Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Better Believe It

(18,630 posts)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:08 PM Jan 2012

David Swanson: Obama Crowned Himself King on New Year’s Eve

(Brief Excerpt)

Obama Crowned Himself on New Year’s Eve
By: David Swanson
December 31, 2011


To prevent the U.S. government from behaving like a king, the drafters of the U.S. Constitution empowered an elected legislature to write every law, to declare every war, and to remove its executive from office. To further prevent the abuse of individuals’ rights, those authors wrote into the Constitution, even prior to the Bill of Rights, the right to habeas corpus and the right never to be punished for treason unless convicted in an open court on the testimony of at least two witnesses to an overt act of war or assistance of an enemy.

President Barack Obama waited until New Year’s Eve to take an action that I suspect he wanted his willfully deluded followers to have a good excuse not to notice. On that day, Obama issued an unconstitutional signing statement rewriting a law as he signed it into law, a practice that candidate Obama had rightly condemned. The law that Obama was signing was the most direct assault yet seen on the basic structure of self-governance and human rights that once made all the endless U.S. shouting of “We’re number one!” significantly less ludicrous. he National Defense Authorization Act is not a leap from democracy to tyranny, but it is another major step on a steady and accelerating decade-long march toward a police-and-war state.

President Obama has claimed the power to imprison people without a trial since his earliest months in office. He spoke in front of the Constitution in the National Archives while gutting our founding document in 2009. President Obama has claimed the power to torture “if needed,” issued an executive order claiming the power of imprisonment without trial, exercised that power on a massive scale at Bagram, and claimed and exercised the power to assassinate U.S. citizens. Obama routinely kills people with unmanned drones.

My chief regret is that we have not seen the major resistance we could have, and without any doubt would have, seen to this if only Obama were a Republican.

Please read the full article at:

http://my.firedoglake.com/davidswanson/2011/12/31/obama-crowned-himself-on-new-years-eve/

162 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
David Swanson: Obama Crowned Himself King on New Year’s Eve (Original Post) Better Believe It Jan 2012 OP
so does this mean another body under the bus? xchrom Jan 2012 #1
David's been under the bus so long he has a tire tread tuxedo Donnachaidh Jan 2012 #9
! xchrom Jan 2012 #10
he goes to the 'king' shit and it just smells like a one-sided argument bigtree Jan 2012 #2
If he really believes this treestar Jan 2012 #3
The author knows better. FarPoint Jan 2012 #12
Swanson under the BUS! fascisthunter Jan 2012 #4
Now that Obama is a King treestar Jan 2012 #17
nah, it's more like, poor poor Obama, and poor treestar fascisthunter Jan 2012 #40
Now that your freedoms are gone treestar Jan 2012 #54
sorry, you'll have to put up with my criticizing OUR President fascisthunter Jan 2012 #156
I've been doing that treestar Jan 2012 #159
He willingly jumps under every bus on that route. Ikonoklast Jan 2012 #35
Aw, Geez.... MineralMan Jan 2012 #5
+1 treestar Jan 2012 #27
Why would that be? Obama likes the insurance cartel and "uniquely American" bogus solutions. TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #42
>Implying Obama actually wants single payer. Edweird Jan 2012 #69
Yes. I believe he does want that. MineralMan Jan 2012 #71
You believe it - despite all indications to the contrary. Edweird Jan 2012 #83
David Swanson also bloviated "Osama bin Lynched"... SidDithers Jan 2012 #6
yes getdown Jan 2012 #30
David Swanson is an oustanding DUer. Octafish Jan 2012 #118
Sure. His Pearl Harbor truther stuff is great... SidDithers Jan 2012 #125
So's his analysis of the BFEE and Prescott Bush's role in the fascist Wall Street Coup Against FDR. Octafish Jan 2012 #129
+1 proud2BlibKansan Jan 2012 #145
what does he say about non voting foreign SwampG8r Jan 2012 #152
ROFL!!...nt SidDithers Jan 2012 #154
Yet another thing I agree with him on tavalon Jan 2012 #153
Does ProSense Jan 2012 #7
Good point, of course. elleng Jan 2012 #16
No kidding. CakeGrrl Jan 2012 #51
Elective Monarchy... Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #70
'Unconstitutional signing statement?' elleng Jan 2012 #8
Yeah. WTF?... SidDithers Jan 2012 #13
Which article of the Constitution are signing statements established in? MNBrewer Jan 2012 #66
Which article of the Constitution precludes the issuing of a signing statement? Dewey Finn Jan 2012 #73
No part of the Constitution permits Presidential signing statements, and no part of the sad sally Jan 2012 #97
I didn't claim they had any legal value. Quite clearly they do not. Dewey Finn Jan 2012 #99
Sorry - didn't mean to challenge anything you said. sad sally Jan 2012 #101
No need to apologize! Dewey Finn Jan 2012 #106
"Not prohibited" is not the test, nor could it be, as the "not prohibiteds" are INFINITE. WinkyDink Jan 2012 #133
Sorry, but I think you're looking at Constitutional authorization Dewey Finn Jan 2012 #149
Okay, fine: Extraconstitutional signing statement. JackRiddler Jan 2012 #105
Okay, fine: Somethng quite different Dewey Finn Jan 2012 #150
Wasn't me who "insinuated" anything. I merely cut in to respond (something allowed in threads). JackRiddler Jan 2012 #155
Unrec. Pure hysterical bullshit. n/t FSogol Jan 2012 #11
facts getdown Jan 2012 #34
Given that the basic premise is factually incorrect, mythology Jan 2012 #43
it's not getdown Jan 2012 #46
Amazingly, we still live in a country where one could write such things about the Prez with no FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #14
How do you know Swanson isn't on some FBI "subversive" or "radical" surveillance list? Better Believe It Jan 2012 #20
I have met him and really like the man and his sincerity. Shrug. nt Mojorabbit Jan 2012 #28
Why would he be? FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #29
Because he's a dissident and critic of the federal government. That's reason enough today. Better Believe It Jan 2012 #61
But while you have no proof of that Swanson is still a free man making $$$$ by writing articles. FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #64
What does that have to do with government spying on and surveillance of dissidents. Better Believe It Jan 2012 #119
My dad was NSA Charlemagne Jan 2012 #136
Really? Then why are President Obama's detractors MineralMan Jan 2012 #72
Not to mention all of those evil teabaggers. You'd a thunk they'd be the first to go. FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #81
I keep wondering about that too. JoePhilly Jan 2012 #102
So you deny that our civil liberties and Constitution are under attack? Better Believe It Jan 2012 #132
Woo-woo.... MineralMan Jan 2012 #36
Given his real-world organizing there is no way he is not. JackRiddler Jan 2012 #107
OK, help me out here. I don't get it. no_hypocrisy Jan 2012 #15
Swanson has always distorted. tabatha Jan 2012 #21
he has. he does. More than any other commentator on the left. cali Jan 2012 #160
I'm waiting eagerly , now that this has happened treestar Jan 2012 #22
Good one, thinking people. elleng Jan 2012 #24
You will probably find the answers to your questions if you read the entire article by Swanson. Better Believe It Jan 2012 #25
Yes, he's a DUer. Why not let him post his own screed? MineralMan Jan 2012 #37
Because it's not yet in a book that's for sale RZM Jan 2012 #49
Well, there is that, I suppose. MineralMan Jan 2012 #50
"I don't think I've seen David Swanson on DU3" He has a DU Journal. Better Believe It Jan 2012 #94
OK. Still, I have not noticed him here. MineralMan Jan 2012 #96
(spits coffee) Robb Jan 2012 #112
Are you telling DU'ers when and how to post on Democratic Underground? Better Believe It Jan 2012 #63
Uh, I asked you a question. I didn't tell you to MineralMan Jan 2012 #67
. Bobbie Jo Jan 2012 #93
obama retained getdown Jan 2012 #33
On record is the veto, the signing statements are nothing. They aren't law but the bill signed is. TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #80
Sorry, Swanson has always been under the bus for me tabatha Jan 2012 #18
yup. PeaceNikki Jan 2012 #31
+ 1 nt Kahuna Jan 2012 #87
+2 ellisonz Jan 2012 #161
Obama Bad Obama Bad Obama Bad Obama Bad Obama Bad JoePhilly Jan 2012 #19
Love how he insults Democrats in this sentence... Ikonoklast Jan 2012 #39
YUP / nt JoePhilly Jan 2012 #44
Yup, I got to that line... one_voice Jan 2012 #47
What? You don't pass out from joy when stupid, uninformed people call YOU the stupid one? Number23 Jan 2012 #144
Look at the bright side, David! treestar Jan 2012 #23
Absolutely. And he can slap a big fat tax MineralMan Jan 2012 #41
He has no such inclination and outcomes indicate the position of a small increase was phony TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #48
Finally the banks can be nationalized! treestar Jan 2012 #53
Yeah I'm sure he'll get right on that a simple pattern Jan 2012 #135
All HAIL KING OBAMA! FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #57
Yes, we've known that since HCR. treestar Jan 2012 #59
"Bully Pulpit!!", "Pretty speech!", "Bully Pulpit!!", "Pretty speech!", "Bully Pulpit!!", "Pretty sp JoePhilly Jan 2012 #104
He doesn't want single payer. girl gone mad Jan 2012 #84
Now that he's King, he doesn't treestar Jan 2012 #91
like we saw getdown Jan 2012 #26
Many Democratic Senators supported the Bush regimes actions such as the Patriot Act. Better Believe It Jan 2012 #56
yup getdown Jan 2012 #58
Crap on this logic! mfcorey1 Jan 2012 #32
I can't find the article Swanson wrote rocktivity Jan 2012 #38
He wrote quite a bit about Bush's imperial presidency and then an entire book about it. Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #75
Yet he accuses Obama of the same thing? rocktivity Jan 2012 #121
What? That makes zero sense. Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #128
Yanno, why doesn't an idiot like this just find another line of work. Cab driver or somthin'. They deacon Jan 2012 #45
Another powerful rebuttal! You smart! Better Believe It Jan 2012 #55
Ride in a lot of cabs deacon? HangOnKids Jan 2012 #126
More anti-Obama screed? How surprising! MjolnirTime Jan 2012 #52
Really. Surprising? HangOnKids Jan 2012 #114
Let Me Be Clear by David Swanson Better Believe It Jan 2012 #60
Wait ProSense Jan 2012 #62
bush did it = bad, obama does it = hallelujah. ok nt msongs Jan 2012 #65
Obviously, Mr. Swanson hasn't READ the signing statement. johnaries Jan 2012 #68
The statement is a fat nothing. It isn't binding even to the guy who signed it much less TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #82
the passage of the NDAA pisses me off, but that is over the top. Odin2005 Jan 2012 #74
+1 fishwax Jan 2012 #77
Seems essentially accurate to me. Circumventing the entire basis of the law and one man's TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #85
+1000 and ty inna Jan 2012 #100
the drafters did NOT empower an *elected* legislature to declare war (or any of those other things) fishwax Jan 2012 #76
This is rhetorically over the top cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #78
Swanson keeps going farther 'round the bend. madamesilverspurs Jan 2012 #79
Hahahaha. Loony toons. DevonRex Jan 2012 #86
He 'crowned himself' with a bill he couldn't have vetoed? What bullshit. n/t Akoto Jan 2012 #88
It's even worse than that! DevonRex Jan 2012 #89
Why do you think Obama could not have vetoed the bill? Better Believe It Jan 2012 #95
The bill had a veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress. n/t Akoto Jan 2012 #130
You must not be aware of people's changing their minds after a VETO. WinkyDink Jan 2012 #134
That may be true but that didn't prevent Obama from vetoing the legislation. Better Believe It Jan 2012 #141
The president has lost veto power? When did that happen? JackRiddler Jan 2012 #109
He never had the power to veto veto-proof legislation from Congress. n/t Akoto Jan 2012 #131
There is no "veto-proof." JackRiddler Jan 2012 #137
This message was self-deleted by its author spanone Jan 2012 #90
But..but..didn't he veto it..as promised? Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2012 #92
Oh well...guess I'll have to join the Republicanunderground now. Old and In the Way Jan 2012 #98
Hey, don't go yet. Stick around a bit. I just got an e-mail from King Barack I. Ikonoklast Jan 2012 #103
No way...I'm joining Ron Paul's freedumb fighters! Old and In the Way Jan 2012 #116
You'll be declared 'Outlaw', and all your lands confiscated by the Crown. Ikonoklast Jan 2012 #117
More hyperbolic bullshit from the left's version of the TeaNuts. RBInMaine Jan 2012 #108
isn't he the frozen tv dinner heir? Whisp Jan 2012 #110
Swanson is another liberal Paulite. Robb Jan 2012 #111
"In the absence of progressives with backbones, more Libertarians like Paul would be welcome" ProSense Jan 2012 #120
What these people don't understand, let's just say it's true. joshcryer Jan 2012 #124
Funny how so much of the over-the-top Obama hating hyperbole... SidDithers Jan 2012 #127
No coincidence. joshcryer Jan 2012 #140
None whatsoever. Bobbie Jo Jan 2012 #146
They're gaming the system, which was expected, of course. joshcryer Jan 2012 #147
Gotta love the recs for that post and this one Number23 Jan 2012 #148
This isn't hyperbolic to the extreme! killbotfactory Jan 2012 #113
K&R NorthCarolina Jan 2012 #115
Good. Perhaps now he can raise taxes mzmolly Jan 2012 #122
Does that mean we don't need congress anymore? joshcryer Jan 2012 #123
The President doesn't need Congress anymore for a lot of things. bvar22 Jan 2012 #138
So that helps the economy and social welfare how? joshcryer Jan 2012 #139
And WHICH Party's Congressmen are going to: bvar22 Jan 2012 #142
Long screed aside, it's simply which is more likely to stop it: joshcryer Jan 2012 #143
Cenk also discussed this tavalon Jan 2012 #151
"Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2012 #157
It's the same, same old song..... cliffordu Jan 2012 #158
Wow Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #162

