I Am A Right-wing Extremist!

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Saint Therese' post='1838151' date='Apr 16 2009, 11:11 PM']Talk like that will get you ree-educated.[/quote]

I can always use the "I've fallen on my head" excuse.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1837858' date='Apr 16 2009, 10:13 PM']And do you really think the fact that our government is linking pro-lifers to terrorists should not make Catholics at least a little bit uneasy?[/quote]

Um... clinics have been blown up. Abortionists have been killed. It's not exactly lacking precedent.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1838361' date='Apr 17 2009, 07:35 AM']Um... clinics have been blown up. Abortionists have been killed. It's not exactly lacking precedent.[/quote]
Every group has fanatics. Look hard enough and you'll find a "precedent" to call anyone a terrorist.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='tgoldson' post='1838364' date='Apr 17 2009, 09:46 AM']Every group has fanatics. Look hard enough and you'll find a "precedent" to call anyone a terrorist.[/quote]

Indeed. The article was talking about right-wing terrorists. They used the word "terrorists" to specify what brand of right-wingers they were talking about. Unless anyone here plans on bombing clinics and murdering abortionists, I don't think we have much to fear (do we ever have anything to fear in Christ?), and thankfully I haven't heard of any violence from "pro-lifers" in quite a few years. That seems to be something that died out in the 80s or early 90s. Unfortunately, their actions still stain the integrity of the pro-life movement, just as Islamic terrorists cast stain across all of Islam and a few abusive priests cast a stain across all of the priesthood and Catholic Church. The world isn't quick to forgive.

Edited April 17, 2009 by LouisvilleFan

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1838361' date='Apr 17 2009, 09:35 AM']Um... clinics have been blown up. Abortionists have been killed. It's not exactly lacking precedent.[/quote]


They are few and isolated incidents. It is not an active and promoted program of terror, like Islamic jihad.

[thessalonian]

What I find funny is that the homosexuals in california and utah (according to a mormon friend I am in contact with out there) terorized the mormon church and some Catholic Churches when prop-8 failed. They didn't make oboma's list. I fully expect more violence out of them more than pro-lifers.

Edited April 17, 2009 by thessalonian

[jeffpugh]

This is here now? Oh....

[littleflower+JMJ]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1838371' date='Apr 17 2009, 08:55 AM']Indeed. The article was talking about right-wing terrorists. They used the word "terrorists" to specify what brand of right-wingers they were talking about. Unless anyone here plans on bombing clinics and murdering abortionists, I don't think we have much to fear (do we ever have anything to fear in Christ?), and thankfully I haven't heard of any violence from "pro-lifers" in quite a few years. That seems to be something that died out in the 80s or early 90s. Unfortunately, their actions still stain the integrity of the pro-life movement, just as Islamic terrorists cast stain across all of Islam and a few abusive priests cast a stain across all of the priesthood and Catholic Church. The world isn't quick to forgive.[/quote]

You are crazy if you think being defined as a threat to all law enforcement and nation means nothing.

[WillT]

Have any of you guys read the actual document? (It is available in .pdf format at the news link.)

Here are some other troubling quotes.

[quote]Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment
tool. [b]Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential
administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and
citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns
and leverage them as drivers for recruitment. From the 2008 election timeframe to the
present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in
expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential
sympathizers. [/b][/quote]
So, basically not being on the President's bandwagon for things like socialized health care, abortion (mentioned in earlier quoted passages), and gun restrictions make you an "extremist." Not to mention that if you belong to any groups opposing these things you are a racist and politically prejudiced.

[quote]Many rightwing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a
threat to their right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition
stockpiling, as well as renewed participation in paramilitary training exercises. Such
activity, combined with a heightened level of extremist paranoia, has the potential to
facilitate criminal activity and violence.

[b]On the current front, legislation has been proposed this year
requiring mandatory registration of all firearms in the United States. Similar
legislation was introduced in 2008 in several states proposing mandatory tagging
and registration of ammunition.[/b] It is unclear if either bill will be passed into law;
nonetheless, a correlation may exist between the potential passage of gun control
legislation and increased hoarding of ammunition, weapons stockpiling, and
paramilitary training activities among rightwing extremists.[/quote]
And why are they requiring registration of guns and ammo?

And the last thing I'll quote:
[quote](U) Revisiting the 1990s
(U//FOUO) Paralleling the current national climate, rightwing extremists during the
1990s exploited a variety of social issues and political themes to increase group visibility
and recruit new members. Prominent among these themes were the militia movement’s
opposition to gun control efforts, criticism of free trade agreements (particularly those
with Mexico), and highlighting perceived government infringement on civil liberties as
well as [b]white supremacists’ longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion[/b],
inter-racial crimes, and same-sex marriage. During the 1990s, these issues contributed to
the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an
increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks,
and infrastructure sectors.[/quote]
Since when have white supremacists exploited the pro-life movement? I've never seen that. Plus a little clarification that it's not all pro-life groups would be nice, but I'm sure that's not what they're aiming for.


So, it seems to me that this could be an agle used by local law enforcement to deny peaceful demonstrations by the groups listed as having ties to rightwing extremists. I find it interesting that it was also issued just under two weeks before the "Tea Parties" that took place around the country since those would definately fall into the catagory of people wanting to limit the power of the Federal Government. I've not heard of any arrests stemming from the gatherings, but then again most media seems to be downplaying the whole thing to begin with. You know, it has just enough truth to be credible to many people (as some have pointed out the bombings of abortion clinics etc., and of course OK City which is cited in the document) and therefore go largely unquestioned. I just wonder, how much of an impact will it have?

[Socrates]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1838361' date='Apr 17 2009, 08:35 AM']Um... clinics have been blown up. Abortionists have been killed. It's not exactly lacking precedent.[/quote]
Only a very few. I could probably count the total number of people killed by "pro-life" activists on one hand.
I can tell you for a fact that pro-life activists are one of the most non-violent groups of people you can find. I'd say most have a lot more in common with Ned Flanders than with Osama Bin Laden.

When you look at sheer numbers, deaths from anti-abortion activists absolutely pale in comparison with violence from various "left-wing" radicals - from the Weather Underground and Black Panthers of the 60s to the various "eco-terrorists" and "animal liberationists" of today.
In fact, if you look hard enough, I'm sure you can find a few acts of violence or property destruction associated with basically [i]any[/i] set of beliefs people can have.
Defining those who oppose abortion as potentially violent "extremists" is absurd.

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1838371' date='Apr 17 2009, 08:55 AM']Indeed. The article was talking about right-wing terrorists. They used the word "terrorists" to specify what brand of right-wingers they were talking about. Unless anyone here plans on bombing clinics and murdering abortionists, I don't think we have much to fear (do we ever have anything to fear in Christ?), and thankfully I haven't heard of any violence from "pro-lifers" in quite a few years. That seems to be something that died out in the 80s or early 90s. Unfortunately, their actions still stain the integrity of the pro-life movement, just as Islamic terrorists cast stain across all of Islam and a few abusive priests cast a stain across all of the priesthood and Catholic Church. The world isn't quick to forgive.[/quote]
The "report" was about "rightwing [i]extremism[/i]," not [i]terrorists[/i] (a terrorist being someone who actually commits or plans act of violent terror). As I pointed out, the report begins by acknowledging "The DHF/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) [b]has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence.[/b]"
In other words, [b]there's no "rightwing" terrorism at all in this country that they have knowledge of - much less anti-abortion "terrorism."[/b] But the report goes on to list a series of politically incorrect "rightwing extremist" beliefs--from racism to gun-owners rights to opposition to abortion--the holders of which presumably are deemed prone to acts of domestic terrorism.

To compare pro-lifers and other conservatives to very real Islamic terrorist organizations which have been proven to have committed, and which continue to commit, acts of violence around the world is absolutely absurd.
But, oh well, guess we can't let the facts stand in the way of political correctness. We all know that Islamic radicals are no more violent and pose no more threat than Christian pro-lifers, of course. To say otherwise would be . . . politically incorrect.

This "report" does not identify any real terrorists, but rather lists various beliefs at odds with the liberalism of the Obama administration as potential threats to security.

This statement sums up the problems pretty well for me[quote]:"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 in a statement issued 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."[/quote]


And no, I'm not quaking with fear that government agents will burst into my room at any minute and carry me off for my right-wing views.
However, I do find it a disturbing sign that the government is identifying opposing beliefs (many of which I agree with) as grounds for suspicion.
What does this mean in practical terms? Increased government monitoring of groups or persons holding views deemed as "rightwing extremism" (including opposition to abortion)?

Does it not trouble you at all that the Obama administration officially regards those of us citizens with opposing views as domestic enemies?
(Hardly sounds like "reaching out" and bipartisanship to me)

Or are you insinuating the report has no actual purpose other than to insult veterans, conservatives, and libertarians?

But, oh well, I'm obviously a crazy, paranoid rightwing extremist who needs to stop worrying and learn to love Big Brother.

Edited April 18, 2009 by Socrates

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
i heard that supposedly this agency came out with a report in January about 'left-wing extremists'. but i can't find anything to back that up. anyone?

[Winchester]

[quote name='Hilde' post='1837157' date='Apr 16 2009, 09:00 AM']Right wing extremist means neo-nazi here.[/quote]
Naziism is a left-wing thing.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1839236' date='Apr 18 2009, 12:23 AM']+J.M.J.+
i heard that supposedly this agency came out with a report in January about 'left-wing extremists'. but i can't find anything to back that up. anyone?[/quote]


There is no such thing. They are liars. There is also not one single report from the DHS on Islamic jihad, despite thousands upon thousands of dead bodies--and our giant, gaping hole in New York--attesting to its existence.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1839359' date='Apr 17 2009, 11:05 PM']Naziism is a left-wing thing.[/quote]
Wrong. Nazism has its roots in conservative ideas, not liberal ones.

Edited April 19, 2009 by fidei defensor

[Nihil Obstat]

Hitler was an opportunist. So was Mussolini. I think when they're nice they'll say "pragmatic".
If my memory is correct, they both started off as socialists and only got more radically fascist when they realized that they would never get into power as a socialist.