The lock-up-your-opponents bills of 2009?
posted at 11:08 am on July 10, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Would Congress ever pass legislation that would allow the executive to determine at its own discretion whether political opponents had crossed the line into domestic terrorists and build camps in which to keep them? Sounds like something out of 20th-century totalitarian systems or dystopian fiction. Mark Tapscott says it’s not fiction, and he warns readers about an effort by Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) to do just that:
Rep. Alcee Hastings – the impeached Florida judge Nancy Pelosi tried to install as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee until her own party members rebelled – introduced an amendment to the defense authorization bill that gives Attorney General Eric Holder sole discretion to label groups that oppose government policy on guns, abortion, immigration, states’ rights, or a host of other issues. In a June 25 speech on the House floor, Rep. Trent Franks, R-AZ, blasted the idea: “This sounds an alarm for many of us because of the recent shocking and offensive report released by the Department of Homeland Security which labeled, arguably, a majority of Americans as ‘extremists.’”
Another Hastings bill (HR 645) authorizes $360 million in 2009 and 2010 to set up “not fewer than six national emergency centers on military installations” capable of housing “a large number of individuals affected by an emergency or major disaster.” But Section 2 (b) 4 allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to use the camps “to meet other appropriate needs” – none of which are specified. This is the kind of blank check that Congress should never, ever sign.
It’s not paranoid to be extremely wary of legislation that would give two unelected government officials power to legally declare someone a “domestic terrorist” and send them to a government-run camp.
To be fair on the second point, most legislation includes phrases similar to the “meet other appropriate needs” as a means of allowing flexibility in using facilities commissioned by Congress. Under unforeseen circumstances even apart from creating concentration camps for abortion opponents, the six national emergency centers might need to get some use other than housing military personnel or civilians evacuated from a disaster area. That language allows the Pentagon and Homeland Security leeway to adapt for other issues without having to worry that lawyers will descend upon them like locusts for not strictly limiting use to the statutes.
However, the designation of domestic terrorist groups — a necessary and critical process for keeping the peace — should not fall into the hands of just one person. That process needs oversight and consensus to be credible and fair. Congress should have some involvement, especially in oversight. Holder could be the greatest AG in the history of the US but still should not have the absolute authority to make that designation, especially after the track record of the DHS in using vague parameters and broad-based smears of legitimate political protest earlier this year.
Mark may also want to look at HR 1966, introduced by Rep. Linda Sanchez last April in reaction to the suburban mother who drove one of her daughter’s acquaintances — a 13-year-old girl — to suicide. Bas cases make bad law, and that’s doubly true here. Look at this language and imagine how this could be used:
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.
Who decides what constitutes “substantial emotional distress”? What is the definition of “severe” and “hostile”? What kinds of persons can claim victimhood under this bill? This purports to be a bill to prevent cyberbullying — which is hardly a crime wave in America anyway — but could easily be perverted to shut down “mean” bloggers.
This Congress has taken a strange and dangerous turn away from the principles of free speech and towards … something else entirely.
Update: Apparently, the Irish are also having trouble with this concept.
Update II: I think I was a little too subtle in my post. I don’t think Hastings is passing a “concentration camp” bill, but just a badly worded piece of pork. Irishspy in the comments sums it up better than I did above:
I read the original text of these bills a few days ago and, while I have strong concerns about the lack of due process in allowing the AG to simply designate someone a dangerous person just because of his beliefs or (IIRC) tattoos, Hastings’ amendment about the regional command centers looks more like a bunch of pork for areas affected by base closures than anything else.
That was my point. The language that Mark points out is pretty much legislative boilerplate, probably meaningless in the sense Mark takes it. I’m much more concerned about the cyberbullying bill and the authority Hastings wants to grant to the AG.
Update II: Radio Vice Online has been looking at the cyberbullying bill, too.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Or if the real intention is hidden under some “moderating” language. I guess the idea of giving much more discretional power to a guy who publicly called America a “nation of cowards” and then publicly let the Black Panthers go, when the case was all but won, is something so obvious and public in its intention that one could say it is not a conspiracy … Just treason.
progressoverpeace on July 10, 2009 at 12:29 PM
- introduced an amendment to the defense authorization bill
Is this the same bill that is part of the CIA vs Pelosistan where they want more blabbermouths in on secrets?
