"I, for one, am glad that we are monitoring the mosques in the United States. We did the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it worked.
I wouldn't care if people were in my church if there was something horrible in which parishioners or attendees were formulating or participating.
A few things:
1. We know that individuals in the United States that practice Islam are raising funds to provide money for international terrorism.
2. Some people in this country use the cover of freedom of religion as a blank check to do whatever they want, and I'm not just talking about supporting terrorism. It happens in every religion.
3. I'm tired of hearing whining from that cabal, CAIR. That group needs to grab the ACLU under one arm, pick a direction and start traveling until they've crossed the U.S. border. Canada is a good place for them."
I commented:
"I couldn't agree with you less.
I will not now, nor will I ever, defend the Islamic religion, but do you think the Federal Government will only spy on mosques?
We already know this administration's definition of "terrorist", and if we condone spying on Americans ANYWHERE, we are allowing the precedent to be set that they can spy on us EVERYWHERE.
I don't care if they spy on people in Iraq or Afghanistan, because those people don't have the freedom of privacy, nor do they seem to want it; but when we are giving the Federal Government carte blanche to spy on us, a power not granted them in the Constitution, I think we've finally lost our mind as a nation."
He responded:
"Firstly, Son3, they aren't actually spying on the mosques. They are listening to individuals.
As for their definition of terrorism, we know that definition is unpopular. They cannot put a new face on that which is already out there. If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you care?
They are not tapping wires and they aren't in the edifice with a recorder, so lets get that idea out of our heads. There are people in this country that want to do this country bad things. Muller (FBI Director) is not one of these people."
I thought this a good subject to post about, since this is a very important, hot button issue today, on which everyone holds an opinion.
The FBI is engaging in undercover spying. Call it "listening to individuals" if you want, but unless you're listening (with the intent of information gathering) from a pew, or whatever Muslims have, with an FBI blazer on, you're spying.
I really don't know what "tapping wires" or being "in the edifice with a recorder" has to do with anything, or why we should "get that out of our heads", but isn't there something wrong in this country when we defend the Fed's unlawful activities, including spying on us without our knowledge? That's not the America I read about in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence; maybe they have something like that in China or Russia, but not in my country.
This blogger referred to the MIAC Report's definition of terrorist as "unpopular". You think? If you are openly against the murder of babies and are thus a terrorist, I would hope that it's a little more than "unpopular"! I would also hope talking about the Constitution being considered "terrorist activity" is an "unpopular" position as well!
"If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you care?"
This was the most frightening of all that he said; the classic phrase used by a sheep living in a society run by wolves.
Define "wrong".
Is "wrong" talking about the Constitution? Is it being against murder? Is it displaying the Gadsden Flag? Is it supporting a certain Presidential candidate?
Those things are the definition of "wrong" in this government's dictionary; and that being the case, I do care! I do all of those things, so I have something to worry about.
"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death." ~Adolf Hitler
In February of 1933, Adolf Hitler caused his own Reichstag building to be burned down, blamed it on the Communists, and then arrested all Communists in Germany, even though Hitler's supposed patsy said he acted alone.
Hitler's administration claimed the Communists were planning a putsch, and used this excuse to suspend nearly all civil liberties in Germany; the fire directly caused the unchallenged rise of the Nazi party.
Being afraid of the cavemen terrorists is causing the American people to legitimize the Fed's unlawful attempt at subversion of the U.S. Constitution; and when American Conservatives, such as this blogger claims to be, promote the government's unlawful infringements on American's rights, they are no longer true Conservatives.
"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
"Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."
~James Madison
We are supposed to fear cavemen in Iraq and Afghanistan, and because we fear them, we will give anything to keep safe from them, even our most basic right to privacy.
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." ~Samuel Adams
18 comments:
What was this supposed to be about? All I could read was, "Baaaaa", followed by your response. ;)
You, how do they say, owned him.
Really? If you're not doing anything wrong you've got nothing to worry about? I recognise that phrase...
