Different Day, Same Shit.

Der Spiegel has a comprehensive article on President Barack Obama. While it mainly focuses on his perceived failure to "deliver," it also hits upon why the president hasn't been able to achieve much in the way of a Democratic agenda, from GOP obstructionism as election strategy and a polarization of political lines at the expense of those in the "center" to political apathy and frustration. It's a far more thorough read than anything you'd get from other outlets in the U.S., which is a damned shame.

It also hits upon something I haven't been able to articulate until now: the growing number of people who say they're "done" with Obama because he hasn't given them what they wanted. The below is the perfect counter to all of the talk of how Obama hasn't done this or that for whatever reason, given that many people fail to look at the political realities before deciding to ditch him on the grounds of political idealism:

To fairly judge his presidency, one has to go through the list of his kept and broken promises. Based on that criterion, Obama's performance falls within the "above-average" category when compared to the 11 US presidents since World War II. It is a modest success, the kind that many politicians would welcome. But it cannot seriously be enough for Obama.

And despite a long list of achievements, it's never enough. People have expected so much from one single human being that when he proves to be just as human as the rest of us, they become absolutely crestfallen to the point of disavowing their support for him.

The bad thing about piggybacking off of someone else's ill-conceived comment is that the shit winds up on you, too, as evinced by the tweets listed afterwards in this Chirpstory. Seriously, Chirpstory is a wonderful tool for saving and showcasing shit like this for all to see, for whatever the Internet defines as posterity.*

Everyone and their dog already knows the specifics about the National Defense Authorization Act and how the boogeyman threat of the president having unlimited powers to detain U.S. citizens without so much as a "hey, wait a sec" was thoroughly debunked. Yet this guy, who evidently has a hard-on for attacking the president for not paying more attention to him and his fellow Cocktail Liberals and attendant emoprogs is still swinging for the fences over this bill. Obama won't risk what political capital he has to veto the NDAA, so guys like Greenwald and anyone else they can scare with their brand of hysteria are effectively stomping their feet like a bunch of five-year-olds in a supermarket aisle deprived of their choice of cereal.

You have to wonder what's it to Greenwald, et al. to attempt to bring the president to heel over NDAA, besides exercising their right to chastise Obama for not being a good Magic Negro™ by closely adhering to the Professional Left's wishlist of "Things That Obama Should Have Done Within 90 Days of Being In Office". I understand the frustration that many liberals have with President Obama, but the last thing that's needed during an election year is a long line of sour faces who've sworn off voting for Obama because he chose to exercise a great degree of pragmatism in an increasingly hostile legislative environment, instead of throwing caution to the wind and indulging in ramming through bills and public policy, consequences be damned.

Here's a president who stepped back and allowed the Tea Party to swiftly become irrelevant, the GOP to implode and the blame for the vast majority of our current economic ills to fall on conservative measures and policy, all the while taking care of terrorist boogeyman Osama bin Laden, promoting policies that actually produce jobs instead of generating more tax cuts and successfully withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. And Greenwald, et al. are not satisfied with this man's performance so far.

As a reminder concerning the NDAA:

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

And here is President Obama's signing statement concerning NDAA (H.R. 1540) sections 1021 and 1022:

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. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa’ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.

Damn. Looks like someone just couldn't hold it in any longer. For those wondering, Jules Manson is a California libertarian who recently tried for, and lost, a bid for a seat on Carson, CA's city council. Judging from this, you wouldn't have to wonder why. Extreme Color-Aroused Emotion, Ideation and Behavior Disorder (ECEIBD) strikes once again!

I'm not surprised by this type of outburst. Ever since someone broached the idea of Obama running for president, there have been scores of people just dying to verbally unload (nevermind with actual firearms) on Obama with this kind of color aroused racial rhetoric. Many people simply cannot cope with the idea of a black man being in any sort of position of power or strength, unless it is contained and wielded for the exclusive interests of white America. Explains why you see so many black football players, few black coaches, and no black owners. Many people cannot cope with a black president of the United States of America. It just goes against everything they were indoctrinated and programmed to believe about black Americans and others of color.

My one biggest fear is that someone, somewhere will finally lose their fucking mind and attempt to assassinate the president, his wife and/or his children. If that happens, race relations won't just be set back - they'll get punched in its collective face and kneed in the jewels. That's the last thing this nation needs.

I've also noticed how libertarians seem to have this rather racist bent for being people on the liberal side of the political equation. If it wasn't the reflexive civil libertarian-led shitfest on Balloon Juice that had undertones of putting a black blogger "in her place" over the NDAA*, it was the brief, recent conversation I had regarding Ron Paul's photo op with Don Black, founder of Stormfront.org. And now it's this. I'm convinced there's something in the water those libertarians are swigging down.

Hopefully, the Secret Service is keeping an eye on this loon. Yeah, people think words are just words, but words can be put into action, and that's something no one wants to see in this case.

*Seriously, people are losing their fucking minds over Obama's impending signature of the National Defense Authorization Act into law, to the point of sheer fucking insanity. Nevermind the bill has 1)none of the provisions that'd make the current fears du jour possible (American citizens being locked up indefinitely) and 2)several provisions that fund the entirety of the U.S. military that can't be vetoed without serious repercussions for Obama. When 1) was finally realized, the goalposts were moved, this time with outrage focused on indefinite detentions, period. *smdh*

The disinformation campaign to cast the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) as the dawn of a new "Nazi America" age continues unabated on Twitter. More and more people are attempting to use the bill as pretext for scaring the living shit out of the Occupy Wall Street people into discouraging support of President Barack Obama, and as an excuse for not casting a vote in his favor. I hate playing "conspiracy theorist" here, but I have to wonder if this isn't just some campaign whipped up by a conservative think tank to harness waves of liberal outrage and indignation to batter Obama's reelection chances - in other words, let the indignation and moral outrage of liberals and the smooth second-guessing of the professional left do the GOP's heavy lifting for them.

Milt Shook has a great article on his blog, the aptly named "Please Cut The Crap," that spells it all out for anyone who still has a hard time grasping the fact that, no, there isn't an "Indefinite Detention Bill" that locks up Americans indefinitely a la gulags and Nazi concentration camps:

Here’s the language in section 1021 that has the pro lefties up in arms. It’s in the Conference Report. Follow along, please. Oddly (?), most pro left cite (1), but leave out (2)-(4). I know, that just seems so odd, doesn’t it?

(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111– 84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

Yes, I do admit section c) looks troubling, especially if you look at it all by itself. But as long as we have Obama (or Biden) in office, we have time to get rid of it, especially if we give them a Democratic Congress. But I would also note that the pro lefties also leave out sections b) d) and e). When you read them you’ll know why.

(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect 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.

Oops.

Yes, you read that right. The so-called – the “Indefinite Detention Bill” that pro and emo lefties are trying to convince you will give the president the power to round us all up and detain us forever without a trial, not only doesn’t exist on its own, but the language is somewhat limiting, and specifically excludes US citizens or people who are in the United States legally. Section b) 2) does bother me, but I don’t think it’ll survive a court challenge because it’s too broad. What the hell is a “belligerent act,” for example? I once called a US Senator an asshole to his face; that was kind of belligerent.

I will note, for the record, that the provision does fly in the face of the 14th Amendment, and I don't like it. But I don't see anything in it that isn't reversible, and certainly nothing that's worth putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work for, just as we're recovering from the worst recession in 80 years.

Milt goes on to explain how the desire to trash can the entire bill has its own set of unwanted consequences:

Obama doesn't have a line-item veto, so he can’t veto the “Indefinite Detention Bill” without vetoing the entire NDAA. Now, you may think that would be a good thing, but would it? It’s not just about the troops. What about all of those civilians who might lose their jobs for at least a month or two, while Obama and the teabagging GOP worked out a new NDAA without that little amendment, assuming they could do so? What do you think canceling all those defense contracts for a month or two would do to the unemployment rate? How about six months? What would happen to all of those small towns that depend on the military bases and contractors to support their small businesses? Do you imagine the GOP might be a bit energized after the unemployment rate suddenly rises to 10%?

Those of you who claim “principle” when you discuss this need to stop. Many pros and emos claim Obama’s showing a “lack of principle” by signing this “Indefinite Detention Bill.” Forget the fact that you're claiming a lack of principle when you're lying to the public about a bill that doesn't exist. You’re actually advocating for an action that could put millions of people out of work for a few months, and forcing our troops to lose their meager pay for a few months for… what, exactly? What are your “principles” when you advocate for that, in order to kill an amendment that will probably ultimately have zero effect on anyone, and might even die in the courts?

AND I BLAME THE REPUBLICANS FOR THIS, NOT OBAMA. They put it there, not him. Blaming this on Obama is kind of like blaming the company who put the olives in the jar because you didn't chew your olive responsibly. Just saying.

In order to kill the above provisions, Obama has to kill the entire bill. That would be a politically stupid thing to do, and anyone with any common sense would understand that. The best way to handle this is to keep this provision in mind, give Obama a second term, and give him a Congress that will pass a repeal that he can sign. There you go; problem solved.

Sorry, Milt. Some people who are emotionally charged over the NDAA right now are dead set on not giving President Obama a second term. The funny thing about these folks is if you ask them if or why they think the nation would be better off with an Republican administration, given that such a thing is the alternative at the moment, you'll only get silence. Or a regurgitation of "throw the bum(s) out. That's right - throw the bums out, but let's not give any thought to the new set of bums filling their spots.

Personally speaking, I'm getting sick of these people. They'll risk handing the nation over on a silver platter to Republicans for the next generation over these lies. The Republicans aren't gonna stop them from believing a series of blatant lies and committing a terrible mistake that eventually works in the GOP's favor.

Milt leaves a wonderful parting shot for common-variety chucklefuck and current pied-piper of professional leftist disinformation Glenn Greenwald:

Look, folks, I don’t like this section of the bill much more than Greenwald does. On its face, without lying, it’s odious, especially if Obama is replaced by anyone in the current Republican field. The problem is, the bullshit braying being screeched by professional lefties like Glenn Greenwald actually helps make the possibility of a Republican president and a Republican Senate greater, not less likely. If you really want crap like this amendment repealed, you’ll need a Democratic House and Senate and a Democratic president. You’ll also need a Supreme Court appointed and approved by Democrats, because an entire court full of Scalia/Thomas/Alito clones will happily give a Republican president this power.

I'm beginning to believe the professional lefties relish the advent of a solidly Republican executive, judicial and legislative power structure. When that happens, the professional left will no longer be obligated to do any heavy lifting. Instead, they can spend all of their time mouthing lofty platitudes about what they believe ought to happen without any responsibility for making any of that happen. And when they're called on such tripe, they can always take a cool, soothing dip into their own personal pool of perpetual underdogism and beautiful martyrdom, and point to the GOP as an insurmountable brick wall for any action they commit. And then it's back to the DC/LA/NYC cocktail parties and other venues of preening self-importance.

I believe they'll piss themselves for the chance to usher in President Gingrich. There's a certain domestic abuse meme that comes into play, but I'm not gonna repeat it. You can see it, and somehow, it's terribly fitting.

Seriously, read Mitt Shook's article on the whole thing. It's a damn-near work of art.

See my previous posts on the National Defense Authorization Act by following the "NDAA" article tag.

If you haven't heard already, the House passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), 283 to 136, with 14 not voting. The White House was adamant about vetoing the bill unless several provisions were changed, which they were.

Applying pressure on House and Senate negotiators working on the bill last week, Obama and senior members of his national security team, including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, had sought modifications in the detainee provisions.

Negotiators announced the changes late Monday, clearing the way for White House acceptance.
In a statement, press secretary Jay Carney said the new bill "does not challenge the president's ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the American people."

Specifically, the bill would require that the military take custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates and who is involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States. There is an exemption for U.S. citizens.

House and Senate negotiators added language that says nothing in the bill will affect "existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the FBI or any other domestic law enforcement agency" with regard to a captured suspect "regardless of whether such ... person is held in military custody."

The bill also says the president can waive the provision based on national security.
"While we remain concerned about the uncertainty that this law will create for our counterterrorism professionals, the most recent changes give the president additional discretion in determining how the law will be implemented, consistent with our values and the rule of law, which are at the heart of our country's strength," Carney said.

All throughout Twitter, there's fear that the provisions within this bill as they pertain to terrorist detainees will be used to "infinitely detain" #OWS protesters and destroy the movement. And there are plenty of people who are using this bill as pretext for torpedoing President Obama's support among liberals.

Therefore, I'm providing a link to a previous post I made about NDAA right at the beginning of the misinformation spread, "The Homeland Is Part Of The Battlefield." Please give it a read before jumping on the "OBAMA SIGNED NDAA! OBAMA TEH EVULZ!" bandwagon.

EDIT: Obama did not promise to veto the bill outright, contrary to what some would believe. He promised to veto the original bill, until it was revised to his liking. Afterwards, there was no need for him to veto the bill.