DHS report: right wing = scum

[Peephole]

It's especially odd because conservatism is not supposed to be a populist movement. I always thought that conservatives appealed to your mind while liberals appeal to your heart.

On the militias, is there a rise in militia activities? I haven't heard about it but it's not a topic I follow. I do recall that one of our local columnists had a rotating schedule of columns in the mid-1990s: Waco, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Waco, something topical, Ruby Ridge, Waco... IIRC they retired him shortly after OKC.

There's at least three people who've already been killed.

Serious question, how many casualties were there under the Bush years? Were there any?

 

[Brainster]

There's at least three people who've already been killed.

More specificity, at least to the point where I can google the story(ies)?

Serious question, how many casualties were there under the Bush years? Were there any?

Yes, I certainly agree that the lack of murders by extremists being off during the Bush years was very troubling.



Actually the SPLC claims that the number of hate groups rose dramatically during the Bush Administration:

Last year, 926 hate groups were active in the U.S., up more than 4% from 888 in 2007. That's more than a 50% increase since 2000, when there were 602 groups.

How do you fit that into your worldview? Oh, I know. When hate groups are on the rise during a Republican administration, blame the Republicans. And when hate groups are on the rise during a Democratic administration, blame the Republicans.

 

[uk_dave]

How do you fit that into your worldview? Oh, I know. When hate groups are on the rise during a Republican administration, blame the Republicans. And when hate groups are on the rise during a Democratic administration, blame the Republicans.

Blame the internet

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

The actual backlash is from the part that mentioned returning vets from Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama has already had to back away from that.

Reading it..

Don't think it's as bad as some make it out to be. Dunno why.

Because some, including cudchewers like Texas apparently, are getting their information on that part from wingnut sources and not the actual document itself. I happened to catch Ariana Huffington talking about the spin that's being put on the actual content - warning vets they may be targeted by extremist groups - is like saying were calling parents child molesters when issuing a warning about pedophiles going after their children.

It's baizarroworld with these people sometimes.

SOrry, but Eco Terror groups are legitimate targets for Government investigation because they do have a history of violence.

They were. That report was issued in January.

 

[Euromutt]

Did I ever claim that there were no extremists who were opposed to abortion? No, I did not.

Okay, so you acknowledge that there are anti-abortion extremists out there, and that such extremists may be capable of unlawful violent activity.

So is it such a leap to conclude that the DHS has a legitimate role to play in identifying such people, preferably before actually kill someone (again)?

Pat Buchanan is a horse's ass.

Agreed. Unfortunately, some moron--possibly one who thought the soi-disant "Minutemen" didn't go far enough--might take him seriously, take some inspiration from the spree shooting in Binghamton, and decide that he'd rather see as many immigrants as possible dead rather than granted US citizenship.

Who is this "they" you speak of? It's quite easy to make sweeping accusations against a group when you never specify who that group is.

I thought it was fairly obvious we were talking about anti-abortion and anti-immigration activists. The more mainstream groups might not be inclined to committing unlawful violent activities themselves, but they do bear a certain responsibility by engaging in demagoguery that paints pro-choicers as accessories (or worse) to genocide (and that's just the first result if you Google "abortion AND genocide"), and illegal immigrants as depriving Americans of income at best or potential violent criminals or terrorists at worst. After all, isn't it plausible that there are some people out there who would feel morally justified killing people who supposedly commit or support "genocide," or foster a threat to the very fabric of American society? That kid of rhetoric provides them with the moral justification they need to commit murder.

I'm not in that group, so what's your point? That lots of people paint with too broad a brush, especially against groups they don't like? Yes, that's true. I never said otherwise. But unless you're trying to engage in tu quoque, this is irrelevant. And if you are, well, it's still a fallacy.

Who said this was about you or your political opinions? My point is that there are quite a few right-wingers out there who condemn political violence when it's committed by people who don't share their political views, but are quite willing to make excuses for terrorists who share their agenda. (Ditto for certain left-wingers, I acknowledge.) If they object to being suspected of collusion with such terrorist elements, then maybe they need to clean house by expressing in the strongest terms that they not only do not condone such violence, but actively condemn it, and stop making "root cause"-type excuses for the people who commit acts of terrorism.

I never claimed otherwise.

That's a dodge. Can you point to instances where you publicly (e.g. on this forum) criticized the activities of the DHS prior to Obama taking office as president?

 

[theprestige]

I repeat my statement that it's sad that so many people who probably consider themselves rational thinkers have a "If they investigate people I don't like, it's great, but if they investigate people I like, it's evil" attitude.

Um. How else is it supposed to work?

What if I like gardeners but don't like bank robbers?

What if I like elevator repairmen but don't like terrorists?

What if I like firefighters but don't like psychopaths?

What if I like schoolteachers but don't like foreign spies?

Etc.

I mean, isn't that the whole point of investigations? We investigate people we don't like, not those we do like?

 

[mhaze]

Um. How else is it supposed to work?
.....I mean, isn't that the whole point of investigations? We investigate people we don't like, not those we do like?

If you don't mind my saying so, that is one of the dumbest of the dumb things I've heard in a long time.

Now extradite yourself by explaining the relation between "who we like" and criminal law.

 

[quixotecoyote]

If you don't mind my saying so, that is one of the dumbest of the dumb things I've heard in a long time.

Now extradite yourself by explaining the relation between "who we like" and criminal law.

Generally, we don't like criminals.

 

[INRM]

So basically every administration gets to lable people who possess views it does not agree with as being potential domestic terrorists?

I think that's a very dangerous idea.


INRM

 

[MattusMaximus]

IMHO responsible conservatives should be distincing themsleves from the Miltias and other groups, instead of more or less going to bat for them. That hurt the conservative movement badly in 1995 at the time of Oklahoma city when the flirtations of a number of leaders..talk show hosts in particular...with the Miltia morons came to light. It stopped the momentum form the 1994 elections cold. ANd it will hurt even worse this time,if the flirtation with the extreme right continues and some Tim McVey wannbe commits an act of violence. And I think that is only a matter of time.

Agreed. This is one of the fundamental, and most dangerous, conundrums in which the GOP finds itself. The reasonable pragmatists like Michael Steele want to get away from the more right-wing elements which are catering more and more to the crazies, but the Rush Limbaugh wing of the GOP is so damn mad & riled up that they won't let the pragmatists do that.

It's a recipe for disaster, not just politically but for the health & safety of the nation. I think it's high time that the Rush Limbaugh types clued into that fact.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Actually the SPLC claims that the number of hate groups rose dramatically during the Bush Administration:

Uhhh, Brainster, you do realize that report you linked to is reporting on right-wing hate groups becoming more prevalent during the Bush years, right?

From white power skinheads decrying "President Obongo" at a racist gathering in rural Missouri, to neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen hurling epithets at Latino immigrants from courthouse steps in Oklahoma, to anti-Semitic black separatists calling for death to Jews on bustling street corners in several East Coast cities, hate group activity in the U.S. was disturbing and widespread throughout 2008, as the number of hate groups operating in America continued to rise. Last year, 926 hate groups were active in the U.S., up more than 4% from 888 in 2007. That's more than a 50% increase since 2000, when there were 602 groups.

As in recent years, hate groups were animated by the national immigration debate. But two new forces also drove them in 2008: the worsening recession, and Barack Obama's successful campaign to become the nation's first black president. Officials reported that Obama had received more threats than any other presidential candidate in memory, and several white supremacists were arrested for saying they would assassinate him or allegedly plotting to do so.

At the same time, law enforcement officials reported a marked swelling of the extreme-right "sovereign citizens" movement that wreaked havoc in the 1990s with its "paper terrorism" tactics. Adherents are infamous for filing bogus property liens and orchestrating elaborate financial ripoffs.

Somewhat surprisingly, it wasn't just the usual suspects from the white supremacist underworld who sought to exploit the country's economic turmoil and political strife. A key 2008 hate group trend was the increasing militancy of the extremist fringe of the Hebrew Israelite movement, whose adherents believe that Jews are creatures of the devil and that whites deserve death or slavery. ...

So, the issue seems to be, more than anything, that - with a Republican or Democratic president - there is an increasingly disturbing level of activity among the ultra-right-wing hatemongers.

And my primary concern right now, as it is yours from other posts you've made, is that these morons are doing all they can to infiltrate and take over the Republican party. You have reported to us about how your very own conservatively-oriented blog is under constant attack from these freaks.

 

[theprestige]

If you don't mind my saying so, that is one of the dumbest of the dumb things I've heard in a long time.

I'm pretty confident it's substantially less dumb than "let's investigate the people we do like!"

Now extradite yourself by explaining the relation between "who we like" and criminal law.

I'm also pretty confident it's less dumb that using "extradite" in a context where it doesn't make any sense at all, instead of "explain" or "extricate".

Generally, we don't like criminals.

Exactly!

 

[Ziggurat]

Okay, so you acknowledge that there are anti-abortion extremists out there, and that such extremists may be capable of unlawful violent activity.

So is it such a leap to conclude that the DHS has a legitimate role to play in identifying such people, preferably before actually kill someone (again)?

Of course they should. I never said anything to the contrary. But that identification must be based on a propensity for violence, not on their political beliefs. And since a propensity for violence can and does exist across the political spectrum, looking at someone's political beliefs on issues like abortion isn't even a useful correlator with propensity for violence.

I thought it was fairly obvious we were talking about anti-abortion and anti-immigration activists.

That's a very broad group of people. If that's the "they" you meant, then you made an incredibly sweeping statement, and one that's almost certainly not true of the entire group.

The more mainstream groups might not be inclined to committing unlawful violent activities themselves, but they do bear a certain responsibility by engaging in demagoguery

If they don't advocate violence, then no, they don't. The person responsible for violent acts is the person who commits violence. We should not be engaging in any shifting of responsibility of this sort, because to do so is to basically rule that some political speech is unacceptable. But it is not: political speech is speech, and should be free and protected as long as it doesn't advocate violence. I am not suggesting that it be immune from criticism, but assigning blame for the actions of others goes beyond that: if we accept the premise that it shares culpability for crimes, then we must logically do more than just criticize it, and that's not acceptable.

and illegal immigrants as depriving Americans of income

Interesting example: you're basically saying that statements which may be true should not be said because some nutjob might do the wrong thing in response.

After all, isn't it plausible that there are some people out there who would feel morally justified killing people who supposedly commit or support "genocide," or foster a threat to the very fabric of American society?

Yes: and we blame the nutjobs themselves in such cases. There are an infinitude of ways in which nutjobs can respond violently to political differences, that's no reason to single out any particular political differences.

If they object to being suspected of collusion with such terrorist elements, then maybe they need to clean house by expressing in the strongest terms that they not only do not condone such violence, but actively condemn it, and stop making "root cause"-type excuses for the people who commit acts of terrorism.

Funny, but I don't recall any military veteran organizations, for example, making "root cause"-type excuses for Timothy McVeigh. Did the American Legion need to "clean house" before they sent Napolitano a letter objecting to the report? And what anti-abortion groups excused attacks against doctors with "root cause"-type excuses? You may be able to find one, but this goes back to my objection to your "they": if you find one, you're basically going to use it to paint all anti-abortion groups with the same brush.

That's a dodge. Can you point to instances where you publicly (e.g. on this forum) criticized the activities of the DHS prior to Obama taking office as president?

