Last week Obama called on Israel to give up land it acquired during the 1967 Six-Day War.
In the same speech he ratcheted up pressure on Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.
These statements come less than two months after Obama committed U.S. forces to yet another war in Libya, as well as demonstrated that Obama has no intention of delivering the change that Americans voted for.
What Americans wanted was a change in direction from the policies of the previous administration. What they got instead was a change in intensity—Obama and the Democrats increased Bush’s merciless pursuit of empire and foreign intervention.
Oh sure, Obama still likes to pretend that he is for the common man, and not for the oppressive empire that Bush and the Republicans pursued after 9/11.
This was exemplified during last year’s elections when Obama insinuated that Republicans and their financial backers were members of the Galactic Empire. “Right now the same special interest that would profit from the other side’s agenda, they’re fighting back. The empire is striking back.”
It does not take an Obi-Wan Kenobi to figure out that President Obama betrayed and replaced the Hope-n’-Change Obama of the campaign trail—Obama turned to the dark side of the force years ago.
A simple examination of President Obama’s actions reveals that he has the empire’s best interest at heart.
Campaign Obama decried the Bush Administration’s infringement upon the rights enshrined in the Constitution. But President Obama has done little to reverse those Bush-era policies.
Despite campaign promises of an open and transparent government, Obama has governed from a foundation of secrecy. To prevent cases from going to court he invokes “state secrets.”
Doing so keeps the public in the dark about wiretapping, domestic spying, and the CIA’s “rendition” program where the CIA kidnaps people from American soil and sends them to foreign countries to be tortured.
Wiretapping Americans’ phones without a warrant goes on unabated. Warrantless snooping through American’s e-mails continues to this day. Both are a clear violation of the 4th Amendment right to privacy.
Obama has taken the Bush practice of indefinite detention a step farther. In what he calls, “prolonged detention,” Obama claims the power to forever jail people without bringing charges against them.
This practice has been labeled pre-crime because it arrests not people who have committed crimes, but people who “might” someday commit crimes. Depriving people of life and liberty without due process of law is a violation of the 5th Amendment. Preventing the accused from facing their accusers in court is a violation of the 6th Amendment’s guarantee to a speedy trial and trial by jury.
Obama recently took depriving people of life and liberty without due process to the next level. Last year his administration announced that it would target and murder Americans “believed to be involved in terrorist activity.”
Last month he put this principle into practice when he authorized the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki, a Muslim cleric and U.S. citizen. That’s right. Obama has authorized the assassination of American citizens. No trial. No Jury. No due process of law.
Obama’s evils are not limited to oppressing American rebels of the old republic.
Besides destroying the Bill of Rights, Constitution, and other blueprints that expose weaknesses in the tyrannical Death Star, President Obama continues to wage war on foreign populations who resist assimilation.
Depending on which stump speech you view on YouTube, Campaign Obama promised to have troops out of Iraq in six to sixteen months. President Obama, on the other hand, is leaving at least 50,000 “non combat” troops in Iraq.
As troops leave Iraq they are quickly replaced with Blackwater-style mercenaries. Of course Clinton and Obama both campaigned against the use of private mercenaries in Iraq. The billion-dollar fortress in the center of Baghdad? Staying. The half dozen “enduring presence” bases scattered across Iraq? Clinton’s State Department says more to come. Apparently Bush did not bring enough death and destruction to Afghanistan. Obama has doubled the number of U.S. troops in that country.
A version of this article appeared in the May 26 issue of the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 26 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
Whoa, perfect timing for this article. I was just watching news clips on YouTube and today on the House floor Ron Paul gave a speech almost exactly like your article.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-olNr4UuVqY
I have seen what your article discusses mentioned in the media from time to time. However, reading them all in once place, as you did with your article, is very depressing. People in this country need to wake up and realize that the leadership of both parties are for screwing us over.
Reply to this Top
Rand Paul just tried to offer amendments to the PATRIOT Act to be voted on, but Harry Reid blocked him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzjYUmi5_IQ
Yesterday the Senate tried to sneak the PATRIOT Act extension through with zero debate and zero media coverage, but Rand Paul filibustered it for 8 hours. Not sure if any other Dems and Repubs are on Rand's side on this. I know a few Dems in the House and lots of Repubs in the House oppose the act. Unfortunately the Senate is full of sellouts.
