- ‘I do not expect to see home again’…
- ‘I don’t want to live in a society that does these sort of things’
- ‘I believed in Obama’s promises’
- ‘Presidents openly lie to secure the office’
- ‘Government has granted itself power it is not entitled to’
- ‘Whenever we had a debate in the office on how to handle crimes, they do not defend due process – they defend decisive action. They say it is better to kick someone out of a plane than let these people have a day in court. It is an authoritarian mindset in general.’
- ‘Once you go on the network, I can identify your machine. You will never be safe whatever protections you put in place.’
“the president would use an autopen machine that holds a pen and signs his actual signature [on the renewed Patriot Act]. ” the White House said.
Article 1, Section 7 of the United States says: “If he approve he shall sign it…” regarding the “Legislative Process”. Clearly the Constitution intends the President to sign a bill, not have a machine sign Bills. Anything else is unconstitutional.
Yet another example where expediency has trumped the Constitution. Opinions to the contrary are useful to mask the issue and create confusion. The Constitution is clear here and treating it otherwise is disingenuous at best, and treasonous at worst.
This discussion is ignoring the problems with the Patriot Act itself.
Update 5/28: The rational that the President “authorized” it means that ANYONE could sign bills for the President if he “authorized” it. A dog’s muddy footprint would work if it was authorized presumably. What exactly is required to “authorize”? A verbal statement – what about someone faking his voice? A wink – or was that a twitch? Something signed – oh wait, that is what we’re talking about?
The signature of the President IS the authorization for a Bill and it makes no sense to authorize the authorization. Just stating that makes it obvious how crazy the entire idea is.
As an attorney, all the legal memorandums that have been rolled out trying to justify the action are nothing more than ex post facto attempts to justify the autopen.
When President Obama comes home, he should sign the Bill in person and never use the autopen again. The use of the autopen is a farce.
The signature of the President IS the authorization for a Bill and it makes no sense to authorize the authorization.
“Can any of you seriously say the Bill of Rights could get through Congress today? It wouldn’t even get out of committee.” ~ F. Lee Bailey
True and sad. For the last 90 years those in charge have betrayed the founding principals of the United States.
On the 235th anniversary of one of the greatest calls for liberty – “Give me Liberty, or give me Death!” – the President of the United States signed one of the biggest curtailments of human freedom in United States history. The irony may have been lost on Washington leadership today, and perhaps the quotation from Washington, DC, today would have been “Liberty or death? Why so extreme? Screw the liberty, just give me health insurance!”
Remember this quotation, it is all the more relevant today:
“It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775
A benevolent dictator is still a dictator, no matter the motives. Whether or not he arises “for a good cause” or not, does not make the result any better. A slave with a benevolent master is still a slave. A slave for a “good cause” is still a slave.
No one would argue that the slaves were “extreme” demanding freedom, but even if they were, as Goldwater said, extremism in the defense of liberty is … Continue reading A benevolent dictator is still a dictator.
The “one drop rule” was one of the most odious and infamous rules of the Jim Crow era. Now it being given new life by the Democrat Party in order to silence criticism of President Obama. The Democrat machine uses it to impugn the “race” of President Obama. Instead of accepting the fact that critics of the President are attacking his policies, the Democrat establishment attacks those who disagree with the President as “racists.”
Ignoring for now the stupidity of believing skin color or eye color or hair color is an indication of “race” – we’re all part of the human race – what the Democrat defenders are saying is that “since the President is ‘black’ anyone who attacks him is a racist.”
Now why is that relevant? Simple. President Obama’s father was “black” from Kenya. President Obama’s mother was “white” from Kansas. Now to be labeled a “racist” for attacking the President’s policies, one has to accept that President Obama is “black.” Given that one parent was “white” and the other “black,” one must accept the most repulsive, vile, and repugnant “one drop rule” from the Jim Crow era – which meant that “one drop of ‘black blood'” essentially made one “non-white.” In fact, it was much worse than that. In 1911, Arkansas pass Act 320, a.k.a. the “one-drop rule,” making “interracial cohabitation” a felony and defining as “Negro” anyone “who has…any negro blood whatever.” The Supreme Court remedied this stupidity in 1967 when it over-turned the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, but now the racists in the Democrat Party want to bring it back. (For an authoritative discussion, see the book “Who is Black” by F. James Davis, excerpts of which are available on the internet).
