Sunday, October 28, 2007

We Are All Terrorist Suspects Now

Suspected IRA Terrorist With Many In Network

I have learned from Capitol Hill Blue that there are over 755,000 names on our government's homeland "terrorist suspect" list, and that the number is growing by over 200,000 names a year. As the article points out, the number of names on the list may soon make it useless- if the suspect list is so large then what is the point of having a list?

Just this I say- being on the list, or having some point of connection with someone on that list, gives some in the government an excuse to eliminate your Constitutional rights. That gives the government much more power over its subjects and the subjects much fewer protections from the government. And that is what those arrogant, power-mad fools in D.C. want. That's why the focus is not on securing our borders, but on monitoring us all in our own hometowns.

If the borders were secure, if they quit issuing travel visas to people from terrorist-leaning countries, then they would have much less justification for the power grab. People would not assent to being subject to government monitoring at any time. As it is, corporate-bought politicians can count on the corporate media to keep the sheeple insecure and fearful enough that they will relinquish their constitutional protection FROM their government in exchange for empty promises of protection by their government. Just look up at a traffic light the next time you are at a medium-sized or above city. The cameras are there.

But never mind those cameras. We all have six degrees of separation. If they can get up to a million or two people in the United States on that "suspected terrorist" list, then they can basically spy on any of us on the grounds that we "have a connection" to someone on their list. And another thing, are there really 755,000 legitimate "terrorist" suspects in the United States? That is absurd. It sounds to me like it does not take very much to be suspected of terrorism. The "well if you don't do anything wrong then you have no reason to worry" crowd just does not understand the realities of how relentless government is about extending its power over the lives of ordinary people, but they better learn fast.


Anonymous c.b. said...

Looks like Brownback is a sell-out!

Check out this article:

This is nothing more than an attempt to get on the ticket with Guiliani.
Very dispicable from a man I thought was above this kind of calculating political manuvering.

10:57 PM, October 28, 2007  
Anonymous Rick said...


I don't see any reason to put Brownback on the ticket. What would he bring to the table?
Brownback probably see's Giuliani as the only hope at winning in '08. With Giuliani being a fiscal conservative and promising to appoint judges to the likes of Alito, Roberts and Scalia is governing conservative.

4:39 AM, October 29, 2007  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

I never trusted Brownback. This would not be the first time he sold out the American people though. He already sold us out on illegal immigration so one should not be surprised if he does it again.

Guiliani is looking real hard to stop. Honestly it looks like Romney or Guiliani at this point. Thompson won't hang around if he is losing. McCain will, but he is not that far from Rudy and will not mind endorsing him in the end.

4:58 AM, October 29, 2007  
Anonymous c.b. said...

Come on Rick.
I don't see any reason to put him on the ticket either. I said this is an ATTEMPT, And a brazen one at that.
Never underestimate the the self-delusion that is a politician's ego.

6:45 AM, October 29, 2007  
Anonymous Rick said...


This is a 2 man race, Romney and Giuliani. Do you think there is any way Giuliani can win if Romney goes on to take both Iowa and N.H?
No one has ever lost the nomination after winning both these states.


What do you think of a Romney/Huckabee ticket or Giuliani/Huckabee ticket? Could you support this ticket?

1:19 PM, October 29, 2007  
Anonymous c.b. said...

First I have to dispute your assertion that this is a two man race. Have you seen the latest Rasmussen poll?
Nationally Huckabee just passed Romney for fourth place. Check out the October tracker at the link below. You will find That Guiliani, Romney & Thompson are all on the decline, McCain is pretty much static & Huckabee is the ONLY candidate with any forward momentum....

Oh, and they also have a poll that shows 60%... SIX OUT OF TEN republicans say they are LIKELY to change their minds.

I hate to burst your media-induced bubble but this thing is still wide open & no one really knows which way it could break.

2:06 PM, October 29, 2007  
Anonymous c.b. said...

As to your question,
I will VOTE for the alternative to Hillary, If for no other reason than judicial appointees & national security, but I don't feel like I could, with good conscience, WORK to convince others to vote for them when he is in opposition to the rinciples I have espoused in previuos races.
Does that make sense?

I will say though, that I personally know many who will not vote for them based on those same principles & I respect that, but I have come to a different conclusion.

I just hope I don't have to make that decision.

By the way, in my opinion, anyone whose vote would be swayed by who is chosen as the VP on the ticket is a dupe...... I know there are many.

2:31 PM, October 29, 2007  
Anonymous Rick said...


There is a good article on, Rudy Right Enough, its about a Washington Post column. Read it and give me your thoughts.

2:54 PM, October 29, 2007  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...


There are ways that others could win, but the window is closing. I even see a way that Ron Paul could win. It would involve the others splitting the votes so that no one could get a majority while between now and September it becomes clear that playing "world police" is a fiscal and security disaster for America. Paul then wins the nomination on a second vote.

Far fetched? Maybe, but I am not voting for Rudy.

4:51 PM, October 29, 2007  
Anonymous c.b. said...

Well the first line that caught my attention was that Rudy "has exhibited all the key hallmarks of Bush-era conservatism", that's exactly the kind of "conservatism" we don't need.

My second observation is that while trying to make the case that his liberal positions are being overlooked, his one caveat blows apart his whole premise: that "the beauty contest polling at this stage isn't a reliable indicator" & as he rightly adds "Just ask Howard Dean."

The three "overblown" issues--guns, gay rights & abortion--(and he didn't mention immigration) are more than enough to cost him the election when the CR sits it out OR runs a third party.

6:40 PM, October 29, 2007  
Anonymous Rick said...


When it comes to the general election, I think CR's bolting to a third party candidate won't be in large numbers. If Hillary is the Dem nominee, and I think she will be, it will come down to who do you dislike the most. The Clinton's are disliked by most conservatives so I don't see them helping a Clinton get elected by voting 3rd party or staying home.
Rudy is still a national hero. People may not agree with decisions he has made in his personal life or even some social policies, but they will remember that he was a leader in N.Y. City on 9/11 when the rest of our government was flying around the country.
I still think Rudy has a great shot at winning the nomination, but Romney could do so unless the Huckster beats him in Iowa.

7:03 PM, October 29, 2007  
Anonymous c.b. said...

No doubt Rudy has a great shot, I would say the odds are in his favor. But it is far from in the bag.

You don't think the CR will defect in large numbers, but how many will it take given how close the past two Pres. elections were?
And that's not even talking about all of the southern local dems that usually vote GOP for the Pres. because they can't stomach the liberal social positions of the dem candidate.

You are right about Iowa, I think if Huck wins Iowa (or ties it up) Romney is dead.

7:53 PM, October 29, 2007  
Anonymous Rick said...

I can't speak for the rest of the south but Arkansas is far from being a conservative state. We saw in the last election the most liberal candidates elected in this state. The RPA ran some really good conservatives, Holt, LaGrone, Hutchinson, Delay..., and got beat. I am not sure how they would go in the Presidential election. Probably Hillary, Heavy!

11:03 AM, October 31, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Conservatives got beat in Arkansas in '06 because people assumed conservative meant "like GW Bush." I don't think the RPA has done anything to change that, so I agree that we're in for a repeat next year.

Arkansans weren't tired of conservatism, but I'm sure they're tired of 'compassionate' conservatism. I know I am.

6:44 PM, October 31, 2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home