Conservative media freak-out: claim Obama DHS targeting conservatives in report on right-wing extremists
SUMMARY: Conservatives in the media are citing a declassified DHS report detailing potential increases in right-wing extremism to claim that the Obama administration is targeting conservatives and others simply because they disagree with administration policies and proposals.
Since the Department of Homeland Security declassified an April 7 report detailing potential increases in right-wing extremism, media figures -- including CNN's Lou Dobbs, conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, Fox News' Sean Hannity, Fox News national political commentator Andrea Tantaros, and Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin -- have advanced the claim that the Obama administration is targeting conservatives and others simply because they disagree with administration policies and proposals. For example, during the April 14 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Limbaugh claimed: "[Y]ou have a report from Janet Napolitano and Barack Obama Department of Homeland Security portraying standard, ordinary, everyday conservatives as posing a bigger threat to this country than Al Qaeda terrorists or genuine enemies of this country like Kim Jong-Il." However, while the report addressed potential issues that could spur right-wing extremism, it did not allege that someone is an extremist simply because he or she holds conservative views.
The DHS report concluded that "rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment." The report also cited as potential mobilizing issues for right-wing extremism "immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use," as well as "[r]ightwing extremist paranoia ... harkening back to the 'New World Order' conspiracy theories of the 1990s."
In addition to Limbaugh, the following media figures have responded to the DHS report by alleging or suggesting that the Obama administration is targeting Americans simply because of political differences:
- On the April 14 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, Dobbs asked viewers: "Do you think a person concerned about borders and ports that are unsecured, illegal immigration, Second Amendment rights, or a returning veteran from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is likely or even possibly probable, as the Department of Homeland Security suggests, to be a right-wing extremist?" As Media Matters for America noted, the DHS report warned of a possible resurgence among extremist groups that "will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat," citing, in part, a 2008 FBI report authored during the Bush administration.
- On the April 14 edition of Fox News' Hannity, Hannity stated that DHS "is warning law enforcement officials about the rise in right-wing extremist activity" and asserted that the department "would define it as people that maybe think we're not controlling our borders, people that have pro-life bumper stickers." Hannity later claimed: "Now if you disagree with that liberal path that President Obama's taken the country down, you may soon catch the attention of the Department of Homeland Security. Now the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis has issued an intel assessment that warns of a rise of what they're calling right-wing extremism. But critics of the report say their definition of a right-wing extremist sounds awfully close to somebody who might simply just disagree with the Obama administration."
- During the April 14 edition of Fox News' Your World, guest host David Asman stated that Tantaros is calling the DHS report "an attempt to silence the right." Tantaros later said of the report, "I'm just wondering if this is just an effort to shut up their critics."
- In her April 14 blog post, titled, "Confirmed: The Obama DHS hit job on conservatives is real," Malkin wrote: "[T]he piece of crap report issued on April 7 is a sweeping indictment of conservatives."
Moreover, in dismissing the DHS report, Limbaugh, Hannity, Malkin, and Tantaros also suggested that the Obama administration declassified the report to coincide with April 15 tea parties:
- Limbaugh claimed that "this speech of Obama's and the DHS report yesterday are timed for one reason, and that's the tea parties tomorrow."
- Hannity stated: "I wonder what the DHS is going to call those thousands of great Americans who take to the streets tomorrow to have their voices heard at tax day tea parties across the country."
- Malkin asserted: "In Obama land, there are no coincidences. It is no coincidence that this report echoes Tea Party-bashing left-wing blogs (check this one out comparing the Tea Party movement to the Weather Underground!) and demonizes the very Americans who will be protesting in the thousands on Wednesday for the nationwide Tax Day Tea Party."
- Tantaros claimed, "You know, it's no coincidence that it's happening right before these tea parties, which are proving to be extremely effective in getting attention. But, look, this is an administration that does not like any kind of dissent." Asman then stated: "I'm looking at the report, and it says, among other things, that the federal government is going to begin gathering information on right-wing extremists' activities in the United States. Does that mean they're going to be spending -- sending spies to these tea parties?" Tantaros also said of tea parties: "It's free speech and the Obama administration is trying to shut it down, because, as I pointed out before, they don't like any kind of disagreement or dissent when it's against their policies."
From the April 14 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
DOBBS: Well, we'd like to know what you think about all of this. Our poll question tonight is: Do you think a person concerned about borders and ports that are unsecured, illegal immigration, Second Amendment rights, or a returning veteran from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is likely or even possibly probable, as the Department of Homeland Security suggests, to be a right-wing extremist? Yes or no.
Cast your vote at LouDobbs.com. We'll have the results here later in the broadcast.
From the April 14 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: The Department of Homeland Security, Dr. Dobson, is warning law enforcement officials about the rise in right-wing extremist activity. Now, some of -- for example, they would define it as people that maybe think we're not controlling our borders, people that have pro-life bumper stickers -- I'm not Ron Paul's biggest fan, but if you have a Ron Paul bumper sticker, you might be viewed as a radical by the government.
And I'm thinking -- what do you think of that interpretation, especially coming from a guy that started his political career in the home of an unrepentant terrorist who bombed our Pentagon and Capitol, and sat in Reverend Wright's church for 20 years?
JAMES DOBSON (founder, Focus on the Family): Isn't it interesting that the media has jumped all over this when there aren't any examples of it. There are no Timothy McVeighs out there right now. They're making a big deal out of something that hasn't happened and may not happen.
They were also saying today that when the troops come back from Iraq or Afghanistan, that they're going to be a big problem because they have military training. Well, you know, the war didn't just start. It's been going on for eight years.
And they're trying to create an issue out of what, to this point, is a non-issue. And I think for political purposes.
[...]
HANNITY: Now if you disagree with that liberal path that President Obama's taken the country down, you may soon catch the attention of the Department of Homeland Security. Now the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis has issued an intel assessment that warns of a rise of what they're calling right-wing extremism. But critics of the report say their definition of a right-wing extremist sounds awfully close to somebody who might simply just disagree with the Obama administration.
Now the report lists the following issues as possible recruiting tools for right-wing groups: the economic downturn, illegal immigration, legislative and judicial drivers, perceived threats from other countries, and disgruntled military veterans.
Now regarding those threats from other countries, DHS says right-wing groups, quote, "bemoan the decline of U.S. stature." And on illegal immigration, DHS points out that there is a "frustration over a perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration."
Well, I wonder what the DHS is going to call those thousands of great Americans who take to the streets tomorrow to have their voices heard at tax day tea parties across the country. And I wonder if they have a report on left-wing fanatics, you know, like Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright?
From the April 14 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
ASMAN: I'm David Asman. I'm in for Neil Cavuto, and this is Your World. Neil is back tomorrow, broadcasting live from the Sacramento tea party. But, today, a new report by the Department of Homeland Security creating quite a stir -- it's entitled, quote, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment." Here it is.
While it takes aim at conservatives, it ignores liberal groups, like ACORN breaking into foreclosed homes; housing activists storming Bear Sterns; violent anti-capitalist protests at the G20; and Codepink targeting public officials. So, what gives?
GOP strategist Andrea Tantaros calling it an attempt to silence the right -- Andrea, good to see you. Thanks for being here.
TANTAROS: Thanks, David.
ASMAN: So, we should mention that they did -- the DHS did come out with a report in February on left-wing radicalism, but it didn't really suggest that there was anything violent about it. This one is all about the violent nature of right-wing extremism.