How many bad amendments have been added to Defense Authorization bills in the past that make it through because “we need that defense bill” mentality? Quicksand dead ahead.
journeyintothewhirlwind on July 10, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Yeah…no studly cabana boys…
ladyingray on July 10, 2009 at 12:29 PM
“Well-intended”
My arse!
Upstater85 on July 10, 2009 at 12:31 PM
Like $4,500 tax credits to turn in your clunker? That’ll come in handy for the men and women in the foxholes.
Limerick on July 10, 2009 at 12:32 PM
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”
Ronald Reagan
ccbokc on July 10, 2009 at 12:32 PM
OK. No standing. Then, in what other position do you want cabana boys?
Loxodonta on July 10, 2009 at 12:32 PM
It’s funny how acknowledging this legislation(regardless of it’s unlikeliness) is a push to promote paranoia but posting every stupid thing ever said about Gov. Palin is necessary information.
Cindy Munford on July 10, 2009 at 12:33 PM
How about a compromise – a lock up Hastings bill?
Vashta.Nerada on July 10, 2009 at 12:34 PM
+1
Thunderstorm129 on July 10, 2009 at 12:34 PM
The difference is, the persons who created the interment camps (politicians) were not the same persons as those who stood to gain (farmers). The farmers who stood to gain were an interest group, just like any other. Madison would have called them a “faction,” as the interest they were agitating for ran counter to the interest of the nation as a whole, but they were just another lobby.
I once had one of Lyndon LaRouche’s brainwashed footsoldiers tell me that a ballpoint pen is the product of a conspiracy. His “reasoning”: different people from different parts of the world worked in concert to produce it–i.e. it was not the product of one man. Their definition was indistinguishable from the dictionary definition of “collaboration.” Your definition is similar to theirs, except you add in the qualifier that the collaborative effort must be for sinister purposes.
I say: not every sinister collaboration is a conspiracy. I say further: to decide arbitrarily that someone must be conspiring against you, and to see evidence of such conspiracy in the most innocuous acts, is not a hallmark of mental health.
hicsuget on July 10, 2009 at 12:37 PM
ROFLMAO!
Laura in Maryland on July 10, 2009 at 12:39 PM
If the white farmer benefits, then it would seem natural to assume that his representative (that represented him “well”) also benefits.
Do you believe that politicians cannot conspire on behalf of conspiring lobbyists?
Upstater85 on July 10, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Fine, sure.
Upstater85 on July 10, 2009 at 12:42 PM
If we accept your definition, then any action any politician takes ever is a conspiracy, provided only that some lobbyist requested it, irrespective of how many lobbyists may have asked the same politician to take the opposite action.
hicsuget on July 10, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Great – I’d like to report Andrew Sullivan for his repeated hostile behavior towards Gov. Palin and her son Trig.
Book ‘em Danno …
HondaV65 on July 10, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Well, in my previous post, I did not say that politicians that pass a bill that benefits the lobbyists was conspiracy. I implied that if they (pols) conspired on behalf of their favorite lobbyists, then well, clearly there was a conspiracy.
Upstater85 on July 10, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Ol Alcee isn’t looking very far down the road, if this was to pass. Someday the conservatives may be in power again, then what Alcee? You might be on the wrong side of the fence yo own self.
Lincoln Cadillac on July 10, 2009 at 12:48 PM
WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot?!?
christene on July 10, 2009 at 12:48 PM
That said, can you give a reasonable answer as to why there was no conspiracy among politicians (absolutely none) with say internment or the NRA.
Upstater85 on July 10, 2009 at 12:49 PM
+1
bill30097 on July 10, 2009 at 12:51 PM
The Honorable Alcee Hastings is still pretty pissed about not getting the Intelligence chair. Certainly he can find more ways to control the appropriations to DynCorp and Wackenhut.
Or maybe Hastings is just picking up the slack for Carrie Meek and her Honorable Congressman son Kendrick Meek.
gabriel sutherland on July 10, 2009 at 12:51 PM
Interesting isn’t it. Democrat means never having to say your sorry.
