Unlike virtually every mainstream media commentator or political talking head I don’t care about Obama embracing gay marriage.
Now I know that a lot of people on the left — disappointed by his banker-friendly, PATRIOT Act-renewing, indefinite-detention-enabling, American-citizen-assassinating regime — are searching for any reason to vote for him, and plausible reason to defend his record. That’s the nature of tribal politics — “anti-war” Democrats will happily protest the Bush war machine, but they seem quiet when Obama is the one using drone strikes to assassinate American citizens without trial. I don’t like Mitt Romney either, but that’s not the point.
Even for those in favour of gay marriage, let’s not forget that Obama is capable of doing absolutely zero to change the law. Want to introduce a Federal law allowing homosexual couples to marry? Good luck getting it through the Republican Congress.
I’m in favour of consenting adults being able to do whatever they like with each other, but the fact that the current push for gay marriage is supported by Lloyd Blankfein and Goldman Sachs makes me very suspicious (does he want to sell securitised gay marriage debt?).
It just seems like an easy issue for Obama to posture on, while trampling the Constitution into the dirt.
When it comes to civil liberties, Obama has always talked a good game, and then acted more authoritarian than Bush. He talked about an end to the abuses of the Bush years and an open and transparent government, yet extended the Fourth-Amendment-shredding Patriot Act, empowered the TSA to produce naked body scans and engage in humiliatingly sexual pat-downs, signed indefinite detention of American citizens into law, claimed and exercised the power to assassinate American citizens without trial, and aggressively prosecuted whistleblowers. Under his watch the U.S. army even produced a document planning for the reeducation of political activists in internment camps. Reeducation camps? In America? And some on the left are still crowing that talking about being in favour of gay marriage makes him “pro-civil liberties”? Is this a joke?
Here are a few metrics that we should be judging Obama on:
People not in the labour force is spiking:
The public debt keeps soaring and soaring from eyeball-watering multi-trillion dollar deficits:
Meanwhile India, Iran, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Japan have all ditched the dollar for other currencies in new bilateral trade agreements — which lest us forget is America’s biggest export, and the product that keeps goods and oil flowing into America. This is an extremely dangerous time. While we cannot lump Obama with the blame for the entire U.S. economic system — the system we have was accumulated via Bush, and Cheney, and Paulson, and Clinton, and Bush, and Reagan, and Carter, and Brzezinski, and Nixon, and Kissinger, and Johnson, and Roosevelt and Wilson and Lincoln and probably most significantly of all the father of central banking Alexander Hamilton — Obama certainly has not improved matters.
And it should be obvious to anyone paying attention that Romney — who claims he would support the NDAA and the PATRIOT Act, that he wants to attack Iran, and has hired many ex-Bush staffers, as well as winning the endorsement of both Jeb and George H.W. Bush, and bizarrely claiming to want to start a trade war with China — is cut from the exact same cloth as Bush and Obama.
This is a dead election. Here’s hoping that Ron Paul — who continues to pick up delegates in the Republican race even while being ignored by the mainstream media who would rather talk about Obama’s posturing on gay rights — can cause some mayhem.
Pingback: Guest Post: Obama Embraces Gay Marriage » A Taoistmonk's Life
Pingback: Obama Embraces Gay Marriage « Financial Survival Network
3+ years into his presidency and NOW he wants to support gay marriage.
Obama, such a disappointment on so many levels.
And yes, I supported him.
I support him but his feet need to be held to the fire! The raids on weed are unacceptable; the indefinite detention is unacceptable; the erosion of civil liberties is unacceptable and unconscionable; and, the gay marriage thing is ridiculous. He wanted to have it both ways: he wanted to take all the advantages of being associated with people that vocally supported gay marriage, but he also wanted to court the conservative vote in the south particularly. He finally does vocally support it but only after he thinks he knows it’s politically expedient to do so. Not only was supporting gay marriage vocally the right thing to do, it would have been a political win. Now Obama appears to be a man with few convictions. I’m glad he did get dadt repealed though which makes not vocally accepting gay marriage more strange.
I can’t support anyone under whose watch an army document was produced describing the potential future internment and reeducation of civilians.
I linked it up within the article itself:
Do you work for MI5 😉
No, but the Federal Reserve may soon try to recruit me.
What you’re saying is akin to stating, “I support this baby-sitter’s right to watch my children, despite the fact that he is a pedophile.”
Not even close. Explain exactly how it is?
You support him but his feet needs to be held to the fire? And how have you and his other supporters been doing this? Because I don’t see it happening.
Great point, Annie.
They have held to account for nothing.
How have you? Sitting around debating on a blog?
Your reply doesn’t make sense- I think you misunderstood my repetition of your words as words of support for Obama. I do not support sociopathic politicians (oh, my, how redundant), such as Obama and Romney, who both seem determined to run our country into the ground.
Please note, the post was made to point out a flaw in your argument. Your latest comment is a counter attack against me but provides no substantial evidence to debate my observation.
To debate your counter attack, I have maybe spent ten minutes on this blog. The rest of my life is spent making worthwhile changes in the lives of American citizens- I provide health care for low income people without insurance and I donate to organizations that help people gain self sufficiency. What do you do?
My reply didn’t make any sense yet you wrote long winded, mostly unnecessary two paragraphs to say that?
Obama didn’t deregulate the banking industry, he didn’t start the wars, he isn’t ruining the country anymore than any other president we’ve had. When I say I support Obama and you flip your shit about it because he is a sociopath, as you say, what exactly is your solution? To not vote? To support the flippant Ron Paul? To not care about the obvious differences between Romney and Obama? What exactly do you do to get the “sociopaths” out of office?
Whoa, you sound angry.
I can’t do anything about the sociopaths in power. I recognize that. I do my part by working to improve my corner of the world. (I have managed to get a few sociopaths out of power on a local level but I won’t go into detail since you don’t like long paragraphs.) If more people did that, the problem would eventually get worked out..
I notice you have not answered my question about what YOU are doing to change the situation. That says a lot about you, since I have asked you twice now and you only respond with empty (and rude) attacks.
Rude attacks? Lol!!! Anyway, I try to inform the people around me the best I can about issues I care about like endless war and drone attacks the metastasis of the security state, etc etc. I also vote on the local level. But the reality is we have a choice between Obama and Romney, period. Obama is probably going to win and I would hope he does given the fact that Romney will most certainly be worse. If Obama wins then we have to keep him focused and get him to cut back on security apparatus, loosen up on drug laws, and get back to the constitution vis-a-vis civil liberties
Yeah, the more I learn about the Republican nomination process, the more certain I become that Ron Paul and doug Wead have a big chance of pulling off a big shock.
And even if that isn’t the case (or you have other problems with Dr. Paul), there’s always Gary Johnson.
Is Obama really better than Bush? Because, I kinda think functionally Bush, Obama and Romney are extremely similar.
I think most of us supported him. I recognised at the time it was a calculated gamble. McCain offered more war, much more war, and Obama at least offered the hope of something different.
Watching the circus that elected Obama from north of your border I was struck with the impression that Obama was being placed high on a pedestal of near impossible expectation – oops, sorry – “Hope”.
That he would fall from the pedestal was a foregone conclusion.
That he would immediately jump from it to continue driving the US hell-bent down the same road as Bush I didn’t expect.
The Silver-Tongued Orator makes a far better speech than Bush, but being a slicker, slier better liar doesn’t make him any better than Bush.
One difference I perceive is that where oil & the military industrial complex seemed to own Bush, Obama appears to have been bought & paid for by the Wall Street titans.
Other than that, and his tan, they’re scarily similar.
I’d say Bush was — for his intents and purposes, i.e. folksiness — was a functionally good speaker, like Barry.
Pingback: Guest Post: Obama Embraces Gay Marriage | TheTradersWire.com
Democratic politics is dead, anyone who participates and or votes is a fool willing to be abused and lied to again and again. The view that not voting would only allow the bad guys to get in, can be countered with ‘they are all bad guys’ so do not participate, do not wave the flag, do not listen to what they have to say and tell them all to go to hell. Anyone who votes for any of them is legitimising their actions….don’t blame me I did not vote for them.
And you are cynic. There is no hope for you….
I’d happily vote for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, and slightly less happily for Dennis Kucinich or a progressive of his ilk.
“If voting made a difference, they wouldn’t let us do it.” – Mark Twain
And for a slightly more modern take:
The US electoral process is meaningless…
As an Australian, I could not vote, but I was impressed by his first inaugural speech. Now I feel like a sucker. I shake my head to see the transition to a police state. It is almost as if they appointed the smooth joking orator to keep the game going just long enough to set the system up to control the implosion.
