So Obama has finally arrived, and now he's not weak and powerless anymore like he has been pretending to be for three long years that have frustrated his would be lovers.

He's finally grabbed hold of the reins and he'll be able to come out of the closet now letting his inner FDR bloom and start arresting investment bankers while shutting down the WOT and all the ridiculous imperial wars that are bankrupting the country, driving Republicans into extinction as he sails through a 2012 landslide into a permanent Democratic majority?

It should also mean the end of all the terrorist attacks on peaceful Americans by mayors and blue suited goon squads all across the country?
[snip]

In fact now, having no law barring him that says he can't or that anyone can challenge him when he does, Obama can simply with the stroke of his pen or a nod to his chief of staff declare every GOP member in the House and the Senate to be "enemy combatants" and have them all disappeared by lunchtime tomorrow.

It was his greatest eleven dimensional bipartisan initiative.

Awesome.

The legislation could also give future presidents (Note: future presidents?) the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial.  ...Nearly every top American official with knowledge and experience spoke out against the provisions...and for weeks the WH vowed that Mr. Obama would veto the ..budget if the provisions were left in. ..the WH reversed field, declaring that the bill had been improved enough for the president to sign it now that it passed the Senate.  
"..This is a complete political cave-in, one that reinforces the impression of a fumbling presidency. To start with, this bill was utterly unnecessary.  And, the modifications are nowhere near enough. ....it (now) allows the executive to grant a waiver for a particular prisoner to be brought to trial in a civilian court . But the legislation 's ban on spending any money for civilian trials for any accused terrorist would make that waiver largely meaningless.  

Obama's objections to this bill had nothing to do with civil liberties, due process or the Constitution. It had everything to do with Executive power. The White House's complaint was that Congress had no business tying the hands of the President when deciding who should go into military detention, who should be denied a trial, which agencies should interrogate suspects (the FBI or the CIA). Such decisions, insisted the White House, are for the President, not Congress, to make. In other words, his veto threat was not grounded in the premise that indefinite military detention is wrong; it was grounded in the premise that it should be the President who decides who goes into military detention and why, not Congress.

Even the one substantive objection the White House expressed to the bill -- mandatory military detention for accused American Terrorists captured on U.S. soil -- was about Executive power, not due process or core liberties. The proof of that -- the definitive, conclusive proof -- is that Sen. Carl Levin has several times disclosed that it was the White House which demanded removal of a provision in his original draft that would have exempted U.S. citizens from military detention (see the clip of Levin explaining this in the video below). In other words, this was an example of the White House demanding greater detention powers in the bill by insisting on the removal of one of its few constraints (the prohibition on military detention for Americans captured on U.S. soil). That's because the White House's North Star on this bill --  as they repeatedly made clear -- was Presidential discretion: they were going to veto the bill if it contained any limits on the President's detention powers, regardless of whether those limits forced him to put people in military prison or barred him from doing so.

And, Glenn goes on to dispel the myth about the closure of Guantanamo - that while Obama may have promised to close the facility, he was committed to preserving what Glenn calls the "core injustice" of Guantanamo - indefinite detention.  Given Obama's actions over these last three years, and the provisions of the NDAA, I don't know how anyone could argue otherwise.

The door of unlimited executive power that Bush and Cheney opened in their eight years, that Democrats in Congress refused to try to close when they had the opportunity, Obama has steadily and firmly been removing the hinges from, with, to my utter shame, the help of fellow Democrats, and it only remains to be seen what happens when the door comes all the way off - which I now fear it will.

Another hint regarding OWS: "Changing Society as we know it."

A few days ago I began giving my thoughts as to OWS's goals & procedures. The first one I mentioned was that they intend to live as if we actually are a Constitutional Democracy.

The second is to define the word, "promise," and to force the implementation of that word throughout our society. For example, a dollar bill is a promissory note; if you steal one, you will be arrested and prosecuted. The Government "promises" that that dirty slip of paper is backed by the full faith and credit if the U.S.A. and that the note is legal tender for all debts, public, and private. Our entire society functions on a series of promises, and violating one will get you in a whole heap of trouble.

OWS intends to put that theory to the test. In other words, why are some promises absolute, inviolate contracts, while others are broken willy nilly, with no fear of repercussion?
I'm talking, of course, about the promises our "Leaders" make, and then break with impunity. If you, as a homeowner, break your promise to make payments on your mortgage, you lose your house. If the President promises to filibuster the FISA-Immunity bill, and breaks that promise, nothing happens.

So, to put it simply, why are some promises inviolate, and others simply a hoax?

The US security firm formerly known as Blackwater, which was barred from Iraq over a deadly 2007 shooting, renamed itself a second time Monday.

USTC Holdings, the investor consortium that acquired ex-Blackwater firm Xe Services in December 2010, announced ACADEMI as the new name and brand for Xe Services.

The rebranding came as President Barack Obama met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki Monday, marking America's exit from a war launched to oust Saddam Hussein.

"We have had a year of extraordinary changes that have resulted in a new, better company," ACADEMI president and chief executive Ted Wright said in a statement.

"I know that everyone at ACADEMI shares in this commitment to promote the highest standards of ethical conduct, compliance and integrity in all of our activities.

"We are already the best operationally. We are going to become the best at governance," Wright said, adding "we still have much work to do."