Are We All Terrorists Now

[4sarge]

Are We All Terrorists Now by Albert D. McCallum


On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Albert D. McCallum wrote:

Column for week of June 15, 2009


Are We All Terrorists Now?

You may have heard that recently one state issued a
document to law enforcement on how to identify terrorists. The
terror suspects included anyone with a Ron Paul bumper sticker.
The list also included those who displayed a "Don't tread on me"
decal.

Worldnetdaily now reports that the ACLU has sent a
letter to the Department of Defense protesting the DOD's
designation of protesters as "low level terrorists."

The article reports that: "'Specifically the training
'Knowledge Check 1' asks, 'Which of the following is an
example of low-level terrorism activity?' The multiple choices
are: Attacking the Pentagon, IEDs, Hate crimes against racial
groups and Protests. The correct answer in the training course is
'Protests.'" (I'm not sure what IED is. It may be the acronym
for "improvised explosive device.")

If all protesters are terrorists, the war on terror has
definitely expanded a bit. Is it ridiculous and silly for
government to designate protesters as terrorists?

What is a terrorist? A terrorist dispenses fear and terror.
Anyone who deliberately commits acts that strike fear and terror
into another is a terrorist.

Why shouldn't government classify protesters as
terrorists? Many protesters, particularly the Tea Party kind, want
to shrink government and fire a bunch of politicians and
bureaucrats. What could be more terrifying to power hungry
politicians and bureaucrats than a threat to their jobs?
Remember, for many of those in government their job isn't just a
means of gaining a paycheck. (I refuse to use the term earn to
describe what many of those people do to gain their pay.
Parasites don't earn, they take.)

For many of these government people, their jobs validate
their existence. Deprived of their ability to wield arbitrary
power over others their lives would be empty and meaningless.

Protesters may strike terror into the hearts of such people.
Not only that, I suspect that for many protesters, one of their
goals is to strike fear and terror into the hearts of politicians and
bureaucrats.

I for one want to so terrorize those people that they
become so paralyzed with fear that they are no longer able to
trample the liberty and lives of the people of this nation, or any
other nation.

I am pleased and proud that government recognizes me as
even a low level terrorists. Except for well diggers, most of us
have to start at the bottom and work our way up. If government
is terrorized by protesters, it means protesters are effective.

Of course, this kind of terrorism isn't a crime. At least it
didn't use to be. It is protected by the Constitution as originally
written. At the time of the drafting of the Constitution
terrorizing government to get politicians to behave themselves
was considered to be a right and a duty.

Only in totalitarian nations are the citizens prohibited
from striking terror into the hearts of those who govern. Our
liberty and our future depend on how successful citizens are in
terrorizing those who govern into respecting the rights of the
people.

How about a bumper sticker that proclaims "I'm a low
level terrorist, and proud of it." If the politicians really are
terrified by the protesters, perhaps our nation still has a chance.

What about government terrorism? When at the Tea
Party in Lansing on April 15, I noticed some rather large
(basketball player sized) men in uniform working their way
through the large crowd of protesters. What level of terrorism
did this represent?

I doubt that the men in uniform were sent to make the
peaceful protesters feel more secure and at ease. Do you
suppose government was trying to terrorize the low level
terrorists? I don't believe it succeeded.

A short time ago Newsweek ran the headline "We are all
socialists now." Perhaps they will follow it up with "We are all
terrorists now." We have far more to fear from high level
socialists than from low level terrorists.

The article has little to say about the definition of high
level terrorists. I'm sure that high level terrorists include those
who detonate vote bombs on election day. Those V bombs
destroy incumbents and kill their careers.

Successful V bombings are rare. Still, incumbents live in
constant terror of them. Why else would incumbents spend
millions of dollars on campaigns trying to locate the V bombs
and defuse them before they go off?

 

[Chefcook]

Are We All Terrorists Now by Albert D. McCallum


On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Albert D. McCallum wrote:

Column for week of June 15, 2009


Are We All Terrorists Now?

You may have heard that recently one state issued a
document to law enforcement on how to identify terrorists. The
terror suspects included anyone with a Ron Paul bumper sticker.
The list also included those who displayed a "Don't tread on me"
decal.

Worldnetdaily now reports that the ACLU has sent a
letter to the Department of Defense protesting the DOD's
designation of protesters as "low level terrorists."

The article reports that: "'Specifically the training
'Knowledge Check 1' asks, 'Which of the following is an
example of low-level terrorism activity?' The multiple choices
are: Attacking the Pentagon, IEDs, Hate crimes against racial
groups and Protests. The correct answer in the training course is
'Protests.'" (I'm not sure what IED is. It may be the acronym
for "improvised explosive device.")

If all protesters are terrorists, the war on terror has
definitely expanded a bit. Is it ridiculous and silly for
government to designate protesters as terrorists?

What is a terrorist? A terrorist dispenses fear and terror.
Anyone who deliberately commits acts that strike fear and terror
into another is a terrorist.

Why shouldn't government classify protesters as
terrorists? Many protesters, particularly the Tea Party kind, want
to shrink government and fire a bunch of politicians and
bureaucrats. What could be more terrifying to power hungry
politicians and bureaucrats than a threat to their jobs?
Remember, for many of those in government their job isn't just a
means of gaining a paycheck. (I refuse to use the term earn to
describe what many of those people do to gain their pay.
Parasites don't earn, they take.)

For many of these government people, their jobs validate
their existence. Deprived of their ability to wield arbitrary
power over others their lives would be empty and meaningless.

Protesters may strike terror into the hearts of such people.
Not only that, I suspect that for many protesters, one of their
goals is to strike fear and terror into the hearts of politicians and
bureaucrats.

I for one want to so terrorize those people that they
become so paralyzed with fear that they are no longer able to
trample the liberty and lives of the people of this nation, or any
other nation.

I am pleased and proud that government recognizes me as
even a low level terrorists. Except for well diggers, most of us
have to start at the bottom and work our way up. If government
is terrorized by protesters, it means protesters are effective.

Of course, this kind of terrorism isn't a crime. At least it
didn't use to be. It is protected by the Constitution as originally
written. At the time of the drafting of the Constitution
terrorizing government to get politicians to behave themselves
was considered to be a right and a duty.

Only in totalitarian nations are the citizens prohibited
from striking terror into the hearts of those who govern. Our
liberty and our future depend on how successful citizens are in
terrorizing those who govern into respecting the rights of the
people.

How about a bumper sticker that proclaims "I'm a low
level terrorist, and proud of it." If the politicians really are
terrified by the protesters, perhaps our nation still has a chance.

What about government terrorism? When at the Tea
Party in Lansing on April 15, I noticed some rather large
(basketball player sized) men in uniform working their way
through the large crowd of protesters. What level of terrorism
did this represent?

I doubt that the men in uniform were sent to make the
peaceful protesters feel more secure and at ease. Do you
suppose government was trying to terrorize the low level
terrorists? I don't believe it succeeded.

A short time ago Newsweek ran the headline "We are all
socialists now." Perhaps they will follow it up with "We are all
terrorists now." We have far more to fear from high level
socialists than from low level terrorists.

The article has little to say about the definition of high
level terrorists. I'm sure that high level terrorists include those
who detonate vote bombs on election day. Those V bombs
destroy incumbents and kill their careers.

Successful V bombings are rare. Still, incumbents live in
constant terror of them. Why else would incumbents spend
millions of dollars on campaigns trying to locate the V bombs
and defuse them before they go off?

That sounds like a perfect description of our government and the media. MMMMM what is the terror level today, red, yellow?????

 

[rambone]

The Jews were terrorists to the National Socialists in the 1930s.

Three steps to think about when dealing with our kind.

1. Demonization
2. Disarmament
3. Detention

 

[jennybird]

Sticks and stones 4sarge... sticks and stones.

 

[xamsx]

That sounds like a perfect description of our government and the media. MMMMM what is the terror level today, red, yellow?????

