jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (19 posts)

Wow! Orwell sure did call it!

  1. Evan G Rogers profile image74
    Evan G Rogersposted 7 years ago

    A central theme in a lot of Orwell novels was that the government would go about changing the definitions of words so as to ensure people that "slavery is freedom", and the sort. Of course, Orwell took it to a bit of an extreme, but in reading his books you begin to see such nonsense everywhere.

    The latest (and most dangerous) example is with the word Terrorist. As we all know, if you're a "terrorist" it matters not if you're a US citizen -- Obama put out an international hit on a US citizen who he labeled a terrorist. And, as Guantanamo Bay illustrates, if you're a "terrorist" then you don't get a chance to prove that you're innocent of crimes. You simply get thrown into a Gulag and are forgotten about.

    On the forums here, I routinely have been illustrating how this is a HUGE problem for any freedom-loving individual. Alas, rebounds of "a terrorist has to be using fear and violence" comes my fellow hubbers.

    To these individuals, I show you a recent quote from the US attorney's office (which apparently is linked to the FBI) highlight that fear and violence have NO NO NO NO NOTHING to do with being a terrorist anymore.

    "Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism.  While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country."

    http://charlotte.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pr … 031811.htm

    Ladies and gentlemen: the word Terrorist has been redefined, just as I have been explaining it would.


    1. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Good post! I can't add to that other than to say that from outside America we are proud to be friends with such a great nation.
      ...........Except when it produces crud like the redefining of anything that won't stay in the box! smile

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image74
        Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this


        I'm a bit surprised that no one else has bothered to comment on this forum... perhaps the people who generally try to defend calling people terrorists are too busy trying to think up a non-sensical defense of Othe administration?

    2. kateperez profile image65
      kateperezposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I am concerned with this same event.  it seems that patriot=terrorist.  Liberal=thief, and Republican/Conservative=red-necked idiot who used to have three teeth until one fell out last week when they got hit in the mouth with the butt of their Constitutionally authorized hunting rifle.

      I'm so exhausted!

    3. EmpressFelicity profile image73
      EmpressFelicityposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I'm totally with you on this one Evan.

      Are you surprised though that the government would come down that hard on someone who dared to try and circumvent the fiat currency/fractional reserve banking system?

      I mean, if this guy got away with it then who knows what would happen?  Every entrepreneur with a bit of silver or gold stashed away would be at it!  The banks would be sidelined and that would never do, would it?

    4. lady_love158 profile image58
      lady_love158posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      If he's a terrorist than what is the Fed? Obviously he's a criminal but a terrorist not so much.

    5. CaravanHolidays profile image60
      CaravanHolidaysposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Good overall point, although I agree entirely with what you are saying, I would like to point out that not only was Orwell a great observer in the political sense, he also wrote with wit and pith, and well used irony - a truly great man.

    6. Jeff Berndt profile image86
      Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Terrorism? Really? Is any illegal act an act of terrorism, then? Is jaywalking going to be considered "flouting the authority and legitimacy of the United States?"

      Clearly, if the guy is guilty of his non-terrorist crime, he should go up the river for a good long time, because counterfeiting is a serious crime. (Though sine the funny money he's been circulating isn't meant to exactly duplicate US currency, I don't know if there's evidence to support counterfeiting charges...).

      But yeah, the guy's a criminal, not a terrorist. There's a difference, and it's pretty big. I mean, next, they'll be calling drug dealers terrorists.

  2. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 7 years ago

    Used to be communist, dirty commie.

  3. Doug Hughes profile image57
    Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago

    "Article I, section 8, clause 5 of the United States Constitution delegates to Congress the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof. This power was delegated to Congress in order to establish and preserve a uniform standard of value and to insure a singular monetary system for all purchases and debts in the United States, public and private."

    So the libertarian pinhead violates federal law which is clearly an extension of Constitutional intent, and you get bent out of shape because you think the prosecutor called the libertarian lunatic naughty names.

    There's an important distinction to note. Freedom of Speech allows you to advocate anarchy. I will always be a defender of the right to voice unpopular - even stupid - opinions.

    Acting against the government of the United States is NOT covered by free speech. If you want to play pretend soldier with your buddies in the woods,  it's covered by the Second Amendment.  Until someone seriously proposes violence against the government. At that point, you have crossed the line. If you can see that, then you can see that economic combat against the US is and should be just as criminal.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image74
      Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      ? That reply kind of ignored the entire point.

      Terrorists don't get treated like citizens. So the government calls someone a terrorist and is able to throw them in jail without trial.

      Now people who simply break the law are being called terrorists, and have a chance to not have a trial.

      That was the point.

      "Terrorist" isn't a "naughty name", it's a title that the government uses to strip one of their natural rights.

      PS - congress has the power to COIN money.

  4. Doug Hughes profile image57
    Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago

    Evan - the libertarian kook got a trial.

    You haven't shown where he lost any rights. He was not charged under the Patriot Act,  which is a vile piece of legislation. The prosecutor gave an opinion that economic warfare to undermine the currency is terrorsm.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image74
      Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      They are calling "counterfeiting" a terrorist act. The US, in the past few years, has stripped natural rights away from terrorists.

      Thus, it is only a small hop to begin stripping rights of criminals by simply calling them Terrorists.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image57
        Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I agree on one point. The practice of one set of rights for most - and a lesser set of rights for persons accused of terrorism (enemy combatants) is unconstitutional. I have never defended suspension of habeas corpus or holding foreigners indefinitely with no charges. I don't approve warrentless wiretapping. We are almost eye to eye on civil rights, I suspect.

        I read the article. The convicted man is free on bond after trial pending appeal, I think. None of his rights have been violated. But I return to my original theme. You can talk about anarchy all you want. The worst penalty you will incur is my sarcasm. But ACT to promote anarchy and you can quickly find yourself on thin ice. Like this guy facing 15 YEARS.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image74
          Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          you act to encourage government spending by voting and talking about it.

          I do the same.

          1. Doug Hughes profile image57
            Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I don't encourage spending for the sake of spending. If I had the chance to reform DHS and the DofD they would be a lot leaner in just a few years without mass layoffs. Most 'foreign aid' is a Green Stamps program where we give dictators billions in aid which they MUST spend on US-made arms. It's a welfare program for military industries, but the product is the resentment of oppressed people.

            These are bi-partisan screw-ups, but also in the mix are many programs of great value. The trick is the cutting the fat without destroying the meat.

            I know you don't agree, but I think you understand me better than to represent my position as 'wants to increase spending'.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image74
              Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              whatever it is, it matters not.

              You claimed I don't work towards my beliefs, and I pointed out that I likely do at least as much as you.

              That's all.

  5. livewithrichard profile image84
    livewithrichardposted 7 years ago

    I would be concerned if it was the Judge that made the statement because then it becomes and official stance with precedent.  However, the statement was made by U.S. Attorney Tompkins who was obviously trying to earn a few brownie points for grandstanding.

  6. profile image0
    Home Girlposted 7 years ago

    Political red herring. Terrorism is in fashion, same as purple colour. Easy to sell.