Tag Archives: Guantanamo Bay

When I disagree with you, your rights should be revoked

Dave Perry’s frothing-at-the-mouth editorial is a prime example of liberal thinking put on paper. When they don’t like the rights you have, you don’t deserve them – because they say so.

I have seen the light. After all these years, I now agree that it’s fruitless to give the benefit of the doubt to people who are so obviously corrupt, so clearly malevolent, so bent on hurting innocent people for their own sick gain.

No more due process in the clear-cut case of insidious terrorism.

Those first two sentences are the first two in the article. No editing, ‘taking out of context’ or other egregious acts of non-journalism. They are exactly as Mr. Perry wrote them in the Aurora Sentinal.

So who exactly is he so angry with that he feels that their God-given, constitutionally-protected rights should be discarded? Why.. it’s the NRA:

No, no, no. Not the wannabe sick kid who blew up the Boston marathon or the freak that’s mailing ricin-laced letters to the president. I’m talking about the real terrorist threat here in America: the National Rifle Association.

Of course he wouldn’t wish this kind of punishment on someone like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, or the weirdo that mailed ricin to a member of Congress and a judge – no, not them. Dave wants the NRA to be stripped of due process.

Some may think the post was a joke, but dear old Dave’s own words tell it like it is when after those first two paragraphs he says, “I’m not laughing.” Well, neither is anyone else Dave.

The Boston Marathon bombings, the airplanes used in 9/11 and many black youths that are victims to crime have little to do with the NRA. The Marathon morons reportedly hollowed-out fireworks for their radical Islamist-fueled jihad. The 9-11 terrorist used airplanes. The horrific number of black youths killed by gang violence are almost entirely a cultural issue that years of liberal side-stepping has made worse. But Dave, you keep your head in the sand about our nation’s real problems. Keep toeing the line for the progressive left. Keep saying things that very few Americans actually agree with.

More troubling than Dave’s targeting of the NRA is his total lack of understanding of the U.S. Constitution. Due process cannot be foregone – unless you’re the president and see fit to do so.. apparently. Media outrage? Nope, just more like poor Dave piling on to the “you don’t deserve your rights” movement.

We have New York’s Bloomberg deciding what you can drink and eat. Several states are deciding what firearms your second amendment allows you to own and which one it does not. Day-by-day, the government is deciding that you are not self-sufficient. You, Mr. and Mrs. American, cannot take care of yourselves. You citizens need the government to tell you what rights you do or do not have!

Dave is just saying out loud what all those liberal Democrats are thinking. “They don’t think like us so let’s take away their rights and lock them up!” What’s that you say? Dave never said to lock up the NRA? Oh, but he did:

Send the guilty monsters directly to Guantanamo Bay for all eternity and let them rot in their own mental squalor.

It’s easy to believe that taking away some other law-abiding citizen’s rights is OK as long as it affords you some level of security. Unfortunately, it is also the slippery slope to serfdom.

Sure, you won’t lose all of your rights in a moment. It will be limits on this or limits on that. Slowly, but surely, you won’t be able to say much that the ruling class disagrees with.

Then come the rules about what you may not possess. Harmless at first, then more intrusive until finally you’re stripped of anything the D.C. elite see as an obstacle to their power and agenda.

This isn’t theory, it’s history brought forward. Learning from governments of the past to understand what those actions eventually bring about. Learning from all those citizens who at those times thought “surely that can’t happen here.”

Ignorance is the tool of the left. Whether Mr. Perry wrote this in a moment of rage, out of spite or because he has an agenda is impossible to guess. The results of such thoughts have been proven throughout time.

Senate Votes To Keep Indefinite Detention Provision In Military Bill

FILE - In this June 27, 2006 file photo, reviewed by a US Department of Defense official, U.S. military guards walk within Camp Delta military-run prison, at the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base, Cuba. (AP Photo/Brennan Linsley, File)

Earlier today the Senate voted to keep a provision in S.1253 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 which would give the President authority, using the military, to indefinitely detain suspected terror suspects. This includes not only oversees, but in the United States, to include American citizens.  The provision’s sponsors are Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain and Michigan Democratic Sen. Carl Levin.

Colorado Democratic Sen. Mark Udall proposes an amendment to the bill that was intended to remove the detainment provision. It was defeated by a vote of 61-37. In a column written for the Washington Post, Udall made the following argument:

“For example, the provisions would require the military to dedicate a significant number of personnel to capturing and holding terrorism suspects — in some cases indefinitely — even those apprehended on U.S. soil. And they authorize the military to do so regardless of an accused terrorist’s citizenship, even if he or she is an American captured in a U.S. city.”

It was reported that Senator Rand Paul (R. – KY.) and Senator John McCain had an exchange regarding the provision, in which Paul made the following comment: “Should we err today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, well then the terrorists have won. [D]etaining American citizens without a court trial is not American.”. To which McCain responded with “Facts are stubborn things. If the senator from Kentucky wants to have a situation prevail where people who are released go back into the fight to kill Americans he is entitled to his opinion.”

The White House has threatened to veto the bill over the provision claiming it will hamper current efforts of “counter-terrorism professionals, including our military commanders, intelligence professionals, seasoned counter-terrorism prosecutors, or other operatives in the field” . In addition, FBI, Pentagon, and the Director of National Intelligence have all criticized the legislation.