BUSH SIGNS MOST DRACONIAN GUN LAW IN US HISTORY!

All you Obama crucifiers had better quickly figure out a way to blame this on Obama!  LOL.

http://www.knowthelies.com/?q=node/55

• BUSH SIGNS MOST DRACONIAN GUN LAW IN US HISTORY! - Marmann
  • VIRGINIA TECH. That's why this bill was signed. - Backwards typist
    • See the original summary enclosed - Backwards typist
  • Well, at least he didn't discriminate..(sm) - Just the big bad
    • ROFL. - Equal opportunity evisceration. nm
  • Thought crimes, secret formulas, secret votes, motherload databases, "no lists?" - So long shrub. jj
    • You lefties are so naive. Obama has plans for worse for our nation. - just give it time....got nuts?
      • And you are in theposition to know all before it happens...sheesh... - woofer
      • W's 22% fan club strikes again. - jj

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

President Has Issued 750 Statements That He May Revise or Disregard Measures.

WASHINGTON (June 27) -- The White House on Tuesday defended President Bush's prolific use of bill signing statements, saying There's this notion that the president is committing acts of civil disobedience, and he's not, said Bush's press secretary Tony Snow, speaking at the White House. It's important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions.

Snow spoke as Senate Judiciary Committe Chairman Arlen Specter opened hearings on Bush's use of bill signing statements saying he reserves the right to revise, interpret or disregard a measure on national security and consitutional grounds. Such statements have accompanied some 750 statutes passed by Congress -- including a ban on the torture of detainees and the renewal of the Patriot Act.

There is a sense that the president has taken signing statements far beyond the customary purview, Specter, R-Pa., said.

It's a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution, he added. I'm interested to hear from the administration just what research they've done to lead them to the conclusion that they can cherry-pick.

A Justice Department lawyer defended Bush's statements.

Even if there is modest increase, let me just suggest that it be viewed in light of current events and Congress' response to those events, said Justice Department lawyer Michelle Boardman. The significance of legislation affecting national security has increased markedly since Sept. 11..

Congress has been more active, the president has been more active, she added. The separation of powers is working when we have this kind of dispute.

Specter's hearing is about more than the statements. He's been compiling a list of White House practices he bluntly says could amount to abuse of executive power -- from warrantless domestic wiretapping program to sending officials to hearings who refuse to answer lawmakers' questions.

But the session also concerns countering any influence Bush's signing statements may have on court decisions regarding the new laws. Courts can be expected to look to the legislature for intent, not the executive, said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas., a former state judge.

There's less here than meets the eye, Cornyn said. The president is entitled to express his opinion. It's the courts that determine what the law is.

But Specter and his allies maintain that Bush is doing an end-run around the veto process. In his presidency's sixth year, Bush has yet to issue a single veto that could be overridden with a two-thirds majority in each house.

The president is not required to (veto), Boardman said.

Of course he's not if he signs the bill, Specter snapped back.

Instead, Bush has issued hundreds of signing statements invoking his right to interpret or ignore laws on everything from whistleblower protections to how Congress oversees the Patriot Act.

It means that the administration does not feel bound to enforce many new laws which Congress has passed, said David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues. This raises profound rule of law concerns. Do we have a functioning code of federal laws?

Bush could bypass new torture ban Waiver right is reserved By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff  |  January 4, 2006 WASHINGTON -- When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief. After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said. ''The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief, Bush wrote, adding that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks. Some legal specialists said yesterday that the president's signing statement, which was posted on the White House website but had gone unnoticed over the New Year's weekend, raises serious questions about whether he intends to follow the law. A senior administration official, who spoke to a Globe reporter about the statement on condition of anonymity because he is not an official spokesman, said the president intended to reserve the right to use harsher methods in special situations involving national security. ''We are not going to ignore this law, the official said, noting that Bush, when signing laws, routinely issues signing statements saying he will construe them consistent with his own constitutional authority. ''We consider it a valid statute. We consider ourselves bound by the prohibition on cruel, unusual, and degrading treatment. But, the official said, a situation could arise in which Bush may have to waive the law's restrictions to carry out his responsibilities to protect national security. He cited as an example a ''ticking time bomb scenario, in which a detainee is believed to have information that could prevent a planned terrorist attack. ''Of course the president has the obligation to follow this law, [but] he also has the obligation to defend and protect the country as the commander in chief, and he will have to square those two responsibilities in each case, the official added. ''We are not expecting that those two responsibilities will come into conflict, but it's possible that they will. David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said that the signing statement means that Bush believes he can still authorize harsh interrogation tactics when he sees fit. ''The signing statement is saying 'I will only comply with this law when I want to, and if something arises in the war on terrorism where I think it's important to torture or engage in cruel, inhuman, and degrading conduct, I have the authority to do so and nothing in this law is going to stop me,' he said. ''They don't want to come out and say it directly because it doesn't sound very nice, but it's unmistakable to anyone who has been following what's going on. Golove and other legal specialists compared the signing statement to Bush's decision, revealed last month, to bypass a 1978 law forbidding domestic wiretapping without a warrant. Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without a court order starting after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The president and his aides argued that the Constitution gives the commander in chief the authority to bypass the 1978 law when necessary to protect national security. They also argued that Congress implicitly endorsed that power when it authorized the use of force against the perpetrators of the attacks. Legal academics and human rights organizations said Bush's signing statement and his stance on the wiretapping law are part of a larger agenda that claims exclusive control of war-related matters for the executive branch and holds that any involvement by Congress or the courts should be minimal. Vice President Dick Cheney recently told reporters, ''I believe in a strong, robust executive authority, and I think that the world we live in demands it. . . . I would argue that the actions that we've taken are totally appropriate and consistent with the constitutional authority of the president. Since the 2001 attacks, the administration has also asserted the power to bypass domestic and international laws in deciding how to detain prisoners captured in the Afghanistan war. It also has claimed the power to hold any US citizen Bush designates an ''enemy combatant without charges or access to an attorney. And in 2002, the administration drafted a secret legal memo holding that Bush could authorize interrogators to violate antitorture laws when necessary to protect national security. After the memo was leaked to the press, the administration eliminated the language from a subsequent version, but it never repudiated the idea that Bush could authorize officials to ignore a law. The issue heated up again in January 2005. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales disclosed during his confirmation hearing that the administration believed that antitorture laws and treaties did not restrict interrogators at overseas prisons because the Constitution does not apply abroad. In response, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, filed an amendment to a Defense Department bill explicitly saying that that the cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees in US custody is illegal regardless of where they are held. McCain's office did not return calls seeking comment yesterday. The White House tried hard to kill the McCain amendment. Cheney lobbied Congress to exempt the CIA from any interrogation limits, and Bush threatened to veto the bill, arguing that the executive branch has exclusive authority over war policy. But after veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress approved it, Bush called a press conference with McCain, praised the measure, and said he would accept it. Legal specialists said the president's signing statement called into question his comments at the press conference. ''The whole point of the McCain Amendment was to close every loophole, said Marty Lederman, a Georgetown University law professor who served in the Justice Department from 1997 to 2002. ''The president has re-opened the loophole by asserting the constitutional authority to act in violation of the statute where it would assist in the war on terrorism. Elisa Massimino, Washington director for Human Rights Watch, called Bush's signing statement an ''in-your-face affront to both McCain and to Congress. ''The basic civics lesson that there are three co-equal branches of government that provide checks and balances on each other is being fundamentally rejected by this executive branch, she said. ''Congress is trying to flex its muscle to provide those checks [on detainee abuse], and it's being told through the signing statement that it's impotent. It's quite a radical view.

© Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
 

Who do they think they are, gathering and exercising their first amendment rights like that?  And  all those signs came from republican central planning, didn't they?  Maybe there could have been heavier attendance, but many of the potential supporters actually have jobs. 

The MMM was organized by Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.  It would have been soooooo politically incorrect before, during and after the million man march to characterize all the participants as nuts, sexist racist kooks with a single hateful agenda, trouble makers, disgruntled black men just looking to cause problems. 

Yet the reverse is excactly how tea party participants were portrayed, which is okey-dokey with most people. 

In the dish it out/take it department, the left has pretty a sweet deal because they can say the most prejudiced, outrageous things about the right and get by with it.  But when the right criticizes the left it is always claimed that we are selfish, racist, sexist, homophobic bigots.  It's not about your race, your gender, or your lifestyle.  It's about socialism versus capitalism, okay? 

impact of Supreme Court decisions on the role of government?  I guess it really has nothing to do with being VP.  All you need is a rah-rah speech, a sense of victimization and a flag pin and you are good to go.  Sorry, sometimes I think.

This election has me very worried.  So many things to consider.  About a year ago I would have voted for Obama. I have changed my mind three times since than.  I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another.  I must say this drives my husband crazy.  But, I feel if you view MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with.  About six months ago, I started thinking 'where did the money come from for Obama'.  I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight.  We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans. I started looking into Obama's life.
 

Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California.  He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. 'Barry' (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan.  During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a 'round the world' trip.  Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family.  My question - Where did he get the money for this trip?  Neither I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they where in college.  When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York.  It is at this time he  wants everyone to call him Barack - not Barry.  Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia?  It's not cheap! to say the least.  Where did he get money for tuition?  Student Loans? Maybe. After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000. a year.  Why Chicago?  Why not New York? He was already living in New York.
 

By 'chance' he met Antoin 'Tony' Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in Chicago.  Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year.  Rezko, was named 'Entrepreneur of the Decade' by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association'.  About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School.  Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School?  Where did he get the money for Law School?  More student loans?  After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down.  But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what?  They represented 'Rezar' which Rezko's firm.  Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago.  In 20 03, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with 'seed money'  for his U.S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price).  With ALL those Student Loans - Where did he get the money for the property?  On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased.  Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.
 

 Now, we have Obama running for President.  Valerie Jarrett, was Michele Obama's boss.  She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first.  Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran!  Do we see a pattern here?  Or am I going crazy?
 

On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley advisor to Obama was 'sacked' after the press found out he was having regular contacts with 'Hamas', which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran.  This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will 'Take care of things'.
 

Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in Pakistan?  They are in charge of all those 'small' Internet campaign contribution for Obama.  Where is that money coming from?  The poor and middle class in this country?  Or could it be from the Middle East? 

And the final bit of news.  On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on 'This Week' with George Stephanapoulos.  Obama on talking about his religion said, 'My Muslim faith'.  When questioned, 'he made a mistake'.  Some mistake!

 All of the above information I got on line.  If you would like to check it - Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times - Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times - September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.

 Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information on my own, Why haven't all of our 'intelligent' members of the press been reporting this?
 

 A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear - 'Beware of the enemy from within'!!!

Scroll down to the bottom of the 5th page of this report and start reading.  Ogden has argued against opposed the Child Internet Protection Act of 2000, challenged the Child Obsenity and Obscenity Enforcement Act and has represented numerous p*ornographic publishers in various causes.  I think this is more than enough reason to oppose him as DAG.

http://www.scribd.com/full/11607068?access_key=key-18yr2u50t8o0sz54rbrl

Look what I found in a book about the Democratic party:

The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, championed by the party despite opposition at the time from its Southern wing, has continued to inspire the party's liberal principles.

_________

There are also multiple chapters as well as multiple books written about the metamorphosis of BOTH parties since their inception.  See, sometimes books really can be a good thing!!!  By the way, do you get your historical information from the chronic-liars-library or something?  Cuz it surely seems like it. 

    Some postings are like getting a history lesson.

I feel like sitting in a classroom agian.

Sometimes it even feels more like brainwashing.

Is this the goal of a forum?  

I agree with you 200%.  I did not vote for Obama.  I always vote based on the Bible as does my family and at our Bible Chapel.  I always vote against abortion and always towards marriage of one man and one woman,  I do believe that Obama is a socialist and he will be introducing social medicine.  It makes me think that we're closer to the rapture than we think.

Instead of trying to blame for the bail outs I want to know how all this came about and I found an interesting site that gives a little history of different government bailouts in the past.  Thought it might be interesting for some to read - just a little history (wish I liked reading about history this much when I was in high school).

http://blog.mint.com/blog/finance-core/a-brief-history-of-government-bailouts/