Cindy Munford on July 10, 2009 at 12:51 PM
your = you’re
Cindy Munford on July 10, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Yea, and I’m not sure it is not dude on dude flirtation…unbeknownst to those doing the flirting.
Goodeye_Closed on July 10, 2009 at 12:52 PM
To be serious, this bill does concern me. I doubt that it will pass, but it represents another in the Left’s penchant for attempting to restrict speech, including any speech that dissents from their political ideology. For example, look at the history of hate speech laws and campus speech codes and protests against conservative speakers.
Chances are, this bill will not become law. I hope. However, it’s introduction is another attempt by liberals to silence conservative dissent. If they can’t do it by law, they do it by stigmatizing and bullying their political opponents into silence.
Among the strategies the Left uses to marginalize the Right is to label us all as a bunch of conspiracy nuts suffering from delusional paranoia. But remember, 9/11 was an inside job. And the CIA always lies to Congress.
Loxodonta on July 10, 2009 at 12:53 PM
If we’re going to have a big tent, we’re going to need a lot of tentpoles.
Laura in Maryland on July 10, 2009 at 12:56 PM
I miss Reagan. He was the last great President.
Wolftech on July 10, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Ehhhhh
OK, I’m out. Thanks for leaving that horrible image in my head.
Upstater85 on July 10, 2009 at 12:57 PM
I’m not a dude…
ladyingray on July 10, 2009 at 12:57 PM
+1000
ZING………
ladyingray on July 10, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Dang it! You weren’t supposed to tell.
Goodeye_Closed on July 10, 2009 at 1:00 PM
And here I thought you were a 62 year old balding pipefitter named Earl;)
Laura in Maryland on July 10, 2009 at 1:00 PM
This is simply odd. What is the DOD supposed to do with facilities capable of housing large numbers of people the rest of the time?
highhopes on July 10, 2009 at 1:03 PM
For taking bribes & using the race card!!…WOW!,…just,…WOW!
christene on July 10, 2009 at 1:04 PM
I thought possibly a reference to the NY Times myself.
Goodeye_Closed on July 10, 2009 at 1:05 PM
I agree completely. It’s nice that folks that are supposedly on the side of “individual liberty” and “small government” are finally realizing that it’s a bad idea to let the Executive Branch make unilateral directives about terrorism that are free of due process. Kudos!
orange on July 10, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Perhaps you two would like to discuss this issue over a nice candlelight dinner.
Loxodonta on July 10, 2009 at 1:05 PM
That’s me. People often mistake me for others.
jmarcure on July 10, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Uh-Oh,,,What did I step into here?
Goodeye_Closed on July 10, 2009 at 1:08 PM
Good question. Don’t most areas have evacuation/emergency plans that call for using the schools as shelters? That is odd. In the event of something like Katrina, doesn’t a specific plan need to be tailored to time of year, scope of disaster, and needs of the affected? Six cookie cutter camps seems suspicious under any circumstance.
Laura in Maryland on July 10, 2009 at 1:08 PM
You lost me on “Holder could be the greatest AG in the history of the US “.
kirkill on July 10, 2009 at 1:11 PM
With the government we have now (bothe sides of the isle) we are probably just one disaster away from authoritarianism in one form or another.
Goodeye_Closed on July 10, 2009 at 1:11 PM
Make it formal, with layers. Unwrapping is so much more fun that way.
Loxodonta on July 10, 2009 at 1:11 PM
Nope…LOL
ladyingray on July 10, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Dittos here on that.
Too bad the NEA and the rest of the leftists took that advice to heart and made sure it wasn’t passed down to them.
