The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

The Stinking Badges of Our Federales

“Badges?
We ain’t got no badges. We don’t need no badges! I don’t have to show you any
stinking badges!”
Alfonso Bedoya as Gold
Hat, the Mexican bandit, to Humphrey Bogart in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)
We are fast approaching the
day when men with badges can regularly spy on you, arrest you, collect private
information about you, and even jail you without so much as a warrant. In fact,
that day is already here. There are legions of government bandits armed with
stinking badges and guns and little else. They are employed by the IRS, the
DEA, the ATF, the TSA, the U.S. Park Police, and the FBI – all under the
jurisdictional umbrella of President George Bush’s too-German sounding gift to
the nation, the Department of Homeland Security, cum Abteilung der Heimatland-Sicherheit.
Name a U.S. civilian agency
or cabinet department,
and it likely has a SWAT team on call ready to take down a 5-year-old toting a cap
pisto
l or command Google
or Facebook to hand over records of their subscribers’ identities and
activities.
They are the first line of
offense – no, that’s not a slip of the keyboard, I meant offense – of a federal government that has become authoritarian and
is on its way to becoming totalitarian. When that day comes, they won’t need no
stinking badges, either. You’ll be theirs for the taking. I doubt the Gestapo
or the KGB wore name tags and first flashed their gold shields before accosting
their victims.
But even a gang of
weapons-toting, riot-equipped goons armed with a warrant isn’t necessarily any
better than vigilantes come to hang you high, because the warrant isn’t
necessarily correct or right. It will probably have been issued by a
liberal/left/Progressive judge who is copasetic with a totalitarian agenda.
Of course, there is the NSA
and its $2+ billion data
storage facility
in Utah that will capture and keep every phone call, email,
weblog posting, and other electronically generated communication
in this country which the government deems necessary to seize and analyze in
the interests of “national security.”
But, what are in the interests of “national
security” anymore?  It’s a broad term
that could be taken to mean not just collecting intelligence to defend this
country from its enemies. I highly suspect it also means to protect the status
quo of a welfare state and the current political establishment from criticism
and opposition. I think all the data collection on private citizens’ political
preferences and personal habits points to a government whose stomach is
grumbling hungrily and loudly for total control.
The recent IRS
scandals
surrounding the years-long Alinsky-style profiling, targeting, and
isolating of conservative, patriotic, pro-Israel, and religious organizations
seeking tax-exempt status under IRS rules is one example. The DOJ’s legalized theft
of Fox News reporter James Rosen’s phone records is another instance together with
the raids on the Associated Press’s phone files, as well, all signed off on by
that master of dissimulation,  Attorney
General Eric
Holder
.
Let us not forget Cass
Sunstein
, former administrator of Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs
where he displayed his penchant for censorship. He retired
from the Obama administration to join the faculty of Harvard Law School in a
double professorship. Sunstein’s legal philosophy is that federal judicial
decisions should conform to the executive branch’s perquisites of power, and
that one’s freedom of choice should conform with whatever the federal
government has deemed to be good for the individual. It will offer you A, B, C,
and D, and you are “free” to choose one of those, but nothing else in
the alphabet. He calls it “libertarian paternalism.”
Nor should we forget Janet “workplace
violence” Napolitano, head of the DHS,
who has also exhibited a desire to detect and rein in any individual or
organization whom she and her fellow statists deem a threat or potential threat
to the status quo of the political establishment. Its $15 million study of
“hot spots of terrorism,” conducted at the University of Maryland,
focused on “right-wing extremists”:
The
study says right-wing extremists are “groups that believe that one’s personal
and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack and is either already lost or
that the threat is imminent.”  Further,
right-wing extremist groups “believe in the need to be prepared” by taking part
in “paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism.” Groups may also be
“fiercely nationalistic” and “suspicious of centralized federal authority.”
Right-wing
extremism also involves a belief in “conspiracy theories that involve grave
threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty,” the study claims.
Interestingly,
in an oversight that is not explained, the
report barely mentions radical Islam
. Instead the study lumps religious
terrorist groups into one category and describes them as “groups that seen to
smite the purported enemies of God and other evildoers, impose strict religious
tenants or laws on society (fundamentalists), forcibly insert religion into the
political sphere.” [Italics mine]
Americans have every right to
be suspicious of expanding federal authority and credit conspiracy theories.
Conspiracy theories, however, no matter how credible, as a rule discount the
role of an unopposed political philosophy. Bandits needn’t conspire to steal
liberties or subjugate men when they encounter no opposition to their
depredations. Nature will not tolerate a vacuum, nor will statists, liberals,
leftists, and Progressives.
The story circulating like
wildfire around the Internet and weblogs at this moment is that Bill Killian,
United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, will on June 4th
address a meeting
sponsored by the American Muslim Advisory Council of Tennessee on civil rights
restrictions on speech in the “social media” as it applies to Muslims
– that is, speech that criticizes Muslims and Islam, not speech by Muslims that
could be defined as “bigoted” or “hateful.” It will be
about “inflammatory speech,” which could mean anything, even a
scholarly disquisition on the origins and practice of Islam. Judicial
Watch
reports that the event, called “Public Disclosure in a Diverse
Society,” will
feature
the region’s top DOJ official, who serves as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, and an FBI representative. The goal is to increase
awareness and understanding that American Muslims are not the terrorists some
have made them out to be in social media and other circles, according to a
local newspaper
report
. The June 4 powwow is sponsored by the American Muslim Advisory
Council of Tennessee.
The
area’s top federal prosecutor, Bill Killian, will address a topic that most
Americans are likely unfamiliar with, even those well versed on the
Constitution; that federal civil rights laws can actually be violated by those
who post inflammatory documents aimed at Muslims on social media. “This is an
educational effort with civil rights laws as they play into freedom of religion
and exercising freedom of religion,” Killian says in the local news story. “This
is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the
consequences are.”
So, civil rights laws will be
“interpreted” to identify “harmful” statements made on Face
Book and other social media and help the DOJ and the Council on American-Islamic
Relations (CAIR) to lodge suits against anyone expressing his freedom of speech
if it offends Muslims and Islam.
The
DOJ political appointee adds in the article that the upcoming presentation will
also focus on Muslim culture with a special emphasis on the fact that the
religion is no different from others, even though some in the faith have
committed terrorist acts, Christians have done the same. As an example he
offers that the worst terrorist attack in the U.S. prior to 9/11 was committed
by American Christians in Oklahoma City. He also mentioned the Wisconsin Sikh
temple shooting last year in which another Christian, an American white
supremacist, fatally shot six people and wounded four others.
Worldwide, there have been
over 20,000 acts of Islamic terrorism since 9/11. Killian, in an effort to
“diversify” acts of terrorism, can only cite two incidents of
non-Muslim committed acts of terrorism, that old fall-back, Timothy McVeigh and
the Sikh temple shooting.
The Organization of Islamic
Cooperation, which the U.S. government is only too happy to cooperate, as well,
is pressing on with its plan to have the U.N. criminalize any speech that
“defames” or “denigrates” religion or belief in a religion.
While the wording of Resolution 16/18 implies any religion, the chief objects
of the resolution are Islam and Muslims. Deborah Weiss, in her FrontPage column
of February 28th, “OIC
Ramps UP ‘Islamophobia’ Campaign
,” reports that
The
Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has long been on the forefront of the
Islamist mission to establish the equivalent of Islamic blasphemy laws in the
West.  Now, during its 12th Islamic Summit held in Cairo
February 7-8, 2013, the OIC set forth new and creative ways to silence, and ultimately
criminalize criticism of Islam.
That would include cartoons,
unflattering or not, of Mohammad and Muslims, newspaper and weblog commentaries
about Islam, and scholarly studies of Islam. Presumably it would also include
Face Book and other social media remarks made by subscribers about Islam and
Muslims.
One
of the OIC’s primary aims for at least the last fourteen years has been the
international criminalization of speech that is critical of any Islam-related
topic, including Islamic terrorism, Islamic persecution of religious minorities
and human rights violations committed in the name of Islam.
Since
1999, the OIC has set forth UN resolutions that would “combat defamation of
religions.”  These resolutions condemned criticism of religion, but in the
OIC’s interpretation, it applied only to Islam.  True statements of fact
constituted no exception.
The OIC is not concerned with
unflattering or inflammatory speech about  or portrayals of Christians, atheists, Hindus,
apostates, Jews and other non-Muslims. Muslims would be exempt from the
“law” and have the freedom to defame and denigrate infidels without
worry of recrimination or prosecution.
Most European countries,
including Britain, already have such laws on their books and readily arrest and
prosecute violators of speech laws that express some form of opposition to the
Islamization of their countries. These laws were created at the behest of
powerful Islamic organizations in those countries, and also by dhimmified politicians
fearful of Muslim riots lest “Islamophobes” not be punished for
opposing or criticizing Islam and the wholesale invasion of their countries by Muslims
– an invasion by invitation of political leaders beholden to multiculturalism
and “diversity.” The recent spate of arrests by British authorities
of Britons who have expressed their anger or contempt for Muslims and Islam,
after the hacking-to-death of a British soldier by Muslims in London, are cases
in point.
The U.S. is not far behind
and virtually the only thing stopping the criminalization of freedom of speech
against Islam and Muslims is the First Amendment. The same forces are at work
in this country through organization like CAIR, the ICNA (the Islamic Circle of
North America), and their numerous sister organizations. Weiss reports that:
In
2011, at the State Department’s request, the OIC drafted an alternative
resolution that was intended to retain freedom of expression and still address
the OIC’s concerns about alleged Islamophobia.  The result was Resolution
16/18 to Combat Intolerance Based on Religion or Belief.
But
the OIC had some very creative interpretations of the language embodied in the
new resolution.  By its manipulation of words such as intolerance and
incitement, giving new meanings to what many thought was plain English, the OIC
made it clear that it had not dropped its ultimate goal of protecting Islam
from “defamation.”
Hillary Clinton is one of the
chief promoters of the OIC’s push to suppress American hostility towards Islam
and to gag Americans when it comes to telling the truth about Islam. Through
the auspices of the State Department, she attended an OIC convocation in
December 2011 in Washington D.C. held to discuss how to do an end-run around
the First Amendment.  Clinton has
demonstrated numerous times her willingness to accommodate Islam (in the
Benghazi issue, she has proven she is willing let jihadists and terrorists get away with murder). At that high
dudgeon meeting of Muslims and secular enemies of freedom of speech, there to
instigate the “Istanbul
Process
,” Clinton pontificated:
In
the United States, I will admit, there are people who still feel vulnerable or
marginalized as a result of their religious beliefs. And we have seen how the
incendiary actions of just a very few people, a handful in a country of nearly
300 million, can create wide ripples of intolerance. We also understand that,
for 235 years, freedom of expression has been a universal right at the core of
our democracy. So we are focused on promoting interfaith education and
collaboration, enforcing antidiscrimination laws, protecting the rights of all
people to worship as they choose, and to use some old-fashioned techniques of
peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support
to do what we abhor.
For the OIC, however,
“peer pressure” and “shaming” won’t be enough. The OIC
wants the U.S. to enact laws that conform to its end, which is the designation
of all critical speech about Islam as “hate speech.” The OIC wants laws
with more enforceable teeth in them than in a sorority rush. Clinton knows
this. It doesn’t make a difference to her. The law will not apply to her.
Had enough of Islam? Then
we’ll turn to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the
white-haired doyenne of compulsory health care. Michelle Malkin in her May 3st
article, “Obamacare
‘Navigators’: Another Sebelius Snitch Brigade?
” wrote:
U.S.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius controls a $54 million
slush fund to hire thousands of “navigators,” “in-person
assisters” and counselors who will propagandize and enroll Obamacare recipients
in government-run health insurance exchanges. This nanny-state navigator corps
is the Mother of all Community Organizing Boondoggles. It’s also yet another
Obama threat to Americans’ privacy.
A
reminder about Secretary Sebelius’ sordid snooping history is in order here. In
August 2009, HHS and the White House Office of Health Reform called on their
ground troops to report on fellow citizens who dared to criticize their federal
health care takeover. Team Obama issued an all-points bulletin on the taxpayer-funded
White House website soliciting informant emails. Remember? “If you get an email or see something on the Web about health
insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov,”

