Some people may say what Luke Rudkowski of wearechange.org does in the following video to some Obama supporters is deceitful but it definitely exposes the ugly truth about the American electorate, and that is that too many voters are simply not as informed as they think they are when it comes to the policies of the politicians they support.
August 2007:
“As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists,” says then-Sen. Obama.
Jan. 22, 2009:
Just two days after taking office, Obama signs the executive order directing the military to close Guantanamo Bay by January 2010. Says Obama:
“This is me following through on not just a commitment I made during the campaign, but I think an understanding that dates back to our founding fathers, that we are willing to observe core standards of conduct, not just when it’s easy, but also when it’s hard.”
May 2009:
In a speech at the National Archives, Obama notes that closing the detention center is proving a challenge, but that:
“…by any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. That’s why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign, and that is why I ordered it closed within one year.”
November 2009:
Obama admits that the January 2010 deadline for Gitmo’s closure will be missed:
“Guantanamo — we had a specific deadline that was missed,” he tells NBC while touring Beijing.
He tells FOX News:
“It’s hard not only because of the politics. People I think understandably are fearful after a lot of years where they were told that Guantanamo was critical to keeping terrorists out … So, I understood that that had to be processed, but it’s also just technically hard — I just think as usual in Washington things move slower than I anticipated.”
January 2010:
Following the failed Christmas Day attack on a U.S. airliner, which was plotted in Yemen, plans to move a large number of Yemeni Guantanamo detainees back to Yemen were halted:
“We will not be transferring additional detainees back to Yemen at this time,” Obama told reporters, while repeating his campaign promise: “But make no mistake. We will close Guantanamo prison, which has damaged our national security interests and become a tremendous recruiting tool for Al Qaeda.”
January 2010:
A Justice Department-led task force concludes that nearly 50 of the 196 detainees at Guantanamo Bay should be held indefinitely without trial under the laws of war.
March – November 2010:
Only a handful of detainees faced military tribunals (of varying outcomes, as a Washington Post chronology illustrates).
March 2011:
The president goes back on his campaign pledge completely. He signs an executive order to create a formal system of indefinite detention for the captives still kept at the Cuban facility. The order applies to around 48 of 172 prisoners currently held. The detention center — illustrated to be oppressive and reliant on haphazard methods by the freshly released documents — is now enshrined as playing a continuing role in U.S. policy.
Most notably, a promise to close the facility does even not accompany his announcement of the executive order. Here is his March statement in its entirety:
From the beginning of my Administration, the United States has worked to bring terrorists to justice consistent with our commitment to protect the American people and uphold our values. Today, I am announcing several steps that broaden our ability to bring terrorists to justice, provide oversight for our actions, and ensure the humane treatment of detainees. I strongly believe that the American system of justice is a key part of our arsenal in the war against al Qaeda and its affiliates, and we will continue to draw on all aspects of our justice system – including Article III Courts – to ensure that our security and our values are strengthened. Going forward, all branches of government have a responsibility to come together to forge a strong and durable approach to defend our nation and the values that define who we are as a nation.
James Davis is embroiled in a legal battle to keep his late wife buried in the grave he dug for her in the front yard of his home.
Davis said he was abiding by his wife’s, Patsy Ruth Davis, wishes when he buried her outside their home in 2009, but the city sued to have the body moved to a new location. A county judge ruled against Davis, but the ruling is on hold as the Alabama Civil Court of Appeals considers his challenge.
“Good Lord, they’ve raised pigs in their yard, there’s horses out the road here in a corral in the city limits, they’ve got other grave sites here all over the place,” said Davis. “And there shouldn’t have been a problem.”
While family burial plots aren’t uncommon in Alabama, city officials say they are worried about the precedent that would be set by allowing a grave on a residential lot on one of the town’s main streets. They have also cited concerns over long-term care, appearance, property values and the complaints of some neighbors.
“We’re not in the 1800s any longer,” said city attorney Parker Edmiston. “We’re not talking about a homestead, we’re not talking about someone who is out in the country on 40 acres of land. Mr. Davis lives in downtown Stevenson.”
Alabama has relatively few zoning laws to govern what people do with their property and even some who disagree with the grave site are against telling a homeowner what they can do with their property.
“I don’t think it’s right, but it’s not my place to tell him he can’t do it,” said George W. Westmoreland, 79, who served three tours of duty in Vietnam. “I laid my life on the line so he would have the right to do this. This is what freedom is about.”
It’s unclear when the appeals court might rule but the decision could come down to whether the judges believe the front-yard grave constitutes a family plot that requires no approval or a cemetery, which would.
Davis has protested by running for City Council. A campaign sign hangs near a bigger sign in his yard that says: “Let Patsy Rest in Peace.” He visits his wife’s grave each time he walks out the front door putting artificial flowers on it regularly, and he washes off the marker when raindrops splatter dirt on the gray stone. At Christmas, he said, he and other relatives hold a little prayer vigil around the grave.
Davis said his five children will bury him in the yard beside Patsy after he dies, and they and his 15 grandchildren will care for the property from then on.
“That’s my perpetual care,” said Davis, referring to the city’s worry about what the grave will look like after he dies.
Davis is adamant that he won’t move the body, regardless of what any court says.
“If they get it done it’ll be after I’m gone,” said Davis. “So if they order her to be moved, it’s a death sentence to me. I’ll meet Mama sooner than I planned on it.”
Prince George County Circuit Judge W. Allan Sharrett ordered the release of former Marine Brandon J. Raub, who was being held and forced to undergo psychiatric evaluation after making posts on his Facebook page calling into question the official story of 911 and alluding to an impending revolution.
Sharrett said that the involuntary commitment order issued by a magistrate against Raub was invalid because it contained no allegation or basis to hold him. Raub was released from the Salem Veterans Affairs Medical Center late Thursday and was on his way back to his home in the Richmond area, a Rutherford Institute spokeswoman said.
Raub served in Iraq and Afghanistan and was taken into custody Aug. 16 after being questioned by Chesterfield County police and federal agents about his Facebook posts. The FBI said the interview was prompted by complaints from people who read his posts.
“Brandon Raub was arrested with no warning, targeted for doing nothing more than speaking out against the government, detained against his will, and isolated from his family, friends and attorneys,” Rutherford Institute executive director John Whitehead said. “These are the kinds of things that take place in totalitarian societies. Today, at least, Judge Allan Sharrett proved that justice can still prevail in America.” The civil liberties organization represented the 26-year-old veteran.
He called Raub’s release a victory for the First Amendment.
“People a have right to go on Facebook or the Internet (and) say things that people might not agree with, “Whitehead added. “But that doesn’t mean they’re crazy or should be incarcerated for it.”
According to the consulting firm Mercer of 1,203 employers surveyed, sixty-one percent say they will have to pay more for health benefits when key provisions of the Affordable Care Act take effect in 2014 and one in five expect employee health benefit costs to rise by at least 5 percent.
Health insurance reform will most likely cost the most for companies that pay their employees less and have a large part-time workforce because the Affordable Care Act requires large employers to provide health insurance to all employees working at least 30 hours per week or else face penalties. About one in four employers, and one in two employers in retail and hospitality, said in the Mercer survey that they will have to take action to avoid penalties.
Only 6 percent of employers, including 9 percent of retail and hospitality companies, said they will likely drop their health benefit plans because of the Affordable Care Act.
The study comes after Papa John’s Pizza founder and CEO John Schnatter said earlier this month that he plans to raise the price of each pizza by $0.11 to $0.14 to offset new costs under Obamacare. The National Restaurant Association has previously stated that health insurance reform might hurt restaurants’ slim profit margins, since it requires employers with more than 50 employees to provide affordable health insurance.
The Mercer study did not indicate whether they, like Schnatter, plan to pass on the higher cost of employee health care to consumers.
After President Obama’s health care law takes full effect, Papa John’s CEO John Schnatter says that the new law will result in a $0.11 to $0.14 price increase per pizza, or $0.15 to $0.20 cents per order.
The company, which is the third-largest pizza takeout and delivery chain in the United States, will have to offer health care coverage to more of its16,500 total employees or pay a penalty to the government under Obamacare.
One Papa John’s franchise owner in Texas, Judy Nichols, says the law could interfere with her ability to open more restaurants.
“I have two options, I can stop offering coverage and pay the $2,000 fine, or I could keep my number of staff under 50 so the mandate doesn’t apply,” she told Legal Newsline. Nichols added that the law may cost her between $20,000 to $30,000 extra in taxes. “Obamacare is making me think about cutting jobs instead,” she said.
With strong sales and more than 1,500 new retail locations planned in the near future, Schnatter doesn’t seem all that bothered, probably because he intends to pass those health care costs on to customers.
“We’re not supportive of Obamacare, like most businesses in our industry,” Schnatter was quoted as saying in Politico. “But our business model and unit economics are about as ideal as you can get for a food company to absorb Obamacare.”
McDonald’s also expects Obamacare to cost each of its 14,000 franchises between $10,000 and $30,000 annually, according to Businessweek. Like Schnatter, the company believes it is well placed to handle the extra costs.
Representatives from other restaurant chains may be less hopeful, however, including Burger King, Quiznos and Dunkin’ Donuts, all which have expressed concern the law may hurt business, according to the Wall Street Journal.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has admitted that recent surveillance efforts violated the Constitutional prohibitions on unlawful search and seizure on at least one occasion.
The admission comes in a letter declassifying statements that a top U.S. Senator wished to make public in order to call attention to the government’s 2008 expansion of its key surveillance law.
“On at least one occasion,” the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court found that “minimization procedures” used by the government while it was collecting intelligence were “unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Minimization refers to how long the government may retain the surveillance data it collects. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees our rights against unreasonable searches.
There was no specification as to how extensive this “unreasonable” surveillance was; when it occurred; or how many Americans were affected by it.
In the letter, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) asserts a serious federal sidestep of a major section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
That section, known as Section 702 and passed in 2008, sought to legalize the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance efforts. The 2008 law permitted intelligence officials to conduct surveillance on the communications of “non-U.S. persons,” when at least one party on a call, text or email is “reasonably believed” to be outside of the United States. Government officials conducting such surveillance no longer have to acquire a warrant from the FISA Court stating the name of the individual under surveillance. Only a “significant purpose” of the surveillance has to be the acquisition of “foreign intelligence,” a weaker standard than before 2008.
Wyden says that the government’s use of the expanded surveillance authorities “has sometimes circumvented the spirit of the law”. The office does not challenge the statement about the FISA Court on at least one occasion finding the surveillance to conflict with the Fourth Amendment.
Suspicions about abuse of the government’s new surveillance powers go back to 2009 when citing anonymous sources the New York Times reported that “the N.S.A. had been engaged in ‘overcollection’ of domestic communications of Americans. They described the practice as significant and systemic,”. The Justice Department said that it already resolved the problem.
Wyden has been the lone congressional voice against renewing the government’s broadened surveillance powers. Last month, he quietly used a parliamentary maneuver to stall the renewal after it passed a key Senate committee.
