Why doesn't Obama end the Patriot Act?
The President cannot just end a law...that's up to Congress and the Supreme Court.....Obama was politically forced to extended certain provisions of the law four more years because there was no political will in Congress to end it...that's the way things are done...
Ron Paul's useful idiots on the left
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ts-on-the-leftThis is the man who, to trumpet his pro-life agenda in Iowa to social conservatives, released an ad that questions whether repealing Roe v Wade would eliminate women's abortion rights in enough states, since it would create "abortion tourism" (a situation with which the Irish and the British are already familiar). He opposed the Obama administration's decision to declare birth control a preventative medicine, which pressures insurance companies to cover it without co-pays. He has said he would allow states to decide same-sex marriage rights for their citizens but keep the Defense of Marriage Act intact – which restricts federal rights, including immigration and social security survivor benefits (among others) to opposite-sex married couples. He also opposes the US supreme court decision in Lawrence v Texas that decriminalised consensual sodomy in the United States. He opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He wants to restrict birthright citizenship, denying the children of immigrants legal status in the United States if they are born here, voted to force doctors and hospitals to report undo ented immigrants who seek medical treatment, and sponsored bills to declare English the official language of the United States and restrict government communications to English. And that's just for starters.
Nonetheless, there have been calls by progressives, most notably Glenn Greenwald, to ignore all of that and more, and focus instead on Obama's policy failings to have "an actual debate on issues of America's imperialism". He went on to argue that there are no policy priorities more imperative than those – certainly not abortion, immigration rights, LGBT equality, racial justice or any other aspect of the US's extensive foreign policy. (Greenwald, who is gay, was in the relatively privileged position of being able to travel to Brazil to cir vent Doma.) And so people whose lives, safety, livelihoods and health depend on them should accept that they are trading their concerns for, say, the lives of Muslim children killed by bombs in Afghanistan.
In fact, many of Ron Paul's newest supporters on the left look strikingly like the majority of the ones on the right who have been following him for years: the kinds of people whose lives won't be directly affected by all those pesky social conservative policies Paul would seek to enact as president, either due to their race, class, gender or sexual orientation.
The Nation: Progressive (i.e. Greenwald's) Man-Crushes On Ron Paul
http://www.npr.org/2012/01/06/144783...es-on-ron-paulIt's a little strange to see people who inveigh against Obama's healthcare compromises wave away, as a detail, Paul's opposition to any government involvement in healthcare. In Ron Paul's America, if you weren't prudent enough or wealthy enough to buy private insurance — and the exact policy that covers what's ailing you now — you find a charity or die. And if civil liberties are so important, how can Paul's progressive fans overlook his opposition to abortion and his signing of the personhood pledge, which could ban many birth control methods? Last time I checked, women were half the population (the less important half, apparently). Technically, Paul would overturn Roe and let states make their own laws regulating women's bodies, up to and including prosecuting abortion as murder. Add in his opposition to basic civil rights law — he maintains his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act and opposes restrictions on the "freedom" of business owners to refuse service to blacks — and his hostility to the federal government starts looking more and more like old-fashioned Southern-style states' rights. No wonder they love him over at Stormfront, a white-supremacist website with neo-Nazi tendencies. In a multiple-choice poll of possible effects of a Paul presidency, the most popular answer by far was "Paul will implement reforms that increase liberty which will indirectly benefit White Nationalists." And let's not forget his other unsavory fan base, Christian extremists who want to execute gays, adulterers and "insubordinate children." Paul's many connections with the Reconstructionist movement, going back decades, are laid out on AlterNet by Adele Stan, who sees him as a faux libertarian whose real agenda is not individualism but to prevent the federal government from restraining the darker impulses at work at the state and local levels.
It's all pretty incoherent for a man often praised as principled and consistent and profound — if states could turn themselves into a Christian theocracy, could they also turn themselves into socialist mini-republics? If they can ban contraception, can they also compel contraception? For people who see Paul as an antiwar candidate who will restore the Bill of Rights, it's almost bad manners to bring up his opposition to just about every piece of progressive legislation passed in the last 200 years, from the Occupational Safety and Health Act and membership in the UN to Federal Deposit Insurance and requirements that undo ented immigrants be permitted treatment in ERs. But come on! This man has been a stone reactionary his entire life. Consistent? Not to harp on abortion, but an effective ban would require a level of policing that would make the war on drugs look feeble.
If Ron Paul was interested in peace, he wouldn't be a Republican — that party has even more enthusiasm for the military-industrial complex than the Democrats. For decades the GOP has turned every election into a contest over who is more macho, more nationalistic, more willing to do exactly the things lefty Paul fans excoriate Obama for doing. Paul doesn't get re-elected in his Texas district because of boutique positions like thinking Osama bin Laden should have been arrested, not assassinated.
Supporting Ralph Nader in 2000 was at least a vote for one's actual politics. Supporting Ron Paul is just a gesture of frivolity — or despair.
Someone used force on Obama? Damn, the secret service must suck if politicians are forcing him to defend and support the Patriot Act.
the distinctly neocon lawfareblog verifies that the NDAA codifies detention authority. pwned yourself, didn't you?
taking dictation from the white house, as predicted. I notice that the WH objected to section 1032 because it restrains the executive unduly.
what was that you said again about Obama not asking for or wanting more power?
your contributions in this thread have been political spin and nothing but.
you ran away and hid, apparently.
smart move. it wasn't going well for you.
Greenwald responds here to the various bull you copied and pasted, Dan:
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/05/demo...ies/singleton/
Who's running? I think we have established that Congress, the House and Senate, not the Obama administration, codified something which has only been done once, ever, and which the President signed a signing statement which established which he would not follow..
So blame the House members and Senators who voted for this veto-proof bill..
Obama signed it. He shares responsibility.
LOL that was just Obama trying to have his cake and eat it too while posturing to gullible idiots like you.
We already know your no fan of Obama, but your suppressing that this bill had a veto-proof majority in both houses and it specifically prohibits the illegal detention of American citizens who are not arrested in foreign battle-fields...
Obama is coming for your women....boogy-boogy....
chapter and verse, please
pretty please?
Absolutely. he should have vetoed it. Then anyone voting in a veto override would own the blame, and he would be clear. It would stop enough members from passing it I bet.
o, DanLast Activity: Today 06:01 PM
Current Activity: Viewing Thread Obama Signs Bill To Jail Americans Indefinitely Without Charge
Obama Signing Statement: The NDAA Doesn’t Apply To US Citizens
By Jason Easley
http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-ndaa-statementIn his signing statement attached to the NDAA, President Obama made it clear that the language about detentions does not apply to US citizens.
*snip*
In summary and for the millionth time, the detention provisions do not apply to the NDAA. The law itself states that it does not apply to American citizens. Some people will still continue to feed their mistrust of government, but it is in black and white. It was written in the revised legislation.
why is a signing statement necessary if the law is clear? that makes no sense at all Dan.
I notice you've still not pointed out where the statutory language is so clear on the subject.
I backed up my bs when you asked for a citation. Where's yours?
I got back to you in eight minutes. You've been keeping me waiting a day.
should read, all day
WH, you're giving Dan way too much credit.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