TANTAROS: Right. And that report that was about the left-wing group was actually a group that was setting cars on fire and forests on fire -- this radical environmental group. This is apples and oranges, David. You know, it's no coincidence that it's happening right before these tea parties, which are proving to be extremely effective in getting attention.
But, look, this is an administration that does not like any kind of dissent. They're essentially saying, "Attention, first responders! People are actually exercising their First Amendment rights of free speech." What they should be doing is putting out a report to our first responders saying, people are exercising their First Amendment rights, nobody interfere.
ASMAN: Well, Andrea, I'm looking at the report, and it says, among other things, that the federal government is going to begin gathering information on right-wing extremists' activities in the United States. Does that mean they're going to be spending -- sending spies to these tea parties?
TANTAROS: I'm not sure about that, but all I know is that it's taxpayer money, so that Obama and his administration can define an unreasonable enemy. I mean, think about it, David. Obama does not have an unreasonable enemy, and he would love for nothing more. I mean, the Clintons, they always had an unreasonable enemy and that was the vast, right-wing conspiracy.
ASMAN: Right.
You see Obama going overseas, you know, apologizing for the United States, making concessions. You have Hillary Clinton apologizing or making excuses for Americans' behavior. It seems like they're more concerned with the threat here at home than they are the threat abroad.
ASMAN: Well, and here's another quote from it. It says the joint federal-state activities will, quote, "have a particular emphasis on the causes of rightwing extremist radicalization." I'm just wondering if this is just an effort to shut up their critics.
TANTAROS: Well, it's certainly a growing concern, and I think it's lurching in that direction. I mean, this is American people across all political parties who are voicing their concern. They're concerned about the future of their kids. They're concerned about the economy. They're concerned about under-employment and not enough jobs.
It's free speech and the Obama administration is trying to shut it down, because, as I pointed out before, they don't like any kind of disagreement or dissent when it's against their policies.
ASMAN: Well, Andrea, another problem is that the power of the federal government is growing so extreme. I'm wondering if Janet Napolitano --
TANTAROS: That's right.
ASMAN: -- the head of the Department of Homeland Security, is going to ask for the same kind of extraordinary power that, for example, Treasury Secretary [Timothy] Geithner is asking for.
TANTAROS: Well, that would be very, very scary, and you know what? If they're going to issue these reports for this made-up threat of people exercising their right to free speech, they need to start thinking about exercising reports for groups like ACORN.
I mean, think about this, David. ACORN was in the lobby of banks, pressuring people to -- you know, to give loans to people who couldn't afford to pay them. What about Codepink? How about all the protestors at the 2004 convention that ran up and down 8th Avenue naked, screaming save the children?
ASMAN: Right.
TANTAROS: How about a report about them?
ASMAN: Well, or the G20 protesters?
TANTAROS: The hypocrisy is just astounding.
ASMAN: The G-20 protesters, and which -- it did become a deadly protest over in Europe. The same thing could happen here.
TANTAROS: That's right. That's absolutely right. And this is nothing more than concerned Americans exercising their First Amendment rights. It's constitutional. And the left and the Obama administration is clearly trying to take it away because they see it as deeply, deeply threatening -- and that should tell you something.
ASMAN: All right, Andrea Tantaros. Andrea, good to see you again. Thank you very much.
From Michelle Malkin's April 14 blog post:
They were very defensive - preemptively so - in asserting that it was not a politicized document and that DHS had done reports on "leftwing extremism" in the past. I have covered DHS for many years and am quite familiar with past assessments they and the FBI have done on animal rights terrorists and environmental terrorists. But those past reports have always been very specific in identifying the exact groups, causes, and targets of domestic terrorism, i.e., the ALF, ELF, and Stop Huntingdon wackos who have engaged in physical harassment, arson, vandalism, and worse against pharmaceutical companies, farms, labs, and university researchers.
By contrast, the piece of crap report issued on April 7 is a sweeping indictment of conservatives. And the intent is clear. As the two spokespeople I talked with on the phone today made clear: They both pinpointed the recent "economic downturn" and the "general state of the economy" for stoking "rightwing extremism." One of the spokespeople said he was told that the report has been in the works for a year. My b.s. detector went off the chart, and yours will, too, if you read through the entire report - which asserts with no evidence that an unquantified "resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalizations activity" is due to home foreclosures, job losses, and...the historical presidential election.
In Obama land, there are no coincidences. It is no coincidence that this report echoes Tea Party-bashing left-wing blogs (check this one out comparing the Tea Party movement to the Weather Underground!) and demonizes the very Americans who will be protesting in the thousands on Wednesday for the nationwide Tax Day Tea Party.
Off topic (like the one above), but did anyone see a comment made yesterday on Monday's FNC ownership thread by a poster going by 'solon'?
Don't know if it's the original, but if it is, WELCOME BACK!!
I think it is him. He knew the Col. used to go by HBL. I guess he decided to screw his banning and return. Thank god!
What does it say about the right wing nutz that they have elected to align themselves with the extreme fringe conservative elements? Why do they feel compelled to defend potential domestic terrorists?
Is this a pre-Oklahoma City Bombing mentality?
It's not that they feel compelled to defend the potential terrorists, it's that the 14 or so of them who are getting tea-bagged today want to maintain a margin of separation between the extremists and themselves, not because they don't agree with their extremist postiions or their extremist tactics, but because they have no valid defense of right-wing-extemists' history of violence.
And of course it's a pre-Oklahoma City Bombing mentality. McVeigh likewise had an aversion to law-enforcement focusing on him before he blew up the federal building.
Methinks they doth protest, er...too much.
Boy, was that a biasly worded poll on Lou Dobbs tonight. I find it amazing how all these right wing loonies are trying to lump RINO's in with extremist organizations like the minuteman project. Kinda like that "groundswell" of support for that right wing tea bagging party.
They always back pedal so that they can play the victim. It's been typical for years to make radical comments and then play off the response as "out of control PC".
The report was an obvious attempt to silence opposition to Obama and make liberals fearful of those on the right. The news reports and commentators are just calling the report out for what it is. Just because the report is carefully worded so that it does not call anyone an extremist, it is doing so just the same. And the administration knows it.
Keep telling yourself that and click your heels together 3 times...
Is that why Bush put out a similar report?
Fried, can you please link those reports here?
it's in one of today's threads.
Perhaps it might cause the few rational, true conservatives remaining to look at themselves in the mirror and realize how radically extremist the conservative movement has been taken by the wackos.
There is nothing in the report that specifically links conservatives to "right-wing extremists", yet you (just like the report wants you to do) links them together. They want anyone who opposes the President to be labeled an "extremist" and you fell for it hook, line, and sinker. I guess the report accomplished its goal.
Example- Rush Limbaugh, the self appointed leader of the GOP has said he wants the president to fail, possibly signalling the GOP party members in Congeress to oppose any executive decision our presiodent makes, the hell if it is for the good of the country or not ( even as recent as the recent piracy event )
Wolf, what does Rush want Obama to fail at? Make sure you finish the statement. That would be like me saying " I hope wolf falls” but if you heard the whole statement it might have said " I hope that Wolf falls asleep tonight and has a peaceful night” Rush said wanted Obama's Administration to fail, if his plan was to move this country to socialism.
