And also if they don't do it in some equivalent of "red face"* so that the coppers will blame it on savage minorities.

If you're going to do it, go all out! Turn it into a "Pimps 'n' Hos" costume party or something.



* Yes, I know that only a few of the people at the Boston Tea Party actually disguised themselves as Indians. But live the legend, says I!

BDBopper - please don't buy into the Rush nonsense. The extremist threats from the left and right are serious. This particular warning about the right isn't about you.

I think we should let these places secede if they want. Of course, we'd have to invade them in short order to quell the human rights abuses that would inevitably follow when they set up their own freedom-loving Christian governments.

On a slightly more serious note, whatever your political viewpoint is, if you start slinging words around like revolutionary, rebel, patriot, etc., you lose me right away because I will immediately conclude that your cause isn't about policy; it's about you and your perception of yourself.

I would regard extremist threats from everywhere as serious. However, what I find to be ridiculous is that they use the word "terrorism" or "terrorist" about threats from the right and yet will not use those words in association with Islamofacist terrorists.

From an interview:
SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?

Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

Apparently the "politics of fear" is acceptable in talking about certain groups.

I'm sorry, and where do you have a quote from Napolitano (or anyone else who has claimed to stop using the term "terrorism") referring to the right wing nuts as terrorists? Did I miss that?

Are you serious? It was written in her 9 page domestic terrorism watch document. The use of the word terrorist is ALL over, with "right-wing" prior to it a lot of the time, but since the document is about right wing extremists, it's implied even when not used in the doc. It refers to terrorist cells and how the terrorist threat is higher than pre OK City bombing.

Is that enough of a quote for you? Or is it just because it's in writing in the report rather than her simply saying it?

Ok, I did miss it. In that case, fair enough, she's being retarded. I guess it goes with the job.

Just to make sure people are aware, but the Homeland Security report talking about Right Wing Extremists (which so many conservatives seem to have decided targets them personally) is part of an ongoing series of reports by Homeland Security on the threats from various extremist groups.

It had nothing to do with Obama (which very well may be why it uses words differently than the Obama preferred spin machine). Also, they were produced under the supervision of Bush appointees.

Here is the Rightwing Extremism report in the news now (as hosted by WorldNetDaily to make you comfortable or not depending on your view).
Here is the Leftwing Extremists report from earlier this year (as hosted by FoxNews to make you comfortable or not depending on your view).

I'm sure there are things that can be used to drive outrage in either report. But at least now we have no excuse for not having read them before getting outraged.