patrick.net

right on mr presley

AdHominem says

Kevin says

The constitution authorizes very little — it’s not supposed to. *laws* do that.

Exactly! STATE laws. 10th Amendment.

The 10th amendment simply says that state laws overrule federal laws on all matters not explicitly granted to the federal government (hint: this is the reason for the "opt out" part of the public option).

bob2356 says

Abortion???? What the f are you talking about? As far as I know, it’s been a long time since any government agency has paid for an abortion.

You don't know very far, obviously. Tax-payer's pay for the murder of innocent babies daily through forced wealth transfers.

Kevin says

AdHominem says

Kevin says

The constitution authorizes very little — it’s not supposed to. *laws* do that.

Exactly! STATE laws. 10th Amendment.

The 10th amendment simply says that state laws overrule federal laws on all matters not explicitly granted to the federal government (hint: this is the reason for the “opt out” part of the public option).

So if my state does not want to "benefit" from a government program we can "opt out" as long as we continue paying for it? Funny.

And what powers are explicitly granted to the federal government? Wiretapping? Water boarding? Bail outs? Abortion on demand? GovmintCare?

Let me guess these are all for our "general welfare." Funny.

Bap33 says

Tax-payer’s pay for the murder of innocent babies daily through forced wealth transfers.

What does that even mean? "forced wealth transfers?" Like when the capital gains tax was cut under Bush? That transfered my wealth to top 1%. Republicans are the redistributors of wealth--they take it from the poor and give it to the rich. Look at any chart showing the distribution of American wealth and it will be painfully obvious...

Looks like all one must do is throw out some big words and a couple of inflammatory ones, sound passionate, and you're right.

Unfortunately, it's 7am in my neck of the woods, too early to play. I'm famished. I intend to masticate a counter-located mechanically heated frozen pastry which I decorate myself, as well as to consume a hot beverage.

I'm doing it for all of the innocent dead babies.

Foreced wealth tranfers ... the law demands we hand over our taxes to the Gov who then hands our wealth to non-producers inorder to create consumers and competition and obedient Obama-etts. lol

Taxes from individual productive worker "A", used by the Gov to increase the buying power of individual non-productive, non-worker "B", by rule of law, without any means to "oped out" for worker "A", is a "forced wealth transfer". So, when a (hypothetical) non-worker, non-tax-payer, goes and gets an abortion it is paid for by tax payers through forced wealth transfers. Right? ANd you are right, it ends up in the rich doctors and lawyers pockets, but it is at the expense of working folks.

Nomo ... sticks and stones, may break my bones, but you're still an idiot. I'm not on housing welfare yet.

Ellie, not trying to be rude or mean. I know so few big words, I just jump at the chance! lol

Nomograph says

It’s bad for the soul and breeds dependence.

so, you are saying welfare is a bad thing? Dependence on Barry and Co is bad too? lol

Bap33 says

Nomo … sticks and stones, may break my bones, but you’re still an idiot

Not polite. He's not an idiot (although I don't personally know him, so I'm making a huge assumption here), he's just someone who disagrees with your point of view and yanks your chain in the process.

Not polite .. true, but done mostly in-jest, I assure you. My chain is yankable. lol (sorry - that was bad)

I don't see the difference between calling nomo an "idiot" and the shitstorm that was created by the guy who brags about ripping off credit card companies and "laughing all the way to the bank." I guess that some of those comments were so bad that Patrick deleted them.

I disagree with many people here - especially those who continually blame everything on the president, as if he is out to get them personally. I also disagree with people who think he's our savior. I have my own beliefs and value system, as do many of the readers and posters here.

I have no problem with people stating their opinion - I would prefer that it's theirs and not the message that comes through the cracks in their tin foil hats, but that's just my own bias. I'm thinking that everyone here has the ability to think for themselves, even though they often don't exercise it.

People have the right to regurgitate what they've heard from the pundits, without spell check, and that's cool. They can expect a comment of mine from time to time about their inability to formulate a coherent sentence or use a spell check. IMHO, posters who don't take the time to ensure their message or "rant" is easily understood is writing to see their message online and not really contributing to discourse.

But calling names? It's childish and detracts from your message. Hopefully we're all adults here and have learned that somewhere along the way.

Just sayin...

The U.S. Supreme Court hasn't ruled one single piece of passed legislation on the federal level "unconstitutional" since FDR. What ever happened to checks & balances?

Forcing American citizens to purchase health care insurance under penalty of law is obviously unconstitutional. The question is: will the Supreme Court do its job and rule accordingly?

"without spell checks" ...... Ouch Ellie, got me!!. See there, that is friggin funny. lmao.

You know I only called Doc an idiot for pounding the welfare drum when I am only accessing a program that I am forced to support ... but, name calling in such an open air fashion is bad form, and I do most honestly appoligize. Half the fun is in finding a better way to say what you are really wanting to say, right? lol

Like, instead of saying, "he's a son of a bitch," one might say, "I hope that when he gets home from work his mother crawls out from under the porch and bites him..."

Yea - I don't know any of you, but I respect your right to your opinions. I can disagree, but there's a difference between "you're an idiot" and "you're so far off base the ump would toss you off the field."

I'm not specifically referring to you, BAP, when I make a comment about spelling. There have been much worse. A few misspellings are cool, as are typos. But unintelligible, long-ass paragraphs are hard to read and detract from the message. If you want to be taken seriously, write an easily understood message. If you want to be the object of ridicule, g'head. mak mi day.

RayAmerica says

Forcing American citizens to purchase health care insurance under penalty of law is obviously unconstitutional. The question is: will the Supreme Court do its job and rule accordingly?

Nope. Just try to refuse to pay into the Medicare system. Don't pay your taxes (which many people continue to assert are illegal). People don't want to pay for healthcare coverage - but once they get really sick & can't afford to pay for it (like a $750k transplant operation), they place coffee cans at the quickie mart and solicit donations.

ellie ... where in the Constitution is it that I might find the government's power to create Medicare, Social Security, et all? Federal income tax power comes from a Constitutional amendment. Our founding fathers wouldn't recognize this monstrosity that has been construted by our politicians called the Federal Government. And yet, all of these polticians have all taken an oath to obey and defend the Constitution, and yet igore it. I challenge anyone to provide where it is in the Constitution that warrants the power to force, under penalty of law, government mandated health insurance.

Bap33 says

Foreced wealth tranfers … the law demands we hand over our taxes to the Gov who then hands our wealth to non-producers inorder to create consumers and competition and obedient Obama-etts. lol
Taxes from individual productive worker “A”, used by the Gov to increase the buying power of individual non-productive, non-worker “B”, by rule of law, without any means to “oped out” for worker “A”, is a “forced wealth transfer”. So, when a (hypothetical) non-worker, non-tax-payer, goes and gets an abortion it is paid for by tax payers through forced wealth transfers. Right? ANd you are right, it ends up in the rich doctors and lawyers pockets, but it is at the expense of working folks.
Nomo … sticks and stones, may break my bones, but you’re still an idiot. I’m not on housing welfare yet.
Ellie, not trying to be rude or mean. I know so few big words, I just jump at the chance! lol

I love this rant, considering that you're one of many people who pays far less in taxes than you consume in services.

RayAmerica says

Our founding fathers wouldn’t recognize this monstrosity that has been construted by our politicians called the Federal Government.

They also wouldn't recognize the motorized carraiges or flying machines or little plastic toys that play music that we enjoy today.... What's your point? I would hope that things have changed in 200+ years. That's why they wrote a framework not a restrictive document. It is allowed to evolve with the times.

elliemae says

Like, instead of saying, “he’s a son of a bitch,” one might say, “I hope that when he gets home from work his mother crawls out from under the porch and bites him…”
Yea - I don’t know any of you, but I respect your right to your opinions. I can disagree, but there’s a difference between “you’re an idiot” and “you’re so far off base the ump would toss you off the field.”
I’m not specifically referring to you, BAP, when I make a comment about spelling. There have been much worse. A few misspellings are cool, as are typos. But unintelligible, long-ass paragraphs are hard to read and detract from the message. If you want to be taken seriously, write an easily understood message. If you want to be the object of ridicule, g’head. mak mi day.

