Is It The End?

The truth is the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is strictly targeted at protecting the rights of Wall Street and providing a lethal tool for the government, which which should never be granted to any person or faction. The question in the past week was whether Obama would be vetoing the bill, because of the fact he’d raised a warning saying he may veto. But we’ve very recently learned that he did not veto, but for a much different reason: He did not feel the language in any way curbed his power. Those of us worried over what is happening to this country were believing that Obama possibly had some qualms about signing away what little remained of our Bill of Rights, but no, it turns out his raised flag—his cautionary approach—was motivated by the possibility that the wording on the NDAA-2012 may not grant the President completely unlimited and unquestioned authority to disappear people he deemed worthy—no charges, no trial—simply of his own choosing. I do not exaggerate, this may very well mark the end of this beautiful thing we’d created, the United States of America, unless the furor needed to defeat this monstrous bill is expressed, and expressed now.

J. González Solorio


7 thoughts on “Is It The End?

  1. Let’s not overlook the patriot act. If government needs expanded rights to prevent potential domestic attacks, which were revealed since it was enacted in 2001, then I don’t care if it’s a Republican or a Democrat enacting the laws that allow those in charge of defense to do their job.

    I know this doesn’t sit well with the anti-government, smaller-government mantra but these (NDAA and PATRIOT) are defense mechanisms and to think that there is no domestic threat to us anymore is naïve. A domestic attack is more of a threat than Iran.

    1. Exactly. I don’t blame a party, but I do condemn Obama’s refusal to nip this at the bud. The Patriot Act was the beginning, and they squirm inch by inch, because that’s the way they work, and it’s no coincidence they’re going to sneak this by on this holiday week. What really irks me most is the reasoning he gave for not vetoing, it’s the insult on top of injury. He’s basically giving us the finger along with his approval of the bill.

  2. The CIA and Secretary of Defense are against this bill, as it is worded, and for good reason. The government should never have that much power. Trusting that their intentions are good and that they will not abuse that power is childish. A domestic attack is the most dangerous, but not from civilian threats, but from the government itself. It is highly likely a false flag attack will occur in the coming days, weeks, or months, to help justify their sacrifice of the Constitution.

  3. And if he does ‘nip it in the bud’ then he hates America for not protecting it. What can you do to keep detractors happy? Absolutely nothing. He’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t because of the right wing’s political motivations. ‘They’ will never be satisfied until they get what they want, no matter how unreasonable the argument.

  4. Protecting the country is one thing, but never while the desecrating the Constitution, that’s his first pledge. His statements about the Constitution being flawed and imperfect and following through in that sentiment by rendering the Constitution meaningless are enough grounds to have him impeached. I don’t think in terms of parties. I think freely, and though I do feel I have a libertarian outlook, it’s not ‘Libertarian’ with a capital ‘L’. I am an independent, and thus think freely, free of any attachment to dogma, party-lines, or to any flag-waving symbol-minded group. I felt George W. Bush should have been impeached for lying about WMD’s and for the Patriot Act. To feel Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t comes from a party line frame of mind,. I don’t care if he was a Republican, Libertarian, from the Green Party, or a Populist, his actions, the actions of that man in that post, are what I’m interested in, and though what has come about in this bill is not all his doing, it is clear he probably wishes his power were expanded even more than what that bill proposes. Yes, he must protect the nation, but never, regardless of what the sensationalist fad of the moment may tout, ever slay the rights and liberties vested to every citizen of this country in the process. For this, I’d be one to feel he deserves impeachment every bit as much as George W. Bush did.

  5. “No work of man is perfect. It is inevitable that, in the course of time, the imperfections of a written Constitution will become apparent. Moreover, the passage of time will bring changes in society which a Constitution must accommodate if it is to remain suitable for the nation. It was imperative, therefore, that a practicable means of amending the Constitution be provided.”

    – Thomas Jefferson

    And it’s not like Republicans, or excuse me, politicians anywhere on the planet don’t try to amend their constitutions for better, or worse, or for the benefit of their party or their donors.

  6. I don’t believe in any changes to the Constitution, regardless of where the proposed change comes. The NDAA has voided what remained of our Bill of Rights. We’re now officially a repressive aristocracy, and the top aristocrat makes no effort to deny it, he is prideful in the fact. For me, it’s the end.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s