Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

  1. #1

    Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

    Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

    This is a must read before commenting! I can't believe what I am reading! So far the only thing I can say is this is a very dangerous slippery slope.

  2. #2
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,763
    Quote Originally Posted by ColleenC2 View Post
    Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

    This is a must read before commenting! I can't believe what I am reading! So far the only thing I can say is this is a very dangerous slippery slope.
    I've read about this, too.

    It's just incredible; more so that no one seems to care much.

    And to think Nixon was forced from office because he tried to cover up a bugging operation of the DNC!

    PS: Good to have you back with us, Colleen.

  3. #3
    Thanks Eric, but you know I am only good when I am arguing politics and/or religion!

    But to the more serious matters at hand, I think this is so hard to get ones "mind around" this to realize this is not just about "terrorists" this is about all Americans, unbelievable. And I am probably on that "assasination list", Using Obama's own Homeland Security Report of the definition of a terriorist, I think most of Middle/Upper Class Americans can fit one or more of these categories:

    From the report, p.2:
    Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
    From the report. p. 3:
    (U//LES) Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment. From the 2008 election timeframe to the present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential sympathizers.

    U) Exploiting Economic Downturn

    (U//FOUO) Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures. Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish “financial elites.” These “accusatory” tactics are employed to draw new recruits into rightwing extremist groups and further radicalize those already subscribing to extremist beliefs. DHS/I&A assesses this trend is likely to accelerate if the economy is perceived to worsen.

    From the report, p. 5:

    (U//FOUO) Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists, including militias and white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action, rallying point,
    and recruiting tool. Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent.

    p. 7:
    (U) Disgruntled Military Veterans

    (U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.

    p. 8:
    (U//FOUO) DHS/I&A will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in rightwing extremist activity in the United States, with a particular emphasis on the political, economic, and social factors that drive rightwing extremist radicalization.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    I've read about this, too.

    It's just incredible; more so that no one seems to care much.

    And to think Nixon was forced from office because he tried to cover up a bugging operation of the DNC!

    PS: Good to have you back with us, Colleen.
    People better start caring, or 100's of people are just going to go missing in the middle of the night, and then those "right wing extremists" will think the rapture happened. NO the government is just getting rid of their opposition, kinda of like, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Che, etc. etc., Sal Alinsky's rules for radicals are in play here. It has been done before, just not here in America! We all will be running in the streets screeming "where's my vote", just like they did in Iran this past year. I heard one Iranian woman say, "We took our Freedom's for Granted". (she was about my age) She remembered the times before the Ayatollah.

  5. #5
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,763
    All true -

    But, let me remind everyone here that this ball got rolling under The Chimp. It was The Chimp and his Republican enablers who allowed the precedent (legally and otherwise) to be set. I said so at the time and was appalled that these people didn't get that the same precedents (and laws) they cheered for when established and deployed by their Maximum Leader would serve the next one just as well, and possibly be turned against them, too.

    This is what comes of negating the rule of law, of empowering a "decider" (whether it's The Old Chimp or the New Chimp) to arbitrarily seize American citizens, detain them without charge, deny them due process - and so on.

    Had people resisted - and had Bush and Cheney been either thrown out of office or better yet, indicted - for the things they did - then we might not be staring down the barrel of Obama's police state today.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    All true -

    But, let me remind everyone here that this ball got rolling under The Chimp. It was The Chimp and his Republican enablers who allowed the precedent (legally and otherwise) to be set. I said so at the time and was appalled that these people didn't get that the same precedents (and laws) they cheered for when established and deployed by their Maximum Leader would serve the next one just as well, and possibly be turned against them, too.

    This is what comes of negating the rule of law, of empowering a "decider" (whether it's The Old Chimp or the New Chimp) to arbitrarily seize American citizens, detain them without charge, deny them due process - and so on.

