senator Bob Graham, who didn't vote to give Bush the AUMF was one of a handful who availed himself of the opportunity, and went to the room to read it. We can't find out precisely who did read it because the sign-in sheet is classified. Isn't that amazing? Finding out whether our elected representatives did their homework, did their jobs, is classified. The NIE itself has been declassified, but finding out who read it, that we can't know.

After Graham read it, he told Hillary that she'd better get herself to the room & read it. When the existence of the NIE originally became known (during Plamegate) and the little room on the Hill, certain members of Congress were asked if they'd read it before their vote to AUMF. Hillary said she hadn't. She said she knew enough about Iraq and didn't have to read the NIE. She also said that she never discussed her vote or the situation with her husband.

It's important to realize that as a former president, Bill Clinton got the same P(resident's)D(aily)B(reif) that George WBush got. He knew Bush was Iying us into a war in Iraq, but he backed Bush up; he still does to this day. Is anybody seriously going to say that Hillary and Bill didn't know the truth, that Bush & Cheney were about to spend us into servitude, push us into third world nation status, all the while the Clintons were making HUNDREDS of millions from hedge funds?

But back to your exonerating Democrats for their part in the US's demise. There are remedies for maintaining the balance of power in our government, to keep the 3 branches co-equal, to prevent the executive lying (or going to war on lies, etc.), but Democrats have refused to use them. Everything from hearings and investigations, censure to impeachment -- The founders provided the tools to make this democratic republic accountable to the People.

But Democrats refuse to use them.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

What legislation has the GOP passed without Democratic votes?

I assume you're talking about the Iraq War and the AUMF (Authorization to Use Military Force). Yes, Bush-Cheney lied; had Democrats in Congress done their job of oversight, they would have known that and, perhaps, voted differently.

I'm sure you'd agree that the singlemost important decision that any member of Congress can make is whether to give a president the authority to use military force against another nation.

HillaryClinton claimed that when she was in the Senate that she did not discuss her vote to give Bush the AUMF with her husband. She claims she based her vote on Bush's claim that Iraq had WMD. We know from the NIE that it wasn't true, and that there were no legal grounds to attack Iraq. Not only was it illegal, taking Saddam out was bad policy, a bad strategy that would destabilize the entire region, open up a Pandora's box and have us in a quagmire for years and decades.

Bush, no fool he (he and Cheney wanted Congress's heads on the line, too, should it all go bad), made that NIE available to all members of Congress. It was in a locked on the Hill (a table, chair and lamp in the room), with an armed guard standing outside. You had to show your ID as a member of Congress and sign in to enter the room. Bush wanted a record of it.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

Isn't this what we would be doing by electing the Republicans back into office?

===========================

You've been voting for Republicans? Maybe you should stop doing that.

Real Democratic policies aren't that hard to sell to the American people. When tea-partiers yell, "Get government out of healthcare" and in the same breath, "Don't touch my Medicare!", then education is the solution.

For more than 2 decades, the DLC (the corporate, Republican-wing of the Democratic Party) has controlled the Democratic Party. The DLC got into power by refusing to defend the word 'liberal', educate the starstruck fans of Ronald Reagan when Reagan, Lee Atwater and KarlRove were demonizing the word. Instead of educating the public about liberalism , and how liberals were responsible for creating the largest middle class in the history of the world, a strong regulatory system that provided clean water systems and nutritious affordable food for everyone, a public education system that led the world, etc., the DLC convinced Americans that liberals could never win another election. The DLC attributed to ideology what is more accurately explained by lousy campaigns outgvnned by election dirty tricks & fraud.

When informed of the issues, most Americans agree with liberal policies. Neither they (nor I) would characterize themselves as far-anything or extreme, but mainstream. For example, nobody likes the idea of abortion, but most Americans do not want the government involved if they find themselves in the predicament of an unwanted pregnancy. And if you frame it as, "You like to k!ll babies?!?! ?!?!", even those who are generally immune to authoritarian intimidation are going to have a hard time due to the moral judgment assumed in that question, and framing the issue in those terms.

If the Bush years taught us anything, it's that anyone can sell anything to Americans, if you're stolid and relentless in your sales pitch and tactics. It's not that Bush and Rove were geniuses and knew something that nobody else knew; Bush and Rove were just more ruthless in doing what politicians and the parties had gone to great lengths to hide from Americans -- If you keep at it, escalate your attacks, don't take 'no' for an answer and never back away, you will wear the opposition down.

Obama knows how to do this. He does it to get Republican policies and legislation through. It seems you want more of this.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

NDAA has been signed for almost 8 months. I have yet to hear anything about unjustified detention of innocent U.S. citizens. And believe me, people are definitely looking to bring that to light of day to attack Obama.”

===========================

There are certain comments that, on their face, look as if they've been made by reasonably mature, intelligent people. But then they'll contain some abzurdum, that includes words like, "And believe me", (as if huskog is in a position on this anonymous website to be someone to believe on national security matters, or in a position to "yet hear about unjustified detention of innocent U.S. citizens", when just this week press admits that it gives the government editing control over what it publishes), that makes it supremely easy for me to dismiss them, not further engage in discussion with them, and not look back.

This was just such a comment.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

When Bush claimed the power merely to detain or even just eavesdrop on American citizens without due process, Democratic voters were up in arms. Yet now, here’s Obama claiming the power not to detain or eavesdrop on citizens without due process, but to kill them; marvel at how the hardest-core White House loyalists now celebrate this and uncritically accept the same justifying rationale used by Bush/Cheney (this is war! the President says he was a Terrorist!) without even a moment of acknowledgment of the profound inconsistency or the deeply troubling implications of having a President — even Barack Obama — vested with the power to target U.S. citizens for murder with no due process.