bigtree

(85,986 posts)
2. he goes to the 'king' shit and it just smells like a one-sided argument
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:13 PM
Jan 2012

not interested . . . too many other substantive discussions, evaluations of the implications and meaning of the provisions out there to read to waste energy debating diatribes.

trash can

treestar

(82,383 posts)
3. If he really believes this
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:14 PM
Jan 2012

Then he'd better bow to his king.

If Obama is King, how come David can write this? When will he be hauled off to the dungeon?

FarPoint

(12,336 posts)
12. The author knows better.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:18 PM
Jan 2012

David Swanson ...he use to be a real progressive who understood the political dynamics. I'm disappointed in Mr Swanson these days.

 

fascisthunter

(29,381 posts)
40. nah, it's more like, poor poor Obama, and poor treestar
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:37 PM
Jan 2012

keep defending those who strip our freedoms... sad so many are criticizing him for that. Get real.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
54. Now that your freedoms are gone
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:10 PM
Jan 2012

Do you intend to quit criticizing the President? He seems to keep allowing Glen to do it with a much larger platform, so I guess you're not really scared.

Why aren't you scared to make that post, now that your freedoms are gone?

treestar

(82,383 posts)
159. I've been doing that
Wed Jan 4, 2012, 05:19 PM
Jan 2012

But why aren't you more concerned? Now that your freedoms are gone, you know what is at stake. The POTUS has the power now to declare you a terrorist and lock you up indefinitely - aren't you a little concerned?

I guess I'll have to worry if you're not posting tomorrow.

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
35. He willingly jumps under every bus on that route.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:30 PM
Jan 2012

Democrats keep trying to miss him, but he just rruns out into traffic and jumps under the wheels.

Good thing though, he's not much to worry about, no one hardly notices the bump anymore.

MineralMan

(146,286 posts)
5. Aw, Geez....
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:15 PM
Jan 2012

King, eh? Well, I guess that means that single-payer healthcare is just around the corner. Way to inflate something to the breaking point, there, David.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
27. +1
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:27 PM
Jan 2012

Gitmo will now be closed, finally. Bush and Cheney will be put into the FEMA camp along with the bank-sters.

Just go through the list of any complainer and now their wishes can be granted! No more having to balance a deal with Republicans to keep the country running!

MineralMan

(146,286 posts)
71. Yes. I believe he does want that.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:34 PM
Jan 2012

I believe that he had to modify his goals to get anything at all through Congress. A pity. But what did get passed has already benefited millions, and will benefit more as provisions kick in. President Obama has been blocked from doing all the things he'd like to do. Perhaps we can give him a better Congress in 2012. That's my plan, and I'll be doing all I can to make that happen.

 

Edweird

(8,570 posts)
83. You believe it - despite all indications to the contrary.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 04:03 PM
Jan 2012

As I understand it, that is the definition of 'faith'.

Obama had a good Congress in 2008, but lost it in 2010 as a result of his actions and failures to act. The RW individual mandate - which he CAMPAIGNED AGAINST(!) is part of that. Some polls during the 'health care' debacle showed 70% support for single payer but health care professional advocates were excluded in lieu of insurance industry lobbyists. Spare me your BS.

SidDithers

(44,228 posts)
6. David Swanson also bloviated "Osama bin Lynched"...
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:16 PM
Jan 2012

so, take everything he writes with a grain of salt. Much of his written diarrhea rightfully ended up in the conspiracy dungeon back at DU2.

Sid

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
118. David Swanson is an oustanding DUer.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 08:05 PM
Jan 2012

He contributes information of value and accurate analysis. He also calls the wars for what they are: immoral, illegal, unnecessary and disastrous.

If you disagree with him, great. Say "Why." Don't call his work "diarrhea" that "rightfully ended up in the conspiracy dungeon back at DU2."

