Image Image

  Nostalgia ain't what it used to be

Wednesday, 17 January, 2018
Image

B.O., You Stink (Final part of two)

Date: 15 January, 2012

By: Chief

To read part one.

Imageelcome back. And now — on with the rest of the story.

We don't need no stinking Constitution

This is just unbelievable. The President, a United States Senator and other members of Congress on both sides of the isle, have determined that our Constitution, the supreme law of our land is no longer the supreme law of our land.

Furthermore, according to B.O. his-stinky-butt-self — the Congress granted him the power to solely determine who can remain 'free' and who goes to Gitmo indefinitely. How lovely. Quoting the Presidential Signing Statement (which is unconstitutional in itself):

"Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not 'limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force'. Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any 'existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States'. My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF."

Quoting the (year) 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force:

"(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

It is far more than safe to say these elected buttholes are truly the scum of the land.

Epilogue

Truthfully, this story and the headlines and stories behind them have made me physically ill. I did my time — proudly. 23 years worth. And throughout those 23 years, along with the 7 years in the fleet reserve, not once did I nor anyone else ever think, let alone discuss, "limiting" our Constitution. To do so would have meant a court martial and it would have been deserved. We were men who were proud of our profession and our place in it. We:

Additionally, all of us were fully prepared to give our lives (although we were not over joyed about that part) to save our:

It is obvious the same cannot be said about those in office today (even Nixon, gag, never thought about "limiting" the Constitution) and tragically (I do hope I am way wrong here), those in uniform. Again, I do hope I am wrong about the latter. I know I am not about the former.

Therefore folks, we must eliminate those whose desire is power over freedom. People such as Graham and yes, B.O. must go. Period.

As a short aside, in Congress, of all places if you can believe it, there are a couple fighters for freedom. One is Congressman Ron Paul (R) from Texas. The other, y'all are going to love this, is Senator Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky. Yes they are related (Ron is Rand's father). Quoting Senator Paul (from the Guardian):

"[D]etaining citizens without a court trial is not American and that if the law passes the terrorists have won.

" 'We're talking about American citizens who can be taken from the United States and sent to a camp at Guantanamo Bay and held indefinitely. It puts every single citizen American at risk', he said. 'Really, what security does this indefinite detention of Americans give us? The first and flawed premise, both here and in the badly named Patriot Act, is that our pre-9/11 police powers were insufficient to stop terrorism. This is simply not borne out by the facts'."

How true Senator. How sad but nonetheless true.

Quoting Ron Paul (from The New American [dot] Com):

" 'The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is an unprecedented, unconstitutional, and unchecked grant of dictatorial power to the President in the name of protecting the security of 'the homeland'. [. . .] [it is] a 'slip into tyranny', one that will almost certainly accelerate 'our descent into totalitarianism'."

And finally this jewel (quoting Ron Paul):

"The Bill of Rights has no exceptions for really bad people or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. That is not a weakness in our legal system; it is the very strength of our legal system. The NDAA attempts to justify abridging the Bill of Rights on the theory that rights are suspended in a time of war, and the entire United States is a battlefield in the war on terror. This is a very dangerous development, indeed. Beware."

Thank you to both Pauls.

So, do you desire to live in chains and call it freedom? Or do you desire to live as master and be free? For myself I choose the latter. No matter what it takes.

In conclusion, B.O., you don't just stink — you reek.

(Return to the top)