Looks Like Gitmo Will Be Open Longer Than Promised
Dec 26, 2009 Political
Barack Obama roared into office with lots of bluster and one of the things he did was sign an order to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He said that it would be closed in a year and that year ends in January of 2010. After Obama signed the order to close Gitmo he began to see how difficult it would be to close the place.
He was able to move a few of the prisoners but many remain and now he has a plan to move them to Illinois. I do not like the idea of moving them to the US. It really makes no sense to move them from one prison to another for the sake of closing Gitmo. The outcome is the same but with different locations. The only thing I like about it is that the terrorists held in Gitmo will move from the comfortable weather in Cuba to the harsh winters of Illinois. I love the idea of these people freezing their rear ends off. How many claims of torture will come from this?
The plan to move them to Illinois is meeting resistance form residents of the state and the whole plan requires Congressional action with regard to funding and changing the law that only allows detainees to be held in the US while they await trial. Many of them have not been charged so the law would need to be changed. Many members of Congress might be reluctant to move these people to the US and to change current law when so many Americans oppose the idea. The whole mess now means that Gitmo will likely not be closed until 2011.
Oops, looks like Obama made a commitment that he could not keep. I think he overestimated his ability and the difficulty of accomplishing the task. I think he believed the messianic hype his followers were spewing and believed that he could walk on water.
Instead, he is drowning in a promise he could not keep.
This is what happens when they send a child to do a man’s job.
Somehow, he will blame this on Bush.
Source:
My Way News
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: broken promise, cuba, guantanamo bay, illinois, Obama, terrorists
Obama Finds Out Bush Was Right
Nov 18, 2009 Political
A few days after he was sworn into office, Barack Obama signed an Executive Order to close Gitmo in one year. The egotistical young man had this notion that it was an easy task and that it could be done within a year despite the fact that George Bush had tried for years to move the detainees out of the place. It was evident that Bush had trouble because the task is difficult.
Nonetheless, Obama the brazen decided to make good on a campaign promise and sign the EO to shutter the place. Now there is nothing wrong with trying to shut it down but it is obvious that he overestimated his ability when he put a timeline on the act.
Gitmo will NOT be shut down by Obama’s self imposed deadline. Obama, in a rare interview with Fox News, said he was not disappointed that his deadline had slipped and that he knew it was going to be hard. Keep in mind that Obama’s EO says that the facility will be closed in one year and contains disposition instructions for anyone remaining there at the end of that year.
The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order. If any individuals covered by this order remain in detention at Guantánamo at the time of closure of those detention facilities, they shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States. [emphasis mine]
So he knew it was going to be hard? Right, if he knew it would be hard he not have given himself a year to do it and he would not have pigeonholed himself with those specific disposition instructions. He is a calculating politician and he does not like to do things that cast him in a bad light. His problem is that he has such an elevated opinion of his ability that he is unable to accurately predict what will happen and when.
It seems as if he is finding out the hard way that it is real easy to claim that one will change the way things are done in DC but that doing it is actually not that easy. He anticipated that his charm would be able to get things done.
He is finding out that it is not as easy as he made it sound. If he had paid attention to Bush rather than bashing him for what was taking place he might have figured out that the task was difficult.
If he had then maybe he would not be admitting failure in his ability to carry out what he says he will do.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: broken promise, ego, gitmo, hard work, Obama
Obama Breaks Another Promise
Jul 11, 2009 Political
Back when Barack Obama was candidate Obama he took George Bush to task for using signing statements. A signing statement is a note to legislation a President attaches that outlines an objection to the Constitutionality of a particular portion of the bill being signed into law. In some cases Presidents use signing statements to indicate their interpretation of the Constitution and how it applies to a particular portion of a bill.
George W. Bush used a lot of signing statements and the left did not like it one bit. A task force of the American Bar Association said that the use of them to change the meaning of duly enacted law undermines the principle of separation of powers.
Candidate Obama said that Bush was wrong to use them and that he, being a Constitutional professor, would not do so. He said it was no way to govern:
“What George Bush has been trying to do as part of his effort to accumulate more power in the presidency is he’s been saying ‘well I can basically change what Congress passed by attaching a letter saying I don’t agree with this part or I don’t agree with that part,” Obama said last year during a campaign stop. “I’m gonna’ choose to interpret it this way or that way.’ That’s not part of his power. But this is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he’s going along. I disagree with that. I taught the constitution for 10 years. I believe in the constitution, and I will obey the Constitution of the United States.
“We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.”
You can see the video where candidate Obama says this here.
That all sounds very noble. Though there has been no ruling on the Constitutionality of signing statements Obama makes a good point that the Constitution says a president can sign the bill or veto it (that is in the video). He said that he taught the law and that Bush was using it to make his own rules and enact laws the way he wanted them. Obama concluded by saying he will not use signing statements as a way of getting around Congress. Though signing statements generally raise an objection on a Constitutional matter, Obama said they are an end around.
