E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Google Plus
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017
June 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Thursday, September 27, 2012

Defending Obama by changing the subject

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

Someone "responded" to my last letter to the editor questioning Barack Obama's record on civil liberties by, well, not addressing a single point I raised in my letter.

What was interesting is that the response dismissed my entire argument as "a snarky little letter" and focused on my closing line: "How's that hope & change workin' out for ya?" (On a side note, it's interesting that is always tied to Sarah Palin, when the phrase I use comes from Rush Limbaugh. Palin's phrase is slightly different.) So let me break it down:

  • Questioning why President George W. Bush is not actively supporting Mitt Romney is irrelevant to Obama's record on civil liberties.
  • Complaining about the economic downturn that was in place when Obama took office is irrelevant to Obama's record on civil liberties.
  • Complaining about the Republican House (ignoring the fact that Obama had huge majorities in both houses when he took office and could do anything he wanted) is irrelevant to Obama's record on civil liberties.

The fact of the matter is that, after years of rhetoric about Bush's record on civil liberties from Democrats and promises by Obama himself to be more respectful of civil liberties, Obama made it worse. Not only has Obama re-authorized the Patriot Act, but he has also increased the use of drone strikes, including one to assassinate an American citizen who had not even been charged with a crime.

In the comments for my letter, it was suggested that republicans would have blocked a significant overhaul of the Patriot Act. Again ignoring the fact that Obama had huge majorities in both houses for the first two years of his time in office, Obama did not need to do anything to get rid of the Patriot Act. He simply had to do nothing at all. Yet the Democratic Congress passed and the Obama signed an extension of it.

But it does not end there. Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) on New Year's Eve 2011. The American Civil Liberties Union points out that this law codifies "indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law for the first time in American history." What happened to the promise of more respect for civil liberties?

The question I asked three weeks ago remains unanswered. How's that hope & change workin' out for ya?

Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name may not be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you must subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. You must put a name or pseudonym on your comments. All comments by "Anonymous" will be deleted.

  5. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

Thank you for your cooperation.