A place for me to pour out my rants without clogging the inboxes of my friends and family. Also a place to give info on myself and Mary, our family news and events.
And if not, why?
Published on January 14, 2012 By Rightwinger In US Domestic

When will enough be enough? When will someone in authority finally stand up and say “no more”?
President Obama once again ignores constitutional strictures with his recent “recess appointments”, while the Senate was still in session. Bottom line, he simply said, “you’re in”, without bothering with the process of legal Senate confirmation.
Where is the outrage in the House and Senate? That’s the Legislative Branch’s job.
Of course, it’s supposed to be their job, too, to safeguard the Constitution and the republican process against Executive Branch excesses. In this, they have failed miserably. For years.

The appointment that seemed most eyebrow-raising was that of Richard Cordray, installed as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), yet another alphabet soup agency of questionable necessity, instituted in 2010, representing a further drain on our already thinly-stretched resources.
As head of this boondoggle, Cordray has open access to 12% of the Federal Reserve’s resources, without Congressional permission or oversight; that’s approximately $400 million, to use at his—or rather, Obama’s—whim.
How many “czars” does Obama have, now? Do we even know, anymore? There are supposedly cabinet members who had no contact with him for two years, because their positions were usurped by a czar. Obama apparently only met with them, because he was forced to.
The only member of either house to actually make any noise at all about Obama and his czars was Robert Byrd, who rightly stated that the czars circumvented the authority of the Congress. Unconstitutionally.
Why is the left silent?
They hated that Bush “interned people illegally”—clearly meaning the Guantanamo terrorists as, despite their hysterics, they can never seem to actually point to even one American citizen being unfairly detained. Well, in signing the Defense Authorization Act, Obama not only extends this ability, making it utterly legal, but essentially strips out the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Amendments.
Bye-bye, US Constitution; you had a good run. Welcome to fascism.
It is now entirely possible that, at sometime in the not-to-distant future, you could be arrested for vocalizing opposition to the government, and would have no recourse under the law.

As a conservative, I really don’t like it, but would trust a more Constitutionalist president with this power any day, over Obama’s cynical, leftwing, America-hating statism.
However, a true Constitutionalist likely wouldn’t have signed the bill as it stood, anyway.
How is he getting away with all this? Are the House and Senate afraid of him? Where is the outrage from the liberal leftists, always so concerned with their rights? Their hypocrisy is demonstrable, here.

Where are the anguished cries of "foul" now, now that it's a Democrat in office, and not a Republican?

 Thirty-three percent of Americans fear Obama’s re-election. They fear it, more than tax increases and even Iranian nukes.
Of course, getting rid of Obama, may help decrease the likelihood of the others.

Socializing medicine, nationalizing banks and industries, blatant cronyism, funneling government funds to supporters, strong-arm tactics, openly flouting the constitution and its guaranteed rights, assembling a shadow government which answers only to him; some of these are the same kinds of things the left accused Bush of pulling, for eight years. Now that they’re clearly happening, they say nothing?
Because liberalism, at its core, is ultimately fascist; statist, and approving of Obama’s egregious, authoritarian excesses.

on Jan 15, 2012


In an executive statement to the Senate (11/17/11) President Obama expressed his administration's opposition to the provision as follows: "The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects."

The White House threatened to veto the Senate version of the Act,[9] arguing that while "the authorities granted by the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, including the detention authority... are essential to our ability to protect the American people... (and) Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk."

The Senate later adopted by a 98 to 1 vote a compromise amendment, based upon a proposal by Senator Dianne Feinstein, which preserves current law concerning U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens detained within the United States.

While Senator Feinstein and others have argued that current law does not allow the indefinite detention of American citizens, the Obama Administration, Senators Carl Levin and John McCain have argued that it may still allow it.

The Senate and House voted on the final bill as follows:


     D   R  I

Y  48 41  1

N   3  3   1


    D     R

Y 93   143

N 93     43

Here are the only 7 Senators to vote against it:

(R) Utah - Michael Lee
(R) Oklahoma - Tom Coburn
(R) Kentucky - Rand Paul
(D) Iowa - Tom Harkin
(D) Oregon - Jeff Merkley
(D) Oregon - Ron Wyden
(I) Vermont - Bernie Sanders

Above are the facts...not the uninformed diatribe you created.

Interesting that Levin and McCain both argued about the detention portion mentioned above yet still voted for it. Are they liars or hypocrites? Same goes for Obama signing it after posing the same question.

Not quite a "liberal" piece of crap like you pose. Looks like a bipartisan piece of crap to me.

You should actually learn how to evaluate the actual issue because your "politics" are on par with the bill...total crap


It is now entirely possible that, at sometime in the not-to-distant future, you could be arrested for vocalizing opposition to the government, and would have no recourse under the law.

Not quite true. Just make sure you don't leave U.S. jurisdiction so that the point of detention is not outside of the US.

There are other requirements for such detention to start with so your paranoia is a bit unfounded.




on Jan 16, 2012

I'll get with you on this when I get home,