DHS Report on Right-Wing Extremism

[TW501]

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently issued a report on Right-Wing extremists warning of a potential rise in extremism. Needless to say this ruffled the feathers of a lot of conservatives who are angry about the report. I personally find the whole thing rather humorous, but I thought I'd see what others think of it. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/14/homeland-security-report_n_186834.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090416/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/napolitano_right_wing_extremists;_ylt=AtwOQV9Z9nbs ztaQQJBXVQl34T0D

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/15/AR2009041503390.html

[Fatstogey]

Isnt most of this document still classified? What was leaked was simply a summary.

Anyway of course theyre concerned about this. Because people will become violent if they cannot get things under control. So the concern is there. But they should be more focused on why someone would be a right wing extremist rather than arresting them.

What is rigth wing extremism? If i say i think the government is getting to big. Is that enough? Where is the line? What is my freedom of speech? What can i say and what cant i say?

Shit is getting ridiculous.

People are forgetting. This is America. We run the government. The government does not run us. And its getting dangerous how much our government is expanding. And the laymen doensnt understand why this is bad. They think the government can save us.

But the reason the US was the greatest country in the world. Is because we werent controlled by our government. We are now. But we started out free. And lost most of it now.
So many people think they know whats going on and they dont. My last neg rep is evidence of that, what a freaking moron he is.

We have the constitution. Its a document that specifically tells us how to keep government under control and not allow the type of rule that exists in teh rest of the world. countries that started out as monarchies. The US is the only country in the world that didnt start out that way. But we are headed there now and we need to put the breaks on and start getting our freedom back.

If that makes me a right wing extremist then so be it. And if the rest of the public is stupid enough to buy into more non existent danger. Then maybe we deserve to be where we are.

[TW501]

When they say 'Right-wing extremism' I'm pretty sure they're referring to the Timothy Mcveigh/KKK/Militia Movement types, not the average conservative. The report is also more of a warning of the threat rather than what some are portraying it as.

[Fatstogey]

When they say 'Right-wing extremism' I'm pretty sure they're referring to the Timothy Mcveigh/KKK/Militia Movement types, not the average conservative. The report is also more of a warning of the threat rather than what some are portraying it as.

For now. But this is the initial mechanism put in place to profile anyone they choose to.

The question for i have is. Do i need to be protected from Timothy Mcveigh? Will these reports stop him? I mean who are they gonna get with this? People who are openly right wing? People who speak about it? Ok so they the dudes with malicious intent are just gonna start keeping their mouths shut.

So if i speak out agains the government i am now a right wing extremist? Where is the line? Becuase they havent said where it is. And if this document is no big deal and we shouldnt worry about it. Why is it classified? I thought Obama was gonna be all about transparency. Things arent looking transparent at all yet. Its just more of the same.

Simply put this is profiling. And its extremely unlawful. And only adding fuel to the fire. They arent pouring water on it. Thats gas their pouring on it.

[Exploits]

The question for i have is. Do i need to be protected from Timothy Mcveigh? Will these reports stop him?

uhhhh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

So no I guess you're fine.

Also you're blowing this out of proportion to the same level as everyone else. This is not saying that going against the Government makes you an extremist. This is not saying that everyone who calls themselves a right-winger is an extremist as well. This is simply a document outlying the fact that due to recent events (Probably based solely on Obama's election entirely), underground extremist activities are on the rise and it should be taken note of before what I link above happens again.

Hey, if they start knocking on your neighbours door to take them away to Happy Camps, then you can worry.

I also found it ironic that many of the things McVeigh virgorously believed in reflect your own opinions to the tee. Does this mean you'll be blowing up a building with a van full of fertilizer? No.

Well, I assume no anyway.

[Fatstogey]

uhhhh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

So no I guess you're fine.

Also you're blowing this out of proportion to the same level as everyone else. This is not saying that going against the Government makes you an extremist. This is not saying that everyone who calls themselves a right-winger is an extremist as well. This is simply a document outlying the fact that due to recent events (Probably based solely on Obama's election entirely), underground extremist activities are on the rise and it should be taken note of before what I link above happens again.

Hey, if they start knocking on your neighbours door to take them away to Happy Camps, then you can worry.

I also found it ironic that many of the things McVeigh virgorously believed in reflect your own opinions to the tee. Does this mean you'll be blowing up a building with a van full of fertilizer? No.

Well, I assume no anyway.

Thats the problem. Its saying to be on the lookout for extremists but doesnt define what an extremists is. It may not be bad now. But it can be adjusted to mean whatever they want it to mean.

Its not saying that going against the government makes you an extremists. But it doesnt say what does make you an extremist either. So they can make it mean whatever they want it to mean. The point is you dont even let them get any slack at all. Cause govt will take a mile if you give them an inch. And they are taking miles by the day. They drafted this, not for whats going on now. But what they know is a possibilty in the future should they screw up. And it appears as though they are.


Man after reading this i new my by Napolitano would weigh in on it. It talks about it for the first couple minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT-BvWg3e1I

[Exploits]

Thats the problem. Its saying to be on the lookout for extremists but doesnt define what an extremists is. It may not be bad now. But it can be adjusted to mean whatever they want it to mean.

I think you're forgetting the fact that the word "extremist", like many others in the English language, happens to have its own definition. It isn't a giant paint-palette of a word that you can just toss in anywhere and however you want it. Sure, how it's used varies immensely on the times, that I can't deny, especially considering that many of the things we take for granted today (Female voting, even) would have been considered an extremist ideology 100 years ago. But it's still mostly a black-and-white term.

I can't call people that like Coke Zero extremists just because I personally like sugar in my normal Coke, basically. Much the same way that just because the governmet, in all its supposed glory, can't call the opposition party a band of juvenile extremists for opposing all of their bills.

[lelouche]

Thats the problem. Its saying to be on the lookout for extremists but doesnt define what an extremists is. It may not be bad now. But it can be adjusted to mean whatever they want it to mean.

Its not saying that going against the government makes you an extremists. But it doesnt say what does make you an extremist either. So they can make it mean whatever they want it to mean. The point is you dont even let them get any slack at all. Cause govt will take a mile if you give them an inch. And they are taking miles by the day. They drafted this, not for whats going on now. But what they know is a possibilty in the future should they screw up. And it appears as though they are.


Man after reading this i new my by Napolitano would weigh in on it. It talks about it for the first couple minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT-BvWg3e1I


I really agree with this and I know what you are trying to say. They are just trying to get the idea in peoples heads so they can use it as an excuse later to put laws or fear into place.

This is ultimately going to lead to an attempt in strict gun laws and loss of liberties. It starts small and balloons into something that will no longer be able to keep in check.

[TW501]

They've issued similar reports on left-wing extremists and extreme animal rights groups, and there haven't been any crackdowns on the general ideology, it just warned of the potential for violence. This is the same sort of thing. There are right-wing extemists and militia groups out there with the capacity to carry out violence. They can't just focus on the Islamic terrorists, they focus on all potential threats to the country. The Timothy McVeigh/Eric Rudolph types are out there, and we need to be alert to any danger they pose.

[Fatstogey]

They've issued similar reports on left-wing extremists and extreme animal rights groups, and there haven't been any crackdowns on the general ideology, it just warned of the potential for violence. This is the same sort of thing. There are right-wing extemists and militia groups out there with the capacity to carry out violence. They can't just focus on the Islamic terrorists, they focus on all potential threats to the country. The Timothy McVeigh/Eric Rudolph types are out there, and we need to be alert to any danger they pose.