Reply to this Top
This article is poorly written and poorly researched. What you have here is an extremely bias litany of disparate criticisms that are neither grounded in objective, dispassionate fact, nor coherently connected to a sound central thesis. True, the Obama administration has not fully lived up to the rhetoric on which Obama campaigned, or the expectations of his supporters. But to argue that Obama's health care reform and bold stance on the colonizing and despotic "state" of Israel does not represent marked change from the Bush administration is just false. To spin health care reform-- a measure that will not only extend coverage to millions more citizens, but also allow Mr. Dunn himself to stay on his parent's policy until he's 26--as a win for private insurance companies, rather than for the sick and poor individuals that had no previous access to such care, is absurd. But you really outdo yourself, Mr. Dunn, with this little nugget of misguided logic disguised as competent criticism: "More American troops have died in Afghanistan under Obama’s presidency than during Bush’s entire time in office." Blaming Obama for the lingering, insidious effects of the disastrous Bush Doctrine is simply ridiculous.
Reply to this Top
Yes, America has a superiority complex that results in wasteful and illegal wars, but the American Empire is nothing new. And as a deeply entrenched extension of that American Exceptionalist ideology that has defined and shaped this country's domestic and foreign policy since its inception, American imperialism cannot be extinguished by one man in two years. Wars don't work like that. Policy doesn't work like that.
What you seem to be forgetting, Mr. Dunn, is that Barack Obama is president, not God. By its very definition, “change” is a gradual process that takes careful thought, and most importantly, patience. Yes, the Obama administration has had its flaws, set backs, and certainly many broken promises. But if you could shed your bias, sanctimonious, libertarian ideologies for one second, you would see that Obama, for all his mistakes, has made some important changes. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and of course, health care reform, just to name a few. By ignoring these significant domestic gains and focusing solely on your personally slanted criticisms of Obama’s foreign policy, you undermine your already anemic argument that Obama has not put this country in a significantly different and better position than it was in during Bush’s eight embarrassing years in office.
Reply to this Top
half of his argument was not on foreign policy, it was on civil liberties. Just today Harry Reid and the democrats past the PATRIOT Act for another four years.
Top
U.S. News "5 reasons Obama is same as Bush." http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2010/06/04/5-reasons-obama-is-the-same-as-bush-clinton
ABC "Obama Keeps Bush Position on Rhendition (kidnapping)." http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/obama-administr.html
Top
Raw Story "Obama Wants Longer PATRIOT Act Extension and Repubs." http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/09/obama-seeks-longer-patriot-act-extension-republicans/
ROFL ROFL ROFL Watch this video and look at the date! It is August 2006, when the Democrats were trying (and succeeded) in taking over the Congress. Man the Democrats have come a long way!!! FRAUDS. Wake up you liberal poster. USE YOUR BRAIN. Obama and the dems are a fraud, just like the Repubs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBP91gvs8wI
Top
ok, you're comments make you a "backdoor braggart" ... please urban dictionary this
Reply to this Top
I agree. "Anon" also said that Chris's column was not coherently connected, but contradicted himself in his own posts. He first came out kicking and punching by slamming the "biased" column which "is not grounded in fact." He basically said that Chris was full of it and made everything up. However, he then immediately when on to apologize for why Obama has carried on all of Bush's policies!!! Which one is it Anon? Chris is full of crap and Obama really did bring change? Or Obama can't bring change because he "is only president, not God."
Make up your mind. Your emotional two-post rant shows that you are a liberal professor or college Democrat who donated tons of time to Obama's campaign, which prevents you from seeing that Obama is carrying out many of the Bush policies that he decried on the campaign trail.
Top
where to start with this highly inaccurate diatribe.
1. RENDITIONS: can you provide the name of one person 'kidnapped' by the CIA from US soil? the answer is none.
2. IRAQ: the contractors discussed are not mercenaries - they are providing security for US persons because Congress has failed to provide funds to increase the State Dept's security ranks.
3. IRAQ BASES: we have far more troops and facilities in Germany, England, Japan, South Korea, and other countries. Look at the fatalities of those countries compared to Iraq.
4. DRONE ATTACKS: apparently you have no idea of the munitions carried by the UAVs. to believe that such missiles could kill 50+ in a single launch is laughable.
5. AL-AWLAKI: he is an enemy of the state who has launched attacks against the US; and continues to do so. he is a target of war.
Reply to this Top
Read these articles for names. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2007/11/05/rendition
In 2005 CBS said over 100 were kidnapped and sent abroad. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/04/60minutes/main678155.shtml
Reply to this Top
Other countries have even convicted CIA agents for kidnapping people in their country. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/world/europe/05italy.html
Read this article. CIA has conducted over 1,000 rendition flights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_United_States
Top
Just Google "CIA Blackwater" and "Blackwater assassination." These guys are not just providing security, they are actually carrying out secret missions and assassinations. Jeremy Scahill has an excellent book on Blackwater. You should read it. He also has numerous articles on the Internets.
Reply to this Top
No clue because I have never researched it. Would not surprise me either way though. All I know is that I am willing to look into anything, because the media in this country never tells us what is going on.
I thought that Al Awlaki was a CIA agent who dined at the Pentagon though.
Reply to this Top
OK, I'd first like to state I was extremely thrilled to read this week's paper because I love all three columnists. Ray writes good articles on local stuff and things pertaining to Tech, and Chris and Jason usually write great columns from an angle that does not tow a party or ideological line.
Second, I did not vote for McCain or Obama, and will no doubt sit this election out as well. I say this because it means I don't have a vested interest in Obama or the Repubs.
Third, this column is spot on. Everything addressed in it is pretty much true. However, my advice to Chris is to pick one or two things Obama did so that you have room to cite sources in your article. When you just come out in one column and lay out all of these evils that Obama has done, the sheeple will not believe it because it's too much to swallow. Keep it simple for the dumb idiots who watch TV news, and try to educate them a little at a time.
Reply to this Top
@Chad- Anon, here. I just wanted to take a moment to address your criticisms of my post. I want to start off by saying, you are right. My post was emotional, and as with most on-line anonymous commenting, it did very much resemble a rant. Given that I accused Chris of failing to provide an objective, dispassionate argument, I understand how my own initial rebuttal falls short rhetorically. I did not intend to accuse Chris of being “full of it.” I simply wanted to point out the article’s persuasive inadequacies. Chris makes sweeping generalizations based on his very one-sided analysis of Obama’s first two years in office. Chris’s hyperbolic language and failure to anticipate and address counterarguments render his overarching argument largely untenable.
Your question, then, about whether Chris is “full of crap and Obama really did bring change? Or Obama can't bring change because he ‘is only president, not God’” is, like all questions easier asked than answered. Much to your chagrin, I’m going to say, a little bit of both.
First, I want to be clear that I agree with Chris’s general premise that the Obama administration has carried out many Bush-era policies, which certainly attenuates Obama’s credibility and warrants criticism and, in many cases, out right repudiation. I say this as a progressive democrat who voted for Obama in 2008 and who plans to vote for him in 2012.
Reply to this Top
But in heaping such unmitigated, disproportionate blame on Obama for the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Chris fails to acknowledge not only the complexities of war and policy, but also the tremendous burden handed to Obama when he took office in 2008. These wars are a testament to the ruinous legacy of the Bush Doctrine. Obama’s refusal to end them, is, at least, a testament to his initial naivety and, at most, evidence that ending wars cavalierly is just as dangerous and starting them cavalierly. But Chris constantly oversimplifies these issues to paint a portrait of Obama as a lofty liberal turned sour tyrant—another fallacy since Obama is, and has always been, a moderate.
And then of course Chris tries to support his evil-Obama argument by stating that Obama “helped give tax dollars to Wall Street bankers.” He fails to buffer this criticism with the possibility that that bailout, while painful, might have actually prevented the country from spiraling into a real depression. Chris also completely ignores Obama’s huge Wall Street reform bill—the strictest of its kind since the Great Depression—that not only prevents the types of abuses that led to the economic melt-down in the first place, but that also eradicates future tax-payer funded bailouts.