I agree Ellie, but it is very difficult to sit back and listen to the 4 Muskateers (Arch-Conservatives) attack, attack, attack everything from socialism to the presidents birth certificate. They create an environment whereby one must defend the policies we support. BAP, Staynums, Trout and one other unnamed character constantly berate, indignify, trounce upon every policy this nation has set forth since 1776. Maybe they would have been better suited if they were born in the 1750's whereby they could have their "FREE MARKETS" without any "WELFARE" or "SOCIALISM".

Mexico is right next door, has none of these programs and might be a better fit for arch-conservatives that hate our nations direction.

By allowing the Constitution to "evolve with the times" is precisely why our economy is in crisis mode today. It hasn't evolved...it's mutated.

tatupu70 says

RayAmerica says

Our founding fathers wouldn’t recognize this monstrosity that has been construted by our politicians called the Federal Government.

They also wouldn’t recognize the motorized carraiges or flying machines or little plastic toys that play music that we enjoy today…. What’s your point? I would hope that things have changed in 200+ years. That’s why they wrote a framework not a restrictive document. It is allowed to evolve with the times.

Yeah Ray, I totally get not wanting to pay for services but citing the constitution as a restrictive document. 30 years after its creation our founding fathers were already drafting amendments. Many arch-conservatives and libertarians here claim we should do away with social programs: Welfare, USPS, Social Security, Unemployment Benefits, Parks and Recreation, Sesame Street. Seriously, one day I might lose my job and I look forward to having unemployment benefits keep me afloat while I search for a new job. The same goes for healthcare, if I were to get terminally ill I want to know that I wont have to mortgage my house to stay alive. I want to know that my family will not go hungry because daddy cannot work.

We are not a 3rd world country like Mexico, India, Pakistan and should all be able to take advantage of these services when we need them. Now, I do agree that these failed social programs need to be reformed and that most likely any program the government puts together will be a major flop, but we have to move forward with reforms of healthcare because Americans can no longer die due to pre-existing conditions, bankruptcy, etc.

4X - I believe you have things backwards. The arch-conservatives, as you call them, are patriots defending the attacks on America's constitutional rights and freedoms. They recognize that supporting the constitution is supporting America. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of choice (aka - the free market), the right to bear arms, the right to keep the fruits of your own labor, etc, etc, etc, are all constantly under attack.

The arch-conservatives as you label them are the defenders of America's liberty and freedom. They understand sound money is a benefit to freedom, and fiat currency is a liability. They know gun prohibition schemes, and "gun control" proceeded every major genocide of the 20th Century [Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership www.jpfo.org]. They know centralized "total government" programs have have had miserable, selfish and violent masters. Read the stories of those who survived under the regimes of Stalin, Mussolini, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, and others...that should tell you everything you need to know about centralized planing and centralized government.

Its not possible to lose your civil liberties but keep your freedom. Patriots know that abiding by the constitution is the best way to maintain freedom. The easiest way to determine if a proposed change is legitimate, or not, is to ask yourself "where is this proposal authorized by our consitution?" Yes, I said OUR constitution...the basic, underlying law of America.

The fruther removed we become from following our own law(s)...the more our country stumbles. The "arch-conservatives" LOVE our country, but dislike the direction that freedom haters and rights destroyers have been taking it. Its that simple.

RayAmerica says

ellie … where in the Constitution is it that I might find the government’s power to create Medicare, Social Security, et all?

