So he's a failure. Barrack Obama has finally spoke out about the TSA's pat downs and once again, he's siding with the governments disregard of Civil Rights. He has consistently failed to defend the Constitution in this area and I'm done with him. I'm wondering who is going to have the guts to run against him in the primary. Russ Feingold? Dennis Kucinich? The Democratic Party had better step up because Barrack Obama won't get my vote even if it's Palin v Obama and it's a tight race.

We've all been hearing about the TSA's procedures. What you have to realize is that this is a Cabinet controlled position. With the wave of a hand, an utterance from his mouth, Mr. Obama can end this trampling of our civil rights. His position? "One of the most frustrating aspects of this fight against terrorism is that it has created a whole security apparatus around us that causes huge inconvenience for all of us." Source "Inconvenience"? "All of us"? Sir, when do you think that you'll be subjecting your daughters to a strip search in front of an entire airport? (Young Boy had this happen.) If your wife ever has a mastectomy, will it be OK if TSA asks her to pull it out in front of everybody like this lady? If you end up with a bladder or colon problem, you won't mind TSA breaking the seal and pushing waste on to your body or clothes, will you? The fact is, you'll never be faced with this. The fact is that for your political position, in the face of terrorism, you'll toss our rights on the burning alter. Sir, my rights are not yours to throw away. 

Barrack Obama is a Constitutional Rights attorney. The greatest dissent I have ever read is from Florida v Bostick. The short, a drug mule was on a bus and cops show up doing sweeps. While blocking the aisle way with badges and pistols on hips, they ask to search the bag of the mule. He consents. So would a reasonable person feel free to leave? No. But the court ruled to admit the evidence because he was already captive by being a passenger. Thurgood Marshall wrote the greatest dissent and our President needs to go back and read it again. 

"[T]he evidence in this cause has evoked images of other days, under other flags, when no man traveled his nation's roads or railways without fear of unwarranted interruption, by individuals who held temporary power in the Government. The spectre of American citizens being asked, by badge-wielding police, for identification, travel papers -- in short, a raison d'etre -- is foreign to any fair reading of the Constitution, and its guarantee of human liberties.

I sincerely recommend reading this dissent. It's the most common sense rights over fear answer to random searches that I've ever read. Link

Barrack's failure on Civil Rights isn't contained to this one issue. Let's take a look at a few others. I'll try to be brief. In the first month he promised to close down Guantanamo within one year. We are closing in on two years... and it's still open. He's moved from it being wrong to arguing that he can hold people indefinitely without ever filing a single charge. Sir, you are not a king and this isn't your Bastille. People have rights, even if they are our enemy. If you can't even put together a military case, you have to set them free. This isn't even legal argument, it's a moral one. 

He's decided that the CIA can carry on with kidnapping people abroad and doing who knows what to him. Yeah, he says that you must follow Army Field Manual, but if he's allowing kidnapping, maybe that position is simply allowing for plausible deniability because clearly he's conflicted on rights in many other places. If you don't know what rendition is, here's the wiki link for you. 

He continues a Faith Based Office. He's spending our money on religion. He mocks a popular internet question about his position on Marijuana. "And I don't know what this says about our audience but.." You self-righteous ass. Do you remember this guy? Did you respect him? And when it comes to gays, he doesn't have the courage to stand for equality and instead says that gays shouldn't marry. Source Would you mind if we put in separate but equal water fountains for your daughters sir? I'd like for you to lay out the fundamental difference in those arguments. 

Barrack Obama has done some good stuff. I was feeling pretty proud of him early on. But I'm really taking a crap on his Civil Rights positions. Like I said, I will not vote for him. I cannot cast a vote for  ignoring my rights. Democrats, either get us a candidate that will respect our rights, or expect no vote from me, and maybe a few million others. It's enough to swing most elections. Your job is to unseat your president and have the courage to vote for America over your fears for what it means to your party. We need to send a message to all future candidates that even within a party, if you don't hold up your end of the bargain, you are through. President Obama, your desire to pat my junk has led to much of your base deciding to kick you in your political junk. 

So who do we start to prop up on the interwebs? Feingold? Kucinich? Who has the guts and the track record of always standing up for us regardless of the political consequences?    
 

Tags: Barrack Obama, Civil Rights

Views: 108

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Which problems are you referring to that he's tackled?
isn't the fact that ignorant people call him a socialist enough evidence? lol

I support his attempt at better heath care.
Excellent post, Jean!

Man, I wish the American mainstream media could convey just half of what you did here. (Or I guess I should say I wish Americans would demand more intelligence from their mainstream media.)
"One of the most frustrating aspects of this fight against terrorism is that it has created a whole security apparatus around us that causes huge inconvenience for all of us,” Obama said.

I am not an American and do not live there. However the last time I flew into Atlanta I had to remove my shoes and show the soles of my feet to security. When someone (an American) suggested that this should have been done before we boarded the plane he was immediately led away.

It appears to me as an outsider that the response to the alleged threat of terrorism is not appropriate to the actual threat of terrorism which I think is miniscule. The erosion of civil rights is a win for the terrorist. It is a concession to the terrorist that is not necessary because the threat from them is not large enough to warrant it. The Administration should have reacted to the terrorists as the people of Manhattan did. Within a few days they reclaimed New York. They never acknowledged the terrorist. Their freedoms were not going to be eroded by some lunatic hiding in a desert cave thousands of miles away. They got back to their normal routine as soon as they could. Their resilience was inspirational and applauded around the free world.

The reaction of the administration was very different so from the point of view of the terrorist he has won a huge victory. Terrorism has remained at the forefront of the nation’s consciousness for almost 10 years. President Bush elevated it to a battle between different world cultures or even a clash of civilisations. That was a mistake which gave the terrorists too much kudos and allowed them to recruit thousands to their real cause – gaining power in the Middle East. It legitimized their cause which is what a terrorist would want.

When Obama was elected the world breathed a collective sigh of relief and there was a palpable sense of optimism for the future. It would be a shame if Obama did not live up to his potential. America and the “American Way” – it values and liberties – are looked to and respected by most of the civilised world. It is a shame to see any erosion of those rights which were so dearly won. It is those “certain unalienable Rights” which make it a great country.

If I was into conspiracy theories I would suggest that the erosion of civil rights is to give more power to “the State” rather than to protect its citizens. The reaction of the administration does not ring true. It does not appear genuine. Are there any vested interests in keeping the spectre of an attack so real?
Whatever people think of President Obama, the thought of Mrs Palin being in charge is very scary. I am cringing at the thought of it. It cannot happen.
I don't understand the whole TSA thing either. I flew out of Heathrow in London last year and went to take off my shoes and they asked me what I was doing. They don't make passengers take off their shoes.

I heard on Countdown with Keith Olbermann from an EL AL Security cheif that they do not do any of these TSA things and have not had a highjacking since 1979. This is Isreal folks, you would think they would have more to fear than we do.

I really would like to see some scientific proof that this kind of humiliation of regular people works. Oh, and why do they keep picking on me, a middle-aged white librarian.

As for Obama, I am going to vote for him flaws and all. At least he is not connected to the religious right.
But Obama is still very religious - right, left, and wrong, what ever it is? Or so he says.
You can't be an atheist politician in America or even non-committal about your beliefs or lack of them- not if you want any votes from anybody but us atheists/agnostics.
I'd love to hear a politician say "My religious belief, or lack of them, are none of your business- here are my ideas to make this country and the world a better place."
You may say I'm a dreamer...But I'm not the only one.
It is disappointing, but it is not surprising. This has been his typical 180 degree reversal when it comes to civil rights.

Don't know if I'm willing to vote for Palin, but I'm certainly enjoying rubbing this in to the Obamaholics who don't think he can do any wrong.
Problem is, America is a long way from electing a politician further left of Obama. Anyone you would vote for would never be nominated, let alone have a chance of willing the election. Your efforts to "send a message" will hasten the Tea Party's take over of this nation. Sadly, an elected leader has to be realistic about what he can and cannot get away with, and most of America already considers Obama to be left of Lenin.
80+ percent of Americans don't fly.

My wife and I argued about the American people wanting these measures and now complaining about them. I told her pretty much the same thing. As a sporatic business traveler, I don't care what people who don't travel think and I doubt that poll was constrained to just flyers. I could be wrong....
The Question is can Obama change the direction here, I hope that's a fair characterization.

Absolutely he can. He appoints the Secretary of Homeland Security. That Secretary is in charge of the TSA.


These Secretaries serve at the "Pleasure of the the president." and are only there as his assistants. Link

In History Cabinet members have been fired. Bush fired Sec of Treasury O'Neil over the tax cuts. Nixon, Carter, Truman, Teddy Roosevelt... many have fired cabinet members to shape the direction of their presidency. All he has to do is tell Napalatono to stop the strip searches or she'll be fired and he'll find someone that will. Game over.

RSS

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Members

Forum

Things you hate.

Started by Devlin Cuite in Small Talk. Last reply by Unseen 28 minutes ago. 127 Replies

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service