Featured Defense Department guide calls Founding Fathers ‘extremist’

All ya gotta do is read the reports put out by the DHS and other various govt agencies to figure out the threat that most worries Washington is from those who would not take knidly to having a totalitarian govt forced on us.

To put it bluntly the govt is convinced the biggest threat to it's ill gotten power are white Christian constitutionalists with guns. All through out history freedom from tyranny has always been considered a dangerous form of extremism by the elite ruling class. Why should it be any different now?

 

After studying the lesson plan here are a couple of things from my perspective.

I am not bothered by the following quote:

Both of those cases were examples of extremism in the Goldwater sense of the word.

I am also not bothered by a supposition that is was not 'anti-Muslim' enough. In the list of six historical examples of violent extremism The Sudan massacre and 9/11 (both which included Muslim references) are equated with Hitler and Pol Pot. I think that is an accurate and fair depiction.

I also appreciate this statement:

though I am bothered by the second half of the quote.

I am very bothered by the subtle (or maybe not so subtle) implication tying extremism to hatred. The word 'hater' is tossed about with ease by the teacher who wrote the lesson plan.

But I think this is in line with Washingtonian policy since 9/11. Since the Patriot Act the general sense of governance is that no one should ever oppose Washington. Those who oppose are extremist in their ideology. I am not too bothered up to here because I agree with Goldwater.

The problem is implying that those who oppose Washington are haters. This philosophy has been obvious since 9/11 and virtual abrogation of the 4th amendment since October of 2001. Since that date every citizen is a suspect and anyone who dares to speak out is an extremist. The teaching that extremism is manifested through hatred is the worrying part of this DOD lesson.

 

C4K is like CBT in that he will always attempt to mitigate the offenses of Socialists, and marginalize the truth and justice of conservatives.

 

Fed training video: Christian and founding fathers called terrorists

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLA29msr_ic

 

Pat? :laugh:

 

Infowars readers will find much of the training guide’s contents unsurprising as they merely reinforce what Infowars has documented in the past.


In 2009, Infowars obtained the “law enforcement sensitive” contents of a Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report entitled “The Modern Militia Movement” which listed supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as potential “militia” influenced terrorists.


Also, in July 2012 Infowars blew the lid on a Department of Homeland Security-funded study, produced by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland, that characterized Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.


Indeed, the latest report echoes scenes from Alex Jones’ prescient documentary 9/11: The Road to Tyranny, made over a decade ago, which covered the fact that FEMA and other government bureaus have been training law enforcement agencies to regard the Founding Fathers as terrorists.


It can no longer be denied that military and local law enforcement crosshairs have gradually been realigned from targeting phantom terrorists overseas to targeting domestic “extremists,” a broad, all-encompassing term that accommodates anyone generally challenging or questioning the status quo.


As Judicial Watch notes, although the documents were obtained through the Air Force, the fact that they originated in a DOD office means they have likely been distributed throughout the government’s various agencies.


SOURCE . . .

 

N/M ... not important

 

OK, let's do that. Here is how the document defines "extremism" and extremist":

3. Extremism – A term used to describe the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups who take a political idea to its limits, regardless of unfortunate repercussions, and show intolerance toward all views other than their own.
4. Extremist – A person who advocates the use of force or violence; advocates supremacist causes based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or national origin; or otherwise engages to illegally deprive individuals or groups of their civil rights.​

And yet, just as the article said -- and was accurately quoted by Rev -- the document identifies the founding fathers as extremists. Really?

Perhaps you should have read the article more closely.

 

To repeat my post above. I agree that the founders were extremists and am grateful they were. Anything short of extremism would have resulted in defeat, and I agree with H2O that 'Extemism in the defence of liberty is no vice.'

 

Those definitions pretty much sum up Washington's attitude and actions towards other nations as well as American citizens.

 

This lesson plan was designed to teach officers how to deal with 'hate crimes' in the military. In that regard, and as a teacher, I found it very poorly written. The very idea of equated any of the violent extremist incidents with a 'hate crime' within the ranks is untenable.

 

Now compare it to the other documents I linked to.

Notice any patterns?

 

You're really not getting the point here. The report/study/lesson/whatever defines extremism and the extremist in a very negative and derogatory light, and rather than use Muslim extremism and extremists as the example, they choose to disparage the founding fathers as (quoting from my previously post definition from the report itself) "[a] person who advocates the use of force or violence; advocates supremacist causes based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or national origin; or otherwise engages to illegally deprive individuals or groups of their civil rights."

None of the founding fathers advocated any of those things, but advocated instead for the equal opportunities and treatment of all peoples. To claim you are "grateful" they were "extremist" in the vein of the definition given in the report indicates you have counseled understanding when you have not acquired it yourself, and please understand there is no offense intended in that comment.

I would simply urge you to read the report more closely, rather than cherry-picking that which appears to counter the Rev's point. It would be wise to understand the nature of the original post and the exact tack of the criticism of the linked article before engaging in somewhat reckless statement.

 

We are surely miscommunicating here - and I am quite certain it is not one sided.

Somehow my definite criticism of the lesson is being missed here.

 

When sarcasm is too subtle, it fails. Sorry I didn't get it.

:thumbsup: