Libertarian wing of the Republican Party, along with the "Left", will be up in arms. My prediction, and yes, I'll eat my words if I'm wrong.

OK, I'm up in arms. Here is my idea, pass it on to the left, right and center. I'm going to put a Gadsden Flag on my website. I may even buy one and fly it on my front porch.

DONT TREAD ON ME.

It signifies that I value freedom above all else and that I will not stand for any treading on my freedoms. It's patriotic, it's appropriate.

Go fetch one from Google. You can get one which on which the snake's head points either left or right. It makes no difference. The message is the same. Spread the meme.

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=gadsden+flag&sa=N&tab=wi

i just printed that act out and wiped my ass with it.

Where will you be when they come for you in the middle of the night? I used to think that the (libertarian nutcase) fears of balck helicioters and jackbooted government thugs were just so many paranoid delusions. As much as I hate to admit to this, part of me is beginning to wonder if the USA PATRIOT Act isn't just the first step in that direction.

Maybe this could be used as an illustration of why I love Canada.

It's all downhill from here. Say Wes, what do you think of Bush and his power mad morons now?

I originally posted this on an older thread, but I think it belongs on this one. My apologies to those who run into it twice.

This is how tyrrany happens. People seldom give up their liberties on a lark. The usual story is a the raising of a threat combined with the assertion that extraordinary powers and extraordinary expenditures are necessary to deal with it. Sometimes the threat is real, as in 1930s Europe. Far more often, the threat has been blown out of proportion for the purpose of getting the powers and expenditures, as in early 1930s Germanyor (on a much lesser scale) 1950s America. It is important to try to tell the difference. If you are so susceptible to this kind of blackmail that you stop evaluating, then your liberties will be neither deserved nor long lasting. "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." And that doesn't just mean vigilance toward those who advertise themselves as our enemies.

A look at the map of countries supporting or opposing the US position on Iraq is interesting in this regard. Our supporters, with the exception of Tony Blair's UK, appear to be an incredible list of weaklings and losers. Pretty much every country that has the capacity to stand on its own and make independent estimates is unimpressed by the threat the US government says hangs over us all. Does that mean that we are wrong? Not necessarily. But it should make us feel a bit queasy about the direction we have picked. Instead what I see is strident assertion of extreme danger of doing anything other than the suggested course of action.

Don't get me wrong. Saddam Hussein is every bit as bad a character as he is being made out to be. Unfortunately that does not make him particularly unique in the world. (He was also equally a bad character in the 1980s when we were supporting him, but I'll accept that that's water under the bridge.) Given that Iraq is not producing many humanitarians these days, it remains to be demonstrated that their capabilities for evil consitute a threat to us. Secretary Powell has demonstrated quite convincingly the lengths to which the Iraqi regime has gone to resist any control over their weapons programs. But his presentation focused on their will, to evil rather than their capacity. That they hate and despise us is pretty clear. That they actually threaten us is not. And it does not seem to be accepted by those in aposition to make an independent judgement.

So I am bothered by the strident tones. I ask myself: is there any sort of threat that would not work on these people. And I worry that my whole country has come the situation described by Robert Baer in "See No Evil". Decisions at the CIA being made for agents in wilder and woolier portions of the third world by people won't go into Washington DC to a restaurant because they are afraid of the crime. (The parts of DC where the good restaurants live are not especially prone to street crime.)

Why do you think ScrappleFace covered the story?
Laugh.
Think.
Act.

my feelings for bush haven't changed. he is the current representative of the party that i think would handle iraq, nKorea, and terrorist best. however, if give another choice, i would rather have McCain as president.

"he is the current representative of the party that i think would handle iraq, nKorea, and terrorist best." The statement is a triumph of preconception over observation. There is not longer much "would" about it. They are now handling those situations. We don't have to guess about their performance. The question we have to ask is: "Is this better?" I have a hard time conluding that it is. It is more comfortable for those who seek certainties in a dangerous and uncertain world. But I personally feel more endangered than I did a few years ago when things were not so clear. (Explain to me again why we are undertaking a war against different people than the ones that attacked us. Are we substituting a task that we know how to do for a task that baffles us? There are other virtues besides clarity.)

...But no, there's more. The legislation would "seek to take American citizenship away from persons who belong to or support disfavored political groups.” Today it's Muslims...

Muslims? I wasn't aware of "Muslims" being a "political" group. Or are you stereotyping?

Tomorrow it's lawful immigrants, next week it's anyone who is against the President.

