• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Wouldn’t It Be Something If We Had A President Who Believed In Liberty?
 

Wouldn’t It Be Something If We Had A President Who Believed In Liberty?

on

  • 239 views

Dan Gillmor has an ...

Dan Gillmor has an
absolutely fantastic
“wishful thinking”
speech he’d love to see
from a future
Presidential candidate,
one in which liberty
takes a front seat,
rather than is seen as
something that needs
to be chipped away.
Go read the whole
thing, but here’s a
snippet to suck you in

Statistics

Views

Total Views
239
Views on SlideShare
239
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Wouldn’t It Be Something If We Had A President Who Believed In Liberty? Wouldn’t It Be Something If We Had A President Who Believed In Liberty? Document Transcript

    • Wouldn’t It Be Something If We Had A President Who Believed In Liberty? Mike Masnick Tech Dirt September 7, 2013 Dan Gillmor has an absolutely fantastic “wishful thinking” speech he’d love to see from a future Presidential candidate, one in which liberty takes a front seat, rather than is seen as something that needs to be chipped away. Go read the whole thing, but here’s a snippet to suck you in: When people say, “You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide,” ask them if it’s fine to install cameras in their homes, not just in the living room but the bedroom and bathroom. Ask them if they’d mind wearing a microphone and video camera every day, so others can check on what they’ve said and done. You are guilty of something. I guarantee it. Lawmakers have created countless new crimes and punishments, and allowed law enforcement to extend old laws in dangerous ways. Have you ever told anything short of the absolute truth when filling out an online form to use some service? We can charge you with a felony for that. And, by the way, we don’t need to convict you at trial. If you are a target, we can ruin you financially if you try to defend yourself. This is what we expect in banana republics and police states, not here. And as the surveillance state expands, it will create more targets among people like you. Our political leaders have made a calculation in recent years. They believe you are too frightened, too cowardly, to face the truth – and that you think liberty is much less important than temporary safety. We are human. Terrorism unleashes our deepest fears, and our most lethal fury, even though the risk for any one of us is vanishingly low. We must challenge the fear mongers, and ourselves. Part of the problem we have today is that very few elected officials care about liberty. They care about power, and they believe, incorrectly, that their job involves ditching liberty in an attempt to retain power (which they falsely argue is about “protecting Americans” despite little evidence that the power
    • grab protects anyone but their own interests). It would be an amazing step forward if there were a President who remembered why liberty was such an important issue to our founding fathers. Syria: A Vote Of No-Confidence In The President Jon Rappoport Infowars.com September 7, 2013 As members of Congress reveal that calls to their offices are overwhelmingly against the war, and the House considers it may not vote at all, in order to spare Obama embarrassment, we can see a version of what refusing to vote for a president on election day looks like. It looks like: no-confidence. Every four years, I write about this possibility. Suppose only 19% of eligible voters showed up at the polls. It would speak loudly: The American people no longer trust the major candidates. They no longer trust the charade. They no longer trust the vote-count. They know both major candidates work for the same Globalist machine. No-confidence. Well, here it is. On the issue of the war. I’m not saying the Congress will reject war. They may go ahead and drive the steamroller over the people. But it’s getting a little hairy for them. And remember this. The media play any significant presidential victory as a signal that all his programs and plans are getting a boost. But on the flip side, that means a significant failure, in full view of the country, will register—despite the hype and explanations—as a weakening of his overall standing. Washington DC registers such shifts in power like starving dogs smelling bloody meat. They attack. War is supposed to be such a big deal that it’s a foregone conclusion, if the President wants it. He either sends the planes on his own, or Congress rubber stamps his position first. But this time, it’s different. This time it’s: do we believe the President and his “evidence” and his claim that he’s taking the moral high ground; or don’t we. The question is in plain sight. It’s out there for all to see. The push to war is such an obvious fabrication, only a complete fool or a dyed-in-the-wool Obama believer would opt for attacking Syria. The hypnotic Obama bubble is bursting, even for many of the faith. In my last article on Syria, I pointed out that the super-secret Congressional intell briefing was a sham. It was all generality and no hard evidence. It was basically arm twisting. So what’s left? Nothing. “Do what the President wants you to do.”
    • If Congress says yes, they’ll go down deeper into the dumper with Obama. These barnacles on the body politic can do one thing: assess self-interest and electability. They’re thinking about it. They’re in the pressure cooker. Taking a step back…do you think Obama woke up one day and said, “Hold on here. Assad just used chemical weapons on his own people. I have to take action. I have to punish him.” Of course not. This idea came from somewhere else. It’s been on the table for years, as part of a Middle East strategy to destabilize the whole region. It’s, on one level, a Mossad-CIA plan, with a Saudi twist. On a higher level, it’s a Globalist operation, whose end game is order from chaos. Partition nations into warring ethnic enclaves, disrupt the oil flow, create, therefore, planet-wide depression, and come in behind that to install new fascist dictator-puppets, bringing in international banksters to “re-finance” the whole region and own it from the ground up. Obama is just another renter in the White House, playing the cards he was dealt. He goes along with the show, introducing his own prejudices, like any other President, and takes what he can get. He’s no magic man, and now his juice is running out. A no-confidence vote against war on Syria could, however, expand to mean no-confidence in any White House occupant from the two major parties. Waking up is hard to do, but if the American people keep their eyes open, they’ll see that this Syria escapade is just one more example of an agenda that betrays any sane person’s idea of what America is supposed to be. The only kind of transcendent President, in these times, would be one who, after a year or so in office, would hold a press conference and say, “I’ve learned I’m being run. Men are controlling the office of President. I’m supposed to take their orders. Here is what I know about them. Here are their names. Here is what they told me. Here is how they’re trying to coerce me. This is the story, the real story about what has happened to this country…” To which people might say, “How could a President do that? They’d kill him.” Exactly. That’s why I used the word “transcendent.” Every American President sends soldiers to their deaths, and he kills people in distant countries. To be “transcendent” is to put his own life on the line, too. That should give you some idea about why no-votes signaling no confidence in Presidents are vital. None of them will go as far as necessary to blow the cover on who really runs this nation.
    • Unintended Consequences From Potential Syrian Attack Continue To Grow Bob Adelmann The New American September 7, 2013 Following an informal meeting on Thursday between President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin, Putin made clear that he would continue to provide all manner of military aid to Syria’s President Assad. Such aid would include completing delivery of the S-300 defense missiles ordered by Syria but temporarily delayed over payment issues. The S-300 radar system can simultaneously track up to 100 different targets and deploy as many as 12 missiles in retaliation inside five minutes. Rep. George Holding (R-N.C.) quizzed General Martin Dempsey, chairman of Obama’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, about the dangers of such an action: “We can certainly say that Russia would have options to strike us in that theater in retaliation for us striking their ally.… [What would the United States do] if Russia decided to strike at us…?” Dempsey demurred, saying only that “it wouldn’t be helpful in this setting to speculate about that.” But a retaliatory action of some sort by Russia is one possible consequence of a U.S. attack on Syria. Another possible consequence came to light when the State Department intercepted an order from the head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, Qasem Soleimani, to Shiite militia groups operating in Iraq, telling them that that they must “be prepared to respond with force” if the United States does launch an attack on Syria. An attack on Syria would put the U.S. embassy in Iraq’s capital city, Baghdad, one of the largest American diplomatic facilities in the world, at severe risk. In addition, Iran’s fleet of small, fast, highly maneuverable, and dangerous water craft could target one or more of the American destroyers currently lying off the coast of Syria awaiting instructions from Washington. The U.S. military is taking precautions to aid in the evacuation of American diplomatic compounds in the area, and, according to the Wall Street Journal, has already begun “making preparations … for potential retaliation against U.S. embassies and other interests in the Middle East and North Africa.” Some of those “interests” are located inside Israel, which has promised to retaliate against any attack mounted in response to Obama’s “punitive war” against Assad. Other consequences of Obama’s saber-rattling are beginning to show up in polls taken over the Syrian issue. Just since the middle of July, NBC News, CBS News, and Quinnipiac polls have shown Americans’ increasing unhappiness with Obama’s latest adventure, with the big Mack-daddy of them all, Gallup, showing that 53 percent of those polled disapprove of Obama’s foreign policy moves, while just 40 percent approve, a remarkable negative spread of 13 percent.
