President Obama has issued an alarming executive order that would allow the government to crackdown of U.S. citizens and other individuals who “indirectly” oppose U.S.-backed Yemeni President, Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi. Hadi was the right-hand man to the prior dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh and won an “election” composed only of himself. We, of course, immediately embraced Hadi and the Obama Administration is now threatening anyone who opposes him, including our own citizens. The Administration appears delighted that, while opponents are not welcomed in the country, American drones are.
The executive order Wednesday gives the Treasury Department authority to freeze the U.S.-based assets of anyone who “obstructs” the political transition in Yemen, including U.S. citizens who are “engaged in acts that directly or indirectly threaten the peace, security or stability of Yemen, such as acts that obstruct the implementation of the Nov. 23, 2011, agreement between the Government of Yemen and those in opposition to it, which provides for a peaceful transition of power . . . or that obstruct the political process in Yemen.” One Obama official is quoted as saying that the order is meant to deter people opposing the regime to “make clear to those who are even thinking of spoiling the transition” to think again. . . .” That would be called a chilling effect designed to deter opponents of the regime.
One of the greatest threats posed by this order is that it places such actions in the the administrative law process on the agency level. Citizens are given fewer protections in that process and agencies given absurd levels of deference by federal courts. Various organizations have complained about that process in being detailed as aiders or abettors of terrorism. Glenn Greenwald has an article below discussing the new order.
The executive order appears to fall into that ever-widening category of extreme presidential powers claimed under the “Trust me I am Obama” rationale. Once again, Democrats and liberals are silent despite the fact that they would be outraged if this had been done by Bush. Once again, Obama’s failure to respect constitutional principles are excused by saying that others like Romney would be worse. This short-sighted and relativistic approach by Obama supporters will likely come back and haunt them when later presidents not of their liking invoking the same authoritarian measures created by Obama. What will be said then? These were really just for Obama? If Obama can do this with Yemen, how about critics of Israel or Saudi Arabia? You can question the factual need to support “stability” in these countries, but the question is one of the authority to order it. Once the authority is accepted, the rest is left to the discretion of the President, whoever that may be.
Note that the government already has ample means to move against any terrorist organizations and a material support law that has been denounced as so ill-defined as to cover the most minor interaction or contact with targeted groups. It also has laws barring efforts of citizens to lend military or violent means to support opposition to the regime. This executive order was intentionally written broadly to capture areas that are presumed to be protected like free speech.
While Section 11 contains vague boilerplate language, the obvious thrust of the law is to allow for greater government action against opponents to the Yemeni government than already exists on the books. Note that such opponents would not be terrorists to be nailed under this law, just indirect threats to stability.
The Administration has not shown how the existing laws would not be entirely ample in combatting unlawful activities by U.S. citizens and others in the country. Now however you can have your property seized and pulled into a government investigation if you “materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services” that are viewed by Obama officials of “indirectly” threatening or obstructing the “stability” of the Yemeni government. Of course, nothing is more stable than an election with only one candidate — an election praised by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was a great triumph for democracy.
This executive order was written by people without a scintilla of concern for free speech or due process. It also reflects a perception of immunity by the Obama Administration when it comes to civil liberties.
It appears that a man elected in an election of one fits nicely into our plans for fighting Al Qaeda. As a result, things like the first amendment in the United States are deemed as expendable by our own supreme leader.
Here is the executive order:
EXECUTIVE ORDER
– – – – – – –
BLOCKING PROPERTY OF PERSONS THREATENING
THE PEACE, SECURITY, OR STABILITY OF YEMENBy the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, find that the actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Yemen and others threaten Yemen’s peace, security, and stability, including by obstructing the implementation of the agreement of November 23, 2011, between the Government of Yemen and those in opposition to it, which provides for a peaceful transition of power that meets the legitimate demands and aspirations of the Yemeni people for change, and by obstructing the political process in Yemen. I further find that these actions constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat. I hereby order:
Section 1. All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, including any foreign branch, of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to:
(a) have engaged in acts that directly or indirectly threaten the peace, security, or stability of Yemen, such as acts that obstruct the implementation of the agreement of November 23, 2011, between the Government of Yemen and those in opposition to it, which provides for a peaceful transition of power in Yemen, or that obstruct the political process in Yemen;
(b) be a political or military leader of an entity that has engaged in the acts described in subsection (a) of this section;
(c) have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, the acts described in subsection (a) of this section or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(d) be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
Sec. 2. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1 of this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.
Sec. 3. The prohibitions in section 1 of this order include but are not limited to:
(a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and
(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
Sec. 4. The prohibitions in section 1 of this order apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date of this order.
Sec. 5. Nothing in section 1 of this order shall prohibit transactions for the conduct of the official business of the United States Government by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof.
Sec. 6. (a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
Sec. 7. For the purposes of this order:
(a) the term “person” means an individual or entity;
(b) the term “entity” means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and
(c) the term “United States person” means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.
Sec. 8. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that
because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1 of this order.
Sec. 9. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order.
Sec. 10. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to submit the recurring and final reports to the Congress on the national emergency declared in this order, consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) and section 204(c) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)).
Sec. 11. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
BARACK OBAMA
Source: Washington Post and Salon
Regarding “a couple of items”….
1) http://www.salon.com/2012/05/19/the_2002_political_climate/singleton/ (from which the previous excerpt was drawn)
2) http://www.salon.com/2012/05/17/this_week_in_sociopaths/singleton/
(This week in sociopaths, Profiling sociopaths and psychopaths in the news
By Merrill Markoe, formerly with the David Letterman show)
“Anything’s justified. We can nibble around the edges of debate but, basically, our mini-polarities are swallowed in the great anti-terror juggernaut and surveillance state in which all excess in absolved, and dissent marginalized, in the name of patriotism.” -DonS
Well said.
A couple of items that might be of interest:
Saturday, May 19, 2012 06:39 PM EDT
The 2002 political climate
CNN’s Connie Chung told US citizen Martina Navratilova to go back to Czechoslovakia rather than complain so much
By Glenn Greenwald
Excerpt:
Here’s something I accidentally just found when I was searching for something else: it’s from a July 17, 2002, interview of tennis legend Martina Navratilova, who had been a naturalized U.S. citizen at that point for more than 20 years. She was interviewed by Connie Chung, then the host of a prime-time CNN program, Connie Chung Tonight, where she played the role of neutral journalist. This was the very first question-and-answer exchange; it’s just remarkable:
INTRO [announcer]: Life after center court turns hot. Tennis legend Martina Navratilova, is she anti-American? Tonight, Martina sets the record straight with Connie. . . .
CHUNG [intro]: It’s not the game that’s now getting Navratilova in the news again. The very personal admission to a paper that she wants to adopt a child and some very damaging quotes in German newspaper allegedly made by the tennis phenom. . . . All of this has pitted Navratilova against the country that has given her so much.
CHUNG [interview starts]: All right. I’m going to read what was said, a quote from that German newspaper. Quote: “The most absurd part of my escape from the unjust system is that I have exchanged one system that suppresses free opinion for another. The Republicans in the U.S. manipulate public opinion and sweep controversial issues under the table. It’s depressing. Decisions in America are based solely on the question of how much money will come out of it and not on the questions of how much health, morals or environment suffer as a result.”
So, is that accurate? . . . .
NAVRATILOVA: Well, obviously, I’m not saying this is a communist system, but I think we’re having — after 9/11, there’s a big centralization of power. President Bush is having more and more power. John Ashcroft is having more and more power. Americans are losing their personal rights left and right. I mean, the ACLU is up in arms about all of the stuff that’s going on right now. . . .
CHUNG: Can I be honest with you? I can tell you that when I read this, I have to tell you that I thought it was un-American, unpatriotic. I wanted to say, go back to Czechoslovakia. You know, if you don’t like it here, this a country that gave you so much, gave you the freedom to do what you want.
NAVRATILOVA: And I’m giving it back. This is why I speak out. When I see something that I don’t like, I’m going to speak out because you can do that here. And again, I feel there are too many things happening that are taking our rights away. (and the article continues)
Malisha, lol, I wasn’t trying sarcasm! If I did know the guidebook, I think I would share! But, I agree you’re right. It is about finding one’s own way and, yes, with the help of others, assuming one has a basic critical mind and ability to recognize charlatans.
