Pro-Life? Obama Administration Considers You a Terror Suspect

[red states rule]

Now another segment of our society has been added to the Obama's Enemies List





Once again, the Obama administration has called “terrorists” the majority of Americans who support the pro-life view on abortion. A January 2012 Department of Homeland Security document is making the rounds on the Internet and it paints an unflattering picture of pro-life Americans.
The January, 31, 2012 document (http://start.umd.edu/start/publications/research_briefs/LaFree_Bersani_HotSpotsOfUSTerrorism.pdf) is titled, “Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970 to 2008″ and was released by the Behavioral Sciences Division of the department.

“The authors of this report are Gary LaFree, director of START and professor of criminology at the University of Maryland, and Bianca Bersani, assistant professor of sociology at the University of Massachusetts-Boston,” the document says. “This report is part of a series sponsored by the Human Factors/Behavioral Sciences Division, Science and Technology Directorate, U.S.

Department of Homeland Security, in support of the Counter-IED Prevent/Deter program. The goal of this program is to sponsor research that will aid the intelligence and law enforcement communities in identifying potential terrorist threats and support policymakers in developing prevention efforts.”

“This material is based upon work supported under Grant Award Number 2008ST061ST0003 from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security made to the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland,” it adds.

Under a headline, “Terrorism” on page 9, the manual describes the frequency of terrorist attacks and details what it terms “category of ideological motivation” to describe groups it believes are more prone to acts of terrorism. One section includes pro-life advocates:

Single Issue: groups or individuals that obsessively focus on very specific or narrowly-defined causes (e.g., anti-abortion, anti-Catholic, anti-nuclear, anti-Castro).

Later the document includes tables that graphically show the number of attacks and the manual, again, claims pro-life people are behind them.

“Table 6 shows the concentration of single issue terrorism for the four decades spanned by the data. Recall, single issue events include such attacks as anti-abortion, anti-Catholic, or anti-nuclear. Interestingly, among the types of terrorism examined here, single issue terrorism is probably the most temporally diverse, with substantial numbers of attacks occurring in all four decades,” the Obama administration paper says.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/07/06/obama-administration-calls-pro-lifers-terrorists-again/

[aboutime]

Nothing new. In fact. I enjoy being called such names by the Obama gang. It tells me, and anyone else who disagree's with them, in any way. How effective we are in dragging the Truth about them out into the open for THE ENTIRE NATION to see.

I imagine. The phony president who claims to admire Veterans, doesn't realize how calling most of them, or US such names. Just won't benefit him in November either.
But then. Liars really don't care about such things.

[jafar00]

This is not just Obama's fault. The erosion of the freedoms supposedly guaranteed in the the Bill of Rights, in this case the 1st amendment right to freedom of association began during the reign of G W Bush with the excuse being the "War on Terror".

You let them take it away from you. It is up to you to now stand up and take back your rights.

[Roo]

This is not just Obama's fault. The erosion of the freedoms supposedly guaranteed in the the Bill of Rights, in this case the 1st amendment right to freedom of association began during the reign of G W Bush with the excuse being the "War on Terror".

You let them take it away from you. It is up to you to now stand up and take back your rights.

God are you ill educated.

Like a child you must eqivocate and blame (much like Obama) everything on someone else.

[revelarts]

"...anti-abortion, anti-Catholic, anti-nuclear, anti-Castro..." talk to loud on the plane, store food, have 3rd party bumper stickers, missing fingers, tea party activist, occupy activist, buying flash lights, using cash at hotels or coffee shop, Texting Privately in a Public Places, Belief in Conspiracies, Own/trade precious metals, etc etc

The bottom line is if the gov't says you are a terrorist you are a terrorist
and if your not in uniform, well that cuts it, your an enemy combatant at that point.
Off to secret prison for you, don't pass court.

But it'll never be miss used... ever. Only real terrorist will ever be harassed, jailed, tortured or killed.

[jafar00]

God are you ill educated.

Like a child you must eqivocate and blame (much like Obama) everything on someone else.

Am I to believe that the war on terror was Obama's fault? The "Patriot" Act? I suppose Pearl Harbour was too?

[red states rule]

Nothing new. In fact. I enjoy being called such names by the Obama gang. It tells me, and anyone else who disagree's with them, in any way. How effective we are in dragging the Truth about them out into the open for THE ENTIRE NATION to see.

I imagine. The phony president who claims to admire Veterans, doesn't realize how calling most of them, or US such names. Just won't benefit him in November either.
But then. Liars really don't care about such things.

I am sure i have been reported to Homeland Security by some "tolerant" liberal after they see the bumber stickers on my car

As far as the the pro life issus - it is easy to be pro choice if you are not the one being killed

[red states rule]

This is not just Obama's fault. The erosion of the freedoms supposedly guaranteed in the the Bill of Rights, in this case the 1st amendment right to freedom of association began during the reign of G W Bush with the excuse being the "War on Terror".

You let them take it away from you. It is up to you to now stand up and take back your rights.

So please tell me where in the Bill of Rights a mother has the "right" to murder her unborn child

[logroller]

So please tell me where in the Bill of Rights a mother has the "right" to murder her unborn child

I Believe that has been discussed ad nauseum; see Roe v Wade. Regardless, the rights being infringed in this case aren't those of unborn children; but breathing persons, vilified for their association. Surely you can see that, right?

[Noir]

Talk about making an issue out of nothing.

The OP also includes 'anti-catholics' in the list I terrorists...does that mean Obama is calling me a terrorist?!!!

And what about all the anti-nuclear people, they're all those crazy liberals, right?

I'd be amazed if animals rights activists weren't included too...which would stamp me as a double terrorist....

But here's the thing, it's not saying that everyone pro-life, anti-catholic, or whatever else is a terrorist. But there are pro-lifers who murder abortion doctors, and there are anti-nuclear protestors who vandalize the homes and cars as those who they see as responsible. They are terrorists, using violence to try and achieve their political aims, but if you are part of any of the groups mentioned and do so peacefully then you're not being told you're a terrorist anyways.

[jimnyc]

Talk about making an issue out of nothing

I wouldn't say it's nothing. I don't think we should be labeling anyone as terrorists, unless of course they are in fact real terrorists. We shouldn't minimize what the real terrorists do. And if they are speaking solely of those who perform attacks of some sort, they should have better clarification:


Single Issue: groups or individuals that obsessively focus on very specific or narrowly-defined causes (e.g., anti-abortion, anti-Catholic, anti-nuclear, anti-Castro).

Obsessively focusing, if that being the only trait, is far from being a terrorist.

[Noir]

I wouldn't say it's nothing. I don't think we should be labeling anyone as terrorists, unless of course they are in fact real terrorists. We shouldn't minimize what the real terrorists do. And if they are speaking solely of those who perform attacks of some sort, they should have better clarification:

Obsessively focusing, if that being the only trait, is far from being a terrorist.

It doesn't say focusing on one trait is akin to being a terrorist. Its has a list of "groups it believes are more prone to acts of terrorism." Apparently pro-lifers are more prone to acts of terrorism that pro-choicers, or anti-nuclear groups are more prone to terrorism that anti-solarfarm groups.

Assuming the data shows that to be the case, what's the problem?

[jimnyc]

It doesn't say focusing on one trait is akin to being a terrorist. Its has a list of "groups it believes are more prone to acts of terrorism." Apparently pro-lifers are more prone to acts of terrorism that pro-choicers, or anti-nuclear groups are more prone to terrorism that anti-solarfarm groups.

Assuming the data shows that to be the case, what's the problem?

I'm simply saying, IMO from the reading, that not enough clarification is given. It can give the appearance that people solely anti-abortion could be listed as terrorists. Here is a listing from the actual article describing some of the terrorists. I think it's very loosely described, too loosely in fact.


Extreme Right-Wing: groups that believe that one’s personal and/or national “way of life” is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent (for some the threat is from a specific ethnic, racial, or religious group), and believe in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism. Groups may also be fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation), anti-global, suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty, and believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.

Extreme Left-Wing: groups that want to bring about change through violent revolution rather than through established political processes. This category also includes secular left-wing groups that rely heavily on terrorism to overthrow the capitalist system and either establish “a dictatorship of the proletariat” (Marxist-Leninists) or, much more rarely, a decentralized, non-hierarchical political system (anarchists).

Religious: groups that seek to smite the purported enemies of God and other evildoers, impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists), forcibly insert religion into the political sphere (e.g., those who seek to politicize religion, such as Christian Reconstructionists and Islamists), and/or bring about Armageddon (apocalyptic millenarian cults; 2010: 17). For example, Jewish Direct Action, Mormon extremist, Jamaat-al-Fuqra, and Covenant, Sword and the Arm of the Lord (CSA) are included in this category.

Ethno-Nationalist/Separatist: regionally concentrated groups with a history of organized political autonomy with their own state, traditional ruler, or regional government, who are committed to gaining or regaining political independence through any means and who have supported political movements for autonomy at some time since 1945.

Single Issue: groups or individuals that obsessively focus on very specific or narrowly-defined causes (e.g., anti-abortion, anti-Catholic, anti-nuclear, anti-Castro). This category includes groups from all sides of the political spectrum.

[cadet]

I like babies, that makes me a terrible person?

[revelarts]

...

But here's the thing, it's not saying that everyone pro-life, anti-catholic, or whatever else is a terrorist. But there are pro-lifers who murder abortion doctors, and there are anti-nuclear protestors who vandalize the homes and cars as those who they see as responsible. They are terrorists, using violence to try and achieve their political aims, but if you are part of any of the groups mentioned and do so peacefully then you're not being told you're a terrorist anyways.

It's saying everyone who is pro-life anti nuke etc are suspect,
and here's the thing
killing an abortion doc is murder not terrorism,
and Vandalizing a homes and cars is Vandalism not terrorism,

By the definition you used terrorism is used by every nation state in war even in defense. And every cop that pulls a gun, billy club or mace is a terrorist.

the problem is the loose definition of the term terrorism and the COMPLETE lack of rights afforded those given the label.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It's saying everyone who is pro-life anti nuke etc are suspect,
and here's the thing
killing an abortion doc is murder not terrorism,
and Vandalizing a homes and cars is Vandalism not terrorism,

By the definition you used terrorism is used by every nation state in war even in defense. And every cop that pulls a gun, billy club or mace is a terrorist.

the problem is the loose definition of the term terrorism and the COMPLETE lack of rights afforded those given the label.

Obama uses loose definitions to paint patriots as terrorists. He also issues Executive orders with broad ranging definition that allows for more power to be grabbed! Just as he appointed czars with broad powers in order to bypass Congress thereby enforcing as laws his illegal commands and policy. He is by far the closest thing to a dictator this nation has ever had! And I truly believe he wants to be a total dictator. Give him a second term and by God he will be!!!--Tyr

[mundame]

Talk about making an issue out of nothing.

The OP also includes 'anti-catholics' in the list I terrorists...does that mean Obama is calling me a terrorist?!!!

And what about all the anti-nuclear people, they're all those crazy liberals, right?

I'd be amazed if animals rights activists weren't included too...which would stamp me as a double terrorist....

But here's the thing, it's not saying that everyone pro-life, anti-catholic, or whatever else is a terrorist. But there are pro-lifers who murder abortion doctors, and there are anti-nuclear protestors who vandalize the homes and cars as those who they see as responsible. They are terrorists, using violence to try and achieve their political aims, but if you are part of any of the groups mentioned and do so peacefully then you're not being told you're a terrorist anyways.


People are only terrorists if they terrorize, right? I think it's fair to call anti-abortionists who murder abortion docs or blow up clinics terrorists, isn't it? Same with animal rightists or ELF environmental whackos -- if they burn up houses or let lots of rats free, that's a form of terrorism, I think. The point is to stop what they don't like by scaring people that the crime could happen to them.

Pacheco invading that monkey lab, busting it up, stealing several monkeys, getting the scientist charged with crimes --- the whole point was terrorism, right? Animal labs all over the country locked up and instituted security measures, because they were being terrorized that it could happen to them.



Terrorism is when people do crimes to try to scare other people away from whatever it is they don't like, like Sunnis constantly blowing up Shite religious parades. They don't want people to be Shites. Murder is personal. Terrorism is political. So when an abortion doc is murdered, probably that's political. Right?

[mundame]

I am sure i have been reported to Homeland Security by some "tolerant" liberal after they see the bumber stickers on my car



Please tell us what it says, RSR --- now I'm dying of curiosity. :laugh:

[Noir]

It's saying everyone who is pro-life anti nuke etc are suspect,
and here's the thing
killing an abortion doc is murder not terrorism,
and Vandalizing a homes and cars is Vandalism not terrorism,

By the definition you used terrorism is used by every nation state in war even in defense. And every cop that pulls a gun, billy club or mace is a terrorist.

the problem is the loose definition of the term terrorism and the COMPLETE lack of rights afforded those given the label.

A terrorist is someone who uses violence and/or intimidation to achieve their political aims. Trying to intimidate doctors to not give abortions, and murdering some of them is terrorism.

[revelarts]

A terrorist is someone who uses violence and/or intimidation to achieve their political aims. Trying to intimidate doctors to not give abortions, and murdering some of them is terrorism.


There are Millions of pro life people some religious some not, some protest some don't, some on the right some on the left, some other etc etc
Millions.

How many abortion workers etc killed in the past 50 years?
total 8.
And some of the murderers there had real mental problems. All went to jail or hospital for murder.

How many Prolife people killed by Pro abortion people ..SO FAR.
only 1 that i know of... SO FAR.. A guy named Drake from Michigan. But I suppose EVERY Pro Choice person is to be considered suspected terrorist now correct?


In a legal sense a terrorist group IMO is one that has a explicit practice of killing for political reasons.
A few random souls associated with a movement should NOT make the movement suspect or terrorism.

Some Enviro and Animal groups have as policy and purpose vandalism and destruction.
I hesitate to call it terrorism but they fit far more snugly in the role than Pro lifers or American Anti Catholics or even the Militia ( who i can't find has manged to kill anyone) or those with ron Paul stickers etc etc, none of the things on my list earlier were made up.

the "legal" definition of terrorist is far to broad and the rights afforded terrorist are non existent, it's areal problem no matter whose ox get gord we can all potentially be on the list.

[revelarts]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HwHfVJqRGOA?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HwHfVJqRGOA?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>
European paid pro choice harassment.
is the above terrorism?

[Drummond]

Am I to believe that the war on terror was Obama's fault? The "Patriot" Act? I suppose Pearl Harbour was too?

Of course not, 'Jafar'. You are to believe that the War on Terror was made necessary thanks to a much-overdue 'wake-up' call visited upon America by Al Qaeda, one which, on 11th September 2001, taught us that Western powers had been far too complacent and far too tolerant about the existence of Muslim terrorist trash such as them.

Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, these were/ are measures introduced to help save American lives from the lethal ambitions of savage barbarians who've chosen to set themselves up as enemies of America and the West.

So, isn't it bizarre that those very things introduced to SAVE lives, are today turned around to target those whose interest is to ALSO save lives ? Anti-abortionists ... judged against as Obama is trying to do ??

Sick.

[Drummond]

A terrorist is someone who uses violence and/or intimidation to achieve their political aims. Trying to intimidate doctors to not give abortions, and murdering some of them is terrorism.

But, where do you draw the line when you use the label 'terrorist' ?

What if terrorists capture some hostages .. then some rescuers are sent in, to liberate them ?

You could argue that the liberators are 'terrorising' the terrorist captors, by doing what they do. And, why not ? Maybe the methods used would instil terror into their minds ? So, does that make the rescuers 'terrorists' ?

I think that as a part of defining what terrorism is, you have to see the bigger picture. Viewing that picture might make you see the 'terrorism', under certain specific circumstances, as a policing action. Or, at any rate, meritorious.

Saving the lives of the unborn, of those who have no way of defending their own lives. Now .. would that qualify ?

[mundame]

So, isn't it bizarre that those very things introduced to SAVE lives, are today turned around to target those whose interest is to ALSO save lives ? Anti-abortionists ... judged against as Obama is trying to do ??




You are making me think......Are the only anti-abortionist terrorists the ones who take a long gun and sniper an abortion doc through the window of his house?

A few years ago discussion on a forum led me to the most startling websites --- antiabortionist websites in which they published the names of abortion doctors in a large font dripping with blood!!!!! I can't remember whether they published the photos and addresses along with their names, I was so startled at what was an obvious incitement for somebody, anybody to kill them, please.

Reminds me of that guy I mentioned on another forum, who gets wound up about Obama and starts talking about how SOMEBODY, not him because he's busy, but SOMEBODY ought to solve this nation's problem.........

Is this terrorism? the names dripping with blood? The wish that somebody would do the deed?

One reason to say yes, that incitement IS terrorism is that we all know there are crazies everywhere, and most assassins are crazies. People inciting like that are hoping their message reaches some crazy who is crazy enough to be triggered off by this encouragement. And it could happen!

Incitement is a problem. We see it often, lately ---Obama or Bush or Palin being hanged in effigy, usually as a Halloween "joke," but we all know it isn't really a joke.

I'm content to call incitement just that, incitement, and actual political attack can be called terrorism. But it's a strangely fine line.

[gabosaurus]

I Believe that has been discussed ad nauseum; see Roe v Wade. Regardless, the rights being infringed in this case aren't those of unborn children; but breathing persons, vilified for their association. Surely you can see that, right?

RSR only cuts and pastes from extreme right wing web site. He rarely reads them and doesn't understand the the real issue.
Children do not have rights until they are born. Before that, they are merely cells residing in the wombs of their mothers. All parts of your body are living. If your finger has gangrene or some other cancerous body, you remove it.
Politicians needs to get the fuck out of our bodies.

And idiots like RSR, who knows zero about women or children, needs to go back into his box and go back to discussing subjects he actually understands. Like how to repair trailers.

[Roo]

Am I to believe that the war on terror was Obama's fault? The "Patriot" Act? I suppose Pearl Harbour was too?

You are to believe you have no idea as to what you are talking about.

Things for you to look into:

1) The American Progessive movements attacks on the Constitution starting in the late 1800's. (Even prior to Teddy)
2) The 1937 reversal of 150 years of case law concerning the 10th Amendment
3) An American Program named "Echelon".
4) The FISA Program when it was instituted, and who it was started by.
5) An Executive Order allowing Physical searches WITHOUT a Warrant ( in the 90's)

...and on and on and on.

There is enough crap for everybody, get off that stupid "Bush" did it crap....and I am NOT a Bush guy.

[red states rule]

RSR only cuts and pastes from extreme right wing web site. He rarely reads them and doesn't understand the the real issue.
Children do not have rights until they are born. Before that, they are merely cells residing in the wombs of their mothers. All parts of your body are living. If your finger has gangrene or some other cancerous body, you remove it.
Politicians needs to get the fuck out of our bodies.

And idiots like RSR, who knows zero about women or children, needs to go back into his box and go back to discussing subjects he actually understands. Like how to repair trailers.

Merely cells eh? and now you consider unborn babies gangrene Gabby?

http://kcen.images.worldnow.com/images/14001794_BG1.jpg

[gabosaurus]

Yes RSR, cells. Up until 3 months or so.

Just wait until January of 2013. RSR (among others) is going to mysteriously disappear. A few months later, he will end up in a conservative Gitmo. Where they will be waterboarded in purple Kool Aid (it's not torture, ya know), forced to listen to radio call in shows hosted by Jessica Simpson and Britney Spears, have their copies of Weekly Standard flushed down the toilet and not served dinner until they have hugged a set number of trees. :rolleyes:

[red states rule]

Yes RSR, cells. Up until 3 months or so.

Just wait until January of 2013. RSR (among others) is going to mysteriously disappear. A few months later, he will end up in a conservative Gitmo. Where they will be waterboarded in purple Kool Aid (it's not torture, ya know), forced to listen to radio call in shows hosted by Jessica Simpson and Britney Spears, have their copies of Weekly Standard flushed down the toilet and not served dinner until they have hugged a set number of trees. :rolleyes:

Sorry Gabby that is NOT what you said a few posts back




Originally Posted by gabosaurus

Children do not have rights until they are born. Before that, they are merely cells residing in the wombs of their mothers. All parts of your body are living. If your finger has gangrene or some other cancerous body, you remove it.
Politicians needs to get the fuck out of our bodies.



So if a friend of yours (assuming you have any) has a miscarriage, do you ask why they are crying over a clump of cells?

[red states rule]

Please tell us what it says, RSR --- now I'm dying of curiosity. :laugh:

"Driver carries no money Obama took it all"

(pic of Obama) Does this ass make my car look fat?

"Vote Democrat It Is Easier Than Working"