Obama broke his promise by using a signing statement on a bill he signed.
The House rebuked President Obama for trying to ignore restrictions to international aid payments, voting overwhelmingly for an amendment forcing the administration to abide by its constraints.
House members approved an amendment by a 429-2 vote to have the Obama administration pressure the World Bank to strengthen labor and environmental standards and require a Treasury Department report on World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) activities. The amendment to a 2010 funding bill for the State Department and foreign operations was proposed by Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas), but it received broad bipartisan support.
The conditions on World Bank and IMF funding were part of the $106 billion war supplemental bill that was passed last month. Obama, in a statement made as he signed the bill, said that he would ignore the conditions.
They would “interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments, or by requiring consultation with the Congress prior to such negotiations or discussions,” Obama said in the signing statement. The Hill
Obama issued a signing statement and Congress rebuked him for it. Notice carefully what has happened here. On the campaign trail Obama said he would not use signing statements to go around Congress. His signing statement says that what Congress enacted interferes with his authority to conduct business. That might very well be but the whole issue begs this question:
Why didn’t he veto it? As a candidate he pointed out that the only two things a president can do is sign it or veto it. He said George Bush made up laws as he went along and that this was not within the scope of his power. He said it should be signed or vetoed and that he understood the Constitution and would follow it. If a provision of the bill would interfere with his job then he should have vetoed it like he said he would.
Barack Obama talked a slick game when he was a candidate. He has broken promise after promise (though some claim he has never lied and has broken no campaign promises) and now he breaks this one. This is a big one because Bush’s use of signing statements irritated Congress to no end. To the credit of the members of Congress, their vote to rebuke Obama was nearly unanimous. It looks like both parties stuck together on this one. Given that Democrats cover for Obama at every turn, this is quite a big deal.
Then again, Congress never like to see its power taken away.
Well liberals, where is your indignation? Where are the calls for impeachment? Where are the comparisons to royalty and the cries of “foul”? Where is the outrage you had at Bush for this? You should be even more outraged because Obama said he would not do it and then he did.
More and more Obama is doing the same things that George Bush did.
They told me if I voted for McCain I would get Bush’s third term. Looks like they were right.
Big Dog Salute to Stop the ACLU
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: broken promise, constitution, lies, Obama, signing statement
Even the Flags Hate Hillary
Nov 12, 2007 Political
Talk about a tough span, Hillary has gone through it in the last few weeks. There were her evasive debate answers, planted questions and the broken promise not to do it again with more planted questions. Hillary was on the news and said neither she nor her campaign condone such a thing and yet, it was her campaign that did it. Go figure…
Hillary was at an event yesterday and when she had finished she was turning to leave and an aide pulled open a curtain and all the Flags came crashing down. Hillary and staff tried to catch them before they hit the floor but there is no indication as to how successful they were. The link to the video is gone so I assume someone felt it was not newsworthy and took it down. [UPDATE: Breitbart has the video.] Looks like they handled it OK, considering.
Could this be an indication that veterans of yesteryear oppose Hillary and do not want her as President? Could this be a sign of disrespect from the Flags for all the disrespect she has shown to the military? Perhaps the Karma of her hippie days is coming back to haunt her. Regardless, I can see Hillary at her next speech:
You know, the Flags fell at my feet yesterday. Though they should fall at my feet because they hail me as the next leader of this country and they bow down to my greatness, I know that the real reason they fell is because the Bush administration is not providing support to our Flags. These Flags fell because their President failed to provide the support they need in tough times. He failed to give them a good base from which to wave.
As President, I will tax the rich to ensure Flag bases are weighted properly and I will make sure that no Flag ever has to fall again, except when bowing to my greatness. Within 100 days of taking office I will introduce legislation that is designed to ensure no Flag is ever left with a light base or is left behind a curtain to be knocked off a light base. I will call it the No Flag Left Behind Act (NFLB) and I will fund it from sales of US Flags from the Capitol and by taxing the rich and placing a tax on all the Flag lapel pins and buttons. You think people like Obama won’t wear Flags pins now? Just wait until I tax the damned things, then you will see pin less lapels, my friends. We can’t have people wearing Flags when they might fall over and have a Flag bowing when I am not around!
I remember when I was a little girl my daddy told me we were descendants of Betsy Ross and that my great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great Aunt Betsy sewed that Flag in hopes that one day a woman from the family would become President and have Flags bow down to her greatness. It is up to me to be that woman and it is up to you to vote for me because a vote for me is a vote for the Flag [screeched in that nails-on-chalkboard voice].
Yep, it sure has been a tough few weeks for the Hildabeast. And what fun it has been…
Source:
ABC News Blog
Tags: broken promise, flags, haunt, Hillary, hippie days, Military, Obama, President, tough times