Obama Administration Attacks "Rightwingers"

[Ravi]

What? you assume i supported the Patriot Act? You have just proven yet again that you have no other agenda than your own partisan pap.

I raise a legitimate constitutional argument and you cannot seem to think beyond the confines of the two political parties and the childish finger pointing and name calling that all political argument has devolved to.

That you can't seem to even fathom the possibility that a person cannot fit into your limited paradigm is obvious.

The larger issue here, which obviously evades you, is that the government is now defining citizens who dissent as threats. That is an argument that is nonpartisan but since you are incapable of being objective you are utterly incapable of seeing this.

Did you actually read the article? I see nothing wrong with keeping tabs on extremist groups as long as the proper safeguards are in place...warrants, etc. They aren't targeting the teabaggers, perhaps you missed that.

it's the loose definition of extremist i was commenting on. Did you even read the actual report from DHS?

No, what was the given definition?

I think the government is perfectly justified in keeping an eye on people like this: Suspect in officers' shooting was into conspiracy theories

 

[edthecynic]

What? you assume i supported the Patriot Act? You have just proven yet again that you have no other agenda than your own partisan pap.

I raise a legitimate constitutional argument and you cannot seem to think beyond the confines of the two political parties and the childish finger pointing and name calling that all political argument has devolved to.

That you can't seem to even fathom the possibility that a person cannot fit into your limited paradigm is obvious.

The larger issue here, which obviously evades you, is that the government is now defining citizens who dissent as threats. That is an argument that is nonpartisan but since you are incapable of being objective you are utterly incapable of seeing this.

What obviously evades you is this is not NEW. Not even close! One need only look back to the 60s and Nixon's "Enemies List." But it's good to know you have come over to the side of the dippy hippies of the U C Berkley Free Speech Movement.

Excuse me for being a toddler in the 60s

And when did i say it was new? So in your mind because this latest attempt to erode our liberties is not new that it should be ignored because a democrat is in office?

I was ahead of you before you asked, if you had paid attention. I had emboldened the word NOW, which implies it was not the case before NOW. I added red this time.

And yes, it's not to be ignored no matter which side does it, but don't expect the CON$ to be sincere when they support dissent, the only dissent they support is their own.

 

[sarahgop]

obama has declared war on the military. he sees them as terror thugs.

 

[JimH52]

This administration can never match the vindictive nature of the Bush administration, no matter how hard they try.

Right-wing extremism may be on rise, report says - CNN.com

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.

Right Wing or Left Wing, either can be a threat to our security.

 

[KittenKoder]

This administration can never match the vindictive nature of the Bush administration, no matter how hard they try.

Right-wing extremism may be on rise, report says - CNN.com

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.

Right Wing or Left Wing, either can be a threat to our security.

Extremists of any sort are a threat, but only if we continue to allow them to have power. It's the duty of us who are not extremists to take this power back and let them know we will not stand for it anymore.

 

[tigerbob]

The last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh was not a government agency. This "warning" is coming from the department of homeland security not some fat radio talk show host.

The fact that the government that should be protecting our liberties and among those liberties, the absolute right to free speech and dissent is now labeling acts of free speech and dissent a threat should concern you far more than what Rush Limbaugh says.

Try again.

I love it!
Not so much fun when it's YOU under the boot of the Patriot Act instead of the Quakers, is it??? LOL

What? you assume i supported the Patriot Act? You have just proven yet again that you have no other agenda than your own partisan pap.

I raise a legitimate constitutional argument and you cannot seem to think beyond the confines of the two political parties and the childish finger pointing and name calling that all political argument has devolved to.

That you can't seem to even fathom the possibility that a person cannot fit into your limited paradigm is obvious.

The larger issue here, which obviously evades you, is that the government is now defining citizens who dissent as threats. That is an argument that is nonpartisan but since you are incapable of being objective you are utterly incapable of seeing this.

I just finished re-reading the DHS report (rather than just the article in which the DHS report is quoted). I don't really see anything in there that oversteps what you'd expect, but at the same time I understand how people who want to see the Obama administration as a threat could do so based on the wording used (even though the Obama administration has distanced itself from the report)

A lot has been made of this footnote that defines extremists, which you quoted earlier, and which can be found at the foot of page 2. Specifically:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into these 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.

DHS Report on Right Wing Extremism

Now, I don't think that anyone would deny that there are hate groups in America that reject federal or indeed all government authority. The report basically is saying exactly that. However, if I was determined to see it as a threat I could easily do so by pointing out that this paragraph lumps all anti-federalists together, thereby effectively saying they could all be right wing extremists.

Similarly, we are all aware that there are groups that oppose abortion, sometimes using violent means to make their point. Clearly, the last sentence makes reference to them. If I wanted to, I could read into that sentence that potentially all pro-lifers may be right wing extremists. Clearly that is not the case, but I could arguably make that case if I wanted to since there is no disclaimer that says "we're not talking about all of them".

To my way of thinking, this comes down to political polarization. Had this document come out 2 years ago and the last sentence had read "It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as union rights or anti-capitalism" then the left would have jumped on it. But there's a Democrat in the White House and a broad sweep of Americans seem bound and determined to see everything the other side does as a conspiracy, so the reaction to this (and other) reports doesn't surprise me.

 

[driveby]

It seems this administration thinks ex-military, along with folks that have Ron Paul and pro life bumper stickers are more of a threat than Al Qaeda. Also, we need to REALLY be on the lookout for gun crazies who have 500 rounds "stockpiled" ...........

 

[Skull Pilot]

What obviously evades you is this is not NEW. Not even close! One need only look back to the 60s and Nixon's "Enemies List." But it's good to know you have come over to the side of the dippy hippies of the U C Berkley Free Speech Movement.

Excuse me for being a toddler in the 60s

And when did i say it was new? So in your mind because this latest attempt to erode our liberties is not new that it should be ignored because a democrat is in office?

I was ahead of you before you asked, if you had paid attention. I had emboldened the word NOW, which implies it was not the case before NOW. I added red this time.

And yes, it's not to be ignored no matter which side does it, but don't expect the CON$ to be sincere when they support dissent, the only dissent they support is their own.

And only the democrats are sincere right?

wake up and realize that no one in the fucking government has the public's best interest at heart.

 

[KittenKoder]

It seems this administration thinks ex-military, along with folks that have Ron Paul and pro life bumper stickers are more of a threat than Al Qaeda. Also, we need to REALLY be on the lookout for gun crazies who have 500 rounds "stockpiled" ...........

Not to detract from how stupid this administration is ....

... but I see it more as Al Queda is no more a threat than Ron Paul supporters ...

 

[Skull Pilot]

Did you actually read the article? I see nothing wrong with keeping tabs on extremist groups as long as the proper safeguards are in place...warrants, etc. They aren't targeting the teabaggers, perhaps you missed that.

it's the loose definition of extremist i was commenting on. Did you even read the actual report from DHS?

No, what was the given definition?

I think the government is perfectly justified in keeping an eye on people like this: Suspect in officers' shooting was into conspiracy theories

I linked the report in a previous post go read it.

 

[tigerbob]

This administration can never match the vindictive nature of the Bush administration, no matter how hard they try.

Right-wing extremism may be on rise, report says - CNN.com

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.

Right Wing or Left Wing, either can be a threat to our security.

Extremists of any sort are a threat, but only if we continue to allow them to have power. It's the duty of us who are not extremists to take this power back and let them know we will not stand for it anymore.

You're right, but what are the odds of either side taking a long, hard look at themselves rather than just attacking their opponent? Until that happens (which, let's face it, ain't gonna happen) the country will lurch from left to right and back again every 4 or 8 years.

All you have to do is look at one thread which expresses pretty much any political POV. By the end of page 1, it has usually descended into a shit fight and off the topic as posters attack anything that doesn't follow their own party line. Why? Attacking something is a damn sight easier than proposing something or trying to find common ground on which to build.

Actually, having re-read your post you say "but only if we continue to allow them to have power" which may be taken by some to imply that the extremists are in power. I don't know if this is what you meant, but I could easily make this point if I wanted to and wade in with a whole flotilla of points to attack your perceived view.

 

[tigerbob]

It seems this administration thinks ex-military, along with folks that have Ron Paul and pro life bumper stickers are more of a threat than Al Qaeda. Also, we need to REALLY be on the lookout for gun crazies who have 500 rounds "stockpiled" ...........

It might seem that way, if this was the only report you ever read.

 

[tigerbob]

Excuse me for being a toddler in the 60s

And when did i say it was new? So in your mind because this latest attempt to erode our liberties is not new that it should be ignored because a democrat is in office?

