See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Obama In Portland. A first take. (OBAMA REPEATS HE WILL CLOSE GITMO, RESTORE HABEAS, AND OBEY THE CONSTITUTION)
Source:
Ideas With Consequences
URL Source: http://ideaswithconsequenses.wordpr ... bama-in-portland-a-first-take/
Published: May 20, 2008
Author: Michael Beaton
Post Date: 2008-05-21 14:24:20 by aristeides
Keywords: None
Views: 2503
Comments: 182
Obama In Portland. A first take. I saw Barak Obama in Portland on Sunday. I do not normally get caught up in shouting and crowd dynamics. And this event was no exception. But I was moved. Deeply. Quietly. I found myself about 30 yards off the main stage watching, watching closely. And listening closely to what was being said. While Obama spoke the obligatory crowd pleasing lines it was notable to me that he did not seem to be trying to whip up the crowd into emotional frenzy. In fact it seemed the opposite. A couple times the crowd wanted to get into the “Yes we Can” chant. Obama seemed to let it run its course and then proceed w/ his remarks. Not that I have anything against the emotion that people are feeling. I tend to want what is underlying the emotional outbursts. I want there to be substance to support it. In this case I felt it was there. Clinton, and others, have tried to cast Obama as having “just words” “he has only given a good speech”. I now understand better why they need to try and detract from the power of Obama’s oratory. It is not like so much political speech, full of vacuous thought, full of promises and non sequitur thoughts designed to appeal to a predetermined crowd. Obama actually talks in full paragraphs, with thoughts that hold together across the entire speech. It is not simply a collection of applause lines or attack lines. He actually engages the issues we are facing in a way that evinces an understanding of this simple maxim : You cannot solve a problem at the level at which the problem was created. My first take on the speech follows. Basic takeaway : His stump speech is smarter, more intelligent, logically cohesive, as well as inspirational and meaningfully hopeful than the best, thought out positions of the others candidates. Or any politician I am aware of for that matter. Reagan is held out as a “great communicator”. I never have understood this, never really feeling that much of what Reagan communicated was worth hearing. As a communicator I would posit Obama is orders of magnitude better than Reagan. And… he has the added benefit of actually communicating something that calls to our “better selves” while not eviscerating what it means to be an American. It seems that Obama has the power to hold this position of transformation. I have never heard a political candidate make the case that what he is offering is not pre-molded answers but a process by which we may affect change for the better. Now it will be up to the country to decide if we have drunk a full cup of the bitters and ready for such a change. Or if it will take another quaff, and another round of drunken stupor, for the citizenry to get it that the course America has followed for so long, (insert lots of detail here), and that has been especially manifest in the horror that has been this BushCo Administration, is fundamentally flawed and in need of deep systemic change. We have to begin to think again as citizens bound together in some essential way that is deeper than our epicurean pursuits and our silly infatuations with flawed beliefs like “we are number one” or/and “they hate us for our freedoms”. I am hopeful, but cynical. I live a contradiction. I am aware of the basic goodness and desires of people, the American people. I am also aware of the powers and forces and individuals who lie in wait to destroy what would destroy them. And they have their hands on the levers of power, money, communications. It is amazing to me however, that even though that is so, there is still the possibility for hope, and for change - change at a deep structural level. It lets me know that as formidable as the masters of the status quo are there is something that they do not own, that is not fully under control. It is from this, whatever that is, that something deeper, more integral, more essential will, if it will, if it can, emerge. My favorite line in the speech: In these two lines Obama has made the essential case: The constitution is the essense of what makes America America. Without it we become only another failed republic tending toward a new tyranny…. as we are now. And that it will take a change in our mindset in order to affect change. He does not promise it will happen. Only, and this is key, that if we, the citizens of America will embrace the notion of citizen once again, that promise that has been America may once again emerge. Maybe even in a more transcendant incarnation. Maybe we can retreat from empire and become less militaristic and more holistic in our foreign affairs? Maybe we can transcend the essential racism that has been in our deep psyche from the beginning, and has been a profound hinderance to our ability to function at the level of our principles. Maybe we can begin the process of being ruled by something more positive, more true, more substantial than fears. Fears stoked by demogauges who know better, and use the knowledge for their own purposes. Maybe we can recover from this financial precipice we find ourselves perched on. But it will take a systemic transformation akin, though different, to the social contracts that came out of the Great Depression. Maybe we can do it before we immerse ourselves in another , more horrible global Great Depression? Or maybe not. But these are the propositions that are before us now. What is certain is that to continue the path currently charted will be to proceed, pell mell, to a certain destruction. It is long past the time for vacuous promises that hardly last longer than the reverberation of the sounds of the words with which they are spoken. It is time for a commitment to a