I'm worried that this country is going to hell in a handbasket. If they put you on that list Jill, at least there will be documented proof that did what you could to stop it.

typo alert: *you did what you could to stop it.*

I put up with Napolitano for 6 years as Governor of AZ.

She is a bona fide nut case, left wing, lesbian whack job. What you saw recently is the tip of the iceberg as she spins and weaves through her maze of lies. She is a master at it and I think National Review or some other right wing publication should dedicate a writer just on her. He or she wold have a field day, mark my words.

We're so glad here that she's gone. Good for us Arizonans, but bad for the country.

Signed,

Husband of 33 years, father of 5, devout Christian, businessman, ministry board member, scientist engineer, theologian, pro-life terrorist.

"...longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion..."

Being against abortion is exploiting a social issue? This makes my blood boil. Killing unborn babies is legal, and those against it are the threat? The world is so upside down. I stand right beside you, Jill.

This administration thinks partial-birth abortion is a legitimate medical procedure and we all know how Obama's view on after-birth abortion -- he totally supports it by refusing to have supported BAIPA. And *we* are the extremists?

I stand with you, Jill.

Dude. Seriously. They're not saying that rightwingers or prolifers are a bunch of terrorists. They're saying that extreme sections of these people have been known to participate in terrorist activities. Blowing up an abortion clinic is a terrorist action. That's the people they're worried about. Not the conservative bloggers or the average prolife picketer. Jeez. You guy will do anything to grasp at the straws of some desperately needed persecution complex, won't you?

Erin, you're kidding right?

This upsets me: they lump everyone together as though what one conservative does must come back to slap all conservatives- but the truth of the matter is, yes, sorry, there are narrow-minded conservatives who do crazy and harmful things, but there are just as many narrow-minded liberals who do equally harmful things. This has nothing to do with conservatives being evil- conservatives, all throughout history, get the blame for a lot of things that are not their fault. How ridiculous is this Department of Homeland Security of ours?

I have to say that this is upsetting me gravely. I'm not a conservative, but I'll stand with you in saying, "Enough is enough with the scapegoating and the fear-mongering propaganda that surrounds conservatism." Hang in there. And I'm sorry that people are idiots and will blame you for the rest of your lives and put conservatives on stupid lists like this for the rest of your lives. :(.

I'm worried that this country is going to hell in a handbasket. If they put you on that list Jill, at least there will be documented proof that did what you could to stop it.
Posted by: Paul at April 16, 2009 11:10 PM

Not just the US but the whole world. Good is considered evil and evil is considered good. Just as our Lord predicted.

Erin, they referred back to an isolated event committed by one crazy man that happened 15 years ago.

I'm not going to say I want them to put me on the list. I have my children to think of, and I don't know if one day they will be taking us off to internment camps (though it might be easier to find a pro-life doctor there....). I'm not going to do anything different, but there's some very scary stuff coming.

Nationalized health care where the government decides what treatments are appropriate scares me. I think my baby may very well have survived because I am on a drug that can prevent miscarriage. What is the chance that expense would be justified for a third pregnancy? For any pregnancy? (Luckily, I have another excuse for taking it--it can also treat insulin resistance--but not everyone who has to take medications to maintain pregnancy is so lucky.)

I don't know what the next four (or at least two) years will bring, but I don't want to be a martyr. If Christ demands it, I will not deny Him, but I'm not gonna go out and wave my arms in the air and say, "Ooh, ooh, pick me! I'm a conservative rightwing Christian nut!" (Even though I am).

"Dude. Seriously. They're not saying that rightwingers or prolifers are a bunch of terrorists."

Well, SOMEONE obviously didn't get the memo that "Federal efforts to influence domestic public opinion must be conducted in an overt and transparent manner, clearly identifying United States Government sponsorship."

Dude, you're supposed to be open and above board about your bashing of the entire conservative community in this country, not try to hide it!

COME ON, Dude..... get with the Obama program!

Everyone,

Please look at this for what it is. When establishing a dictatorship and consolidating power, the ruler must target certain groups of people he sees as potential threats. It is also a good way to unify his supporters.
Dictators don't blast their way into office, they are elected by an adoring populace as some kind of savior. They then erode liberties and consolidate their power. He will have the help of an adoring media than acts as little more than government stenographers.
Napolitano is a lapdog. This is Obama's doing. She can take the flak and he can sit in the WH and smell like a petunia.
This is the result of years in Rev.Wright's church and friendship with Bill Ayers.

Get rid of Napolitano and it will only mean another lapdog replaces her.

Erin 11:51PM

Have you forgotten than Obama was friends with Bill Ayers and his charming wife Bernadine Dohrn?
Domestic terrorists who did bomb and possibly kill. The charming Ms.Dohrn even praised the Manson killers and their butchery.

Please Erin heed my previous post and see Obama for what he is and is doing.
I heard a Russian immigrant who grew up during Stalin's terror and murder. He described how people said again and again that Stalin had no knowledge of what was really going on and he would stop it if he did. What pathetic chumps.
Stalin knew full well, he had issued the orders to lapdogs who dutifully carried them out. He could sit in the Kremlin and smell like a petunia.

Erin,

You also have to remember that no mention was made in the report of left-wing animal rights and environmental nutjobs whose sole purpose is to destroy perceived evils (SUVs, research labs, etc.). I have seen multiple news reports where veteran law enforcement officials said the tone and structure of the report was very different than in the past.

As far as the report, I worry only about the precedence, not for potential repercussions. DHS doesn't have the personnel to watch over 99% of pro-life groups, only a few like Operation Rescue. I'll admit that O.R. tried to straddle the line between permissible and impermissible behavior in the early 1990s and occasionally went too far. Now they have a much more effective operation that stays firmly on the correct side of legal and moral. However, their former activities would be the cause of scrutiny now. Is that fair to O.R.? No, but there's no guarantee that enhanced surveillance will actually take place.

I'm not worried at all about large-scale, quick persecution or education camps. Instead, it will be all about incrementalism. No homemade pies at a Friday fish fry in Pennsylvania (true) eventually turns into a nationwide ban on bake sales (proposed in Congress), all in the name of food safety. Judicial fiat for gay marriage (true in numerous locales) shifts into legislation forcing churches to perform gay weddings or close (proposed in Europe), all for equal rights. That's where the danger lies.

Michael,

Great post. Also very true. Its indidious. BTW, even Hitler didn't build concentration camps the day after his election. They were eventually established for political prisoners who dared to speak against Hitler. Germans continued their support of Hitler. After all, he had brought peace, prosperity, and self respect back to Germany. Oh, yes civil liberties were being eroded, groups targetted, and people silenced, but that's such a small price to pay.

I disagree with stereoptyping all conservatives and the exageration of the severity of the violence, which is perpetuated by liberal political groups and MSM, but I don't think it will go so far as to conservatives being persecuted. Frankly this alarmist attitude isn't going to help us and we need to stay calm and continue to show we are perpetuators of peace, not violence. However, a previous commentor is right, any time you have a contraversial issue, you're going to get extremist individuals on both sides. Take the pro-choice group Refuse and Resist for example, or animal rights activists PETA, or the Taliban, which makes up a small percentage of Islam. You can't generalized or stereotype all persons of a specific ideology based on the actions of a a few.
Rachael C.

Rachel C. 8:31am

It starts out insidiously. First you have to target a group of people the leader sees as his enemies. Don't for a minute believe Obama isn't behind this.
Even Hitler didn't build his concentration camps the day after his election. Neither did Castro immediately build his political prisons. These came later when it was necessary to silence people.

No you can't judge all people by a few bad apples. But you can definitely demonize people when it serves your political purpose. Extremists are fine so long as they support Obama. Its the ones who don't that are "dangerous". Also, extremism is all a matter of perception. Keep in mind too Rachel that Obama has a lapdog media ready to do his bidding. If he wants to portray certain people as a danger he can and will.

Most important to remember Rachel is that Obama is a sociopath. A great danger in dealing with a known sociopath is letting this fact slip your mind.

Nothing in this report surprises me when I look at it from the perspective of Saul Alinksy's Rules for Radicals. O is putting his training as a community agitator to work. O has studied and taught Alinsky. I think this report shows that he mastered his lessons.

Good Morning Jill 5:02am

Isn't it interesting that Obama's terrorist friends Ayers and Dohrn are viewed as washed up has-beens but Timothy McVeigh is still quoted?
At least McVeigh was punished.
Also, shouldn't there be some serious concern over a president's association with known domestic terrorists?

"No homemade pies at a Friday fish fry in Pennsylvania (true) eventually turns into a nationwide ban on bake sales (proposed in Congress), all in the name of food safety"

When bake sales are outlawed, only outlaws will have bake sales.

But seriously, do you guys walk around in a constant state of agitation?

Hal,

Its you folks on the left who have appointed themselves the smoking and food police.

Fed Up,

Nothing in this report surprises me when I look at it from the perspective of Saul Alinksy's Rules for Radicals. O is putting his training as a community agitator to work. O has studied and taught Alinsky. I think this report shows that he mastered his lessons.

How true. The Alinsky connection to Obama has pretty much gone unnoticed by the MSM. It's a worthy story, IMHO. Someone should write a book, if it hasn't been done already.

* * * * * *

Speaking of books - has anyone read Mark Levin's new book, "Liberty and Tyranny"?

It must be said that Obama is not a dictator, though, yes, conservatives do get treated worse than liberals in just about every medium, be it government or news or whatever. But, again, Obama is not trying to turn this nation into a dictatorship at all.

He's not Stalin or Hitler. He's Obama, and, yes, this list is a terrible blow considering the fact that it is using stereotypes and fear-mongering, but it's not totalitarianism. And Obama likely had very little to do with it.

Hal,

Its you folks on the left who have appointed themselves the smoking and food police.
Posted by: Mary at April 17, 2009 11:01 AM

Mary, if you mean "the left," than yes. If you actually mean me, then no. If someone dies from a tainted pie at a bake sale, I'm not inclined to support a law banning homemade pies. Are you?

Hal,

Nope. But again talk to your friends on the left who prohibit the establishment of fast food restaurants in low income areas because its assumed poor people are too stupid to eat properly. Why not have food police in upper class restaurants?

Some people don't like cigarettes or smoking. So now efforts are being made in my state to ban smoking in all businesses. Shouldn't this be the decision of business owners?

Some people don't like cigarettes or smoking. So now efforts are being made in my state to ban smoking in all businesses. Shouldn't this be the decision of business owners?
Posted by: Mary at April 17, 2009 11:40 AM

Yes. I agree completely. And I'm one of the people who doesn't like smoking. But, I default on the side of freedom.

Nice to find an area we agree on. Have a great day, must get back to work so I can pay my taxes....

Vannah, he might not be tring to set up a dictatorship, but he is trying to make sure that liberals are in power until the end of time.

He is also trying to drastically, and unconstitutionally overhaul our government and take over private corporations.

His tactics thus far have been frightening.

I'm glad we know about this report. It's telling that the leading lefties -- Napolitano and Obama -- thought this report wouldn't get out. They don't see how it could be seen as offensive; even though they don't offer statistical evidence of any claims. I'm sure they didn't feel the need to cite anything because they have lived in a little leftie bubble for a long time.

It is important to counter this report with tempered outrage and mockery. I stress mockery because there is nothing arrogant elitists hate more than mockery. They think everyone besides themselves is stupid and it is their greatest vulnerability.

Very few people are as insulated from real vets and earnest pro-life people as these elitists are; I'm sure they have never really seen a pro-life prayer vigil or hung out with a real vet -- they only know what they see in the movies or their friends talk about. Real life folks have much more experience with vets, prayerful and patriotic citizens than the new administration.

We should ask DHS if we need to start wearing some sort of label on our lapels so we can be more easily watched or if we need to sign in at the National Archives if we go there to revere the Constitution. After all, we just want to be helpful because they know us not.

Vannah @ 11:32, thought you should read this:

"True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within. Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties...."

This is what Obama spent his time studying.

Hal,

Check out these two links:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123932034907406927.html

And then HR 875 (the worrisome parts start in Sec. 202).

Is the bill's purpose to ban bake sales? No. That would be silly. However, the bill, as written, would officially require registrations by individual parents who make items for Jr.'s soccer team spaghetti dinner. They meet the definitions and none of the exclusions. Would it be silly, pointless, and otherwise a waste of resources to ever enforce this against a bake sale? Of course. But I doubt that anyone ever expected pies to be banned from a fish fry, either.

My point, Hal, is that the loss of freedom rarely comes in the form of an invader. It gets chipped away by laws that seem reasonable enough on the surface, but the nature of which slowly takes away our freedom.

To use another example, look at the unpasteurized milk movement. It is somewhat underground in many states due to strict regulations regarding milk production and processing. Now, I am a big fan of pasteurization and wouldn't drink "pure" milk. Pasteurization has prevented millions of illnesses and deaths. But, do I think that people should be allowed to purchase "pure" milk directly from dairy farmers without using underground channels? Yes. But, and here's the caveat: If you get sick from drinking unpasteurized milk, don't cry for legal relief. The decision was yours, and you have to live with the consequences.

Life is not without risk. There will be food poisonings, reckless drivers, and nutjobs who use violent means to promote their cause. That's the price of living in a free society. Nanny laws reduce the risk of remote occurrences, but reduce liberty at a greater rate.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-875

I don't know what happened with the bill link. I'll try this again.

That's the price of living in a free society. Nanny laws reduce the risk of remote occurrences, but reduce liberty at a greater rate.
Posted by: Michael at April 17, 2009 1:18 PM

I'm on your side here, I'm still mad about the seatbelt laws.

Any of you violent white supremacists exploiters of social issues attending the monthly PP protest in Aurora with other white supremacist rightwing extremists?

RSD,

Have you ever noticed that its the liberal left wing that forever makes an issue of the fact Obama is black?? And they call us racist!

Those of us who study such things know that pro-abortion types are far more violent. Check out abortionviolence.com

Yeah, Tom...not a month goes by without us hearing about what these pro-abort supporters and their deathscorts do to pro-lifers quietly praying and counselling outside their "Temples of Doom".

From the Wall Street Journal:

"The FBI documents show the bureau was working with investigators inside the nation's uniformed services "in an effort to identify those current or former soldiers who pose a domestic terrorism threat." The other agencies working with the FBI are the U.S. Army Criminal Investigative Division, the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service."

---------------------------------------------------------
Note to Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano.

Your left hand does not know what your other left hand is doing.

Pay close attention to the head of the household situated at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington D.C.

He has known ties to self confessed domestic terrorists and black supremecist groups.

The number one left wing extremist who is a danger to our constitution and our country is an active member of our military.

He is the Commander In Chief, PBHO.

yor bro ken

Mary,

I don't think prolifers care about the color of Obama's skin...if race even comes out, it would be because he's SUPPORTING organizations very eager to wipe out the Negro population.

