Democracy.  Rule by the people. 

Democracy.  The form of government that has allowed the United States of America to flourish over its two hundred year period of existence.

Democracy.  Millions of people have perished while defending its name against foreign powers that threaten its prosperity.

Democracy.  With it, people must have freedom.

The founders of our country wisely limited the role of government.  They understood the fact that a people would remain free only if individuals were responsible for their own futures.  But the people of that era were of a different breed. They were morally, ethically, and psychologically stronger.  They were adults.

We seem to have turned into a nation of whiners who see the federal government as the answer to all of our problems. That way, all we have to do is curl up into the fetal position and suck our thumbs while the government takes care of our every need. 

I find it strange how certain government officials are getting elected by telling us how bad things are and that the only way we will solve these problems is by allowing the government to take care of us.  In effect they are saying we're lazy.

We need to start reasserting ourselves as a free people and reject these easy answers.  While it might seem good now, in the long run we will end up asking each other "when did we end up in a communist economy?"  It happens a little at a time, but it will happen.

The government is not our Daddy.  Every time something goes wrong, we can't blame the government and expect them to fix our problem.  Get on with your lives! 

"What bad could come from the government fixing our problems" you ask?  Lets use an example. 

One thousand people work at a factory which goes bankrupt. Should the government keep it open to keep the people working?  You government lovers say "yes" because the people need to support themselves and their families.  I say no.  Reason being this.  The factory went bankrupt because people didn't buy their product.  Nine times out of ten, people didn't buy the product because there was no need or want of it anymore.  Lets say the factory made 8 track tapes.  If the government kept open this company, they would be losing money on unsold tapes.  To gain back that money, the government would have to force people to buy them.  If that happened, the compact disk wouldn't have been invented...there would have been no need.  This would have hindered the development of CD ROMs for computers.  We would fall behind in world technology.  If the government kept open every company that has gone bankrupt in the 20^th century, we would be about the same now as life was in 1901.

All this because 1000 people had to keep their jobs manufacturing 8 tracks.  If they did get laid off, they could get new jobs working in the companies with the better product.  It's a continuing cycle based on competition.  It allows us to develop new technology and live a happy, free life.

Look at the ex-soviet union.  Look how poor they are.  They are a living example of the frailties in a government controlled economy.  I find it rather ironic how they are now crying "freedom" and "democracy" while we are crying "government" and "daddy".

Communism.  Rule by a centralized government party. 

Communism.  The form of government that has brought countries to its knees.  Communism.  A form of government hat has made poor and sad countries. 

Can we not lean from others mistakes? 

Communism.  With it, people must be controlled.

Thanks,
Christian Hine

The “gay marriage” issue is set to take center stage in the press today.

The California Supreme Court is scheduled to hand down its decision in a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn November's Proposition 8, which revised the state’s constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. In May of 2008, the same court ruled that marriage laws denying same-sex couples the right to wed violated the state’s constitution, thus prompting citizens to take action via referendum (Proposition 8).

I find it interesting that proponents of gay “marriage” claim to be fighting for “equal rights”. According to them, the “right” of traditional marriage is being protected by the state while those who seek same-sex marriage are being denied that “right” and are thus discriminated against. The problem for them is that definitions are stubborn things.

Look in any dictionary and the term “marriage” is defined in some form as follows:

“The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.”

Based on simple definitions, the argument of denied rights for homosexuals holds no standing. Indeed, using both the definition of marriage and any current laws that specifically deny same-sex marriage, there is not one right being granted a heterosexual that a homosexual does not share.

To wit:

A male can marry a female. It doesn’t matter if that male is homosexual or heterosexual; the same right to marry a female exists for both individuals. No special right is being granted the heterosexual that the homosexual does not also share. Ah, but the homosexual will claim that he can’t marry the person (another male) that he loves and wants to marry and is therefore being discriminated against. The problem here is that the homosexual is left attempting to define a “want” as a “right”. While having the same right to marry a female as a heterosexual male, the homosexual is now demanding his want to marry another male. Thankfully, in civilized society, the state and other individuals do not place the burden on themselves of guaranteeing other people’s wants. Society would crumble if it did. I “want” a nice yacht and a BMW, but it is by no means my “right” to have them.

To the contrary of the denied right argument, and the subject of another essay, is that new so-called “hate crimes” legislation actually begins to grant special protections and preferred class status to many minority groups, including homosexuals, in excess of what their majority counterparts are awarded. Odd how we don’t find proponents of gay marriage fighting “hate crimes” laws based on the same argument of equal protection under the law that they mistakenly apply to marriage law.

To be clear, I support a government that establishes protections for voluntary contracts entered into by two consenting adults. If two men or two women desire to legally share in each others fortune or debt, grant medical decision making power to each other, or establish any other coequal status amongst themselves, I have no problem whatsoever with this. Contract protection is indeed one of the few proper functions of government. The act of sexual intercourse should also not be regulated against when it is being carried out by two consenting adults.

Marriage, however, has a standing definition. It is this definition that same-sex marriage proponents are attempting to change, much to the chagrin of countless individuals who, based on their religious ideology, simple tradition, or other factors, would rather not see changed. This is understandable in the same way (to give an admittedly excessive example) that a baseball player couldn’t simply start calling a base hit a “home run” or a football player could call making it to the 10-yard line a “touchdown”. Changing those definitions would so fundamentally change the sport (or society in marriages case) that doing so is simply unwise and unnecessary.

My solution offered to homosexuals? Stop rocking the boat and demanding that society change it’s definitions just for you. What have you accomplished other than peeving off a large number of people and possibly making actual discrimination a larger problem? Come up with your own word to describe the legal union of a same-sex couple. Call it whatever you want. Take pride in it! Be as creative as we know you are! Relieve the stress of attempting to change society's definitions by just coming up with your own word. Then feel absolutely free to take exception when Tom and Suzy want to muddy the waters by stealing your word and it’s meaning.

Seems fair to me!

Arlen Specter Leaves the GOP, Becomes a Democrat

Opinion piece by Christian Hine

Arlen Specter finally came out of the closet and announced his decision to join the Democrat Party.  The yawns should be deafening given the no-brainer of this situation, however, the web is buzzing and twittering with folks from both sides singing either Conservative praise hymns or Liberal victory chants.

Conservatives, long annoyed at Mr. Specter's propensity for voting with the left on issues ranging from choice to gay rights to multi-billion dollar bailout bills, are simply ecstatic that the GOP has now taken one step closer to the ideological purity they seek. 

Liberals on the other hand now see a reversing trend of party switching where they finally get to be on the side gaining membership.  For them, the "Obama Revolution" continues to strengthen and the feelings of invulnerability will continue to nudge their way into the liberal psychy.  (This is ultimately harmful to them, but they'll have to learn that the hard way.) 

I can't say I disagree with the elation felt by the Conservatives, but it comes with a price. 

I am a Conservative and I am a person who calls things like I see them.  I have no agenda other than my own opinion.  For me, having a person like Arlen Specter be a member of the same party that I reluctantly call home is a hard pill to swallow.  It creates confusion among people less politically aware.  Indeed, how can I claim to believe certain things when others in the same party espouse the exact opposite belief?  Someone looking for consistency will tear off their head trying to understand GOP policy.  For that reason, I am happy to see Specter leave.   It gives the Party a stronger standing to recruit new members as the debate becomes much more black and white.

On the other hand,  to my dismay, we are a living under a two party system in this great country.  I would love to see this change because there is no way the multitude of political opinion in this country can be expressed with only two categories.  The system as it stands is a disgrace to political discourse and only serves to expand the power of the Parties themselves.

With that said, losing a member of "my team" will have consequences.  I don't believe that a two party system will ever allow the complete radicalization of either side because they will constantly struggle with the Specters in their midst.  In order for either side to win elections and gain the power they seek, they must appeal to the middle ground because neither the hard core Liberals nor the hard core Conservatives have enough followers to ever become dominant on their own.

What happens though is that by giving up our moderates to the other side, it only strengthens their ability to elect and enact more liberal policy.  It's a numbers game that has moved us from the center-right to the center-left and we are worse off because of it.

Again, I wish for the conservative utopia and will forever fight for the candidates I believe will take us there...especially in primaries.  However, once the primary dust settles, and as long as we are stuck with a two party system, losing membership doesn't do us any favors.  We'll get to rightly claim a purer agenda, but that will not lead us to success at the ballot box and will not help to implement Conservative policy over the long term.

Case in point... I place blame on purists who wouldn't vote for McCain in the general election for the victory of Obama.  Shouting fire while the village burns won't smother the flames.  Grab a bucket and do something about it already.

Click this link to download the PDF copy of this report.

--- Text copy below ----

(U//FOUO) Rightwing Extremism: Current

Economic and Political Climate Fueling

Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment

7 April 2009

(U) Prepared by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis

Division. Coordinated with the FBI.

(U) Scope

(U//FOUO) This product is one of a series of intelligence assessments published by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch to facilitate a greater understanding of the phenomenon of violent radicalization in the United States. The information is provided to federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States. Federal efforts to influence domestic public opinion must be conducted in an overt and transparent manner, clearly identifying United States Government sponsorship.

(U) LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION NOTICE: This product contains Law Enforcement Sensitive (LES) information. No portion of the LES information should be released to the media, the general public, or over non-secure Internet servers. Release of this information could adversely affect or jeopardize investigative activities.

(U) Warning: This document is UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (U//FOUO). It contains information that may be exempt from public release under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). It is to be controlled, stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in accordance with DHS policy relating to FOUO information and is not to be released to the public, the media, or other personnel who do not have a valid need-to-know without prior approval of an authorized DHS official. State and local homeland security officials may share this document with authorized security personnel without further approval from DHS.

(U) All U.S. person information has been minimized. Should you require the minimized U.S. person information, please contact the DHS/I&A Production Branch at IA.PM@hq.dhs.gov, IA.PM@dhs.sgov.gov, or IA.PM@dhs.ic.gov.

(U) Key Findings

(U//LES) The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.

- (U//LES) Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts. Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn-including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit-could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past.

- (U//LES) Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.

(U//FOUO) The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.

- (U//FOUO) During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors.

- (U//FOUO) Growth of these groups subsided in reaction to increased government scrutiny as a result of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and disrupted plots, improvements in the economy, and the continued U.S. standing as the preeminent world power.

(U//FOUO) The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

* (U) 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.

- (U//FOUO) 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.

- (U//FOUO) Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.

(U) Current Economic and Political Climate

(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that a number of economic and political factors are driving a resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization activity.

Despite similarities to the climate of the 1990s, the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years. In addition, the historical election of an African American president and the prospect of policy changes are proving to be a driving force for rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization.

- (U) A recent example of the potential violence associated with a rise in rightwing extremism may be found in the shooting deaths of three police officers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on 4 April 2009. The alleged gunman's reaction reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment conspiracy theories related to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a Jewish-controlled "one world government."

(U) Exploiting Economic Downturn

(U//FOUO) Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures. Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish "financial elites." These "accusatory" tactics are employed to draw new recruits into rightwing extremist groups and further radicalize those already subscribing to extremist beliefs. DHS/I&A assesses this trend is likely to accelerate if the economy is perceived to worsen.

(U) Historical Presidential Election

(U//LES) 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.

- (U//LES) Most statements by rightwing extremists have been rhetorical, expressing concerns about the election of the first African American president, but stopping short of calls for violent action. In two instances in the run-up to the election, extremists appeared to be in the early planning stages of some threatening activity targeting the Democratic nominee, but law enforcement interceded.

(U) Revisiting the 1990s

(U//FOUO) Paralleling the current national climate, rightwing extremists during the 1990s exploited a variety of social issues and political themes to increase group visibility and recruit new members. Prominent among these themes were the militia movement's opposition to gun control efforts, criticism of free trade agreements (particularly those with Mexico), and highlighting perceived government infringement on civil liberties as well as white supremacists' longstanding exploitation of social issues such as  abortion, inter-racial crimes, and same-sex marriage. During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors.

(U) Economic Hardship and Extremism

(U//FOUO) Historically, domestic rightwing extremists have feared, predicted, and anticipated a cataclysmic economic collapse in the United States. Prominent antigovernment conspiracy theorists have incorporated aspects of an impending economic collapse to intensify fear and paranoia among like-minded individuals and to attract recruits during times of economic uncertainty. Conspiracy theories involving declarations of martial law, impending civil strife or racial conflict, suspension of the U.S. Constitution, and the creation of citizen detention camps often incorporate aspects of a failed economy. Antigovernment conspiracy theories and "end times" prophecies could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition, and weapons.

These teachings also have been linked with the radicalization of domestic extremist individuals and groups in the past, such as violent Christian Identity organizations and extremist members of the militia movement.

(U//FOUO) Perceptions on Poverty and Radicalization

(U//FOUO) Scholars and experts disagree over poverty's role in motivating violent radicalization or terrorist activity. High unemployment, however, has the potential to lead to alienation, thus increasing an individual's susceptibility to extremist ideas. According to a 2007 study from the German Institute for Economic Research, there appears to be a strong association between a parent's unemployment status and the formation of rightwing extremist beliefs in their children-specifically xenophobia andantidemocratic ideals.

(U) Illegal Immigration

(U//FOUO) Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages. They also opposed free trade agreements, arguing that these arrangements resulted in Americans losing jobs to countries such as Mexico.

(U//FOUO) Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists, including militias and white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action, rallying point, and recruiting tool. Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent.

(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremist groups' frustration over a perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration has the potential to incite individuals or small groups toward violence. If such violence were to occur, it likely would be isolated, small-scale, and directed at specific immigration-related targets.

- (U//FOUO) DHS/I&A notes that prominent civil rights organizations have observed an increase in anti-Hispanic crimes over the past five years.

- (U) In April 2007, six militia members were arrested for various weapons and explosives violations. Open source reporting alleged that those arrested had discussed and conducted surveillance for a machinegun attack on Hispanics.

- (U) A militia member in Wyoming was arrested in February 2007 after communicating his plans to travel to the Mexican border to kill immigrants crossing into the United States.

(U) Legislative and Judicial Drivers

(U//FOUO) Many rightwing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a threat to their right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition stockpiling, as well as renewed participation in paramilitary training exercises. Such activity, combined with a heightened level of extremist paranoia, has the potential to facilitate criminal activity and violence.

- (U//FOUO) During the 1990s, rightwing extremist hostility toward government was fueled by the implementation of restrictive gun laws-such as the Brady Law that established a 5-day waiting period prior to purchasing a handgun and the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act that limited the sale of various types of assault rifles-and federal law enforcement's handling of the confrontations at Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho.

- (U//FOUO) On the current front, legislation has been proposed this year requiring mandatory registration of all firearms in the United States. Similar legislation was introduced in 2008 in several states proposing mandatory tagging and registration of ammunition. It is unclear if either bill will be passed into law; nonetheless, a correlation may exist between the potential passage of gun control legislation and increased hoarding of ammunition, weapons stockpiling, and paramilitary training activities among rightwing extremists.

(U//FOUO) Open source reporting of wartime ammunition shortages has likely spurred rightwing extremists-as well as law-abiding Americans-to make bulk purchases of ammunition. These shortages have increased the cost of ammunition, further exacerbating rightwing extremist paranoia and leading to further stockpiling activity.

Both rightwing extremists and law-abiding citizens share a belief that rising crime rates attributed to a slumping economy make the purchase of legitimate firearms a wise move at this time.

(U//FOUO) Weapons rights and gun-control legislation are likely to be hotly contested subjects of political debate in light of the 2008 Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller in which the Court reaffirmed an individual's right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but left open to debate the precise contours of that right. Because debates over constitutional rights are intense, and parties on all sides have deeply held, sincere, but vastly divergent beliefs, violent extremists may attempt to co-opt the debate and use the controversy as a radicalization tool.

(U) Perceived Threat from Rise of Other Countries

(U//FOUO) Rightwing extremist paranoia of foreign regimes could escalate or be magnified in the event of an economic crisis or military confrontation, harkening back to the "New World Order" conspiracy theories of the 1990s. The dissolution of Communist countries in Eastern Europe and the end of the Soviet Union in the 1990s led some rightwing extremists to believe that a "New World Order" would bring about a world government that would usurp the sovereignty of the United States and its Constitution, thus infringing upon their liberty. The dynamics in 2009 are somewhat similar, as other countries, including China, India, and Russia, as well as some smaller, oil-producing states, are experiencing a rise in economic power and influence.