...oh yeah, it was when politicians were telling us how great a national ID card will be.
When will people realise it just gets worse if you rationalise the tyranny in small doses. It grows until you resist it, whether that's now or in 20 years time when we are all eating vaccines under Codex Alimentarius.
Wow, you did the favor of leaving out my name, but brought all my words over. Nice.
So lets go through this again, but with more detail.
IF the FBI gets a tip, which happens sometimes, they determine whether or not to collect. They don't sit outside of buildings in headphones. There are no black helicopters going overhead.
This doesn't take away any freedoms from you, so what's your point. Don't scoff at me, and don't misrepresent me, either. Got it?
I guess I had you wrong when I added you to my blogroll, I thought that you cared about the security of the United States, I guess I was wrong.
Dead on sir.
Mr. bluepitbull, I wonder if you realize how important this is. If he is directly quoting you, how is he misrepresenting you? I draw the same conclusions he does.
Great post son3, dead on sir!
Sic Semper Tyrannis!!!
Bluepitbull, I really don't know why you keep bringing up electronic surveillance, or why you are talking about black helicopters.
The point is we are now setting the precedent of government spying on the people, something the Nazis based their empire upon.
The Nazis demonized certain groups, not because they were an actual threat, but to set the precedent of spying, imprisoning, and eventually exterminating them; demonizing them was not their end, but their means to the end.
Their endgame was the removal of firearms and freedom from the German people, leaving them defenseless against despotism.
The key was that the German people were willing to give all of their civil liberties away, one at a time, just to be safe from those "evil" Jews, Communists, impaired, feeble, etc.
Again, I am not defending Islam, as I am very much against it; I am merely showing that they are a patsy
for the implementation of tyrannical power in government. If people cannot see that, I suppose the plan is working.
I hope I haven't scoffed or misrepresented you at all.
OK, then what is your suggestion since you didn't talk about it on my site, but chose to copy, paste and then make a straw man discussion out of the entire thing.
Even if you quoted me directly, you still made it into a discussion that, unless I saw your site, wouldn't have been able to answer.
Now that I'm here, what do you propose we do about terrorist threats?
I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was trying to set up a straw man discussion.
I did not want to clutter your comments page with a long response and decided to make my point on my own blog. Knowing you were a follower of my blog, I supposed my opposing perspective would be best written on my blog where you could comment if you so desired.
What would I do with terrorist threats? To what terrorist threats are you referring?
Are you referring to the threats coming from cavemen thousands of miles away that always seem to pop out of nowhere every thirty days to keep us afraid?
Or, are you referring to the threats to our liberty and freedom from the Federal government, from administrations past and present, such as the disregard for every article in the Bill of Rights, and the subversion of every article in the Constitution?
If you are speaking of the former, I would close our borders, something our glorious government has declined to do despite removing at will our civil liberties in the name of security.
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." ~Benjamin Franklin
The Constitution says an armed populace is necessary to the security of a free state.
The threat we face from the backward cavemen is exceeded a thousand times by the threat from usurpation of power in government.
Every person holding a government office who has committed treason should be tried and imprisoned.
You, as a soldier, swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
The foreign threats to our liberty are laughable, but the domestic threats are actually being carried out day after day.
In short, my response to terrorist threats is the restoration and decriminalization of the U.S. Constitution.
Perhaps after you read the next post on my blog, you will have a better frame of reference. You did more than just move the story to your blog, you called me a sheep.
Closing our borders won't help homegrown terrorists, but, don't get me wrong, I am all for closing the borders for national defense and for economic and cultural reasons.
Homegrown threats and foreign threats cannot be parsed that easily and you know it.
Another thing; don't assume all of these people are backwards cavemen.
I am not talking of surrendering our guns, either. I, myself, am a member of the NRA and own several firearms.
bluepitbull, there is no security without liberty. It's impossible to trade one for the other.
You are presuming government is *fighting* terrorists. Well, that isn't always the case. They share many of the same goals, which is to create chaotic events in order to get what they want.
http://www.infowars.net/articles/april2007/060407Anti-Iranian.htm
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/may2007/280507usesalqaeda.htm
Adam S, I don't believe I was talking to you. If he doesn't want to answer me and call me a sheep and then say, no hard feelings then he is dishonest at best.
There is no security without liberty is an empty statement. You libertarians should think before talking. You don't know what I'm talking about, but you're quick to insert the term 'liberty' in there.
Either read my post, or keep your trap shut.
AdamS, I'm sorry I let his comment go through, but I wanted what he said to be a matter of public record.
Bluepitbull, I'll tolerate your outbursts and accusations against me, but when you begin demeaning my guests and followers, I must demand that you stop. If you have a legitimate argument to make, I will gladly publish it.
Please stop embarrassing yourself.
Don't worry, I won't be commenting here anymore. First you badmouth me, and then don't answer my question in any tangible way. I am not embarrassing myself. If you can't defend what you believe, then the least you have to worry about is my comments.
I let some of my libertarian friends read what you wrote and what adam posted to defend you. They think you are all kooks. The government didnt set up false terror attacks!!
You could have saved yourself alot of time dealing with me without the ad hominems and stupid comments from your buddies and just conceded that your concept of liberty is tainted with paranoia.
I didn't use ad hominems.
You have thus far accused me of:
Misrepresenting (even though I quoted verbatim), making straw man arguments, badmouthing, and being dishonest ("at best").
I can't recall saying anything about you, other than saying your comment was consistent with that of a proverbial sheep.
An examination of the comments on this page, alone, will show any reader that your rude and unkind comments towards my readers, as well as towards me, were responded to with respect and self-control, which were, in turn, only to be met with repeated unkindness from you.
Regardless of this, you are welcome to comment here at any time on any subject. I do not exclude people from this blog just because I disagree with them, as I welcome rational debate.
What's your opinion of John Brown?
Just curious.
Well, his body lies a-molderin' in the grave, so I don't know the man personally.
Seriously, though, his cause to free slaves was admirable, especially for the times in which he lived.
Nevertheless, he behaved a bit too murderously for my liking, and his view of the South was misguided.
Ripped Kansas apart, politically.
I'm so-so on Brown.
John Browm was an un-Godly, Unitarian, abolitionist, rebellious, antinomian, seditious abolitionist. But anyhoo......
I am impressed Son3, the way you dealt with mister Neo-Con Rush, Hannity and O'Reilly are my heroes, "The Patriot Act is keeping us safe man" was admirable. I especially appreciated your bluntness about how the backwards, cursed, cavemen of the islamic religion are much less of a threat to us than our own government. It seems we can't get through a month's time without some whooptydoo about those evil terrorists who are scarily close to killing us all. If the terrorists really wanted to do damage, it would have been done a long time ago. Muslims look like Mexicans, and with Shiek BinLadin's billions they could buy a couple nukes, and toast Dallas, Houston, LA, or San Diego. If millions of mexicans can swarm over here, they can. I know they hate us, but all they will ever be able to do is ride their goats and shoot at us with outdated commie weapons.
Now, the government is a different story, they can do whatever they wish, to whomever. They are gearing up, and laying a ground work too. Ruby RIdge, Waco, The LDS church in Texas. The media nd government has painted the enemy as "radical conservative, Christian, anti-government, white-supremacists". They are coming after us next.
Deo Vindice.
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Good. He was deranged. I asked 'cause I saw an image of him on your slideshow thing at the bottom.
And manumission was a much better way to free slaves than have them commit an armed revolt like Nat Turner's massacre. Just wanted your opinion.
RGM, I see we're on the same page! Thank you for the comment!
Johann, I have no liking for Brown, I only added the painting because it depicted "Bleeding Kansas".
Note the Union and Confederate soldiers at a standoff in the background, tornadoes, etc.
Thank you for your comment!
Post a Comment