Monday, December 28, 2009
It's not that we give up our Constitutional rights, but to whom?
I seem to recall a lot of bleating from the left about the Bush administration's abuse of our Constitutional rights, perhaps because a computer inside the NSA might flag a telephone conversation between an American and a dude named Ahmed in northern Pakistan or a ghetto in Hebron, or maybe because we, too, might be waterboarded and packed off to Gitmo for socializing with the wrong sort of people. Looking back on it, either seems a lot less offensive to our rights than this new executive order from President Obama, but liberals, who have a bizarre, unjustified, and yet reflexive affection for "international" organizations, are unlikely to give it a moment's thought.
We await the shrill editorials from the New York Times with bated breath.
Not.
12 Comments:
By 
Christopher Chambers, at
Mon Dec 28, 12:37:00 PM:
No, we're leaving the bleating and other obnoxious, utterly unhelpful grunts and squeaks and farts and freeps to y'all. It ain't the same thing. lol
By 
, at
Mon Dec 28, 01:12:00 PM:
Yes indeed: Where's the outrage?
Between this unconstitutional abrogation of authority and the surprise announcement of uncapped guarantees of Fannie and Freddie debts, it was a busy Christmas eve for the criminals occupying the White House.
By , at
Mon Dec 28, 02:00:00 PM:
Oh, well, Christopher Chambers of "Nat Turner's Revenge" assures me that it "ain't the same". I guess you can't really argue with logic like that.
By the by, do you find it ironic that your (presumably)pro-black blog is named after the only enslaved American black man to have contributed as much to the continuation of slavery as even the most racist white? I'm interested in your study of 19th century America, in both an academic and a personal sense.
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Dec 28, 02:42:00 PM:
I hadn't really thought about it before, but naming his blog after someone who massacred people because they were white (including women and children) makes a lot of sense...
By , at
Mon Dec 28, 03:28:00 PM:
It is hard to imagine how the Obama White House has managed to unearth and then upend Reagan's presidential order. I can only imagine they have done a lot of research and have a detailed agenda, which is none of our business, of course.
Fortunately, this abomination is reversible. Let's begin that in 2010.
M.E.
By TigerHawk, at
Mon Dec 28, 04:13:00 PM:
It is hard to blame Nat Turner for leading a slave revolt. It is hard to object to *any* slave revolt, no matter how violent.
By , at
Mon Dec 28, 05:28:00 PM:
By , at
Mon Dec 28, 06:28:00 PM:
TigerHawk,
The sentiment is understood. What I don't understand is the glorification of an ugly, if understandable, event that shelved any abolitionist sentiment in the antebellum South (it did in fact exist to a degree). Whether or not he was morally/emotionally justified, he did end up prolonging slavery and so I wonder why one would want a constant reminder of that fact. It seems to me that Mr. Chambers wants the emotionally charged name but is forgetting the implications of Nat Turner's Rebellion.
By JPMcT, at
Mon Dec 28, 06:29:00 PM:
"It is hard to object to *any* slave revolt, no matter how violent"
Hmmmpff...those words may come back to haunt...
By , at
Tue Dec 29, 09:35:00 AM:
What does that mean? Are you saying doctors might rise up against their masters, the Democrat party and the state? That's an enslavement CC supports.
By , at
Tue Dec 29, 10:01:00 AM:
Back on topic for a moment, isn't it frightening to civil libertarians that the president, with a stroke of his pen, has created a place where he can hide documents from any and all judicial processes? Where no Congressional committee can exercise oversight? This is truly one of the most radical things the president has yet done, and violates the plain language obligation of his oath of office.
By JPMcT, at
Tue Dec 29, 09:59:00 PM:
oath...Constitution...Truth...Integrity...
"Just Words"
