American Politics during the Obama Presidency

"President Obama and his family are planning to travel to Senegal, Tanzania, and South Africa this month and to spend up to $100 million of tax money on their trip. Essentially, a paid vacation and heritage tour, the trip will involve extensive federal expenditure at a time when federal employees are on furlough working four day weeks due to sequester.

"The Washington Post reports that:

"Hundreds of USA Secret Service agents will be dispatched to secure facilities in Senegal, South Africa and Tanzania. A Navy aircraft carrier or amphibious ship, with a fully staffed medical trauma center, will be stationed offshore in case of an emergency.

"Military cargo planes will airlift in 56 support vehicles, including 14 limousines and three trucks loaded with sheets of bullet¬proof glass to cover the windows of the hotels where the first family will stay. Fighter jets will fly in shifts, giving 24-hour coverage over the president's airspace, so they can intervene quickly if an errant plane gets too close.

The US is now a kingdom, if not in name, in practice.

Don B

The latest poll has it 48 t0 48 on the king's honesty.

Thanks to goverment schools 48% still "think" Obamba is honest.

Think is the wrong word, goverment schools do not teach that.

Don B

[QUOTE=DonB;434114]"President Obama and his family are planning to travel to Senegal, Tanzania, and South Africa this month and to spend up to $100 million of tax money on their trip. Essentially, a paid vacation and heritage tour, the trip will involve extensive federal expenditure at a time when federal employees are on furlough working four day weeks due to sequester.

"The Washington Post reports that:

"Hundreds of USA Secret Service agents will be dispatched to secure facilities in Senegal, South Africa and Tanzania. A Navy aircraft carrier or amphibious ship, with a fully staffed medical trauma center, will be stationed offshore in case of an emergency.

"Military cargo planes will airlift in 56 support vehicles, including 14 limousines and three trucks loaded with sheets of bullet¬proof glass to cover the windows of the hotels where the first family will stay. Fighter jets will fly in shifts, giving 24-hour coverage over the president's airspace, so they can intervene quickly if an errant plane gets too close.

The US is now a kingdom, if not in name, in practice.

Don B[/QUOTE]Don B aka El Alamo (maybe), propagandist supreme & soloist of nostalgic songs, in harmony with the AP glee club & chorus is back with the popular hit back a few years ago when Obama made a trip to India. Hey, the most powerful air force in the world is already active, no? Such childish grumblings only reveal a prejudice that goes beyond philosophy differences.

Europe's time is hanging out to dry. Asia is in for the this decade. South America made some samba noises but that Latin heritage only means self immolation. That leaves Africa, brimming with promise as the new frontier. The Chinese, no fools & very good poker players have made deep inroads into the African landscape. There is some grumblings now portraying the Chinese as the new colonizers. Obama's trip to Africa is badly needed. As for us, quite indifferent & still chewing on a blade of grass. Maybe you don't know, maybe you don't care, but Obama has incredible popularity in Africa and all emerging countries. In fact, everywhere in the world but Texas, the Bible belt & the cowboy states. Yes, he wears the coat of colors, and some of you, like Joseph's brothers, just cannot handle that.

[QUOTE=DonB;434114]"President Obama and his family are planning to travel to Senegal, Tanzania, and South Africa this month and to spend up to $100 million of tax money on their trip. Essentially, a paid vacation and heritage tour, the trip will involve extensive federal expenditure at a time when federal employees are on furlough working four day weeks due to sequester.

"The Washington Post reports that:

"Hundreds of USA Secret Service agents will be dispatched to secure facilities in Senegal, South Africa and Tanzania. A Navy aircraft carrier or amphibious ship, with a fully staffed medical trauma center, will be stationed offshore in case of an emergency.

"Military cargo planes will airlift in 56 support vehicles, including 14 limousines and three trucks loaded with sheets of bullet¬proof glass to cover the windows of the hotels where the first family will stay. Fighter jets will fly in shifts, giving 24-hour coverage over the president's airspace, so they can intervene quickly if an errant plane gets too close.

The US is now a kingdom, if not in name, in practice.

Don B[/QUOTE]I think his record on transparency is ABOMINABLE. I am curious though how these trips are any different than other Presidents (regardless of party) trips to Africa or any other place for that matter? Did the SS not send as many agents, cars, or limos. Was there not a carrier parked off the coast, did fighters not accompany AF 1?

