Comey’s Disturbing Comments about Privacy: Security individually based as opposed to collectively sanctioned

I kept waiting for someone to do it, but only Sean Hannity that I know of even came close to covering the disturbing comments made by FBI Director James Comey at a Boston College speech on cyber security.  The media keyed in on a rather irrelevant issue that was said about the length of Comey’s remaining tenure as director—but missed the most important element he discussed rather bluntly—which was that no American had a “right” to privacy and that they could be compelled under court order to reveal anything at any time in the name of preservation of our national security.  He called this assumption a “bargain” made to live in a secure world.  I took the time to watch the whole thing because Comey’s most dangerous comments come at the 36 minute mark and context is important.  As presented, Comey sounds reasonable whereas if his comments on compelled information for national security sounded very dystopian if taken alone—so viewing the entire speech was important to this discussion which you should do now before going forth with this article.

I never made that bargain with the FBI or the federal government.  I am able to protect myself in most cases better than they can.  I don’t need the level of security they are assuming I need.  What has happened is that they have imposed themselves on us in reaction to the dangerous world we live in which has at its root, religious intolerance, economic depravity and the age old European tendency toward statism when challenged intellectually—so American intelligence gathering has filled the void of danger with the assumption that every single conversation in the world must be listened to and recorded so that any little bit of terrorist aggression can be stopped before it takes place.

Comey in that speech playing the good cop looking for recruitment into the “economically depraved” conditions of sacrifice for country probably believes what he’s saying while deliberately ignoring the facts of the matter. We know that the federal government cannot be trusted with our privacy.  For instance, just examine the situation with the Marines presently where men and women are placed together in the field only to have nude pictures placed online.  We warned that very situation would happen but the politics of the day said that we can’t discriminate between men and women and that women should be allowed to be in the same combat as men in service to their country.  Well, biology takes over when bullets aren’t flying and things happen when human beings are encouraged into primal circumstances.  The very same emotions that compel a person to run into a swarm of bullets and exploding projectiles are the same ones that procreate the human race.  So if a woman is in a muddy trench with a man, the two are going to want to get naked and explore each other—by their nature.  It should come as no surprise when abuses happen, yet politicians are and they really don’t know how to handle the situation leaving us with the present crises.

While traveling recently all over Europe I had to go through a lot of security—supposedly for the safety of everyone.  The rational was the same as what Comey said about private conversations and even thoughts—that nothing is private if the “state” has a need to know it for the security of everyone.  The assumption is that the “collective” is more valuable than the “individual” which is a false premise. If the individual is protected the natural byproduct is that everyone will be protected by default.  But because our intelligence and security organizations are filled with lazy minded louses most often than not—they default to seeing mankind in the plural rather than the singular because it makes their job easier.  Of course another aspect of modern progressive thought is that gay people can mix with straight people, and that bathrooms can be used by anybody exposing our private parts to the opposite sex without restraint.  This becomes a problem in these security lines.  For instance, at least once recently while going through TSA security I was singled out by a male officer for “extra security” just for the pat down.  I was with my family and wasn’t dressed in a way to provoke any suspicion and I was in line with hundreds of other people.  But the guy was obviously gay—stereotypically so—Beauty and the Beast gay as established by the live action character of LeFou and he wanted to feel my crotch to see if what was obvious was really there.  I suppose his justification was to see if I was smuggling something big in there, but the scanner would have shown that.  In fact they had a clear scanned image of my masculinity right there on the screen which women were able to see completely so I might as well have been nude walking through security.  Yet this security guy wanted to touch it and he used the law to exercise his personal sexual flavor and that was an abuse of power.  If I made a big deal about it, I would have missed my transfer flight and I still wouldn’t have been able to take it all back because that gay guy in the TSA had the might of Comey’s intelligence branch behind him protecting the TSA from individual protests—for the right of the collective.  But that TSA officer and the women watching the scanner were able to use that justification for their own personal pleasure while working on the job.  If an attractive person for their particular sexual tastes comes through the TSA line, and they are obviously always in a hurry to get to their flight—the TSA can indulge in that abuse all they want without fear of retaliation.  They try to give you pat downs of the same sex to preserve some semblance of sexual protection but if the person patting you down is gay, and you are a man—you might as well have given me a woman to do the job.  I never agreed to that bargain.  I can promise that I was able to protect the people on my flight better than those fat slobs working at the TSA—that’s for sure.

But the worst example of all is the recent presidential election of 2016 which James Comey’s FBI played such a large part.  We know that Hillary Clinton lied and that the Justice Department under Barack Obama was radicalized to abuse power for political preservation.  They did it before the election which was exposed by Wikileaks.  Hillary Clinton additionally destroyed evidence on her private server which she had to reduce the ability of government agents to see what crimes she was conducting through the Clinton Foundation.  When “compelled” by the FBI to tell the truth, the Clinton Campaign destroyed the evidence and refused to answer questions—so the whole notion that a judge can compel people to recall their memories falls apart under this examination.  Such an assumption bases itself on the Christian notion that a person will swear to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help them God. But if the person doing the swearing doesn’t believe in God, but rather is like John Podesta and invests his mind in “sprit cooking” rooted in old pagan rituals designed to conger up the spirits of the dead to help with living circumstances—lying under oath isn’t something they have a problem with.  So what compels a person to reveal their memories or even a conversation with a spouse?  Nothing.

There are some big problems with what James Comey said—the FBI’s position toward security of America is laced with half-baked assumptions designed to conceal their innate laziness as government employees—who are “underpaid” as Comey put it.  Give me a break—as I’ve reported often, government employees of all kinds make roughly 40% more than they would in the private sector, and that includes FBI agents.  I actually know a few and they aren’t hurting for money considering they structure their day around getting coffee every morning at the same time, then planning their lunches and afternoons in very predictable patterns.  They aren’t Eliot Ness types–that’s for sure.  And if they get tape of a couple having sex in their house—they do enjoy it—and they do share it among their other members.  They behave just as the Marines did in the recent sex scandal—when confronted with exclusive information, they often behave with their biological foundations—and they will abuse their power.

We’d like to believe that we can trust these people in our intelligence divisions, but we can’t.  While it’s true that we are better off having them as a layer of security between normal Americans and the bad guys—it doesn’t take much to make the intelligence officers of the FBI, CIA TSA and every other security division the villains—especially when sexes are mixed, gayness is promoted from within, and agents are encouraged to function from their primal instincts under duress.  So a blank check of authority is not the answer—Hillary Clinton proved it.  Wikileaks additionally has proven so by what they’ve released about the CIA.  These are not people we can trust.  They are currently using the power of government to attempt to destroy the Trump presidency—so what do you think they’d do to anybody else in America who challenges them?  The real answer is more private security individually based, not collectively sanctioned—and that requires a shift in basic national philosophy—which is hard for people like James Comey to do.  But that’s the direction we all need to be headed.

Rich Hoffman


Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  Use my name to get added benefits.


2 thoughts on “Comey’s Disturbing Comments about Privacy: Security individually based as opposed to collectively sanctioned

  1. Sorry to hear of your delay by the T urd S uckers A lliance. As the bloody Brits say “do you dress LEFT or RIGHT”? Only you can answer this. Truth is when small minds get a little power they tend to be petty in their abusiveness of it. All in the name of security. Mr. Nutt

    On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom wrote:

    > overmanwarrior posted: “I kept waiting for someone to do it, but only Sean > Hannity that I know of even came close to covering the disturbing comments > made by FBI Director James Comey at a Boston College speech on cyber > security. The media keyed in on a rather irrelevant issue t” >


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.