No he did not. he said he wanted Obama to fail and a week later, his supporters explained Rush meant to say his policies to fail. becomes more truthfull in context of the actual time things were said. Just like Ann Coulter when she slammed the jews on the Donny Deutsch show and when confronted, she explaine it was a joke. ( I am sure Donny slammed her during the commercial )
Wolf, that is a lie. I have seen and heard the original broadcast from Rush.
No, you are the liar. I heard the original broadcast. Limbaugh said he wanted Obama to fail. From Limbaugh's own site. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html
"I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed." ... "I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails."
Later on, Limbaugh and his supporters tried to change it to say that he wanted his policies to fail, but as I have explained countless times, Obama's policies failing is Obama failing. 'Obama' is his policies! His body isn't going to fail. His policies led by his political philosophies is what Rush wants to fail!
You, good sir, are the liar.
jp, the point is conservatives, honest conservatives should be distancing themselves from these rightwing extremists and those that fan the flames of their discontent and hatred, instead of attacking this report. they worry about offending the listeners and followers of these goons, but what they should worry about is if the left is able to paint all conservatives with one broad brush of extremism, they will continue to lose election after election. it's about time they wise up and stop coddling Limbaugh and the rest and grow a pair and act like adults, instead of whiny babies.
the point is conservatives, honest conservatives should be distancing themselves from these rightwing extremists and those that fan the flames of their discontent and hatred, instead of attacking this report. they worry about offending the listeners and followers of these goons, but what they should worry about is if the left is able to paint all conservatives with one broad brush of extremism, they will continue to lose election after election. it's about time they wise up and stop coddling Limbaugh and the rest and grow a pair and act like adults, instead of whiny babies.
BRAVO!!!!!
Guess what?
DHS: "Leftwing Extremists Likely to Increase Use of Cyber Attacks over the Coming Decade"
26 January 2009
What was all that about the DHS specifially targeting conservatives again?
Pete, so are you making up your own DHS reports? This discussion thread is from a DHS report that has been published recently. The only time the word left is even used in the 9-page document dated 7 April 2009 is in the following statement. "U.S. Constitution, but left open to debate". Now if you would like us to read the document you are writing about, please link it here so we can read the entire document before making a judgment.
Uh, did you try clicking on the title of the report in my post?
Thanks Pete, the link did not work earlier. I guess only Right Wingers can be violent you on the left are "No Harm'
— (U//FOUO) Their no-harm doctrine includes claiming to ensure the safety of
humans, animals, and the environment even as they attack businesses and
associated operations.
I think we can safely put to bed the notion that the DHS is only targeting right-wing extremists now.
Whether it's violence or attacks on IT infrastructure as a means to a political end, it's all terrorism and it's all a national security threat to me.
"you (just like the report wants you to do) links them together"
No we doesn't. It is media conservatives who are lining up to connect themselves to the report. We, teh libruls, continue to point out, as IRONY101 does above, that the report is not about reasonable, mainstream conservatives.
There is nothing in the report that specifically links conservatives to "right-wing extremists", yet you (just like the report wants you to do) links them together.
I don't get it!
The DHS report on right wing "EXTREMISTS"! Unless conservatives/Republicans are ALL extremists, WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?
BLAH BLAH BLAH Nov 4, 2008 7:54 PM West Coast time. That is how fearfull we are. But I do hope the Secret Service maintains a watchfull eye on this for the power of suggestion is far greater than the ability to reason for some.
jpeagle21 in a nut's hell:
This report, ordered more than a year ago by a Republican administration, is a transparent effort to quash opposition to this Democratic administration. Although it pretends to be a warning about incipient McVeighs and Poplawskis, it is clearly aimed at everyday conservatives (even though it doesn't say it is, I know it is -- not that I've read it).
And could you link to complaints you made when the Bush administration's DHS had memos about "left-wing extremists?" Especially after infiltrating anti-war groups that had never killed anyone. Already, since the election we've had the Tennessee church shooting "take some liberals with you", and the guy in Pittsburgh who shot 3 cops who feared Obama was "going to take his guns."
Could you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth if an anti-war protester had killed three cops b/c he was so opposed to the Iraq war or feared warrantless wiretapping?
jpeagle21: Personally, if this report is, indeed, "carefully worded" I would consider that to be a good thing. This is serious stuff. Should we be worried about domestic terrorists? Of course we should be. Or don't you understand what happened in London (and could have happened several times again)?
There are extremists in this country and we shouldn't be afraid to point that out. If the right wingnutz feel they must defend those extremists, that says a good deal about them, doesn't it?
The Obama police state is beginning to emerge http://www.howobamagotelected.com/
"The Obama police state is beginning to emerge . . ." - fairlyawingnut
Yeah - just look at all the extraordinary renditions, warrantless wiretapping, suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, and talk of the "Unitary Executive" - OOPS, sorry; wrong administration . . .
.
"Just because the report is carefully worded so that it does not call anyone an extremist, it is doing so just the same. And the administration knows it. " - jpeagle21
Strange . . . the Bush misAdministration could define a "terrorist" as ANYONE they thought could be one - yet, I don't seem to recall as much outrage about that . . .
.
Are you saying that DHS was being too politically correct in its language...? ;>)
In the context of right wingers, such as, for example, on Sean Hannity's forum, speaking openly of stockpiling guns and ammunition and of armed revolution don't you think the meaning of DHS's words become clear. And, further, don't you think it's possible the FBI is privy to intelligence suggesting that armed hate groups in America are becoming re-energized? Actually, I think it's a good idea that DHS is not pulling punches about these right wing wackos.
And I want add, because I'm terribly suspicious of this report: who in their right mind would ever write...
"the return of Military Veterans facing significant challenges could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups"
Can you believe that? That is word for word what is written in this report!
Who wrote that?
I'm suspicious... this smells like a rat... only someone intentionally trying to embarrass the DHS or the Obama administration, would or could ever write those words, and then clear them for publication.
Who specifically did that?
I'll bet a million dollars it was some leftover stooge from the Bush administration.
This seems to have been done for the benefit of the very Republican media who are running wild with this right now... I smell a rat, and someone should ferret the damn thing out, out of the DHS, and out of the idiotically named "Extremism and Radicalization Branch".
I tend to disagree... I think this is consistent with Barack Obama's style of directness. Certainly there is going to be a certain amount of expected blowback for the particular passage you cited regarding returning veterans, but that will blow over. IMO, people in this country are becoming more rational (as evidenced by the election of Barack Obama and the electoral renunciation of right wing craziness) and most people will understand exactly what is meant by the DHS report and agree. The fact is that the right wing is getting crazier by the day...
Irony I hope you're right, but I fear that will not be the case. Evidence NPR's take on it this morning as the top of the hour news link. The report cites DHS "repports" that right wing extremism is on the rise. Nothing more in context. They did add that (I do give them credit) that the report doesn't SPECIFICALLY say that there have been ANY RW extremist groups or activity that they could report on.
The damage is done though. Will the talking heads in the MSM break this down and report it as gospel with NO evidence that extremism is on the rise, just the potential? Will they mention that the report mentions Left wing extremism in cyberspace? I doubt it.
Don't be suspicious, you can rest easy. Janet stands by her report.
Napalitano stands by controversial report
It's all going to plan. If you can label returning war veterans, then you can start to label citizens who oppose anything the administration stands for.
What were returning war veterans labeled as? Please show the quote that does that as well.
Right Wing Extremists.
Show the quote.