It bothers me that while civil liberties continue to be lost in the US you guys are still arguing about Repubs good Dems bad and reversed. The Supremes just ruled that if you don't specifically evoke (invoke? Help me out on this) your 5th Amendment right then silence is tantamount to an admission of guilt [URL]http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/citizen-warrior/2013/jun/17/goodbye-5th-amendment-supremes-rule-silence-can-be/[/URL] and you guys are talking about the cost a trip to Africa? The silence in question here was BEFORE not after being arrested. So what they said was if you refuse to answer questions put forth by the police before you are officially placed into custody then that refusal can be used against you later in court.

Besides it's an Oligarchy not a Kingdom.

Don I'm not singling you out brother, I hijacked your post to make the point that all of this us v them is a diversion they (all media) use to distract people while they steal our country. Apologies if I offended you in any way.

[QUOTE=DaddyRulz;434120]
It bothers me that while civil liberties continue to be lost in the US you guys are still arguing about Repubs good Dems bad and reversed. [/QUOTE]Some of this is not clear cut. Take your two links as examples. A suspect is answering questions asked by law enforcement and then clams up when asked whether shotgun casings would match his gun. Can that be used as evidence in a court of law? Is that a violation of 5th amendment rights? I'm not sure. Or the other link - the NSA is spying on us. But is it preventing terrorist attacks by doing so?

Generally, I believe you're right. Government is big and intrusive and mean, and these are the sorts of tools it uses to fuck us over. You can't smoke dope or visit a prostitute without risking jail. There are a ton of felonies that involve things you probably don't know are illegal. You've been an expat for 20 years and forgot to report that foreign bank account on Treasury Form TDF 90-22.1 and IRS Form 8938? Go to jail and be forced into bankruptcy. You're a businessman who imported lobsters, a few percent of which were pregnant, in cardboard boxes? Go to jail for 8 years. (That literally happened). You've got some certain minority of law enforcement officials and regulators who are going to enforce laws like these as aggressively as they can or otherwise make life a living hell for people they don't like. I'm reluctant to make it easier for them to persecute others by making it easier for them to violate our civil liberties. And some of them are going to leak confidential information. I can imagine Esten being stopped cold in his bid for a US Senate seat someday by someone at the NSA leaking his participation in [URL]www.argentinaprivate.com[/URL].

It pisses me off that the government has access to all my Email and the history of web sites I've viewed. Am I going to accidentally look at a photo of a naked underage woman on the internet and then be thrown in jail for viewing child porn?

Finally I wonder about the wisdom of how the government uses some of this information. Drone strikes are an example. Maybe they're worth it if you can knock off a terrorist with minimal collateral damage. But it sounds like a lot of innocent people have died and the US is incurring a lot of ill will.

The pissing match with Punter has been so pleasant and deeply meaningful (cough, cough), but I will give it a rest for awhile, after these observations.

When he previously quoted me and stated that progressives lie, numbers don't, I called him out on effectively calling me a liar. He then believes I tried to deceive by implying his statement was directly below the quote, but this is ridiculous because it doesn't make a difference. I can re-state it differently: Punter posted a quote of mine, then a quote of some numbers (with a brief comment in between). After the two quotes he concluded that progressives lie, numbers don't. The conclusion (or implication) is obvious.

His smear efforts are pretty weak, I doubt he could even get a job at Fox News.

[QUOTE=Punter127;434095]Assuming we are talking about the same post, it's simple, your explanation doesn't pass muster and I explained why in a previous post. [/QUOTE]This is in reference to when I ignored him for a few weeks (which I did). He called me a liar, apparently he thinks his crap is so irresistible I could not resist reading it for even a moment. His only proof (which he says he 'explained') is that "Simply put, I don't believe you, I think you have read all my post." That's his proof. LMAO!! Fox News would laugh him out the door. But he went to all that effort finding and posting those upside-down pinnochios, I understand how he might cling to his false accusation.

[QUOTE]Perhaps you need to read the definition of a lie. Please read slowly and really try to grasp this. "A lie is a false statement to a person or group made by another person or group who knows it is not the whole truth, intentionally."[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Punter127;434099]Looks like the Democrats are planning another attempt at subverting the Constitution.