Yea but your forgetting something. YOu need to be more afraid of the government than your timothy mcveigh types. I have never once in my life been affected by terrorism. But im being affected by the government a whole lot. They have this report cause things are looking down. And they know things are looking down caues they screwed up. And this needs to be in place as the people start coming around.

And similiar reports werent issued at this piont in time. With the currenct social and economic climate. Nothing is happening now. This is put in place for the future people who are gonna get fed up with the government.

People think the government is gonna protect them. The government is a huge ass junkyard dog. And if he gets too big hell bite his owner too. We need to keep the chain on this fucker.

Oh yea. The chain. Its the constitution.


Also here is the major isssue. For 1 the DHS is the most dangerous govt organization ever. Its not the fact that they are looking for extremists. The problem is that "extremist" is determined by them. Not the judiciary branch. DHS doesnt need warrants or anything. Any time DHS makes a statement like this you should shudder. Because if tehy deem you an "extremists" they dont need any warrants to arrest you. They dont need any warrants to confiscate your property. And you have no rights, when dealing with DHS. And you should be absolutely afraid of them making reports like this.

DHS should be abolished.

[TW501]

And what would you propose be made to fill its place? A lot of the agencies in the Department of Homeland Security already existed before its creation, they were just scattered through other departments. I am all for providing more restrictions and oversight of the organization, but the fear and dread some seem to have towards doesn't seem to be rather unfounded to me. It's all a matter of perspective. When the DHS was profiling potential islamic extremist groups and environmental extemists, a lot of the conservative groups now deriding the DHS were overhwelmingly supportive of its actions. I imagine the level of support also depends on where you live. Where you live it might seem unnecessary, but for me, as someone who lives in an area of vital economic and national security importance, I would rather have the DHS than not have it.

[Fatstogey]

And what would you propose be made to fill its place? A lot of the agencies in the Department of Homeland Security already existed before its creation, they were just scattered through other departments. I am all for providing more restrictions and oversight of the organization, but the fear and dread some seem to have towards doesn't seem to be rather unfounded to me. It's all a matter of perspective. When the DHS was profiling potential islamic extremist groups and environmental extemists, a lot of the conservative groups now deriding the DHS were overhwelmingly supportive of its actions. I imagine the level of support also depends on where you live. Where you live it might seem unnecessary, but for me, as someone who lives in an area of vital economic and national security importance, I would rather have the DHS than not have it.

Because. We already had 1. FBI. DHS is just the FBI skipping the judiciary branch of our government. That is the problem. DHS is an illegal organization. I dont care if their actions are nefarious or not. The entire concept is illegal from teh word go.

[TW501]

As I said before, most agencies in the DHS already existed in other departments before the DHS was created. While there certainly is legitimate criticism of some of its actions, I don't see how the concept itself is illegal.

[Fatstogey]

As I said before, most agencies in the DHS already existed in other departments before the DHS was created. While there certainly is legitimate criticism of some of its actions, I don't see how the concept itself is illegal.

Because the DHS doesnt need the courts for anything. You are not innocent until proven guilty. You dont have the right to a fair and speedy trial. You dont get a lawyer. You dont get a phone call. They break the law to enforce the law.

Other agencies kinda bend the law some times. DHS is above the law. That is a serious problem. And people need to be aware of it.


I found a great example. This dude got his ass whooped. And he was called a terrorist. And he was told "the constitution doesnt apply here." LOL im glad i found this. This is an excellent example.

LMAO if they can call this Pastor a terrorist. HOly shit they could call anyone an extremists. Thats even less defined than terrorist is. And their calling US citizens terrorists. Thats what this document is saying to them. Stop calling citizens terrorists. Now we call them extremists in order to remove their rights and detain them against their will. lol


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYTf-Pht3Bc

[TW501]

I find that guy's testimony highly suspect. I very much doubt it went down the way he claimed. I don't know what happened after the video, but that guy was clearly being rather difficult and antagonistic towards the checkpoint guards, which would of course raise suspicion. I don't really know what he was ranting about, as I live nearby a border crossing where cars are regularly searched. Even if his rather sensationalized account is true, it seems more a result of asshole checkpoint guards rather than a result of 'government expansion' or the DHS report. The way they're talking about it, you'd think that the orders to beat the guy up came straight from the top. The fact that this is Fox only further diminishes the credibility. I'd like very much to see an article about this from another source to get a better understanding of this incident.

(oh, and watch the double post; use edit next time)

[Fatstogey]

I find that guy's testimony highly suspect. I very much doubt it went down the way he claimed. I don't know what happened after the video, but that guy was clearly being rather difficult and antagonistic towards the checkpoint guards, which would of course raise suspicion. I don't really know what he was ranting about, as I live nearby a border crossing where cars are regularly searched. Even if his rather sensationalized account is true, it seems more a result of asshole checkpoint guards rather than a result of 'government expansion' or the DHS report. The way they're talking about it, you'd think that the orders to beat the guy up came straight from the top. The fact that this is Fox only further diminishes the credibility. I'd like very much to see an article about this from another source to get a better understanding of this incident.

(oh, and watch the double post; use edit next time)

That is what he is standing up for. That is against the law.

Your failing to see the bigger picture. The DHS report encourages law enforcement to profile and say "well i think your a terrorist." Yea well if you say that to me, godamn i would wanna hit that motherfucker in teh face.

Its the snowball effect and this is just the beginning. And we have precedent as well because this is just a new cycle in our never ending cycle of stupidity. We fight for freedom then give it up for security, then fight for freedom and give it up for security, then fight for freedom... Its happened before.

it would be MUCH safer if they just stopped every single car and searched it. But that is against the law. As is randomly selecting cars to be searched. And the mans attitude plays no role in what their abilities to enforce the law are. He could be as much of an asshole as he wants. That means he doesnt have the rights of a US citizen?

You dont seem to know but ill tell you that cops get you to forget or relinquish your rights all the time. This guy had obviously been at these checkpoints multiple times and was fed up. And because he has an attitude with law enforcement, who are totally in the wrong and fully against the constitution, hes now able to be profiled as a terrorist or extremist who isnt cooperating with law enforcement. But Law enforcement isnt upholding the constitution. They do whatever they wanna do.

Then release themselves of guilt by saying "its my job." Theres a DHS report, its what im supposed to do. Im just doing my job protecting you.

I DONT FUCKING NEED YOU TO PROTECT ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is extortion. Well protect you from terrorists if you relinquish your own rights as a us citizen. Fuck you. You cant search shit. Im not saying shit to you. I dont care if ive done nothing wrong. They dont have the right. They think they can do whatever they want to stop terrorism. Then some guy who pisses them off cause hes a smart ass then becomes a terrorist?

If that dude called me a damn terrorist when in actuality he is the terrorist. I may have flipped my lid.

I think your a lil too socialist to understand it though. you think government can solve our problems and i think government(well i actually know becauswe the constitution outlines and calls for prevention of our current predicament) getting too big is causing our problems. And only gonna make them worst.

[TW501]

Don't get me wrong, if what that guy says is true, the guards were clearly in the wrong, I'm just saying that it is more the result of belligerant guards than any official policy or trend (if what the lawyer says is true, that checkpoint had similar issues in the past). I have some doubts about the guy's account of things too.