Chainsaw56 on July 10, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Stranger to me is the specificity of the bill:
b) Minimum Requirements- A site designated as a national emergency center shall be–
(1) capable of meeting for an extended period of time the housing, health, transportation, education, public works, humanitarian and other transition needs of a large number of individuals affected by an emergency or major disaster;
(2) environmentally safe and shall not pose a health risk to individuals who may use the center;
(3) capable of being scaled up or down to accommodate major disaster preparedness and response drills, operations, and procedures;
(4) capable of housing existing permanent structures necessary to meet training and first responders coordination requirements during nondisaster periods;
(5) capable of hosting the infrastructure necessary to rapidly adjust to temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance needs;
(6) required to consist of a complete operations command center, including 2 state-of-the art command and control centers that will comprise a 24/7 operations watch center as follows:
(A) one of the command and control centers shall be in full ready mode; and
(B) the other shall be used daily for training; and
(7) easily accessible at all times and be able to facilitate handicapped and medical facilities, including during an emergency or major disaster.
The bill goes on to all but mandate they be on closed military bases. But I still don’t see where the need for this is coming from. I was living in New Orleans during the Hurricane Gustav evacuation last year. The state did a very good job getting everybody out (no thanks to Ray Nagin). People ended up in facilities much like are proposed and the comments were that they wouldn’t go there again because a week of being warehoused was too much. Short of that, the DOD is being ordered to maintain infrastructure with no real value other than when “the big one” happens.
Something is fishy here. I don’t know if he’s getting kickbacks from a contractor or has schemes to get the Gitmo prisoners transferred to halfway houses all over America, or what but Hastings isn’t telling the whole story with this legislation.
highhopes on July 10, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Considering the track record during the Bush years and of Janet Reno, I’d be happy if Holder was the greatest AG of the last three administrations and even that qualifier is too hard a standard for Holder to meet.
highhopes on July 10, 2009 at 1:20 PM
The case had been won. It was in the penalty phase.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 1:22 PM
One thing’s for sure, they would be useless after a nuke exchange. They would no longer exist.
OldEnglish on July 10, 2009 at 1:37 PM
That would be one way to look at it. Another way would be “what the hell are you talking about?”
Hastings is a crook, a liar, and an idiot, but there is not one single word in his stupid bill which even hints at “declaring political opponents to be terrorists and locking them up in camps”.
Jaibones on July 10, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Hastings is a very dangerous and ruthless man.
d1carter on July 10, 2009 at 1:41 PM
I don’t think it’s paranoid to be fearful of language like “other appropriate needs…”. The current march towards tyrannical socialist control combined with a weak/compliant Congress and Supreme Court obviates any benign meaning in that language. “Eternal vigilance” is the least that is called for.
SKYFOX on July 10, 2009 at 1:41 PM
There is nothing these people would not do to keep power.Anyone who does not beleave this does so at there on risk.These power hungry people will not let a little thing like the bill of rights get in there way.Most of them think that they are the ruling class.Just look at the new health care bill.They would not be part of it they have a much better plan for them self.Just ask Sen.DeMent of S.C.about how much both partys are out of control and drunk with power.The only way this will ever change is to throw all of them out and have a one term limit on all Sen.,Congressmen,judges and Pres & VP.
thmcbb on July 10, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Oh, yeah. Impeached for corruption, and then elected to the legislature by some racially gerrymandered district of nitwits who vote based on melanin content.
Only in America.
Jaibones on July 10, 2009 at 1:46 PM
“Badly worded” legislation is the basis for many sinister plans. There is nothing more dangerous than badly worded legislation.
Look at how the interpretations of marriage law are being twisted, and those were well-worded laws. Take a badly worded law and you can do almost anything. And to add to it that this “badly worded” piece came from a former (disgraced and criminal) federal judge … and this should make a chill go up everyone’s spine.
Remember, selectively enforced law is worse than no law and badly worded law is even worse than selectively enforced law.
progressoverpeace on July 10, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Wow. Hot Air, the “Bash Glenn Beck” site, is now reporting things Beck reported earlier and caught grief for. Maybe an apology is in order to Beck. Just saying.
Special K on July 10, 2009 at 1:54 PM
No, he is very vague why we even need these facilities. There is an ulterior motive here. It may not be concentration camps for right-to-lifers but he’s hiding something about what these places are supposed to be used for. You don’t keep a BRAC’d military base around just so FEMA can use it as their personal plaything. Those bases were closed because the infrastructure was too expensive to maintain. And all that is supposed to be around in case another Katrina comes through and displaces all the poor blacks from New Orleans again?
