Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Why I’m a Libertarian Nut Instead of Just a Nut
By Penn Jillette (From Glenn Beck's Fusion Magazine also)
I don’t speak for all Libertarians any more than Sean Penn speaks for all Democrats. I’m not even sure my LP membership card is up to date. I’ve voted Libertarian as long as I can remember but I don’t really remember much before the Clintons and the Bushes. Those clans made a lot of us bugnutty. When I go on Glenn’s show he calls me a Libertarian, I think that’s my only real credential.
There are historical reasons and pragmatic reasons to be a Libertarian, but there are historic and pragmatic reasons to be a Democrat, a Republican or a Socialist. I don’t know if everyone would be better off under a Libertarian government. I don’t know what would be best for anyone. I don’t even know what’s best for me. What makes me Libertarian is I don’t think anyone else really knows what’s best for anyone. My argument for Libertarianism is simple - personal morality.
I start with the Declaration of Independence: “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” So, essentially our government does what they do with my consent.
I know barely enough about Max Weber to type his name into Google, but it seems he’s credited with asserting the idea that the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. I put those two ideas together (my consent and use of physical force) and figure we all give our government the right to use force. So, the way I figure, it’s not okay for our government to use force in any situation where I personally wouldn’t use force.
For example, if I’m not willing to kill a cute cow, I shouldn’t eat steak. I don’t have to kill Bessy right now with my bare hands, but I have to be willing to snuff her if I want to chow down on a T-bone. If it’s not okay for me, it’s not okay for a slaughterhouse. Asking someone else to do something immoral is immoral. If it’s not okay for me to break David Blaine’s hands so my magic show has less competition, it’s not okay for me to ask someone else to beat him up. Someone else doing your dirty work is still your dirty work.
If I had a gun, and I knew a murder was happening, (we’re speaking hypothetically here, I’m not asking you to believe that I could accurately tell a murder from aggressive CPR), I would use that gun to stop that murder. I might be too much of a coward to use a gun myself to stop a murder or rape or robbery, but I think the use of a gun is justified. I’m even okay with using force to enforce voluntary contracts. If I were a hero, I would use a gun to protect the people who choose to live under this free system and to stop another country from attacking America. But I wouldn’t use a gun to force someone to love something like say…a library.
Look, I love libraries. I spent a lot of time in the Greenfield Public Library when I was a child. I would give money to build a library. I would ask you to give money to build a library. But, if for some reason you were crazy enough to think you had a better idea for your money than building my library, I wouldn’t pull a gun on you. I wouldn’t use a gun to build an art museum, look at the wonders of the universe through a big telescope, or even find a cure for cancer.
The fact that the majority wants something good does not give them the right to use force on the minority that don’t want to pay for it. If you have to use a gun, it’s not really a very good idea. Democracy without respect for individual rights sucks. It’s just ganging up on the weird kid, and I’m always the weird kid.
People try to argue that government isn’t really force. You believe that? Try not paying your taxes. (This is only a thought experiment though -- suggesting someone not pay their taxes is probably a federal offense, and while I may be a nut, I’m not crazy.) When they come to get you for not paying your taxes, try not going to court. Guns will be drawn. Government is force.
It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people yourself is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness. People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered. If we’re compassionate, we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.
I’m a Libertarian nut because I don’t want my government to do anything in my name that I wouldn’t do myself.
I don’t speak for all Libertarians any more than Sean Penn speaks for all Democrats. I’m not even sure my LP membership card is up to date. I’ve voted Libertarian as long as I can remember but I don’t really remember much before the Clintons and the Bushes. Those clans made a lot of us bugnutty. When I go on Glenn’s show he calls me a Libertarian, I think that’s my only real credential.
There are historical reasons and pragmatic reasons to be a Libertarian, but there are historic and pragmatic reasons to be a Democrat, a Republican or a Socialist. I don’t know if everyone would be better off under a Libertarian government. I don’t know what would be best for anyone. I don’t even know what’s best for me. What makes me Libertarian is I don’t think anyone else really knows what’s best for anyone. My argument for Libertarianism is simple - personal morality.
I start with the Declaration of Independence: “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” So, essentially our government does what they do with my consent.