Are the people who say that attacks on the President’s policies are racist really advocating adoption of the “one drop rule”? Are the racist Democrats really espousing the “one drop rule” for the President? They are making the argument that the most infamous racists in history were making: that one drop of “black” blood makes you black. The “one drop” rule, infamous in the Jim Crow era. Talk about the critics embracing the worst of the racist past and using it to call others racist!
Skin color is irrelevant, freedom and policies are the only concerns. The true racists are those who think that one’s skin color is relevant and that the “one drop” rule should apply to the President. The President would get the same criticism whomever his parents were, just as President Bush did for some of his idiotic policies. Under the Jim Crow system employed regarding criticism of President Obama, a black mother can never have a white baby, while a white mother can have a black baby. Is that rational? Is it even relevant? No, dividing people by skin color is a technique used to gather power by the divide and conquer mentality. People have the right to be free no matter their eye color, hair color or skin color. This policy means so much for Thurgood Marshall’s insistence that “classifications and distinctions based upon race or color have no moral or legal validity in our society” and Martin Luther King’s wish that his children would be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
Family history and genealogy is a wonderful treasure, but it has no place in government policy. “Race” is a bad concept who’s time has long gone. Everyone in the United States is “American” without any hyphens. It is time that people started to behave that way.
How times have changed. Senator Byrd (D), 4/5/2001 (video), transcript:
The Democratic Leadership pleaded with me at length to agree to support the idea that the Clinton Health Care Bill should be included in that year’s reconciliation package.
They came to my office on the floor below. President Clinton got on the phone and called me also and pressed me to allow his massive health care bill to be insulated by reconciliations protection. He called me on the telephone.
I felt that changes as dramatic as the Clinton health care package which would affect every man, woman, and child in the United States should be subject to scrutiny. I said Mr. President I can not in good conscience turn my face the other way. That’s why we have a Senate, to amend and debate freely. That health bill, as important as it is, is so complex, so far reaching that the people of the country need to know what’s in it. And moreover Mr. President, we Senator’s need to know what’s in it before we vote.
And he accepted that. He accepted that and thanked me and we said goodbye.
I could not, I would not, and I did not allow that package to be handled in such a cavalier manner. It was the threat of the use of the Byrd rule. Reconciliation was never, never, never intended to be shield, to be used as a shield, for controversial legislation.
Even ignoring the un-Constitutionality of the bill – which the Continue reading SEN. BYRD SINGLE-HANDEDLY STOPPED PRESIDENT CLINTON FROM USING RECONCILIATION
President Obama has proposed a 1.4 % pay increase for active duty military in 2011. This is the LOWEST since 1973. Nice to know that during a time of rampant inflation, while a war is fought in 2 theatres, our men and women in uniform get a LOWER PAY INCREASE THAN WELFARE RECIPIENTS. — from K.P.L.
When the parasites can vote themselves a bigger bite from the host, they will do so. The law is supposed to protect you and your life from being voted into subservience, but when the law is used instead to steal from a disarmed population, the law has been perverted. Today many people believe the concept of personal responsibility means expecting someone else to pay for you and what you believe you “need.”
Today, the parasites are in control and the parasites have realized they can vote themselves a bigger bite from the host. And the chief parasites in Washington want to maintain control by directing where the rest of the parasites can take their bite based on how you are favored – from the filet portion or the keister.
Today I resolve to only listen to those who by their words and actions only judge people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin, religion, or gender, racists and sexists, in short.
- I will no longer hear people who worry about whether someone is a “light skinned Negro” without a “dialect.” Senator Harry Reid (D, Nevada). Racist!
- I will no longer hear people who call their grandmother a “typical white person.” Barack Obama (D-Illinois). Racist!
- I will no longer hear people who state “a wise Latina woman … would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male.” Justice Sotomayor (D). Sexist and Racist!
- I will no longer hear people who refer to people as “mongrels,” were members of the Continue reading Judge by the content of their character not the color of their skin…
Justice of the Peace Keith Bardwell in Tangipahoa Parish’s 8th Ward refused to perform an “inter-racial” marriage (see here). Now Gov. Bobby Jindal is calling on him to have his license revoked.
While they are right, this “Justice” is anything but someone who dispenses “justice” and should be forced to resign, will the same standard be applied to the racist, sexist Justice Sonia Sotomayor who repeated, over two decades statements such as:
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life” – Judge Sonia Sotomayor, 2001 (similar statements were made in 1994, 1999, 2000 and 2003)
Racism and sexism have no place any court and yet the Obama Administration and Congress have appointed a racist, sexist Supreme Court Justice and heralded it as a step forward.