I think his trouble is, he can't tell the difference between "Extremists want veterans to join them" and "Veterans want to join extremists."
Or "Extremist groups are sending their members to the military for training and will employ them upon their return."
After listening to and reading the craziness coming from the extreme right wing since Brack Obama's election how could any rational person NOT conclude that there are extreme right wing elements that have the potential to resort to violence in expressing their political convictions? There are people who openly express hatred towards, not just disagreement with the policies of, Barack Obama. There are people who are (self) reportedly stockpiling guns and ammunition. Historically, America is the home of white supremecist hate groups. People openly speak of armed revolution on forums such as Sean Hannity's. DHS would be remiss had it not at least mentioned the potential threat of violence from these right wing extremists. True conservatives, and all true Americans, should denounce right wing extremism of that sort. Instead conservatives, including right wing extremists, romaticize their belief system as though it is somehow honorable to consider armed resistance to to a contrived and non-existent threat of tyranny. And it's hard for me to believe that we would be seeing the same level of hatred had our newly elected Democratic President been a white person. Shame on conservatives...grow up!
You have summarized this well.How can anyone deny the hatred showing in these protests not just disagreement. What they are doing is very very dangerous!!! McCain and Palin were warned during the campaign about this typeof rhetoric ..now its gotten much worse thanks to Limbaugh and Fox News!!!!
Please! There were "left-wing extremists" during the Bush administration who were literally calling for Bush's head on a platter. Where were you denouncing their views and calls for violence? I too believe that calls for violence against any president is wrong, but this report is blowing the "right wing extremist" thing way out of proportion and is being used more to silence opposition to the President by pasting a right-wing extremist "Scarlet Letter" on those that oppose him.
When and where were left wing extremists supported by rank and file Democrats?
When did Democratic candidates make excuses for extremist supporters at campaign rallies?
When was extremism actually proposed by a network other than Fox?
There were "left-wing extremists" during the Bush administration who were literally calling for Bush's head on a platter. (JPeagle)
Can you document this?
Doesn't need documentation. It was "widely known". Rush commented on it often.
Besides, where do you think "Bush derangement syndrome" came from? Hannity just made it up? Pshaw...
Hey, Neon. I wasn't really expecting anything , I'm just a big fan of those who try to use the word "literally" when they don't understand it.
In case you hadn't heard , there are members of the far left literally calling for a showdown between monsters and aliens. This is assuming that MarkBFoot is correct, and a movie being made about any subject is literally the same thing as left wing extremists literally demanding that event happen.
Wacky world the wingnuts live in. They've literally got a few screws loose.
Sorry. You worked so stealthfully, I literally fell off my chair when I realized you were fishing for nuts. I hope you'll literally have a heart and literally cut me some slack for being so literally blind.
I call in evidence the movie "Death of a President (2006). A movie that was about the assassination of President Bush.
British, and it's topic was about how the administration, and more directly Cheney, would react after such an assassination. Not the work of far-left extremists.
Try again.
Oh, you have to be an American to be a far left wing extremist? British or not, it was about the assissination of the American President.
I'm sorry. I thought this conversation was in the context of the American DHS report warning about American right-wing fringe extremists, and how they were REALLY trying to silence American moderate conservatives and Obama objectors. Maybe I misunderstood that when you brought up:
...you weren't referring to the American left-wing extremists. My apologies.
Regardless, the movie was neither advocating nor exploring the possibility of the assassination, but conceptualizing possible circumstances subsequent to the event. Let me put it this way, if you're so confident that the movie is merely one of many examples, patronize me and give another...
I call in evidence the movie...
And the judge rules it is irrelevant (due to it being a work of fiction) and throws it out. Got anything else to bring "into evidence"?
"There were "left-wing extremists" during the Bush administration who were literally calling for Bush's head on a platter."
And how heavily armed were they?
Oh, so when a report was put out on leftwing extremists in 2001, that was just reporting on a genuine threat. When a report is put out on rightwing extremists in 2009, then that must be about silencing opposition.
Got it.
"Their leftwing assessment identifies actual terrorist organizations, like the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front," House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said Wednesday. "The rightwing report uses broad generalizations about veterans, pro-life groups, federalists and supporters of gun rights. That's like saying if you love puppies, you might be susceptible to recruitment by the Animal Liberation Front. It is ridiculous and deeply offensive to millions of Americans."
I'm familiar with the idiotic argument, thanks. It's not anything like saying "if you love puppies". Extremists are more likely to be found in single-issue groups. Veterans are obvious targets for recruitment. These aren't radical concepts, and it doesn't impugn anyone in the mainstream to point them out.
jpeagle21: You obviously have a pre-Oklahoma City Bombing mentality. Don't you read the papers? Don't you understand these gun nutz are going nutz - shooting cops?
Are you aware of the violence in the American West following the Civil War, when army veterans (largely from the South) were turned loose?
The conservative talk show blowhards choose to identify with the extreme right-wing fringe and then complain about this report pointing out that there are dangerous people in this country. This isn't making an effort to "silence opposition." Why aren't Sheer Insannity, Ole BlunderRush, Ann Falter, Little Mark Levin, The Silly Savage (is he still on the air?), Glen Beck and the rest speaking out as true patriots?
If there were such "extremists," they were calling for such via legal means, not armed militia-type revolution.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said she was briefed before the release of a controversial intelligence assessment and that she stands by the report sent to law enforcement that lists veterans as a terrorist risk to the U.S. and defines "rightwing extremism" as including groups opposed to abortion and immigration.
The force behind this change is Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, who told the German newspaper Der Spiegel that she's not going to use the word "terrorism" because it perpetuates the politics of fear. Instead, she'll call terrorist murders "man-caused disasters."
I guess she has changed her mind, we do have terrorist now, they just happen to be possible American Soldiers returning from war. I guess you on the left are going to continue to stand by her, you are ok with foreign nationals who have said they want to hurt and kill Americans to be called "man-caused disasters" but American Soldiers returning from war could be possible Terrorist? You on the left must be so proud of this Janet.
You on the left must be so proud of this Janet.
I am. She's doing her job. Identifying threats.
And for you to argue semantics, please reference "homicide bombers".
Terrorism
Janet Napolitano reminds me of another Janet.....Reno.....She was the other pseudo-woman who gave the order to slaughter over 100 American men, women, and children, in Waco Texas. These "women" are scarier to me than any "terrorists" who wish to do us harm. Why did Napolitano single out Right Wing extremists, and ex-military personnel? Did she forget about the friend and supporter of Obama, Bill Ayers, and those like him, who also bombed government buildings, resulting in deaths? The far left people SHOULD be afraid, because they are the ones destroying our American way of life. Wonder how the Leftist extremists feel about the broadened surveillance of citizens, such as wire tapping, that Obama and Napolitano have approved and implemented, and that the Left screamed so loudly about when President Bush used these methods to protect us after 9/11. Are the Dems ramped up efforts going to be used against American citizens, whom they fear are after their butts, or will they be used to protect AMERICA? Time will tell........
You must have missed the dozens of hate groups meeting today at the tea parties.
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/intrep.jsp?iid=48 Inform yourself arauco.
Agreed. Republicans preach personal responsibility, but they won't practice it. There are consequences for everyone's actions...
Personal responsibility extends to speech as well...
Direct from the PDF File - Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages. They also opposed free trade agreements, arguing that these arrangements resulted in Americans losing jobs to countries such as Mexico.
