Obama Poor Leadership Continues
73
Oh, Sorry, I did not see you stopping in. I am deep in study as I am reading the Constitution, and the Presidential Oath of Office. I am looking for the sentence where is says” that I will faithfully execute and screw up the United Sates of America at every opportunity I can”. It has to be somewhere, it is the only acceptable reason I will take for Obama’s actions. Because if he did not swear to do it, why the hell does he do it.
Earlier this week Obama promised to veto any legislation on capturing terrorists on US soil. Then Yesterday Obama put a halt to the newest round of economic sanctions against Iran. The cherry on the top is that now he is calling the Fort Hood terrorist shootings “work place violence”. Three strikes and it’s only Wednesday. Perhaps Obama is going for a record. (Insert sinister laugh)
The president has problems with sections of S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act 2012. His biggest objection is how we take terrorists into custody and how we process those criminals. The Administration objects to and has serious legal and policy concerns about many of the detainee provisions in the bill. Obama believes there are provisions that disrupt the Executive branch's ability to enforce the law and impose unwise and unwarranted restrictions on the U.S. Government's ability to aggressively combat international terrorism. Obama also claims legal uncertainty and ambiguity that may only complicate DOJ VS. The military's operations and detention practices. Actually, he is quite wrong and is just playing politics. The biggest issue is Obama does not want the military to arrest and collect terrorists; Obama wants the DOJ to do that. Obama also does not want the military to hold, question, detain, or prosecute terrorists. Again, he wants the DOJ to do this. I think it is perfectly clear with the rise of home grown terrorists that even the US is now a battleground for terrorists. Let us call it as it is, a terrorist is a terrorist whether they are born in Iran, Yemen, or the United States. Therefore they need to be treated different. I think we can all agree that terrorism is a much different crime than say shoplifting, stealing a car, robbing a bank. Be honest, there are no laws that deal with it in our criminal justice system. Oh they try and make them up as they go, but it is a joke. Honestly, a war crime is best held in a military court. In a military court, they face a trial, they have representation, but they are treated with the seriousness of the crimes they are accused of committing. There are military prisons and I still say GITMO can be the best place for terrorist placement. It could be a world court and detention center. http://gitmoyesorno.blogspot.com/
The U.S. Senate unanimously passed economic sanctions against Iran, a move that the Obama administration cautioned against. Meanwhile, several weeks ago at the EU meeting, EU foreign ministers meeting also applied more pressure on Iran. According to Maja Kocijancic, a spokeswoman for EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, the ministers agreed on new sanctions that apply to 143 entities and 37 individuals. President Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner both came out and said "The Central Bank of Iran is the primary bankroller of Iran's global terror network, its nuclear program and other illicit activities, The time has come to impose crippling sanctions on this terrorist and nuclear-financing institution." Today both Obama and Geithner did an about face with Obama stopping the sanctions in their tracks. Obama now believes these sanctions would do more harm than good and both raise the price of oil and have little impact on Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions. Perhaps if Obama would take my advice from my last article we would be energy independent and oil would be a non issue. But is it an issue now or is Obama just playing coward and bending over again to world leaders once more putting America behind.
Just as with the Iran issue, Obama refuses to see the threat from radical Islam. During a joint session of the Senate and House Homeland Security Committee, a letter referenced from the Defense Department depicting the Fort Hood shootings as workplace violence. Republicans criticized the Obama administration for failing to identify the threat as radical Islam. Major Nidal Hasan, a former Army psychiatrist, who is being held for the attacks, allegedly was inspired by radical U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlak. Thirteen people were killed and dozens more wounded at Fort Hood in 2009, and the number of alleged plots targeting the military has grown significantly since then. Whether we want to admit it or not, the stark reality is that the American service member is increasingly in the terrorists' scope and not just overseas in a traditional war setting. They are wearing targets on their backs here in America too. To try and minimize this act, to equate it to someone who was fired then came back and created a violent act is insane. There is no similarity between the two horrible acts as one is carried out by an enemy or traitor of our country. To do so shows someone who does not understand the situation and should not be President.
