The Real Dangers of an Obama Victory
With all of the talk about economic tailspins, and who or whom would best address the problem with their plans, I think it is quite possible that a LOT of Americans are having he wool pulled over their eyes by a crafty half black politician who probably is one of the best actors and orators the left has to offer. This guy could quite possibly sell ice cubes to eskimos, and millions of kool-aid drinkers are lining up for his brand of ‘government can fix your life’ hope. But while America is worrying about its pocketbook, they are forgetting about the fundamental powers and liberties that truly are at stake in this election. The real dangers of an Obama victory do not lie in the victory itself, but rather, more in the possibilities of what might happen in the Senate.
Let me illustrate.
First, the most dangerous element of this theory is the triumvirate of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama, or what I like to call the “Oba-losied-astro” monster. Everyone knows that it is a grave danger to many philosophies we hold dear in this Country to have these three in charge at the same time. However, let’s add one more element that many are not paying attention to:
The fillibuster-proof supermajority.
If Obama wins, sometime in the next four years, there is a very good chance that the Democrats will control the Senate at a level that will allow them to be “fillisbuster” proof. If the thought of those three communists with a fillibuster proof Senate does not make you just about crap your pants, you need to get off the methadone. Those three, with a red carpet express lane to the White House, will allow for a power grab the likes of which would be enough to make even Hitler think he was too slow in taking over Europe.
Most Americans think “tax increase” when they think “Democrat President”. What those of you sitting on the fence should be thinking about is not taxes, but instead, considering the threat of a Senatorial Supermajority. You really ought to be worrying much more about the following:
1. SCOTUS
The Surpeme Court and the balance of power for the next 30-40 years may be immeasurably slanted to the left if a supermajority allows liberals to appoint who they wish to the court. This would have widesweeping effects on the cultural fabric of our land. For years the left has fought to legislate from the bench. Giving them access to the SCOTUS to this degree (supermajority) tips the checks and balances theory so far as to make one shudder at the possibilities, some of which could be Freedom of EXPRESSION of religion; he presence of God or the mention of God in our public squares and forums; the pledge of allegiance, etc…
2. Legislating into existence a Power Base
How many times have you heard liberals say felons should be allowed to voted? How about illegals? I’ve heard talk about allowing 16 year olds to vote. How far do you think a left leaning government can go with carte blanche power to pass what they wish, and have the courts back it up? Do you not think they would do everything in their power to broaden the number of idiots or government-tit-suckers they could add to their voter rolls?
What kind of legislation would you think would be applied to the power of Union’s, election “reform”, etc…?
3. Various social and other issues
What about freedom of speech as it pertains to radio talk show hosts (”fairness doctrine”), or the weakening of the institution of marriage? Gun laws? Drug enforcement? Immigration? Trade?
If the left gets all three branches, and a supermajority, you will see a flurry of legislation that will make your head spin, and Reagan turn over in his grave.
The list of what-if’s and could-be’s that one could attach to this article could be much longer. All I am asking is, those of you in the middle and/or undecided, please - please… consider what happens when one side has the kind of power the left might obtain if they not only get Obama elected, but also achieve a supermajority in the Senate.
The damage to this Country would be very grave, and perhaps very long lived, or even irreversible.
The most dangerous thing that could happen to this Country is not en economic crash. The most dangerous thing that could happen to this Country is 3-D’s controlling each branch of Government, and 60 or more D’s sitting in the Senate.
Think about THAT when you decide for whom to pull the lever, on Nov. 4th.
Excuse me, Rufus, but pro-choice IS pro-death. Women don't have any more right to commit murder than men do in ...
There has been a clear and steady increase in how people feel about the \direction of the country\. You ...
All the leftists who scream "No Blood for Oil!" should look up the "Carter Doctrine."
That's right kids, democrat President ...
I wish his approval rating would drop even faster so that he gets the message: You are not a ...
I consider myself a liberal, I don't support illegal immigrants taking American jobs, I don't support massive American corporations shipping ...
Voters tend to act before they think. Obama with his allies in the media are unbelievably good at blaming ...
There was no reply because you were successful at addressing yet another misinformed “conservative” fanatic. I’m sorry, but it’s citizens like her who scare the heck out of me. By spreading misinformation they feed the folks who don’t know any better–and as a result, spread the fear, anger and hatred that reared it’s ugly head in our beautiful country. Shame on ALL who continue to provide misinformation, spreading anger and hate, whilst professing to be “Christians”. I believe the Bible says something about “casting the first stone”?? As well as “judging others” and showing our enemies Love? What “GOOD” has judging others-especially on their skin colors, belief systems or people they were associated with; fighting violence with violence; or spreading fear through misinformation, EVER done?
I do not recall saying that they were protected by the Geneva Convention. What I said was that there is no legal category, illegal combatants. This classification is a contrivance. They are either POWs or they are criminal defendents. You can decide which you would prefer. I for one would prefer that they be deemed POWs and not afforded all of the liberties granted to criminal defendents. Further, the Supreme Court appears to agree with me. That is why they have stipulated that Congress must intervene in order to construct a judicial process through which they can be tried for crimes. What Bush has done is a national humiliation that debases our pretenses to be a force in the world that fights for human rights and democratic values. You did not even address the rest of my previous post, so I will stop there.
Bush did not insist on the immunity. The Telecoms did. They would not cooperate without it.
From the Geneva Convention:
“In order for the distinction between combatants and civilians to be clear, combatants must wear uniforms and carry their weapons openly during military operations and during preparation for them.
The exceptions are medical and religious personnel, who are considered non-combatants even though they may wear uniforms. Medical personnel may also carry small arms to use in self-defense if illegally attacked.
The other exception are mercenaries, who are specifically excluded from protections. Mercenaries are defined as soldiers who are not nationals of any of the parties to the conflict and are paid more than the local soldiers.
Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups Ñ and thus endanger the civilian population Ñ are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention. ”
MUST WEAR UNIFORMS.
Don’t bore me.
First off, why did bush insist upon retroactive immunity for the telecom companies that colluded with bush in order to monitor the wiretapping of US citizens, if there was no law that was broken? Sure, it is no longer illegal, due to congressional capitulation, but at the time, it certainly was. If you recall the accounts proffered by members of the Justice Department, including officials who were a part of the FBI, a number of high-ranking officials threatened to resign, if Bush did not curb his intrusive spying upon American citizens.
Secondly, water boarding is torture according to US legal precedent. We tried a Japanese official, as a war criminal, following WWII for the exact same practice. Further, to say that it is merely psychological is flawed in two respects: first off, the Geneva Convention forbids “psychological torture”. Second off, the people subjected to water boarding feel like they are drowning because they actually are drowning. Water is intentionally poured over the mouth and nose in controlled amounts and, subsequently, inhaled by the subject of water boarding practices, which contributes to the panic that is suffered by the victim.
Finally, there is no such legal category as illegal combatants. This is a fiction contrived by members of the Administration, in an attempt to exclude those who were detained from any rights extended by the Geneva Convention as well as the American Legal System. Bush, furthermore, prior to being rebuked by the Supreme Court, maintained that ‘illegal combatants,’ had no right to habeas corpus, since they were foreign. The reason so many people took issue with the Administration’s assertion is the fact that such a denial of habeas corpus could have been extended, even, to American citizens. How can somebody prove that they are a citizen if they are never granted access to a court of law, because the Administration has already deemed them alien and of a non-citizen status.
I could go on, but this should be sufficient. The Bush Administration curtailed more liberties than even Lincoln did during the civil war. Lincoln, moreover, did not attempt to conceal what he was doing when detaining people who were held without benefit of any recourse to the judicial system. Bush, on the other hand, has attempted to keep many of his executive orders opaque; thus, the practice of extraordinary rendition.
r cole
“Are you some kind of racist scumbag?” Why, yes, he is, jjt. Yes, he is.
You describe BO as “a crafty half black politician”. I thought he was half white. Are you some kind of racist scumbag?
First- “illegal” wiretaps, as you put it, are and were an interpretation of newly penned Homeland Security and FISA laws. Until the courts “ruled”, no precedence for “illegal” was set, therefore, no real “knowing” breach of “rights” could be implied. Once the courts ruled, the practice stopped. Nice try though.
I am not seeing or hearing a slew of lawsuits that are being won which represent a violation of “constitutional” rights. You have not provided any proof of any gross and sweeping Bush driven scheme to undermine “rights’ either. You have spewed your opinion.
You stated, in a broad and implicating manner, “the Bush Administration as the greatest enemy of American civil liberties that this country has ever suffered under” and “the loss of liberties that have been perpetrated by Bush and his altogether disregard for Constitutional liberties.”
None of your response supports any reality which substantiate your accusations. In fact, you talk mostly about possibilities, not realities.
Lastly, as for torture, I don’t consider waterboarding torture, in the classic sense. I consider it psychological terror, but not “torture”. People die from torture. They don’t die from waterboarding.
Lastly, our Constitution and the rights therein are not “guaranteed” to enemy combatants, abroad. In fact, they are not guaranteed to anyone outside the US, regardless who they are. This is why those folks are NOT on official US soil.
So, again, please provide a list of specific rights violations of the Bush administration. You should have no problem, considering your comment “I would interpret the Bush Administration as the greatest enemy of American civil liberties that this country has ever suffered under”…
Sure,
Bush has illegally wiretapped American citizens. He claimed that he did so merely to monitor terrorists. In actually, as recent whistle blowers have revealed, phone calls of all sorts were being monitored, even the private calls between oversees military members and their spouses in the US.
Bush claims to be a spreader of freedoms. However, this appears not to deter him from conducting extraordinary renditions. What such a practice could possibly have to do with spreading freedoms is beyond me.
Bush has attempted to create a new Executive Power that allows a President to modify legislation through the issuing of signing statements. It is hard to find any Constitutional scholar who even entertains the notion that such ploys have any credibility, but if Bush and ideologues, such as Chaney, who subscribe to a Unitary Executive, had the ability to pack the Supreme Court with any more of their sympathizers, who knows? signing statements might become a legitimate power of the Presidency, adding to the realization of an imperial presidency.
finally, Ill point out that torture, conducted upon anyone, is not only illegal, it is fundamentally unamerican, and anybody who is cowardly enough to defend the use of torture, such as water boarding, because they it might keep them safe is not only a coward but a threat to all of our liberties as we continue to slide down a slippery slope.
I was wondering if you would be so kind as to define which Constitutional liberties have specifically been violated?
These are some fairly superficial concerns. I am in no way a liberal. However, I would interpret the Bush Administration as the greatest enemy of American civil liberties that this country has ever suffered under. You take the time to wail over the possibility that the rights of agnostics and atheists would have to be respected by removing inappropriate theistic mambo jumbo verbiage from our civic spaces while, failing to address the loss of liberties that have been perpetrated by Bush and his altogether disregard for Constitutional liberties.
I have been trying for months to explain how dangerous the man is to our country. I supported Mike Huckabee during the primaries and there are some of his supporters who have refused to support McCain. Their theory is that McCain isn’t much better than Obama and if our country survived eight years of Bill Clinton, then it can survive four years of Barack Obama. I really believe some Republicans/Conservatives, etc. have failed to fully understand how much danger Obama poses to our country. The kind of change he will bring is not the kind of change we need.