"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."
--Joseph Stalin

Saturday, March 23, 2013

New Hampshire Women: You Will Have To Prove You Couldn't Escape Rapist

Will Malven

The liberal mentality is simply unfathomable.  Now in New Hampshire, a law has been proposed that would require any woman who chooses to defend herself or her children from an attacker to prove she was unable to escape.  Of course the law applies to both men and women, but just imagine a woman walking her baby down the street and two teens suddenly coming up to her and demanding money from her.

Yes, that situation just occurred in Georgia this week.  When informed that she had no money, the two teens then shot the woman and then shot the baby in the face.  If the woman had a concealed carry license and a firearm, she might have been able to save her baby's life and stop the teens.

But should this law pass, in New Hampshire, the woman would have faced the additional burden of having to decide if she could "retreat" out of danger before she could use her concealed firearm.

Now this might--possibly--be considered--remotely--reasonable if there was an epidemic of New Hampshire citizens killing people on the street out of irrational fear . . . or even if it happened once . . . but this has not been a problem.  Yep, that's right, once more a liberal legislator is proposing passing a law to outlaw something that never happens . . . and has the potential to endanger women and their children by causing them to hesitate at a critical moment.

New Hampshire Bill Would Victimize Women If They Stand & Fight An Attacker

Second Amendment Sisters

Concord, NH - HB135 is not a bill of equality.

It looks to change a law that has not caused anyone harm. It looks to change the playing field to be in favor of the criminal and lessen the rights’ of women to not be victimized.

The prime sponsor was quoted as saying it is OK for women to defend themselves at home, but not on the street. We bear the burden to try and run from our assailants. If we do not, if we choose instead to protect ourselves or our children, in the court of law we have to prove we could not get away. The prosecution has no burden to prove otherwise.

Faced with a criminal intent on rape, robbery or kidnapping our children WE are faced with the choice to do what we must to save ourselves or our loved ones, knowing that we will be the ones in court. Being victimized a second time by the judiciary system that tells us we have to prove we could not escape.

[continued at webpage linked above]
Once again the liberal obsessive fear of their fellow citizens and of hypothetical situations has them trying to outlaw rational behavior and endangering the lives of the very people they, in their fevered little brains, are supposed to be trying to protect.

This is the antithesis of the "Castle Docrine" which many states (I would say "rational states") now have made law, which places the burden of proof on the state and the criminal that the use of a firearm for self-defense was not justified.

How irrational can one be. New Hampshire State Representative Merr Shurtleff has inadvertently granted us an example of just how irrational the average liberal legislator is and just how far liberals will go if they are allowed free reign.

Liberal-land is a looney-bin in which the law-abiding citizen is the enemy and the criminal the victim.  Here is the exact wording of the proposed bill:
1 Physical Force in Defense of a Person. Amend RSA 627:4, III to read as follows:

III. A person is not justified in using deadly force on another to defend himself or herself or a third person from deadly force by the other if he or she knows that he or she and the third person can, with complete safety:

(a) Retreat from the encounter, except that he or she is not required to retreat if he or she is within his or her dwelling[,] or its curtilage, [or anywhere he or she has a right to be,] and was not the initial aggressor; or

(b) Surrender property to a person asserting a claim of right thereto; or

(c) Comply with a demand that he or she abstain from performing an act which he or she is not obliged to perform; nor is the use of deadly force justifiable when, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, the person has provoked the use of force against himself or herself in the same encounter; or

(d) If he or she is a law enforcement officer or a private person assisting the officer at the officer's direction and was acting pursuant to RSA 627:5, the person need not retreat.
Here we have a perfect example of liberal think. The citizen is the criminal. The citizen must evaluate the situation and figure out, not only if their reaction is justified, but if, in the eyes of the court or a jury, they could possibly escape the situation by surrendering their private property and run away.

In the first place, the point at which either requirement can be met has long since passed before most people who conceal-carry firearms are prepared to deploy their gun.  That thought process is drummed into the minds of everyone who obtains a CCL.  The use of a firearm is a last-resort action that all CCL holders hope they never reach.