thinking that is different. A thinking that is motivated for a real comprehension of what it is we face, and propelled by a profound and essential desire to live true to “the angles of our better nature.” I know this post needs a good editing, and I will do that in subsequent posts. For now this is meant only as first thoughts on a moment that, to me, was seminal, and which seems to presage what seems to me to be a major choice point that we, as citizens of this country, have now come to. What has happened, even over the last 8 years, has happened. Now what? There is a choice that must be made. And will be made one way or another. Even trying, again, to not choose, or make a default choice of the known; even trying to hold fast to the well worn creeds of the past - our racism, our unsubstantiated beliefs, our formidible ignorance, our memories of world dominance, our lust for war as opposed to transformation, our lazy desire to have someone else figure it all out - just dont mess w/ my football game, or whatever drug of choice used to dull us to the consequences of our national choices; still a choice will be made. I hope we choose well. And for better reasons than we have in the past. Excerpts from Sen. Barack Obama's speech in Portland. As a final note: When have you ever heard a politician in recent times appeal to the constitution in such a profound way. And more, to recognize its authority. And to rever it as something to be upheld in the present tense, not as some historical but anachronistic idea. Not since Lincoln have I heard such language from a presidential contender. “We are now gathered to see if that nation, or any nation so constituted can long endure….”
We will close Guantanamo and restore habeas corpus. And say no to renditions. Because you will have a president who has taught the Constitution and believes the Constitution and who will obey the Constitution of the United States of America. I don’t want to just end the war. I want to end the mindset that got us into the war. I’m tired of the politics of fear that uses 9/11 as a way to scare folks rather than a way to bring us together. I don’t like it in our own party, I don’t like it in the other party.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 181.
#2. To: aristeides (#0)
His votes in the Senate prove he is a liar. But then he is a politician so that is not unexpected. What is unbelievable is that so many people have been taken in by this jug-eared clown.
Does Obama's Constitution contain the 2nd Amendment? I think it is important to establish whether the Constitution he is reading is the same one we are reading.
"I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation" like background checks, he said during a news conference. Obama Supports Individual Gun Rights . You may quarrel with the extent to which he would permit regulation, but he obviously believes the Second Amendment is in the Constitution.
Just one more thing that proves he is full of crap. No amendment "grants individual rights" and the founders must be spinning in their graves at such stupid stuff. They knew they weren't granting anyone any rights, just recognizing some God-given rights people had before there was such a thing as government. Obummer needs a lot more schooling.
Let's read the second amendment, shall we? A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. My reading tells me that the 'free State' may or may not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But, since the founding daddies decided that not infringing on the right helps with the security of the free State, they agreed not to infringe it. Let's see if you can follow me now. If the free State may or may not infringe on the right to bear arms, the free State is effectively granting it, through the second amendment. Because, if the free State finds that it has no need for a well regulated Militia, then the free State may decide to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms and there's nothing God can do about it other than maybe do an earthquake or send over some plague. I hope you understand now. Obama is right and you are not, which is not surprising at all, given his intellectual superiority.
Read post #24. You might learn something (it is within the realm of possibility that even deluded people who support establishment scum are not beyond reach or help).
In what way is your quotation related to the second amendment? I explained it to you, by referring to the words in the second amendment itself that the right to keep and bear arms was tolerated because it served the interests of the State. Nothing to do with God, the pursuit of entertainment or any other freedoms. It's strictly about State security comrade. Shall I quote it to you again? Here it is: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What is it about "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" that has you puzzled? Or is it the "shall not be infringed" that you don't quite get? If the second amendment applied only to some government sanctioned militia it would have been illegal (apparently) for the government to do a part of its function until the second amendment was ratified (which was a bit later than the adoption of the Constitution). Or is it your contention that Congress could arm the "militia" but the "militia" couldn't accept the arms until the second amendment was ratified? And who is the "militia"? At the time the Constitution was written it was every able-bodied man from 18 on up, not a government army. Here is what the Constitution says about the powers of Congress in regard to the militia: To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; (On December 15, 1791, Virginia ratified the remaining ten amendments, and the Bill of Rights officially became part of the Constitution.) So I guess in Obummer land the Congress could arm the militia but the militia would have had to wait a few years to accept the arms. LOL! You guys are kinda funny, or would be if lives and liberty were not at issue.