DonS, Believe me, I wasn’t challenging you at all. I just wanted some GUIDANCE so I could find my own way!
Really OT:
Not only do they want your liberty, they want your money, all of it.
” “Catfood Clinton” rides again—at a Pete Peterson summit to kill Social Security”
http://www.americablog.com/2012/05/catfood-clinton-rides-againat-pete.html
Elaine, OT? If only we knew what the topic is. Broadly, one might say we are looking at actions and reactions based on the construct “war on terror”.. And that may be the great emotional divide — between ideas of what a democracy is and how it behaves.– in discussion. Some claim they do not want to see another WTC catastrophe (as if anyone does) , and that’s the end of the discussion. Anything’s justified. We can nibble around the edges of debate but, basically, our mini-polarities are swallowed in the great anti-terror juggernaut and surveillance state in which all excess in absolved, and dissent marginalized, in the name of patriotism.
Off Topic;
Drone filmmaker denied visa
A Pakistani student is unable to accept his film festival award because he is denied the right to enter the U.S.
BY GLENN GREENWALD
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/18/drone_filmmaker_denied_visa/singleton/
Excerpt:
Muhammad Danish Qasim is a Pakistani student at Iqra University’s Media Science and is also a filmmaker. This year, Qasim released a short film entitled The Other Side, a 20-minute narrative that “revolves around the idea of assessing social, psychological and economical effects of drones on the people in tribal areas of Pakistan.” A two-minute video trailer of the film is embedded below. The Express Tribune provided this summary of the film, including an interview with Qasim:
The Other Side revolves around a school-going child in Miranshah, the capital of North Waziristan. The child’s neighborhood gets bombed after the people of the region are suspected for some notorious activities. He ends up losing all of his loved ones during the bombing and later becomes part of an established terrorists group who exploit his loss and innocence for their own interests.
On the reasons for picking such a sensitive topic, the film-maker said, “Most of the films being made right now are based on social issues, so we picked up an issue of international importance which is the abrogation of our national space by foreign countries.”
When asked how this film on terrorism will be different from all the others that have been released since 9/11, he said, “The film takes the audience very close to the damage caused by drone attacks. I have tried my best to connect all the dots that lead to a drone attack and have shot the prevailing aftermath of such attacks in a very realistic and raw manner.”
In particular, “the film identifies the problems faced by families who have become victims of drone missiles, and it unearths the line of action which terrorist groups adopt to use victimised families for their vested interests.” In other words, it depicts the tragedy of civilian deaths, and documents how those deaths are then successfully exploited by actual Terrorists for recruitment purposes.
We can’t have the U.S. public learning about any of that. In April, Qasim was selected as the winner of the Audience Award for Best International Film at the 2012 National Film Festival For Talented Youth, held annually in Seattle, Washington. Qasim, however, along with his co-producers, were prevented from traveling to the U.S. to accept their award and showcase their film because their request for a visa to travel to the U.S. was denied. The Tribune reported: “Despite being chosen for the award, the filmmakers were unable to attend the award ceremony as their visa applications were rejected twice. ’If we got the visa then it would have been easy for us to frame our point of view in front of the other selected youth filmmakers,’ Qasim said.” And:
“I believe the most probable reason for the visa denial was the sensitive subject of my film,” says Qasim. He recalls that when the visa officer asked about the subject matter of the film, he suggested making changes in the letter issued by his University upon hearing that the film dealt with terrorism and drone attacks.
“Although I made the changes to the letter according to the visa officer’s recommendation, they still rejected the visa and did not disclose the reason for it,” says a disappointed Qasim.
According to Qasim, “NFFTY is considered to be the biggest event for young film-makers of the world. Film schools as well as potential Hollywood producers attend the event in order to interact with young, talented film-makers. I’m disappointed that my team, especially my crew members Atiqullah, Ali Raza Mukhtar Ali and Waqas Waheed Awan, who made the film possible with their hard work and support, missed out on a major opportunity to represent Pakistan on an international forum.”
Although it’s not proven why the visa was denied — the U.S. government, needless to say, refuses to comment on visa denials — this case is similar to that of Shahzad Akbar, a Pakistani lawyer who had sued the CIA on behalf of civilian drone victims and was also denied a visa to travel to the U.S. to attend last month’s Drone Summit in Washington; the Obama administration relented and permitted him to travel to the U.S. only once a serious outcry arose. The Bush administration also routinely excluded Muslim critics of U.S. foreign policy from entering the U.S.
Banning filmmakers, lawyers, political activists, and scholars from entering your country out of fear of their criticisms is the behavior of an insecure, oppressive nation. It’s also natural behavior for political leaders eager to maintain an impenetrable wall of secrecy around their conduct.
Malisha, had to go back and check the context. I can only say, ahem, how kind of you! Although angels aren’t all they’re cracked up to be, not having to cope with their animal instincts and all.
DonS, how did you get on the head of a pin?
Karl F., Brooklin Bridge, Jill……one and the same or a movement. On that note I need to go do what I am supposed to be doing today.
Mike S.,
Call me whatever you want but it is no longer feasible for a person who cares about our Constitution, war, murder and torture to think Obama isn’t doing things which are wrong. At some point, Obamney supporters must come to terms with reality, face it and be brave enough to join with others who oppose these horrors.
Your own post was about fear. I believe you are terrified. You are terrified of a Republican president doing the things that a Democratic president is currently engaged in. With so much fear, you are willing to give up your rights for what you consider “safety”. You will not be safe, nor will you or anyone else have rights. If you want to trade out your own rights that is your choice. What I wish you would see is that you are giving up everyone else’s rights as well. It is way past time to be truthful and I won’t lie to you even if you call me names.
Look up Juan Cole about this. There is a reason that the president of Yemen is the first person we are not supposed to have any questions about. This will be followed by more edits to silence dissent. There is a world wide use of “law” and force to silence dissent. If you think this is only about Obamney and the US you will be missing a much more important picture.
“At some point, Obamney supporters must come to terms with reality, face it and be brave enough to join with others who oppose these horrors.”
Jill,
Just what sort of “bravery” are you exhibiting? Also what sort of opposition are you mounting? What is the name of your movement? You are neither fearless, nor brave. You are just an opinionated purist, who lacks the capability to accept that anyone but yourself has integrity. You are as much an elitist as the 1% and you are too obtuse to understand that elitist thinking comes in all forms, from all parts of the political spectrum.
“Your own post was about fear. I believe you are terrified.”
If you are referring to my post this week it wasn’t about terror, or fear of anything else than uncertainty. You of course wouldn’t get that because you have no uncertainty, so convinced are you of your “moral” high-ground that you can only view the world via your own lenses of pre-judgment.
You pronounce judgment on others, yet lack any sense of empathy and compassion for most of humanity. To me you cry “crocodile” tears at the tragedy of this world, but are more interested in your preening purity. As far as courage goes, your entire history here has been one of playing the victim when ever anyone disagrees with you. You have no moral courage because you have proven time and again that you can dish it out, but you can’t take it.
How’s Buddy Roehmer working out for you?
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/articles/20120420
NSA spying operation targeting journalists focused but massive
publication date: Apr 20, 2012
National Security Agency (NSA) sources have reported the following to WMR:
The NSA has conducted a targeted but massive surveillance operation against certain journalists who have routinely exposed NSA’s illegal domestic communication surveillance program, code named STELLAR WIND.
NSA has, for some time, kept tabs on journalists who wrote about the communication spying agency. In its embryonic stage, the journalist surveillance system, originally code-named FIRSTFRUITS, was basically a clipping service that provided NSA and CIA analysts with copies of newspaper, magazine, and Internet articles that mentioned one or both of the two agencies.
Shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, Vice President Dick Cheney’s legal counsel, David Addington, visited NSA headquarters at Fort Meade, Maryland with a list of individuals he wanted NSA to spy on and provide Cheney’s office with transcripts of phone calls and e-mails. From that visit, STELLAR WIND was developed as an illegal surveillance system targeting journalists, members of Congress, and other “persons of interest” for the White House.
In March 2004, Attorney General John Ashcroft ruled STELLAR WIND illegal but the next day he became critically ill with pancreatitis. When White House chief of staff Andrew Card and White House counsel Alberto Gonzales visited Ashcroft in his hospital room to demand he sign off on the program, Ashcroft deferred to his deputy James Comey and FBI director Robert Mueller who both refused to authorize the program. George W. Bush overruled Ashcroft, Comey, and Mueller and continued to authorize STELLAR WIND. President Obama has continued to authorize STELLAR WIND, according to NSA sources.
Although STELLAR WIND continues to generally target journalists who write about intelligence and national security matters, NSA has concentrated its efforts on three journalists, in particular. They are New York Times’ reporter and author of State of War James Risen, journalist and author of The Puzzle Palace and Body of Secrets James Bamford, and WMR editor Wayne Madsen. Risen continues to fight a grand jury subpoena to testify about his sources on Operation Merlin, a CIA program to deliver flawed nuclear design technology to Iran. Former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling has been indicted and charged under the Espionage Act for revealing details of the program. Risen’s subpoena was quashed by Judge Louise Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, but the Obama administration has appealed the decision to the U.S. Appeals Court for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia and oral arguments in the case are scheduled for next month.
NSA sources report: Wayne Madsen’s e-mails and phone conversations back to 2002 are in the possession of the NSA. The phone calls range from those with his mother to those with government sources. All passwords to social networking websites, banks, phone companies, credit card companies, and his website, WayneMadsenReport, are held by the NSA. The data includes the list of his subscribers to WayneMadsenReport, as well. [So now I have a file with NSA.] The same level of detailed data is maintained on Risen and Bamford.
Personal observation: It is very clear that a number of individuals who contacted this editor over the past several years to pass on information were stymied at the last minute from maintaining contact. These individuals were willing to provide information on: the movement and temporary “loss” of nuclear weapons from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana in 2007 coupled with the murder of Air Force special operation Captain John Frueh in Washington state; documents proving Canadian military involvement in torture of detainees in Afghanistan; information on the 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Aden harbor being a “false flag” attack; evidence that there were no human remains found at the crash site of United flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania; and evidence showing that Harvard virologist Dr. Don Wiley, who was investigating the initial anthrax attacks, was murdered in Memphis in November 2001.
In all these cases, individuals who contacted this editor and were willing to provide information ceased contact after their initial phone calls, letters, and email.
NSA also maintains mail covers on addresses of certain individuals in the event that contact is made via the U.S. Postal Service or private companies such as FedEx or DHL.
FIRSTFRUITS, which is now known by a different cover name, contains, in addition to articles, complete transcripts of phone calls, e-mails, faxes, and letters, in addition to the numbers and names of all individuals who have been in contact with targeted journalists. In addition to the three high priority targets — Risen, Bamford, and Madsen — other journalists who are a subject of the NSA warrantless surveillance include Bill Gertz of The Washington Times, Eric Lichtblau and Scott Shane of The New York Times, Siobhan Gorman, formerly of The Baltimore Sun and now with The Wall Street Journal, and Seymour Hersh with The New Yorker.
So far, the Obama administration has brought Espionage Act charges against six individuals for contact with the media. They are charged with providing classified information to journalists and “aiding the enemy.”
However, the Justice Department may take an even more draconian turn. This editor has heard from NSA insiders that there is a willingness by some quarters to charge two of the three key targeted journalists under the Espionage Act. Since Bamford and Madsen both once worked at NSA and both signed non-disclosure agreements — Bamford in the 1960s and Madsen in the mid-1980s — there has been talk of indicting them also for violations of the Espionage Act, along with their sources in the intelligence community.
DonS,
George Orwell famously said, “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.”
I say, “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a bunch of guys with boots on eventually getting broken ankles.”
That’s a fault in the reasoning of oppressors. They think their actions will have perpetuity. In reality, oppression is like most things in nature: cyclical. This is also the reason that the cost of liberty and justice is constant vigilance.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/how-important-are-civil-liberties-to-obama-supporters/257288/ A more rational discussion of the same thing ………
Obama is desperately trying to avoid a war with Iran. Just look at the plummeting oil prices. Jill makes some valid points about Obama and civil liberties, but then goes over the top and launches an attack. It makes me want to head to the Obama phone bank not stay home and protest him. There really seems to be a push to get the republicans back in control of everything.
Meanwhile, at home:
FDL: “Activists Charged With Providing Material Support for Terrorism Ahead of NATO Summit”
http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/05/19/three-activists-arrested-in-night-raid-still-in-jail-ahead-of-nato-summit/
“It is important to recall that back in 2008, prior to the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, eight activists were preemptively raided and ultimately charged with “conspiracy to riot in furtherance of terrorism.” The national security state has a script, and when it comes to “National Special Security Events,” they stick to that script pretty well.”
———————————–
Do these idiots, and I mean the police, and whoever is coordinating all this at DOJ, actually believe that stepping on the people’s throats will silence those who are intent on protesting, and snuff out protest? About as well as in Iraq or Afghanistan, I’d say.
The legacy of the Tea Party is preferable.
First, no president who suspends the rule of law in any area, let alone the number of areas Obama has, can be considered “benevolent”. These actions are the actions of someone who is malevolent.
This action tells me the military elites are coming out as the nation’s rulers. Obama is a vain man. After all he himself claimed he is our fourth best president ever! People with that level of vanity seldom concern themselves with the protection of others’ reputation.
Obama is a very cruel person, but again, all the people he hangs out with are extraordinarily cruel and evil so why worry about the one evil guy in Yemen? No, this is the military.
The US military is supporting Hadi all the way. He has allowed us to fly our drones and take what we need. This is also a great place to launch attacks against Iran. In return the US military props Hadi up, takes out his enemies and kills civilians by the score.
As the US military elites aim to attack Iran, they need to silence dissent. Indeed they are silencing dissent in every way. Right now in Chicago 47 Federal agencies are aligned against peaceful protesters. Some people who have been arrested have not yet been seen since their arrest. The army and the Israeli army have a hand in the coordinated actions against peaceful protesters.
Only citizens who simply want to “believe” in Obama above all else are able to overlook/deny the consistent and brutal suppression of American citizen’s rights and the amazing amount of war this nation is pouring out into the world. I am asking believers to stop this denial. You are helping cruelty and wrong doing against your fellow citizens and other people of the world. Surely, you do not wish this to be your legacy to others.
“Only citizens who simply want to “believe” in Obama above all else are able to overlook/deny the consistent and brutal suppression of American citizen’s rights and the amazing amount of war this nation is pouring out into the world. I am asking believers to stop this denial. You are helping cruelty and wrong doing against your fellow citizens and other people of the world. Surely, you do not wish this to be your legacy to others.”
Jill,
There you go again. You are consistently the most politically elitist snob who is a regular here. You are incapable of evaluating anybody’s opinion that doesn’t jibe with your conception of political ethics and morality. As with Right Wing Authoritarians who I wrote about here: http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/21/the-authoritarians-a-book-review-and-book/ , you are incapable of comprehending any viewpoint which is not your own. This makes everything you do politically fruitless because you cannot rally people to your cause by adopting the cant of moral superiority which places yourself on a pedestal of purity above them. I have time and again expressed not only disagreement with much that the President has done, but I’ve shown in my writings that my view is far more dystopian than most regulars here: http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/17/a-real-history-of-the-last-sixty-two-years/. I refuse to again explain the reasons for my voting, simply because you are incapable of understanding nuance. Please do consider this to be an attack. However, before you proceed with your usual defense of playing victim, consider your statement above called forth this diatribe from me, since your statement was an attack on all of us here who have said we would vote for Obama.
“Look forward, not backward, eh? I think not. At least not until someone is held accountable.”
Now if we could only get millions of voters to convince those clowns in Congress and the White House that we are very serious about our accounting, Don.
Michael M., your thanks are welcome, but unnecessary of course. The vehicle we both ride in, no matter what our specific history, leads us to recognize the very sick disease rampant in our country.
And, absolutely, deny Vietnam, the most accurate template for exposing the gigantic coverup our government has run to protect and perpetuate massive incompetence, greed, graft, and indeed, treason that has been acquiesced to by, now, generations of initiate.
Look forward, not backward, eh? I think not. At least not until someone is held accountable.