New DOD training doc calls the FF's "extremists"

I am posting a link to a page where you can download the official document. Once again the powers that be are calling the likes me "terrorists". They are once again officially demonizing conservatives. They are once again calling me a racist with no evidence to back it up. The document calls the Founding Fathers "extremists" and draws a parallel to them and enemies of the state(see section titled “extremist ideologies”)

http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/judicial-watch-obtains-defense-department-teaching-documents-suggests-extremists-to-mainstream-conservative-views/

To Bryant:

This is the start of the echo chamber in which you seem to be listening to the most these days......the start is your government and the people you have rabidly supported.

Question for you now:

Are these the type of people you really want to hang your hat on??? Do you really want us to know that these people represent you???

Marconius wrote:I am posting a link to a page where you can download the official document. Once again the powers that be are calling the likes me "terrorists". They are once again officially demonizing conservatives. They are once again calling me a racist with no evidence to back it up. The document calls the Founding Fathers "extremists" and draws a parallel to them and enemies of the state(see section titled “extremist ideologies”)

http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/judicial-watch-obtains-defense-department-teaching-documents-suggests-extremists-to-mainstream-conservative-views/

To Bryant:

This is the start of the echo chamber in which you seem to be listening to the most these days......the start is your government and the people you have rabidly supported.

Question for you now:

Are these the type of people you really want to hang your hat on??? Do you really want us to know that these people represent you???

Show me where the article says that (other than in the JW title). I did a search on the terms "extremist" and "terrorist" and read every entry that came up. I also read pages 33-47, which appears to be the most relevant part of the document. I also did a search on the terms "Founding", "Fathers", "Conservative". Unless you define the modern conservative movement as a skinhead or militant anarchist movement, the document had nothing to say. The closest it came was on page 46, where it stated:

Nowadays, instead of dressing in sheets or publicly espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.

While that, taken completely out of context, might seem to condemn the states rights component of the conservative movement, the context is essential. The document argued that some modern extremist groups (this passage makes specific reference to the KKK) are now trying to spin their supremacist views into a more acceptable political narrative.

The document states, “In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements.  The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.”

You had to take writing classes, as I did. You know what putting these two examples, in the same sentence, back-to-back, invokes when it is read. It is a big no-no. It draws parallels between the two.

This document was also written by the same exact group(SPLC) who labeled Ron Paul Supporters as terror suspects back in 2009. It is used, for training, by the very same group(DOD) who has used the TEA Party as an example in two recent training documents for how to deal with insurrection. The TEA Party, as we all know, has been unjustly condemned as racists by the very same group(DOJ) who has recently said posse comitatus does not exist in tUSA.

Context is indeed essential and it is known.

Question still stands.

BTW, I have never heard any KKK member talking about state rights or the rights of the individual. That actually goes against what 99% of them believe(especially the rights of the individual part).

When was the last time you heard that??? Since you are in skin head territory, you must hear them say it all the time(in no way, shape or form saying you are a skin head.....just that there are a bunch up there).

Marconius wrote:I am posting a link to a page where you can download the official document. Once again the powers that be are calling the likes me "terrorists".

That's what disturbs me.  I don't recall this pov back in the 80s when I was in the Navy.  Something has happened to the leadership it seems.

Marconius wrote:BTW, I have never heard any KKK member talking about state rights or the rights of the individual. That actually goes against what 99% of them believe(especially the rights of the individual part).

When was the last time you heard that??? Since you are in skin head territory, you must hear them say it all the time(in no way, shape or form saying you are a skin head.....just that there are a bunch up there).

This isn't skin head country, thats up in Northern Idaho (I'm dreading the prospect of living in Idaho, I'm going to registered my Jeep in Oregon before I move). As Grant County's anti-UN ordnance attracted skin heads (again, the community block their effort to get a foot hold here), I'd imagine that they'd be on the 'states rights' band wagon. If there were very man skin heads around I'd probably be chilling in the Grant County jail, experience shows that Nazis and I don't mix well.

No worried, I knew there was no accusation there.

Is that a skinhead Ducks fan?
 

Marconius wrote:The document states, “In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements.  The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.”

You had to take writing classes, as I did. You know what putting these two examples, in the same sentence, back-to-back, invokes when it is read. It is a big no-no. It draws parallels between the two.

This document was also written by the same exact group(SPLC) who labeled Ron Paul Supporters as terror suspects back in 2009. It is used, for training, by the very same group(DOD) who has used the TEA Party as an example in two recent training documents for how to deal with insurrection. The TEA Party, as we all know, has been unjustly condemned as racists by the very same group(DOJ) who has recently said posse comitatus does not exist in tUSA.

Context is indeed essential and it is known.

Question still stands.

