Civil Liberties and President Barack W. Bush?

by Lawrence on July 3, 2009

2009 Five Presidents George W. Bush, President...
Image by BL1961 via Flickr

This is an enlightening report by Cato@Liberty. The report is both enlightening and sickening. Read on.

Posted by Doug Bandow

It’s fair to say that civil liberties and limited government were not high on President George W. Bush’s priorities list.  Indeed, they probably weren’t even on the list.  Candidate Barack Obama promised “change” when he took office, and change we have gotten.  The name of the president is different.

Alas, the policies are much the same.  While it is true that President Obama has not made the same claims of unreviewable monarchical power for the chief executive-an important distinction-he has continued to sacrifice civil liberties for dubious security gains.

Reports the New York Times:

Civil libertarians recently accused President Obama of acting like former President George W. Bush, citing reports about Mr. Obama’s plans to detain terrorism suspects without trials on domestic soil after he closes the Guantánamo prison.

It was only the latest instance in which critics have argued that Mr. Obama has failed to live up to his campaign pledge “to restore our Constitution and the rule of law” and raised a pointed question: Has he, on issues related to fighting terrorism, turned out to be little different from his predecessor?

The answer depends on what it means to act like Mr. Bush.

As they move toward completing a review of their options for dealing with the detainees, Obama administration officials insist that there is a fundamental difference between Mr. Bush’s approach and theirs. While Mr. Bush claimed to wield sweeping powers as commander in chief that allowed him to bypass legal constraints when fighting terrorism, they say, Mr. Obama respects checks and balances by relying on—and obeying—Congressional statutes.

“While the administration is considering a series of options, a range of options, none relies on legal theories that we have the inherent authority to detain people,” Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said this week in response to questions about the preventive detention report. “And this will not be pursued in that manner.”

But Mr. Obama’s critics say that whether statutory authorization exists for his counterterrorism policies is just a legalistic point. The core problem with Mr. Bush’s approach, they argue, was that it trammeled individual rights. And they say Mr. Obama’s policies have not changed that.

“President Obama may mouth very different rhetoric,” said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. “He may have a more complicated process with members of Congress. But in the end, there is no substantive break from the policies of the Bush administration.”

The primary beneficiaries of constitutional liberties are not terrorist suspects, but the rest of us.  The necessary trade-offs are not always easy, but the president and legislators must never forget that it is a free society they are supposed to be defending.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Bookmark and Share

{ 0 comments }

Democratic U.S.
Image via Wikipedia

Without a doubt, President Obama & Co., including Senator Edward Kennedy, intend to do elective surgery on our health care system and to force national health insurance upon us. This despite the fact that if our health coverage is nationalized, the Canadians will no longer have the benefit of the American health care they have become accustomed to. Why? Because we will soon be in the same boat they are in now; very long waits—up to three years and more for elective surgery and other elective procedures.

Why? How many physicians worth their salt elect to be employed by the U.S. government, if they can help it? The number is minuscule. Actually the number of competent physicians is shrinking daily as it is. That is due in part to government meddling in health care.

The same is true for nurses. It has gotten so bad that we are scouring the earth for nurses. Notice I did not say competent nurses. We will accept a certified—yip; usually they are still requiring that—nurses as long as they are breathing and not so wide that they cannot navigate hospital hallways. (Oh yes, I have seen some in the Philippines that might not be able to pass that test.)

It’s bad enough that we can no longer get enough American nurses, but, while we are getting nurses from other, usually very poor countries, we are taking nurses those countries can ill afford to lose. We are thereby turning America’s problem into a problem for those other countries; countries that cannot afford to put up a diplomatic fight with the American government to keep their nurses; nurses whom they desperately need.

We must stop this socialization of the American economy

There are two things a sensible person can do between now and the next election. One, is pray Obama & Co. don’t succeed in their quest to drive the last nail in the coffin of the best large health care system in the world; and, two, work to unseat all politicians who agree with Obama & Co.’s push to create a socialist system of government in the U.S. A socialist system of government and ruining our health care system will certainly have an adverse affect on your and my pursuit of happiness.

Here’s what Sandy wrote in her post:

Single payer visions

We’re beginning to learn what Senator Edward Kennedy’s secret meetings with key health insurance industry stakeholders have been creating in their vision for universal health coverage.

If you want to keep your health care separate from your job, you will no longer have that choice, according to reports of the plan’s 170-page draft. Employers would be required to provide health care to employees or be penalized. Step #1 to a single-payer government managed national health plan.

(Click here to read the full post.)

Enhanced by Zemanta
Bookmark and Share

{ 0 comments }

Hey, Stupid! Have We Got a Deal for You

by Lawrence on June 7, 2009

From How Not To section of the Pursuit of Happiness files comes this quote:

“What we are not doing — what I have no interest in doing — is running GM,” says the president [Barak Obama, a.k.a. Barakbarous Obabomination] who, when not firing GM’s CEO, purging its board of directors and picking new members, is designing new products (imposing fuel economy requirements that will control size, weight, passenger capacity and safety). The president, overcoming his professed reluctance to run GM, resembles the journalist Don Marquis when, after a month on the wagon, he ordered a double martini and exclaimed: “I’ve conquered my goddam willpower.”

See the full story here.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Bookmark and Share

{ 0 comments }