OBAMA STATED THAT IN HIS 2ND TERM, HE WILL "FINISH WHAT HE STARTED" ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT??

1. ObamaCare will impose enormous taxation on all working Americans. The confiscation of even more of a person’s net revenue strips away that person’s freedoms. It is as simple as that. When one has less disposable income, one has less choices. When one has less choices, one is less free. The loss of privacy Obamacare will bring is a freedom worse than losing money.

2. Not to mention HR 347 has taken away any protesting that might be effective. Your First Amendment right taken away. It is obviously unconstitutional and its enforcement will violate the First Amendment on three levels: Denying the right to freedom of speech; denying the right to freedom of peaceable assembly; and denying the right to petition the government for change. Loss of free speech.

3. Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn't violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway — and no reasonable expectation that the government isn't tracking your movements.

4. TSA under DHS has taken searches that are intrusive. The Fourth Amendment.

5. Indefinite Detention. No right to hear charges, no right to trial, no right to see an attorney. The bill is called NDAA.

6.Obama signed an executive order on March 16, 2012 which states that the government can seize all property, all food and even your labor in both emergency and non-emergency times. You can be forced to work for the government without pay, and the government can confiscate anything and everything within U.S. borders at the drop of a hat. All Obama has to do is flip a switch and our illusory way of life could come to an end.

7. Obama expanding the executive branch’s rights to wiretap without warrants, he’s taking a giant dump on civil rights/our right to privacy. This comes from the Patriot Act which Obama renewed and expanded.

8. Drones flying over America that can kill a person and have the ability to see through walls. They have more abilities. Fourth Amendment rights play here.

People cannot take time to protest against government tyranny.Why? Because you are not be able to afford to take the time off to do so. You won’t have the money needed to travel, or to buy signage materials, or to pay for lodging. You will be voiceless.
The only mechanism you have left is reliance upon elected representatives who may or may not choose to represent you. As we see now, our government represents only those in power and their lackeys.

I have put here many. There are more but I am not going to invest too much time in people that live in denial. I put it up with the thought that maybe some people will learn things they were unaware of.

Wow DD that's quite a list to address and I don't think I'm up to doing it justice. But #1 is simply not true. It is the insurance industry propaganda they always throw out to scare people into opposing their own best interest. But since the Supreme Court is handling the argument on that law, I'll leave it to them at the moment.

#2 sounds like one of the silly GOP bills that won't ever go through the Senate let alone the President's desk unless the GOP holds the interests of Americans hostage again like they have several times to push rubbish through. So I don't think you can pin that on the President.

#3 ? Government agents have often done horrible things, but what are you holding the President accountable for here. Did he sign an order to put gps on our cars and track us?

#4 You and I agree on the TSA except for who to blame for it. I do blame the creeps that pushed the xray machines to make money off us, but mostly I blame Americans because there doesn't seem to be any line that when crossed will cause us to use our consumer power to put a stop to it. If Americans had in large numbers refused to fly when they started this, it would be gone, but instead people either don't care or they say anything to make us safer (as if it does).

#5 Started under President Bush, and efforts to end it by this President are blocked by our corrupt Congress. Certainly didn't start in 2012.

#6 I read this and it doesn't say what people keep insisting it does. It tells all the departments under the administration to revise and update their emergency procedures and to make sure that they would be able to carry out emergency plans in case of an emergency. Maybe if other administrations had insisted on achievable emergency procedures being prepared fewer people would have suffered and died say in Katrina? There didn't seem to be anything in the document that hasn't been part of previous emergency plans. Anyway if you read the document instead of the editorials about it then we could discuss those specifics.

#7 The Patriot Act is the neocon/Bush baby that was prepared in advance of 9/11 and pushed through while Americans were in shock. It has been renewed a number of times under Bush and Obama, but it would take a giant leap of imagination to blame President Obama for anything to do with the Patriot Act.

#8 The American spying drones sounds like conspiracy theory to me. But drones have been used by our military for some time and their use in Pakistan have increased under President Obama. I don't like anything about them, but then I don't like bombing in general. The Bush/GOP agenda was to increase both the private contractors power within our military and to break down the wall between their work in other countries and what can be done in our country. If you just noticed this alarming trend you must not have been paying attention under the Bush administration. This is Cheney's baby.