I know barely enough about Max Weber to type his name into Google, but it seems he’s credited with asserting the idea that the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. I put those two ideas together (my consent and use of physical force) and figure we all give our government the right to use force. So, the way I figure, it’s not okay for our government to use force in any situation where I personally wouldn’t use force.
For example, if I’m not willing to kill a cute cow, I shouldn’t eat steak. I don’t have to kill Bessy right now with my bare hands, but I have to be willing to snuff her if I want to chow down on a T-bone. If it’s not okay for me, it’s not okay for a slaughterhouse. Asking someone else to do something immoral is immoral. If it’s not okay for me to break David Blaine’s hands so my magic show has less competition, it’s not okay for me to ask someone else to beat him up. Someone else doing your dirty work is still your dirty work.
If I had a gun, and I knew a murder was happening, (we’re speaking hypothetically here, I’m not asking you to believe that I could accurately tell a murder from aggressive CPR), I would use that gun to stop that murder. I might be too much of a coward to use a gun myself to stop a murder or rape or robbery, but I think the use of a gun is justified. I’m even okay with using force to enforce voluntary contracts. If I were a hero, I would use a gun to protect the people who choose to live under this free system and to stop another country from attacking America. But I wouldn’t use a gun to force someone to love something like say…a library.
Look, I love libraries. I spent a lot of time in the Greenfield Public Library when I was a child. I would give money to build a library. I would ask you to give money to build a library. But, if for some reason you were crazy enough to think you had a better idea for your money than building my library, I wouldn’t pull a gun on you. I wouldn’t use a gun to build an art museum, look at the wonders of the universe through a big telescope, or even find a cure for cancer.
The fact that the majority wants something good does not give them the right to use force on the minority that don’t want to pay for it. If you have to use a gun, it’s not really a very good idea. Democracy without respect for individual rights sucks. It’s just ganging up on the weird kid, and I’m always the weird kid.
People try to argue that government isn’t really force. You believe that? Try not paying your taxes. (This is only a thought experiment though -- suggesting someone not pay their taxes is probably a federal offense, and while I may be a nut, I’m not crazy.) When they come to get you for not paying your taxes, try not going to court. Guns will be drawn. Government is force.
It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people yourself is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness. People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered. If we’re compassionate, we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.
I’m a Libertarian nut because I don’t want my government to do anything in my name that I wouldn’t do myself.
Friday, May 29, 2009
A Great Article and My Ramblings
Below is the full text of today's article by Thomas Sowell on Townhall.com. I thought I'd save you an extra mouse click and just post it here. Mr. Sowell always makes intellegent and timely points; this is no exception.
---------------------------------
"Burke and Obama" by Thomas Sowell
The other day I sought a respite from current events by re-reading some of the writings of 18th century British statesman Edmund Burke. But it was not nearly as big an escape as I had thought it would be.
When Burke wrote of his apprehension about "new power in new persons," I could not help think of the new powers that have been created by which a new President of the United States -- a man with zero experience in business -- can fire the head of General Motors and tell banks how to run their businesses.
Not only is Barack Obama new to the presidency, he is new to running any organization. One of Burke's fears was that "we may place our confidence in the virtue of those who have never been tried."
Neither eloquence nor zeal was a substitute for experience, according to Burke. He said, "eloquence may exist without a proportionate degree of wisdom." As for zeal, Burke said: "It is no excuse for presumptuous ignorance that it is directed by insolent passion."
The Obama administration's going back and forth on the question whether American intelligence agents who forced information out of captured terrorist leaders will be subjected to legal jeopardy, even though they were told at the time that what they were doing was not only legal but a service to the nation, came to mind when reading Burke's warning about the dangers of continuing to change the rules and values by which people lived.
Burke asked how we could expect a sense of honor to exist when "no man could know what would be the test of honour in a nation, continually varying the standard of its coin?"
The current drive to take from "the rich" for the benefit of others came to mind when reading Burke's warning against creating a situation where "any one description of citizens should be brought to regard any of the others as their proper prey."
He also warned that "those who attempt to level, never equalise." What they end up doing is concentrating power in their own hands-- and Burke saw such new powers as dangerous, even if they were used only sparingly at first.