Why does Obama do this? His actions weaken us locally, nationally, globally. While I really do not think Obama is deliberately trying to destroy the count y, but his actions sure seemed to fuel that fire. I also know that those who refuse to see or question it will say I am Obama bashing when all I am doing here is pointing out just three actions from this week alone. Is there anyone out the that truly believes the Fort Hood shooting is work place violence? Our country is in economic disaster and what has happened this month, nothing. Obama, Biden and Geithner have spent more time in Europe this month negotiating to end the economic disaster there than on the American economy. And the best part is Obama has pledged to send money to those countries that need it. Money we do not have and will have to borrow from China to send to them. UNREAL. Or in a speech today Obama says the “free market does not work”. What can I say after that other than I rest my case. Wait, I will give Obama another chance, today was the 70th anniversary of ”the day that will live in infamy” . I know since Obama made such a big deal about the 10th anniversary of 911 he would make as big a deal about Pearl Harbor. I know he will go to Hawaii, well no, he gave an anti republican speech. But he did find time to release a statement of 23 words. Game, set, match.
American View© encourages comments. In brief:
- Keep it civil and stay on topic
- No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
- People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. This blog and its contents are copyright © protected, all rights reserved
 | Amazon Price: $19.48 List Price: $33.75 |
 | Amazon Price: $2.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $4.11 List Price: $15.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $25.99 List Price: $69.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $15.49 List Price: $39.99 |
- Calling Out Harry Reid
Everyday Congressmen and Senators get onto the floor of their respective chambers and give speeches on different topics. Then they'll gather in the rotunda to give news conferences blaming each other for the issue at hand doesn't get resolved. Of course now that it is campaign season, they give broader speeches, and at times their speech has nothing to do with the issue at hand for which they were supposed to be addressing. I want to make it clear that both sides are guilty of this, but am only - 44 hours ago
- IRS Loophole Enriches Undocumented Workers
Raising my kids I always told them to be responsible, to take responsibility for their actions. If you did something wrong, be honest, step up and take the punishment that may come for your actions. That’s what I have done my entire life and expect no more or less of my kids. I have been far from an angel in my life, but I took responsibility for my actions, including having been in jail, I never blame anyone nor do I expect anything. There should not be any rewards for not being responsible. - 3 days ago
- Walker Being Recalled
Well the Democrats and the unions are at it again in the state of Wisconsin. They haven't learned their lesson, they still want to be divisive, and of course they still want to waste money. I'm talking of the recall election of Gov. Scott Walker. The last attempts at a recall on the senators and congressmen of Wisconsin was a failure to the tune of $30 million spent by them. I have no idea how much they're spending this time, but the unions are bragging they are spending more that last election, - 7 days ago
- Can Obama Get Reelected in 2012
We all know that the presidential primaries are in full swing with all the noise Republicans are making. The Democratic primaries are currently going on at a much lower fevered pitch. After all what could there be to talk about, Obama is running unopposed, or is he. Turnout in most of the Democratic primaries has been light. In fact, if states did not have key races with Senators or Congressmen on the ballot, it would seem like turnout would be nonexistent. Of course so far in every state with - 2 weeks ago
- Americans It Is Time To Get Involved
Stop the Presses, President Obama makes the major announcement we have been waiting for, he supports gay marriage today even though he was against it in 2008 then for it in 2009 and against it again in 2010. This is what we have been waiting for, this was the big one. Champagne is now flowing; confetti is falling from the skies. - 2 weeks ago
- Can Republicans Win the Presidency in 2012
Do Republicans really have a chance at winning the Presidency in November of 2012? President Obama surely has made it easy enough for almost anyone to defeat him. Pick an issue and you will find nothing that Obama can campaign on. In fact in his speech kicking off his reelection campaign, president Obama did not mention one thing that he accomplished during his first term. All he did was lodge attacks against the Republicans and why it would be so terrible to elect those bad boys. - 2 weeks ago
- Are Ron Paul Supporters Stealing the Nomination
Does your vote really count? We have all heard the stories over the years, stuffed ballot boxes, ballots destroyed, ballots thrown out, ballots just not counted, and of course the most famous are those hanging chads. We all have the right to vote, its part of what our founding fathers fought for in establishing this new great nation. Every November we the people go to the voting polls whether it is a presidential election, midterm elections for Senators and Congressmen, governors, mayors, judge - 2 weeks ago
- The Ho-Bots Are Coming the Ho-Bots Are Coming!!