I want to know what the criminal congressman really has in mind- and it isn’t national emergencies.
highhopes on July 10, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Ed, please for the love of God man, wake up! Last week we had a minority female rep make a statement that conservative talk radio hosts are terrorists.
And that document from Reichsminister Napalitano enumerated THEIR EXACT LIST OF FUTURE “DETAINEEs”.
dogsoldier on July 10, 2009 at 2:02 PM
Hello, Georgia Arms? I need to change my order from 2000 rounds of 7.62 x 39 to 10,000 rounds. Thanks!
bill30097 on July 10, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Jaibones on July 10, 2009
Melanin is only half the equation. You still need the (D) after your name.
SKYFOX on July 10, 2009 at 2:04 PM
Blake, that’s what WE want, but I don’t believe the gov’t wants that. It’s been said before that if over 50% of our population is on welfare, we will never get them off of it. I think that’s the ultimate goal, if these are not prison camps for people who disagree with the gov’t, then maybe they are a way to increase the welfare state.
I’ve been tracking this one for a while on govtrack.us. which also provides links to reps profiles, voting history, and top campaign contributions as well as being a great resource for following bills.
This is also something we all need to pay attention to.
anj413 on July 10, 2009 at 2:05 PM
American Power tracked-back with, “Democrats Push to Brand Partisan Opponents as ‘Hate Groups’”:
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/democrats-push-to-brand-partisan.html
Donald Douglas on July 10, 2009 at 2:07 PM
This is also something we all need to pay attention to.
anj413 on July 10, 2009
(2)(G) is frighteningly open-ended.
SKYFOX on July 10, 2009 at 2:09 PM
Wait! I figured it all out! I KNOW the plan!!!
See, this legislation will allow DHS to determine that Global Warming “Deniers”… all those evil SUV driving folks… can be declared Domestic Terrorists (after all, Gore said we are all Nazis).
Thus, they can then lock us up… taking our evil SUVs off the road (nowhere to drive when your locked up in camp).
Thus, they save the enviroment!
See! It all fits!
Romeo13 on July 10, 2009 at 2:13 PM
So let’s suppose we have a couple of “incidents” like Waco, Ruby Ridge or The Oklahoma Building Retaliation under Holder. Do you have any doubt this kind of Legislation would get fast tracked?
GunRunner on July 10, 2009 at 2:29 PM
Exactly. And right now the Dems in Congress are wounded and hurt and therefore dangerous. They want their golden poll numbers back and these socialist bills approved and the only way to do that is to cut off the opposition from writing, speaking, blogging and posting facts that are hidden or denied about healthcare, cap and trade, cardcheck etc.
If you have a Republican or Blue Dog Dem representing you make sure they know about this amendment Hastings is trying to add onto the Defense Authorization Bill so that they are present to vote against it. And if it somehow gets attached to the Bill that no matter how much they want the rest of the bill to pass, they have to vote it down.
journeyintothewhirlwind on July 10, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Yeah. Just like “There will be a public option for health care.”
When are you going to learn to be “fair” in the Democratic definition of “fair”?
drjohn on July 10, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Something is fishy here. I don’t know if he’s getting kickbacks from a contractor or has schemes to get the Gitmo prisoners transferred to halfway houses all over America, or what but Hastings isn’t telling the whole story with this legislation.
highhopes on July 10, 2009 at 1:17 PM
You make some interesting points about the need for secrecy and security. There are plenty of closed down factories all across the country. Why the need for military type structures? Why even the mention of the military at all? I am not a black helicopter nut yet but I could become one.
fourdeucer on July 10, 2009 at 2:36 PM
I remember listening to Alcee Hastings during his impeachment trial. C-SPAN played the audio tape of him negotiating a bribe with mobsters in south Florida ( even though he used a crude code, it was obvious what he was doing ).
The Dems were in charge of both houses of Congress back then in the early 90s, but overwhelmingly voted to impeach and then remove him from the Federal bench
He makes a perfect Poster Manchild for the Demo Party…
Janos Hunyadi on July 10, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Can this be true?
____________________________________________________________
What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?
