Are We Talking About The Embryonic American Schutzstaffel Or Sturmabteilung Or Stasi?

   

image image image

InfraGard.

Remember that name. 

They’re your neighbors and business associates. They’re taking names.

When martial law is declared, which is how the FBI, which sponsors these budding fascisti, puts it – ‘when’, not ‘if’ – these people can get away with killing you. In the meantime they’re just spying on you, taking names, making notes, rebirthing Joe McCarthy, living the fantasy of being members of a privileged, secretive quasi paramilitary organization, with privileged access, that you don’t have, to government officials and data.

They are Americans spying on Americans for the government, working in the type of organization that can, and has, quickly morphed into the worst that people can have in the midst of society.

Read about them here in The Progressive.

Advertisements

36 Responses

  1. I’ve said it before but you didn’t agree: America doesn’t need the FBI, as an interstate body, it does nothing that couldn’t be done police-wise, by the state and city police. If you look at it’s history it was the equivalent to the gestapo.

    Like

  2. Jesus, Ric. That’s some scary stuff!

    Like

  3. steph –

    I do think there is a legitimate function for a federal investigative/law enforcement body in this country, and when the FBI has been able to operate honestly, without political interference, it has worked pretty well.

    I also think it has been abused, politicized, and corrupted – first by Hoover, its founder, and at various times by others, to the point where it cannot be trusted today, and not for quite some time.

    State and city police tend to be parochial and jurisdictional and jealous of their territory. Chicago would never know that crime X in their city is the same as in Miami and New York, which gives a big advantage to the criminals. The FBI can tie all the information together.

    But if they’re politicized to serve the agenda of wingnut politicians and evade the strictures of Constitutional law, then yes, they’ve become effectively useless to the citizenry. This InfraGard program crosses the line. Again.

    So in a sense we do agree. We don’t need this FBI, but we do need an agency that can transcend jurisdictional disputes and jurisdictional ignorance.

    So in a sense we do disagree.

    Sounds agreeable to me… 🙂

    Like

  4. What the fuck? Do I have to go to Grumpy Lion to find out about stories like this? Why haven’t I heard it from any of my usual “news” sources? This is big.

    To have an organization of this nature is at least as abhorrent as the Feds looking at phone records of ordinary citizens who have not been accused, or even suspected, of a crime. The potential for abuse is obvious and so much more in the case of citizens watching fellow citizens.

    The McCarthyism comparison is not in any way a stretch. One of the most annoying aspects of our country is our inability to learn from historic mistakes. We are pathetic. Thanks for pissing me off, Ric.

    Like

  5. Ric get your coat on I’m stopping by and taking you out for a drink. The article by Mr Rothschild has been pretty much debunked. I’ll chime in that Mr. R actually refused to tell the FBI where the meeting re: deadly force” was.
    I’ also want to ask this. You do know that on any given day there are a number of private sector entities allowed to kill you if needed ? I don’t say that like it’s right to happen but power plants,certain manufacturing locations and of course almost every private university. ( I went down the WRONG hall once at Lincoln Labs MIT)
    I’ve seen a lot of things re: Infragard and they seem very benign.There are also some incidents where they seem to have done some good. I am looking to follow up on one June event in Boston which has me w/ raised eyebrows but till then I’m in the not concerned camp. In fact my company probably has a member. Perhaps I’ll have more then.So whatcha drinking ??

    Like

  6. alfie –

    Who debunked it? Where? When? Sources? And please don’t give me Hannity or Limbaugh or their ilk.

    Giving these people a license to kill is just the icing on the cake. You may see this as some innocent, beneficial group. I see it as one more step into fascism. I think anyone who feels comfortable with this sort of thing would be happier living in old Soviet Russia or Hitler’s Germany or any number of other tyrannies.

    Even that this is believable, and probable, and from a legitimate journalist gives an indication of how far down the road we’ve been taken.

    As for the private sector entities, I would expect to run into a range of troubles crossing the boundaries of marked areas. But I am not interested in some desk jockey James Bond wannabe deciding that I’m a terrorist because I don’t look like he thinks I should look or I’m not where he thinks I should be. Organizations like this are never benign over time. They speak of rot at the core of the social compact.

    Like

  7. evo –

    Thanks for pissing me off, Ric.

    Anytime, Evo, anytime.

    Like

  8. alfie –

    One more thing. How long have you been a member of InfraGard?

    Think about it.

    Like

  9. But . . . But . . . But . . . If Mommy is a Commie, then you gotta turn her in! And I also think that Westbrook Pegler doth protest a bit too much.

    Lets face it. There’s no one left but thee and me (and I’m not sure of thee!)

    Seriously, I view the privatization of America’s law enforcement, military logistics, Federal Protective Services and intelligence to be a far greater threat to the liberty of Americans and other nations than the politicization of US Attorneys and the federal law enforcement agencies. Federal agencies always have the possibility of congressional or court oversight. Plus, the peons on the bottom who actually carry out the policies have (by law) access to all of the agency policies and rules (at least the ones the President allows to be published (which was never a problem before Senor Asshat (and his evil minions))).

    Private companies, though, worship profit above all. The ones who make the decissions to break the laws know that they have a very good chance of escaping punishment (the fed has been very big on ‘negotiated settlements’ recently — admit the crime (in private) and agree to a plan to keep it from happening again (which is enforced in private)). The peons at the bottom have no idea what the laws and policies are, nor are they encouraged to learn about the rules.

    I suspect that is why senor Asshat is working so hard to privatize federal functions (well, that, and the fact that it makes conservative companies rich (the companies run by liberals just get ignored when it comes to privatization (not that there are that many private security firms run by liberals (I could be wrong, but I doubt it)))). It makes conservatives happy that there are fewer federal workers (even if it costs lots more) and allows policies at which trained and dedicated federal workers would balk.

    I know I sound a little too cheerful about federal law enforcement officers, but (with one exception), the LEOs I know are dedicated, knowledgable, and very well trained.

    Sorry for the long post. Occupational hazard.

    Like

  10. Alfie, I too would like you to cite references. You don’t just come on to a blog and debunk a legitimate article by stating that it has been debunked. Further, I agree with Ric on this – the fact that such a story could be out there and that I (about as non-conspiracy believing as they come) could actually think “yeah, this is VERY possible” speaks loudly and clearly about what this country has come to in the last 8 years.

    And there is a huge difference from someone being authorized to use deadly force against an intruder (and, presumably, trained to to it if necessary) and having a posse of 23,000 average citizens deputized and told that “when” there is martial law, they can use deadly force and not be subject to prosecution? Against WHOM? Fellow citizens who are not “intruders” but simply SUSPECTED by some wannabe hall monitors? Fuck that shit.

    Like

  11. By the way, shit like this makes me think the 2nd Amendment kooks aren’t so bad. The reality is, there is no point to an armed citizenry that can defend itself against its own government. It’s not muskets anymore and the playing field isn’t even.

    Still, it might be worth having a Smith & Wesson .357 with some hollow points. If you had to “go”, it wouldn’t be bad taking a couple of InfraGard hall monitors with you.

    Like

  12. From the FBI http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel08/infragard021508.htm

    “In short, the article’s claims are patently false. For the record, the FBI has not deputized InfraGard, its members, businesses, or anything else in the program. The title, however catchy, is a complete fabrication. Moreover, InfraGard members have no extraordinary powers and have no greater right to “shoot to kill” than other civilians. The FBI encourages InfraGard members – and all Americans – to report crime and suspected terrorist activity to the appropriate authorities.

    “Unfortunately, the author of the Progressive article refused even to identify when or where the claimed ‘small meeting’ occurred in which issues of martial law were discussed. If we get that information, the FBI certainly will follow up and clarify any possible misunderstandings.

    “The FBI strongly supports the InfraGard program and recognizes that the protection of our critical infrastructure – most of which is owned and operated by the private sector – requires that we develop productive relationships with and amongst industry. It is certainly the case that some of these discussions require confidentiality, and the InfraGard program provides a valuable forum for protecting sensitive information when appropriate.”

    The card with the phone numbers and “special access” here
    Here is a link to an interview that can be taken both ways. The people that think this is an issue and Rothschild a Pulitzer winner would say it reinforces their position. Those like myself would say it shows he has shaky info at best. Weak in that it seems to be one person unnamed and the named person doesn’t seem to back him up. I’m sorry his assertions and reassertions just don’t pan out imo. http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/11/report_fbi_deputizes_23_000
    Lastly :

    One more thing. How long have you been a member of InfraGard?

    I’m not but I know people and many people throughout law enforcement as well. InfraGard and other groups like it (CERT) as well as the treasure trove of public & private alphabet entities that have access to & share information are pretty much in plain sight.I just don’t get the fear factor. Ric I’m guessing the drink is out of the question but please know that I meant no disrespect.

    Like

  13. Alfie, your evidence of debunking is an FBI press release. the article ITSELF said the FBI denied it, calling it “ridiculous”.Why didn’t you just say “the article debunked itself”?

    Further, it was not simply an “unnamed” person corroborating the story. There is the informant, one person agreeing that it happened, and a third who wouldn’t deny it.

    The only real denial from the FBI is the part about lethal force. What about them being told that they could sic the FBI on “disgruntled employees who will use knowledge gained on the job against their employers”? I didn’t see that in the FBI’s rather short denial.

    Like

  14. alfie –

    Sorry, I forgot about the drink. I’m not much of a drinker. A smart pretty girl could get me into bed after one drink, fer chrissake. But thanks for the invite. 🙂

    No disrespect taken. You’ve always been civil and straightforward.

    As for the debunking, the FBI isn’t a credible source for two reasons, at least. One, they have an obvious interest to protect. Two, lies and coverups are a way of life through all the bureaucracies in the current administration. No information from this government can be trusted. Their denial amounts to no more than a piece of information to be considered. It certainly can’t be taken as being to any degree definitive.

    The Goodman interview doesn’t appear to offer any new information and nothing that could be considered ‘debunking’ (I picture people falling out of bunk beds – I must need more coffee.)

    As for the ‘fear factor’, it’s not fear. It’s outrage. If I were afraid I wouldn’t have posted on it. Part of the rationale behind programs like this, spoken or unspoken, is to create such fear, to shut off dissent and debate by instilling fear of authority.

    As for asking if you were a member, the point was not that I believe you are, but that the government is creating secret and quasi-secret organizations of citizens to spy on other citizens. That sort of thing chills free speech and free expression and open debate. Reporting a ‘disgruntled’ employee or ex-employee? Get fired or laid off and you’ll likely be disgruntled. But that hardly calls for a secret report to government intelligence agencies by wannabe James Bonds. Add in all the other attempts and successes in suppressing free thought and speech (busted for wearing an Arabic t-shirt in a mall is one of the sillier, if outrageous, ones), and the picture is of a once free country’s rights and freedoms being sliced away by an out-of-control government dragging us toward fascism.

    So though you say you aren’t a member of IG, you should understand that I have legitimate grounds to not take your word for it, especially since you appear to be supportive of the program. It’s not particularly relevant, since everything I say here and elsewhere is public and has my name associated with it. I’m not hard to find if the Feebies want to look me up. But the seed of mistrust is there. Sow enough of them and we’ll soon be back in full-blown McCarthyism, and thus happy days for the Republicans and the Neocons and the Bushites.

    Like

  15. Evo –

    Consider what the Afghans and the Iraqis have managed with little more than AK-47s, RPGs, and homemade IEDs. The most modern, heavily armed military in the world is mired down against them, having taken something like 30,000 – 40,000 killed and wounded, not to mention massive losses from the U.S. treasury. So yup, some gun is better than no gun for what might be coming our way.

    Like

  16. Ric

    We don’t need this FBI, but we do need an agency that can transcend jurisdictional disputes and jurisdictional ignorance.

    That’s the standard justification for interjurisdictional police forces but the truth is the FBI doesn’t really do any of that. If I asked how useful Interpol was for policing in your State, what do you think the answers going to be?

    If I asked what percentage of reported crime in your State was was dealt with by the FBI, the answer is going to be same: not much!

    In fact, all the evidence shows that interjurisdictional police forces including the FBI don’t freely share information with local police agencies and vice versa.

    Like

  17. steph –

    Of course the in-state percentage would be low. The FBI deals with only a limited range of in-state crime – kidnapping, for example, or organized crime matters tied to interstate organizations – Mafia, major gangs, etcetera.

    One of the original ideas behind the formation of the FBI was to deal with interstate crime. John Dillinger could rob a bank in Chicago and retreat to Missouri and pretty much manage to get away with a lot of that. The FBI could operate across state lines and jurisdictions to chase him and his ilk.