As for you wanting to toss his work into the dungeon: That shows exactly where you are coming from, SidDithers. You'd like to shut people up for what they think by shutting down the number of people who get to read their thoughts. That is most un-democratic.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
129. So's his analysis of the BFEE and Prescott Bush's role in the fascist Wall Street Coup Against FDR.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 09:01 PM
Jan 2012
Bush Fulfills His Grandfather's Dream

by David Swanson | Jul 28 2007 - 2:01pm |

It's remarkably common for a grandson to take up his grandfather's major project. This occurred to me when I read recently of Thor Heyerdahl's grandson taking up his mission to cross the Pacific on a raft. But what really struck me was the BBC story aired on July 23rd documenting President George W. Bush's grandfather's involvement in a 1933 plot to overthrow the U.S. government and install a fascist dictatorship. I knew the story, but had not considered the possibility that the grandson was trying to accomplish what his grandfather had failed to achieve.

Prescott Sheldon Bush (1895 to 1972) attended Yale University and joined the secret society known as Skull and Bones. Prescott is widely reported to have stolen the skull of Native American leader Geronimo. As far as I know, this has not actually been confirmed. In fact, Prescott seems to have had a habit of making things up. He sent letters home from World War I claiming he'd received medals for heroism. After the letters were printed in newspapers, he had to retract his claims.

If this does not yet sound like the life of a George W. Bush ancestor, try this on for size: Prescott Bush's early business efforts tended to fail. He married the daughter of a very rich man named George Herbert Walker (the guy with the compound at Kennebunkport, Maine, that now belongs to the Bush family, and the origin of Dubya's middle initial). Walker installed Prescott Bush as an executive in Thyssen and Flick. From then on, Prescott's business dealings went better, and he entered politics.

Now, the name Thyssen comes from a German named Fritz Thyssen, major financial backer of the rise of Adolph Hitler. Thyssen was referred to in the New York Herald-Tribune as "Hitler's Angel." During the 1930s and early 1940s, and even as late as 1951, Prescott Bush was involved in business dealings with Thyssen, and was inevitably aware of both Thyssen's political activities and the fact that the companies involved were financially benefiting the nation of Germany. In addition, the companies Prescott Bush profited from included one engaged in mining operations in Poland using slave labor from Auschwitz. Two former slave laborers have sued the U.S. government and the heirs of Prescott Bush for $40 billion.

DETAILS: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1468311

LINK to BBC programme: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml



Like Danziger, I don't find the BFEE funny.

SwampG8r

(10,287 posts)
152. what does he say about non voting foreign
Tue Jan 3, 2012, 05:00 AM
Jan 2012

nationals telling american voters what to be happy with?

tavalon

(27,985 posts)
153. Yet another thing I agree with him on
Tue Jan 3, 2012, 05:05 AM
Jan 2012

Osama Bin Laden should have been arrested, taken to the Hague and tried for war crimes. Instead he was a photo op to show that Obama can murder as well as any Republican.

Does that seem seem over the top, to call President Obama a murderer? President Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that said, "The Buck Stops Here." Perhaps that's an outdated idea, but considering that President Obama seems to be embracing the Unitary Executive model with both arms, then, yeah, the buck stops with him.

I would have had unlimited respect for him had he arrested Osama and extradited him and had him tried. But he didn't do that. He killed him.

This country was once a country of laws, not of men.

elleng

(130,865 posts)
16. Good point, of course.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:20 PM
Jan 2012

Signing statement, OR NOTHING w veto-override.
Strategies, tactics, difficult for many to understand.

CakeGrrl

(10,611 posts)
51. No kidding.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:54 PM
Jan 2012

Can we all pack it up for 2012, then?

It doesn't matter WHO the GOP runs - no more "Romney wins in 2012" threads, woo hoo!



...or not because this article is whiny blathering.

 

Dewey Finn

(176 posts)
73. Which article of the Constitution precludes the issuing of a signing statement?
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:37 PM
Jan 2012

I can't find it anywhere.

sad sally

(2,627 posts)
97. No part of the Constitution permits Presidential signing statements, and no part of the
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 05:55 PM
Jan 2012

Constitution gives any legal value to them.

 

Dewey Finn

(176 posts)
99. I didn't claim they had any legal value. Quite clearly they do not.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 06:10 PM
Jan 2012

So I'm not sure why you felt compelled to mention it.

But in any case, the issuing of a signing statement is not prohibited by the Constitution. So your use of the word "permits" is a bit of a red herring.

sad sally

(2,627 posts)
101. Sorry - didn't mean to challenge anything you said.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 06:50 PM
Jan 2012

poor choice of the word (permit) - again, sorry if I offended...

 

Dewey Finn

(176 posts)
149. Sorry, but I think you're looking at Constitutional authorization
Tue Jan 3, 2012, 03:28 AM
Jan 2012

through the wrong end of the telescope on this. "Infinite" or not, presidential signing statements date back to the 1820s. They have no force in law, but that's usually beside the point. They're mostly either purely political gamesmanship or political gamesmanship thinly disguised as "moral suasion". They weren't noble during the Bush years and I think one would have to be a little naive to think they're suddenly noble under President Obama. They simply are what they are. Suasion is achieved, or (much more likely) is not.

There is no "test" with this. It's settled law. This signing statement is not intended, IMO, to challenge same. It's PR, period, PR good, bad or otherwise.

 

Dewey Finn

(176 posts)
150. Okay, fine: Somethng quite different
Tue Jan 3, 2012, 04:02 AM
Jan 2012

from your initial insinuation. But do carry on holding feet to fire and speaking truth to power or whatever you think you're doing.

 

JackRiddler

(24,979 posts)
155. Wasn't me who "insinuated" anything. I merely cut in to respond (something allowed in threads).
Tue Jan 3, 2012, 01:17 PM
Jan 2012

You're thinking of someone else, above.