[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/us/politics/democrats-quietly-renew-push-for-gun-measures.html?_r=0[/URL][/QUOTE]Oh boy. And finally, an amazing display of self-sabotage and embarassment. Punter posts a definition of a lie, as if trying to educate us, and then proceeds in his very next post to demonstrate the definition he had just posted. LOL! Punter knows very well that background checks (the subject of the article he linked) are constitutional. He knows they do not subvert the Constitution; it's not a matter of opinion, but of court judgement. So he just demonstrated his own definition of a lie. Amazing!

When it comes to bad form and questionable board ethics, Punter needs to look in the mirror.

[QUOTE=DaddyRulz;434120]I am curious though how these trips are any different than other Presidents (regardless of party) trips to Africa or any other place for that matter? Did the SS not send as many agents, cars, or limos. Was there not a carrier parked off the coast, did fighters not accompany AF 1? [/QUOTE]Hey DR. Let me offer a simple explanation, FWIW. When you see one guy refer to King Obama (or an equivalent reference), and five other guys 'THANK' him, what you are witnessing is simple Conservative bonding. Picture 6 older white guys in a room, sitting in chairs smoking cigars, and one guy quips about King Obama and the others go "yeah!" and "yuk yuk yuk" and take a puff on their stogies. That's what's going on, only virtually. They surely know past presidents have made similar trips, at high costs due to security. George Bush and his wife made a combined 7 trips to Africa. They're not outraged, they're joking and bonding. I don't begrudge them their little pleasure, but it's amusing to watch.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28796[/ATTACH]

[QUOTE=Esten;434122]The pissing match with Punter has been so pleasant and deeply meaningful (cough, cough), but I will give it a rest for awhile, after these observations.
[/QUOTE][ATTACH=CONFIG]28799[/ATTACH](Big Yawn) Sure we believe you.:rolleyes: LOL.

[QUOTE=Esten;434122]When he previously quoted me and stated that progressives lie, numbers don't, I called him out on effectively calling me a liar. He then believes I tried to deceive by implying his statement was directly below the quote, but this is ridiculous because it doesn't make a difference. I can re-state it differently: Punter posted a quote of mine, then a quote of some numbers (with a brief comment in between). After the two quotes he concluded that progressives lie, numbers don't. The conclusion (or implication) is obvious.
[/QUOTE]When in the past have I hesitated to call Esten out when I thought he was being less than honest? Please note the word "progressives" is plural and was not aimed solely at one progressive, but hey if the shoe fits.

[QUOTE=Esten;434122]This is in reference to when I ignored him for a few weeks (which I did). He called me a liar, apparently he thinks his crap is so irresistible I could not resist reading it for even a moment. His only proof (which he says he 'explained') is that "Simply put, I don't believe you, I think you have read all my post." That's his proof. LMAO!! Fox News would laugh him out the door. But he went to all that effort finding and posting those upside-down pinnochios, I understand how he might cling to his false accusation.
[/QUOTE]I don't have to prove anything to Esten, the members who follows this thread can decide for themselves. Everybody knows about Estens smoke and mirror tactics.

[QUOTE=Esten;434122]Punter knows very well that background checks (the subject of the article he linked) are constitutional. He knows they do not subvert the Constitution; it's not a matter of opinion, but of court judgement. So he just demonstrated his own definition of a lie. Amazing!
[/QUOTE]Please tell us which Supreme Court ruling upholds "expanded background checks", tell us which ruling says it's ok to link mental health records to background checks, and tell us when the Supreme Court started ruling on legislation before it becomes law?

Speaking of legislation I believe the recent failed gun bill was more than just background checks, if not a lot of time was wasted debating and voting on "amendments", but progressives never lets facts get in way.

[QUOTE=DaddyRulz;434120]I think his record on transparency is ABOMINABLE.[/QUOTE]Hey Daddy, thanks for sharing your feelings, I'm sure you are very disappointed. And it looks like you're not alone, "Obama's approval rating dropped 8 percentage points over the past month to 45%, the lowest rating in more than 18 months." And a big part of that decline was from his base of younger Americans.