Three steps to think about when dealing with our kind.

1. Demonization
2. Disarmament
3. Detention

Indeed.

 

[SavageEagle]

I for one want to so terrorize those people that they
become so paralyzed with fear that they are no longer able to
trample the liberty and lives of the people of this nation, or any
other nation.

I am pleased and proud that government recognizes me as
even a low level terrorists. Except for well diggers, most of us
have to start at the bottom and work our way up. If government
is terrorized by protesters, it means protesters are effective.

Nuff Said.

 

[VN Vet]

Just remember that our Founders of this Great Nation who were Patriots were considered terrorist.

As our jennybird said....."Sticks and Stones"....... it's nothing more.

Me? I am a Patriot. Period!

 

[techres]

Now that those powers, once lauded by the right, are now in the hands of the left, it will be interesting to see the temporary alliances between the right and the ACLU. So long as guns are not in the mix, I suspect the alliance is the best thing going to protect what's left of our 4th and 1st Amendment rights.

Too bad no one listened 6+ years ago when it was ok to give all those powers over, since it was a republican in charge and a war on terror that needed them.

Go figure.

Welcome to the train wreck! Guess who has the brake rod, the Executive branch and that branch changes hands often...

 

[VN Vet]

Remember, the Republicans are just a little right of the Democrats. Both major parties have gone way left of center.

Not good. IMO

 

[CarmelHP]

Now that those powers, once lauded by the right, are now in the hands of the left, it will be interesting to see the temporary alliances between the right and the ACLU. So long as guns are not in the mix, I suspect the alliance is the best thing going to protect what's left of our 4th and 1st Amendment rights.

Too bad no one listened 6+ years ago when it was ok to give all those powers over, since it was a republican in charge and a war on terror that needed them.

Go figure.

Welcome to the train wreck! Guess who has the brake rod, the Executive branch and that branch changes hands often...

Laws are somewhat like guns in that they are tools that depend on the goodwill of those that use them. Drawing a moral equivalency between those who would use a law to stop an external enemy with those who would use it to stifle internal dissent is the same as drawing a moral equivalency between those who carry guns for self defense and those who carry guns for robbery and murder. They are not equivalent and this should be a stark warning to those who see any benevolence in the socialists who have promised everything to regain power and now are building a bulwark to keep it.

 

[VN Vet]

Barack Obama: In my heart I know he's dangerous! I could handle nuts.

 

[techres]

Laws are somewhat like guns in that they are tools that depend on the goodwill of those that use them. Drawing a moral equivalency between those who would use a law to stop an external enemy with those who would use it to stifle internal dissent is the same as drawing a moral equivalency between those who carry guns for self defense and those who carry guns for robbery and murder. They are not equivalent and this should be a stark warning to those who see any benevolence in the socialists who have promised everything to regain power and now are building a bulwark to keep it.

And this is the reason power should not be given to the government beyond what they already have. Those powers change hands. Even if they gerrymander, even if they stack the deck, even if, even if, even if....

And those that get elected aren't who you think they are either!

On both accounts just review Bush's years.

Again, you hand over power to the Executive office because you like, and trust the guy in the chair and you only follow the path that can lead to charismatic fascism.

The power should never be allowed to stack no matter who is in office. The power should not be handed over no matter the party involved. The power should not be granted no matter the imminent, ever present but suddenly overpowering, threat.

Why? Because the power itself is too dangerous and is not controllable. Worse yet, it cannot be rescinded once given.

You want a Republican president to be able to look at your privates, then don't cower and complain when the democrat behind him wants a look too. Guess you should have told the first guy to get stuffed!

We have entered a time of near political insanity in which each party is playing some kind of nuts endgame. In these endgames they try to rig the game and create a permanent party win. The Republicans tried it and failed only to win their just rewards when the people handed their hats to them. The Democrats are simply playing the same game and hopefully they will also get their hats handed to them as well.