As for searches, I don't consider it any more than a minor inconvenience to have my car occasionally searched when I go across the checkpoint. To you it may seem extreme, but in an area with regular border crossings, it is no different from having your luggage screened at an airport. I don't know how it is where you are, but as someone living in an area of significant national security importance, I'd prefer to have occasional random car searches rather than having a largely unchecked flow across the border without serious checkpoints. It's a hassle sometimes, but it does no real harm.

If you don't want to be subjected to an occasional search, just don't take a route requiring you to pass through a checkpoint. The key word in checkpoint is check; that's the point of them. Since checkpoints are specifically designed to prevent the passage of illicit goods and criminals, they would be rather pointless if the people operating them had no power of investigation.

Finally, you're mistaking abuse by guards for regular policy and attempts to take away rights. While I wouldn't deny that some of our rights have been strained over the past few years, checkpoints and border crossings have always undergone occasional searches. I remember going into canada on several occasions when I was younger (before the DHS even existed) and there were some minor searches.
You seem to be relying on the slippery slope argument for your claims, the logical fallacy that if a minor change occurs, it inevitably leads to a chain of events that will lead to a significant impact. "If we let gays get married soon people and dogs can get married." "If we don't have school prayer our society will lose its morality." "If we let Vietnam fall communist, all of SE asia will." "If we put more regulations on irresponsible industry practices, it will inevitably lead to total government control of business." "If we let security checkpoints and border crossings perform searches of vehicles we'll eventually lose all of our rights and have our citizenship stripped away."
You're drawing connections between unconnected events. This incident didn't have to due with the DHS report, which had nothing to do with this or any similar incidents. It only warns law enforcement of a potentially increased threat from extremists, not put profiling into practice. There wasn't nearly as much outrage over previous reports issued by the DHS. The only reason this one is so overblown is because it identifies right-wing extremists as a potential threat when before it was left-wing extremists, extreme environmental groups, and Islamic fundamentalist groups that were being reported as threats. Fox news and pundits certainly couldn't acknowledge that some of the fringe groups on their side of the political spectrum may be violent, and thus raised a huge protest over a rather mundane report.

As for your last comment, I never said that I believe government should solve all problems, but I certainly believe that a government has some degree of responsibility to look after its citizens. Does this mean I automatically accept everything the government does? No, of course not. But I don't outright reject all moves made by the government either. If you consider someone like me to be a socialist, then you have a pretty broad definition of socialism. Not everything that at all resembles socialism is necessarily bad. Scandinavian countries are considered to be democratic socialist countries and they have extremely high standards of living. Even in the United States we have always had institutions that could technically be considered socialist. Public schools, road maintenance, law enforcement, park management, etc. could all be considered to be socialist by some definitions, yet few would argue against them (maybe against how they are managed, but not the very principle). So basically, unless you're living in a unabomber-style shack, you probably benefit from the same type of stuff you so broadly deride.

[Fatstogey]

Don't get me wrong, if what that guy says is true, the guards were clearly in the wrong, I'm just saying that it is more the result of belligerant guards than any official policy or trend (if what the lawyer says is true, that checkpoint had similar issues in the past). I have some doubts about the guy's account of things too. People used to have doubts that the LAPD was beating the shit outta people on a regular basis. Then they found out otherwise. Also its not just border checkpoints its any law enforcement.

As for searches, I don't consider it any more than a minor inconvenience to have my car occasionally searched when I go across the checkpoint. To you it may seem extreme, but in an area with regular border crossings, it is no different from having your luggage screened at an airport. I don't know how it is where you are, but as someone living in an area of significant national security importance, I'd prefer to have occasional random car searches rather than having a largely unchecked flow across the border without serious checkpoints. It's a hassle sometimes, but it does no real harm.To me i would think. WTF would i do if i was going to meet a contracter about a $150,000 dollar job. Now im running late because some jackass checkpoint mall gaurd has nothing better to do than harass me. With no reason.

And again. Its all excuse. They use these check points to enforce all the govt control. Just like the dude with cash in that airport. Go through that check point with $4000 cash and nothing else. And see what they do. You will be profiled IMMEDIATELY as a drug dealer. With no proof and not even probable cause. And its not just check points. And its not a matter of security. Freedom is more important than security.

If you don't want to be subjected to an occasional search, just don't take a route requiring you to pass through a checkpoint. The key word in checkpoint is check; that's the point of them. Since checkpoints are specifically designed to prevent the passage of illicit goods and criminals, they would be rather pointless if the people operating them had no power of investigation.
It doesnt matter what the point of the check point is. It doesnt matter if they save the entire universe. I dont care if they stop 50 murderers a year at this checkpoint. If what they are doign is illegal, it is, they should be going int he same cell with the people they are arresting. As a matter of fact i consider it to be a much more serious crime than selling drugs.

Finally, you're mistaking abuse by guards for regular policy and attempts to take away rights. While I wouldn't deny that some of our rights have been strained over the past few years, checkpoints and border crossings have always undergone occasional searches. I remember going into canada on several occasions when I was younger (before the DHS even existed) and there were some minor searches.Well i have experience with cops who simply dont like me, based on their gut, and intent to pin something on you when youve done nothing wrong.

Simply because you wont give them the information they want. Someone i knew had apparently backed into a car in the parking lot. When we came back cops where there (For a fucking scratched bumper) and because he knew that i knew who did it and wasnt gonna say he gave me a field side sobriety test. So basically because i was being evasive (which is well within my constitutional rights) he tries to get me to screw up on a field sobriety test with 0 probable cause.

These reports are excuses put in place. They dont have to train them to do it. They train themselves. They dont think of wrong or right. If some paper tells them they can do whatever they want if they suspect a terrorist or extremists that theyll use that anytime they feel a gut feeling to fuck with someone. Any time they are pissed. Or anytime someone is using their rights to make his job more difficult. They can just say "ok well if you dont let me search your car then your a terrorist and ill arrest you." I have a gun. Id rather deal with a terrorist than a cop trying to put me in jail for no reason.

And idk what world you live in but they sure as fuck will try to put you in jail for no reason. I know it for a fact.

You seem to be relying on the slippery slope argument for your claims, the logical fallacy that if a minor change occurs, it inevitably leads to a chain of events that will lead to a significant impact. "If we let gays get married soon people and dogs can get married." "If we don't have school prayer our society will lose its morality." "If we let Vietnam fall communist, all of SE asia will." "If we put more regulations on irresponsible industry practices, it will inevitably lead to total government control of business." "If we let security checkpoints and border crossings perform searches of vehicles we'll eventually lose all of our rights and have our citizenship stripped away."

But none of your examples are the same as government. And it is absolutely a slippery slope. And i think your being too willing to allow this in the name of security. I have been harassed by cops. But ive never been bothered by a terrorist in my life.

You're drawing connections between unconnected events. This incident didn't have to due with the DHS report, which had nothing to do with this or any similar incidents. It only warns law enforcement of a potentially increased threat from extremists, not put profiling into practice. There wasn't nearly as much outrage over previous reports issued by the DHS. The only reason this one is so overblown is because it identifies right-wing extremists as a potential threat when before it was left-wing extremists, extreme environmental groups, and Islamic fundamentalist groups that were being reported as threats. Fox news and pundits certainly couldn't acknowledge that some of the fringe groups on their side of the political spectrum may be violent, and thus raised a huge protest over a rather mundane report.

