The Department of Homeland Security under the new Obama administration has come out with a new report entitled “Right Wing Extremism”. This only weeks after the Missouri information analysis center issued a report with help from the DHS that called for heightened suspicion against those with “radical” ideologies such as Christianity, anti abortion and third party affiliation, pointing out bumper stickers for Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin as clues to whom these dangerous extremists might be.
This new report lumps the 2ND and 10Th Amendments of the constitution as ideologies that are akin to neo Nazism and terrorism. As well as claiming that those who support the right to bear arms, pro-life, and anti illegal immigration are “Potential terrorists”.
If this is Obama’s idea of being bi-partisan and bringing the nation together it must be in the same way the USSR brought it’s people together, by shackling the voices of dissent. It is irresponsible and dangerous to make such broad sweeping generalizations that seek to haphazardly connect Racists and Neo Nazis with Conservatives, especially when the document itself says “The DHS/office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic right wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence”
This new report is nothing more than Gestapo tactics aimed at shutting the mouth of us who disagree with slaughtering babies, who believe we have the right to bear arms not to hunt but to ensure a tyrannical dictator does not trample upon our rights, who believe in Government at the Federal level is here to serve the States not vice versa, who believe in strong borders and fair employment. You may disagree with our beliefs but we have the right to hold them without fear of being harassed in the name of Homeland security.
Read it yourself here’s the link http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf
April 16th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
some questions i have in regards to this are–
why is there so much reference to the economy?
why is there so much reference to the 90’s?
who wrote this report?
April 17th, 2009 at 10:02 am
” The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it’s in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.” JFK
April 18th, 2009 at 9:32 am
I know it’s bizarre, you would think the 1990’s were the second civil war, it is going to interesting to see if this report becomes something actually used to target conservatives or, after this backlash from so many, fall to the way side.
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:48 am
It does NOT help the conservative movement to misrepresent the content of documents such as the one you so helpfully provided a link to.
After a very careful reading, including a thorough search for the words “Christian” and “Christianity,” it is clear that your statement that the report claims that “those who support the right to bear arms, pro-life, anti illegal immigration and Christianity are ‘Potential terrorists’” is false. In fact, the ONLY occurrence of the word “Christian” is a reference to “violent Christian Identity organizations” on page 4.
Apparently this site does not have a “Love for the Truth” after all.
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:43 pm
I think that the paper was saying that typical violent people use all of the things that you stated in your article as an excuse for violence and terrorism. It also appeared that they had seen links in the past of those who take their stances to extreems becoming violent.
blowing up government buildings, aborion clinics, Waco Texas…that sort of thing.
April 23rd, 2009 at 8:44 pm
since i know of no voilent Christain groups i would call that an unfair claim by this report. Violent and Christian after all are mutually exclusive. In addition the majority of pro lifers, are christian so in essence it does exactly that. it should be noted that the part where i refer to Christians is in regards to the report out of missiour not the DHS report.
April 26th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
“This new report is nothing more than Gestapo tactics aimed at shutting the mouth of us who disagree with slaughtering babies.”
Frankly, this assertion is absolutely absurd. The current administration is not opposed to Mr. Johnson’s right to claim that an embryo with fewer cells than a fruit fly is the same thing as human baby. Our government is only worried about those individuals who would take violent action in an attempt to impose their flawed ideology on society.
Anti-abortion violence has killed many. The National Abortion Federation reports that 7 murders, 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 assaults, and 3 abductions have all been committed in the name of the movement that stupidly calls itself “pro-life.”
(http://www.prochoice.org/pubs_research/publications/downloads/about_abortion/violence_statistics.pdf)
April 26th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
You know of no violent Christian groups? I think that the history of christianity shows alot of violence. the KKK… Waco texas … Jonestown … All violent Christian Groups …
April 26th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Bennett, those groups you mentioned are violent in contrast to being “Christian.” So, wouldn’t it be like me being violent and calling myself a women. I am clearly not a woman, therefore I couldn’t be a “violent woman.” Whereas a “violent Islamic” group could justify their violence by the Koran. Am I wrong here? I could be.
April 27th, 2009 at 1:18 am
Well, saying that the groups are “violent in contrast to being ‘Christian’” is fine, but the fact is that the report in question here refers precisely to those groups who “identify” as “Christian.” Some of us may say that those people are not truly “Christian,” but the report itself is accurate! There ARE groups, even today, who identify as Christian but are hateful and dangerous. Sure, they give Christianity a “bad name,” just as the fundamentalist jihadist groups give Islam a “bad name,” but the fact remains that they consider themselves “Christian.”
I consider myself a conservative Christian, and I find hateful “conservatives” and hateful “Christians” to be a profound embarrassment.
In other words, I still see absolutely nothing wrong with the report itself! The fact that this article strongly impugned the report — even saying “read it for yourself” as if doing so would prove the claims — also makes this article responsible for those hateful people who decide to trust the article instead of actually reading the report for themselves.
If I were the author of this article, I would hope that I would feel very, very ashamed. It’s no wonder that so many people in this country no longer trust us conservatives!
BTW, if it is the OTHER report that proves the claims, why not give us a link to THAT one instead???
April 27th, 2009 at 7:25 am
Josh: I agree with Art here. The government does not really do a study on weather or not these people are truly “saved” Christians. To refer back to your arguement of calling yourself a woman, but not really being one. If you were to have a sex cange operation (Christian conversion) and start dressing like a woman (wear crosses, speak christianese, etc.), people will probably start calling you a woman. Technically are you a woman?…may-be…depends who you ask…
April 27th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Ok, fair enough. i guess that i’d have to agree to someone looking from the outside in. as far as actually knowing the truth, i’d say that this is a true statement: Christians who murder do so out of disobedience to their faith, while Muslims do so out of obedience to their faith. disagree?
April 27th, 2009 at 11:52 am
I believe that anyone who murders yet claims to follow any of the Abrahamic faiths (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) is disobedient to his or her faith. Although I have not read the Koran, the overwhelming majority of Muslims do not go around murdering people, so if obedience to the faith requires murder that majority would seem “disobedient.”
The unfortunate fact is that hateful people throughout history have often claimed justification for their behaviors by picking out verses from the Bible, the Torah or Talmud, and the Koran.
As Christians and conservatives, I believe strongly that we need to lead by example, and if we are going to reverse the tide and regain support, we need to at least be rigorously honest.
April 27th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Art seeing as the only direct naming of Christians was in reference to violent Christians, and since it seemed to give you the impression i was lying, i changed that section so as not to include “Christianity”.
However i do believ the report targets Christians, who make up the majority of the pro life group, it does so indirectly.
Thank you for your critical evaluation after reading my post again i realize you were in fact correct, please know it is my desire to be both honest and discerning, lastly please realize this is an opinion blog. These are my thoughts, this is not your nightly news, i don’t pretend to be bi partisan. Thanks again and please continue to reply to our posts as we thoroughly enjoy the robust and vigorous exchange of ideas. I’m not always wrong but when i am, i gladly remedy it.
Thanks Noah Johnson
April 27th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Well done Noah…I respect that…
April 27th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Art, i think that you would find that murder can be done in obedience to Islam.
April 28th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Josh, can murder not be justified by Christians too? Why then would so many conservative evangelicals be against gun control? Do they want to hunt with their hand guns and asault rifles?
April 28th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Bennett, is self-defense murder?
April 28th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Daniel Bennett, would you agree that most governments are evil? if so are we as the people of this or any other nation entitled, rather endowed with rights including the right to defend our selves from tyranny or oppression by a government? As Americans we are by the second amendment allowed to bear arms not to hunt or murder but in case our government goes astray that we would not become like so many millions through the years lead away to death with no way to defend ourselves or our families.
You should look into how many countries through the years have banned guns and then had a massive holocaust within one generation, it is staggering. You may trust governments but our forefathers did not that’s why that right was given to the citizenry of this united states, be they Christian or other.
April 29th, 2009 at 7:39 am
To be honest, I’m not really settled with either. I know Jesus did not defend himself from evil government. I know He said turn the other cheek. I’m not really sure what to do with that.
Do people really need hand-guns and asault rifles to defend themselves? If so why not allow all weapons to be held by the private sector? If we truely have a right to bear arms in our nation, why not put together a group of people to fund the building of a nuclear war-head? Is that not our right?
Is self defense murder? I don’t think so, but one’s view of self-defense can be totally skewed as well. Many people would argue that the war in Iraq was self defense…I believe that it was not.
But again to be totally honest I do struggle with the issue. In everything that Jesus said and did do we ever see any grounds for legitimized self defense? I would love to hear your insight as I truely am self-exploring this one…
April 29th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Sometimes when we get into WWJD, and living the life of Christ and all, when we are talking about self-defense, punishment etc. we forget one thing, God is going to punish evil with eternal damnation in Hell.
April 29th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
I think that Jesus would have physically stopped the men from stoning the adulterous woman. Jesus told the disciples to carry a sword when Peter said look here’s two of um, Jesus said that’s enough. So i would say Jesus, God does give us the right to defend ourselves. I don’t believe God expects us to leave our family alone in the name of cheeck turning though i could be wrong.
April 29th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
I agree with Noah.
April 29th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Josh: So then if God is going to judge someday, do we really need to stand up for ourselves (physically)?
Noah: That may be speculation. When the guards came to get Jesus did he fight? Did he ever fight?
Is God’s final judgement defensive or offensive?
April 29th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Noah (and everybody else), sorry I’ve been absent! Had to attend to some other things.
Also, Noah, thanks for your earlier message. I can see that you are certainly one of the “good guys” and you absolutely want to get at the truth and present it fairly.
Sorry if my language seemed to label you a “liar”! I can certainly see that you have a respect for the truth. I became agitated because there seem to be so many examples nowadays of overreaction, paranoia and sometimes even what appears to be intentional “lying” by fellow conservatives, and I fear that such behavior will further erode support for conservative viewpoints.
On the issue of exercising a right to defend oneself and others:
I am an extremely strong advocate for the rights of gun and knife owners. I believe most of us currently participating in this thread are Christians, but even if that is not true it seems that everyone commenting has a strong set of values. Although some Christians pull verses from the Old Testament to justify the use of violence, the message of Jesus is obviously very tolerant. I agree, however, that Jesus would have physically stepped in to prevent harm to others, and I honestly don’t believe that “turning the other cheek” was intended to address the issue of being a target of potentially deadly force. Although the words of Jesus Christ encourage tolerance, I honestly believe that responding with deadly force specifically to protect one’s life or the lives of others is something that God would sanction.
It reminds me of a scene from a movie. Unfortunately, I forget the name of the movie, but the quote goes something like this (right before the main character, the “good guy,” kills a “bad guy”):
“Forgiveness is between you and God. My job is to arrange the meeting.”
One other thing, though: I vigorously disagree with those who seem to believe that the the Bible or other religious works gives them permission to harm or even kill others because of perceived transgressions — “sins” or disobedience against God’s wishes. I’ve even heard so-called “Christians” say that Leviticus 20:13 somehow grants permission to kill homosexuals because of the phrase “…they shall surely be put to death…”, conveniently ignoring the immediately preceding verses that say the same thing about “…everyone who curses his father or mother…” and “…the adulterer and the adulteress….”
There is a dramatic difference between defending your own life (and the lives of others) and placing yourself in a position in which you believe that you are allowed to punish someone else on God’s behalf. A fundamental tenet of the Christian faith is that we are ALL sinners.
One of the problems I have with the Koran (and by extension Islam) is that there seem to be many verses that appear to encourage violence against other men and women and even seem to suggest that doing so means that you are exercising God’s will — and that in the afterlife you may expect a reward for doing so. Of course, something similar could be said for some of the verses found in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, Jesus clearly says that the old rules are to be replaced by the model that He represents, a model that urges tolerance and leaves judgment to God.
That does NOT mean that we should put down our arms and allow ourselves to become victims of violent crime. I believe in an understanding and loving God, and if I ever have to shoot someone who is threatening my life or the lives of others, I strongly believe that when I stand before God for judgment, I’ll be OK.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Dan, the fact that Jesus laid down his own life must always be looked at in the light of his mission, which was to atone for mans sin through His substitutionary death. I do not believ the next time someone trie to kill Him that he would allow that. but thats just my speculations
August 27th, 2009 at 3:56 am
“I do not believ the next time someone trie to kill Him that he would allow that. but thats just my speculations”
LOL If he’s dead, and some one kills him, where’s he going to end up detroit?
But anyway, Jesus said take the sword. (good point on the self defense previous poster)
Jesus didn’t defend himself from when he was getting merked because he knew he had to die for our sins.
Havent you guys seen Dogma?