Personally I could not care if homosexuals (Gay means happy, or did we forget) marry. Do what they want. If their partner does not deceive them, or file for divorce because they “fall out of love” whatever that means then good luck and a blessed life for them.
The church in Australia or the world can’t interfere in a person’s life, to promise in front of witnesses and under law to “Love, honour and obey” and then claim tax concessions to run their “Business” and get a cushy institutional system with benefits for life for the key personnel. Hippocrates!
I must admit the organisers for Ron Paul’s campaign have done an excellent job. On every internet blog, there is so much support for Ron Paul. If the pink slime fed, corn syrup indulging, welfare receiving people don’t bother to vote, there will be a shock gain for Ron Paul.
Ron Paul will at the very least cause plenty of mischief in the Republican convention…
Ron Paul won’t do and can’t do shit. Most people that matter think he is a loon. Not that I agree.
He’s won a lot of delegates using the delegate strategy, more than Santorum and Newt. He’s won like 8 states now. I don’t think he can win the race, but I think he can cause mischief, which is brilliant.
My take on the g.m. issue. I take issue with all the
outrage in California when in fact we passed a law explicitly banning gay marriage. Yet somehow the North Carolinians can be portrayed as pre-humans. Chill. Keep up the fight and most likely, in the near future, the laws will change to your liking. Acting superior will most likely impede your progress.
Acting superior is a great impediment to progress, Ted.
Pingback: The smartest thing you’ll read on the Obama/gay marriage media blitz « Investment Watch Blog
“I’m in favour of consenting adults being able to do whatever they like with each other”
Except pologomy. We don’t want those dirty Mormons to get this one.
If I want to marry myself, will Bammy bless me?
I’d bring up marrying my dog, but we all know Obama eats dogs…so don’t go there.
I don’t know… somehow Obama makes it all look good, because he’s so cool. Heck, as long as I get my free stuff, its alright by me… Hey, in the MSM it’s all good, so it must be cool.
Best common sense article I have seen in a while. As usual we have no choice, but if economist Niall Ferguson is correct we really aren’t going to have a choice anyway as the interest payments on the debt will soon exceed 100% of revenues. Happy landings.
Pingback: Liberty 05/12/2012 (a.m.) « Liberty in the Breach
The USA, as a Republic, became the first political system in the history of mankind to put the rights of the individual above the power of the government. All others are based upon the strong ruling over the weak, including the 51% over the 49% in democracies. But the people of the USA let the Republic get converted into a Democracy, and you have voted away your rights under the pretense of gaining something. It has been divide and conquer all the way. The Democrats in particular do not see people as individuals, but as groups to manipulate. Class warfare, anti business, and Gay marriage as yet another diversion, while your entire future is sold off, and you must default, or be permently enslaved. Make no doubt, this is Obama’s game. When you are finally on your knees and see it like it is, it will be too late. History repeats. You are worse off than Greece. And Obama is so much more like another slick talker, Time Magizine’s Man of the Year, 1937, than you now know. But you will find out. The press is not on your side. Stop believing them.
Lucky for me, I ain’t American.
Marriage was the first institution of God and it was between God, Adam and Eve. As Paul wrote, “the marriage bed is undefiled”, therefore all else is defiled. Biden as a Catholic ought to be ashamed (but he is really only one in name). It isn’t freedom but relativism when they say, don’t attack my personal religion or my right to choose or my sexual preference. For our govt immorality is big business and grows its size ever more as more and more people become dependent on it. With one hand they wield the club of legalism and the other,wave immorality in the guise of freedom. No one understands grace anymore, as something to keep one from sin, not excuse it.
Let me understand. Marriage is a religious ceremony. Civil unions are a government institution. Then the same people who cry, “Seperation of Church and State” now want the state to dictate what marriage is to churches?
I thought the purpose of government marriage benefits was to help support children, not adults. You need to stop those benefits to regain control of your unions between people. They are not needed for the original purpose anymore.
The real purpose behind this is to destroy marriage as an institution and make government control even that.
Smokey, that argument goes the other way as well. Why are religious people trying to get govt to legislate in favor of their superstition? Why are they trying to end civil unions? Why do they care that gay people get the legal benefits of marriage or union?
Pingback: Welcome to Obama Land « SocialSity