Only when we are able to put our country and our liberty before our parties will anything change. And I have no interest in giving anyone any more of my rights, and am also happy to remind people how we ended up on this slope.



P.S. If the "you" above does not fit, then don't assume it is pointed at you specifically. It is pointed at those who embody what I was talking about. You can decide if that is you or not.

 

[DocGlock86]

I had a buddy of mine (who seems to know a lot about politics and government) tell me that a while back ago there was a list that pointed out certain red flags for identifying terrorist. I guess one of those red flags was anyone who is in the NRA.

 

[techres]

On March 29th of this year, a Ron Paul campaign worker was held and questioned by the TSA for having $4k in cash in his luggage. Why was he held? Because having money and copies of the constitution are enough any more.

Now, the Ron Paul people are far from left wingers. But who has come to help them sue to clarify that the TSA does not have the right to do what they did?

Here's your answer and the exact kind of example we can use going forward in order to back down the amassed power that are aimed at all of us:

Suit accuses TSA of unreasonable airport detention

The question remains: Can people on the right make such alliances and work to undo some of the very powers they supported?

I know how I would/will/do answer. I don't know about others here.

ST. LOUIS (AP) — A lawsuit filed Thursday against the Transportation Security Administration alleges a Ron Paul supporter was unreasonably detained at the St. Louis airport because he was carrying about $4,700 in cash.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of Steven Bierfeldt, director of development for the Campaign for Liberty, an organization that grew out of Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign.

The organization had hosted an event in St. Louis that included the sale of tickets, T-shirts, stickers and other materials and Bierfeldt said he was carrying the cash proceeds in a metal box when he was detained at Lambert Airport for about 30 minutes on March 29.

The lawsuit does not seek money but asks the court to declare the TSA's actions unconstitutional and to prohibit the agency from similar searches when there is no evidence aircraft are endangered.

"It's obviously important that the safety of flights be ensured," Bierfeldt said in a telephone interview. "But subjecting innocent travelers like me who are doing nothing wrong — I think it diverts TSA away from its core mission of safeguarding air travel."

TSA spokesman Greg Soule said the agency would not comment on pending litigation.

Bierfeldt said he refused to answer when a TSA official asked what was in the box. Another TSA official arrived, and Bierfeldt was taken into a separate room where he used an iPhone in his jacket pocket to record the officials' questioning.

An audio clip provided by the ACLU includes repeated questions from a TSA official about why Bierfeldt was carrying so much money, and his repeated refusal to answer. On one occasion, the questioner swears and asks, "Is there any reason you're not answering questions?"

Bierfeldt answers, "Am I legally required to answer the question?"

Soule said while there is no limit to the amount of cash a person can travel with domestically, travelers must cooperate with the TSA screening process.
"Cooperation may involve answering questions about their property," Soule said. "A passenger who refuses to answer questions may be referred to appropriate authorities for further inquiry."

Bierfeldt's attorney, Ben Wizner, said the lawsuit does not challenge TSA's authority to search and detain those suspected of taking weapons, explosives or other dangerous objects onto planes.

"That's the whole purpose of airport searches," Wizner said. "These are not, however, open-ended criminal searches."
Associated Press Writer Eileen Sullivan contributed to this report from Washington, D.C.

 

[CarmelHP]

If you're going to make the sweeping statement, "well, it's the Republicans that gave them this power" and then make the moral leap, "we must blame the Republicans for leaving this power available," then back up this non-sequitor. What powers are we talking about that the Republicans left sitting there for a socialist punk president that weren't there prior to 6 years ago or 8 years ago or 50 years ago that are now being abused? The American socialist party that calls itself "Democrats" wouldn't be demonizing its opponents if it weren't for some power left behind by the Republicans? Did you sleep through the '90's? Remember, or read about, the '70's? This has been their standard playbook for years and they're not using any recently invented power.

 

[techres]

What powers are we talking about that the Republicans left sitting there for a socialist punk president that weren't there prior to 6 years ago or 8 years ago or 50 years ago that are now being abused?