In the second place, this law places an additional burden on a person who is already faced with a life-or-death decision . . . A citizen would have to ask himself or herself, "Will the courts or district attorney believe that I couldn't have escaped if I use my weapon?"

The hesitation this law would impose on victims, however brief, could cost them their lives.

Of course, the chances of this bill becoming law are minuscule. In a state like New Hampshire, which is one of the few open-carry states, such a bill is unlikely to attract many supporters, but it is another example of how liberalism turns the world on its head and places the burden of proof on the victim rather than the criminal.  It places any victim of a violent crime at greater risk, while solving no problem.

Again, this bill addresses a non-existent problem.

It does, however, show us why we can never give an inch to the gun-grabbers.  It demonstrates to what lengths they will go to strip us of our inherent, endowed rights. 

It shows just how dangerous liberals are to their fellow citizens.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Friday, March 22, 2013

"A Republic, Madam, If You Can Keep It."

Will Malven

The "reasonable" voices in the gun control debate are once more "re-branding" their arguments in an effort to restrict our rights . . . it's the same old song with different lyrics.

"Morning Joe" Scarborough, former congressman, self-righteous hypocrite and conservative in name only (CINO) was at it again this morning, erecting more strawman arguments to push his and his fellow liberals' radical anti-gun agenda.

According to them, anyone who believes that an expansion of background checks would be a dangerous prelude to confiscation, because it means de facto registration, anyone who believes that an expansion of background checks would have no effect on criminal use of firearms, must automatically believe "we must protect the right of rapists to own guns," "criminals must be allowed to buy guns in gun shows," and "criminals and rapists must be allowed to buy guns on the internet."

People like Joe and his fellow gun-grabbers understand nothing about our Constitution or our natural, inherent rights.  They understand nothing about how a constitutional republic functions, and they understand nothing about what our Founding Fathers intended.

So, for "Morning Joe" and Dianne Feinstein and old Chuck "Microphone Moth" Schumer and for all of you other ignorant, gun-grabbing fools who believe government is only out to help you and has never and will never represent a threat to your freedom, here is a little primer on what a constitutional republic is.
  • A constitutional republic doesn't restrict the rights of all citizens because of the bad actions of a few malcontents. 

    Our system was designed to protect, to the maximum extent possible, the rights and freedoms of all citizens and to impose as few restrictions as possible on the actions of each.  If we were to pass a law based on every possible criminal contingency, then investors would be outlawed, because some choose to invest by fraudulent means.  Salesmen would be outlawed, because some salesmen choose to behave in an unethical manner, doctors would be outlawed, because some choose to write illegal prescriptions or perform unnecessary procedures.

    We seek to have a government which has the least possible negative impact on the lives of of as many citizens as possible.

  • A constitutional republic protects the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

    One would think liberals would know this since it has been used to ensure that minorities are not discriminated against. It has also been used by liberals to promote feminism (even though women are a majority), Title 9 entitlements, the "gay" rights agenda, and virtually the entire menu of leftist social causes.

    Of course we all know that such principles are only valid in the minds of liberals if they enable or promote leftist/statist causes.

  • A constitutional republic doesn't pass laws based on the results of opinion polls.

  • We are constantly being bombarded with polling data about the issues of the day and we are informed that X-percent of Americans believe that such-and-such law should be passed, so Congress needs to do so. Again, the principle of protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority applies here. Just because a majority of people think that Congress should ban so-called "assault-weapons" or high capacity magazines doesn't automatically mean that it is good policy to do so. Just because some percentage of Americans believe that gay marriage should be legal, doesn't make it wise or legitimate for Congress to pass laws making it legal.

    The wisdom of our Founding Fathers is self-evident in this principle.

  • A constitutional republic doesn't pass laws riding the crest of a wave of emotions. 

    Our system was designed intentionally to avoid such an eventuality.  Laws passed on the basis of the ebb and flow of the emotions of voters invariably are bad laws.  One of the most glaring examples of this was the 18th Amendment--"Prohibition."

