It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama wants KKK to be forced to name its members and supporters after Charleston church massacre

page: 8
19
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   
So what is the verdict on whether this article is true or not?

I'm not finding any other sources besides the Daily Mail.

The reference to the KKK seems odd in that their are a lot of other groups now that are more active and more dangerous and surely Obama would know that.




posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: DelMarvel
So what is the verdict on whether this article is true or not?

I'm not finding any other sources besides the Daily Mail.

The reference to the KKK seems odd in that their are a lot of other groups now that are more active and more dangerous and surely Obama would know that.


The KKK is a catch-all boogeyman for all white power groups because everyone knows who they are.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer
I'm not a KKK member but if they are making a list go ahead and put my name on it.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: DelMarvel

I tweeted the Charleston twitter account asking... guess we'll see.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: AmericanZombie
a reply to: Answer
I'm not a KKK member but if they are making a list go ahead and put my name on it.



Are you openly admitting to being a white supremacist?



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer
I think you are out of bounds with that question.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 08:23 PM
link   
I don't believe he is advocating such a thing.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: AmericanZombie
a reply to: Answer
I think you are out of bounds with that question.



Maybe you should rephrase, then. You stated: "if they're making a list go ahead and put my name on it."

That implies that you think you belong on a list of known white supremacists.

I think my question was fair, given how your statement was worded.
edit on 6/27/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: AmericanZombie
a reply to: Answer
I think you are out of bounds with that question.



If you are going to make those kinds of comments and parade that ridiculous avatar, then man up. If you can't be proud of what you are advertising, then maybe there's a problem with it.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting
If the US Government is going to make list of people in private clubs/organizations and release it or keep track themselves, then they can put my name on their list, because I no longer will be a citizen of such a country.

My Father is White/British my mother is Caddo, I don't think I would be allowed to join white supremacist groups.
The confederate battle flag has no more blood or shame on it than the US flag, people around the world view the US flag as an oppressive symbol (should we take it down? NO).

Read history it's due to repeat it's self, especially when you have a government/president pushing for a war, I don't know about you, but to me 13% don't stand much of a chance. So what is the goal? Martial Law, gun control, one world government.

You have to step back and look at it this way, right now they are pushing the small domino over.

edit on 27-6-2015 by AmericanZombie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Where did you hear that?



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: AmericanZombie
I understand, but again, in no way will these names be published. It violates right to privacy laws, and will never fly. Any politician who supported such a measure would be committing political suicide.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Link


The man wearing the green robe said he’s the head of the state network, known as the grand dragon. The other is a regional head. They said there has been a surge of interest in the KKK since President Obama’s first term.

“Since Obama’s first term our numbers have doubled and now that we’re headed to a second term it’s going to triple, this is going to be the biggest resurgence of the Klan since 1915,” said one of the Klansmen interviewed.

The Klansman have been handing out flyers in a Mechanicsville neighborhood, and neighbors who received them have contacted CBS 6.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 11:24 PM
link   
I did find this interview Mayor Riley did on PBS just the other day. It's a little over seven minutes long. He discusses the Church shooting and what is so different about Charleston as far as race relations go but he does get into ways that racism can be confronted in light of it still being a deadly problem and he does somewhat mirror what was said in the DM article.

He says that while people are free to say and believe what they want, that it's free speech... that we need to bring out these small pockets of hate into the light that we need to figure out a way to do that. He didn't mention Obama, so it doesn't really answer our question but I'm posting it because now I'm wondering if this is what the DM picked up on, or did the Mayor just not go into enough detail on that particular bit in the PBS interview.

PBS
edit on 6/27/2015 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Knowing who they are should be simple enough if the government wants to know anything about any citizen there should be a file on each and every one of us that they have tons of data on. They should be able to pinpoint racists with ease.
Besides they should be considered homegrown terrorists, they have guns, and want to harm innocent US civilians. Its the governemnts job to track hate groups and if necessary prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law for hate speech and treason.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Serdgiam

Sorry Serdgiam - I wasn't paying attention


I think it's entirely because it wouldn't be out of character. I'd say, for myself, I expect these things to happen.


Obama is in the catbird seat right now. Well - he's also in the sitting duck seat - but, you know - whatever :-)

Yeah - he's a likely target. Am I to understand that people believe that he should have dismantled (with a wave of his hand - or a magic wand presumably) the things that were set up before he got into office? He deserves criticism for what he has done - obviously. This whole pattern of intense scrutiny is not just in his character (if it's even that) but it's become a part of our national character - and we all pretty much signed off on it not too awfully long ago

Top Ten Abuses of Power Since 9/11

The title of this thread is presumptuous. It's not based in fact, but in a desire to call out Obama for something that can't be proven. Not even just a little


Whether the story is true is irrelevant to the bigger picture...


Whether the story is true or not...we're going to use it. The very same way that information gathered on private citizens might be used against them - whether it's true or not

Hilarious



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   
First, I am not of the mind that Obama is inherently worse or better than 'x.' I see the presidency as a front for blame, for decisions that are made elsewhere.


originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
Whether the story is true or not...we're going to use it. The very same way that information gathered on private citizens might be used against them - whether it's true or not

Hilarious


Some are focused with whether a specific piece of data is accurate, others are focused on how these stories are indicative of a changing social and political climate. Some are even interested in how such stories affect those that read them, from either 'side.' It's not like if this story is untrue, it somehow changes the rest of reality or behavioral prediction.

You may find it humorous, but I see it as indicative of a real problem. One that the media has readily identified for easy consumption. You are 'using' the story the same way as everyone else.

So, yes, true or not it could lead to productive discussion. In fact, it could even lead to more productivity given the nature of the media.
edit on 28-6-2015 by Serdgiam because: Formatting horror



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker
Would not doubt it.

The Progressives have wanted to do this to ANYONE they consider an enemy. What better place to get your legislation and precedence in place than the vile KKK. Then move on to the gun owners, church members, or whatever "group" that is considered the "enemy" of the Progressive movement going forward.


wow, I totally disagree with your assessment of progressives....maybe if you could show an VALID example of this happening in history, you might seem credible, otherwise it sounds as if you are trying stoke the fires of hated against progressives, and throw red meat to the right-wing loonies.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Serdgiam


You may find it humorous, but I see it as indicative of a real problem. One that the media has readily identified for easy consumption. You are 'using' the story the same way as everyone else.

I am using the story - to show how people will believe anything they hear - especially when it's already something they're willing to believe. That is completely relevant to this discussion - but not in the same way you want it to be :-)

But - if we can move past that for now. The actual meat of this (very interesting) discussion - something I think we both agree on, is about the gathering of intelligence (we'll just call it that) which is already happening. After that the more important part is about releasing that information to the public

Will White House Violent Extremism Summit Address Pressing Civil Rights Concerns?

Should the federal government task teachers, religious leaders, and mental health professionals with rating and reporting to law enforcement about the strength of a family's parent-child bond? A child's involvement in religious activities or his connection to a group identity? Whether there are "ideologues" within an American community or what its level of "cohesiveness" is? These and other deeply invasive and problematic questions are being considered as part of the government's strategy for "countering violent extremism." That strategy has been targeted at Muslims, at home and abroad.


Targeting any American on the basis of political activism or religious observance or extreme views—as opposed to unlawful action—violates our Constitution. This is equally true when the government conducts the surveillance or when the government recruits community partners to monitor and report back to law enforcement. What results is a climate of fear and self-censorship, in which people must watch what they say and with whom they speak, lest they be reported for engaging in lawful behavior that the government vaguely defines as suspicious.


This is what we're looking at

What we're also looking at is - people that think monitoring Muslims is different - and OK. People that think anything that might protect them from bad people - is OK. And, in some ways, this means all of us, because we all have different ideas about who we might need to know about in order to feel safe

What a nightmare


edit on 6/28/2015 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
By the by, I think this should be legislated for all terror groups.

People deserve to know.


I'd want to know if the Halal butcher I go to is ISIS...

I'm sure many Christians would like to know if their Priest is a hidden Klansman...



This isn't liberal or progressive...
It's common sense.


Spare me the slippery slope nonsense too, that seems to be the argument against everything these days.
From both sides when it suits them.


Absolutely balderdash.

If your butcher provides you with the service you expect, and your preacher is teaching the gospel properly, why the hell should you have any right to know about their personal beliefs? That's entirely liberal and progressive - no restriction can ever be enough, you're not even allowed to have unapproved thoughts, anything that doesn't perfectly fit the template must be vilified and destroyed!

And the world wonders how the Nazis got away with burning books...




top topics



 
19
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join