So God Made A Liberal...

[jonjon]

Rayzur,
please don't scold me for posting this;
the devil made me do it!

[DinarMillionaire]

That about sums it up, jonjon.

[mdcentral]

God also made the devil and sh*t!! Pretty much all the same lib, devil and sh*t. They make life not worth working hard for because if your work hard they steel it and your life goes to sh*t.

Edited February 9, 2013 by mdcentral

[Rayzur]

Rayzur,

please don't scold me for posting this;

the devil made me do it!

You had me busting up laughing out loud when I read this one And yeah when I saw the title I thought what in heavens name is this dill weed up to now... You got me buddy... totally cracked me up....

I'm sure you know I have no issue with people goofing on the president. That has been a national past time and sport directed at every president ever holding that office, and thank God for the First Amendment protected right to do so. One of many things making this country great....

My issue is of course any thing that will divide us standing together unified in defending the rights protected by the Constitution and given to all Americans.... especially when the division is based upon criticism that is completely and absolutely ignorant of history... even that of the past 15 years.... I'm almost appalled that people have such little factual knowledge about what has been going on in this country for the past 10 years... and therein am really really really concerned when anyone thinks this is new stuff....

In any event, so much for that.....

So this evening, I was doing some research on the NDAA to see who sponsored the legislation to repeal some of the greater threats to our basic liberties that were signed into this law in 2006. (I'm sure you can tell by now I am neither party so it's not like I ever really tracked which of the two parties did what)

It was a Democrat (Leahy) who was the most vocal opponent and joined by a Republican (Bond), who wrote legislation that passed repealing some of the more egregious threats to US citizens and governors within our borders. The NGA (national governors association) including 22 Republicans, sent letters of alarm to the Republican Chairs and ranking Democrats of the house expressing their alarm about the expansion of presidential powers within US borders.

I was extremely surprised to discover that Bush was actually and literally the first president who in fact mobilized and deployed an entire brigade for domestic activities within the borders of the United States ( the 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team)!!!! Of course I thought how foolish some have sounded criticizing O, as a partisan statement, when 'partisanly' speaking, it was the other side that fired the first salvo... O is imitating what G already did (who knew).... I was even more so almost shocked to discover that when President Bush signed the 2008 Leahy-Bond bill repealing some of the expansion of presidential power, Mr. Bush literally and in fact attached a *"signing statement" essentially exempting himself from being governed by the restrictions to his power!!!!! (which has been historically restricted for every single president since it was first enacted in the like 1800s or something to protect the states rights and citizens... it was only in 2006 it was changed, and then 2008 some of it repealed... though lots and lots left in to raise major concern)....

Wow, that ........I didn't expect and all I can say in reply is: ... ... Well boys it looks like this all started years ago, under the watch of a different administration.... and we must have been dead asleep through the whole thing, ..... to think it just started the other day with this recent guy... We best get busy minding the ranch and conduct ourselves a bit more vigilantly when posturing about who did what and when.... In fact, boys... I say let's belly up to the bar have a shot of sarsaparilla, and then focus on the issues instead of whining about who we should blame. There's enough work in front of us to stay busy with the real challenges we face, and we're not gonna git there if we ride alone, or leave half our guys back on the playground sticking their tongues out at each other...

Plus 1 for ya DontLop...... You have a great sense of humor and I'll ride with ya any day

*Signing Statement

This was a total pain in the tail to get.... but in case there is doubt as to the veracity of the assertion that President Bush attached a signing statement....here it is:

Statement on Signing the National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2008

January 28, 2008

Today, I have signed into law H.R. 4986,

the National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2008. The Act authorizes funding

interests abroad, for military construction,

and for national security-related energy pro-

grams.

Provisions of the Act, including sections

841, 846, 1079, and 1222, purport to impose

requirements that could inhibit the Presi-

dent’s ability to carry out his constitutional

obligations to take care that the laws be faith-

fully executed, to protect national security,

to supervise the executive branch, and to exe-

cute his authority as Commander in Chief.

The executive branch shall construe such

provisions in a manner consistent with the

constitutional authority of the President.

George W. Bush

The White House,

January 28, 2008.

NOTE: H.R. 4986, approved January 28, was as-

signed Public Law No. 110–181.

