Will They Exempt Radical Muslims?

South Carolina is looking to move closer to the big brother world where thoughts and ideas are punished. A piece of legislation is out there that requires organizations (defined as 2 or more members of a group) that have beliefs which include the overthrow of the US government, to register with the state.

I don’t see where it is any of the state’s business what your group believes. If you believe that it is OK to overthrow the government then that is your right. If you actually try to do that you will have problems and that is when you should be dealt with.

Do we require people who belong to groups that want to commit crime to register that they believe it is OK to knock off banks and steal their money?

And how many of these groups would actually register? If you believe that you need to overthrow the government would you actually register with the government?

There are exemptions for groups (including religious groups) as long as they do not believe in overthrowing the government.

So will the radical Muslim groups be required to register? They believe that it is their duty to replace our system of government with Sharia Law so should they have to register?

Just as importantly, should the Democrat party (lead by Barack Obama) be required to register in South Carolina?

It is their intention to overthrow our government and replace it with their Socialist form of governance.

They are just as dangerous and any group defined in the South Carolina legislation.

The legislation is called the SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES REGISTRATION ACT and there is no group more subversive than the Democrat party.

Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

39 Responses to “Will They Exempt Radical Muslims?”

  1. Adam says:

    This sounds unnecessary anyway since the FBI probably already knows about and watches most of the groups that would need to register. Any important group leaves bread crumbs the FBI can easily follow. It’s the lone wolves that are the problem.

    Yet, when you say there is “no group more subversive than the Democratic party” we all know you’re kidding yourself. Or maybe the definition of subversion has been watered down? You also get a dig in at radical Islam as if there are just radical Islamic groups everywhere in America unlike the right wing militia groups that are growing again.

    Cover for these nut jobs all you want by deflecting the blame on Islam and the Democratic Party but we both know which side loves to bitterly cling to their guns. Here’s a clue: it’s not the Democrats.

    • Blake says:

      Wow- and just who is hell- bent on attacking the US?
      Is it us gun-clingers and Bible readers? I do not seem to recall many instances of this- perhaps it might be (Gasp!) Muslims? Seems I heard of a case regarding planes and buildings- oh, and guns and an Army base- and an organization of radical (no, not swedes) muslims who declared us as their enemy.
      And wonder of wonders, it is the progressives who scream “racism” and “profiling” everytime someone sane brings up the ethnicity of these scumbags who should just be wiped off the face of this earth- they want to visit paradise? I say lets assist them on their way.

  2. Big Dog says:

    Adam, leave it to you to miss the point. Radical Islam believes in changing our government and it is supposedly a religion. Will they allow it to be exempt.

    Sure, it has been the right wing groups that have attacked the US. It was radical Islam. The militia groups do not want the overthrow of the government, they are just prepared to act if government becomes a tyranny, like our founders did. It is also worthy to note that none of the people who assassinated or attempted to assassinate our presidents have been conservatives. They are people more aligned with your side which uses violence to get its way. Eco-terrorists, etc.

    It is not a matter of cover, it is a matter of privacy. What right does the government have to make them register. Perhaps if government made your kind register we would not have had the Civil War or assassinated presidents.

    • Adam says:

      “It is also worthy to note that none of the people who assassinated or attempted to assassinate our presidents have been conservatives.”

      That’s awesome. I’d love to see your evidence.

      I can play a similar game I’m sure. For instance here are five people from the US military (you know, your people?) that have attempted to or succeeded at killing a US President.

      Frank Eugene Corder – Army: Tried to kill Clinton by flying an airplane onto the lawn of the White House

      Francisco Martin Duran – Army: Fired at people on the White House lawn trying to shoot Clinton

      Lee Harvey Oswald – Marines: Killed Kennedy

      Samuel Joseph Byck – Army: Tried to kill Nixon

      Sara Jane Moore- Women’s Army Corps: Tried to kill Ford

      So before you try and blame all the insanity and various motivating factors of all the dozens of would be assassins of US presidents on the views you consider to be part of “my side” you might want to check your facts.