Signing statements are not in the Constitution. If the president wants to attach a personal interpretation to a law, then this extraconstitutional, or really we should say: pretty much null and void. Meaningless, since there is no provision that gives power to signing statements. And thus irresponsible bullshit. If the president uses one to state ways in which he intends to disobey the very same law that he just constitutionally signed into law, as Bush often did, then yes, that is unconstitutional, and smacks of divine right pronouncement.

 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
43. Given that the basic premise is factually incorrect,
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:38 PM
Jan 2012

I doubt it's facts that are making people hysterical. Unless I missed the coronation and crowning and the election being canceled. The author mentioned in the original post deserves little more than derisive mocking for his unsubstantiated premise.

FarLeftFist

(6,161 posts)
14. Amazingly, we still live in a country where one could write such things about the Prez with no
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:18 PM
Jan 2012

repercussions. I still love that about America.

 

Better Believe It

(18,630 posts)
20. How do you know Swanson isn't on some FBI "subversive" or "radical" surveillance list?
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:21 PM
Jan 2012

Or you or I for that matter?
 

Better Believe It

(18,630 posts)
119. What does that have to do with government spying on and surveillance of dissidents.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 08:14 PM
Jan 2012

It seems that you don't think the government is engaged in any spying and other operations against non-terrorist political activities.

Is that right?

It's ture that the government isn't rounding up liberals and radicals .... yet. But, they are certainly conducting many other types of secret operations designed to isolate and limit our effectiveness and the government hasn't exactly been supported of the OWS protests.

However they can make life very rough for us.

One of their favorite tactics back in J. Edgar Hoover's day was to plant news and other stories smearing progressives along with counter-intelligence operations designed to politically isolate individuals and organizations which were picked up and repeated not only in the mass media but also liberal journalists and publications!

Does that sound familiar?

And the government is certainly engaged in many different types of "intelligence" operations against progressive groups and individuals. Just look at their ongoing operations against Bradley Manning and Julian Assange. That's just the tip of the iceburg.

They are charging Manning with aiding terrorists and Assange with being a rapist!

Right ..... that's what the feds are going after .... rapists and terrorist collaborators!

 

Charlemagne

(576 posts)
136. My dad was NSA
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:50 PM
Jan 2012

He was at the 68 dem convention in chicago......in the back of a "florist van" listening in on key people in the crowd AND what was going on inside the convention.

we spy on americans

MineralMan

(146,286 posts)
72. Really? Then why are President Obama's detractors
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:36 PM
Jan 2012

still writing away madly? Why are they not in indefinite detention? I'm confused here.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
102. I keep wondering about that too.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 07:03 PM
Jan 2012

I mean if Obama is king, and he's setting up FEMA work camps for dissidents ... this place should be much quieter.

Perhaps we should give the persecuted masses here on DU this ...

 

Better Believe It

(18,630 posts)
132. So you deny that our civil liberties and Constitution are under attack?
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 09:47 PM
Jan 2012

And that only the indefinite imprisonment of progressives will convince you that something our Bill of Rights is being undermined?

Well, when that happens it will be too late to stop the establishment of a police state .... it will have already happened in America.

Our rights are being taken away one step at a time.

If you don't believe me check out the American Civil Liberties Union .... unless you think they are anti-Obama professional leftists or right-wingers.

MineralMan

(146,286 posts)
36. Woo-woo....
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:32 PM
Jan 2012

The moron train's a comin;
Comin' round the bend.
We'll all be in the slammer
On that you can depend...

Yeah, we'll be stuck in FEMA prison,
That surely where we're bound.
Stuck in FEMA prison,
So let's just have another round.

(My sincere apologies to Mr. Cash...)

no_hypocrisy

(46,080 posts)
15. OK, help me out here. I don't get it.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:18 PM
Jan 2012

Obama didn't draft the odious law. The law somehow got passed without his intervention by a republican-dominated House and democratic-dominated Senate with enough votes to overcome a veto. Obama went on record against the indefinite detention of American citizens up to the Signing Statement. From his words on record, it doesn't sound like he's too excited about being given this new authority.

How does Swanson extrapolate that Obama is reveling in his new power to imprison (gasp!) republicans who disagree with him? And isn't that what it boils down to? You think Swanson would have a problem with Muslims (domestic and international), democrats, socialists, communists, etc. being indefinitely detained (and without access to a tribunbal and due process) by the U.S. Military pending the orders of the Commander in Chief?

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
160. he has. he does. More than any other commentator on the left.
Wed Jan 4, 2012, 05:33 PM
Jan 2012

He's almost amazingly intellectually dishonest. I've been challenging him for years.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
22. I'm waiting eagerly , now that this has happened
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:22 PM
Jan 2012

I mean, it's terrible, I don't want a king, but now that we have one, and it is Obama, I would think that Mittens will be jailed shortly! I at least would like to see that entertainment! Gringich, Cheney, Michele Bachmann - can't wait until they are under the bus.

Orly Taitz - going to be fun to see her hauled off to a FEMA camp. Obama has been King two whole days and he hasn't done this yet! I'm disappointed!

 

Better Believe It

(18,630 posts)
25. You will probably find the answers to your questions if you read the entire article by Swanson.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:26 PM
Jan 2012

And/or you can send him a private message right here! He's a DU'er.

MineralMan

(146,286 posts)
50. Well, there is that, I suppose.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:53 PM
Jan 2012

And, now that I think of it, I don't think I've seen David Swanson on DU3. Maybe I just missed something.

MineralMan

(146,286 posts)
96. OK. Still, I have not noticed him here.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 05:53 PM
Jan 2012

I do not read every post on DU3, so it's entirely possible that I missed his. I don't think my statement is all that remarkable, really, nor open to argument. It wasn't a statement of fact. It was a statement that I didn't know, and hadn't seen something.

It's difficult to access journals here without a post from an individual visible, though, so I probably won't bother trying unless I see a post by Mr. Swanson that interests me. I've never accessed his journals on DU2, so that seems unlikely to me.