- (U//FOUO) Fear of Communist regimes and related conspiracy theories characterizing the U.S. Government's role as either complicit in a foreign invasion or acquiescing as part of a "One World Government" plan inspired extremist members of the militia movement to target government and  military facilities in past years.

- (U//FOUO) Law enforcement in 1996 arrested three rightwing militia members in Battle Creek, Michigan with pipe bombs, automatic weapons, and military ordnance that they planned to use in attacks on nearby military and federal facilities and infrastructure targets.

- (U//FOUO) Rightwing extremist views bemoan the decline of U.S. stature and have recently focused on themes such as the loss of U.S. manufacturing capability to China and India, Russia's control of energy resources and use of these to pressure other countries, and China's investment in U.S. real estate and corporations as a part of subversion strategy.

(U) Disgruntled Military Veterans

(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists-including lone wolves or small terrorist cells-to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.

- (U) After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military veterans-including Timothy McVeigh-joined or associated with rightwing extremist groups.

- (U) A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that "large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces."

- (U//LES) The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups.

(U//FOUO) Lone Wolves and Small Terrorist Cells

(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States. Information from law enforcement and nongovernmental organizations indicates lone wolves and small terrorist cells have shown intent-and, in some cases, the capability-to commit violent acts.

- (U//LES) DHS/I&A has concluded that white supremacist lone wolves pose the most significant domestic terrorist threat because of their low profile and autonomy-separate from any formalized group-which hampers warning efforts.

- (U//FOUO) Similarly, recent state and municipal law enforcement reporting has warned of the dangers of rightwing extremists embracing the tactics of "leaderless resistance" and of lone wolves carrying out acts of violence.

- (U//FOUO) Arrests in the past several years of radical militia members in Alabama, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania on firearms, explosives, and other related violations indicates the emergence of small, well-armed extremist groups in some rural areas.

(U) Outlook

(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that the combination of environmental factors that echo the 1990s, including heightened interest in legislation for tighter firearms restrictions and returning military veterans, as well as several new trends, including an uncertain economy and a perceived rising influence of other countries, may be invigorating rightwing extremist activity, specifically the white supremacist and militia movements.

To the extent that these factors persist, rightwing extremism is likely to grow in strength.

(U//FOUO) Unlike the earlier period, the advent of the Internet and other informationage technologies since the 1990s has given domestic extremists greater access to information related to bomb-making, weapons training, and tactics, as well as targeting of individuals, organizations, and facilities, potentially making extremist individuals and groups more dangerous and the consequences of their violence more severe. New technologies also permit domestic extremists to send and receive encrypted communications and to network with other extremists throughout the country and abroad, making it much more difficult for law enforcement to deter, prevent, or preempt a violent extremist attack.

(U//FOUO) A number of law enforcement actions and external factors were effective in limiting the militia movement during the 1990s and could be utilized in today's climate.

- (U//FOUO) Following the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City, the militia movement declined in total membership and in the number of organized groups because many members distanced themselves from the movement as a result of the intense scrutiny militias received after the bombing.

- (U//FOUO) Militia membership continued to decline after the turn of the millennium as a result of law enforcement disruptions of multiple terrorist plots linked to violent rightwing extremists, new legislation banning paramilitary training, and militia frustration that the "revolution" never materialized.

- (U//FOUO) Although the U.S. economy experienced a significant recovery and many perceived a concomitant rise in U.S. standing in the world, white supremacist groups continued to experience slight growth.

(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in rightwing extremist activity in the United States, with a particular emphasis on the political, economic, and social factors that drive rightwing extremist radicalization.

(U) Reporting Notice:

(U) DHS encourages recipients of this document to report information concerning suspicious or criminal activity to DHS and the FBI. The DHS National Operations Center (NOC) can be reached by telephone at 202-282-9685 or by e-mail at NOC.Fusion@dhs.gov. For information affecting the private sector and critical infrastructure, contact the National Infrastructure Coordinating Center (NICC), a sub-element of the NOC. The NICC can be reached by telephone at 202-282-9201 or by e-mail at NICC@dhs.gov. The FBI regional phone numbers can be found online at http://www.fbi.gov/contact/fo/fo.htm. When available, each report submitted should include the date, time, location, type of activity, number of people and type of equipment used for the activity, the name of the submitting company or organization, and a designated point of contact.

