I called it, nearly a month ago. Missouri published a report that conservative organizations were possible terrorists. Now, Homeland Security has done the same. Further, they've mentioned veterans as a particular danger.
And, of course, the ACORN counter-protests at tomorrow's tea party rallies will do nothing but provide an excuse for the government to attempt to forbid conservative protests of government actions, like tax increases and stimulus spending. That attempt goes directly against the right of assembly articulated by the first amendment. Just as attempts to curtail political speech and journalism does.
The government has attempted to curtail our rights many times during the past four months. Worse, they've implied that the Bill of Rights lists government granted rights.
That is not so. In fact, the Bill of Rights lists rights inherent to being born a human being that the government is prohibited from abridging, infringing upon, curtailing, or otherwise messing with.
The Supreme Court was created by the Constitution to interpret laws as either being in line with the Constitution and Bill of Rights or as being not in line, or unconstitutional. Unfortunately, four (and sometimes a fifth) of the nine justices declare that they interpret the "living document" whose meanings change with the times with disturbing regularity.
The Constitution and its amendments were never meant to be a living document. Its meanings are fixed in the language. The constitution details what the government does. The first ten amendments detail what the federal government is restricted from doing.
In case any of my readers have forgotten, the Constitution and its amendments are linked to the right, under suggested reading. I may or may not write a blog post about the amendments, and the meaning that the Founding Fathers embedded in simple, everyday language to avoid misinterpretation by any except lawyers and congresscritters.
Then again, the Founding Fathers intended the documents to speak to us. The people. The ones who live by the laws of the land rather than flaunting them. It would almost be insulting to you if I were to explain, in plain language, what each means, what it forbids the government from doing, and why.
If you want me to write a post about it anyway, drop me a note in the comments.
36 minutes ago
HOLLY: "Missouri published a report that conservative organizations were possible terrorists."
ReplyDeleteDAR
Well that's good. I am glad GW Bush commissioned that bulletin. There are about 900 hate groups in America and almost without exception, they are very conservative and usually Christian:
See:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp
How many do you have in your state? We have 20 in my state. Nineteen are right-wing and Christian. What are the odds.
HOLLY: "Now, Homeland Security has done the same. Further, they've mentioned veterans as a particular danger."
DAR
That's good, because they really are. Being trained killers they are especially likely to be targeted by these Christian hate groups for recruitment. Plus, having been forced to listen to so much Rush Limbaugh on the Armed Services radio, it's possible they can't really think straight anymore.
Right-wing conservative terrorism (I've been to the Oklahoma City site and know people who heard the boom) aggravated by a huge population base of (often low income) trained killers, is something the US government must take seriously. This is not something to be ignored.
D.
Well, I happen to be a conservative Christian, a gun owner, and have several friends who are veterans who want nothing more than to be left to live in peace, and refuse to do more than vote. I tend to get irritated when I could be characterized as a potential terrorist. I get really upset when some twit in Washington gets her knickers in a twist because she's scared of the men and women who defend her right to defame them.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying that there aren't conservative Christian hate groups. I will, however, posit that they're less violent than conservative Muslim hate groups, or neo-Nazi white supremacy hate groups. I do not claim that the Christian groups will not become violent--individuals make up groups, and some individuals are stupid enough to permit themselves to give everyone else a bad name. Kind of like McVeigh did.
Oh, and by the way: what you said about trained killers applies to police department SWAT teams just as much as it does soldiers. If you want to stretch it, anyone who's ever hunted also qualifies as a trained killer. Does that mean most of my neighbors are possible terrorists? (I live in a real Red-state redneck area, and I love the small town I make my home in)
Seriously, I think anyone could be a terrorist, given the right motivation. However, most of us believe in the non-violent options we still have as Americans enough that we won't become that which we fight. At least, not as easily as some believe.
HOLLY: "Well, I happen to be a conservative Christian, a gun owner, and have several friends who are veterans who want nothing more than to be left to live in peace..."
ReplyDeleteDAR
Well unless they join a hate group with violent tendencies they are left in peace. And even then they are.
HOLLY: "I tend to get irritated when I could be characterized as a potential terrorist."
DAR
Everyone has the "potential," but it should be rather obvious that a combat trained military vet who has joined a rightwing conservative hate group would be more likely to present a problem.
HOLLY: "I get really upset when some twit in Washington gets her knickers in a twist because she's scared of the men and women who defend her right to defame them."
DAR
No one has defamed anyone. Perhaps you should get upset when your rightwing sources lie to you.
Note:
"Finally,... the claim that the report "singles out" all returning veterans as potential recruits for right-wing extremists [is a lie]. In reality, the report only singles out returning veterans who become active in violent hate groups.
Here's the actual language of the report:
U//FOUO) Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities. "This is, in fact, precisely accurate -- and..., this is the view not merely of DHS, but of the FBI. A July 2008 assessment of the situation by the FBI (titled White Supremacist Recruitment of Military Personnel Since 9/11) found that the numbers of identifiable neo-Nazis within the ranks was quite small (only a little over 200), but warned:
Military experience—ranging from failure at basic training to success in special operations forces—is found throughout the white supremacist extremist movement. FBI reporting indicates extremist leaders have historically favored recruiting active and former military personnel for their knowledge of firearms, explosives, and tactical skills and their access to weapons and intelligence in preparation for an anticipated war against the federal government, Jews, and people of color.
... The prestige which the extremist movement bestows upon members with military experience grants them the potential for influence beyond their numbers. Most extremist groups have some members with military experience, and those with military experience often hold positions of authority within the groups to which they belong.
... Military experience—often regardless of its length or type—distinguishes one within the extremist movement. While those with military backgrounds constitute a small percentage of white supremacist extremists, FBI investigations indicate they frequently have higher profiles within the movement, including recruitment and leadership roles.
... New groups led or significantly populated by military veterans could very likely pursue more operationally minded agendas with greater tactical confidence. In addition, the military training veterans bring to the movement and their potential to pass this training on to others can increase the ability of lone offenders to carry out violence from the movement’s fringes.
More on this here:
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/is-dhs-watching-returning-veterans
DAR
Seems rather obvious when you think about it.
HOLLY
"I'm not saying that there aren't conservative Christian hate groups."
DAR
That's good. Because as I have already shown, almost all hate groups in the US are conservative and Christian. In Arkansas it's 19 out of 20.
HOLLY
"I will, however, posit that they're less violent than conservative Muslim hate groups,..."
DAR
I have no reason to think that is true.
HOLLY:
"...or neo-Nazi white supremacy hate groups."
DAR
I have good reason to think that isn't true. Nazi's are Christian, neo or otherwise. White supremacy groups have already paid dearly for their terrorist actions, see the KKK (also Christian).
HOLLY: "...what you said about trained killers applies to police department SWAT teams just as much as it does soldiers."
DAR
Doubtful. Not like that SWAT training goes as wide or as deep in the military combat, mass destruction category.
HOLLY: "If you want to stretch it, anyone who's ever hunted also qualifies as a trained killer."
DAR
I shot a goose once, and lots of other birds. Probably best to not stretch it. Most people can see that hunting animals is rather different than being trained in military combat strategy.
HOLLY: "Does that mean most of my neighbors are possible terrorists? (I live in a real Red-state redneck area,...)"
DAR
You're probably okay but keep an eye out for suspicious behavior.
D.
Ever read Orwell? Specifically, _1984_?
ReplyDeleteIn short, government surveillance is dangerous. And yes, I do include the Patriot Act.
DAR
ReplyDeleteActually, even better, I read it IN 1984, the year I graduated high school.
Seems to me that those leading the battle *against* government surveillance and most interested in preserving rights of privacy are those on the left, ACLU, etc.
Some on the right, who apparently struggle to understand the meaning of words (not you) have thrown the word fascist at the Demo's recently. This seems bizarre to me.
Have you seen the following? It seems to remind me of the Bush admin., and certainly not the left in any way:
14 POINTS OF FASCISM
http://www.ellensplace.net/fascism.html
D.
ps. Thank you for not censoring my posts.
I do not believe in censorship. I may disagree with you on some points, but I will never silence you.
ReplyDeleteI read _1984_ in 1993--when I was fourteen, and under pretty much constant government control with the odd situation I was raised in. My mother, sibling, and I were under constant threat of removal from home: do this, or we'll remove the kids. Don't do that or we'll remove the kids. You can't teach them to believe this or we'll remove the kids. If either of them gets a job, we'll take the foodstamps away, because they'll increase the household income.
I hate big government interference in private life, on any level. Everything comes with the cable of "do it our way or we'll punish you" attached.
And really, it all starts with surveillance.