Will posting comments here put YOU on the government's watch list?

[Marlin T]

Will posting comments here put YOU on the government's watch list?
David Codrea
October 10th, 2010 1:06 pm ET





Several developments have occurred in recent days that indicate something as innocuous as visiting pro-gun rights websites that are critical of government Constitutional compliance, and especially participating in comments and forums, can results in heightened law enforcement scrutiny and even as a supporting criteria for "legal" intervention.



On Friday, I told WarOnGuns readers I was aware of a child welfare case in New Hampshire where one of the criterion for removing a child from its parents was an ostensible membership of the father in what protective services was characterizing as "a militia known as the Oath Keepers."



Long-time readers know we've discussed Oath Keepers--specifically not a militia group--many times, including attempts by the Department of Homeland Security, the Southern Poverty Law Center, opportunistic politicians, and certain media outlets to conflate them with violent haters. For this, and other reasons, I told WoG readers I was deferring to Rhodes to take the lead on this, and maintaining contact with him behind the scenes.



He has since issued this report, used as the basis for a WorldNetDaily story by Bob Unruh. It appears the father in question's tie to OathKeepers was that he commented on their forums. A danger, per Rhodes:

But an even more fundamental point is that regardless of the other allegations, it is utterly unconstitutional for government agencies to list Mr. Irish’s association with Oath Keepers in an affidavit in support of a child abuse order to remove his daughter from his custody. Talk about chilling speech! If this is allowed to continue, it will chill the speech of not just Mr. Irish, but all Oath Keepers and it will serve as the camel under the tent for other associations being considered too risky for parents to dare. Thus, it serves to chill the speech of all of us, in any group we belong to that “officials” may not approve of. Don’t you dare associate with such and such group, or you could be on “the list” and then child protective services might come take your kids.

In addition, Rhodes reveals the "Southern Poverty Law Center is now part of DHS," again with further details from WND's Unruh. Again, per Rhodes:

This is the overt politicization of DHS, to use it against political enemies.

Indeed. And now a tangentially-related development has been forwarded to me by a source I am keeping anonymous per request. The Kansas City Regional TEW Inter-Agency Analysis Center has prepared an "Intelligence Brief" for law enforcement based on Mike Vanderboegh's in-development novel, "Absolved." A key quote from the report:

Vanderboegh’s novella is very similar in nature to a 1978 novella, The Turner Diaries. In The Turner Diaries, an overthrow of the U.S. government and race war was depicted. The novella became, and is still considered, a staple of anti-government, racist rhetoric. Timothy McVeigh was an avid reader of The Turner Diaries and was possibly motivated by its content to conduct his attack on the Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building.

(Note I have also included the report posted as a slide show for those of you who cannot view the linked pdf file.)



This is straight out of the SPLC/DHS playbook. Anyone with any knowledge of Vanderboegh and his work knows he a committed opponent of racism and a leading voice against the initiation of force, having made the motto "No Fort Sumters" clear to all who frequent his Sipsey Street Irrregulars blog (Mike's initial take on this story is here).



So what does this have to do with...you? Well, the KCTEW brief links to WarOnGuns and displays illustrations I developed for Mike, including the mock-up "Absolved" cover and the "III fingers" graphic. I have featured "Absolved" chapters on my blog and written a column about it with online chapter links here on Gun Rights Examiner. If you've commented on any of these posts, or done the same at Vanderboegh's or sympathetic blogs, it would appear you're in a very similar situation as the father we discussed above, who's postings on Oath Keepers discussion boards singled him out for special mention in a legal action.



I wish I could say this seems far-fetched, but remember: We're literally dealing with the mentality that puts giant inflatable pink pig owners on government watch lists (seriously--I'm not making that up). And with mentalities that advocate disarming us if our names make their list.



And as with much of what the government does, their drawing attention to "Absolved" will probably have the opposite effect of what they'd like via the "unintended consequences" of generating public interest.

[MagnumFan]

You never know.

[jack404]

they do it here regularly

i've fought them till they dont have enough money to chase me any more ( but thats sent me near broke too)

i say speak up , the truth is always worth it
freedom and security is always worth it
no matter the price

maybe not everyone will see it this way , but a few years ago i decided if my freedom was on the line then i guess i'll lose it if it get's the folks i care for free and staying free

maybe i'm wrong

so what is the price thats too much to stay free?

maybe i should ask all those who did not come home from ww1 ww2 Korea VN etc etc etc oh right they paid for our freedom with their very lives

so i guess there is no limit on price of true freedom

[Eddie N]

You hit the nail square on the head, Jack. If not for the brave men and women who fought for it, nobody would be free. As I remember, a certain group of people left England, back in the 1600s, and traveled west just to be free.
As for me, I would rather die fighting for freedom than live life as a slave.