    • Such dissent is showing up in Congress as well. On Tuesday the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted underwhelmingly, 10-7, for a watered-down version of a resolution allowing Obama to proceed with his plans to attack Syria, but with just a 60-day window with a possible 30-day extension before requiring him to cease operations. In addition to the demand for “no boots on the ground,” the resolution required the White House to come up with plans to install a negotiated settlement of differences between warring parties at the end of those 60 days. Of the 18 members of the committee, five Republicans and two Democrats voted “no” while liberal Senator Edward Markey (D-Mass.) voted “present.” Liberals in the House of Representatives are also beginning to feel the heat and are starting to see the light. Liberal Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) told reporters, “I am not voting [for] my party. I am not voting [for] my president. I am voting [for] my country.” Echoing that sentiment was Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), a prominent member of the Congressional Black Caucus (who also signed a letter last week urging the president to seek authorization before attacking Syria), who said, “If I had to vote today, I would cast a ‘no’ vote.” Liberal Rep. Rick Nolan (D-Minn.) not only is opposing Obama’s adventure — saying, “I am more convinced than ever that this will be a tragic mistake” — but he is also actively working to round up support against such authorization. The president is sitting on an ice cube that is melting. The Progressive Change Campaign Committee announced the results of its own poll of 55,000 of its members on Wednesday, showing that 73 percent oppose Obama taking action in Syria. It sent a memo to all Democrats in Congress entitled “Your base opposes military action in Syria” and launched a telephone campaign to those members to pressure them to vote “no.” When the Washington Post conducted a “whip count,” it found that of the 371 House members it contacted, 204 of them were either against authorization or leaning that way, while it could find but 24 members in favor. And when interviewed by Newsmax, veteran pollster Matt Towery of Insider/Advantage Polling, remarked: “I think the president is in extraordinarily deep trouble, as are the House members [John Boehner and Eric Cantor] who put their necks out on this.” Obama is finding that there are unintended consequences of his desire to validate his “red line” warning issued last summer by punishing Assad for allegedly murdering more than 1,000 civilians with chemical weapons. He’ll also discover that the quagmire of conflicting interests in the Middle East guarantees him no easy exit without significant damage to his credibility and prestige. In what the Washington Post called one of the “most amazing letter[s] to the editor ever written,” well-known Egyptian blogger The Big Pharaoh explained the president’s predicament:
    • Sir: Iran is backing Assad. Gulf states are against Assad! Assad is against the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against [Egypt’s] General Sisi. But Gulf states are pro-Sisi! Which means they are against the Muslim Brotherhood! Iran is pro-Hamas, but Hamas is backing the Muslim Brotherhood! Obama is backing the Muslim Brotherhood, yet Hamas is against the U.S.! Gulf states are pro-U.S. But Turkey is with Gulf states against Assad; yet Turkey is pro-Muslim Brotherhood against General Sisi. And General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf states! Welcome to the Middle East and have a nice day. With Obama’s resolution barely squeaking by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and with mounting opposition to such unilateral adventurism, there are additional unintended consequences. Wrote Democratic pollster Doug Schoen: Obama will seek to blame the Republicans if he loses the vote on Syria, as he has with issue after issue, time after time. On this occasion, I believe the strategy will fail — if only because as the United States comes to look weaker and weaker, so too will President Obama. I don’t think this will be a history-making failure on Obama’s part, because I think his presidency is basically at a point where it is viewed as ineffective and pretty much at its end anyway. [But] it would be very difficult for Boehner and Cantor to be reelected to leadership in the House, with this sort of revolt on their hands. With the piling up of unintended consequences over Obama’s threatened military action against Syria, there appears to be only one conclusion: Obama’s image as savior and statesman will have been irrevocably shattered, Republican leadership in the House will likely have to be find other work after the 2014 elections, and Syria will be left to its own devices without the military “assistance” of the United States. INFOWARS.COM