Unclear On The Concept
By Mitch Berg
Reports are still congealing, but 2-3 have been injured in a shooting at the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC.
Israel responds:
The Consulate General of Israel in New York City called the reported shooting “disturbing” and said it seemed “someone didn’t internalize the message.”
One could say that.
Hey, good thing Washington DC all but bans civilian gun ownership, and is dragging their feet on Heller; goodness knows how bad it could have been.
June 11th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Peev, he hated Christians too. I guess things might not be as black and white as you and Clownie like to pretend.
June 11th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Right on cue, AssClown equates wordiness with “smart”. Typical of a Burbot. Peev pulled the wool over AC’s eyes again. The only thing AssClown knows about “smart” is when it is followed by “ass”. Now get back to polishing that sphincter.
….
DogBone, feel free to worship at the words of Perischini.
Don’t you just love it; namecalling and claiming they are rude. Ha ha ha ha ha ha thanks for the laugh, Dog. You are a riot!
I do not deny this old man is a nut job. A death wish does not make one a terrorist.
If you want to label him a terrorist at least have the intellectual honesty to quantify… how it was done systematically and how was it used as a means of coercion.
Words have meaning and definition.
Send out the Thought Police, his mind is full of “hate”!!!!!!!
But your honor, what the prosecution describes as “hate” is actually “frustration” as my client has fully admitted.
Why can’t the liberals just charge him with Murder, 1st degree?
June 11th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
The foundation of the Republican party; the party’s first President: Abraham Lincoln. Strange how Peevee equated the emancipation with an “anti-black sentiment”. Comedy gold. And AssClown thinks that is “smart”. Ha ha ha ha ha ha
“since WHEN…”
Ask Merriam and Webster.
So this guy said some ugly things toward the Jews. Does that make him a terrorist? Maybe?
“put another nail in the coffin of the idea of Isreal” – penigma 01.13.09 – 9:01 am
’nuff said. Its like shooting fish in a barrel.
Peev = FAIL
June 11th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Holy crap, someone left the animal-mother of all tags open in this comment!
Pen:
You show a profound lack of grasp of how things ACTUALLY worked in Germany.
Perhaps, but I do not. I’m pretty darn literate on the subject. So let’s walk through this, shall we?
You (and other righties) who want this revisionist crap about how the government ran industry really need a history lesson.
Well, actually, everyone – left and right – operates under some misconceptions.
First, Albert Speer didn’t start directing the industry until 1943 – and even then, he did so with the agreement and happy complicity of the head of Messerschitt, I.G. Farbin, Krupp and Porsche to name a few.
It’s a huge mistake to ascribe too much significance to a single personality (true in any totalitarian society; any personality below the dictator who accretes too much power and popularity gets pruned; see Trotsky, Kirov, Gorkiy, Röhm, Von Seeckt…). Speer is considered important because everyone knows Speer; he’s a high-profile Nazi, and he managed to get himself an outsized (and, by Nazi standards, sympathetic) persona after the war. As capable an administrator as he was, he carried on Fritz Todt’s policies in most particulars (adapting for the problems Germany faced late in the war.
As I’ve noted many times on these threads in the past, Hitler and the Nazis learned something important from Lenin’s mistakes; overt nationalization was dumb. Implicit nationalization was a lot smarter; it maintained some market veneer, but still functioned as a command economy as needed. German industry was still “private”, but answered to the market only in areas the government allowed it to.
The notion that Germany was “conservative” in the sense that America understands the term springs from two things; it kept a veneer of capitalism (as opposed to the “leftist” USSR), and it fought Stalin (and if you fight a “leftist”, you must be a “Rightist”, right?)
Many conservatives (in the American sense of the term) point out that the “Socialist” was part of the Nazi name (Nazional Sozialistiche Deutsche Arbeitspartei , “National Socialist German Workers Party”. The most important word isn’t socialist; it’s “National” and “German”. Hitler borrowed lots of tips and techniques from Lenin, but realized that he had to stand atop (and co-opt) German nationalism and Volk to succeed. He also rejected the Marxist “Internationalist” notion that the ideology would inevitably and spontaneously conquer the world; he figured he’d have to do it by force.
Second, He/they ALSO provided slave labor to those industries, jailed and/or killed union leaders by the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, made unions illegal, jailed and/or killed MILLIONS of communists (either their own and/or Soviet prisoners).
