I offer congratulations to the people of Maine and America. Maine voters won on same-sex marriage and Barack Obama was re-elected.
Mitt Romney is correct: Obama won the election because of more handouts. Now, taxpayers of America will pay for more out-of-control welfare in America. Taxpayers will have to pay for Obama phones, food stamps, contraception and the morning-after pill.
What will happen on Jan. 1, 2013, if the poor economy goes over the fiscal cliff? If that isn't solved, the taxpayers of America will be hit with the largest tax hike in history.
When Obama-sponsored legislation and ObamaCare kick in, this country will slide back into a recession or depression.
Obama is going after wealthy people. Going back in history, redistribution of wealth was tried by Stalin and Hitler. It only led to redistribution of poverty.
Now the Obama administration is going after personal freedoms, such as covered by the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
For 15 years, I have been independent and am fed up because people's rights are being threatened. If not stopped, America will become a socialist-communist country.
Reggie Bechard, Lewiston
Report a correction
Reggie....
First off, they're Reagan Phones and not Obama Phones. Second of all, where were you in September of 2008 when a half trillion dollars was taken out of the money markets in 90 minutes and by the end of the day $2 trillion was missing? Huh? That was a huge hit on the American people and directly after this electronic-run-on-the-banks, 4,000,000 Americans lost their jobs before George Bush left office. We're now above water, but when Obama was sworn-in, he had to deal with Bush's last official budget (the 2009 budget) that he signed into law in the spring of 2008.
Your rights haven't been taken away. No one has taken away your 2nd Amendment right to own a gun. Stop lying.
America is a socialist country in essence. We believe in taking care of our own. What is wrong with that?
Under every Democratic president, the wealthy do well, even if taxes are raised. The wealthy will always be wealthy no matter if the tax rate is 90% (which it has been in our nation's history!) or moved up to Clinton's tax rate of 39% (which is what President Obama wants to do): they will still be wealthy!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Reggie, Reggie, Reggie....
Is there a problem with returning taxes to what they were originally under Bush??
I bet you'd really squawk to high heaven if they were returned to what they were under St. Ronald the Ray-Gun!!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1) Agree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Under Reagan...
...he lowered the tax rate from 70% down to 34% and our nation went into recession. That's why George H.W. Bush raised taxes and then started a war with Iraq. Neither of his answers worked and it was only until Clinton came along and raised the rate on the wealthy up to 39% that our nation saw 22 million jobs created and healthy economy.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.By the (amendment) numbers ...
1. Promote a religion by making it illegal to criticize Islam. Two clauses, one shot. Of course, it's still open season on Christianity - in the interest of fairness.
2. Stock up on ammo before new regulations and taxes make it prohibitively expensive. But they'll make special provisions for hunters - don't worry.
4. In today's world, your "papers and effects" encompass your computer and internet usage, as well as telephone service. Have you heard about the humongous data "farm" under construction out west?
5. Private property along the southern border has been de facto "taken" by allowing it to become a war zone with zero defense of US citizens who own it.
9. The abuses listed above open a Pandora's box of denial and disparaging.
10. Ever since the 17th Amendment, the states have lost most of the authority the founders gave them. This administration treats them as just named divisions of the national government. Federalism is dying before our eyes.
I skipped some amendments but, with four more years, it's only a matter of time.
This administration preserves, protects and defends the Constitution - when it's convenient for them. When it is not convenient, it's just a list of negative rights that has no relevance today.
!drawroF
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (5) Agree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Paranoia will destroya!
Seriously, after 8 years of George Bush signing into law the Military Commissions Act, the Patriot Act, the American Dream Down-payment Act, and all his illegal surveillance laws among other things in the name of the 'war on terror', now you're paying attention but are blaming President Obama?
Wow. Just wow.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.The Constitution is an
The Constitution is an obstructive document, as oBAMa once called it. Fortunately for us, it is; it keeps government from overrunning the people.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Why don't you cite?
Why don't you cite some examples? Like what gun legislation? And are you implying that the Mexican boarder has only been an issue in the past 4 years?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.No, the Mexican 'boarder" has
No, the Mexican 'boarder" has been a problem for much longer than that. That's why 12 million of them have managed to get here illegally. Nice play on words, eh?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.The Mexican Border is not where it was before
The United States Invaded and stole their Land. "Manifest Destiny" - or, a leveraged buy-out.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond."t's time they get over it,
"t's time they get over it, because they ain't gettin' it back", sang the parrot in his best Spanish accent.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Then you need to get over it
When they come back home.........
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Truth is I don't give two
Truth is I don't give two figs about any of it. Looking forward to the day when it all hits bottom so we can start going up again.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond."2. Stock up on ammo before
"2. Stock up on ammo before new regulations and taxes make it prohibitively expensive. But they'll make special provisions for hunters - don't worry."
Any chance you could provide an example of this current administration taking away gun rights?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1) Agree (5)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond."Lsrgest tax hike in history".....
