hm.
"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. " Is this an implicit admission that section 1021 can be "interpreted" in another way, and more importantly, the "indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens" is an authority available to the Executive? Is it responsible to sign a bill that "codifies" "authorities" that are subject to alarming interpretations that require a statement of assurances of good will by the executive? And what about the next administration?
Absolutely. The signing statement almost makes it worse. He is admitting that it is a dangerous bill, that it could be used in dangerous ways, and yet he signed it anyway. I'm sure the signing statement is there because it is an election year. We are supposed to take comfort in Obama saying "but I won't do this"? He signed it. He stripped US citizens of their right to have charges brought against them, against indefinite detention. And of course, he's not the last president that will have these powers. I can't vote for this guy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/opinion/sunday/douthat-Par... As you can see, the "sane candidates" are called "deranged" by the New York Times. (That "crazy" fellow wants to dismantle the Federal Reserve -- "he disqualified himself" (google it - 12/28 editorial) We don't need a revolution; we simply need collective resolve.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba9wxl1Dmas Latest "advice" from CFR: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136917/matthew-kroeni...
I wish I could buy into OWS, but fundamentally, I found the focus on "wall street" as entirely misdirected. It has dawned on me (albeit belatedly in a god, I'm stupid way) that all the focus on mythologizing "the powers that be" may have been psycholinguistic programming all along. The very strong subliminal message of "OWS" is that "we the people" are powerless and that our governmental institutions are illegitimate: why else would you appeal to wall street for redress? But are we, really? If that were the case, "wall street" would not insist on "occupying" important governmental seats e.g. Tim Geithner ...
Ah, "If only a young Alpha0 had started the movement, it might have just been called the 99% movement. -It rolls off the tongue better, for sure.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%2299%25+of+us+have+100%25+in+comm... I get zero results so I guess I get to establish the copyright: Creative Commons 2.0 (and do some good with that dough ..)
My only suggestion is that the 9's are maybe a little too chunky. Otherwise, it's awesome. In fact, when it's done you should post it here for suggestions.
I know from that it's hard to find one that is affordable though. Once you have a link to share though, I'm glad to help.