FBI warns of threat from anti-government extremists

[konradv]

So the FBI is spending a lot of time with the OWS I gather.

I wouldn't doubt it. They haven't exactly been a friend of leftists malcontents, either. I wonder how many here are in the files because they didn't think Viet Nam or Iraq were good ideas.

 

[konradv]

Buying MRE's at the local Army/Navy Surplus store now gets you on the list as a potential domestic terrorist. You people need to wake up to the FACT that the Dems and the Reps are just two sides of the SAME big Government coin!

Since Kennedy's murder, can you name a government policy that has changed ANYTHING? It doesn't matter which side is in charge, the MIC gets bigger and our FREEDOM gets smaller.

George Orwell was a PROPHET!

What's your solution? Things aren't going to change for anybody, if the same interests can keep buying every election. Support public financing of elections, it'll cost us less in the long run.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Isn't that their job, to warn us about dangerous actors? The extremists aren't exactly known for making sure their isn't collateral damage. Don't pay taxes and what do you think will happen? That's hardly bullshit.

Did you even read the article.

Extremists are defined as people who believe in a gold standard.

Hardly a threat to the nation.

And they gave two examples of cops getting into altercations as a "rise in extremism"

Really?

I read enough of it to know you just cherry-picked one line. No mention of refusing to pay taxes. You have to take a number of things into consideration and it was a warning, not an order to pick anybody up.

If refusing to pay taxes is extremist then we have quite a few extremists sitting in congress don't we?

 

[Full-Auto]

Why that would make the FBI a tool of the Obama adminstration.

They did approve transfer of weapons to known felons.

But...but...Holder denies it...(ATF) but hey we're talking Gubmint alphabet soup aren't we?

Oh a racist

 

[paulitician]

This current Government is as Anti-American as it gets. So fuck em.

 

[konradv]

Did you even read the article.

Extremists are defined as people who believe in a gold standard.

Hardly a threat to the nation.

And they gave two examples of cops getting into altercations as a "rise in extremism"

Really?

I read enough of it to know you just cherry-picked one line. No mention of refusing to pay taxes. You have to take a number of things into consideration and it was a warning, not an order to pick anybody up.

If refusing to pay taxes is extremist then we have quite a few extremists sitting in congress don't we?

If you know something, you have an obligation to inform the proper authorities, don't you? If it's public knowledge a cite pointing to "refusal" would be in order.

 

[The T]

This current Government is as Anti-American as it gets. So fuck em.

With the O leading the charge after he wipes his royal fanny with the Constitution.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I read enough of it to know you just cherry-picked one line. No mention of refusing to pay taxes. You have to take a number of things into consideration and it was a warning, not an order to pick anybody up.

If refusing to pay taxes is extremist then we have quite a few extremists sitting in congress don't we?

If you know something, you have an obligation to inform the proper authorities, don't you? If it's public knowledge a cite pointing to "refusal" would be in order.

I can argue that intentionally misrepresenting oneself on a federal tax document so as to avoid paying a portion of taxes owed is indeed a refusal to pay said taxes.

But since congress has a separate set of laws that apply only to them there is nothing we can do about it is there?

 

[saveliberty]

This current Government is as Anti-American as it gets. So fuck em.

Isn't that what we are doing here?

 

[konradv]

If refusing to pay taxes is extremist then we have quite a few extremists sitting in congress don't we?

If you know something, you have an obligation to inform the proper authorities, don't you? If it's public knowledge a cite pointing to "refusal" would be in order.

I can argue that intentionally misrepresenting oneself on a federal tax document so as to avoid paying a portion of taxes owed is indeed a refusal to pay said taxes.

But since congress has a separate set of laws that apply only to them there is nothing we can do about it is there?

Intentionally perhaps, but you haven't even given evidence of that. Does Congress have a seperate set of IRS laws? SEE?!?! Now you've set yourself up for another "lack of cite" complaint!

 

[Paulie]

If the teabagger militia groups do not get a white republican president soon no telling what they will do.

Because of your partisan hackery you don't get it. One day you might be deemed an extremist.

I'll take my chances. The same circumstances that produced McVeigh are at work right now, only worse. The OK city federal building is still the only large scale domestic terrorism attack in our lifetimes, are you just going to dismiss the potential threat? We went to war in Iraq on less.

You don't get it. The problem isn't that the FBI is targeting extremists. The problem is the slippery slope in how far out of their way they'll go to label someone as one. These days, god forbid you've been on a website that's not 100% pro government.

 

[GuyPinestra]

I can guarantee you that anyone that has been to infowars is on a list somewhere...
Anyone who questions the 'official' 9/11 story is on a list...
Anyone that's supported a 3rd party is on a list...
Anyone who questions the Kennedy assassination is on a list
Anyone that supports home schooling is on a list...
Anyone who's researched FEMA camps is on a list
Hell, I'm going to do a FOIA request to see just how many lists I'm on...
This post probably puts me on ANOTHER list!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Isn't that their job, to warn us about dangerous actors? The extremists aren't exactly known for making sure their isn't collateral damage. Don't pay taxes and what do you think will happen? That's hardly bullshit.

There's something terribly wrong with this comment, given the latest legislative action of Congress, the approval of obama. You sound as if you would give the government a pass on anything it does.

Warning us about potential domestic terrorists is bad?

Yes it is when it's a false flag. Maybe if you want to find some terrorist you don't have to look any further than D.C.

 

[lawfulrevolt]

But since congress has a separate set of laws that apply only to them there is nothing we can do about it is there?

If we unify with soldiers in defense of the constitution, we can replace congress and restore constitutional government. There is a whole lot we can do about it and here is strategy keyed into law for a peaceful revolution.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...d-the-constitution-from-a-domestic-enemy.html

When you post there, you prove you support the constitution.

 

[MikeK]

Neither of which have anything to do with capitalism.

Ultimately they have everything to do with capitalism. That is unless you don't believe the Military Industrial Complex and the oil industry (et. al.) impose a powerful influence on the actions of our largely corrupted government.

Government supporting private industry is not capitalism, however. It's corporatism, or fascism.

We're talking about process, not category. The American system of capitalism has gotten out of hand, approaching the laissez faire level, and our legislators have their hands in the honey pot. The capitalists control them with money ("lobbying").

 

[MikeK]

There is no good reason to go to war in Iran or Syria.

I agree!

But you're already prepared to defend Obama's potential wars if his "reasons are honest"?

And to set the record straight it was not just Bush who believed the intelligence reports that indicated Iraq has WMDs.

But even if the reports were true, it was still no reason to invade Iraq.

If you accept that Bush believed the WMD nonsense you are not very well informed.

 

[GuyPinestra]

I agree!

But you're already prepared to defend Obama's potential wars if his "reasons are honest"?

And to set the record straight it was not just Bush who believed the intelligence reports that indicated Iraq has WMDs.

But even if the reports were true, it was still no reason to invade Iraq.

If you accept that Bush believed the WMD nonsense you are not very well informed.

Of course Saddam had WMD's, the Pentagon has the RECEIPTS!!

 

[percysunshine]

Not many people know this, but everyone named 'Mike' is a capitalist.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ultimately they have everything to do with capitalism. That is unless you don't believe the Military Industrial Complex and the oil industry (et. al.) impose a powerful influence on the actions of our largely corrupted government.

Government supporting private industry is not capitalism, however. It's corporatism, or fascism.

We're talking about process, not category. The American system of capitalism has gotten out of hand, approaching the laissez faire level, and our legislators have their hands in the honey pot. The capitalists control them with money ("lobbying").

I don't even know what that means, referring to process and not category. We're talking about capitalism, and capitalism has nothing to do with the government doing things to aid private industry. Note that I'm not disagreeing with your analysis that that's exactly what government does, merely that it doesn't represent capitalism. As for laissez-faire, where? Not in the United States.

 

[MikeK]

Isn't that their job, to warn us about dangerous actors? The extremists aren't exactly known for making sure their isn't collateral damage. Don't pay taxes and what do you think will happen? That's hardly bullshit.

There's something terribly wrong with this comment, given the latest legislative action of Congress, the approval of obama. You sound as if you would give the government a pass on anything it does.

Warning us about potential domestic terrorists is bad?

"Warning about potential domestic terrorists" is not the issue. Bypassing Habeas Corpus by arresting and secretly confining American citizens without specific charges on orders of the President (or anyone he designates) is the issue.

In a very real sense NDAA is analogous to your local police being given authority to arrest anyone they suspect of having some connection to a crime and hold them incognito at a secret location for as long as they wish without a shred of evidence and without telling them or anyone else anything. And while the existing situation does not present itself as having the potential I've described the groundwork is in place and needs only to be implemented and adjusted to fit.

While it's natural for average Americans to assume they will never be subjected to this kind of tyrannical oppression such comfortable assumptions derive from conditioned confidence in the Due Process requirement of Amendment Five, the pure intention of which is methodically ignored by NDAA -- as it clearly was in the case of Jose Padilla.