Attorney general to classify pro-life, pro-gun americans as terrorists

[vector7]

ATTORNEY GENERAL TO CLASSIFY PRO-LIFE, PRO-GUN AMERICANS AS TERRORISTS

By NWV News writer Jim Kouri
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
July 5, 2009
© 2009 NewsWithViews.com

[IMG]http://www.************.com/images/july2009/060709top3.jpg[/IMG]

An amendment to a bill swiftly moving through the US Congress will allow the Obama Administration's Attorney General to classify Americans as domestic terrorists if they are pro-life, pro-gun and anti-big government.

Impeached Florida judge -- now a Democrat Party member of the House of Representatives -- Rep. Alcee Hastings introduced what some claim is a disturbing piece of legislation. Hasting's amendment calls for the Attorney General to have discretion over who is called a terrorist and what groups will be treated as terrorist groups.

"This is arguably one of the worst pieces of legislation to come down the pike in a long, long time. In essence Attorney General Eric Holder -- a Bill Clinton retread -- will have the discretion to label Americans terrorists. Hastings is a dangerous man and should be forced to resign from congress. He's also proposed the creation of "emergency camps" that are nothing more than prisons," warns political strategist Mike Baker.

"This amendment is part and parcel of the trend in this country to suppress dissent by patriots by calling them domestic terrorists," he added.

In an unclassified report entitled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," Secretary for Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and her agency included the following description of "extremists:"

"Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

Last Thursday, Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) made the following remarks on the House Floor regarding Congressman Alcee Hastings’ (D-FL) amendment to the National Defense Authorization bill:

"The Hastings Amendment to the National Defense Authorization bill (which now is being considered en bloc) prohibits the recruitment, enlistment, or retention of persons with known affiliations to "groups determined by the Attorney General to be of a violent, extremist nature."

"Members on both sides of the aisle support the purpose of this amendment because we recognize that there are legitimate concerns about the enlistment of persons who may seek to use their military training to cause harm to innocents, but we should take pause to consider the breadth of this amendment carefully. I just want to express concern about the language of this amendment, and my concerns are shared by many in this House," said Rep. Franks.

"While the amendment seeks to keep gang members and members of violent groups out of the military, the amendment by its language is much more broad. Specifically, it confers upon the Attorney General the ability to categorize groups as hate groups, and this sounds an alarm for many of us because of the recent shocking and offensive report released by the Department of Homeland Security which labeled, arguably, a majority of Americans as "extremists," warned Franks.

"I take extreme offense that the federal government -- through a report issued under the authority of a Cabinet-level official -- would dare to categorize people who are "dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition or abortion or immigration" as "right-wing extremists" and it begs the question of whether the Attorney General, under Mr. Hastings' Amendment, can look to the Napolitano report to decide who is an extremist, or can make the same categorization of the majority of Americans as extremists who may then be kept from joining the military, or who may be discharged," said Rep. Franks.

"I want to state unequivocally that I believe that it is not the intent of this Congress to label pro-lifers, federalism proponents, and pro-immigration enforcement groups and their affiliates as extremists under the bill. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle should make a strong effort to assuage these concerns and make our intentions clear. If the intent of this amendment is to go after citizens because of their political views and moral convictions, then the amendment is unconstitutional. I hope that the sponsor of the Amendment will make clear tonight that this is not the intent," he added.

Rep. Alcee Hastings also introduced what many say is another disturbing piece of legislation. That new bill calls for the Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to build at least six facilities that can be designated as "emergency centers. Hastings rationale for such facilities is to gather and "house" civilians on what are basically detention centers guarded by armed soldiers or paramilitary troops.

The House bill (HR 645) -- National Emergency Centers Establishment Act -- is not even on the radar of members of the elite media. According to critics of the plan, if passed the government will create camps or centers that by their nature restrict the activities of US citizens herded into them.

In fact, one provision -- Section 2 (b) (4) -- states: "[To] meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security."

One critic, political strategist Mike Baker claims the idea of such detention center smacks of the type of concentration camps for political dissidents, such as occurred in Nazi Germany, Americans find repugnant.

"Why aren't the news media covering this story? Could it be because they fear being the first occupants of these so-called emergency installations? Where is the outrage by our nation's Fourth Estate?" asks Baker.

Hastings bill is suspected of attempting to help expand the President Obama's military and law enforcement powers. While Hastings pushes this bill, even Republican congressmen are hesitant to remind one another and the nation that this Florida congressman was impeached while he sat on Florida's federal court bench.

