Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Priorities, Civil Liberties Vs Contraception

Posted 6 years ago on March 9, 2012, 1:05 a.m. EST by toukarin (488)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

With all due respect to Sandra Fluke and her supporters and all due disrespect to Rush Limbaugh and his supporters.

I realize that being called a slut and prostitute cannot feel good, particularly on a nationwide broadcast. I also realize that losing all your advertisers and getting hung out to dry by erstwhile supporters can be demoralizing.

That said, Get over it.

The American people kinda have more important stuff to deal with. Or at least I would think so.

Eric Holder has said that the President has the legal authority to kill anyone, and we do mean anyone, at anytime and in any place, should he (and a secret panel) agree that the person in question is an 'enemy' of the USA.

Due process is not equivalent to Judicial process? Summary execution decided upon by a secret committee counts as Due Process?

Call me crazy, but you know what that sounds like? A medieval monarchy, where some King basically can sentence anyone to death if he (and his henchmen) feel like it.

The definition of enemy can be extremely vague. The definition of war has been made to be extremely vague. Heck we have wars on terror, drugs, crime, poverty and hunger. With the FBI now 'legally' allowed to entrap people into committing 'terrorism' I just wonder how this can possibly be good for the people.

Given how they sometimes make up laws and ordinances to get OWS style protests off the street, its kinda hard to stay on the right side of the law when protesting against or investigating government apathy and corruption. Its a short hop to "anti-social element" or "radical" from there... and maybe a stones throw to "enemy of the state."

In the words of Benjamin Franklin: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Panettas recent comments about how the military may be deployed unilaterally by the President in support of a coalition of NATO/UN members has basically given up our military up for lease. Now while there are many different interpretations of his words. Let us (just for a moment) consider the worst possible scenario.

According to what he said, if a UN/NATO coalition is formed that wants to go and attack somebody, then the US President is allowed to send in troops without consulting Congress. i.e. without even considering the elected representatives, even if their constituents were protesting against war.

BTW, this gives the representatives deniability and a shot at reelection even though they probably would have gone along with it anyway.

So if the people were against war with anyone, all that the President has to do is to call up some NATO ally, have them push for war via NATO, start up a coalition and go to war. Its well known that most NATO countries are our lapdogs, the UK included.

Now I dont have a fancy quote for this, but I know that it does not sit well with me that the President is going to be able to send our young men and women off to war without authorization from the people. Particularly to wars that are not STRICTLY in the DEFENSE of the American people.

Now I dont know about you, but I think these are things more important that bashing Rush Limbaugh and cheering for Sandra Fluke. Maybe thats just me.



Read the Rules