Call them extremists and book 'em

There’s a bill stealthily moving through Congress that would allow
the nation’s Attorney General to classify pro-life Americans as
terrorists. It was backed by impeached Florida judge — now a Democrat
Party member of the House of Representatives — Rep. Alcee Hastings.

Even Republican congressmen willing to back the general idea of
protecting citizens against “hate crimes” raised concerns about the
language of this bill. Thank God they’re reading some of the things they’re voting on in there.

“While the amendment seeks to keep gang members and
members of violent groups out of the military, the amendment by its
language is much more broad.  Specifically, it confers upon the
Attorney General the ability to categorize groups as hate groups, and
this sounds an alarm for many of us because of the recent shocking and
offensive report released by the Department of Homeland Security which
labeled, arguably, a majority of Americans as “extremists.”

“I take extreme offense that the federal government — through a
report issued under the authority of a Cabinet-level official — would
dare to categorize people who are “dedicated to a single issue, such as
opposition or abortion or immigration” as “right-wing extremists” and
it begs the question of whether the Attorney General, under Mr.
Hastings’ Amendment, can look to the Napolitano report to decide who is
an extremist, or can make the same categorization of the majority of
Americans as extremists who may then be kept from joining the military,
or who may be discharged. 

“The desire to risk one’s life on foreign soil for one’s country may well be considered “extreme.”

Especially to some left wing extremists, to turn around some ideology here.

“I want to state unequivocally that I believe that it is
not the intent of this Congress to label pro-lifers, federalism
proponents, and pro-immigration enforcement groups and their affiliates
as extremists under the bill.  My colleagues on the other side of the
aisle should make a strong effort to assuage these concerns and make
our intentions clear.  If the intent of this amendment is to go after
citizens because of their political views and moral convictions, then
the amendment is unconstitutional.”

Good call to Congress, to make their intentions clear. After all, isn’t Washington all about transparency now?


Join Mercator today for free and get our latest news and analysis

Buck internet censorship and get the news you may not get anywhere else, delivered right to your inbox. It's free and your info is safe with us, we will never share or sell your personal data.

Be the first to comment

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.