Obama’s ‘State Secrets’ a Bigger Threat to Our Free Society than Health Care Ever Will


Those in the Tea Parties like to rally against government getting too big and usually cite the bank bailouts, the stimulus package, and the health care reform as tell-tale signs that Obama and the Democrats are leading us into socialism.

It seems that the size of government, regardless of what those programs intend to do or why they were enacted in the first place, trumps the content of the policy.  It’s a simple numbers game for them.  In their mind, the government has peaked that curve that tips us from capitalism into socialism in their own view of the world and that’s that.

But what about the real issue of government getting too big: the deprivation of American civil liberties. And it’s already been happening.  First under Bush with the warrantless wiretapping and torture of terror suspects and now with Obama’s declared execution of an American citizen without any formal charges or due process:

Obama’s now asserting a power so radical — the right to kill American citizens and do so in total secrecy, beyond even the reach of the courts — that it’s “too harsh even for” one of the most far-right War on Terror cheerleading-lawyers in the nation.  But that power is certainly not “too harsh” for the kind-hearted Constitutional Scholar we elected as President, nor for his hordes of all-justifying supporters soon to place themselves to the right of David Rivkin as they explain why this is all perfectly justified.

What’s a more egregious act of a too-powerful government: making everyone have health insurance or the ability for the president to kill Americans with total impunity?  Why aren’t more people on all sides of the political divide beyond outraged at this?!

Is it because Anwar Awlaki – an American citizen – is an alleged (not even accused, because there haven’t been formal charges even) terrorist and traitor?  Unfortunately it seems that a large swath of Americans – including most, if not all, of the GOP – feel that once someone is deemed a terror suspect, they lose all human rights — as evidenced by the support of torture, rendition, and imprisonment for indefinite amounts of time without trial, even for American citizens.

How anyone could be in favor of smaller, less intrusive government yet support any of these powers that the President has given to the executive branch lacks any and all intellectual honesty.  It’s downright baffling and oxymoronic.

It must be problematic for those on the right because their fostered hatred for all things Islam has them believing that all Muslims are “the other,” they’re not truly American – even if they are U.S. citizens – which lets them be okay with this because, after all, it’s not like Obama is attempting to assassinate Bubba Joe Thompson from South Carolina or something.  It’s Anwar Awlaki from New Mexico.  With a name like that and the government saying that he’s a terrorist, well, that’s all the evidence I need!


It’s all good when the President is using those extra-constitutional powers to get the bad guys when the bad guys aren’t you.  But what happens when some radical in your social, ethnic, or religious group ends up doing something awful and all of a sudden you’re lumped in with them and targeted by the government?  What then?  By then it’ll be too far gone to stop.

This is why it’s so dangerous to conflate Islamic, murderous radicals with all Muslims, of which they constitute a tiny minority.  We get these knee-jerk reactions that toss away our civil liberties that we fought so hard to gain centuries ago, all under the guise of security and safety and protecting the American way of life.

Unfortunately, it seems that by having Obama – who was elected to clean up government and end these atrocious violations of the Constitution – continue and expand them, it may be too late to change already.

Photo courtesy of Sydney Lea Steele.



  1. When I see the Muslims around the world out burning their own flags and screaming bloody murder when 19 of them, not including the millions that gave money to make it happen, fly planes into buildings or blow up an hotel somewhere filled with women and children, then and MAYBE then will I take anything they say seriously, but so far I have not seen any outrage from ANY Muslim over their own atrocities, so for now, good night and good by, they will not get MY respect or ear.The fact that you compare them to the regular lunatic out their is so naive and so frightening, If most people agreed with you, our society as free human beings would be over.

    • The millions who gave money? Have you seen Afghanistan or Pakistan lately? Hardly full of millions of people who have enough money to support terrorism.

      If you haven’t seen any Muslim condemning terrorist acts then you have chosen to only hear about the ones who do. Even the most famous Imam, Faisel Rauf, has spoken out against radical Islam — but all you’ll hear about him from those on the right are that he wants to build a mosque on Ground Zero.

      The fact that you treat these lunatics as being even worse than any other worries me. Lunatics are lunatics, no matter what rationale they give. Why aren’t you so against atheists or Christians after Timothy McVeigh – a white, American from Michigan by way of New York – bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma City? Was that the work of a regular lunatic or Muslim lunatic? Is there really a difference aside from their excuses for doing such atrocious acts?

      And how has your view of Muslims helped us? How has it saved our society exactly? By knee-jerk reactions that take our civil liberties and throw them out the window in the name of safety from these lunatics? You say that I’m naive, but you offer nothing but blind and unfocused anger and fear without any true statistics or specifics. It’s all emotion. And demonizing people based simply on your raw emotions is not how I believe a civilized society should respond to conflict.

  2. sigh indeed.

  3. It is right out in front of you Ryan, I am sorry you don’t see it. McVeigh was a lunatic w a friend, not an entire movement.

  4. And by the way, I hate nobody, but when someone comes to my house to rape and pillage I will defend my friends and family, and that is what is happening even if you are to blind to see it.And stop blaming Bush, it is getting really old, deal with what you have now, a dictator and unfortunately an incompetent one.

    • Okay, Magnus. This has gone off the rails. I don’t know where raping and pillaging came into this or my blaming of Bush (which I haven’t brought up once with regard to the conversation on your views of Muslims). It’s that type of unfocused argument that makes these types of discussions nearly pointless. We can’t even have a logical, rational conversation because it comes down to just extremes, hyperbole, and worst case scenarios instead of just looking at what’s actually happening. You haven’t shown any statistics to back up your irrational fears — in fact, you’ve thrown out blatant falsities (the whole millions of people have given money to support terror? Really) and that’s why I think your wrong about Muslims and Islam in general.

      But, apparently we’re just going to have to agree to disagree since we both think the other person is blind to reality. And it doesn’t surprise me — I mean, I did name my blog that for a reason!

  5. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Ryan Mason, Sydney Lea Steele. Sydney Lea Steele said: Obama's 'State Secrets' a Bigger Threat to Our Free Society than Health Care Ever Will: http://wp.me/pqpBU-vm […]

  6. Yes we will have to agree to disagree. Muslims has to give 10 % to a Muslim charity, I don’t believe much of that money goes to that because they would all be living well as suppose to in complete poverty.Trust and respect is earned, and they have not earned any of that what so ever.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: