On February 5th, 2013 the White House published an article to its blog titled “Working to Counter Online Radicalization to Violence in the United States.” Unlike this blog, I saw no place to leave a comment so I am going to take advantage of my current first amendment right to comment. I am going to publish a picture now which is surely what the White House is trying to stop.
By publishing the picture of Barack Obama’s good friend I have now used my soon to be “former” first amendment right to incite violence. I should and probably will be prosecuted. It does not matter that Barack Obama launched his political career at a social gathering held at Bill Ayers home. That’s a true story. Look it up. What’s fair is fair and I will accept the consequences for my action.
OK so maybe I am being a little over-dramatic and definitely a little defiant, but that’s exactly how I feel. We are talking about an incumbent President who is friends, or at least in the social circle, with a man who has admitted to bombing The Pentagon and The U.S. Capitol Building. In interviews he has expressed little or no remorse for these actions. He is a known and admitted communist (he says “with a small ‘c'”). Now he is a key note speaker for our nation’s educators and by sharing his picture I could potentially be prosecuted.
If kids go kill their parents now it is clearly on me for inciting violence. By the way, if you are unaware, Bill Ayers never served time for his crimes. He got off on “technicalities.” What a sad country we live in. In a country where the military can detain a citizen indefinitely I’d like to think they’d be holding this guy on their own set of “technicalities,” but not so. Bill Ayers is the key note speaker for the 2013 National Conference for The Association of Teacher Educators.
I hope he doesn’t bomb the conference.
That was insensitive wasn’t it? But who do you think has more potential for inciting violence? A man who never served time for admitted acts of violence, or a guy who is very concerned about the direction of his country, and is warning people to “protect” themselves? Still, if and when push comes to shove we know the guy who is more likely to be locked up and he damn sure is not a communist.
I’m angry but I need to report this story so people will be aware of some of the things in the report. The report deals with the problem of recruiting and the inciting of potential terrorist type violence which is stemming from the internet.
“Violent extremist groups ─ like al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents, violent supremacist groups, and violent “sovereign citizens” ─ are leveraging online tools and resources to propagate messages of violence and division. These groups use the Internet to disseminate propaganda, identify and groom potential recruits, and supplement their real-world recruitment efforts. Some members and supporters of these groups visit mainstream fora to see whether individuals might be recruited or encouraged to commit acts of violence, look for opportunities to draw targets into private exchanges, and exploit popular media like music videos and online video games. Although the Internet offers countless opportunities for Americans to connect, it has also provided violent extremists with access to new audiences and instruments for radicalization.”
I disdain vaguery. Lawyers and politicians are masters at leaving all options open. My question would obviously be, if The D.C. Clothesline could be considered one of these groups? We are fairly consistent in our message. We see that there is a potential for civil unrest in this country and we are not trying to incite it but we are trying to prepare people for it. Would we be considered “a violent extremist group” for simply telling people about their second amendment rights and telling them to be prepared? My guess is that we are considered to be exactly that.
I believe our government is corrupt and I think there is a lot more to this article then people are likely seeing. I don’t know about potential terrorist threats, but what kind of real violence are they talking about? When they talk about supremacist groups what are they talking about? Skinheads and Black Panthers? Is there a new rise in race crimes that I don’t know about?
I think what they are really worried about is the obvious change in the attitude of the people and the whispers of rebellion in the air. My opinion is that they are laying groundwork to try to protect themselves, not you and I. The government is scared. They are scared of revolt. I can’t blame them. But they work for us, and we have been consistent in our message. We will defend our second amendment rights because these rights protect us against tyrants.
Mr. Obama might be more self-aware then I have given him credit for. It’s OK Mr.Obama, we already knew that you and many of your friends were tyrants. So long as we maintain our rights we aren’t about to incite hostilities. We will obviously defend ourselves but we are not The Weather Underground. We don’t go around bombing federal buildings like your buddy Mr. Ayers. Just chill out bro, it’s all good.
The final paragraph of this blog post concerned me. I will be honest. I didn’t like it one bit.
“As the Federal Government implements this effort in the coming months, we will continue to investigate and prosecute those who use the Internet to recruit others to plan or carry out acts of violence, while ensuring that we also continue to uphold individual privacy and civil liberties. Preventing online radicalization to violence requires both proactive solutions to reduce the likelihood that violent extremists affect their target audiences as well as ensuring that laws are rigorously enforced. “
Again, if they feel that my blog posts incite violence there is little or nothing I can do. Forget for a minute that we have a guy named George Soros, who donated 1 million dollars to the Obama re-election campaign, who has been quoted as saying, “The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States. The time has come for a very serious adjustment.” Are they going to be locking him up any time soon? He might be considered one of those people who are promoting “sovereignty” if he is promoting a New World Order. If they do lock him up will Obama be the one to bail him out? Evidently if a guy throws Obama a million bones he is still protected under the first amendment right to free speech. I don’t have that kind of cash on me.
This is the hypocrisy that caused me to start this blog back in late November. We have a president who takes very large campaign contributions form a man who would destroy the USA. There is such a thing as “blood money.” It’s not like they told him to keep his money. Obama is obviously OK with these dangerous ideas of a “New World Order” and I am going to keep telling people about that. Could things like that cause me to get locked up? Sure they could. I am a threat.
We have a controversial Vietnam War veteran named John Kerry as our Secretary of State. He belonged to a an anti-war group that was considering the killing of high-profile Vietnam war supporters. His war crime testimony before congress was reportedly read at Prison Camps in Vietnam for our POWs. He lived in a time when it was OK to speak out against perceived crimes and inequalities. The first amendment right was still protected in the 1970s. People could still bomb government buildings and major metropolitan police departments and not even have to go to jail. Those were the good old days I suppose.
Bill Clinton even pardoned some of Ayer’s Weather Underground co-conspirators. He pardoned two in 2001. Both happened to be women. Hopefully those women were not enticed to have sexual relations with that man as part of the deal, but I digress…
If I say the wrong thing on a blog, in 2013, that has a readership smaller than Michelle Obama’s staff of personal assistants, I might be headed for jail. This is the new America. This is the change we were promised. You have to read between the lines and realize that everything we are reading is being left ambiguous and I believe that it is intentional. None of it is black and white, it’s all shades of grey. Yes I know, that was a racially insensitive comment. You can’t use colors when discussing anything. Now I am surely a “supremacist.”
The White House blog post talks a lot about propaganda, and I for one would be happy to discuss propaganda any time with an administration that has been accused of paying CNN for running certain stories and withholding others. Ever hear of Amber Lyon?
At any rate, if you want to read the post from the White House Blog you can click here. There is a wonderful amount of rhetoric in the post and it talks about some new Inter-Agency Working Group. It figures that our government would need the resources of thousands of people to scour the internet and find my personal message to Barack Obama which is being brought to life by my good friend below.
Sorry Mr. President. Evidently my friend doesn’t care much for The White House Blog either. You know how some guys are. They are loyal to their friends. Tell Bill, George and John I said hello.