ATTORNEY GENERAL TO CLASSIFY PRO-LIFE, PRO-GUN AMERICANS AS TERRORISTS
Listed in the Politics category.
Terms Of Use | Code Of Conduct | Site Map | Staff & Volunteers | Donate | Contact Us
Licensed by ASCAP, BMI & The MCPS-PRS Alliance
© 2009 SingSnap
Posted by Dianna on July 5, 2009 at 3:15 AM
ATTORNEY GENERAL TO CLASSIFY PRO-LIFE, PRO-GUN AMERICANS AS TERRORISTS
By NWV News writer Jim Kouri
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
July 5, 2009
© 2009 NewsWithViews.com
An amendment to a bill swiftly moving through the US Congress will allow the Obama Administration's Attorney General to classify Americans as domestic terrorists if they are pro-life, pro-gun and anti-big government.
Impeached Florida judge -- now a Democrat Party member of the House of Representatives -- Rep. Alcee Hastings introduced what some claim is a disturbing piece of legislation. Hasting's amendment calls for the Attorney General to have discretion over who is called a terrorist and what groups will be treated as terrorist groups.
"This is arguably one of the worst pieces of legislation to come down the pike in a long, long time. In essence Attorney General Eric Holder -- a Bill Clinton retread -- will have the discretion to label Americans terrorists. Hastings is a dangerous man and should be forced to resign from congress. He's also proposed the creation of "emergency camps" that are nothing more than prisons," warns political strategist Mike Baker.
"This amendment is part and parcel of the trend in this country to suppress dissent by patriots by calling them domestic terrorists," he added.
In an unclassified report entitled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," Secretary for Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and her agency included the following description of "extremists:"
"Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."
Last Thursday, Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) made the following remarks on the House Floor regarding Congressman Alcee Hastings’ (D-FL) amendment to the National Defense Authorization bill:
"The Hastings Amendment to the National Defense Authorization bill (which now is being considered en bloc) prohibits the recruitment, enlistment, or retention of persons with known affiliations to "groups determined by the Attorney General to be of a violent, extremist nature."
http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news152.htm
Reply by Dianna on July 5, 2009 at 3:16 AM
as Terrorists? hmmm a bit draconian eh?
Again....just putting it out there!
And............Why aren't the news media covering this story?
Edited on July 5, 2009 at 3:20 AM Permalink
Reply by Dianna on July 5, 2009 at 3:23 AM
The House bill (HR 645) -- National Emergency Centers Establishment Act -- is not even on the radar of members of the elite media. According to critics of the plan, if passed the government will create camps or centers that by their nature restrict the activities of US citizens herded into them.
In fact, one provision -- Section 2 (b) (4) -- states: "[To] meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security."
One critic, political strategist Mike Baker claims the idea of such detention center smacks of the type of concentration camps for political dissidents, such as occurred in Nazi Germany, Americans find repugnant.
??????????????
What the???????
another article:
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/az02_franks/FranksStatmentHastingsAmend.html
Edited on July 5, 2009 at 3:53 AM Permalink
Reply by A10cgirlPATRON on July 5, 2009 at 7:28 AM
Dianna, here is the link to the bill. You may have already read it but I'm going to post it for others who haven't.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-645
From what I can understand about this, it seems to be a bill to provide places for people to go in the case of national emergencies or a disaster. I think we learned a lot of lessons with Hurricane Katrina.
I'm also interpreting "Section 2 (b) (4) -- states: "[To] meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security." as also allowing these places to be used for other things. It would be expensive to just have them sitting there waiting for a reason to use them so I think this section allows them to be used for other things when they are not used for their purpose.
Although I'm not pleased and even admit that some things going on are a bit scary right now I still have faith in our Constitution and don't believe the government is going to start rounding us up and putting us in camps because we are pro-life or pro-gun. We do have that right to speak out. Using violence to make our point is another thing...we don't have the right to do that and we shouldn't. I don't think the people who are on the other side of these issues would go along with something like this being done. I hope I'm right.
Edited on July 5, 2009 at 7:29 AM Permalink
Reply by Dianna on July 5, 2009 at 8:18 AM
LOL ...I have provided the link which includes the bill.
I am not an alarmist Rita....but I am questioning what is going on and do not naively put my faith into anything.
The first paragraph is suggesting to eviscerate parts of the constitution and is a source of concern if it is true:
"An amendment to a bill swiftly moving through the US Congress will allow the Obama Administration's Attorney General to classify Americans as domestic terrorists if they are pro-life, pro-gun and anti-big government."
I myself am pro-choice and do not care about guns one way or the other, but that is not the point here.
It was against the Constitution to set up THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK since under the Article I, Section 8, Clause 5. of the Constitution:
"The Congress shall have Power…To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures."
I have been posting over and over again that the Federal Reserve is not the Government and is privately owned and we are bankrupt.
So? What is going on? One has to wonder! And I do wonder...oh yes I do!
Permalink
Reply by Dianna on July 5, 2009 at 8:43 AM
I am posting this again because Ron Paul reflects my feelings on all that is going on!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KESIoexnILI&feature=related
Permalink
Reply by ladylikepsychFORUM-MODERATOR on July 5, 2009 at 9:13 AM
crikeys
Permalink
Reply by FrankCNYGOLD on July 5, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Here's the text of the Amendment:
5. AN AMENDMENT TO BE OFFERED BY REPRESENTATIVE HASTINGS OF FLORIDA, OR HIS DESIGNEE, DEBATABLE FOR 10 MINUTES
At the end of subtitle C of title V (page 134, after line 24), add the following new section:
SEC. 524. PROHIBITION ON RECRUITMENT, ENLISTMENT, OR RETENTION OF PERSONS ASSOCIATED OR AFFILIATED WITH GROUPS ASSOCIATED WITH HATE-RELATED VIOLENCE AGAINST GROUPS OR PERSONS OR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.
Section 504 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
`(c) Persons Associated or Affiliated With Hate Groups-
`(1) PROHIBITION- A person associated or affiliated with a group associated with hate-related violence against groups or persons or the United States Government, as determined by the Attorney General, may not be recruited, enlisted, or retained in the armed forces.
`(2) DEFINITION OF HATE GROUP- In this subsection, the terms `group associated with hate-related violence' or `hate group' mean the following:
`(A) Groups or organizations that espouse or engage in acts of violence against other groups or minorities based on ideals of hate, ethnic supremacies, white supremacies, racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, or other bigotry ideologies.
`(B) Groups or organizations engaged in criminal gang activity including drug and weapons trafficking and smuggling.
`(C) Groups or organizations that espouse an intention or expectation of armed revolutionary activity against the United States Government, or the violent overthrow of the United States Government.
`(D) Groups or organizations that espouse an intention or expectation of armed activity in a `race war'.
`(E) Groups or organizations that encourage members to join the armed forces in order to obtain military training to be used for acts of violence against minorities, other groups, or the United States Government.
`(F) Groups or organizations that espouse violence based on race, creed, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.
`(G) Other groups or organizations that are determined by the Attorney General to be of a violent, extremist nature.
`(3) EVIDENCE OF ASSOCIATION OR AFFILIATION WITH HATE GROUP- The following shall constitute evidence that a person is associated or affiliated with a group associated with hate-related violence:
`(A) Individuals possessing tattoos or other body markings indicating association or affiliation with a hate group.
`(B) Individuals known to have attended meetings, rallies, conferences, or other activities sponsored by a hate group.
`(C) Individuals known to be involved in online activities with a hate group, including being engaged in online discussion groups or blog or other postings that support, encourage, or affirm the group's extremist or violent views and goals.
`(D) Individuals who are known to have in their possession photographs, written testimonials (including diaries or journals), propaganda, or other materials indicating involvement or affiliation with a hate group. Such materials can include photographs, written materials relating to or referring to extreme hatred that are clearly not of an academic nature, possession of objects that venerate or glorify hate-inspired violence, and related materials, as determined by the Attorney General.
`(E) Individuals espousing the intent to acquire military training for the purpose of using such training towards committing acts of violence of a purpose not affiliated with the armed forces.
Nowhere in that language do the words domestic terrorists pro-life, pro-gun and anti-big government. appear.
It seems that the author of the article is basing his interpretation on this:
"Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."
Well golly gee, some people associated with those groups have been known to commit violent acts, does that mean that everyone associated with such groups are violent? No one said that, in fact in defining those groups the words broadly divided and may include were used.
