"“United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child,” a document only two nations have refused to sign: the U.S. and Somalia." Such splendid company!
President Obama is rightly criticized for many policies his administration supports or seems to support, and I share in those criticisms. But I'd like to share another slant on the situation.
I subscribe to the podcasts over at Boiling Frogs, which is Sibel Edmonds and Peter B. Collins, and it's behind a paywall, but I'm sure she wouldn't mind if I share a short clip, as Fair Use. This is Cindy Cohn, the Legal Director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation as well as its General Counsel.
SIBEL EDMONDS: Uh, Cindy, all these battles, most of them, almost all of them, began during the previous administration, Bush administration, after 9/11. And since 2008 we have had a new administration in place. Tell us about President Obama, and what type of changes you have been observing or noticing with the new administration in all this.
CINDY COHN: Oh, this is so sad! Um, the truth is, we've seen not only no change under Obama on many of these issues but frankly a ratcheting up of these things. We've seen arguments floated by the Obama administration in some of these cases that are even beyond anything that the Bush administration tried. It's extremely disappointing I think, y'know, because Candidate Obama and frankly Senator Obama when he was in the senate was a very strong champion of civil liberties and Candidate Obama said that he was gonna restore civil liberties as one of the important pillars of his campaigning. But once he got into office, I'm afraid he has completely abandoned all of — all of that, um —
SIBEL EDMONDS: What do you think happened? What do you see as the reason for this unbelievable change — actually sadly believable, because we are seeing the results, but — ?
CINDY COHN: I think that, um — y'know, I'm not an insider, but there have been a couple of insider reports from people that basically said it was a political decision that Obama felt like he needed to only pick a couple of battles with the Republicans and the more conservative folks who are very, very pro — y'know, give — give the executive — y'know, as much power as a king, and that Obama decided, he didn't want to have that fight, and that he wanted to fight on Health Care, and some of the other stuff they fought on, and we can all disagree about how well that went, but that they decided they weren't gonna pick any fights on civil liberties, so that they could never be accused of being soft on crime or soft on terror, and it was a purely a political decision. That appears to be a pretty consistent statement coming out of it. — this from one of the most dogged laborers in the cause of freedom to speak the truth out there anywhere, saying in effect, "the power of the president to change things is sharply limited, and he needs to pick a battle that he can win, and when that battle is won, hopefully the people will be stronger and the Deep State and the bankers will be weaker and maybe the next target can be closer to the vitals of the monster." (my paraphrase). Remember, Franklin Roosevelt, for all his accomplishments, had a 70% majority in both houses. A 59% majority in the senate, as we have seen since February 2009, is about worth "a pitcher of warm spit", to quote FDR's first and second term VP John Nance Garner.
"“United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child,” a document only two nations have refused to sign: the U.S. and Somalia." Such splendid company!
ReplyDeletePresident Obama is rightly criticized for many policies his administration supports or seems to support, and I share in those criticisms. But I'd like to share another slant on the situation.
I subscribe to the podcasts over at Boiling Frogs, which is Sibel Edmonds and Peter B. Collins, and it's behind a paywall, but I'm sure she wouldn't mind if I share a short clip, as Fair Use. This is Cindy Cohn, the Legal Director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation as well as its General Counsel.
Here is the portion beginning at time=34:56 —
SIBEL EDMONDS: Uh, Cindy, all these battles, most of them, almost all of them, began during the previous administration, Bush administration, after 9/11. And since 2008 we have had a new administration in place. Tell us about President Obama, and what type of changes you have been observing or noticing with the new administration in all this.
CINDY COHN: Oh, this is so sad! Um, the truth is, we've seen not only no change under Obama on many of these issues but frankly a ratcheting up of these things. We've seen arguments floated by the Obama administration in some of these cases that are even beyond anything that the Bush administration tried. It's extremely disappointing I think, y'know, because Candidate Obama and frankly Senator Obama when he was in the senate was a very strong champion of civil liberties and Candidate Obama said that he was gonna restore civil liberties as one of the important pillars of his campaigning. But once he got into office, I'm afraid he has completely abandoned all of — all of that, um —
SIBEL EDMONDS: What do you think happened? What do you see as the reason for this unbelievable change — actually sadly believable, because we are seeing the results, but — ?
CINDY COHN: I think that, um — y'know, I'm not an insider, but there have been a couple of insider reports from people that basically said it was a political decision that Obama felt like he needed to only pick a couple of battles with the Republicans and the more conservative folks who are very, very pro — y'know, give — give the executive — y'know, as much power as a king, and that Obama decided, he didn't want to have that fight, and that he wanted to fight on Health Care, and some of the other stuff they fought on, and we can all disagree about how well that went, but that they decided they weren't gonna pick any fights on civil liberties, so that they could never be accused of being soft on crime or soft on terror, and it was a purely a political decision. That appears to be a pretty consistent statement coming out of it.
— this from one of the most dogged laborers in the cause of freedom to speak the truth out there anywhere, saying in effect, "the power of the president to change things is sharply limited, and he needs to pick a battle that he can win, and when that battle is won, hopefully the people will be stronger and the Deep State and the bankers will be weaker and maybe the next target can be closer to the vitals of the monster." (my paraphrase). Remember, Franklin Roosevelt, for all his accomplishments, had a 70% majority in both houses. A 59% majority in the senate, as we have seen since February 2009, is about worth "a pitcher of warm spit", to quote FDR's first and second term VP John Nance Garner.