The Department of Homeland Security has defined me as a possible right-wing extremist:
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 don’t particularly hate anyone and I accept government authority, but as a proponent of state’s rights and someone who opposes abortion, they’ve got me on two fronts.
Now that they’ve labeled me so definitely, does this make me a minority?
Comment by Barbara — April 15, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
I doubt that the DHS is worried about you. I don’t even get the impression that the summary statement refers to you.
Do you truly “reject[] federal authority in favor of state or local authority”?
This is not enough: “may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue” (emphasis mine)
Comment by Troy — April 15, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
Do you truly “reject[] federal authority in favor of state or local authority”?
In those cases where the Constitution restricts federal powers in favor of the states, yes!! Let us not forget that a supreme executive power is what the Founder’s were trying to avoid! (That and some farcical aquatic ceremony…)
Comment by Janice — April 17, 2009 @ 7:18 am
[...] Tarry for the Nonce [...]
Pingback by The Liberty Papers »Blog Archive » A very special thank you note… — April 17, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
I think the problem is that, in our increasingly complex and interrelated society, the commerce clause of Article I section 8, truly does cover almost everything that the feeral government does.
But, I believe that it is paranoia to think that someone advocating for a limited, constitutional role of the federal government — short of advocating for succession or violence against federal agents — is of any concern to the DHS.
Comment by Troy — April 17, 2009 @ 6:06 pm
I dunno, Troy…
directives were issued to all 56 FBI field offices to “coordinate and conduct, either at the field office level and/or with the appropriate resident agency, covert video surveillance and data collection of the participants of the TEA parties … independently and outside of the purview of local law enforcement.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/21/politicizing-intelligence-the-government-is-target/
Good lord…
Comment by Janice — April 21, 2009 @ 9:47 am
Janice, I agree that such spying crosses the line if there is no legitimate security concern. The FBI has been doing creepy stuff like since at least the 1950s (COINTELPRO).
But, you have to admit that there are some dangerous people out there who fall within the description of the DHS report. Until peaceful protesters start showing up on no-fly lists or something like that, then I am highly skeptical that the DHS cares one bit about most TEA partiers. Time will tell, and we should all hope that you are wrong.
Comment by Troy — April 21, 2009 @ 10:36 am
Time will tell, and we should all hope that you are wrong.
Hear, hear!
Comment by Janice — April 21, 2009 @ 10:51 am
I should add:
But, you have to admit that there are some dangerous people out there who fall within the description of the DHS report.
Sure. Absolutely. Just as there are dangerous people who advocate for the ethical treatment of animals, a new world order and gay rights. Every ideology has its fringe component.
However, it’s always disturbing when a powerful department of the federal government appears to target specifically and criminalize unreasonably a very broad swath of its ideological opponents. It smacks of totalitarianism.
And, saying “Surely not!” is hardly a citizen’s best defense.
Comment by Janice — April 21, 2009 @ 10:58 am
Agreed about the fringe.
I simply do not believe that the federal government is about to “criminalize [reasonably or] unreasonably a very broad swath of its ideological opponents.” I do not believe that this is happening or will happen, as a matter of fact. But let’s make this interesting: Would anyone like to make a monetary bet about this? Working out testable standards would be tricky, but I think this is doable.
Comment by Troy — April 21, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
This is timely.
Comment by Troy — April 21, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
Are there no takers for my bet, or has everyone already been arrested?
Comment by Troy — April 29, 2009 @ 3:33 pm