extremist

When you use the word “extremist”, you may have in your mind a picture of ISIS fighters or the terrorists from the Charlie Hebdo massacre.
But for elitists such as Barack Obama, the word “extremist” has a much broader meaning. In recent years, it has become a code word for those that do not have an “enlightened” view of the world. If your views on politics, religion or social issues are extremely different from the liberal, progressive views of “the mainstream” (as defined by the mainstream media and by “mainstream” politicians such as Barack Obama), then they consider you to be an extremist.
Early in the presidency of George W. Bush, we were told that Islamic terrorists were the enemy. And so most of the country got behind the idea of the War on Terrorism. But over the years that has morphed into a War on Extremism. In fact, the Obama administration has gone so far as to remove almost all references to Islam from government terror training materials…
Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole confirmed on Wednesday that the Obama administration was pulling back all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities, in order to eliminate all references to Islam that some Muslim groups have claimed are offensive.
“I recently directed all components of the Department of Justice to re-evaluate their training efforts in a range of areas, from community outreach to national security,” Cole told a panel at the George Washington University law school.
Now, much of the focus in law enforcement training materials is on “domestic extremists”. We are being told that “domestic extremism” is just as great a threat to our national security as terror groups overseas are.
But exactly who are these “domestic extremists”?
Well, the truth is that you may be one of them.
I want to share with you a list that I have shared in a couple of previous articles. It is a list of 72 types of Americans that are considered to be “extremists” or “potential terrorists” in official U.S. government documents. This list will really give you a good idea of what Barack Obama means when he uses the word “extremist”. Each of these 72 items is linked, so if you would like to go see the original source document for yourself, just click on the link. As you can see, this list potentially includes most of the country…
1. Those that talk about “individual liberties”
2. Those that advocate for states’ rights
3. Those that want “to make the world a better place”
4. “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule”
5. Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists”
6. Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”
7. Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable”
8. Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions”
9. Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals”
10. “Anti-Gay”
11. “Anti-Immigrant”
12. “Anti-Muslim”
13. “The Patriot Movement”
14. “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians”
15. Members of the Family Research Council
16. Members of the American Family Association
17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union’”
18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol
19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform
20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition
21. Members of the Christian Action Network
22. Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order”
23. Anyone that is engaged in “conspiracy theorizing”
24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21
25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps
26. Anyone that “fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations”
27. The militia movement
28. The sovereign citizen movement
29. Those that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes”
30. Anyone that “complains about bias”
31. Anyone that “believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia”
32. Anyone that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies”
33. Anyone that “visits extremist websites/blogs”
34. Anyone that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views”
35. Anyone that “attends rallies for extremist causes”
36. Anyone that “exhibits extreme religious intolerance”
37. Anyone that “is personally connected with a grievance”
38. Anyone that “suddenly acquires weapons”
39. Anyone that “organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology”
40. “Militia or unorganized militia”
41. “General right-wing extremist”
42. Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.
43. Those that refer to an “Army of God”
44. Those that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”
45. Those that are “anti-global”
46. Those that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”
47. Those that are “reverent of individual liberty”
48. Those that “believe in conspiracy theories”
49. Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack”
50. Those that possess “a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism”
51. Those that would “impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”
52. Those that would “insert religion into the political sphere”
53. Anyone that would “seek to politicize religion”
54. Those that have “supported political movements for autonomy”
55. Anyone that is “anti-abortion”
56. Anyone that is “anti-Catholic”
57. Anyone that is “anti-nuclear”
58. “Rightwing extremists”
59. “Returning veterans”
60. Those concerned about “illegal immigration”
61. Those that “believe in the right to bear arms”
62. Anyone that is engaged in “ammunition stockpiling”
63. Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes”
64. “Anti-abortion activists”
65. Those that are against illegal immigration
66. Those that talk about “the New World Order” in a “derogatory” manner
67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations
68. Those that are opposed “to the collection of federal income taxes”
69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr
70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”)
71. Those that believe in “end times” prophecies
72. Evangelical Christians
Do you fit into any of those categories?
Personally, I fit into a couple dozen of them.
That is why alarm bells should go off whenever Barack Obama speaks of the need to crack down on “extremism”.
If Barack Obama wants to denounce Islamic terror, he should do so. But because of his extreme political correctness, he goes out of his way to avoid any connection between Islam and terror. Instead, he speaks of the need to recognize “Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings” and he insists that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
Meanwhile, our liberties and freedoms are being eroded a little bit more with each passing day. In the name of fighting “terrorism” or “extremism”, our government is constructing a Big Brother police state control grid all around us. I like the way that Ron Paul described what is happening to us just the other day…
If Americans were honest with themselves they would acknowledge that the Republic is no more. We now live in a police state. If we do not recognize and resist this development, freedom and prosperity for all Americans will continue to deteriorate. All liberties in America today are under siege.
It didn’t happen overnight. It took many years of neglect for our liberties to be given away so casually for a promise of security from the politicians. The tragic part is that the more security was promised — physical and economic — the less liberty was protected.
With cradle-to-grave welfare protecting all citizens from any mistakes and a perpetual global war on terrorism, which a majority of Americans were convinced was absolutely necessary for our survival, our security and prosperity has been sacrificed.
It was all based on lies and ignorance. Many came to believe that their best interests were served by giving up a little freedom now and then to gain a better life.
The trap was set. At the beginning of a cycle that systematically undermines liberty with delusions of easy prosperity, the change may actually seem to be beneficial to a few. But to me that’s like excusing embezzlement as a road to leisure and wealth — eventually payment and punishment always come due. One cannot escape the fact that a society’s wealth cannot be sustained or increased without work and productive effort. Yes, some criminal elements can benefit for a while, but reality always sets in.
Reality is now setting in for America and for that matter for most of the world. The piper will get his due even if “the children” have to suffer. The deception of promising “success” has lasted for quite a while. It was accomplished by ever-increasing taxes, deficits, borrowing, and printing press money. In the meantime the policing powers of the federal government were systematically and significantly expanded. No one cared much, as there seemed to be enough “gravy” for the rich, the poor, the politicians, and the bureaucrats.
The country that our forefathers founded is dying.
Now, individuals and organizations that attempt to restore the values that our founders once believed in so strongly are regarded as dangerous “extremists” that need to be watched carefully.
Sadly, most Americans don’t even realize what is happening to this nation. As long as they are fed a constant diet of mindless entertainment, most Americans are perfectly content to let “the experts” do their thinking for them.
We are steamrolling toward oblivion, and most of the country is dead asleep.
So is there any hope for us?
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
That was a hoot. Where do you find this crap, even better why do you read it, and on top of that why would you show others how crazy you are by posting it as your own?
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
Good grief. Who reads sources like that?