Patriot Act, Presidential Signing Statements, Use of FBI to investigate non-terrorist Political groups, etc.

Sadly this site does not go back far enough to have a track record of what people said during Clinton or much of Bush, but from my recent recollections there wasn't much sympathy when Quaker Anti-War groups were being infiltrated because they might be terrorists. Nor was there any sympathy with those opposed to "free speech areas" for protesters. Nor for the collection of data that was/is tangental to the war on terror. Nor for the gerrymandering attempts to secure a one party system. Nor for the demonizing language for those who questioned the war in Iraq. And so on and so forth.

And now those very same powers, and tactics, are being turned on us. Welcome to the underdog side, it stinks here - by design.

If you didn't complain under Bush...

Look, people like me are stuck between two giant elephants who are at war and more interested in their fight than the house they are doing it in. And when the one is winning all is fair, but when he is loosing, suddenly it is unfair. Frankly, I find it all unfair and sad, especially when my rights seem to go out the window each time the fight begins anew.

 

[hookedonjeep]

The two party system sucks arse - both sides are crooked as hell, and play off of one another. They seem to take turns screwing this country up, and the sheeple out there vote according to who can be more popular at the time - giving the other side their time at the helm. Whatever happened to picking the individuals that will do the best job?

 

[CarmelHP]

Patriot Act, Presidential Signing Statements, Use of FBI to investigate non-terrorist Political groups, etc.

...........

Look, people like me are stuck between two giant elephants who are at war and more interested in their fight than the house they are doing it in. And when the one is winning all is fair, but when he is loosing, suddenly it is unfair. Frankly, I find it all unfair and sad, especially when my rights seem to go out the window each time the fight begins anew.

I missed the part of the story where anyone claimed that anything done was authorized by the PATRIOT Act, who made that claim, and what part of the Act?

Seizing money at airports (though the money was not, thankfully, seized in this instance) has been going on for quite a while. The '60's and '70's saw massive domestic spying. Civil forfeiture is as old as the Republic and has little, if any, nexus to the great bugaboo PATRIOT Act, which passed with pretty bipartisan support (more than 2 out of 3 D's in the House and all but one D in the Senate, so I don't know how this has been turned into a partisan attack). There is absolutely no support for blaming what happened to this gentleman on Republicans.

 

[techres]

I missed the part of the story where anyone claimed that anything done was authorized by the PATRIOT Act, who made that claim, and what part of the Act?

Seizing money at airports (though the money was not, thankfully, seized in this instance) has been going on for quite a while. The '60's and '70's saw massive domestic spying. Civil forfeiture is as old as the Republic and has little, if any, nexus to the great bugaboo PATRIOT Act, which passed with pretty bipartisan support (more than 2 out of 3 D's in the House and all but one D in the Senate, so I don't know how this has been turned into a partisan attack). There is absolutely no support for blaming what happened to this gentleman on Republicans.

Am I wrong when I say the TSA's greatest expansion was post 9/11 and under Bush?

 

[CarmelHP]

Am I wrong when I say the TSA's greatest expansion was post 9/11 and under Bush?

No, you're wrong when you imply that nothing like this happened prior to Bush, or that Republicans alone pushed it through and are now hoist by their petard. Would you be happier if it DEA agents and airport security hassling him or stealing his money (several DEA agents went to jail in the '90's for "forgetting" to report seizures of cash) as in the past? The TSA also has nothing to do with the PATRIOT Act. The TSA was created by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, written by a Dem. Senator, in November 2001 and passed unamimously in the Senate and with all but 11 nays in the House, pretty bipartisan. Again, how this translates into a Republican triumph over the Democrats that has now come back to bite them is beyond me. TSA may be, as I've said previously stated to as many as would listen, the most brain-dead federal agency in existence, but they didn't start this particular exercise of government excess, they are brain-dead for all the other stupid sh*t they do, like strip searching little girls, or whatever. This revisionist lament that if only Bush or the Republicans didn't create such and such power or this or that agency is simple nonsense.