[Rayzur]

In fairness.... here is a copy of President Obama's signing statement for the 2013 renewal of the NDAA. I haven't the patience to wade through it this late.... but it looks like he is exempting himself as well.... or at least taking issue with specific things. It was helpful to see what he was referring to.... though it gets lost without the actual referential code in front of me to read..... He certainly wrote a long one...... (Wonder if he and I went to the same Universities )

Administration of Barack Obama, 2013

Statement on Signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2013

January 2, 2013

Today I have signed into law H.R. 4310, the "National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2013." I have approved this annual defense authorization legislation, as I have in

previous years, because it authorizes essential support for service members and their families,

renews vital national security programs, and helps ensure that the United States will continue

to have the strongest military in the world.

Even though I support the vast majority of the provisions contained in this Act, which is

comprised of hundreds of sections spanning more than 680 pages of text, I do not agree with

them all. Our Constitution does not afford the President the opportunity to approve or reject

statutory sections one by one. I am empowered either to sign the bill, or reject it, as a whole. In

this case, though I continue to oppose certain sections of the Act, the need to renew critical

defense authorities and funding was too great to ignore.

In a time when all public servants recognize the need to eliminate wasteful or duplicative

spending, various sections in the Act limit the Defense Department's ability to direct scarce

resources towards the highest priorities for our national security. For example, restrictions on

the Defense Department's ability to retire unneeded ships and aircraft will divert scarce

resources needed for readiness and result in future unfunded liabilities. Additionally, the

Department has endeavored to constrain manpower costs by recommending prudent cost

sharing reforms in its health care programs. By failing to allow some of these cost savings

measures, the Congress may force reductions in the overall size of our military forces.

Section 533 is an unnecessary and ill-advised provision, as the military already

appropriately protects the freedom of conscience of chaplains and service members. The

Secretary of Defense will ensure that the implementing regulations do not permit or condone

discriminatory actions that compromise good order and discipline or otherwise violate military

codes of conduct. My Administration remains fully committed to continuing the successful

implementation of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and to protecting the rights of *** and

lesbian service members; Section 533 will not alter that.

Several provisions in the bill also raise constitutional concerns. Section 1025 places limits

on the military's authority to transfer third country nationals currently held at the detention

facility in Parwan, Afghanistan. That facility is located within the territory of a foreign sovereign

in the midst of an armed conflict. Decisions regarding the disposition of detainees captured on

foreign battlefields have traditionally been based upon the judgment of experienced military

commanders and national security professionals without unwarranted interference by

Members of Congress. Section 1025 threatens to upend that tradition, and could interfere with

my ability as Commander in Chief to make time-sensitive determinations about the

appropriate disposition of detainees in an active area of hostilities. Under certain

circumstances, the section could violate constitutional separation of powers principles. If

section 1025 operates in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles,

my Administration will implement it to avoid the constitutional conflict.

1

Sections 1022, 1027 and 1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options

available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated

funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any

purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which substitutes the Congress's blanket political

determination for careful and fact-based determinations, made by counterterrorism and law

enforcement professionals, of when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees. For

decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds

of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool

in our efforts to protect the Nation, and in certain cases may be the only legally available

process for trying detainees. Removing that tool from the executive branch undermines our

national security. Moreover, this provision would, under certain circumstances, violate

constitutional separation of powers principles.

Section 1028 fundamentally maintains the unwarranted restrictions on the executive

branch's authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This provision hinders the

Executive's ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and

would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The

executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign

countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. The Congress designed these

sections, and has here renewed them once more, in order to foreclose my ability to shut down

the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. I continue to believe that operating the facility weakens

our national security by wasting resources, damaging our relationships with key allies, and

strengthening our enemies. My Administration will interpret these provisions as consistent with

existing and future determinations by the agencies of the Executive responsible for detainee

transfers. And, in the event that these statutory restrictions operate in a manner that violates

constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will implement them in a

manner that avoids the constitutional conflict.

As my Administration previously informed the Congress, certain provisions in this bill,

including sections 1225, 913, 1531, and 3122, could interfere with my constitutional authority

to conduct the foreign relations of the United States. In these instances, my Administration will

interpret and implement these provisions in a manner that does not interfere with my

constitutional authority to conduct diplomacy. Section 1035, which adds a new section 495©

to title 10, is deeply problematic, as it would impede the fulfillment of future U.S. obligations

agreed to in the New START Treaty, which the Senate provided its advice and consent to in

2010, and hinder the Executive's ability to determine an appropriate nuclear force structure. I

am therefore pleased that the Congress has included a provision to adequately amend this

provision in H.R. 8, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which I will be signing into law

today.