Let's play a game. The more dangerous threat to America's future is:

1. Hard working Muslim immigrant families; or

2. Two idiotic dolts who get their "news" from sources like that.

Ding! What's behind curtain no. 2.?

Pack your bags Larry, as a safety measure to ensure teh American way of life, we are sending you off to back to Stupiditstan.
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
What's wrong with the Washington Times as a source? I have no idea of political bias in USA press so it is a genuine question.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Good grief. Who reads sources like that?

Really. Seriously. Okay...here's what 'your sources' said:

DHS' Domestic Terror Warning Angers GOP - CBS News

Homeland security chief apologizes to veterans groups - CNN.com

Republicans criticize report on extremists - US news - Security | NBC News

...'any DIFFERENT as far as the actual underlying fact itself?



Let's play a game. The more dangerous threat to America's future is:

1. Hard working Muslim immigrant families; or

2. Two idiotic dolts who get their "news" ("news"? Are you quoting someone? Shouldn't that be 'news'?) from sources like that.

Ding! What's behind curtain no. 2.? ( "...curtain no.2.?" >".?"< It's either '.' or '?'...but, not both.)

Pack your bags Larry, as a safety measure to ensure teh ("teh" again!) American way of life, we are sending you off to back to ("off to back to"? Shouldn't that at least be 'off to/back to'?) Stupiditstan.

...your sources said what the one I quoted said...and yet I'm idiotic, stupid and a dolt simply because the source I just happened to quote is one that evidently doesn't have your approval?

Seriously?





(Regarding the 'editing' above [for those who may be wondering]: "I think the fact that you can't spell infidel is pretty good evidence of the ignorance of this post." [< Jeff Young to me]...[my reply to Mr. Young >] "I'm now evaluating whether or not to change my own policy [ignoring spelling/grammar/punct. errors rather than criticizing 'em] where you're concerned."

'Ring a bell, Jeff? I mean, if you're now going to call me idiotic, stupid and a dolt in addition to ignorant...well... :sneaky:

'Apologies to all others here for my having stooped to doing what I just did...but, the man had it coming IMHO. I shall endeavor to avoid doing something like that in the future...:nice:)


(Edit: I wonder if Jeff will spot the error [errors?] I made above...or did I actually make any? Or, by asking those questions, am I now simply 'covering my butt' in case someone discovers an error I really didn't know was there? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm... :sneaky:)
 
Last edited:

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
What's wrong with the Washington Times as a source? I have no idea of political bias in USA press so it is a genuine question.


By far-and-away the vast majority of the Am. press leans left. That's been proven time-and-again. In the eyes of some, the Washington Times is one of the few that usually doesn't.
 

