Dear Mr. President: Please Put a Veto Under the Tree and Keep America Free

This nifty holiday card is being circulated by activist Saint Teresa Stone–yes, that’s her real, birth certificated, government name–one of the bright lights in the Los Angeles underground of punk rock, politics and vintage pleasures, concurrent and oft co-mingled streams that erupt from the same deep underground wellspring of desire, passion and joy. And what a righteous holiday message it is!

Please join us in licking a stamp for liberty and send Obama a holiday message, something along the lines of:

We love our Constitution and our country. Please veto NDAA/S 1867 and keep America free for the holidays and forever!

14 Responses to "Dear Mr. President: Please Put a Veto Under the Tree and Keep America Free"
eCAHNomics | Wednesday December 14, 2011 12:22 pm 1

O loves indefinite detention, esp if he can blame it on Rs or congress. (*whiny voice* “I did the best I can.”) IMO, there’s no way he will veto.


karenb | Wednesday December 14, 2011 12:39 pm 2

Oh yeah, this should do it. Maybe even add pretty before the please.


tambershall | Wednesday December 14, 2011 12:54 pm 3

One thing I like about my cynicism is that it does simple math.
Will he or won’t he? Ooooooooooooooh … aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah …

Simple math.
1. O will do whatever he does to maximize his powers.
2. One reasoning is that this gives him powers to turn America into a battlefield. Thus the fear he will sign it.
3. The other reasoning is that he already has all the powers he needs (he can right now, and he has, assassinated American citizens and renditioned them). SO why would he want a law that actually spells out what he can do when right now he has no law and thus he can do whatever he wants from his imperial presidency? So he will veto it because he doesn’t want ANY limitations.

Which one is the “truth”?
Well it all depends on O. He and his advisers will determine the course of action that gives them the most power, based on the details of #2 or #3 that they determine, and they will thus act accordingly.

I personally think he will veto it. Better than a law is no law. Thus his hands are completely untied. No paperwork. All he has to do is get a legal memo (and he’s a lawyer so he can write it himself, or advise himself, … and no I’m not kidding) that says he can do it.
So if there’s a law, he has to worry about the details and Congress. No law, and he can keep doing what he is doing now. Which one would you pick?

Either way, we lose.


eCAHNomics | Wednesday December 14, 2011 12:58 pm 4
In response to tambershall @ 3

You make a good point about no law is better than a law. That thought flitted across my brain earlier going down this dark path but didn’t quite get to consciousness.


mswinkle | Wednesday December 14, 2011 01:00 pm 5

if you see the video of carl levin O wanted this and was the ne who got the language changed, so i can’t see him vetoing this on illegal detention grounds, maybe some other reason


ruh17 | Wednesday December 14, 2011 01:12 pm 6

Never going to happen. He has no problem assassinating citizens without due process… so, of course he has no problem with detaining them indefinitely.

And majority of the people in this country will just go along believeing that he had no choice but to sign this.

I will gladly eat my words if i’m wrong. But, I plan on being hungry for a very long time.


wagthedog | Wednesday December 14, 2011 01:13 pm 7

Anyone who questions if we live in a military state, just head to the airport where toddlers, grandma, and grandpa, are getting searched.


eCAHNomics | Wednesday December 14, 2011 01:33 pm 8

karenb | Wednesday December 14, 2011 01:36 pm 9
In response to wagthedog @ 7

Of course we do, but the majority of people refuse to see it and also believe it could never happen here.


ondelette | Wednesday December 14, 2011 02:07 pm 10

While we’re at it, there’s another provision in the act that needs attention folks!

SEC. 1207 et al. establishes the Global Security Contingency Fund, and basically gives Congressional Authorization to intervene militarily anywhere in the world, except Uganda. The only requirement is to give 60 days notice in writing by the Secs. of Defense and State, the money limit is $300M, but the Sec. of State can receive any gifts or outside funds at all to fund it otherwise, and they need to report on it quarterly.

It’s just a wee bit of transfer of authority, no? The American People should be consulted about this, no?


BeachPopulist | Wednesday December 14, 2011 02:22 pm 11

Hate to stray off the very important main topic, but at the risk of betryaing, once again, my profound ignorance…

What are “vintage pleasures”?

Is that like, you know, sex? Or does it have something to do with old wine? Maybe old wine leading to sex? Or have I messed the target completely?


papau | Wednesday December 14, 2011 02:42 pm 12

At 3:30 pm EST Obama had the WH announce he has changed his mind and will not veto the Defense funding bill – so we now have in law the military as part of our domestic justice system, and Americans can be held indefinitely without charge.

Not much left of the Constitution after electing our Constitutional scholar/professor president – Obama. (yes I know he was only a guest lecturer – without the title professor – but he had the young lawyers call him professor and it made him feel good – so why not still use “professor”?)


greenbell | Wednesday December 14, 2011 04:01 pm 13
In response to ruh17 @ 6

They might sure, IF they knew about it. Anybody seen this reported on the nightly news?! The folks aren’t even being told about it. This is repealing the Rule of Law in the fine print.

Just one more reason why the Democratic Party has earned my total contempt.


Lisa Derrick | Thursday December 15, 2011 05:44 am 14
In response to BeachPopulist @ 11

Pin up girls, burlesque. And fine wines, while we’re at it!


Sorry but the comments are closed on this post

Close