You have to distinguish between pre-war and wartime, though. Liquidating political opponents is Totalitarianism 101.
During wartime, it was partly a racial issue (Slavs were untermensch, although not to the extent Jews were), and partly a matter of the Soviets never having signed the Geneva Convention. Unions were an impediment, and were removed – but the really “left”-wing union leadership was dead or in prison long before that happened, killed for the same reasons the Mensheviks were killed; they were the opposition. The fact that they were unionists was incidental.
THe point is, EVERY form of government does some sort of social planning and work, even the banana dictatorships did – but that hardly makes them leftist or liberal.
Look – this is like the fifth time in the past few months we’ve had this discussion. “Left” and “Right” in the American sense are meaningless for this argument.
The real split is between “Authoritarian” and “Totalitarian”. Authoritarians try to dominate a society; Totalitarians try to change it into their image. Two extremes: Franco and Kim Jong Il. Franco upheld the traditional elements of Spanish society – the church and the monarchy; he was an authoritarian. Kim has remade the DPRK in his image; he’s the ultimate totatlitarian. Other dictatators fall somewhere in between – Lenin toward the Kim side, Somoza toward the Franco side. Dictators borrowed promiscuously between sides; Mussolini was an authoritarian who turned Italy into an overt command economy and welfare state; Hitler was a totalitarian who did much the same, as well as co-opted nationalism (and the church, the volk tradition and industry); it was a hybrid and – just to be clear, had little to do with left or right as any American would define it.
Yes, I’m getting impatient with the argument.
In fact, liberalism is considered the contradiction of totalitarianism
You are comparing apples and adding machines.
There are really two different scales, here. On the scale measureing “Totalitarian thorugh Authoritarian”, every single American that is not a hardcore marxist or a neo-nazi” and believes in representative democracy, rule of law and the Constitution is a Big-“L” liberal. ALL of us. The continuum between Dennis Kucinich and Pat Buchanan is utterly meaningless in that context. Thank God.
If you righties want to be taken seriously, you really really need to stop with the BS revisionist crap – you’re worse than Oliver Stone on steroids most of the time
Actually, when it comes to analyzing dictatorships, most Americans of all political stripes are hopelessly simplistic.
Pen, I’ve asked you to read Paul Johnson’s Modern Times I might just require it at this rate.
June 11th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
“Perhaps, but I do not. I’m pretty darn literate on the subject.”
I am certainly not as literate on the subject, but I have read ‘Modern Times’.
“Yes, I’m getting impatient with the argument.”
I suspected as much since my comment got queued. I just felt the need to push back against idiotic leftist cant: “this loon du jour has more in common with you than with me according to my magical reasoning”.
June 11th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Krod says:
“DogBone, feel free to worship at the words of Perischini.”>>
Worship, Krod? The FBI – who did such a great job with the recent Somali pirate hostage situation – are acknowledged experts in this area (unlike, say, YOU). Treating their opinion with respect for that expertise is nothing like ‘worship’. It is very reasonable.
>
You’re right, and this extremist / white supremacist was out to accomplish much more than simply dying. If you doubt that, then you have managed to avoid the entirity of his writing, and you have managed to avoid the reactions of a large variety of people. Including holocaust survivors, and the kids from here in MN who had been at that museum up until some 15 minutes before the shooting. Part of what makes one a terrorist is the intent to intimidate and terrorize, with unexpected acts of violence, more people than the individuals who are harmed directly. He did that.
>
Yes, they do. Maybe you should learn a few more. While you are at it, you would benefit from learning how meanings and definitions are altered. You seem to bend over into all kinds of contortions to avoid legitimate meanings you don’t want to acknowledge.
>
No “Thought Police” required, he was very clear in his intentions; he wrote them down at length. He wanted to force people, through direct violence, and through fear as an indirect but fully intentional consequence to that violence, to make dramatic changes. He wanted to force people to suit his notion of how things should be done rather than the way they are, without any consensus on the part of the rest of us. And to re-write history, while he was at it to get rid of that pesky Holocaust. Gee, not unlike you K-rod trying to deny that this guy is a terrorist.
>
Learn your history better than this K-rod. Lincold resisted the emancipation; it was largely forced on him, in part because some of his staff were emancipating slaves against orders, and because he was pressured. That same Republican party was responsible for some of the worst atrocities of the Reconstruction. And years later, that same Republican party got a massive infusion of members when Dixie Democrats deserted the Democratic party in protest over LBJ’s support for civil rights, desegregation, etc.
Ever see the bad old days in the southern US K-rod? I did, including giving my parents a total fit when I once drank out of a “coloreds only’ drinking fountain when I was a toddler, because the “whites only” fountain was broken.
Both the Republican AND the Democratic parties, depending on what you look at, have some serious flaws in their records regarding race, anti-semitism, and particularly segregation and miscegenation laws.
I grew up in an actively GOP household; my maternal grandmother referred to black people as darkies up until the day she died just shy of 100 years old. She was convinced that if they rubbed hard enough along the sides of their hands, where the skin of the palm was lighter that they could rub that color right off, IF they just wanted to badly enough. Except for a few really awful notions like this, she was a smart, educated, woman who never ever thought of herself as prejudiced — because she didn’t think she HATED anyone. I didn’t ONLY see that kind of thinking in my extended family either.
There is still similar racism – the real thing, not what Sotomayor is acused of, in the GOP. Wouldn’t surprise me to find it in some segments of the DFL either. Along with anti-semitism. People are just more careful about expressing notions that aren’t “PC”, driving it underground.
June 11th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
since my comment got queued.
Actually, your comment got modqueued because the word “Socialist” includes a reference to an erectile dysfunction drug that’s commonly found in spam. So every post that includes the word (except those that Roosh and I write) get queued.
June 11th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Hating Bush is a quality of mainstream democrats, paleocons, and Libertarians. Von Brunn’s national socialist bona fides were impeccable. National socialists believe that all political, class, and individual goals must be be subordinate to the goals of the political state. The political state legitimately wields this power because national (or racial, or ethnic) identity is the essential attribute of an individual. This is text book fascism, as formulated by Mussolini. It is not ‘conservative’, it does not honor tradition, or free enterprise. It is as much of a revolutionary, socialist movement as Marxist-Leninism.
June 12th, 2009 at 7:06 am
I have been advocating voluntarily ratcheting down the sensationalist, emotional aspects, and ramping up the fact checking to improve the quality of discussion as well as putting the brakes on a larger fearful atmosphere. I’m just saying here, before bashing something, or jumping to alarming conclusions — READ it first. Don’t just jump on the sky-is-falling bandwagon.
In that context, I went back to give the DHS report a quick re-read. It is only 9 pages long, available on the internet for free. I found nothing in it that was deserving of the controversy that it received.
For example, while it mentions returning veterans, it does so by indicating that the vets may have an appeal for extremists to recruit; it does NOT suggest that vets have a reciprocal interest in the extremists. Rather it indicates that very very few have been receptive (it’s too much to hope that no vet will ever be inclined, given the sheer numbers).
Besides Von Brunn, the alleged DC Holocaust Museum shooter’s own identification with right wing extremist causes, let me quote a very reasonable assessment from the bottom of page 2 of the report, a footnote that is seminal:
“Rightwing extremism can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents, that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups) and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”
I believe that if you look at the extensive views provided by Von Brunn, you will find he met the criteria of the report’s footnote description /definition.
June 12th, 2009 at 7:52 am
Dog Gone, compare the definition of right wing extremism in the Napolitano report against this appendix from the equivalent Bush document describing left Wing Extremists:
Note that the Bush document names specific extremist organizations, while the Napolitano document does not. Note also that the Bush document clearly identifies extremists with breaking the law or violent actions, while the Napolitano document describes as ‘extremist’ beliefs that are not illegal or violent, such as hating certain kinds of people, rejecting federal authority, or opposition to abortion or immigration.
June 12th, 2009 at 8:09 am
Looks like I am hung up in moderation limbo, Dog Gone. Short criticism of your last comment:
While it may be true that von Brunn fits the definition of Right Wing Extremism in the Napolitano document, the definition also fits millions of Americans who will never engage in any illegal, violent activity due to their ‘extremist’ views.
In the document Bush released describing the dangers of Left Wing Extremism, political beliefs were defined as extremist only in the context of illegal and/or violent actions. Specific organizations were named, as well.
June 12th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Good comment, Mitch. Though while you at other times recognize that the Soviet regime had fans and apologists among the U.S. left, I think you prefer to gloss over the fact that Hitler and Mussolini had admirers on the right, at least before the war.
June 12th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Terry says:
“While it may be true that von Brunn fits the definition of Right Wing Extremism in the Napolitano document, the definition also fits millions of Americans who will never engage in any illegal, violent activity due to their ‘extremist’ views.”
And if you read the actual Rightwing extremism document, which appears to be a consolidation and summary of reports from different agencies for which DHS is the umbrella, they reference specific acts of violence as well. The focus is clearly on those who are engaging in or planning and organizing to engage in illegal violent activity.
Did you read the report?
Very first paragraph, first page, under SCOPE: “The information is provided to federal,state, local and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States.”
I meant to include the link earlier:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14227899/US-DHS-Report-on-Right-Wing-Extremism
June 12th, 2009 at 10:35 am
The left wing extremist report is also on line, and is clearly one of a series, not a pair.
The first paragraph, scope, page 1, same location as in the right wing piece, says:
“This product is one of a series of Intelligence Assessments published by the DHS / Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I & A) Strategic Analysis Group to facilitate a greater understanding of the emerging threats to the United States. This information is provided to the federal, state, and local counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States.”
They forgot to mention tribal law enforcement on this one; but clearly the emphasis on the reports is violent, terrorist attacks, not policing anyone’s non-violent views, regardless of moderate or more polarized.
June 12th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Dog Gone, I have read both reports. The definition of right wing extremism in the footnote of the Napolitano doc is done as an appendix in the Bush-era report on left wing extremism.
Compare the two definitions. The Napolitano doc talks about right wing extremists being haters, rejecting the authority of the federal government, and concerned with things like immigration and abortion. No criminal context is mentioned for any of these characteristics of ‘right wing extremism’. In the Bush-era report on ‘left wing extremism’, the definition of extremists is tied to anti-capitalists, animal-rights types and environmentalists, but ONLY IN THE CONTEXT OF BREAKING THE LAW AND/OR ENGAGING IN VIOLENCE.
See the difference? In the Bush-era doc you are a left wing extremist if you break the law or engage in violence to advance your cause. In the Napoliano document, you are defined as a right wing extremist if you are dedicated to a single issue such as the anti-abortion movement. In Bush land you have to commit a crime to be considered an extremist by the FBI & DHS. It is not necessary to commit an illegal act to be considered an extremist in Napolitano-land.
June 12th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
First they give this old nut case far too much credit; then they do there best to link him to the Republican right. So, after all those words, blah blah blah blah blah… it comes down to Right Wing Republicans are Terrorists. I’m not saying you are a tool for Napolitano. I’m just sayin’.
Don’t worry DogBone, it is still safe to visit museums. 😉
June 12th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Actually, as long as you stay away from the creationism museum, they’re a good place for not running into Republicans. Stay away from the Monster Truck rallies though!
June 12th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Ever been to a Monster Truck Show, AssClown?
June 12th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Terry says:
“Dog Gone, I have read both reports. “>>
There are more than two Terry; I read more than two other reports just on Left Wing extremists from that series this afternoon. I’m trying to find more of them. I doubt all of them are currently publicly available, which makes reviewing them more challenging. I’m expecting the older ones are more readily available, and newer ones will gradually become so over time as they become more dated.
>
Your statement has a few flaws, Terry; these reports ALL originated in the Bush era with a few revisions added as they became available; there is not a specific Bush doc versus Napolitano doc. The mention of single issue terrorists applies equally to the left extremists, if you peruse the eco-terrorist document for example, or the cyber terrorist one. And there is nothing in the any of the documents that identifies dedication to a single issue by itself as a basis for being an extremist OR a terrorist. The same scope statements apply. I’d also refer you to the document wording on government transparency.
>
Respectfully, not so Terry. The criteria used by the analysts is the same under Napolitano as it was under Bush, regardless of who is analyzed. Examples are some of the arrests for violent crimes referenced under the right-extremist doc as supporting examples.
What I took away from reading multiple reports is that they are more of a sharing of newest analysis, a summary update of areas that are being studied by different agencies to share with each other.
NOT a detailed directory of who or what groups are doing what bad things, or a comprehensive overview either. They do ALL focus very clearly on terrorism and violence, and define that emphasis in very clear, unambiguous language at the beginning of each document.
Further – I have so far not found a single instance where any of these counter-intelligence agencies have been used for political advantage against anyone, left or right. What seems to be overlooked by those who see politics rather than anti-terrorism in these documents is that there are people in both law enforcement and counter-intelligence analysis who personally have some of the same single issue beliefs, and some of the same more polarized political views as well. There are just too many levels of organization, and too large a body of people receiving these documents, to even consider trying to politicize this to one position.
You may be determined to see this as anti-right wing, but the documents themselves do not, any of them, support that position in what they say.
K-rod – I don’t alter my attendance of anything out of fear of extremists, but thank you for your concern for my peace of mind. “Stuff” can happen anywhere. When I visited the larger, much more controversial Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem, entry was past a lot of soldiers in full body armor with much heavier weaponry than the two guards had in DC, in response to more serious threats than one grumpy old goat with an even older .22.
Interesting tangent topic from a discussion on one of the cable news networks – should private individuals own tanks under the 2nd ammendment, the way they own handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc….
June 12th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Angry Clown, I can think of two historical figures in America who supported European fascism but despised FDR: Father Coughlin and Chas. Lindbergh.
Many New Dealers looked at the European fascist states, especially Italy, as economic models. Hugh Johnson, who ran the NRA & then the WPA under FDR, was famously an admirer of Mussolini.
June 12th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Dog Gone, you have quoted from the Napolitano document defining what right wing extremism is:
“Rightwing extremism can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents, that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups) and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”
No terrorism or crime is mentioned.
Here is the DHS definition of left wing extremism:
(U//FOUO) DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines leftwing extremists as
groups or individuals who embrace radical elements of the anarchist, animal rights, or
environmental movements and are often willing to violate the law to achieve their
objectives. Many leftwing extremist groups are not hierarchically ordered with defined
members, leaders, or chain of command structures but operate as loosely-connected
underground movements composed of “lone wolves,” small cells, and splinter groups.
— (U//LES) Animal rights and environmental extremists seek to end the perceived
abuse and suffering of animals and the degradation of the natural environment
perpetrated by humans. They use non-violent and violent tactics that, at times,
violate criminal law. Many of these extremists claim they are conducting these
activities on behalf of two of the most active groups, the Animal Liberation Front
and its sister organization, the Earth Liberation Front. Other prominent groups
include Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty; and chapters within the Animal
Defense LeagueUSPER, and Earth First!USPER.
— (U//FOUO) Anarchist extremists generally embrace a number of radical
philosophical components of anticapitalist, antiglobalization, communist,
socialist, and other movements. Anarchist groups seek abolition of social,
political, and economic hierarchies, including Western-style governments and
large business enterprises, and frequently advocate criminal actions of varying
scale and scope to accomplish their goals. Anarchist extremist groups include
entities within CrimethincUSPER, the Ruckus SocietyUSPER ,and Recreate 68 USPER.
Both documents were released under Napolitano, but mostly produced (we have to assume) when DHS was run by a Republican appointee. The document on Left Wing extremism was released on Jan 29 this year, 8 days after Napolitano took control of DHS. The document on Right Wing Extremism was released on April 7, 2009, 10 weeks after Napolitano took over DHS.
June 13th, 2009 at 7:33 am
Yeah, Hugh Johnson, a minor figure in the FDR administration is nonetheless a big figure in the silly wingnut argument that Democrats = Nazis = Soviet Communists.
Unfortunately for the theory, Johnson’s fascist leanings made him unpopular in the administration and by 1940 he supported Wendell Willkie for president. Like many former Democrats who recognize they have far-right leanings, he recognized the other party was the more comfortable place to be.
Hugh Johnson is the best you can do, eh? Everyone knows Father Coughlin and Charles Lindberg (who had many followers). The fact you wingnuts have to dig up a relatively obscure figure to make the counterargument shows you don’t really have much else.
June 13th, 2009 at 7:48 am
You said 30’s, Angry Clown. And the head of first the NRA and then the WPA a ‘minor figure’? Tosh. Johnson’s cred as a progressive goes way back. He worked for Wilson. Designed selective service for him during WWI.
Say, you do know that Roosevelt signed the detention order for AJA’s himself, don’t you? He wanted ownership of that progressive plan.
June 13th, 2009 at 7:50 am
Oh, you forgot Henry Ford, admirer of Hitler, opponent of FDR. Some people have heard of that guy too.
You run into the inconvenient facts, Terry, that FDR did everything he could to aid Britain when it was alone in facing Hitler in Europe, to arm America and enter the war against fascism and, eventually, saved the world from German and Italian fascism and expansionist Japanese militarism. And that the proponents of neutrality and isolation were led by the Congressional Republicans.
Hugh Johnson. Silly wingnut propaganda!
June 13th, 2009 at 7:58 am
Angryclown said: “Though while you at other times recognize that the Soviet regime had fans and apologists among the U.S. left, I think you prefer to gloss over the fact that Hitler and Mussolini had admirers on the right, at least before the war.”
Terry said: “You said 30’s, Angry Clown.”
Well actually I didn’t. Perhaps I could have been more precise – I meant before Pearl Harbor. After America’s entry into the war, it became impossible for anyone but fringe figures to support the fascist enemy. Suffice to say, by 12/7/41, Hugh Johnson was a former administration official who backed the Republican candidate for president.
June 13th, 2009 at 9:31 am
“Before the war.” My mistake.
Seriously, though, Mr Clown, one of the things that I find interesting and irritating is the way people seem to assume that people living fifty or a hundred or even a thousand years ago can be stuffed into contemporary political categories. Both jack London (d 1916) and HG Wells (D 1946) were racists and cultural chauvinists. They called themselves socialists, but it is difficult to put either firmly in the camp of the Leninists or the Fascists. What they were not is conservative.
June 13th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Hitler and Mussolini had admirers on the right, at least before the war.”
And, let’s not forget, on the left, too.
Mussolini turned Italy into a command economy. Hitler was a big social spender.
Do a little digging in history. Neither side in American politics has a corner on the “Deluded” market.
June 13th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Anglo-American conservatism traces its intellectual roots to Edmund Burke, as presented by Russel Kirk or filtered through Buckley’s Fusionism. I suppose that there are people in the US who call themselves conservative and who do not endorse Burkean conservatism, but frankly I can’t think of any. David Duke, maybe? Arnold Schwarzeneggar?
The left traces its intellectual roots to progressive philosophers, activists, and politicians. The problem with this is that, if you are on the left, these days you have to disavow some of their beliefs or actions: praise Wilson for introducing the concept of a state-directed economy to the US (but not his virulent racism or belief in eugenics), Sanger for her championing of female sexual liberation (but not her belief in eugenics), FDR for his vision of using government power to make American society more egalitarian (but not for his use of racial concentration camps during WW2).
Liberals look to Wilson, Sanger, and FDR in a way that conservatives do not look to, say, John C. Calhoun (regardless of what liberals think).
June 15th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Terry says:
No crime or terrorism is mentioned>”
You act as if there are only two documents; there are many, some documents are more specific than others – regarding BOTH extremes.
All, on the very first page,1 address that they are concerned with those individuals who cross the line from ideas to violent actions against the public.
I would encourage you for a better understanding to examine – just for an example – the document in this SERIES, The Domestic Extremist Lexicon, rather than pointing to the one right wing extremist document taken out of context. So far, of those documents available on the internet – and there appear to be far more that are not – I have found three that focus on left wing extremists, two of which are very specific, one is as general as the right wing extremist doc; one which is very general about right wing extremists; and one which address both – the Lexicon docs.
If I were to make an educated guess based on what I’ve found so far, there are DOZENS of these documents.
The conservatives / right wing who objected appear to have done so knowing full well that they were misrepresenting the contents of these documents. Napolitano appears to have been just as insincere in her ‘apology’, which I take to be in reality an ‘f-you’ statement to the opposition. As an independent, I borrow from the bard – a plague on both their houses. And on the media — ALL of the media – which did such a sloppy job covering the reality of this.
Unfortunately – this is lost in the attention of the blog moving on to other topics.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Sure, an independent liberal Democrat, eh Dog. Ha ha ha ha ha ha
Keep on digging and digging to find something, anything, for you to provide cover for Napolitano. Don’t give up, Doggy, keep carrying her water…