Chilling Article from Time

[cre8tiff]

Holy crap, this is scary. The lunacy of these folks arming themselves based on lies and innuendo.

 

Unbelievable.

 

 

This reflects a lot of what we've heard in this very forum.

 

The Obama Factor

None of these movements are entirely new, but most were in sharp decline by the late 1990s. Their resurgence now is widely seen among government and academic experts as a reaction to the tectonic shifts in American politics that allowed a black man with a foreign-sounding name and a Muslim-born father to reach the White House. (See pictures of Muslim in America.)

 

Obama's ascendancy unhinged the radical right, offering a unified target to competing camps of racial, nativist and religious animus. Even Patriots who had no truck with white supremacy found that they could amplify their antigovernment message by "constructing Obama as an alien, not of this country, insufficiently American," according to Michael Waltman, an authority on hate speech at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Perennial features of extreme-right scare lore — including imagined schemes to declare martial law, abolish private ownership of guns and force dissidents into FEMA concentration camps — became more potent with Obama as the Commander in Chief.

 

Threats against Obama's life brought him Secret Service protection in May 2007, by far the earliest on record for a presidential candidate. At least four alleged assassination plots between June and December — by militiamen in Pennsylvania, white supremacists in Denver, skinheads in Tennessee and an active-duty Marine lance corporal at North Carolina's Camp Lejeune — led to arrests and criminal charges before Obama was even sworn in.

 

"We call it somewhat of a perfect storm," says a high-ranking FBI official who declined to speak on the record because of the political sensitivities of the subject. With an economy in free fall and rising anger about illegal immigration, Obama became "a rallying point" for dormant extremists after the 2008 election who "weren't willing to act before but now are susceptible to being recruited and radicalized."

 

 

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...l#ixzz111I7mvn4

 

Disagree if you want, but to consider taking up arms against our duly elected government is treason, IMHO.

[Savage Beatings]

Holy crap, this is scary. The lunacy of these folks arming themselves based on lies and innuendo.

 

Unbelievable.

 

 

This reflects a lot of what we've heard in this very forum.

 

Disagree if you want, but to consider taking up arms against our duly elected government is treason, IMHO.

 

 

Treason:

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

[The Irish Doggy]

I, for one, support our lunatic fringe.

[cre8tiff]

Treason:

 

 

How about the sentence right before the one you highlighted:

 

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

 

If you are somehow insinuating that the Declaration of Independence has a built-in excuse for revolt against our standing government it brought about, I respectfully disagree.

[driveby]

I hate to do this but.................

 

 

 

Z.O.M.G!!!!!!!!!

[Perchoutofwater]

While I'm sure there are some radicals that care a lot about his race and question his religion, by far and away the biggest concerns most have with Obama involve neither, but rather are based on his own radical policy agenda. I don't find it surprising that TIME would try to paint those that are against his policies as racist, as this is typical of the left and an argument used by the left in order to stifle any debate over his progressive policies. I can't tell you the number of times I've been called a racist by liberals when I question his policies.

 

There is no doubt that Obama is weak on immigration, as he supports amnesty. Now others over the past four decades have also been weak on immigration including Shrub. It can even be said that Reagan was weak though careful examination of what was done by him will reveal that he provided amnesty as a trade off in order to get other immigration reforms passed that subsequent congresses went pack on or did not fund.

 

Prior to becoming president Obama's comments regarding second amendment rights show him to be anything but a supporter. His votes regarding second amendment issues both when he was in Illinois as well as when he was a senator show that he supports increased gun control. Yes he did sign a bill that allowed firearms in national parks, that provision was an amendment to a bill he wanted passed, and it is very unlikely that he would have supported it had it stood alone.

 

Obama also called for a civilian military force that to be as well funded and well equipped as the armed forces. There is video of him calling for this, so it isn't some wild anti-Obama propaganda made up to scare people, it was something he proposed.

 

In short there is no doubt that there is a small minority of people that object to Obama based on his race or perceived religious beliefs, but they are a very small minority. Most object to Obama's policies, not only those that he has stated since becoming president, but also promoted on the campaign train and those he espoused early in his career. The Time piece is just another example of the left to try to marginalize the legitimate concerns of the majority of those opposed to Obama's policies by associating them with the very, very small minority of those opposed to him for other more vulgar reasons.

[dmarc117]

these militias have been around forever. i fear unions and their thugs more.

Edited September 30, 2010 by dmarc117

[Perchoutofwater]

these militias have been around forever. i fear unions and their thugs more.

 

There is no doubt that there has been more violence from unions than these militia groups over the years. Also interesting when talking about racial militia groups TIME somehow forgets about the New Black Panthers, and the cover that the political appointees in the DOJ have given them.

[Savage Beatings]

How about the sentence right before the one you highlighted:

 

 

 

If you are somehow insinuating that the Declaration of Independence has a built-in excuse for revolt against our standing government it brought about, I respectfully disagree.

 

I also don't think we are there quite yet... but if the government becomes destructive to our inalienable human rights, then its not only our right but our duty to overthrow them. Why is it lunacy to be prepared for that possibility?

[Azazello1313]

Holy crap, this is scary.

 

yeah, I'm terrified.

[evil_gop_liars]

I hate to do this but.................

 

 

 

Z.O.M.G!!!!!!!!!

 

 

[cre8tiff]

 

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

[bpwallace49]

While I'm sure there are some radicals that care a lot about his race and question his religion, by far and away the biggest concerns most have with Obama involve neither, but rather are based on his own radical policy agenda. I don't find it surprising that TIME would try to paint those that are against his policies as racist, as this is typical of the left and an argument used by the left in order to stifle any debate over his progressive policies. I can't tell you the number of times I've been called a racist by liberals when I question his policies.

 

There is no doubt that Obama is weak on immigration, as he supports amnesty. Now others over the past four decades have also been weak on immigration including Shrub. It can even be said that Reagan was weak though careful examination of what was done by him will reveal that he provided amnesty as a trade off in order to get other immigration reforms passed that subsequent congresses went pack on or did not fund.

 

Prior to becoming president Obama's comments regarding second amendment rights show him to be anything but a supporter. His votes regarding second amendment issues both when he was in Illinois as well as when he was a senator show that he supports increased gun control. Yes he did sign a bill that allowed firearms in national parks, that provision was an amendment to a bill he wanted passed, and it is very unlikely that he would have supported it had it stood alone.

 

Obama also called for a civilian military force that to be as well funded and well equipped as the armed forces. There is video of him calling for this, so it isn't some wild anti-Obama propaganda made up to scare people, it was something he proposed.

 

In short there is no doubt that there is a small minority of people that object to Obama based on his race or perceived religious beliefs, but they are a very small minority. Most object to Obama's policies, not only those that he has stated since becoming president, but also promoted on the campaign train and those he espoused early in his career. The Time piece is just another example of the left to try to marginalize the legitimate concerns of the majority of those opposed to Obama's policies by associating them with the very, very small minority of those opposed to him for other more vulgar reasons.

 

Perch the fact that you are so dismissive of the wachos on the far right instead of denouncing them is very telling. Instead of owning up and saying "whoa . these guys are nuts" you seem to be trying to justify or appear sympathetic by listing about how "radical" Obama is, which feeds the crazies. The Black Panther stuff IS bullcrap and sHOULD be examined. But instead of doing that with your own fringe elements you almost want a "well, we will only care about the crazies that hate Obama if the Black Panthers are dealt with first".

 

Extremists (ESPECIALLY armed ones) should be denounced by all REASONABLE people. Presidential threats arent to be scoffed at, no matter WHO is in office. You have consistently maintained that there is no racism at all in the TEA party, based solely on your rallies. But when presented with facts that there ARE, you are dismissive.

 

I am all for sticking to the facts, but instead of condemning the wackos for being wackos, you seem to be struggling to justify them by listing half truths like your blather on gun issues. (Guess what? If you think ANYTHING will be passed even hinting at gun restriction, you are insane.)

[moneymakers]

William Charles "Bill" Ayers and Rev Wright

 

nuff said

[driveby]

Perch the fact that you are so dismissive of the wachos on the far right instead of denouncing them is very telling. Instead of owning up and saying "whoa . these guys are nuts" you seem to be trying to justify or appear sympathetic by listing about how "radical" Obama is, which feeds the crazies. The Black Panther stuff IS bullcrap and sHOULD be examined. But instead of doing that with your own fringe elements you almost want a "well, we will only care about the crazies that hate Obama if the Black Panthers are dealt with first".

 

Extremists (ESPECIALLY armed ones) should be denounced by all REASONABLE people. Presidential threats arent to be scoffed at, no matter WHO is in office. You have consistently maintained that there is no racism at all in the TEA party, based solely on your rallies. But when presented with facts that there ARE, you are dismissive.

 

I am all for sticking to the facts, but instead of condemning the wackos for being wackos, you seem to be struggling to justify them by listing half truths like your blather on gun issues. (Guess what? If you think ANYTHING will be passed even hinting at gun restriction, you are insane.)

I certainly don't need to speak for perch but I believe he was denouncing the real wacko's.

[dmarc117]

watch one episode of gangland and these guys look like kitty kats.

[bpwallace49]

I certainly don't need to speak for perch but I believe he was denouncing the real wacko's.

 

Actually . . . he did not do that at all in his post. What he did post.

 

I don't find it surprising that TIME would try to paint those that are against his policies as racist, as this is typical of the left and an argument used by the left in order to stifle any debate over his progressive policies

How is doing a story on a guy that has a swastika flag in his house "painting him as being racist" and "an argument used by the left"?

 

In short there is no doubt that there is a small minority of people that object to Obama based on his race or perceived religious beliefs, but they are a very small minority.

You are right . . that isnt dismissive at all.

 

Please point out where he WAS denouncing them, as the whole posts reads like a "well they are only a few that are actuallty racist, but I can see where they are coming from cuz our President is a superduper radical that will try and overturn the 2nd amendmnet".

 

These people are kooks . . . call them as such. ANY threat to a President is serious and should be dealt with accordingly. these are domestic terrorists, plain and simple.

