Free Hand Thinker

A lot of outrage and debate has been generated by the release of a DHS report on The Rise of Right Wing Extremist and how to identify them. Many have talked and even blogged about it. Veterans are angered by it. If you haven't heard about it, read it. It is a beautiful hit piece stamped with the seal of the President, but does it have a point? Let's cut through the fog of anger and examine the premise. Where does the extremism in this country truly lie?

The left loves to recycle the now dead whipping boy of extremist behavior when it is trying to make a point about right wing extremism. Timothy McVeigh. In a spot of class and complete non-partisanship, the DHS report even quoted McVeigh. Just in case their media lapdogs couldn't figure out the parallel. Now, what McVeigh did was extremist. As a resident of Oklahoma, anyone here will tell you that day is Oklahoma's 9/11. But, is McVeigh a phenomenon only found on the right?

Allow me to recycle my own tired old extremist person (or in this case persons). The Weathermen. This group of radical leftist bombed the Pentagon and set fires in New York to protest the Vietnam War. Its funny how quickly we forget about something. Especially when one of its members was held up as a well pointed talking-point for the right this election cycle. See how annoying it is when the opposing sides only reference point is something that happened years ago? How about we move on from the years-old examples, and we look at the here and now.

It is no shock that this report was released the day before national protests were scheduled in the form of Tea Parties. And, like a plant root to water, the media quickly lapped up the White House talking-point and ran with it. Not only did they drawing similarities between the Tea Parties and extremism, but they also found time to inject racism into the mix of intricate butt-kissing they pass as journalism. But, where is the proof of extremism at these rallies? Anger could be found in bulk, but violence? Law breaking? A call to arms? All were noticeably absent. Instead these protests were filled with silence occasionally broken by the "whoop" of approval directed at comments of the speakers. The best and sometimes only way to find out opinion and thought was to read the signs and billboards held overhead by those present.

Is this right-wing extremism? The gathering on public grounds to silently protest the motives and vision of Washington with clever and whity signs held in the air? Are they afraid the "whoops" of agreement might shatter a window? Let's compare this to the left.

On the left, you have groups like Code Pink, who smear themselves with blood and approach the Secretary of State within sneezing distance and always seem to get into Congressional hearings to disrupt and protest wars. The left has groups like PETA, whose signature demonstration is to throw blood on innocent passer-bys for wearing fur coats and break into research labs to free animals. The left has groups like ACORN, who load up bus loads of people to protest outside private citizen's homes and break into houses that have been foreclosed on. "Stealing" them back for--who they deem--the "rightful owner." The left has groups like the Black Panthers, who stand outside voting centers with clubs, while innocent people exercise their right to vote. Are these groups supposed to be the model of peaceful demonstrations that the right can take a lesson from?

The writing on the wall is clear. An anger is festering. It is not from those who have been angry for years now, yet still vote for those that promise everything but give nothing. It is the anger from a group who have gone unheard for so long. A group that goes to work, pays their taxes, and never ask for anything. It is a group that has sat silently as left wing groups and politicians have for far too long clipped away the freedom we so love. It is a group that sees protests and marches from people who have been given much but expect more. This group doesn't think government has the answer. To the contrary, they believe government is more often the problem rather than the solution.

And worst of all, this group has this administration and this congress scared. Not because they are truly scared of violence. As they know, this group is not violent. As a matter of fact, this group would rather not protest. They would rather live out their days being left alone with the freedoms and opportunities granted by our founding documents. What this group does do is vote. And all it takes is a small portion of their votes to swing the other way to lose their stature and their power.

I'm speechless. I am completely lost on what to think about this report from Homeland Security to local police, so this will probably be a short post. Just some excerpts:

A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines "rightwing extremism in the United States" as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

Really? I mean, really? This must be a joke. Does the department of homeland security understand that they just labeled every supporter of the constitution an extremist? Were the Founding Fathers "rightwing extremist"? If they were, then I am happy to be along side some of histories greatest men.

"It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration," the warning says.

This has to be a joke! ONLY those that OPPOSE these issues?!?! I'm speechless. So your average political dissent is now labeled as extremism?

This is fascism. So many people believe that fascism could not happen in this country, but it's presents is reinforced daily. Either pull the state approved line, or you will be labeled an enemy of the state. Funny how this report came out the days before national demonstrations against government waste and abuse were scheduled to occur.

In a piece of good news this Easter Sunday, it has been learned that the American Captain previously taken captive by Somali pirates was rescued unharmed. Aside from this being excellent news for both the captain, his loved ones, and the country altogether, I think enough time has passed that we can now have a pretty good idea of President Obama governing style. This is my take on it anyway.

1) Obama is going to say whatever he deems necessary for his own political expedencey. This includes all things foreign and domestic. If saying "no lobbyists in my administration" means more political clout, he is going to say it. Regardless of what he actually plans on doing (putting lobbyists in his administration). This includes his foreign policy.

2) When comes to military activities, he is going to allow the Joint Chiefs and the Generals make policy. He is going to basically do what he is told is best on Iraq, Afghanistan, the missile shield, and even small encounters with pirates.

I will have to continue to add to this list. To be honest, Obama is a tough one to pin down. Overall, I still believe he is a puppet. For the liberal machine? Something more sinister? Who knows. We are only a few months in. Three and a half more years await us.

Update: Oh my. Interesting take from Blackfive, but, like most truths, we will probably never know the real truth.

I have often thought that the creators of South Park were geniuses of their ability to take your average, most mundane issues and morph them into humorous parodies that always make a point. Now, their resume has been strengthen by their impressive timing on today's issues.

If you haven't heard, Vice President Joe Biden has been running his mouth saying:

"I remember President Bush saying to me one time in the Oval Office," Biden began, "'Well, Joe,' he said, 'I'm a leader.' And I said: 'Mr. President, turn and around look behind you. No one is following.'"

Karl Rove has since refuted this assertion, but that is not the point of this post. This is: (The whole clip is good, but start at about 2:35 for the main course.)

Bah, wordpress.com doesn't support southparkstudios.com videos. I'll upload a youtube video once I put it together.

I found this site through a contact on Twitter. Regardless of your political pursuation, you should agree that this amount of spending is out of control. Sure Bush did it too, but I didn't support his deficits anymore than a Democrat. Enjoy.

http://www.stopspendingourfuture.org/

Okay, I'm getting a little sick of this story. Everyone who follows politics knows about this story: Sarah Palin bought a bunch of clothes. My thoughts on it at the time? "Well whoopty-fickin doo. Who cares? She is campaigning for Vice President. How much did Obama spend? Biden? Michelle Obama?" This is the most unpartisan response a person could have. Honestly, why care? Where are the stories about money spent on clothes for women going to the Oscar's? They are just going to an award ceremony. Palin was running for the second highest office in the land.

But, of course, put a pile of crap in front of the media, and they will step in it:

Closing a loop on the campaign finance side of the Sarah Palin clothes saga, the Republican National Committee late last month filed an amended report detailing exactly which disbursements were clothing purchases for the Republican vice presidential candidate and her family.

The amended report shows that the committee paid about $23,000 for clothing in the three weeks before and after Election Day — which is actually $7,000 less than previously reported.

Why is this still an issue? "Closing a loop"? The Republicans are amending reports for financial reasons, and the media is acting like this is news! And besides this, where is the balance? Where are the stories on Michelle's wardrobe now that she is first lady? Hillary's? Pelosi's? McCain's? ANYONE BESIDES PALIN?????

This is the best example of the absolute, blatant bias of the very institution that is supposed to protect us from the oppressive hand of government.

Oh but it gets better. Remember when Palin said she would donate the clothes to charity after the campaign? Well, it seems that the media believes that Palin can't even do that right. Here's an idea. How about newspaper and the media get back to reporting on some of the stuff that matters, like the economic crisis, if the stimulus bill is actually working, or one of the many foreign policy crises out there, instead of going through an ex-vice presidential candidate's trash bags.

My wife and I are huge House fans. Every Monday night, we have our "House date" were one of us makes dinner, and we sit on the couch together and watch House. The build up to last Monday's episode left our breaths' bated in anticipation. And we were not let down. Kutner committed suicide.

I thought it was an odd "twist". Like the show said, he never seemed like he was suicidal. It didn't make sense. It was obvious that the spontanious death was triggered by something other than the need for a plot device. Our first thought was that he (the actor Kal Penn who played Kutner) died in real life. So, I hit the internet and found this:

"House" star Kal Penn -- whose character was killed off on Monday's episode -- is taking a sabbatical from acting to work for President Obama. The 31-year-old actor, first launched to fame as a stoner student in the "Harold and Kumar" movies, is coming to Washington to be associate director in the White House Office of Public Liaison, Entertainment Weekly first reported yesterday.

My wife and I rolled our eyes (we are not Obama supporters in case you can't tell) and shrugged it off. What was done is done. But then I was reading one of my more favorite blogs and found the blogger, Ed Morrissey, thought this:

Actually, I found the suicide to be the most objectionable part of the story, and I’m not sure why.  Maybe it’s because the series treated suicide as an easy way out of a staffing jam rather than a serious subject.  It seems almost grotesque to concoct a character’s suicide just to get the actor a gig in politics.  Why not just give the character a job somewhere else?

I thought this was profound. Why did they have him commit suicide? There were better ways to do this. He could have taken another job. That job could have been at the White House, actually putting the truth in the plot instead of killing him off. They could have used Kutner's death as a good plot device. House thought he was murdered at one point. They could have ran with that. I even came up with the theory that Taub killed him because of jealous over the last case (let's face it, Taub is a train wreck). Instead, they are letting it be. No more investigation into his death. Just, "he's dead, oh well, except it."

So why the suicide? Could it be a statement? Could it be a metaphor for Kal Penn's future with the Fox network or acting in general? Could it be as simple as the writers lashing out over the bomb shell Penn dropped in their storyline? I mean, he is dead. Now there is no way he can come back.

Whatever the reason, I wish Penn the best, and he will be missed as Kutner.