    Part of the problem here rests in the passage of the 17th Amendment, removing a layer of political insulation between the voters and the Senate. The Senate was intended to represent the interests of the various states. It was the most "republican" portion of our constitutional republic. With the passage of the 17th Amendment, America moved closer to the abyss of democracy and away from the protections which were designed into our system by our Founding Fathers.
America isn't a democracy and that fact seems to escape most Democrats, most mainstream journalists, and many of our fellow citizens. To revisit an old saying, "democracy" is two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner.

Liberals are quick to denounce laws which restrict presumed "rights" of those whom they currently favor as "oppressed minorities (as in the case of gay marriage),"  but in their hypocrisy, avidly seek to impose restrictions on actual rights of citizens when those rights are inconvenient to their agenda.

America is a constitutional republic.  We elect representatives in whom we place our trust to exercise caution and restraint in passing laws.

Laws are not the result of a popularity contest, but should be the result of careful, fact-based, deliberation and consideration.  We should never rush to pass laws in the heat of the moment.

The actions of politicians like Andrew Cuomo and other Democrat Party leaders following a tragedy like Sandy Hook are examples of opportunism, not careful deliberation and such laws inevitably result in all Americans having fewer rights, less freedom, and more government interfering in their lives.

When advocates of laws which restrict our rights are reduced to using straw man arguments, lies, and emotional arguments, you can bet their agenda has nothing to do with  the causes they espouse and everything to do with seizing greater power over our lives . . . that or they're just plain stupid, like "Morning Joe" Scarborough.

Famously (and apocryphally), Benjamin Franklin was asked by a lady as he left the Constitutional Convention, "Well Mr. Franklin, what have you left us, a democracy or a monarchy?" 

Franklin stated: "A Republic, madam, if you can keep it."

Sad to say, America is well on the road to becoming a democracy rather than the republic our Founding Fathers left us.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

San Francisco Liberals: The Irony Is Inescapable, Quoting Muslim Leaders Is "Islamaphobic Bigotry"

Will Malven
“San Francisco won’t tolerate Islamophobic bigotry.  The only thing necessary for evil to prevail is for good people to look the other way and do nothing.”
So says San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon in a perfect example of unintended irony.

Pamela Gellar's group, American Freedom Defense Group has bought ad-space on 10 of San Francisco's Muni buses and posted quotations from Islamic leaders in an effort to counter all of the pro-Islamic propaganda being spewed by the left and groups like CAIR.

Somehow, in the twisted minds of liberals, quoting a person's words back at them is considered "hate-speech."
‘Killing Jews Is Worship’ Ad Campaign Rolled Out On SF Muni Buses
March 11, 2013 10:36 PM

SAN FRANCISCO (KPIX 5) – A controversy has been re-ignited this week as ten new ads go up on San Francisco Muni buses containing quotes used by terrorists.

“Killing Jews is worship that draws us closer to Allah,” reads one of the ads, which has people debating the line between free speech and hate speech.

“The purpose of our campaign is to show the reality of Jihad, the root causes of terrorism. Using the exact quotes and text that they use,” said Pamela Geller of the American Freedom Defense Institute.
As one of the commenter asked, "If using their words is 'hate speech', wouldn't that mean their words are 'hate speech'??"

Only liberals would consider using the direct, exact, and in context quotes of someone to expose their true beliefs and nature "hate speech," only a liberal would consider quoting Islamic leaders spewing words calling for "killing Jews" and "wiping Israel off the face of the earth" Islamaphobic bigotry.

The level of denial is so huge and the level of hypocrisy so pathetic, only a liberal could make the kind of statements these city leaders are making.  

It takes a liberal to get into such high dudgeon over someone speaking the truth.

The irony here is delicious.  San Francisco prides itself  on its "tolerance" yet here is the city D.A. and Board of Supervisors President, David Chiu, defending the most intolerant, murderous, hateful "religion" in the world.

In a further example of liberal irony, Mr. Chiu said the American Freedom Defense Initiative is made of “well-known hate extremists” and said he is introducing a resolution at Tuesday’s board meeting to denounce the ads.

