See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #101
   On May 18th, 2009 at 12:31 am, Papa Louie said:

   I guess I am late to the party. (If I refresh my screen while typing, I lose everything I typed.) I still think my quote that “individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion” may be extremists is more supportive of Joy’s comment. The use of the word “individuals” along with “groups” implies that anyone who opposes abortion could fit the mold.

2. #102
   On May 18th, 2009 at 12:38 am, chapoutier said:

   Papa,

   I cited above to the DHS official Lexicon, written prior to and meant to inform the later DHS report, which defines all sorts of extremism, all of which have a violent component to them. Merely having the opinion is not enough.

   In other words, taking the lexicon and the report together, one cannot read into the definition of extremist anything other than having a violent intent.

3. #103
   On May 18th, 2009 at 1:01 am, Ragspierre said:

   In other words, taking the lexicon and the report together, one cannot read into the definition of extremist anything other than having a violent intent.

   What we call in Texas a “frog-fur” distinction. Very lawyerly and all, and valid in and of itself, but it misses the larger impact of the report. Which, please remember, nobody read in the context of the lexicon. Take the various cases of police pulling over people identified as being in one of those groups, solely for the presence of a bumper-sticker, etc.

   You may assert that is the result of stupid work on the part of DHS, with nothing darker behind issuing the report than ham-handedness. I am not so sanguine.

   Bottom line on the conscience clause: reversing was and is under consideration by THE ONE.

   Beyond that, we know that THE ONE either has or is planning to open the federal coffers to fund abortions, not just here, but overseas.

   We know he is the most radically PRO-DEATH president ever. Going away…

4. #104
   On May 18th, 2009 at 1:26 am, Papa Louie said:

   chapoutier said:

   In other words, taking the lexicon and the report together, one cannot read into the definition of extremist anything other than having a violent intent.

   Yes, I think a logical mind would come to that conclusion. But you don’t have to look hard to find democrats who believe that anyone who opposes abortion or illegal immigration automatically has violent intent.

   If you don’t believe me, take a look at this unchallenged remark from Janeane Garofalo on MSNBC about the Tea Parties.

   This is not about bashing Democrats. It’s not about taxes. … This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up.

   If attending a Tea Party to protest spending and taxes makes you part of a “hate” group, is it a stretch to think that protesting abortion might get you that label as well?

   I would hope the Obama Administration is not as politically partisan as some of the guests (and hosts) on MSNBC, but I’m not going to assume it. They clearly have a mutual admiration for one another.

5. #105
   On May 18th, 2009 at 8:04 am, chapoutier said:

   Rags,

   One can speculate all one wants to on what Obama might do. God knows enough of that goes on here and it would be futile for me to attempt to change anyone’s mind. But my original query was not an invitation to do so. I was asking specifically when Obama had abandoned any sort of conscience clause.

   Originally, I had meant (and thought Joy meant) it in the context of actually providing abortions. If she meant it in a broader sense, then I misinterpreted, and she (and you) are right. But what cannot be said, or at least I haven’t seen it yet, is any sort of statement by Obama that would indicate he intends to force doctors to actually provide abortions against their will. Indeed, that protection is a law (not merely a rule as the conscience clause discussed above is/was).

   As to the definition of extremism, Texans may call my distinction whatever they please. In the rest of the lower 48, “and” means something. You talk about the impact of the report, which is all well and good, but pardon me if I don’t really care for these purposes because, first it again did not respond to my query. It is a very different thing to say “Obama has labeled anyone who is pro-life as an extremist” and to say “There is a DHS report that indicates that there may be violent groups driven by an anti-abortion agenda.” Or at least these sentences are different outside of Texas.

   Perhaps you, and others, read the report out of context, but perhaps that is because it was not written for the general public. And when that proper context is actually provided, one cannot continue to cling to the previous, erroneous interpretation.

6. #106
   On May 18th, 2009 at 8:40 am, NJ-Aviator said:

   So what idiot invited the Baby Killer in Chief to speak at the leading Catholic University?

7. #107
   On May 18th, 2009 at 11:23 am, atheling said:

   “There is a DHS report that indicates that there may be violent groups driven by an anti-abortion agenda.”

   With absolutely no substantiation to that assertion. No data, no facts, no examples.

   It’s all speculation in an attempt to tar all those who oppose abortion as violent, just as they tarred all returning veterans, and all those who sport the Gadsden flag.

   Fascism.