So we agree on some issues like Sopa etc., the patriot act, TSA, and partially on drones, but we don't agree on who to blame for them. #1 and #6 are simply not accurate.

Your representatives do not represent you they represent international corporations and the very wealthiest people who buy their elections and it's getting dramatically worse thanks to the conservative members of the Supreme Court.

I disagree that we are too busy to protest tyranny. I think we have become a zombie nation who can't turn off their TVs and radios or do real research. Instead those who care on both sides of the political divide go to websites and stations that will tell them "what their itching ears want to hear". They won't do the simplest forms of effective protest, such as calling their cable companies and cancelling the propaganda megaphone they pay to have piped into their homes. They won't stop flying when they are forced into xray machines. They won't stop consuming hamburgers when they find out that our government's corporate owned FDA has been feeding them dog food for the last ten years and still won't insist on accurate labeling of any additives to our food. The American people are lazy and want a magician to take care of their problems instead of understanding that it is their citizenship responsibility to learn and engage politically.

Our forefathers worked hard and fought to create a truly great nation. They would be so sad to see that we have let the rights and freedoms they endeavored to entrench for us slip away while our international corporate overlords have persuaded us to fight with each other over ideology while they usurp our rights, freedoms, and power.

#2 Yes it did. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/... But it's hardly the bill you described. I am all for protests and demonstrations, but there have always been limitations about when and where people could conduct them. This is very specific to 'Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds' so that protests don't disrupt government business, which sounds reasonable to me. It's short and not difficult to read or understand.

#5 You are correct that I thought you were talking about the patriot act. The House GOP did put crap into the National Defense Authorization Bill (because they know it needs to be passed) that the President objected to and made his objections clear before hand and in a signing statement. The GOP in Congress has been obnoxious and President Obama has to weigh the value of each battle. You and I may disagree with his compromises at times, but it doesn't necessarily make either of us correct and the President mistaken. I guess history will tell where he should have pressed harder.

#8 I'm a little confused about how the forest services, universities, or police departments (that have long used helicopters for the same purposes) using observation drones equates with drone bombings or has anything at all to do with the President or taking anyone rights? Now if they start shooting or bombing Americans that's a different issue, but there are cameras watching us wherever we are in public these days and there has been for a long time. I'm not thrilled about it, but the specifics on the map were not very alarming either.

My links are not related to my comments about obstruction. They are about using actual data instead of silly charts produced by political action groups!

The President's answer to your question:

"In his Signing Statement, President Obama explained: “"I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed . . . I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists."

The rest of that section from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

"Actions from the White House and Senate leading to the vote

The White House threatened to veto the Senate version of the Act,[9] arguing in an executive statement on 17 November 2011 that while "the authorities granted by the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, including the detention authority... are essential to our ability to protect the American people... (and) Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk."
The statement furthermore objected to the mandate for "military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects," which it called inconsistent with "the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets."[9] The White House may now waive the requirement for military custody for some detainees following a review by appointed officials including the Attorney General, the secretaries of state, defense and homeland security, the chairman of the military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff and the director of national intelligence.[26]
During debate within the Senate and before the Act's passage, Senator Mark Udall introduced an amendment interpreted by the ACLU[13] and some news sources[27] as an effort to limit military detention of American citizens indefinitely and without trial. The amendment proposed to strike the section "Detainee Matters" from the bill, and replace section 1021 (then titled 1031) with a provision requiring the Administration to clarify the Executive's authority to detain suspects on the basis of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists.[28] The amendment was rejected by a vote of 60-38 (with 2 abstaining).[29] Udall subsequently voted for the Act in the joint session of Congress that passed it, and though he remained "extremely troubled" by the detainee provisions, he promised to "push Congress to conduct the maximum amount of oversight possible." [27]
The Senate later adopted by a 98 to 1 vote a compromise amendment, based upon a proposal by Senator Dianne Feinstein, which preserves current law concerning U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens detained within the United States.[30] After a Senate-House compromise text explicitly ruled out any limitation of the President's authorities, but also removed the requirement of military detention for terrorism suspects arrested in the United States, the White House issued a statement saying that it would not veto the bill.[31]
While Senator Feinstein and others have argued that current law does not allow the indefinite detention of American citizens, the Obama Administration, Senators Carl Levin and John McCain have argued that it may still allow it"