by Jack
“None can love freedom heartily, but good men. The rest love not freedom, but license, which never had more scope, or more indulgence than under tyrants. Hence is it, that tyrants are not often offended, nor stand much in doubt of bad men, as being all naturally servile; but in whom virtue and true worth most is eminent, them they fear in earnest.” John Milton 1649
Milton’s quote resonates as loudly today as it did in the 1600’s and especially now in the Ukraine. A protest over their 
leadership moving closer to Moscow and away from the west and freedom quickly morphed into a life and death struggle. This is now a full on revolt.
It’s hard for us to imagine how middle-class people like us, armed with rocks and bricks, could be motivated to stand up to a quasi-military police force armed with automatic rifles and snipers poised to kill. Yet, we are the children of a violent rebellion. Our ancestors did the same thing and they fought against the worlds most professional army and won! But, the real irony here is how we’ve lost sight of that heritage. We’ve allowed ourselves to be acclimated to the Nanny State with all it’s rules, regulations, laws, wealth shifting and safety nets our founders could never conceive. Compare our lives to how the patriots in Kiev are spending theirs. It makes me sad and ashamed to see what we’ve become.
And now for breaking news in CA! Poll shows Californian’s by a 2/3rds margin approve of government placing a warning label on soft drinks. SB1000 would require the warning on the front of all beverage containers with added sweeteners that have 75 or more calories in every 12 ounces. The label would read: “STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAFETY WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay.” How have we survived without this?
Yes, Jack … if Obama had jailed John McCain, if NSA thugs were on the doorstep telling us how to vote … we’d be in the streets.
But nobody is hitting the barracades to demand the abolition of the Social Security Administration. You live in a dream world.
Libby, you accuse me of thinking we should take to the streets to abolish social security??? Who lives in the dream world now, not me? I don’t think we should take to the streets for anything, but I do think we should stand up to government when they squander our money, send our jobs overseas, impose high tariffs to drive up our costs, force businesses to close because of high taxation, etc.
If Obama had not instructed the DOJ to give the Bush Admin immunity from war crimes.
If Obama was not celebrating NAFTA one of the trade deals that sucked our jobs overseas, the one thing Ross Perot was correct on.
If Obama was not pushing the TPP trade agreement written by global corporations to destroy our middle class and send more jobs overseas.
If Obama did not take a liking and expand the phony patriot act and the rest of the Bush laws to take away our rights.
If Obama did not allow the continued backdoor deals between the DOJ and corrupt bankers.
Many Many things to question Obama on….but these are the exact things the Tea Party protects.
When our people hit the streets it will be a non partisan movement against Corruption and fascist corporatism.
It will be against things like drones taking pictures of everything and tickets in the mail for jaywalking payable to a privatized global corporation.
it will be against everything the Tea Party Politicians call liberty which is corporate rule and no government to protect human rights
I am proud of those who tell the truth and are organizing against the bought out political system. Those who are non partisan and willing to take out every and any corrupt politician.
Certainly not a conservative view cause it includes all corruption, but an American one.
Dewey, you should work on telling the whole truth, not half truths that are closer to a lie. Case in point, “If Obama had not instructed the DOJ to give the Bush Admin immunity from war crimes.”
Obama never said Bush committed a war crime and should get immunity! Here’s what really happened and you sure stretched the truth:
A federal case in San Francisco, filed by an Iraqi single mother and refugee now living in Jordan, alleges that President Bush and much of his administration should be tried for violating international law in the execution of the Iraq War.
However, the Obama administration’s Department of Justice has moved to request that such Bush-era officials, and the former President, be shielded with immunity.
In court papers filed today, the United States Department of Justice requested that George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz be granted procedural immunity in a case alleging that they planned and waged the Iraq War in violation of international law.
Plaintiff Sundus Shaker Saleh, an Iraqi single mother and refugee now living in Jordan, filed a complaint in March 2013 in San Francisco federal court alleging that the planning and waging of the war constituted a “crime of aggression” against Iraq, a legal theory that was used by the Nuremberg Tribunal to convict Nazi war criminals after World War II.
Saleh’s suit alleges that President Bush and his administration falsified pretenses for the war, failed to get international approval, and began planning for the possibility of an invasion before 2000.
However, the Obama administration would like to shield the ex-President and his officials from such prosecution, arguing that everything done was performed within the scope of their various governmental roles.
And besides which, Jack, it’s not the rioting in the streets that brought Yanukovych round to negotiations. Ukraine has oligarchs … just like we do … who have multi-million dollar apartments in Paris, and who are disturbed by the idea they might not be able to visit them.
Jack despite what the above have posted, and some of it is…well…
…you do have a very good point. Americans do not appreciate, nor do we know how to defend and preserve, our liberties. There are thousands of Tea Party people who love America, love the Constitution, love people and want to see our nation united and prosperous.
I don’t know who Dewey is talking about but it sure isn’t the thousands upon thousands that think as we do.
How did Dewey stretch the truth?
“However, the Obama administration would like to shield the ex-President and his officials from such prosecution, ….”
This language is more sedate, but says the same thing: “shield from prosecution”, “immunity” … what’s the difference. Tell us.
“Saleh’s suit alleges that President Bush and his administration falsified pretenses for the war, failed to get international approval, and began planning for the possibility of an invasion before 2000.”
And that last bit, if they actually have documentary proof that Cheney connived at the Iraq War before the election … oh … that would be lovely.
Libby Dewey was saying Bush committed a war crime, the president just said we’re not going there, so forget it. But, if she had a case she could take it to an international court.
Libby: “if they actually have documentary proof that Cheney connived at the Iraq War before the election … oh … that would be lovely.
Good news Libby! I’m sure there are documents involving Cheney and plans for war in Iraq.
Dick Cheney, if you recall, was Secretary of Defense under GHW Bush (The senate confirmed Cheney by a vote of 92 to 0).
Cheney oversaw the Gulf War to free Kuwait from the invasion by Saddam Hussein. That war
ended in a cease fire agreement which Hussein repeatedly broke…lending weight to the later war.
Planning for the Gulf War would have included discussion about Iraq and the option to remove Saddam Hussein from power. It’s likely a plan was drawn up; Defense has a plan for most every scenario when competent people are running it. As NPR pointed out:
Since the Iraq war ended in a cease fire, and since the cease fire agreement was repeatedly broken the argument could be made that G.W. Bush did not need the approval of the UN because the approval given his father was still valid. He did go to the U.N. to make the case and yes, he based his case on information that ONLY LATER became controversial. (Left weenies conveniently forgot about their own strong beliefs and political posturing on the subject)
AT THE TIME he had agreement about WMD from the Congress, Every single Western intelligence organization and the former president, Bill Clinton and his ambitious wife. Bush also had the
approval of Congress:
They gave it to him because they also believed Saddam had WMD…after all, Saddam had been playing “hide the WMD” from the UN inspectors under the half a$$ed watchful eye of the womanizer-in-chief.
Of course Obama gave Bush immunity…he knew he would be subjected to the same type of renegade prosecutions. In fact he may end up in more trouble than Bush since he decided he was able to expand his powers and “go it alone” without seeking approval from Congress.
“We’ve allowed ourselves to be acclimated to the Nanny State with all it’s rules, regulations, laws, wealth shifting and safety nets our founders could never conceive. Compare our lives to how the patriots in Kiev are spending theirs. It makes me sad and ashamed to see what we’ve become.”
Jack, May I direct your attention to the phrase “safety nets”? Don’t put a thing like that in there and expect me not to pounce.
You’re trying to compare a state where landlords (in some jurisdictions, not yours, I’ll bet) have their rental properties inspected for code violations by the county … with a state where the political opposition gets jailed … which is just the tiniest bit spoiled and silly.
The question arises, “How did the more restrictive and punishing element gain traction?
The people in the Ukraine are fighting for their liberty, a liberty they had won when the USSR fell. It doesn’t take that long for liberty to be smashed on the rocks.
In America, the current administration prefers license!