The News Before it Happens

Two men were arrested today and are being charged with terrorism. While we can only know what is being reported, there is something not quite right about the case.

New Jersey thought terrorists


Lets start by looking at the facts. Two men, one born here and the other a naturalized citizen were flying to Egypt. An undercover officer taped them saying they wanted to join a group of muslim "extremists" in Somalia. There is no evidence reported that they had ever connected with any groups and no reports that they had any weapons. The police stated that there was no evidence of an immanent threat to anyone.

The question is what were they arrested for. They were arrested for terrorism. What then is the definition of terrorism? Apparently saying you would like to join a group that is defined by the government as a terrorist organization is enough. This is in direct contradiction to the law. It is funny that the police said there was no immanent threat, that is the requirement for arresting people for words.

These two nothings were monitored by an undercover officer and taped. Nobody's who had no history of wrongdoing and no specific plans. The thing to watch for is whether or not they get a trial. Remember one was born here and the other was a naturalized citizen. Citizenship will be the issue. I have been saying this for awhile.

The question, posed by the government, will be if the two should be treated differently simply because one was born here. You watch, that will be the issue. We are being led down a slippery slope. Both should get a trial. If found guilty then the naturalized citizen should have his citizenship removed and he should be deported after serving a judge defined jail term. The other, the one born here, legally cannot lose his citizenship, he was born here he is a citizen.

We have two problems. The first is arresting people when the government cannot show that they prevented ANYTHING from happening. The police admitted they cannot prove that these two were going to do anything, they admitted it. They were arrested for saying they would like to join the groups. What is the penalty? Life imprisonment without a trial?

The second problem is the attack on citizenship which is really an attack on your rights. This comes a day after Egypt decided that Egyptian born citizens could lose their citizenship if they married an Israeli. Do you see a pattern yet? Baaahhhh.

Read the comments that follow the linked article. Look at the opinions of your fellow Americans. "Throw them all out". The one born here has no place to be thrown to. He is an American citizen unless some country is willing to give him citizenship and none have offered.

If the Patriot Act and other such legislation had been in place when the Revolutionary War was in effect then people saying they wanted to break from England could have been jailed for just having the conversation. Look beyond the fear and biases, look at what fundamental rights are being abused. Yours will be next.

History is repeating itself and nobody knows history anymore. There is a lady that wrote a book about how the United States is becoming totalitarian. She is on the watch list merely for complaining about our rights being taken away. Hey maybe I can get on a watch list for agreeing with her. Screw em. The real threat, the biggest threat is when we stop questioning OUR government.

In Birmingham, England the police have installed 150 cameras to monitor two Muslim areas. Muslims apparently need special attention because they are at risk of becoming terrorists. According to Homeland Security, in America we would need to monitor Christians.

The story of the two idiots flying to Egypt was headlines across the world. That is a lot of chatter for two nothings who did nothing. What will be their penalty. Perhaps, they will be required to wear monitoring bracelets for the rest of their lives. That would be an interesting development. Lets watch the story as the days progress.

UPDATE

As I was reading a Canadian paper I came across an opinion piece. It talks about dual loyalties of citizens in Canada. Isn't it interesting that "loyalty" to one's country is the issue.

Loyalty is a funny term. It is most often used to get people to go along with their countries policies when the policies are wrong. Wait till you are required to take a loyalty pledge in order to have any rights. It is coming, it has been tried before.

Perhaps this nation should take a loyalty oath, a promise to be loyal to the constitution and the people of the country. A promise to keep us free and not have our every move and thought monitored. Instead we see a government that distrusts it's citizens, the people who they are to report to.

Bilderberg is a good example. Now, I would like the readers to try a little exercise. Google Bilderberg as a news story. You will find numerous main stream media reports. They all talk about conspiracy theories surrounding the group; but, dig deeper.

The article I linked begins by dismissing "conspiracy theories" surrounding the group as ludicrous. Really. Main stream media basically says we shouldn't bother wondering what is being discussed by the worlds leaders of industry and government. Really? Why shouldn't we wonder what they are discussing?

In the article, one attendee explained how the confidentiality allowed these world leaders to speak freely. Does that mean that they don't tell the truth to the rest of us? Sounds that way. What matters is not whether or not the Bilderberger's are running the world, doubtful, what should concern us is that they discuss what is best for us in secret. It is a club and you and I are not members, that is a fact.

At it's worst it may be some terrible one world conspiracy, at it's best it is anti-democratic. At it's best, it is elitist and secretive. As the world's leader increase monitoring of citizens they themselves collect in secret. No transparency for them. That then may be the biggest problem. One rule for them and another for the rest of us.

Beyond supposition, wikileaks has obtained a few reports from the Bilderberg meetings. You can read them here and decide for yourself what is being discussed. Bilderberg Meeting Reports.

Another question is, is there anything in those reports that could not have been said in the open? Why the secrecy? The 1980 report talks about creating a North American Union similiar to the European model. Now we have the North American Free Trade Agreement. The report said that free trade would be the cornerstone of any emerging North American Union. Read their words, don't take my word for it. It was written 30 years ago. If you knew it was being discussed 30 years ago, would you have voted for the same people?

I don't like onions. I will ask people, when they serve me food, if there are onions in the food. An answer I usually get is, "There are but you can't taste them". I always find this answer amusing. I usually respond, "If you can't taste them then why did you put them in?" My question regarding Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Tri-Lateral Commission and other such groups is the same. If there is nothing to be concerned about then why such secrecy?

I am a proponent of privacy and people's right to have conversations kept private; but, not when one is helping to decide the fate of others. Those others have a right to be involved in the discussions. The same people who are putting up cameras all over the world are the one's that have their conversations in private.

In case you don't get it, you have no privacy, you have no say, your opinion does not matter and "they" know what is best for you to know. That is the problem.