Lawful immigrants? You mean people who missed their deadline to _become lawful immigrants_? You still on that?
Come on. You might have a few good points, but by using scare tactics you discredit your post.. What's next?
First they came for Hitler and I said nothing... Then they came for Osama and I said nothing...

You get my drift.

apologize all you want for this Mr. D, but I'm gonna do what Wes did. This act will make good two-ply toilet paper since they won't put it in my dorm.

If you don't think the rights that the first Patriot Act already infringes, and what the second one proposes to do, isn't scary, then you're blind.

Wes,
Apparently he is dealing with our Constitution the same as he is dealing with Iraq and North Korea.

Stan? Nice to see you sticking with the fascist line. No one could accuse you of inconsistency.

The US has always had a policy of removing citizenship from naturalized citizens (that's right Stan, not lawful immigrants and certanly not unlawful immigrants) if they associate with political groups that the government disaproves of (ie communists).

Since the president revealed that he has assumed the authority to assassinate US citizens at will, or lock them away incommunicado without any legal process for as long as he likes.... well....

After that happens then every citizen is effectively at the mercy of the government and has no rights of any kind.

Americans currently have no rights. What they do have is an expectation of fair play from their government which the government will try to maintain for political purposes. And even that is eroding...

Rights mean that there are certain things the government cannot do by law. Bush has claimed he is above the law therefore no American has any rights (at least to protect them from the federal government - from the state and local government things still look good).

David, sure, sure. You never did answer my question. Did you _ever_ approve of capitalism?

"[Bush] is dealing with our Constitution the same as he is dealing with Iraq and North Korea."

I would rather say that he is dealing with the Constitution the same as he dealt with the economy and fair trade in steel.

Nice straw man there, Mr. D. I thought this thread was about the attempts on our civil liberties, not "supporting communism."

Terry, I was dealing with DavidByron specifically. Looking for a positive comment (when it comes to America) from David is like looking for a positive editorial from the Weekly Worker (UK Communist Party mouthpiece) - to which, by the way, Lisa links on her ruminate blog.

Still jealous about Lisa, Stan? :D

On the capitalism thing.... look I just don't know what you mean by "capitalism" enough to be able to answer the question. Does that answer the question?

In the 80's capitalism defeated communism.
In the 2000's capitalism defeats "democracy".

Ain't it grand?

Wes,
BTW we aren't talking about Bush's handling of Iraq and North Korea we are talking about this latest grab for power. How do you feel about Bush now that he is showing his true fascist roots?

And, you know, either the Bushies are lying or they let an al-Qaida terrorist camp sit around without bombing it, in the no-fly zone of Iraq (which we can bomb at will).

Also, North Korea is doing what it wants with its plutonium, something that wasn't happening under Clinton Administration. (Plutonium isn't uranium; take a tour through the talkingpointsmemo.com archives for a sense of what a botch Bush's North Korea policy has been.)

I agree that McCain might do a good job handling N. Korea, Iraq, and terrorism. I see no reason to think that the R after Bush's name means he is.

Stan:
Does "capitalism" mean the anti-democratic system whereby politicians are bought and paid for? Or does it mean a faith in the "free" market? If the later do you mean the theory of the free market or do you mean abomination that gets called a free market in America? Does capitalism just mean that people should be able to buy and sell things?

If the latter then "yes" but the rest I never approved of at any point that I understood what they words meant. Do you approve of any of them?

les,
all you have to do is read my old web page and you will know how i feel about bush. i don't know why you keep trying to make bush an issue with me. i clearly stated why i support bush but that doesn't mean i like him. are you so dense that you can't see that?

This will never work in America. Or shall I say Amerikka. The government was created for the people not to destroy the people.

Why is it an issue? You have to look at the sum of the parts Wes. While Bush may be "good for the military" he is bad for everything else he touches. This latest grab for power should wake you up a little to this cracker in chief. He will send you off to war and secretly arrest me for speaking out against it.

This is an undeniable peek into the fascist ideas that these neo-conservatives have. An unprecedented grab for power. Even during the Cold War we had the good sense to reign in the power happy Intelligence services. Now that the Cold War is over they want to unleash themselves on the US.

WTF?

i seem to remember you making the exact same comments about the first round on the patriot act and you aren't in jail.

No I didn't. The first patriot act didn't contain this sort of language and did not allow for secret arrests of all americans regardless of if they are affiliated with a global terrorist organization.

Maybe this is a stupid question, but what exactly should I do about this?