Alright, I shall explain it to for one last time so that you may understand. The right to arms is granted by the State because it benefits the State. The reason for granting the right (or not infringing upon it) is because it's in the State's interest to do so. It's not because God said that men should carry fire arms but not machine guns. A - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, B is derived from A, not from God. Do you understand now?
You are the one who lacks understanding. People have the right to self defense and had that right since God created the first man. Your arguments are pitiful and make you look like a government worshiper.
It's not my argument. Perhaps you did not notice, but I am quoting the second amendment to the constitution of the US. The amendment states that people are allowed to bear arms because it saves the interests of State security, not because God says so.
You appear to be beyond hope. What is it that baffles you so much about people's rights to defend themselves? They had that right before there was such a thing as an organization known as government.
My friend, I am not baffled. I am only reading the second amendment. You read it and you tell me if you see any reference to God in there.
Whether you believe in God or not, do you or do you not believe in an inherent right to defend your life and your property? Yes or no?
Whether you believe in God or not, do you or do you not believe in an inherent right to defend your life and your property? Yes or no? Again, and again, and again. This discussion is about the second amendment. Those who wrote the second amendment, NOT ME, stated that the right to bear arms was granted because it benefited the security of the state, not because it was a God-given right. Do you want me to quote it again? A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State is the reason stated in the bill of rights. As for what I believe? I believe that you TAKE your rights. No one gives them to you, not even God. And you get to keep them for as long as you exercise them and for as long as you defend them.
Got any direct quotes from ANY of the founders who said they were "granting" anyone any rights? No? I didn't think so. Here is a picture of your hero I thought you might like.
You would talk about anything BUT the second amendment that you are supposed to be discussing. You either lack elementary reading comprehension or intellectual honesty. Which one is it? Possibly both? The second amendment protects the right to bear arms because armed people can help defend the state. Period. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. That's all there is. It doesn't matter what the founding grand mothers or uncles must have said before or after. The language is clear enough not to leave the possibility of a 'God penumbra' or of a 'self defense penumbra'. It is clear that the protection of the right to bear arms in the second amendment is narrow and conditional. I understand that not everyone likes this. I am one of them but I'm not one of those who believe that the constitution and its protections are worth much to begin with.
Again, a right can not be GRANTED by the government, it already exists. As you touch upon, the 2nd Amendment PROTECTS this RIGHT, but the RIGHT is not limited to the purpose of protecting the "free state", but exists by itself on its own. The protection of this right is not dependent upon the existence of a militia, nor the necessity of the free state, as the sentence ends with "shall not be infringed". It doesn't end with "shall not be infringed in regards to the security of the state".
It doesn't because the statement that establishes the security of the state is placed before the 'shall not be infringed' part. Yes, all the rights, responsibilities, shapes, colors, gods... they all exist in the virtual universe of our imagination - that's were 'Platonic love' comes into play. They are all floating in hyperspace, all waiting to be instantiated. The second amendment instantiates the right to bear arms in the context of defending the free State. You can instantiate it for yourself and bear arms regardless of whether the State agrees or not. You may have the abstract right to bear machine guns, I can't see why not but, for as long as the BATF says that you don't have the right, they enter your residence, rough you up, confiscate your machine guns and throw you in jail. The State - and the constitution is the high level manual explaining how the State is suppose to work - says that you may bear arms. Remember, the second amendment CAN be repealed and replaced with one that denies you the right to bear arms. All it takes is for a number of States to agree on it and... goodbye God-given right. If you are looking for God-given rights, you won't find them in the constitution. Those are all State-given rights.
The state is a political entity which has no rights to give anyone. The state has powers, not rights. It cannot give that which it does not have.
The Keynesians will be demanding your vital bodily fluids if you keep making remarks like that.
