Is Bush son of Big Brother?

News Max ^ | Sunday, Dec. 29, 2002 | Carl Limbacher

[LibertyBelt]

#1. What thinks ye of the merits of these Conservative critics?

#2. Do you think the USA is in danger of becoming a Big Brother State, or is that lib/conserv hysteria from the fringes?....

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Welcome to President George Dubya Bush's

Homeland Penitentiary

Where everyone is a suspect (except Muslims)

"WE'VE GOT YOUR NUMBER"

[PGalt]

No. This country is being represented by one of the finest Presidents we have ever had...IMHO.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

bttt

[joesnuffy]

The unjust former president bill clintler used "the stroke of the pen..law of the land-cool" exectutive orders to formulate his version of "rule of law"...

Has our GW recinded these yet?.....I was hoping GW would erase any signs of those brigands..
If someone like Hitlery and Beelzabubba get hold of the reigns again ...(God forbid ) what would they do with the likes of Homeland Security..pretty much what they did before...only with mo' brutality imo

[ECM]

"We think of ourselves as the most conservative organization in America," he says. "We're dedicated to preserving the values of an 18th century document."

Pardon me while I laugh myself sick...

[facedown]

So says Michelle Goldberg, writing for Salon.com, claiming that "rock-ribbed" Republican conservatives are the "newest, most outspoken critics of the war on terrorism and Iraq."

And all three readers agreed.

[Movemout]

"No. This country is being represented by one of the finest Presidents we have ever had...IMHO. "

And what happens when the next Bill Clinton derivative comes along? He or she will not be attracted to using the new structural changes to their own benefit, or will they?

[PGalt]

They will have to be judged in the context of their time and by their actions.

[Movemout]

Maybe so. I do not approve of enhancing the state apparatus to make it more likely for them to be in a position in which they might have to be judged.

[sauropod]

#1. I agree.

#2. Yes.

[PGalt]

I understand your concern and at times I have the same concern.

[isthisnickcool]

The Federal Gov't is horribe at putting together these types of databases. In fact, it's not possible for them to do so without the help of commercial companies. Companies like Choicepoint, Acxiom and others. Unless the Feds. send you some kind of extensive questionaire asking all sorts of things they just can't build the databases. That ain't going to happen* while Bush is in office. Which means that at least any commercial company contributing data can at least watch the Feds. And since they are commercial entities this may drag these entities into civil court. Something they don't want.

As far as "Big Brother"? George Orwell had it right. Big Brother is a camera on you all the time and the software behind the camera is very smart. There is no data processing system capable of such a thing and certainly won't be in out lifetimes.

* We just recived a multi-page questionaire from the U.S. Census Bureau regarding our company. It shocked us in that it wants a lot of information that simply is not any of the governments business. In some ways it collects more information than the IRS collects with a corporate tax return. The forms says that the information must be provided under penalty of law. For "statistical purposes". We just started looking at the forms. I may post more on this later.

[sauropod]

Bush just did the EO thingy real recently to enforce rule over private citizens. Can't remember right now what it was about exactly, but I do recall that i was upset about it
at the time. 'Pod

[Happy2BMe]

If there is a "Big Brother", he doesn't want us to know it.

If Bush is his son, he SURE doesn't want us to know it.

Either way, for us to escape the grips of the NWO, something really, really BIG is going to have to happen (bigger than BIG BROTHER).

[ActionNewsBill]

"Conservatives trust Bush," she said. "They think he wouldn't do anything to harm them, that everything he's doing is for a noble cause," she says. This personal affinity for Bush, she says, blinds her fellow conservatives to the massive structural changes taking place in government.

Not this conservative...I do not trust the President.

The average Bush supporter is really no different than those on the left who want more and bigger gooberment.

As long as "their guy" is in office, they don't have a problem with giving up their (and my) liberties and freedoms.

Bush is doing some things that if they had been done by clinton, the so-called conservatives here would blow a gasket.

[sauropod]

U.S. Census Dept was very famous for this a couple of years ago. Neal Boortz railed about Census Dept folks showing up at his house several times to get the info they wanted.

Now I disagree with you that we have nothing to fear in our lifetimes. Take a drive in a suburban neighborhood and look at the cameras and video equipment hoisted near the traffic signal. This is becoming more and more prevalent. Why do we need this? 'Pod

[Happy2BMe]

"Also among those expressing similar concerns are such staunch Republican conservatives as Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly, who Goldberg reports is worried that some of the Pentagon programs are dragging the U.S. toward "Big Brother government as imagined by George Orwell."

This whole story is a very good and accurate picture of what we might be getting into.

For example, our Number One threat to national security are the wide-open borders with Canada and Mexico.

Terrorists freely come and go over these vast terrotories with ease and at will.

Now. To even possibly attempt to gain control over this threat, mass placements of federal troops would have to be used for the degree of physical security required to repair the secutiry breach.

We are talking tens of thousands of federal troops stationed on our borders here folks.

It is very, very unlikely this will ever happen.

However, in the awful scenario that the U.S. was attacked again or with WMD, the U.S. has no other choice than to physically secure it's borders with troops.

While that seems a good proposal on the surface, the dangers of these same federal troops being used for purposes other than border patrol are very likely.

Probably, a new military command would have to be established for this force under the central control of a military commander who would report to some high-level beaureaucrat in D.C. - then ultimitely to the President.

The problem I see here is for these troops to be used by a President (not necessarily Bush - back off!) against American civilians in sceanrios such as house-to-house "shakedowns."

Impossible you say? Consider the possibilities is such a force came under the control of the likes of Reno or Hitlery Clinton.

[NCLaw441]

As far as "Big Brother"? George Orwell had it right. Big Brother is a camera on you all the time and the software behind the camera is very smart. There is no data processing system capable of such a thing and certainly won't be in out lifetimes.

I do not understand the concern with cameras, whether by government or private business, as long as the cameras are in public places. What privacy interest is invaded by such cameras? When we go out in public, it is with the knowledge that we might be seen by others, including private citizens and police and other officials. No one objects to policemen looking at us in public do they? If policemen were to write down what they see, including descriptions of persons, should we object? It appears to me that the only ones who should object have something to be concerned about. Of course, I don't want government to publish pictures of me as I (I might have thought) "discreetly" pick my nose or stare at a beautiful woman, but I see no indication that this might happen. Simply put, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for appearances made in public, and such cameras serve a beneficial interest by either discouraging or recording criminal behavior (remember Madeline Toogood, the woman caught beating her kid in a parking lot on camera?), and in helping to locate persons who are being sought.

This reminds me of those who objected to Linda Tripp taping conversations with Monica Lewinsky. Those who objected would have had no beef if Tripp had stenographically taken down the conversation or if she could have recalled it verbatim. Then, of course, she could have been branded a liar. What many seem to want is "deniability" rather than privacy protection.

Of course the issue is vastly different should government, or anyone else, attempt to conduct surveillance in places, such as our homes, where privacy IS expected. Is government doing this? If so, I object, but I am not aware that this is happening.

[MissAmericanPie]

"They will have to be judged in the context of their time and by their actions"

Your close the barn door after the horse is out theory smacks of the type of conservative the article disdains, the security over freedom type, and you shall have neither.