Its the same issue. Is about law enforcement bullying people out of their rights. Its happening more and more often. However once you have the current generation brought up with these views become law enforcement. Thats when the real problems start.

As for your last comment, I never said that I believe government should solve all problems, but I certainly believe that a government has some degree of responsibility to look after its citizens. Does this mean I automatically accept everything the government does? No, of course not. But I don't outright reject all moves made by the government either. If you consider someone like me to be a socialist, then you have a pretty broad definition of socialism. Not everything that at all resembles socialism is necessarily bad. Scandinavian countries are considered to be democratic socialist countries and they have extremely high standards of living. Even in the United States we have always had institutions that could technically be considered socialist. Public schools, road maintenance, law enforcement, park management, etc. could all be considered to be socialist by some definitions, yet few would argue against them (maybe against how they are managed, but not the very principle). So basically, unless you're living in a unabomber-style shack, you probably benefit from the same type of stuff you so broadly deride.

Socialism wont work on the scale of the US.

Also the services you named arent socialists. Your mixing state and federal government together. Law enforcement is up to the state. Park management, up to the state. Public schools go by county. The problem we have is federal government. Thats why we designed a system with more power for the state. So that the federal government wouldnt get too big. Because this is ALWAYS a bad thing.

Always. Because when government gets involved with business its always a problem. Because the money the government uses isnt theirs. Its ours. So if they lose it they dont care.

We are supposed to have a free market. And in that free market people strive for success. People are motivated to make a profit. Govt is not. They get to make investments with our money. And bad investments at that. Would you buy GM stock right now? Doesnt matter because we both already have. Against our will. And the company is failing. And that is a perfect example of the govt wasting BILLIONS of dollars. The govt is a wasteful organization and always has been and always will be.

The Govt needs to do what only the govt can do. And no more than that.

[TW501]

Freedom is more important than security.
I absolutely agree with you, but I don't consider checkpoints to be taking away any of my freedoms. It really has had no effect on my life (and it's not like its some new system devised just recently; they've always had security checkpoints in sensitive areas). I see this more as paranoia on the part of the right side of the political spectrum rather than any actual reduction of freedom. Freedom may be more important than security, but placating paranoid individuals with too much pride and self-righteousness to go through checkpoints is not more important than security.
To me i would think. WTF would i do if i was going to meet a contracter about a $150,000 dollar job. Now im running late because some jackass checkpoint mall gaurd has nothing better to do than harass me. With no reason.
Do you honestly believe that they're just doing it for the hell of it? Is it entirely possible that these are humans who are just trying to do their jobs rather than working to subvert freedom (and more importantly, make you late for work).
Just like the dude with cash in that airport. Go through that check point with $4000 cash and nothing else. And see what they do. You will be profiled IMMEDIATELY as a drug dealer. With no proof and not even probable cause.
...and you don't see anything at all suspicious about a guy with no luggage but with huge sums of money trying to pass through a security point? If you were a security guard, how would you react to something like that?
Well i have experience with cops who simply dont like me, based on their gut, and intent to pin something on you when youve done nothing wrong.

Simply because you wont give them the information they want. Someone i knew had apparently backed into a car in the parking lot. When we came back cops where there (For a fucking scratched bumper) and because he knew that i knew who did it and wasnt gonna say he gave me a field side sobriety test. So basically because i was being evasive (which is well within my constitutional rights) he tries to get me to screw up on a field sobriety test with 0 probable cause.

Again, you're confusing improper actions by individual policemen for official policy. Most of the police officers I've met have been very professional and not at all abusive, but I doubt that would convince you any more than your tales of police abuse convince me. Also, did you consider the possibility that this might not all be a plot to catch you? I'm sure there have been officers who overstep their authority, but what do they have to gain from constantly targeting you? Additionally, while it wouldn't justify some of your claims, if you were acting evasive or stubborn it would certainly make you seem rather suspicious. What I'm getting at is that police officers are just people trying to do their jobs and inevitably sometimes doing it wrong or poorly. They're not all agents of the government out to get you for no reason, they're just trying to do their jobs.
Socialism wont work on the scale of the US.
I'm not saying it would, but people get a bit too panicky at the slightest suggestion of anything vaguely socialist. To the people who blindly denounce a broad range of policies as socialist, their mode of thinking is that if it's pink it's red. If it at all resembles socialism in any way shape or form we'd might as well be living in the old soviet union.
Also the services you named arent socialists. Your mixing state and federal government together. Law enforcement is up to the state. Park management, up to the state. Public schools go by county.
No, they're not socialist by the usual definition, I was refering to the broadest definition (means of production (which doesn't just mean industrial and business but infrastructure and similar things) collectively owned by society, which of course is done through goverment). I did this to point out the absurdity of labeling things socialist as a scare tactic.
The problem we have is federal government. Thats why we designed a system with more power for the state. So that the federal government wouldnt get too big. Because this is ALWAYS a bad thing.


The current constitution was created because the states originally had too much power, and so our current constitution actually expanded the power of federal government. There are certainly powers reserved for the state governments, but the national government has power allocated to them as well. There are a lot of different ways to interperet the constitution, and none are inherently correct. Some interperetations would have stronger state governments, others would have stronger national government, others would seek to weaken both. You obviously have a political philosophy that opposes governmental power, so of course your interperetation of the constitution will reflect that, just as the other political philosophies interperet it in ways that suit theirs. Keep in mind that just because things don't fit your definition of government's role doesn't inherently make them wrong.

[Fatstogey]

I absolutely agree with you, but I don't consider checkpoints to be taking away any of my freedoms. It really has had no effect on my life (and it's not like its some new system devised just recently; they've always had security checkpoints in sensitive areas). I see this more as paranoia on the part of the right side of the political spectrum rather than any actual reduction of freedom. Freedom may be more important than security, but placating paranoid individuals with too much pride and self-righteousness to go through checkpoints is not more important than security. the problem is they will keep pushing. The less rights we have the easier their jobs are. If people dont get pissed about checkpoints then theyll see how much farther they can go. Theyll never bee happy with a check point. They will take it as far as we allow them to. Because any govt ALWAYS will.

Do you honestly believe that they're just doing it for the hell of it? Is it entirely possible that these are humans who are just trying to do their jobs rather than working to subvert freedom (and more importantly, make you late for work). They dont know what they are doing. They just do what they are told. They are removed from responsibility. Because its their job.

...and you don't see anything at all suspicious about a guy with no luggage but with huge sums of money trying to pass through a security point? If you were a security guard, how would you react to something like that?
It doesnt matter. Because its not against the law to carry cash around. Up to $10,000. I dont care how suspicious it is. By law they have no recourse unless your carrying $10,000 or more.

Again, you're confusing improper actions by individual policemen for official policy. Most of the police officers I've met have been very professional and not at all abusive, but I doubt that would convince you any more than your tales of police abuse convince me. Also, did you consider the possibility that this might not all be a plot to catch you? I'm sure there have been officers who overstep their authority, but what do they have to gain from constantly targeting you? Additionally, while it wouldn't justify some of your claims, if you were acting evasive or stubborn it would certainly make you seem rather suspicious. What I'm getting at is that police officers are just people trying to do their jobs and inevitably sometimes doing it wrong or poorly. They're not all agents of the government out to get you for no reason, they're just trying to do their jobs.
Doesnt matter how suspicious i am. I am within my lawful rights. And intend to push that boundary any time i am engaged by law enforcement.

I'm not saying it would, but people get a bit too panicky at the slightest suggestion of anything vaguely socialist. To the people who blindly denounce a broad range of policies as socialist, their mode of thinking is that if it's pink it's red. If it at all resembles socialism in any way shape or form we'd might as well be living in the old soviet union. But the country isnt vaguely socialist. We are already socialist.

No, they're not socialist by the usual definition, I was refering to the broadest definition (means of production (which doesn't just mean industrial and business but infrastructure and similar things) collectively owned by society, which of course is done through goverment). I did this to point out the absurdity of labeling things socialist as a scare tactic. Were well on our way. Govt is gaining controlling interest in business every single day. They are extorting banks into accepting tarp funds. By threatening to audit them if they dont. They are absolutely becoming increasingly socialist. AT an alarming rate.

The current constitution was created because the states originally had too much power, and so our current constitution actually expanded the power of federal government. There are certainly powers reserved for the state governments, but the national government has power allocated to them as well. There are a lot of different ways to interperet the constitution, and none are inherently correct. Some interperetations would have stronger state governments, others would have stronger national government, others would seek to weaken both. You obviously have a political philosophy that opposes governmental power, so of course your interperetation of the constitution will reflect that, just as the other political philosophies interperet it in ways that suit theirs. Keep in mind that just because things don't fit your definition of government's role doesn't inherently make them wrong.

LOL there is no interpretation of the constitution. And no it wasnt created to take power from the states. It was meant to restrict the power of the federal govt. And its not my definition that the doesnt fit. Its clearly defined in the constitution. The constitution was created to keep the govt bound up. Once we get to a point where the goverment is spending more than the people, in the name of the people. That is socialist.

If the govt becomes the largest business in the US, it already is, that is socialism. The govt has become a business. Its meant to keep people from being fraudulently taken advatage of. Not to interpret contracts and regulate salaries and profit. That is socialism. And they are doing it now.

And its not left or right. Democratic or Republican. Its american. All we need to do to correct our current situation is to follow the guidelines laid out in teh constitiution.

The constitution was created to avoid a govt like Englands was when we left. And our govt is dying to become like the English govt was. But theyll find out why people rebelled against this govt. People are forgetting that millions fought and died for the freedoms your so willing to give up. We are a disgrace to those people. To our fore fathers. Who told us very specifically how to prevent our current predicament. We didnt listen. and now we are headed down big time. The market is gonna crash here in a year or 2 and its gonna be devastating.

We've been so busy trying to lower costs that we dont produce anything now. And when the world wide market contracts we wont have much to offer. We got farm land and coal. Thats about all we offer the world. We used to produce but china does that for us now. And these statemnts and documents being created to day(which arent legally law) are in place for the bad times to come. And they dont hope times get bad. But they do understand that what they are doing is very risky. And they need these things in place when the people start to realize whats going on.

Thank god we all have guns. lol

Firearms are second in importance only to the constitution. Firearms are the peoples liberties teeth.

Bite those motherfuckers! lol

Also the Gov. of texas mentioned succession. I am so fucking down with that. And fools now adays think succession is un american.

I say hello asshole america was created due to succession from england. Our countries existence is a succession. And i dont think there is any concept mroe american than succession.

Its not bad enough now. But states do need to start reminding the FED that they can succeed. Thats all the gov of texas was doing. Just saying "hey dont forget we can walk out the damn door with all this ridiculous shit your doing."

[TW501]

LOL there is no interpretation of the constitution.
Well of course everyone thinks that their interperetation is the sole correct one. The constitution was intentionally made nonspecific in certain areas so that it would still be applicable in the future (the US constitution is actually the shortest of any major modern nation). There would be no debate on the matter if there weren't multiple ways to interperet the constitutions. That's actually the main job of the supreme court, to interperet the constitution. Of course every single group believes that their's is the sole correct interperetation.
And no it wasnt created to take power from the states
Taking power from the states was not the primary intent, but it did indeed expand the power of the federal government. The original constitution, The Articles of Confederation, gave much more power to the states and had a rather weak central government. The government had very little authority, and lacked a lot of the powers granted by the current constitution. The Articles of Confederation made unified foreign policy difficult, had too little authority for the federal government, and gave the central government no power over commerce and taxation (this was actually one of the primary reasons for the creation of the current constitution, lack of power).
It was meant to restrict the power of the federal govt.
It does do that, but the Articles of Confederation which were done away with by the founding fathers had greater restrictions on the federal government, so in essence replacing the Articles of Confederation with the US constitution expanded the power of the federal government.

It's not my intention to say that there aren't constitutional limits on the government, there absolutely are, I'm just saying that it's not as anti-federal government as you claim. In fact, it was the federalists who were the driving force behind the current constitution.
Also the Gov. of texas mentioned succession. I am so fucking down with that.
Yeah, because the last time a bunch of Southerners decided it would be an awesome idea to secede, it worked out so well for them.

[arishkegal]

I think that we would go down a slippery slope when we focus on one group of people and call them anti-government because they are expressing their viewpoints which are outside the norm. Bush and his "patriot act" started to make it acceptable for government to invade people's private lives. My point is this, I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. Military personnel of every race, nationality and creed risk their lives to defend the constitution. This includes gays, right wingers, left wingers, wiccans, hindu and muslims. Yet, some groups are targeted. This brings to mind a poem written by Martin Niemoller, an intellectual during the time of Nazi Germany, talking about how they purged each group:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.

.....Something to think about

[TW501]

I think that we would go down a slippery slope when we focus on one group of people and call them anti-government because they are expressing their viewpoints which are outside the norm.
But that's not what this report does. It doesn't target the ideology, it targets the violent practitioners of it. It doesn't restrict any freedom, it doesn't profile conservatives, it doesn't lock anybody up, it doesn't give the government any expanded powers, it doesn't do anything remotely like what people are claiming it to be. It is quite simply a report given to law enforcement agencies on the prospect of increased violent right-wing extremism.

The outrage over this manufactured controversey is purely political. The reason conservative leaders and pundits are obsessing over this is clear; they're basically saying "See? The democrats are trying to profile all conservatives and proclaim us criminals! You'd better vote republican next election if you don't want your rights taken away!" This is despite the fact that the report was started under Bush.
When they issued a similar report about environmental and animal rights extremists, I didn't go into panic mode the way conservatives are even though I am an environmentalist. Every group has violent extremists, and this report doesn't label all conservatives as terrorists anymore than reports on al-Qaeda make all muslims terrorists.
It's a manufactured controversy designed to whip up fear among conservatives even though the report only warns law enforcement of a potential rise in right-wing extremism, and given the violent actions of right-wing extremists in the past, I think it would be a mistake to ignore it. Here are a few examples of the type of extremism the report is trying to prevent.

1984- Attorney and radio talk-show host Alan Berg killed by a white nationalist group, The Order for his liberal positions.
1984- Thomas Bernard Brigham bombed a train station that killed three people and injured 40.
1985- David Lewis Rice stabs a family of four people to death, believing they were jews and communists.
1985- Michael Bray arrested for attempting to bomb several abortion clinics.
1995- Timothy McVeigh commits the Oklahoma City Bombing, killing 168 people.
1996-1998- Eric Rudolph commits a series of bombings against the Olympics, gay night clubs, and abortion clinics that killed 2 and injured 150.
1998- James Charles Kopp murdered an abortion doctor.
1999- Claytn Waagner plotted to bomb several abortion clinics.
2001- Irv Rubin and several conspirators plotted to blow up a mosque, government buildings, and the office of a US representative.
This is just a sampling of some of the recent examples, and does not include all of the other murders carried out by the KKK and similar groups. Just past few months there were several shootings by right-wing extremists, and last year there was a shooting in a liberal church by an extremist. In light of this sort of thing, it would be foolish to ignore the threat posed.