 

Better Believe It

(18,630 posts)
63. Are you telling DU'ers when and how to post on Democratic Underground?
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:55 PM
Jan 2012

I'll post when I want and how I want as will David Swanson without your advance approval if you don't mind.

Have I ever prevented you or anyone from posting on DU?

The answer is absolutely not!

And have I ever attempted to get any posts by you or any DU'ers hidden or locked on Democratic Underground?

The answer again is absolutely not!

Now how about yourself?

Have you ever attempted to get any posts by me other other DU'ers hidden, or locked in any matter?

MineralMan

(146,286 posts)
67. Uh, I asked you a question. I didn't tell you to
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:14 PM
Jan 2012

do or not do anything. I can ask questions here, I believe. You asked me a couple of questions, too, which I will answer. As a host in two main forums, I have locked posts that did not match those forums' Statements of Purpose. That's what hosts do. I've also left many standing after someone has alerted on them. I have also alerted on a few posts on DU3, which I felt violated community standards or were TOS violations. Some were hidden as a result of those alerts. Others were left standing. Juries decided those alerts, not me.

Both actions are within the rules of DU3 and are available to all hosts and DU members, in the case of alerts. Asking questions of posters in threads is also within the rules of DU3, and is common in discussions here.

So, the answer to your question is that no, I'm not telling DUers to do or not do anything. Especially in this thread.

TheKentuckian

(25,023 posts)
80. On record is the veto, the signing statements are nothing. They aren't law but the bill signed is.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:54 PM
Jan 2012

Even Obama is not constrained by his statement, much less so for future administrations.

Let Congress override the veto under the fire of a viscious campaign against the bill.

Let's not act like any pressure was applied or that the public was whipped. This shit was passed without any public shitstorm. The price of the vote could have been raised quite a bit and at the least a large scale conversation could have been forced.

Reveling in the power isn't important, accepting it is. The veto is absolutely required wheter or not it would be overriden. The President signed the bill, he owns it as surely as every "Yea" vote. Excuses are excuses. There was no leadership at all and nary a wave made.

Find it acceptable all you want but I cannot. A fucking constitutional expert??? Add this to willfully and openly taking on the authority to order the death of citizens without even the benefit of a charge, much less a trial based on his own unchecked power and these are the powers of a tyrant, regardless of how such power is used.

Such power was purposefully disallowed and is at fundemental odds with our entire system and basic principles.

No one should be trusted with such power and anyone who excersises it or even accepts it should hold even the office of dog catcher in our system.
Granted, every TeaPubliKlan would eagerly accept the powers and gleefully abuse them. That being the case it was our fucking job to select a Democrat that would fight this shit to the last, instead our "leaders" were busy drafting this garbage.

tabatha

(18,795 posts)
18. Sorry, Swanson has always been under the bus for me
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:20 PM
Jan 2012

after reading some of his hysterical, distorted articles in the past.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
19. Obama Bad Obama Bad Obama Bad Obama Bad Obama Bad
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:21 PM
Jan 2012

The media's manufactured outrage machine runs 24/7, spitting out an endless stream of "Obama bad" widgets.

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
39. Love how he insults Democrats in this sentence...
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:36 PM
Jan 2012

"President Barack Obama waited until New Year’s Eve to take an action that I suspect he wanted his willfully deluded followers to have a good excuse not to notice."

Fuck that noise.

He's now a mind-reader, and dumbass doesn't even recognize a time-table for signing legislation into law.

one_voice

(20,043 posts)
47. Yup, I got to that line...
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:45 PM
Jan 2012

and thought fuck that shit. I'm getting tired of being insulted by other Democrats. I get enough of that shit from Republicans....SAME. FUCKING. INSULTS. FROM. BOTH.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
144. What? You don't pass out from joy when stupid, uninformed people call YOU the stupid one?
Tue Jan 3, 2012, 01:02 AM
Jan 2012

"willfully deluded followers"

I'm a little bit shocked this entire OP hasn't been locked yet.

TheKentuckian

(25,023 posts)
48. He has no such inclination and outcomes indicate the position of a small increase was phony
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:48 PM
Jan 2012

Perhaps he will gut Social Security as he has tried by setting up multiple commisions and failed deals with TeaPubliKlans.

There has been no substantive effort to have the wealthy, rich, well off, and upper classes to pay their fair share. I submit that it was a fake position like the fake positions of many politicians.

FarLeftFist

(6,161 posts)
57. All HAIL KING OBAMA!
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:17 PM
Jan 2012

Sometimes I feel as though these people would in fact be HAPPY with a KING instead.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
59. Yes, we've known that since HCR.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:19 PM
Jan 2012

The bully pulpit, you know. Use that passionately and the Presidency is equal to a kingship anyway.

So why they are now upset that Obama is a King is a mystery.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
104. "Bully Pulpit!!", "Pretty speech!", "Bully Pulpit!!", "Pretty speech!", "Bully Pulpit!!", "Pretty sp
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 07:06 PM
Jan 2012

That pendulum swings very fast around here doesn't it.

 

getdown

(525 posts)
26. like we saw
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:27 PM
Jan 2012

when Bush n Cheney laid the groundwork for this?

"My chief regret is that we have not seen the major resistance we could have, and without any doubt would have, seen to this if only Obama were a Republican."

 

Better Believe It

(18,630 posts)
56. Many Democratic Senators supported the Bush regimes actions such as the Patriot Act.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:16 PM
Jan 2012

Their "resistance" was feeble at best.

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
75. He wrote quite a bit about Bush's imperial presidency and then an entire book about it.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:37 PM
Jan 2012

"Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union"

http://www.sevenstories.com/book/?GCOI=58322100034730

rocktivity

(44,576 posts)
121. Yet he accuses Obama of the same thing?
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 08:20 PM
Jan 2012

That explains it -- he used up the advance the publisher gave him for his next book, so he had to write one fast!


rocktivity

deacon

(5,967 posts)
45. Yanno, why doesn't an idiot like this just find another line of work. Cab driver or somthin'. They
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:43 PM
Jan 2012

fill peoples head with shit for a living.

