“Minimally acceptable”

The article Obama signs defense bill, pledges to maintain legal rights of U.S. citizens by David Nakamura (Washington Post) tells of how the NDAA was signed into law by what appeared to be a reluctant President Obama,

“Obama initially had threatened to veto the legislation. In a signing statement released by the White House on Saturday, Obama said he still does not agree with everything contained in the legislation. But with military funding due to expire Monday, Obama said he signed the bill after Congress made last-minute revisions at the request of the White House before approving it two weeks ago.

“In several cases, the president called those changes “minimally acceptable” and vowed to use discretion when applying the provisions. (Emphasis added.)”

The first emphasized statement draws attention to how our extremely eloquent professor of a president (perhaps even knowingly) has summed up his own presidency so far, if one were to be quite generous: “minimally acceptable”. The second draws attention to a statement with zero credibility, considering the zeal with which this administration has pursued whistleblowers and other disagreeables. Isn’t Obama the first president to order a hit on an American without a trial? Hell, no wonder he doesn’t care about the detention provisions in the NDAA; he’ll just have anyone he doesn’t like blown away, with or without the legal protections provided for in the NDAA.

It’s adorable how the former professor of constitutional law speaks of a defense budget bill that has utterly unconstitutional provisions in it that have nothing to do with military funding but are only included in that bill in order to blackmail all those opposed to the provisions into voting for them anyway—don’t they want to support the troops?—making an absolute mockery of the American legislature and amounting to a complete travesty, as giving him “serious reservations”. If he had any balls—or if he truly disagreed with the rider on the bill—he’d show some of the fire that he seems only capable of summoning on the campaign trail.

The second statement is far better applicable to the Obama administration’s—and his justice department’s—application of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, where he has acted with so much discretion that almost no one has yet been charged with any crime for the great American fraud of 2008—no one save the fatted calf, Mr. Bernie Madoff, whose only mistake was that he ripped of the rich rather than the poor.