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: 118

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I'd like to point out that whenever somebody points out that one choice is the lesser of two evils, you're admitting both choices to be evil, even the side YOU CHOOSE. I wonder when Americans are going to wake up and see that everyone, including their precious Obama is in the big business pocket in one way or another. I wonder if they'll ever say enough is enough. But we'll probably keep bickering about it while our ipods rub our balls and make french toast for us, all the way to the gutter. Cheers.
I'm hearing you.
I'd like to point out that whenever somebody points out that one choice is the lesser of two evils, you're admitting both choices to be evil, even the side YOU CHOOSE.

Sometimes, that is the case. But, often times it simply reflects that there will never be a candidate that alligns with my viewpoints on every issue. Instead, I have to judge who more represents my views the most and take into account certain views that are weighted heavier. I often do feel that it is the lesser of two evils because neither candidate meets the ideal thresholds I have set, not because they are actually evil.
I hear you Ryan.  But what are we going to do?  We live in an extremely violent culture, people are disconnected socially and geographically, we have rather eroded civil liberties, the largest defense budget in the world and a government that negotiates with guns.  If people wake up, it's going to be bloody hell.
RE-LEGALIZATION of cannabis/hemp is NOT a Liberal issue or not only.
Beyond pot, we need a hemp/cannabis jobs stimulus Bill. Millions of legal, tax-paying, non-outsourced, non-government JOBS. Jobs for American farmers, paper and textile mills, fuel, food, and ALL the other uses will produce millions of jobs.
These would be where the real tax money would come from because after we re-legalize/decriminalize, the prices of cannabis will plummet. The medicinal/recreational industry will still be worth multiple billions of dollars but the industrial uses would be worth $Trillions.
Grown by American farmers: acre upon acre, mile after mile, state by state. Transported by American truckers to mills to be processed into all the raw materials needed to produce products that produce American jobs. Also jobs, taxes, raw materials around the world to feed, fuel, house and clothe the citizens of the world. More jobs.
After 40 years, the U.S. war on drugs has cost over $1 trillion and over 100,000 lives wasted. Drug use is rampant and violence widespread. Take the money off the black market. Drug plants (coca, poppy) cost less to grow than lettuce. The illegality makes the insane profits and corruption. No illegal money -- no incentive.
Protect children, get drugs off the streets, end the drug war and re-legalize cannabis. De-glamorize hard drugs, put them in clinics with doctors in sterile, clean places and offer treatment, not jail and drug courts. Bad, violent people, aka thugs--on drugs/alcohol or not --still go to jail, in now spacious prisons.
Hemp/ Cannabis Bottom line:
A regulated cannabis/hemp industry will provide trillions of dollars and millions of jobs, food, housing and energy for humanity, and make a better, safer world. Ending the drug war means smaller government, less intrusion in private lives, more tax revenue and is the only sane and rational course we should travailing.
So clear Ray Charles can see it... and he's dead.

Is that Liberal, Conservative, or BOTH/Neither? Or more Libertarian? Or none of the above?

As for gay marriage: If two people of the same sex want to be unhappily married, even if only for the benefits, let them. Just remember- Marriage is the leading cause of divorce. Also not a lib/con issue- more of a religious issue. As every Republican/Democrat Corprotitian says, uses, professes and pays lip service to religion to get elected it removes it from an either/or category.
I thought about making an argument for it going back to the beginnings when hemp was grown which would make it conservative. I'd see it as a liberal move because it's a major social and societal change from what any of us have ever known. You'd have to be about 100 to recall legal marijuana in the US. So I'm using liberal vs conservative in the literal sense of promoting change or keeping the traditional values.
Here are the details of the NYT/CBS poll taken a week or two ago: it show liberals at 22% and conservatives at 34%. Considering that the right has succeeded in transforming the word "liberal" into something akin to "communist/atheist" (or worse :-) ), a 22% showing is pretty good. Further, the previous question has Republicans at 26% and Democrats at 33%. Moreover when questioned about policies on specific issues, people tend to show far more liberal tendencies than the raw labels would indicate.
So you vote for a "third party" candidate who reflects your views, which I assume are fairly leftist, instead of Obama?

Congratulations, you just cast a vote for the republican candidate, who's views are even further from what you want than Obama's!

That's how it goes in american politics. A vote for john anderson WAS a vote for ronald reagan. Your strategy will have us a republican president enforcing christian views and big business polices at warp speed.

No thanks.
If palin was to run for president and win, I'd probably kill myself. She is the most inept person in the world to run this country. A 3 year old has more sense than she does.
My wife has a EU passport and we aren't afraid to use it.
If the only choices were Palin, Bachmann, and Jesus, I'd have to pick Jesus.
Jesus all the way.  At least he made sense and I don't think he cribbed.  :-)

RSS

Blog Posts

My Dad and the Communist Spies

Posted by Brad Snowder on August 20, 2014 at 2:39pm 2 Comments

Breaking Free

Posted by A. T. Heist on August 20, 2014 at 9:56am 5 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service