As for the Attorney General identifying other groups or organizations that are determined to be of a violent, extremist nature. Who's more qualified?
Edited on July 5, 2009 at 10:06 AM Permalink
Reply by Dianna on July 5, 2009 at 10:26 AM
I have a copy of it....don't need yours Frank FROM BROOKLYN, NEW YORK!
I guess you were there at the meeting and have all the facts eh? GOLLY GEE FRANK...THEY DIDN'T CONSULT YOU? awwwww What a pity!
Franks Expresses Concern Over Hastings Amendment to Defense Authorization Bill on House Floor
June 25, 2009 – Congressman Trent Franks (AZ-02) today made the following remarks on the House Floor regarding an amendment to the National Defense Authorization bill:
Mr. / Ms. Speaker:
The Hastings Amendment to the National Defense Authorization bill (which now is being considered en bloc) prohibits the recruitment, enlistment, or retention of persons with known affiliations to "groups determined by the Attorney General to be of a violent, extremist nature."
Members on both sides of the aisle support the purpose of this amendment because we recognize that there are legitimate concerns about the enlistment of persons who may seek to use their military training to cause harm to innocents, but we should take pause to consider the breadth of this amendment carefully. I just want to express concern about the language of this amendment, and my concerns are shared by many in this House.
While the amendment seeks to keep gang members and members of violent groups out of the military, the amendment by its language is much more broad. Specifically, it confers upon the Attorney General the ability to categorize groups as hate groups, and this sounds an alarm for many of us because of the recent shocking and offensive report released by the Department of Homeland Security which labeled, arguably, a majority of Americans as "extremists."
In an unclassified report entitled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," Janet Napolitano and her agency included the following description of "extremists," and I quote:
"Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."
I take extreme offense that the federal government - through a report issued under the authority of a Cabinet-level official - would dare to categorize people who are "dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition or abortion or immigration" as "right-wing extremists" and it begs the question of whether the Attorney General, under Mr. Hastings' Amendment, can look to the Napolitano report to decide who is an extremist, or can make the same categorization of the majority of Americans as extremists who may then be kept from joining the military, or who may be discharged.
The desire to risk one's life on foreign soil for one's country may well be considered "extreme." To spill blood on a foreign battlefield in the name of freedom requires extreme devotion.
This amendment could have been written in a way that is more consistent with current DOD policy, which prohibits military personnel from participating in "organizations that espouse supremacist causes; or attempt to create illegal discrimination based on race, creed, color, sex, religion, or national origin..."
The military has many laws and regulations in place to counter racism and the enlistment of racist militants. Recruits must be thoroughly vetted, and must even explain the symbolism behind their tattoos, body markings and writings. I understand that there is concern that the rules and regulations governing vetting of recruits are not being followed as vigilantly as they could be, and this is a legitimate cause for concern. At the same time, this is a call for better enforcement of the laws in place, rather than a sweeping categorization of persons as "extremists," as we saw in Janet Napolitano's agency's report.
I want to state unequivocally that I believe that it is not the intent of this Congress to label pro-lifers, federalism proponents, and pro-immigration enforcement groups and their affiliates as extremists under the bill. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle should make a strong effort to assuage these concerns and make our intentions clear. If the intent of this amendment is to go after citizens because of their political views and moral convictions, then the amendment is unconstitutional. I hope that the sponsor of the Amendment will make clear tonight that this is not the intent.
I yield to my colleagues across the aisle for a response.
Congressman Franks is serving his fourth term in the U.S. House of Representatives, and is a member of the Committee on Armed Services, Strategic Forces Subcommittee, Oversight & Investigations Subcommittee, Military Readiness Subcommittee, Committee on the Judiciary, Constitution Subcommittee, and is Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.
Permalink
Reply by Dianna on July 5, 2009 at 10:48 AM
You and your condescensions are so predictable Frank....and really maybe someone in Brooklyn voted you Mayor of your block.....but not in here! Try peddling that sort of sarcasm to one of the FISH-VENDORS there on your docks!
Permalink
Reply by FrankCNYGOLD on July 5, 2009 at 10:54 AM
So, one representative is objecting to the language a little bit? That's a far cry from saying: Attorney General to classify Americans as domestic terrorists if they are pro-life, pro-gun and anti-big government.
That's got to be the most misleading headline I've seen in a long time, no wonder the mainstream media won't bother with this piece of conspiracy theory.
And what's the fact that I live in Brooklyn have to do with anything? Sounds mighty elitist of you.
Permalink
Reply by FrankCNYGOLD on July 5, 2009 at 10:56 AM
And you take your elitist crap elsewhere.
Permalink
Reply by grammatea4uPATRON on July 5, 2009 at 11:04 AM
ok....first off guys lets stop the personal attacks and keep it about the bill in general...which I read what Frank posted.
Permalink
Reply by Dianna on July 5, 2009 at 11:05 AM
1. I said "If it is true"
"The first paragraph is suggesting to eviscerate parts of the constitution and is a source of concern if it is true:"
2.This is not the first time with your condescension. You did it in another thread with someone else!
3. Here is a vocabulary word for you to STUDY!
con·de·scend·ing [kònd? sénding]
adj
snobby: behaving toward other people in a way that shows you consider yourself socially or intellectually superior to them
So MAN FROM BROOKLYN, NEW YORK. You can dish it out but can't take it? So typical. Run along now and learn your new word!
Edited on July 5, 2009 at 11:06 AM Permalink
Reply by Dianna on July 5, 2009 at 11:08 AM
You are ignored!
Permalink
Reply by paisan37GOLD on July 5, 2009 at 11:10 AM
isnt this bill the same as RICO
Permalink
Reply by FrankCNYGOLD on July 5, 2009 at 11:12 AM
None of what I said in my post was directed at you, the golly gee was directed at the author of the article, and it could't be more plain, so take your persecution complex to someone more qualified to diagnosed it than me.
Edited on July 5, 2009 at 11:14 AM Permalink
Reply by Dianna on July 5, 2009 at 11:14 AM
why hello paisan37!
Permalink
Reply by paisan37GOLD on July 5, 2009 at 11:15 AM
HI
Permalink
Reply by grammatea4uPATRON on July 5, 2009 at 11:17 AM
I will pick it apart..because there are parts of the bill I agree with and parts of the bill I disagree with
I am listing the parts that I disagree with
(G) Other groups or organizations that are determined by the Attorney General to be of a violent, extremist nature...Who made the Attorney General God? He/She can make any group seem that way if they want.
(A) Individuals possessing tattoos or other body markings indicating association or affiliation with a hate group...WOW WHAT ABOUT THE TATTOO SHOP WHO APPLIES THE TATTOO..WILL THEY BE CLOSED TOO..
`(B) Individuals known to have attended meetings, rallies, conferences, or other activities sponsored by a hate group...WHO DETERMINES IF THE MEETING RALLY ETC IS HATE GROUP ASSOCIATED..? I COULD HAVE A CHURCH MEETING AND THEY DON'T LIKE THE SUBJECT MATTER AND SAY ITS HATE GROUP
`(C) Individuals known to be involved in online activities with a hate group, including being engaged in online discussion groups or blog or other postings that support, encourage, or affirm the group's extremist or violent views and goals....WOW THEY COULD CLOSE DOWN THIS THREAD WITH ALL WE SAY HERE..OR MOSTLY ALL ONLINE POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS
`(D) Individuals who are known to have in their possession photographs, written testimonials (including diaries or journals), propaganda, or other materials indicating involvement or affiliation with a hate group. Such materials can include photographs, written materials relating to or referring to extreme hatred that are clearly not of an academic nature, possession of objects that venerate or glorify hate-inspired violence, and related materials, as determined by the Attorney General. AGAIN AS DETERMINED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL..TOO MUCH POWER
`(E) Individuals espousing the intent to acquire military training for the purpose of using such training towards committing acts of violence of a purpose not affiliated with the armed forces...THIS IS THE ONLY ONE I AGREE WITH
Now I saw Frank's statement about the Attorney General being qualified or not qualified...I am not doubting their qualifications but when the office of Attorney General is so politically associated..I can't give them the authority to make those determinations. I would feel this way even if it had been a Republican appointed Attorney General. Right now our current administration target right wing extremists..where the past administration targeted what they considered the left wing loons...Both sides wanted folks to be SHUT UP...I agree with the intention of the bill, but they are just giving way too much power to the Attorney General...That's the part I strongly disagree with.
Permalink
Reply by grammatea4uPATRON on July 5, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Furthermore...didn't the Republicans have something very similar to this? I know my mom always thought her phone conversations were being monitored.
Permalink
Reply by Dianna on July 5, 2009 at 11:20 AM
Thank you for your opinion grammatea4u, it is well appreciated!
Permalink
Reply by FrankCNYGOLD on July 5, 2009 at 11:20 AM
That wasn't my point at all Tas, the author of the article made a blanket statement as such:
An amendment to a bill swiftly moving through the US Congress will allow the Obama Administration's Attorney General to classify Americans as domestic terrorists if they are pro-life, pro-gun and anti-big government.
Reading the bill nothing could be further from the truth.
Permalink
Reply by Dianna on July 5, 2009 at 11:21 AM
I am still waiting to see what is coming down since I only got this in the wee hours of the morning.
Permalink
Reply by paisan37GOLD on July 5, 2009 at 11:23 AM
ru a right wing extremist dianna?
Permalink
Reply by Dianna on July 5, 2009 at 11:24 AM
LOL paisan....I think I stated up there somewhere that I am pro-choice and really have no opinion other than the Constitution stating the right to bear arms....I myself don't really care for guns.
Permalink
Reply by paisan37GOLD on July 5, 2009 at 11:25 AM
me neither
Permalink
Reply by grammatea4uPATRON on July 5, 2009 at 11:26 AM
That part I agree with you on here Frank...Actually what this bill does in its present form is to allow any specific Attorney General to identify as a hate group any group he/she feels is a hate group...So if we flip the coin here for instance and its a Republican appointed Attorney General they could say that any one who is pro abortion should be detained...they could target specific religious groups who they feel may be terrorists...What I don't like about this bill is any given Attorney General can spin this to fit their own agenda instead of what is good for the country.
Permalink
Reply by Dianna on July 5, 2009 at 11:27 AM
BINGO Grammatea4u!
Permalink
Reply by grammatea4uPATRON on July 5, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Dianna the thing is you didn't state it that way...you stated that it was specifically geared to right wing..and it isn't. That's the part Frank ojected to and he was correct in doing so.
Permalink
Reply by A10cgirlPATRON on July 5, 2009 at 11:31 AM
I've read through all this now and to say I don't have concerns or questions is probably an understatement but here it is....
When I read the bill, it sounds like a good bill if it's in reality for how it sounds to me. Our government failed miserably with Hurricane Katrina. But then I'm seeing these amendments that seem to have nothing to do with the bill. Why is this amendment necessary? We already have laws against violence...you can't kill, beat someone up, destroy their property, etc without being arrested. Are they trying to redefine the laws on who they consider is a danger to our country and include individuals who speak out against it?
The tattoo thing caught my attention....I have a red, white, and blue butterfly that I got after my divorce and I call it my "freedom butterfly". Now if some violent hate group starts using a butterfly as one of their symbols does this put me at risk for being labeled a terrorist by my government? Also...am I at risk because I attend a T.E.A. party to support lower taxes? What is going to be considered a "hate group"? Am I going to be considered a part of a hate group because I don't like what the Democrats are doing and vise versa.
Could someone address this, please?
Permalink
Reply by Dianna on July 5, 2009 at 11:31 AM
i said..."IF IT IS TRUE"
Permalink
Reply by FrankCNYGOLD on July 5, 2009 at 11:33 AM
Ahh but that's not what the bill says, the bill says:
Other groups or organizations that are determined by the Attorney General to be of a violent, extremist nature.
Hate is not that easily defined, you would have to go into their heads, but violence and extremism is.
Permalink
Reply by grammatea4uPATRON on July 5, 2009 at 11:33 AM
OH and for the record...I've known Frank for quite sometime and he is really a gentle Teddy bear who has very strong political opinions..Allow the discussion to flow freely and keep that in mind when he states his opinions here. Just as many of you feel strongly one way so does he. : )
Permalink
Reply by Dianna on July 5, 2009 at 11:35 AM
I don't know Rita. I have a feeling something else is brewing. Just have to wait and see. I only received that
in the mail this morning.
Permalink
Reply by FrankCNYGOLD on July 5, 2009 at 11:37 AM
I might be slow, but I don't see "if it is true" anywhere in he initial post (the post I was commenting on) someone help me out with that
Permalink
Reply by grammatea4uPATRON on July 5, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Violence is..extremism isn't...by who's definition do you determine what is or isn't extremist? I've read here on the political threads for instance things that if I were Attorney General, I would feel our extremist..For instance..Sometimes I feel Arizonagal's feelings are extremist..so I could detain her if I were Atty. general..but on the other hand if Arizonagal were the atty. general she would feel that Frank or paisan were extremists and could detain them.
Permalink
Reply by Dianna on July 5, 2009 at 11:37 AM
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, however I don't suffer condescension. It's not the first time, so it is my decision to ignore it!
Permalink
Reply by FrankCNYGOLD on July 5, 2009 at 11:38 AM
Agreed, the tattoo reference was a bit overboard, that should be removed
Permalink
Reply by paisan37GOLD on July 5, 2009 at 11:39 AM
i guess i better get my "born to kill" tatoo removed...lol
Permalink
Reply by Dianna on July 5, 2009 at 11:40 AM
LOL paisan37....and I need some coffee and ibuprofens....ugh
Permalink
Reply by A10cgirlPATRON on July 5, 2009 at 11:41 AM
But Frank, it does in a sense say this....this would give him the power to determine if any anti-whatever should be considered a terrorist. I have to agree with Tas....this is just way too much power for one man. I don't like it.
Permalink
Reply by FrankCNYGOLD on July 5, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Maybe I wasn't clear the first time:
None of what I said in my post was directed at you, the golly gee was directed at the author of the article, and it could't be more plain, so take your persecution complex to someone more qualified to diagnosed it than me.
But I guess if you're not in lockstep with some people you're labeled as condescending, but there are worse things, like making fun of where people live.
Permalink
Reply by grammatea4uPATRON on July 5, 2009 at 11:45 AM
I have a feeling we're all right here...specifically it doesn't say it with those exact words..which is what Frank was pointing out..But in a sense it is inferred depending on who the Atty. General is.
Permalink
Reply by grammatea4uPATRON on July 5, 2009 at 11:46 AM
For the Record..I've been to Brooklyn and the people there are so wonderful..Rough on the edges, but inside so adorable.
Permalink
Reply by A10cgirlPATRON on July 5, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Right...all it would take is one person with an personal agenda to become Attorney General and we would be in one heck of a mess.
Permalink
Reply by FrankCNYGOLD on July 5, 2009 at 11:48 AM
But Rita, the Bill gives a definition of what a hate group is, and if you read it, it makes sense...Remember now, I'm not commenting on whether there's a need for it, I'm just saying that the author of the article was a little over the top.
Permalink
Reply by A10cgirlPATRON on July 5, 2009 at 11:49 AM
This is why I don't like a one sided administration regardless of which side it is...Democrat or Republican. Without the balance....things really become too risky in my opinion.
Edited on July 5, 2009 at 11:56 AM Permalink
Reply by FrankCNYGOLD on July 5, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Couldn't agree with you more Rita, and the problem with this country is the partisanship, ON BOTH SIDES!!!!!
Permalink
Reply by grammatea4uPATRON on July 5, 2009 at 11:55 AM
hold on one cotton picking minuteeeeeeeeeeeeeee...sorry I was more into the bill instead of the article..let me address the article now..this part as Frank stated
An amendment to a bill swiftly moving through the US Congress will allow the Obama Administration's Attorney General to classify Americans as domestic terrorists if they are pro-life, pro-gun and anti-big government.
HELLOOOOOOOOO..it doesn't do no such thing..what the bill does is give ALL atty. generals the right to determine hate groups, extremists..This isn't about Obama trying to squelch any specific group. There most definitely is a need for this sort of bill but it needs some help with the specifics as what I have read above.
Permalink
Reply by A10cgirlPATRON on July 5, 2009 at 11:55 AM
This part scares me since it's only been about a month or so ago that Homeland Security came out with some stuff on how to spot extremist groups and terrorists which was totally off the wall in my opinion:
(G) Other groups or organizations that are determined by the Attorney General to be of a violent, extremist nature.
I don't think it should be left up to the Attorney General to determine this. This needs to be something our Congress and Courts need to decide.
Permalink