Obama Unveils National ObamaLaw Plan

a reply to: nullafides

A. Possibly could hold up, but doubtfull
B. Broken promises are not grounds for impeachment
C. Again, not an impeachable offense.

And I don't like the guy.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

That's great. The things I mentioned are largely impeachable.

Is that what you come here to do, to stick your thumb in the eyes of another?

Wasn't my statement obviously born of dissatisfaction with the way our government is run? Isn't that the very same kind of motivation for things like the independence movement?

But, heh...I'm obviously wrong. You and KrazySh0t did the right thing, and put me in my place.

I'll shut the hell up now.
















Nahhh....

originally posted by: nullafides
a reply to: butcherguy

Executive orders need to be stripped from the power of the office, and it needs to happen yesterday.

From my extensive and humble foray into the Federalist/Anti
Papers, and other correspondence between these guys; I feel
the original spirit of the Executive Order was to inaugurate and
regulate by later promulgated rules (NOT LAWS) agencies and
employees directly connected to, and part of the Executive
Branch. This was to be nothing but a LOCAL tool box to get
stuff done for an Article Two agency, not to slap the stocks
on the whole American population by Divine Decree Law.
Wonder where that original Constitution went since 1861?
I don't however wonder why the Uniform Commercial Code
and the Law of the Sea is the UNITED STATES de facto
Constitution anymore. "I see plans within plans..." The Navigator

a reply to: eisegesis

Do you have a link to the Executive Order you're talking about? I can't find it...

This is the one to establish a Task Force.

Executive Order

The Report by Obama's Task Force RECOMMENDS actions, like wearing body cams, external investigations, etc.

The task force also encouraged external, independent investigations in cases of officer-involved shootings or deaths in custody, and suggested that local departments mandate the use of outside prosecutors for those cases. The report additionally urged that local policing practices should be separated from the efforts of federal immigration enforcement officers where civil enforcement and nonserious crime was concerned. The task force emphasized that school resource officers should focus on positive interactions with youth and that their involvement in student discipline should be limited.

I see absolutely NO federal takeover of the police. What am I missing?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: eisegesis

What am I missing?

The conservative spin.

originally posted by: nullafides
Follow up and after thought to posting


Truthfully, just now I typed before I clicked to read the supporting article.

Bad form, I know.

But honestly...here's the deal...

What's worse? The idea that the above may be untrue, or the idea that this kind of BS has become so common place from Obama that it sounds far from suspicious at all to consider it could be true...

Sure getting a Pavlov pounding since the last election, aren't we?
Even more so that we 'commoners' would notice and yet be made
to feel helpless to stop it.
Any news this bad by the way that turns out to be untrue
HAS to be good news. I however and due to the track record of
the Shadow Government looking out for us tend to err toward
skepticism... bordering on paranoia.
"After all: paranoia IS the ultimate awareness."
Robert Drake does Durant, Darkman II movie. The coolest

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: derfreebie

Don't forget:

It's working locally in Illinois. Most of the CommieCores
have DCFS on speed dial when their parents misbehave.

a reply to: nullafides

Breaking almost every single promise he made leading up to the elections

Obama's promises - fulfilled and broken

He fulfilled or reached compromise on 73 percent of what he promised, according to Politifact.

How much do you know about Obama that isn't right wing rhetoric exactly?

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Not arguing that, he's not the best president the U.S. has ever had, that's for sure.

Just commenting on political strategy and how it tends to coin entirely new words.

Newspeak does the best job of swinging public opinion
when you name the 'next big thing' on somebody famous.
It says "You love me, so here's the next bouquet of cigars
for your keister. Happy Valentine's Day all year."

Hey, OP, if Obama has unveiled a national ObamaLaw plan... what is it? Can you link to it? What do you know about it? Can you give the details?

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: derfreebie

I called it.

This sort of thing is exactly the sort of power grab that LEOs have been facilitating and making a case for over the last 20 years.

Stop acting up American LEOs. You are making a case for federal oversight in every precinct. Your fun will die with the country. Its not even just about you.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm not so sure that local police forces are against further monopolization. The public sector unions already operate as one super political actor whose only object is to expand and does not tolerate any internal dissent.

Just curious, how many here would want a federal police force?

a reply to: beezzer

You mean the FBI?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: beezzer

You mean the FBI?

No. Like all cops now like TSA agents.

All state/local police under one federal authority.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Call it spin if you like, just don't take everything Obama signs into law at face value. Time and time again, programs are developed to "help" and "promote" justice. Ferguson was a test bed and has now become the point of contention for new federal oversight and intervention, even during crimes regarding gender and race. What's next, religion? Again, call it what you will, but I won't be fooled.

According to Ferguson Mayor James Knowles, who spoke with the Daily Caller last month, CRS “protest marshals” helped train people demonstrating against police over the shooting.

Ferguson was designed to demonstrate their effectiveness and set up future protocols. Notice all the unusal police tactics used during the event. "New" sometimes seems unconventional at first. Mind you, the CRS = FED.

These are the same people Holder called on after the Ferguson shooting to promote greater diversity in the police departments: “Justice Department officials from the Community Relations Service are also on the ground in Missouri to help convene law enforcement officials and civic and faith leaders to plot out steps to reduce tensions in the community…Over time, these conversations should consider the role that increased diversity in law enforcement can play in helping to build trust within communities.”

This speaks directly to the thread topic. Again, I don't trust anything that sounds like it was designed to benefit society, especially coming from Obama and his cronies. Once Barry got his hands on the CRS, it got worse.

Its powers were broadened in 2009 by President Obama when he signed into law the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The new law gave the CRS—a small, little-known unit in the DOJ—the power to “develop strategies and respond to violent hate crimes.” According to the DOJ’s website, “Through this law, we will strengthen the protections against crimes based on the color of your skin, the faith in your heart, or the place of your birth. We will finally add federal protections against crimes abased on gender, disability, gender identity, or sexual orientation.”

Link

Soon, there will be a federal "protest marshal" in every local precinct. Just watch. These people aren't peace keepers, they're instigators who blend in amongst the crowd and direct them into police submission.

If we can win the peoples hearts and minds, we'll dupe them into thinking that we're on their side. After we round them up for sensitivity training, they will be released back into the public under the "watch and report" program.

You'll see. Look how mental illness is being redefined. Look at how health is being redefined. Look how freedom of speech is being redefined. Pretty soon, you wont even know it changed after you cant recognize any shred of the past.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: beezzer

You mean the FBI?

I have given you the benefit of the doubt for a little too long it seems.

Every time I see you make a comment about some core Liberatarian issue, you fail to be consistent with the values of freedom and individual liberty.

And you are a 'Libertarian' how exactly?

a reply to: greencmp

??? I don't recall lending support to federalizing our police force. I was just trying to point out that we already have national police forces and everyone seems to be fine with them.

In any case, this is a non-issue since all the police forces in the country aren't getting nationalized. Benevolent Heretic pointed out with the second post of the thread that this is nothing.

ETA: How much of a "benefit of a doubt" were you giving me exactly by reading things that I'm not saying into my words?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

??? I don't recall lending support to federalizing our police force. I was just trying to point out that we already have national police forces and everyone seems to be fine with them.

In any case, this is a non-issue since all the police forces in the country aren't getting nationalized. Benevolent Heretic pointed out with the second post of the thread that this is nothing.

It is much bigger than that, you defend this administration's policy left, left and further left.

Though, I would like to hear your explanation of why the FBI is unconstitutional.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

??? I don't recall lending support to federalizing our police force. I was just trying to point out that we already have national police forces and everyone seems to be fine with them.

In any case, this is a non-issue since all the police forces in the country aren't getting nationalized. Benevolent Heretic pointed out with the second post of the thread that this is nothing.

It is much bigger than that, you defend this administration's policy left, left and further left.

ACTUALLY, I defend this administration from pointless right wing rhetoric and lies. You bring nothing to the debate by lying about your opponents. I seek to cut through the ignorance from the left and the right. Right now, the ignorant rhetoric is coming pretty heavy from the right side, but you know I've been on these forums for a while. You should know I call out the left's ignorant rhetoric too.

You are falling into the political trap of thinking that someone exposing lies is for that political ideology. It is wrong. The fact of the matter is that Obama isn't really doing anything these days that is worth complaining about, and even if he did, it would be stalled and not implemented by the Republican led Congress.

Though, I would like to hear your explanation of why the FBI is unconstitutional.

Did I say it was?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

??? I don't recall lending support to federalizing our police force. I was just trying to point out that we already have national police forces and everyone seems to be fine with them.

In any case, this is a non-issue since all the police forces in the country aren't getting nationalized. Benevolent Heretic pointed out with the second post of the thread that this is nothing.

It is much bigger than that, you defend this administration's policy left, left and further left.

ACTUALLY, I defend this administration from pointless right wing rhetoric and lies. You bring nothing to the debate by lying about your opponents. I seek to cut through the ignorance from the left and the right. Right now, the ignorant rhetoric is coming pretty heavy from the right side, but you know I've been on these forums for a while. You should know I call out the left's ignorant rhetoric too.

Though, I would like to hear your explanation of why the FBI is unconstitutional.

Did I say it was?

So, no explanation, as expected. Do you think I jumped to a conclusion when you responded to this comment?

Just curious, how many here would want a federal police force? -beezer

with

You mean the FBI?

Thanks for engaging by the way.