For the complete readout, go to:

Statement by the President on HR 1540

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-and-releases

Big AMEN to that!

From the Democratic party to Ron Paul? You are heading away from a thinking individual to the biggest crackpot in the race. I am trying to imagine what brought on an about face like that. I don't think you read this article carefully enough.

I read thorough reviews of this controversial constitution shreading bill then and now. Its no surprise to me that MSNBC devotes only a single paragraph about this nonsense.

Its a product of our two-party-do-whatever system and, blame each other all you want, you support this.

RON PAUL 2012

Ron Paul's "Freedom" is about gutting federal agencies and deregulation. Freedom from Healthcare regulations plus freedom from Mercury and Arsenic in the air, is freedom to die.

Translation: You are On your Own.

Ron Paul, the 'intellectual Godfather of the Tea Party' always votes for the 1%. And for the high end tax cuts that drove up the deficit. And to keep $Billions in the pockets of Big Oil. Is funded by?

Correction #3.3 above:

Freedom from regulating Mercury and Arsenic in the air (deregulating the EPA) while also handing back controls to the health insurance industry, equates to freedom to die.

He votes for the 100%; you, hack, can interpret however you want.

Go look at Paul's voting record. He doesn't care about ordinary people and is no different from the GOP/Koch-ers.

btw, Ron Paul called his son RAND, after Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand's book is mandatory reading for Paul Ryan's staff. Are you familiar with her philosphophy? It advocates total rule by the super-affluent.

More glittering generalities and false assumptions.

Randal Howard Paul went by the nickname Randy before later being shortened to Rand; it had nothing to do with the paranoid liberal theory.

I agree that no-one can prove the name unless his Mother wants to say it. Ayn Rand was born decades ago, and her philosophy is long-espoused by the right and GOP congressionals in general.

If you go on:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD-R_OeP6tU

You will see and hear Rand Paul himself say on this video that Ron Paul and his family ARE "BIG FANS OF AYN RAND".

That supports what I wrote 100%.

Another one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't Republican advocates. President Obama in their eyes can do nothing right. If he supports Israel, he is Zionist tool, If he advocates compromise by Israel he is a Moslem lover. Had he vetoed the military bill, he would have been viwed as weakening America. Since he signed it he is capitulating to big busines and the military. Too bad we see through your small minded tone. Obama will be re-elected by the American people in 2012 despite your narrow minded view of him.

Having a disagreement with your candidate does not mean you align with a loonie. No one is 100% what we want them to be. Gotta play the odds and Paul is simply too odd.

Joanne don't pay any attention to the progressives (on both sides of the aisle) temper tantrums. They are just upset that Dr. Paul won't continue to push their progressive, big government, globalist plans on us. The progressive democrats are afraid they will have to take responsibility for themselves and lose their federal government gravy train. While the progressive republicans are afraid they will lose the power to tell everyone else how to live in their theocratic utopia.

Backhouse -

Actually it contradicts what you previously put in bold (3.6) 100%.

Blame the GOPNorquistTeaParty that fronts for Koch/Big Oil, and has zero interest in ordinary Americans.

The solution to our problems from a legislative point of view is simple. Vote every incumbent House of representatives out and one third of the Senate, Republican and Democrat alike. If you don't fix the majority of our problems in the next two years we will repeat the procedure. We are hamstrung by life long politicians who have supplanted our interest for their own personal agendas and ideologies. Congress only purpose is to govern all of the people in a fair and impartial manner. Their oath of office specifies that their only purpose is to serve the American dream, Constitution and people, not use their office for personal gain or ideological reasons.

Who are these people, who think that a man or a Country which has sworn to destroy me or my way of life is entitled to the protections that our Constitution provides. The Constitution provides for change through the ballot or peaceful assembly, not by the bullet or the bomb or intimidation. Anyone chosing any other way has no right to those protections afforded by our Constitution. I'm for water boarding or nail pulling, electricity to his genitals or an other means up to and including beheading hm to extract information. After all isn't this the way of the Moslem religion. We can say that he refused to be converted to Christianity or Buddhism or Shintoism and chose death. My conscious is clear.

dburton-2686409

Yes I've read it in it's entirety, The two relevant provisions are 1031 & 1032

Section 1031 & 32 are the two parts of the bill in question, neither was altered in any way as they pertain to what they could or couldn't do with an American citizen. All that was changed in Conference Committee was language that specified that the Military could not get in the way of the FBI when it pertains to detaining citizens.

The Patriot Act II Obama's version, federalized all police and "First Responders" nationwide. Section 1031 of the bill does NOT allow the military to arrest citizens within the borders of the US, section 1032 allows the military to HOLD suspected terrorists even if American and within US territory indefinitely as long as the WAR IS ONGOING. (what war?)

Why do you think they left the blocking provision on the military over arresting citizens within the Country? Because all the civilian police forces in the US have been FEDERALIZED, from the FBI right down to your local dog catcher. They do not need section 1031, once you are arrested you can be turned over to the military without question.

Is it a far reach for the military to ask the FBI to pick someone up for them? no it is not, but lets not forget the FBI has been federalized, the military doesn't even have to ask.

The 6th amendment is gone, it's toast, history, this is probably going to take down the 4th amendment also. the next thing is it cannot be challenged in court until it has been acted upon, until they actually take an American away, it is called STANDING. until you have been injured you do not have STANDING to sue.

We, as a free nation, are toast if this is allowed to stand.

Egilman: you obviously have NOT read the text. Here are the sections you referenced:

SEC. 1031. COUNTERTERRORISM OPERATIONAL BRIEFING REQUIREMENT.

(a) Briefings Required- Beginning not later than March 1, 2012, the Secretary of Defense shall provide to the congressional defense committees quarterly briefings outlining Department of Defense counterterrorism operations and related activities involving special operations forces.

(b) Elements- Each briefing under subsection (a) shall include each of the following:

• (1) A global update on activity within each geographic combatant command.

• (2) An overview of authorities and legal issues including limitations.

• (3) An outline of interagency activities and initiatives.

• (4) Any other matters the Secretary considers appropriate.

SEC. 1032. NATIONAL SECURITY PLANNING GUIDANCE TO DENY SAFE HAVENS TO AL-QAEDA AND ITS VIOLENT EXTREMIST AFFILIATES.

(a) Purpose- The purpose of this section is to improve interagency strategic planning and execution to more effectively integrate efforts to deny safe havens and strengthen at-risk states to further the goals of the National Security Strategy related to the disruption, dismantlement, and defeat of al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates.

(b) National Security Planning Guidance-

• (1) GUIDANCE REQUIRED- The President shall issue classified or unclassified national security planning guidance in support of objectives stated in the national security strategy report submitted to Congress by the President pursuant to section 108 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 404a) to deny safe havens to al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates and to strengthen at-risk states. Such guidance shall serve as the strategic plan that governs United States and coordinated international efforts to enhance the capacity of governmental and nongovernmental entities to work toward the goal of eliminating the ability of al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates to establish or maintain safe havens.

• (2) CONTENTS OF GUIDANCE- The guidance required under paragraph (1) shall include each of the following:

• • (A) A prioritized list of specified geographic areas that the President determines are necessary to address and an explicit discussion and list of the criteria or rationale used to prioritize the areas on the list, including a discussion of the conditions that would hamper the ability of the United States to strengthen at-risk states or other entities in such areas.

• • (B) For each specified geographic area, a description, analysis, and discussion of the core problems and contributing issues that allow or could allow al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates to use the area as a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks, engage in propaganda, or raise funds and other support, including any ongoing or potential radicalization of the population, or to use the area as a key transit route for personnel, weapons, funding, or other support.

• • (C) A list of short-term, mid-term, and long-term goals for each specified geographic area, prioritized by importance.

• • (D) A description of the role and mission of each Federal department and agency involved in executing the guidance, including the Departments of Defense, Justice, Treasury, and State and the Agency for International Development.

• • (E) A description of gaps in United States capabilities to meet the goals listed pursuant to subparagraph (C), and the extent to which those gaps can be met through coordination with nongovernmental, international, or private sector organizations, entities, or companies.

• (3) REVIEW AND UPDATE OF GUIDANCE- The President shall review and update the guidance required under paragraph (1) as necessary. Any such review shall address each of the following:

• • (A) The overall progress made toward achieving the goals listed pursuant to paragraph (2)(C), including an overall assessment of the progress in denying a safe haven to al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates.

• • (B) The performance of each Federal department and agency involved in executing the guidance.

• • (C) The performance of the unified country team and appropriate combatant command, or in the case of a cross-border effort, country teams in the area and the appropriate combatant command.

• • (D) Any addition to, deletion from, or change in the order of the prioritized list maintained pursuant to paragraph (2)(A).

• (4) SPECIFIED GEOGRAPHIC AREA DEFINED- In this subsection, the term `specified geographic area' means any country, subnational territory, or region--

• • (A) that serves or may potentially serve as a safe haven for al-Qaeda or a violent extremist affiliate of al-Qaeda--

• • • (i) from which to plan and launch attacks, engage in propaganda, or raise funds and other support; or

• • • (ii) for use as a key transit route for personnel, weapons, funding, or other support; and

• • (B) over which one or more governments or entities exert insufficient governmental or security control to deny al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates the ability to establish a large scale presence.

None of which say anything about detaining US Citizens or Lawful resident aliens. Go upstairs, take your tin foil hat off. Your paranoia is showing.

Ah cool, not the possible default or rapid inflation that threaten our society but its the tiresome debate on abortion again. Tell me, if the constitution makes no mention of the subject as you say then why is it of federal concern anyway? Do you think Paul will actually overturn it all by himself? Highly unlikely.

Relative to what we may be facing abortion is as important as your aquatics reference; row, wade, who cares? Negating Roe vs. Wade would probably be the last thing President Paul would be concerned with.