These liberals who claim to be "feminists" and "gay-rights supporters" are now defending a religion which murders women for "allowing themselves" to be raped, mutilates women for such unforgivable sins as seeking an education or refusing to cover her face or sitting with an unrelated male who isn't her husband, and beheads gays for being gay.

God bless Pamela Gellar and her group for demonstrating the hypocrisy of liberals, the hatefulness of Islam, and the intolerance of both with a single ad campaign.

Price of the ads - $10,000
Exposing liberal hypocrisy and Islamic hatred and intolerance - PRICELESS.

Long Live Our America Republic!!!!

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Eric Holder: Death From Above . . . Domestic Drone Attacks "Necessary and Appropriate Under Constitution"

Will Malven

It just keeps getting better (more bizarre and frightening).

Yesterday the Washington Examiner reported that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder believes:
“It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,”
Folks, he's talking about using drones to attack American citizens on our own soil . . . think about that . . . a United States Attorney General contemplating the possibility, however remotely he may posit it, of an American President authorizing the use of U.S. military drones to attack an American citizen.

In December of 2011, Congress and the President authorized the new National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 which included, the authority to detain, without recourse, any American citizen believed to be "a terrorist or member of a group affiliated with terrorism."  We're talking indefinite detention without trial, or formal judicial hearing--no judge, no habeus corpus.

Then in February of this year, you may recall, our Department of Justice issued a finding that drone-strikes against American citizens on foreign soil were legal:
". . . the U.S. gvernment can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S."
 So now, the other shoe has fallen . . . the shoe that I predicted would fall when I posted my commentary in February, asking:
How long will it be before this same President--the President who views our Constitution as an impediment--decides to direct his Department of Justice to issue a finding that American citizens suspected of terrorist activities ON AMERICAN SOIL should be subject to the same treatment.
I don't care how "extraordinary" the circumstances are in which Holder and the President may find under which they would authorize such attacks, it is the mere contemplation of the possibility that disturbs me--and should frighten the willies out of you and every law-abiding citizen who disagrees openly with the Obama Administration.

This is just another item to add to the growing list I posted yesterday.  A list which, increasingly, begins to look like a preparation for war against American citizens.

Alone none of these events is indicative of a government out of control.  It's not any individual decision, but the pattern of decisions that is worrying.

  • The early description, by the DHS under Janet Napolitiano, of fundamentalist Christians, patriot groups and "right-wing" groups as potential terrorists, the identification of veterans as potential threats.  
  • The suspension of constitutional protections for citizens "suspected" of being terrorists or associated with terrorist organizations, indefinite incarceration of suspected terrorists or those "affiliated" with terrorists--both under the aegis of the NDAA.  
  • Unusually large ammunition and arms purchases, repurposed military armored vehicles
  • Multiple legal findings supporting drone attacks on American citizens abroad, domestic drone surveillance, signal intercepts and internet monitoring.
  • Legal opinion from the AG that envisions drone attacks on domestic targets.

This is not the America I grew up in and these broad and expansive powers for the DHS exceed even those of the FBI during it's most controversial days under J. Edgar Hoover.

Without any evidence of domestic terrorism or even any discernible probable threat of foreign terrorism on our shores, these actions seem extreme.  These are not the actions of a benevolent, benign government, they are frighteningly similar to the actions of the old Eastern bloc government during the cold war.

Conspiracy?  I don't know, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's unlikely to be a giraffe.

Vigilance truly is the price of liberty and American citizens should probably be paying a little closer attention to current events than they appear to be. 

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Monday, March 4, 2013

DHS Now Buying 2717 Heavily Armored Combat Vehicles

Will Malven

On July 2, 2008 President Obama stated:
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
As I said in an earlier commentary, over the past year the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has ordered 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition.

Peggy Dixon, the spokesperson for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in Glynco, GA, has explained that these orders are reflective of "strategic sourcing contracts" (intended to assure low prices on large purchases).   Ms. Dixon's explanation sounds a little strained when one considers that her own estimate of 15,000,000 rounds/year necessary for training and practice would mean, not a 4-5 year supply, but in excess of 100 years supply (unless they're planning to go to war with someone).
  • Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) the order was for 450,000,000 rounds of .40 caliber HST pistol ammo.
  • ICE also ordered 40,000,000 rounds of rifle ammo.
  • DHS itself is for 750,000,000 rounds "for it's training facilities."  Part of their explanation includes the following numbers, FLETC provides training to over 90 federal agencies and 70,000 agents and officers.
  • DHS has also released a solicitation for 7000 select-fire (fully automatic) rifles, caliber 5.65X45mm NATO as "personal defense weapons" (PDW) along with magazines that "have the capacity to hold thirty (30) rounds.  These same exact weapons, when semi-automatic, (as opposed to fully automatic as DHS has requested) and in the hands of law-abiding citizens are labelled "assault weapons," not PDW.
For comparison purposes, U.S. troops in Iraq, who were engaged in full-fledged combat, consumed about 60-75,000,000 rounds each year.

On March the 2nd, CNET reported that DHS is contracting for domestic surveillance Predator drones. Homeland Security's specifications say drones must be able to detect whether a civilian is armed. Also specified: "signals interception" and "direction finding" for electronic surveillance.

Yesterday Gateway Pundit reported that the DHS is purchasing 2,717 mine-resistant armor protected vehicles (MRAPs). These vehicles were designed in response to the high numbers of casualties suffered by America troops in Iraq due to IEDs.  They replaced or augmented the use of armored Hummers in patrolling hostile areas.  They were designed with "V-shaped" floor plates to deflect the blast from a mines and IEDs.  They cost over $500,000 each (2700 X $500,000 = $1.35 billion--that's a lot of taxpayer dollars, folks).

The DHS claims that these retrofitted MRAPS are for "rapid response teams" and were recently used to help people affected by natural disasters (like hurricane Sandy). 

Excuse me, but wouldn't a couple of thousand "deuce and a half" heavy transport trucks be better suited for disaster response?  Wouldn't they be capable of carrying more supplies and aid-workers?  Wouldn't "deuces" cost a whole heck of a lot less than these armored vehicles?  

. . . and to what critical situation are these "rapid response teams" responding?  What acts of terror have occurred?  What emergency situations have we seen in recent days that would require the use of armored personnel carriers?  Are we about to be invaded?  Are the Mexican or the Canadian Governments planning to attack us?

. . . or is this an example of a government gone mad?  Has Janet Napolitano become a loose cannon, intent on building up a paramilitary force for use against a phantom enemy or is the Obama Administration preparing a personal army to use against American citizens?

These actions simply don't add up in a democratically elected republic like America.  These are not the actions of a government that is responsive to the needs and demands of the people they serve; they are more reminiscent of a government contemplating repression and suppression.

Again, I am not one given to conspiracy theories.  I don't see black helicopters everywhere, I am not suspicious of FEMA coffin storage facilities, and I generally don't buy into the whole "government's coming to get you" concept.  I don't like the U.N, think it's a waste of American taxpayer money, and serves primarily as a forum for bashing America, but I'm not worried that they're coming to take over.

. . . and no, I don't wear a tin-foil hat, but when I see numbers like those above and a continuing progression of purchasing contracts like those mentioned above, I begin to wonder.

I am led to ponder the significance of these items and the gradual erosion of our rights or privacy and property by the growing advances in the field of electronic surveillance and internet data-mining.  I get a little uncomfortable with placing video-surveillance cameras on every street corner, in every store, on every ATM and the ease with which that information is accessible to law-enforcement agencies.

When I look at the pattern:
  • Drones
  • Cameras on every street
  • Large complexes designed for internet monitoring and communications intercept capabilities
  • Huge purchases of ammunition and arms
  • Expansion in the size and mission of the DHS
  • Acquisition of a large number of armored vehicles
  • Concerted assaults on our 1st Amendment rights (in the form of political correctness and so-called "hate laws"
  • Concerted assaults on our 2nd Amendment rights
  • Electronic assaults on our 4th Amendment rights
 Well, I'm sorry folks, I begin to see a pattern of behavior that is reminiscent of that we have seen at other times in other places around the world, throughout history.
The distance between freedom and enslavement, liberty and oppression, isn't all that great.  Our military veterans are now being scrutinized for any sign of mental illness and prevented from purchasing or owning firearms should they have been so diagnosed at some time in the past.

It is frighteningly similar to the tale of Soviet soldiers at the end of World War II.  Any soldier who had been a POW or been influenced in some way by Western culture, for however short a time, was seen as a security risk to the Stalinist regime and packed off to Siberia indefinitely.

Singer Songwriter Al Stewart famously documented this story in his song, "Roads To Moscow" based on the biography of Russian author Alexander Solzhenitsyn. It's a great song and ends with a terrifying tale of warning:
. . . I'm coming home, I'm coming home
Now you can taste it in the wind, the war is over
And I listen to the clicking of the train wheels as we roll across the border
And now they ask me of the time
That I was caught behind their lines and taken prisoner
"They only held me for a day, a lucky break", I say;
They turn and listen closer
I'll never know, I'll never know
Why I was taken from the line and all the others
To board a special train and journey deep into the heart of holy Russia
And it's cold and damp in the transit camp, and the air is still and sullen
And the pale sun of October whispers the snow will soon be coming
And I wonder when I'll be home again and the morning answers
And the evening sighs and the steely Russian skies go on forever
 The push for tighter and tighter gun-regulations, for doctors and mental health workers to violate the privacy of their patients and to obtain information on patients who may possess firearms or (in the case of children) whose parents own firearms, and the campaign, by the Hollywood media, to vilify hunters, gun-owners and those who hold their patriotism and faith as badges of honor  all point to something far more dangerous, far more malevolent, than routine security concerns.

All of the dictatorships of the last century were the product of leftist ideology, from Lenin to Stalin, to Hitler, to Mussolini, to Mao, to Castro, to Pol Pot, to Sadam Hussein.  They all had a common theme, the state is supreme.

It is impossible for right-wing ideologues to create a dictatorship, because they are all dedicated to the preservation of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  We live and breathe individual responsibility and liberty.  We want less government control, not more. 

When George Orwell wrote Animal Farm and 1984, he wasn't describing a manifestation of right-wing politics, but of left-wing politics.

. . . and that is the most disturbing thing.  This Administration and the party that it dominates and the supporters it courts are leftists to their core.  They believe in the state as the ultimate source of power, rather than the people.  They espouse the exact opposite of what our Founding Fathers intended and believed in . . . and they have set about trying to transform this nation into a reflection of their leftist ideology.

I close with a quote from Willam Butler Yeats poem, "The Second Coming"
. . . Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

. . . The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep

Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
Do we conservatives "lack all conviction" while those who would usurp our rights and freedoms are filled with "passionate intensity?"  Have Americans been lulled to sleep by the "rocking cradle" of Juvenal's "bread and circuses" (government handouts and cable television)?  Are we once more asleep as the "rough beast" of despotism "slouches towards Bethlehem [Washington D.C.] to be born." 

It's certainly beginning to look that way. 

I came to scoff, at those who have been shouting "CONSPIRACY!"  "GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER!" to sneer at the "preppers". . . but now I am forced by circumstances to pay very close attention.

The actions of our ever expanding federal government and those who would ignore or do away with our Constitution in the name of "homeland security" and paternalism demand it.  Thomas Jefferson and others admonished us that "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom."

We cannot just sit back and ignore what is occurring.  The actions I have listed above are not the actions of a benevolent, benign government.  The lies and ad hominem attacks coming from the Oval Office and those who speak for this administration are not the words of "a uniter." 

The threats being levelled at reporters who dare speak the truth about this administration are not a sign of "the most open and transparent administration in history," they are a symptom of a paranoid regime.  They are what I would expect of Hugo Chavez's regime or Fidel Castro's government, not an American government.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!