Digg

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at huffingtonpost.com

Naomi Wolf: Finally, Action! Ron Paul Introduces Bill to ..

huffingtonpost.com — It's not every day that there is something concrete you can do to save democracy in one powerful stroke and make sure your kids don't come of age in an American in which we are no longer protected by the rule of law.

Bury

mash3466 219 days ago

112 diggs
digg it

Napoleone, on 03/02/2008, -2/+33Do you know where McCain, Hillary or Obama stand on this issue? How are they likely to vote? Do you know where your congressmen stand? Don't vote candidates into office that refuse to stand firm in defense of your rights.

Call Clinton and Obama's senate and campaign offices and try finding out where they stand on HR1959, for example. You'll get the run-around and no firm answers from either of their staff.

This is not about Ron Paul, though, this is about your freedom and your rights and the preservation of the rule of law. Call and write your representatives and let them know you'll be holding them accountable if they fail us on this bill.
Kent4jmj, on 03/02/2008, -2/+29"The American Freedom Agenda Act would bar the use of evidence obtained through torture; require that federal intelligence gathering is conducted in accordance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA); create a mechanism for challenging presidential signing statements; repeal the Military Commissions Act, which, among other things, denies habeas corpus to certain detainees; prohibit kidnapping, detentions, and torture abroad; protect journalists who publish information received from the executive branch; and ensure that secret evidence is not used to designate individuals or organizations with a presence in the U.S. as foreign terrorists."
Ron Paul was the first of all the presidential candidates, red or blue, to step up in this way -- and all credit is due to him for getting there first.
- TrevaLVF, on 03/02/2008, -3/+7I would have copied and pasted that quote here had you not beat me to it.
  - Kent4jmj, on 03/02/2008, -1/+4:0) Snooze you lose.
- Insolent, on 03/03/2008, -1/+2"Create a mechanism for challenging presidential signing statements?" What the *****?
  
  So if I work in the White House as a custodian and after the law has been passed by congress and the president signs it, I add a "Janitorial signing statement," just because it's written on the law, it becomes law? What part of the constitution gives these presidential signing statements any legitimacy in the first place? There doesn't need to be a mechanism for challenging presidential signing statements, we have the courts, they just need to do their ***** job.
TrevaLVF, on 03/02/2008, -3/+21If the Republican Party had more patriots like Ron Paul and the Democratic Party had more patriots like Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, we would have had greater balance and sanity in our government offices, at least, between those two parties, and would not be burdened with the major problems that both controlling parties have caused us. There would be more bi-partisan activity, but not the destructive kind, as we've seen (especially) throughout the nineties and up to the present. There would be more intellectually challenging debates between smarter lawmakers with real integrity and better opportunities for public input in our government process.
USNavyBlue, on 03/03/2008, -4/+17My worthless Representatives are NOT in support of the The American Freedom Agenda Act, surprising because the wolves in sheep clothing are Democrats and are suppose to be known to be the so called champion for workers rights, the little guy, human rights, ad nausea!

