Our Out Of Control Government

Just perusing the recently retracted Department of Homeland Security's Office of Intelligence and Analysis Domestic Extremism Lexicon "Reference Aid". It apparently classifies a large portion of the population as extremists. It's overarching broad descriptions of "extremist" groups opens up a myriad of possibilities for agencies to target individuals for their perceived extremist views. As an example, I fully support 2nd Amendment rights. If I actively pursue forms of support for repealing gun laws or protesting new legislation I may be targeted as a militia member according to the lexicon description. Read through some of these to see which extremist group YOU may be a "member" of according to the DHS.

The bracketed (U) stands for unclassified and (U//FOUO) stands for unclassified, for official use only. The post title is a link to the document.

(U) alternative media

(U//FOUO) A term used to describe various information
sources that provide a forum for interpretations of events and
issues that differ radically from those presented in mass
media products and outlets.

Apparently media other than "mainstream" is subversive and dangerous. The truth is not important, the source is. The DHS is of the opinion that as long as the sheeple continue to watch the alphabet soup networks (abc, nbc, cbs, etc.) they will be fully propagandized.

(U) hate groups

(U//FOUO)A term most often used to describe white
supremacist groups. It is occasionally used to describe other
racist extremist groups.

Racism of any form is antithetical to everything I believe. God created us in his image and we are all his children (there's a radical notion we should fear!) However, it is troubling that DHS describes "hate groups" mainly as white supremacists. Is not Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam a hate group? La Raza? The lexicon descriptions of the various minority extremist groups do not describe them as racist even though their actions are. If you are a minority is it not possible to be racist as well?

(U) patriot movement

(U//FOUO) A term used by rightwing extremists to link their
beliefs to those commonly associated with the American
Revolution. The patriot movement primarily comprises
violent antigovernment groups such as militias and sovereign
citizens.
(also: Christian patriots, patriot group, Constitutionalists,
Constitutionist)

O.K., this is really confusing. The term "patriot" is now being given a negative connotation. Can someone be antigovernment without being violent? Of course. Lets also throw in "Christian" as well. Saying that the movement "primarily" comprises violent antigovernment groups does not specify that if you are NOT violent you are not an extremist because you believe the government to be too big and too powerful. While revolutions can be violent such as the American Revolution, a revolution in general terms can mean many things other than violence. Associating the American Revolution with an extremist group is an subversive way of targeting those who would want more of the freedoms our Founding Fathers intended and less government intrusion. There is a quote that goes something like, 'When people fear their government, that is tyrrany. When government fears the people, that is liberty.'

(U) rightwing extremism

(U//FOUO) A movement of rightwing groups or individuals
who can be broadly divided into those who are primarily
hate-oriented, and those who are mainly antigovernment and
reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.
This term also may refer to rightwing extremist movements
that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to
abortion or immigration.
(also known as far right, extreme right)

Just having the term "broadly divided" in the above description should scare everyone. Somehow rejecting federal authority for state and local authority is a bad thing? Can anyone provide me with an example of some statute, program, code or law that can be equally applied and relevant to all fifty sates? Under this definition of rightwing extremism, the Founders are just that. They believed in a weak centralized government and strong state governments.

(U) tax resistance movement

(U//FOUO) Groups or individuals who vehemently believe
taxes violate their constitutional rights. Among their beliefs
are that wages are not income, that paying income taxes is
voluntary, and that the 16th Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution, which allowed Congress to levy taxes on
income, was not properly ratified. Members have been
known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts
of violence and terrorism in an attempt to advance their
extremist goals. They often target government entities such
as the Internal Revenue Service and the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
(also: tax protest movement, tax freedom movement, antitax
movement)

My head is going to explode. I am an extremist because I think the government takes far too much money from me to give to people, places, causes and events that I do not wish to support. They believe that my hard earned dollars are theirs to use in whatever way they see fit. A good example is sending hundreds of millions of dollars to "community groups" such as ACORN that perpetrate voter fraud. Their mention of the 16th Amendment in the context of "it's in the Constitution" gives the impression that anyone who opposes is a radical. The 16th Amendment which was ratified to fund the Civil War snowballed over the next century into our current confiscatory tax system. What's not to like about that? Raise your hand if you support higher taxes and more debt. Anyone?