Robots and machines came to prominence in the early 1900s during the industrial revolution here in America. From robotic arms spot welding on the automotive assembly line, to the arms packaging products in boxes for shipping, robots have improved our way of life tremendously. - 3 weeks ago
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (1)
- Funny
- Awesome (1)
- Beautiful (1)
- Interesting (1)
CommentsLoading...
Thanks for the comment,
While you have a good point about a slippery slope, remember it takes the approval of both houses of Congress and the President in order to allow a group to be singled out.
We have to recognise that a terrorist is not someone who is looking out for the best interests of America. There is a huge difference in someone who wants to kill our troops or one who wants to plant a bomb and kill our citizens. They are tratiors, or terrorists, or worse.They have crossed over from citizen to enemy combatent. These types of people have different laws to answer to even if they are citizens.
@AV - politicalzealot is right on this one - our government, current and past, has given me no evidence that I should "trust" their intentions. No matter how beneficial or well-intended those intentions are.
The bill's language says (paraphrasing) if -- anyone -- suspected to being a part of, Al-Qaida or associated can be held in military custody "without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the authorization for use of military force."
I think domestic terrorists are just as bad as the foreign ones. And once identified as a terrorist - kiss your rights goodbye, I say too.
But being called a terrorist, and being identified as one are two different things.
Do you really trust your government officials and their minions that much?
Do you remember that the Nixon administration was able to keep John Lennon, (the Beatles), under 60-day deportation orders - for five years, over a minor pot bust - just because Nixon's admin felt John's anti-war stance could hurt Nixon's re-election efforts.
and when forced to release Lennon's FBI file - the proof of the governments motives, and the actions they undertook were in black and white hard-copy text memos
Nope - they haven't earned my trust for that kind of power again. This is a potentially dangerous threat to many of the fundamental freedoms we expect as Americans.
to offer this quote/misquote that most of us have heard before - attributed to Ben Franklin
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
but, it's only that point I disagree with, once again you have shone the light on some real Obama issues
LOL - Guess we need some "change we can count on" in 2012
GA
@AmericanView I agree with you that terrorists are not looking out for the best interests of America. Their goal has always been to change our way of life. If we allow their actions to cause our freedoms be taken away to 'protect us' from them, they will have won. There are other ways to protect us from terrorists without taking away our rights.
Cite me examples or your rights that have been taken away. The answer is NONE, the only one losing their rights and they gave them up by becoming tratiors or terrorists. So unless you are one of those, none of your American rights have been taken away.
I am sorry if you do not agree with me, but terrorists, war criminals and traitors need to be prosecuted under a different set of rules than Amaerican Citizens. Just like there are different rules for different crimes citizens commit, terror crimes are different again and should be treated that way.
American View,
Interesting views.
You got the FED feeding banks free money, laws being passed that infringe on rights to privacy.
Banks lying to Congress, the FED lying to Congress yet no one gets triedd for perjury.
Who's gone to jail for the massive fraud within the mortgage industry?
Yet you expect us to believe that when it comes to terrorism, our government is going to do the right thing.
Some how all this does not compute.
The governments selects who to prosecute depending on position and money.
I doubt if they would all of a sudden turn ruthlessly honest when it comes to telling us who is a terrorist and who is not.
Limit the government -I'd take my chances without the government having emergency powers to kill and imprison people on the whim of the moment.
Terrorism is a cover that has been used before - think Hitler here- to take away rights of citizens.
Lets not have any of it in America.
Cheers
Clap,
You are confusing two seperate issues or crimes at they are. Banking laws are different than terrorists, yet everytone wants to treat them all the same. I would advise you to read the 800 page bill as I have and truly understand how it will work. Is it perfect, not even close, but it is the first time Washington has begun to understand that traitors and terrorists need to be addressed diferently than a shop lifter. Wanting to punish someone for being a terrorist has nothing to do with Hitler. Time for new deck of cards to pull from
Hey American View,
Nope, not confusing two different laws, I am stating that those that enforce the laws are the same.
If those that are in charge cannot enforce laws for one group they are unreliable to put in charge of confining "terrorist" Americans without a chance of trial.
You are relying on a group of thieves to be honest in one form of enforcing the law while being dishonest in enforcing laws in another category.
You believe the government is good, I do not.
Cheers
I would consider the invasive screening being done at airports for 'security' as an invasion of privacy, specifically a violation of the 4th amendment.
Here is my biggest beef with your argument. You say that terrorists give up their rights by becoming traitors/terrorists. I would argue that if you are an American citizen living in the United States that you cannot lose your Constitutional rights no matter what you do. To say otherwise is very dangerous indeed.
Again I ask, what prevents the government from using this law to declare anyone they do not like a terrorist and locking them up indefinitely. I know you think it is a long shot, but I do not deal in long shots. Once you write the law that enables it, anything is possible.
I would point you to this article. It seems that there is more and more outrage over this bill. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/can-the-indefinite
PZ.
I am truly enjoying our conversation, To many people put up comments that make no sence, just wanted to let you know I appeciate good comments as yours.
I could be wrong but I will take form you picture you are a young guy. Remember the saying, believe nothing you read. I have found in the online and blogger world never has there been a truer statement. I read them just to see where people are at inthere thinking and why they think that way. The Blaze is one of them. Unfortunatly, most of there writings while good, are not based in facts. I just completed reading this bill this morning. I have to correct me earlier statement when I said it was 800 pages, now having read it it is 926 pages. I find it funny they have nothing to say about anything else in the bill except these to sections, 1031 and 1032. But honestly, this is a subject that needed to be addressed based on real world happenings. I have just started an article to break down bill but to also address the sections as they are in the bill. When I post it I hope you will read it and comment on it. Alos, do not get to set on the language as it is now, this bill only passed the Senate and is now going back to the House, so it could change again.
Just a side note, I think you would agree that a terrorist crime is not like shopplifting but is more serious than a felony crime. How to deal with it is a major issue. Everyone from the President on down have different ideas. Personally, it is not a crime that should be tried in a US court system. It should be a military or a world court that addresses that kind of crime. And if a convicted felon can lose his right, that is the least that can happen to a traitor or terrorist. Does it make sense to you a person who wants to kill you by blowing up your country has the same rights as you even if they are not Americans??
I agree that you cannot believe everything you read. I pointed out The Blaze article because Glenn Beck and his gang have a large following within the Republican base.
There is a reason why only those sections are being addressed. Mostly everything else is pretty normal for a defense appropriations bill. No one cares about that. People do tend to notice though when someone slips in language that takes away our civil rights that are specifically spelled out in the Constitution.
While I agree that a terrorist crime is not the same as shoplifting, I disagree with the notion that because of this, it should be handled in a military court. With the exception of terrorists caught overseas while fighting our military, terrorists caught in the United States should be tried within our judicial system. This is especially true if this person is an American citizen.
Opening the door to take away American citizens rights is very dangerous. If an American decides to join a terrorist group and attack the United States, the charge should be treason and they should be put to death. They should not be hurdled off to a military prison and locked up indefinitely.
@politicalzealot - thoughtful reasoning, and I agree with it. Like AV I scanned the bill. He is correct in that those sections mentioned are the only 2 places this issue is addressed. As you said, the rest is appropriations stuff.
Also, when referencing those sections, there is still ambiguity. As troubling as the implication that anyone could be deemed a terrorist first, and proven later, is, things are still not that clear. Can't remember exactly, but I seem to remember that follow-up on those sections referred back to another bill - the Skelton something or other, and also, a little further down it, when describing who it was applicable to, US citizen's seemed to be exempted. But I could be wrong about that. I'll look it up.
But your criteria of where "terrorist" is caught makes sense to me.
GA
politicalzealot Level 4 Commenter 5 months ago
I think it is a dangerous precedent to set when you codify into law that 'terrorist' can be treated differently in our justice system. Being an American citizen affords you certain rights explicitly stated in the Constitution. Included in those rights is the right to due process, a trial by jury, and prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment (Amendments 5, 6, and 8). This bill codifies into law that the government may take away those rights from American citizens if the government deems them to be a 'terrorist'.
That is a very dangerous line to cross. What stops the government in the future from declaring protest groups such as the Tea Party or the Occupy Wall Street movement as being 'terrorists'? Once declared as such, this gives the government the ability to round them all up and throw them in Gitmo. It is a slippery slope.