    Had people resisted - and had Bush and Cheney been either thrown out of office or better yet, indicted - for the things they did - then we might not be staring down the barrel of Obama's police state today.
    at this point bfd who got this ball rolling!!! It is time to do anything to stop it (when someone is dying of a heart attack, do you think the doctors stop and talk about whether the person should have taken better care of themself)
    Last edited by ColleenC2; 07-22-2010 at 11:09 AM. Reason: add more

  7. #7
    and although many would like to blame Bush, maybe one should go back a little further in History to the days of Woodrow Wilson...

    "Establishment historians have long been rather embarrassed by this veritable reign of terror during and following World War I. For they have a particular problem: At the top of the pyramid of repression was none other than Woodrow Wilson, one of the great triad of "strong" presidents (the others are Lincoln and FDR) who are supposed to have brought America to its present pinnacle of preeminence. As Mencken put it, their attitude has been that Woodrow Wilson was the natural candidate "for the first vacancy in the Trinity."

    World War I: Wilson won reelection on keeping America out of war. A month after he was sworn in, we went to war. So Wilson had to convince and change the minds of people. So he needed propaganda. Look at this historically, then tie it to today:
    • 63 percent want to repeal the health care law. When it passed, 70 percent were against it, but the government pushed it through anyway
    • 56 percent of people oppose paying more for clean energy
    • 64 percent of Americans support the Arizona Immigration law. Yet Eric Holder is getting ready to fight it in court
    They're becoming more and more brazen each and every day.
    Woodrow Wilson faced a similar dilemma: He had to change the minds of the people about World War I. He created the Committee on Public Information, using handpicked propaganda gurus George Creel along with Edward Bernays and the now-revered (but spookiest person ever) Walter Lippman.
    Bernays was great — the Nazis' top propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, kept copies of Bernays writings in his own personal library. Creel sought to make "associates" out of the media and went on a mission to get all Americans to conform to the pro-war viewpoint.
    Bernays in fact said, "It was, of course, the astounding success of propaganda during the war that opened the eyes of the intelligent few in all departments of life to the possibilities of regimenting the public mind. It was only natural, after the war ended, that intelligent persons should ask themselves whether it was not possible to apply a similar technique to the problems of peace."
    Wilson set the table by passing the Espionage Act in 1917 and the Sedition Act in 1918. Those laws empowered government to suppress and punish "disloyalty and subversion" and ban all "seditious" materials from the mail. Seditious materials included anything that might "impugn the motives of the government."
    Hiram Johnson, progressive senator from California, said of the law: "You shall not criticize anything or anybody in the government any longer or you shall go to jail."
    By the end of the war, the organization had 250,000 members who defined their mission as spying on their neighbors, eavesdropping on suspicious conversations, intercepting and opening mail and telegrams of people suspected of disloyalty and reporting to the authorities any evidence of disenchantment with the war effort. Other, similar groups included the National Security League, the American Defense Society and the Boy Spies of America (modeled after the Boy Scouts)."
    http://the-classic-liberal.com/how-w...anged-america/

  8. #8
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,763
    Quote Originally Posted by ColleenC2 View Post
    at this point bfd who got this ball rolling!!! It is time to do anything to stop it (when someone is dying of a heart attack, do you think the doctors stop and talk about whether the person should have taken better care of themself)
    It is a "BFD" because holding people to account is a BFD; it is also a BFD to clang it into the heads of the dull-wits who supported The Chimp that they made a big mistake - and to get them to admit it openly.

    Don't you agree?

  9. #9
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,763
    Certainly, Wilson (and before him, Abe Lincoln) set similar precedents; but The Chimp took the ball much farther down the road. The (so-called) "Patriot" Act and Homeland Security Act are among the two most anti-freedom, anti-rule-of-law edicts to sally forth from Washington in quite some time.

    The Chimp could have responded to 9/11 differently; instead, he used it as a pretext to significantly undermine (if not altogether vitiate) the Bill of Rights and the rule of law, generally.

    More to the point, we would not have Barry Soetero as president - with all that portends - had it not been for "the decider."

