Skip to comments.In graduate thesis, John Brennan argued for government censorship: ‘Too much freedom is possible’
Posted on 01/23/2013 9:17:11 AM PST by Nachum
In his 1980 graduate thesis at the University of Texas at Austin, John Brennan denied the existence of absolute human rights and argued in favor of censorship on the part of the Egyptian dictatorship.
Since the press can play such an influential role in determining the perceptions of the masses, I am in favor of some degree of government censorship, Brennan wrote. Inflamatory [sic] articles can provoke mass opposition and possible violence, especially in developing political systems.
Brennan serves as President Barack Obamas national security advisor. Obama has nominated him to lead the Central Intelligence Agency.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
-After they rid us of that pecky 2nd Amendment, then they'll have no problem with the 1st.
Liberals love their control.
I happened to notice it yesterday while talking to a liberal cousin about his dog. The dog has never been outside the house without a leash, is constantly in obedience courses, and is constantly being taught new meaningless tricks.
My dogs are free to roam the yard and house all day and all they know how to do is come when I call. Other than that, my dogs are free to do as they please.
political speech was the whole point of the first amendment, not pornography in schools
Was this before or after he became a Muslim...or if not going through the full ceremony, at least enough to consider their interests to be his interests.
And he’s going to be head of the CIA now. Get your burkas ready, girls.
Hopefully that freedom doesn’t include crapping on the neighbor’s lawn.
No they have a fenced half acre.
Never trust someone who refers to other people as ‘masses.’
That is a great rule of thumb there!
Technically speaking, too much liberty is possible. That condition is variously called anarchy or savagery where it has been applied in the real world.
That said, the United States of American now meets the classic, political science definition of a totalitarian state. The LAST thing we need to worry about is too much liberty. Ironically, despite the plethora of various restrictions, conditions and oppressions which are creeping into our lives, so too is domestic anarchy and savagery, depending on the location and circumstance.
In addition to totalitarian, this polity is also decadent.
Never trust someone who refers to other people as masses.
So very, very true.
When someone refers to other people as ‘masses’, it is a sure tipoff that they view other people as things.
The Bill of Rights, becomes the Bill of Maybes..........
Anarcho-tyranny is the name for the concept you are describing. And what we are descending into.
Even Emma Lazarus?........................
Thank you. An increasingly useful term, unfortunately.
Wouldn’t trust her as far as I could throw her.
First amendment was also about using hi-tech to say whatever you wanted.
His thumbprint is somewhere ~ and someday somebody will find it and blackmail him with it.
She been dead a long time......................
yep. You can say whatever. But pornorgaphic images are not “speech”. That is why we can ban kiddie porn.
W famously (infamously?) quipped, “There out to be limits to freedom” in 1999.
W famously (infamously?) quipped, “There ought to be limits to freedom” in 1999.
We can ban kiddie porn because to make it you porn kiddies ~ and that’s behavior ~ plus there’s the assumption its made for commercial purchases and we always required a release under any circumstances.
In my case it means I am probably inferring the existence of an (/s)
I’m thinking that when Lazarus used the term ‘huddled masses’ she was mocking people like Marx who didn’t have much respect for the huddled masses. That’s probably why she followed up her ‘huddled masses’ line with her ‘wretched refuse’ line.
Liberal response: “Too much government? Does not compute.” There’s never enough of it in their mindset.
They have already made an argument for replacing the first amendment with Sharia speech laws. Obama, Hillary, Dempsey, Ms. Lindsay Graham, Petraus... They even pulled a false flag in Libya regarding that you-tube video “protest” they claimed killed our ambassador. Fortunately they got caught but it won’t stop them. The UN is pushing a treaty to end free speech in America and the globalists are all for it.
In the mean time, google and facebook have been censoring speech in opposition to jihad, the Dem party and liberalism.
“Masses”, the polite term for Useful Idiots.
“Bitter Clingers”, the impolite term for Patriotic Americans.
“Tyrants, the correct term for Democrats.
J. Jamie gorillick “iron curtain” Brennan?
1975 to 1976 : (EGYPT : BRENNAN STUDIES AT THE AMERICAN U OF CAIRO ) Mr. Brennan..[studied] at the American University of Cairo in 1975 to 1976.- from Brennans company website : http://www.theanalysiscorp.com/content/About/4-Management.Team.aspx?bioID=10
46 posted on Saturday, March 22, 2008 6:12:20 PM by NotJustAnotherPrettyFace | To 36
1980 : (JOHN O BRENNAN BECOMES A CAREER TRAINEE AT THE CIA’s DO— See GEORGE TENET, OBAMA, ANALYSIS CORP) Mr. Brennan began his career as an intelligence officer in 1980 with the Central Intelligence Agency’s Directorate of Operations as a Career Trainee. After joining the Directorate of Intelligence in 1981, he served with the Department of State as a political officer at the U.S. Embassy in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia from 1982 to 1984.-——— http://www.theanalysiscorp.com/content/About/4-Management.Team.aspx?bioID=10
47 posted on Saturday, March 22, 2008 6:15:05 PM by NotJustAnotherPrettyFace | To 44
Anarchy isn’t a state of too much freedom; it is merely a lack of centralized control in favor of control by the most aggressive. Once someone becomes an agressor and uses force or coercion then there is less freedom, just as surely as if a central government used the force. It’s just a more personal form of oppression.
When ever a lib says a ‘degree’ or’partial’ or ‘limited’ what they really meanis absolute control. However,they know they can’t do it all at once but bit by bit.
MSNBC and Bill Maher prove the validity of the thesis
Coming from a conservative, a comment like this would be wrong and unconstitutional, but at least it might be consistent. There are conservative advocates of censorship who either don’t understand our Constitution or who haven’t thought through the conclusions of what it would mean to give someone in authority the power of censorship.
However, coming from a liberal, this is hypocrisy and denies the very freedoms liberals claim to affirm.
Freedom of speech and of the press are guaranteed by the First Amendment for a reason. An honest liberal may use his speech in really bad ways, but we have to defend his right to speak nonsense and reply by refuting his nonsense.
Dogs are a little different. I was training 2 dogs, well, and I discovered that they actually looked forward to it. When I failed to train them (I did so at a specific time each day) they would seek me out, usually with whatever props I was using (leash, ball, chew toy) in their mouths.
That's why they are leftists, not liberals. The Founders were liberals. These are marxists in sheep's clothing.