I was ahead of you before you asked, if you had paid attention. I had emboldened the word NOW, which implies it was not the case before NOW. I added red this time.

And yes, it's not to be ignored no matter which side does it, but don't expect the CON$ to be sincere when they support dissent, the only dissent they support is their own.

And only the democrats are sincere right?

wake up and realize that no one in the fucking government has the public's best interest at heart.

That's a fair point. It's all about making you afraid or something, telling you who's to blame for it, and not tying yourself too closely to a position that you can't plausibly deny later. In this way, it's possible to do what's politically expedient and / or suits your political leanings while appearing to do what's in the public interest.

 

[KittenKoder]

This administration can never match the vindictive nature of the Bush administration, no matter how hard they try.

Right-wing extremism may be on rise, report says - CNN.com



Right Wing or Left Wing, either can be a threat to our security.

Extremists of any sort are a threat, but only if we continue to allow them to have power. It's the duty of us who are not extremists to take this power back and let them know we will not stand for it anymore.

You're right, but what are the odds of either side taking a long, hard look at themselves rather than just attacking their opponent? Until that happens (which, let's face it, ain't gonna happen) the country will lurch from left to right and back again every 4 or 8 years.

All you have to do is look at one thread which expresses pretty much any political POV. By the end of page 1, it has usually descended into a shit fight and off the topic as posters attack anything that doesn't follow their own party line. Why? Attacking something is a damn sight easier than proposing something or trying to find common ground on which to build.

Actually, having re-read your post you say "but only if we continue to allow them to have power" which may be taken by some to imply that the extremists are in power. I don't know if this is what you meant, but I could easily make this point if I wanted to and wade in with a whole flotilla of points to attack your perceived view.

You are defining it as black and white ... which makes it no better, don't think of it as one side against the other, because that isn't even close to the problem but is instead bluring the problem. It's the leaders who have been in power for too long (about 20 years give or take). I have stated Obama would be no different than the last moron in charge, and thus far he has proven me correct (I hate being right about predictions because I always get the bad ones). The definition of extremist is often skewed, but the one that fits are those that are so far into how they believe the world should work that they are unable to see how it really works or even consider other possibilities or views. I take all views into account before making an important choice, I know many on here who probably do as well based on their posts here, and some in real life. To a person who thinks they go through a decision "process", extremists do not, they do not consider all possibilities, they do not consider all views.

 

[Ravi]

it's the loose definition of extremist i was commenting on. Did you even read the actual report from DHS?

No, what was the given definition?

I think the government is perfectly justified in keeping an eye on people like this: Suspect in officers' shooting was into conspiracy theories

I linked the report in a previous post go read it.

Tigerbob answered my question, above.

Here's what they said about left wing extemists in January. Do you also think the government shouldn't keep an eye on these groups?

(U//FOUO) DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines leftwing extremists as
groups or individuals who embrace radical elements of the anarchist, animal rights, or
environmental movements and are often willing to violate the law to achieve their
objectives. Many leftwing extremist groups are not hierarchically ordered with defined
members, leaders, or chain of command structures but operate as loosely-connected
underground movements composed of “lone wolves,” small cells, and splinter groups.
— (U//LES) Animal rights and environmental extremists seek to end the perceived
abuse and suffering of animals and the degradation of the natural environment
perpetrated by humans. They use non-violent and violent tactics that, at times,
violate criminal law. Many of these extremists claim they are conducting these
activities on behalf of two of the most active groups, the Animal Liberation Front
and its sister organization, the Earth Liberation Front. Other prominent groups
include Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty; and chapters within the Animal
Defense LeagueUSPER, and Earth First!USPER.
— (U//FOUO) Anarchist extremists generally embrace a number of radical
philosophical components of anticapitalist, antiglobalization, communist,
socialist, and other movements. Anarchist groups seek abolition of social,
political, and economic hierarchies, including Western-style governments and
large business enterprises, and frequently advocate criminal actions of varying
scale and scope to accomplish their goals. Anarchist extremist groups include
entities within CrimethincUSPER, the Ruckus SocietyUSPER ,and Recreate 68 USPER.

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/leftwing.pdf

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

This administration can never match the vindictive nature of the Bush administration, no matter how hard they try.

Right-wing extremism may be on rise, report says - CNN.com

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.

