Tightening The Noose On Liberty

[nuhuh]

What Obama has done to the DoJ is proof that he never belonged as the leader of the American nation.


"John Christian Adams... is an American attorney and former United States Department of Justice official who has accused the department of racial bias in many affairs, ...."
J. Christian Adams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


8. J. Christian Adams, in his best seller, "Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department," wrote the following:
" I testified under oath that pervasive and open hostility exists within the Justice Department towards race-neutral enforcement of voting rights laws….the Justice Department’s unwillingness to enforce voting laws equally and in a racially fair way.


Patriots of all races gave their lives to enshrine racial equality in this country, via the 14th and 15th Amendments and then during the Civil Rights movement. The beneficiaries of these sacrifices should not be limited, either. The Department should undergo a searching examination as to why they are unwilling to enforce voting laws in a racially fair fashion and change course.


Inside and outside the DOJ, some will snicker at the notion that the provisions of Section 5 should be used to protect whites and Asians when they are in the minority in a covered jurisdiction. Please snicker so the rest of America can hear you. It’s time you engage the debate, or else you are about to lose it badly without ever having spoken up."
PJ Media

From someone who completely ignores what George Bush did to the DOJ you should change your name to Politically Clueless

Why don't you look into the U.S. Attorney firings to start, or the Military Commissions Act, or the attempted appointment of Harriet Meyers to the Supreme Court or NSA warrantless wiretapping or the Unilateral Executive doctrine, asserting the right to open U.S. Mail, the attempt to appoint U.S. Attorneys without Senate confirmation, Seriously, if you want to examine someone messing with our justice systems, start there.

But here you are ignoring what Obama's DOJ has done or what the Obama Administration has done as a whole. If you're so concerned with the integrity of the DOJ or of any presidential administration, perhaps you should be outraged at any instance where they engage in corrupt practices such as this.

But hey, you have that Bush card stowed away nice and tight just in case you are pinned down.

Your statement is simply not true, I just find it somewhat hypocritical to single out Obama while it was the guys before him who laid all the groundwork to change justice in this country. Neither will I defend Obama, he definitely has his own sins and much to be chagrined over, but a fair look at justice in this country requires we start from the beginning not start at the end.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I just find it somewhat hypocritical to single out Obama while it was the guys before him who laid all the groundwork to change justice in this country.

Nobody's singling out anyone. Obama happens to be the current president, he's had many chances to change that groundwork but here is laying down more of it. It is only natural to have the sitting president under this much scrutiny. If he makes mistakes, people are going to point them out, just you don't get mad when they do.

Neither will I defend Obama, he definitely has his own sins and much to be chagrined over, but a fair look at justice in this country requires we start from the beginning not start at the end.

And what might your definition of "fair" be? Justifying what Obama has done by blaming every other president before him?

 

[nuhuh]

I just find it somewhat hypocritical to single out Obama while it was the guys before him who laid all the groundwork to change justice in this country.

Nobody's singling out anyone. Obama happens to be the current president, he's had many chances to change that groundwork. It is only natural to have the sitting president under this much scrutiny. If he makes mistakes, people are going to point them out, don't get mad when they do.

Neither will I defend Obama, he definitely has his own sins and much to be chagrined over, but a fair look at justice in this country requires we start from the beginning not start at the end.

And what might your definition of "fair" be? Justifying what Obama has done by blaming every other president before him?

PC was most definitely singling out Obama it was the premise for her post. Obama may be the current president, but how do you isolate what he has done without examining laws like the Patriot Act, the MCA, and other laws that have changed the entire character of this country?

 

[Geaux4it]

""Principle is nothing to liberals. Winning is everything."

Nope, but if you can't win you're throwing your vote away. And Liberty comes from Liberals, and Liberalism.

Drake, P.W. and McCubbins, M.D., eds.: The Origins of Liberty: Political and Economic Liberalization in the Modern World. (Paperback)
http://mccubbins.us/mccubbins_files/ORIGINS.PDF

Voting is a red herring.

We don't require ID to vote for the elected officials who create laws requiring I show ID for most other things.