[URL]http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/17/politics/obama-poll-decline[/URL]

[QUOTE=DaddyRulz;434120]I am curious though how these trips are any different than other Presidents (regardless of party) trips to Africa or any other place for that matter? Did the SS not send as many agents, cars, or limos. Was there not a carrier parked off the coast, did fighters not accompany AF 1? [/QUOTE]Your thinking is on the mark, but the problem is the cost just keeps going up and we simple can't afford it anymore. The fact that prior administrations wasted money does not justify this administration wasting money. I question the need for the trip, especially considering all the problems we have right now. Perhaps the Presidents time would be better served working on problems here at home.

[QUOTE=DaddyRulz;434120]It bothers me that while civil liberties continue to be lost in the US you guys are still arguing about Repubs good Dems bad and reversed.[/QUOTE]Agreed, civil liberties have been on the decline for a long time, the Patriot act of 2001 and Patriot Sunsets Extension Act of 2011 have fueled an increase in the rate of decline. Unfortunately the bigger the government gets the more opportunity there is for abuse of power and that leads to a government out of control.

[QUOTE=DaddyRulz;434120]The Supremes just ruled that if you don't specifically evoke (invoke? Help me out on this) your 5th Amendment right then silence is tantamount to an admission of guilt [URL]http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/citizen-warrior/2013/jun/17/goodbye-5th-amendment-supremes-rule-silence-can-be/[/URL] and you guys are talking about the cost a trip to Africa? The silence in question here was BEFORE not after being arrested. So what they said was if you refuse to answer questions put forth by the police before you are officially placed into custody then that refusal can be used against you later in court. [/QUOTE]I feel your pain but at the same time I can appreciate Tiny's point. Sadly it seems the best policy is to only let an attorney speak for you. Here is a link to a video of a law school professor and former criminal defense attorney explaining why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police. It's a shame things are the way they are but I think you'll find the video interesting.

[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc[/URL]

[QUOTE=DaddyRulz;434120]I hijacked your post to make the point that all of this us v them is a diversion they (all media) use to distract people while they steal our country. Apologies if I offended you in any way.[/QUOTE]I again agree with you, but by the same token we can't let those who try to distract us with propaganda go unchecked for fear they will pull the wool over the eyes of the American people.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;434121]Some of this is not clear cut. Take your two links as examples. A suspect is answering questions asked by law enforcement and then clams up when asked whether shotgun casings would match his gun. Can that be used as evidence in a court of law? Is that a violation of 5th amendment rights? I'm not sure.[/QUOTE]If he invoked his 5th amendent rights at that point, then (presuming that his attorney later filed the required motion) his refusal to answer the question cannot be mentioned or even inferred to in any way at trial.

[QUOTE=Punter127;434125]Here is a link to a video of a law school professor and former criminal defense attorney explaining why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police. It's a shame things are the way they are but I think you'll find the video interesting.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Jackson;434126]If he invoked his 5th amendent rights at that point, then (presuming that his attorney later filed the required motion) his refusal to answer the question cannot be mentioned or even inferred to in any way at trial.[/QUOTE]No he hadn't specifically invoked (thanks Jax) his 5th amendment right, he just stopped talking when the cop asked him about his shotgun. I think it's pretty obvious that the guy did the killing. The point the Supremes made (as best I can make out, I'm not a lawyer) is that unless you SPECIFICALLY invoke that right then not answering questions becomes evidence. The other germane point is that all of that happened before he was arrested or advised of his rights. The video (I've seen it and agree) needs to be modified to say, as soon as a police officer asks you any questions you must answer with "I'm exercising my 5th amendment right and not answering.

I looked up the recent Supreme Court decision on the 5th Amendment. I don't have a strong feeling about it, I can see both sides. But I did notice one interesting thing. The vote was split 5:4, with the five conservative justices voting the majority opinion, and the four liberal justices voting the dissenting opinion.

I found this very interesting, since as some would have us believe, conservatives are the supposed champions of individual rights and protections, while liberals are the supposed champions of government power. This Supreme Court decision is a clear example of just the opposite.

But why are the Republicans digging deeper than that with the Immigration Bill. If they keep insisting on all the triggers about border security that could delay legal status pathways, they might as well start wearing black tomorrow. Nothing but delaying tactics. When the House goes Democract, blame yourself. When Sarah Palin can still be significant, is there hope? Jimmy Swagget for President!

