Confirmed: The Obama DHS hit job on conservatives is real

[Signals]

LINK (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/14/confirme-the-obama-dhs-hit-job-on-conservatives-is-real/?print=1)

Confirmed: The Obama DHS hit job on conservatives is real


By Michelle Malkin • April 14, 2009 12:01 AM

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/rightwing.jpg

Yesterday, Roger Hedgecock and the Liberty Papers posted an unclassified DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis report titled:

Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.

The “report” (PDF file here) was one of the most embarrassingly shoddy pieces of propaganda I’d ever read out of DHS. I couldn’t believe it was real.

I spent the day chasing down DHS spokespeople, who have been tied up preparing for a very important homeland security event later today: The First Lady is coming to visit their Washington office. Priorities, you know.

Well, the press office got back to me and verified that the document is indeed for real.

They were very defensive — preemptively so — in asserting that it was not a politicized document and that DHS had done reports on “leftwing extremism” in the past. I have covered DHS for many years and am quite familiar with past assessments they and the FBI have done on animal rights terrorists and environmental terrorists. But those past reports have always been very specific in identifying the exact groups, causes, and targets of domestic terrorism, i.e., the ALF, ELF, and Stop Huntingdon wackos who have engaged in physical harassment, arson, vandalism, and worse against pharmaceutical companies, farms, labs, and university researchers.

By contrast, the piece of crap report issued on April 7 is a sweeping indictment of conservatives. And the intent is clear. As the two spokespeople I talked with on the phone today made clear: They both pinpointed the recent “economic downturn” and the “general state of the economy” for stoking “rightwing extremism.” One of the spokespeople said he was told that the report has been in the works for a year. My b.s. detector went off the chart, and yours will, too, if you read through the entire report — which asserts with no evidence that an unquantified “resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalizations activity” is due to home foreclosures, job losses, and…the historical presidential election.

In Obama land, there are no coincidences. It is no coincidence that this report echoes Tea Party-bashing left-wing blogs (check this one out comparing the Tea Party movement to the Weather Underground!) and demonizes the very Americans who will be protesting in the thousands on Wednesday for the nationwide Tax Day Tea Party.

From the report, p.2:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

From the report. p. 3:

(U//LES) Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. 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.

(U) Exploiting Economic Downturn

(U//FOUO) Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures. Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish “financial elites.” These “accusatory” tactics are employed to draw new recruits into rightwing extremist groups and further radicalize those already subscribing to extremist beliefs. DHS/I&A assesses this trend is likely to accelerate if the economy is perceived to worsen.

From the report, p. 5:

(U//FOUO) Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists, including militias and white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action, rallying point,
and recruiting tool. Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent.

And echoing the anti-military bigotry last seen in that disgusting Penn State University training video, there’s this on p. 7:

(U) Disgruntled Military Veterans

(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.

There’s no hackneyed left-wing stereotype of conservatives left behind in this DHS intelligence and analysis assessment. I asked both DHS spokespeople to tell me who, specifically, the report was accusing of “rightwing extremist chatter” and which “antigovernment” groups are being monitored as “extremists.” They say they’ll get back to me.

In the meantime, be aware of this from the report, p. 8:

(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in rightwing extremist activity in the United States, with a particular emphasis on the political, economic, and social factors that drive rightwing extremist radicalization.

Better make a few last-minute signs for the Tea Party. Obama’s DHS is watching:

Honk if you’re a radicalized rightwing extremist!

Guilty of rightwing extremist chatter

Anti-government, pro-freedom: Sue me

***

Previous: Missouri retracts report linking militias, 3rd party candidates.

***

Oh, I’m sure DHS will be issuing its report on self-proclaimed bank terrorists like Bruce Marks of NACA and criminal rackeeters harassing private citizens in their homes to “exploit the economic downturn” any day now.

[burmafrd]

Just like after Oklahoma City only with much less reason or evidence. This is mostly rehashed BS that is old anyway. Is anyone reallly surprised?

[sbark]

You can download what purports to be the DHS report at: [www.rogerhedgecock.com (http://www.rogerhedgecock.com/resources/HSA%20-%20Rightwing%20Extremism%20-%20Climate%20Fueling%20Radicalization%20and%20Recr uitment,dated%207%20April%202009.pdf)]

Dunno if it is real. It is scary. Among other things, it uses the loony toon who killed the cops last week in Pa. as "A recent example of the potential violence associated with a rise in rightwing extremism"....same as lefties here:confused:

.....and funny thing is then the left must claim Farakahn, Ayers, Weather Underground, Acorn etc etc.............must be "love groups".........:eek:

.......so then once again the issue of "Femma Camps" .........:D


The thrust of the document is the same as can be seen in others at FEMA's U.S. Fire Administration site. To wit, "Infogram 10-09 (http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/fireservice/subjects/emr-isac/infograms/ig2009/10-09.shtm): March 12, 2009 - Hate Groups: A Growing Threat?"

According to the "Year in Hate (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=1027)" report recently released by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), there are approximately 926 active hate groups in the United States as of December 2008. This number is an increase of more than 4 percent from the 888 groups identified in 2007, and far above the 602 groups documented in 2000. The SPLC, a professional watchdog of right wing groups, suggests "the continuing rise has been fueled by immigration fears, a faltering economy, and the successful campaign of President Barack Obama."

[trickblue]

No one hates like a lefty hates...

[JBond]

The DHS was another giant mistake by Bush. It seems the Obama lead DHS is scared of the Bill of Rights. What else would you expect from a man that believes our Constitution is a charter of negative liberties?

[BrAinPaiNt]

The DHS was another giant mistake by Bush. It seems the Obama lead DHS is scared of the Bill of Rights. What else would you expect from a man that believes our Constitution is a charter of negative liberties?

It's just a piece of gd paper.:D

[JBond]

It's just a piece of gd paper.:D

So I have been told.:D

I wonder if Team Obama will deploy DHS agents to monitor the Tea Parties. Only half kidding.

[BrAinPaiNt]

So I have been told.:D

I wonder if Team Obama will deploy DHS agents to monitor the Tea Parties. Only half kidding.

I would hope so...I mean they could be a dangerous group of idiots.:D

[JBond]

I would hope so...I mean they could be a dangerous group of idiots.:D

What are you trying to say BP? I didn't plan on attending one, but now I guess I have to.:D

[BrAinPaiNt]

What are you trying to say BP? I didn't plan on attending one, but now I guess I have to.:D

So you're going to go get teabagged? :p: ;)

[sbark]

Its curious Obama & Rahm E. had time to get this "leaked" in the midst of a new puppy, a 850 mile pizza delivery & the Somalian "battleship" crisis........and just before the Tea Party Day.......


note from the report........Disgruntled Military Veterans ARE PRIME right winged extremists....... So, the Obama Admin has just put a big ***** bull's eye on the back side of EVERY AMERICAN MILITARY VETERAN AND MILITARY RETIREE...

Just more attempt to marginalize.....“Marginalization” is the least of what the left does to their political opponents, historically..........

[Kangaroo]

Its curious Obama & Rahm E. had time to get this "leaked" in the midst of a new puppy, a 850 mile pizza delivery & the Somalian "battleship" crisis........and just before the Tea Party Day.......


note from the report........Disgruntled Military Veterans ARE PRIME right winged extremists....... So, the Obama Admin has just put a big ***** bull's eye on the back side of EVERY AMERICAN MILITARY VETERAN AND MILITARY RETIREE...

Just more attempt to marginalize.....“Marginalization” is the least of what the left does to their political opponents, historically..........

That means I am automatically on the list 12 years and guess what happens when you join the army they finger print you (complete set) and files them with the FBI or they use to back in my day. I am sure they still file it somewhere

[MetalHead]

I would hope so...I mean they could be a dangerous group of idiots.:D

That was uncalled for.

[SuspectCorner]

Conservatives indict themselves with shrieking over DHS report on right-wing terrorism (http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/conservatives-indict-themselves-shri)

By David Neiwert/CrooksandLiars.com (http://crooksandliars.com/)/Tuesday Apr 14, 2009 11:00am

My my my. The right, led by Michelle Malkin (http://www.memeorandum.com/090414/p13#a090414p13), is up in arms over the Department of Homeland Security's internal intelligence report on right-wing extremism (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/14/federal-agency-warns-of-radicals-on-right/) and its post-Obama resurgence.

Malkin's headline wails:

"The Obama DHS Hit Job on Conservatives Is Real"

So, I have a question for Malkin: Are you saying that mainstream conservatives are now right-wing extremists?

Because, you know, the report (http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf) -- which in fact is perfectly accurate in every jot and tittle -- couldn't be more clear. It carefully delineates that the subject of its report is "rightwing extremists," "domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups," "terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks," "white supremacists," and similar very real threats described in similar language.

Nothing about conservatives. The word never appears in the report.

Because, you know, we always thought there was a difference between right-wing extremists and mainstream conservatives too. My new book, The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right (http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/willl-ex-military-patriots-form-more), does explain that the distance between them has in fact shrunk considerably, thanks to the help of people like Malkin.

And now she's evidently intent on shrinking it further:

By contrast, the piece of crap report issued on April 7 is a sweeping indictment of conservatives. And the intent is clear. As the two spokespeople I talked with on the phone today made clear: They both pinpointed the recent “economic downturn” and the “general state of the economy” for stoking “rightwing extremism.” One of the spokespeople said he was told that the report has been in the works for a year. My b.s. detector went off the chart, and yours will, too, if you read through the entire report — which asserts with no evidence that an unquantified “resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalizations activity” is due to home foreclosures, job losses, and…the historical presidential election.

Well, Michelle, it's an "indictment of conservatives" if you say so. The report itself, in fact, is all about accurately identifying very real looming threats. And, while it's obvious Malkin hasn't been paying attention, there in fact is considerable data (http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/sludge-hate-washes-higher-our-shores) coming over the transom to indicate that there's a real problem looming with the far right (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2009/03/will-ex-military-patriots-form-more.html).

Don't forget: Before he'd even been sworn into office (http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/neo-nazis-obama-and-real-domestic-te), we had skinheads [photo above] being arrested for plotting Obama's assassination.

Malkin complains that the report indulges in "anti-military bigotry" by warning that returning veterans who have been radicalized, or were already right-wing extremists, are a particular threat:

(U) Disgruntled Military Veterans

(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.

Well, as we've reported previously (http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/willl-ex-military-patriots-form-more), this is in fact a well-identified problem. The FBI says so too (http://static.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2008/12/whitesupremacistrecruitmentofmilitarypersonnel2_a0 a33.pdf):

Military experience—ranging from failure at basic training to success in special operations forces—is found throughout the white supremacist extremist movement. FBI reporting indicates extremist leaders have historically favored recruiting active and former military personnel for their knowledge of firearms, explosives, and tactical skills and their access to weapons and intelligence in preparation for an anticipated war against the federal government, Jews, and people of color.

... The prestige which the extremist movement bestows upon members with military experience grants them the potential for influence beyond their numbers. Most extremist groups have some members with military experience, and those with military experience often hold positions of authority within the groups to which they belong.

... Military experience—often regardless of its length or type—distinguishes one within the extremist movement. While those with military backgrounds constitute a small percentage of white supremacist extremists, FBI investigations indicate they frequently have higher profiles within the movement, including recruitment and leadership roles.

Yet quoth Malkin:

There’s no hackneyed left-wing stereotype of conservatives left behind in this DHS intelligence and analysis assessment. I asked both DHS spokespeople to tell me who, specifically, the report was accusing of “rightwing extremist chatter” and which “antigovernment” groups are being monitored as “extremists.” They say they’ll get back to me.

I'd be astonished if any of the groups identified by right-leaning law-enforcement organizations like the FBI and DHS were actually anything identifiably mainstream conservative -- though of course it's important to remember that hate groups like VDare -- which runs Malkin's column at their website -- the Federation for American Immigration Reform, and American Renaissance have been doing their damnedest to blur that line over the years. And sites like Free Republic are rife with extreme Patriot-style rhetoric, too.

Look, however, at some of the things the report says:

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 white supremacists’ longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion, 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.

(U) Economic Hardship and Extremism
(U//FOUO) Historically, domestic rightwing extremists have feared, predicted, and anticipated a cataclysmic economic collapse in the United States. Prominent antigovernment conspiracy theorists have incorporated aspects of an impending economic collapse to intensify fear and paranoia among like-minded individuals and to attract recruits during times of economic uncertainty. Conspiracy theories involving declarations of martial law, impending civil strife or racial conflict, suspension of the U.S. Constitution, and the creation of citizen detention camps often incorporate aspects of a failed economy. Antigovernment conspiracy theories and “end times” prophecies could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition, and weapons. These teachings also have been linked with the radicalization of domestic extremist individuals and groups in the past, such as violent Christian Identity organizations and extremist members of the militia movement.

Everything about this is exactly accurate in every detail. But it also reminds people like Malkin just how much they themselves have been trafficking in this kind of extremism. She may not intend to be helping inflame white supremacists -- but she is.

What's actually happened is this: The DHS accidentally held a mirror up to Michelle Malkin. And she's shrieking at the self-recognition.

[WoodysGirl]

Recession fueling right-wing extremism, U.S. says

By Jane Sutton Jane Sutton – Tue Apr 14, 3:56 pm ET
MIAMI (Reuters) – Right-wing extremists in the United States are gaining new recruits by exploiting fears about the economy and the election of the first black U.S. president, the Department of Homeland Security warned in a report to law enforcement officials.

The April 7 report, which Reuters and other news media obtained on Tuesday, said such fears were driving a resurgence in "recruitment and radicalization activity" by white supremacist groups, antigovernment extremists and militia movements. It did not identify any by name.

DHS had no specific information about pending violence and said threats had so far been "largely rhetorical."

But it warned that home foreclosures, unemployment and other consequences of the economic recession "could create a fertile recruiting environment for right-wing extremists."

"To the extent that these factors persist, right-wing extremism is likely to grow in strength," DHS said.

The report warned that military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with combat skills could be recruitment targets, especially those having trouble finding jobs or fitting back into civilian society.

The department "is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities," the report said.

DHS spokeswoman Sara Kuban said on Tuesday the report was one of an ongoing series of threat assessments aimed at "a greater understanding of violent radicalization in the U.S."

A similar assessment of left-wing radicals completed in January was distributed to federal, state and local police agencies at that time.

"These assessments are done all the time, this is nothing unusual," Kuban said.

The Department of Homeland Security was formed in response to the September 11 attacks of 2001 and has focused largely on threats from Islamist extremists.

The report said domestic right-wing terrorist groups grew during the economic recession of the early 1990s but subsided as the economy improved.

Government scrutiny disrupted violent plots following the April 1995 bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City by Army veteran Timothy McVeigh which killed 168 people.

LONE WOLVES

"Despite similarities to the climate of the 1990s, the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years," the report said.

The Internet has made it easier to locate specific targets, communicate with like-minded people and find information on bombs and weapons, it said.

Extremist groups are preying on fears that President Barack Obama, the first African American U.S. president, would restrict gun ownership, boost immigration and expand social programs for minorities, the report said.

It said such groups were also exploiting anti-Semitic sentiment with accusations that "a cabal of Jewish financial elites" had conspired to collapse the economy.

"This trend is likely to accelerate if the economy is perceived to worsen," the report said.

(Additional reporting by Randall Mikkelsen in Washington, editing by Jim Loney and Alan Elsner

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090414/us_nm/us_usa_security_extremists

[silverbear]

LOL... good ol' Michelle, she can find a conspiracy ANYWHERE...

Strange how she didn't mention that DHS cranked out a similar report on LEFT wing extremism back in January...

Once again, the talking heads on the right have a vested interest in keeping the truth from their fans...

[WoodysGirl]

LOL... good ol' Michelle, she can find a conspiracy ANYWHERE...

Strange how she didn't mention that DHS cranked out a similar report on LEFT wing extremism back in January...

Once again, the talking heads on the right have a vested interest in keeping the truth from their fans...
Don't suppose you can find a link to that particular document...

[silverbear]

A similar assessment of left-wing radicals completed in January was distributed to federal, state and local police agencies at that time.

"These assessments are done all the time, this is nothing unusual," Kuban said.

There's the part that Michelle conveniently left out of her paranoid rant... of course, she left it out because if DHS is compiling reports on extremists from BOTH sides of the political spectrum, there obviously is no "hit job on conservatives"...

This is actually a classic case study in how the hatemongers on the right operate-- none of the righties in here even knew that DHS had a similar report about left wing extremists published even before this right wing analysis, until I pointed it out... for sure Malkin did not include that rather relevant fact, because it would discredit her paranoid conspiracy theory...

Which would be OK, if those on the right could be counted on to verify the veracity of the claims of their heroes, but they won't... nope, they accept what Rush and Glenn and Billy O and Annie and Michelle tell them without question... this explains why the ardent righties in here are so often bereft of facts to support their opinions...

Rush Limbaugh is a lying piece of crap, a proven liar, and he's a hero of the right...

Bill O'Reilly is a lying piece of crap, a proven liar, and he's a hero of the right...

Ann Coulter is a lying piece of crap, a proven liar, and she's a heroine of the right...

Michelle Malkin is a lying piece of crap, a proven liar, and she's a heroine of the right...

Seems that the right, for all their claims of championing morality and values, does not place a particularly high premium on honesty and honor... indeed, they seem to sneer at those values...

[JBond]

Links to both reports. There is plenty of meat for all.

Click here for a link to the assessment report on right-wing extremists (pdf) (http://www.thelibertypapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/hsa-rightwing-extremism-09-04-07.pdf)

Click here for a link to the assessment report on left-wing extremists (pdf). (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Leftwing_Extremist_Threat.pdf)

[silverbear]

Don't suppose you can find a link to that particular document...

JBond has kindly responded with a link for you...

[burmafrd]

suspect and silver; match made in looney left heaven.
And suspect comes in with another far lefty looney site = any site that lists Daily Kos and Huffington post and the FIRST entry is TALK LEFT and he thinks anyone with any intelligence is going to take him seriously?

[sbark]

Links to both reports. There is plenty of meat for all.

Click here for a link to the assessment report on right-wing extremists (pdf) (http://www.thelibertypapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/hsa-rightwing-extremism-09-04-07.pdf)

Click here for a link to the assessment report on left-wing extremists (pdf). (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Leftwing_Extremist_Threat.pdf)

Why is it ......the report on the Left wing emphasises mainly cyber threat.....the report on the right more numerous threats including physical....

If you sit back and look at "left wing threats " thru the years.....KKK, Black Panthers, Bill Ayers, Weather Underground, L.Farakahn, Unibomber.....not even to throw in the Code Pinks, the enviro wackos, the radical students that verge on violence.....

vrs. the lone single threat the left throws out of McVeigh....(it is just assumed by the left he was rw)

seems like the report should have 1 paragraph on rw threats, inside a book on the left wing violence threats.....

[tyke1doe]

Why is it ......the report on the Left wing emphasises mainly cyber threat.....the report on the right more numerous threats including physical....

If you sit back and look at "left wing threats " thru the years.....KKK, Black Panthers, Bill Ayers, Weather Underground, L.Farakahn, Unibomber.....not even to throw in the Code Pinks, the enviro wackos, the radical students that verge on violence.....

vrs. the lone single threat the left throws out of McVeigh....(it is just assumed by the left he was rw)

seems like the report should have 1 paragraph on rw threats, inside a book on the left wing violence threats.....


The KKK is a "left wing threat"? :huh:
The KKK has been historically associated with white supremacy, which would be considered an extreme right group.

Also, you listed a number of individuals. There's a difference between identifying an individual and a group. When you take care of the individual, the threat is over. But if you have a group that preaches a certain ideology, it becomes more of a threat because you're dealing with many individuals who could commit crimes against the United States.

Second, I find it interesting you compare histories but conveniently leave out right-wing groups/individuals who have committed violence. Your example purposely tries to highlight "left" groups/individuals yet you select only one person who represents the "right."

Third, the report deals with contemporary groups, not past groups. Why would the FBI be concerned about the Black Panthers? :huh:

[burmafrd]

MANY individuals? sure. A group is considered two or more for the government accounting purposes.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Both sides have their bad.

And even if a group is basically a good group (depending on your political views I guess) you can pretty much find bad apples or loons in these groups as well.

On a side note. I do find it interesting that both sides have had DHS do these reports and kind of scary because of what they could do to a group by labeling them domestic terrorists if they really wanted to even if the group showed no signs of violence.

[burmafrd]

DHS is a bureaucracy and the primary focus of any such thing is to perpetuate its existence. So they will do anything to ensure that.

[Doomsday101]

Extremist groups right or left who would commit terrorist acts should be looked at both sides have them

[tyke1doe]

Both sides have their bad.

And even if a group is basically a good group (depending on your political views I guess) you can pretty much find bad apples or loons in these groups as well.

On a side note. I do find it interesting that both sides have had DHS do these reports and kind of scary because of what they could do to a group by labeling them domestic terrorists if they really wanted to even if the group showed no signs of violence.

And both reports are about the same length - 10 pages.

[JBond]

The KKK is a "left wing threat"? :huh:
The KKK has been historically associated with white supremacy, which would be considered an extreme right group.

Also, you listed a number of individuals. There's a difference between identifying an individual and a group. When you take care of the individual, the threat is over. But if you have a group that preaches a certain ideology, it becomes more of a threat because you're dealing with many individuals who could commit crimes against the United States.

Second, I find it interesting you compare histories but conveniently leave out right-wing groups/individuals who have committed violence. Your example purposely tries to highlight "left" groups/individuals yet you select only one person who represents the "right."

Third, the report deals with contemporary groups, not past groups. Why would the FBI be concerned about the Black Panthers? :huh:

In the days when the KKK had some power the majority of members were southern democrats.

[burmafrd]

KKK Byrd

[BrAinPaiNt]

In the days when the KKK had some power the majority of members were southern democrats.

Who later, for the most part, wound up migrating to the republican party.

Now Byrd was not a southern Democrat but he has his KKK past (and I suspect current) affiliations so that is one Dem that still totes that line of thinking.

[JBond]

So to clarify, If you believe in states rights and legal immigration you are a right wing extremist worthy of being watched and tracked by the DHS. Brilliant job by Team Obama. 70% of this board is on the watch list. Fantastic.

And my only worries before were WG and BP.:D

[tyke1doe]

In the days when the KKK had some power the majority of members were southern democrats.

Southern Democrats with "extreme right" or "conservative" perspectives.

You can't bait and switch history like that.

[JBond]

Southern Democrats with "extreme right" or "conservative" perspectives.

You can't bait and switch history like that.

Little tyke you are the one attempting to redo history to fit your agenda. Nice try. Another swing and miss. You do remember who voted against the equal rights amendment, don't you? Move on. You are wrong.

[BrAinPaiNt]

So to clarify, If you believe in states rights and legal immigration you are a right wing extremist worthy of being watched and tracked by the DHS. Brilliant job by Team Obama. 70% of this board is on the watch list. Fantastic.

And my only worries before were WG and BP.:D

Groups on are watch lists. I don't know of too many on here specifically on a watch list unless you involve yourself with those groups (left or right leaning).

I have said to before and I will say it over and over. What power one party gets, you can bet the other party will not give away by and large once they get power.

That is why it is very dangerous when a right group defends things like the patriot act, torture, wiretapping and so on because than when the left gains the power they will not give it up no matter how much they say otherwise.

Power begets power and once that power is obtained it is not easily let go.

I have said my peace on what I think of Obama and some of the stances he seems to be shifting around and the reason why I believe he has basically said let sleeping dogs lie concerning W and Cheney investigations.

[tyke1doe]

Little tyke you are the one attempting to redo history to fit your agenda. Nice try. Another swing and miss. You do remember who voted against the equal rights amendment, don't you? Move on. You are wrong.

Translation: You can't debate my point so you're going to switch the topic and make it personal. Typical.

Well, since you're not willing to be educated, let me do so for the rest of the forum.

You simply can't offer the label "Democrat" and invest it with the eternal definition of "liberal." If that's the case, then "Republican" always means "conservative." And Lincoln was hardly "conservative" when he advocated freedom for the slaves.

At that time period, that was very much a "liberal" or "progressive" action advocated by a Republican.

Generally speaking, liberal means challenging the status quo. Generally speaking, conservative means perserving the status quo.

Politically, those words change given the situation. Conservatives may be "liberal" when it comes to military spending. Liberals may be "conservative" when it comes to military spending.

That's why using political labels without explanation is riddled with inconsistencies.

That's why we use general movements in culture to measure the meaning of liberal and conservative.

The KKK was hardly liberal. It was very much conservative because it wanted to keep the status quo, i.e., blacks as slaves or segregated.

Anyone with an ounce of honesty understands this. But those who are so wedded to all-or-nothing scenarios and bent on exonerating their ideology at every turn consider the KKK as a left-wing, liberal group.

That's laughable to the nth power. :laugh2:

[trickblue]

Southern Democrats with "extreme right" or "conservative" perspectives.

You can't bait and switch history like that.

Most all were Yellow Dog Democrats...

[JBond]

Translation: You can't debate my point so you're going to switch the topic and make it personal. Typical.

Well, since you're not willing to be educated, let me do so for the rest of the forum.

You simply can't offer the label "Democrat" and invest it with the eternal definition of "liberal." If that's the case, then "Republican" always means "conservative." And Lincoln was hardly "conservative" when he advocated freedom for the slaves.

At that time period, that was very much a "liberal" or "progressive" action advocated by a Republican.

Generally speaking, liberal means challenging the status quo. Generally speaking, conservative means perserving the status quo.

Politically, those words change given the situation. Conservatives may be "liberal" when it comes to military spending. Liberals may be "conservative" when it comes to military spending.

That's why using political labels without explanation is riddled with inconsistencies.

That's why we use general movements in culture to measure the meaning of liberal and conservative.

The KKK was hardly liberal. It was very much conservative because it wanted to keep the status quo, i.e., blacks as slaves or segregated.

Anyone with an ounce of honesty understands this. But those who are so wedded to all-or-nothing scenarios and bent on exonerating their ideology at every turn consider the KKK as a left-wing, liberal group.

That's laughable to the nth power. :laugh2:

They were democrats. Get off you soapbox and deal with reality.

[BrAinPaiNt]

They were democrats. Get off you soapbox and deal with reality.

Yes they were. However did many of them later migrate to the republican party?

And is the current area that were those democrats now mostly dominated by elected by the Republican party? Two simple questions.:D

[trickblue]

The KKK was hardly liberal. It was very much conservative because it wanted to keep the status quo, i.e., blacks as slaves or segregated.

Or maybe it was started for something entirely different... ;)

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100907

[DaBoys4Life]

LINK (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/14/confirme-the-obama-dhs-hit-job-on-conservatives-is-real/?print=1)

Confirmed: The Obama DHS hit job on conservatives is real


By Michelle Malkin • April 14, 2009 12:01 AM

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/rightwing.jpg

Yesterday, Roger Hedgecock and the Liberty Papers posted an unclassified DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis report titled:

Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.

The “report” (PDF file here) was one of the most embarrassingly shoddy pieces of propaganda I’d ever read out of DHS. I couldn’t believe it was real.

I spent the day chasing down DHS spokespeople, who have been tied up preparing for a very important homeland security event later today: The First Lady is coming to visit their Washington office. Priorities, you know.

Well, the press office got back to me and verified that the document is indeed for real.

They were very defensive — preemptively so — in asserting that it was not a politicized document and that DHS had done reports on “leftwing extremism” in the past. I have covered DHS for many years and am quite familiar with past assessments they and the FBI have done on animal rights terrorists and environmental terrorists. But those past reports have always been very specific in identifying the exact groups, causes, and targets of domestic terrorism, i.e., the ALF, ELF, and Stop Huntingdon wackos who have engaged in physical harassment, arson, vandalism, and worse against pharmaceutical companies, farms, labs, and university researchers.

By contrast, the piece of crap report issued on April 7 is a sweeping indictment of conservatives. And the intent is clear. As the two spokespeople I talked with on the phone today made clear: They both pinpointed the recent “economic downturn” and the “general state of the economy” for stoking “rightwing extremism.” One of the spokespeople said he was told that the report has been in the works for a year. My b.s. detector went off the chart, and yours will, too, if you read through the entire report — which asserts with no evidence that an unquantified “resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalizations activity” is due to home foreclosures, job losses, and…the historical presidential election.

In Obama land, there are no coincidences. It is no coincidence that this report echoes Tea Party-bashing left-wing blogs (check this one out comparing the Tea Party movement to the Weather Underground!) and demonizes the very Americans who will be protesting in the thousands on Wednesday for the nationwide Tax Day Tea Party.

From the report, p.2:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

From the report. p. 3:

(U//LES) Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. 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.

(U) Exploiting Economic Downturn

(U//FOUO) Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures. Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish “financial elites.” These “accusatory” tactics are employed to draw new recruits into rightwing extremist groups and further radicalize those already subscribing to extremist beliefs. DHS/I&A assesses this trend is likely to accelerate if the economy is perceived to worsen.

From the report, p. 5:

(U//FOUO) Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists, including militias and white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action, rallying point,
and recruiting tool. Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent.

And echoing the anti-military bigotry last seen in that disgusting Penn State University training video, there’s this on p. 7:

(U) Disgruntled Military Veterans

(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.

There’s no hackneyed left-wing stereotype of conservatives left behind in this DHS intelligence and analysis assessment. I asked both DHS spokespeople to tell me who, specifically, the report was accusing of “rightwing extremist chatter” and which “antigovernment” groups are being monitored as “extremists.” They say they’ll get back to me.

In the meantime, be aware of this from the report, p. 8:

(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in rightwing extremist activity in the United States, with a particular emphasis on the political, economic, and social factors that drive rightwing extremist radicalization.

Better make a few last-minute signs for the Tea Party. Obama’s DHS is watching:

Honk if you’re a radicalized rightwing extremist!

Guilty of rightwing extremist chatter

Anti-government, pro-freedom: Sue me

***

Previous: Missouri retracts report linking militias, 3rd party candidates.

***

Oh, I’m sure DHS will be issuing its report on self-proclaimed bank terrorists like Bruce Marks of NACA and criminal rackeeters harassing private citizens in their homes to “exploit the economic downturn” any day now.

That seems laughable do people really think like this?

[tyke1doe]

They were democrats. Get off you soapbox and deal with reality.

But they weren't liberals. They were conservatives. That's the point. Please join the rest of us who employ critical-thinking skills. :)

[trickblue]

Yes they were. However did many of them later migrate to the republican party?

And is the current area that were those democrats now mostly dominated by elected by the Republican party? Two simple questions.:D

Actually the Yellow Dog Democrat is still quite a strong movement. I lived until recently in a stronghold of the YD (2000 was the first time in the history of the county that I lived in that a Republican won the local election and that's only because he was the current governor of Texas). I actually got a flyer on my front door once to join the KKK.

Saying all the racists joined the GOP is a copout. There is no way to know so it is a convenient tool of the left.

As far as the original Dixiecrats, only one I believe crossed over to the GOP and that was Strom Thurmond. He didn't cross over for the racial issue but rather he wanted to support Goldwater in the '64 election.

The reason the South largely votes GOP is because it is a largely conservative area.

The funny thing to me is how the South is always accused of being the most racist. When I used to travel on my job for years, I found Chicago, Boston and Philly to be unbelievably racist.

[Cajuncowboy]

This is funny.

It's bad to tap terrorists phone conversations but it's ok to track those with a differing political view.


YES WE CAN!

[tyke1doe]

Most all were Yellow Dog Democrats...

You're talking about political parties, I'm not.

I questioned whether the KKK was a left-wing group. It is not. It has always been a right-wing fringe group - no matter whether members were Democrats or Republicans.

It reveals a lack of critical-thinking skills to simply apply a political party label to a group and assume that by name alone we can identify the group as liberal or conservative, especially without considering that label in the context of history.

Republicans (I generalize so forgive me) in pre-Emancipation Days were liberal. Democrats were conservative. Republicans during Jim Crow were liberal, Democrats conservative.

[DaBoys4Life]

Actually the Yellow Dog Democrat is still quite a strong movement. I lived until recently in a stronghold of the YD (2000 was the first time in the history of the county that I lived in that a Republican won the local election and that's only because he was the current governor of Texas). I actually got a flyer on my front door once to join the KKK.

Saying all the racists joined the GOP is a copout. There is no way to know so it is a convenient tool of the left.

As far as the original Dixiecrats, only one I believe crossed over to the GOP and that was Strom Thurmond. He didn't cross over for the racial issue but rather he wanted to support Goldwater in the '64 election.

The reason the South largely votes GOP is because it is a largely conservative area.

The funny thing to me is how the South is always accused of being the most racist. When I used to travel on my job for years, I found Chicago, Boston and Philly to be unbelievably racist.

Let's not forget about new jersey. I think BP is joking considering who is the senator of his state.

[trickblue]

You're talking about political parties, I'm not.

I questioned whether the KKK was a left-wing group. It is not. It has always been a right-wing fringe group - no matter whether members were Democrats or Republicans.

It reveals a lack of critical-thinking skills to simply apply a political party label to a group and assume that by name alone we can identify the group as liberal or conservative, especially without considering that label in the context of history.

Republicans (I generalize so forgive me) in pre-Emancipation Days were liberal. Democrats were conservative. Republicans during Jim Crow were liberal, Democrats conservative.

My issue wasn't in regards to party necessarily... the implication seemed to be that they vote conservative, i.e. Republican when actually the YDD is still very strong.

My second assertion was that you stated that the KKK was started to harass blacks. I was just pointing out that it was created to harass blacks AND Republicans...

[tyke1doe]

My issue wasn't in regards to party necessarily... the implication seemed to be that they vote conservative, i.e. Republican when actually the YDD is still very strong.

Well, that's not an implication I made.

My second assertion was that you stated that the KKK was started to harass blacks. I was just pointing out that it was created to harass blacks AND Republicans...

Where did I say the KKK was started to harass blacks? :huh:

[trickblue]

Well, that's not an implication I made.



Where did I say the KKK was started to harass blacks? :huh:

I was talking about this...

The KKK was hardly liberal. It was very much conservative because it wanted to keep the status quo, i.e., blacks as slaves or segregated.

Of course the status quo involved harassment. I was jumping to conclusions we all know to be true...

I don't necessarily disagree with your points, I just wanted to point out that the history of formation of the KKK goes largely unreported...

[JBond]

You're talking about political parties, I'm not.

I questioned whether the KKK was a left-wing group. It is not. It has always been a right-wing fringe group - no matter whether members were Democrats or Republicans.

It reveals a lack of critical-thinking skills to simply apply a political party label to a group and assume that by name alone we can identify the group as liberal or conservative, especially without considering that label in the context of history.

Republicans (I generalize so forgive me) in pre-Emancipation Days were liberal. Democrats were conservative. Republicans during Jim Crow were liberal, Democrats conservative.

To borrow from tricks post a while back:

KKK's 1st targets were Republicans
Dems credited with starting group that attacked both blacks, whites
By Bob Unruh

The original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white, according to a new television program and book, which describe how the Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats.

An estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites died at the end of KKK ropes from 1882 to 1964.

The documentation has been assembled by David Barton of Wallbuilders and published in his book "Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White," which reveals that not only did the Democrats work hand-in-glove with the Ku Klux Klan for generations, they started the KKK and endorsed its mayhem.

"Of all forms of violent intimidation, lynchings were by far the most effective," Barton said in his book. "Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and their platforms consistently called for a ban on lynching. Democrats successfully blocked those bills and their platforms never did condemn lynchings."

Further, the first grand wizard of the KKK was honored at the 1868 Democratic National Convention, no Democrats voted for the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to former slaves and, to this day, the party website ignores those decades of racism, he said.

"Although it is relatively unreported today, historical documents are unequivocal that the Klan was established by Democrats and that the Klan played a prominent role in the Democratic Party," Barton writes in his book. "In fact, a 13-volume set of congressional investigations from 1872 conclusively and irrefutably documents that fact.

"Contributing to the evidences was the 1871 appearance before Congress of leading South Carolina Democrat E.W. Seibels who testified that 'they [the Ku Klux Klan] belong to the reform part – [that is, to] our party, the Democratic Party,'" Barton writes.

"The Klan terrorized black Americans through murders and public floggings; relief was granted only if individuals promised not to vote for Republican tickets, and violation of this oath was punishable by death," he said. "Since the Klan targeted Republicans in general, it did not limit its violence simply to black Republicans; white Republicans were also included."

Barton also has covered the subject in one episode of his American Heritage Series of television programs, which is being broadcast now on Trinity Broadcasting Network and Cornerstone Television.

Barton told WND his comments are not a condemnation or endorsement of any party or candidate, but rather a warning that voters even today should be aware of what their parties and candidates stand for.

His book outlines the aggressive pro-slavery agenda held by the Democratic Party for generations leading up to the Civil War, and how that did not die with the Union victory in that war of rebellion.

Even as the South was being rebuilt, the votes in Congress consistently revealed a continuing pro-slavery philosophy on the part of the Democrats, the book reveals.

Three years after Appomattox, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, granting blacks citizenship in the United States, came before Congress: 94 percent of Republicans endorsed it.

"The records of Congress reveal that not one Democrat – either in the House or the Senate – voted for the 14th Amendment," Barton wrote. "Three years after the Civil War, and the Democrats from the North as well as the South were still refusing to recognize any rights of citizenship for black Americans."

He also noted that South Carolina Gov. Wade Hampton at the 1868 Democratic National Convention inserted a clause in the party platform declaring the Congress' civil rights laws were "unconstitutional, revolutionary, and void."

It was the same convention when Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, the first grand wizard of the KKK, was honored for his leadership.

Barton's book notes that in 1868, Congress heard testimony from election worker Robert Flournoy, who confessed while he was canvassing the state of Mississippi in support of the 13th and 14th Amendments, he could find only one black, in a population of 444,000 in the state, who admitted being a Democrat.

Nor is Barton the only person to raise such questions. In 2005, National Review published an article raising similar points. The publication said in 1957 President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, deployed the 82nd Airborne Division to desegregate the Little Rock, Ark., schools over the resistance of Democrat Gov. Orval Faubus.

Further, three years later, Eisenhower signed the GOP's 1960 Civil Rights Act after it survived a five-day, five-hour filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats, and in 1964, Democrat President Lyndon Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act after former Klansman Robert Byrd's 14-hour filibuster, and the votes of 22 other Senate Democrats, including Tennessee's Al Gore Sr., failed to scuttle the plan.

The current version of the "History" page on the party website lists a number of accomplishments – from 1792, 1798, 1800, 1808, 1812, 1816, 1824 and 1828, including its 1832 nomination of Andrew Jackson for president. It follows up with a name change, and the establishment of the Democratic National Committee, but then leaps over the Civil War and all of its issues to talk about the end of the 19th Century, William Jennings Bryan and women's suffrage.

A spokesman with the Democrats refused to comment for WND on any of the issues. "You're not going to get a comment," said the spokesman who identified himself as Luis.

"Why would Democrats skip over their own history from 1848 to 1900?" Barton asked. "Perhaps because it's not the kind of civil rights history they want to talk about – perhaps because it is not the kind of civil rights history they want to have on their website."

The National Review article by Deroy Murdock cited the 1866 comment from Indiana Republican Gov. Oliver Morton condemning Democrats for their racism.

"Every one who shoots down Negroes in the streets, burns Negro schoolhouses and meeting-houses, and murders women and children by the light of their own flaming dwellings, calls himself a Democrat," Morton said.

It also cited the 1856 criticism by U.S. Sen. Charles Sumner, R-Mass., of pro-slavery Democrats. "Congressman Preston Brooks (D-S.C.) responded by grabbing a stick and beating Sumner unconscious in the Senate chamber. Disabled, Sumner could not resume his duties for three years."

By the admission of the Democrats themselves, on their website, it wasn't until Harry Truman was elected that "Democrats began the fight to bring down the final barriers of race and gender."

"That is an accurate description," wrote Barton. "Starting with Harry Truman, Democrats began – that is, they made their first serious efforts – to fight against the barriers of race; yet … Truman's efforts were largely unsuccessful because of his own Democratic Party."

Even then, the opposition to rights for blacks was far from over. As recently as 1960, Mississippi Democratic Gov. Hugh White had requested Christian evangelist Billy Graham segregate his crusades, something Graham refused to do. "And when South Carolina Democratic Gov. George Timmerman learned Billy Graham had invited African Americans to a Reformation Rally at the state Capitol, he promptly denied use of the facilities to the evangelist," Barton wrote.

The National Review noted that the Democrats' "Klan-coddling" today is embodied in Byrd, who once wrote that, "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia."

The article suggested a contrast with the GOP, which, when former Klansman David Duke ran for Louisiana governor in 1991 as a Republican, was "scorned" by national GOP officials.

Until 1935, every black federal legislator was Republican, and it was Republicans who appointed the first black Air Force and Army four-star generals, established Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday as a national holiday, and named the first black national-security adviser, secretary of state, the research reveals.

Current Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has said: "The first Republican I knew was my father, and he is still the Republican I most admire. He joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did. My father has never forgotten that day, and neither have I."

Barton's documentation said the first opponents of slavery "and the chief advocates for racial equal rights were the churches (the Quakers, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc.). Furthermore, religious leaders such as Quaker Anthony Benezet were the leading spokesmen against slavery, and evangelical leaders such as Presbyterian signer of the Declaration Benjamin Rush were the founders of the nation's first abolition societies."

During the years surrounding the Civil War, "the most obvious difference between the Republican and Democrat parties was their stands on slavery," Barton said. Republicans called for its abolition, while Democrats declared: "All efforts of the abolitionists, or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient [to initiate] steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and all such efforts have the inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people."

Wallbuilders also cited John Alden's 1885 book, "A Brief History of the Republican Party" in noting that the KKK's early attacks were on Republicans as much as blacks, in that blacks were adopting the Republican identity en masse.

"In some places the Ku Klux Klan assaulted Republican officials in their houses or offices or upon the public roads; in others they attacked the meetings of negroes and displaced them," Alden wrote. "Its ostensible purpose at first was to keep the blacks in order and prevent them from committing small depredations upon the property of whites, but its real motives were essentially political … The negroes were invariable required to promise not to vote the Republican ticket, and threatened with death if they broke their promises."

Barton told WND the most cohesive group of political supporters in America now is African-Americans. He said most consider their affiliation with the Democratic party long term.

But he said he interviewed a black pastor in Mississippi who recalled his grandmother never "would let a Democrat in the house, and he never knew what she was talking about." After a review of history, he knew, Barton said.
Citing President George Washington's farewell address, Barton told WND, "Washington had a great section on the love of party, if you love party more than anything else, what it will do to a great nation."

"We shouldn't love a party [over] a candidate's principles or values," he told WND.

Washington's farewell address noted the "danger" from parties is serious.

"Let me now … warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. … The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism," Washington said.

[JBond]

Lets get back to the real point of this thread. Team Obama feels groups or individuals that believe in legal immigration and states rights are dangerous right wing fanatics. The fact that Obama wants to target people who believe in the laws of our land should worry everyone including the die hard libs. The Patriot Act is now going to be misused, as BP and others said it would, to target American citizens that do not agree with Obama's perverted view of the Constitution. It will be used to persecute and prosecute Americans that disagree with the current administration stance on states rights and legal immigration.

Stalin and Hitler did the exact same thing. Just saying.

[mmurray21]

I think its true to say all extremists groups are bad, but what extremist liberal groups are there anymore? Ironically, the government infiltrated and destroyed all of those groups in the 60's and 70's. I would ask my conservative friends to ask themselves if that was a good or bad thing before taking shots at this document.


What liberal groups in the last 25 years are arming themselves?

[BrAinPaiNt]

This is funny.

It's bad to tap terrorists phone conversations but it's ok to track those with a differing political view.


YES WE CAN!

As I said one did it and now the other is doing it...however Yes we can is all you can think of...figures.:D

[JBond]

I think its true to say all extremists groups are bad, but what extremist liberal groups are there anymore? Ironically, the government infiltrated and destroyed all of those groups in the 60's and 70's. I would ask my conservative friends to ask themselves if that was a good or bad thing before taking shots at this document.


What liberal groups in the last 25 years are arming themselves?

Muslims

[BrAinPaiNt]

Let's not forget about new jersey. I think BP is joking considering who is the senator of his state.

I live here and I have seen racism all across the north and south. I hear some racist slang or rant almost every day where I live so I know it is not just southern areas.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Lets get back to the real point of this thread. Team Obama feels groups or individuals that believe in legal immigration and states rights are dangerous right wing fanatics. The fact that Obama wants to target people who believe in the laws of our land should worry everyone including the die hard libs. The Patriot Act is now going to be misused, as BP and others said it would, to target American citizens that do not agree with Obama's perverted view of the Constitution. It will be used to persecute and prosecute Americans that disagree with the current administration stance on states rights and legal immigration.

Stalin and Hitler did the exact same thing. Just saying.

Yet many in here were defending the patriot act until...you know until when and why.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Muslims

:laugh2: I think muslims would more fit into the extreme social conservatives area...or at least what some think of as social conservative...aka letting faith dictate things. I guess they could also fit into the neocon situation to attack nations if you deem them as a possible threat down the road.

Remember libs are all wimps and wussies when it comes to war and the military so they could not be libs.

:D

[JBond]

As I said one did it and now the other is doing it...however Yes we can is all you can think of...figures.:D

Many of us were worried about the Patriot Act. We had not suffered through anything like 911 before. There was an overreaction. Many of us can agree on that.

My question to you is do you see a difference in tracking known terrorists from foreign countries and tracking people who want our laws regarding states rights and immigration upheld? Why are the people who want the laws of the land upheld being persecuted for it? The President is supposed to uphold the Constitution, not persecute people for believing in it. If you believe in the sanctity of law you are a dangerous extremist. It is crazy.

Has your boy Ron Paul sounded off on this topic yet?

[BrAinPaiNt]

Many of us were worried about the Patriot Act. We had not suffered through anything like 911 before. There was an overreaction. Many of us can agree on that.

My question to you is do you see a difference in tracking known terrorists from foreign countries and tracking people who want our laws regarding states rights and immigration upheld? Why are the people who want the laws of the land upheld being persecuted for it? The President is supposed to uphold the Constitution, not persecute people for believing in it. If you believe in the sanctity of law you are a dangerous extremist. It is crazy.

Has your boy Ron Paul sounded off on this topic yet?

Don't know about Ron Paul, have not followed him recently but I am pretty sure he was not happy about all of the patriot act.

Also you know like I know that the right put out a report as well since you provided the links.

This is about government power and to keep their eyes on people. Hopefully it will not go to the extremes that a Hoover or Nixon would go in some areas but with the patriot act they make it easier to do so if they wished.

Now if it truly is to keep an eye on the far left or right wing nuts that could provide a legit threat that is one thing, however It seems we both agree that it goes beyond just those fringes. So in this area I think my paranoia matches yours.:D

[tyke1doe]

To borrow from tricks post a while back:

KKK's 1st targets were Republicans


Obviously, you're either dishonest or are incapable of understanding that "liberal" and "Democrat" or "Republican" and "conservative" aren't synonmyns.

Again, your critical-thinking skills are seriously lacking. But carry on.

[JBond]

Don't know about Ron Paul, have not followed him recently but I am pretty sure he was not happy about all of the patriot act.

Also you know like I know that the right put out a report as well since you provided the links.

This is about government power and to keep their eyes on people. Hopefully it will not go to the extremes that a Hoover or Nixon would go in some areas but with the patriot act they make it easier to do so if they wished.

Now if it truly is to keep an eye on the far left or right wing nuts that could provide a legit threat that is one thing, however It seems we both agree that it goes beyond just those fringes. So in this area I think my paranoia matches yours.:D

Just because I am paranoid doesn't mean they're not watching.:D

[tyke1doe]

Of course the status quo involved harassment. I was jumping to conclusions we all know to be true...

Therefore, the KKK was conservative in its approach. That was my point.

I don't necessarily disagree with your points, I just wanted to point out that the history of formation of the KKK goes largely unreported...

Fair enough, but, really, does it matter? It's like pointing out that Hitler was kind to his wife and his maid. What would that matter in light of how history remembers him?

Sometimes, an individual or group is defined by his/its most lasting impact. Regardless the origin of the KKK, it became known as a group that terrorized blacks and those who supported racial equality. Anything else "good" about the organization pails in comparison.

[tyke1doe]

:laugh2: I think muslims would more fit into the extreme social conservatives area...or at least what some think of as social conservative...aka letting faith dictate things. I guess they could also fit into the neocon situation to attack nations if you deem them as a possible threat down the road.

Remember libs are all wimps and wussies when it comes to war and the military so they could not be libs.

:D

Bingo. And that's the problem with these all-or-nothing labels. Fortunately, critically-minded people can distinguish the differences.

[JBond]

Therefore, the KKK was conservative in its approach. That was my point.



Fair enough, but, really, does it matter? It's like pointing out that Hitler was kind to his wife and his maid. What would that matter in light of how history remembers him?

Sometimes, an individual or group is defined by his/its most lasting impact. Regardless the origin of the KKK, it became known as a group that terrorized blacks and those who supported racial equality. Anything else "good" about the organization pails in comparison.

To me, hanging people and burning crosses while wearing bed sheets with funny hats is radical to me.

[tyke1doe]

To me, hanging people and burning crosses while wearing bed sheets with funny hats is radical to me.

Just as spraying red paint on people wearing mink coats or setting fire to labs because you don't like the fact that animals are used in experiments.

The issue isn't whether it's radical, but what motivates the individuals and how do we interpret that issue in its historical context.

Leftists and righties both can be radical.

In the case of the KKK, it involved the opposition to racial integration or full inclusion of blacks into American society. And the motivation of that radicalism had many sources - religion, racism, economics, etc. Nevertheless, it represented an effort to preserve the status quo.

In the case of radical animal rights activists, they're trying to force a change in the status quo by their radical acts.

What confuses matters is that at any point in time, these definitions - "liberal" and "conservative" - can change. For example, if abortion rights groups start to bomb abortion clinics, that is an effort to shake up the status quo. Would we consider those groups "liberal"? Or those who want to maintain the status quo of Roe v. Wade, would they be considered "conservative"?

That's why I say we must understand these terms in the context they're used because no label can accurately describe all groups because even liberal/conservative groups can take positions oppose their ideological framework.

[trickblue]

Therefore, the KKK was conservative in its approach. That was my point.

Although I agree the KKK was right wing, maintaining the status quo isn't exclusive to just conservative principle. That is evident in regards to SS and welfare among other issues. Redistribution of wealth is hardly a conservative issue... nor is furthering or increasing it's scope.

Fair enough, but, really, does it matter? It's like pointing out that Hitler was kind to his wife and his maid. What would that matter in light of how history remembers him?

Sometimes, an individual or group is defined by his/its most lasting impact. Regardless the origin of the KKK, it became known as a group that terrorized blacks and those who supported racial equality. Anything else "good" about the organization pails in comparison.

The reason I mention this is because I firmly believe that if you ignore history, you are doomed to repeat it. The fact that the organization was started by Democrats is relevant as it is frequently tied to Conservatives and more specifically the Republican Party, when that just isn't the case. It's roots were firmly founded in the Democrat Party.

In light of the new report by the DHS, it very well may happen again...

[sbark]

In the days when the KKK had some power the majority of members were southern democrats.

http://spectator.org/archives/2008/08/12/democrats-the-missing-years

from article:
In a stroke, 52 years of Democrat history vanishes. Disappeared faster than the truth in the Clinton administration. Why would this be? Allow me to sketch in a few facts from those missing 52 years. For that matter, lets add in the facts from the party history before and after those 52 years, since they aren't mentioned by the Democrats' National Committee either.
So what's missing?.......

There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms supporting slavery. There were 6 from 1840-1860.
* There is no reference to the number of Democratic presidents who owned slaves. There were 7 from 1800-1861
* There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms that either supported segregation outright or were silent on the subject. There were 20, from 1868-1948.
* There is no reference to "Jim Crow" as in "Jim Crow laws," nor is there reference to the role Democrats played in creating them. These were the post-Civil War laws passed enthusiastically by Democrats in that pesky 52-year part of the DNC's missing years. These laws segregated public schools, public transportation, restaurants, rest rooms and public places in general (everything from water coolers to beaches). The reason Civil Rights heroine Rosa Parks became famous is that she sat in the front of a "whites only" bus, the "whites only" designation the direct result of Democrats.
* There is no reference to the formation of the Ku Klux Klan, which, according to Columbia University historian Eric Foner became "a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party." Nor is there reference to University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease's description of the Klan as the "terrorist arm of the Democratic Party."
* There is no reference to the fact Democrats opposed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The Thirteenth banned slavery. The Fourteenth effectively overturned the infamous 1857 Supreme Court Dred Scott decision (made by Democrat pro-slavery Supreme Court justices) by guaranteeing due process and equal protection to former slaves. The Fifteenth gave black Americans the right to vote.
* There is no reference to the fact Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was passed by the Republican Congress over the veto of Democratic President Andrew Johnson. The law was designed to provide blacks with the right to own private property, sign contracts, sue and serve as witnesses in a legal proceeding.
* There is no reference to the Democrats' opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1875. It was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Ulysses Grant. The law prohibited racial discrimination in public places and public accommodations.

[sbark]

DHS document............keep in mind this is just the "unclassified" portion of the entire report that was leaked........

what does one suppose is in the "classifed" book..........KFC reciepes?:eek:

[JBond]

:laugh2: I think muslims would more fit into the extreme social conservatives area...or at least what some think of as social conservative...aka letting faith dictate things. I guess they could also fit into the neocon situation to attack nations if you deem them as a possible threat down the road.

Remember libs are all wimps and wussies when it comes to war and the military so they could not be libs.

:D



http://billrobinsonmusic.com/Spirituality/nuns&guns.jpg

[burmafrd]

Hey brain you started to figure it out on Libs!! Congratulations.

Conservative thinking is very much law and order and in most cases also from a religious belief system. RADICAL conservatism is the Islamic Fundamentalists and some of the crazier sects around the US.

[tyke1doe]

Although I agree the KKK was right wing, maintaining the status quo isn't exclusive to just conservative principle. That is evident in regards to SS and welfare among other issues. Redistribution of wealth is hardly a conservative issue... nor is furthering or increasing it's scope.

See my response to JBond.



The reason I mention this is because I firmly believe that if you ignore history, you are doomed to repeat it. The fact that the organization was started by Democrats is relevant as it is frequently tied to Conservatives and more specifically the Republican Party, when that just isn't the case. It's roots were firmly founded in the Democrat Party.


So? :confused:

The fact that the KKK may have had some intersection with Democrats doesn't really tell me much. The Democratic Party was the predominant party in the South years. In many Southern states, there really hadn't been much of a Republican Party until the 80s. Conservatives and liberals alike associated themselves with the Democratic Party because many Southern states didn't have a true two-party system.

I find the "but they were Democrats" argument wanting. Again, it doesn't interpret the ideological terms (conservative and liberal) based on their meaning at the time. IMO, it's merely a way for Republicans to say "see Democrats discriminated against blacks" when the Democratic Party of today isn't the same Democratic Party of yesteryear (neither is the Republican Party for that matter).

[trickblue]

See my response to JBond.




So? :confused:

The fact that the KKK may have had some intersection with Democrats doesn't really tell me much. The Democratic Party was the predominant party in the South years. In many Southern states, there really hadn't been much of a Republican Party until the 80s. Conservatives and liberals alike associated themselves with the Democratic Party because many Southern states didn't have a true two-party system.

I find the "but they were Democrats" argument wanting. Again, it doesn't interpret the ideological terms (conservative and liberal) based on their meaning at the time. IMO, it's merely a way for Republicans to say "see Democrats discriminated against blacks" when the Democratic Party of today isn't the same Democratic Party of yesteryear (neither is the Republican Party for that matter).

Of course they are different, but you wouldn't know that in the media...

Democrats make a living at accusing Republicans of racism...

The fact that the history of organizations like the KKK is forgotten is the very reason they can get away with it... forgotten history...

DHS appears on course to do it again...

[silverbear]

suspect and silver; match made in looney left heaven.

And once again, burm comes in with absolutely nothing of substance to offer...

Really, you never have offered anything of substance... all you do, and I mean ALL you do, is rant against "libs"...

Oh, and FWIW, your sig line is incredibly stupid... unless things have really, really changed over the last couple-three decades, I don't recall ever seeing any sheep in or around White Sands...

[silverbear]

Why is it ......the report on the Left wing emphasises mainly cyber threat.....the report on the right more numerous threats including physical....

Perhaps that's because left wing extremists these days have chosen to focus on cyber attacks, as opposed to the physical type...

I see that others have pointed out the idiocy of trying to make the KKK out to be a left wing group, so I won't beat that dead horse much more, other than to note that the KKK has long espoused these eminently right wing positions:

1) They're virulently anti-immigration...

2) They're staunchly opposed to affirmative action...

3) They're rabidly homophobic...

I see that some have tried to employ an historical argument to make the KKK out as a Democratic/left wing operation, but both the Democratic and Republican parties stand for radically different things than they did back when the KKK first came into being... TODAY, the KKK and all white supremacist operations share an ultra-right wing agenda...

[silverbear]

Both sides have their bad.

They do... the thing is, the DHS covered the bad on both sides... and isn't it interesting, that the right didn't utter one word of protest when the analysis of left wing extremism was published??

On a side note. I do find it interesting that both sides have had DHS do these reports and kind of scary because of what they could do to a group by labeling them domestic terrorists if they really wanted to even if the group showed no signs of violence.

Uhhhhh, isn't it DHS's job to identify domestic terror threats??

[silverbear]

DHS is a bureaucracy and the primary focus of any such thing is to perpetuate its existence. So they will do anything to ensure that.

LOL... it's curious, but I don't recall you attacking DHS while Dubya was President... now all of a sudden, when Obama is Commander In Chief, that organization is fair game for your attacks??

Just more proof that you support ANYTHING that the Republicans do, and oppose EVERYTHING that the Democrats do...

[Cajuncowboy]

Perhaps that's because left wing extremists these days have chosen to focus on cyber attacks, as opposed to the physical type...

I see that others have pointed out the idiocy of trying to make the KKK out to be a left wing group, so I won't beat that dead horse much more, other than to note that the KKK has long espoused these eminently right wing positions:

1) They're virulently anti-immigration...

2) They're staunchly opposed to affirmative action...

3) They're rabidly homophobic...

I see that some have tried to employ an historical argument to make the KKK out as a Democratic/left wing operation, but both the Democratic and Republican parties stand for radically different things than they did back when the KKK first came into being... TODAY, the KKK and all white supremacist operations share an ultra-right wing agenda...

The conservatives are for all colors of people to be successful. The Liberals are for all colors of people to be dependent on Government.

If you really think conservatives are homo-phobic, anti-immigration and opposed to people of color achieving you prove you don't know what you are talking about.

Oh, and Robert Byrd is a Democrat.

[silverbear]

Extremist groups right or left who would commit terrorist acts should be looked at both sides have them



Exactly right, Dooms... I don't want whackos of any stripe running around blowing things up...

[silverbear]

In the days when the KKK had some power the majority of members were southern democrats.

And back then, the Democrats owned the South... you couldn't get elected dogcatcher if you were a Republican...

But TODAY, the GOP owns the South, and the KKK is a right wing extremist organization...

[silverbear]

So to clarify, If you believe in states rights and legal immigration you are a right wing extremist

You kinda left out the lynching, and the bombing, and the burning of churches... or are you suggesting that all the KKK does is support state rights and oppose illegal immigration??

But yes, if you believe in states rights, and are opposed to illegal immigration, then you're almost certainly a Republican... and if you believe strongly in those things, you're a right winger, possibly an extremist...

[silverbear]

Translation: You can't debate my point so you're going to switch the topic and make it personal. Typical.

Well, since you're not willing to be educated, let me do so for the rest of the forum.

You simply can't offer the label "Democrat" and invest it with the eternal definition of "liberal." If that's the case, then "Republican" always means "conservative." And Lincoln was hardly "conservative" when he advocated freedom for the slaves.

Anybody who takes the time to look up the political positions of the Democratic and Republican parties back then would soon discover that today's Democratic party had a lot more in common with Lincoln's Republican party than it did the Democratic party back then, and vice-versa...

Consider these factual nuggets from Wikipedia:

The party was created in opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act that would have allowed the expansion of slavery into Kansas. Their first official party meeting was held on July 6, 1854 in Jackson, Michigan. Besides opposition to the expansion of slavery, the new party put forward a progressive vision of modernizing the United States — emphasizing higher education, banking, railroads, industry and cities, while promising free homesteads to farmers.

As you noted, back then opposing slavery was a "liberal" stance... and obviously, a free homestead for every farmer is almost a socialist stance...

Its initial base was in the Northeast and Midwest

At the start, it's "base" included what is today known as the ultraliberal Northeast...

And in the 1870s, factionalism within the Republican Party led to a splintering, with one faction arising briefly that called itself the LIBERAL Republican Party...

The moral to this story is today's Republican Party bears at best only a superficial resemblance to the original Republican Party, and if Lincoln were alive today, he'd be a Democrat... a liberal Democrat, at that...

Of course, the same is true about today's Democratic party, and the Democratic party back in the 1860s... they are two VERY different animals... it's a bit simplistic to say that today's Democrats are yesterday's Republicans and vice versa, but there is a nugget of truth in that assertion...

[silverbear]

They were democrats. Get off you soapbox and deal with reality.

Instead, maybe you should go study your history, in an effort to offer an INFORMED opinion for a change...

Democrats back then shared little in common ideologically with Democrats today... that's a simple, documentable FACT...

In fact, if they'd had a political message board back then, you and the other arch-right wingers in here would ALL have been staunch Democrats... that was the party that believed the same things you now profess to believe...

When you act like Democrats have always shared the positions the party professes today, all you do is prove that you haven't studied your history... somehow, I suspect that you'd be opposed to the Republican party calling for free homesteads for farmers, the way the GOP did back then... you'd rail against that, calling it "socialism" (and you'd be right, it is socialism)...

[trickblue]

Anybody who takes the time to look up the political positions of the Democratic and Republican parties back then would soon discover that today's Democratic party had a lot more in common with Lincoln's Republican party than it did the Democratic party back then, and vice-versa...

Consider these factual nuggets from Wikipedia:



As you noted, back then opposing slavery was a "liberal" stance... and obviously, a free homestead for every farmer is almost a socialist stance...



At the start, it's "base" included what is today known as the ultraliberal Northeast...

And in the 1870s, factionalism within the Republican Party led to a splintering, with one faction arising briefly that called itself the LIBERAL Republican Party...

The moral to this story is today's Republican Party bears at best only a superficial resemblance to the original Republican Party, and if Lincoln were alive today, he'd be a Democrat... a liberal Democrat, at that...

Of course, the same is true about today's Democratic party, and the Democratic party back in the 1860s... they are two VERY different animals... it's a bit simplistic to say that today's Democrats are yesterday's Republicans and vice versa, but there is a nugget of truth in that assertion...

Nice to see you here, Paul Begala...

Revisionist history does not make that history so...

[silverbear]

That seems laughable do people really think like this?

Worse, they make Michelle Moron rich...

[silverbear]

Actually the Yellow Dog Democrat is still quite a strong movement. I lived until recently in a stronghold of the YD (2000 was the first time in the history of the county that I lived in that a Republican won the local election and that's only because he was the current governor of Texas). I actually got a flyer on my front door once to join the KKK.

Saying all the racists joined the GOP is a copout. There is no way to know so it is a convenient tool of the left.

Trick, the vast majority of white supremacists who bother to register to vote ARE Republicans...

That doesn't mean that the GOP is the party for you if you're a racist, but the reasons for their allegiance is quite clear-- the GOP is the party that is anti-immigration, anti-gay marriage, anti-affirmative action, and these are all issues near and dear to the heart of your average white supremacist...

[JBond]

You kinda left out the lynching, and the bombing, and the burning of churches... or are you suggesting that all the KKK does is support state rights and oppose illegal immigration??

But yes, if you believe in states rights, and are opposed to illegal immigration, then you're almost certainly a Republican... and if you believe strongly in those things, you're a right winger, possibly an extremist...

No. I am talking about the people Obama has targeted according to his DHS report. He claims that people who believe in states rights and legal immigration are right wing extremists.

Pay attention. This is not about lynchings or whatever you are rambling about. This is about people who respect the Constitution vs Obama who views the Constitution as flawed and as a charter of negative liberties. Obama is terrified of people that respect the law. He is targeting the people who respect the law and expect Obama to live up to his Constitutional duties.

[JBond]

Nice to see you here, Paul Begala...

Revisionist history does not make that history so...

The biggest leftists on the board continually claim the are the most like our founding fathers and Lincoln when it could not be any further from the truth. Now they are claiming to hold the upper card in race relations and what they have done to improve life for blacks in our country over the years. Crazy stuff flowing from the left. Their attempts to rewrite history is working in many areas of public education, unfortunately.

[silverbear]

This is funny.

Is it, or have you just completely missed the point again??

It's bad to tap terrorists phone conversations but it's ok to track those with a differing political view.

And in typical right wing fashion, you distort the REAL issue here...

The assertion was that DHS was engaged in a "hit job" on conservatives... this is the specific accusation made by Michelle Malkin... to which I respond:

1) DHS offered an assessment not of conservatives, but rather of RIGHT WING EXTREMISM... the ONLY way you could see that as a "hit on conservatives" is if you believe that ALL conservatives are right wing extremists...

2) Prior to publishing this analysis of right wing extremism, DHS published an analysis of LEFT wing extremism back in January... so clearly, this analysis was merely a continuation of an in-depth analysis of political extremism in America, and it seems to me that this sort of analysis is what the Department of Homeland Security is SUPPOSED to be doing... again, if DHS has analyzed extremism on the right AND on the left, how can this latter report be spun as an attack on conservatism??

I'll also note that nobody had a problem with wiretapping terrorists, we had a problem with the last administration ignoring the LAW while doing so (especially when there was no compelling reason for them to do so)... silly us, for expecting our government to obey the law... so your assertion that "It's bad to tap terrorists phone conversations but it's ok to track those with a differing political view" is both ignorant, and specious...

[Cajuncowboy]

the GOP is the party that is anti-immigration,
Correction, the party of Anti-Illegal immigration. If you are going to toot a horn, get the right horn.

anti-gay marriage,

Pro traditional marriage. Like it always was. One man, one woman. Not some *******ized, perverted version of it.

anti-affirmative action,

Pro equality. People should not be promoted or given a job based on their skin color. that would be racist.

and these are all issues near and dear to the heart of your average white supremacist...

So if you are against illegal immigration, you are for equal rights based on ability and not skin color, and believe that marriage is one man and one woman, you are a white supremacist.

That makes absolutely no sense what soever and you know it.

[Vintage]

Pro traditional marriage. Like it always was. One man, one woman. Not some *******ized, perverted version of it.






If you can't appreciate the beauty of a woman-woman relationship (assuming they are hot), then you are gay.

[silverbear]

My issue wasn't in regards to party necessarily... the implication seemed to be that they vote conservative, i.e. Republican when actually the YDD is still very strong.

If it's that strong, why is the Deep South a Republican stronghold these days??



My second assertion was that you stated that the KKK was started to harass blacks. I was just pointing out that it was created to harass blacks AND Republicans...

But back then, the Republicans were the LIBERALS, who were helping the blacks... the Democrats were the CONSERVATIVES, championing the status quo (keeping blacks as second class citizens)... so harassing blacks and Republicans went hand in hand, and both were racially motivated...

[Cajuncowboy]

Is it, or have you just completely missed the point again??



And in typical right wing fashion, you distort the REAL issue here...

The assertion was that DHS was engaged in a "hit job" on conservatives... this is the specific accusation made by Michelle Malkin... to which I respond:

1) DHS offered an assessment not of conservatives, but rather of RIGHT WING EXTREMISM... the ONLY way you could see that as a "hit on conservatives" is if you believe that ALL conservatives are right wing extremists...

2) Prior to publishing this analysis of right wing extremism, DHS published an analysis of LEFT wing extremism back in January... so clearly, this analysis was merely a continuation of an in-depth analysis of political extremism in America, and it seems to me that this sort of analysis is what the Department of Homeland Security is SUPPOSED to be doing... again, if DHS has analyzed extremism on the right AND on the left, how can this latter report be spun as an attack on conservatism??

I'll also note that nobody had a problem with wiretapping terrorists, we had a problem with the last administration ignoring the LAW while doing so (especially when there was no compelling reason for them to do so)... silly us, for expecting our government to obey the law... so your assertion that "It's bad to tap terrorists phone conversations but it's ok to track those with a differing political view" is both ignorant, and specious...

No silver, I haven't missed anything my friend. sadly it is you and the left who has.

As for the rest of it, if you think for a moment that that wasn't a hit piece then you have gone way over the edge and probably can never get back.

[Vintage]

Its both.

The Dixicrats broke off from the DEMOCRATIC PARTY.... and they were SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE.

[JBond]

Correction, the party of Anti-Illegal immigration. If you are going to toot a horn, get the right horn.



Pro traditional marriage. Like it always was. One man, one woman. Not some *******ized, perverted version of it.



Pro equality. People should not be promoted or given a job based on their skin color. that would be racist.



So if you are against illegal immigration, you are for equal rights based on ability and not skin color, and believe that marriage is one man and one woman, you are a white supremacist.

That makes absolutely no sense what soever and you know it.

Silver is getting older. His mind is not what it used to be.;)

Man, I hope I don't get like than when I'm old. :D

[silverbear]

To borrow from tricks post a while back:

KKK's 1st targets were Republicans
Dems credited with starting group that attacked both blacks, whites


Again, the fatal flaw in your argument is your assumption that the Republicans back then were identical to the Republicans of today, and that's simply untrue... back then liberals were for the most part Republicans, and conservatives were for the most part Democrats... of course, this is the exact opposite of today...

Your problem is that you assume that Republican has always meant "conservative", and that Democrat has always meant "liberal", and that's simply not historical fact...

You probably ought to study our country's history a bit more closely if you wish to hone your political sensibilities...

Of course, the article you cite is thoroughly dishonest, because it ignores the metamorphosis of BOTH parties over the years... it tries to make the KKK out to be a tool of liberalism, and it never was... it was instead a tool of the right, right from the start, but back then the right was the Democratic party...

[silverbear]

Lets get back to the real point of this thread. Team Obama feels groups or individuals that believe in legal immigration and states rights are dangerous right wing fanatics. The fact that Obama wants to target people who believe in the laws of our land should worry everyone including the die hard libs. The Patriot Act is now going to be misused, as BP and others said it would, to target American citizens that do not agree with Obama's perverted view of the Constitution. It will be used to persecute and prosecute Americans that disagree with the current administration stance on states rights and legal immigration.

Stalin and Hitler did the exact same thing. Just saying.

You can't prove one word of that crapola...

Just saying...

[Vintage]

Again, the fatal flaw in your argument is your assumption that the Republicans back then were identical to the Republicans of today, and that's simply untrue... back then liberals were for the most part Republicans, and conservatives were for the most part Democrats... of course, this is the exact opposite of today...

Your problem is that you assume that Republican has always meant "conservative", and that Democrat has always meant "liberal", and that's simply not historical fact...

You probably ought to study our country's history a bit more closely if you wish to hone your political sensibilities...

Of course, the article you cite is thoroughly dishonest, because it ignores the metamorphosis of BOTH parties over the years... it tries to make the KKK out to be a tool of liberalism, and it never was... it was instead a tool of the right, right from the start, but back then the right was the Democratic party...

Actually, the KKK wasn't originally created to intimidate blacks.

IIRC, it was originally a social/elite club.

[silverbear]

Muslims

Muslims are "liberals"??

Son, they make the most rabid right winger in here look like a freakin' cupcake...

[SuspectCorner]

No. I am talking about the people Obama has targeted according to his DHS report. He claims that people who believe in states rights and legal immigration are right wing extremists.

Pay attention. This is not about lynchings or whatever you are rambling about. This is about people who respect the Constitution vs Obama who views the Constitution as flawed and as a charter of negative liberties. Obama is terrified of people that respect the law. He is targeting the people who respect the law and expect Obama to live up to his Constitutional duties.

Fox Reporter Contradicts Fox: DHS Report On Right Wing Was ‘Requested By The Bush Administration’ (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/15/fox-dhs-bush/)

7VEjCmQ1ldQ

[silverbear]

Many of us were worried about the Patriot Act. We had not suffered through anything like 911 before. There was an overreaction. Many of us can agree on that.

My question to you is do you see a difference in tracking known terrorists from foreign countries and tracking people who want our laws regarding states rights and immigration upheld?

Extremist right wing organizations want a hell of a lot more than that, and you know it... white supremacists want a hell of a lot more than that, and you know it...

Are you suggesting we should not be keeping close tabs on right wing hate groups in America?? Have you already forgotten what one of them did in Oklahoma City??

At this point, I'm beginning to suspect you belong to one or more of the groups being watched by the DHS...

Why are the people who want the laws of the land upheld being persecuted for it?

Which people would that be, who are being "persecuted"??

Again, it sounds like you want us to just leave all the hate groups in America alone, just let them do their thing...

The President is supposed to uphold the Constitution, not persecute people for believing in it. If you believe in the sanctity of law you are a dangerous extremist. It is crazy.

Nobody who supported Dubya really believes in "the sanctity of law"...

[Cajuncowboy]

Fox Reporter Contradicts Fox: DHS Report On Right Wing Was ‘Requested By The Bush Administration’ (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/15/fox-dhs-bush/)

7VEjCmQ1ldQ

So the request for information came from Bush but the findings were done under Obama.

And your point is what?

:rolleyes:

Grasping at straws from your left wing kook website I see.

[JBond]

Fox Reporter Contradicts Fox: DHS Report On Right Wing Was ‘Requested By The Bush Administration’ (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/15/fox-dhs-bush/)

7VEjCmQ1ldQ

Who's name is on the report? Who came out again today backing up Obama's view that the people who need to be targeted are those that believe in states rights and legal immigration. Come on you know her name. What administration is this? The Bush administration did not author this document in the form it was released in by the Obama administration. Swing and another miss.

[silverbear]

To me, hanging people and burning crosses while wearing bed sheets with funny hats is radical to me.

Ahhhh, but "radical" is neither a left wing nor a right wing phenomenon, despite your pitiful attempts to link that philosophy to just the left...

There are left wing radicals, and there are right wing radicals... the KKK are a bunch of right wing radicals, who hang people and burn crosses while wearing bed sheets with funny hats...

[silverbear]

The reason I mention this is because I firmly believe that if you ignore history, you are doomed to repeat it. The fact that the organization was started by Democrats is relevant as it is frequently tied to Conservatives and more specifically the Republican Party, when that just isn't the case. It's roots were firmly founded in the Democrat Party.

Sorry, trick, but this argument is simply RIDICULOUS...

It's ridiculous because although the KKK was indeed started by Democrats, back then they WERE the conservatives... the Republicans were the liberals...

Thus, while the KKK was started by Democrats, today their ideological alignment is MUCH closer to the Republicans... so it really doesn't matter that the Democrats started it, does it??

IOW, the KKK was founded by those of a certain political mindset, and those who share that mindset today are almost all Republicans... the KKK hasn't changed, but the political orientation of our major political parties has, and that renders your "the KKK was started by the Dems" argument completely irrelevant to their political alignment TODAY...

Basically, all you're doing is trying to pass the buck, to deny that the KKK is a right wing organization... sorry, it won't work...

In light of the new report by the DHS, it very well may happen again...

Oh, ... did you miss the part where DHS put out a report about LEFT wing extremist groups, months before they released this one?? How does that square with your insinuation that this recent report was some kind of attack on the right??

Honestly, I would never have figured you for one who would feed into this ASININE conspiracy theory...

[silverbear]

The conservatives are for all colors of people to be successful. The Liberals are for all colors of people to be dependent on Government.

Gee, then why do people of color vote against them in such staggering numbers??

If you really think conservatives are homo-phobic, anti-immigration and opposed to people of color achieving you prove you don't know what you are talking about.

I KNOW that conservatives are anti-gay marriage, anti-illegal immigration and anti-affirmative action... those are your positions on those issues too, aren't they??

Oh, and Robert Byrd is a Democrat.

And a dinosaur, a relic from another era... his party changed around him, and the only reason he stayed on board is you pretty much have to be a Dem to get elected in West By Gawd...

[silverbear]

Nice to see you here, Paul Begala...

Revisionist history does not make that history so...

Is THAT all you've got, trick?? Vague insinuations that I'm "revising history"??

If you think that's the case, then rebut my arguments factually... anything less is just BS...

I guess you didn't have any facts, so this lame stab at rebuttal was the best you could muster... unfortunately for you, there is no revising of history in my arguments-- back in Lincoln's time, the Republicans WERE the liberals, the "progressives", who sought the emancipation of the slaves and advocated free homesteads for farmers, while the Democrats WERE the conservatives, defending the status quo...

That's historical FACT, trick, and I challenge you to rebut it factually...

[silverbear]

No. I am talking about the people Obama has targeted according to his DHS report.

Gawd, that's idiotic...

If this DHS report is REALLY just a "targeting" of people Obama dislikes, why did they first produce a report about LEFT WING extremists??

This report is nothing of the sort, it's simply a ROUTINE intelligence analysis by an agency charged with (among other things) keeping an eye on domestic extremists...

On BOTH sides, left and right...


He claims that people who believe in states rights and legal immigration are right wing extremists.

Bull... he never said any such thing...

Pay attention.

LOL... this coming from a right wing 'droid who has no grasp of the facts... again, I say that all the accusations you've levelled against Obama are utterly invalid, indeed nothing more than paranoid ranting that cannot be substantiated factually... the most amusing accusation is that Obama hates the law, and those who obey it...

What utter drivel... I can't conceive of anything other than a pitifully limited, bordering on deranged, mind ever coming up with such drivel...

[silverbear]

The biggest leftists on the board continually claim the are the most like our founding fathers and Lincoln when it could not be any further from the truth. Now they are claiming to hold the upper card in race relations and what they have done to improve life for blacks in our country over the years.

If they've done so little for blacks, why does that demographic keep on voting overwhelmingly for them??

Clearly, their assessment of what the Dems have done for them does not square with yours, and I think they'd have the more informed take on that subject...

The historical FACTS are that Abraham Lincoln was a progressive, not a conservative... hell, one of the core, fundamental beliefs of conservatives everywhere, perhaps THE core, fundamental belief, is states' rights... Lincoln fought a war to prove that the federal government supersedes states' rights, OBVIOUSLY he was no conservative...

When you try to argue that he was, that proves that you know nothing about Lincoln, and next to nothing about what conservatives believe...

Lincoln stood up against states' rights, conservatives believe deeply in states' rights...

Lincoln advocated giving a homestead to every farmer that asked for one, which is quintessentially socialist, and thus anti-conservative...

And this is the guy you're trying to claim as a conservative?? Clearly, you need to go brush up on your American history...

[JBond]

What is wrong with supporting traditional marriage, wanting our laws upheld and believing people should be judged on merit and not the color of their skin. You act like these are radical, crazy ideas.

I don't think they are that bad. In fact I think they are the prevailing views most people hold if it is presented in that manner.

[silverbear]

Correction, the party of Anti-Illegal immigration. If you are going to toot a horn, get the right horn.

OK, fair enough... at the same time, having read your stuff for a long time now, I'd bet good money that you'd be all in favor of making it much tougher for anybody to immigrate here legally too...

Pro traditional marriage. Like it always was. One man, one woman. Not some *******ized, perverted version of it.

Which means you're anti-gay marriage, and as a result, the rest is just pitiful semantic tapdancing...

Are you saying that you're pro-gay rights, other than gay marriage??

Pro equality. People should not be promoted or given a job based on their skin color. that would be racist.

And again, that means you are indeed anti-affirmative action...

So if you are against illegal immigration, you are for equal rights based on ability and not skin color, and believe that marriage is one man and one woman, you are a white supremacist.

No, you're a conservative... but if you're staunchly and bitterly opposed all those things, to the point where you hate anybody who doesn't think like you, then you're an extremist...

You, for example, are an extremist... however, I know good and well that you're not a bigot, or "white supremacist"...

White supremacists are just one type of extremist...

That makes absolutely no sense what soever and you know it.

Perhaps you should stop distorting my arguments, and try engaging me honestly...

[silverbear]

No silver, I haven't missed anything my friend. sadly it is you and the left who has.

As for the rest of it, if you think for a moment that that wasn't a hit piece then you have gone way over the edge and probably can never get back.

To the contrary, if you KNOW that DHS put out a similar report about left wing extremism, BEFORE they put out the report about right wing extremism, and you see the latter as a "hit piece", then you're the one who's gone way over the edge...

And yeah, I know you can probably never get back again... you are an extremist, and you always will be... to your credit, from time to time you seem to recognize that this is not your greatest strength, and act as if you regret this character defect...

To be honest with you, I find it difficult to reconcile your political extremism with the good and caring man I know you to be... the ANGER that burns in you just doesn't square with that big ol' heart you have...

[ScipioCowboy]

Are you saying that you're pro-gay rights, other than gay marriage??

Putting the marriage aside for a moment, what other rights are they seeking?

And again, that means you are indeed anti-affirmative action...


Not all affirmative action measures involve racial quotas. In fact, most do not.

[DIAF]

If they've done so little for blacks, why does that demographic keep on voting overwhelmingly for them??



Class warfare. While Republicans don't do themselves any favors with minorities, Democrats spend an awful lot of time and money trying to convince them that its the rich white man that is keeping them down.

[silverbear]

Its both.

The Dixicrats broke off from the DEMOCRATIC PARTY.... and they were SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE.


Yup, that's precisely how the two parties came to the dynamics we know today...

After the Civil War, the Republicans, the party of Lincoln, were seen as the enemy who had destroyed the way of life the Deep South had enjoyed for decades, so everybody down there became a Democrat, as a way of opposing the enemy... they were, to be simplistic, the party of the "negro"...

That dynamic really remained in play, the Deep South was solidly conservative and solidly Democratic, up until the 60s, when Kennedy and Johnson made the Democrats the Civil Rights party, or the party of the "negro"... this made them the enemy of conservatives in the South, who wanted to "keep the negro down"... that was the start of the deep and abiding political change where the Deep South went from solidly Democratic to solidly Republican...

To sum it up simply, so that even the dumbest right wingers in here can grasp it, in the 1870s the Democratic party was the conservative party, and the Republican party was the liberal party... the Democratic party back then shared nothing but a name with the Democratic party of today, and the Republican party back then shared nothing but a name with the Republican party of today...

That's political and historical reality...

[silverbear]

Silver is getting older. His mind is not what it used to be.;)

Man, I hope I don't get like than when I'm old. :D

LOL... I just hope you live to be this old, with your belligerent mindset...

[silverbear]

Fox Reporter Contradicts Fox: DHS Report On Right Wing Was ‘Requested By The Bush Administration’ (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/15/fox-dhs-bush/)

7VEjCmQ1ldQ


Ooooooppppssss...

Gee, I guess that DHS report WASN'T just a hit piece on conservatives, orchestrated by that damned ol' freedom-hating Obama...

Nope, it was orchestrated by that damned ol' freedom-hating DUBYA...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. ..

[ScipioCowboy]

If it's that strong, why is the Deep South a Republican stronghold these days??

Jimmy Carter.:D

[silverbear]

What is wrong with supporting traditional marriage, wanting our laws upheld and believing people should be judged on merit and not the color of their skin. You act like these are radical, crazy ideas.

When did I suggest that??

All I said was those are classic positions of conservatives everywhere... guess you're just indulging some more that paranoia that seems to control your daily life...

[silverbear]

Putting the marriage aside for a moment, what other rights are they seeking?

The right to be put on their partner's health insurance, survivor's benefits...

And oh yeah, the right not to be beaten to death because they're gay...

[silverbear]

Class warfare. While Republicans don't do themselves any favors with minorities, Democrats spend an awful lot of time and money trying to convince them that its the rich white man that is keeping them down.

So, you're suggesting that minorites are simple children who can be led astray by a few shiny baubles??

I'd suggest that minorities vote Democratic so heavily because they know that's the party that speaks up for them...

Just like rich white guys vote overwhelmingly Republican because they know that's the party that speaks up for them, LOL...

[silverbear]

Jimmy Carter.:D

You may have a point there... :D

[ScipioCowboy]

The right to be put on their partner's health insurance, survivor's benefits...

Most people are not opposed to this. I'm certainly not.

And oh yeah, the right not to be beaten to death because they're gay...

I think they've already got this one.

[DIAF]

So, you're suggesting that minorites are simple children who can be led astray by a few shiny baubles??

I'd suggest that minorities vote Democratic so heavily because they know that's the party that speaks up for them...

Just like rich white guys vote overwhelmingly Republican because they know that's the party that speaks up for them, LOL...

That's exactly what I'm saying. Also, that goes for whites/asians/people in general.

Everyone can be "bought".

[burmafrd]

Yeah the democratic party has done so much for Blacks the last 20 years- NOT. Until Obama where were there high appointments to the cabinets- the most powerful black cabinet members were all in Republican Cabinets.

The Democratic Party has taken the blacks to the cleaners for decades trading on the BS that they speak for minorities. Now its the gays that are the in crowd as far as tiny minorities with disproportionate influence in the Democratic Party.

[tyke1doe]

Again, the fatal flaw in your argument is your assumption that the Republicans back then were identical to the Republicans of today, and that's simply untrue... back then liberals were for the most part Republicans, and conservatives were for the most part Democrats... of course, this is the exact opposite of today...

Your problem is that you assume that Republican has always meant "conservative", and that Democrat has always meant "liberal", and that's simply not historical fact...

You probably ought to study our country's history a bit more closely if you wish to hone your political sensibilities...

Of course, the article you cite is thoroughly dishonest, because it ignores the metamorphosis of BOTH parties over the years... it tries to make the KKK out to be a tool of liberalism, and it never was... it was instead a tool of the right, right from the start, but back then the right was the Democratic party...

:clap:

It's the height of intellectual dishonesty or historical ignorance to claim that Republicans in that day were "conservative."

[tyke1doe]

Yeah the democratic party has done so much for Blacks the last 20 years- NOT. Until Obama where were there high appointments to the cabinets- the most powerful black cabinet members were all in Republican Cabinets.

I applaud Bush for appointing Condelezza Rice and Colin Powell to head powerful cabinet positions in his administration. That is a strong plus for him. However, tell me how the appointment of one or two blacks helped blacks in general and beyond symbolism?