Good point. Let's take back all the knee joint replacements, heart valves, medical equipment, blood transfusions, and anything else we gave to those deadbeat Medicare beneficiaries. And let's make the families of dead social security recipients repay us the bennies we gave to their parents. Let's cut off the payments to the retired, sick, disabled and funnel the monies into SBA loans for TPB...

tatupu70 says

RayAmerica says
Our founding fathers wouldn’t recognize this monstrosity that has been construted by our politicians called the Federal Government.
They also wouldn’t recognize the motorized carraiges or flying machines or little plastic toys that play music that we enjoy today…. What’s your point? I would hope that things have changed in 200+ years. That’s why they wrote a framework not a restrictive document. It is allowed to evolve with the times.

Amen! And let's remember that the founding fathers were mistake-free themselves. They stated, "We, the People of the United States, in order to form a MORE PERFECT union..." However, according to dictionary.com, the definition of perfect is "conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type."

How can something be better than that?

Right, why not continue to pile on more debt that clearly is unmanagable? Why just indebt our children when we can indebt our grandchildren too? Why stop there...we can financially cripple our great-grandchildren while were at it.

I don't think you have the right to tell me how to live my life and spend my money any more than I have the right to tell you how to live your life and spend your money. Who gives you that right?

Honest Abe says

I don’t think you have the right to tell me how to live my life and spend my money any more than I have the right to tell you how to live your life and spend your money. Who gives you that right?

I'm actually not telling you how to live your life. But I dare say that, if you live here in the US, you're agreeing to conform to the laws and customs of the country. Perhaps you should go somewhere else and create a "more perfect" country. But in 200 years, send your reps back to let us know how refusing to change at all worked for them.

The only thing constant is change.

Okay, "if you live here in the US, you're agreeing to conform to the laws and customs of the country"....so would that include following the underlying law of our country...the constitution?

Honest Abe says

Okay, “if you live here in the US, you’re agreeing to conform to the laws and customs of the country”….so would that include following the underlying law of our country…the constitution?

Well, not really. The constitution evolves with the times. That's why women can vote. And why African Americans are worth the same as caucasians (not 3/5ths). You have to abide by the current laws--not the laws of 200 years ago.

Abe,

Some here would have us believe that living in a "free country" means we have to put up with things like wiretaps, corporate welfare, providing for the dependency class, cavity searches, increasing taxes and decreasing dollar values, and eventually an injection of a computer chip and daily rations.

Welcome to the future.

AdHominem says

Some here would have us believe that living in a “free country” means we have to put up with things like wiretaps, corporate welfare, providing for the dependency class, cavity searches, increasing taxes and decreasing dollar values, and eventually an injection of a computer chip and daily rations

Only if you voted for Bush and Cheney...

AdHominem - RIGHT ON! Do the "other's" not know...or not care??? Either way its discouraging. We've got a lot of work to do.

Tatupu70 - "REUTERS news service estimates the Obama White House has to date appointed 21 unaccountable Czars to oversee everything from what kind of light bulbs we may install, to the type of toilets we may flush, to the sort of cars we may drive. The Administration has appointed a Pay Czar to micromanage corporate decision-making, a Border Czar, an Internet Control Czar, an over-reaching Regulatory Czar, and more."

"Obama's Science Czar John Holden co-authored a book called "Ecoscience" which suggests strategies for policymakers to implement POPULATION CONTROL. One section discusses an implanted sterilizatiion capusle, implanted at puberty, and MIGHT be removable, with OFFICIAL PERMISSION. Another section explores the possibility of "adding a sterilant to drinking water."

To call Obama's Science Czar John Holden creepy is to understate the threat technocrats such as him pose, when given "official authority." [American Lantern Press, 2009]

And they claim tea parties are"unhealthy"...are you kidding me?

Viisage is under contract to develop facial recognition technology.
Identix, homeland security "biometrics provider.
Verint Systems, Inc. makes softwear designed to enable "big brother" to moniter and record emails, Internet activity, phone calls and other communications.
FLIR Systems provides thermal imaging and infrared camera systems.
VeriChip-the first US company to make FDA approved implantable tracking chips for human beings. (For now, being used for medical purposes, but their uses are poised to expand steadily...like ANY OTHER government program).
Digital Angel makes patented implantable microchips.

The use of any of these "systems" would be strictly to "protect" us, right?

Who know's when all this started, probably prior to Bush and Cheney, but Obama isn't terminating any of these programs, is he?

BTW, why the use of the word "CZAR"? That word has a BAD connotation. Are we being "conditioned" for something? YUCK.

tatupu70 says

AdHominem says

Some here would have us believe that living in a “free country” means we have to put up with things like wiretaps, corporate welfare, providing for the dependency class, cavity searches, increasing taxes and decreasing dollar values, and eventually an injection of a computer chip and daily rations

Only if you voted for Bush and Cheney…

or Obama, seeing as how he has not even begun to dismantle and end the madness. Rather he is expanding it.

Honest Abe says

4X - I believe you have things backwards. The arch-conservatives, as you call them, are patriots defending the attacks on America’s constitutional rights and freedoms. They recognize that supporting the constitution is supporting America. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of choice (aka - the free market), the right to bear arms, the right to keep the fruits of your own labor, etc, etc, etc, are all constantly under attack.
The arch-conservatives as you label them are the defenders of America’s liberty and freedom. They understand sound money is a benefit to freedom, and fiat currency is a liability. They know gun prohibition schemes, and “gun control” proceeded every major genocide of the 20th Century [Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership www.jpfo.org]. They know centralized “total government” programs have have had miserable, selfish and violent masters. Read the stories of those who survived under the regimes of Stalin, Mussolini, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, and others…that should tell you everything you need to know about centralized planing and centralized government.
Its not possible to lose your civil liberties but keep your freedom. Patriots know that abiding by the constitution is the best way to maintain freedom. The easiest way to determine if a proposed change is legitimate, or not, is to ask yourself “where is this proposal authorized by our consitution?” Yes, I said OUR constitution…the basic, underlying law of America.
The fruther removed we become from following our own law(s)…the more our country stumbles. The “arch-conservatives” LOVE our country, but dislike the direction that freedom haters and rights destroyers have been taking it. Its that simple.

We, progressives, love our country too. The United States Constitution is the shortest and oldest written constitution still in use by any nation in the world today. The framers of the Constitution were aware that changes would be necessary if the Constitution was to endure as the nation grew. However, they were also conscious that such change should not be easy, lest it permit ill-conceived and hastily passed amendments. On the other hand, they also wanted to ensure that a rigid requirement of unanimity would not block action desired by the vast majority of the population. I can respect your view of why our constitution is important, but amendments should be made when progress can be accomplished. In America, our families should not be left to go hungry or suffer starvation simply because our constitution did not originally include an amendment for social services.

Honest Abe says

Right, why not continue to pile on more debt that clearly is unmanagable? Why just indebt our children when we can indebt our grandchildren too? Why stop there…we can financially cripple our great-grandchildren while were at it.
I don’t think you have the right to tell me how to live my life and spend my money any more than I have the right to tell you how to live your life and spend your money. Who gives you that right?

Are you saying because you are wealthy enough to pay for your families healthcare, food and shelter your are willing to watch as others die simply because they cannot afford the services? You do realize without social services there will come a point that even you wont be able to afford healthcare services and will also have to sit and watch a member of your family die?

I agree that these programs are broken, however, we need to reform them to reduce waste not get rid of them entirely.

Honest Abe says

Okay, “if you live here in the US, you’re agreeing to conform to the laws and customs of the country”….so would that include following the underlying law of our country…the constitution?

Even our fore fathers knew it would require amendments for the bettAdHominem says

Abe,
Some here would have us believe that living in a “free country” means we have to put up with things like wiretaps, corporate welfare, providing for the dependency class, cavity searches, increasing taxes and decreasing dollar values, and eventually an injection of a computer chip and daily rations.
Welcome to the future.

No, that is not my point. WE are not for the loss of freedoms, we are for providing for those who have lower economic living conditions that cannot provide for themselves. Bush Sr. set the precedent for corporate welfare with the bailout of the S&L banks in 89, it obviously helped, because 20 years later were back in the same mess due to de-regulation. If we let these industries fail, then we open the gates for a financial takeover by foreign banks and lose control over the financial sector.

We may be ok with televisions (electronics), clothes (textiles) being manufactured overseas but we wont be if our financial systems are controlled by foreign nations.

Our nation is anchored on the military and a strong economic system, no one here has said the we want our freedoms to be lost.

Honest Abe says

I don’t think you have the right to tell me how to live my life and spend my money any more than I have the right to tell you how to live your life and spend your money. Who gives you that right?

The same right that St Jefferson had in authorizing the purchase of the Louisiana Territory with "your money".

In 1776, he wrote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

While not a Constitutional basis, this is the general support of the General Welfare clause of the constitution.

Your worldview does not allow the possibility that Free Enterprise is necessary but not sufficient for securing the pursuit of Happiness. I believe, through my understanding of history and comparison with other national experiences present in the world today, that a mixed economy is potentially superior to your visions of utopic minarchy, and that the Hamiltonian argument WRT the General Welfare clause is sufficient support for any Federal-level welfare scheme.

Some things are too important to experiment with on the state level, and health care is one of them. Our public-private mishmash has us spending more for much less goods & services. We're getting robbed by the rentiers and it's time we rein them in.

Honest Abe says

The arch-conservatives, as you call them, are patriots defending the attacks on America’s constitutional rights and freedoms.

Those would be the same arch conservatives that wrote the patriot act? Let's see what we gave up on that one:
FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigations.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records questions.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.
RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.
FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.
RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.
RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.
I'd sure hate to think what liberals would have done. Sorry Mr. Arch Conservative but that dog don't hunt. To quote a very wise man "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

Nomograph says

Honest Abe says

BTW, why the use of the word “CZAR”? That word has a BAD connotation. Are we being “conditioned” for something? YUCK.

It’s a Reagan-era term.
I’ve noticed that Honest Abe is heavily influenced by the feelings or emotions associated with a particular word or set of words, but he seem completely uninterested in the actual semantics or meaning. That’s why he falls for (and propagates) empty yet pithy-sounding sloganeering such as “Libs hate freedom” or “Conservatives are America’s defenders.” This may all be well and true, but he NEVER backs up his arguments with facts and figures, only opinion and emotional appeal. When his arguments are refuted with facts and figures (see the CRA thread), he dismisses those facts as somehow tainted. In other words, he subordinates facts to feelings. THIS IS VERY DANGEROUS, FOLKS. It leaves one wide-open to manipulation.
The ability to control people through nationalistic emotional appeal is the cornerstone of propaganda. Always, always, always question the message and check the facts with an open mind.

I've noticed the Nomo is keen to use the black and white on his computer screen for Ad Hominem disguised as psychoanalysis, of Abe and others. While this is cute and mildly entertaining, it is by no means a substitute for honest to goodness decree by the thought police that Abe is or isn't a terrorist threat to society. Please leave that to the bureaucrats who are bought and paid for by the proper corporate lobby.

Nomo also uses straw man arguments such as implying that Abe and others use words like "you hate freedom."

Many people like Nomo's posts. But the last two are a classic example of fallacies in arguement. Ad Hominem and Straw Man.

Kinda like "when did you stop beating your wife?" Sometimes even asking a question implies guilt and people here are sure good at using false arguments to discredit those who disagree with them.

bob2356 says

Honest Abe says

The arch-conservatives, as you call them, are patriots defending the attacks on America’s constitutional rights and freedoms.

Those would be the same arch conservatives that wrote the patriot act? Let’s see what we gave up on that one:

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigations.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records questions.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans’ papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.

I’d sure hate to think what liberals would have done. Sorry Mr. Arch Conservative but that dog don’t hunt. To quote a very wise man “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”

Where is Obama with the change we can believe in? Why did he NOT end this IMMEDIATELY? Well, he didn't even try when he was in Congress so why start now?

where has Code Pink went?