2010514

<> Facebook founder called trusting users dumb f^cks
<> FOX News Suggests Banning the American Flag
<> SFPD Puts Hundreds Of Convictions At Risk
<> Today's awkward photo-op - Kagan admires senator's 'gorgeous' rifle
<> Cop Shoots Unarmed Motorcyclist
<> Coralville workers accessed Obama’s student loan records
<> Elena Kagan’s Opposition to Gun Rights.html
<> FBI Puts in Bid for Mega Rifles
<> The Hutaree Militia Raid
<> Hutaree Update

Loveable Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg called his first few thousand users "dumb fucks" for trusting him with their data, published IM transcripts show. Facebook hasn't disputed the authenticity of the transcript.

Zuckerberg was chatting with an unnamed friend, apparently in early 2004. Business Insider, which has a series of quite juicy anecdotes about Facebook's early days, takes the credit for this one.

The exchange apparently ran like this:

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard

Zuck: Just ask.

Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS

[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?

Zuck: People just submitted it.

Zuck: I don't know why.

Zuck: They "trust me"

Zuck: Dumb fucks

The founder was then 19, and he may have been joking. But humour tells you a lot. Some might say that this exchange shows Zuckerberg was not particularly aware of the trust issue in all its depth and complexity.

http://mattmckeon.com/facebook-privacy/

Facebook is currently in the spotlight for its relentlessly increasing exposure of data its users assumed was private. This is nicely illustrated in the interactive graphic you can find here or by clicking the piccie to the right.

In turn, its fall from grace has made backers of the 'social media' bubble quite nervous. Many new white collar nonjobs created since the mid-Noughties depend on the commercial value of your output, and persona;l information. (Both are invariably donated for free).

But there's a problem.

Much of the data created by Web2.0rrhea is turning out to be quite useless for advertisers - or anyone else. Marketeers are having a harder time justifying the expenditure in sifting through the Web 2.0 septic tank for the odd useful nugget of information.

Facebook's data stash is regarded as something quite special. It's authenticated against a real person, and the users tend to be over 35 and middle class - the ideal demographic for selling high value goods and services. In addition, users have so far been 'sticky' to Facebook, something quite exceptional since social networks fall out of fashion (Friends Reunited, Friendster) as quickly as they attract users.

Facebook also has something else going for it - ordinary users regard it as the natural upgrade to Hotmail. In fact, once the crap has been peeled away, there may not be much more to Facebook than the Yahoo! or Hotmail Address Book with knobs on: the contact book is nicely integrated, uploading photos to share easier, while everything else is gravy. Unlike tech-savvy users, many people remain loyal to these for years. ®

Apparently FOX News considers the American Flag the “least incendiary” item to ban in order to “protect the children.” They just released a poll debating the merits of banning the American Flag in public schools in order to quell potential race fights.

What country is this? The fact that FOX News would even OFFER “Banning the American Flag…” as a poll choice is beyond logic and reason. But the worst part?

The poll was posted in response to the recent controversy at Live Oaks High School in California (Kaliphornistan?). They decided it was necessary to ban two students from campus grounds for wearing shirts which displayed images of the American flag. Shortly after, the school district stated that they ‘do not concur’ with the actions of Live Oak faculty and that the students would be allowed to return to school without suspension.

This is the effect our mass media is having on American minds. Trying to be politically correct in a violent world will not cut it. This is America. Political issues and immigration status aside, this is our nation’s flag we’re talking about. Banning it, even on (and especially on) school grounds would send a message to the rest of the world – and to future generations – that America has completely sold out. No longer do we hold these Truths to be self evident. No longer would the word patriotism have any meaning. The mere idea of banning the American flag in American schools should create a media shockwave similar to a nuclear bomb detonating.

CBS 5 CrimeWatch

The newspaper said the San Francisco Police Department withheld and prosecutors didn't disclose the officers' pasts to defense lawyers in cases in which the officers testified.

State law requires that prosecutors alert defense attorneys when any witness, including a police officer, has been arrested or convicted of crimes or has been accused of misconduct.

Chief District District Attorney Russ Giuntini initally told Police Chief George Gascon in a letter last month that there were more than 30 officers whose histories may need to be disclosed to defense attorneys.

But the newspaper reported a more comprehensive review later turned up about 80 officers whose records could be questioned.

Brian Buckelew, a spokesman for the district attorney's office, confirmed the problem Tuesday but would not comment on the number of officers in question, saying it could be "80, 800 or eight because the Police Department hasn't let us know."

