I have never agreed with Rachel Maddow, but she's absolutely right in much of this commentary, which I'm sure is lighting up talk radio today.
The problems with this alarming speech after watching Maddow's highlights are:
1. Obama wants to create a new "legal regime" outside the current one.
2. He introduces the prospect of indefinite PROLONGED detention without any hearing or traditional legal structures.
3. Much of what Obama complains about with Bush's administration he's not only continued but indeed advanced.
4. Obama himself has used the weapon of "fear" as no other president in modern memory, though he complains it was true of Bush.
5. Obama complains about "tainted" evidence which would prevent the government from convicting terrorists. Is this code language for lack of evidence?
6. Obama says his administration is already "reshaping" the "standards that apply" for those who "fall into" the category of "prolonged detention." What does that mean?
7. Obama magnanimously claims it won't be the decision of "one man," yet we already know that he's got a KILL list which only he approves.
8. We already know that law enforcement agencies are targeting sheriffs around the country who have publicly said that will not enforce gun seizure laws.
9. Is this the "civilian security force as "strong, well-funded and powerful" as the army" he promised in 2008 to create? One can only imagine an army of ACORN militants ready to investigate, condemn and punish those with whom they disagree.
In this speech, Obama scorns the Bush administration for "straying" from American principles, yet fails to mention that he has pretty much continued every Bush policy.
Where does he differ as far as liberty goes? Nowhere except to be worse than W in abridging our freedom.
Now let's imagine this. Already FOIA documents have revealed that the IRS-- not DHS or FBI--searches your emails and digital communications with abandon, never worrying about such petty legal documents as warrants.
When the highway patrol is sending lists of CCW permit owners to "federal authorities," is it cause for alarm? Everything's digitized, eh?
In New York, somehow magically the government knew a man was on anti-anxiety medication and snatch his guns and pistol , an action that was revoked today with the explanation that, after the uproar, it was "a mistake."
Section 9.46 of the NY SAFE Act is the section mental health professionals and others are concerned could lead to some persons not seeking mental health and/or the snatching of weapons.
With the digitization of medical records and the easy access anyone in positions of state and federal authority seem to have to citizen records, even this so-called "mistake" and the language that may have inspired it does not portend well for the future.
Release your medical records to the public to damage a reputation, regardless of the HIPAA laws? Or even deny a medical procedural request because of your publicly listed party affiliation?
Another problem with Obama's casual "patriotic" speech is the problem of who gets to determine who and what poses a "threat."
We already know that Christians who "take the Bible literally" and "evangelicals" are targets of DHS as possible threats and army presentations have labeled Christians and Catholics as extremists.
Do we REALLY think Obama is after real terrorists when he's shifting millions of American dollars over to hot spots like Egypt and Syria? $450 million tanks and fighter jets to Egypt? $400 million to the Palestinians?
One hardly thinks the POTUS who easily defies American law will have trouble creating his own brand of "enemy" of the US.
Personally I don't like conspiracy theories or inflammatory language but this is scary, scary stuff.