So simple question, did this not happen? Many illegal immigrants did take jobs that Americans could have done because they would work below normal wages, and many jobs also went south and to other countries. I guess this makes me a extremist. I would rather see employers who hire illegals go to jail, I would like to see Americans doing these jobs, and I would like to see these jobs stay in the U.S. Oh well, call me what you want, see you at the Tea (Taxed Enough Already) Parties.
You'll see mostly right wing extremists at the Teabaggathons, Mark. The rest of us are at work.
Col, most of these start around 5pm, so we the working class will attend. Col, hate to tell you this, but mostly what you will see at the Tea Parties are Americans. American that are seeing the Federal Government trying to control our lives, that is what you will see at the Tea Parties. I am sure individuals like yourself that enjoys the government telling you how to live your life will be having a Cool-Aid Party soon.
In what way is the government controlling or trying to control your life?
Pete, I will give you one, there are more and you know it. 1. In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945.
The fact that the Government takes money out of my pay check each and every time is example that the government has some control over my life. The did this so they would not have to wait to get their money, but take money each and everypay check. Why do you think some people get a refund, it is because the Government took too much of your money during the year. One example of where the Government has some control in our life.
I am not saying I do not what to pay taxes, just giving you an example.
markbfoot199: The income tax was introduced to finance the Union cause during the American Civil War. Would you prefer that the South won that one?
If we didn't have payroll deductions, how many Americans would save money every two weeks or twice or once a month to pay their tax bill on April 15th? Many Americans can't pay their property taxes and home insurance unless the lender impounds it...
You can raise the number of deductions on your W4 to lower your withholding. I think there are some restrictions on this, but you can get more money on each check by claiming more, which means you'll simply have to account for at the end of the year. I know of one person who was single with no children who claimed as many as 10 on their W4 during several pay periods. Needless to say, he had a very rough time come tax day and each day after that.
The response was not about Taxes, it was about a example where the Government does have some control in your life. I used that example since it was tax day.
Show me ONE, just ONE civilized country where the government doesn't have this same control over its citizens lives. Collecting taxes is a practice used in every civilized society, so your whole "oooh, the scary government is controlling me by taking income taxes" isn't quite the argument you make it out to be. The government has been taking taxes from your check, regardless of who was president. Were you complaining that the government had this control over you while GWB was president? Is it because it's a Democrat in the White House?
I guess Time Warner Cable has control over my life. Geico too. I've got them both on automatic payments. Thanks Mark, I hadn't realized what a slave i'd become. Lucky there are you & the other teabaggers who "see" these things.
So you still want to pay taxes and contribute to the well-being of our society,
you have a say in how much of that contribution gets taken out of your paycheck(by way of the W4),
yet this still exemplifies government control over your life?
I think your example is very poor one.
OH PLEASE.
Those things are being streamed online as I type this. So dont get on your imaginary high horse about working people, when obviously they must be pretty well of to be protesting all day about nothing. I bet when you go, you wont find a single person there who will get a tax hike under the current administration's plan. And you will probably give a pass to all the rich folk who are sitting in their comfortable offices not participating while you do the dirty work and make fools of yourselves.
Oh, and those sidewalks, roads and buildings you will be protesting on and around...paid for by (wait for it).....TAXES!
Mr Brown, you think this only about what we pay now, this is about what we pay now, what we pay in the tomorrow and what our children will have to pay in the future. There will not be a person in the crowd that does not want to pay taxes, but when is enuogh, enough. This is not about Obama, this is about Washington. This may be about States Incomes Tax as well. What about a city puttinga tax on soda or putting tax on what ever they want!! This is about runaway spending that has been going on for years, this is about Washington bailouts, this is about Trillion dollar spending. That is why you and others that want to lable everyone at these events. What you lable, call or say about us, we do not care. What I really find funny, is how you all are so afraid that some many people are out protesting. What about this, if you do not like it, protest back. That is what makes America Great!!!
"This is about runaway spending that has been going on for years"
No it isn't. This is about the large amount of spending going on right now, which people who don't understand economics confuse with the spending that had been going on for years. Nobody was "outraged" when runaway spending went on for years. They're "outraged" now because it's a Democratic government and because their favorite TV fascist tells them to be outraged. Meanwhile, they got a tax cut and their local schools, police, and fire departments are still able to provide services. As a bonus, their local teachers, police, and firefighters are still getting a paycheck and spending their money at the local grocery store. Oh, wow, is that a grocery store clerk who still has a job? Neat!
**applause**
Well said. I think you summed it up nicely.
It's a grocery store clerk who still has a job, it's a truck driver who makes deliveries to the grocery store who still has a job, it's someone working in a field or a processing plant producing products that make their way to the grocery store who still has a job...
We're outraged now because Barry O'Gump's plan is to "make" monopoly money and inject the economy with this inflated 3 trillion. We're outraged that our grandchildren will have to pay this off and by the administrations own numbers my twelve year old already is close to $40k in the hole. We're outraged that we, the average american, is held to this timeline to pay up or pay penalties, when half of Barry O'Gump's administration couldn't see their way to pay their taxes and get rewarded with cabinet positions.
See again the reference to Obama. I thought this was about WASHINGTON? Can't you guys get your talking points straight anymore?
This is not "monopoly" money, it is money that is either through current revenue or through borrowing. I thought it was Dick Cheney who said something about deficits not being a bad thing back when Reagan was setting the gold standard on running up HUGE budget deficits. (Don't remember the right getting their panties in a bunch then?) or when Bush II was setting new records with his budgets (Again, where were the protests?)
Apparently the right thinks it's okay to run deficits to give rich people tax cuts, but when Obama and the grownups try to fix the mess the Republicans left, its evil! What hypocrites!
"I guess this makes me a extremist."
Suppose the government issued a report on citrus fruit noting that some citrus fruit is orange. Suppose you are a cheetoh. Would you say, "I guess this makes me a citrus fruit?"
Okay then. No need to freak out.
You beat me to it. His argument made no sense.
I'd also like to note that "rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority" is NOT the same thing as federalism, which is merely a division of power between the state and central government.
Mr Hebert, never seen a orange Cheetoh! I am not freaking out at all, I just think the report is a joke. Just never seen a report come out and offend so many individuals is one report.
It didn't offend so many individuals -- it's fauxtrage. Glad you aren't freaking out -- just using a specious argument. As a joke, I hope?
MMMMmmmmmm...cheetohs!
No Common
MMMMMmmmmm Cheetos, please drop the "H". Sure Frito-Lay would appreciate that, as well as Mr. Hebert.
Ahh who cares about an extra 'h'?
You've been mangling the English language since you've been posting here...
Mr Hebert you said "Suppose you are a Cheetoh." Cheetoh is a breed of Cat. Now I could see how you could get confused since Frito Lay uses a Cheetoh as a Cartoon Character in there commercial, but the actual product (please see about picture) is called Cheetos. I know understand why you do not understand my argument, you watch way too much T.V.
Cheetos are a brand of cheese curl made by Frito-Lay - Yes have a Orange Tint.
The 'Cheetoh' also known as the 'cheesy long dong' cat breed is derived from crossings between specific Bengal cat and Ocicat bloodlines. It is a wild animal hybrid descended from the Asian Leopard Cat. Do not come in Orange
you really thought of a cheesy long dong because an "h" was added to Cheeto? I don't think too much tv is near the top of your list of problems.
Jeezus, dude.
Really?
Yes Really, Just need to help Mr. Hebert out. If that had been me, I would have gotten endless information on the difference, if you can not take it, do not dish it.
Thank you for the education. I hope you have learned as much about the DHS report and why conservative media figures needn't shriek about it as I have learned about the spelling of Cheetos and the breed of "there" mascot.
The word you are trying to use is "cheetAh". There is no O in cheetah.
Actually, it seems there is such a thing as a cheetoh. Google it. I was surprised as well.
Rightwing extremists are concerned with A.
markb is also concerned with A.
Therefore markb is also a rightwing extremist.
Um, no???
Your line of reasoning is flawed. The report is merely describing one of the characterstics of rightwing extremists during the 1990s. The fact that you and many others share a similar concern does not make you an extremist, since you are not inciting violence, attempting to raise a militia, or some other nonsense.
So you're against free-trade agreements and the hiring of illegal immigrants which drive down the wages of working people. I suggest that rather than going to a Republican-funded and promoted TV event, you look into joing a union and the union movement.
Decrying unfettered free trade at a teabag party is like treating cancer with cigarettes.
Steelers, why would I join a Union, a Union tells you what you can and can not make. I would rather work for myself and control what I make.
I belong to a union and it's management that tells you what you can make, unions can only bargain. A union is the best thing to happen to this country, it's the cornerstone of democracy, and if you bitch about rights on different things, remember: Last 30 years membership in unions declined......rights afforded to the working people of this country have declined at the same time.
Bravo Marker. I've often wondered why wingnuts don't see the connection between a well-paid workforce and a vibrant economy. Who's going to buy these high-quality American-made products if they can't afford to?
Nobody is going to buy American made products because very little is made here anymore. Just look at the parking lots of the GM, Ford, and Chrysler plants and see how many Toyo's, Hyundias, and Nissans are parked out there. The union choked the golden goose and she's laying her last couple of eggs.
Please provide some proof that unions are responsible for the poor management and reckless investments of the upper management of these corporations. GM is being done in, not because of their poorly designed cars (which should be enough in a FREE MARKET) but because most of their business was in financing! not production!! When the market and credit markets went bad, so did the company.
Netx time you take a weekend off or go home at 5 pm instead of whenever your employer thinks you should, thank my grandfather, a union member who fought for your right to do so.
Marker, you really believe that? OSHA, EEOC and other similar organizations were formed because of the great work the Unions started. The reasons Unions have declined is because individuals realized that they can speak for themselves now, not some Union Boss. Give me an example of something the worker had 30 years ago, they do not have now?
The reasons Unions have declined is because individuals realized that they can speak for themselves
Wrong. Union membership has declined as our industrial/manufacturing base has declined. They kinda go hand in hand.
Give me an example of something the worker had 30 years ago, they do not have now?
A living wage.
much of the decline in "living wages" is a result of the influx of cheap labor being imported into this country and exploited by greedy employers, something the left and the right blindly turn away from all the time, all in the name of comprehensive immigration reform. So any liberal who is for a "living wage" and also condones this behavior from our politicians are only contradicting themselves.
Agreed. And also the well-paying jobs outsourced overseas. Any conservative who is for a living wage and condones tax shelters and moving jobs out of the country are only contradicting themselves as well.
Of course, if these immigrant workers were allowed to unionize and strike, the companies they work for would go out of business because they depend on the cheap labor and then immigration would not be as much of a problem. The only reason people immigrate into this country (whether it is legal or not) is to make a beter life than the one they left. Period.
Shut down the explotative owners of these complanies and the problem would solve itself rather quickly. Your wages would not be forced down due to this "cheap" exploited labor
jamesB: you might do some research into unions. They aren't what your right-wing buddies have told you they are...
I used to belong to a union, years ago. The union bargained for me. They had my interests in mind when the company didn't. That's the point of a union. The union doesn't tell you how much your salary will be, they don't tell you how much you will produce - and actually, in my personal experience, they didn't tell me to do, well, anything...
Sorry, as you can see, jamesB, my response was supposed to be for markbfoot199. I apologize in advance.
Common, simple question, The Union Bargained for you? What can you not bargin for yourself? Need someone else to do that work for you? Or, was it, you were unable to get a job at that location unless you worked for a Union? Now that should not be fair, should be not all have the same chance at that job union or non-union? What if I got the same job as you, non union and was able to bargin my own Salary and was more then you? Ok with that?
What can you not bargin for yourself?
You seriously believe that? What fantasy world are you living in. My bet is it would it play out like this:
Worker to Boss: "I want an increase in pay or I'm not coming to work tomorrow."
Boss to Worker: "If you don't come to work tomorrow, don't come back at all".
Worker to Boss: "See ya tomorrow".
What a worker utopia that would be.
any employee that walks in his boss' office and threatens to quit unless he or she is given a raise on the spot is not worthy of the job they hold.
My hypothetical worker didn't threaten to quit. He threatened to go on strike. I should have added that said hypothetical worker hadn't gotten a raise in several years.
nobody is owed anything. employers are not owed good employees, and employees are not owed a job or a raise. All must be earned, that is the way it is, and should be.
Huh? Guess you've never been exploited by a company through a sub-par wage or dangerous working conditions. Good for you.
If you earn something and it's not given to you, then it is owed to you. What fantasy world do you live in where employees always get what they deserve?
This is really an interesting insight into your mentality. Apparently someone's boss always does the right thing. If the employee doesn't get a raise, then they absolutely did not earn it.
Bizarre, to say the least.
Forgotten are the lessons of our past, where children were forced into labor, people were subject to horrible working conditions that KILLED them, and when AMERICANS were treated like slaves by corporate masters who knew they could exploit people who were deperate to feed their familes.
Every AMERICAN who doesn't praise unions in this country for their ability to work for a decent living in a safe environment with benefits such as family leave (or any paid leave for that matter) is a moron who is ignorant of our own country's past.
I think that was just a simple version of MarkB's "bargin" scenario, James. I'd say it works.
No, it doesn't make you an extremist, just a frigging racist!
The Free Trade Agreements didn't mean that Mexicans would come here and take our jobs. (Christ, this sounds like South Park, "They took our jobs!").
The fear was that American jobs would move to Mexico not that Mexicans would move here.
Are you really this dense?
People are being labeled extremists for questioning this direction of this administration? Remember, all tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. Education and informing the whole mass of people is the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty. Every generation needs a new revolution but I didn't foresee a Marxist revolution in America. It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own. Some people are ignorant to the radical change of what America is becoming. Others realize something is afoot and lack the courage to make a stand. Others still, stand up against the tide and are labeledas extremeists and put on The List. When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
"Savage truth"?
There's an oxymoron you don't see every day...
The only beacon of truth in a muddled mess of manipulative media is indeed Michael Savage.
Shouldn't you be receiveing a teabagging about now, Savagetrooth?
This is too delicious...
"People are being labeled extremists for questioning this direction of this administration?"
Why, no. Thanks for asking. People are being labeled extremists for hating Jews, blacks, or some other group OR rejecting the authority of the federal government AND stockpiling weapons in anticipation of committing OR making plans to commit violent acts.
"Every generation needs a new revolution but I didn't foresee a Marxist revolution in America."
Do you "see" a Marxist revolution now? If so, please visit your eye doctor or perhaps a psychiatrist?
"Others still, stand up against the tide and are labeledas extremeists and put on The List."
Or they're "labeledas" wingnuts and ridiculed online.
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
When wingnuts make sweeping generalizations, there is comedy.
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
When wingnuts make sweeping generalizations, there is comedy.
So, you find Thomas Jefferson's words and forward thinking comedic? Such as I expected from an America-hating Lib.
No, I find your ham-fisted misappropriation of Jefferson comedic. Anyone can quote Jefferson; that doesn't make him right in the argument he's advancing. You know who else quoted Jefferson. Timothy McVeigh. That's not so funny, is it?
Ouch! That had to leave a mark!
If you want to fight for freedom, head to the nearest enlistment office.
Americans have been fighting and dying since the last part of the eighteenth century to have free and fair elections and a representative government.
We've got that and just because you and your nitwit pals don't like the results, you try to wrap yourself in the flag and the founding fathers.
Your kind is nothing but scum.
From The DHS Report (U) 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.
So, if you disagree with the Federal Government you are an Extremist? This is why the 10th Amendment was written.
"The States should be left to do whatever they can do as well as the federal government"
Thomas Jefferson
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
TENTH AMENDMENT - The Tenth Amendment provides that " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. " U.S. Const. amend. X. As a textual matter, therefore, the Tenth Amendment "states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered." United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941). By its terms, the Amendment does not purport to limit the commerce power or any other enumerated power of Congress.
This is why we are sick and tired of this government! It is getting out of control, but Republicans and Democrats, these elected individuals work for us, they are not there to tell us what to do.
See you at the Tea Party near you.
Don't be dumb. The report says that some extremist groups reject the authority of the government. It doesn't say that if you disagree with the government, then you are an extremist.
You provide a reasonable, constitutional-law based critique of the increased power of the federal government. You don't (as far as I can tell) take your critique to the illogical extreme of thinking that you should therefore reject the authority of the government and plan for violence against it. So, sorry, but you are not an extremist, and the DHS report is not about you. You have no reason to associate yourself with the extremist groups the report is about.
He's being a good conservative and acting like a victim...
Mr Hebert, I gave you word for word the statment out of the document, I do not see the word "some". Yes, this report is stupid, it should have never been written, but what the fuss is about is why was this report written?
Hey! I said don't be dumb. Here is the passage you quoted "word for word:"
Now, I realize not everyone is good at math, but to make it simple, if a set called rightwing extremist groups can be "divided" into those that are "hate-oriented" and those that are "antigovernment, rejecting federal authority," then that means that some extremists hate and some extremists reject federal authority. It's okay, not everybody is good at reading comprehension either. Or logic, as has been shown above.
Good job backpedaling over a straw man, too. I'm not at all suggesting this report is stupid. I'm suggesting the wingnut reaction to this report is stupid. I think this report was written, as it states on its first page, for "federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States."
Why supposedly legitimate conservatives are lining up to see something sinister in this report is beyond me. Maybe it's because they too are bad at math, reading comprehension, and logic.
There is nothing un-American about rejecting Government authority or asserting State's rights over Federal control.
A number of states advanced that reasoning somewhen in the 17th century. They lost, read up on it sometime you faux patriot you.
Just because they lost they doesn't make them wrong.
I don't really think you're helping yourself out with that observation, loki.
Okay, but there is something rightwing and extremist about "rejecting government authority or asserting State's [sic] rights over Federal control" while preparing for violence against the government. Which is what the report is about. Once again, the report is NOT about people who object philosophically to the degree of control the federal government currently exercises. The report is about extremists. Just because some extremists favor states' rights does not mean that everyone who believes in states' rights is an extremist. You people keep getting pwned because you fail to think your way through this.
The report does not define what extremism is. It simply ostricises people based on their political affiliation. It offers no evidence of current suspect behavior of any of these so called extremist groups that justufy further scrutiny.
What definition do you need for the word "extremism", seriously? It's out of the mainstream.
I really don't know why this is that difficult for you guys to comprehend. You're working yourselves up into a frenzy about losing your guns, fascism, socialism, totalitarianism, one-world government, Sharia law, and uniform global currency (among other things, I bet). Plus the fact that Obama is black is a minor problem for white supremacy groups, by the way.
Considering that atmosphere, why is it surprising that there would be some concern about the more radical elements becoming violent? Do you deny that there's a radical fringe to your ideology? Do you deny that all this inflammatory nonsense has been thrown around in the last few months? Or do you want to claim that riled-up extremists don't pose any sort of threat whatsoever?
Oh, was the problem that you don't understand the word "extremism?"
Here: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3A+extremism
It doesn't ostracize people. It reports, for relevant government agencies, on a type of threat of terrorism so that those agencies can prevent terrorist attacks. So, again, for those who are bad at reading comprehension, this report is not about people who have a certain political affiliation. It is about groups of people who have particular rightwing beliefs AND WHO POSE A THREAT OF TERRORIST ATTACK. Sorry for yelling, but I thought maybe you would hear better.
I'm amazed at the outrage that has developed obviously only over the last 4 years, AFTER Bush was re-elected. The patriot act, warrantless wiretaps, rendition, needless war, torture, out-of-control spending...none of these could prompt current-day teabaggers to do anything other than pull the lever that sent Bush/Cheney et al back to the Whitehouse. But suddenly, the light of constitutional clarity has revealed the real world around them, and now they're inexplicably well-equipped to make complex geopolitical judgements, their first decision to go stand in a park somewhere holding tea bags in order to fix what they've determined to be unbearable civic impositions.
No, you won't see ME at the Tea Party. But the park will be rife with Mad Hatters, Alice.
I will admit you make a very valid point. where were these people protesting Bush and his band of merry spenders? silent. and now they act all fiscally concerned when they didn't give a damn for 8 years. It is pretty hypocritical, that can't be denied.
Not just silent, James. Actively SUPPORTING Bush/Cheney. And to be honest, it's not the hypocrisy that bothers me. That hypocrisy is just a symptom of what I see as a more serious illness - the "our team - your team" mentality formed out of their ignorance of the government/society symbiosis.
But I'm glad I could make the point. It's a toehold...
And then they blame Obama for causing this reaction and the lack of bi-partisanship. That's their illness, not ours.
Politics is getting so boring in this country. This is the same thing the Republicans accused the Democrats of during the Bush years; they aligned Democrats with extreme left-wing groups. So sick of it all. I think the two party system as worn out its usefulness. Why can't there be a party for moderates that has a chance to win elections.
"Why can't there be a party for moderates that has a chance to win elections."
Because so few people are willing to do the footwork necessary to build a viable third political party.
and the two parties are so entrenched and would move mountains to keep that from heppening. They would sleep with another on the floor of Congress if it meant keeping a third party from becoming viable.
When the Democrats accused the repugs it was factual, this crap going on now is blind ignorance. As far as a third party, at some point in time you gotta decide one way or the other on issues......where does a third party fit in? Is it a hodgepodge of crap? Most likely.
a decent third party wouldn't pander to their bases like the two parties do now. They jsut want to stay in power so they do anything to accomplish that. And they need to energize their core base in order to have any chance, so they demonize the other party catering to their base's fears for starters - then when they have them in the fold they go national if necessary and become more centrist to try and swing the middle their way. A decent third party would tell it like it is, hopefully, the good and bad from both sides, because there is that you know, treat voters like adults who can handle tough choices and decisions, and politicking would be secondary to doing what's right. It will never happen.