"That figure, and the details behind that figure, still have not been shared with the district attorney's office," he said.

Buckelew said since prosecutors had not yet received any more information, such as names and the specific convictions or misconduct, that "to comment on what the impact may be is just too premature."

Public Defender Jeff Adachi, whose office handles the majority of felony cases in the city, expressed dismay Tuesday that his staff had not yet been notified by either prosecutors or police of the problem.

But amid the allegations, he contended that "this is either a systematic failure, which would suggest gross malfeasance, or unethical behavior, if they knew that these police witnesses had prior convictions."

Adachi maintained that criminal convictions in "hundreds of cases" in which the officers testified could potentially be overturned.

"We don't know who the officers are yet but we do know, if this evidence is true, it is explosive and it will have a tremendous impact on criminal trials and cases that we've handled involving these officers," Adachi said.

He insisted the issue was not about "people getting out of jail for free. This is about ensuring that everyone, including prosecutors and police, play by the rules."

Adachi also sent a letter to District Attorney Kamala Harris on Thursday requesting that her office provide evidence of prior convictions of all police witnesses in criminal trials.

"Ultimately, the district attorney has to answer for this, because it is her office that has the duty to provide this information in court," Adachi said. "Everyday, when we handle criminal cases, we must rely on the integrity of the district attorney's office to insure that all the evidence that's required by law is provided to the defense."

However, Buckelew said disclosing officers' backgrounds to defense lawyers was an imperfect process.

He maintained that the SFPD never offered the information to prosecutors at the time of the officers' testimony, but also acknowledged that the district attorney's office was working to fix its process for disclosing officers' backgrounds — something Santa Clara County defense attorney Steven Clark maintains is the responsibility of prosecutors.

"Prosecutors have access to rap sheets and criminal background checks that the defense just simply cannot get. That's why the affirmative burden is on the prosecutor," said Clark.

Some counties have policies specifically addressing disclosure of police officers' backgrounds, but San Francisco relies on its officers to volunteer that information. Harris said her office was now drafting such a policy.

"This is a very important issue, and if there were mistakes made, they need to be fixed," Buckelew said.

Police Chief George Gascon also expressed concern, but declined to provide specific details.

"The chief's fully aware of the implications of this allegation, and he's currently reviewing our procedures, and ways we can better communicate with the district attorney's office and those involved in the court system," SFPD spokesman Boaz Mariles said.

Prosecutors previously had to drop more than 600 criminal cases after an SFPD police crime laboratory technician acknowledged skimming cocaine evidence she was testing.

Recently retired lab technician Deborah Madden, 60, remained under investigation. She has not been charged, but is thought to have herself testified in hundreds of criminal cases over her 29-year career that ended March 1.

Also, authorities said her 2008 misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence was apparently never disclosed to defense attorneys.

One of the most curious and awkward traditions of Capitol Hill is the practice of shepherding a Supreme Court nominee to the offices of senators who will eventually vote on his or her confirmation. The visits almost always produce some discomfiting photo-ops, and Elena Kagan's gantlet has been no exception.

On Wednesday, for instance, Kagan met with Senate Judiciary Committee veteran Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). Their discussion opened by exchanging pleasantries. "It's a beautiful office," Kagan told Hatch, as they sat before dozens of photographers clamoring for the perfect shot. "Yeah, well, there's some nice stuff here," Hatch allowed.

And that's when it got weird. "You're going to get mad," Hatch said, motioning above the reporters, where a gun hung on the wall. "Man of the Year from the National Rifle Association," the senator explained. "It's a piece of art, really."

Kagan, an amused look on her face, nodded. "It's beautiful," she said, staring at the gun.

One reason the gun exchange came off as a bit forced is that memos released from Kagan's tenure as a Supreme Court clerk show her saying she was "not sympathetic" to the right-to-bear-arms argument of a prospective Supreme Court plaintiff. (The appellant argued that his constitutional right was violated when he was convicted for carrying an unlicensed firearm in violation of the District of Columbia gun ban.)

Still, the encounter could have gone much worse. Hatch could have forced her to listen to his music.

Nine employees at an eastern Iowa education contractor accessed President Barack Obama’s student loan records in violation of federal law, prosecutors announced Wednesday.

A federal grand jury in Davenport indicted the workers for “exceeding authorized computer access” at their office in Coralville, prosecutors said in a statement. The company was identified only as a U.S. Department of Education contractor.

Prosecutors say the employees accessed Obama’s student loan records at various times between July 2007 and March 2009, before and after Obama was elected.

None have entered pleas. Arraignments are scheduled for May 24 in U.S. District Court in Davenport.

Prosecutors announced the charges shortly before 6 p.m. Wednesday, and offered few details about the case. U.S. Attorney spokesman Mike Bladel declined to identify the employer or say whether additional charges were pending. The indictments in federal court records did not offer further details.

One of the accused, Julie L. Kline, 38, of West Branch, was listed on Facebook as a supervisor at Vangent Inc. (NCS Pearson) in Coralville from January 2001 to June 2009. The job information was later removed. Calls to spokespeople at Vangent and Pearson were not immediately returned.

Vangent Inc. is a consulting firm that serves the federal government, higher education institutions and corporations. The company was known as Pearson Government Solutions until it was sold in 2007.

The other defendants are:

•Andrew J. Lage, 54, of Iowa City

•Patrick E. Roan, 51, of Iowa City

•Sandra Teague, 54, of Iowa City

•John P. Phommivong, 29, whose last known address was Iowa City

•Anna C. Rhodes, 32, of Ainsworth

•Gary N. Grenell, 58, of Coralville

•Lisa Torney, 49, of Coralville

•Mercedes Costoyas, 53, of Iowa City

Eight of the defendants phoned on Wednesday did not return messages or had disconnected lines. Lage declined to comment. A woman who answered the phone at Kline’s home in West Branch said, “I’ll pass the word along.”

The charge carries a maximum penalty of one year in prison and a fine of up to $100,000.

A third instance of Elena Kagan opposing Americans’ Second Amendment right to own a gun has now become public, and is sure to become a major issue in her Supreme Court confirmation hearings. And it confirms that President Obama’s gun-control agenda is to create a Supreme Court that will “reinterpret” the Second Amendment until that amendment means nothing at all.

This year, no case on the Supreme Court docket is more important than McDonald v. Chicago, where the Court is deciding whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is only a right you have against the federal government, or instead if the Second Amendment (like most of the Bill of Rights) also secures a right you can assert against state and local governments. At issue is whether Chicago’s law banning all guns—even in your own home—is constitutional.

When the Supreme Court considered its last Second Amendment case, District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, then-U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement filed a brief in the case, and then requested and received time to argue the federal government’s position in that case as to the meaning of the Second Amendment.

When the McDonald case was argued before the Court on March 2 of this year, current Solicitor General Kagan argued… Nothing. Not only did she not ask for time during oral argument, she didn’t even file a brief (which the solicitor general routinely does in important constitutional cases—and the McDonald case is monumentally important).

If someone asserts that the solicitor general shouldn’t file a brief because it’s a state matter as to whether the Second Amendment is “incorporated” to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment (which is the issue in McDonald) the record speaks to the contrary. The last time the Supreme Court “incorporated” a right from the Bill of Rights to the states, in the 1969 case Benton v. Maryland, the solicitor general filed a brief, and then (just like Heller in 2008) got divided argument time to express the government’s views in front of the Court.

Why wouldn’t Kagan file a brief expressing the view of over 75% of Americans that the Second Amendment is an individual right, one that every American citizen has against all levels of government?

Aside from her shocking decision not to file a brief in McDonald, we’ve learned that Elena Kagan was part of the Clinton White House’s gun-control efforts, where a Clinton staffer said, “We are taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns.”

Then it became public that when the Supreme Court was asked in 1987 to decide if the D.C. gun ban was unconstitutional (the same law that the Court eventually struck down in Heller), Kagan wrote to Justice Marshall on the Court that she was “not sympathetic” toward the argument that the Second Amendment doesn’t allow D.C. to completely ban all guns.

The bottom line is that Barack Obama supports the Chicago gun ban, a position he publicly repeated as recently as June 26, 2008 (the day the Heller decision was released). President Obama believes that there’s nothing unconstitutional about the city—or even the whole state—where you live completely banning you from having any firearms for hunting or self-defense, even in your own home.

As my coauthor Ken Blackwell and I discuss in our new bestselling book, The Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency, President Obama’s gun-control agenda is to create a Supreme Court that will repeatedly rule that whatever gun-control laws come before it are okay. No matter how severe the anti-gun measure is, the Court will say, “This is constitutional.”

President Obama—the most anti-gun president is American history—has nominated for our highest court a close personal friend of his. And now we see that Obama has every reason to believe that his close personal friend shares his radical view on the Second Amendment, one that will work against the constitutional rights of 90 million American gun owners.