I had to start some place. Tax increase? yes, largest? no. I'm not sure as to who Mr. Bechard should be mad at, the administration or the Republicans. Who is the most responsible for dragging this fiasco out? Either way, the outcome, Jan. 1st, will force an end to this ridicules debate once and for all. I just wonder how this letter would have been written if Romney had won the election. Probably pretty much the same. You just can't please everyone........
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1) Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Clean off your spectacles, Ron.
You missed the reference to the 2nd Amendment.
Re-elected Obama Pushes Anti-2nd Amendment Gun Grab
Within hours of re-election, the administration fast-tracked a treaty in the United Nations that transcends borders and tramples our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It was no coincidence.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3) Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.To the paranoid United Nationers....
NO TREATY SIGNED BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HAS POWER OR JURISDICTION OVER AMERICAN LAWS!
Get it? I think for the New Year many of you should spend some time reading how our government works!
And stop reading stupid websites that just make crap up to keep you scared!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Sorry, Mike
Nothing in your article there to indicate a real and actual threat to our Constitutional Rights.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1) Agree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.LOL
First off, no treaty supersedes the Constitution. If it tramples your 2nd amendment rights, file suit in court.
Secondly, It can't be approved unilaterally. Congress has to approve any treaty.
Third, and this is a big point - The UN gun treaty is about ARMS TRAFFICKING. They don't care if you buy a gun in the United States. They just don't want you FedExing it to bad guys.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (6) Disagree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Thank you Jason!
Nice to read thoughtful HONEST AND FACT-BASED comments! :D
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Oh, you mean as in Operation
Oh, you mean as in Operation Fast and Furious? Why is Eric Holder not in jail?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.No laughing matter.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Congress does not approve a treaty, the US Senate does. Fortunately, the dopes in the House have no part. If senators were still representatives of the states, there might be a possibility of some sense.
Treaties are legislative acts. A treaty is the law of the land. It differs from other laws only as it must have the consent of a foreign nation…
- Jefferson
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (2) Disagree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Last time I checked....
Last time I checked, the Senate was part of Congress.
Anywho, as someone who has actually read the treaty(or at least the first draft), it is, 100%, about arms trafficking. It's actually really wimpy. It more or less says "If you think they are going to use weapons to commit heinous acts, you shouldn't sell them to them. If you do it anyway, you should feel bad about yourself, and can expect a harshly worded letter from the UN."
I mean, all the major arms exporters are on the Security council, so really nothing can happen to them.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (5) Disagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Reggie -
Tell us how the Obama Administration is going after personal Freedoms.
Don't be afraid to detail this.
And take a deep breath.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3) Agree (6)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Hello, are all you people
Hello, are all you people agreeing blind to the NDAA executive order???
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.You mean the NDAA
that is passed every year by every Congress because it funds our military? And the same one you yahoos are crying about that reverts back to George Bush's Patriot Act almost throughout the entire NDAA signed into law?
Seriously, get off the right wing & libertarian sites please! They're bruising your brain. It's leaking.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Ask yourself, are you okay
Ask yourself, are you okay with the freedoms you give up under the patriot act and the NDAA?
I’m not.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Mark: Detail the 'Freedoms' that you claim to have given up
Under the 'Patriot Act' and NDAA
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.The National Defense
The National Defense Authorization Act eliminates any judicial oversight and due process to any act the executive branch deems in the interest of national security.
The NDAA gives government agents the right to detain any U.S. Citizen indefinitely without being charged or without a trial. There is no due process, no right to challenge, no right to appeal. This loss of freedom should scare all Americans.
The NDAA also gives the executive branch powers to mobilize U.S. citizens in labor forces as deemed necessary, draft U.S. citizens into the military as deemed necessary.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Yup, it does...
...but that authority comes from the Patriot Act that was put into place and signed into law by George W. Bush after 9/11/01. It was quickly done out of fear!
The draft has been around for a very long time. Don't blame President Obama for it.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Does the NDAA extend the
Does the NDAA extend the power given to the executive branch under the Patriot Act? (Yes or No)
Just because Bush started it does not mean it is right and should be expanded – correct?
I blame Obama for expanding the power grab and not eliminating the Patriot Act. Damn right I do.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Ummmmm, actually....
....the reason why we liberals rose up against the Patriot Act was because when a president gives him or herself power, that power is passed on to the next president. No president is not going to take any power away from him or herself. Every time we liberals rose up we were called America-haters and unpatriotic. Meh. Still pissed about it.
Obama does not have the power to eliminate the Patriot Act. The Congress does and we've seen how the Congress functions!!!!
By the way, give us examples of how Obama has used the Patriot Act against citizens. And I don't want to hear the name Bradley Manning. Bradley Manning downloaded crap-loads of CLASSIFIED INFORMATION and put it on the web. He didn't even really know what he was downloading, just that, he was pissed off and wanted to do something about it. He's been detained because he broke the law!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Ask yourself why Obama
Ask yourself why Obama expanded executive powers under NDAA, especially if the Patriot act was wrong to begin with. You are not being consistent in your argument.
