Yesterday it became apparent that attending one of tomorrow’s Tea Party protests will raise eyebrows over at Homeland Security. Today it’s come to light that our Libertarian Party member friends are intentionally trying to poke a finger in the eye of our DHS overlords.
Click here and take a look at that last poster. If comparing Our Kind And Gentle President Obama to Evil Dictator George W. Bush is not a terrorist act, I don’t know what is. Perhaps they think criticizing Sean Hannity and the GOP will get them off the hook, but seriously guys, I fear for your safety. 
{ 45 comments }
This Libertarian will be there, though this is the first I’ve seen of those signs posted at Creative Loafing.
Did Jenny make those signs?
Was that Jenny on Fox and Friends this morning?
That was JennyBeth. Jenny Hodges is who I was speaking of.
Of course, you do realize that it is to some degree SOP for covert agents from FBI and DHS to keep tabs on and even infiltrate protest groups.
It happened with the Iraqi war protests, and probably is going to happen now. I’m not saying it is right (in fact quite the opposite for peaceful protest), but heaven help you if you trade numbers with someone you don’t realize is a frequent poster at Stormfront at one of these things.
And the Stormfront thing is a slightly more dangerous mirror to the anarchists that like to show up at trade and antiwar protests and smash windows and other crap like that. Whenever protests happen, you’re gonna have the fringe around.
The Georgia LP is actually sponsoring the event tomorrow and libertarians do not believe in force to achieve a political end.
AMEN!!!!
Heck, THIS Libertarian doesn’t even like guns, preferring instead the less-than-lethal Taser series of weapons.
Yep, this Libertarian doesn’t own a gun either. But I do fully support others’ rights to own them.
Very true on that last David. Again, just because I personally prefer not to have one, doesn’t mean YOU shouldn’t!
A principle the Big Government Party would do well to learn…
“A principle the Big Government Party would do well to learn…”
Wait, I thought we lived in a Democracy? If people use their freedom to express their interests and desires to the government, the government shouldn’t listen to its constituents?
Oh wait, only if “freedom” is being infringed upon, yet you don’t want people’s freedom to change the government to truly be enacted.
Actually, Rugby, we live in a Republic where certain rights are protected. We have problem when your “change” affects my right to life, liberty and property.
Wrong, we live in a Republic. The freedom of the people is paramount, not the governments freedom to change.
A little document of no interest to Progressive/Statist that have no concept or understanding of what liberty, freedom or any other precept or definition written in the Constitution wants government to change to suit themselves.
Pfft…..
Yeah, no see, we actually live in a democracy.
We have direct elections (except for POTUS which, let’s face it, really is a direct election). We have the ability to directly change government etc. Sorry, but call it what you want, that sounds pretty damn democratic (and I won’t even mention the fact you can have a democratic republic, and a republic that is also a democracy).
It is also part of our system that the people can bring about concerns to their legislators and that they can say “I want more regulation of X”.
What I don’t get is that for all this talk about liberty being great, perhaps the greatest expression of freedom (the people being able to completely dictate the government’s actions) doesn’t seem to have too much support.
It isn’t that I don’t like freedom, it is just your conception of freedom is ridiculous.
rugby:
We have direct elections to decide who represents us when making laws.
Webster.com on ‘republic’:
A democracy is Mob rule.
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
Thomas Jefferson
Not to beat a dead horse here, but Rugby, we can only be a democracy if they actually let us vote on every single law that gets passed…
another product of our fine liberal education system.
Rugby,
If we were a democracy there would be no need for multiple branches of government, especially the Supreme Court.
The legislative branch can make law with a majority vote. If we were a Democracy it would stop there. But we say the President must sign… already we’re moving away from a democracy. Then the Supreme Court can rule that the new law is Unconstitutional and the law is null an void… the result is a Republic, majority rule as long as the Constitution is adhered to and no-one’s rights are infringed upon.
I know this could be made more complicated, but it should at least help with the Democracy v. Republic discussion.
ps. There’s also the pledge and the fact that Franklin announced that a republic has been created to support that we are indeed a republic.
Glen Beck was all over this yesterday afternoon, warning his listeners who were organizing tea parties to be wary of folks who they did not know trying to either get a few minutes on stage or to speak with them privately. He warned of many different forces at work trying to make these events seem nothing more than a bunch of crazy people complaining about taxes and the current administration. Beck was urging folks to keep the discussion centered on the spending issues and the fact that both parties are guilty.
Rugby = Clueless effing idiot on difference between a “democracy” and a “republic.”
Skip a lot of classes in your “liberal arts” edumacation, Rugby?
TO all you “republic” grammar zanis:
DHS has a nice cell for you in your ‘republic’.
Way to hijack the thread on the burning social subject of semantics. Way to dogpile Rogue while ignoring his honest assessment.
Aren’t you guys in the gulag, yet?
Rogue, Rugy, whatever, USE YOUR REAL NAMES, PEOPLE!
Rick,
Way to hijack the thread on the burning social subject of semantics
Believe it or not, it actually IS important for people to understand the difference. Otherwise, it becomes a matter of definiing what it is on the fly…and then destroying the meaning.
Of course, I DO understand these are just trifles to a guy like yourself…you would like for this country to become Cuba.
Cuba. LOL. Good times, Good times!!