Technically speaking, he's a traitor to his own race.

Is this the happenin' thread?

Anyway, look out for the article/youtube link being sent to you tomorrow, Jill :)

Jill, So I guess Gianna Jessen is a terriorest?

Violence is what pro-choicers do. The whole movement is about their "right" to commit horrifically violent acts. Why should it surprise anyone when they are violent towards those who oppose them?

It makes my heart sing to see the same hardass, "uber patriot" conservatives who gladly signed on for every violation of civil liberties that Bush committed in the name of "stopping terrorism", now on the receiving end of government scrutiny aimed at "extremist" thought. Now maybe you have an idea of how Iraq War protesters or American Muslims felt after 9/11 and the ensuing jingoism you gleefully supported all those years.

For my money, though, I don't think there's a single truly dangerous person amongst "tea party" attendees or abortion clinic protesters, and it would certainly be a waste of limited government resources to monitor flabby middle-aged guys sitting around drinking beer and "protesting taxes" at "tea parties" or what have you. There most certainly are dangerous, right-wing fringe types out there, but they're sitting in their fallout shelters and polishing their assault rifles, not posting snarky messages on blogs about Barack Obama being the "abortionist-in-chief."

Devo,

It makes my heart sing to see the same hardass, "uber patriot" conservatives who gladly signed on for every violation of civil liberties that Bush committed in the name of "stopping terrorism", now on the receiving end of government scrutiny aimed at "extremist" thought.

Heard on the TV news today that Obama's people are secretly reading citizen's emails.... (still looking for a source on line).

What's that about civil liberties violations?

Yes, Obama's administration has continued many of the same terrible things that the Bush administration started and I don't like it one bit. That's not the point of my post, though. I was simply recognizing the great irony at work here, where policies and activities violative of civil liberties which originally were started to fight "Islamic terrorism" and thus enjoyed explicit support by conservatives, are now being used against them by a liberal administration, and suprise suprise, they don't like it one bit.

Devo,

If only Obama went after the terrorists with the same determination he is going after our veterans with. I do not object to going after Islamic terrorists by any means. How else do you propose to stop them? You think they volunteer information? I object to spying on and targetting law abiding citizens whatever their political persausion.
BTW, I had no objection to spying since it was confined to fighting terrorism. I'm convinced it prevented further terrorist attacks. It certainly did in England. Were you ever personally a victim of domestic spying by Bush Devo?
That may well now change with Obama.

Always amusing how the far right wingers regurgitate whatever they were told by Sean Hannity and Limbaugh the day before as "fact".

I would suggest you read the report, which was produced by the Bush justice department before commenting on it, but paranoid rants are more fun than say, thinking.

Posted by: Devo at April 18, 2009 12:03 AM

"I was simply recognizing the great irony at work here, where policies and activities violative of civil liberties which originally were started to fight "Islamic terrorism" and thus enjoyed explicit support by conservatives, are now being used against them by a liberal administration, and suprise suprise, they don't like it one bit."

--------------------------------------------------------

"Federal efforts to influence domestic public opinion must be conducted in an overt and transparent manner, clearly identifying United States Government sponsorship."

Devo,

In just one day, in the span an hour, a handful of men all sharing the same language, same religion, same hair color, same eye color, many from the same country, murdered 3,000 people.

But the current administration has forbidden it's representatives from using the term 'terrorist' to identify these mass murders and serial killers.

Meanwhile, on the other left hand, the Department of Homeland Security, under this same liberal democrat administration, is deliberately mis-characterizing political opponents as 'domestic terrorists'.

I am old enough to remember previous administrations, both democrat and republican, liberal and conservative, who have also mis-used the power and resources of the federal government to 'spy' on and harass it's citizens.

The Internal Revenue Service is frequently 'directed' to 'randomly' audit people viewed as political opponents.

Devo, you miss the point and you go to great lengths to do it.

The 'clear and present' danger to America is the non-American and undocumented alien, who presently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, District of Columbia.

yor bro ken

ps: I am not referring to Bo the Portuguese water dog.

Bystander,

I suggest you read it.
Napolitano is taking full credit for it and defending it. She's also getting the flak. Of course she's nothing more than a lapdog for Obama who can sit in the WH and smell like a rose. There was "concern" that the recession and the election of an African American president would fuel right wing hatred.

Liberal Democrat Congressman Bennie Thompson, who oversees Homeland Security, has also expressed serious concern about this and is "dumbfounded" by it.
So you see Bystander its not just Limbaugh and Hannity.

I have to laugh at how you people on the left forever make an issue of Obama's race, yet accuse us of "racism".

Speaking of terrorists, what do you think of Obama associating with domestic terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn?

Speaking of terrorists, what do you think of Obama associating with domestic terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn?

Hi Mary. Your comment reminds me of an interesting difference between the two reports on right- and leftwingers. Jeff at America's Right observes something I missed when I read them. Those on the left are referred to as "extremists" while those on the right are "terrorists."

Fed UP,

An excellent article, thank you.

I consider those on the far right "extremists" unless they threaten or participate in violence in which case they become "terrorists".

Seriously, right wing extremists, try going cold turkey- no Faux Noise, no Limbaugh or other radio haters for 30 days. My theory is that you could begin to think for yourself and actually express something other than the right wing talking points manufactured by Hannity and Limbaugh.

Bystander, please enlighten me. When has raising taxes and exploading debt in a recession ever helped a country out of one? How will Obama's fiscal policies help our economy? Hell, how will anything Obama has done do anything to help our country in any way?

If only Obama went after the terrorists with the same determination he is going after our veterans with.

You mean, not at all? Because I'm not hearing any stories of veterans being "gone after" at all, this report is just saying that returning veterans may be more susceptible to the influence of extreme political elements and ideologies at home. Probably not a conclusion that hasn't been reached by various other administrations at different points in our nation's history.

I do not object to going after Islamic terrorists by any means. How else do you propose to stop them? You think they volunteer information? I object to spying on and targetting law abiding citizens whatever their political persausion.

You miss the point. Bush's policies were NOT only used to go after "Islamic terrorists," they were used to go after other groups of people identified as potentially being sympathetic or supportive of "Islamic terrorists." As I said earlier, groups like Iraq War protesters or members of American Muslim organizations. Still American citizens, still guaranteed constitutional rights. Now the shoe is on the other foot and many of the same people who gladly supported Bush's "terrorism-fighting" policies now object to Obama's "terrorism-fighting" policies because they happen to include profiles of right-wing types.

BTW, I had no objection to spying since it was confined to fighting terrorism. I'm convinced it prevented further terrorist attacks. It certainly did in England. Were you ever personally a victim of domestic spying by Bush Devo?
That may well now change with Obama.

Since you have no objection to spying as long as it's used to "fight terrorism" then you should be fine here because this report is also putatively used for the purposes of preventing terrorism (and other forms of domestic "extremism" that may result in violence). It bears mentioning that it was indeed various forms of right-wing extremist ideology that produced Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph. And no, I have not been and do not ever anticipate being a victim of domestic spying by any administration.

Devo, you miss the point and you go to great lengths to do it.

The 'clear and present' danger to America is the non-American and undocumented alien, who presently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, District of Columbia.

Ah, yes, the "point": our president is a Kenyan-born, baby-killing, terrorist-befriending manchurian candidate that wants to throw conservatives into gulags and turn the US into Communist Russia. I love the credible arguments the right brings against Obama's policies.

Bystander, 10:40am

Brilliant advise from someone who can only repeat the tiresome left wing MSM talking points concerning those who protested.

