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.

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

1 member likes this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kairan Nierde on July 6, 2011 at 11:36pm

Scolding the democrats gives the republicans the power to put everything they've been working on during the Bush years back on track. Do you think that agenda just went away? Bush's Supreme Court nominee's gave us Citizens United; just a small appetizer. How would your parents like some privatized medicare? Roe vs. Wade is already nullified in several states, why not repeal it entirely? You weren't planning on retiring, were you? Because republicans have already promised your social security to Wall Street. You know, 2012 actually sounds like a swell year to invade Iran.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reed Byers on July 7, 2011 at 7:14pm

You vote for Obama in 2008 and so you are obligated to vote for him in 2012 no matter what he has done? Is that really the system that you want?

No, that's not what I want. What I want is a TRUE, multi-party system with instant-runoff voting, where we can vote by ranking. i.e. THIS is my preference; if he comes out last, drop him and move to my NEXT choice, and so on until there's two candidates left, THEN the one with the most votes wins.

That way, there's no spoilers or "wasted votes". Vote for Nader if you like, but put Gore as your NEXT choice over Bush. That would be a true democracy.

If you want to tilt at windmills, fight THAT fight. Fight to get our election system changed to one that ACTUALLY reflects the will of the people.

But until then, we have a two-party system. And under THIS system, not voting for Obama in 2012 is cultural, national and planetary suicide.

If we get President Palin because a handful of well-meaning liberals couldn't manage to hold their nose and pull the lever for Obama, my atheist ghost is gonna come haunt every last ONE of you... ;)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MikeLong on July 7, 2011 at 7:48pm

You're right and you're wrong.

In 2000 I was visiting my family in The States and I hadn't paid too much attention (at that time) to U.S. politics. My cousins were saying they were going to vote Nader. Their parents said, "No, vote Gore - a vote for Nader could give Bush the election." I said, "Vote your conscience (Nader). In the long run it will pull the politics to the right direction." Needless to say, I was wrong.

However, right now Obama is saying (parroting), "yeah who needs banking regulations, yeah, we don't need any single-payer health option, Ok, Big Corp, go ahead a ship those jobs overseas, why tax rich people, let them trickle down upon the working class, marijuana (giggle giggle), (etc., etc., etc.)". How are we going to tell him he's WRONG by voting for him.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reed Byers on July 8, 2011 at 6:40pm

The point is, how are we going to tell him he's WRONG by electing Sarah Palin or her ilk?

Do you think ANYONE will look at a Sarah Palin win and say "gee, the country is leaning more liberal"?

We need to elect Obama -- painful as it may be -- and THEN make sure there's a Tea-Party-like force on the left to drag him back to the policies he ran on in the first place...

Our two-party system doesn't give us the LUXURY of voting for who we'd truly prefer. No third party can win the presidency, given our current corrupt system. Therefore, there are ONLY ever two choices.

Cast protest votes all you want, the Republicans will love you for it. Hell, they RUN ADS for liberal third party candidates, knowing it will splinter off votes from the Democrat who COULD win...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gaytor on July 8, 2011 at 6:42pm

You simply overtly say it in blogs and every chance you get. This is why i'm not votin

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reed Byers on July 12, 2011 at 5:52pm

It's your vote. Use it (or not) as you see fit.

As long as you realize that once again, you're giving the Republican candidate what they want.

There's no "None of the above" vote. Nobody is going to see the number of "non-votes" and interpret that as a protest. They're only going to see a winner, and a loser -- and much more importantly -- a party in power and a party out of power.

Unless you TRULY believe there's no difference between the parties (and no matter how mad we may get at Obama, I don't know anyone who thinks things would be better with a Republican in the White House) -- then VOTING MATTERS.

Just imagine how different things would be today if Gore had become President in 2000, and ask the folks who voted in Florida how much every single vote counts.

Permalink Reply by MikeLong on July 12, 2011 at 7:28pm

Well, actually, unless you live in a swing state, your vote (for President) DOESN'T count. Residents of Ohio and Florida (and two or three others) don't have the luxury of sending a message with their vote. But, if you live in Massachusetts or Wyoming, (or actually MOST states) you can vote for whomever you want and ALL it will be is symbolic. So there is an opportunity to send a message with your vote. If the Socialist candidate got a million votes, you can bet that the DNC would make some real policy changes.

As I said, a vote for Obama says, "you're doing fine. Just keep moving to the right." You're right, though - a "no-vote" says nothing to anyone.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reed Byers on July 15, 2011 at 1:40pm

Hmmm... In general, you're right. But sometimes "non-swing" states surprise us.

I would personally hate myself if I was in a state that was EXPECTED to be safe for Repubs, but come election day, actually had a chance of voting for Obama -- and I had cast what I thought was a safe "protest vote"...

Permalink Reply by Arcus on July 13, 2011 at 3:09am

In a two party system you cannot vote with your heart, you have to vote with your brain. Unless you want a minority you don't agree with in power (let's say the Xian Right) you will have to give a strategic vote.The whole US electoral system seems to be based on a lot of voting against candidates rather than in favor of them.

A vote for Nader or any other candidate without any realistic possibility of winning is a wasted vote, as measured mathematically or on political influence. If you really want to keep Republicans out of power, and you are a cynical bastard in how to achieve it, support Michelle Bachman as she seems to be tearing that party apart. ;)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Marshall on November 21, 2010 at 10:12pm

You live in a fantasy land my friend. Over 30% of Americans identify themselves as conservative while a maybe 10% as liberal. Kucinich is considered liberal even by liberal standards.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gaytor on November 21, 2010 at 10:33pm

Actually, this is a common misunderstanding of conservatism. Conservatism is holding on to traditional values. Only two issues could be considered liberal here, Gay Marriage and Legalization of Marijuana. All of the other issues are conservative. Telling the government to back off is older than America. The support of government in a manner that contravenes law would be fascism. So if I'm in fantasy land, I'm happy to be here. The "conservatism" that you are assigning is fascism and I'm glad to stand against it.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Marshall on November 21, 2010 at 11:25pm

About 73% of Republicans identify themselves as conservative...this is all I need to know. I recall that a bunch of us ended up voting for Nader thinking that it really didn't matter if the president ended up being Bush or Gore...I ask you to inform me of a single belief more demostrably false than than that one was. A vote for Nader literally turned out to be a vote for fascism. Sometimes when you are voting for the lessor of two evils, theres a huge difference between those two evils.

▶ Reply

‹ Previous
1
2
3
4
…
21
Next ›

RSS

Welcome to
Think Atheist

Get Started Now
or Sign In

Or sign in with:

What's new today

1	insane comment following tornadoes in Oklahoma
2	The suburbs are becoming the new slums
3	EMPOWERING WOMEN!!!!!!!!
4	Seen a FB about Tornados today in KS and OK.
5	The mob psychology of human sacrifice.
6	Should illegal aliens in the US be denied medical care?
7	Wolf Blitzer Asks Tornado Survivor if She Thanked the Lord; Replies She's an Atheist
8	Why Respect Relgion - A Post From FB.
9	Does every living animal have a consciousness?
10	In Laws...