(U) skinheads

(U//FOUO) A subculture composed primarily of
working-class, white youth who embrace shaved heads for
males, substance abuse, and violence. Skinheads can be
categorized as racist, anti-racist or “traditional,” which
emphasizes group unity based on fashion, music, and lifestyle
rather than political ideology. Dress often includes a shaved
head or very short hair, jeans, thin suspenders, combat boots
or Doc Martens, and a bomber jacket.

Here the problem is a radical group being identified by it's fashion and music among other things. Um, I actually own a pair of Doc Marten shoes. Not boots, but shoes. I also have a pair or two of jeans. I guess I've slipped into the dark realm of the skinheads.

The entirety of this report should be troubling to all of us as Americans. That your political or personal views can be deemed extremist by the government and could possibly put you on some terrorist watch list should frighten everyone. This lexicon broadly describes so many belief systems that nearly everyone in America could find some portion of one of these groups that they would be in agreement with.

Obama Administration Pushing "Net Neutrality"

They just ca't keep their regulatory paws off of free enterprise and the free market, can they? Here's a short article on how the fine print in the socialist porkulus bill that no one was allowed to read before it was voted on is bit by bit killing freedoms in this country.

Atheist Plaque Next to Nativity Scene in Washington

The post title links to the article of the same name posted at OneNewsNow.com. The paragraph that jumped out at me and makes an incredible amount of sense is the following;

“I don’t believe in unicorns, so I just go about my life as if there are no unicorns. You’ll notice that I haven’t written any books called The End of the Unicorn, Unicorns Are Not Great, or The Unicorn Delusion, and I don’t spend my time obsessing about unicorns. What I’m getting at is that you have these people out there who don’t believe that God exists, but who are actively attempting to eliminate religion from society…There has to be more going on here than mere unbelief.”

That's a quote from Dinesh D'Souza in an interview for Salvo magazine. My buddy Joe would disagree with the premise if I'm not mistaken.

Layout Tweak

I added the new Blogger "reaction" buttons to my posts. They are customizable so I chose my own text. This way you can share your reaction to the post without necessarily leaving a comment. Try it out!

Marine Base Bans Anti-Islam Bumper Stickers

This one should stick in the craw (whatever those are) of my buddy, Joe. Being staunch defenders of the first amendment, we disagree on things at times but we both agree that we should not be censored in any way. This story is political correctness at it's evil worst. Regardless of your position on the war on terror, the actions of this military installation are heinous!

Click the post title for the full story

Democrats/Leftists - The Inclusive Folks, Open Minded

They always claim to be tolerant and openminded. Including all and nonjudgemental...except when it comes to dissenting opinions.

The "Tolerance" of the Left

If this is any indication of the supposed tolerance of the left, I'm keeping my distance on election day. Why is it that the left who spew hate and violence against the right, accuse the right of being hateful and intolerant?

Click the post title for the full story from the Wall Street Journal digital network

Traffic Jam

I normally frown on the forwarded internet joke. However, I felt this one had enough humor to make it noteworthy.

A driver is stuck in a traffic jam on the highway. Nothing is moving. Suddenly a man knocks on his window.
The driver rolls down his window and asks, "What's happening?"
The man replies, "Terrorists have kidnapped Bill and Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton. They are demanding a $10 million ransom for the five of them. They said if it's not paid within the hour they are going to douse them with gasoline and set them on fire. We're going from car to car, taking up a collection."
The driver asks, "How much is everyone giving, on average?"
"About a gallon" he replies.

This one would be for M.D. in transportation who has made me a member of his "forwrds" list for all of his MoveOn.org garbage.

Couldn't Resist Sharing

"Panties In A Bunch" warning for those of the left-leaning sort. View at your own risk.



Same warning for this one. It is undeniably hilarious!



This one is by the same group is not as politically charged. Just a really good song memorializing the service members who paid the ultimate price "For My Country"

The Left's Fascination With the Right's Supposed Media Control

This article at CNS news shows the rather sophisticated collaboration of the left in shutting down free speech. That sounds very conspiratorial and "black helicopter"-like but there efforts and collaborations taking place to try to silence a news network that does not provide a liberal bias. Liberal activists effectively persuaded candidates to withdraw from a debate merely because they did not like the Fox News network hosting. I'm quite confident that there was never a boycott from the right when CNN (Communist News Network), ABC (Always Bull Crap), CBS (Crooked Broadcasting Service) or NBC (Non Believable Communications) held a debate. Candidates from the right generally want to be involved in any debate.

Less information is bad, shutting down debates is bad, spinning information is bad. While both sides can be accused of spinning, it's the left that actively trys to shut down free speech and the dissemination of information. This quote from Robert Greenwald, one of the activist organizers that successfully shut down the debate, I think speaks for itself.

"The more Democrats legitimize Fox as a neutral or credible source of news, the easier it is for Fox to swiftboat Democratic candidates and progressive ideas in the future -- elevating smears and misinformation into the mass media during the 2008 election," it says.

The Left attempts to shut down opposition by attacking the opposing messengers rather than defending their position. Try to avoid the facts because that tends to confuse their opinions.

The latest from the American Criminal Lawyers Union

ACLU Seeks to Censor Religious Content from Louisiana Graduations.

I was always under the impression that the American Criminal Lawyers Union was in the business of protecting freedom of speech and not censoring it. Silly me, what was I thinking???

Notable Quotes and Some Questions Regarding Humor

Perusing The Quotations Page is always an enlightening jaunt. I came across a relevant quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. that really encapsulates the dialogue in the media over the course of the last week in regards to the Don Imus brouhaha.

We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe.

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

A distasteful opinion should not be squelched but debated vigorously. A distasteful joke should be ignored and frowned upon, not avenged. Heard any of Chris Rock's stand up comedy? (caution: not for the easily offended) This should have you wondering if Imus' comments didn't receive a bit of over-reaction. Would Al and Jesse pay to go see Chris do his stand-up routine? Could they handle being the butt of one of his jokes? Maybe it's just that Chris Rock is funny and Don Imus isn't? Hopefully a bad sense of humor won't be a criminal offense anytime in the not too distant Orwellian future. One last immortal quote....

Can't we all just get along?
Rodney King

Hollywood Hate

Excellent article by Brent Bozell at the Media Research Center site. He writes of the double standards in Hollywood when choosing a victim for receipt of their brand of hate speech.

I don't mind Hollywood being ignorant about issues of faith. They don't know anything about it. Faith scares them so they choose to mock it. I expect them to offend me. What I DO mind is the double standard involved. Where's the Hollywood movie mocking islamo-fascists? Wouldn't that be a great movie? The bungling terrorists who couldn't even blow themselves up let alone other people?

However, when mocking Christians, it's open season.

I saw a bumper sticker on a car the other day. I think this is the first that I have ever really been shocked by. I think there are a plethora of distasteful displays of verbage devaluing cars the world over but this one took the cake for me..."So many Christians, so few lions".

I was shocked because it was essentially condoning murder. Yes, this is only written on a bumper sticker but the person who confidently decided to gum up their paint job made a conscious decision to choose that particular sticker. What is funny about that? What if the sticker had said, "So many Jews, so few gas chambers"? Maybe "So many Rwandan's, so few weapons"? How about "So many pedophiles, so few children"? I had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach that there were people so callous as to find humor in any of those "jokes"? We are all free to be as offensive as wish wish. There are however limits to "free" speech.

If boycotting, pressuring, letter writing and other forms of expressing ones displeasure with being offended offends the offender. Uh, too bad. There is no Constitutional guarantee of "freedom from reaction" when exercising your free speech rights on either side of an argument.


Here's a good article on the tax exempt status for churches and it's use for stifiling free speech.

From the liberal Supreme Court Justice....

....William O. Douglas, comes an opinion that I was quite surprised to be reading. This excerpt is from 343 U.S. 306 Zorach v. Clauson, decided April 28, 1952.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. We make room for as wide a variety of beliefs and creeds as the spiritual needs of man deem necessary. We sponsor an attitude on the part of government that shows no partiality to any one group and that lets each flourish according to the zeal of its adherents and the appeal of its dogma. When the state [p314] encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. Government may not finance religious groups nor undertake religious instruction nor blend secular and sectarian education nor use secular institutions to force one or some religion on any person. But we find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence. The government must be neutral when it comes to competition between sects. It may not thrust any sect on any person. It may not make a religious observance compulsory. It may not coerce anyone to attend church, to observe a religious holiday, or to take religious instruction. But it can close its doors or suspend its operations as to those who want to repair to their religious sanctuary for worship or instruction. No more than that is undertaken here.

Establishment Clause Bantering

Joe over at Joe's Big Blog and I have an ongoing friendly (and sometimes heated) discussion over the establishment clause in the First Amendment. He's a good friend, fellow blogger and co-worker and we love to "torture" each other over this topic. In my last post I linked to an article about Chuck Norris becoming a board member of the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools.

Joe commented that it would be better for "parents to directly oversee the relgious teachings of their children". This, as I replied to Joe, missed the point entirely. I'm not dumping on Joe, I think it's a great start to a passionate discussion by both sides.

The Constitutional language that states...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

...refers to the two clauses in the First Amendment that guarantee freedom of religion (not from). The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official state religion or preferring one religion over another.

The Bible is an historical record of facts. The people and places written about are historically accurate. The Bible is also backed by writings from other secular authors as well as archeological finds that all substatiate it's accuracy.

Here is a link to an excellent page that shows the evidence that I refer to. This is a must read page if one is to understand the foundation of this disagreement. It is a lengthy and detailed page but certainly provides ample evidence.

The following excerpt is from an article on the Liberty Legal Institute's website. The quotes are from Hiram Sasser, director of litigation for Liberty Legal Institute, attorneys for the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools.

Attorneys for NCBCPS respond to Texas Freedom Network’s (TFN) attack on an elective Bible course offered in public high schools across the state.

“It is ironic that a group which claims to be against censorship is now attempting to become the biggest censor in the state of Texas.”

The NCBCPS curriculum has been approved by 300 school districts in 37 states and endorsed by many of the nation’s leading constitutional scholars, public officials and law professors. In the case Abington v. Schempp, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities,” so long as it is “presented objectively as part of a secular program of education.”

In addition to providing an interfaith perspective on the material, NCBCPS
curriculum is also designed to broaden perspectives and stimulate discussion and
thought.

“NCBCPS course material is designed to utilize the vast historical and cultural
insight found in the Bible,” Sasser said. “Depriving students of such important
study is totally ridiculous and contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court statement.”

Unfortunately the frantic folks at the "Asinine Communist Liberal Uber-anger" society ("ACLU" for those who read mostly MSM) who hate everything this country stands for won't be happy until all traces of religion, or references to, are eliminated from society. Somehow in their faith tradition (Liberalism - which is a religion unto itself) they have determined that all other religions are invalid and should therefore be eliminated. Sounds a bit like the current swath being burned by radical Islamo-fascists.

I just had to include some quotes below from the Founders. I'm a sucker for the folks who gave up everything to preserve their freedom.

"The Bible is a book worth more than all the other books that were ever printed."
Patrick Henry

"It is impossible to enslave mentally or socially a Bible reading people. The principles of the Bible are the groundwork of human freedom."
Horace Greely

"I have always said, and will always say, that studious perusal of the sacred volume will make us better citizens."
Thomas Jefferson

While President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson was elected the first president of the Washington, D.C. public school board, which used the Bible as a reading text in the classroom.