I think the parallel they were trying to draw is that both the founders of the USA and CSA were extremists who resorted violence to achieve their political ends. Many modern extremist groups view themselves in the same context.

Bryant wrote:

Marconius wrote:The document states, “In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements.  The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.”

You had to take writing classes, as I did. You know what putting these two examples, in the same sentence, back-to-back, invokes when it is read. It is a big no-no. It draws parallels between the two.

This document was also written by the same exact group(SPLC) who labeled Ron Paul Supporters as terror suspects back in 2009. It is used, for training, by the very same group(DOD) who has used the TEA Party as an example in two recent training documents for how to deal with insurrection. The TEA Party, as we all know, has been unjustly condemned as racists by the very same group(DOJ) who has recently said posse comitatus does not exist in tUSA.

Context is indeed essential and it is known.

Question still stands.

I think the parallel they were trying to draw is that both the founders of the USA and CSA were extremists who resorted violence to achieve their political ends.  Many modern extremist groups view themselves in the same context.

Well, I hope you can see the root of my anger(anger not towards you, but towards the topic). I served my country out of pride and love. Once in, I realized we didn't fight for the people. We fought for the whims of the powers that be. Now that I am out, I begin to read this crap. I am not alone. Most of my military brothers feel the same. Many things that have been written and said by those powers that be, show a lack of trust and caring for us. Spend some time lurking on forums dedicated to us ex-military. You will see that the bulk of us really do feel the way I do. For some POS special interest group who's time has come and gone, like the SPLC, to promote the idea that we are somehow terror threats is beyond repugnant. To know that current powers somehow puts stock into what they say is equally offensive to me as well as depressing. Couple that with the Constitutional teachings that the military gave us, and you have a bunch of pissed of dudes.

This is not the country I wanted to serve. I did not want to serve a government that compiles data on it citizenry; performs warrantless searches and seizures; restricts rights like free speech, self protection, and whatnot; makes simple travel a breach of personal space; militarizes its LEO's; allows and encourages mass portions of populace to live off the fruits of another; forces us to give to charities we do not agree with; tells us that the services provided by one individual is a right of another; forces the populace to purchase products or pay a penalty......the list goes on and on.

This is not what tUSA is supposed to be. If feeling that way makes me an extremist.....so be it. At least I fight the fight and will continue to do so. Most of us that they are trying to call extreme, are not extreme. We are not violent. Most have seen enough violence to never want to see more(I am eternally grateful to not be one of them). The fight we fight is with our ballot and our voice. I see more voices joining. One day it may be enough. To bad ubersmart people like yourself isn't one of them.

Bryant wrote:

Marconius wrote:BTW, I have never heard any KKK member talking about state rights or the rights of the individual. That actually goes against what 99% of them believe(especially the rights of the individual part).

When was the last time you heard that??? Since you are in skin head territory, you must hear them say it all the time(in no way, shape or form saying you are a skin head.....just that there are a bunch up there).

This isn't skin head country, thats up in Northern Idaho (I'm dreading the prospect of living in Idaho, I'm going to registered my Jeep in Oregon before I move).  As Grant County's anti-UN ordnance attracted skin heads (again, the community block their effort to get a foot hold here), I'd imagine that they'd be on the 'states rights' band wagon.  If there were very man skin heads around I'd probably be chilling in the Grant County jail, experience shows that Nazis and I don't mix well.

No worried, I knew there was no accusation there.

I do not play well with any statist....especially fascists.

Marconius wrote:

Well, I hope you can see the root of my anger(anger not towards you, but towards the topic). I served my country out of pride and love. Once in, I realized we didn't fight for the people. We fought for the whims of the powers that be. Now that I am out, I begin to read this crap. I am not alone. Most of my military brothers feel the same. Many things that have been written and said by those powers that be, show a lack of trust and caring for us. Spend some time lurking on forums dedicated to us ex-military. You will see that the bulk of us really do feel the way I do. For some POS special interest group who's time has come and gone, like the SPLC, to promote the idea that we are somehow terror threats is beyond repugnant. To know that current powers somehow puts stock into what they say is equally offensive to me as well as depressing. Couple that with the Constitutional teachings that the military gave us, and you have a bunch of pissed of dudes.

This is not the country I wanted to serve. I did not want to serve a government that compiles data on it citizenry; performs warrantless searches and seizures; restricts rights like free speech, self protection, and whatnot; makes simple travel a breach of personal space; militarizes its LEO's; allows and encourages mass portions of populace to live off the fruits of another; forces us to give to charities we do not agree with; tells us that the services provided by one individual is a right of another; forces the populace to purchase products or pay a penalty......the list goes on and on.

This is not what tUSA is supposed to be. If feeling that way makes me an extremist.....so be it. At least I fight the fight and will continue to do so. Most of us that they are trying to call extreme, are not extreme. We are not violent. Most have seen enough violence to never want to see more(I am eternally grateful to not be one of them). The fight we fight is with our ballot and our voice. I see more voices joining. One day it may be enough. To bad ubersmart people like yourself isn't one of them.

Yeah I see yer point.  Feeling that way doesn't make you an extremist, at least not to me.  Now the current admin might think we are extremists.     Gun toting people who believe the Constitution is not a living document.

Growing up I had an idealized idea about the USA, but learned some startling things while in the Navy.  Now I've learned a lot more and the USA is very different from what we were taught in Government classes in high school.  There are some sleazy things that happen.  I realize there have always been sleazy corrupt unlawful things that take place in this country.  But I think the corruption, unlawful search and seizures, disregard for law, prosecution of some and disregard others (often based on race or political view) is worse now than ever.

I'm still a patriot, still proud of my service, but I believe that our government can be changed peacefully and legally to something different.  If we could just find the right people to run for congress and President.

Speaking of the Navy, I wish now I had stayed in and retired from the Navy.  Now that I know what I know, I'd probably been a chief and could have retired in 2000 with a  nice fat pension.  And I'd have only missed the 1992 Bama NC game.  I still could have seen 09, 11&12.  Most of those years after 92 were dismal and depressing anyway.

I would just love to see bryants reaction if a DOD training manual came out under bush labeling liberalgroups as extrmists? This is one problem i really have with the left. I dont know about everyone on the right, but i personally try to stay consistent, and take offense to anyone's rights being abused, left or right. But everything is a double standard with the libs. Theyre so selective about where they take a stand, or DONT take a stand. Case in point, trayvon. Now compare that to the lack of outrage when the victims are white, and perps black. Its sad that any liberals can justify this, while not justifying moral equivalents.

Sir Pun wrote:I would just love to see bryants reaction if a DOD training manual came out under bush labeling liberalgroups as extrmists? This is one problem i really have with the left. I dont know about everyone on the right, but i personally try to stay consistent, and take offense to anyone's rights being abused, left or right. But everything is a double standard with the libs. Theyre so selective about where they take a stand, or DONT take a stand. Case in point, trayvon. Now compare that to the lack of outrage when the victims are white, and perps black. Its sad that any liberals can justify this, while not justifying moral equivalents.  

Many of them, not all by any means, even like to pick and choose what rights should and should not be protected. They get up in arms about encroachments to free speech yet show an overt hatred to selfprotection and freedom of religion. Sooner or later they will realize that all rights are equally important.

I honestly think the Libertarian Party will grow exponentially in the coming decade as young, 20-something Democrats grow up and realize that government is not the answer to their problems and there is no easy fix. Many will also learn that the phrase "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" only applies until such time as they are in "the few".

Always remember that the individual is the world's smallest minority. The needs and wants of the many never justifies trampling over the rights of the few.....even if the few is just one guy. The ends do not justify the means since no truly good "end" can ever come from "means" that are not good in and of themselves.

Sir Pun wrote:I would just love to see bryants reaction if a DOD training manual came out under bush labeling liberalgroups as extrmists? This is one problem i really have with the left. I dont know about everyone on the right, but i personally try to stay consistent, and take offense to anyone's rights being abused, left or right. But everything is a double standard with the libs. Theyre so selective about where they take a stand, or DONT take a stand. Case in point, trayvon. Now compare that to the lack of outrage when the victims are white, and perps black. Its sad that any liberals can justify this, while not justifying moral equivalents.  

Read the document contained in the article Marc posted. The document was part of a training for DOD personnel to help them detect extremists trying to join the military (the document argues that there is a problem with skin heads and white separatists joining to get military training). The report does come out and warn about black separatists (ie black panthers), terrorists (ie ELF/ALF), and anarchists.

Bottom line(and this actually may sound like I am agreeing with the document):

The concept of an entire nation premised exclusively on the natural rights of free men exercising sovereignty, individually in most matters, and collectively in a small number of tasks limited to res publica, was, and still is, radical. Those who want to "fundamentally change America" are not the exception among the nations of the earth, they are the rule. There already are hundreds of master-governments with servant-subjects.

America stands alone as a nation with a servant-government, and the progressives (regressives is more accurate) who want to up-end the relationship are not proposing a new idea, but rather a tired old vision of man's need to be "ruled" by other men.

In the end, I guess the document IS correct. I guess I, and other like minded individuals, are indeed extreme when compared to others that inhabit this little dust speck we call home. Stewing over this, in my mind, leaves me disgusted and depressed.

Goodnight Platform Hermosa!!!!

May you be fog free in the morning!!!!