How To Respond To A Moonbat
Yesterday Zatara took issue with my charge of moonbattery from the left and made several comments including this:
Just out of curiosity, how is moonbattery (interesting term there) to call a clearly unconstitutional grab for power what it is?
Over the past week or so, there were daily revelations of this administration abusing the already broad powers it has for wiretapping, investigating, and harassing private invidiuals that have not been charged or evenly vaguely connected with a crime.
Actions like those take place in wonderful nations like Burma and Cuba... they make the ghosts of Stalin's past cackle with glee. This is not how an open and free society acts.
Of course served a Dish like that I could not resist:
comparing our government conducting warrently searches or wire taps on people in the US communicating with terrorists outside the country with countries like Cuba is Moonbattery.
Comparing it with Stalin is foolish at best.
I as you do not want the government spying on my every day activities. Unless you are cooperating with terrorists I don't think you have anything to fear yet.
Go and read the opinions of the Constitutional Law Professors I mentioned in this post and previous ones. You will find either you are falling for the moonbats hyperbole or you are yourself in fact a moonbat.
I do hope for your sake it is the former and you still have a chance to listen to reason.
Well Unfortunately either Zatara is just being stuborn and doesn't want to admit to being so poorly informed or indeed he/she is a moonbat.
1) If being a Libertarian means that I expect, nay demand, the government follows a truely strict interpretation of the Constitution then I hate to see what so called Conservatives are.
Despite what some "law and order" politicians believe, the 4th Amendment is not there to protect the guilty, but the innocent. It's not there to hamper investigations but it's there to make sure that the investigators do their job correctly the first time and ge the guilty party.
I'm sorry you don't care about your individual rights... I guess you weren't using them and let the government take them away, for your own safety of course.
and of course I responded again:
You seem to continually confuse criminal surveillance (at worst a group of organized criminals trying to steal our money) with foreign intelligence surveillance ( people who have publicly stated they are at war with our entire country including you and want you, your family and everyone you know and love dead and all your civil rights violated for the rest of history).
Now if you don't see that fundamental difference then you Sir/Madame are a freaking lights out moonbat.
But this is what I wish I had said. Rick at Right Wing Nuthouse has the prefect response for moonbat constitutional absolutionists like Zatara. So Zatara I hope I haven't run you off yet. If you would endulge, please read the following excerpt from Right Wing Nuthouse:
I will take a back seat to no one in my support for the Bill of Rights – ALL TEN OF THEM. Liberals usually like to stop at about #8. After all, the 9th and 10th Amendments limit the power of the federal government vis a vis the states and the people which is a total anathema to your average lefty. Come to think of it, liberals aren’t very supportive of the 2nd amendment and even several parts of the 1st – like freedom OF religion. In fact, looking at a liberal’s translation of the Constitution, it would probably appear very similar to one of those documents requested of the CIA under the FOIA; so much of it would be blacked out that about all you’d be able to read is the page number.
That said, what has me breathing fire this morning is the idea that, in order to prevent the greatest of catastrophes – a nuclear weapon being exploded on American soil – people actually want the government to get a warrant to aim a Geiger counter at someone’s house. This is nuts. This is lunacy. This is as close to suicidal as one can get without actually putting the gun to your head.
I guess we’re really in trouble now. The Constitutional absolutists (I’m beginning to include some of the more pompous libertarians out there who are starting to annoy me more and more every day) are acting as if this is some kind of gigantic abstract game we’re playing. I can assure you that al Qaeda is not playing games. And the people who are currently responsible for seeing that the last thing you see isn’t a bright flash in the sky followed by the sighting of a mushroom shaped cloud are, thank the Lord, not playing games either.
What is not serious is this spate of revelations regarding what the government is doing to prevent the destruction of the United States. What is not serious is this internet-wide hand wringing over what appears more and more as a sensible, rational, response to a threat posed by an enemy that has sworn to destroy us – or perhaps many of you have forgotten that salient fact.
And the next person that quotes Ben Franklin’s warning about security and liberty is going to get a pie in the face – or my boot up their ass. Ben Franklin didn’t have to worry about a goddamn nuclear weapon going off in Philadelphia while he was romping between the sheets with some harlot. He could afford to be smug. We can’t.
Right Wing Nut House isn't the only one putting the wood to idiots today. Michelle Malkin lays the smack down on the NYT for once again getting the story wrong. Their only possible excuse is incompetence or intentionally misleading their readers.
Hugh Hewitt socks LA Times whacko Tim Ruttan right in the eye with Ruttans own words and mocks the little twit for being the intellectual coward that he is.
The trouble with Rutten and other MSM apologists is that they have never, ever had a job remotely close to national security operations, and get most of their understanding of the business of intelligence from Ludlum novels and bar conversations with people who say they know spooks. The irony is that the close of Rutten's column is spent telling people that newspapers are too disorganized to conspire to do much of anything except get the paper out. He is asserting that if only you knew what went on in newspapers, you wouldn't be so quick to criticize them --that readers should defer to his "inside" knowledge of the way it really is.
Enough of the critics and their demands for candoor from self-serving, ideologically extreme and unswervingly Ahabite nutters in the newsrooms! Papers are to be worshiped, reporters exulted (and paid more) and never ever rebuked for endangering the national security!
Next week from Rutten: Why newspaper subscriptions should be mandatory, why PBS should have Bill Moyers as its boss, why reporters' salaries should be tax exempt, and why the publication of National Intelligence Estimates on a real time basis is actually good for the country.
But if he's going to slander me or some other radio show host again, perhaps he can borrow the spine to do so by name.
I am glad to see Christmas has brought out all this brotherly love.