    Are there jurisdictional jealousies and testerone-turf battles? Sure. And irrelevant. I doubt you’ll find them holding back information when looking for a kidnapper or an interstate serial killer or the like, though there may be instances of it, or disputes of one sort or another, sure. They might butt heads with the CIA or the NSA or the DHS crew, yeah, but I’m thinking they shouldn’t be playing in their ballfield anyway. But the original purpose, handling interstate crime and specific in-state crime in which the FBI had or developed expertise, is, I still think, a good one. Having a central agency serving as a clearinghouse of expertise, criminal knowledge, and advice is a good idea.

    That the politicians and bureaucrats have corrupted it (not to mention the corruption by J. Edgar ‘Tutu’ Hoover) doesn’t negate the essential usefulness of the idea. Clean it up, get the politics out, provide genuine oversight via Congress or some independent entity, and it will become useful again, instead of an agency headed toward Gestapo-land that sees terrorists behind every first-grade classroom door and encourages citizens to spy on one another and shoot one another.

    Like

  18. Fg great post, again. (Plus the ones since. All great. )

    These sorts of relationships between law enforcement and private companies are intrinsically so dangerous that the specific evils that come from them are almost incidental. So I don’t think the value of making them known doesn’t stand or fall on whether they have a “licence to kill” component.

    (I am also impressed that there is a Yank version of “Get your coat, you’ve pulled”, as used by Alfie, above.)

    Like

  19. heather –

    What does that mean – Get your coat, you’ve been pulled – either version, yours or Alfie’s?

    Thanks for the compliment.

    Like

  20. Ric

    There is only one purpose for a secret police, and that is to spy and supress the public. The FBI was set up to do just that and it has done it very well. Hoover’s files rivalled the Gestapos IBM files, it’s track record on abusing civil rights and for stifling democracy, political executions and anti trade union activities are right up their with the worst fascists dictatorships. When has the FBI been a force for good.

    As a multi-jurisdiction police force the FBI law enforcement record is abysmal, they used to deny the mafia existed and if they are making a contribution to law enforcement in your State, where are the provable results. Federal police forces just aren’t a cost effective way of fighting crime, but they are a cost effective way of spying on the public. Cross border policing needs cooperation, not a federal police force. The FBI controls access to information that could be made available to every State police force.

    Also, State and city police forces are locally accountable, whereas the FBI isn’t. So if you support the existence of an extrajudicial and unaccountable police operating in your State, you can hardly be surprised when they behave like the gestapo – that’s what it is.

    Like

  21. Steph –

    I didn’t say they were perfect or that they haven’t abused their power over the years or that they haven’t done some stupid things or anti-democratic things. Nor did I say I support the existence of an unaccountable, extrajudicial police force.

    Yes, they are out of control, and operate within a government that is out of control. No question about that. And Hoover was a vicious little toad who should have been brought down quickly.

    Over the years they’ve done some good and some bad.

    But the point is that in this country, given the state/federal structure, an honest anti-crime agency run with integrity and without political interference or a political agenda is a good idea. That is not, unfortunately, the current situation, and too often the FBI has gone astray. The idea has merit. The execution has been, at best, compromised.

    I’m certain that we’re not going to agree, but I’m willing to agree to disagree.

    Like

  22. Ric

    How is supporting a the existence of a federal police force, which is neither politically or legal accountable to the State not supporting an unaccountable and extrajudicial police force?

    Police use the powers they are given and the legal powers that the FBI have are enourmous, they are quite literally above State law.

    And if Europe can cooperate in international cross border investigations, then there is no logistical reason New York and New Jersey can’t, so what legal reason would prevent then from working together in a cross border investigation?

    We can agree to disagree but when you say the concept has merit, I would like to see some proof of that because from what I can see: no it isn’t. It certainly isn’t cost effective and it performs terribly. Yes, of course it does some good but so does the mafia – the problem is that the bad far outweighs the good.

    What you’re mussing, is a transparent and accountable secret police. The problems with the FBI are not organisational and not limited to one administration, they are systemic.

    Like

  23. Steph –

    When you say ‘State’ in your first graph, do you mean any individual state in the United States, or do you mean State as the Federal governmental entity?

    To support the idea of a federal agency that is accountable and legitimate and effective is not the same as supporting the existing agency’s policies and operations. You’re off base accusing me of supporting an unaccountable, extrajudicial agency – I think I’ve been clear about that.

    There is supposed to be Federal accountability and oversight. Obviously there are and have been problems with that.

    On the state level there are priorities and precedences when state and federal law enforcement work together or are in conflict. Otherwise nothing would get done in those cases.

    New York and New Jersey probably could manage to work together on a crime. But how about Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Chicago, Miami, New York, and oh, Secaucus, and two or three state-level jurisdictions together working an interstate crime racket, or gang crimes? Yes, there is no legal reason I’m aware of to keep them from working together – but there can easily be solid logistical problems, and jurisdictional problems that need to be cut through. Without a central clearinghouse for data and investigations and coordination I doubt the picture would be pretty or as effective.

    The FBI I’ve in mind is transparent, it is accountable, it is apolitical, and it is not a secret police. It is also not the FBI that exists. I’ve been clear about that.

    As for good the FBI has done, I don’t have chapter and verse. Once they got past their racist paranoia they did decent work in the civil rights arena (the Philadelphia, Mississippi murders come to mind). They’ve done good work in interstate crimes. They’re not all good, and not all bad. But yes, they need to be a hell of a lot better in the ways I’ve mentioned in this string of comments.

    I think we do not disagree on what exists, but we differ on what would be useful and effective. You want no federal police/investigation agency; I think there’s a need for a good one. Reasonable people differ. Passionate people differ passionately. We’re one of those at least.

    Like

  24. Ric

    I’m not trying to offend you. I know you don’t support an unaccountable and extrajudicial agency at Federal level but you do at State (state in the USA) level and that is the key factor. Federal accountability and oversight would be fine if there was also State accountability and oversight but there isn’t, so the FBI works for the government, not the citizens, and will never be any more accountable than the government. Look at the manpower, budget and expenditure of the FBI, look at the legal framework they operate in – this isn’t about law enforcement.

    In supporting a federal police that isn’t locally accountable, you’re deferring accountability to the federal government and placing your trust in Bush and a Senate subcommittee. That’s what I mean about it being systemically flawed.

    Like

  25. @ Steph or anyone else…The FBI focuses on Federal laws. Those laws are supposedly supported by the nation -doesn’t that count for something ? Good or bad a big part of any level of law enforcement is crime prevention. This is an area that gets gray quick and causes a lot of concerns. Isn’t it necessary to some degree though ? I’d also add that you enter the whole Federal Judicial System whence nabbed by the FBI so it’s a closed system with Constitutional cross checks -isn’t it ?
    And hoping I’m not going off topic does the US Marshals and Federal Protective Service create the same concern ?
    @ Steph specifically…not to treat you like the UK wiki but…when a person is prosecuted in England is that national,local,county etc ?

    Like

  26. @Alfie

    There are three national jurisdictions in the UK: 1) England and Wales 2) Scotland and 3) Northern Ireland, so a person is prosecuted under one of those three. There is also EU law, which creates a federal jurisdiction but there are criminal prosecutions under that jurisdiction (yet!).

    Like

  27. @ Alfie

    Before the FBI you had Federal law. You don’t need the FBI and you certainly don’t need them to operate in your state extrajudicially. If the FBI was disbanded tomorrow would you notice it? Would crime noticeably rise? Would you be less safe? That’s why you don’t need it.

    Like

  28. Steph –

    I’m not offended, just not as good at debate as you! 🙂

    But I don’t support Feds operating in a state without accountability. Case in point is the recent (a few years) prosecution and conviction of an FBI agent for criminal actions in Massachusetts during a case he was responsible for. The feebs can’t just come in and ignore state law and institutions. Not saying they haven’t or that there aren’t instances when they may need to. But generally, they’ve got to respect local law and local law enforcement. And on a practical level, if they try to ride roughshod over the locals, the locals can easily enough make life quite difficult for them.

    But also it’s not all about active investigations and law enforcement. They provide expertise and forensics and such, as well as training, that helps local law enforcement.

    I do take offense at one thing you said – implying that I would trust Bush. Shame on you! I may start an international incident over this! There is no circumstance on any level that I would trust Bush to do the right thing about anything. Now that’s offensive!!! Since I’d never hit a woman, I may have to come over there and kick Rob’s butt to avenge the insult. Grrrrrrr! 🙂

    And more importantly, Chelsea just lost the UEFA cup because John Terry slipped in the mud on a penalty kick. Bah!! Great game though.

    Like

  29. @ Ric

    Sorry about the long quote but it’s well worth knowing.

    The US Code, Title 28, Section 533. Investigative and other officials; appointment

    The Attorney General may appoint officials –

    (1) to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States;

    (2) to assist in the protection of the person of the President; and (!1)

    (3) to assist in the protection of the person of the Attorney General.(!2)

    (4) to conduct such other investigations regarding official matters under the control of the Department of Justice and the Department of State as may be directed by the Attorney General.