[arishkegal]

The outrage over this manufactured controversey is purely political. The reason conservative leaders and pundits are obsessing over this is clear; they're basically saying "See? The democrats are trying to profile all conservatives and proclaim us criminals! You'd better vote republican next election if you don't want your rights taken away!" This is despite the fact that the report was started under Bush.

See, that is what we have to avoid, it isn't based on what political party you are affiliated with, because the 2 party system doesn't really offer any choices. The Republicans and Democrats are 2 sides of the same coin, they want to retain power by any means necessary. Voting for either one of them is like voting for which way you want to get screwed, I'm personally cynical about the whole system, even the Independent party is not strong enough make a real difference, they are just election spoilers, just like Ralph Nader was blamed for taking votes away from Gore which led to Bush being elected.

But that's not what this report does. It doesn't target the ideology, it targets the violent practitioners of it. It doesn't restrict any freedom, it doesn't profile conservatives, it doesn't lock anybody up, it doesn't give the government any expanded powers, it doesn't do anything remotely like what people are claiming it to be. It is quite simply a report given to law enforcement agencies on the prospect of increased violent right-wing extremism.


We need to be careful to make sure that this does not become a slippery slope either, we usually start targeting the violent practioners, then when they are eliminated, the government keeps an eye on the other groups with similar ideaology. It does happen, all we need is a large incident like 9/11 to happen again, except have the perpetrators be domestic terrorists and we will see the targeting excalate.

I'm not saying that all law enforcement is bad, it is when the citizens are complacent and allow intrusion by the government into their lives for the sake of "security" that is when it becomes dangerous. We want cameras and everything else to feel safe, then the government will become big brother. Remember when Bush started the wiretapping of phones through the telecommunications companies, it was meant to catch the terrorists, but regular citizens were being wiretapped as well.

[TW501]

What would you suggest then? If a report on right-wing extremism is too much, what measures should be taken? These people are out there, and likely growing in influence. How would you combat the problem?

[arishkegal]

First of all, I'm not stating that the report is too much. Earlier in the thread, different searches and procedures by police were discussed. Police is necessary to keep the peace, the government is necessary to carry out laws and enforce them. We have a free and open republic which we enjoy. When we have a government who always seems to be at war, Iraq, Afganistan, then Iraq again, that government uses fear to convince its citizens that more stricter laws are needed to weed out the enemy. We know that the world is not always peaceful, but do we need to live in constant fear? I lived in NYC all my life, and personally witnessed the 9/11 attacks as they were happening, so I would be the first canidate for "more security". But when we talk about having national guard stationed in the city, right after the attacks, it was a psychological thing where we felt more secure with them there. People actually got used to seeing troops all over the place, and that is dangerous because all we need is the wrong person, people, political party or whatever to use that for a power grab, which happened during the Bush terms with the patriot act, wiretapping, Guantanamo Bay and the abolishment of habeas corpus for "enemies of the state".

Because of what I experienced, I don't know what the solution is, but we have to hold strong to the constitution, which will guard us against tyranny because that is what the founding fathers wrote it for, along with the Declaration of Independence. However, when we see a threat we want to be protected from it. For the founding fathers, the enemy was lack of freedom and repression from England. For us, it is terrorists or people who want to blow up buildings.

We need the government to issue reports, but when the mass media likes to sensationalize things so they can get ratings and sell newspapers, it can whip the public into a state of fear. That is the only problem I have, because we have a 24 hour news cycle. I think the biggest asset is the media because of freedom of information, but it can be the biggest threat as well being used as a tool of the government to control the citizens.

I like discussions like these because we can get different points of view and different solutions.

[TW501]

I agree. In principle, the fears being voiced are (usually) sound, but it's complete overreaction to a rather mundane (albeit poorly worded) report. The whole thing has become way too politicized. Even several on the republican side (including Ron Paul) have admitted that it has become a primarily political issue.

[Fatstogey]

What would you suggest then? If a report on right-wing extremism is too much, what measures should be taken? These people are out there, and likely growing in influence. How would you combat the problem?

No measures should be taken. The chances of dying by terrorism are just the facts of life. We dont have to do anything. Maintain security at the borders, the airports, and commercial shipping.

Also a couple posts up your referencing extremists. But those are not broadly defined extremists. They were fucking nut jobs. Im an extremists in that I think the government is vastly over stepping its powers all over the place. But that doesnt mean im gonna bomb somebody. Those people were fucking crazy.

What im telling you is that this is the way govt, any govt, ALWAYS operates. If you give them a little theyll take a mile.

You - "im scared, protect me"
Govt - "sure no problem, just get in this cage and we'll lock the door, youll be safe and sound."

And the govt will use fear to manipulate people.

I have never seen a terrorst or extremists.
My life has never been affected by either group.

I dont need protection from them. I need protection from the govt. I can shoot a terrorist if he tries to kill me. I can shoot an extremists as well. But i cant do anything against the govt. They are removing your rights to protect you from a MINUTE!!!!!!!!!!!! threat. A threat that youll most likely never see in your lifetime. But you will see a BP officer try to search your car for no reason.

If that fucking asshole called me a terrorist i woulda fucking punched him in the face.

Brings me to "Patriotism is a virtue of the wicked." Oscar Wilde.
However im more "Patriotism is a tool of the wicked." ME

Because i would consider myself patriotic without being prejudiced to other cultures or views. But they will use patriotism as a tool. To make people angry against these supposed enemies of the state that I, nor you, have ever seen or will ever see.

We dont need protection from the govt. When you say "what would you suggest then." It tells me that you feel something must be done. Meaning their manipulation is working perfectly on you. Because you feel something must be done. About this problem that doesnt exist in your, or my, life.

You gotta stop listening to what they say. Terrorist are not coming to get you.

Oh and if they are. Guess why? Weve been fucking with their affairs in the middle east for the last 50+ years. WE view them as terrorists.

Open your eyes. And step in their shoes. From their eyes we are the terrorists. We have had FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA A|
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR greater impacts in their countries than theyve had in ours. So id say we are much better at being terrorists as they are.

We put all these middle eastern dictators in power. Saddam Hussein? We put him in power. We gave Bin Laden power. We put the shaw in power.

We have been in their business and bombing them for years.

I was playing an online video game on ps3 yestereday. The topic of discussion went political. Then on to the war. ONe of the guys was in the army and had already had multiple deployments in Iraq. He said he didnt mind but he wished more people joined the army so he could have longer leave time.

Anyway i stated that we were the terrorist in their country. And this dude at first got offended then as i explained he kinda came around. "yea thats kinda true."

He was saying "but my friends have died, and if we dont finish teh job they will have died in vien." To which i replied.

Ok so now people have died, FAR more of theirs than ours by the way. So we are trying to justify their deahts, by sending more people to die and kill? That makes absolutely no sense. But thats as far as humans take it. He never though that maybe his buddys died because they were in someone elses country killing them. I mean HOW DARE THEY KILL US AFTER WE INVADE THEIR COUNTRY.