The Keynesians will be demanding your vital bodily fluids if you keep making remarks like that. Actually, he's right, and this is the very point of just how the govt has usurped so many powers by fiat or decree. Nowhere in the constitution is the word "rights" used in connection to the govt. Govt has powers, only people have rights. Because the 2nd amendment uses the phrase "right of the people" there is no way it can honestly be interpreted to mean "the feds' power to disarm us and stand over us." Otherwise we could be forced to buy federal guns (disarmed people can be taxed without their consent) and pay the soldiers that are quartered in every home who could then kill us if we resist. "Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't."
We're already there, except for the "quartered" part. It might not be long before that happens if Bush/Cheney find some excuse to implement Continuity of Government plans and suspend what's left of the Constitution.
Right. The only problem is I've been reading this stuff since the 70's when I was told (by a fundie preacher's son) that Carter would suspend the congress and be the last elected prez of the US. Despite secret EOs, bills and decrees, the fact is there is still a heck of a lot of wishful thinking by those power mongers, and they just can't realize their nightmares because they have little or no support in their own counsels. And the one reason we haven't had them all thrust upon us just to see what flies (like post-war Italy which has had over 300 govts) is because of the 2nd amendment. It is the final obstacle to global govt, and not one of these "daring progressives" Neocrooks, Trotskyists or corporatists dare to be the one who fires the second shot heard 'round the world. Their own polls of the military apparently aren't very reassuring, and even Blackwater goons would not have attempted to occupy an armed white enclave the way they did post-Katrina black New Orleans.
And the one reason we haven't had them all thrust upon us just to see what flies (like post-war Italy which has had over 300 govts) is because of the 2nd amendment. Exactly right, that is why they are trying as best they can to erode support for gun ownership and to demonize those that legally possess weapons as means of self-defense as opposed to duck hunting. It is the final obstacle to global govt, and not one of these "daring progressives" Neocrooks, Trotskyists or corporatists dare to be the one who fires the second shot heard 'round the world. It won't be them that will do the dirty work. It will be the militarized police of all stripes and flavors that carry out the dirty deed in response to a "national emergency" more than likely, they have the upper hand as to knowing exactly when, how, and why it will happen. Their own polls of the military apparently aren't very reassuring, and even Blackwater goons would not have attempted to occupy an armed white enclave the way they did post-Katrina black New Orleans. Most of the military is spread thin across the globe and/or recovering from multiple extended tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Blackwater would do whatever they're paid to do if the price was right.
When I lived in Los Angeles I became friends (and the bootleg gunsmith) for several LAPD guys, active and retired. Believe me, they had no plans to join their fellows, other agencies and the guardsmen and fight in the streets. In fact they all without exception had escape plans for their wives and children who they intended to join as soon as they could get away from the city and to their retreats, a long way away from the soon-to-be warring armies of blacks and Hispanics. Those cops know all too well that they cannot win and they won't die in the vain attempt. Most cops are only cops because the people respect them and don't shoot them on sight. Damned few would ever report to work again once they know that Americans consider them the enemy. Those commandos who do believe that state might makes right will do so at their own peril. Hell, on New year's Eve and The 4th of July here, there isn't a single prowl car to be seen anywhere around. There are too many citizens who celebrate with live ammo and the cops don't want to present any targets of opportunity to liquored up celebrants. When they do answer calls they fly through the neighborhoods at high speeds without sirens, hoping to avoid drawing attention to themselves. They won't announce this because they don't want the people to know how much they rely on us to discipline ourselves, and how much they fear those nights when Americans feel entitled to shoot their guns in the air. I dare say that if one cop per night was shot, by day four there wouldn't be anyone to answer the calls because their families won't let them report for duty. The only other way to remain above the fray is to do what the German police did-they stayed away from Hitler's actions and were never targeted or punished during or after the war. Imagine what BushCo (or Hillary or whoever) would say when they realize that the police refuse to be the muscle that makes tyranny a reality? I was actually told this by an LAPD sgt. That was his idea of how to avoid being murdered in the event that the feds tried to spring the trap. Believe me, the police have given this a great deal of thought. Given a choice of being respected or killed by their own friends and acquaintances, the majority will opt for the former.
I believe the ordinary street cop might feel the way you describe, but those in militarized units, the various federal, county, state, and yes, local SWAT commandos are salivating over the chance to "off" some "targets".
