See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Obama’s Boys Call in Riot Cops on Tea Party Protestors (Chavez Would Be Proud)
Source:
townhall.com
URL Source: http://townhall.com/columnists/Doug ... otestors_chavez_would_be_proud
Published: May 4, 2010
Author: Doug Giles
Post Date: 2010-05-04 07:44:58 by Eric Stratton
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 760
Comments: 86
Obama’s Boys Call in Riot Cops on Tea Party Protestors (Chavez Would Be Proud) Somebody help me here. What kind of ominous situation requires local law enforcement to dispatch their Darth Vader look-alike SWAT units to keep the peace or kick some criminal butt? I’m guessing it has to be a SNAFU’d type of thang that regular cops can’t handle which requires special weapons and tactics, correct? The reason I’m asking this is because of the events of last week in which riot police were sent out to two different locales on two completely different types of crowds. One I understand, but the other has left me a little discombobulated and a tad discomfited. The first mob that riot cops were called out for was the one in Phoenix comprised of thousands of out-of-control illegal Mexicans who were POed at the fact that Arizona finally wants to treat them like they’re illegal. Imagine that. Yep, I get why the SWAT dudes from PPD rolled out for that melee. The mass of protesting Mexicans were out of whack, grabbing their crotches in defiance of our laws, smearing refried bean swastikas on government windows, flipping American patriots off, trashing and destroying property, and cursing in TexMex at the Arizonans who want our immigration laws upheld and who are sick of the costly mayhem these illegals have brought to their beautiful state. Let’s see, what else did the criminal aliens do to solicit the Phoenix PD’s riot police presence? Man, I know there was something else they did. What was it? Come on, Doug, think man, think! Oh yeah, I remember: They pelted Phoenix’s finest with bottles and trash. Yeah, that was it. Oh, and of course the location of their protest was completely trashed after their ridiculous display of unrighteous outrage. Hey, Julio … way to further endear Americans to your earthly plight, el stupido. I guess Phil Collins was right; it’s no fun being an illegal alien. The other crowd that got SWAT called down on them last week was in Quincy, Illinois—a two-hundred member Tea Party that mainly consisted of peaceful, blue-haired old ladies in Depends singing “God Bless America” outside of the venue where His Highness was reading a teleprompter about how great he is and how he plans to further whiz on the Constitution. Yep, in a scene right out of some B-grade Orwellian flick, the tamest and nicest little old nanas and middle-class couples had Quincy’s Robo-Cops dispatched on them to quell… the, uh … uh … orderly protest and … the … uh … um … patriotic singing and … er … the … the American flag waving. Boy does that make Quincy and BHO look bad, or what? Y’know, what I have gathered from my SWAT friends down here in Miami and what I have watched throughout the years on TV and on the big screen is that the SWAT card only gets played when things are severely jacked up (as in the Phoenix fiasco), but it seems as if the insane-in-the-membrane element was missing a wee little bit from the quaint Quincy rally. But it got the same treatment as Phoenix. Now that’s weird. Here are my questions: Did the Quincy tea partiers represent a high-risk op that regular officers couldn’t handle? That’s an option, even though that place looked like Barney Fife could have manned it without ever extracting his lone bullet from his left shirt pocket. Who knows? Maybe Mr. Whipple had an underwear bomb and was going to light his junk on fire after Obama’s speech? Who can say? Maybe Mr. Rogers had secret hostages sequestered in the Dairy Queen freezer that Quincy SWAT was called in to extract. Or, maybe, just maybe, Grandma Moses posed a terror threat with those long-ass knitting needles she carts around and her high-speed electric wheel chair? I know … it was the possibility that Floyd the barber would show up to that event secretly armed with his straight razor that required Quincy’s cops to send out an elite paramilitary tactical unit with assault weapons, stun grenades, high-end body armor, and armored vehicles! Gosh, maybe. Who knows? I hope that there was that type of over-the-top reasonable cause for Quincy’s cops to roll like that because if there wasn’t that little display of overt force is beginning to smack of Chavez’s Venez-frickin’-uela to me. Lastly, if I were a cop and my superiors wanted me to put on stormtrooper gear and march against salt of the earth patriots like those in Quincy, Illinois, I’d tell them no, and if they didn’t like it then they could stick my pointy metal badge up their confused and chunky backside.
Doug Giles
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-40) not displayed.
.
.
.