Racism and sexism on the court is a step backwards. (And the concept of “race” being defined by skin color makes about as much sense as saying “she is a green” because her eyes are green, or “he is a blue” because his eyes or blue, or “he is a red” because he has red hair. It is absolute insanity to think that skin color would change someone’s “race”. We’re all part of the human race, let’s just get over it. Too bad Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Bardwell are too uneducated and bigoted to appreciate reality. And too bad Congress and the President support a sexist, racist like Justice Sotomayor.)
It wasn’t until approximately 120-140 years ago (depending on the area) that the government began getting involved in the marriage licensing business and providing differing impacts based on your marital status. Until that point it was a religious issue. If you found someone to marry you, you got married. Imagine how that would make the political arguments today like this one? They’d go away, it would be the private business of the parties involved. It would be no one else’s business. Likewise it wasn’t until well after the income tax was passed that it was used to encourage (or discourage) marriage. Again, if the government treated individuals equally, it would not be an issue. At the time of the Founding, the thought that the states would be involved in licensing marriage would have been a foreign concept.
As you can see by the comments below, when government gets involved, you end up with a political fight. Which is the intent. That is why (as described here) power-hungry politicians want the government involved in the maximum of issues – they can then divide us and keep their power.
Finally, it is not the business of the Justice here to determine whether or not he personally approves or whether he believes it will harm any potential children. His job is to enforce the law and the laws of the state do not prohibit inter-‘racial’ marriage. Legislation from the bench is wrong no matter who is doing it. If he can not uphold his oath to enforce the laws of the state (or Federal) he should resign. A judge who will not enforce the law is not qualified to serve. Whether he likes it or not, it is just too bad.
Racism is discrimination based on skin color, aka “race” (“colorism” or “skinism” would probably be a more accurate term). Anyone, no matter the language they speak, the color of the eyes, skin or hair, gender or where they are from, who makes distinctions based on the color of someone’s skin is not just racist, they are ignorant. Discrimination for someone’s idea of a good cause is as evil as discrimination for a bad cause.
No doubt the KKK thought their racism was for a “good cause,” but that does not mean it was not ignorant and was not racism. The government must be color-blind in all its affairs or it is condoning racism – for example, affirmative action is not color blind. Just as slavery is bad whether it is “for someone’s idea of a good cause,” “for no cause,” or “for a bad cause” discrimination based on the color of someone’s skin is bad no matter what the motivation. People who discriminate “for” one group are discriminating “against” another and it is wrong, evil, and only encourages strife. Discriminating against the innocent today for the sins of the guilty of the past is fair to no individual, but blatantly promoted by the race peddlers today. Discrimination in favor of the innocent today against other innocents today does nothing to help the people harmed in the past. In short discrimination today will do nothing to remedy the discrimination of the past. Everyone’s ancestors were discriminated against at one point or another. But I am not owed a debt by the people that did it to my ancestors, nor does anyone owe the reverse. The sins of the great-grandmothers are not the sins of the sons.
Anyone who favors discrimination based on skin color is a racist. Period. Anyone who is against Martin Luther King’s dream of people being judged on the content of their character and not the color of their skin is a racist by the definition of racism. Affirmative action judges people differently based on the color of their skin. It may be uncomfortable to hear, but affirmative action advocates are racist just as the KKK, no matter that they think racism for a good cause is justified. Just as Robert Byrd, Democrat Senator, former KKK was a blatant pro-KKK racist until at least 1982, affirmative action advocates will eventually have to confront the fact that they are judging people by the color of their skin, just as the KKK does. There are plenty of racists who think “racism for a good cause” is okay, but the impact is the same, you are judging based on the color of someone’s skin, the most evil and ludicrous distinction that can be made.
When the government uses force to enforce racism it is even worse. Being an ignorant individual is protected in a free society, but government racism is not. Everyone is free to be stupid, ignorant, smart or anything else as long as they are willing to bear the cost of so being. People are free to make good decisions and bad decisions as long as they are the ones who pay the price for doing so. However, as the Justices above are both ignorant racists, it is impossible to uphold the law of the land while continuing their racist statements. Being a racist officer of the court is not protect nor should it be tolerated.