Right Wing or Left Wing, either can be a threat to our security.

Extremists of any sort are a threat, but only if we continue to allow them to have power. It's the duty of us who are not extremists to take this power back and let them know we will not stand for it anymore.

Uh oh... That sounds EXTREME!

ROFLMNAO... Moderates...

 

[KittenKoder]

This administration can never match the vindictive nature of the Bush administration, no matter how hard they try.

Right-wing extremism may be on rise, report says - CNN.com



Right Wing or Left Wing, either can be a threat to our security.

Extremists of any sort are a threat, but only if we continue to allow them to have power. It's the duty of us who are not extremists to take this power back and let them know we will not stand for it anymore.

Uh oh... That sounds EXTREME!

ROFLMNAO... Moderates...

You think letting the voices be heard and working within the government rules to get the government out of our lives is "extreme"? Wow ... that's just ... odd.

 

[tigerbob]

Extremists of any sort are a threat, but only if we continue to allow them to have power. It's the duty of us who are not extremists to take this power back and let them know we will not stand for it anymore.

You're right, but what are the odds of either side taking a long, hard look at themselves rather than just attacking their opponent? Until that happens (which, let's face it, ain't gonna happen) the country will lurch from left to right and back again every 4 or 8 years.

All you have to do is look at one thread which expresses pretty much any political POV. By the end of page 1, it has usually descended into a shit fight and off the topic as posters attack anything that doesn't follow their own party line. Why? Attacking something is a damn sight easier than proposing something or trying to find common ground on which to build.

Actually, having re-read your post you say "but only if we continue to allow them to have power" which may be taken by some to imply that the extremists are in power. I don't know if this is what you meant, but I could easily make this point if I wanted to and wade in with a whole flotilla of points to attack your perceived view.

You are defining it as black and white ... which makes it no better, don't think of it as one side against the other, because that isn't even close to the problem but is instead bluring the problem. It's the leaders who have been in power for too long (about 20 years give or take). I have stated Obama would be no different than the last moron in charge, and thus far he has proven me correct (I hate being right about predictions because I always get the bad ones). The definition of extremist is often skewed, but the one that fits are those that are so far into how they believe the world should work that they are unable to see how it really works or even consider other possibilities or views. I take all views into account before making an important choice, I know many on here who probably do as well based on their posts here, and some in real life. To a person who thinks they go through a decision "process", extremists do not, they do not consider all possibilities, they do not consider all views.

I'm defining it as black and white not because that's how I see it but because that's what for most people it appears to come down to. All you have to do is take a look at this board for 5 minutes to see any debate that starts rationally drifting further and further apart as the 2 sides hurl invective and accusations at each other. Not all posters behave that way, but sensible discussion is almost always derailed by those who do.

Is it any wonder that politicians behave the same way? Is it any wonder that politicians pander to this political polarization (too much alliteration in that sentence)? And, of course, I agree with you that this sort of behavior is blurring the problem and making it difficult to get to grips with the "real" issues, because what seems to be important to the voting public is the volume and vehemence with which opinions are expressed, rather than whether those opinions have merit in the first place.

 

[Brn2bfree]

Homeland Security Classifies Returning US Veterans as Potential Terrorist Threat

Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano by Mr Pink Eyes This morning I wrote a post about a Homeland Security paper that warned about "right wing extremists" and the threat that they may pose to the government.

This paper basically lumped in people who are either pro second amendment, anti abortion, anti illegal immigration, or pro smaller government (or more than one or all of the above) with white supremacists and domestic terrorists. As maddening as I found that paper there was one aspect to the paper that I missed this morning and to me it is much more egregious.

This is what the Department of Homeland Security thinks about our military men and women who are overseas fighting on our behalf:

the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks

That is unforgivable. To suggest that some of our troops will come home and form or join terrorist groups is beyond reprehensible. And why suddenly is the Department of Homeland Security suddenly using the "T" word again when talking about our troops when they refuse to call the actual terrorists what they are?

The report continues:
Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists," it says. "DHS/I&A is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities
I find it very interesting to see how these people really feel about our veterans.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Our verterans are the Greatest of Americans. Now they are labelled as RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS....
The Dept. of Homeland Security wants to gather some data..on you guys and gals...

Well Comrades....who have served this great country. What do you think of your Messiah now?

 

[Terry]

could you please provide a link to this report?