We're All Rightwing Extremists Now

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has decided in a recently released report that the specter of violent rightwing extremism now stalks the country.

First, let’s start Homeland Security’s definition of rightwing extremism:
“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.”

Just take the hate-oriented groups off the table for the purpose of this discussion. It’s safe to say that they are by no means a major player in 21st century domestic American politics. So that leaves us with “those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority” and “groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

Since rejecting federal authority makes you a rightwing extremist – can you tell me who said this earlier today?
“I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,”
“That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.”
That would be Governor Rick Perry of Texas. Apparently he didn’t get the memo just like more than half of the states of this country which already have bills pending in their state legislatures telling the federal government to re-read the 10th Amendment and back off.

Even being “dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration” is enough to qualify you as a rightwing extremist. Surely Homeland Security must mean “illegal immigration” since not many folks are upset by lawful immigration. Even so, that’s a mighty big brush they’re painting with. It just seems that a differing opinion is all that is required to be labeled a rightwing extremist.

“Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement.”
That, of course, would be the firearm restrictions and weapons bans that the President promised he would not impose when he was running for office and needed your vote. I can’t imagine why concern over something as basic as usurpation of our Second Amendment rights would cause citizens to buy every gun and box of ammunition in sight or how that would swell the ranks of rightwing extremist groups.

“Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment. From the 2008 election timeframe to the present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in
expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential
sympathizers.”
“Perceived stance on a range of issues”? You must be kidding – his actual stance on a range of issues is enough to make most of us rightwing extremists take another inventory of our weapons caches. But I keep forgetting no one is allowed to have a different opinion about, well, anything. So get in line, speak only when spoken to, drink the Kool-Aid and remember that The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is working tirelessly to keep you safe from those dreaded rightwing extremists.

Get Me A Wooden Stake This Time

And perhaps a garland of garlic too. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill is officially dead - again. Cry'n George changed his vote and came out against cloture this time but it's too little too late from my standpoint. Senator Sherrod Brown also voted against cloture - go figure.

Not one damn thing about this entire fiasco has made any sense whatsoever.

Dear George Revisited

It's official - Senator George Voinovich's career is over. Below is my latest and last letter to the soon to be former Senator from the Great State of Ohio:

Senator Voinovich,

I can not begin to tell you how disappointed I am at your seeming reluctance to communicate with a concerned, registered, Ohio Republican voter about the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill. I sent you two previous e-mails on this issue dated June 15th and June 23rd – neither of which has been acknowledged in any fashion. I know your website has a disclaimer saying “the quantity of e-mails my office receives does not always allow for the kind of speedy response users of e-mail may anticipate”. That sir, I must tell you, is a significant understatement. Even a quick “immigration” search of your website turns up only references to the Visa Waiver Program and Passport Delays – hardly what I am interested in. I would also venture a guess that all of those constituents calling your office did not want to talk about Passport Delays either.

I heard you on Sean Hannity’s radio show this afternoon and not because I listen to Hannity but only because I knew you were going to be on. I can assure you I am not part of the rabble Hannity and others have stirred up regarding this issue. Unfortunately, your appearance only confirmed some of my worst suspicions. I do not understand why the Senate feels the need to address this issue in such haste and with so little public discussion. I can not help but feel as if I have been dismissed by my patrician betters.

In addition, I must express my total objection to the letter you sent to President Bush yesterday. The War on Terror is the most important and defining issue of our time. Anyone who thinks that “A policy of responsible military disengagement with a corresponding increase in non-military support is the best way to advance our nation’s interests in Iraq” is seriously mistaken or, at the very least, naive.

I have voted for you on many occasions in the past but now find that since we have parted ways on these two important issues, I will no longer be able to support you in the future. Not only that, but I will actively support any conservative candidate that runs against you. Also, since no one in your office has felt the need to respond to me, please do not bother since it will not only be a waste of your time, but more importantly, mine.