Take a look at the video below. It shows an Anzio 20mm Vulcan Rifle (actually a cannon) with a 49? barrel and a suppressor. The monster has a 5000 yard maximum range and costs about $12,000. It looks like something designed for combat in a war zone.

I want to try and expound on Grigg’s outstanding analysis of the Hutareemilitia raid. In doing so, I am going to also expand upon Grigg’s reference to James Madison’s trenchant treatise in Federalist 46.

Referring to the federal indictment against the Hutaree militia, that alleged members were making preparations for potential armed conflict against law enforcement officers as a “seditious conspiracy,” Grigg astutely noted, “If they were acquiring weapons and developing appropriate skills in anticipation of defending themselves against government aggression, their actions–while possibly conspiratorial in nature–don’t amount to a crime. This is particularly true in light of our cultural history, in whichsedition–agitation to change the existing political order–is our proudest civic tradition.”

Grigg then rightly observes, “Government is nothing more than the rationalization and exercise of violence. Everything done by government contains at least the implicit threat of lethal coercion. Thus the indictment’s description of Hutaree as ‘an anti-government extremist organization which advocates violence against local, state and Federal law enforcement’ is a product of rhetorical onanism [from Genesis 38:9--a great analogy, Will].”

As a general rule, government is the most violent force on the planet. If one wants to get a true perspective on the historical record regarding who or what routinely produces the most violence and death, one should pick up a copy of R. J. Rummel’s book, “Death By Government.” Since the end of World War II, Communist China and Red Russia lead the pack when it comes to death and brutality; however, the US government has inflicted its share of carnage as well. For example, in Iraq and Afghanistan alone, the government in Washington, D.C., has killed over 800,000 civilians (and this figure is a conservative estimate noting the most credible resources possible).

Plus, does anyone remember the violence that our federal government enacted upon the Branch Davidians outside Waco, Texas? Does anyone remember the mother shot in the head while innocently holding her little baby in her own home by a federal sniper near Ruby Ridge, Idaho (after her small son was shot in the back by federal agents)? In fact, the list of civilians who have been killed by federal law enforcement agents over the years is a very long one. Granted, many of these killings were done in lawful self-defense; but others amounted to nothing less than old-fashioned murder (and never was the federal agent who committed the murder ever brought to justice).

If one wants to indict an “organization which advocates violence,” then surely the central government in Washington, D.C., should be indicted!

If Hutaree members were indeed planning AGGRESSIVE violence against anyone–in the government or without–they deserved to be stopped. If, however, they were simply preparing to DEFEND THEMSELVES against government overreach or abuse–and would only resort to violence in an act of lawful self-defense–they committed no crime and are but the most recent victims of federal abuse of power. This is a question that will doubtless be determined in a court of law.

To charge, however (as the indictment does), that Hutaree members (all 9 of them!) planned “to levy war against the United States, [and] to oppose by force the authority of the Government of the United States . . .” will take some doing to make stick. As Grigg points out, “If Hutaree was preparing for armed DEFENSE against criminal actions by government officials, this charge is as pointless as a broken pencil. If their efforts to ‘prevent, hinder, and delay’ various government initiatives were confined to activism, rather than armed conflict, they are–in that particular–not substantially different from hundreds or thousands of other groups.”

The entire case against Hutaree appears to be based upon the testimony of anFBI undercover agent inside the group. Placing agent provocateurs inside groups such as Hutaree is a classic strategy of federal police agencies. This part of the story was broken by the Wall Street Journal.

Using agent provocateurs is a long-favored tactic of both the Kremlin and the White House. Joel Skousen’s latest WORLD AFFAIRS BRIEF contains an extremely trenchant and insightful analysis of how Russia and the US have used–and continue to use–this tactic.

Skousen writes, “A related tactic [to false flag operations] is the hiring of agent provocateurs to infiltrate a group targeted for destruction and induce radical elements of that group to perform crimes against innocent civilians that will justify armed retaliation or arrest. With the sudden surge in claimed terrorism in Russia and the arrest of the radical Hutaree group in the US, it is helpful to review the role of false flag terror attacks in Russia and the role of agent provocateurs in the US as we analyze what’s really going on.”

Skousen further states, “As we move on to discuss the arrest of the radical members of the Hutaree cult in Michigan, it is important to note that virtually every prosecution of so-called domestic terrorism in the past decade is owed to the infiltration of FBI informants. While none of us in America dispute the need to gain intelligence on real threats to national security, we have to question the propriety of training and pressuring informants (most of which have been forced to accept the informant assignment in lieu of a prison term for other crimes committed) to provoke and induce angry and unstable dissidents to commit acts of terror.

“All too often, FBI ‘informants’ have been pressured by superiors to go far beyond informing. They have provided weapons, explosives, and even acted as the guiding hand to map out the strategy and tactics for performing the deed. These things only come out reluctantly during trial, and even then I suspect that we are never allowed to know the full extent of these provocations.”

To receive a sample of Joel Skousen’s WORLD AFFAIRS BRIEF or to subscribe to this excellent newsletter (I highly recommend it), write to:

In addition, Will Grigg states that another major component of the indictment that is worrisome is the charge that Hutaree is guilty of “seditious conspiracy.” As Grigg writes, “Whatever is eventually learned about Hutaree, as things presently stand the indictment against it could provide a template for ’seditious conspiracy’ prosecutions involving practically any group that endorses the use of defensive force to protect citizens against government aggression.

“Indeed, the definition of ‘conspiracy’ used in the Hutaree indictment could make a criminal out of anyone who reads Federalist Paper 46 in public, thereby sharing James Madison’s commendably seditious admonition that the people preserve ‘the advantage of being armed’ in the event that insurrection against the central government proves necessary in order to preserve liberty.”

Let’s look a little closer at Federalist 46, written by Founding Father, author of the US Constitution, and America’s fourth President, James Madison. In dispelling the fears of colonists toward a standing federal
army, Madison said in Federalist 46, “Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militiathus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.”

Madison went on to say, “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

Could Madison be any clearer? He (and the rest of America’s founders) emphatically expected the militia of the “several States” to be universally armed against the potential encroachment on liberty by the central government, meaning: the citizenry must at all times be prepared to use their arms against any aggressive nature of the federal government to trample their freedoms.

This, of course, reinforces the founders’ intent, that the 2nd Amendment protected the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the express purpose of providing the citizenry with the capability to repel (with violence) any assault against their liberties by their own federal government.

So, pray tell, would today’s FBI categorize James Madison’s statements in Federalist 46 as “seditious conspiracy”? If so, perhaps we are closer to tyranny than any of us wants to admit!

Furthermore, it is not lost to millions of Americans that this is the same federal government (through Department of Homeland Security fusion centers) that just recently characterized pro-lifers; people who support the 2nd Amendment; people who oppose the United Nations and illegal immigration; people who voted for Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin; and Iraq War veterans as “extremists” and potential “dangerous militia members.”

But, once again, the federal government–along with their propagandists in the major news media, including its artificial authority on militias, the ultra-liberal Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in Montgomery, Alabama–is able to use the Hutaree militia to demonize militias in general, and even more damaging, to try and destroy the concept of constitutional State militias in the minds of the American public.

Did members of the Hutaree intend to carry out aggressive violence against law enforcement personnel? I have no idea. Until this story broke in the national media, I had never heard of this group. I will wait for the facts to come out–if indeed the federal government and national media even allow the facts to come out.

I do know this: I do not trust the federal government to tell the truth about anything! They did not tell the truth about the Branch Davidians at Waco; they did not tell the truth about Randy Weaver; they did not tell the truth about Gordon Kahl; and, if their track record is any indicator, it is doubtful that they are telling the truth about the Hutaree militia. But we shall see.

In the meantime, as William Norman Grigg opines, “There’s reason to believe that the Feds have expanded and escalated this ongoing enterprise to exploit, and exacerbate, growing public hostility toward an increasingly invasive and esurient government.

“Whether it is ever demonstrated that Hutaree intended to ‘levy war’ against the U.S. government, this much is beyond serious dispute: The Homeland Security state is unambiguously preparing for war with the public–in fact, it has been doing so for a long time.”

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Donate using this link.

The first indication of the Feds’ case going bad was a local report in the Toledo (Ohio) Blade, dated April 28, 2010. “An FBI agent who led the investigation of nine Michigan militia members charged with trying to launch war against the federal government couldn’t recall many details of the two-year probe yesterday during questioning by defense lawyers.

“Even the judge who must decide whether to release the nine until trial was puzzled.

“‘I share the frustrations of the defense team . . . that she doesn’t know anything,’ U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts said after agent Leslie Larsen confessed she hadn’t reviewed her notes recently and couldn’t remember specific details of the case.”

