Within the first paragraphs, the report indicates that "the economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment." Nowhere in the document is it stated that the policies of the new radical Leftwing President are the reasons for a resurgence in radicalization and recruitment.
The document does define, however, the term rightwing extremism as "those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state and local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely." Essentially this definition encompasses conservatives, libertarians, socially liberal conservatives, free market economists or, frankly, anyone that favors the Constitution of the United States of America.
The 10th Ammendment clearly gives power to the States over the federal government. It reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This was what we were supposed to have; a federalist government that provides power to the people and the States while limiting that of the Federal branches. Where is this administration coming up with this stuff? When will it end?
Under the Legislative and Judicial Drivers section, DHS warns that those clinging to their guns and religion should be watched more closely because:
"Many rightwing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a threat to their right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition stockpiling, as well as renewed participation in paramilitary training exercises."I think the administration is forewarning us that they plan an attack on our rights declared in the amendments of the constitution. This wouldn't be a surprise given we learned throughout the campaign that Obama feels our constitution is a living breathing document, one in need of adjustments.
I head this morning a couple of federal defense attorneys saying that "no Democrat wants a gun law legislation battle because they'd lose key interior states." But, if a new report shows that the radicals toting the guns are a threat to society because they are maliciously reacting to economic downturn or the historic election of the first African-American president, legislators can argue that it's for the protection of the majority.
My personal views are that this administration is going too far. We thought Bush invaded our personal liberties with the "Patriot Act;" this radical Liberal leftwing terrorist named Obama is worse. Obama is destroying our freedom and limiting our inherent rights as citizens of the U.S. Regardless of his skin color or the economic situation, Obama is making bad choices for the country. These bad choices making the country worse are why people are reacting to Obama and if he continues along this path, we'll have a totalitarian state.
Do you regret voting for Obama? I would if I'd voted for him!
Posts
To be fair, there is also a report from DHS about Leftwing extremists, which yo can find here: http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Leftwing_Extremist_Threat.pdf. This is not necessarily a partisan issue. I would also say that although the report from DHS is full of "slippery slope" fear-mongering, I would say that much of the argument you present is full of the same "slippery slope" fallacious reasoning, especially in the comment: "I think the administration is forewarning us that they plan an attack on our rights declared in the amendments of the constitution."
ReplyDeletePlus, on the one hand you espouse the virtues of the constitutional amendments (an adjustment), yet demonize the viewpoint of the Constitution as a living breathing document: "This wouldn't be a surprise given we learned throughout the campaign that Obama feels our constitution is a living breathing document, one in need of adjustments."
I also think there are a lot of red herrings in your argument. For example, you jump to wrong conclusions by unreasonable inference. For instance, you write: "DHS warns that those clinging to their guns and religion should be watched more closely" yet your quote says nothing about religion. The mention of religion is a straw man argument meant to drudge up an emotional reaction from the reader while distracting from the actual premise of the DHS document.
Shawn,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the comments and admit, you have some good points.
To address the first however: fear mongering, I must say that in no way does one comment referencing a impending attack on the second amendment compare to the fear mongering of the DHS on the said groups: people suffering from economic hardships, those perceiving a lack of government intervention towards immigration, military veterans, and those preferring a limited U.S. government or power to the states or its citizens.
Second: yes I do simultaneously discuss that constitutional amendments are bad and good. I can make a valid point by saying the 10th amendment followed the founders prescription for amendments by requiring a 2/3ds majority in both houses of congress as well as a 3/4s approval of the states. Obama does not intend to follow this, his intention is to alter the constitution via legislation. The first is acceptable, the second, however, especially when directed towards groups intending to make the administration adhere to the laws written within, is damaging to society. Page 2, footnote, definition of rightwing: "those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority."
As far as the "red herring," yes, I made a statement completely irrelevant when referring to religion. The reason was simply, like you said, to raise the emotional aspects of my argument with emotional aspects of the Obama campaign. Remember when he said to small town Americans that you "cling to guns or religion or antipathy?"
Read it here:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2008/04/11/obama-draws-fire-for-comments-on-small-town-america/
I'll be more cautious with my arguments next time.
Thank you.
Fear mongering is fear mongering, should it matter the comparative level of it? It's still wrong either way. And I agree with you, the DHS report you mention does have fear mongering, but why fight fire with fire?
ReplyDeleteSecondly, as far as the intent of the DHS document and how it relates to the 10th amendment, the tenth amendment reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It does not say anything about rejecting federal authority entirely in favor of state and local authority, which is the premise of right wing extremism mentioned in the report. Groups that reject all federal authority do in fact reject the constitution and are therefore a threat to national unity (at least in the frame of the DHS document).
It is also quite a stretch to assume that Obama can "grant himself" powers the constitution does not permit. There are a lot of assumptions built into the idea that he will try to legislate constitutional amendments over the authority of the legislative branch. I don't think you can reasonably draw that conclusion from the DHS document. Let's see if that could actually happen in real life.
Lastly, the comment by Obama was unfortunate, but again why fight fire with fire? Is your use of emotional appeal any more desirable or relevant than Obama's? Should we drudge up every single misquote from every politician to elicit emotional responses from our audiences? We could go all day with ridiculous comments from both sides of the aisle (or ridiculous actions for that matter), but it does not ultimately lead to bipartisanship and cooperation.