 

Better Believe It

(18,630 posts)
60. Let Me Be Clear by David Swanson
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:26 PM
Jan 2012

Let Me Be Clear
By David Swanson
January 1, 2011

Obama has always claimed the power to wage war on anyone anywhere, to search, seize, imprison, rendition, torture, or murder anyone. He has in fact openly murdered US citizens, among many other human beings.

Obama asked Congress to legislate the power for U.S. presidents to imprison anyone without any trial or any legal-looking process whatsoever, and to not make an exception for U.S. citizens.

Obama then engaged for the umpteenth time in an abuse as dangerous in itself as any other. He rewrote the law as he signed it. In doing so, Obama gave himself the power to imprison without even military kangaroo courts and without even the formality of pretended "status review hearings."

And the vast majority of organizations and individuals who would have raised hell and resisted this had Obama been a Republican, did not do a god damned thing about it.

Read the full blog at:

http://davidswanson.org/node/3509

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
62. Wait
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:54 PM
Jan 2012
Obama has always claimed the power to wage war on anyone anywhere, to search, seize, imprison, rendition, torture, or murder anyone. He has in fact openly murdered US citizens, among many other human beings.

Obama asked Congress to legislate the power for U.S. presidents to imprison anyone without any trial or any legal-looking process whatsoever, and to not make an exception for U.S. citizens.


...distortion is being "clear"?

 

johnaries

(9,474 posts)
68. Obviously, Mr. Swanson hasn't READ the signing statement.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:25 PM
Jan 2012

The statement UPHELD the Constitution, unlike Bush's signing statements which were based on the theory of a Unitary Executive (dictator).

Thanks to ProSense for posting this link to the full text of the signing statement itself earlier:

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/12/31/396018/breaking-obama-signs-defense-authorization-bill/

I suggest everyone reads it for themselves before accepting FDL's spin.

TheKentuckian

(25,023 posts)
82. The statement is a fat nothing. It isn't binding even to the guy who signed it much less
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:59 PM
Jan 2012

future Presidents with a different interpretation of the law. The law its self is binding and all that matters.

TheKentuckian

(25,023 posts)
85. Seems essentially accurate to me. Circumventing the entire basis of the law and one man's
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 04:14 PM
Jan 2012

whim dictating life and death and freedom and captivity and who "deserves" justice and who gets bumbed off or disappeared for life is a massive distortion of the whole civilization and the concept of rule of law.

The powers are dictatorial by their very nature and further codify the unitary executive which is close enough as to be no difference from the wrong end.

It is what it is. It may be realitively benign under this President (or not, who can actually say) but to hold out that expectation for the future coming directly off a fucking torturing, murdering, lying, cheating fuck seems insanely Pollyanna to me.

Pissed really can't pay the cover to this event, pissed is getting cut off by a moron in traffic or a slashed tire or a stolen lawnmower.

I'm not sure I have words, I find it laughable that any could be "over the top". What would make it okay? Mass graves? Wouldn't such be grossly understated for those depths of depravity?

Swanson was being about right or too mild.

fishwax

(29,149 posts)
76. the drafters did NOT empower an *elected* legislature to declare war (or any of those other things)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:47 PM
Jan 2012

"To prevent the U.S. government from behaving like a king, the drafters of the U.S. Constitution empowered an elected legislature to write every law, to declare every war, and to remove its executive from office. "

The elected legislature had no power to declare war or to remove the executive from office. The drafters left those powers exclusively in the hands of the unelected Senate (which also, of course, had the power to write laws).

DevonRex

(22,541 posts)
89. It's even worse than that!
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 04:40 PM
Jan 2012

He is now Lord Master Commander of the entire universe and is about to have the Milky Way eaten by a black hole.

That's why Hawaii has vanished. It has been transported to the next galaxy over and is now Obama's private compound, from which he plans the destruction of all things progressive. But Swanson and Greenwald are first since they are SOOO politically dangerous.

 

Better Believe It

(18,630 posts)
95. Why do you think Obama could not have vetoed the bill?
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 05:33 PM
Jan 2012

Did someone tell you that?

Well, those who may have told you that are totally wrong and unfamiliar with legislative procedures and presidential veto authority.

Obama had that right.

He refused to exercise it.

He could have forced Senators to take a stand on a bill he supposedly did not support with a simple veto and clear statement in defense of the Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
 

Better Believe It

(18,630 posts)
141. That may be true but that didn't prevent Obama from vetoing the legislation.
Tue Jan 3, 2012, 12:06 AM
Jan 2012

"Veto-proof majority" simply means people speculated that two thirds of the Congress would have voted to override a Presidential veto. That doesn't mean Obama was prevented from vetoing the bill.

Since Obama did not veto the bill we really don't know what Senators would have actually voted to override the veto.

Obama failed to force the Senators to take a stand for or against undermining our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
 

JackRiddler

(24,979 posts)
137. There is no "veto-proof."
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:26 PM
Jan 2012

United States Constitution:

Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

SNIP

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.


Doesn't matter if it was unanimous. The president can always veto and force both houses to vote again. Then they see if both houses will vote to override. I can't think of a something more worth the doing that for than maintaining the inalienable rights of all citizens to life, liberty and due process under rule of law, can you?

Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
92. But..but..didn't he veto it..as promised?
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 04:50 PM
Jan 2012
"History has tried to teach us that we can't have good government under politicians.  Now, to go and stick one at the very head of government couldn’t be wise." Mark Twain

Old and In the Way

(37,540 posts)
98. Oh well...guess I'll have to join the Republicanunderground now.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 06:07 PM
Jan 2012

Dammit...I knew there was somethin' fishy about this Obama guy

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
103. Hey, don't go yet. Stick around a bit. I just got an e-mail from King Barack I.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 07:05 PM
Jan 2012

It says he's gonna make me the Duke of New York!

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
117. You'll be declared 'Outlaw', and all your lands confiscated by the Crown.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 07:56 PM
Jan 2012

Those that have sworn fealty will get to share in the spoils. Like me.



You didn't have a pool, by any chance?

The Duke of New York always wanted an in-ground pool.

That would be neat.

 

Whisp

(24,096 posts)
110. isn't he the frozen tv dinner heir?
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 07:16 PM
Jan 2012

wish he'd put a little more chicken in the chicken dinner. Talk to him about that.

Robb

(39,665 posts)
111. Swanson is another liberal Paulite.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 07:16 PM
Jan 2012
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/david-swanson/40482/infiltrating-congress

"...The clearest congressional voice for peace at the moment, of course, is the voice of someone with a vision of domestic policy that many of us find dangerous if not delusional. Republican Congressman Ron Paul's voice against wars, empire, militarism, and abuse of power is helpful to those causes. Any success he has in the presidential primaries that is credited to his foreign policy positions will be all to the good. In the absence of progressives with backbones, more Libertarians like Paul would be welcome additions, I think."

Fuck Swanson.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
120. "In the absence of progressives with backbones, more Libertarians like Paul would be welcome"
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 08:14 PM
Jan 2012

That's simply delusional.

joshcryer

(62,269 posts)
124. What these people don't understand, let's just say it's true.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 08:24 PM
Jan 2012

Assume it's true that Ron Paul is for ideas that progressives are for. And then people like Ron Paul make up a big chunk of the congress. What does that mean? It means that if we get a progressive law passed, say, the neutering of Presidential war powers, the Libertarians are going to want something in exchange.

And you know what they'll want? They'll want hard deregulation, they'll want to end consumer protections, they'll want to end the EPA.

And I guarantee you that any sort of war machine reduction will come at a very high price.

SidDithers

(44,228 posts)
127. Funny how so much of the over-the-top Obama hating hyperbole...
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 08:32 PM
Jan 2012

comes from those who find good things to say about Ron Paul.

Coincidence?

Sid

Bobbie Jo

(14,341 posts)
146. None whatsoever.
Tue Jan 3, 2012, 01:56 AM
Jan 2012

This troll was treated to quite the warm welcome.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101673

The jury voted 1 to 5 to KEEP IT!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101673#post41

...and finally

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101673#post105

9 recs to boot!

Some have just slithered in under the radar much the same way..... and stayed. Believe it.

joshcryer

(62,269 posts)
147. They're gaming the system, which was expected, of course.
Tue Jan 3, 2012, 02:24 AM
Jan 2012

And I don't have a major problem with it, because are we willing to give up our freedom to post just because some fascists start posting? No. The system will handle it.

But we should be cautious. If they signed up after 2008 be extra cautious.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
148. Gotta love the recs for that post and this one
Tue Jan 3, 2012, 02:41 AM
Jan 2012

And surprise, surprise! See so many of the same names on both!!

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
138. The President doesn't need Congress anymore for a lot of things.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:51 PM
Jan 2012

The President can now, on his own without ANY Congressional Authority, wage WAR on other countries.

He can order our military to meddle in On Going Civil Wars in countries that do NOT threaten the USA.
SEE:Libya

(BTW: Interesting quote from the candidate incarnation or Pre-President Obama)
"“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” ---Senator Obama, 12-20-2007


He can now execute American Citizens and their Families without a Warrant issued by a Court.

He can also detain them indefinitely without a hearing on "suspicion",
and does NOT have to show evidence of the cause of that "suspicion.

There are LOTS of things for which the Unitary Executive doesn't need Congress in this New American Century.

Are YOU able to discern direction by connecting these dots?

Are you familiar with the Magna Carta?
Those of us who have studied History understand the point that David Swanson was making in the OP.
Those who have NOT studied Western History, The Magna Carta, and the evolution of democracy in the Western World will NOT understand.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their apologists.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

joshcryer

(62,269 posts)
139. So that helps the economy and social welfare how?
Tue Jan 3, 2012, 12:01 AM
Jan 2012

The President of the United States has historically flexed his executive powers as Commander in Chief. It comes as no surprise when another President does what Presidents have been doing for decades.

Want to stop it? Elect congressmen.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
142. And WHICH Party's Congressmen are going to:
Tue Jan 3, 2012, 12:39 AM
Jan 2012

*protect America's Working Class from "deregulation"?

*Increase Government Spending instead of slashing it during a Recession?

*Raise taxes on The RICH,
not by 3%, but restore it to Pre-Reagan levels?

*Restore the Capital gains Tax to Pre-Reagan levels?

*Pay more than Lip Service to Universal health Care?

*Withdraw from the ruinous Free Trade Treaties
and protect American Jobs?

*Actually SUPPORT Organized LABOR with more than just phony campaign promises?
(SEE: EFCA)

Where can I vote for the Congressmen that will "Help" Obama do these things?

In 2010 in Arkansas,
we worked out tails off to give him a Pro-LABOR Senator.
Guess what happened.

We had to FIGHT the Obama White House that endorsed and directed Party funds to Anti-LABOR/Anti-HealthCare Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln. Lincoln had actually crowed about derailing the Democrat agenda in this Primary.
The White House even sent the Old Dog back to Arkansas to rescue Lincoln's failing campaign.
Adding insult to injury, An "anonymous White House Spokesman" actually ridiculed Organized LABOR
for "wasting 10 Million Dollars" by supporting a popular Pro-LABOR alternative to Lincoln, Lt Gov. Bill Halter.


So your response of "Elect Congressmen" is simplistic,
and demonstrates a shallow and naive grasp of the problems we are facing.

NONE of your above comments demonstrate an even superficial understanding of the Magna Carta, Western History,
or the evolution from Royal Monarchs to Democracies, which IS the point of Swanson's piece.

Go read up on the above topics,
and get back to me after you attain the knowledge necessary for an intelligent conversation.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]




tavalon

(27,985 posts)
151. Cenk also discussed this
Tue Jan 3, 2012, 04:56 AM
Jan 2012

Et tu, Obama, et tu?

The Unitary Executive must end. And Obama just took it one giant step forward.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»David Swanson: Obama Cr...