#41. To: James Deffenbach (#38)
We are on the same side, I don't know why he goes off so fast whenever I mention "you know, this doesn't really have a lot to do with Dubya". I certainly don't disagree with the evilness of Bush and his doings in office, and clearly what he's done has been built on. But at this point, I think we all get that. Since you've read the discussion to this point there's no need for me to recap. It's no biggie. I put him on bozo for a couple of hours to let him calm down. In the future if he wishes to bring a conversation about Strawberry Shortcake dolls around to 9/11 and Bush, I'll leave him be.
MapQuest really needs to start their directions on #5. Pretty sure I know how to get out of my neighborhood.
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "You've got to put right and wrong above legal and illegal. Because when tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty; and it is not rebellion at all, it is submission to the higher law that our government is in rebellion to. We're not the rebels, they're the rebels."
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "You've got to put right and wrong above legal and illegal. Because when tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty; and it is not rebellion at all, it is submission to the higher law that our government is in rebellion to. We're not the rebels, they're the rebels."
You are both big boys and I am going to butt out. I guess I shouldn't have butted in to start with but I was trying to be a peacemaker. In all fairness though I didn't see where SOL was calling you a liar. Seems y'all just have different takes on the article or the author of the article. Now you could be right and maybe the author is a neocon pos. But it was still a good article. You have to remember that old adage about how even a blind squirrel gets a nut once in a while.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Ain't no thang my homey. :)
MapQuest really needs to start their directions on #5. Pretty sure I know how to get out of my neighborhood.
Since I generally like and respect all of you, and do not wish to get in a pissing contest with any of you, nevertheless I have to side with Eric on this one. While we did see some precursors under Bush I and Klinton it escalated dramatically under Bush the Lesser. That was when the practice of hand picking "town-hall" meeting participants began in earnest and the open Police State Riot Pigs became apparent. While for those of us who have been following the unfolding development of the Animal Farm can readily see the precursors, and find them objectionable, it was only with the Weaver Hit, Branch Davidian Massacre, and OKC that more than a very very small sub-segment of the populace began to arise from their cud chewing stupor and begin to recognize the growing threat to life and liberty. Television was used effectively to downplay the Weaver Hit, and the Internet was just catching on to a broader audience, so it was not that much of a factor. By the time OKC occurred it was more developed but still not reaching a broad enough audience. It was only during Duhbya's reign of terror that it began getting to enough people to start the "viral" spread of truth about the actions of the government goons. We still have a ways to go although I believe things are looking up a hair. What we don't need is harsh acrimony on "fine points" between otherwise well intended patriots such as yourselves. On one level you are all correct in that this has been building for some time, but for many that obviousness is only apparent in retrospect. So, disagree as you will, and dispute as you wish, but let us also try to remember that we are all on the same side.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
I appreciate that. As a general rule I try to stay out of other people's business but I never like it when two people I like are having disagreeable words. Not that there is anything particularly wrong in disagreeing with our friends, we all do from time to time. But, imo, it is always a good idea when talking to someone who is generally on the same side to be as pleasant as possible while explaining why you do not agree. But maybe I am just too old and looking closer at the end of my days than the beginning (on this plane of existence anyway).
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Fine post, O_I. You said it better than I could.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. I wasn't stating that things did not escalate under Bush. Simply noting that things like sending out militarized cops (or soldiers) to act against Americans, with Americans sitting by not caring, started around the reigns of George I and Clinton. Got worse under Bush II, sure. The article was about leftists sending out thugs to intimidate old ladies and middle class peaceful protesters. It would be nice if we could have discussed that, if you ask me. Just seems that sometimes, the discussion maybe doesn't have to always be tied back to 9/11. Too much of any one reference offered in places where there's not a lot of connection, creates a white noise that makes legitimate criticisms of that topic offered at appropriate times, silent. As I said, it was my bad for even bringing it up. I didn't expect the vitriol, ad hominem and prolonged argumentation from an ally. Next time I'll just refrain from mentioning anything, and we can go ahead and turn discussions about Post It notes into scathing critiques of the Patriot act. :)
MapQuest really needs to start their directions on #5. Pretty sure I know how to get out of my neighborhood.
Thanks. "One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
These Tea Partiers got to outsmart the cops, which ain't hard because most cops are stupid. Every one of them should be in a wheelchair. Imagine the media coverage on that! Nothing works like ridicule,
“No amount of reason, evidence, logic or rational argument will ever convince the true believer otherwise.”
I fully, totally, 100% agree.
MapQuest really needs to start their directions on #5. Pretty sure I know how to get out of my neighborhood.
Anyone ever tell you that you are a cunning linguist? Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Thank you.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "You've got to put right and wrong above legal and illegal. Because when tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty; and it is not rebellion at all, it is submission to the higher law that our government is in rebellion to. We're not the rebels, they're the rebels."
I think the tie-back to 911 is valid simply because it is the key pivotal event that has been used to justify the "WaronTerra" and from that flows the false justification for the use of Police State tactics to suppress dissent. And while more people are now aware of the reality that 911 was an inside job, a massive PsyOp, conducted to justify Military Conquest of other nations that reality has only begun to be broadly accepted in about the last 18 months. Of course you are correct in that this has been building for years - since the Vietnam War era if one wants to track the roots of the development. With the use of troops to quell political dissent followed by turning Peace Officers into Black Suited Paramilitary Thugs with badges, it has been an unfolding nightmare in any liberty lover's book. The point on 911 (and to a lesser extent OKC), which cannot be understated, is that these were the events which were developed and conducted to create the psychological climate that would reduce opposition and make the Police State seem justified.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Thank you. That was one of my favorite Deep Purple Albums - Side 1 of "House of Blue Lights". ;-)
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "You've got to put right and wrong above legal and illegal. Because when tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty; and it is not rebellion at all, it is submission to the higher law that our government is in rebellion to. We're not the rebels, they're the rebels."
Eric: I mean can you even explain/defend SOL's statement above? I don't like putting words in other people's mouths and I am sure he is fully capable of explaining and defending what he writes. He is very articulate. Having said that I can also say that I doubt anyone gave Bush more hell when he was in office than SOL, me and some other people (I posted under a different name back in the day). But Bush is no longer in office and now it's time to bash the Kenyan fraud who took his place. Sure, Bush's policies were bad and most of us who post here condemned him and still do. But now that the Kenyan is enforcing Bush's bad policies and implementing new ones I think it is time to bash his @$$. Some of us are "equal opportunity bashers" when it comes to crooked, vile politicians. It would be hypocritical not to be. Wouldn't you agree?
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "You've got to put right and wrong above legal and illegal. Because when tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty; and it is not rebellion at all, it is submission to the higher law that our government is in rebellion to. We're not the rebels, they're the rebels."
Anyone who is a "columnist" at townhall.com is by definition a NeoTrotskyCon. My guess is that if this had occurred under Duhbya he would have defended it as necessary for "National Sekurity".
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
And that was my point. Tyranny is not rooted solely in 9/11. 9/11 was a step, a big one, in the progression. People were just dandy fine with the Davidians being burned alive on television, as they were channel surfing to get to the next episode of Cops or Hill Street Blues or a special showing of the movie Judge Dredd on the tube. To sole focus on one step in the ladder at the exclusion of all other steps, on all threads, does a disservice to the discussion (if the discussion isn't specifically about that one step). If that makes sense. In short, the apathy and SWAT acceptance did not start on 9/11, and Americans were quite content to cheer Cops out bashing in heads long before 9/11. Had 9/11 never happened as a national event, people would still today be OK with Obeyme sending out SWAT teams to watch over peaceful middle class honest people. The die was cast on that count long before 9/11. The point I was trying to make was actually separate from any discussion of 9/11, hence my original notation about a friend who obsesses about abortion. I'm afraid that I simply didn't communicate that effectively, and in an atmosphere which became immediately hostile and hot, it became quickly impossible to do so with any reasonable chance of success.
MapQuest really needs to start their directions on #5. Pretty sure I know how to get out of my neighborhood.
I don't disagree with that. I don't like Bush and his unconstitutional policies, his shabby treatment of Americans, his belief that being president allowed him to go beyond what the Constitution lists as his duties. But Bush is no longer in office. Sure, no problem in mentioning the bad policies but concentrate on the one who is currently implementing and expanding bad policies. And the one who is acting like a king now is most likely a citizen of a foreign country!
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "You've got to put right and wrong above legal and illegal. Because when tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty; and it is not rebellion at all, it is submission to the higher law that our government is in rebellion to. We're not the rebels, they're the rebels."
This is exactly the point I was trying to make. Having attended my share of anti-Bush anti-War anti-patriot act events in real life, having contributed cash to organizations who opposed pretty much everything Dubya and his minions were perpetrating, as well as having a long forum record absolutely trashing Dubya, the patriot act and other abuses of his evil regime, I think I've put in some footwork on the issues to give me some level of street cred. It's kind of like when I hear Limpballs go on about Bill Clinton. My only thought when hearing that is "dude, move on, it's 2010 and he's out of office".
MapQuest really needs to start their directions on #5. Pretty sure I know how to get out of my neighborhood.
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "You've got to put right and wrong above legal and illegal. Because when tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty; and it is not rebellion at all, it is submission to the higher law that our government is in rebellion to. We're not the rebels, they're the rebels."
Yes, precisely. Bush's policies were bad, but Barry is doubling down and expanding on them at break neck speed, as well as socializing the economy in ways I honestly didn't think were possible in my lifetime. It's time to start throwing the barbs at him as well, in my view.
MapQuest really needs to start their directions on #5. Pretty sure I know how to get out of my neighborhood.
I said what I have to say. Seems we have different takes but that is ok. People see things through their own prisms and many times not in exactly the same light or same way.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Good post, I agree. If not for Clinton's unjust attack on Serbia (the Christian Serbs) and his idiotic attack on an aspirin factory in the Sudan I think I could say he was a better president than Bush (and that is not really praising him but more like damning him with faint praise). I have said it before, they get worse with every (s)election and I shudder to think of what 2012 will bring assuming the Kenyan has not declared martial law and, like Papa Doc and Baby Doc Duvalier, declared himself dictator for life.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "You've got to put right and wrong above legal and illegal. Because when tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty; and it is not rebellion at all, it is submission to the higher law that our government is in rebellion to. We're not the rebels, they're the rebels."
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "You've got to put right and wrong above legal and illegal. Because when tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty; and it is not rebellion at all, it is submission to the higher law that our government is in rebellion to. We're not the rebels, they're the rebels."
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "You've got to put right and wrong above legal and illegal. Because when tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty; and it is not rebellion at all, it is submission to the higher law that our government is in rebellion to. We're not the rebels, they're the rebels."
You are wrong about that. There is some difference. Obama is WORSE than Bush. They get worse every time a new one gets foisted off on us. And the current hack isn't even an American citizen!
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "You've got to put right and wrong above legal and illegal. Because when tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty; and it is not rebellion at all, it is submission to the higher law that our government is in rebellion to. We're not the rebels, they're the rebels."
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "You've got to put right and wrong above legal and illegal. Because when tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty; and it is not rebellion at all, it is submission to the higher law that our government is in rebellion to. We're not the rebels, they're the rebels."
Where do you think he'd be right now? Hypothetical question. I don't know where he would be now since he wasn't there then. If he had been, and if he could have gotten away with it,* he would still be there like Papa Doc Duvalier. I think that is probably his plan. *And I don't know that he couldn't have. It seems like other than griping and bitching the American people will put up with anything as evidenced by the massacre at Waco, the wanton murder of Randy Weaver's wife and son (and of course the attempted murder on him), Gordon Kahl. I guess if I thought about it I could make a longer list but what's the point? The government is out of control, has been for years, and it seems that no one other than a lone wolf now and then is doing anything about it.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "You've got to put right and wrong above legal and illegal. Because when tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty; and it is not rebellion at all, it is submission to the higher law that our government is in rebellion to. We're not the rebels, they're the rebels."
What Obama would have done if elected in 1992 is relevant why? Obama probably would have done what Clinton did at the time, if not worse since he has a pass that Clinton could never have, and today Whomever-In-Power would be escalating beyond Obama's dreams the plans already implemented. Seems fairly straight forward. In that event, I'd be focusing on Whomever-In-Power now, who was escalating the already established tyranny, just like I focus on Obama & company now (and like I focused on Shrub until the day he left office). While making a historical note of sources back to 1992 Obama could be relevant in some conversations, they wouldn't be my obsession.
MapQuest really needs to start their directions on #5. Pretty sure I know how to get out of my neighborhood.
Exactly. I can't read a past that didn't happen any more than I can read a future I have yet to see. Oh, I can read some of it but not nearly all.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. I'm not saying it is right or wrong. I'm saying that this type of stuff has been in place since I have been watching politics and that was back during the Ike years.
The only difference I see between bush and obama is color of skin and obama is better at lying and bullshitting people - a slicker con-artist.
Comments (82 - 86) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#42. To: James Deffenbach (#38)
#43. To: SonOfLiberty (#41)
#44. To: Eric Stratton, SonOfLiberty (#42)
Lord Acton
#45. To: James Deffenbach (#44)
#46. To: Eric Stratton, bush_is_a_moonie, SonOfLiberty (#28)
Unfortunately I'm going to part ways with you there. I don't recall it being a rule that prior to presidential appearances that Black-riot-clothed police in full riot gear flagrantly and overtly, almost boisterously, march fully armed down streets where tremendously well-behaved people, protestors or not, have gathered. SOP is to have their secret service scattered and people "on call" on the sidelines, not marching down the middle of the street in an open show of up-yours viva-la-state.
#47. To: SonOfLiberty (#45)
Ain't no thang my homey. :)
Lord Acton
#48. To: Original_Intent (#46)
Lord Acton
#49. To: Original_Intent (#46)
#50. To: James Deffenbach (#48)
#51. To: Eric Stratton (#0)
#52. To: James Deffenbach (#47)
Not that there is anything particularly wrong in disagreeing with our friends, we all do from time to time. But, imo, it is always a good idea when talking to someone who is generally on the same side to be as pleasant as possible while explaining why you do not agree.
#53. To: Original_Intent (#50)
Lord Acton
#54. To: SonOfLiberty (#52)
I fully, totally, 100% agree.
Lord Acton
#55. To: SonOfLiberty (#41)
#56. To: SonOfLiberty (#49)
Just seems that sometimes, the discussion maybe doesn't have to always be tied back to 9/11.
#57. To: James Deffenbach (#53)
Anyone ever tell you that you are a cunning linguist?
#58. To: James Deffenbach (#44)
#59. To: Eric Stratton, SonOfLiberty (#55)
SonOfLiberty: It's ok to criticize Obama and his actions fully without having to reference the boogeymen from the last administration without any direct link to them.
Lord Acton
#60. To: All (#44)
#61. To: Eric Stratton (#60)
#62. To: Original_Intent (#56)
Of course you are correct in that this has been building for years - since the Vietnam War era if one wants to track the roots of the development.
#63. To: Eric Stratton (#60)
Instead, Hussein has for use against all of us Americans, ALL of those mechanisms mentioned above, which were all categorically put in place by Junior "for use against our foreign enemies." They have now been turned against US!
Lord Acton
#64. To: James Deffenbach (#59)
#65. To: James Deffenbach (#59)
I don't like putting words in other people's mouths and I am sure he is fully capable of explaining and defending what he writes. He is very articulate. Having said that I can also say that I doubt anyone gave Bush more hell when he was in office than SOL, me and some other people (I posted under a different name back in the day). But Bush is no longer in office and now it's time to bash the Kenyan fraud who took his place. Sure, Bush's policies were bad and most of us who post here condemned him and still do. But now that the Kenyan is enforcing Bush's bad policies and implementing new ones I think it is time to bash his @$$. Some of us are "equal opportunity bashers" when it comes to crooked, vile politicians. It would be hypocritical not to be. Wouldn't you agree?
#66. To: Original_Intent (#61)
#67. To: James Deffenbach (#63)
But Bush is no longer in office. Sure, no problem in mentioning the bad policies but concentrate on the one who is currently implementing and expanding bad policies. And the one who is acting like a king now is most likely a citizen of a foreign country!
#68. To: Eric Stratton (#64)
Lord Acton
#69. To: SonOfLiberty (#65)
Lord Acton
#70. To: James Deffenbach (#63)
#71. To: SonOfLiberty, James Deffenbach (#65)
#72. To: James Deffenbach (#68)
#73. To: Eric Stratton (#70)
Again, so what. That has nothing to do with anything at this point until people quit separating administrations. It's all the same! There is no difference!
Lord Acton
#74. To: James Deffenbach (#68)
#75. To: James Deffenbach (#73)
#76. To: Eric Stratton (#75)
Suppose that Hussein were president in 1992 and persuing the same exact things that he's now persuing.
Lord Acton
#77. To: James Deffenbach (#76)
#78. To: James Deffenbach (#76)
(Edited)
#79. To: SonOfLiberty (#78)
(Edited)
Lord Acton
#80. To: Original_Intent (#46)
#81. To: James Deffenbach (#73)
.
.
.