(U) For comments or questions related to the content or dissemination of this document, please contact the DHS/I&A Production Branch at IA.PM@hq.dhs.gov, IA.PM@dhs.sgov.gov, or IA.PM@dhs.ic.gov.

(U) Tracked by: CRIM-040300-01-05, CRIM-040400-01-05, TERR-010000-01-05

Freedomworks is finally taking a poll to see which the public supports. If we can get these guys on our side, they would truly be a strong ally in fighting for the FairTax.
Go Vote!

Also, Glenn Beck is running a poll for his 912 Project.  Please vote for the FairTax here as well.  Remember that voting for other issues in this poll will dilute the power of the FairTax.

http://912project.com/

By Christian Hine

As I write, it appears that Jim Tedisco stands only 65 votes behind in an election that I hope becomes yet another wake up call for the GOP. I haven't given up on a Tedisco victory just yet since there are roughly 6,000 absentee ballots left to be counted and those tend to favor Republicans. However, I think what is continuing to be a disturbing trend in GOP electioneering made this race closer than it otherwise should have been.

Since 1994, we have witnessed the Republican Party rise and fall based on what I believe is their ability, or lack thereof, to actually frame an agenda that rallies people toward the cause of freedom and limited government. Newt Gingrich understood this well and I believe the "Contract With America" is one of the greatest political feats in modern American history. Unfortunately, as members elected during that historical year either retired or simply fell to the power of Washington corruption, we have seen the GOP go from the Party of ideas to a Party split between gutless panderers and overzealous attack dogs.

By the panderers, new ideas and a bold agenda were shunned in favor of a grand experiment to see if power could be acquired to a greater degree by giving up on core values and instead seeking alliances with the other side and "compromises" designed to coax a few in the left leaning middle ground to vote GOP instead of Democrat. That strategy has obviously failed. For each new voter brought into the "big tent", two were escaping out the back door feeling betrayed by those they had fought for.

On the other side of this, and bringing me back to the NY-20 election, is a group of Republican elected officials and activists who rightly saw the destruction of the Party and decried loudly the abandonment of core principles. Sadly, those who I refer to as the overzealous attack dogs ended up violating Gingrich's genius by spending more time, effort, energy, and money criticizing other Republicans and the Democrats than actually presenting the electorate with an agenda to stand FOR.

As I watched the Tedisco/Murphy race, I was barraged by emails from varying special interest groups (especially America Deserves Better PAC) that were filled with all the dirt they could find on Murphy. Truly, there was dirt to be found. Email after email asking for help in defeating the "big-spending, tax-cheating, anti-military, liberal Democrat (Scott Murphy)". Unfortunately, lost in the negative emails, commercials, YouTube videos, etc, was any actual positive agenda being laid out by Jim Tedisco! Perhaps he tried within the district, but all that was filtered through the media and my inbox was the repetition that I should vote for Jim Tedisco because Scott Murphy is evil.

I'm sorry folks, but that isn't good enough.

If Tedisco ends up losing this election, I believe the primary reasons will be twofold. First, people were turned off by the negativity and simply closed their ears and became disinterested. Low turnout is common in special elections, and in this case it is no wonder. I don't believe we can ever truly move forward until we have participation by an educated electorate. When you numb people to the message, the opportunity for education is lost. No movement can be built if the audience has moved on to other things out of frustration.

I would also suggest that based on the numbers and election history of the area that this was the wrong race to attempt any type of full blown campaigning. Conservatives trying so shortly after the election of Obama, who still tops 60% approval, to "make a statement" in a district won by Obama was near suicidal. You don't want to reenergize those new Obama voters to come out again and win another one for their "man" by making the race contentious. Deeper still, why embrace a strategy tying Murphy with Obama when Obama was the winning candidate? Rather, since the GOP holds a 41-26% voter registration lead over the democrats, a highly targeted get out the vote effort without the anti-Murphy grenades drawing attention to the battle would have been a better strategy. Republicans had controlled the district from 1993 to 2007. In low turnout elections, expect only the party faithful to vote. If that were the case in this election, I think Tedisco would have emerged victorious with a much safer margin of victory because my gut tells me the new Obama voters simply wouldn't have turned out and the overall number would have been lower. As it is now, I believe they did. The average Congressional special election draws 91,000 voters. This races turnout was over 154,000. Still low turnout, but significantly higher than average for a race of this type.