the Obamacare overlords urged.
Most Americans already
thought that something was very fishy about Obamacare, and so many sent that
message to flag@whitehouse.gov that
the site had to be taken down.
However, what is a
“navigator”? It has nothing to do with Columbus discovering America.
It has much to do with government snoops rifling through your personal history
to determine whether or not you deserve medical care under socialized medicine.
That is a discovery of a different nature.
Obamacare
navigators will have access to highly personal data from potential
“customers” to assess their “needs.” That means income
levels, birthdates, addresses, eligibility for government assistance, Social
Security numbers and sensitive medical information. They’ll be targeting both
individuals and small businesses. Anyone they can lay their grubby hands on.
Who’s getting the navigator grants and training? “Community groups”
in 33 states that naturally include socialized medicine-supporting unions and
Saul Alinsky-steeped activist outfits.
All in all, the foregoing isn’t
even half of what is going on in the way of the government’s stealthy
encroachments on freedom of speech, the First Amendment, and your life as an
independent individual free from government coercion. If it doesn’t scare you,
or at least cause you to think twice about the state of the country,
you are either on the side of the bandits, with or without stinking badges, or
brain dead.

Previous

Islam on My Mind

Next

Kill Bill Killian’s Assault on Freedom of Speech

3 Comments

  1. Anonymous

    The comparison to the "Federales" is right on the money. This administration and every single one of its minions behaves like we, Americans, are their serfs. I can't remember any other administration more corrupt and blatantly authoritarian than this one. What is scarier than what is actually happening is that a good fraction of the population seems unaware or unaffected by the incursion on our freedom.

  2. Tim C

    The chickens are coming home to roost. What's going on (and has been for some time) is both gallingly ridiculous yet completely predictable in our current philosophical vacuum.

    It's easy to see how people accept all this (or at least mostly, at least there seems to some alarm over these recent scandals – though it will quickly hit the snooze button, as when 9/11 didn't wake people up that was pretty much it really) since they have laid down their intellectual arms and know nothing but being taken care of (which they will come to learn has more than one meaning).

  3. Blogger

    If you're searching for the most recommended bitcoin exchange company, then you should choose YoBit.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén