The report to the troopers by Homeland Security about profiling terrorists as likely to have 3rd party political candidate bumper stickers, likely to be pro-life, etc. has been 'apologized for' after national outcry here:

Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or

I believe what this means is that the next report will not be publicized. As mentioned in the article, it's interesting that the eco-terrorists received a pass while the pro-lifers need watching. Politics shines its omnipresent liberal preferential spotlight everywhere.

Heya Monty--
I assume eco-terrorists got a pass b/c they weren't mentioned and have done perhaps ten thousand times as many violent acts as any 3rd party candidate supporter has. Do you mean to tell me that you believe the original memo is free of political influence and group specific demonization?

I agree about your comment  broad stroking ALL members of any particular group, including Muslims but take issue with the profiling aspect. It seems peculiar that we were unable to profile at airports or call a terrorist a terrorist (combatants, insurgents and other nonsense terminology used) but when they're of a conservative bent then profiling is all the rage and necessary?

I consider you an articulate and intelligent guy which is why I'm continually perplexed at your view of what's going on as it seems skewed by collectivist ideology. Maybe you could simply clear this up by clarifying some core beliefs that I'd love to know such as:

Yea or Nay
1. America is basically/fundamentally a benevolent nation
2. The individual is of greater importance than the group
3. Government and Freedom are inversely proportionate
4. The rights that Americans have as citizens are clearly spelled out in
the Constitution.

I'm hoping not to make this sound like an interrogation and am sincerely interested in your core beliefs. It'll certainly help in understanding mindset and guide me in our next installation of opposed perceptions!

notseinfeld wrote on Mar 27^th, 2009 at 8:57pm:


The briefing paper said that "militia members most commonly associate with third party political groups." Is the accuracy of that statement in doubt? I don't think Ron Paul is fomenting militias to rebel, but there certainly were a vocal group of fringe militia's that supported him. In fact, Ron Paul lost control of the Ron Paul Newsletter, and it was taken over by such a group, and Dr. Paul had to do a lot of explaining to distance himself from that group and their paranoid, racist agenda.  Furthermore, given the large number of Ron Paul bumper stickers, signs, and popular support, I think its safe to say that the average Ron Paul supporter doesn't have to worry much about the government oppressing him/her for that bumper sticker.

Again, as a family member of a law enforcement agent who got death threats from one such group, I am not sure that some of the extremist militia groups are less violent than the fringe environmentalists. As a kid growing up in the midwest,  a neighbor was kidnapped by the "Army of God."  There have been a significant number of abortion clinic bombings, bomb threats, and shootings. Most of the 'violence' committed by fringe enviro groups has been petty vandalism.  I say we enforce the laws regardless of the political ideology of the criminal.

And the law enforcement pdf in question documents some serious plans by the militias to kill and cause mayhem ... trying to develop sarin gas puts them closer to Saddam Hussein than Gandhi.  Certainly that deserves more attention from law enforcement than a bunny-loving activist that break into labs and lets animals out of their cages - such activity is stupid and illegal, but I haven't feared a rabbit since I last watched the Holy Grail.

Quote:


It really depends on what you mean by profiling. If you mean educating law enforcement officers about various groups, that is no problem. If you mean detaining, searching and otherwise harassing people on the flimsiest of circumstantial associations, then it is illegal. Doesn't matter whether the group is one side of the political spectrum or the other.  Law enforcement should understand various groups that pose a threat, keep their eyes open, but not strip search every person driving while black, Muslim, Libertarian, or opposed to abortion.

Quote:


Yes, and No, depending on what you mean by America.  The country marked a radical break with feudalism and monarchism, and that was a good thing. The Constitution has some really good ideas in it.  The history of how various groups were treated by the US through history poses a few problems to the notion that we have always been benevolent, although our arc through history has been positive.

Quote:


A nation is by definition a collective. There will always be tension between the rights of the individual and the group.  To paraphrase, freedom of the individual isn't free; it is provided by those who sacrifice themselves for the group.

Quote:


Not necessarily true. If it were absolutely true, we should abolish all government to maximize freedom (assuming that maximizing freedom is in fact our goal.)  

That statement certainly can be true when government reaches a certain size or develops a certain attitude. Because a government is basically a group of people, who may act in an enlightened and pleasant fashion, or not.

Government is one form of a corporation. Where government recedes, other corporate/collective power advances ... today, some people worry about zoning laws, others worry about homeowner's associations.  Zoning and neighborhood restrictions can be a good thing if done right, or a bad thing if done wrong. Regardless of whether they are done by a government or a homeowners corporation.

Quote:


The original Constitution was mostly about the organization of the government, branches and granting powers, delineating the new federal structure over the existing individual states. Starting with the first set of amendments, various rights of the citizenry were recognized.

Some are spelled out in detail, others are pretty vague. And then there is the matter of interpretation - we can agree that people have a right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishments (it says so right there in the 8th Amendment) ... but exactly which punishments are cruel, and how strange does it have to be before we consider it unusual?? Like it or not, for better or worse, these things are socially defined.

Amendment 9 recognizes other rights of the individual, but gives no clue as to what they are. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."  Exactly which rights do I retain, even though the Constitution does not specify them precisely? How does that intersect with the Constitution's mandate for government to "Promote the general welfare" and to "Make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper"??  Again, this is ultimately defined by society - an interaction of elections, laws, court cases, and public opinion.