Obama Wants to Force "Extremist Groups" to Reveal Member Identities

General General Discussion
1

Obama probably has a pretty wide definition of those who are “extremists”. Note that the biggest threat to America is now white, right wing extremists. ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christian-piatt/biggest-threat-on-us-soil_b_7656346.html “Biggest Threat on U.S. Soil: Domestic Right-Wing Extremists”)

I would like you to note that there was a big push coming out the White House not 5 days ago spotlighting “right wing extremism”. This was not a coincidence the timing of that push with the story below.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3140789/Obama-wants-KKK-forced-members-supporters-Charleston-church-massacre.html

Charleston SC mayor tells Daily Mail Online the president wants to force extremist groups to provide identities of their supporters

President Obama is keen to introduce tough new laws which will force the KKK and other extreme right-wing groups to disclose the identities of their members, Daily Mail Online can disclose.

Among the ideas being looked at is legislation forcing extreme right wings groups and violent organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan to provide identities of supporters and members.

Create a list to cross-reference to other lists. How about Churches, political action groups, gun clubs, web sites?

'One of the things we need to do is for the national government to give resources to expose these hate groups.

Further expansion and justification of society wide drag-net spying.

'But we need to shine the spotlight on them (racist organizations), so at least we know where they are among the public.

‘Neighbors should be able to know that the person living next to them is an absolute bigot. So there is a lot of work to do.’

Wow. I’d hate to be on that list. Would you consider yourself a target for “progressive activism”? Kristallnacht anyone?

He said many self styled racists such as alleged gunman Dylann Roof built their evil beliefs after ‘being fed by the internet’ and new legislation to marshal racial material on the web is set to be brought in.

Just read about how Obama wants to clamp down on websites spreading “sensitive” data.

( http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419489/obama-administration-supports-free-internet-except-when-it-comes-gun-enthusiasts The State Department’s Dangerous New Proposal to Regulate Gun Enthusiasts’ Internet Speech )

‘We need a national council on these hate groups. The President is talking about that. We have just got a lot more work to do,’ he said.

Progressives are VERY good at multi-pronged attacks and taking advantage of every crisis.

2

Of course racist hate groups would not include the New Black Panther Party, would it? Silly me for even entertaining the notion.

3

I knew that the deaths in SC would be used to leverage the progressive agenda.
It must be nice to be “King”.

4

My first thought too, or certain groups with “Islam” as well.

5

I found this article interesting - but not suprising…

http://www.amren.com/news/2005/08/feds_rule_white/

"Fed’s Rule “White Pride” is “Offensive” and “Immoral”

If you are looking for more evidence that the United States government is biased against white people, you can add their decision in my trademark case. In February, 2004, I applied for a trademark on the words “White Pride Country Wide.” I did it as an exercise against political correctness. I intentionally did not choose “white power,” “white supremacy” or “the white race” because of the negative connotations of those terms. Trademarks can be denied to offensive phrases.

When I later searched United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) records, I found that “Black Power,” “Black Supremacy,” and “La Raza” (Spanish for “The Race”) had all been approved by the USPTO and been found not to be offensive. The USPTO had also approved and registered “The Black Panther Party” and “Burn, Baby, Burn,” the party’s slogan. The Black Panthers had assassinated white police officers but neither term was found to be offensive or immoral. To me, “white pride” was a non-offensive, positive term, or at least I thought so.

On December 23, 2004, I received my Christmas present from the USPTO. In an Office Action prepared by Barbara Rutland, it denied my trademark, ruling that the “white pride” part of my request was “offensive,” “immoral,” and “scandalous.”

On January 1, 2005, I decided to appeal the USPTO decision, but not before doing some research. I found that that the following “pride” terms have all been registered as trademarks by the U.S Government:

“African Pride,” “African Man Pride,” “Asian Pride,” “Bahama Pride,” “Black Pride,” “Brazilian Pride,” “China-Pride,” “Chippewa Pride,” “Choctaw Pride,” “Colombian Pride,” “Cuban Pride,” “Dakota Pride,” “Dominican Pride,” “El Salvador Pride,” “Ecuador Pride,” “Gay Pride Apparel,” “Guyanese Pride,” “Havana Pride,” “Honduran Pride,” “Indian Pride,” “Jamaica’s Pride,” “Jewish Pride,” “Kwanzaa Pride,” “Long Beach Lesbian and Gay Pride,” “Mayan Pride,” “Mexican Pride,” “Native Pride!,” “Nicaraguan Pride,” “Orgullo Hispano” (Hispanic Pride), “Orgoglio” (Hispanic—’Great Pride’ (supremacy?)), “Qisqueya Pride” (Dominican Republic Pride), “Rainbow Pride Coach,” “Red Pride,” “San Diego Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Pride,” “Spanish Pride,” and “West Indian Pride.”

The factual evidence for my appeal was overwhelming, or at least I thought so. It seemed as though the federal government wanted everybody to have pride, except white people. It seemed to be a clear case of discrimination.

6

I’m pretty sure if these are hate groups and they are active and have a list of members getting a “list” isn’t going to be much of an issue for the Fed’s.
The idea of this article coming out and saying “we’re going after the hate groups for a list of members” I would surmise would be illegal and the idea that someone reads such writings or even participates in these groups cannot be a “crime” unless some sort of criminal action is taken.
I’m not defending these guys, but didn’t this administration pretty much stand back while the Crips and Bloods got together in Baltimore? I don’t think you could find a more criminal or hate filled group that you might really want to investigate.

But then I’m a gun owner and pretty much a white guy so what do I know about it?

7

Yes. From all I’ve heard a good chunk of KKK members are government informants and the FBI (etc.) certainly has a list of active members and hangers-on. I would expect the same to be true for any other fringe group, whether or not it engages in any illegal activity. There is no need for the sort of thing Obama is reportedly demanding.

Unless, of course, the goal is to end free association by putting a false light on everything, and making membership in ABC group public and career-limiting, then adding groups to the list piecemeal until membership in something like Right To Life or even an active gun owner’s lobby (like GOA) will be trotted out as “extremism!” and used to stifle dissent and oppress the opposition.

8

I hate to say it, but I think this may be the end goal.
Once you’re on that list and they decide to notify your employer and your neighbors and shame you in to STFU will they be happy? Will participation in a discussion in a place such as this be enough to deem you a member of a “Hate Group”?
This is going down an Orwellian road and it’s not looking good for freedom. I can’t help but remember some of the things said about returning veterans being a danger to the rest of America and wonder where it goes from there.

9

What if you’re not on this list, but Obama threatens to tell everyone you are? This is worse than McCarthyism was ever alleged to be.

10

what if a website such as this represents extremism? can we move forward with replicating this board on the deepweb?

11

Hardly surprising. Obama’s Administration has been steadily shifting the focus from Islamic Terrorism to “right wing extremists” since it took office. This has been a long time coming. The sad part is, he’s using all of the tools we gave the Bush administration to fight terrorism. Lesson to be learned here, folks, is never give the Government a tool to use against one group of people, because they can always come back and use it against you.

12

The Patriot Act was not about keeping people safe from foreign terrorists but a way for the current administration to spy on its enemies.

13

Aside from the fact that the tools given the Bush Admin were a rape of our freedoms, okay, this is bad stuff, it has always been bad stuff.

The cop in me sees one bright spot, maybe they will finally make public the FBI NA’s Clan of the Cave Bears super secret handshake so I can penetrate the super secret ‘training’ sessions and get access to the good scotch.

14

Eff the King. And all his men and all his horses.

15

So when do we start registering folks like Obama as KKK members??

16

Yep, the founding fathers never intended for us to have the leviathan of a central government we currently have.

17

What we really need to do is turn this crap around on them when we’re in power. This tyranny crap is a one way street, right now. This country is going down and we need to use the govt power when we have it. RICO people like Jackson. Put LaRaza on notice.

When did ‘No justice, no peace’ not be a terroristic threat?

Find someone in their power structure doing something stupid, it isn’t hard as Project Veritas showed, and nail to the wall. Do not let up on their transgressions- if it only saves one life, we should do it, right?

18

So, to whom are we to report these people? The Committee for State Security? Or the Secret State Police? Will there be rewards for submitting names or is it just part of being a “Good Citizen”?

19

I dunno, but that “Little Sisters Of The Poor” outfit sounds pretty fishy to me.

20

Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the NRA?

I’d like to say “never happen”, but I’ve been seeing quite a few things that I honestly believed would “never happen”, at least not in my lifetime.

Ironically, record show McCarthy actually had a pretty good track record.

http://www.rense.com/politics6/mc.htm