I receive these types of email updates from Downsize DC (google it) and you can send FREE faxes to your worthless Representatives on the The American Freedom Agenda Act and many more like Ron Paul's Honest Money Act, Abolish the Federal Reserve Act, etc....
Stevanoski, on 03/03/2008, -17/+2I remember when N. Wolf encouraged teenage girls to learn fellatio to keep from becoming pregnant. Quoted as saying she had used it all through college and had become quite an expert at it.
- Erich100, on 03/03/2008, -1/+11How do blow jobs tie into this particular article?
  - Stevanoski, on 03/03/2008, -15/+1Indicates the credibility of Miss Woolf.
    - elasticsoul, on 03/03/2008, -1/+9How? It seems obvious to you, yet to me and Erich100 - and I bet a lot of others - it seems like a character attack that bears no relation to the topic or her ideas on it.
    - omegaredIX, on 03/03/2008, -1/+8Because a woman who promotes blowjobs has no credibility? I do not understand...
    - Insolent, on 03/03/2008, -2/+4Stevanoski is correct. Obviously, fellatio causes pregnancy, just like writing letters to the stork. IDIOT.
      - Insolent, on 03/03/2008, -1/+3Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Either Stevanoski believes that fellatio promotes unprotected sex (unsubstantiated), or he believes that fellatio is immoral; therefore Naomi Wolf is less credible. Both opinions are unscientific church dogma, i.e. *****, and the conclusion he comes to based on those assumptions as irrational as an adult belief in a stork that brings everyone's babies.
- Erich100, on 03/04/2008, -1/+2It really speaks more to your credibility.
tehbored, on 03/03/2008, -3/+6I support the idea, but don't see what good it would do. If the president doesn't have any respect for the constitution, which is pretty much the law of the land, why would he respect a law that says he has to obey it. He already has to obey it by law, this law would redundant.
- pprovo1, on 03/03/2008, -0/+7well, the fact is more and more people are coming to terms with the reality that the current president isn't obeying the law of the land. Passing this is re-enforcement for future presidents. And with people knowing good and well about these laws through the media etc.. it further solidifies the law. The more the average American knows...the better.
Railz, on 03/03/2008, -1/+5Hillary is my senator. I can kill two birds with one stone asking where she stands on this. Except I know the answer.
- TrevaLVF, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3Bombard her with the pointed questions on where she stands and with the direct statements to put her on notice:
  Patriots uphold and defend our rights, including laws of the Constitution intended to keep public servants in check; traitors don't.
omegaredIX, on 03/03/2008, -0/+8Should try and put this on Obama, Hilary and McCains desk. See what they all say.
- TrevaLVF, on 03/04/2008, -0/+2Yes.
- brad3378, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2They'd have their lawyers look at it first.
blessedwith6, on 03/03/2008, -2/+1Someone help me out here....wouldn't some elements of this bill hamstring our intelligence agencies to get the information they need to thwart terrorist attacks and protect our citizenry from extremists bent on doing us harm? Terrorism is a beast of a different magnitude than dealing with a national sovereignty which has aligned itself against us. Terrorists are much more difficult to identify and much more difficult to defend us against. I realize we don't want to give up our liberties in the name of fear, but isn't there a happy medium whereas we afford ourselves some protection from evil while not allowing it to rule us? This bill seems to me to give the terrorists the advantage, especially the last line "and ensure that secret evidence is not used to designate individuals or organizations with a presence in the U.S. as foreign terrorists."
- TrevaLVF, on 03/04/2008, -1/+4"Liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have.," Harry Emerson Fosdick
  "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." Edward Abbey.
  "I'm proud to be an American, Where at least I know I'm free. I won't forget the men who died, who gave that right to me. I'll proudly stand up next to him to defend her still today, Cuz there aint no doubt I love this land. God bless the USA" (From the song “Proud to be an American" by Lee Greenwood)
  How meaningless those words will be if the true citizen majority has been as easily fooled, as you. You obviously don't know what it means to be an American. Perhaps, history of this country, evens that dominated much of the 20th Century where fascist imperialists competed for world domination and oppression should have been enough for this generation to know that when we're told that we must sacrifice certain liberties for national security, or to "win the war on terror," as G. W. Bush stated, we consider it a warning that our freedom, therefore, our nation, has been threatened and is under attack by domestic enemies.
  
  "We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home." Edward R. Murrow.
  "This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave." Elmer Davis
  "There are those, I know, who will say that the liberation of humanity, the freedom of man and mind, is nothing but a dream. They are right. It is the American dream." Archibald MacLeish
  "...That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." Abraham Lincoln
  "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln
  
  From Ben Franklin:
  "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety."
  "Where liberty dwells, there is my country."
  "The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men." Samuel Adams.
  
  From Samuel Adams' 1st cousin, John Quincy Adams, "Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it."
  
  You claim that our rights, those which many brave and patriotic Americans fought for an won, even at times when Americans did not need to be told that they were under attack, because it was obvious, such as when King George III's troops were marching through their towns and over their farms, barging into homes and burning them. Those Americans were truly terrorized. Yet, the true sons and daughters of liberty were not the cowardly ones that begged to be oppressed if it meant being safe from physical harm, but ones like Patrick Henry, who said, "Give me liberty, or give me death."
  - blessedwith6, on 03/04/2008, -1/+2Harsh reply to someone who was trying to get some clarification.
    I realize that the intelligence community can turn and use the same tactics on me if they should decide that say stay at home mothers are a threat to them but I have to trust those who are given the responsibility of protecting me from turning that trust against me. If I can't trust those charged with my protection, who can I trust? I have to allow for some liberalities to those who are trying to infiltrate and weed out terrorist organizations and operations bent on doing us harm. Is not our country supposed to protect and defend? We are the land of the brave and the home of the free, but we won't be for long if we sit back and allow terrorists to have their way with us.
    Your quotes of the founding fathers are impressive. Do you have one that refers to Muslim extremists who will stop at nothing to destroy us? No? I didn't think so. I doubt they'd want us to roll over and take it up to tail pipe in the name of "freedom", because if we do so we will lose the very freedoms we cherish so much. The founding fathers were speaking of the cost of defending freedom, fighting a war against an oppresive government, against Britain. It had nothing to do with the charge of a government having the onerous task of defending 300 million people against terrorists who would like to see us all in burkhas and bowing to Mecca. Perhaps it takes more bravery to trust our government to do their job then to live in fear that they will turn that trust against us. Hmmmm?
    - TrevaLVF, on 03/05/2008, -1/+2Yeah, I have a quote. It's called the rights of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.
ladybroadoak, on 03/03/2008, -0/+5Read the book Dismantling Tyranny. This shows what has been DONE by others.
- TrevaLVF, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3Thank you, I've made a note of the title and I'll look for a copy.
caponumen, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2You can bet this will never come up under the so called "democrats".........
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Naomi Wolf: Finally, Action! Ron Paul Introduces Bill to ..

Login or register to add a comment