Keith

Moderator
I don't think any outside terrorist force would have to do anything to bring America to it's knees - it appears to be doing a great job all by itself...:worried:
 
Good grief. Who reads sources like that?

Let's play a game. The more dangerous threat to America's future is:

1. Hard working Muslim immigrant families; or

2. Two idiotic dolts who get their "news" from sources like that.

Ding! What's behind curtain no. 2.?

Pack your bags Larry, as a safety measure to ensure teh American way of life, we are sending you off to back to Stupiditstan.

You can't discuss anything without personal attacks. You don't respect the beliefs of others. I am done replying to you
 

Keith

Moderator
By far-and-away the vast majority of the Am. press leans left. That's been proven time-and-again. In the eyes of some, the Washington Times is one of the few that usually doesn't.

That genuinely surprises me, however, I suppose it is relative to publications that are the accepted benchmarks of "Centre"

Which are.....????
 
The Washington Post would be more centered than most, the NY Times and LA Times are far to the left. CNN is far left, ABC, CBS, and NBC are left and Fox is right. NPR is left. I try to look at all of them, sometimes the slant is comical.
 

Keith

Moderator
Well now that is all interesting stuff. Obviously this is US centric, and it would be an interesting exercise to measure them up against some leading European titles, but I can only speak for the UK.

Such as..

The Times, News Corp. Right
Daily Telegraph - way over to the Right
Daily Mirror - Leans left but not as far as it used to.
Daily Mail - Right
Daily Express - Right
The Independent - Leans Left - the daily Liberal Must Read.
The Grauniad - Famously Lift
The Sun, News Corp - Leans whichever way pays best but usually Right.

That's all the popular titles. There are others but I'm not that familiar with them. It appears as if our mainstream press lean to the right BUT I would hazard a guess that if compared with similar American publications, they would all appear to be left of centre, due to a general shift left in pan European politics since WWII (apart from Maggie's brief reign).

There is no doubt that the UK now exercises more Socialist & Liberal political thinking than it did 50 years ago, and personally, I do not believe that to be a bad thing for us at all.

It was Tony Bliar who essentially dragged the left wing of the Labour Party into Centrist territory, and personally, I was happier the way it was - at least one had clear political choices - now the lines a are blurred.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
It's interesting but it is also wrong. They "Myth of the Liberal Media" is a key cornerstone to the dumbificiation of American news sources. Some of the op ed pages of those papers are liberal, but the "news" isn't. If there is any bias, there is perhaps a slight lean left in CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS. MSNBC is the only true "left" news/opinion source. Fox is flagrantly far right while at the same time telling you they are "fair and balanced."

The fact of the matter is that Fox, Rush Limbaugh, etc. hold the attention and the ratings these days. It's where guys like Al and Larry get their news and information, and it is blatantly biased.Behind that are the right wing "news" sources from the internet and talk radio that are really opinion stuff. Breitbart. Drudge. Etc. THe left has some too -- Huff Post for one -- but you never see any of that posted here (which is fine).

And the Washington Times? Center? Good grief. It's a right wing rag setup specifically to "counter" the perceived? manufactured? bias of the Washington Post.

Al's original post is a prime example of the divisiveness (and ignorance) of the new far right/Tea Party movement in the US. There are a few kernels of truth buried in a long screed about how being a bigot on matters of race or sexual orientation are fine, and that those who oppose that type of bigotry are the "real extremists."

It's designed to divide and create hate, by portraying the other side as out to destroy America -- read it, that is exactly what it says.

Al doesn't find that offensive because he's frankly been brainwashed to believe it is true. For most Americans, that post is just as offensive as any "personal attack."

The Paddock is once again going to face a choice. I don't start shit here. I don't post threads like that for alleged "discussion." If you want folks to coming here for the first time to find this place to be home of the American far right -- anti-Muslim, anti-gay, religious, etc. -- then continue to be silent when Al and Larry post crap like this.

It would be a shame though, and would reflect poorly on all who post legitimate thoughts and ideas here from both the left and the right.
 

Keith

Moderator
Interesting, is this correct Keith?
BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | The politics of UK newspapers

If I ask the same question of US newspapers, (which way do US newspapers lean) the answers are fairly non committal.

Pretty much backs up my post although this was a piece from 2009 I notice. What I didn't realise is that the Times had changed allegiance in 2001, but they appear to have drifted back to their Right leaning position now.

Which major US publication is News Corp's? (Murdoch)
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
He owns Fox. The highest rated news TV in the US, which while both being the highest rated also loudly proclaims that the entire media in the US is biased to the left.

It's a sell job (Murdoch is great at that) and a large chunk of middle America has bought it.
 
Back
Top