Devo,

The report mentions returning veterans as potential threats. Didn't the leader of a veteran's group demand an apology? What an insulte to our men and women who have served this country. I have no idea if previous presidents did the same or not and I would not support them either if they had.

BTW, was Obama's domestic terrorist buddy Bill Ayers a veteran?

How else would we know about the activity of terrorists unless we "went after" those who are sympathetic or knowledgable of them? Those engaged in suspicious activity were monitored. Great. Kind of what happens when the feds suspect certain citizens of criminal activity as well. Do you have a problem with police agencies going after organized crime in this same same manner? I sure don't. I wonder if the British doing this same thing prevented all those American planes from being blown up.

What I have an issue with is singling out people as "potential terrorists" when there is nothing to back it up except their political beliefs, left or right. If there is reason to suspect people may be supportive or sympathetic to terrorists or criminals, or themselves engaging in such activity, then yes I support the gov't and police agencies monitoring their activity.

As I said, even liberal Democrat congressman Bennie Thompson is seriously concerned about this report and its potential for abuse as well, so this is hardly "right wingers" being paranoid.

Spare me the Tim Mcveigh and Eric Rudolph argument. These guys were nutcases, something like Obama's friends Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. You know, the guy who set off a bomb at the Pentagon and who's charming wife Bernadine, in addition to planting bombs, also praised the butchery of the Manson family killers.

Seriously, right wing extremists, try going cold turkey- no Faux Noise, no Limbaugh or other radio haters for 30 days. My theory is that you could begin to think for yourself and actually express something other than the right wing talking points manufactured by Hannity and Limbaugh.

You're asking for way too much here. Over time, I've observed how the typical conservative mindset functions and why conservative talk radio and Fox News is so successful. These conservative "radio commentators" (Limbaugh being the obvious and most successful example) repeatedly instruct their audience that all "main stream" (as in, everyone but them) sources of news are horribly biased and unable to be trusted. Their listeners internalize this mantra because it's driven into their skulls over and over and soon refuse to accept any source of news that isn't decidedly "kosher" by Limbaugh/Hannity standards, and thereafter get their information exclusively from pre-approved sources (conservative talk radio, conservative blogs, conservative news networks). Of course, these sources repeatedly affirm themselves as the only "fair and balanced" reporters of news and can indoctrinate their willing audiences with virtually anything they please because they essentially have no competition with real news outlets or sources. I've observed this exact formula in both my personal life (I come from a very conservative family) and on numerous right-wing blogs. Say what you will about Fox News and Rush Limbaugh but they've got a hell of a routine going here. Goebbels himself couldn't brainwash this many people this efficiently and quickly.

Devo,

LOL. You folks are jealous. The MSM is collapsing and Air(head) America is a flop, even in the capital city of my state which is otherwise known as "the people's republic".
Its your message folks that the American public is tuning out. Live with it.

Devo,
Do you know why people listen to Rush, FOX News, Bill Bennett, etc? Because they want facts and not the opinions and distortions of those with an agenda. I notice that you continue to avoid Mary's questions which is so in keeping with so many liberals -- they really don't want a substantive debate.

Bush's policies were NOT only used to go after "Islamic terrorists," they were used to go after other groups of people identified as potentially being sympathetic or supportive of "Islamic terrorists."

Exactly. He targeted a specific problem. O has changed the definition of the problem to target his political opponents and those who support the upholding of the constitution. Big difference but I appreciate that you gave it your best spin.

Goebbels himself couldn't brainwash this many people this efficiently and quickly.

Did you think that up all by yourself or did you read it somewhere in an MSNBC employee orientation packet?

Devo. Please. You can not pretend that CNN and MSNBCS use of sex jokes when reporting the tea parties was non biased reporting. I specificially get news from a variety of sources, and I also take note of bias. CNN careened off the edge into crazyville with MSNBC with its shody reporting of the tea parties.

Seriously, can you even imagine if conservatives were making sex jokes about a liberal event? There would be screams of "HOMOPHOBE!" The liberals do it and it's oh so hilarious and clever.

Please.

Bystander, it's amazing to me that you assume that becoming a Republican means losing your sense of intellectual independece- it does, to a degree. But to no higher a degree than becoming a Democrat. You yourself post, everytime, as a parrot to whatever the Democrats say.

Democrats are not less narrow-minded than Republicans. Bystander, if you're so keen on being a free-thinker, then why don't you pretend to at least argue outside of what every other Democrat- including the leaders of the party- argue?

Because here's the truth: none of us think for ourselves, and it does not matter whether we are liberal, conservative, or independent. We are all the products of our experiences, spiritual surroundings, parents' opinions, history books, and even our fellow humans everywhere. Democrats- yourself included- are not the shining exception to this rule.

The report mentions returning veterans as potential threats. Didn't the leader of a veteran's group demand an apology? What an insulte to our men and women who have served this country. I have no idea if previous presidents did the same or not and I would not support them either if they had.

Yeah, I wouldn't be suprised if the "leader of a veteran's group" did demand an apology, just like various leaders of anti-war and Muslim groups probably (fruitlessly) demanded apologies for their treatment under Bush. There's no insult here, though. Our men and women in uniform are dedicated to keeping the country safe, so they should be fine if domestic law enforcement also works toward this goal, even if it involves scrutinizing returning military personnel more closely.

BTW, was Obama's domestic terrorist buddy Bill Ayers a veteran?

What is the obsession with this man? Seriously? This guy set off a few pipe bombs when he was a 20-something kid almost half a century ago. Now he's gainfully employed as a respected academic. I'm tired of hearing about him, frankly.

How else would we know about the activity of terrorists unless we "went after" those who are sympathetic or knowledgable of them? Those engaged in suspicious activity were monitored. Great. Kind of what happens when the feds suspect certain citizens of criminal activity as well. Do you have a problem with police agencies going after organized crime in this same same manner? I sure don't. I wonder if the British doing this same thing prevented all those American planes from being blown up.

What I have an issue with is singling out people as "potential terrorists" when there is nothing to back it up except their political beliefs, left or right. If there is reason to suspect people may be supportive or sympathetic to terrorists or criminals, or themselves engaging in such activity, then yes I support the gov't and police agencies monitoring their activity.

As I said, even liberal Democrat congressman Bennie Thompson is seriously concerned about this report and its potential for abuse as well, so this is hardly "right wingers" being paranoid.

Your argument contradicts itself. Those who are "sympathetic or knowledgeable" about extremist behavior may very well also be people simply expressing their "political beliefs." "Suspicious activity" may very well be constituted by otherwise legal political participation. There's no stretch of logic here, it's as simple as connecting the dots.

And yeah, this is basically right wingers being paranoid (and, for the reasons I've explored in previous posts, hypocritical).

Spare me the Tim Mcveigh and Eric Rudolph argument. These guys were nutcases, something like Obama's friends Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. You know, the guy who set off a bomb at the Pentagon and who's charming wife Bernadine, in addition to planting bombs, also praised the butchery of the Manson family killers.

You are dead wrong here about McVeigh and Rudolph. These guys were NOT nutcases, they were intelligent, calculating, and very strong in their political convictions. I've studied Timothy McVeigh in particular extensively and he was extremely lucid in his beliefs and reasons for doing what he did. Nobody just wakes up and decides to blow up a federal building, there's always an ideological motivation for this kind of thing and this can (and did, for both McVeigh and Rudolph) manifest itself in participation in political activities, fringe or otherwise.

Devo. Please. You can not pretend that CNN and MSNBCS use of sex jokes when reporting the tea parties was non biased reporting. I specificially get news from a variety of sources, and I also take note of bias. CNN careened off the edge into crazyville with MSNBC with its shody reporting of the tea parties.

Seriously, can you even imagine if conservatives were making sex jokes about a liberal event? There would be screams of "HOMOPHOBE!" The liberals do it and it's oh so hilarious and clever.

I never said that CNN, MSNBC, or any news network, source, or outlet is "unbiased." The trick here, of course, is that there is no such thing as "unbiased news" because news networks are run by people and not robots. I'll say this much, though: at least CNN (and to a lesser extent, MSNBC) attempt to put up a professional, balanced front for their news reporting. Fox News, on the other hand, or Limbaugh, or whatever else, are explicitly conservative. If you want to talk about media being partisan and slanted there is no better place to start than Fox.

Devo, are you serious? Bill Ayers was a terrorist. His group terrorized dozens of people and killed a police officer. You can not excuse bombing as youthful indiscretion.

Were a conservative politician involved with Rudolph, I doubt you would be so charitable. Nor should you be.

The bottom line is that Ayers is an admitted terrorist whose only regret is that he didn't do more. I know it bothers you to be reminded of this fact, but that doesn't mean we're just going to shut up.

The only thing that bothers me about the constant tripe about Bill Ayers is how incessant and pointless it is. It came up during the election (where it could have actually mattered) and everybody but the wingnuts rightly ignored it. And now to what end is this man's name constantly invoked? For the record, I would be as irritated about liberals bringing up the name of Eric Rudolph every time they communicate as I am about the inane conservative obsession with Ayers.

Devo, has journalism become so corrupted that we no longer remember that its very job is to report non-biased stories?

You're right, people aren't robots. However journalists are taught to identify their own bias and work to keep it out of their stories. You should not be able to identify the politics of a hard news reporter based on his story.

Of course, this is no longer the case. There are very few journalists who maintain objectivity. This is something that needs to be pointed out and fought against, not simply accepted. Our media is not supposed to be a propaganda machine. Sadly, that's what it has become.

Devo, what happened to being tolerant of everyone else's beliefs? I mean, I know that you, a bastion of liberal perfection, would not stoop so low as to believe that all differences of opinions are welcome until they differ from your opinions, right? You call conservatives "wingnuts" as though name-calling suddenly wasn't propaganda anymore. What do I know?

Devo, conservative politicians don't have close, personal relationships with Rudolph. Obama shared an office with Ayers and worked closely with him for several years.

It is more than a fleating meeting or a "guy in my neighborhood." The reason the right cares about Ayers is because Obama seems to be running our country right out of the Ayers playbook.

Read Rules for Radicals. It lays out the exact gameplan that Ayers and Obama have followed. It matters because our president is deeply involved with a man who has never repented of his terrorism, and continues to openly attack the fundamentals of American society. The only difference between Bill Ayers then and Bill Ayers now is that the latter has moved to a more effective stratagy. His objective is the same.

Devo, has journalism become so corrupted that we no longer remember that its very job is to report non-biased stories?

Journalism is a business and people still have to get paid. If the only way for this to happen is for these "journalists" to write titillating, biased, or incendiary words, then hey, that's capitalism in action.

You're right, people aren't robots. However journalists are taught to identify their own bias and work to keep it out of their stories. You should not be able to identify the politics of a hard news reporter based on his story.

I'll turn this around and say that the discerning reader should be able to read a story, even one that is obviously "biased," and extract the facts from the story. The onus is on us as readers to think and read critically.

Of course, this is no longer the case. There are very few journalists who maintain objectivity. This is something that needs to be pointed out and fought against, not simply accepted. Our media is not supposed to be a propaganda machine. Sadly, that's what it has become.

And my point, of course, in even bringing the issue up is that conservatives like to elevate various Fox News commentators and conservative talk show hosts as bastions of journalistic integrity despite the fact that they're pointedly biased and yet turn around and complain about how the "main stream media" is so horribly left-leaning.

Devo, what happened to being tolerant of everyone else's beliefs? I mean, I know that you, a bastion of liberal perfection, would not stoop so low as to believe that all differences of opinions are welcome until they differ from your opinions, right? You call conservatives "wingnuts" as though name-calling suddenly wasn't propaganda anymore. What do I know?

Right, where have I said that your (or anyone's) opinions are not welcome? For that matter, where have I claimed to be a "bastion of liberal perfection" either? You can complain that I (or anyone) am not being "tolerant" of your beliefs when I stick a gun in your face and demand you recant or die.

Devo, conservative politicians don't have close, personal relationships with Rudolph. Obama shared an office with Ayers and worked closely with him for several years.

It is more than a fleating meeting or a "guy in my neighborhood." The reason the right cares about Ayers is because Obama seems to be running our country right out of the Ayers playbook.

Read Rules for Radicals. It lays out the exact gameplan that Ayers and Obama have followed. It matters because our president is deeply involved with a man who has never repented of his terrorism, and continues to openly attack the fundamentals of American society. The only difference between Bill Ayers then and Bill Ayers now is that the latter has moved to a more effective stratagy. His objective is the same.

Come on. This stuff has no credibility outside of arch-conservative circles and it never has and never will. There is no record that Obama was ever "deeply involved" with Bill Ayers (and this is the first I've heard that he "shared an office" with him, I'd like a source for this) beyond a fairly superficial professional relationship.

Devo, you are making WAY too much sense for this website. Snap out of it!

Everyone knows Bill Ayers is the greatest present threat to humanity. Sean sez so. Pity, all those years wasted looking for Osama Bin Laden!

Devo, journalism is about objective reporting. There is an editorial section for people to write whatever the hell they want. The destruction of the press isn't about capitalism, it's about propaganda. If this were about capitalism, we'd let the failing liberal papers die. Instead, the government is going to prop them up. I wonder why?

Idealy everyone could recognize bias. Unfortunately, most people do not. Bias starts in elementary school. Kids grow up with it and become blind to it. The propaganda machines know this and capitalize on it. Watch "How Obama Got Elected." The average American is clueless.

As for fox, I never said it was objective. I openly admit that fox has a conservative bias. However, their straight news reporting is far more objective than that of other stations.

Devo, journalism is about objective reporting. There is an editorial section for people to write whatever the hell they want. The destruction of the press isn't about capitalism, it's about propaganda. If this were about capitalism, we'd let the failing liberal papers die. Instead, the government is going to prop them up. I wonder why?

Be realistic here. Journalism is not and never has been about "objective reporting," it's about drawing a paycheck, because "journalists" have to eat too. It's about capitalism because news outlets are private companies that exchange a service (providing "news") for money from advertising revenue, which is directly correlated with the number of readers or viewers.

I'm gonna go further here and say that integrity really has no place in journalism at all. The best you can hope for is that they at least reported the facts of the story right, regardless of what spin they then put on those facts. When I turn on the TV to watch the "news" I'm inundated with stories of lurid, brutal murders; pictures of celebrities engaging in bad behavior, and other such things. This has always been the case and it's the case with virtually all (major) news sources. Of all the things that happen in a given day, attention is heaved only upon things that agigate or titillate the consumers of news because that is what draws the ratings and that is what the game is all about.

Note to Devo:

Educate self as to the difference between 'journalist' and 'commentator',

Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh are 'commentators' and take no effort to conceal the fact.

They have a preferred political perspective and take no effort to conceal that fact.

Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman are 'commentators'.

They have also have a preferred political perspective.

When a Limbaugh or a Hannity are employed as News anchors or even a reporter on one of the major television or radio networks then I will give your contentions about a 'conservative' bias some serious consideration.

yor bro ken

Devo, of course you haven't. That would mean that the media actually did its job.

Here's the information about Obama and Ayers office space.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/did_obama_and_ayers_share_an_o.html

And here's a timeline of the long and sorted history of Ayers and Obama.

"1969 - 1981

Bill Ayers, son of philanthropist Thomas Ayers, creates terrorist group The Weathermen Underground (WU) in Chicago, home of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.

The “Days of Rage” riots began when the WU blew up a statue dedicated to Chicago’s policemen in retaliation for beating several demonstrators. The shockwave shattered hundreds of windows.

Statue rebuilt and blown up the next year by the WU.

The statue was rebuilt and provided 24 hour security.

WU bombed home of a New York City judge involved in black panther case.

WU set off a bomb in a bathroom of the Pentagon.

WU set off a bomb at New York State Department of Correction.

1970 Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn go underground. Dorhn on FBI’s 10 most wanted list.

March 8, 1970, three members of WU killed while trying to make a nail bomb.

September 1970 helped drug lord escape from prison and hid him out.

1976-1977 federal charges dropped against Ayers and Dohrn due to prosecutorial misconduct.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1980 Ayers and Dorhns come out of hiding and turn themselves in.

1981 marks official end of WU when WU member Kathy Boudin commits armed robbery and kills three men.

20+ years of Barack and Michelle Obama

1985

Barack moves to Chicago.

Barack goes to work for the Developing Communities Project (DCP).

Barack obtains the DCP’s first funding from the Woods Fund of Chicago.

1987

The Chicago School Reform Project is lead by Mayor Richard Daly, Jr and Bill Ayers who are good friends, as were their fathers Richard Daly, Sr (also Mayor of Chicago) and Thomas Ayers (Thomas Ayers served as an advisor to Richard Daley, Sr).

Barack Obama is the leader of the Development Community Project.

The Development Community Project works with Bill Ayers on their School Reform Project

The law firm of Sidley & Austin is run by Howard Trienens, friend of Thomas Ayers, father of Bill Ayers, Father-in-Law of Bernadine Dohrn.

Bernadine Dohrn, wife of Bill Ayers works for Sidley & Austin (hired in 1984 by Howard Trienens).

Michelle Robinson goes to work as an attorney at the law firm of Sidley & Austin

1988

Barack quits work at the Development Community Project. Travels to Kenya, the birthplace of his father, where he spent five weeks.

Barack enters Harvard Law School.

Bernadine Dohrn leaves Sidley & Austin. She is unable to obtain a license to practice law due to her criminal history. Trienens says it was because she would not say she was “sorry” for her terrorist past.

Bernadine Dohrn goes to work in the office of the Cook County Public Guardian.

1989

Barack interns at Sidley & Austin;

Barack first meets and begins his relationship with Michelle Robinson, who was assigned to be his mentor.

1990

Barack selected as editor for Harvard Law Review.

1991

Valerie Jarrett, Deputy Chief of Staff for Mayor Richard Daley, offers Michelle Robinson a job as Assistant to Mayor Richard Daley.

Michelle Robinson insists fiancé Barack Obama meet Valerie Jarrett.

Michelle Robinson leaves Sidley & Austin and goes to work for Mayor Richard Daley, Jr, friend of Bill Ayers – husband of Bernadine Dohrn.

Bernadine Dohrn goes to work at Northwestern University School of Law as an adjunct professor of law as a “Clinical Associate Professor of Law.”

Howard Trienens, former employer of Bernadine Dohrn at Sidley and Austin law firm, is a member of the Board of Trustees of Northwestern.

Thomas Ayers, father of Bill Ayers, father-in-law of Bernadine Dohrn, is a former board member of the Board of Trustees of Northwestern.

1992

Barack and Michelle get married.

Barack directs Illinois’ Project Vote, a voter registration drive.

Barack begin teaching Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School.

1993

Barack and Michelle founded Chicago office of Public Allies. Michelle is named Executive Director of this group which encouraged young people to work on social issues in nonprofit groups and government agencies.

Barack goes to work as an associate for the law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, which specializes in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development.

Barrack gets on board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago.

1994

Barack on board of directors of the Joyce Foundation.

Bernadine Dohrn says “I still see myself as a radical.”

1995

Ayers works with Mayor Richard Daley on the city’s school reform program.

Ayers writes grant proposal for Chicago Annenberg Challenge and obtains $49.2 million over 5 years for public school reform.

Barack selected as Founding President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

Bill Ayers has Barack fundraiser and political coming out party in his home. Barack and Michelle Obama were both present.

In an interview published in 1995, Ayers characterized his political beliefs at that time and in the 1960s and 1970s: “I am a radical, Leftist, small ‘c’ communist … [Laughs] Maybe I’m the last communist who is willing to admit it. [Laughs] We have always been small ‘c’ communists in the sense that we were never in the [Communist] party and never Stalinists. The ethics of Communism still appeal to me. I don’t like Lenin as much as the early Marx. I also like Henry David Thoreau, Mother Jones and Jane Addams […]”

1996

Michelle Obama goes to work for the University of Chicago as Associate Dean of Student Services.

Barack promoted as Senior Lecturer at University of Chicago.

Barack elected to Illinois Senate.

Barack reported member of the “New Party,” (Democrat Socialist Party). They proudly announce their member Barack Obama won his State Seat.

1997

Connie Chung interviews Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. They say they do not regret what they did and would do it again. Wish they could have done more. Wish they had been more militant.

Mayor Richard Daley presents Bill Ayers the Key to the City and named his citizen of the year.

Michelle Obama organizes a discussion panel at the University of Chicago.

Michelle schedules Barack and Ayers to appear on the panel together.

1998

Barack re-elected to Illinois Senate

1999

Bill Ayers put on board at the Woods Fund of Chicago.

Barack steps down as President of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge but remains on the board.

The Socialist ‘New Party’ is defunct after losing a supreme court challenge that ruled the organizations “fusion” reform platform as unconstitutional.
2000

Barack loses bid for U.S. House of Representative.

Barack, Michelle and Bernadine Dohrn are listed together as mentors with the University of Chicago Irving B. Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies.

2001

Bill Ayers donates $200 to Barack’s re-election fund for the Illinois State Senate.

Bill Ayers publishes “Fugitive Says: A Memoir,” detailing his time as a terrorist.

In an article with the Chicago Tribune, Ayers said, “We weren’t terrorists. The reason we weren’t terrorists is because we did not commit random acts of terror against people. Terrorism was what was being practiced in the countryside of Vietnam by the United States.”

Bill Ayers gives interview to New York Times. Published on September 11, Ayers said he did not regret his militant tactics and believed they had not done enough.

2002

Barack reelected to Illinois Senate.

Barack loses his license to practice law for reasons unknown at the time of this writing.

Barack no longer serves on board of Woods Fund of Chicago.

Barack no longer serves on board of Joyce Foundation.

Barack no longer serves on board of Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

Barack hires political strategist David Axlerod.

Barack and Ayers are scheduled to appear together on a panel at the University of Illinois Chicago titled “Intellectuals in Times of Crisis.”

Michelle goes to work for the University of Chicago Hospitals as executive director for community affairs.

2003

Barack announces his bid for U.S. Senate.

2004

Barack wins primary.

Barack gives Keynote address at Democrat National Convention.

Barack elected to U.S. Senate.

Barack resigns his seat in Illinois Senate.

Bills Ayers gives interview: “How do you feel about what you did? Would you do it again under similar circumstances?” He replied:[24] “I’ve thought about this a lot. Being almost 60, it’s impossible to not have lots and lots of regrets about lots and lots of things, but the question of did we do something that was horrendous, awful? … I don’t think so. I think what we did was to respond to a situation that was unconscionable.”

2005

Barack sworn in as U.S. Senator
Michelle Obama is promoted to Vice President of Community and External Affairs where she still works part-time.

2006

Barack traveled to Kenya and openly campaigned for violent radical muslim Raila Odinga, Barack’s alleged cousin.

Bill Ayers travels to Venzeula and gives a speech to Hugo Chavez, stating “We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution” or “La educacion es revolucion!”.

2007

February Barack announces he will run for President.

http://conservativepolitics.today.com/2008/10/10/obamaayersdohrn-timeline/

All of this is documented. The MSM ignored it. You can not dismiss the evidence soley because conservatives were the ones who did the digging.

Hi, Lauren!

Would you like to join me in ignoring those who refuse to admit that, maybe, just maybe they might be wrong (but only maybe) and instead switch the conversation into something civilized? It's up to you. :).

But, I'd like to ask, what is your opinion on this mess of the Department of Homeland Security? I personally have never been too fond of any of their decisions (but I must confess that I don't do extensive research on them) regarding how to treat Muslims, because, apparently, reading the Qur'an makes you a terrorist. You? :).

Devo, listen to Ken. There are commentators who have no pretense of being objective. Then there are reporters, whose primary job is to report the news without bias.

The problem is that reporters have become commentators while still claiming to be reporters.

Vannah, the DHS worries me. Yes, we have to protect ourselves. I just worry that in the wrong hands, very bad things could happen.

We are seeing it being used as a tool to malign and silence political opposition.

Lauren,
Your link seems to be stating that they both had offices in the same building (and floor); that's a little different than saying that they "shared an office." Not that sharing an office (or just having offices on the same floor of what appears to be a fairly large building, which seems to be the case) exactly constitutes some kind of nefarious connection between two people and I'm pretty sure would fall squarely under "professional relationship" rather than "personal relationship". Your timeline has not proven or even suggested to me that Obama and Ayers were anywhere near as close with each other as the right has tried to assert they are or were, and furthermore, even if Bill Ayers and Barack Obama did have some kind of personal relationship, that doesn't in any way indicate Obama has ever endorsed Ayers' views or actions. I would think academics like Ayers and Obama probably interact, on a personal and/or professional level, with hundreds of people throughout their careers, it can't be argued that they endorse the viewpoints of every single person they come across. I maintain my view that the purported connections between these two men is totally overblown and irrelevant.

Devo, Obama was a student of Alinsky methods and taught Alinsky methods. It's no secret and you should be easily able to confirm this on the web from your source of choice. The Secretary of State is also an Alinskyite. Here's her thesis.
http://www.gopublius.com/HCT/HillaryClintonThesis.html

Here's info on another of O's office mates and a photo of his endorsement of Ayers' book.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-ayers-shared-chicago-office-for.html

And here's some info on his New Party ties.

http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-file-41-obama-was-new-party.html

Leave Ayers out of the picture if you like and Obama still has a rich history of radical associations no matter how much you spin it.

We are seeing it being used as a tool to malign and silence political opposition.

Lauren, Alinsky rule #1. Power is also what your enemy THINKS you have. This is in-your-face intimidation that is too broad to be effectively enforced. He's creating another crisis to fan resentment the way a good Alinskyite does.

doesn't in any way indicate Obama has ever endorsed Ayers' views or actions

just his book ;)

Devo, listen to Ken. There are commentators who have no pretense of being objective. Then there are reporters, whose primary job is to report the news without bias.

The problem is that reporters have become commentators while still claiming to be reporters.

I think for our purposes there's not a very strong distinction. Does the average viewer interpret the information they receive from a "commentator" and a "reporter" in markedly different ways? I don't think so. It's all "news" to them. But since we are drawing a distinction, I'd be sort of curious to see a large number of egregious examples of "biased liberal reporting" (as distinguished from "commentating") on which networks you (and other conservatives) find to be the biggest offenders in this regard.

Devo, what exactly do you want? People don't make public record of visiting someone's home. Well, unless they're hosting a fundraiser for one another, which Ayers did!

So we have Obama in Ayers' living room and Obama involved in a professional web of attachments.

What do you want, exactly? Evidence that they sent Earth Day cards to each other?

Devo, the fact that you can not tell the difference between commentators and reporters is evidence that there is a HUGE problem.

To see evidence of reporters commentating, simply open up any newspaper or online article. If what your reading is on page 1, but sounds like something out of "opinions," you know you have a problem.

Devo,

Look, your side brings up Rudolph and McVeigh. Don't talk to me about obsession. To the best of my knowledge no Republican and or conservative candidate, or any "right wing extremist" organization I know of, ever had any association with them. McVeigh is dead for heaven's sake. Rudolph will spend his life in prison. Obama associated with Ayers. An unrepentent left wing terrorist. Ayers is free and teaching at a university.

People knowledgable and sympathetic to terrorists may only be expressing political beliefs. True. They may also be giving support.
If there is good reason to believe they are supporting terrorists, yes they should be under surveillence. If they're not, leave them alone.
Devo, how do you think the feds deal with organized crime? They're all so
"innocent" too. Think they wait for these guys to turn themselves in? Hardly, its wiretapping, bugged phones, and surveillence.
These techniques are used to go after the terrorist and criminal element.
Do you think the fact we haven't had another terrorist attack since 9/11 might have something to do with intercepting phone calls between people involved in plots? People who were not quite as innocent as they proclaimed themselves to be?

When a major network network news show capitulates to the terms set by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security as a pre-condition for her consenting to an appearance on their show that is NOT 'journalism', that is a knowing and willing participation in government propaganda.

"Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," said that while there is no specific information that

domestic right-wing terrorists

are planning acts of violence, such acts could come from

unnamed

"rightwing extremists"

concerned about

1) illegal immigration,

2) abortion,

3) increasing federal power

4) and restrictions on firearms --

5) and singled out returning war veterans as susceptible to recruitment."

I went four for four on the issues but I am not a 'returning war veteran'.

In the eyes of Janet Napolitiano do I still qualify as a 'right wing extremist'?

I bet most of conservative America is concerned about 2 or 3 of the above mentioned issues.

pbho says he is unaware of the 'tea parties' that occurred on april 15th.

The first lady, when asked to comment said, "Let them eat government cheesecake."

yor bro ken

I agree that they can be quite worrisome, though we must protect ourselves.

I suppose, at the core of this matter, I find it rather paranoid and extremist for the government to say, "They could go off of the deep end at any moment!"

Really, extremists in any movement (including anti-abortion) are quite terrifying and, albeit rare, I feel that we as pro-lifers must do is send out more messages, articles, etc. emphasizing nonviolent change and activism. And also, we must get involved in all sorts of issues related to human rights attrocities such as abortion- the Darfur Genocide, for example. I think that that might effectively a). aggrandize unborn children to the status of personhood and b). let other pro-lifers know that extremism is not the answer and will only hurt.

What do you want, exactly? Evidence that they sent Earth Day cards to each other?

Posted by: Lauren at April 18, 2009 12:59 PM
-------------------------------------------------------
Devo wants to waste your time giving him evidence he will not consider because it does not fit his perferred conclusion.

Devo might be a main stream journalist.

yor bro ken

Devo, what exactly do you want? People don't make public record of visiting someone's home. Well, unless they're hosting a fundraiser for one another, which Ayers did!

So we have Obama in Ayers' living room and Obama involved in a professional web of attachments.

What do you want, exactly? Evidence that they sent Earth Day cards to each other?

What do I want? How about you drop this stupid non-issue of Bill Ayers and focus on something with substance?

Devo, the fact that you can not tell the difference between commentators and reporters is evidence that there is a HUGE problem.

I can tell the difference, obviously, but if we're being honest with ourselves, the difference is subtle and it always has been.

Look, your side brings up Rudolph and McVeigh. Don't talk to me about obsession. To the best of my knowledge no Republican and or conservative candidate, or any "right wing extremist" organization I know of, ever had any association with them. McVeigh is dead for heaven's sake. Rudolph will spend his life in prison. Obama associated with Ayers. An unrepentent left wing terrorist. Ayers is free and teaching at a university.

Rarely do I see anyone bring up Rudolph and McVeigh. Certainly nothing that could be termed "obsession" in any way and not at all comparable to the way conservatives constantly invoke the name of Bill Ayers.

People knowledgable and sympathetic to terrorists may only be expressing political beliefs. True. They may also be giving support.
If there is good reason to believe they are supporting terrorists, yes they should be under surveillence. If they're not, leave them alone.
Devo, how do you think the feds deal with organized crime? They're all so
"innocent" too. Think they wait for these guys to turn themselves in? Hardly, its wiretapping, bugged phones, and surveillence.
These techniques are used to go after the terrorist and criminal element.
Do you think the fact we haven't had another terrorist attack since 9/11 might have something to do with intercepting phone calls between people involved in plots? People who were not quite as innocent as they proclaimed themselves to be?

Again, you're really missing what my point was all along: investigating these "suspicious people" based on things like their expressed political beliefs goes both ways. Conservatives like it when it's the "other side" getting "investigated" and do not like it when the tables are turned and the focus is on possible "right wing" extremism.

Devo, you were just shown that Obama and Ayers had a much closer relationship than was reported during the campaign.

I consider our presidents ties to a terrorist to be an issue.

The dept. of homeland security seems to believe that any person who happens to be pro-life is a potential terror threat. That's casting a shadow on a lot of people. These people do not have direct ties to terrorism, yet have been singled out as a threat.

Obama has a direct terrorist tie, and it is dismissed as nothing.

If I shared an office, served on a board, worked with his wife, endorsed his book, and had a party with Rudolph knowing he was a terrorist, would you be so quick to write off my connections as nonsense?

I have a confessions to make.

When I was a boy I removed the gun powder from a whole string of Black Cat firecrackers and put it all in one single ping pong ball.

Then I inserted a fuse.

I lit said fuse and said gunpowder in said ping pong ball exploded with a very loud boom.

When I was a teenager I inflated about a dozen Jack in the Box ballons with natural gas which is lighter than air.

I then tied all the balloons together and released them into the night sky with a long lit fuse.

At an undetermined altitude the burning fuse reached the balloons, and though there was no explosion, the resulting fire ball lit up the night sky.

When I was old enough to drive I would turn off the ignition key while the car was still moving and after a short interlude would return the ignition to the on position and the car would back fire with such violent force that the muffler would often rupture.

I also removed those tags from the pillows that federal law prohibits you from removing.

And contrary to the NFL's prohibitions I have reproduced my own rendition of a Dallas Cowboy football game.

yor bro ken

Devo,

Again, if there is no evidence to prove these people have any involvement with terrorists, leave them alone. If police pull me over in my car, I happen to resemble someone they're looking for and I get detained. I'm proven innocent. It happens to law abiding citizens.

Why would the feds waste their time and resources targetting innocent Muslims while terrorists have a field day? Also, Bush bent over backward to distinguish between law abiding patriotic Muslims and those who may come under suspicion.

Were efforts to go after the Italian-American mafia attacks on the Italian-American community as a whole? Plenty of people thought so. I'm certain law-abiding Italian-Americans may have been targetted, but for the most part only the criminals were.

Stop dwelling on Ayers? Would you then please then drop McVeigh and Rudolph since, unlike Ayers, they are both long out of commission. You might advise Napolitano of this as well since her report used a quote from the long dead McVeigh.

Posted by: Devo at April 18, 2009 1:19 PM

Again, you're really missing what my point was all along: investigating these "suspicious people" based on things like their expressed political beliefs goes both ways. Conservatives like it when it's the "other side" getting "investigated" and do not like it when the tables are turned and the focus is on possible "right wing" extremism.

--------------------------------------------------------

Devo,

You are missing the point and you are doing it with artistic excellence.

You are deliberately confusing, some might say obfuscating, 'ideas' with 'acts' of lawlessness.

It is one thing to stand in a crowd and shout 'death to Amercia' (which by the way cannot happen without killing Americans.) and another matter entirely consorting in perceived secrecy with people who are planning and committing acts consistent with the stated goal of 'death to Americans'.

Devo, NOT being an American, or NOT being a Jew, or even being a fellow Muslim will NOT disqualify you from their 'hit' list, even if you agree with them on every point of their 'dogmatic doctrine'.

These people want to kill you Devo. They want to kill your family and your friends and, even if you agree with them, you are expendable, if you happen to be where they are planning to strike.

What you fail or refuse to understand, or perhaps you agree with, is the current administrations strategy is to characterize any who disagree with them 'politically' as 'extremists' or 'terrorists'.

Some of the members of the current administration may actually believe what they are saying.

It may not just be a 'political ploy'.

yor bro ken

Devo,

Please give me specific examples of people in America being investigated for their 'expressed political beliefs'.

yor bro ken

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/16/obama-appointee-suggests-radical-plan-newspaper-bailout/

"Influential Los Angeles Times columnist Rosa Brooks has hung up her journalistic hat and joined the Obama administration, but not before penning a public proposal calling for some radical ideas to help bail out the failing news industry.

Brooks, who has taken up a post as an adviser at the Pentagon, advocated upping "direct government support for public media" and creating licenses to govern news operations.

"Years of foolish policies have left us with a choice: We can bail out journalism, using tax dollars and granting licenses in ways that encourage robust and independent reporting and commentary, or we can watch, wringing our hands, as more and more top journalists are laid off," she wrote in her parting column on April 9.

Brooks said this would help rescue the industry from a "death spiral" and left the government unaccountable to the journalists who must keep it honest. "[I] can't imagine anything more dangerous than a society in which the news industry has more or less collapsed," she wrote."

------------------------------------------------------

Like most liberal socialist humanists, Ms Brooks fails to understand or chooses to disregard the dynamics of a free market.

The market place seldom lies.

If Americans now see so little value in the 'news industry' that it is going bust, then an acceptable substitute has or soon will replace it and it will have been done without 'government action'.

When journalists offer something of value to the market place, then the 'demand' will create a venue to 'supply' it at an affordable price.

I can see how that manifest truth could have escaped Ms Brooks notice as she has willingly prostituted herself by pimping her pen, 'mightier than a sword', doing a 'hatchet job' for the government to which she once required accountability and to which she has now surrendered her independence.

Have pen, will grovel.

How the mighty have fallen.

Irony of ironies!

yor bro ken

ken, once again -- you are awesome! :)

Guess what--I've never listened to Fox News regularly and haven't heard Rush regularly in over a year either. The only thing I'm getting regularly is this blog (hasn't turned you conservative), mommy blogs, and the Word of God (and derivatives like Christian music).

Or do you want to make the Holy Scriptures illegal, just like you want to shut up Rush? I better get on top of my memorization. 65 books to go....