    Yet the bastard gets to retire in riches and comfort to his "ranch" in Texas.

    Until this is rectified, doing anything to stop Barry is probably hopeless.

  10. #10
    Your premise that "it is also a BFD to clang it into the heads of the dull-wits who supported The Chimp that they made a big mistake - and to get them to admit it openly."

    How much admiting is good enough? will openily admitting
    change anything? or will it just make you "feel" better, that you were right and others were wrong.

    Your attack on him personally is wholly barbaric and boorish

    btw a good article to read: Remembering With Astonishment Woodrow Wilson’s Reign of Terror in Defense of "Freedom" by Joseph R. Stromberg



  11. #11
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,763
    Quote Originally Posted by ColleenC2 View Post
    Your premise that "it is also a BFD to clang it into the heads of the dull-wits who supported The Chimp that they made a big mistake - and to get them to admit it openly."

    How much admiting is good enough? will openily admitting
    change anything? or will it just make you "feel" better, that you were right and others were wrong.

    Your attack on him personally is wholly barbaric and boorish

    btw a good article to read: Remembering With Astonishment Woodrow Wilson’s Reign of Terror in Defense of "Freedom" by Joseph R. Stromberg

    I'm barbaric?

    I'm not the one who advocated (and enacted) laws that give the Maximum Leader the authority, on his mere say-so, to literally have you or me or anyone else dragooned off the street, thrown in a cell, possibly for years on end without even being charged with any crime - and possibly tortured, too.

    And you're calling me barbaric?

    I've never killed or even harmed anyone; I loathe and despise people who do.

    Bush is directly, personally responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people, including women and children.

    Barry too.

    And I'm barbaric? For expressing perfectly reasonable disgust over this?

    Should I be civil when discussing Stalin or Mao or Hitler, too?

    I don't get this attitude/belief that we owe deference or respect to cretins such as The Chimp or Barry. These are not honest men, trying (with good intentions) to do a hard job. They are fraudsters and worse; enemies of decent, freedom-loving people.

    I treat them precisely as I would a common street thug.

  12. #12
    I'm barbaric?

    I'm not the one who advocated (and enacted) laws that give the Maximum Leader the authority, on his mere say-so, to literally have you or me or anyone else dragooned off the street, thrown in a cell, possibly for years on end without even being charged with any crime - and possibly tortured, too.

    And you're calling me barbaric?

    Your point well taken and duly noted!!

  13. #13
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,763
    Quote Originally Posted by ColleenC2 View Post
    I'm barbaric?

    I'm not the one who advocated (and enacted) laws that give the Maximum Leader the authority, on his mere say-so, to literally have you or me or anyone else dragooned off the street, thrown in a cell, possibly for years on end without even being charged with any crime - and possibly tortured, too.

    And you're calling me barbaric?

    Your point well taken and duly noted!!
    Thank you!

    I don't do this to be obnoxious; I do it because such policies/actions are obnoxious and deeply offensive to me.

    We all need to reject and denounce this stuff, whether it's "our guy" (as in the case of Bush supporters) or the "other guy" (Obama, etc.).

    Brutal, lawless policies and so on are what they are irrespective of party dressing. And it's especially incumbent upon those of us who do believe in human liberty to really go after our alleged leaders when they go off the path.

    My party, right or wrong is just as bad as my country, right or wrong!

Similar Threads

  1. Obama's US Assassination Program
    By Eric in forum What happened to our liberty?
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-28-2010, 11:33 PM
  2. From Citizen to Serf in 200 Years
    By Eric in forum What happened to our liberty?
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-26-2009, 07:54 AM
  3. Bill Hicks (comedian) on JFK assassination
    By Eric in forum Motor Mouth
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-11-2009, 07:32 AM
  4. Nissan-Chrysler partnership confirmed!
    By Eric in forum Automotive News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-16-2008, 06:03 AM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-28-2007, 01:04 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •