DoD calls founding fathers extremists

[Drayno]

http://www.scribd.co...61-docs#page=43

Here's a link to page 43 of a Department of Defense training manual that came out in January 2013.

“In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples"

or

"Nowadays, instead of dressing in sheets or publicly espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.”

Let's not forget..

In 2012, a study by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland labeled Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.

If you stand for the principles of America, you're an extremist...

http://www.scribd.co...61-docs#page=39

Page 39 lists the definition of a Neo-Confederate..

It wasn't long ago a MSNBC reporter likened opposition to gun-control as such..

“There’s this sort of neo-Confederate thread that runs through this pro-gun movement and NRA movement,” she [Joy Reid] said this afternoon while discussing the recall elections for Democratic state lawmakers in Colorado that were spurred by their support for gun-control legislation. Reid also argued that gun-rights advocates and the National Rifle Association are hypocrites because they oppose the new restrictions on gun rights signed into law by Colorado governor John Hickenlooper while advocating for states’ rights and the Tenth Amendment."

Man, they are working hard to destroy America.

Edited August 25, 2013 by Hatake Kakashi

[StarMountainKid]

The beginning of police state mentality.

[spacecowboy342]

"Occasionally the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots" - Thomas Jefferson.

" Give me liberty or give me death" - Patrick Henry

I don't know but sounds a little bit extremist to me

[Drayno]

"Occasionally the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots" - Thomas Jefferson.

" Give me liberty or give me death" - Patrick Henry

I don't know but sounds a little bit extremist to me

Extreme in what way other than they understood reality?

Their views were backed by years upon years upon years of rigorous education involving history, political science, mathematics, etc. The way our system was originally set up reflects upon their education..

The very fact that our founders expressed the intent to abolish destructive governments in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence reflects upon their knowledge and in-depth understanding of how despotism comes around easier than people anticipate. This is why the Bill of Rights, which protects the natural rights of man, acts as a safeguard against tyranny - because despite the fact Obama told people to ignore voices warning of tyranny, our founding fathers knew the problems of democracy, because the wolves can simply outvote the sheep. That's why our constitutional Republic was created - to have representation proportionate to population; including the addition later of of having two senators appointed for each state in the Union - so that tyranny would have no chance to creep in the back door.

Plus, the militia, also known as the entire population who owns a gun, had the moral obligation to remove despotism, despite how arduous and hopeless the expedition might be. What is going on in our government is that they are using The War on Terror - which was probably engineered to bring about the destruction of America in the way I'm about to explain - to then label their own citizens as potential terrorists; 'extremists', undermine the traditional values America was founded upon - exploit how meaningless they are when translated to our modern times despite their universal messages, and then incrementally strip the people of their civil liberties to effectively establish a stronger despotism.. Essentially, every thing our 'extremist' founding fathers warned us of.

By calling the founding fathers 'terrorists' they mean to make American principles null.

By making out the foundation of our country to be terrorism - they can assign any one who follows this ideology - or who believes in natural rights - as opposed to rights given and taken away by the state, as a terrorist and, ironically, the progressives can liberally throw around the word terrorist to demonize any conservative opposition and then prosecute them for belonging to 'hate-groups' that oppose the 'first African-American president'..

They've already set up the framework for it.

See where I'm going?

Edited August 25, 2013 by Hatake Kakashi

[F3SS]

Extreme in what way other than they understood reality?

Their views were backed by years upon years upon years of rigorous education involving history, political science, mathematics, etc. The way our system was originally set up reflects upon their education..

The very fact that our founders expressed the intent to abolish destructive governments in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence reflects upon their knowledge and in-depth understanding of how despotism comes around easier than people anticipate. This is why the Bill of Rights, which protects the natural rights of man, acts as a safeguard against tyranny - because despite the fact Obama told people to ignore voices warning of tyranny, our founding fathers knew the problems of democracy, because the wolves can simply outvote the sheep. That's why our constitutional Republic was created - to have representation proportionate to population; including the addition later of of having two senators appointed for each state in the Union - so that tyranny would have no chance to creep in the back door.

Plus, the militia, also known as the entire population who owns a gun, had the moral obligation to remove despotism, despite how arduous and hopeless the expedition might be. What is going on in our government is that they are using The War on Terror - which was probably engineered to bring about the destruction of America in the way I'm about to explain - to then label their own citizens as potential terrorists; 'extremists', undermine the traditional values America was founded upon - exploit how meaningless they are when translated to our modern times despite their universal messages, and then incrementally strip the people of their civil liberties to effectively establish a stronger despotism.. Essentially, every thing our 'extremist' founding fathers warned us of.

By calling the founding fathers 'terrorists' they mean to make American principles null.

By making out the foundation of our country to be terrorism - they can assign any one who follows this ideology - or who believes in natural rights - as opposed to rights given and taken away by the state, as a terrorist and, ironically, the progressives can liberally throw around the word terrorist to demonize any conservative opposition and then prosecute them for belonging to 'hate-groups' that oppose the 'first African-American president'..

They've already set up the framework for it.

See where I'm going?

Dang, great post.

This is the kicker...

"Nowadays, instead of dressing in sheets or publicly espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.”

Now instead of hating and killing many extremists will talk about following the constitution.

[Drayno]

The potential for government abuse is overwhelming. And it hasn't just now come about.

The potential of government abuse was demonstrated by the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 which was signed by 3rd president John Adams, in which, in section 2 of the "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes Against the United States", you could be imprisoned for speaking out against the US government; do not dismiss the potential for government abuse or despotism.

SEC. 2. And be it farther enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

The potential for abuse was there in 1798, and sure as hell hasn't gone away in 2013.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Of course they were radicals and subversives - they decided to defy what was up until that point the only established and stable form of government in the world (a monarchy) but also the premiere monarchy of it's age. They didn't just say "we're independent of you" but actively allied themselves with the enemy of that monarchy. Then, they didn't establish their own monarchy, they chose a radical ideology based on their own study and learning and beliefs.

Radical =/= evil, wrong or amoral.

Sometimes you need radicals.

[Drayno]

Of course they were radicals and subversives - they decided to defy what was up until that point the only established and stable form of government in the world (a monarchy) but also the premiere monarchy of it's age. They didn't just say "we're independent of you" but actively allied themselves with the enemy of that monarchy. Then, they didn't establish their own monarchy, they chose a radical ideology based on their own study and learning and beliefs.

Radical =/= evil, wrong or amoral.

Sometimes you need radicals.

In the sense of what you said, by choosing to question and effectively rebel against the institution, yes, they were perceived as radicals. So yes, you are correct, they were extremists in a sense - but in a good sense as change is not necessary brought on by passive resistance. However, I am highlighting the fact that I believe our government isn't highlighting them as extremists in a positive light; instead they are using defamation tactics.

[Almagest]

"Terrorism" is one of those disgusting terms that gets thrown around too much. Timothy McVey was a terrorist, so too were the 9/11 hijackers. To retroactively dub the Founding Fathers as terrorists isn't exactly correct, but it does highlight the fact that it's all a matter of perception - some of the British probably viewed the Colonial rebels in a very similar manner. I think their strategy and tactics are more similar to modern concepts of guerilla warfare.

Extremism doesn't necessarily imply violence. I think the methods of Gandhi were extreme for their time, since nobody had tried massive non-violent protest against an encroaching empire.

[questionmark]

before all go off the handle: a extremist is not the same as a terrorist.

And yes, given the time most founding fathers were pretty extreme (just as the French Revolutionaries) and advocating (for the time) pretty unusual principles. The government of the people by the people would just be one example.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

In the sense of what you said, by choosing to question and effectively rebel against the institution, yes, they were perceived as radicals. So yes, you are correct, they were extremists in a sense - but in a good sense as change is not necessary brought on by passive resistance. However, I am highlighting the fact that I believe our government isn't highlighting them as extremists in a positive light; instead they are using defamation tactics.

Ohh I agree, you're looking at the possible use of language to imply that pro-constitutionalists are radicals\extremists and to either cillofy them or ignore\censer their inions.

[Babe Ruth]

Well, truth be told, from the perspective of the British Crown the colonists revolutionary views WERE extremist.

Nonetheless, history has proven that they were correct and in tune with Enlightenment ideas.

It really is amazing, sort of, that today's DOD is promulgating such statist nonsense.

[Kowalski]

This story was on RT:

Link: http://rt.com/usa/us...rism-right-963/

A Department of Defense training manual obtained by a conservative watchdog group pointed to the original American colonists as examples of an extremist movement, comments that have sparked fear of a broader crackdown on dissent in America.

The training manual provides information that describes, among other things,“common themes in extremist ideologies."

Now, if the Department of Defense has its way, historical figures who risked their lives to free America from British colonial rule – names like Paul Revere, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin and Samuel Adams – will be rebranded as dangerous extremists, alongside the likes of skinheads and neo-Nazis.

The first paragraph of the section entitled ‘Extremist Ideologies’ opens with a statement that has drawn heated criticism: “In US history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.”

In America’s early colonial period, many colonists served in state militias under the direction of the Continental Army in an effort to free the Thirteen Colonies from British rule. Indeed, the Second Amendment of the US Constitution clearly states: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The document, entitled Equal Opportunity and Treatment Incidents (EOTI), was obtained on Thursday by Judicial Watch, a watchdog group, through a Freedom of Information Act request.

I think the Declaration of Independence says it best on this subject:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Edited August 25, 2013 by Kowalski

[Almagest]

Well, truth be told, from the perspective of the British Crown the colonists revolutionary views WERE extremist.

You only need to look to the European reaction to the French Revolution to reinforce that. In fact it was more troubling to the Monarchs and Emperors of Europe because it took place in the neighbouring country and could spread to theirs.

Nonetheless, history has proven that they were correct and in tune with Enlightenment ideas.

They were radical for their time, but remember that a lot of what the Founding Fathers wrote was for rich, white landowners. If they were truly radical they would have implemented women's suffrage and ended slavery. Now I'm not saying they were bad, I'm a lover of rhetoric and I think theirs is some of the best. But you have to realize that they provided the foundation and others built on it. The United States isn't just the product of the Founding Fathers, it is the product of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Cesar Chavez, and Martin Luther King. It is the product of the industrialists who built the businesses and the unions who fought for the quality of life that we have today. A return to the constitution would be nice, but not at the expense of throwing out all the good work that has been done by people working from the constitution.

It really is amazing, sort of, that today's DOD is promulgating such statist nonsense.

View the DOD as a life form with a sense of self-preservation, although I doubt they have to worry as much, because the right wing in the US has shown an irrational love for the military. A lot of these constitutionalists would probably go full Neo-Con if they were in power.

[Skep B]

maybe they have a point.

We've been following the same piece of paper for over 200 years, the world is a different place, and the fact it's been amended so many times shows it's flawed.

Maybe its time to adapt, rather than cling to an old piece of paper.

[Babe Ruth]

SkepticalB

I think you're kidding yourself a bit if you really think we've been following what that piece of paper says. Recall that in the last decade, through the legislative and judicial processes, the Fourth Amendment has been nullified, Habeas has been nullified, and 2 successive POTUS have publically violated the law and their oath of office, and were not impeached for it.

Almagest

For the most part I agree with you. But let's keep in mind that slavery and the 3/5 business noted in the document represented a compromise for political purposes, so that the southern states could be incorporated with the northern states to form the "union". Further, that the compromise was set to expire in the near future.

[Skep B]

I understand that its been changed in the past decade, its been changed in the past two centuries also.

What I'm saying is, we need to quit acting like its some holy text, and see it as what it is, a set of old laws, from a different time.

If things don't evolve they die, if we don't do this, we may find that we'll die too.

[Almagest]

Almagest

For the most part I agree with you. But let's keep in mind that slavery and the 3/5 business noted in the document represented a compromise for political purposes, so that the southern states could be incorporated with the northern states to form the "union". Further, that the compromise was set to expire in the near future.

Which suggests quite strongly to me that the Founding Fathers intended the Constitution to be built upon. It's just a matter to decide what works and what doesn't.

[Babe Ruth]

I understand that its been changed in the past decade, its been changed in the past two centuries also.

What I'm saying is, we need to quit acting like its some holy text, and see it as what it is, a set of old laws, from a different time.

If things don't evolve they die, if we don't do this, we may find that we'll die too.

Sound principles of governance transcend generations and ages.

If one is really interested in liberty, government must be limited. This we are seeing to be true today.

Which suggests quite strongly to me that the Founding Fathers intended the Constitution to be built upon. It's just a matter to decide what works and what doesn't.

I completely agree. Thus the inclusion of the amendment process in the document.

[Skep B]

Sound principles of governance transcend generations and ages.

If one is really interested in liberty, government must be limited. This we are seeing to be true today.

Centuries ago kings and queens could run governments. That doesn't work anymore, the only way something can transcend is if it adapts to its surroundings.

A strong central government is needed now, otherwise there's too many people with their own agendas to get anything really done.

[Kowalski]

Sound principles of governance transcend generations and ages.

If one is really interested in liberty, government must be limited. This we are seeing to be true today.

I completely agree. Thus the inclusion of the amendment process in the document.

Exactly!

"Is the Constitution flexible? Of course it is, but not in the 'distort, bend and mold it to do anything you want' way that politicians use it. Rather, it is flexible in that it embodies timeless princliples which can be applied to many situations."

Warren Michelsen

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."

Patrick Henry

Edited August 25, 2013 by Kowalski

[Skep B]

Henry was in general a critic of the constitution, given the time they live din they were afraid of a strong central figure. It's not the 1700's anymore, and people need a leader. They need someone they can point to as in charge, ideas like liberty and democracy aren't enough to make most people feel at ease.

[lightly]

Centuries ago kings and queens could run governments. That doesn't work anymore, the only way something can transcend is if it adapts to its surroundings.

A strong central government is needed now, otherwise there's too many people with their own agendas to get anything really done.

I dunno about that. Everyone has 'agendas' . Centralizing power more would only better serve the agendas of fewer people? The role of Government is not necessarily to ' Get things done ' but to facilitate , rather than inhibit and complicate the people's ability to get things done, for themselves. .. ??

More to topic... the founders were radicals.. but i always remember that good old George Washington , after all the ruckus, ended up owning some of the very same thousands, and thousands, of acres of land that he had, when younger, surveyed for the Crown. Those guys weren't exactly cub scouts.

Edited August 25, 2013 by lightly

[Skep B]

I agree everyone has agendas, but I think a central government with the ability to get its agendas done is better than staying stagnant and doing nothing.

[lightly]

Some things seem to get done ... the banks were bailed out in a hurry. We have troops all over the world,,, no problem. Our Worldwide weapons sales are doing better than ever!

There seems to be some "central" things that both parties can agree on? There seems to be some Centers of power, driving national agendas.. but they are outside of government. And while the two party system plays your fault... no, your fault !.. ... many agendas seem to advance swimmingly.