What would they stand for? For or against capital punishment. For or against gun control. For or against tax increases on the wealthiest. Party's have platforms and a third party would have to have one and they would have to stand for something.
yes they would have to stand for something, but they could definitely incorporate issues from both sides and take principled stands on them. I wouldn't want them to be wishy washy but as long as they were honest about their proposals and not try to deceive or hide what's really in them, that is more than two parties do with many of their issues now. They only use them to club the other side with during elections and then they don't touch them when decisions have to be made. Look at abortion for one, for the rightwing. During elections they pander to their base with talk of pro-life, on and on, but what has been accomplished or even worked on with any momentum from these pro-life elected officials. nothing, but the base votes for them anyway. It's pandering pure and simple.
And when they take that stand a percentage of people would agree or disagree and sides would be taken. That's what we have now, I don't agree with everything Democrats do but I do support a majority of their ideas. Same could be said for a repug......A third party offers one side or the other, that's what we have now.
Just my two cents -
I believe that in the future (within 10 years or so) a third party will emerge on the right. This party will be the party of libertarian/republicans, leaving the religious right and the rest of the far-right wackos out in the cold.
-OR-
Within the same amount of time, a party will emerge on the left. The current Democratic party will become the "moderate, middle-of-the-road" party. The new party on the left will be a more liberal party.
Again, just my two cents based on personal societal/political observations...
I think the Democrats could lock in many former Republicans that were repulsed by the "Bush Years" if democrats would never try to toy with the 2nd Amendment AND do something about illegal-immigration/amnesty. Those are two topics that Republicans are passionate about (myself included) As for everything else, for example welfare for needy people (so long as they are citizens) I am for the Dem's.
We can't let you psychos have assault weapons.
I see you're back to being a concern troll.
LOU DOBBS IS A JOKE NOW. ALL I SEE IS HATE FOR OBAMA FROM THIS SO CALLED INDEPENDENT PERSON.
So your saying that is someone is an Independent they can't dislike/disagree with elected persons?
Paranoid is one adjective we might use. Secretly guilty is another. I read the entire report and the word "Conservative" was not mentioned one time.
There's an old adage that says; "if the shoe fits, wear it". Judging by the intensity of their protests, I suggest we now know who's wearing the moccasin.
Paranoid is one adjective we might use. Secretly guilty is another. I read the entire report and the word "Conservative" was not mentioned one time.
There's an old adage that says; "if the shoe fits, wear it". Judging by the intensity of their protests, I suggest we now know who's wearing the moccasin.
"right wing extremist" sounds fairly obvious.
In our political system "right" is associated with conservative and "left" is associated with liberal. Also the issues the one issue groups they mention are traditionaly conservative issues.
I think the point was that "rightwing extremist" doesn't apply to mainstream conservatives.
The report offered no evidence for these assertions. The report said based on the political views of certain groups they should be watched more closely. That sounds a lot like what Hitler, Mao, Marx, and Lenin did.
I bet if a DHS report came out during the Bush Administration suggesting that groups like MoveOn.org, Media Matters, etc. were a potential threat based solely on their political affiliation this sight would be singing a different tune.
You people are becoming more nuttier by the second and the DHS is fearful that hundreds of Tim McVeighs may emerge.
That is insulting. Just because holds certain political does not mean they will resort terroism. Millions of people hold the political views that the DHS report singled out and have so for a very long time. Yet the extreme efforts are relatively small in number.
They're not saying that anyone will resort to terrorism "just because" of their political views. They're talking about the extreme fringe, people who take those views too far.
Actually, they did. It reported the same information about leftists groups after the Bush election because there were many people upset about the illegal appointing of our president rather than the democratic election of him. If you want to continue to align yourself with extremists then have at it, but this report does not say what you have been told and believe it says.
Ok, its official. The CIA runs Media Matters. This apologism for unconstitutional totalitarianism by the DHS behemoth is truly revolting.
OK, it's official the huckster is delusional
Well, we'd like to know what you think about all of this. Our poll question tonight is: Do you think a person concerned about borders and ports that are unsecured, illegal immigration, Second Amendment rights, or a returning veteran from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is likely or even possibly probable, as the Department of Homeland Security suggests, to be a right-wing extremist?
A whole paragraph for a question and all one gets is to say yes or no? Not even a may be?
Dobbs is just an old White guy pretending to watch for Americans (like OReilly) and CNN should be ashamed for wasting an hour of their viewers' time.
Off topic, just for fun. You know, to balance the stupefying ignorance the wingnuts have been filling this website with of late.
Conservative, Christian, Right Wing Republican, Straight, White, American, Male.
I have conservative "friends" on Facebook and they were ranting yesterday at how they were being targeted by DHS for being Christian, anti-illegal immigration, etc etc. Seriously, scared people will believe anything, and are to be watched closely. Scared people will do anything Glen Beck tells them to do. Didn't know Beck was a bi-polar Mormon. Interesting stuff.
I don't find that funny. I, for one, am glad there was no violence, even though some good Conservative on Conservative violence could be a pay per view event.
Funny how they were completely orchestrated by millionaire right wing think tank overlords from Newt Gingrich to Dick Armey. You stooges are being like cheap fiddles. You people are laughing stalks to the rest of the country who see you for the idiots you are.
If taxes suck so bad, don't pay them and give back everything you've received for your tax dollars. Give back your high school diploma, send back grandma and grandpa's medicare and social security, stop using the roads I'm proud to chip in on. Just go away you selfish p-rick and take your ridiculous rabble of tea bagging sissies with you.
"Their leftwing assessment identifies actual terrorist organizations, like the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front," House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said Wednesday. "The rightwing report uses broad generalizations about veterans, pro-life groups, federalists and supporters of gun rights. That's like saying if you love puppies, you might be susceptible to recruitment by the Animal Liberation Front. It is ridiculous and deeply offensive to millions of Americans."
That pretty-much sums it up.
First thing I thought of was neo-nazi groups but if the shoe fits!
Terrorism
Janet Napolitano reminds me of another Janet.....Reno.....She was the other pseudo-woman who gave the order to slaughter over 100 American men, women, and children, in Waco Texas. These "women" are scarier to me than many others who might wish to do us harm. Why did Napolitano single out Right Wing extremists, and ex-military personnel? Did she forget about the friend and supporter of Obama, Bill Ayers, who bombed government buildings that resulted in deaths, and those like him? These far left people SHOULD be afraid, because they are the ones destroying our American way of life. Wonder how the Leftist extremists feel about the broadened surveillance of citizens, such as wire tapping, that Obama and Napolitano have approved and implemented. The Left screamed about these tactics when President Bush used them to protect us after 9/11. Are the Radical Lefts' ramped up efforts going to be used against American citizens whom the Left fear are after their butts, or will they be used to protect AMERICA? And the beat goes on.
This is BEAUTIFUL! Let's analyze this statement.
1) It was bad under Bush but is okay now. See the lack of moral consistency. A trade mark of the left
2) The latest DHS statement uses the most nebulous terms and hints at potential violence without ANY support at all !! Vets are now terrorists, people who support state rights (like the Constitution) are terrorists. The DHS in the past focused on specifics. Can't be specific when introducing a police state.
3) Most importantly, differing political ideology is going to be criminalized. See the difference there. That's the POLICE STATE you feared under Bush but bless under Obeyme!
Consistently inconsistent, trademark of the left.