Top
But in heaping such unmitigated, disproportionate blame on Obama for the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Chris fails to acknowledge not only the complexities of war and policy, but also the tremendous burden handed to Obama when he took office in 2008. These wars are a testament to the ruinous legacy of the Bush Doctrine. Obama’s refusal to end them, is, at least, a testament to his initial naivety and, at most, evidence that ending wars cavalierly is just as dangerous and starting them cavalierly. But Chris constantly oversimplifies these issues to paint a portrait of Obama as a lofty liberal turned sour tyrant—another fallacy since Obama is, and has always been, a moderate.
And then of course Chris tries to support his evil-Obama argument by stating that Obama “helped give tax dollars to Wall Street bankers.” He fails to buffer this criticism with the possibility that that bailout, while painful, might have actually prevented the country from spiraling into a real depression. Chris also completely ignores Obama’s huge Wall Street reform bill—the strictest of its kind since the Great Depression—that not only prevents the types of abuses that led to the economic melt-down in the first place, but that also eradicates future tax-payer funded bailouts.
Top
Lastly, Chris’s claim that “Obama’s health care plan handed private health insurers 30 million new customers,” while true, cannot stand on its own as a valid criticism. Yes, Obama spinelessly reneged on a public option, a compromise I was profoundly unhappy to see. But health care reform means that 30 million more people will receive the care that was previously and egregiously inaccessible to them. This might not mean a lot to Chris, who, I’m assuming from the tenor of this article, enjoys the privileges of being a college educated white male, but to the poor, mostly minority, mostly female beneficiaries of health care reform, it means the whole world. It means their children’s futures.
Top
"failure to anticipate and address counterarguments render his overarching argument largely untenable.".
Maybe chris should just write the title and a by line for the print publication and write the article in the online forum where space is apparently unlimited for anons.
Top
egregiously? nothing stopped any person who couldn't afford health care from walking into a hospital for treatment as it is required by law. the odd thing to me about this whole health care campaign is that the people who seem to want it the most are part of the class of people who need it the least. (that being wealthy people want to have a pity party for people who are not as fortunate as them)
Top
Obama, like all politicians, made promises he could not keep. Some I would be happy to apologize for, some I could not bear to. But Chris seems to think that Obama should have been able to safely end two wars while simultaneously cutting defense spending, prevent another depression, un-do America’s stained international image by renouncing Bush’s stultifying “War on Terror,” extend health care to millions of Americans, and pass significant financial reform—all in the span of “two short years.” Indeed, Obama has accomplished some of these initiatives, and others, in full or in part, and will continue to do so for the next six years. Thus, notwithstanding Obama’s hypocritical extension of many Bush-era policies, I simply cannot accept the claim that, “Obama and the Democrats have done more for the empire than Bush did in eight” as anything other than laughable, ineffective hyperbole. George W. Bush was both architect and engineer of the 21st century American empire. He built his empire on pins of unilateral military force, preemptive war, and tax cuts for the rich. Lucky, for him, he was not on the bridge when it collapsed. But Obama was. Voluntarily so. Is he the change-bringer of the campaign trail? No. But for Christ’s sake, Chad, can you imagine the alternative?
Reply to this Top
Also, for the record Chad, I avoid cable news at all costs for obvious reasons. While I read left leaning, and obviously partisan mags like The Progressive and The Nation, much of my news comes from Al Jazeera or BBC, again, for obvious reasons.
As a point of curiosity, I'm interested in your decision to "sit this election out." I can understand arguments against partisan politics, especially considering the inadequacies of a two party system in a country as big as the U.S. Certainly, both liberal and conservative ideologies are impoverished in their own ways. Indeed, I even empathize with the “stick-it-to-the-man” sensibility; that is that best part of democracy. But doesn’t apathy represent the ultimate poverty of thought?
Reply to this Top
have you ever heard of writing a "letter to the editor" or are you too afraid your endless psychotic rantings won't get published so you play it safe in online forums where you can shield you're facade of intellect with anonymity?
Top
I'm still waiting for your letter to the editor ...
Top
Doubt that letter will come anytime soon. In his heart he knows that Obama sucks. Today's news: "Obama rewards campaign donors with government jobs." http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/report-obama-administration-rewards-big-donors-jobs/story?id=13849435
Top