?????????????????????????? WHAT?????????????????????????

People actually fucking think this way. And with those lines of thinking i dont want this report defining anything as acceptable because its human nature to then blow that completely out of proportion.

It doesnt mean it will. But id rather avoid the opportunity all together.

[Yadomaru]

Never thought I'd agree with stogey on a political issue, but there you have it.
By and large, I agree wholeheartedly, most especially with what you say in the last two paragraphs - it is stupid and it frightens me.
Though I wouldn't say that thinking the government is overstepping its powers necessarily makes you an extremist. But that's my opinion.

I agree. In principle, the fears being voiced are (usually) sound, but it's complete overreaction to a rather mundane (albeit poorly worded) report. The whole thing has become way too politicized. Even several on the republican side (including Ron Paul) have admitted that it has become a primarily political issue.
Again, totally agree. This whole so-called controversy is ridiculous.

[arishkegal]

We put all these middle eastern dictators in power. Saddam Hussein? We put him in power. We gave Bin Laden power. We put the shaw in power.

We have been in their business and bombing them for years.

Totally agree.

I was playing an online video game on ps3 yestereday. The topic of discussion went political. Then on to the war. ONe of the guys was in the army and had already had multiple deployments in Iraq. He said he didnt mind but he wished more people joined the army so he could have longer leave time.

Anyway i stated that we were the terrorist in their country. And this dude at first got offended then as i explained he kinda came around. "yea thats kinda true."

He was saying "but my friends have died, and if we dont finish teh job they will have died in vien." To which i replied.

Ok so now people have died, FAR more of theirs than ours by the way. So we are trying to justify their deahts, by sending more people to die and kill? That makes absolutely no sense. But thats as far as humans take it. He never though that maybe his buddys died because they were in someone elses country killing them. I mean HOW DARE THEY KILL US AFTER WE INVADE THEIR COUNTRY.

In this instance you are dealing with the military mind-set. The US is always right in what we do, damn the other countries we invade, and how dare they defend themselves. Think about it this way, in order to recruit people willing to kill and die for this country they have to promote this mentality.

[striker-taii]

The US is the super power in the world, but we are not an empire. Or at least not an overt one. I am of the mind that yes this DHS report is a dangerous step, and Benjamin Franklin said it best

"Any man who would give up a little liberty, for a little security, deserves niether, and loses both"

I realize I may come across as emotional in some of my posts, but this is one where I say I'm not looking at america anymore. We aren't there yet, and you may say "Oh don't worry we'll be able to reign it in before it get's too big." The US government is already too big. I was accpeting of the idea of DHS at first simply because I wanted to know that the government was doing something, but if this is where it leasds then consider me on the front lines when all hell breaks loose.

I don't want my government telling me my political ideioligies are dangerous and anti-govt, they talk about watching returning vets in this report. People who are only going where the govt orders them too. you tell me that's fair and I'll show you a dancing panda

[TW501]

I don't want my government telling me my political ideioligies are dangerous and anti-govt, they talk about watching returning vets in this report.
But it doesn't do that. The report is just that: a report. It's completely innocuous and no different from the other reports made by the DHS except for the amount of coverage its being given by Fox news and conservative pundits. It does nothing to lessen personal freedom and was not designed to profile anyone. It was merely intended to give an assessment of the potential risk posed by violence of right-wing extremists. I'm an environmentalist and an animal welfare advocate, but you don't see me going crazy when they issue a report on extremism among the ALF/ELF types? These reports don't target ideologies, they target the violent practitioners of them. I can guaruntee that the vast majority of people going crazy over this didn't look at it objectively, and probably didn't read it at all.

The entire thing is a phony outrage designed to whip up fear amongst conservatives and rally them in support during a time when the republicans are out of power.

[Fatstogey]

Any move by the DHS is subject to scrutiny.

These documents target who ever they wanna call an extremist. Period

It targets violent practitioners of these ideologies? Do we need a federal document to tell this to law enforcement? You think they needed this to outline the dangers? Yea right. The damn cops are already looking for violent practitioners of any ideology.

It is absolutely profiling people. Its saying hey watch out for these guys cause some of them might be violent. Same goes for muslims same goes for anyone. No matter the wording of the document. It creates prejudice among law enforcement against those listed as being profiled suspect individuals.

No you dont be suspicious of people because of who they are or their ideals. YOU FIND PROOF AND MAKE A CASE. Thats how america works. DHS can call you an extremist or terrorist and just fucking take you. With no rights. And if you are totally nonchalant about it then maybe you should experience your rights being taken from you first hand. I guarantee you that youd return with new opinions.

[TW501]

They've issued similar reports for extreme animal rights groups and environmental groups in the past (including one just a few weeks before the right-wing one came out). I am an environmentalist and am in favor of animal welfare, but I haven't been profiled or had any rights taken away. Right wing extremism, in the form of the anti-abortion/anti-gay marriage groups, anti-government groups, and the white supremicist groups is on the rise. It's visible. It was obvious that it would be addressed in some way. Even if you are totally opposed to the DHS on principle, I don't see how one could view this as any more than a routine, innocuous report among many.

It's been severely overblown so as to scare conservatives and whip them into a frenzy. You've denounced government allegedly using fear to whip up support for certain policies in the past, yet you're being suckered in by politicians using this issue as a means to raise fear of government (and more specifically, the democrats) to raise support for themselves. No matter how poorly worded or (supposedly) unnecessary this report is, it pales in comparison to some of the more ridiculous accusations it made. Just the other day there was this insane congresswoman who basically claimed that the report labeled all christians, conservatives, and veterans extremists, following up by saying that we should be profiling muslims and arabs instead.

[Fatstogey]

They're in an uproar because they understand how government works. And they know that vague profilings like this can be construed to mean whatever the govt wants them to mean at a later date.

Its something you must constantly be aware of.

Your thinking about what this means now. Im thinking about what it could mean in 5 years. They are preemting events that they perceive in the future. It tells us what they think is coming.

They and law enforcement are already FULLY aware of these threats. They needed federal papers, documentation in writing, for when this problem grows. Because they expect it to. They dont know to what extent. So just put out a vague document reminding people that extremist, who ever they decide. There are no courts involved here, the definition is their own will, have the same rights as terrorist. Which are none.

So yes im pissed. They are saying hey if you get mad about what we are doing, we can get you without any checks and balances. No one can stop them. To have an organization that is above the law profiling people, blatantly, is incredibly dangerous. They are reminding us that they are above the law. And telling us who, more specifically than others, they are looking for. To scare you into avoiding such behavior. But they will also use force if needed.

They are saying. "we have this power, well use this power, so you better not be doing something we see as dangerous."

No matter the intent now. The power of this organization is fully corrupt and will only grow in corruption and power. And as it gains power our freedoms abscond. And the masses are none the wiser.

The power to be above the law, that the citizens themselves must obey, musnt exist. Especially on this large a scale. Its scary. Am i scared? LOL no. I have guns. So anyone expecting to get me for any reason other than my breaking of the law(the real laws not the bullshit theyre gonna be churning out) will be met with prejudice.

No matter what the threat to us is, which i have never seen with my own eyes by the way and odds are you havent either, this power must never exist. Its existence is a threat to democracy, freedom, and the republic of the United States of America. It goes against everything we are.

Its no different than saying that any car with 22" gold d's is a drug dealer. Are most of them? Probably. But that doesnt mean you pull over every car with gold d's.

This is actually saying, "hey if you have gold d's were gonna think your a drug dealer. So if times get rough you might not wanna be riding around in gold d's. Cause you know how we over react sometimes when were scared."

Cause id do the same exact thing if i were them.

[TW501]

To be honest, a lot of your argument is based on conjecture. "What are they secretly planning?" "What will they be doing in five years?" "What are their real motivations for this?"
This is an argument not based on facts, but on speculation and your personal paranoia over government. That's not to say that these questions shouldn't be asked, but you seem to apparently know the exact answer to them despite the fact that it's impossible to know such things. You make automatic assumptions over the governments 'real' motives as a precursor to any opinion you form.

Much of the DHS already existed before it was 'officially' created. The components of it were in other departments. For example, the secret service was originally part of the treasury department, and it was later relocated to the Department of Homeland Security. It's really just another cabinet department, just like the departments of energy, education, etc. There is a bit more oversight than you're claiming. Congress has some forms of power over the executive departments, as does the judicial branch. There were abuses in the past eight years, but I don't think that necessarily discredits the entire organization any more than the Teapot Dome Scandal discredited the entire department of the interior. Keep in mind that most of the DHS already existed before it was officially created, it was just in other departments.
They are saying hey if you get mad about what we are doing, we can get you without any checks and balances.
Where exactly do they say that? It's certainly not in the report that I read. I'll assume good faith that you did indeed read the report, but I think you're making a bigger deal over this than it is. They've been issuing these reports for years. Why is it now suddenly such a crisis? How is this one different from the others? Why should I believe that this is anything other than a phony outrage used to whip up support among conservatives? There are already members of the house calling for the resignation of the DHS secretary (a bit of a strange move for a government dedicated to take away your freedoms don't you think?). Why is it that they are just now deciding it was a threat when far worse profiling has been going on these past eight years, profiling that went beyond a mundane report and into semi-official policy?
Its existence is a threat to democracy, freedom, and the republic of the United States of America. It goes against everything we are.
That argument would carry a lot more weight if it wasn't claimed by every single fringe group out there. There will always be people who claim that they know of a threat to the very foundation of our principles, be it government actions, gay marriage and abortion, secret communist conspiracy, United Nations, etc., and that they alone know it is such a threat because they alone know the true principle of the country while everyone else is blind to this horrible government/communist/whatever conspiracy that will destroy the nation as we know it. You think that everyone who doesn't subscribe to your viewpoint regarding the government is either too stupid to know better or just doesn't care about their rights, but both assumptions are wrong. Most people have heard your claims, they just choose to reject them as they don't share that viewpoint.

[Exploits]

Its no different than saying that any car with 22" gold d's is a drug dealer. Are most of them? Probably. But that doesnt mean you pull over every car with gold d's.

Actually you do, because anyone with 22" gold d's on them is 95% of the time some sort of criminal. Doesn't mean he's doing anything illegal right now, or has anything illegal on him, or going to even do anything illegal. But if someone blows that kind of cash on something so worthless, it means he was neither born of wealth nor did he slowly work to wealth. Nobody spends years and years saving money to buy 22" gold d's, because by then you'd hopefully have grown the hell up and have learned better than to waste money like that.

The only time it wouldn't be a criminal is if they person is 15 and had won the lottery.

(I know, this is off-topic, but I wanted to point that out for my own personal satisfaction and ironic undertakings)

[TW501]

So are people still complaining about this report? In the course of a month, four people have been murdered at the hands of right-wing extremists. Activity amongst militia and white supremecist groups are at an all time high. There have been more threats against the government and liberal/progressive organizations just this year than during the previous eight. I don't see how anyone can possibly doubt the legitimacy of the concerns.

[btill9000]

Well TW you hit the nail on the head there. Some people are so quick to look for a "government conspiracy", but it looks like there is legitimate cause for concern.

[AfterExile]

They are saying hey if you get mad about what we are doing, we can get you without any checks and balances.

To a degree that might make sense but you have to be doing something else that they can exploit in order for them to be justified in the process such as not paying taxes..

Right Wing Extremism is definately not as big as everyone is making it out to be. The only place you might still found communities of these people are rural back-wood hick towns. If by some chance they do recruit enough members to their cause and plan an attack it would be epic lulz because it would be a massive failure on their part and would end with a lot of these right wing extremist pricks dead or in jail.
Beleive me I have a lot of family in the military and they will all tell you that is about the smallest "threat" to be acknowledged by our gov. in a long time.

[He's a Mentalist]

Actually you do, because anyone with 22" gold d's on them is 95% of the time some sort of criminal. Doesn't mean he's doing anything illegal right now, or has anything illegal on him, or going to even do anything illegal. But if someone blows that kind of cash on something so worthless, it means he was neither born of wealth nor did he slowly work to wealth. Nobody spends years and years saving money to buy 22" gold d's, because by then you'd hopefully have grown the hell up and have learned better than to waste money like that.

Actually, you don't pull them over unless they are participating or initiating some type of illegal activity. Just because someone has 22 gold inch rims on their vehicle doesn't mean they are some type of criminal or did something illegal to get them. Some people save their money to buy such a thing, some people get rich and buy those 22" gold rims, et cetera. Merely pulling people over because they have it would only cause more negativity to fall down on the police organization than not.

Everyone has a fetish though, some rich men spend their money on prostitutes when they have a wife, some spend it on yachts when they hardly sail, and others spend some of their money on their own fetishes. Saying, "well he has 22 gold inch rims and that isn't wise to spend your money on," is rather ignorant. As having 22 gold inch rims is another fetish some people have.

So are people still complaining about this report? In the course of a month, four people have been murdered at the hands of right-wing extremists. Activity amongst militia and white supremecist groups are at an all time high. There have been more threats against the government and liberal/progressive organizations just this year than during the previous eight. I don't see how anyone can possibly doubt the legitimacy of the concerns.

The highest racial group (white supremacists) only have about 13,000 members. They have "headquarters (a.k.a trailer-parks)" all through-out the united states. The FBI has split up a few but that only creates more confusion as to how many are in the United States and where they are located currently. The use of the media helps them recruit members, the internet, and one-on-one talks. So far, we have yet to see them act out violently, aside from other white supremacist groups who are more prone to use violence.

I would say it's a concern, but then again, what can you do if they aren't doing any harmful activities but abiding by the constitution? There are the other lowly groups who commit crimes but that isn't nothing new as they have been doing that for years now. It's the large organizations that need to be watch a bit more closely. I could care-less about these groups as I think they are just pathetic and not worth the time or man power now when we have large amounts of extremists out in other parts of the world plotting the destruction of several U.S. cities. In my honest opinion I would just keep an eye-out for these extremist conservatives.

Beleive me I have a lot of family in the military and they will all tell you that is about the smallest "threat" to be acknowledged by our gov. in a long time.

Same-thing was said about Hitler, but I don't think these backward people aren't that much of a threat now. We should still keep an eye out on them as they might become more of a problem in the future. I wouldn't waste that much man power now as we have far more larger concerns on the plate now.

[AfterExile]

Same-thing was said about Hitler, but I don't think these backward people aren't that much of a threat now. We should still keep an eye out on them as they might become more of a problem in the future. I wouldn't waste that much man power now as we have far more larger concerns on the plate now.

We should always keep an eye on extremists but unless they some how split the country in two and start a second civil war there really isnt much else they can do other than complain about the way things are.