There is no clamoring for prosecution of business & individuals hiring of illegal immigrants. Why? It is business, especially small business (chamber of commerce) that has fought legislation of temporary & seasonal workers for the last few decades. And so here we are, with the problem so rampant that we now have 12 million illegal immigrants even after amnesty in the 80's, There is not enough resources to prosecute Americans, whether it is gun laws, tax laws, or hiring of illegal immigrants.

As a society, Americans have also developed a mentality that they are never guilty of anything, anyway. Example: Skilling & Enron. Forget about shame, nothing like that exist! Illegal immigrants, illegal drugs, damn those Mexicans & Colombians! You ever think about boycotting a restaurent with an illegal working in it.

You may think I am walking around angry & disillusioned. No, not really. Only for stubborn people. Just wanted to make the point, that when there is a problem, best you look in the mirror, and ask whether you are contributing to it in some way.

I love it when Democrats try to give Republicans advise, they never seem to tire of telling other people what to do.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;434152]But why are the Republicans digging deeper than that with the Immigration Bill. If they keep insisting on all the triggers about border security that could delay legal status pathways, they might as well start wearing black tomorrow. Nothing but delaying tactics. When the House goes Democract, blame yourself.[/QUOTE]I'd be willing to bet you a buffet lunch at the Pattaya Hilton that the Democrats don't take the house in 2014.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;434152]When Sarah Palin can still be significant, is there hope?[/QUOTE]Yes, that's a very good sign of hope for America. LOL.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;434152]Jimmy Swagget for President! [/QUOTE]You got something against a monger being President?

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;434152]There is no clamoring for prosecution of business & individuals hiring of illegal immigrants. Why?[/QUOTE]Perhaps it's the same reason the left is not "clamoring" to enforce current gun laws. Why isn't the left "clamoring" to secure the borders?

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;434152] It is business, especially small business (chamber of commerce) that has fought legislation of temporary & seasonal workers for the last few decades. And so here we are, with the problem so rampant that we now have 12 million illegal immigrants even after amnesty in the 80's,[/QUOTE]Didn't Bush support a guest worker program that the left stood in the way of, saying it was something along the lines of legalized slavery?

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;434152]There is not enough resources to prosecute Americans, whether it is gun laws, tax laws, or hiring of illegal immigrants. [/QUOTE]If we don't have the resources to enforce current law why would you support wasting resources on new gun laws that we can't afford to enforce? Maybe we should use some of the resources wasted on trips to Africa and resources wasted on spying on the American people and resources wasted profiling and targeting groups of Americans. How about we use the resources we did not spend on security or answering the distress call at Benghazi. We could also save some resources if we stop arming rebels in countries that we have no vital interest in, like Libya and Syria. I would also include giving weapons to Mexican drug cartels in order to gin up a phony gun crisis in order to push a anti-Second Amendment agenda as a waste of resources.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;434152]As a society, Americans have also developed a mentality that they are never guilty of anything, anyway. Example: Skilling & Enron. Forget about shame, nothing like that exist! Illegal immigrants, illegal drugs, damn those Mexicans & Colombians! You ever think about boycotting a restaurent with an illegal working in it.[/QUOTE]In some parts of the country you would never eat in a restaurant. I agree with you on the "never guilty of anything mentality" just look at Obama, Clinton, Holder, Shulman, and (Fifth Amendment) Lerner, none of these people are guilty of anything and none of them are even responsible for the actions of their subordinates. Right?

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;434152]You may think I am walking around angry & disillusioned. No, not really. Only for stubborn people.[/QUOTE]I think you're just frustrated by stubborn folks like me that won't let folk like you turn America into something it's not, and was never intended to be.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;434152]Just wanted to make the point, that when there is a problem, best you look in the mirror, and ask whether you are contributing to it in some way.[/QUOTE]I'll get in the queue right behind you and the Obama team.

Why do you think 12 million illegal immigrants deserve a legal status pathway? Some of us think they deserve a legal pathway back to their home.

An ACLU card carrying liberal East Coast elitist, savaging the Obama administration for their persecution of whistleblowers while supporting someone Fox and Friends says deserves the death penalty. [URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/22/snowden-espionage-charges[/URL].