Salon: We Totally Need To Continue NSA Program ‘Cause White Privilege

I’m typically loathe to like to any Alex Jones run website, in this case, InfoWars, but, they caught a good one

An article featured in leftist outlet Salon is calling for the continuation of illegal domestic bulk data collection in order to battle the “white privilege” of Rand Paul and other Americans.

Written by former FBI double agent Naveed Jamali, the article, entitled “What if Rand Paul were Muslim? The white, privileged assumptions behind his Patriot Act ‘principles,’” claims that Paul’s opposition to illegal spying is rooted in his skin color, not in his values and principles.

Arguing that bulk collection will deter the intelligence community from targeting people based on their “background or heritage,” Jamali suggests that only white Americans are concerned with domestic surveillance.

This is a new tactic. It used to be that Muslims, particularly those involved in the hardcore Islamist movement, wanted all surveillance ended, because they were upset that their hardcore movement was being uncovered. Now they want everyone under government surveillance, like in their hardcore Islamist nations, which will make it harder to see what the Islamists are doing. Using the silly Leftist “white privilege” mantra.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “Salon: We Totally Need To Continue NSA Program ‘Cause White Privilege”

  1. Michael says:

    If I am not incorrect, isn’t this the straw man argument tactic??

    Make the debate about racism and profiling, explaining that we need to all be treated equal under the law and therefore EVERYONE needs to be spied on equally to eliminate any racism as a result.

    The problem is that is not Rand Paul’s argument against spying on Americans… it’s actually regarding the rights to privacy and due process, which by the way is equally protected for ALL Americans if the government actually was restricted by a Constitution.

    It reminds me of one time when I was fighting a traffic ticket in court and wanted a Jury Trial and after fighting just to get that right recognized and “granted” to me by the courts(which by the way, if the government “grants” rights, then they are not rights… we call those privileges… that’s a whole other debate), I was told I had to come up with $300 for the jury trial or spend the weekend in Jail until Monday Morning trial…. mind you I had already had my bail requirement waived.

    During my debate with the clerk of court over the legality of this requirement, I was instructed that everyone is required to do this, that I was not being singled out, at which time I promptly told them, “You may equally violate everyone else’s legally protected rights under the State Constitution, but you will not be violating mine today.” BTW, I eventually won my pro se case with a unanimous decision by the jury.

    My point is, just because the government is treating people equally under the law, does not mean what the government is doing is abiding by the restrictions placed by the people in their Constitution.

    Now mind you, I prefer no government at all, but since I am a low security prisoner in this government, I am going to hold them to the letter of the laws that I am subjected to while I’m here. I have represented myself in many cases and won. I know the law inside and out and should have become an attorney, but I sincerely hate government because people in power are douche bags. My family members could be in power and guess what, they would become douche bags as well…. that is the nature of power and human beings.

    Last but not least… and not directly related to this issue… but it drives me nuts!

    Let me ask you this… If the Constitutions were written by, for, and of the people and logically can only be altered by the people themselves then why do we allow congress to write laws that created loopholes for themselves and why is the final arbiter of those written laws the supreme courts?? How can the government be the final arbiter of a Constitution written by the people to restrict government? The final arbiters always have to be the authors and their posterity…. which is the people themselves…. so why are we expecting those in government to rule in favor of their own chains and restrictions??? Are we that stupid as a society?

    Read the book animal farm and see how the pigs slowly changed the law in their favor….

  2. Liam Thomas says:

    I would argue what is the point of a constitution if their is no one to enforce it.

    Having no government makes no sense when your arguing from a constitutional perspective.

    So let me lecture you a bit.

    A History Lesson

    Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

    The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

    1. Liberals; and
    2. Conservatives.

    Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That’s how villages were formed.

    Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.

    Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q’s and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

    Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as girliemen.

    Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

    Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

    Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare.

    Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn’t fair to make the pitcher also bat.

    Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, Marines, and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

    Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.

    Here ends today’s lesson in world history: It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above before forwarding it. A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true believers and to more liberals just to piss them off.

  3. GOODSTUFF says:

    Thanks for the “history lesson” – goes good with beer!

  4. GOODSTUFF says:

    I’m typically loathe to like to any Alex Jones run website, in this case, InfoWars, but I have been having fun with this Jade Helm stuff

    Alex Jones for President! tracking –

  5. Michael says:

    Ok, that was funny…

    Although you might be categorizing half the population of America into a stereotype that may not be true.

    Yes, there are those who are not aware that the world is tough because they have been raised in a time and place where survival is not anything that they can conceive of, and God forbid ever have to endure.

    As a former boyscout myself and a self sufficient individual, I truly feel bad for a large population of America that if the shit hit the fan they would have to resort to violence against their fellow man to try and feed themselves and family because they really don’t have the knowledge and understanding of how to survive in a world without government oppression.

    After the wall came down in Germany, the western government instituted a 7% tax on all westerner Germans to pay for the rehabilitation of eastern Germans who had no concept of survival and competition in the real world. They were so dependent on asking government for permission to do anything that after 40 years, the rubble from WWII was literally still lying in the streets.

    This was the words from my grandmother who was ten when the wall went up and 50 when the wall went down. She went and visited and couldn’t believe how nothing was changed. In her words, it was like WWII had just ended for them.

    The joke is funny, but rather than make fun of our spoiled neighbors, I think we should help them become more self sufficient. Everyone needs to know how to be a part of a neighborhood of fellow humans and be able to at least experience what it is like to grow your own food and raise your own
    Live stock in order to ensure you can eat next year.

    I can understand how trivial it may seem to a person who has everything given to them without any knowledge that something had to die for them to live, but it is on us to help educate them so we don’t have to fight them later when government collapses.

    America was built from pioneers without government. We should celebrate that and help others be a part of that heritage. Luxuries are nice, but they don’t last forever.

    Government is not the invention of people who are self sufficient and caring for one another. Government is only for the morally corrupt. Both political spectrums have created problems for each other rather than putting aside their fears of one another and teaching each other what happiness is really about…..

    Serving your fellow man.

  6. Liam Thomas says:


    If the shit hits the fan you will have to result to violence to protect what is yours. And if you have a lot….someones gonna take it. If you own a ranch you will lose all your cattle in a matter of days. If you own corn fields they will be gone in days as millions of big city dwellers poor out of the cities into the country side.

    IF you have…..Your gonna have to fight for it.

    IF you DONT have….your gonna have to fight for it.

    No one is safe unless they have a hidden bunker somewhere they can hide in until they die that no one will ever find or stumble upon.

Pirate's Cove