First Step To Delegitimizing Any Opposition -- DHS Fabricates "Radical Right" Threat

[BrainGlutton]

@Huerta88

First Step To Delegitimizing Any Opposition – DHS Fabricates “Radical Right” Threat

Obviously, at this point, not a fabrication.

But, you knew that.

In April.

[Blake]

Ahh, America! Land of the free! Where the Right wing government spies on its own citizens for undertaking lawful activities and is roundly decried by the Left saying it is immoral and the Right saying that its is legal. Then Democracy prevails and you end up with…. a Left wing government spying on its own citizens for undertaking lawful activities and being roundly decried by Right saying it is immoral and the Left saying that its is legal.

I have no issue with the state keeping groups under surveillance when there is reasonable cause to believe they pose a threat. But where is the evidence that these groups do pose a threat?

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Not everyone who stockpiles guns and ammunition is a dangerous wingnut, but there are a disproportionate number of dangerous wingnuts among weapons stockpilers.

Do you have any evidence that this is true? It’s one of those statements that sounds reasonable at first, but the more I think about it the less reasonable it becomes, and the more it sounds like precisely the type of smear that Huerta88 is referring to.

I suspect that most people who stockpiles guns and ammunition are either firearm advocates who want to ensure a supply in the face of uncertain future laws, or at worst “Leave me the F*&k alone” types. So what is the evidence or even the reasoning that you used to conclude that there are more “dangerous wingnuts” (define that however you will) amongst people who stockpile firearms than amongst the general population?

(Similarly, if they decide to take down license plate numbers at Earth First! gatherings in order to try to track down Animal Liberation Front arsonists, who would object?)

I would, if there is no evidence or even reasoning to suggest that that down Animal Liberation Front arsonists are in higher proportion at Earth First! Gatherings than at the local Catholic Church.

It smacks from top to bottom of the state targeting groups they are ideologically opposed to for no good reason.

@Ravenman

That’s completely reasonable. So what, in your view, would constitute a “right wing extremist?”

May I take this?

A right wing extremist is an individual who’s views are politically Right and whose actions fall outside the law. For the life of me I can’t see how any lawful action can be considered extreme.

What do these people do that differentiates them from political conservatives?

They break the law, either in order to further there political cause or using their ideology as a justification for doing so.

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@Blake

Ahh, America! Land of the free! Where the Right wing government spies on its own citizens for undertaking lawful activities and is roundly decried by the Left saying it is immoral and the Right saying that its is legal. Then Democracy prevails and you end up with…. a Left wing government spying on its own citizens for undertaking lawful activities and being roundly decried by Right saying it is immoral and the Left saying that its is legal…

Exactly! I kept telling my right wing friends that they were crazy to support President Bush and the wiretapping, suspension of habeas corpus, seizing of book buying records, etc… not only because it was un-American but because the shoe will someday be on the other foot. Someday a liberal president will be elected into the office and he will retain all the powers that Bush used, signing statements and all. Well here we are now, and people like Huerta88 can cry me a river. Whether you agreed with Bush’s policies or not, you did not stand up against them, a majority of Americans and almost 100% of conservatives gave him unwavering support. But now that the government is trying to keep us safe from groups that have demonstatably killed more people than the liberal terrorist groups we have here in America, we are going too far. WTF?

For the record, I like it no better than you. I don’t own a gun, but I think tracking people because they own an “arsenal” is wrong.

[Blake]

@L. G. Butts

Well here we are now, and people like Huerta88 can cry me a river.

Schadenfruede aside, I don’t like the idea of anyone being hurt by an unjust system.

I don’t own a gun, but I think tracking people because they own an “arsenal” is wrong.

I also don’t own a gun, and I think tracking people because they own an “arsenal” is wrong.

I’m also not a Jew, but I think tracking people because they bought a menorah is wrong.

I’m also not a Communist, but I think tracking people because they join to a union is wrong.

A Government that secretly spies on its own citizens for carrying out legal activities is just so obviously wrong for so many reasons that I can’t believe anyone would support. Supporting it because it’s legal just seems pathetic.

IMO there are two ways to go about this.

1. Only track groups when there is hard evidence that the are a risk, IOW get a freakin’ warrant.

2. Track them openly. Make it a matter of public record who is being tracked. Put up signs at points of sales that anybody can purchase 10, 000 rounds of ammo if they wish, but in doing so they agree to going on a tracking register.
   This idea of skirting the privacy issues by covertly “tracking” “groups” rather than spying on citizens makes me incredibly nervous. Yet Americans still go on about being a beacon of freedom to the rest of the world.

Yep, you’ve got freedom of association, but associate with some people and your name goes on a list for possible future punishment. You’ve got freedom of speech, but listen to some speech and your name goes in a list for possible future punishment.

[TooSchoolforCool]

It is worth noting that neither of these cases actually fall into the particular fears of the DHS report, which consist of radical anti-government groups trying to recruit people like recent military veterans. Neithre Roeder nor Von Brunn fall into this category, though I’ve seen some people mention that Von Brunn was a military guy… but yeah, in WW2.

Not that the report wasn’t by and large justified and reasonable: I think it was. It’s just that these two guys don’t really fit the pattern.

Oh, and you gotta read this correspondance between author Tom Clancy, Vonn Brunn, and one of Brunn’s defenders:

http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/NetLoss/NetLoss-ClancyLtr.html

Your respect for Tom Clancy will skyrocket. Exerpt:

People like him interest me in a clinical sense because I am indeed a writer, and I often write about abnormal personalities. The chief of neuroscience at Johns Hopkins is a friend of mine - a Jew, by the way - a brilliant physician, and a Nobel candidate. Where he goes to church is between him and God. I have many Jewish friends, and I am loyal to them because a man who is not loyal to his friends is valueless, and many of them are truly superior people. I utterly reject racism in all its forms. I’ve known Colin Powell for over 15 years. He’s is one hell of a fine man, and a truly great American, well respected by his peers - four-star officers - and, buddy, that’s one tough audience. But to this von Brunn character, Colin is just another “nigger.” You know, one of my close friends is a former FBI agent who worked the Goodman-Cheney-Schwirner case in Mississippi in 1963. Those three American citizens were working to get other American citizens the right to vote. This is a right guaranteed them by the Constitution, which is, by the way, the Supreme Law of the Land. Your friend would probably have wished to deny them that right. That desire is not consonant with the United States of America. I spit upon such people. My friend sent them all to federal prison. They’re all out now, I suppose, but they’ve calmed down quite a bit. My FBI friends despise them all. Why? They are criminals, murdering terrorists, one of whom shit his drawers when arrested. Quite a man, eh? Von Brunn also walked into a government building, by his own account, armed (he claims the gun was not loaded, but one cannot tell that from three feet away can one?), and demanded that his rather eccentric view of the law be accepted by others. Well, you know, that’s pretty damned dumb. He was sent to prison for stupidity, claiming to me that he was unfairly railroaded by Jews and others. No, buddy, he went to jail for being rather incredibly stupid, to the point of madness in my opinion.

[TooSchoolforCool]

Oh and this bit was priceless too:

Clancy: Why? Because you share the madman’s prejudices? Because you would rather hate than love? God help your kids. Human beings are more than things made of flesh and blood. We are creatures of ideas. The successful cultures in human history are those which lift men’s hearts and minds, not the ones which pander to our baser instincts. America has done that, not by screaming how superior we were, but by telling the world that we will offer them the opportunities that other countries are too dumb to extend to its best and brightest - that we believe in them and their children, and if they want to work hard the world is theirs for the taking. And, oh by the way, in enriching themselves they also enrich their country. And you know, it worked. Else how does one explain the computer you’re using?

White Supramacist: ******Computers were invented by WHITES.

Wow, great comeback there.

[Mosier]

@TooSchoolforCool

Your respect for Tom Clancy will skyrocket. Exerpt:

I wouldn’t exactly say “skyrocket”. The dude is just one of a large majority of people who say “racism is bad.” Just because he got that one thing right doesn’t make him less a jackass.

[Blake]

A neo-Fascist stating that “Hitler was almost certainly the grandson of a Rothschild. He had many Jews around him, incuding his valet and cook, and more than 70 generals.”

[Kalhoun]

@Huerta88

As told to me, they saw guys wearing LE style jackets and snapping photos, asked them who they were, and were quite politely told, “DHS observers.” It happened, it didn’t – I wasn’t there, but that account is not on its face ridiculous.

Why are you bothered by the DHS observing people who are physically TOUCHING strangers who are trying to obtain a legal abortion? Don’t you think their rights should be protected? Don’t you think their LIVES should be protected?

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Marley23

Conservatives or other people opposing Obama don’t deserve to be tarred by associated with potentially violent lunatics. Actual lunatics planning or threatening violence should be monitored, and there are certainly some of those out there.

The conservatives were so tarred by the actions committed by right wing extremists in the 80’s and 90’s. It is very sad to see how many on the right are retarred today.

[mswas]

@Blake

Ahh, America! Land of the free! Where the Right wing government spies on its own citizens for undertaking lawful activities and is roundly decried by the Left saying it is immoral and the Right saying that its is legal. Then Democracy prevails and you end up with…. a Left wing government spying on its own citizens for undertaking lawful activities and being roundly decried by Right saying it is immoral and the Left saying that its is legal.

No, you’re missing the real point here. A right wing government spies on the left. A left-wing government spies on everybody.

[mswas]

@Mosier

I wouldn’t exactly say “skyrocket”. The dude is just one of a large majority of people who say “racism is bad.” Just because he got that one thing right doesn’t make him less a jackass.

He also came off as a bit of a holier-than-thou self-aggrandizer. It’s funny he’s like a starfucker of the elite. He was name-dropping FBI agents and scientists and everything. It was pretty funny.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Glad to see he doesn’t care where a Jew goes to church.

[An_Arky]

@Huerta88

First, as-applied policies that have a constraining effect on a right found to be consititutionally sacrosanct are subject to strict scrutiny. Liberals better hope they are, because that’s the rationale for invalidating, say, parental notification laws for abortion on the grounds that they have a “chilling effect” on exercise of that “fundamental right.”

The right then is the right of the people to keep and bear arms without worrying that the government’s complying a naughty list of who has “too many.” Does it win at the Supreme Court? Maybe/not. But the analysis is by no means far out there constitutionally or on policy grounds.

FTR, I didn’t support any of GWB’s conduct in the aspects you mention, though at least as to the non-citizen “combatants” I had incrementally less of a problem then here, where those being scrutinized are citizens.

Bolding mine. The 2nd Amendment does not state or imply this.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Huerta88

I can think offhand of two instances of violence (Eric Rudolph and the Slepian murder). Maybe there are a few more. There are thousands of instances of prayer vigils and pickets (misguided or not). “Intimidation/demonization?” “Stock in trade?”

I used to work for a women’s health organization and I can say from personal experience “intimidation/demonization” are definitely their stock in trade. That’s kind of the point. Sure they would pray. To a 16 year-old girl navigating that wall of people praying is intimidating to her. Kidjanot…seen it.

Sometimes they also tell women trying to access the clinic they will go to hell, they are murdering their baby, etc… Sure sounds like demonization to me but maybe you define it differently than I do.

[TooSchoolforCool]

@BrainGlutton

No matter who holds them or why, automatic weapons and ammo are more immediately dangerous than books.

Which is sort of the point, right? It’s not the people the government is necessarily keeping track of: it’s the arsenal itself. For all the government knows, a bloody TERRORIST could raid that arsenal, and have a ready-made army ready to go for some deadly assault.

Heurta really wants us to believe that our government shouldn’t be aware of what sorts of weapons are potentially arrayed and all collected in one place that could be used in an attack?

Maybe he disagrees, but, sorry, I said terrorist. That means I win the argument. Also, 9/11. Oh wait, it’s not 2008 anymore? Ok, I guess people can argue against me then.

[BrainGlutton]

@Blake

I suspect that most people who stockpiles guns and ammunition are either firearm advocates who want to ensure a supply in the face of uncertain future laws, or at worst “Leave me the F*&k alone” types. So what is the evidence or even the reasoning that you used to conclude that there are more “dangerous wingnuts” (define that however you will) amongst people who stockpile firearms than amongst the general population?

Easy. Nobody needs more than one or two guns for home defense and hunting. Anybody who contemplates using guns for anything else is a dangerous wingnut (or a career criminal).

[BrainGlutton]

@mswas

No, you’re missing the real point here. A right wing government spies on the left. A left-wing government spies on everybody.

This is a whoosh, right?

[Algher]

@BrainGlutton

Easy. Nobody needs more than one or two guns for home defense and hunting. Anybody who contemplates using guns for anything else is a dangerous wingnut (or a career criminal).

Hunting and home defense are like golf - you can easily get a dozen or more firearms depending on what you are defending or hunting. Add in 100+ rounds for each weapon for training purposes, and you get what non-gun owners might call “an arsenal.”

We have LOTS of fringe groups in America. We also had a recent shooting of two young soldiers at a recruiting office by a Muslim convert. Is there a section in the DHS report stating that they need to keep an eye on them as well? (Note - I don’t know - that is honestly a question, not a jab).

Suspect arrested in Arkansas recruiting center shooting - CNN.com

[Der_Trihs]

@Blake

A right wing extremist is an individual who’s views are politically Right and whose actions fall outside the law. For the life of me I can’t see how any lawful action can be considered extreme.

Loopholes can be found, or the laws written to favor the extremists. If stoning people to death for adultery was made legal, would stoning adulterers to death suddenly no longer be the act of an extremist ? Is the kinds of harassment Fred Phelps and family indulges in not extremist ?