Common Beliefs Are Now Indicators of Terrorism

[DBCowboy]

I disagree. I merely put case studies that could be problematic towards trying to define wrong ideas. It would inevitably come right back to ideologies it's trying to protect.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights is fairly straightforward.

[CriticalStinker]

The Constitution and Bill of Rights is fairly straightforward.

I agree. That's why I see this list of indicators of terrorism problematic. 

Again, between you and I, if someone checks all the boxes, I'd agree they are troubled. But if we parse them out, it shows a contradiction to the Constitution. 

Yet, this admin has challenged the Constitution in multiple ways.

• Executive order/tweet that flag burning is illegal even though SCOTUS ruled it as Constitutionally protected of speech/expression
  
• Tariffs are levied by congress, not executive
  
• Due process with extraordinary rendition and imprisonment, ruled by SCOTUS after due process was circumvented for suspected terrorists
  

And I try not to be hyperbolic, so I won't pretend we're in literal Nazi Germany because there are issues at home. And to be honest, there have been Constitutional issues from each admin in recent history, so again, this isn't unique. But it also means that this admin isn't different from the ones we were "voting against". It's just a different flavor.

[DBCowboy]

I agree. That's why I see this list of indicators of terrorism problematic. 

Again, between you and I, if someone checks all the boxes, I'd agree they are troubled. But if we parse them out, it shows a contradiction to the Constitution. 

Yet, this admin has challenged the Constitution in multiple ways.

• Executive order/tweet that flag burning is illegal even though SCOTUS ruled it as Constitutionally protected of speech/expression
  
• Tariffs are levied by congress, not executive
  
• Due process with extraordinary rendition and imprisonment, ruled by SCOTUS after due process was circumvented for suspected terrorists
  

And I try not to be hyperbolic, so I won't pretend we're in literal Nazi Germany because there are issues at home. And to be honest, there have been Constitutional issues from each admin in recent history, so again, this isn't unique. But it also means that this admin isn't different from the ones we were "voting against". It's just a different flavor.

Oh fuck.

Every administration has challenged the Constitution.

Trump is no different.

[CriticalStinker]

Oh fuck.

Every administration has challenged the Constitution.

Trump is no different.

Again, we agree. Hence why I said it in the post you responded to.

"And to be honest, there have been Constitutional issues from each admin in recent history, so again, this isn't unique. But it also means that this admin isn't different from the ones we were "voting against". It's just a different flavor."

[MrGashler77]

I read the post about creating threads so here goes even though it's really not my thing.

This probably won’t hit the MSM until tonight or tomorrow but it looks like we’re one step closer to that which shall not be named?

This should scare the crap out of everybody as these new directives are ill-defined and open to such broad interpretation they can more or less make it up as they go. Watch what you say because expressing a non-compliant opinion on any of the below topics could be considered an indicator of violence or the potential thereof even if you don’t mention violence explicitly. So much for free speech, eh?

I donate to organizations like the ACLU, HRC, Indivisible through Act Blue, Civic Engagement Beyond Voting and several others that are sure to be targeted under these sweeping new directives. Donors will probably become suspects. Attend a No Kings rally? Good luck.


Read more on Substack (it’s free, just say no thanks to the subscription prompt)

'Trump’s NSPM-7 Labels Common Beliefs As Terrorism “Indicators”

Trump’s NSPM-7 Alarms Law Firms While Congress Is Silent

I urge you to watch at least the first 4 minutes of this. It breaks down the above for those that don’t want to read"
[Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJp2iPBiNzk]

And another:
[Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKm9L0QGmJo]

What I am wondering after going through all of this is that is specifically directed toward left wing "radicals". Does that mean right wing radicals get a free pass?

I foresaw this coming a long time ago when the left started their crusade against americanism, capitalism, christianity, and white people. The pendulum swings both ways and they were pushing wayyyyy to hard in their direction for the swing to not have an immense response due to momentum. 
And yeah, I'm sure the right wing radicals will get a free pass just the same as the left wing radicals have gotten a free pass for so many years. This is a direct response to what the left has been doing for years.
I don't feel super bad about it honestly. Does that make me a bad person? Yeah, probably. Do I care? Meh. Don't start a war and get mad when the opposition fights back.
I worry about the people caught in the middle.