-Geaux

 

[TemplarKormac]

Obama may be the current president, but how do you isolate what he has done without examining laws like the Patriot Act, the MCA, and other laws that have changed the entire character of this country?

Because Obama's actions have an immediate impact on the present. Yes, we can quibble over the past as much as we like, but what's done is done.

But since you brought those laws up:

Obama signs NSA bill, renewing Patriot Act powers

If by the MCA you're referring to the Military Commissions Act of 2009, an amendment to the 2006 act passed under Bush which suspended detainees right to habeas corpus, for which was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the Obama Administration tried strip the law of war definition of murder from the War Commissions Manual, that if successful would have resulted in the acquittal of then 15 year old Omar Khadr for mortally wounding Sgt. First Class Chris Speer during a 2002 firefight in Afghanistan. Yeah, I see why you'd bring this one up. Khadr killed a US soldier. Case closed.

Omar Khadr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Obama Officials Pushed, But Failed, For New Rules In Khadr Tribunal | War Is A Crime .org

There's complicity on both ends. But the eyes are currently on the administration in place now. Remember that.

 

[Geaux4it]

Obama may be the current president, but how do you isolate what he has done without examining laws like the Patriot Act, the MCA, and other laws that have changed the entire character of this country?

Because Obama's actions have an immediate impact on the present. Yes, we can quibble over the past as much as we like, but what's done is done.

But since you brought those laws up:

Obama signs NSA bill, renewing Patriot Act powers

If by the MCA you're referring to the Military Commissions Act of 2009, an amendment to the 2006 act passed under Bush which suspended detainees right to habeas corpus, for which was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the Obama Administration tried strip the law of war definition of murder in the War Commissions Manual, that if successful would have resulted in the acquittal of then 15 year old Omar Khadr for mortally wounding Sgt. First Class Chris Speer during a 2002 firefight in Afghanistan. Yeah, I see why you'd bring this one up. He killed a US soldier. Case closed.

Omar Khadr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Obama Officials Pushed, But Failed, For New Rules In Khadr Tribunal | War Is A Crime .org

There's complicity on both ends. But the eyes are currently on the administration in place now. Remember that.

And

National Defense Authorization Act

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2016 is the comprehensive legislation to authorize the budget authority of the Department of Defense and the national security programs of the Department of Energy.

Conference Report to accompany H.R. 1735 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (H. Rept. 114-270)
Conference Report Summary
_________________________________________________

H.R. 17356 Floor Amendments and Tracker

H.R. 1735 as Introduced to the House

Bill as Reported by the Committee

Report from the Committee

Bill Summary

FY16 NDAA Full Committee Markup

Wednesday, April 29, 2015
10:00 AM—Full Committee Markup (Room 2118)

• Bill Language, Amendments & Roll Call Votes
• Summary
• Watch Replay
  
  NDAA - National Defense Authorization Act - Armed Services Republicans

 

[TemplarKormac]

PC was most definitely singling out Obama it was the premise for her post.

And just as an aside, should she make her thread according to your views on the topic? That's the beauty of free speech, she doesn't have to make a thread which appeases you, FYI.

 

[nuhuh]

Obama may be the current president, but how do you isolate what he has done without examining laws like the Patriot Act, the MCA, and other laws that have changed the entire character of this country?

Because Obama's actions have an immediate impact on the present. Yes, we can quibble over the past as much as we like, but what's done is done.

But since you brought those laws up:

Obama signs NSA bill, renewing Patriot Act powers

If by the MCA you're referring to the Military Commissions Act of 2009, an amendment to the 2006 act passed under Bush which suspended detainees right to habeas corpus, for which was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the Obama Administration tried strip the law of war definition of murder from the War Commissions Manual, that if successful would have resulted in the acquittal of then 15 year old Omar Khadr for mortally wounding Sgt. First Class Chris Speer during a 2002 firefight in Afghanistan. Yeah, I see why you'd bring this one up. Khadr killed a US soldier. Case closed.

Omar Khadr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Obama Officials Pushed, But Failed, For New Rules In Khadr Tribunal | War Is A Crime .org

There's complicity on both ends. But the eyes are currently on the administration in place now. Remember that.

