Obama, "Change You Can Believe In?" Or More Like "Chained To The Previous Administration's Well Thought Out Policies?"


In a most un-stunning development the Obama administration takes the very same stance as the Bush crew when it comes to the concept of a U.S. president bypassing Congress and establishing a program “of eavesdropping on Americans without warrants” as many like to phrase it. I am looking forward to hearing all the howling from those on the left that have railed against George Bush these last eight years concerning this issue when they find out Obama is gonna be trotting down the very same path. What’s that I hear?? The sound of crickets? I mean come on you libs, you were all kinds of infuriated over this stuff when that Texas cowboy was riding high in the saddle!

The Obama administration fell in line with the Bush administration Thursday when it urged a federal judge to set aside a ruling in a closely watched spy case weighing whether a U.S. president may bypass Congress and establish a program of eavesdropping on Americans without warrants.

In a filing in San Francisco federal court, President Barack Obama adopted the same position as his predecessor. With just hours left in office, President George W. Bush late Monday asked U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker to stay enforcement of an important Jan. 5 ruling admitting key evidence into the case.

Sponsors... article continues below...

Most folks would realize that in theory the basis of this whole warrantless eavesdropping stuff is to be able to move quickly against suspected terrorists to thwart any plans they may have to cause some serious problems in this country. I sure as hell like the fact that the technology to literally capture every electronic communication we make has been around for some time and was an issue even when Bill Clinton was in office though the lamestream media would prefer to make it appear Bush was the very first president to ever think of such a program.

Now what is a government supposed to do to protect its citizens from terrorist activity? Do nothing and when an attack occurs and people are killed and maimed the populace is justifiably livid. Monitor communications in order to try and prevent mayhem and the people are justifiably madder than hell they are being spied on.

Tough call either way you look at it but one thing people fail to realize is there is none of this supposed “right to privacy,” that gets tossed around out there all the time, in the Constitution. It’s not there, anywhere. I realize the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision manufactured a “right to privacy” out of thin air based on this part of the 14th Amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

…to justify federal jurisdiction over abortions but all this privacy stuff we hop up and down about was never part of the Constitution.

The bottom line is all of the garbage Obama regurgitated while campaigning, and was swallowed hook, line and sinker by the media and his fanatic slobbering followers, was nothing more than clueless crap from a clueless politician. Once this guy had access to information about what is really going on he has little choice but to follow many if not most of the programs set in place by a much more competent Bush team that has been in the game for eight years than will ever be acknowledged by the wacky liberals.

If there was any stock I would be heavily investing in for the next four years it would be tissue companies because the demand for this product is going to go through the roof when Obama’s supporters realize he was really nothing but a lousy one night stand. Heh heh.

This entry was posted in U.S. Politics.

Leave a Reply