chasingdownliberty's weblog
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/08/bin.laden.obama/index.html
So let's recap: Obama can clearly order SEALs to invade a sovereign nation (his words) with only 55/45 intelligence that bin Laden was actually there, with no direct evidence (again, his words), and conclude that the benefits outweigh the risks...yet he can't release a simple photo of him from inside the compound (before or after he was shot) because THAT would be too risky??!!
Categories: Foreign Policy, Law, Presidential Race, Democratic Party, US Constitution, Executive Power, Current Events, Philosophy, Miscellany, War/Military, World Affairs
Tags: Obama, Pakistan, Osama, SEALs
Showing comments 1—3 of 3
Posted 05/09/11
huntingtonsteam
Huntington Beach, CA | UBL has finally been declared dead. No body, no pictures, no autopsy, buried at sea within 24 hours.
They put forth no evidence to prove their story is true yet we are asked to believe they are telling the truth.
It is an effort at mass psychology to mass brainwash the voting public with unrelenting propaganda. Obama is up to no good either to use this to invent a tough buy image for himself or for future use to isolate Pakistan and have an excuse to invade them.
The best thing for the US to do is to just leave Afghanistan, declare mission accomplished because UBL is dead. But Soros may want to loot the place like he looted his Jewish neighbors in WW2 when he worked for the NAZIs. |
Posted 05/09/11
MichaelBarry
Sebring, FL | I think that given the frequency with which the federal government has promulgated lies, it is simply not sufficient for Obama to ask us to believe him or any other representative of the executive branch.
Many of us can remember the childhood story of the boy who cried wolf.
The accumulation of lies is so great that no credibility is left at all. The media and the government will portray our doubt and ourselves as conspiracy kooks. But the problem is not with us. After all, who can believe a shameless liar? |
Posted 05/09/11
chasingdownliberty
Theodore, AL | How to filter the government:
step 1: don't believe a word they say
step 2: see step 1 |
You must be logged in to post comments. [Become a member]
|
If Ron Paul makes it to a debate where he gets to pose a question to another candidate, it needs to be directed at Trump. His question needs to be, "Mr. Trump, you once stated that I was unelectable. My question to you is, 'I've been elected to office 11 times. How many times have you been elected?''
I know he would rather try to make a poignant question about foreign policy or financial responsibility, but Dr. Paul MUST realize this: most Americans are so dumbed down they wouldn't know what he was saying (like last time when he questioned McCain). They only care about flashy celebrity types who make them feel good. if the good Congresman plays to this mindset while sticking to his guns, he would win!
Categories: , Campaign For Liberty, Foreign Policy, Finance, Presidential Race, Election News, Republican Party, Current Events, Voting
Tags: campaign, Election, Trump, debate, Primary
No comments yet.
You must be logged in to post comments. [Become a member]
|
A new article posted on yahoo.com news shows that the liberal agenda is alive and well among all the hype of the "victory" in the "war on terror." I'm sure they'll cite reasons of needing "more security" against homegrown terrorists as the excuse.
Categories: Campaign For Liberty, Civil Liberties, Law, Domestic Policy, Republican Party, Democratic Party, US Constitution, Federal Legislation, Current Events, Social Issues, Congress
Tags: gun control, 2nd Amendment
No comments yet.
You must be logged in to post comments. [Become a member]
|
A recent CBS report explains that there may soon be a need to "secure" the so-called "soft targets" such as shopping malls, sporting events, and the like based on the recent announcement of the death of Osama Bin Laden. I know that there have been extensive articles and arguments as to how Bin Laden's death will not lead to less invasions of privacy or personal security, but more. That's not what I am arguing here. My take on this is purely economical.
What better way to add more stress to our already depressed economy than to put roadblocks (literally?) between a shopper and a store? You want to buy groceries? You must first pass through this radiation-emitting body scanner. Go to the market enough times, get irradiated enough times, and then you wind up having to spend your life savings on cancer treatments (that is if the government-run healthcare allows you to get them). The already dying dollar cannot be stretched to such limits for the average household. Consider the fact that they're talking about setting up these checkpoints at major sporting events. How many major cities have a pro sports team that generates revenue on a weekly basis? What happens when the fans decide that being scanned or patted-down is just too high a price to pay for something they could watch from the comfort and privacy of their home? And how long would the sports teams stay there if no one is showing up? Talk about driving suffering local economies into the ground.
Not to mention if they even allow the airport "opt-out" at a shopping mall or grocery story, how many people will willfully endure this just to get a gallon of milk? Consider the embarrassment and humiliation of it all when they 'grope' you for your own 'safety'. Would you want to go through that just to get a new pair of shoes? Most Americans would probably transfer the bulk of their shopping needs to an online retailer (and yes, you can get food delivered this way, but then you must consider the Obama Administration's idea to create an online ID for 'extra security'). The point here is that there is a perfect storm raging against the average American: tightened security (instead of the ignorantly hoped for less), a military that is being strained even further, and a dollar that is all but dead globally. As a former scout, let me give you some advice: "be prepared."
Categories: Civil Liberties, Domestic Policy, Health Freedom, Grassroots News, Current Events, Social Issues, Economy
Tags:
Showing comments 1—2 of 2
Posted 05/05/11
rightsman
Las Vegas,, NV | chasingdownliberty,
The Nazis had checkpoints at railway stations, bus depots, and on the streets. One could be asked for "your papers. please" at any time, any where.
It worked well for them.
Thank you,
Robert Walker |
Posted 05/09/11
chasingdownliberty
Theodore, AL | rightsman,
Yes, they indeed did do that, and weren't they the safest form of government? They were so safe and secure, with nothing to worry about, not even human rights (which are simply a nuisance when it comes to fighting terrorists anyway). |
You must be logged in to post comments. [Become a member]
|
| |
RSS feed