Reverent of Individual Liberty? You might be an "Extreme Right Wing Terrorist" according to recent DHS report

and the Bush administration to me.
Better go "round 'em up" right now.

They are fiercely nationalistic, believe in a conspiracy theory that Muslims are out to get us all, believe that their way of life is under attack, and that this threat is from a specific religious and ethnic group, and that they not only need to be prepared for an attack, but they have already been unilaterally attacking for 10 years already.

I'd say they fit this definition of terrorists like a glove.

Special Response Teams, report immediately to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Suspects are considered armed and dangerous, and are in the Oval Office.

“Because protecting the global supply chain is inherently an international challenge, it will take an international effort to meet it. The tremendous benefits we all reap from an interdependent global economy means that we are all stakeholders in the security of that system…” -Janet Napolitano

from article "The DHS Defends Globalism, Not America" http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-dhs-defends-globali...

Following the reasoning; if we are all stakeholders in the security of the global economic system, then to oppose the workings of the international global economic system is to threaten national security. Fellow RP supporters, our responsibility is to think globally, enhancing our coordination with the international community and international stakeholders who have key supply chain roles and responsibilities.

Just think Founding Fathers.

Classic Deceiver Strategy: this is all about Grouping, Labelling.

First they define and settle what is WRONG and what is RIGHT, from a Well-Thinking standpoint in A COMPLETE DISREGARD of what a MUCH SIMPLER founding text had appealled for : what's covered in the Constitution.

Next, equipped with that long enumeration of oppositions between the RIGHT and the WRONG facets, they define the Ennemy groups by labelling people with another enumeration : of behaviours, center of interests, etc, ad nauseum.

This second step is for the purpose of Ennemy groups membership recognition.

You, as an individual who just care about your own Freedom and Liberty and Constitution won't miss to end up as being considered a specimen of one of these groups -- attributed with ALL OR MANY THING they cannot stand w.r.t. your individual Liberties.

This so-called "report" is of the purest, most archetypical, strictly speaking : Constitution DENIAL.

Evidence?

Where, for instance, in the Constitution, the Good of Globalization has ever been mentioned?

Or where, for another example, in the Constitution, does the text warn against being too much of a "reverent of individual liberty" (as long as you're NOT infringing on other people's individual rights) ?

This is pure, EVIL NON-SENSE. This is made for CONFUSION.

To have NOISE overcome COMMON SENSE and CALM REASON.

To DISTRACT from the simple, FOUNDING TEXT that CREATED a country and PROTECTED its People, AND Minorities, and ever-IMPROVING at this defense, for hundreds years.

Until recently.

DHS report : some citizens still care about this founding text you are denying.

And they are going to fight to protect it, their turn.

And permanent alien residents who moved to this country because of this text's existence : they, TOO.

...this article is contradicting.

I will take your segue and say those who are anti-gov't can be a threat...just like those who are pro big gov't...ie...socialism.

There are extremes on both sides of the spectrum. That is something to be acknowleged however not interpretated as the norm in most (true) repubs and (true) dems. Contrary to most of us...most democrats do not a police state--in saying this most republicans (libertarian platform) don't want outright anarchy. Uneducated liberals definitely LOVE reporting us as such.

suspicious of centralized federal authority

(Hand waving in the air) That’s me, right here; but I stand on the shoulders of giants. Those patriots who saw threats like this as indicative of tyranny brewing. It’s always those who value liberty that suffer from some mental malady; it is never those who suffer from faith in Caesarism. Caligula, Nero, Cromwell, Bonaparte, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, were just having a bad day.

The Founding Fathers would fall under that criteria...

The document doesn't say all Democrats are horse thieves. They're merely pointing out that some horse thieves are Democrats.

In that all this does is say what kind of terrorist you would be if you were a terrorist.

I could say Rachel Maddow would be a left-wing terrorist if she were a terrorist. The guy in the "Save the Whales" t-shirt would be an eco-terrorist if he were a terrorist. My 18 month old would be a baby terrorist if she were a terrorist. It's a pointless exercise, but this is academia, after all, there wouldn't be as many jobs if it weren't for pointlessly categorizing things.

Except that some descriptions are just ideologies (right wing, separatist, etc.) and some show how the ideology relates to violence. That makes me suspicious that left-wingers are only pointed at by this if they want violent revolution, but others would get scrutiny just for believing in a few points of ideology.