He said, "the true danger is, when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients and by parts." He also said: "It is by lying dormant a long time, or being at first very rarely exercised, that arbitrary power steals upon a people."
People who don't like "the rich" or "big business" or the banks may be happy that President Obama is sticking it to them. But such arbitrary powers can be turned on anybody. As Robert Burns said: "Send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee." There was a lot of wisdom in the 18th century.
The Constitution of the United States set out to limit the powers of the federal government but judges have greatly eroded those limitations over the years and the dispensing of bailout money has allowed the Obama administration to exercise powers that the Constitution never gave them.
Edmund Burke understood that, no matter what form of government you had, in the end the character of those who wielded the powers of government was crucial. He said: "Constitute government how you please, infinitely the greater part of it must depend upon the exercise of the powers which are left at large to the prudence and uprightness of ministers of state."
He also said, "of all things, we ought to be the most concerned who and what sort of men they are that hold the trust of everything that is dear to us." He feared particularly the kind of man "whose whole importance has begun with his office, and is sure to end with it"-- the kind of man "who before he comes into power has no friends, or who coming into power is obliged to desert his friends." Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and others came to mind.
The biggest challenge to America -- and to the world -- today is the danger of Iran with nuclear weapons. President Obama is acting as if this is something he can finesse with talks or deals. Worse yet, he may think it is something we can live with.
Burke had something to say about things like that as well: "There is no safety for honest men, but by believing all possible evil of evil men, and by acting with promptitude, decision, and steadiness on that belief." Acting -- not talking.
-------------------------------------------------
Now my comments......
I am always amazed when I hear people today dismiss thinkers from history, saying that "they aren't relevant anymore" or "times have changed," or "we are more enlightened now." Alot of these comments are directed at the Constitution and anything that might be related to morals, ethics, honor, justice, etc. Activist judges, politicians and other "leaders" want us to "evolve" and see the Constitution as a "living document."
They have no problem taking rights away - from certain groups - as they see fit, and possibly turning over rights and our sovereignty to the U.N. It is incredible how far we've moved away from the original foundation of the country thus far, but there is still quite a bit they can do - and they are trying. The growth of government over the past few administrations is ridiculous (both Bush's and Clinton included). Look at all the departments and "czar" appointment positions that have been created. (I had this written out and then I saw Beck on a tape delay, and he counted 14 "czars" now! Absolutely, f--in' ridiculous.) The Fed government is amassing power to the -nth degree every year / week / day and there is no end in sight.
The whole thing is a mockery, a travesty, a sham, etc. The circus that was the "Climate Change Hearing" where Chairman Waxman hired a damn speed reader to read the BS 900+ page bill. The arrogance is amazing. I'm starting to believe we need to wipe the whole lot of them out of Washington. I could possibly think of 10-15 Reps and Senators who I trusted to stay around passed their current term.
Senators......Demint(CS), Kyl(AZ), and Sessions(AL)? Maybe....
Reps.....Flake(AZ), Hunter(CA), Pence(IN), Bachmann(MN), Shuler(NC), Paul(TX), Poe(TX), Chaffetz(UT), and Ryan(WI). For some reason I guess I trust Reps more? Or is it just that there are so many more of them? I'll have to think about this list, but at first blush, it seems to be it. The only way I think it would change is by subtraction. Pretty sad state of affairs.
One last thing that pissed me off this week, and it is related. When you talk about government taking more and more control, anyone who tries to argue this, I believe, is either completely ignorant, a total idiot, or has a job in government. "Global warming" is a prime example. They claim that the science is settled and refuse to debate the facts and data with anyone who has real knowledge on the topic. Waxman said he relied on the UN scientists to write the climate bill. What about the 30,000+ scientists who disagree w/ the UN findings and reports???
So, Crazy-eyes Pelosi ran over to China to talk about "climate change." (And of course you've noticed that they don't call it global warming anymore, since the Left using the old trick of changing the name of things to distract and divert attention and change the topic when they see they are losing. ) And for clarification, Nancy rode her private government jet to China. Did Al Gore say anything about her "carbon footprint" on this one? Did he say anything when Barry flew AF1 to Colorado to sign his bill with the solar panel folks? Not very green, guys.......
Again, I digress. Nancy said "I do see this opportunity for climate change to be ... a game-changer. It's a place where human rights — looking out for the needs of the poor in terms of climate change and healthy environment — are a human right." Then she said, "Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory ... of how we are taking responsibility." Whoa, whoa, whoa! Hold on there Big Nance. Back it up. People don't want government controlling their thermostat, regulating what days you can drive, how far, what you'll eat, etc. Contrary to what Colin Powell said recently, Americans don't want more government. The GM and Chrysler take over / bankruptcies are a way to dictate what cars are made available for sale - and of course give back to the unions for all of their election support - but I've gone through that whole thing already.
---------------------------------
"Burke and Obama" by Thomas Sowell
The other day I sought a respite from current events by re-reading some of the writings of 18th century British statesman Edmund Burke. But it was not nearly as big an escape as I had thought it would be.
When Burke wrote of his apprehension about "new power in new persons," I could not help think of the new powers that have been created by which a new President of the United States -- a man with zero experience in business -- can fire the head of General Motors and tell banks how to run their businesses.
Not only is Barack Obama new to the presidency, he is new to running any organization. One of Burke's fears was that "we may place our confidence in the virtue of those who have never been tried."
Neither eloquence nor zeal was a substitute for experience, according to Burke. He said, "eloquence may exist without a proportionate degree of wisdom." As for zeal, Burke said: "It is no excuse for presumptuous ignorance that it is directed by insolent passion."
The Obama administration's going back and forth on the question whether American intelligence agents who forced information out of captured terrorist leaders will be subjected to legal jeopardy, even though they were told at the time that what they were doing was not only legal but a service to the nation, came to mind when reading Burke's warning about the dangers of continuing to change the rules and values by which people lived.
Burke asked how we could expect a sense of honor to exist when "no man could know what would be the test of honour in a nation, continually varying the standard of its coin?"
The current drive to take from "the rich" for the benefit of others came to mind when reading Burke's warning against creating a situation where "any one description of citizens should be brought to regard any of the others as their proper prey."
He also warned that "those who attempt to level, never equalise." What they end up doing is concentrating power in their own hands-- and Burke saw such new powers as dangerous, even if they were used only sparingly at first.
He said, "the true danger is, when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients and by parts." He also said: "It is by lying dormant a long time, or being at first very rarely exercised, that arbitrary power steals upon a people."
People who don't like "the rich" or "big business" or the banks may be happy that President Obama is sticking it to them. But such arbitrary powers can be turned on anybody. As Robert Burns said: "Send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee." There was a lot of wisdom in the 18th century.
The Constitution of the United States set out to limit the powers of the federal government but judges have greatly eroded those limitations over the years and the dispensing of bailout money has allowed the Obama administration to exercise powers that the Constitution never gave them.
Edmund Burke understood that, no matter what form of government you had, in the end the character of those who wielded the powers of government was crucial. He said: "Constitute government how you please, infinitely the greater part of it must depend upon the exercise of the powers which are left at large to the prudence and uprightness of ministers of state."
He also said, "of all things, we ought to be the most concerned who and what sort of men they are that hold the trust of everything that is dear to us." He feared particularly the kind of man "whose whole importance has begun with his office, and is sure to end with it"-- the kind of man "who before he comes into power has no friends, or who coming into power is obliged to desert his friends." Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and others came to mind.
The biggest challenge to America -- and to the world -- today is the danger of Iran with nuclear weapons. President Obama is acting as if this is something he can finesse with talks or deals. Worse yet, he may think it is something we can live with.
Burke had something to say about things like that as well: "There is no safety for honest men, but by believing all possible evil of evil men, and by acting with promptitude, decision, and steadiness on that belief." Acting -- not talking.
-------------------------------------------------
Now my comments......
I am always amazed when I hear people today dismiss thinkers from history, saying that "they aren't relevant anymore" or "times have changed," or "we are more enlightened now." Alot of these comments are directed at the Constitution and anything that might be related to morals, ethics, honor, justice, etc. Activist judges, politicians and other "leaders" want us to "evolve" and see the Constitution as a "living document."
They have no problem taking rights away - from certain groups - as they see fit, and possibly turning over rights and our sovereignty to the U.N. It is incredible how far we've moved away from the original foundation of the country thus far, but there is still quite a bit they can do - and they are trying. The growth of government over the past few administrations is ridiculous (both Bush's and Clinton included). Look at all the departments and "czar" appointment positions that have been created. (I had this written out and then I saw Beck on a tape delay, and he counted 14 "czars" now! Absolutely, f--in' ridiculous.) The Fed government is amassing power to the -nth degree every year / week / day and there is no end in sight.
The whole thing is a mockery, a travesty, a sham, etc. The circus that was the "Climate Change Hearing" where Chairman Waxman hired a damn speed reader to read the BS 900+ page bill. The arrogance is amazing. I'm starting to believe we need to wipe the whole lot of them out of Washington. I could possibly think of 10-15 Reps and Senators who I trusted to stay around passed their current term.
Senators......Demint(CS), Kyl(AZ), and Sessions(AL)? Maybe....
Reps.....Flake(AZ), Hunter(CA), Pence(IN), Bachmann(MN), Shuler(NC), Paul(TX), Poe(TX), Chaffetz(UT), and Ryan(WI). For some reason I guess I trust Reps more? Or is it just that there are so many more of them? I'll have to think about this list, but at first blush, it seems to be it. The only way I think it would change is by subtraction. Pretty sad state of affairs.
One last thing that pissed me off this week, and it is related. When you talk about government taking more and more control, anyone who tries to argue this, I believe, is either completely ignorant, a total idiot, or has a job in government. "Global warming" is a prime example. They claim that the science is settled and refuse to debate the facts and data with anyone who has real knowledge on the topic. Waxman said he relied on the UN scientists to write the climate bill. What about the 30,000+ scientists who disagree w/ the UN findings and reports???
So, Crazy-eyes Pelosi ran over to China to talk about "climate change." (And of course you've noticed that they don't call it global warming anymore, since the Left using the old trick of changing the name of things to distract and divert attention and change the topic when they see they are losing. ) And for clarification, Nancy rode her private government jet to China. Did Al Gore say anything about her "carbon footprint" on this one? Did he say anything when Barry flew AF1 to Colorado to sign his bill with the solar panel folks? Not very green, guys.......
Again, I digress. Nancy said "I do see this opportunity for climate change to be ... a game-changer. It's a place where human rights — looking out for the needs of the poor in terms of climate change and healthy environment — are a human right." Then she said, "Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory ... of how we are taking responsibility." Whoa, whoa, whoa! Hold on there Big Nance. Back it up. People don't want government controlling their thermostat, regulating what days you can drive, how far, what you'll eat, etc. Contrary to what Colin Powell said recently, Americans don't want more government. The GM and Chrysler take over / bankruptcies are a way to dictate what cars are made available for sale - and of course give back to the unions for all of their election support - but I've gone through that whole thing already.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Barry's Disdain for America
I have not read such a complete and well documented article detailing the numerous acts of disdain and harming America as I have here. I don't know that I would go so far as to say Barry "hates" America, but he certainly doesn't love it as much as an American President should.
You could see it during the campaign when he repeatedly stated that he wanted to fundamentally "transform" and "change" America. Anyone who loves their country does not want to see it transformed. Improved upon, sure, but not transformed. Dennis Prager has written some great pieces on this issue, and honestly, is who I read to form this opinion. Mr. Prager has the best political and social commentary on American radio today. If he's not on in your market, you can stream his show online (12-3p) or join his site and get podcasts.
Back to Barry. I believe he is an amalgamation of left and radical left figures from throughout history. I do not think he has a single core belief or principle, but only acts as the social and political zealot playbook tells him he should act. He is not a religious man with a strong foundation of character as W. had (like him or not). This was obvious during the campaign and in reviewing his life history and voting record in Illinois and the US Senate. But look at how much he pressed that he was an avid church-goer, albeit not to a church most would recognize as one, but in the fact that he never joined a church or attended more than maybe one service in his first several months in office. He was in DC the whole time and never made it? I don't mind that he didn't go (I wish I could say I attended church more often), but why did he profess so strongly that he had a great church attendance record? It's all part of the facade; the illusion; the mask.
Glenn Beck asked this week if anyone had given much thought to what the country will look like later this year, or at the end of Barry's first term, given all the legislation he's passed and spending he's pledged - not to mention what he still wants to do. I fear we will not recognize the America of 2008 in 2012.
You could see it during the campaign when he repeatedly stated that he wanted to fundamentally "transform" and "change" America. Anyone who loves their country does not want to see it transformed. Improved upon, sure, but not transformed. Dennis Prager has written some great pieces on this issue, and honestly, is who I read to form this opinion. Mr. Prager has the best political and social commentary on American radio today. If he's not on in your market, you can stream his show online (12-3p) or join his site and get podcasts.
Back to Barry. I believe he is an amalgamation of left and radical left figures from throughout history. I do not think he has a single core belief or principle, but only acts as the social and political zealot playbook tells him he should act. He is not a religious man with a strong foundation of character as W. had (like him or not). This was obvious during the campaign and in reviewing his life history and voting record in Illinois and the US Senate. But look at how much he pressed that he was an avid church-goer, albeit not to a church most would recognize as one, but in the fact that he never joined a church or attended more than maybe one service in his first several months in office. He was in DC the whole time and never made it? I don't mind that he didn't go (I wish I could say I attended church more often), but why did he profess so strongly that he had a great church attendance record? It's all part of the facade; the illusion; the mask.
Glenn Beck asked this week if anyone had given much thought to what the country will look like later this year, or at the end of Barry's first term, given all the legislation he's passed and spending he's pledged - not to mention what he still wants to do. I fear we will not recognize the America of 2008 in 2012.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
A Few Quotes
"Only government can take perfectly good paper, cover it with perfectly good ink and make the combination worthless." - Milton Friedman
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
"Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built." - Abraham Lincoln
"If you've got them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow." - John Wayne
"Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid." - John Wayne
"We deal in lead, friend." - Steve McQueen, The Magnificent Seven
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
"Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built." - Abraham Lincoln
"If you've got them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow." - John Wayne
"Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid." - John Wayne
"We deal in lead, friend." - Steve McQueen, The Magnificent Seven
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin
Monday, April 20, 2009
Extremists?
Looking over the DHO report on the looming danger of "right-wing extremism" in America, I thought it wise to do some self-examination.
The first thing about this report that really hacks me off is the VERY FIRST line of the "Key Findings" section: "The DHS....has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits..." The report then states that the economic downturn and the election of Obama "present unique drivers....."
The first thing about this report that really hacks me off is the VERY FIRST line of the "Key Findings" section: "The DHS....has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits..." The report then states that the economic downturn and the election of Obama "present unique drivers....."
Then the report attacks returning military personnel as a danger, citing the 1995 OKC bombing by McVeigh. Dispicable.
After reading the report, I think I may someone they are warning me about. Let's analyze...
Conservative political views - yes.
3rd Party support - not yet.
Constitutional principles - of course.
Support state's rights - yep.
Out of control Federal Gov and overspending - even a doubt?
Gun owner - right again.
Favor control of our borders against illegal immigration - always.
Mililtary vet - no, but I certainly support them.
We know can put a few puzzle pieces together. The new Administration doesn't want to call the radical Muslim terrorists terrorists, they won't use the phrase global war on terror, they want to get snuggly with Castro, Chavez, Putin and talk to Kim of N. Korea and Ahmadine-jihad of Iran. But, if you love your country, and the basic principles it was founded on, and want to see it grow strong and secure again, the US government needs to watch you. I'm sure they were watching all the tea party protesters last week. Don't these folks look dangerous?
Oh, OK, I get it. The backtracking by Janet Napolitano after this report has been laughable. How this woman got this job, when she couldn't even control her state's border, is a disgrace and she needs to go. She knew about the report and what it said and she supported it. Now she's suggested that terrorists have been coming across the nothern border from Canada as well....and more backtracking and correcting.
Do we really have 4 more years of this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