Appointed by President Jimmy Carter in 1979, he became the first African-American federal judge in the state of Florida, and served in that position for ten years. He’s still called “Judge” by some of his colleagues, but one would think he’d rather forget his days on the federal bench.

In 1989, Judge Hastings was impeached by the US House of Representatives for bribery and perjury. The Democratic-controlled Senate convicted Hastings of accepting a $150,000 bribe in 1981 in exchange for a lenient sentence and of perjury in his testimony about the case. Hastings said the charges against him smacked of racism.

Even Rep. John Conyers, who is also black, said he “found no trace of racism during the investigation.” He urged his colleagues to remove Hastings from the bench. He said, “[Hastings] is unfit to serve.”

When the ultra-liberal Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi nominated Hastings for the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee, even members of her own political party balked.

"The prospect of Rep. Alcee Hastings becoming the chairman of the House of Representative’s Intelligence Committee was proposed by Congressional Black Caucus, who had been pressuring the new House Speaker Pelosi to appoint blacks to key leadership positions and Hasting benefited from the pressure on the radical left Pelosi," said former Detective Sidney Frances (NYPD-ret.), himself an African-American.

While Hastings did not become chairman of that committee, he is a ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee.

© 2009 NWV - All Rights Reserved

[Malsua]

Despicable people, all of them. Criminalize the opposition.

[American Patriot]

This is what is known as a "red herring". Look for evil within the ranks of our military.

Because the majority of military personnel tend towards conservatism they are automatically considered to be a "danger and threat" to innocents?

Ummm no. No one is more against war than a military person. However we understand the occasional need to fight war - and do our best to win them.

Give me a break.

[vector7]

You, too, can be part of a 'hate group'

July 7, 9:40 AM


Oleg Volk photo
I've written before about the recent focus on "hate groups," and how the existence of these admittedly unsavory organizations is being used as justification for the curtailment of rights, including gun rights. I have also written about proposed legislation in both houses of Congress that would empower the Attorney General (radically anti-gun Attorney General Eric Holder, at the moment) to unilaterally designate a prospective gun buyer as a "suspected terrorist," without a conviction (or even a trial), without an indictment (or even a hearing), without an arrest (or even a formal accusation).

Congressman (and former federal judge--impeached for corruption) Alcee Hastings (D-FL) has decided it would be a good idea to, in a manner of speaking, combine those two concepts, with an amendment he added to the defense appropriations bill, H.R. 2647.

Granted, the stated purpose of Hastings' amendment is reasonable enough--the idea is to exclude neo-Nazis and similar reprehensible types from military service. It does, after all, make sense to avoid giving such people military training, not to mention access to weapons.
One of the problems is that I don't really see why such legislation is needed--the military already has the ability (and the motivation) to avoid recruiting such people, or to discharge them, if they discover such affiliations after recruitment. As long as 15 years ago, when I was in the Army, there was an Army-wide (perhaps Armed Forces-wide, but I don't know about that) directive for all of us to be examined, while stripped down to our underwear, for tattoos that would indicate allegiance to such groups, with the finding of such tattoos grounds for discharge.

What, then, is the need for this?

Another problem is that, like the gun purchase ban bills, this would give the Attorney General unilateral power to determine who the "hate groups" are--that's an awful lot of power for one official--an unelected official, to boot. As Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) said on the House floor:

"While the amendment seeks to keep gang members and members of violent groups out of the military, the amendment by its language is much more broad. Specifically, it confers upon the Attorney General the ability to categorize groups as hate groups, and this sounds an alarm for many of us because of the recent shocking and offensive report released by the Department of Homeland Security which labeled, arguably, a majority of Americans as "extremists," warned Franks.

"I take extreme offense that the federal government -- through a report issued under the authority of a Cabinet-level official -- would dare to categorize people who are "dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition or abortion or immigration" as "right-wing extremists" and it begs the question of whether the Attorney General, under Mr. Hastings' Amendment, can look to the Napolitano report to decide who is an extremist, or can make the same categorization of the majority of Americans as extremists who may then be kept from joining the military, or who may be discharged," said Rep. Franks.

Finally, this would very likely go well beyond military recruitment and retention. Once the Attorney General has designated a politically incorrect group as being a "hate group," unfit for military service, how long will it take for the government to find other restrictions to impose on them?
The amendment was added to H.R. 2647 (which then passed in the House, and has moved on to the Senate) as one of a large number of amendments considered en bloc (and passed).