Jump to content

I'm apparently a right-wing extremist!


Thunderbroom

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 209
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

The other thing to consider is that according to the 10th ammendment, as Indiana and other states are getting around to realizing, in most every case, states rights SHOULD outweigh federal authority. And the federal government repeatedly oversteps their bounds.

 

 

What you are failing to see...or choosing to fail to see, is that no where does this say that someone who favors states rights is necessarily a terrorist. It says that extremist groups might be pushing that stance for recruitment. Would you deny that skinhead or Aryan nations group would be more likely to do that? It doesn't mean that anyone that thinks that way is an extremist. Just as Kindness said earlier.

 

If you want to get all huffy Juggs, go ahead, but it makes you look a little silly really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You know, we have the exact same issue around here.

The government authorized the Police to build a huge criminal research file.

You can be arrive on it as young as 12 yo if you were ever suspected (no need to be convinced guilty) of a crime, are a political activist or even member of a party, demonstrate for various causes with NGOs or unions.

Not happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/14/extremism.report/index.html

 

Right-wing extremism may be on rise, report says

 

art.nazi.gi.jpg

 

(CNN) -- Right-wing extremist groups may be using the recession and the election of the nation's first African-American president to recruit members, a Department of Homeland Security report contends.

 

Though the nine-page report said it has "no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence," it said real-estate foreclosures, unemployment and tight credit "could create a fertile recruiting environment for right-wing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past."

 

The report, prepared in coordination with the FBI and published April 7, was distributed to federal, state and local law enforcement officials under the title "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."

 

It compares the current climate the 1990s, "when right-wing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers."

 

It cites proposed restrictions on weapons as likely to increase membership in extremist groups and expresses concern the groups might try to recruit veterans.

 

The report also cites concern about anti-Semitism, saying that some groups are blaming the loss of U.S. jobs and home foreclosures on "a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish 'financial elites' " in an attempt to recruit members.

 

The election of President Obama is cited as a key recruitment tool. "Many right-wing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearm ownership and use," the report said.

 

It said that twice in the run-up to the 2008 presidential election, "extremists appeared to be in the early planning stages of some threatening activity targeting the Democratic nominee, but law enforcement interceded."

 

The report said that "lone wolves and small terrorist cells" represent the nation's biggest terrorist threat because their low profile makes it difficult to intervene before they act.

 

Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks extremist groups, agreed that Obama's election may have boosted membership in such groups, but called any link to the economy "more questionable."

 

He said his group has documented "a steady, not dramatic," growth of extremist groups -- from 602 in 2000 to 926 in 2008, an increase of more than 50 percent.

 

Though "there has been a lot of talk about the country being stolen," it is "a little early" to conclude that Obama's election has driven massive growth in such groups, he said.

 

A DHS official said the department was not trying to squelch free speech by issuing the report. "There is no link between extremists being talked about in that report and conservative political thinkers, activists and voters," the official said.

 

But conservative radio talk show host Roger Hedgecock was not persuaded. "If the Bush administration had done this to left-wing extremists, it would be all over the press as an obvious trampling of the First Amendment rights of folks and dissent," he told CNN.

 

In fact, the Obama administration in January did issue a warning about left-wing extremists. Both reports were initiated during the administration of former President George W. Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm SURE this won't get inverted to include certain groups entertaining the notion that "Christians" need to convert or be killed.


Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily
hate-oriented
(
based on hatred of particular religious
, racial or ethnic
groups
),


Geez!

Guess my voting district puts me in trouble eh?

 

 

But hating white people is still OK, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
From the Office of Homeland Security:


Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment


Link to PDF


From the bottom of Page 2:


Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment,
rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority
, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.


I'm the bolded/underlined part as I support states' rights.


Wow!

:freak:



The NEW office of homeland security.

obama-nazi.jpg


obplann.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
What you are failing to see...or
choosing
to fail to see, is that no where does this say that someone who favors states rights is necessarily a terrorist. It says that extremist groups
might
be pushing that stance for recruitment. Would you deny that skinhead or Aryan nations group would be more likely to do that? It doesn't mean that
anyone
that thinks that way is an extremist. Just as Kindness said earlier.


If you want to get all huffy Juggs, go ahead, but it makes you look a little silly really.



You're right, it doesn't state JUST BECAUSE you believe in states rights you are a terrorist. But it says you may be based solely on that issue. That's a crock of {censored}. Basically it states that if you believe in adhereing to the constitution, then we have to keep an eye on you. You're a possible threat.

And don't misunderstand me......this isn't an Obama issue. This {censored} started before he took office. Hell, you can go back to Clinton and FISO courts, and GW with all the BS he pulled as well (warrantless wire taps, etc). It's just escalating. I think the feds are worried that the people are sick of their BS and are getting closer and closer to "throwing the bums out". They can't have that. They are seeing states like Oklahoma and Indiana and others tell them "{censored} you, states rights come first". People who have power and regularly exert it/overstep it don't like giving it up. They seek to consolidate it.

If you are not offended by this, then you can keep your head in the sand if you choose. But it makes you look a little silly.

I still love ya though. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
There's also the whole point of how you wouldn't fall into that classification if you aren't also a terrorist. You can't just pick one attribute and claim to be an identified member.



Yea but that would not be sensational enough to print :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You know, we have the exact same issue around here.

The government authorized the Police to build a huge criminal research file.

You can be arrive on it as young as 12 yo if you were ever suspected (no need to be convinced guilty) of a crime, are a political activist or even member of a party, demonstrate for various causes with NGOs or unions.

Not happy.

 

 

Nor should you be. That's a big step towards facism. And we're following suit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If you are not offended by this, then you can keep your head in the sand if you choose. But it makes yuo look a little silly.


I still lova ya though.
:)



No offense taken at all. I think the bottom line is the desire to stop the next Timothy McVeigh at the fertilizer store.

Whatever they wrap themselves in, extremists suck. :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
No offense taken at all. I think the bottom line is the desire to stop the next Timothy McVeigh at the fertilizer store.


Whatever they wrap themselves in, extremists suck.
:p



And that's fine. I undersstand that. However, I think they are going about it all wrong. worrying about profiling people because they actually agree with our founding fathers and the constitution, or if you have a Ron Paul bumper sticker, etc....is stupid. They should maybe be looking at the people who go to Klan meetings, or have a "compound" . Don'tcha think?

Also I wonder why they are not apparently worried about left wing extremists and only concentrate on the right. Bad idea IMO.

Oh, wait, I know why.....the left wing extremists are all in D.C. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
No offense taken at all. I think the bottom line is the desire to stop the next Timothy McVeigh at the fertilizer store.


Whatever they wrap themselves in, extremists suck.
:p



Agree only this time (and many times before this) the extremists ARE the government. This has been coming on for a long time. From both parties. The last few years it has begun to coalesce so that one cannot tell one party from another.

My newest hero in government: Texas Governor Rick Perry. Taking the feds to court. :thu: :thu:

rick-perry3.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Geez!

Guess my voting district puts me in trouble eh?



:lol:
Right on mang. :thu:

Not that I'm voting for him, but did you see Perry's press junket yesterday about supporting state's rights over federal authority? I'm guessing he's on BO's hit list now. :evil::evil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Agree only this time (and many times before this) the extremists ARE the government. This has been coming on for a long time. From both parties. The last few years it has begun to coalesce so that one cannot tell one party from another.


My newest hero in government: Texas Governor Rick Perry. Taking the feds to court.
:thu:
:thu:


rick-perry3.jpg



He actually turned down Fed money because of the strings they attached.
******
To get the money, states must expand unemployment benefits, such as covering part-time workers who lose their jobs. Texas Gov. Rick Perry said he doesn't want the stimulus money because his state would have to raise taxes on businesses or cut back on benefits once the federal funding runs out.

Texas, which had an unemployment rate of 6.4% in January, was entitled to $555 million.

"It seems really unreasonable that the federal government would require a change in state law as a condition of accepting these funds," Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said. "The governor's main message is Texans who hire Texans drive our state's economic engine, and the last thing we need to do is burden them with higher taxes."
******
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-03-15-unemployment_N.htm

Of course it was all put down as "playing politics and hating the poor guy" by the media with little mention of the Fed strings attached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
This might need some more explaining. Regardless of whether it scares your or not, how does a document that explains (poorly) some possible traits of terrorists, but doesn't provide any authority whatsoever to do anything about it, violate civil liberties?



Didn't we cover all of this ground with the whole "profiling" thing? You know, where the common image of a terrorist is a middle eastern wearing a turban. But it's too offensive to suspect that anyone with a turban might be a terrorist so lets not ruffle any feathers.

Of course, neither violates any civil liberties. They both just tend to offend people. And in the US of A the absolute WORST crime to commit is to offend someone else. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I thought the Tenth Amendment defined the relationship between state and federal powers....

 

It does, but no one in Washington really pays attention to the Constitution anymore. If they do, they view it as a "living, breathing document" that can mean whatever they want it to mean.

 

Okay, that's a bit of hyperbole, but there is a lot loose constructionism going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
It does, but no one in Washington really pays attention to the Constitution anymore. If they do, they view it as a "living, breathing document" that can mean whatever they want it to mean.


Okay, that's a bit of hyperbole, but there is a lot loose constructionism going on.



"It's just a g-d piece of paper", allegedly to GWB... ;)
Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Is there some reason to believe they don't already look at the people in these obvious places? I don't think you're implying that these types of places are the only ones you'll find a terrorist threat. Are you?



I also don't think you will find them at a Ron Paul rally. Or by basing it on someone wearing a "don't trad on me" shirt. They should try doing some real law enforcement, not sending out useless memos that paint with far too broad of a brush and setting policy based on ridiculous parameters.


Is this document identified as comprehensive? If not, and I doubt it is, then there's no reason to think similar overviews exist for other threats.



Funny you haven't seen them though, if they exist, don't you think? Comprehensive? Of course not. The document is not even logical. What it is, is an attempt to paint anyone who doesn't go along with what the federal government wants as a "possible threat".


Hmmm.....you could be on to something here. Oh wait, no...can't be...who'll run Boston and Chicago?
;):lol:



I though all the crooked {censored}ers in Chacago moved in with Obama earlier this year at the new palace. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...