Back to topic. The Department of Homeland Security has concerns that you are an EXTREMEST if you are:
1. a Social Conservative,
2. pro-life,
3. don’t support present Administration policy,
4. have a perception the economy is worsening,
5. perceive the loss of US jobs,
6. pro-enforcement of immigration laws, or
7. fail to recognize the historic significance of the election (and fail to fall down in awe, okay my words).
Read Malkin’s report that Buzz linked. The US Government is trying to portray you as an extremist if you hold certain political views. I believe the Comma Guy is close to right, the government is labeling with the usual progressive labels, extremists and crazies.
Left out #8,
8. pro Amendment II
I was going to say
8. You are carrying
9. You blog
10. You have a bumper sticker that says anything besides “Obama”
I just heard on Beck that illegals had 4 million babies here last year. No problem there.
Kellie,
Hey…pro-life conservatives in the GOP should be HAPPY they had those 4 million babies rather than abort them, right?
A Missouri State Police training instructor was teaching recruits to beware, it could be an extremist if the bumper sticker was a Ron Paul sticker.
After the publicity, the Missouri State Police admitted “my bad” and dropped it.
But wait, what if Ron Paul supporters are more likely to be crazy? You wouldn’t want the cops wasting their time on the innocent would you?
I mean, come on, who’s more likely to go Timothy McVeigh? A “Revolutionary” or a 60-year grandma?
I mean, that bumper sticker thing … that’s almost like profiling. And we know that’s only right when Muslims are involved.
Hey Bill,
You’re using that line on the wrong person.
I’m not pro-life or a republican.
Odi, are you claiming the federal, state and local police should be pro-filing?
I thought you Progressives had a problem with law enforcement using profile techniques to single out gang bangers driving through rich white neighborhoods.
I do. That’s why I love rubbing noses in this tea party thing since it is bringing out behavior you’ve mocked, decried, or flat out ignored for years.
So yes, Homeland Security and FBI infiltrating protest groups with no prior record of violence is bad. Profiling based on group identity rather than causal cues is bad.
And even misguided protesters are not bums, people without jobs, or belonging to the many other classes of losers that this group has very likely consigned past protesters to.
Although yes, I do think y’all are retarded for bitching about one of the few surges in government debt that may actually do something productive for this country. As opposed to, let’s say, blow up a few foreign countries.
Funny, I was going to go with that example … but then I’d have been accused of false accusation of racism. Glad you got there first.
And for the record, yes. Profiling is bad. The FBI or DHS infiltrating groups with no demonstrated intention to be violent is bad.
Hey, Kell
I kinda knew that…but, I wanted to make sure it caught the eye of any passing social conservative.
Odi, we’re on the same page on profiling. I’m concerned that the DHS and the FBI are dropping the ball on this one. Political activist and upset law abiding citizens of all persuasions demonstrating peacefully are not the enemy.
Terrorists, both foreign and domestic, are.
Bill – You trying to get me in trouble around here?
I’m an individualist so they can’t infiltrate me unless they have some duct tape and some Vaseline(tm). And perhaps a tazer gun.
I’m an individualist so they can’t infiltrate me unless they have some duct tape and some Vaseline(tm). And perhaps a tazer gun.
I can be had with just the duct tape and Vaseline. Just please confirm that I put up a bodacious fight.
What party is for non-peaceful libertarians? Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and the other founders certainly didn’t have a problem with violence.
c_murrayiii:
They only took up arms when there was NO OTHER OPTION.
Right now, as bad as things are, there are STILL more options.
Indeed, my feelings were summed up in the movie The Patriot:
I am deeply concerned that the DHS discussion of what constitutes a ‘security risk’, ‘extremist’, ‘subversive’ is now focused on certain political viewpoints. When our First Amendment right to free speech becomes fodder for what is essentially a omnipotent new domestic Police force toact upon – Watch Out.
Since 1947 (beinnings of the National Security Act) observers of individual rights recognize that our identity, freedom, and ability to organize are all under attack. That a handful of ‘extremists’ attacked the US bolstered these efforts. Make no mistake, the biggest threat to any government is the people’s ability to limit its’ power and growth.
The trend toward more government (i.e. creation of cities in GA) is now an acceptable, yet unproen, solution to poor government. We see people joyfully giving the right to tax and police away as if that authority is without huge value. Notably, staunch, card-carrying Republicans are doing this. Good grief!
“The nail that sticks up gets hammered down” – Chinese Proverb
Oh I agree completely, violence is always the last option. But it should never be taken off the table so far as defending liberty is concerned. I know my history, even after Lexington and Concord, the colonists still drank to King George’s health and made efforts to reach a peaceful resolution with the British. But violence was still an option.
I see a distinction between creating cities in Georgia and what is going on at the Federal level.
Creating those cities is a small experiment only affecting those taxpayers and citizens that reside in that city or county. Those citizens have the option of moving a few miles and avoid the negative ramifications if they so desire. Or, those negatively affected can vote to reverse the decision to incorporate.
Creating this grand scheme of THE GREAT EXPERIMENT of BORROWING and SPENDING at the greatest levels in our history places all citizens at risk of the largest financial failure in history.
We have no option of moving to escape the consequences of catastrophic economic collapse and remain in the United States.
Comments on this entry are closed.