If there's complicity on both ends then both ends need to examined.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Obama may be the current president, but how do you isolate what he has done without examining laws like the Patriot Act, the MCA, and other laws that have changed the entire character of this country?

Because Obama's actions have an immediate impact on the present. Yes, we can quibble over the past as much as we like, but what's done is done.

But since you brought those laws up:

Obama signs NSA bill, renewing Patriot Act powers

If by the MCA you're referring to the Military Commissions Act of 2009, an amendment to the 2006 act passed under Bush which suspended detainees right to habeas corpus, for which was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the Obama Administration tried strip the law of war definition of murder from the War Commissions Manual, that if successful would have resulted in the acquittal of then 15 year old Omar Khadr for mortally wounding Sgt. First Class Chris Speer during a 2002 firefight in Afghanistan. Yeah, I see why you'd bring this one up. Khadr killed a US soldier. Case closed.

Omar Khadr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Obama Officials Pushed, But Failed, For New Rules In Khadr Tribunal | War Is A Crime .org

There's complicity on both ends. But the eyes are currently on the administration in place now. Remember that.

If there's complicity on both ends then both ends need to examined.

Precisely.

But instead of reprimanding Obama from the beginning, you went straight for Bush. Yes, practice what you preach.

 

[nuhuh]

PC was most definitely singling out Obama it was the premise for her post.

And just as an aside, should she make her thread according to your views on the topic? That's the beauty of free speech, she doesn't have to make a thread which appeases you, FYI.

No it is her OP. But when I answer her and pose my own question, I expect it to be answered. Otherwise, we do not have a dialog and she is going to be accused of failing to defend her position.

 

[nuhuh]

Obama may be the current president, but how do you isolate what he has done without examining laws like the Patriot Act, the MCA, and other laws that have changed the entire character of this country?

Because Obama's actions have an immediate impact on the present. Yes, we can quibble over the past as much as we like, but what's done is done.

But since you brought those laws up:

Obama signs NSA bill, renewing Patriot Act powers

If by the MCA you're referring to the Military Commissions Act of 2009, an amendment to the 2006 act passed under Bush which suspended detainees right to habeas corpus, for which was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the Obama Administration tried strip the law of war definition of murder from the War Commissions Manual, that if successful would have resulted in the acquittal of then 15 year old Omar Khadr for mortally wounding Sgt. First Class Chris Speer during a 2002 firefight in Afghanistan. Yeah, I see why you'd bring this one up. Khadr killed a US soldier. Case closed.

Omar Khadr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Obama Officials Pushed, But Failed, For New Rules In Khadr Tribunal | War Is A Crime .org

There's complicity on both ends. But the eyes are currently on the administration in place now. Remember that.

If there's complicity on both ends then both ends need to examined.

Precisely.

But instead of reprimanding Obama from the beginning, you went straight for Bush. Yes, practice what you preach.

I think Bush is the starting place as I indicated before. You don't start at the end.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Obama may be the current president, but how do you isolate what he has done without examining laws like the Patriot Act, the MCA, and other laws that have changed the entire character of this country?

Because Obama's actions have an immediate impact on the present. Yes, we can quibble over the past as much as we like, but what's done is done.

But since you brought those laws up:

Obama signs NSA bill, renewing Patriot Act powers

If by the MCA you're referring to the Military Commissions Act of 2009, an amendment to the 2006 act passed under Bush which suspended detainees right to habeas corpus, for which was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the Obama Administration tried strip the law of war definition of murder from the War Commissions Manual, that if successful would have resulted in the acquittal of then 15 year old Omar Khadr for mortally wounding Sgt. First Class Chris Speer during a 2002 firefight in Afghanistan. Yeah, I see why you'd bring this one up. Khadr killed a US soldier. Case closed.

Omar Khadr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Obama Officials Pushed, But Failed, For New Rules In Khadr Tribunal | War Is A Crime .org

There's complicity on both ends. But the eyes are currently on the administration in place now. Remember that.

If there's complicity on both ends then both ends need to examined.