Stanley Kurtz on the Immigration Bill

From NRO The Corner:

Bad Vibe [Stanley Kurtz]

"Something about this immigration battle doesn’t sit well. For all the bitterness of our political battles, there’s at least the sense that the government responds to the drift of public opinion. The Republicans in Congress turned into big spenders and the war in Iraq went poorly. As a result the Democrats prospered in 2006, if narrowly. That’s how democracy works. Our politics are often angry and ugly (and that’s a problem), but this is because the public is deeply divided on issues of great importance. Deep down, we understand that our political problems reflect our own divisions.

Somehow this immigration battle feels different. The bill is wildly unpopular, yet it’s close to passing. The contrast with the high-school textbook version of democracy is not only glaring and maddening, it’s downright embarrassing. Usually, even when we’re at each others’ throats, there’s still an underlying pride in the democratic process. This immigration battle strips us of even that pride.

I’m still stuck on the way this bill was going to be pushed through without a public airing of crucial provisions, in the two or three days before Memorial Day recess. But I should be stuck even further back–on the way this bill was cooked up in a backroom deal that bypassed the ordinary process of public hearings. We take them for granted, but those civics textbook fundamentals are there for a reason. We’re going to pay a steep price for setting the fundamentals aside.

Senators who believe that by passing this bill they will at least be getting a divisive issue out of the way are making a serious mistake. This is not 1986. The immigration issue is far more prominent now, and it will only grow in importance. Demographics, and the problems of assimilation in a globalized world of satellite dishes and easy travel will see to that. Look at how votes on the war have come back to haunt Democratic politicians. Votes by legislators of both parties on this bill will be haunting them–and all of us–for years to come.

Supporters of this bill sell it as a compromise that will heal America’s divisions. I fear it’s quite the reverse. This bill is infuriating the public and undermining faith in government itself. You can see it in the polling on confidence in Congress and the President. If this bill passes, it’s going to aggravate and embitter politics for years to come. Passing a measure over such overwhelming opposition is like slapping the public in the face.

You can’t solve an argument by imposing a "compromise" on parties who don’t actually view it as a compromise. You can’t heal social divisions by forcing your version of a "solution" down the public’s throats. Real healing comes only when two sides reach what they themselves consider a valid compromise, or when one side wins the argument by persuading a clear majority of the validity of its case. Democracy does work, but first the Senate has got to give it a try."
06/26 10:52 AM

Why Amnesty Was Defeated

Rasmussen is reporting some interesting polling data regarding the defeat of the immigration bill in the Senate (emphasis added):

"The immigration bill failed because a broad cross-section of the American people are opposed to it. Republicans, Democrats, and unaffiliated voters are opposed. Men are opposed. So are women. The young don’t like it; neither do the no-longer-young. White Americans are opposed. Americans of color are opposed.

The last Rasmussen Reports national telephone poll found that just 23% of Americans supported the legislation. "

"There is no mystery to why the public opposed the bill. In the minds of most Americans, immigration means reducing illegal immigration and enforcing the border."

The article goes on to point out that it is quite unusual for Washington politicians to be this out of touch with their constituents since they purchase quite a bit of polling data themselves.

"...the same politicians who were stunned by their misreading of the public on this bill will probably be stunned to learn something else—most Americans actually do favor a welcoming and open immigration policy.

The United States is a nation of immigrants. It is also a nation of laws. Voters want to honor both aspects of the national heritage. And, like good parents trying to instill values in their children, voters want their elected representatives to do the same."

Words Mean Things

As if I needed more proof that Senator Harry Reid is terribly misguided, he recently referred to illegal aliens as "undocumented Americans" on the Senate floor. "UNDOCUMENTED AMERICANS"?

Amnesty

I do not understand the united stance Congress and the White House have taken with regards to Immigration Reform. They are in the process of handing over sections of our country to people who came here illegally, are not citizens and do not belong here. Why are these people allowed to go to the "head of the line" just because they are here? Send them back to where they came from and let them apply for citizenship legally. Then secure the boarders and do not ever let this happen again.

How does our nation benefit by making these people citizens? Doesn’t this amnesty just encourage more illegal immigration? When will this idiocy end?

The politicians that are involved in this effort need to be held accountable for their actions. Any government that can not secure its own boarders and/or refuses to do so fails one of its principal reasons for existence and should be replaced – without exception.