[Deathpig]

Perch the fact that you are so dismissive of the wachos on the far right instead of denouncing them is very telling. Instead of owning up and saying "whoa . these guys are nuts" you seem to be trying to justify or appear sympathetic by listing about how "radical" Obama is, which feeds the crazies. The Black Panther stuff IS bullcrap and sHOULD be examined. But instead of doing that with your own fringe elements you almost want a "well, we will only care about the crazies that hate Obama if the Black Panthers are dealt with first".

 

Extremists (ESPECIALLY armed ones) should be denounced by all REASONABLE people. Presidential threats arent to be scoffed at, no matter WHO is in office. You have consistently maintained that there is no racism at all in the TEA party, based solely on your rallies. But when presented with facts that there ARE, you are dismissive.

 

I am all for sticking to the facts, but instead of condemning the wackos for being wackos, you seem to be struggling to justify them by listing half truths like your blather on gun issues. (Guess what? If you think ANYTHING will be passed even hinting at gun restriction, you are insane.)

 

The OP maybe should have continued quoting one more paragraph from his linked article (this follows right after the last quoted paragraph in the original post):

 

Theirs is not Tea Party anger, which aims at electoral change, even if it often speaks of war. In the world of armed extremists, war is not always a metaphor. Some of them speak with contempt about big talkers who "meet, eat and retreat." History suggests that even the most ferocious, by and large, will never get around to walking the walk. Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center observes that "there are huge numbers of people who say, 'We're going to have to go to war to defend the Constitution or defend the white race,' but 'That will be next week, boys.' "

 

Jump the gun a bit on your oft-refuted, left-wing media biased 'TEA Party = racist' comment? You should probably read the whole article (hint: it's longer than one page).

 

Most of the groups they talk to consider themselves defensive, the majority aren't actually racist and abhor comparisons between them and supremacist groups, some have actually helped out their localities, and the vast majority will likely never do much of anything (a.k.a. they talk big). In the article, not a single group identifies evil m00slims as their target, but the writer inserts it constantly as his own commentary.

 

The government has to be concerned about organized groups and credible threats, and, by extension needs to deal swiftly and harshly with armed seditionists. At the same time, someone that doesn't share your political views and possesses a firearm is not an armed seditionist.

 

Pop Quiz: Who is the only non-Islamic terrorist on the FBI's 29-man Most Wanted Terrorist list? A right-wing militia nutjob? Nope. A left-wing animal-rights activist nutjob.

[bpwallace49]

The OP maybe should have continued quoting one more paragraph from his linked article (this follows right after the last quoted paragraph in the original post):

 

 

 

Jump the gun a bit on your oft-refuted, left-wing media biased 'TEA Party = racist' comment? You should probably read the whole article (hint: it's longer than one page).

 

Most of the groups they talk to consider themselves defensive, the majority aren't actually racist and abhor comparisons between them and supremacist groups, some have actually helped out their localities, and the vast majority will likely never do much of anything (a.k.a. they talk big). In the article, not a single group identifies evil m00slims as their target, but the writer inserts it constantly as his own commentary.

 

The government has to be concerned about organized groups and credible threats, and, by extension needs to deal swiftly and harshly with armed seditionists. At the same time, someone that doesn't share your political views and possesses a firearm is not an armed seditionist.

 

Pop Quiz: Who is the only non-Islamic terrorist on the FBI's 29-man Most Wanted Terrorist list? A right-wing militia nutjob? Nope. A left-wing animal-rights activist nutjob.

 

You dont get it.

 

Instead of saying to people at TEA party rallies "y'know you guys are REALLY confusing our message of fiscal responsibility", the trend is to dismiss it as a "left wing plot". By being silent or ignoring that they dont exist, it doesnt create separation between the crazies and the TEA party message. Result= how many people think the TEA party also allows racists to promote their cause?

 

The MESSAGE of the Tea party is one that has been around for a looong time, fiscal responsibility in gubmnet, and never needed more by all candidates than now. But by failing to say "hey, you jackasses with the Obama hitler mustaches and secret communist m00slim crap . . . lay off, casue we ALL look like dumbasses when you do that and it confuses our message" it is silently allowing the crap to continue . . . . which DE-legitimizes the message, and ALLOWS other groups to focus on the race card, which drifts further and further away from the actual issues at hand.

 

The more people in the TEA party that stand up to their fringe elements and create separation, the more seriously it will be taken as a party that isnt trying to only be a the party of affluent middle aged white people.

[driveby]

No, this is scary.

 

And nobody seems to really care, or be brave enough to say so.

[Azazello1313]

Z.O.M.G obama's critics are racist, extremist nutjobs!

[redrumjuice]

This guy Loves America.

[gbpfan1231]

If you don't like Obama and challenge his policies you are labeled a racist nutjob.

 

If you vote for Obama because he is black you are not a racist.

 

The only "group" that still has a high approval rating for Obama is the black group - do you think that has to do with them agreeing with his policies or because he is black?

 

On the other hand - any wacko that would seriuosly consider harming the prez should be taken down immediately.