Precisely.

But instead of reprimanding Obama from the beginning, you went straight for Bush. Yes, practice what you preach.

I think Bush is the starting place as I indicated before. You don't start at the end.

Yes you do. Because it doesn't end, until you end it.

It ain't over til its over.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Gee....first you were complaining about Bush firing 8 attorneys....then you were explaining that it was just fine for Clinton to fire 93 of 'em....

Now this: "I haven't reversed course, you have."

I'll just sit back and let folks read it.

You might just get your very own telethon out of it.

Nope you brought up Clinton and I didn't bring up 8 either. Too much for you my dear, it sure seems so when you can't get elementary facts correct.

Gads....you're really sick.

You posted this in #173...
"From someone who completely ignores what George Bush did to the DOJ you should change your name to Politically Clueless

Why don't you look into the U.S. Attorney firings to start,..."


That was the first mention of U.S, Attorney firing.

So....which is it....are you really, really stupid, or simply a Liberal liar....(is that redundant?)

You're demented and probably need help. More than 30 posts later you're still waffling, waffling because it destroys your whole premise that liberals have destroyed individual rights in this country and have damaged justice, when in fact the 9/11 era and George Bush did far more damage. Now, I don't think you're stupid, but I do think you might be psychology disturbed to ignore all the evidence thrown at you thread after thread, it takes a real special fuckwit to ignore it all. I also think you're a pathological liar who has never seen an ounce of honesty or truth in your entire life.

".. your whole premise that liberals have destroyed individual rights in this country and have damaged justice, ...."

Absolutely.

"Collectivism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that emphasizes the significance of groups—their identities, goals, rights, outcomes, etc.—and tends to analyze issues in those terms. Collectivism is a basic cultural element that exists as the reverse of individualism..."
Collectivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There can be no justice if only groups have rights.



In Thoreau’s On the duty of Civil Disobedience, he states:
“ There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all of its own power and authority are derived.”



Liberalism shares the very same aims and views as communism, socialism, Nazism, fascism, Progressivism....and environmentalism.

Your use of language to couch false analogies and exploit words to change meanings is a deliberate attempt to project a false narrative. No wonder your initials "P.C." are the same as Pancreatic Cancer.

"Your use of language to couch false analogies and exploit words to change meanings is a deliberate attempt to project a false narrative."

Hmmm.....
...let's see a far, far better example of a false narrative...

"A young girl was likely encouraged by her parents to believe that she was actually a boy, began going by a new, male name and dressing like a boy as well. She then issued the usual demand we see every time, insisting that she should be able to use the boy’s bathrooms and other gender specific facilities

...the Obama administration is wading into the fight on the girl’s behalf. Perhaps they took issue with the fact that this school chose to grapple with reality and identify confused children such as Ms. Grimm as having ‘gender identity issues‘ rather than pretending that they are something they’re not. They also refused to enforce the acceptance of one child’s “rights” at the expense of everyone else in the community. That’s unthinkable in today’s PC culture and the SJW was quickly on the march in support of Grimm’s claim."
Obama administration weighs in on “transgender bathroom” question with predictable results



Hoist by your own petard, huh?

 

[Contumacious]

Tightening The Noose On Liberty

Yep, that is a huge problem.



Such programs as the "Patriot" Act , the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, and NSA spying figure prominently . They BOTH have DEMOPUBLICAN support. And the Congresscritters will continue to support them so long as the sense that WE THE PEOPLE are narcotized .

.


.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

""Principle is nothing to liberals. Winning is everything."

Nope, but if you can't win you're throwing your vote away. And Liberty comes from Liberals, and Liberalism.

Drake, P.W. and McCubbins, M.D., eds.: The Origins of Liberty: Political and Economic Liberalization in the Modern World. (Paperback)
http://mccubbins.us/mccubbins_files/ORIGINS.PDF

FUNNIEST post of the day.

Imagine the hilarity of contending that "liberty" in any way emanates from "liberals" or from "liberalism."

I laughed so hard, my sides are starting to ache.

Fucking never knew that PaintHisDogHouse could be so witty.