Also, during the Bush years, civil libertarians who tried to convince conservatives to oppose that administration’s radical excesses would often ask things like this: would you be comfortable having Hillary Clinton wield the power to spy on your calls or imprison you with no judicial reivew or oversight? So for you good progressives out there justifying this, I would ask this: how would the power to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process look to you in the hands of, say, Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann?

Obama's most ardent supporters resemble Bushies with each passing day.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

The whole OUTRAGE was sparked by the fact that Obama ordered a drone hit on Anwar al-Alawki, the guy that was going to take over Osama Bin Laden's position. I don't give a crap about him being U.S. citizen if he is plotting terrorist attacks against the U.S.

======================================

How do you know that?

No effort was made to indict him for any crimes (despite a report last October that the Obama administration was “considering” indicting him). Despite substantial doubt among Yemen expertsabout whether he even had any operational role in Al Qaeda, no evidence (as opposed to unverified government accusations) was presented of his guilt. When Awlaki’s father sought a court order barring Obama from killing his son, the DOJ argued, among other things, that such decisions were “state secrets” and thus beyond the scrutiny of the courts. He was simply ordered killed by the President: his judge, jury and executioner.

Thus, Obama transformed someone who was, at best, a marginal figure into a martyr, and again showed its true face to the world. The government and media search for The Next bin Laden has undoubtedly already commenced.

What’s most striking about this is not that the U.S. Government has seized and exercised exactly the power the Fifth Amendment was designed to bar (“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law”), and did so in a way that almost certainly violates core First Amendment protections (questions that will now never be decided in a court of law). What’s most amazing is that its citizens will not merely refrain from objecting, but will stand and cheer the U.S. Government’s new power to assassinate their fellow citizens, far from any battlefield, literally without a shred of due process from the U.S. Government.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

Don't be a terrorist? A lot of that is predicated on the suspicion that you are a terrorist. I just don't care about the constitutional rights of terrorists, and for that matter, for mass murderers, rapists, child molesters, etc.

=========================================

The changes in the laws aren't being done to protect Americans from terrorists.

Harper's Index, 2011 -

Number of delayed-notice search warrants granted by federal judges last year under the Patriot Act:

1150

Number that were related to drug offenses and terrorism, respectively:

844, 6

In fact, no one has been convicted on terrorism charges as a result of the changes in the laws. All our previous laws served to do the job and get convictions.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

The New York Times Editorial Page today denounced these new rules as “spiteful,” cited it as “the Obama administration’s latest overuse of executive authority,” and said “the administration looks as if it is imperiously punishing detainees for their temerity in bringing legal challenges to their detention and losing.” Detainee lawyers are refusing to submit to these new rules and are asking a federal court to rule that they violate the detainees’ right to legal counsel.

But every time the issue of ongoing injustices at Guantanamo is raised, one hears the same apologia from the President’s defenders: the President wanted and tried to end all of this, but Congress — including even liberals such as Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders — overwhelming voted to deny him the funds to close Guantanamo. While those claims, standing alone, are true, they omit crucial facts and thus paint a wildly misleading picture about what Obama actually did and did not seek to do.

What made Guantanamo controversial was not its physical location: that it was located in the Caribbean Sea rather than on American soil (that’s especially true since the Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that U.S. courts have jurisdiction over the camp).

What made Guantanamo such a travesty — and what still makes it such — is that it is a system of indefinite detention whereby human beings are put in cages for years and years without ever being charged with a crime. President Obama’s so-called “plan to close Guantanamo” — even if it had been approved in full by Congress — did not seek to end that core injustice. It sought to do the opposite: Obama’s plan would have continued the system of indefinite detention, but simply re-located it from Guantanamo Bay onto American soil.

Long before, and fully independent of, anything Congress did, President Obama made clear that he was going to preserve the indefinite detention system at Guantanamo even once he closed the camp. President Obama fully embraced indefinite detention — the defining injustice of Guantanamo — as his own policy.

Read the timeline and more here.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

You will also recall that Obama's attempts to close Gitmo were blocked by the very same Congress.

======================================

The Obama GITMO myth - New vindictive restrictions on detainees highlights the falsity of Obama defenders regarding closing the camp

Obama defenders invoke a blatant myth to shield the President from blame: he wanted and tried so very hard to end all of this, but Congress would not let him. Especially now that we’re in an Election Year, and in light of very recent developments, it’s long overdue to document clearly how misleading that excuse is.

Last week, the Obama administration imposed new arbitrary rules for Guantanamo detainees who have lost their first habeas corpus challenge. Those new rules eliminate the right of lawyers to visit their clients at the detention facility; the old rules establishing that right were in place since 2004, and were bolstered by the Supreme Court’s 2008 Boumediene ruling that detainees were entitled to a “meaningful” opportunity to contest the legality of their detention. The DOJ recently informed a lawyer for a Yemeni detainee, Yasein Khasem Mohammad Esmail, that he would be barred from visiting his client unless he agreed to a new regime of restrictive rules, including acknowledging that such visits are within the sole discretion of the camp’s military commander. Moreover, as SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Denniston explains:

Besides putting control over legal contacts entirely under a military commander’s control, the “memorandum of understanding” does not allow attorneys to share with other detainee lawyers what they learn, and does not appear to allow them to use any such information to help prepare their own client for a system of periodic review at Guantanamo of whether continued detention is justified, and may even forbid the use of such information to help prepare a defense to formal terrorism criminal charges against their client.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP