Bill Gives Attorney General Power To Designate Gun Owners, Tax Protesters As Terrorists

The easiest way to find out if someone is a terrorist is to find out if they own anything that is made in China.

Originally posted by hangedman13
You see the definition of what constitutes a hate group will obviously be determined to maximum affect by the AG. The abuse of this bill is the point of contention. The criteria is based on what a person outside of the citizenry determines. Remember your history folks, the 50's ring any bells? Witch hunts for communists! It sounds like the same kind of deal now.

That's right.

Its because specific groups are NOT defined that the bill poses such problems.

The AG gets to decide who falls into the "hate" category.

As numerous DHS reports have stated, pro-gun, anti-big government, and anti-NWO groups are all considered "hate" groups and potential terrorists by the DHS.

It has to be presumed that they would be labeled as such by the AG.


Although I would take exception with any group being labeled. Such labeling violates 1st amendment rights. People should be defined by their actions, not by which groups they belong to.




[edit on 7-7-2009 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by maybereal11


I agree with you that this amendment does not specifically mention all of the groups being discussed on this thread. The problem is says what measurement can be taken against hate groups in general, without defining what those groups are, it merely allows the AG to decide for themselves.

This taken in conjunction with all f the memos etc. that have been coming out in the past couple of months paints a very frightening picture.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This thread was the fastest place I saw it, but the first post links to an article that explains exactly what the Department of Homeland Security defines as "extremism". Keep in mind, this is the DHS own words.

'Rightwing extremism in the United States 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 antigovernment, 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.'

People against abortion, immigration, and those evil people who want states rights. This is down right scary. Under that definition, someone who protests the federal governments authority to say, attack Iraq, could be extremist. Its easy to see how the average person can now be considered a terrorist just for disagreeing with the government. To make matters worse, the bill in the OP allows the AG to now decide on thier own who fits the definition.

Heres just a few threads on this.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yeah thats right, got a Ron Paul sticker your an extremist. Would be funny if it wasn't true.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
As numerous DHS reports have stated, pro-gun, anti-big government, and anti-NWO groups are all considered "hate" groups and potential terrorists by the DHS.
[edit on 7-7-2009 by mnemeth1]

Okay...you said it...so please direct me to the DHS report (stating) "pro-gun" and "anti-big government" groups are "hate groups"

I'd like to read that report I call BS.

Originally posted by maybereal11


Okay...you said it...so please direct me to the DHS report (stating) "pro-gun" and "anti-big government" groups are "hate groups"

I'd like to read that report

I call BS. [/quote

In my post above.

[edit on 7-7-2009 by Grambler]

[edit on 7-7-2009 by Grambler]

Dont give up your guns , Dont pay taxes and dont tell people where you are hiding your supplies , Its on

reply to post by maybereal11


Here's just one of the recent reports:

www.fas.org...

Originally posted by Grambler
Keep in mind, this is the DHS own words.

'Rightwing extremism in the United States 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 antigovernment, 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.'

People against abortion, immigration, and those evil people who want states rights.

A little boolean logic here should help.

The article begins with Rightwing Extremists can be broadly divided into two groups....

The entire passage is discussing a pie chart of motivations for extremists...imagine a circle encompassing just extremists...or those who support their view with actionable violence..and then it is divided into most likely motivations.

This passage is NOT defining those who are anti-abortion (for example) as extremists...they are saying that AMONG Extremists SOME are motivated by the anti-abortion issue.

Something like...Rotten apples can be red or green in color...does not mean all red apples are rotten.

Which is accurate when we tally doctors that have been shot and killed and domestic bombings etc.

Your interpretation is a specific fallacy of logic...I can track it down if you like...but on way out right now.

reply to post by GorehoundLarry


Unfortunately, you fail to recall the history repeats itself and those that don't learn the lessons are fools.

It is has happened thus, many times before. Why do ignore and or minimize that truth?

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by Grambler
Keep in mind, this is the DHS own words.

'Rightwing extremism in the United States 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 antigovernment, 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.'

People against abortion, immigration, and those evil people who want states rights.

A little boolean logic here should help.

The article begins with Rightwing Extremists can be broadly divided into two groups....

The entire passage is discussing a pie chart of motivations for extremists...imagine a circle encompassing just extremists...or those who support their view with actionable violence..and then it is divided into most likely motivations.

This passage is NOT defining those who are anti-abortion (for example) as extremists...they are saying that AMONG Extremists SOME are motivated by the anti-abortion issue.

Something like...Rotten apples can be red or green in color...does not mean all red apples are rotten.

Which is accurate when we tally doctors that have been shot and killed and domestic bombings etc.

Your interpretation is a specific fallacy of logic...I can track it down if you like...but on way out right now.

[edit on 7-7-2009 by medicis]

[edit on 7-7-2009 by medicis]

reply to post by medicis


I apologize ... still haven't gotten the hang of this system....

in any case, my reply to the above:

The philosophy of logic does not deal with the truth or falseness of a specific proposition. It deals with whether or not conclusions follow from their premises.

Regardless of whether or not the premises are true (and that is a whole different discussion)

Into the set of the various propositions that might be included in a logical argument are those that propose specific facts to be true or not true.

History gives us a set of propositions based upon what has happened before. The erosion of liberty has often followed a path similar to what we are experiencing today.

The use of ambiguity (in defining whatevers, in associating whatevers with other whatevers, ad nausea - who all happen to be enemies of the state.

In addition, the utilization of previous exemplars of an issue or event to reliably predict the occurrence of another similar event given various precursors, while inductive, nevertheless is mainstay of scientific knowledge ... nevertheless that it is based upon a formal logical fallacy...

So, yes, the language in this document leaves open the path for many variations of interpretation ... (as each term is defined as the PTB wishes it to be) and you had better believe that 'power' will be used to eliminate any obstacles in its path. Whatever group you may be in, however it thinks it is defined, will be removed if is perceived as a threat. It has always been so. It is so now.

I'm pro gun
I'm pro life
I'm pro free speech
I'm a veteran
I hate olives

I am so screwed

reply to post by maybereal11

not trying to burst your bubble, but it also has a provision that allows people to be lumped in with these groups if there is "evidence" of ties to one of those groups. That little clause is very ambiguous and since we all know that lawyers for the justice dept. thrive on ambiguity in the written law ( see waterboarding , the patriot act abuses etc. ) that little clause right there is what gives me the heebie jeebies .

you might consider having more than the heebee jeebees ....

although that is in the right direction....

Originally posted by Genus
Great, it just gets worse doesn't it? We can tell with all these bills going in that TPTB are trying to goad the people into a revolution so they can claim innocence and say they never did anything.

However it seems to be getting to the point where we have to do SOMETHING, I just can't think of what would work aside from anything that would guarantee martial law being declared, just like they want.

Holy crap!! I think you're on to something here.

It really does explain a lot. I bet they are wondering, "What is gonna TAKE to get these people to act up so we can smack them down?".

people who engage in online discussion forums of an “extremist” nature

O.o They gonna stick us all in the FEMA camps. I think I'll stay away from a few topics here on ATS!!

Originally posted by medicis
reply to post by GorehoundLarry

 

Unfortunately, you fail to recall the history repeats itself and those that don't learn the lessons are fools.

It is has happened thus, many times before. Why do ignore and or minimize that truth?

Of course.

Why this site is being overrun by right wingers is beyond me. Do you really need a weapon of destruction in your home? No, you don't. But of course, everyone wants to protect their fragile little 2nd amendment to bear arms.

I've noticed that the Republican Party isn't a party but instead, like Gore Vidal said, a mindset.

The right wing America has moved into the sea and has sunk. They are a bunch of loons and I think this thread is proving that.

Need a gun? No, you don't. Need a reason to be bitter about a black guy in office & bash everything he does because it makes you feel better? Especially ONLINE? Yeah, you do.

Enjoy, because this is exactly what the liberals did when Bush was in office.

Rights gone then.

Rights gone now.

No president is perfect. And for the last time, no one is going to remove your weapons from your home. So relax, k? Thanks!!


*prepares flaming from those angry gun owners*

[edit on 7-7-2009 by GorehoundLarry]

[edit on 7-7-2009 by GorehoundLarry]

It's hard to believe this considering it is coming from the mouth of Alex Jones.

Originally posted by edgecrusher2199
It's hard to believe this considering it is coming from the mouth of Alex Jones.

It's funny. Read the amendment. It's quite simple to understand. But then throw a loud mouthed fatass on the web saying this and that and people will believe it. Only because it endangers their precious weapons...that they don't need.

Originally posted by GorehoundLarry

Until gun owners and protestors are charged with treason or hate crimes, I'm not really convinced.

You haven't figured out yet that by that time it will be too late?