Call me Paranoid

I don't believe I am alone when I say every day I can feel the noose of tyrany drawing tighter and tighter around the personal freedoms that I have enjoyed these 40+ years. I am not sure I even believe that a socialist state is the end game for the current thugocracy in power. I'm starting to believe it is totalitarianism--I sure hope not, since socialism is faster to type.

Back in the winter I posted a few blogs voicing my concern about the doctrine that isn't the Fairness Doctrine and was promtly blasted for contributing to the uneducated redneck stereotype because I didn't fully "comprehend" my blogging subject for the day. Well, I disagree.

In the past months I have watched a local columnist link local "right wing" bloggers to Tim McVeigh, Missouri issue an alert for people who oppose the current administration,support pro-life,Israel,the Constitution, Ron Paul, the One wants to raise an army of Obamites, the FBI inflitrate and photograph the TEA parties, the Dept of Homeland Security classify returning veterans, religious, pro-lifers,Constitutionalist, etc...as potential terrorists, then the article posted by Butch Cassidy yesterday about the protections for sexual deviants over the rights of ordinary citizens, and then this gem today, HR 1966. This act is designed to protect people from cyberbullying (how that makes any sense I have no clue since no one forces another person to log onto a website) with this type of language in the bill

[Sec. 881. Cyberbullying
`(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.]

What?? Does that mean if I am engaged in an internet debate with a fellow living in England and I hurt his feelings --that he can then file charges against me under this new bill? Who decides my "intent"? Or more locally, what if I'm engaged in defending myself from being called raaaacist for the umpteenth time and I hurt someone's feelings--am I then guilty of intent to cause substantial emotional distress by using electronic means in a repeated and hostile manner?

Now, I know the first intent of this bill was to protect youngsters on the internet in the wake of the tragic death of Megan Meir---but, Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Los Angeles isn't happy with just protecting young people. In the terminally stupid mode of those liberals among us who just do not understand that we will fight to the death any attempts to try to remove our right of free speech,she has extended that protection one giant step further---to everyone.

So, riddle me this--if the doctrine that isn't the fairness doctrine says we all have to play nice and get along or go to jail--will it be applied equally and fairly to both sides? Doubtful. Fairness only seems to be something the current administration applies when it benefits one side--their side. The preferred method of operation for a thugocracy it seems.

Gateway Pundit: Good Is Bad, Up Is Down, Black Is White, War Is Peace, Tax Evasion Is a Glitch... America Is Safer With Gitmo Closed

Gateway Pundit: Good Is Bad, Up Is Down, Black Is White, War Is Peace, Tax Evasion Is a Glitch... America Is Safer With Gitmo Closed

"The Exalted One spaketh this morn
on Day 15 of the First Year of AB:
President Barack Obama says his decision to close the Guantanamo prison
"will make us safer" and ensure that the government is upholding legal
guarantees under the U.S. justice system.In an interview aired Monday on NBC's
"Today" show, Obama says his decision to close the military prison at the U.S.
naval base in Cuba was driven by his attempts to balance "what's going to keep
the American people safe" and constitutionally guaranteed rights for those
imprisoned. And, it was good."

Our nation is significantly weaker in just two weeks that Obama has been in office compared to all the years that came before BO. He has bungled and bumbled and stumbled every step of the way. We are in serious trouble folks, and unless he is miraculously declared to NOT be the president we are going to witness one of the most spectacular and tragic episodes in American history.

Yep, welcome to the carnival funhouse ...watch out for those mirrors though...

Privacy be damned! The Obamabots want to know!

On Friday the 17th of October I posted a blog voicing my outrage about the way Joe the Plumber has been treated by the Obamabots in the press, but along with the outrage there was no small amount of concern over the way these people went after this man and his privacy. Now, I find the depths this obamabot went to do dig up dirt on Joe is even worse than I knew in the beginning. Did anyone read Orwell's 1984? One of the officials who initiated this outrageous snooping into Joe's private life was Hellen Jones-Kelley, director of Ohio Dept. of Family Services and not surprisingly also contributed the maximum amount to Obama's campaign. Here is her "reasoning"

"Given our understanding that Mr. Wurzelbacher had publicly indicated that he had the means to purchase a substantial business enterprise, ODJFS, consistent with past departmental practice, checked confidential databases ," she wrote.

Are you paying attention to what this woman said? I wonder if she, in the pursuit of consistency, has a file open on every single person in her state who publicly states they live on more than a Welfare check? I bet not.

I'm old enough to remember the height of the cold war...when people simply disappeared off the streets for saying the wrong thing to the wrong person. This still happens in places like, China, North Korea, Burma,Iraq,Iran. And now I see it happening in America before the messiah is even elected, what will it be like if he is elected?

Will the Obama government encourage this citizen snooping? Well, judge for yourself from this speech. The messiah says:

"Loving your country shouldn't just mean watching fireworks on the 4th of July," he said. "Loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change it. If you do, your life will be richer, our country will be stronger."...

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," he said Wednesday. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."

Excuse me? That is just as powerful? Just as strong? Just as well funded? What the hell for? Don't we already have a police department in every town and city? And just why in the hell can't we continue to rely on America's military? Haven't they done everything we've asked of them? Don't we already have the National Guard for national emergencies? Could he want a civilian force because he knows when he gives his marching orders to America's military they will refuse an unlawful order? Is he planning on setting up an alternate force--that is in his own words, just as powerful, strong, and well funded to try to force us to do something that is against some of the freedoms that we are guaranteed in this country? Oh wait...the key is the word "civilian" Could it be that he wants to do an end run around the Constitutional prohibition of using the military against our civilian population and the way to do it is call this powerful, strong, well funded organization a civilian national security force?

This guy is dangerous. What he wants to do to our nation is dangerous and we must not allow it.

Constitutional provision for a moron?