| Big Govt | Breitbart to AG Holder: Investigate ACORN or We’ll Release More Tapes Just Before 2010 Election |
0 |
| Politico | 0 | |
| Ras. Reports | 0 | |
| Patterico | L.A. Times Columnist Uncritically Quoted Star of Latest ACORN Video |
0 |
| ABC News | Major Hasan’s E-Mail: ‘I Can’t Wait to Join You’ in Afterlife |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
Calling it right – way ahead of time
Andy McCarthy pegged Barack Obama correctly before he got elected, on the issue of how a potential Obama administration would treat political dissent from the opposition. Read this post, and then compare it with what you read earlier today about that DHS document on “extremist right wing groups” and you’ll see that McCarthy was way ahead of his time.
Considering Obama’s history during the campaign of attempts at legally silencing the opposition, this is something many of us predicted would happen in some way, shape, or fashion. McCarthy just happened to be more detailed than most. What few of us knew, however, was how soon it would happen.
Far lefties are getting a huge thrill out of this, of course, but let’s not forget how they repeatedly foamed at the mouth over a similar Bush-era DHS policy as it related to ultra-left wing groups, except in those instances the DHS was very specific in the types of groups it felt posed significant threats to not just the President, but to the security of the general public (and in fairness they didn’t get it 100% right). Today’s DHS document was quite different in that it seemed deliberate in its vagueness, essentially classifying those who favor more state than federal control as “right wing extremists” and portraying those who are strongly anti-illegal immigration in a similar fashion. It’s one thing for the DHS to write about its concerns about the few on the extreme fringe right who have the potential to be violent and destructive, but its another altogether to characterize legitimate opposition as somehow threatening. The liberals hailing this document don’t seem to get that, and neither, apparently does President Obama’s DHS.
The far left found specifics intolerable under the Bush administration as it related to some of their fringe kooks and how they were viewed/monitored by the DHS, but apparently find vague, baseless generalizations about their political opposition stashed in the current DHS document entirely appropriate – and necessary.
How surprising. 
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
13 Responses to “Calling it right – way ahead of time”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Frankly, the report is useless for anything other than developing plots for “24″
“but apparently find vague, baseless generalizations about their political opposition stashed in the current DHS document entirely appropriate – and necessary.”
They really do seem to love vague. When has Obama ever said anything specific?
As the saying has gone around, if we replace Obama with Bush, and Left with Right, the lefties heads would explode. And, I would bet everything that the Right would mad as hell at Bush. Sure, we might chuckle, but, we would be calling for some resignations. Lefties, though, sad little b*stards.
Really tho, doesn’t this all go back to the “bitter clingers” speech that Barack gave as he was brown nosing all of those rich folk in San Francisco?? I want to know where is the screeching queen Hillary banging the podium and yelling about how it is our right to disagree with any administration. – Lorica
“I want to know where is the screeching queen Hillary banging the podium and yelling about how it is our right to disagree with any administration.”
She wasn’t always that way. Remember the “vast right-wing conspiracy” speech?
No, leftards are only concerned about patriotic dissent when there is a Republican/conservative to complain about. Any dissent now is racist and, obviously (according to DHS) from violence-prone, radical extremists who must be stopped at any cost, even at the cost of shredding the Constitution.
1) I’ve been to busy to read the report, but from the excerpts I’ve read, it appears to be focusing on actual radicals (though the vagueness is poorly done). Like McVeigh, or the multiple shootings seen in the last month (although these were all individuals, many were connected to larger internet groups).
By “state rights” people, I’m sure it means people like this, who believed the federal government had no right to take taxes, and had an armed standoff to prevent this. (I could see this escalating as budgets tighten)
I don’t think they’re going to take away your website (or that they would be successful trying)
2) I hear that the report was being prepared before the election… can’t source that yet though. Rumor is that there is a January report sighting increases in Left-wing terrorism… also still looking.
3) If you can find evidence that the Federal government is specifically using federal powers (like the Patriot act) to illegally spy on non-lethal political groups (say NRA, Rush Limbaugh, Minute Men etc), I will protest this. I don’t take any delight in federal abuse (if it is occurring).
And Actually, so will the ACLU. (although I’d talk to them first… they have much better lawyers than I do).
Alchemist, I haven’t read the entire report, only sections, but from what I’ve read it can be assumed that when the DHS talks about “extremists” and the “potential for violence” they include nearly anyone to the right of, say, Peter DeFazio of Oregon. Since that would include well over half the citizens of this nation, and by their own rules DHS can surveil anyone they wish to by simply indicating he/she is a potential terrorist (no court consent required), it makes me a little more than nervous that His Hollowness has put such blatantly ideological people in charge of the department.
Overthrow the guvmint? Only under the conditions set forth in the Declaration of Independence. If DHS is concerned about me for that, I, you and every other citizen of this land has bigger problems than we realize.
Nice try, Alchemist, but the Patriot Act didn’t take away anyone’s rights. You should read Andy McCarthy more often.
And if the report did mean people like Edward and Elaine Brown, why didn’t it say so? Instead, it makes a bunch of vague allegations. If you mirror image it and substitute “Muslim” or “left-wing radical,” your side would be going nuts too.
Yes, we did. And we protested. And if the federal government starts to bug/legally harrass legitimate (ie nonviolent) political opponents (the way the Bush administration did) I will protest that…. because it is a discriminatory (and illegal) use of force.
Ah, leave it to alchemist to make an excuse for every and any excess from the left.
What dictionary are you using? This report clearly says that rightwing extremism includes adherents that are mainly antigovernment, which it defines as “rejecting federal authority in favor of state and local authority”. It also says it may include “individuals dedicated to a single issue such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”
By that measure, your leftists friends are free to claim anyone who objects to an overreaching central government as an extremist, at a time and place of their choosing. It is nothing less than an open threat of government persecution. But of course, you say it can’t happen. It’s not like the left ever makes ridiculous claims that conservatives are racists, or want to poison the air and water, or want to make grandma eat dog food…oh wait…that does happen, doesn’t it?
And ST, or the Pope, or a little old lady who has a moral revulsion to abortion? Extremists!!
This report has – what’s the term you used to use whenever the Bush administration tossed a captured terrorist into Gitmo – a “chilling effect” on open dissent. The difference is that this time the left is all for it. Clamping down on islamofascist bombers is bad, but watch out for those returning veterans, they’re scary. Got it.
By the way, did everyone notice that this report twists opposition to illegal immigration into opposition to all immigration?
That report is here. And it’s soaked in the same kind of left-wing bias as the other report. For example, while law enforcement is supposed to be on the alert for “domestic rightwing terrorists” who may carry out “violent attacks” (especially those returning military veterans), the leftwing extremists are said to be planning “cyber attacks” that are in line with their “no-harm” philosophy of ensuring “the safety of humans, animals, and the environment even as they attack”.
So according to the DHS:
Rightwing extremists: violent, hateful, paranoid, and a clear danger to life and limb. SCARY!!!
Leftwing extremists: non-threating pranksters who wouldn’t hurt a fly.
So I guess Bill Ayers and his ilk, and the anarchists who riot at every economic conference, are now officially no longer “extremists”.
Which bring me to more evidence of the political bias in the reports. Search for “terrorist” or “terrorism” in the report on the rightwing extremists. You find fourteen references. Do the same search on the leftwing report and you find two. And those are both in the common boilerplate section outlining the agency’s mission. While the reports toss around the terrorist label freely about the right, there is not a single reference to any left-wingers as terrorists. NOT ONE.
Pardon my skepticism, but based on your unblemished record here of rationalizing everything done, said, or thought by anyone on the left or connected with this administration, I find that statement completely unconvincing.