While not surprising, I still find it disturbing to watch people enthusiastically support a president that they actually don’t even agree with, or shouldn’t agree with. Every four years many come out of political hibernation to vote based on speeches and soundbites, for unfortunately, they just do not follow the actions of their candidate as closely as they do the actions of their favorite sports teams. We all claim to understand that most politicians will say anything to get elected yet we still support candidates based solely on what they say, not what they do.
I thought it would be a worthwhile exercise to compare the supposed beliefs of the average liberal not to Obama’s words, but his actions. I’ve compiled a list of some of Obama’s actions–specifically those that actually go against what liberals are supposed to stand for.
The Patriot Act
If my memory serves me correctly, liberals are supposed to value civil liberties a great deal, which is why they attacked the previous administration for the passage of the Patriot Act, which gives the federal government the authority to do things like spy on American citizens without probable cause.
Well, as president, Obama signed the extension of three key Patriot Act provisions:
- The roving wiretaps provision allows the government to get permission from the rubber-stamping FISA court to tap any electronic device without having to be specific as to the target and the device that is to be tapped.
- The “lone wolf” provision allows for the monitoring of American citizens even when there is absolutely no link to any terrorist organization.
- The “business records” provision allows the government to obtain any type of record (e.g., banking, medical) without having to show that the records are part of a terrorist investigation.
In 2011, Barrack Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which includes a provision that allows the military to indefinitely detain even American citizens without providing them the benefit of a trial. Let me repeat. It allows the military to indefinitely detain American citizens without a trial. If you didn’t hear much about this from the media, it’s probably because it wasn’t George Bush who did it.
Adnan Latif was a Guantanamo bay prisoner for over a decade despite a 2010 court ruling that ordered the Obama administration to release him due to lack of evidence. Adnan had made several suicide attempts in the past, and on September 10th 2012, Adnan was found dead. This happened despite Obama having criticized the use of Guantanamo Bay in 2008 and his promise to close the military prison.
Obama illegally ordered the assassination of an American citizen, and killed his 16 year old son in the process. Even the most ignorant when it comes to politics understand that in the United States you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. In Al-Awlaki’s case, the Obama administration alone got to decide whether he would be entitled to a trial, or his life.
We know liberals did not agree with George Bush when it came to fighting unnecessary wars. They attacked him for going to war with Iraq under false pretenses. But do they attack Obama for getting us involved in Libya’s civil war under no pretenses whatsoever? He got us involved without even being able to claim that our national security was at risk. He did so without a single vote from Congress, let alone a declaration of war.
And what about those drone strikes in Pakistan? You know, the ones that kill innocent civilians and children. There were 52 drone strikes under the Bush administration. Under Obama? 294 so far.
The Drug War
Many liberals will tell you they agree that the drug war just isn’t working, and that it disproportionately affects minorities. This is interesting, since Obama has actually expanded the drug war.
Is it not ironic that the same liberals that love to vilify “greedy” businesses, support a president who bails out those businesses (e.g., GM)? I know, I know. “We had to do it.” No we didn’t, but that is a topic for another day.
In 2008, Obama promised to “strengthen whistle-blower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government.” What he has actually done however, is zealously prosecute whistle-blowers who have exposed waste, fraud and abuse of authority in government.
So what’s the deal?
How is it that liberals can so enthusiastically back a guy whose actions and rhetoric are so badly out of sync? Whose actions actually go against their supposed beliefs? I gotta hand it to the Democratic party. They sure know how to do exactly the opposite of what they say while keeping their voters happy. Although that isn’t a very difficult task when your supporters don’t actually stand for anything.