You may be right and I have no special insight. I believe that if there is a shortage of street cops then the "elite" tactical officers will find themselves in cop cars on street patrol, looking for the safest routes to the donut shops. They won't be of much use if they're back at the barn clustered in armored response vehicles. If big shot lawyers, politicians and judges call the police they will demand a response, and they won't want to hear that the cops are waiting to respond to "important crimes" that require dynamic entries, MP5s and stun grenades and are just too important and well trained to take a rape or carjacking report. On the other hand, if a group of patriots or criminals (they're the same thing to the cops) try to stand their ground like MOVE in Philadelphia, well, the paramilitary MOS cops live for that stuff, and they'll kill the living Hell out of whoever is foolish enough to get cornered in any dwelling that isn't grenade or C4 proof.
There are no replies to Comment # 181. End Trace Mode for Comment # 181.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestOBAMA REPEATS HE WILL CLOSE GITMO, RESTORE HABEAS, AND OBEY THE CONSTITUTION)
#4. To: James Deffenbach (#2)
#7. To: echo5sierra (#4)
The senator, a former constitutional law instructor, said some scholars argue the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees gun ownerships only to militias, but he believes it grants individual gun rights.
#17. To: aristeides (#7)
The senator, a former constitutional law instructor, said some scholars argue the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees gun ownerships only to militias, but he believes it grants individual gun rights.
#22. To: James Deffenbach (#17)
No amendment "grants individual rights" and the founders must be spinning in their graves at such stupid stuff. They knew they weren't granting anyone any rights, just recognizing some God-given rights people had before there was such a thing as government. Obummer needs a lot more schooling.
#25. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#22)
#27. To: James Deffenbach (#25)
#36. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#27)
(Edited)
#42. To: James Deffenbach (#36)
B - the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
#43. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#42)
#45. To: James Deffenbach (#43)
#50. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#45)
It's not my argument. Perhaps you did not notice, but I am quoting the second amendment to the constitution of the US. The amendment states that people are allowed to bear arms because it saves the interests of State security, not because God says so.
#52. To: James Deffenbach (#50)
You appear to be beyond hope. What is it that baffles you so much about people's rights to defend themselves?
#56. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#52)
My friend, I am not baffled. I am only reading the second amendment. You read it and you tell me if you see any reference to God in there.
#96. To: James Deffenbach (#56)
My friend, I am not baffled. I am only reading the second amendment. You read it and you tell me if you see any reference to God in there.
#112. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#96)
Again, and again, and again. This discussion is about the second amendment. Those who wrote the second amendment, NOT ME, stated that the right to bear arms was granted...
#116. To: James Deffenbach (#112)
#118. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#116)
The second amendment protects the right to bear arms because armed people can help defend the state. Period.
#121. To: FormerLurker (#118)
#131. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#121)
If you are looking for God-given rights, you won't find them in the constitution. Those are all State-given rights.
#135. To: James Deffenbach (#131)
The state is a political entity which has no rights to give anyone. The state has powers, not rights. It cannot give that which it does not have.
#137. To: Dakmar, James Deffenbach (#135)
The state is a political entity which has no rights to give anyone. The state has powers, not rights. It cannot give that which it does not have.
#138. To: HOUNDDAWG (#137)
Otherwise we could be forced to buy federal guns (disarmed people can be taxed without their consent) and pay the soldiers that are quartered in every home who could then kill us if we resist.
#156. To: FormerLurker (#138)
We're already there, except for the "quartered" part. It might not be long before that happens if Bush/Cheney find some excuse to implement Continuity of Government plans and suspend what's left of the Constitution.
#158. To: HOUNDDAWG (#156)
#161. To: FormerLurker (#158)
It won't be them that will do the dirty work. It will be the militarized police of all stripes and flavors that carry out the dirty deed in response to a "national emergency" more than likely, they have the upper hand as to knowing exactly when, how, and why it will happen.
#164. To: HOUNDDAWG (#161)
(Edited)
#181. To: FormerLurker (#164)
I believe the ordinary street cop might feel the way you describe, but those in militarized units, the various federal, county, state, and yes, local SWAT commandos are salivating over the chance to "off" some "targets".
Replies to Comment # 181.