So how did a youn g man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?
And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?
The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers.
It makes the debate over Obama’s citizenship a rather short and simple one.
Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A: Yes, by his own admission.
Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities.
1) He traveled with a U.S. Passport,
2) He traveled with a British passport, or
3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.
Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.
Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.
If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims.
And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to be ing adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.
Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a “natural born”
American citizen between 1981 and 2008.
Goodeye_Closed on July 10, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Exactly, my friend. 2-C also sent up a red-flag for me.
Who was it in here that said ammunition is becoming more available? I have a hellova time finding .45 acp in my neck ‘o the desert.
anj413 on July 10, 2009 at 3:03 PM
FEMA wants more permanent housing solutions.
Akzed on July 10, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Whether we like it or not, they’re voicing a legitimate concern. Katrina was a clusterfark, with refugees spread everywhere. Some were even relocated here in Madison, and lots of people were none too happy about the fact that they were dumped in Allied Drive, the most crime-ridden place in town.
Never trust the government, but don’t forget to apply a bit of reason to certain situations.
MadisonConservative on July 10, 2009 at 3:24 PM
That may be but why is Hastings championing this instead of the administration? Where is the veteran-hating DHS secretary in the middle of all this?
highhopes on July 10, 2009 at 3:31 PM
I can’t believe how short-sighted the Democrats are. They need to understand that the law they pass to punish others may someday be used to punish them.
hawksruleva on July 10, 2009 at 3:37 PM
Yeah but, you know, never waste a crisis.
Akzed on July 10, 2009 at 3:41 PM
I ran across this from Sascha Baron Cohen on IMDb…
“I remember, when I was in university I studied history, and there was this one major historian of the Third Reich, Ian Kershaw. And his quote was, ‘The path to Auschwitz was paved with indifference.’“
Laura in Maryland on July 10, 2009 at 4:54 PM
You do if you’re a nanny-state nitwit like Alcee Hastings. Dude, you’re applying financial logic to a bill by a guy who was impeached. He doesn’t even know what a BRAC’d military base is. He knows that Katrina allowed the civic disaster known as New Orleans to commit social suicide, and he probably thinks that putting the military in charge of hurricane refugees is a good idea.
Why not? That could be exactly what he has in mind. His mind isn’t real complicated, HH.
Jaibones on July 10, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Little Timmy would only call this a “chill wind” under a Repub.
Under NEObama (The One), he’ll just call it a “cool breeze”.
soundingboard on July 10, 2009 at 6:13 PM
.
FIFY
NightmareOnKStreet on July 10, 2009 at 6:14 PM
.
The fact that Pelosi STILL has a job (and it’s not stamping license plates behind bars) should help us all drop the pretenses and start to fight dirty like our liberal friends who get all the attention. But noooooo…. some of us are too classy, too reasonable, too… scared?
.
If on Sept. 10, 2001, someone could have foreseen what those 19 hijackers had in mind for this country the next day, how many of us would have said, “Pull them over for running a STOP sign, arrest them for resisting arrest & we’ll sort it all out tomorrow?”
.
I can hear the whining now, “…due process… not the America I know…” Even KNOWING our fate, so many of us on the right would not “cross that line”. To them I say, “When our country is destroyed, DO NOT PRETEND WE HAD NO WARNING like all the fools who had never even heard of al Qaeda before 9-11!
.
That’s why SanFran Nan is STILL Speaker of the House & why we are facing THE POLITICAL EQUIVALENT OF 9-11.
NightmareOnKStreet on July 10, 2009 at 6:48 PM
Our 2nd amendment culture has made it tougher to such things
here….though our American culture has already changed so much in the last generation…
dec5 on July 10, 2009 at 6:56 PM
What do you think Obama’s relenting on indefinite detention was all about? Hint: it’s not about Jihadists.
beatcanvas on July 10, 2009 at 6:59 PM
MarkTheGreat had already corrected part of my comment – but you were a bit more thorough. Thank you both for the corrections.
progressoverpeace on July 10, 2009 at 7:11 PM
Alcee Hastings should be in Prison and NOT in Congress.