    This section does not limit the authority of departments and agencies to investigate crimes against the United States when investigative jurisdiction has been assigned by law to such departments and agencies.

    This gives the FBI carte blanche and makes them locally unaccountable as an organisation.

    The US Code, Title 28, Section 1442. Federal officers or agencies sued or prosecuted

    (a) A civil action or criminal prosecution commenced in a State court against any of the following may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:

    (1) The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, sued in an official or individual capacity for any act under color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue.

    This means no FBI agent can be prosecuted or sued at State level for anything they do in their capacity as a Federal agent unless they want to be.

    Let me put this another way, when a five year old girl goes to school for the first time instead of doing her pledge of allegiance, she should learn that if a Federal agent wants to rape and sodomise her in front of her father as part of an interrogation the State authorities, she has no legal redress at a State level, and if they fry her parents because they’re Italian anarchists — again, too bad!

    Like

  30. @ Ric

    The FBI do provide training but along with law enforcement it is not one of their top priorities (see their own literature) but the value of that training is questioning. Other than gathering intelligence on American citizens — the FBI’s primary purpose — they have championed profiling, i.e. policing by prejudice and stereotype.

    p.s. I watched that match. My family support West Ham, so we were rooting for Man U. 🙂

    Like

  31. steph –

    And how did West Ham do this year? I think I may actually have seen them play once in the last couple of years. There’s not a lot of English soccer (or just good soccer from anywhere) on the cable channels I can afford.

    As for the Feebie discussion, I can’t keep up with you on the law. Hell, I never could keep up with legal stuff from all the beautiful, blonde, brilliant lawyers in my life. Which is to say I’m not equipped to argue with you about the accuracy of your interpretation of the passages you quote, or case law on the matter, and so on. I agree that federal law enforcement in this country is not looking democratic or supportive of a society of free people.

    Does your reading of the law answer the question of whether an FBI, or other, agent can be prosecuted in a federal district court for crimes committed against a state’s law? For example, if the agent murders someone in Kansas, is charged, and exercises his right to move the case to a federal district court, can he be tried for the state violation there? If not, as I think you’re saying, can he instead be tried for the federal crime of violating the civil rights of the person he murdered? Can he be tried for both offenses?

    As for explaining rape and sodomy to a five year old, umm, I’ll leave that up to the experts.

    Italian anarchists? Here? Oh no! Has anyone told George Bush? That does make me want to ask if you had in mind something that actually happened, or did that just pop out from your being steeped in anarchist thought? (Didn’t mean to make you appear to be a teabag there.)

    Like

  32. I think the guy’s name was Connolly…Successfully prosecuted FBI agent in Boston. There is also the case of a guy (name escapes me) that was jailed due to Barbosa testimony and proven FBI foul ups. He’s out and getting ready to count the cash.Sorry for the lack of links and names just flying around the net between other computer labors.

    Like

  33. @ Ric

    Sacco and Vanzetti, the “anarchistic bastards”, executed by the Federal government in Massachusetts.

    The legal point is very simple:

    1) The FBI works under the auspices of the Attorney General, and is only accountable to the Federal government – there is no State government oversight.

    2) FBI agents have immunity from State prosecution for anything they do in the course of the duty.

    If you scrap that legal framework, you scrap the FBI, and if you keep the FBI, you have to trust Bush (or McCain?) and the Attorney General. Remember one of the FBI’s stated aims is to uphold your civil rights – they’re only listening to your conversations and monitoring your whereabouts because they care – you trust them, right? 😉

    Like

  34. Ah, of course, Sacco and Vanzetti. I just never thought of them as a couple with a five year old daughter raped by an FBI agent.

    It’s good to know the FBI cares about me and that the AG and the Pres have my best interests at heart. But that leads me to a major decision. Do I keep the shotgun near the door or in an interior room? Maybe two shotguns are in order?

    I guess you can tell Rob not to worry. Looks like I won’t have to kick his butt. I’m sure he was sweating that. 😀

    Let’s do lunch. Have your people call my people. 🙂

    Like

  35. I’ll let Rob know 🙂 Long way to come for lunch, though.

    Like

  36. I’m sure he’ll be relieved. 🙂

    Did I tell you I absolutely hate to fly? Might take the ship a while longer.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: