Common Beliefs Are Now Indicators of Terrorism

[CriticalStinker]

I think that if this list worries anybody they may want to rethink where on Earth they would be happy to live. Anyone who is happy to be an American understands we need hold on to and hold up our standards and if you don't like it the door is open.

Who defines anti America though? 

I remember in the lead up to Iraq people were terrorist sympathizers and unpatriotic if they opposed the war. They were the real patriots though protecting our nations best interests.

People can be against political directions without being anti American, but politicians often try to blur that line to maintain their positions.

[Oldcarpy2]

I think that if this list worries anybody they may want to rethink where on Earth they would be happy to live. Anyone who is happy to be an American understands we need hold on to and hold up our standards and if you don't like it the door is open.

Thing is, that list is so woolly, ill defined and open to various different interpretations.

Does being critical of Trump fall within that list?

I don't like lists.

[SomeStupidName]

Thing is, that list is so woolly, ill defined and open to various different interpretations.

Does being critical of Trump fall within that list?

I don't like lists.

I don't even know if this list is legit, but I skimmed over it and honestly if you are on Team America I doubt you'll even need to think twice about it.

[UltraBudgie]

I don't even know if this list is legit, but I skimmed over it and honestly if you are on Team America I doubt you'll even need to think twice about it.

It's from this recent Presidential Directive:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-...-violence/

There are common recurrent motivations and indicia uniting this pattern of violent and terroristic activities under the umbrella of self-described “anti-fascism.” These movements portray foundational American principles (e.g., support for law enforcement and border control) as “fascist” to justify and encourage acts of violent revolution. This “anti-fascist” lie has become the organizing rallying cry used by domestic terrorists to wage a violent assault against democratic institutions, constitutional rights, and fundamental American liberties. Common threads animating this violent conduct include anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality. As described in the Order of September 22, 2025 (Designating Antifa as a Domestic Terrorist Organization), the groups and entities that perpetuate this extremism have created a movement that embraces and elevates violence to achieve policy outcomes, including justifying additional assassinations. For example, Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassin engraved the bullets used in the murder with so-called “anti-fascist” rhetoric.

[SomeStupidName]

It's from this recent Presidential Directive:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-...-violence/

Still not worried about it and I do feel that the anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity activism going on right now is interfering with the enforcement of the laws of this country and threatens justice, domestic tranquility, and the common defense of the citizens of the United States.

[UltraBudgie]

Sure, that's all well and good. I learned during COVID not to try and control another's fears. We already have laws about interfering with law enforcement, and unless something is a crime, it isn't. Look at this closer, though, Trump's claiming those are "common threads animating this violent conduct". As in, there is a direct causal link from those attitudes to violence, making those attitudes equivalent to a direct provocation, if there's any reasonable chance that some nutter will observe them and react illegally. Does that seem like a dangerous precedent for free speech?

[DBCowboy]

Who defines anti America though? 

I remember in the lead up to Iraq people were terrorist sympathizers and unpatriotic if they opposed the war. They were the real patriots though protecting our nations best interests.

People can be against political directions without being anti American, but politicians often try to blur that line to maintain their positions.

Being anti-American is being anti-Constitutional, imho

[UltraBudgie]

Being anti-American is being anti-Constitutional, imho

Well we all like the idea of the sane rule of law. We do.

But to the evil left, it's "just a piece of paper". Dude, they've weaponized it against you. Used your principles to beat you down into allowing the anarchistic depravity and lawlessness they foment, because you just sat there and nodded when they convinced you it was "free expression". That it was their right to express and advocate for themselves, and of course it would stop short of infringing your rights, because that's how it works. How's that going? Do you see now that they don't give a damn about "your rights", and never did? Libertarian Constitutionalists are the reason the Pacific Northwest is the liberal crazytown it is today. They all moved there in the 1980s, and they are the ones who let all the Alinsky radicals move up from California and run roughshod over them, because it would be "anti-Constitutional" to have any kind of moral backbone. Cuckatarians would be a better label.

[CriticalStinker]

Being anti-American is being anti-Constitutional, imho

I think the term is likely overused.

If someone is against a war with a country who never attacked them, are they anti-American? But the problem is, people find a way to interject their politics with what America is. People can disagree with the current state of America, and claim they have a different interpretation of it. That isn't unconstitutional. 

It's the reason why they added freedom of speech. Protecting freedom of speech doesn't mean we are protecting the right of people to say things everyone agrees with. It's to protect speech and ideas many might find offensive or abhorrent. And more than that, it's the freedom to be critical of those in power. And there in lies the power, if you look at any political campaign, they use language to imply they are the only salvation for the country. Then people act as if you must hate the country if you're critical of their platform. That's not unique to an individual or party. 

So this all goes back to my original point. Who get's to define anti-American? Who would be in charge of labeling people anti-American? I'm sure we could even start with a couple of good baselines, but it would start to blur over time. It happens with anything deemed "hate speech". At first, it's clear as day, you pick the people who really say what many could deem hateful, and then it slowly just becomes anything that people may find uncomfortable, or "adjacent". 

I don't hate America. I'd be shocked if I ever live somewhere else, and I have the means to do so if I really wanted to. But loving a place, where you're from is kind of like family. I can still be critical of my family members. I can still suggest that we better ourselves in certain ways. The same is true of country, but we've seen before there are certain periods where people pervert patriotism to imply that any criticism is hate. I find that premise ridiculous.

[DBCowboy]

Well we all like the idea of the sane rule of law. We do.

But to the evil left, it's "just a piece of paper". Dude, they've weaponized it against you. Used your principles to beat you down into allowing the anarchistic depravity and lawlessness they foment, because you just sat there and nodded when they convinced you it was "free expression". That it was their right to express and advocate for themselves, and of course it would stop short of infringing your rights, because that's how it works. How's that going? Do you see now that they don't give a damn about "your rights", and never did? Libertarian Constitutionalists are the reason the Pacific Northwest is the liberal crazytown it is today. They all moved there in the 1980s, and they are the ones who let all the Alinsky radicals move up from California and run roughshod over them, because it would be "anti-Constitutional" to have any kind of moral backbone. Cuckatarians would be a better label.

Freedom has always contained a double-edged sword.

THAT is the true cost of freedom.

Always willing to lose it.