      “It is not a matter of cover, it is a matter of privacy.”

      I agree that they should not have to register. I just think you’re deflecting from the real threat of militia members to an imaginary threat from radical Islam and Democrats in the US. Name one radical Islamic group in the US that has been any more or less of a threat to US security than the average redneck militia group. Name one group of Democrats that has tried to overthrow the government. You’re being ridiculous as usual.

  3. carter says:

    W was quoted as saying that he never thought there were people in Congress who actually hated America but he was proved wrong.
    These are the ones who have raised the debt ceiling and spent your Grandchildrens inheritance; cair files lawsuits and both are subverting our form of Government.
    Here is a mooslim thrrat to US security:
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,570146,00.html Wander through Michigan and you will find more.
    Corder was a drug addict.
    Duran was a felon.
    Oswald was Red.
    Byck suffered from mental illness.
    Moore was quoted as saying ” I did it to create chaos”.
    Fine conservative examples?
    Site pest for sure.

  4. Big Dog says:

    Adam makes the mistake of thinking that because the people served in the military they were conservative. I can understand his confusion since greater than 80% of those who serve are but not all of them. He fails to show what they were, only assumes based on military service. Here is something about Corder:

    Friends claim he bore no ill will towards President Bill Clinton and likely only wanted the publicity of the stunt, based largely on his sentiments towards Mathias Rust’s flight of a Cessna 172 from Finland to Moscow, USSR. The President was not even in the mansion at the time due to renovations, but was instead staying at Blair House.

    Duran was a mental case who thought aliens had invaded.

    Oswald was a Communist

    Moore was a self styled radical.

    Adam showed his contempt for the military by assuming that those who served were conservative and bent on killing presidents when not all who serve are conservative.

    The only one who sited anything conservative was Duran who said he was inspired by a neocon radio host.

    The nonexistant threat radical Muslims pose. The Muslims attacked this country on 9/11 and many times before (by attacking our intertests). How many times have these so called dangerous militia groups attacked us.

    Adam, you display your contempt with your statements.

    • Adam says:

      “Adam makes the mistake of thinking that because the people served in the military they were conservative.”

      “Adam showed his contempt for the military by assuming that those who served were conservative…”

      I don’t mean “your people” as in conservative. I mean your people as in your comrades in arms you often refer to. It was not a serious example anyway, just showing you how I too could spin a number of the attacks to my own agenda when one really isn’t there.

      We both know there have been numerous attacks with varied motives and mental states involved. Saying none of the attackers have been conservative is a flat out lie. Why do you choose a lie when the truth is so much easier?

      “The nonexistent threat radical Muslims pose.”

      Notice you left off the part about inside the US. South Carolina wouldn’t expect Pakistani radicals to register, would they? International terrorism is another monster altogether but you need to confuse the two to make your point.

      As far as I can tell there has never been a major threat to the US government by a radical Islamic group in the US nor by the Democratic party. My only point is you ignore the danger militant and often white supremacist groups pose to the United States by pretending there is a greater threat by Muslims and Democrats. You’re dishonest and you know it.

      “Adam, you display your contempt with your statements.”

      Yes, I do have a large amount of contempt for anti-government militia and white supremacist groups. Why don’t you?

      • Adam says:

        “How many times have these so called dangerous militia groups attacked us.”

        Did you sleep through the 90’s? Or were you just so busy thinking about President Clinton’s sex life that you missed all the militia movement confrontations, arrests and convictions? They for sure weren’t arrested for being tofu eating eco-terrorists.

      • Darrel says:

        Bigd: ““How many times have these so called dangerous militia groups attacked us.””>>

        DAR
        Nothing like a good softball across the plate on a Monday morning:

        “As early as 1994, members of the Blue Ridge Hunt Club, a nascent Virginia militia group, had been arrested on a variety of weapons charges. The following year an Oklahoma Christian Identity minister and militia leader, Ray Lampley, was arrested along with several followers for conspiring to blow up targets ranging from government buildings to the offices of civil rights organizations. But in 1996, a series of investigations resulted in a number of major militia-related arrests, generally on illegal weapons, explosives and conspiracy charges. In April 1996, several members of the Georgia Republic Militia were arrested, followed in July by a dozen members of the Arizona Viper Militia. Later that same month, members of the Washington State Militia found themselves in custody, while in October members of the West Virginia Mountaineer Militia were arres-ted on weapons charges and in connection with plans to blow up an F.B.I. fingerprinting facility. These arrests, not surprisingly, had a depressing effect on the movement.”

        “…In Michigan, a group of militia members, allegedly kicked out of the Michigan Militia for being too radical, formed a group first called the “Goof Troop,” then, with more dignity, the North American Militia. Members planned to bomb a large number of targets in Michigan, including a federal building and an I.R.S. building; they constructed a variety of pipe bombs and even discussed assassinating various government officials. By 1998, five members of the group had been arrested and convicted on multiple charges; leaders Brad Metcalf and Randy Graham received 40- and 55-year sentences, respectively. In Missouri, a group of extremists from several different states, led by Bradley Glover of Kansas, met at a gathering of the “Third Continental Congress,” but decided that this umbrella group was not radical enough for them. They struck out on their own, planning to attack United States military bases that they suspected were training New World Order troops…. The first planned attack would occur against Fort Hood, Texas, on July 4, 1997 — the day that the military base hosts an annual “Freedom Festival” attended by 50,000 men, women and children. Luckily, good police work on the part of the Missouri State Highway Patrol and the F.B.I. detected the plans and prevented a tragedy; Glover and a companion were arrested on July 4 at a campground near Fort Hood. Eventually seven people were arrested in connection with the group.”
        LINK.

        Then we get spawn like Timothy McVeigh, a student of these groups who broke away and pulled it off.

        Etc.

  5. Big Dog says:

    Yes, I do have a large amount of contempt for anti-government militia and white supremacist groups. Why don’t you?

    Our Founders would fit in this group, based on your definition.

    I have no contempt for them because they are exercising their rights and they have not done anything to attack the country. I don’t see groups of the people who you describe trying to take over the country. I see groups who are preparing in case the government becomes oppressive and tyrannical, just as our Founders did.

    Radical Islam has attacked us and continues to discuss attacking us and doing away with our government and putting Sharia law in place. Why don’t you see that as a threat?

    You never expressed your contempt for the Che T-shirt wearing people at your anti war protests or the anarchists who write about attacking the country.

    And where is your contempt for Bill Ayers, a man who actually did commit acts of terror and bomb this country? Where is your contempt for his association with Obama?

    Oh yeah, they are liberals so they can’t be wrong and they can’t be worthy of your contempt.

    • Adam says:

      “Our Founders would fit in this group, based on your definition.”

      If you think the cause of anti-government militia or racist hate groups is the same cause that our founders were part of when they fought against the British then you’re one delusional man.

      The militia movement seeks to elevate it’s cause to that level but of course they’re just a bunch of gun toting anti-government nut jobs day dreaming about the day when they can shoot the people they oppose because they refuse to be part of the political process.

      “Radical Islam has attacked us and … Why don’t you see that as a threat?”

      Why do you still seek to mix international terrorism with domestic terrorism? There is a threat from international terrorist groups, yes. Is there a major threat from domestic Islamic terrorist groups? No. What threat does exist is monitored by the FBI already.

      “You never expressed your contempt for the Che T-shirt … or the anarchists … And where is your contempt for Bill Ayers…”

      Do I need to show contempt for random things you dream up to list? You’re the one defending radical right wing militias and saying domestic Islamic groups are a bigger threat. I have never supported or defended any of those things.

      “Where is your contempt for his association with Obama?”

      You mean where is my contempt for the association that your side fabricated? I’m sorry I’m not one of the rubes out there outraged over all this stuff the right wing media just made up completely.

  6. Adam says:

    The bottom line here is no group should have to register in South Carolina. It’s a stupid idea.

    But do I think that domestic Islamic groups or the Democrats are a big threat? No. They’re not. You’re dreaming.

    The right wing militia movement actually has been a problem in the 90’s and 90’s and is growing again. They are in far greater numbers and a far greater threat.

    I know you sympathize with these gun nuts and the former military groups like the Oath Keepers but they’re kooks. These anti-government, racist, conservative groups are the base of the Tea Party movement as well.

    It’s a shame to see good people duped by all the right wing lies and paranoia at these Tea Party events.

    • Big Dog says:

      How does keeping the oath to the Constitution make a person a kook? Do you think Obama is keeping his oath and if so does that make him a kook?

      They are only lies to those of you blinded by inexperience and rewritten history.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “These anti-government, racist, conservative groups are the base of the Tea Party movement as well.”>>

      DAR
      There is an unscientific Fox poll asking

      “What Do You Think Tea Party Movement Is About?”

      Currently 83%, with 267,000 polled, say:

      “Fruitless mix of racism, conspiracy theories”

      Vote here.

      • Big Dog says:

        First of all, that quote you attributed to me was Adam’s. I would never say that.

        An unscientific poll, well I guess it is OK for you to neglect science when it suits you.

        Probably the Kos morons who are the real racists conspiracy idiots.

        Funny, Adam was all on board with the Code Pinkos and the others protesting the war. Once it is a group opposed to his views they are racist groups.

        That is the retort of the left, shout racism. I guess if you all keep screaming it enough you will forget your racist past and present.

        • Adam says:

          “Funny, Adam was all on board with the Code Pinkos and the others protesting the war. Once it is a group opposed to his views they are racist groups.”

          First of all I’ve never been for or against Code Pink so don’t make stuff up. Second, stop pretending again that I only claim racism because I don’t support it. The tea party movement is co-founded by a racist and is propped up by racists and birthers to this day. Keep ignoring it though. It’s just your credibility at stake.

          “I guess if you all keep screaming it enough you will forget your racist past and present.”

          Liberals have no racist past but you’re too dense to read your history books correctly to find out.

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: “that quote you attributed to me was Adam’s”>>

          DAR
          Oops, my boo. I knew it was him but my hand typed “Bigd.”

  7. Big Dog says:

    Fabricated? Now who is delusional. The associations are real and documented.

    I do not defend and group that is radical and resorts to violence, I only defend the right of any group to think what it wants and as long as it does not act violently then there is no problem.

    Radical Islam is here and plotting or have YOU been asleep when the cells and plots are discovered?

    You call them gun nuts but when did they start the trouble. Ruby Ridge, initiated by the government who killed a woman. McVeigh? Acted with a co-conspirator, not a right wing militia group, over frustration from perceived injustices while in the Army. In the 90s, seems to me the first WTC bombing was during that time. Hmm, who was responsible for that?

    • Adam says:

      “How does keeping the oath to the Constitution make a person a kook?”

      When you start to delude yourself and arm yourself because you think local, state, and federal law enforcement will not be sufficient to protect the citizens and that the government itself will be a threat you need to oppose. We know you sympathize with it so I don’t expect you to understand why it’s wrong.

      “Radical Islam is here and plotting or have YOU been asleep when the cells and plots are discovered?”

      Again, I don’t deny that there are some threats from domestic Islamic terrorists. It’s just not the threat you pretend it is and it’s sure not as big of a threat as the right wing militia movement.

      You think the Democrats are more subversive than the militia movement so I don’t expect you to see my point.

      “Fabricated? Now who is delusional. The associations are real and documented.”

      Obama had no close relationship with Ayers, much less support for Ayer’s radical past or agenda. This poo didn’t stick in the election but I guess you want to keep flinging it anyway.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “I do not defend and group that is radical and resorts to violence, I only defend the right of any group to think what it wants and as long as it does not act violently then there is no problem.”>>

      DAR
      What if it plans to act violently? How is that not conspiracy to commit treason? Is that what you are defending?

      In your article you refer to groups that: “have beliefs which include the overthrow of the US government.”

      It would be interesting to see where the ACLU comes down on this. This is a fine line. Groups can hold beliefs that they want, but if they are organized in part to fulfill their “belief” that the duly elected government should be overthrown, well then that’s a conspiracy to commit a crime isn’t it? See above for several examples of these paranoid wack-job groups trying to do this.

      D.

      • Big Dog says:

        If it plans to act that is a law enforcement matter and that is what law enforcement does. There would need to be evidence that this is the case just as they have evidence when they arrest radical Muslims who are plotting attacks.

        The anarchists are a group that fits the bill as well as the communists and the radical Muslims, they all want to overthrow our government.

        Adam, as for the Democrats being subversive, they are doing their work without arms. They keep moving us closer and closer to Socialism and that is not the government we set up so they are trying to overthrow what we have. There is your treason.

        The oath keepers are a group that is sworn to keep their oath to the Constitution and since you already acknowledged that keeping that oath does not make one a kook, they are not kooks.

        I know it is tough for you to see the connections between Obama and Ayers but that is OK. The connections are more solid than the supposed one between the Bushes and the Saudi Royal family but that allowed you and your ilk to go on about 9/11. The connections are tighter than those made between Palin and some religious group but the left ran with it.

        The connections exist if we want them to, eh?

        When you start to delude yourself and arm yourself because you think local, state, and federal law enforcement will not be sufficient to protect the citizens and that the government itself will be a threat you need to oppose. We know you sympathize with it so I don’t expect you to understand why it’s wrong.

        Adam, this is the reason we have the Second Amendment. To protect us from government. Read the writing of the Founders and learn. Government cannot protect us, if it could there would be no murders and there would be no crime. The police react or as they say, when seconds count the police are minutes away…

        People arm themselves because they like to shoot, they hunt and they want protection.

        I wonder if you can see the irony of saying that we do not need protection when Obama has hundreds of armed guards protecting him. If we all had that level of protection we would not need to be armed.

        Read the history of why there is a Second and why people arm themselves. A disarmed populace is an enslaved populace.

        Remember, governments are comprised of men and they become tyrants if left unchecked. We found it to be true with the British and many other countries (think Hitler and the Jews) found out at the expense of millions of lives. Hitler disarmed the Jews and then he killed them.

        Am I saying this is the direction of America? No but we need to remain ever vigilant to ensure it does not happen.

        • Adam says:

          “I wonder if you can see the irony of saying that we do not need protection when Obama has hundreds of armed guards protecting him.”

          Irony? No. Where did I say people shouldn’t be armed or protect themselves? We’re not talking about lawful, personal use of fire arms. We’re talking about a network of right wing anti-government fanatics that hoard weapons, conspire and break the law. If the militia movement was just a bunch of 2nd amendment supporters exercising their right to bare arms then we’d be just fine. Too bad that’s not the case.

          “Adam, this is the reason we have the Second Amendment. To protect us from government.”

          Yes, and thank God we have the government to crack down on these kooks that choose the bullet over the ballot like your trusty militia groups seem to always be itching to do.

          “The oath keepers are a group that is sworn to keep their oath to the Constitution…”

          Once again you just ignore the reality. These people are fanatics and they foster an atmosphere of fear and intolerance in conservative America. This is the saddest part of the Tea Party movement. These people are just a bunch of honest folks duped by fear and lies coming from leaders who make money off of it like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and all the other cowards that spread their fear.

  8. Big Dog says:

    So Darrel, the answer is none. They were arrested before they attacked us. There are nuts in every group, the left has its own (think Ayers and his ilk, the anarchists, etal), but these folks were arrested for illegal weapons and plotting violence, just like we do when we hear about radical Islamists who are plotting on our soil.

    Once again, none have attacked us, thanks for pointing that out. You answered a question, just not the one I posed.

    And as I recall, John Kerry was at that Winter Soldier’s meeting where they discussed assassinating government officials…

  9. Big Dog says:

    Of course you are wrong Adam but that should surprise no one. There is no law against hoarding weapons and ammo (as long as they are not illegal weapons or ammo).

    If they conspire to overthrow the government then there is a problem, if they hoard to protect against government tyranny then there is not.

    The problem is, you and Napolitano are using the Alinsky method of isolating the target and going after them. You all feel that by making them out to be more then they really are then you can paint everyone with a wide brush.

    You did the same with the Oath Keepers. To you they are nuts but I understand that. A progressive such as yourself does not know how to keep and oath and the ends justify the means.

    No problem and you will never have to worry about the oath keepers or the militia as long as you and the government do not try to force people to do things they do not want to do and as long as government does not become tyrannical.

    If it does there will be hell to pay.

    You paint them as nuts but they do not want the government to interfere with their lives and they are tired of government ignoring the Constitution.

    You can call them what you want but they are willing to do what is necessary to protect the country from all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC.

    And that is what our Founders would expect.

    • Adam says:

      “A progressive such as yourself does not know how to keep and oath and the ends justify the means.”

      Can you see me rolling my eyes again at your petty and stupid insult?

      “And that is what our Founders would expect.”

      Sorry, but once again you link what these right wing nut jobs want to do to the founders. Get real. The founders would have had these folks arrested and tried for treason and that is what many of them deserve.

      You want to deflect by pretending I’m talking about regular gun owners or even the average service member but we both know better. There is a radical and racist movement growing just like in the 90’s and while you’re busy peeing your pants over the treat of Islam these groups will be plotting to push back the federal government one judge, one legislator, one federal building at a time and a few of them just might succeed.

      No good can come from the regrowth of the militia movement. There are too many people fanning the flames of fear and intolerance and somebody is going to get hurt. The sad thing is that if something does happen you’ll leap to your keyboard to attack Obama for missing an attack by a group you swore wasn’t a threat at all to start with.

  10. Big Dog says:

    Liberals have no racist past. HAHAHAHAHA now that is a good one.

    You slave owners.

    You civil rights opposers.

    You Jim Crow lynchers.

    Not you guys though.

    I have read history books but they were written long before you friends like Bill Ayers and his ilk helped rewrite them.

    You call everyone a racist. Tea Party group, not racist. Unless those blacks there are racist.

    Adam, you really are funny. I get a kick out of all your worldly knowledge and knowledge of history.

    You do support the pinkos and others and you have attended the anti war rallies.

    You try to isolate the Tea Party members because they are a threat to the progressive way of life.

    There have been no acts of violence by them (only your libs attacking them) and none of them have broken the law.

    I know, you see a few signs from the fringe and label them all. Perhaps you have forgotten all the signs that your lefty buddies had at the protests. I saw them, I was there in opposition. They were vile and featured bad things about soldiers and Bush hanging by a rope with calls for him to be assassinated.

    What? Not the peaceful liberals. Yes, those a$$holes who were big and bad until they ran into the real men. Then they tucked their tails and ran…

    Typical cut and run liberals.

    • Adam says:

      “You slave owners. You civil rights opposers. You Jim Crow lynchers. Not you guys though.”

      Yes, it’s a simple lie that you can repeat over and over again. You do it so well…

      “Unless those blacks there are racist.”

      I never said every person attending is a racist. I’m sure the 2 non-crackers at these rallies appreciate my clarification though.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “Liberals have no racist past. HAHAHAHAHA now that is a good one.”>>

      DAR
      Perhaps you can name some famous, liberal, racists from history (aside from the obvious couple comments from Jessie Jackson and that other guy with funny hair).

      Let’s see it.

      Was the KKK a bunch of “liberals?”

      Do you also believe Nixon supporters were against the Vietnam war and it was the liberals who were for it?

      How far you wanna go down dumb dumb road? All the way to Silly town?

      Do remember the definitions of these words. Conservatives, by definition want to conserve the past and thus are resistant to reforms. And the past was filled with far more racism and oppression of minorities than today. This changed because of the efforts of liberals making liberal reforms directly in the teeth of conservative opposition, whether it be from Demos or Repubs (an entirely different distinction).

      Liberals, by definition, are open to progress, civil liberties and differing points of view. Note:

      “4) favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.”

      Racism, owning slaves and opposition to civil rights is BY DEFINITION against liberalism. If you are for those things, you are, by definition, not a liberal.

      So you’ve lost the game before you can even start. I forgot how stupid this entire line of argument is.

      • Big Dog says:

        You are distorting definitions. The liberals were the KKK and they were the Democrats. The progressives as you call them are evil and will move us closer to socialism. Conservatism is not about conserving the past (you libs wanted that when you opposed the end of slavery and allowing civil rights). Conservatism is about continuity and conserving the Constitution.

        Nice try though.

  11. Adam says:

    SPLC on the second wave of the militia movement:

    The situation has many authorities worried. Militiamen, white supremacists, anti-Semites, nativists, tax protesters and a range of other activists of the radical right are cross-pollinating and may even be coalescing. In the words of a February report from law enforcement officials in Missouri, a variety of factors have combined recently to create “a lush environment for militia activity.

    Another federal law enforcement official knowledgeable about militia groups agrees. He asked not to be identified because he is not authorized to speak publicly about them. “They’re not at the level we saw in ’94-’95,” he says. “But this is the most significant growth we’ve seen in 10 to 12 years. All it’s lacking is a spark. I think it’s only a matter of time before you see threats and violence.”

  12. Big Dog says:

    Crackers? You racist pig. Imagine if I used some term to describe blacks, you would call me racist and yet you feel free to use such racist language here.

    We never have to worry about non a$$holes as long as you are around.

    And if you can show exactly how these people committed treason I would be happy to hear about it.

    John Kerry committed treason when he met with the enemy during war. But if you can show me how any of these groups engaged in war against the US then I would be happy to see that.

    Kerry did adhere to our enemies, and that is treason.

  13. Big Dog says:

    Well that anonymous law enforcement guy who is not authorized to speak sure has an OPINION. I think we might see something. Oooh, I am scared.

    And the groups you describe are small in number and consist of a minority. Hell, your KKK had more members in its hey day.

    And the anti semites are the Democrats.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “your KKK had more members in its hey day.”>>

      DAR
      Maybe Bigd ought to see about getting the wiki blurb on the KKK corrected:

      “Ku Klux Klan (KKK), informally known as The Klan, is the name of several past and present far right hate group organizations in the United States whose avowed purpose was to protect the rights of and further the interests of white Americans by violence and intimidation. The first such organizations originated in the Southern states and eventually grew to national scope. They developed iconic white costumes consisting of robes, masks, and conical hats. The KKK has a record of using terrorism,[2] violence, and lynching to murder and oppress African Americans, Jews and other minorities and to intimidate and oppose Roman Catholics and labor unions.”

  14. Big Dog says:

    Adam, I would appreciate it if you did not use the terms cracker or honkey to refer to white people. It is offensive and racist.

    I would not expect you to use the N word or jiggaboo or darkie so I don’t expect you to use these either.

    • Darrel says:

      Actually, it is okay for a white person to use the N word, it just has to be under the right circumstances. Chris Rock explains the detailed rules on this. You can see the 2.47 minute clip on youtube here.

      [Warning, strong language.]

    • Adam says:

      “It is offensive and racist.”

      Sure it is. To you. But what about gringo?

      Once again I apologize for using those hard words that remind you of the pain and bigotry you’ve suffered from being a white man in America. It’s a hard life for us in the majority. We can’t change our skin though so we just have to soldier on.