[The_Rifleman]

Might as well add my name to the list.

When discussing Second Amendment issues, (for obvious reasons;) choosing one's words carefully, is a must.

[jack404]

Originally Posted by The_Rifleman

Might as well add my name to the list.

When discussing Second Amendment issues, (for obvious reasons choosing one's words carefully, is a must.

but why?

aint you all the home of the brave and the land of the free ? or is that only for Muslims now ?

[johnlives4christ]

its the land of what you say better not be mistaken for a threat and the home of homosexuals and baby murderers

[The_Rifleman]

Originally Posted by jack404

but why?

Where is it bad advise in "choosing one's words carefully?"

It is a logical fallacy to insist I validate the norm; you must provide positives as to why we shall now accept haphazard language.

Originally Posted by jack404

aint you all the home of the brave and the land of the free ? or is that only for Muslims now ?

Knowing now, the information I have presented above; are you embarrassed in the slightest bit?

[NRA_guy]

One of my favorite children's stories read to me by my mama as a little child was about a man who captured a leprechaun.

Word was that leprechauns knew where the treasure chest was buried in the forrest.

So the man wouldn't release the leprechaun until the leprecahaun showed him the tree under which the treasure was buried.

The man tied a yellow handerchief around the tree and made the leprechaun promise not to mess with the handerkerchief until the man could go get a shovel.

When the man returned, every tree in the forrest had a yellow handkerchief tied around it.

What's that got to do with guns and government records?

Well we all need to give them more data than they can possibly digest.

[carver]

I am considered to be a domistic terrorist, and gun clinger, by my government, and I am sure that I am on several watch lists.

[jack404]

The_Rifleman

Quote:
Originally Posted by jack404
but why?
Where is it bad advise in "choosing one's words carefully?"

It is a logical fallacy to insist I validate the norm; you must provide positives as to why we shall now accept haphazard language.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jack404
aint you all the home of the brave and the land of the free ? or is that only for Muslims now ?
Knowing now, the information I have presented above; are you embarrassed in the slightest bit?

embarrassed?

me ?

I aint proclaiming to be free , not even close , but i'm fighting to be , in fact i live in quite a controlled environment , but at least i am state openly to all what i think , what i feel is right and what i feel is wrong despite all the threats intimidation and legal actions taken against me and those like me here

and i am bloody proud to do so knowing that others who proclaim how free they are but are not as they live in fear of their government and dont speak as though they are free

but hide and choose their words so not to upset the government or liberal or the thought police or whatever they fear

fear is the biggest killer of fredom

fear of reprisal
fear of government

fear of all this utter BS that is espoused today

if you could have been here tonight and see what we discussed , what we planed this very evening you'd cry heratic or something equally weird most likely with that attitude , but we are acting , we are winning , it's costly , but what price freedom?

we are fighting not just for gun rights but for Christian rights , the right to live free, not just for ourselves but for all in our land who want to be as you think you are

do i fear my government ? no

do i fear your government ? no

do i fear to speak out ? no

they can do what they wish

as i do

i'm still here and still shouting the same thing before they came after me
embarrassed ?

only for those who fear , who wish to be PC who wish not to make waves

but of what i ask?

not one bit mate

know why ?

i'm a free man

i made myself free by not fearing government but actively fighting them by their own rules and a few i learned along the way

i've nothing to be embarrassed about as i have never held back here
i've given 100% of myself to the cause despite that i know one day they'll come for me like they've come for others , maybe shoot me in the back , maybe set me up ,
do i care ? NO!
why?

freedom for my fellow man is too important to be choosey on what i say , so i say fact after fact , i say what needs to be said

should i be embarrassed on that ? should i choose my words so i dont upset the liberal twits who infest this place or should i fight and cajole and rebuke them ?

should i make arguments that make people question right and wrong ? damn straight i should and do

should i show facts of what freedom really is or should i choose my words so i live comfortable but leave the fight to my kids or grand kids or great grand children ( non yet but praying for them yet) ?

No i'll stand for whats right , i'll shout and scream and rant and be embarrassed for those who choose the soft option as its safer, its easier , as it dont cost them anything that way ..

embarrassed ?? HELL NO

i hear all this talk about how your the greatest nation on earth , my problem with this is that theres a heap of you saying it , but not many doing anything to make it great and free, most are choosing their words ....

embarrassed ?? not me mate , but look in the mirror and ask yourself can you do anything for your own nation to make it better or are you living the safe option ...

then decide who should be embarrassed

do not take this as a punt at the USA, i've stood by the US more times than i can remember , i pray that you are as great as you claim as i see the USA leading the world out out of the BS hole its currently in

but thats only gonna happen when people stop choosing words and act , stand up and scream what you believe at the top of your voice and act on those beliefs as your founding fathers showed you

i wish we had 1/2 of those men here in my country , we would not be in the pile we are in now if it was so...

until then ask yourself this

if everyone takes the safe option how long until the liberals and socialists get 100% control .. ??

not long at all mate , i know i've lived through it here, but i'm still fighting, yeah it's a losing battle as too many are saying shooosh choose your words

but thats what got this country into the hell hole we are in now

and i see your on the precipice of the same damn thing and all i hear is shoosh choose your words and not upset the liberals or they'll come for us

me embarrassed? ha

look in the mirror and ask if thats the attitude that will pull you out of the steaming pile your in now

trust me
it aint

now i ask you

are you embarrassed for asking that ? and admitting that the soft option is your choice ?

[user]

The inhibition of the free exercise of political speech is actionable in court. Just need a good case (factually, that is), and plenty of money.

[RunningOnMT]

Originally Posted by johnlives4christ

its the land of what you say better not be mistaken for a threat and the home of homosexuals and baby murderers

So true John. On another forum I was censured and ultimately banned for making what I thought was a rather vague and benign comment suggesting the demise of certain bureaucrats (no one specifically), might be a good thing. Now i didn't think of this as a threat, but one of the moderators did, and if they did certainly big brother may also.

Our founding fathers may have spoken of revolution and the need to fertilize the tree of liberty from time to time, but let it not be suggested on a public forum today. i've learned my lesson. Some people just don't get it.

[johnlives4christ]

i was banned on another forum for having a negative opinion of islam.

[jack404]

sadly , this is getting to be so common its educating people away from that which your founding fathers gave you

its saying they have the right to limit your free speech because they fear reprisal , or fear upsetting those who would destroy your constitution

imagine this in the 50's

someone speaks out against the perils of communism and then is censured because of that because of fear of upsetting the communists

with this attitude , all of Korea would be communist today
as would be VN ( well it is but it was the last great hoorah for communism )
afghanistan would be a highway to the new sea ports for the Soviets and they'd still be around now,

but people did not fear this , they spoke up , they acted because you do have the right to say what you want , within limits '


but today you can scream in a public place calling for the destruction of the USA , this is free speech

you can shift blame for all islams attrocities and blame the west

this is free speech

but you cannot state the truth as this is a hate crime or people fear being held for a hate crime

sedition is now free speech and the truth must not be spoken

we must choose our words and be polite if we say anything

its BS
its brain washing

its deception at it's best

and so many just fall into line with it

because they fear to upset those who would dance at your execution
who would destroy your constitution

who would subvert your nation to being one based on 7th century law and line all those up who do not convert or state the party line up against a wall and hack a arm off for the pleasure of a crowd

its gotta stop folks

i sometimes wonder what will become of the USA

what with all the "let's not upset this group or that group by saying a fact"

maybe the Islamics are right

maybe they will have total control by 2030

Salaam

[jack404]

A Post by todd51

http://www.thefirearmsforum.com/showthread.php?t=82597

follow the link and listen especially to 2 minutes 15 seconds through to 2 minutes 35 seconds

this is my argument and response , but way better than i could ever say

listen to the whole thing , as you live there

i wish we here had 1/2 of your constitution

but we dont ..

but listen to the video, i rest my case based on the extract from 2:15 to 2:35

[The_Rifleman]

Originally Posted by jack404

but at least i am state openly to all what i think

Not that I the coward needs to validate my actions to someone as brave as you, I also state what I think; I merely do it succinctly and coherently.

Originally Posted by jack404

if you could have been here tonight and see what we discussed , what we planed this very evening you'd cry heratic

You know nothing about me, your post is one huge assumption that was set straight by the comment you're replying to.

Originally Posted by jack404

embarrassed ?? HELL NO

You don't even know what you're supposed to be embarrassed about. Alienating thinking firearms enthusiasts by insinuating, they're cowards does not further your argument.

Originally Posted by jack404

until then ask yourself this

if everyone takes the safe option how long until the liberals and socialists get 100% control .. ??

You keep going on and on about me being a coward, as clearly stated, this is about being smart. This is about winning battles, (opposite of what you're doing now.) Your haphazard insulting strawman argument, is strengthening my position. Thanks for that!

Originally Posted by jack404

are you embarrassed for asking that ? and admitting that the soft option is your choice ?

Not at all. Not only haven't you defeated my argument, you've opted to go the soft option by ignoring the actual argument completely.

THAT is why you should be embarrassed. A whole post of evasion and insults. Get off my side!

[jack404]

so guarding your constitution is not your thing.. ok i'll buy that

you dont need freedom of speech , that's your choice

but what about everyone else ? or dont that matter either

and where did i state what you say ?

it is not evasion but yeah a tad insulting , you can hope to wake some folks up that way

but i see you defend your right ( that you currently enjoy) to not support your rules of nation , meaning your constitution , parts i bet you do , but freedom of speech without repression or reprisal your not so keen on defending .. ok

just remember once they start taking parts out of the system that works and bloody well .. then its all gone soon after , even the parts you like and care about .. gone , all of it

maybe you gotta see what you have compared to other places to realise

i dunno

to me its appalling

i think despite the laws here there is more open speech here than in the US
because people edit themselves , as does your news media organisation , maybe thats where foks learn it from

i'm just tired of seeing people fear democratic governments

governments in democratics states should fear the people

as its the people who say whats what

or should is my belief ..

i guess we are just different that way eh ?

[The_Rifleman]

Originally Posted by jack404

so guarding your constitution is not your thing.. ok i'll buy that

you dont need freedom of speech , that's your choice

but what about everyone else ? or dont that matter either

and where did i state what you say ?

You did it there, twice; yet you don't see it. There is a reason for that, which is your shortcoming, not mine.

I defend The Constitution in here on the minority side with regularity. I choose my words carefully winning the argument. Your statement is nothing more than you grasping at straws to illicit an irrational response; a response much like your posts.

You've lost the argument but just can't take loosing. Therefore, hide behind phrases like "freedom of speech" knowing nothing of the concept seeing you will not accept what speech I choose to relay. The irony is simply amazing.

I've ignored your other pathetic strawmen, your debating skills are nonexistent. You need to insult people because you haven't an argument, and don't know when/why to be embarrassed.

Ignores you totally.

[jack404]

but i honestly dont see where your winning the arguement, you do state your side not to speak up

i know i dont debate well , i'm just a bloke

i dont play the "talk to the hand type stuff " i say what i mean

i'm a big fan of freedom of speech as we dont enjoy it here

if we did i'd most likely be on a aussie gun board

but i cant enjoy that luxury , most of the good board owners here where locked up or fined or cautioned

and i dont wish you folks, who have free speech tattoo'd on each of your butts the day your born because of some very smart men a good few years ago , lose that

i bet you never looked at that link

i wish we had similar here

as for ignoring me thats ok i expect that from time to time

i grate some folks , its life ..

yes i dont see what you reference , i really dont , maybe its a difference in the languages or whatever

see you talk around stuff , maybe thats what you think i'm doin but i aint

i'm tryin to phrase it so it get through to you as i see you aint getting what i on about

and not doin too good neither eh

thats why the link it says it all so much better than i could ever try

it explains a lot i think your missing

maybe i'm just jealous of what your founding fathers gave to you all and see many tossing it away without realising it

either way sorry to upset you again

[3/2 STA SS]

They(Government) watch everything so what...the US Government will never come get your guns. I feel bad for all of the people who got suckered into the Obama mania about him taking guns away and paying the prices they did for firearms. I know the guns shops in my area had a hard time keeping inventory. Now people are selling them back at a fraction of what they paid for them due to our economy. They dont a civil war in this country and thats what it would amount to.

[graehaven]

LOL, you were added to "the list" from the first NICS background check.

They don't discard that info, to think that they do is naive.

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by The_Rifleman

Where is it bad advise in "choosing one's words carefully?"

It is a logical fallacy to insist I validate the norm; you must provide positives as to why we shall now accept haphazard language.

What is the name of this logical fallacy? I'm not familiar with it.

It is a perfectly legitimate debating technique to question the premises of one's opponent. If premises aren't questioned, I can prove anything.

Choosing one's words wisely is often a good idea. It is something that I do all the time (including this post). But that does not negate the fact that self-censorship is censorship still. And we, living in this great nation, are legally guaranteed that speech which we have good reason to believe is true need not be censored.

[Jeff Midguard]

Thanks for the clarity Jack!

Sometimes it takes an observer from outside to point out the subtle step-by-step changes designed in such a way that we won't notice. I'm convinced that the time for debate is about two decades in the past. The people that we're going to be up against
prefer to scream in your face rather than allow you to have a reasonable debate.

[graehaven]

The debate is over (in their mind) and they've won.

They've won because they now sit in the seat of control. They will NOT relinquish their control now. They're not giving up the power. They now have us so close to the brink of total control, they're not going to let the electorate take charge again.

NOPE.

The goose is cooked. The cake is baked. It's done.