Can you believe testimony such as this was given in a court of law by a supposedly intelligent federal officer–an agent who had supposedly compiled the evidence that was used to arrest and incarcerate these supposedly “dangerous militia members”? If it wasn’t so serious, this would be a joke!

Remember that it was a federal informant who had infiltrated the group and even offered to teach Hutaree members how to make improvised explosive devices. On this point, William Grigg wrote, “While federal prosecutors have provided ample evidence that members of the Hutaree are passionately anti-government–what decent person ISN’T–they haven’t been able to demonstrate that the group did anything more than engage in survivalist training and indulge in apocalyptic rhetoric.” (Emphasis in the original.)

As a result, Judge Roberts found the government’s case sorely lacking. “Discussions about killing local law enforcement officers–and even discussions about killing members of the judicial branch of government–do not translate to conspiring to overthrow, or levy war against, the United States government,” she wrote, ordering that the Hutaree suspects be released on bail.

About which, Grigg wrote, “Since the federal case against the Hutaree rests entirely on what was SAID by the suspects, rather than anything specific that was DONE by them, it’s difficult to see what’s left of it [the case].” (Emphasis in the original.)

But then again, punishing people because of their speech or political associations seems to be exactly where America is heading.

Remember that the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is famous for supplying Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Fusion Centers and State law enforcement agencies with warnings against people due to their political beliefs (pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, anti-United Nations, anti-New World Order, or anti-illegal immigration, for example), their associations (Libertarian or Constitution parties, for example), or even who they voted for (Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or Chuck Baldwin, to be precise). Previous reports even identified people as “dangerous” because of the books they were reading. (Tell me, again: this is the United States and not Nazi Germany, right?)

Now consider the statements of US Congressman Andre Carson (D-Indiana), who likens Tea Party protesters to “a terrorist threat.”

Washington Times reporter Kerry Picket recorded Rep. Carson as he explained it all:

Kerry Picket (Washington Times): “Do you think the people outside [Tea Party protesters] are generally dangerous or no?”

Rep. Carson: “Oh, absolutely. I worked in homeland security. I’m from intelligence, and I’ll tell you, one of the largest threats to our internal security . . . I mean terrorism has an Islamic face, but it really comes from racial supremacist groups. (inaudible) It’s the kind of thing we keep a threat assessment on record [for].”

Larry O’Connor at BigGovernment.com then wrote, “And we can now see this two pronged message continuing in the narrative from Democratic politicians and the media: The Tea Party protests are really about white rage and they are sowing the seeds for domestic terrorism. This was the message delivered by Rep. Carson that afternoon and that is the message the media has run with.

“Only problem is, we can’t find any proof to back up Rep. Carson’s story.”

The truth is, if the federal government and its prostitutes at the SPLC have their way, ANYONE COULD BE IMPRISONED FOR ANYTHING! Don’t believe physicians should destroy human life in the womb? You’re a terrorist. Don’t like the United Nations? You’re a terrorist. Believe immigrants should come through the front door when migrating to America? You’re a terrorist. Voted for Ron Paul? You’re a terrorist. Believe in the return of Jesus Christ? You’re a terrorist. Ad infinitum. Ad nauseam.

Again, maybe this helps explain why all those (non-existent) FEMA camps are being built!

In my initial column on the Hutaree raid, I wrote, “Did members of the Hutaree intend to carry out aggressive violence against law enforcement personnel? I have no idea. Until this story broke in the national media, I had never heard of this group. I will wait for the facts to come out–if indeed the federal government and national media even allow the facts to come out.”

Well, the facts are beginning to come out: The FBI agent who brought the charges against these self-professed militia members made a complete fool of herself under oath in a court of law. She presented zero evidence to indicate that the Hutaree posed an imminent threat to anybody. Now that the judge has released the Hutaree members from jail and rebuked the agent for presenting such inept testimony, we’ll see if the Feds decide to pursue the case any further. Again, as Will Grigg said, “Since the federal case against the Hutaree rests entirely on what was SAID by the suspects, rather than anything specific that was DONE by them, it’s difficult to see what’s left of it [the case].”

However, the bigger question is, How far will Big-Government toadies try to take this Nazi-like philosophy: that anyone who believes in limited government and freedom, and who rejects their sanctimonious attitude and bullying is a “dangerous terrorist”? And even greater is the question, How long will the American people put up with it?

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

All articles presented are either penned by editors to The RockyView or presented with permission or reposted here as a matter of fair use.

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site/blog for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you may need obtain permission from the copyright owner.

CBS 5 CrimeWatch

Related Links