If such a power grab is bad, it is bad no matter who is president – correct?
Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in Yemen without due process. Keep in mind al-Awlaki was not killed on the battlefield. Although Anwar is a bad guy, we must uphold rights for all.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Show me where in the NDAA
Obama has expanded powers (that doesn't refer back to the Patriot Act) or given himself new exceptional powers!
It was bad under Bush, but alas, you didn't care back then but now do! Shameful.
LOL You're feeling bad for al-Qaeda members? Say wha? I thought Bush and his supporters were all about getting al-Qaeda (which he didn't do)??????
I think all of the 'prisoners' (most were purchased by the Bush Regime from the country of Pakistan. They're political prisoners and have nothing to do with 9/11/01) down at GITMO should be brought to American soil, but unfortunately, the republicans in the US Congress threw a temper tantrum and called everyone 'un-American' and 'unpatriotic' again and so it didn't happen. If you care about unlawful detention, does that mean you feel for those at GITMO and the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.First, you don’t know how I
First, you don’t know how I felt about the Patriot act back them – more demonstrated gaps in critical thinking.
Second, I’ll remember not to stand up for your rights when they under attack.
Lastly, you need to Google and read the NDAA executive order to learn about the expanded powers granted to the executive branch. I could tell you, but you will not believe it, so you need to pull you head out of the sand and read it for yourself.
Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen with constitutional rights.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.If Anwar
was captured instead of killed, would you be working against his detainment because you have a paranoid view of the NDAA?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.The concept is simple. All
The concept is simple. All American citizens have due process rights under the constitution – period.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Yes they do...
....but if you're not taking up arms against the United States, then you have nothing to worry about!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.No, you need to read it!
Also, the NDAA executive authority you're talking about is detaining people in other countries. Show me the part you're talking about that isn't the Patriot Act in the NDAA.
Anwar al-Awlaki was working with those who want to harm Americans. You lose your rights as a citizen when you join a terrorist group in another nation to kill Americans or want Americans dead. It's called treason last I knew. He was not acting as an innocent American on vacation!!!!!
Even Fox News called him a TERRORIST. If he was on vacation and was targeted by our nation with a drone strike, then I would see your point! But your point is lost.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/30/us-born-terror-boss-anwar-al-...
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Provide the applicable sections and links
as an authoritative source would.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I'm the source - America's
I'm the source - America's Mr. Right, and you know that I'm right.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.The reference number
in the NDAA that is either (can't remember which one) 1022 or 1023 is the Patriot Act. It's mentioned all throughout the NDAA that you are freaking out about. The NDAA pays our soldiers and the rest of the military too.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Oh, okay. We pay our
Oh, okay.
We pay our soldiers so that makes it okay to detain Americans indefinitely without due process.
Does that statement exhibit critical thinking?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.LOL
Whose not critically thinking here? Who would be detaining anyone? The president personally with handcuffs in hand???????
We pay our soldiers nothing compared to what our government has ALWAYS paid the CIA and Halliburton/KBR security personnel!
Did you rise up against the Patriot Act or were you one of those Americans who was wrapped in the US flag for Bush and who allowed him to do whatever he wanted in the name of "security"?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.The answer is that the
The answer is that the executive branch can order authorities, such as the FBI, to arrest an individual under the NDAA without affording due process to the accused. Your comment about the President and handcuffs reveals something about yourself. I’ll leave it at that.
Keep in mind due process is guaranteed in the constitution. The detention with trial provision in NDAA is already being challenged on constitutional grounds.
Lastly, the Bush era is over, so focus on the present, not on the past. At some point, you need to stop blaming Bush even though you find it fashionable.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Jesus....
....you've not read the Patriot Act or the Military Commissions Act George Bush put in place, huh?
They give the FBI the right to come into your home in the middle of the night (if your neighbor called and said you had arms and were a member of a terrorist group without a shred of evidence!), take you away to an undisclosed place, detain you without access to an attorney, and can detain you forever or will try you in their court with no representation!
Bush's years still live on. Our nation functioned well until he got into office and gave himself unlimited powers without question or one investigation/hearing against what he did!
Bush & Cheney are to blame. The End. Obama is just trying to clean up their messes and many believe it will take years to get it all done, but of course, there is the threat of the current GOP who doesn't want to do much of anything for progress. They're blaming Obama for all Bush did.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Tell me and the readers how
Tell me and the readers how NDAA cleans up the Bushes mess?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Correction - Bush's mess.
Correction - Bush's mess.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.National Defense and
National Defense and Authorization Act - Q.E.D.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond."Don't be afraid to detail this." - D-e-t-a-i-l
Reading Comprehension - Mark
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1) Disagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Simply mentioning NDAA is
Simply mentioning NDAA is sufficient and necessary to discredit your assertion Ronald “I love BO” Riml. No more effort is required.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Perhaps in your world, Mark -
But not in a world where credibility matters.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.