Certain provisions in the Act threaten to interfere with my constitutional duty to supervise

the executive branch. Specifically, sections 827, 828, and 3164 could be interpreted in a

manner that would interfere with my authority to manage and direct executive branch officials.

As my Administration previously informed the Congress, I will interpret those sections

consistent with my authority to direct the heads of executive departments to supervise, control,

and correct employees' communications with the Congress in cases where such

communications would be unlawful or would reveal information that is properly privileged or

otherwise confidential. Additionally, section 1034 would require a subordinate to submit

materials directly to the Congress without change, and thereby obstructs the traditional chain

2

of command. I will implement this provision in a manner consistent with my authority as the

Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and the head of the executive branch.

A number of provisions in the bill—including sections 534((6), 674, 675, 735, 737,

1033(, 1068, and 1803—could intrude upon my constitutional authority to recommend such

measures to the Congress as I "judge necessary and expedient." My Administration will

interpret and implement these provisions in a manner that does not interfere with my

constitutional authority.

BARACK OBAMA

The White House,

January 2, 2013.

NOTE: An original was not available for verification of the content of this statement.

Categories: Bill Signings and Vetoes : National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013,

signing statement.

Locations: Washington, DC.

Subjects: Afghanistan : U.S. military forces :: Deployment; Armed Forces, U.S. : "Don't ask,

don't tell" policy, repeal; Arms and munitions : Nuclear weapons and material :: Strategic Arms

Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia; Cuba : Guantanamo Bay, U.S. Naval Base :: Closure of

detention facilities; Defense, Department of : Funding; Legislation, enacted : National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013; Legislation, proposed : "American Taxpayer

Relief Act of 2012"; Russia : Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with U.S., expansion;

Terrorism : Transfer of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

DCPD Number: DCPD201300004.

3

[DumNDumer]

Rayzur,

please don't scold me for posting this;

the devil made me do it!

THAT WAS AWESOME GOT TO LOVE IT THANKS!

THESE POSTS REALLY ROCK!! SO DO YOU BOYS!!

I HAVE ALREADY READ SOME GLAD TO SEE THEM HERE.

GOD'S BLESSINGS TO BOTH OF YOU JON-JON AND RAYZOR

LUCI

Edited February 9, 2013 by DumNDumer

[Sentinel7]

Liberals are the weeds of society they have destroyed every society they have been allowed to be part of.

They infiltrate the garden steal other plants nutriments and strangle life giving crops

Liberals are not of god but of Satan

I personally think the WHO ought become involved and start eradicating world liberalism just like small pox.

Best cure is a heavy dose of super duper roundup.

They are the Borg. and conservatives must be assimilated

Home Depot is having a sale on super concentrated Round Up get some today .

No Surrender No Retreat and No Compromise

[krome2ez]

Awesome post Jonjon!!

And great replies Rayzur.

I agree that the Pubs have been just as bad.

In fact, I'm more mad at the Pubs than the Dems.

The Dems are doing exactly what you expect of them.

If we could get a Pub with integrity and a spine,

maybe we could get our country back on track.

Edited February 9, 2013 by krome2ez

[SgtFuryUSCZ]

*************/////////////

SENTINEL --- Agreed.

liberal, democrat, socialist, fascist, commie, progressive, leftie, king, queen, pharoah, Czar...

no matter what they call themselves, they have never respected nor supported This Republic as established.

Even now they seek to eliminate Our Constitution and many other Founding Documents which ensure us Freedom.

they are only hell-bent on destroying it through their short-sighted, misguided, well-intentioned ignorance.

(Rayzur - for your sensitive side: "ignorance" is not name-calling.... it's a condition...)

their ideology has not once --- ever --- been successful on this planet.

GEE ...THERE MUST BE A REASON.

they keep trying because...... supreme (not shared) power is their end goal.

And THAT is not good for any FREE MAN.

their idiology enslaves -- so it can NEVER be RIGHT FOR US.

We're old enough to know better and for you younger folk,

we'd provide plenty of links, but Rayzur, Dear Heart,

you wouldn't live long enough to read them all, as there are far too many examples for you to peruse.

But the condition of humanity where that ideology has been implemented or attempted is one of disgrace.

MAY GOD PRESERVE OUR REPUBLIC and forgive those who don't know any better.

When we see Our fellow Americans being poisoned - it would make us accessories to the crime to remain silent.

We will continue to call a spade a spade. It's our God-Given (not man's) right to do so.

*************/////////////

Edited February 9, 2013 by SgtFuryUSCZ

[fordf150]

jay jay - jon jon- your theory on liberals is a bit radical. I'm 66 yrs old and a veteran of vietnam. I have worked my entire life, even now that I should be retired. In any case, I think your idea of a liberal is way off base. From my standpoint I am a liberal because I will not support either party in office. It is unfortunate that we feel we need to label everybody. I agree with what you were saying with the exception of liberal.

[Rayzur]

Maybe it would help if someone defined what they meant when they used the word "liberal".... I ask only because it seems that some of the replies have missed the point that it was anything other than a liberal who sponsored the legislation that attacks the heart of the Constitution in the Patriot Act and thereafter the Insurrection Act (IA). The IA involves use of power against American citizens and was changed for the first time ever in US history to expand the powers of the president commanding the military and armed response against American citizens (if warranted), and was passed by an administration that was anything but a "liberal" (unless one considers a republican a "liberal", up to this point). It was a "liberal" (Dem) most vocal against this egregious breach of the constitution and was joined by his conservative colleague (Rep), in together, standing as one working together, and focused on the real issue, who sponsored legislation to repeal some of the more offensive breaches of the Constitution.

Thank God those two used their God given rights to work together with a focus on the issue, abandoning the need to blame each other... and therein got some very critical legislation passed...

And my dear good ladies.... thank you for showing concern about my sensitivities. A rather refreshing departure

Surely by now good ladies, you've figured out that pouring through piles of reading material is not a problem and that I can read several books a day, if that's how I decide to spend time... I would genuinely love to read some of your links... really. I think it would help me better understand your perspective on this particular issue. Many times we agree, and so I can't figure out where it is you are going..... or coming from when you say a lot of poo poo things about groups of people, but don't reference any kind of starting point.

For example, I can't tell if your list: liberal, democrat, socialist, fascist, commie, progressive, leftie, king, queen, pharoah, Czar are the people you would consider "liberal". Technically, this list includes such theoretically divergent ideologues... it would be theoretically and practically impossible (improbable), for all these different groups to form into one political faction. So it would be very helpful if you could post at least 5 or 10 (or how ever many you want) reference links so I can at least get a handle on where you are coming from so i can better understand where you are headed. The names you list, are far too conflicting, opposing and incompatible to make any sense in terms of perspective.

And I really don't understand your statement

"their ideology has not once --- ever --- been successful on this planet"

Whose Ideology? As a group they are theoretically too divergent and opposed to be one group... so I'm not sure who they are? And depending upon how you would define successful and the threshold therein..... As far as I know, the US is still comprised of two major political parties (and the rest of us as independents, libertarians, and the who ever the others are)... and Dems are still one of the two parties, liberal is the technical word used to describe the US political system relative to the rest of the world (sorry the link to that post is long gone, explaining the historical and international use of the word "liberal", or I would paste it here); socialism exists in several world political systems, fascism floats in and out of Italy all the time depending upon whose elected, progressives seem to be the counterpart of the tea party and are all still moving right along. Not sure if communism has taken its last breath in the world as a political system... though there are still a few Queens and Kings in the world who might be alarmed to hear they are not successful; I think a leftie is a reference to a democrat? and they are still around. And I would have to give you Pharaoh and Czar only in that I am not aware that is it an active formal title for anyone heading any government in the world currently.....

And when you say:

But the condition of humanity where that ideology has been implemented or attempted is one of disgrace.

You totally lose me.... What ideology???!!! (Okay.... are you trying to purposely make me crazy by talking in non referential circles heyyyyy that's the ticket.... Okay, I'm on to ya guys now... )

So by all means, it would more than helpful to have links discussing this, as again it would really help me understand what it is you are saying and the platform/reference point of your perspective... For all I know we are coming from the same place and just express it very differently? I'm up for it ladies and would be happy to wade through whatever you send my way... I just have to go do something for a few hours and then will be back to check in and start the reading marathon... Link away....

Look forward to your reply and some interesting reading in hopes it will resolve some of these questions...

I would be glad to read your links....