'You should google "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence

and download the PDF FILE. Pretty Interesting stuff.

I've been aware for some time that Napolitano et al don't like conservatives but now it seems we might be terrorists or revolutionaries.

Seriously reading this PDF will give you some insight to how our government is thinking ABOUT US.

The article below is a couple years old but if anything I think DHS has an even more critical view

DHS I&A assessment circulated?
Filed under: Intelligence and Info-Sharing — by Philip J. Palin on April 13, 2009

What is reported to be an unclassified assessment by the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis finds:

Threats from white supremacist and violent anti-government groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carryout violent acts. Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn — including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit — could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past.

Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.

The document entitled Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment has been made available online by The Liberty Papers. The 9 page PDF is marked For Official Use Only (FOUO).

By their passive aggressive piss ant definition, yes!

I believe in the 2nd amendment

I believe in personal freedoms

I believe in limited government

I believe in government of the people, by the people, for the people

I believe English should be the only language in this country

I believe welfare should be only for those who have worked and lost their jobs due to the current economy

I believe congress should be part time as it was originally intended, no special benefits and raises will be up to the people

I believe congress shall pass no law that does not directly apply to those privileged to serve this country in congress

Just to name a few things.

well, since Im not a white supremacist or member of any violent anti government (or any violent group of any type actually) or willing to become one,,,,

I guess Im not being discussed,,,,,

Will I validate Godwin's law by comparing this to the attitude of non-Jews when the Jews were taken?

If you don't stand up for the rights of others, you may eventually lose your own rights.

what we ARE and what we DO arent the same issue

targeting people for what ethnicity they happen to be,,,WRONG

targeting people for their ACTIONS,, not wrong

the 'rights' of terrorists and violent people to continue terrorizing and being violent are not rights Im interested in 'standing up' for and nothing I feel entitled to have myself,,,

Way to miss the point. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

When they come for your rights and freedoms, you best not complain because you allowed them the power to do it. It'll be of your own doing.

I think we as Human Beings didn't ask to be created by our creator up in Heaven,i think it's about time after all the world wars and opression,the wars of the ancient times...the countless deaths from war,hate and justice.We should revolt against our creator God,where in the F U C K is he?...........

Only when they actually commit a crime.

Targeting people for their actions under any other circumstances is as wrong as targeting them for their ethnicity. In fact, if you want to argue that people who engage in certain behaviors are more likely to commit certain crimes, we could equally (and factually!) argue that people who have certain ethnicities are more likely to commit certain crimes.




I thought the OP was really about people who have certain ideologies, and who belong to certain groups. The individuals involved should only be treated as criminals when they individually have been convicted of a crime, and not before.

This is the way it is. Imagine if you can, that the government slowly inched its way to tyranny and even a dictatorship. Now imagine that some freedom loving citizens decided they did not like it. According to the constitution, those freedom loving persons are duty bound to overthrow the corrupt tyrannical government.

However, they have allowed that very government to pass laws that give them complete power to determine that they are suspected terrorists and storm their homes and arrest them and take them away without charges or letting them have a lawyer.

This (hypothetical) corrupt government has all the power it needs to stop dissent and any hope of any revolt against it.

How did it get to this point? People were terrorized and told that the government needed these powers to protect them. Truth is, they needed those powers to protect the status quo. ... themselves.

groups whose WRITTEN objectives include acceptance of crime and threats, is different than ethnicities whose social status may make them more prone to crime

different things


if Im born into an ethnicity, its not because I am choosing any particular lifestyle or making any vow to anything, its just what I was born

if I CHOOSE TO JOIN A group, that is a totally different dynamic,,,

and considering someone a criminal is quite different than considering them 'suspect'

ask any women who have had partners merely threaten to harm them and those whose threats materialize,,,I side with caution and prevention over waiting to see if threats and intentions turn into action,,,,

You are right, there is a huge difference between being born with certain genetics and choosing to embrace a certain ideology. Yet, when it comes to matters of justice, there is not a huge difference between targeting individuals in a group based on their race and targeting individuals in a group based on their beliefs.




Yes! And we must keep those differences in perspective! We should be on our guard against the degradation of the rights of domestic 'terror suspects', and not allow the government to treat suspects like criminals.





I'd wager that 10,000 times as many people have been physically or emotionally harmed by domestic abuse over the last decade, as have been in any way effected by domestic terrorism.

You are bringing a matter of real harm (domestic abuse) into a conversation about people jumping at shadows.

Domestic terrorism isn't a complete fantasy, but its way overblown as a bogeyman.

oooo! 911! Underwear bomber! Fear the domestic terrorist! It could be you, next! Except, it won't be. Odds are comparable to winning the lottery.

I'd love to see some stats on how many people have been harmed over the last decade by domestic terrorists, compared to people harmed by real threats like murderers, warfare, car accidents, heart attacks, domestic abuse, etc.

I'd wager that 10,000 times as many people have been physically or emotionally harmed by domestic abuse over the last decade, as have been in any way effected by domestic terrorism


Id wager you were right, because we dont practice PREVENTATIVE Measures in domestic crime nearly as well as we have managed to do it when it comes to domestic terrorism

and I hope that changes,,,

and I agree suspects shouldnt be treated like criminals, but the fact they are is pretty consistent with the mentality of our culture where suspects are seen so often (thanks in a big part to media) as 'guilty' until proven innocent

I think the term "suspect" has grown to mean guilty because of the way it is used.

A suspect is a person you suspect might have committed the crime.

Yet I have seen reporters and police alike tackle a perpetrator of a crime IN THE ACT OF COMMITTING THE CRIME with witnesses and on camera and they are still calling him a "suspect!"

Excuse me, but if they shoot someone who is robbing a bank and shooting at people they don't call him a "suspect." They call him a perpetrator. If a guy is caught on camera and is committing a crime in front of a bunch of witnesses, I think its time to call it what it is.

He's a "criminal" or a "perpetrator" or a "shooter." I don't think we are simply suspicious at that point. I think we are engaged.

the moment people hear of someone being accused, or charged, or arrested,,,


I think most people consider a person guilty automatically,,,



which is unfortunate


especially with violent or socially objectionable crimes like murder, rape, child endangerment,,etc,,,

in which case the mere public mention of even an ACCUSATION can ruin peoples lives,,,,

There are videos of individuals or Communes the Gov. claimed were terrorists.

They, even the women and kids were either shot trying to exit a burning building or died in the fire.

This happened here in the US.

Its true that the police are limited in their ability to address domestic abuse issues, but effective 'domestic terrorist' enforcement isn't why we don't need to fear domestic terrorists. We don't need to fear domestic terrorists because (a) there are very, very few actual threats and (b) our non-terror-focused criminal justice system works as a deterrent.

Its like living in fear of the cannibalistic serial killers. Its a horrifying idea, and when it happens it dominates our media coverage, but statistically its just stupid to think actually a significant threat to you personally.

Sure, there are unhappy people sitting around talking about blowing **** up, but we have very very few people in this country that will actually do so. We can let the FBI and the local police do their jobs implementing the current criminal justice system.




Yes! And this is a danger to the rights of all law-abiding citizens everywhere. When we starting thinking its okay for suspects to be treated like criminals, or that its okay to dramatically reduce the rights of suspects, we become part of the problem.

How bout they have the assailant in custody instead of suspect.When the word suspect is used and also the suspect is incarcerated then the saying "Innocent until proven guilty" is negated.We all know that phrase is so true and abided by.

I think if it is clear that a person is the assailant because of witnesses and cameras, then I think they should cease calling him a suspect. They don't "suspect" him, they pretty much know he did it if they caught him in the act.

If they use the term "suspect" for someone who is obviously the assailant it muddies the meaning of "suspect" and people who are "suspects" are then assumed to be guilty.

The term "suspect" ceases to have any meaning if it is only used for legal or politically correct language.

If I see someone shoot a person right before my eyes and if I get it on video, sorry, but the guy is not going to be called a "suspect." Yep, he is presumed guilty. He is going to have to prove his innocence at that point.

maybe not hearing about it often doesnt mean it isnt happening often,, anymore than hearing about something alot means it is common

Are you talking about domestic terrorism?

I looked up the stats a while back, when they first mandated body scanners at airports.

Domestic terrorism, statistically, does not pose any threat to american citizens (mortality rate wise).

This is why I mentioned cannibalistic serial killers.

Its a bogey man. Its something to get people afraid and worked up about, but statistically poses no actual risk to the general population.