Obama Administration Fears Returning War Veterans

Terrorist ...no, murderer...yes

 

Looking at the link you posted in the other thread, the first mention of vets is on page 3 not 2 which says, "military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups etc..."

So again, they are not saying all vets as you imply, they clearly said vets that have a hard time reintegrating into their communities. I think that's a fairly good description of a disgruntled vet.

 

I don't see the 10th amendment putting anyone on this list. Can you show me where they singled those folks out? I thought we all believed in the constitution and Obama took an oath to defend it.

I likewise don't see an anti-military statement. They are very specific about a particular type of vet and did not make a blanket assertion as you suggest. They are very clear what vet they are referring to if you would take the time to read the document with an open mind.

Lastly, what in this document "endangers" your freedom? I don't think you will make the list unless you become "extreme" which I think is beyond any of the conservatives here. We are Christians first and would never put politics before the cross...

 

I don't know why I bother, but the article said...

Obviously, it casts a critical eye to those who believe the 10th amendment is being abused by Washington (which it is).

What's sad is that you seem incapable of recognizing the fragility of our civil rights and liberties. We have people in this administration who obviously look down on several groups of people.

I'm sure that you will--as you always seem to do--find a way to defend the indefensible. I just think it's sad that there are folks like you who think so little of our liberties so as to ignore when someone moves toward limiting/eliminating them.

 

I disagree, it appears to cast an eye on some peoples method of protest. Peaceful protest is given by the constitution. However, that is not the method of protest by some of the groups specifically named in the report. The civil rights protesters endured violence and did peaceful demonstrations with things like marching. Bull Conners made sure of that.

Again, I must be blind because I do not see this quote on page 2. Are you sure you're reading the actual report or are you quoting from some other source. I seriously looked and do not see what you're quoting. The first mention of Iraq I find is on page 8 and is under the title containing "Disgruntled".

Lastly, why didn't you have this same degree of anger when Bush released this report? It basically says the exact same thing.

 

So how do they define extreme? How do they know they are extreme in advance? This whole thing appears like they see anyone with these views as a potential for what ever extreme is. Why is it people with these views have a potential for being extreme but Ayers and wright are ignored? That reveals the liberal agenda to shut down opposition.

 

One other thing, I keep hearing you guys mention the 10th amendment. Obviously you are referring to states right. Have you ever heard of what is taught in law schools as the "elastic clause" of the constitution? It is article 1 section 8. If so, how do you interpret it aganst the 10th amendment?

The elastic part is where is says, "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers etc...". It basically reads if they deem it necessary, they can make a law... That is my understanding.

 

I took it to be this definition on page 3...

I don't see anyone here as being white supremacist or part of a violent group. I think it's an unfortunate coincidence and stereo typing on the part of this report to 100% conclude those group exist only on the right. I believe most of those groups are actually libertarian which can be seen as a category all of it's own.

 

Then let me post the whole page for you:

 

And then you should read more.

 

Oh, and I forgot to add... I noticed this paragraph in the Bush report http://cryptome.org/spy-whites.pdf

 

Can you link me to the one you're reading. That is not page 2 of this report.

got a meeting guys but will try to follow up tonight. Gots to do the Lords work first...

 

ummm.........do not go by the pdf count go by the actual document count. And it is page two.

 

LeBuick, you need a refresher civics course.

The Constitution gives power not explicitly given to the Federal government to the states.

I'm not telling you to sue your civics teacher...but she either didn't to a good job, or you've forgotten a lot...

 

Go read article 1 section 8 and tell me what power Congress wants and can't get. Look carefully at the last sentence... It says if congress decides it is necessary and proper they can make a law which gives them just about any power they want. so sure, if there is any power left then the states get it.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

What an INSULT to our troops. They should be investigating mosques, but a closet muslim wouldn't want to investigate mosques, would he?

He makes me want to puke.

 

Ok, I see it now. I was going by the page number in adobe.

So, do you realize the sentece that contains the word with the asterisk says, "has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence etc..." So even though the footnote define right wing the sentence is acknowledging they have no information about planned violence.

You should also note that this report is extremely watered down from the last administration. But I guess it doesn't matter that the Bush administration came to the same conclusion.

 

I wonder, LeBuick...what would it take for you to not defend this administration? Is there possibly any action that Obama or his appointees could take that would cause you to cease your knee-jerk defense of them?

So far, you've defended tax cheats, trampling on the Constitution, and more.

I'm just curious...is it possible for them to do something that would make you rethink your undying support for them? If so...what?

 

You are reading more into this statement than is there. Congress cannot go beyond what the Constitution states and that includes the 10th amendment.