Why Obama Needs to be a One Term President
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.
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
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.
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
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Gaytor on -
Notice that you are looking to history for the lesson? It affects more than Obama's behavior.
I'm not even suggesting a 3rd party candidate. I'm suggesting throwing Obama out on his kiester in the primary and I showed three cases from this last election where that has worked and the party retained the seat. Why is the President immune from that treatment?
I think that he's a good guy. I think that he's done a number of great things. But he's failed at job 1, uphold the Constitution.
-
Permalink Reply by Pope OoO (Out of Order) on -
I think a lot of the recent personal liberty infringements will eventually get reversed. I could be wrong. It's just an opinion/guess. One thing that would certainly delay their correction would be if people vote again for the most paranoia-selling candidate.
Meanwhile, in the long run, I'm afraid that the corporations-are-persons-too ruling may pose the biggest threat of all. It's a kind of electorate disenfranchisement that the two incumbent parties will probably never be interested in correcting. The only possible fix will either be judicial turnover, or grass roots constitutional convention. I'm afraid we may be looking at decades of unstoppable big $ in politics. (Even more than usual, I mean.)
-
Permalink Reply by Keith Johnston on -
You are making a common mistake. You are assume the president actually has free will to do things. Hes just a puppet. I don't know why anybody even bothers to vote in the USA since it counts for nothing.
-
Permalink Reply by Keith Johnston on
-
You only have free will to act in office if nobody has leverage over you. With all presidents this has never been the case and never will be under the current system. Believing the President is acting in the interests of the people is like believing in god.
-
Permalink Reply by Dan Jensen on -
I share your frustration, Dude. Obama has so convinced me that nothing of any substance can be done that I'm ready to vote for Crazy Third Party Guy, or even crazier, Kucinich. May I just say "we're screwed"?
-
Permalink Reply by Dan Jensen on
-
Just to be clear: The operative words being "of substance." Signing off on corporate welfare for health insurance industry and creation of a financial watchdog bureaucracy instead of passing substantive legislation is not what I call "of substance." I call it *nominal* bullshit reform. Also, further endangering my rights as a citizen and committing a shitload more troops to a absurd war in Central Asia is not my idea of "Yes we can!"
... That said, it's a cute web page.
-
Permalink Reply by Gaytor on
-
He's on my short list too. I get the feeling he's going to do what he thinks is right... always. That lack of playing the game is what I imagine holds him back.
-
Permalink Reply by Gaytor on
-
If treating people equally regardless of race is my downfall, I'll brace for impact. ;)
I'm not in a state that effects the primary choice to any measurable degree. But with my pittance of a vote, it simply won't be for Obama. There is no promise that it will be for a Democrat. Always, I require that they earn my vote. Anything less would not be doing my part in holding up my end of the bargain in the Republic. If the choice is garbage or garbage, and you vote for garbage, when could you rightfully complain, and to whom?
I'm aware that functionally your core point has validity in the general election. And it always has. So when and where would you like to begin to change that? And how?
-
Permalink Reply by Gaytor on
-
Meep, Meep, Uh, only if you like the fact that his AG is going after journalists. Only if it's OK now for his Homeland Security Director to stop you at any time to pat you down. Only if you buy this article. If you look closely enough you might be able make out Obama getting his ass kissed behind the words.
The economy could be the greatest in the world, (UAE) but if people are denied their rights... how good is it? I can't find the video of a mall in the UAE where Indians and Fillipinos are denied entrance into a mall. Only westerners and Arabs. It's not the world that I chose. I chose to be critical and demand more from my politicians.
-
Permalink Reply by Pope OoO (Out of Order) on
-
The GOP has won again on tactics, but keeps losing on strategy.
At the risk of over-generalizing (again), I'm seeing an intellectual difference between conservative vs liberal politics and their media.
Conservatives, especially the successful hate mongers on TV/radio, succeed by playing tactical, emotional cards like xenophobia, fear of the spread of evil and non-provincial culture, and demonization of anyone advocating for significant progress (as opposed to status quo). In fact, isn't the definition of conservatism pretty much to inhibit Change, with mottoes like "stay the course"? Values. Tradition. God and Country. Blah blah.
Liberals are then characterized as emotional "bleeding hearts", but when media like Air America try to capitalize on hate as a tactic, they fail. I think liberals just don't have as much hate mongering in their hearts. (There are obvious exceptions but I am generalizing.)
So what I'm thinking/hoping is that liberals like Obama can be smarter about strategy over tactics. We think more about reality, and in a larger context of world and biology and how humans really mesh with the universe (i.e. not just with a Creator), don't we? We value long term intelligence and clear thinking over short term emotionalism. E.g. you need to think ahead dozens of years (and multiple generations) to actually grok climate change, stem cell research, and so on.
Am I wrong to generalize so much about right vs left, conservative vs liberal, intelligence vs emotional reactionism? Seriously, I hate that life's decisions require such partisan, polarizing points of view, but is there a better way to explain America's current political/cultural schism? In an increasingly complex world, it can only become increasingly important to value intelligence and clear thinking over emotionalism.
Should I delete this post and start another discussion? I was prompted to post it right here, right in the middle of what seems to be a large, heavy mass of emotionalism.
What's new today
Forum
Why are you Atheist? Are there any obstacles you face as an Atheist?
Started by Brittney in Advice. Last reply by SteveInCO 14 minutes ago. 9 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
God spared our church...
Posted by Keith Konecny on May 24, 2013 at 9:30pm 0 Comments 0 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