He is up to No Good as usual as his lack of Character drives him. William Jefferson should be in prison. Bobby Rush is a convicted Felon but is in Congress. All spending Your Money and making Your Laws…Wake Up America!
old trooper2 on July 10, 2009 at 7:16 PM
Ed, thanks for the EMAIL heads-up about comments being automatically held for moderation if they contain more than 2 links! Have at it, big guy.
.
I’ve been posting here since 2006, not a newbie, a conspiracy freak or a troll and I’m asking all of you to PLEASE do some “due diligence” on this. Even if you think you’ve already “heard it all” you most likely have not. PLEASE, at least this time we’ll see it coming…
.
Especially as we’re watching the damage Obama & crew are doing, notice how many of us are content to sit back and DISMISSIVELY call people who question the legitamacy of his presidency, “birthers”. Please if you are doing that, ask yourself why you are unwilling to take a close look at the all the LEGAL questions & facts
.
The very fact that SO FEW people are really educated enough about the Constitution to even tolerate an in depth discussion of the fact that Obama has ADMITTED his DUAL citizenship AT BIRTH & how that LEGAL FACT makes him ineligible, is TRULY TRAGIC. While I’m not disputing that he’s a NATIVE CITIZEN NOW- by his birth in Hawaii to a mother who was a U.S. citizen- HE CAN NEVER “ACHIEVE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN STATUS AT BIRTH“
.
PLEASE READ START HERE: (scroll about 1/4 down for the sentence:
ONE FINAL POINT ABOUT THE NATURAL CITIZEN CLAUSE
.
.
Thank you and big h/t to Leo Donofrio, one of the bravest men and best poker players evah!
NightmareOnKStreet on July 10, 2009 at 7:49 PM
Agreed. He should be tossed off of Boston Harbor and told to swim to the late Soviet Union.
Libertarian Joseph on July 10, 2009 at 8:23 PM
.
My above post(NightmareOnKStreet on July 10, 2009 at 7:49 PM) was in response to Goodeye_Closed.
.
Thanks Ed, for posting such a long comment even if it took 2-3 hours for moderation (no sarcasm intended).
NightmareOnKStreet on July 10, 2009 at 10:39 PM
Oh, this is silly.
We have nothing to worry about.
Some of you people are so paranoid.
Nothing like that would ever happen here in America!
So what’s on TV tonight?
Oh, BTW, here is a little something from YouTube. Amusing isn’t it?
Larry Grathwohl on Ayers’ plan for American re-education camps and the need to kill millions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWMIwziGrAQ
KidsOld hippy terrorists will say the darndest things.JellyToast on July 10, 2009 at 10:50 PM
How corrupt and disgraceful does a black politician have to be before the voters in a racially-gerrymandered district throw him out of office?
I can think of only two examples: Jefferson of Louisiana and Cynthia McKinney of some alternate universe.
The list of corrupt black politicians is a long one. Bobby Rush, Alcee Hastings, Rangel, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Maxine Waters, etc. Each and every one bullet-proof at election time.
One terrible effect of this “Black-Congressman-for-Life” phenomenon is that these clowns have accrued the seniority to hold the most powerful positions in committees and sub-committees.
guntotinglibertarian on July 10, 2009 at 10:57 PM
You clearly need re-education, citizen JellyToast.
guntotinglibertarian on July 10, 2009 at 11:00 PM
+1
bill30097 on July 10, 2009 at 11:14 PM
I brought this up many times in the comments, but always ignored.
Here is one example
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/28/video-fema-camps-conspiracy-theory-debunked-by-glenn-beck/comment-page-2/#comment-2038549
VinceP1974 on July 10, 2009 at 11:21 PM
I still cannot understand why HA has such a thing against Beck.
guntotinglibertarian on July 10, 2009 at 11:25 PM
Perhaps these camps, with the emphasis on Command and Control, are to be used to train and house the “Civilian Security Force”. I am starting to see more and more of the Obama Salute at Basketball games and kid buying the Uniform. Note the camo pants, dark blue shirt with the creepy Obama circle, Uniform belt and high top shoes.
Here
GunRunner on July 11, 2009 at 1:56 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »