Yet another confirmation that Joe Biden should never be Vice President of the United States. At a meeting/dinner for elite politicians and media personalities that wish to cozy up to elite politicians, Vice-Pres. Biden disclosed during dinner conversation the existence and location of a secret security bunker located at the Vice President's quarters. The Naval observatory has been the residence of the Vice President since 1976.
I believe that we should simply no build Vice Pres. Biden a new one. Maybe that will teach to reveal national security secrets over dinner! After the witch-hunt that followed the releasing of Valerie Plame's name by the VP office under Cheney, I wonder whether we would now be justified to charge Vice President Biden with revealing national security secrets?
Monday, May 18, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Unclassified Extremism Lexicon
The biased nature of the current administration is on full display again today in an Unclassified and recalled document originally distributed to law enforcement officials by the Department of Homeland Security. This "dictionary" was an attempt to establish some sort of universal definitions for extremist groups and activities. On the surface that sounds like a great idea; all law enforcement should be on the same page as far as Federal laws are concerned. However, a more detailed reading of the 12 page document reveal the extreme bias of the current administration.
The definition of Leftist Extremism states:
"A movement of groups or individuals that embraces anticapitalist, Communist or Socialist doctorines and seeks to bring about change through violent revolution rather than the established political processes. The term also refers to leftwing, single issue extremist movements that are dedicated to causes such as environmentalism, opposition to war, and the rights of animals."
Contrast that now with Rightwing Extremism:
"A movement of rightwing groups or individuals who can be broadly divided into those who are primarily hate-oriented and those who are mainly antigovernment and reject federal authority in favor of state and local authority. This term may also refer to rightwing extremist movements that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."
This differences in these two definitions illustrates the intense bias of the author. Evidently the author doesn't feel that it is leftist extremism to embrace anticapitalist, Communisit or Socialist doctorines. It is only extreme if you attempt to bring about changes in the current system through a violent revolution. The way you act and not the way your personal beliefs, make you an extremist. I would love to see any data that actually suggests that this is the way the average American defines leftist extremism.
The author of this document gives no such caveat to the rightwing extremist. Merely believing anything that the author would define at "hate-oriented" is rightwing extremism. The term is so broad that it can be interpreted to mean anything the author wants. If you do not agree with race based affirmative action, the author could feel you are motivated by hate and you are a rightwing extremist. Rightwing extremism can therefore only be defined by its opposition, making it possible to have any ideology become rightwing extremism by merely changing the individual interpreting the phrase "hate-oriented".
There is no burden of proof in order to determine a motivation. In law the appearance of a motive is enough to satisfy the demands of the law. In other words, you have to prove there is a possible motive, but you do not have to prove that an individual actually used the suggested motive when he committed an act. Many times prosecutors will state either multiple motives and tell a jury to pick one that's their favortie, or not offer a motive because they claim to be unable to comprehend what any true motive would be. The point is that the world is full of so many individuals with as many different ways of reasoning any situation that any possible motive can be concieved in any situation. Therefore, any ideology can be twisted by an interpretor to such an extent that it could be labeled "hate-oriented". Give it a try.
Here is a fun one. State welfare is directed to poor people and takes money through taxes from people who have more. If an interpretor states, "The money is being taken from the people who have, merely because the state hates rich people", then the position meets the qualifications outlined in the definition and becomes rightwing extremism. Remember, you don't even have to actually be involved in attemtpting to violently take the money like Robin Hood, you merely would have to share in Robin Hood's ideology that the rich should give their money to the poor. Taxes established through the current political process by correctedly elected officials and obtained without any violence would be rightwing extremism.
Moreover, the author defines anitgovernment not as some form of anarchism, but as those individuals who reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority. It isn't that you don't want any government to be charge of an issue, but that you don't want the Federal government to be in charge of an issue. This means that the a majority of the drafters of the US Constitution were rightwing extremists. The 10th Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Do you feel that states should have more control then the Federal government on any issue? If so you are a rightwing extremist according to this lexicon from the Department of Homeland Security.
Try this ridiculous example. If you believe that the states should have the right to decide whether or not they will allow homosexual marriage, even if you support homosexual marriage, and you therefore reject the federal government's authority to define marriage laws, you are a rightwing extremist.
There is little wonder this thing was recalled. Did Napolitano not hire any new proofreaders or editors for the Department of Homeland Security documents?
The definition of Leftist Extremism states:
"A movement of groups or individuals that embraces anticapitalist, Communist or Socialist doctorines and seeks to bring about change through violent revolution rather than the established political processes. The term also refers to leftwing, single issue extremist movements that are dedicated to causes such as environmentalism, opposition to war, and the rights of animals."
Contrast that now with Rightwing Extremism:
"A movement of rightwing groups or individuals who can be broadly divided into those who are primarily hate-oriented and those who are mainly antigovernment and reject federal authority in favor of state and local authority. This term may also refer to rightwing extremist movements that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."
This differences in these two definitions illustrates the intense bias of the author. Evidently the author doesn't feel that it is leftist extremism to embrace anticapitalist, Communisit or Socialist doctorines. It is only extreme if you attempt to bring about changes in the current system through a violent revolution. The way you act and not the way your personal beliefs, make you an extremist. I would love to see any data that actually suggests that this is the way the average American defines leftist extremism.
The author of this document gives no such caveat to the rightwing extremist. Merely believing anything that the author would define at "hate-oriented" is rightwing extremism. The term is so broad that it can be interpreted to mean anything the author wants. If you do not agree with race based affirmative action, the author could feel you are motivated by hate and you are a rightwing extremist. Rightwing extremism can therefore only be defined by its opposition, making it possible to have any ideology become rightwing extremism by merely changing the individual interpreting the phrase "hate-oriented".
There is no burden of proof in order to determine a motivation. In law the appearance of a motive is enough to satisfy the demands of the law. In other words, you have to prove there is a possible motive, but you do not have to prove that an individual actually used the suggested motive when he committed an act. Many times prosecutors will state either multiple motives and tell a jury to pick one that's their favortie, or not offer a motive because they claim to be unable to comprehend what any true motive would be. The point is that the world is full of so many individuals with as many different ways of reasoning any situation that any possible motive can be concieved in any situation. Therefore, any ideology can be twisted by an interpretor to such an extent that it could be labeled "hate-oriented". Give it a try.
Here is a fun one. State welfare is directed to poor people and takes money through taxes from people who have more. If an interpretor states, "The money is being taken from the people who have, merely because the state hates rich people", then the position meets the qualifications outlined in the definition and becomes rightwing extremism. Remember, you don't even have to actually be involved in attemtpting to violently take the money like Robin Hood, you merely would have to share in Robin Hood's ideology that the rich should give their money to the poor. Taxes established through the current political process by correctedly elected officials and obtained without any violence would be rightwing extremism.
Moreover, the author defines anitgovernment not as some form of anarchism, but as those individuals who reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority. It isn't that you don't want any government to be charge of an issue, but that you don't want the Federal government to be in charge of an issue. This means that the a majority of the drafters of the US Constitution were rightwing extremists. The 10th Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Do you feel that states should have more control then the Federal government on any issue? If so you are a rightwing extremist according to this lexicon from the Department of Homeland Security.
Try this ridiculous example. If you believe that the states should have the right to decide whether or not they will allow homosexual marriage, even if you support homosexual marriage, and you therefore reject the federal government's authority to define marriage laws, you are a rightwing extremist.
There is little wonder this thing was recalled. Did Napolitano not hire any new proofreaders or editors for the Department of Homeland Security documents?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