Whatever the reasons, and there is still hope for a Tedisco victory, it is time for the GOP to realize that the panderer strategy needs to end and we need to get back to the basics as a Party. I think this is starting to happen. On the other side of things, the attack dogs need to calm down a bit and start focusing their efforts on developing an agenda that people can support and feel good about without the constant criticism of the other side. It is right to point out faults and mistakes, but come to the table with your own folder of ideas, not just a shredder for the other sides. Make people want to support you by offering reasons to do so.

Who among us doesn't love to watch C-SPAN's coverage of "Prime Minister's Questions" for the shoe stomping, jeering, and "here, here's!" as someone gives an impassioned speech directly to the Prime Minister or his fill-in for the evening.  That kind of dialogue just doesn't happen here in the states.  Positions are given from the safety of press conferences, or on the floor of a mostly empty House chambers.

I would love to forgo the gentle "my friend from the other side of the isle" BS in favor of politicians, for once, saying what they mean and perhaps even meaning what they say.  Frankly, bipartisanship leads to both boredom and bad policy decisions.  Politicians need to get mad every once in awhile and vent.  They need to remember why they were elected in the first place...to represent their constituents, not simply to join the ranks of the power structure and make friends during the back room dealings.  The issues need to be laid out on the table in simple and relevant terminology.

That said, it was with great joy that I watched the now viral video of British MEP Daniel Hannan give a speech right to the face of Prime Minister Gordon Brown.  It's a speech that any Republican, Conservative Democrat, or common sense American could give directly to the face of Barack Obama, if only such a thing were ever allowed.

Here is the video:

Indeed, I would say the same thing to President Obama.  The new debt he is saddling this country with is simply unsustainable.  His oft recited complaint that "Bush left him with over a trillion dollar deficit" falls on my deaf ears as pure hypocrisy.   He is right to complain, but the answer then shouldn't be "...so I'll just spend more than him and all will be better". 

Obama needs to listen to what this impassioned Brit has to say.

Books by Daniel Hannan can be found HERE

Daniel Hannan's personal blog is HERE .

Hello friends, especially those from the Huckabee campaign!

NPR (everyone's favorite government funded liberal talk radio station) is sponsoring a "March Madness" type bracket competition for the potential runners in the 2012 GOP Primary.

If the last primary is any indication, it's never to early to start talking about this stuff (*rolls eyes*).

Still, just for fun, let's see if we can't get Huckabee (or at least a real conservative) into the finals.  You can find the bracket here:

LINK

Let us know how you voted in the comments section!

Here is the video from Tuesday's special order on the FairTax.

I would agree with many comments I have seen around the web that if they ever have the opportunity to present the FairTax again in this manner, that they will drop the blatant partisanship when discussing it.  As anyone who reads my posts knows, I'm as partisan as you can get about many things, but the FairTax is my most important issue and it should be something that everyone can embrace.  Especially in today's environment, we need Democrats in order to pass this bill.  Let's not push them away when we need them most!

******************************************************************

It appears that Congressmen Steve King and John Linder will have the opportunity to discuss the FairTax with the nation on Tuesday night, March 17 at around 6:00pm.

The following is from Congressman King's Press Secretary:

Right now we anticipate the Special Order taking place around 6 p.m. tomorrow night. Obviously, that could change, but that is the tentative time we are being told. The Special Order will be aired on CSPAN.

Congressman King is working to have several other members join him on the floor tomorrow night. House leadership has asked Congressman King to mention President Obama's plans for tax increases, so the Congressman and other members will be contrasting these planned tax hikes with the FairTax and all it can do to stimulate our economy.

I will send around a brief statement from the Congressman on the Special Order later today that you can post online if you would like. Let me know if you have any questions.

Matt

Please have all your friends and family tune in!  We hope to hope to have a YouTube version of this up as well as soon as I can get a link from someone who knows how to do that.