74, sorry – I should have included a [sarc:OFF] designator there. I was basically referring to the designation given to people like me (and at least some here, according to FedGov, starting with Janet
Reno Napolitano but continued ever since). It was FedGov (especially DHS) that put in writing that people who believe in the 2nd Amendment, go to church, are vets, believe in the Constitution, have supported 3rd party candidates such as Ron Paul (specifically mentioned), don’t trust FedGov, etc., are potential domestic terrorists. And now with even Rush Limbaugh saying Obama is out to harm the country purposefully and by design, I’m even in company with him – I don’t know WHAT to do! LOL! It’s very disconcerting to already be branded a potential right wing terrorist by my government, and then also find myself in agreement with Rush Limbaugh! Personal crisis time. (All meant with at least a “liberal” dose of humor and sarcasm, though still it’s more than a bit curious that even Limbaugh is now on board with the Obama-as-destroyer theory.) If the characterization (“accusation” as you saw it) happens to fit anyone here, I’ll let them be the judge of that. But by the FedGov definition, in writing, I certainly fit their criteria, despite being in personal denial about being a potential domestic terrorist. In other words, guilty as charged as to their criteria, not guilty as charged as to their off the wall conclusion. And NO offense intended toward anyone here. Quite the contrary.
"Ye hear of wars in far countries, and you say that there will soon be great wars in far countries, but ye know not the hearts of men in your own land."