Let me be more explicit then: I reject the entire premise of your question. The validity of what I'm saying now doesn't depend in any way on my previous statements, or lack thereof. Hell, I don't even remember what I might or might not have said about DHS on this board since it was formed, and I've got zero interest in searching the archives to find out. If you find some inconsistency between what I've said in the past and what I've said before, that might be of some interest. But there's no reason to have a litmus test for who is qualified to criticize the government today based on whether or not they adequately criticized it in the past. That's bull****.

 

[theprestige]

So basically every administration gets to lable people who possess views it does not agree with as being potential domestic terrorists?

I think that's a very dangerous idea.

Yeah, but you think everything is a very dangerous idea.

Also, this particular idea has been around since there were at least two cave men close enough to form opinions about each other. It's common to every administration, regime, government, social club, fishing village, and athletic team in the entire history of the world.

 

[Peephole]

More specificity, at least to the point where I can google the story(ies)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Pittsburgh_police_shooting

Yes, I certainly agree that the lack of murders by extremists being off during the Bush years was very troubling.

Where did I say this? Seriously, you need to stop putting words into other people's mouths.

 

[Dr Adequate]

It's especially odd because conservatism is not supposed to be a populist movement. I always thought that conservatives appealed to your mind while liberals appeal to your heart.

In case you've been living in an isolated cave for the past few decades, let me assure you that populist conservatives do indeed exist: they appeal to the spleen and the bile ducts.

 

[dudalb]

Agreed. This is one of the fundamental, and most dangerous, conundrums in which the GOP finds itself. The reasonable pragmatists like Michael Steele want to get away from the more right-wing elements which are catering more and more to the crazies, but the Rush Limbaugh wing of the GOP is so damn mad & riled up that they won't let the pragmatists do that.

It's a recipe for disaster, not just politically but for the health & safety of the nation. I think it's high time that the Rush Limbaugh types clued into that fact.

I am reminded of the Labor party in Britain in the early 80's. After their defeat by Margaret Thatcher, the party went into chaos and the extreme elements manages to get control, and Labor spent nearly two decaded in the Wilderness.

 

[Cicero]

Speaking of extremism, I think it's worth mentioning that Malkin supports a white supremacist group (via articles and a link on her blogroll), namely VDARE.

You really have a hard on for Malkin. You accuse MM of being a white supremacist, but have yet to provide any evidence of this. Not one example where she espouses the white supremacist ideology, or any pro Aryn/anti minority trash in any of her articles or on the air. The only thing you keep going on about in your blind hatred of MM is that her articles appear on VDARe's blog. Yet so do these supposed "white supremacists" who are Jewish, Hispanic and Asian:

George Borjas-Cuban, Harvard Kennedy School Research, PhD in economics from Columbia

David A. Yeagley-Native American, Master of Divinity in Biblical Studies and History from Yale University, a Master of Arts in Literature and History from Emory University (1981), an Artist Diploma in Piano Performance and Pedagogy from the Hartt School of Music, and a Doctorate of Musical Arts in Piano Performance and Composition from the University of Arizona

Marcus Epstein-Jewish/Asian-American,

Lance T. Izumi- Japanese-American

What MM and these folks have in common s that they are against open boarders and illegal immigration. So does VDARE. How do you stand on these issues?

If MM is supposedly a white supremacist because of her affiliation with VDARE, then MSNBC is also a promoter of white supremacy because of their association with Pat Buchanan who also posts there. Once you start this guilt by association thing it has far reaching consequences. Little Ole Varwoche does not get to determine who is tarnished by these damning associations.


But here is Malkin being harassed by Alex Jones and company.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZsOyaA5BcY

 

[varwoche]

You accuse MM of being a white supremacist, but have yet to provide any evidence of this.

Stop right there. This is yet another of your asinine distortions. I claimed that Malkin supports a supremacist organization, not of being a supremacist herself, and I supported that claim. Please stop distorting my words.

 

[Alareth]

And some more fallout from the report

http://foxnews.proteus.com/content.html?contentId=32664&currentPage=0