Galt's Gulch

What's Next? Galt's Gulch?

Posted by $ johnrobert2 11 years, 4 months ago to Culture
76 comments | Share | Flag

Dammit, this has got to stop someplace!!@!!
SOURCE URL: http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/10/23/does-army-consider-christians-tea-party-terror-threat

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 11 years, 4 months ago
    The American Family Association is absolutely a radical extremist organization. Denying that is just foolish.

    Many Tea Party members have also been guilty of violent, extremist behavior.

    As for Evangelical Christian Fundamentalists, they can be pretty crazy, too. There are three very important movies I believe everyone should watch regarding these fundamentalist religious groups:

    Jesus Camp:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC_yzUWIf...

    Waiting for Armageddon:
    Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNcPX9Kbw...
    Full movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNvtA_q0e...

    God Loves Uganda:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3_hKv4pE...

    Once you've seen those films, the claim that Fundamentalist Evangelicals are dangerous no longer seems like such a ridiculous notion...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years, 4 months ago
      I agree completely. It seems odd, though, that the military would be briefing soldiers on questionable domestic groups. They should be focused on foreign groups they may have to fight. They'll never have to fight American extremists because that's a job of US law enforcement.

      I hope the anonymous soldier is embellishing. I also hope this is just the political beliefs of one commander leaking out, not a conspiracy at the highest levels of gov't.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ Maphesdus 11 years, 4 months ago
        The Oath of Enlistment actually requires a soldier to swear to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign AND domestic:

        "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

        http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oat...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ johnrobert2 11 years, 4 months ago
          Anyone seeking to subvert or nullify the Constitution would be considered an enemy of the Constitution, correct? Let's say the President wants to abrogate the Constitution and place himself/herself in a despot or tyrant role, would they not be considered an enemy of the Constitution? That being the case, would not the military be required to take arms against such? Now, suppose such a leader had emplaced his creatures in leadership and command roles within that military structure. On whose side would the military now be in case of rebellion or insurrection? That would greatly depend on the ability of the lower ranking officers and men to determine the rightness of a cause by critical thinking and reasoned action. As has been pointed out, the current education system, in many cases, has not trained those skills well. We shall see what we shall see, and I don't think it will be pleasant.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years, 4 months ago
          I had heard that, but I never thought of it that way. I imagined it meaning they wouldn't participate in a coup or be loyal to a leader ahead of the law.

          Do you agree that even if political groups consort with extremists, we cannot have the US military taking a position on politics?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by $ Mimi 11 years, 4 months ago
      Oh, I’m with you about the Evangelical christian groups despite the studies that say they sleep better than most people. HOWEVER, branding the Tea Party in general as a hate group because that’s where you find these fringe groups is nonsense. You wouldn’t denounce the Democratic party because of the Nation of Islam, would you? You would be specific with your condemnations. That’s why this is so outrageous. Though, nobody in politics or power ever does anything without getting something from it. Historically, these groups are most active in the South which by coincidence so are most enlisted. It would be interested to see with all the changes that have occurred under the Obama administration if the numbers aren’t flipping. Perhaps there are more northern young adults enlisting. That translates to votes. The military is a big conservative voting block, or, at least, has been. What this article tells me there will be less reasons to accidentally hold back absentee voting ballots from the military. Why would any young man or woman offer to serve their country when their country attacks their family’s beliefs.The Tea Party as a whole has demonstrated over and over again that they are all about peaceful demonstrations, but that narrative won’t work.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by LetsShrug 11 years, 4 months ago
        "The Tea Party as a whole has demonstrated over and over again that they are all about peaceful demonstrations, but that narrative won’t work." What narrative won't work? And why?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by $ Mimi 11 years, 4 months ago
          The progressives narrative. It doesn’t work to describe your opponent as peaceful and harmless when you are trying to fire up the base.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by $ Maphesdus 11 years, 4 months ago
            "Progressive" is a term I've never actually used to describe myself.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              -
            • Posted by $ Mimi 11 years, 4 months ago
              I think it’s pretty clear most here are Libertarians, Republicans or Tea Party members, or like myself, lean in those directions but like to be viewed as an Independent.The one common thread: We love Atlas Shrugged. So why do you insist on posting articles that are so incredibly negative to the very audience you are trying to relate to? How do you feel about the term Tea bagger? Tea bagger is a vile description. I’m not going to follow a link that starts off with such a insidious description, without a qualifier from you. Why did you choose those type of articles to make your point? And if you choose to use articles that are going to raise eyebrows (don’t play stupid because you are not) then defend the premise of said articles from YOUR POV. Good grief, if I had to humor and explain to some around here why I linked to a history-piece that had nothing to do with politics because they objected to being linked to an article from PBS, then you at least should explain some of your choices. What do you want? What do you believe? What words would you use to describe yourself if not a Progressive? I think you allowed yourself to get blown off course when you made the statement the American Family Association was a radical extremist organization then proceeded to use a straw man argument, that encompassed the Tea Party to make your point.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              -
            • Posted by LetsShrug 11 years, 4 months ago
              I'll be the first. You're a Progressive. (Haven't you noticed?? It's not what you call yourself that matters, it's what everybody else calls you. Like the tea party being called "violent"...somebody said it so it must be true... right? (What DO you call yourself? Valerie Jarrett?)
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by $ Maphesdus 11 years, 4 months ago
                I generally try to avoid labels, since once you've labeled yourself as something, you then have to carry all the political baggage of that label.

                Though at the same time, it's probably not possible to avoid labels entirely, since a label is ultimately a convenient way to categorize people with similar opinions, and forming opinions is something everyone does in their journey through life.

                Personally, I've actually thought a lot about how I would describe myself and my views, and I've decided that the best label to describe my philosophical viewpoint would probably be Utilitarianism (that is, I believe you can know whether something is good or not by whether or not it works), whereas politically I generally refer to myself as a Left-Leaning Libertarian. I could also be described as ardently anti-Communist and highly suspicious of Socialism, yet at the same time I do believe that social justice issues are incredibly important, and I consider myself an advocate for civil rights. I could probably be described as a feminist in some ways, though there are many feminists (mostly second wave radicals from the 70s) who say things I don't agree with at all.

                Most of my views on economics and business come primarily from the "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" series of books by Robert Kiyosaki, as well as "How to Win Friends and Influence People," by Dale Carnegie, and also a few books written by Donald Trump. I love Ayn Rand's fiction, and I believe her novels reveal many important flaws in communist/socialist ideology, though her non-fiction work generally feels half-baked, and I believe that although her philosophy makes many poignant and accurate observations, there are just as many deep, fundamental flaws and oversights underlying its reasoning.

                During the 2012 election, the presidential candidates who I found most appealing and who I agreed with the most were Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.

                Does that answer your question?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  -
                • Posted by MattFranke 11 years, 4 months ago
                  Partially. It says that you are capable of seeing the truth, but are seemingly unwilling to turn yourself over to it. You have some contradictions to work out of your views. But, you are here so there is always hope. May I recommend Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff. They go into great detail how important it is to integrate one's beliefs into a non-contradictory whole. Only then, is reason the master, and not chaos. It is philosophy at its finest. It has helped to clarify many things for me personally; even if, only by putting words to things I already knew without realizing.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 11 years, 4 months ago
                    See, that's actually one of the fundamental problems of Objectivism that I was talking about. The whole "non-contradiction" thing certainly seems simple and straightforward enough on the surface, but once you start getting into deeper, more advanced philosophical theories, it starts to unravel. This is especially true when dealing with advanced mathematical theory, on which a significant amount of philosophy is based. For example, Harvard mathematician Barry Mazur wrote a 24 page paper dealing with the nature of identity and equality titled "When is one thing equal to some other thing?" And Terence Parsons, professor of philosophy and linguistics at UCLA, wrote an entire textbook on the issue, titled "Indeterminate Identity: Metaphysics and Semantics." Then there's also the critically acclaimed and bestselling book "The God Problem," by Howard Bloom, which actually references Ayn Rand directly, and explores the history and origins of the equation A = A. You can skip Terence Parsons' textbook, but at the very least you should read Barry Mazur's brief paper and Howard Bloom's book, "The God Problem." It'll make you rethink your position about A = A.

                    Here are the links:

                    "When is one thing equal to some other thing?" by Barry Mazur:
                    http://www.math.harvard.edu/~mazur/prepr...

                    "Indeterminate Identity: Metaphysics and Semantics," by Terence Parsons:
                    http://www.amazon.com/Indeterminate-Iden...

                    "The God Problem," by Howard Bloom:
                    http://www.amazon.com/The-God-Problem-Go...

                    Now don't get me wrong, I believe Ayn Rand provides a great deal of much needed and invaluable insight into the diametrically opposed theories of capitalism and socialism, but anytime she gets off the topic of economics, her arguments tend to be less than convincing, and I frankly don't see how adhering to a particular mathematical philosophy has anything to do with promoting capitalism.

                    By the way, using Objectivist theory to try and prove the truth of Objectivist theory is circular reasoning. That's like asking an insurance salesman whether or not you need insurance (you won't get an unbiased answer).

                    Anyway, I'm sure I'll get around to reading Leonard Peikoff's book eventually, as you suggested, though I'm currently reading other books about Ayn Rand, so it probably won't be until I'm finished with those. But thanks for the recommendation. ;)
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by richrobinson 11 years, 4 months ago
    Why would they not concentrate on Islamic extremists. The armed forces is not the first responder if a Christian blows up an abortion clinic. Police and the FBI deal with that. This is wrong and has to stop.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 11 years, 4 months ago
    They want every individual thinking, honest American, who believes in freedom and liberty to constantly be on the offensive from their incendiary attacks. I believe we need to not respond to these ridiculous accusations and start pointing out all the creepy truths about the name calling liars instead. There is NO basis to refer to us as violent or terrorist...or extremist (or at least define that extremist is really only someone who strongly believes in something...is if that's a bad thing.) ZERO TRUTH in these names they're labeling us with. But Grayson is walking around and getting patted on the back for using a burning cross for the "T" in Tea Party in his newsletter (or whatever piece of donkey dung it was attached to.)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 11 years, 4 months ago
    Soldiers are often targeted by a wide range of groups for many reasons. Some seek to recruit solders into their own ranks. Others seek to infiltrate the US military.

    "In May 1988, at age 20 McVeigh graduated from U.S. Army Infantry School at Fort Benning, Georgia.[13] While in the military, McVeigh used much of his spare time to read about firearms, sniper tactics, and explosives.[14] McVeigh was reprimanded by the military for purchasing a "White Power" T-shirt at a Ku Klux Klan protest against black servicemen who wore what he viewed as "Black Power" T-shirts around the army base.[15]

    McVeigh was awarded a Bronze Star for his service in the first Gulf War. He was a top-scoring gunner with the 25mm cannon of the Bradley Fighting Vehicles used by the 1st Infantry Division to which he was assigned. He was stationed at Fort Riley, Kansas, before being deployed on Operation Desert Storm with the Division. At Fort Riley, McVeigh completed the Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC).

    Speaking of his experience in Iraq in an interview before his execution, documented in American Terrorist, McVeigh stated he decapitated an Iraqi soldier with cannon fire on his first day in the war and celebrated. He said he later was shocked to be ordered to execute surrendering prisoners and to see carnage on the road leaving Kuwait City after U.S. troops routed the Iraqi army. In interviews following the Oklahoma City bombing, McVeigh said he began harboring anti-government feelings during the Gulf War.

    McVeigh aspired to join the United States Army Special Forces (SF). After returning from the Gulf War, he entered the selection program to become an SF soldier, but quit after his psychological profile categorized him as unsuitable for SF.[16] Shortly thereafter, McVeigh decided to leave the Army. He was discharged on December 31, 1991.[17]

    For his service in the Army, McVeigh received the following awards - Bronze Star Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Southwest Asia Service Medal, Non-Commissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon, Army Service Ribbon, Kuwait Liberation Medal (Saudi Arabia)." (Wikipedia - "Timothy McVeigh")
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years, 4 months ago
      That was interesting. I knew he was upset with the military, but I didn't know he claimed to witness atrocities.

      What does any of this have to do with a commander allegedly warning soldiers about certain US political groups?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LionelHutz 11 years, 4 months ago
    This is being done to generate a list of the people who protest. At some point, they will say "my bad - you guys can support whomever you want - this is America after all - sorry for the confusion.", and then they will remove all of the people on that list from any position of power or influence.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo