Torture, Mr. President?

Torture- Mr. President?

By Rev. Wayne Perryman


Torture? I’m so glad you brought up the subject. Mr. President and Attorney General Holder, Conservative African Americans have been waiting a lifetime to have this conversation. But before you and the sensitive members of the Democratic Party start with the Bush Administration, why don’t we review the torture tactic of the Democratic Party.

The chronicles of history reveal that in areas controlled by Democrats, Democrats used every form of torture to keep blacks in their place. Lynching, whippings, murder, intimidation, assassinations and mutilations were commonplace in jurisdictions where Democrats were in control. In addition to individual torture entire black communities were destroyed and burned to the ground in such places like: Wilmington, North Carolina, Rosewood, Florida, and the Greenwood District in Tulsa, Oklahoma, to name a few. The one thing that all of these communities had in common, is what realtors often say: location, location, location. They were all located in states and counties controlled by Democratic officials. According to the renowned African American history professor, John Hope Franklin, the atrocities committed against African Americans in these regions, “were so varied and so numerous as to defy classification or enumeration.”

The Encyclopaedia Britannica reported that from the beginning, “Democrat resentment [of black freedom and equality under Reconstruction] led to the formation of the secret terroristic organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Knight of the White Camelia. The use of fraud, violence and intimidation helped Southerns... regain control of their state governments, by the time the last federal troops had been withdrawn in 1877, the Democratic Party was back in power.”[1]

Other noted history professors also wrote about these atrocities, including:

a. Professor James McPherson of Princeton University
b. Professor David Herbert Donald of Harvard University
c. Professor Allen W. Trelease of North Carolina University
d. Professor Howard O. Lindsey of DePaul University.


Professor Allen Trelease said: “Klansmen in disguise rode through Negro neighborhoods at night warning Negroes either to cast Democratic ballots or stay away from the poll. The Klan also sent notices to Republican office holders, warning them of death and telling them to either resign or leave the vicinity. Similar notices went to active Republicans of both races and often to the teachers of Negro schools as well. Klan activities created a reign of terror in many localities and sometimes had the desired effect of demoralizing Negroes and Republicans…. Republicans of both races were threatened, beaten, shot, and murdered with impunity. In some areas Negroes stopped voting or voted the Democrat ticket as the Klan demanded. “Democrats by a kind of tortured reasoning, sometimes accused Negroes and Republicans of attacking each other so that the crimes would be blamed on the Democrats; investigations revealed that Democrats had committed the acts themselves.”

Professors John Hope Franklin and Alfred Moss, authors of From Slavery To Freedom tells us that, “The Camelias and the Klan were the most powerful of the secret orders. Armed with guns, swords, or other weapons, their members patrolled some parts of the South day and night. They used intimidation, force, ostracism in business and society, bribery at the polls, arson, and even murder to accomplish their deed. Depriving the Negro of political equality became, to them, a holy crusade in which a noble end justified any means. Negroes were run out of communities if they disobeyed orders to desist from voting; and the more resolute and therefore insubordinate blacks were whipped, maimed, and hanged. In 1871 several Negro officials in South Carolina were given fifteen days to resign and they were warned that if they failed to do so, then retributive justice will as surely be used as night follows day. For many white Southerners violence was still the surest means of keeping the Negroes politically impotent, and in countless communities they were not allowed, under penalties of reprisals, to show their faces in town on Election Day. It had looked as though the Civil War would break out anew as the Democrats resorted to every possible device to over throw the radicals.64

Professor Franklin went on to say, “It was reported that in North Carolina the Klan was responsible for 260 outrages, including 7 murders and the whipping of 72 whites and 141 Negroes. In one county in South Carolina 6 men were murdered and more than 300 were whipped during the first six months of 1870. The personal indignities inflicted upon individual white and Negroes were so varied and so numerous as to defy classification or enumeration.”[2]

In his book, The Abolitionist Legacy, Professor James McPherson reported, “In 1873, Louisiana became almost a synonym for chaos and violence. When Grant sent federal troops to install Kellogg in office [as governor], Louisiana Democrats were infuriated. They formed White Leagues which attacked black and white Republicans and took scores of lives.”[3]

From his book entitled; Charles Sumner, Harvard Professor, David Hebert Donald reached the following conclusion: “Congress could give the Negro the vote, but all over the South the Ku Klux Klan and other terrorist organizations systematically intimidated the freedmen, flogged or slaughtered their leaders and drove whites who worked with them into exile. Congress could require federal troops to supervise the registration of voters, but Negroes were waylaid and butchered on the roads to the registration offices. Congress could suppress outright violence by military force, but it could do nothing to protect Negroes from landlords who told them bluntly: If you vote with that Yankee [Republican] party you shall not live on our land.”[4]

Professor Howard O. Linsay, the author of, A History of Black Americans says, “Blacks and sympathetic Whites were attacked and threatened. African Americans were discouraged from seeking elected office and even from trying to vote. Any and all means were used from threats to violence to outright murder.”[5]

The following is what happened to Sam Hose and Mary Turner:

After a mob murdered Mary Turner’s husband, she threatened to swear out warrants against his killers. Several hundred men decided to teach her a lesson. They took this eight month pregnant woman from her home and after tying her ankles together, they hung her from a tree, head downward, dousing her clothes with gasoline, and burned them [the clothes] from her body. While she was still alive, someone used a knife ordinarily reserved for splitting hogs to cut open the woman’s abdomen. The baby fell from her womb to the ground and cried briefly, whereupon a member of the mob crushed the baby’s head beneath his heel. Then hundreds of bullets were fired into Mary Turner’s body.” [Page 14, Without Sanctuary – Foreword written by Democratic Congressman John Lewis].

These forms of torture were common in regions controlled by Democrats. The following is what they did to Sam Hose after falsely accusing him.

“After stripping Hose of his clothes and chaining him to a tree, the self-appointed executioners stacked kerosene-soaked wood high around him. Before saturating Hose with oil and applying the torch, they cut off his ears, fingers, and genitals, and skinned his face. While some in the crowd plunged knives into the victims flesh, others watched with unfeigning satisfaction, the contortions of Sam Hose’s body as flames rose, distorting his features, causing his eyes to bulge out of their sockets and rupturing his veins. The only sounds that came from the victim’s lips, even as his blood sizzled in the fire. were, “Oh my God! Oh, Jesus.” Before Hose’s body had even cooled, his heart and liver were removed and cut into several pieces and his bones were crushed into small particles. The crowd fought over these souvenirs. Shortly after the lynching, one of the participants reportedly left for the state capitol, hoping to deliver a slice of Sam Hose’s heart to the Democratic governor of Georgia, who would call Sam Hose’s deeds, “the most diabolical in the annals of crime.” [Page 15, ‘Without Sanctuary”]

After the brutal hanging, it was proven that Mr. Hose was innocent of the allege charges. They took parts of his body and displayed them in store windows, which was a common practice in towns, cities, counties and states controlled by Democrats.

I haven’t even scratched the surface. Time and space would not permit me to tell you about Dred Scott, the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, Plessy v. Ferguson, the Senate investigations of 1871, or the letters written by blacks in Kentucky in 1871 Louisiana in 1872, Alabama in 1874. From the New York riots of during the Civil War, to 1963 when the 16th Street Baptist Church was bombed as Condoleezza Rice was preparing to go to Sunday School, wherever Democrats were in control, blacks have been tortured, intimidated and mutilated by Democrat officials and members of the Democratic Party. Senator Tillman of South Carolina said lynching blacks was justified. He went on to say: “Southern women will not submit to the black man gratifying his lust on our wives and daughter without lynching him.” This same Democratic Senator said: “We reorganized the Democratic Party with one plank and only one plank, namely that this is a white man’s country and white men must govern it.”

Now tell me Mr. President and Mr. Holder, how many detainees were beaten, hung, raped, cut into pieces bombed and burned to death under Bush Administration? Before we start condemning the Bush Administration for their handling of the allege terrorist from foreign countries, why don’t we first review the Democratic Party who tortured the black citizens from their own country. Oh, one more thing. Mr. Holder, it was the Bush Administration that finally prosecuted the person that was responsible for the 16th Baptist Church bombing. Black conservatives are looking forward to hearings on torture.

Rev. Wayne Perryman
P.O. Box 256
Mercer Island, WA 98040
(206) 860-6880
www.wayneperryman.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] 1992 Encyclopaedia Britannica pp. 979

64 Reconstruction – The Great Experience, pp. 226-233
[2] Reconstruction After The Civil War, p. 157

[3] The Abolitionist Legacy, p.40
[4] Charles Sumner, p. 420
[5] A History of Black Americans, pp. 88-89

The Obama Administration Is Criminalizing Dissent? Intimidating Its Ideological Opponents? You Must Be Joking

"I'm still digging out of my various pre-election hate mail piles — you know, 'How could say Obama is a socialist who will redistribute wealth just because he used to be a member of a socialist party and criticized the Warren Court for failing to order the redistribution of wealth?'; 'How could you say Obama is a Left-wing radical rather than a centrist moderate just because he made common cause with Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Mike Klonsky, Jeremiah Wright, Frank Marshall Davis, et al?'; 'How could you say Obama would be an extremist on abortion and other life issues just because he supported infanticide as a Chicago legislator?'; 'How could you say Obama would be anti-Israel in his governance and appointments just because he pals around with Rashid Khalidi?'; 'How could you say an Obama administration would turn TARP into a Big Government slush fund just because he managed the Chicago Annenberg Challenge as a Big Lefty slush fund?'; 'How could you say Obama will be soft on Iran just because Obama is soft on Iran?'; etc. But I note that I got plenty for this one, too:

"I’ll be blunt: Sen. Obama and his supporters despise free expression, the bedrock of American self-determinism and hence American democracy. What’s more, like garden-variety despots, they see law not as a means of ensuring liberty but as a tool to intimidate and quell dissent....

"[I]n St. Louis, local law-enforcement authorities, dominated by Democrat-party activists, [are] threatening libel prosecutions against Obama’s political opposition. County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, abetted by a local sheriff and encouraged by the Obama campaign, warned that members of the public who dared speak out against Obama during the campaign’s crucial final weeks would face criminal libel charges — if, in the judgment of these conflicted officials, such criticism of their champion was 'false.'

"The chill wind was bracing. The Taliban could not better rig matters. The Prophet of Change is only to be admired, not questioned. In the stretch run of an American election, there is to be no examination of a candidate for the world’s most powerful office — whether about his radical record, the fringe Leftism that lies beneath his thin, centrist veneer, his enabling of infanticide, his history of race-conscious politics, his proposals for unprecedented confiscation and distribution of private property (including a massive transfer of American wealth to third-world dictators through international bureaucrats), his ruinous economic policies that have helped leave Illinois a financial wreck, his place at the vortex of the credit market implosion that has put the U.S. economy on the brink of meltdown, his aggressive push for American withdrawal and defeat in Iraq, his easy gravitation to America-hating activists, be they preachers like Jeremiah Wright, terrorists like Bill Ayers, or Communists like Frank Marshall Davis. Comment on any of this and risk indictment or, at the very least, government harassment and exorbitant legal fees.

Nor was this an isolated incident.

Item: When the American Issues Project ran political ads calling attention to Obama’s extensive ties to Ayers, the Weatherman terrorist who brags about having bombed the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol, the Obama campaign pressured the Justice Department to launch an absurd criminal prosecution.

"Item: When commentator Stanley Kurtz of the Ethics and Public Policy Center was invited on a Chicago radio program to discuss his investigation of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, an “education reform” project in which Obama and Ayers (just 'a guy who lives in my neighborhood') collaborated to dole out over $100 million, the Obama campaign issued an Internet action alert. Supporters, armed with the campaign’s non-responsive talking points, dutifully flooded the program with calls and emails, protesting Kurtz’s appearance and attempting to shout him down.

"Item: Both Obama and his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, have indicated that an Obama administration would use its control of the Justice Department to prosecute its political opponents, including Bush administration officials responsible for the national security policies put in effect after nearly 3000 Americans were killed in the 9/11 attacks.

"Item: There is a troubling report that the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Section, top officials of which are Obama contributors, has suggested criminal prosecutions against those they anticipate will engage in voter 'intimidation' or 'oppression' in an election involving a black candidate (read "black Democratic candidate -- Robert) . (Memo to my former DOJ colleagues: In a system that presumes innocence even after crimes have undeniably been committed, responsible prosecutors don’t assume non-suspects will commit future law violations — especially when doing so necessarily undermines the First Amendment freedoms those prosecutors solemnly swear to uphold.) [Emphasis added.]"

Brother X Speaks

"That Captain Phillips is a racist! He should have asked those pirates to kill him. Then that would have proved he was not racist, just like the white folks who voted for Obama. How dare he survive!"

There must be a full moon out.

How Obama actually delayed pirate rescue SEAL team deployment stalled 36 hours, hampered by limited rules of engagement

"While Barack Obama is basking in praise for his 'decisive' handling of the Somali pirate attack on a merchant ship in the India Ocean, reliable military sources close to the scene are painting a much different picture of the incident – accusing the president of employing restrictive rules of engagement that actually hampered the rescue of Capt. Richard Phillips and extended the drama at sea for days.

"Multiple opportunities to free the captain of the Maersk Alabama from three young pirates were missed, these sources say – all because a Navy SEAL team was not immediately ordered to the scene and then forced to operate under strict, non-lethal rules of engagement.

"They say the response duty office at the Pentagon was initially unwilling to grant an order to use lethal force to rescue Phillips. They also report the White House refused to authorize deployment of a Navy SEAL team to the location for 36 hours, despite the recommendation of the on-scene commander."

Change you have been told to believe in: A closer examination of Barack Obama’s foreign policy

"Those who elected Obama on anti-war grounds, however, had not read the small print. Indeed, Obama’s status as a champion of pacifism can be attributed in no small part to the stance taken by his Republican opponent during the campaign; compared to John McCain’s overt belligerence, Obama became the candidate of peace by default. Whereas McCain hypothesised that American military involvement in Iraq could continue for 'a hundred years', Obama affirmed in September 2007 that, '[t]here is no military solution in Iraq and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now.'[2]

In July 2008, Obama said that a previous commitment and campaign pledge to complete a full withdrawal of combat troops within 16 months could be 'refined' at a later date[3], and following his inauguration he indeed extended the timetable for the prospective pullout to between 19 and 23 months[4]. Obama’s current position is that a 'residual force' of up to 50,000 troops will be left in the country after this 23-month period has elapsed[5] – giving rise to consternation from anti-war activists and from some within the Democratic Party. There are currently 142,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, and therefore the proposed 50,000-strong residual force represents more than one third of the American forces currently serving in the country. Under an agreement signed between George W. Bush and the Iraqi government in 2008, all U.S. troops must be out of Iraq by December 31st 2011.

"Aside from the somewhat confused stance with regards to the Iraq pullout, President Obama has been criticised by opponents of the ‘war on terror’ for pledging to almost double the number of U.S. troops serving in Afghanistan. His proposal to supplement the existing force of 36,000 with an additional 30,000 troops[6] – presumably consisting in no small part of soldiers who have already served in Iraq – contradicts statements made in July 2008, in which Obama had suggested increasing the U.S. presence in Afghanistan by just 7,000[7]. Since taking office, Obama has already dispatched an additional 17,000 U.S. troops to the country[8].

"The newly elected President wasted no time whatsoever in continuing another policy inherited from his predecessor; attacks by unmanned drones inside Pakistani territory. In September 2008, Obama called the first attacks carried out by the government of George W. Bush inside Pakistan a 'small step in the right direction.' Susan Rice, top foreign policy advisor to Obama’s campaign, said of the raids – undertaken without approval from Islamabad - that the U.S. had a right 'Not to invade. Not to take over Pakistan’s sovereignty, but to take out that target as an act of self-defence'[9]. Obama stated publicly as far back as July 2007 that he had no qualms whatsoever about using military force against 'al-Qaeda' in Pakistan, even without consultation with the Pakistani government[10], provoking outrage in a country that has been a key strategic ally of the United States during the ‘war on terror’. Following his inauguration, Obama did not dawdle in making good on those threats.

"The new President carried out the first such strike just three days into his term in office on January 23 2009, killing 22 people inside Pakistani territory and provoking huge protests in the tribal heartlands of North & South Waziristan[11]. The total number of unauthorised U.S. raids inside Pakistani territory since August 2008 now stands at more than 30. Pakistani officials were quick to condemn these attacks as violations of their national sovereignty, pointing out that many civilians have been killed by missiles fired from unmanned drones since the raids began last summer, and emphasising that in terms of winning hearts and minds in the region such aggressions are counter productive to say the least."

Why I'm glad Obama is the President instead of McCain

"I'm glad that Obama's spending is going through the roof... hopefully more Americans will begin to realize that we're sitting in boiling water. At the same time that proponents of limited government are getting more and more agitated, hopefully the antiwar group will also realize that the Democrats are not as antiwar and pro-civil rights as they thought."

Obama Retreated, Will America Be Defeated?

"It is not such a big deal to disagree with a president and his policies. But it is shocking to realize that the leader of the world’s most powerful country doesn’t appear to understand the most basic principles of international relations.

"This isn’t surprising since Barrack Obama has no—zero, nada—previous experience in this area. It shows. There are two distinct ways other countries respond to this combination of his ignorance at realpolitik, urgent desire to be liked, and pride in projecting U.S. weakness:

• Friends, especially in Europe, are pleased, applaud, but then add that they don’t have to give this guy anything because he is all apologies and no toughness. They like the fact that he is all carrots and not sticks. If, however, they are states more at risk—Israel, relatively moderate Arab states, perhaps Asian and Latin American allies--worry that they cannot rely on the United States to help and defend them.

• Enemies or potential rivals, a category including Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, Russia, Venezuela, and many—mostly Islamist—revolutionary movements, say that this guy is weak and defeated. He apologizes, offers unconditional engagements, and promises concessions because all previous U.S. policies have failed. Obama says so himself. They’ll eat the carrots and, of possible, their neighbors as well.

"Obama, the supposed liberal, also offers some considerable, bizarre reversals in the meaning of that word. A couple of years ago when a brilliant conservative Middle East analyst asked me if I, too, was a conservative now, I said that I remained a liberal. In my view, the problem is not liberalism itself but the way that the far left has taken over liberalism, as Communism tried—but failed—to do in the 1930s.

"For me, though, a liberal president is one who is harshly critical of dictatorships. He has been the kind of person who understands the importance of ideas and the value of America’s good side throughout history. He didn’t spend his time denouncing U.S. mistakes so much as urging others to follow the American system of democracy and reasonably regulated free enterprise.

"Such a president hates totalitarianism because he extolled the liberty embodied by the United States. A liberal president wasn’t someone eager to suck up to repressive dictatorships but someone who could unite democratic and moderate states.

"Will some presidential successor of Obama have to apologize some day to all those people who were crushed by the dictatorships he is coddling?"

Another Global Warming Myth Shot Down

"Apparently the Global Warming Moonbats are experts at telling half-truths. For weeks they have been warning that areas in the western part of Antarctica are melting and the Wilkins ice shelf may even break away from the continent. That is 100% true.

"Now, what the members of the Church of Global Warming Moonbats have kept to themselves is that east Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown 'significant cooling in recent decades'.

"When you put both sides together it looks as if that 'Al Gore Fire Drill' was for naught."

Why Liberals Despise American Patriots

"'Let's be very honest about what this is about. It's not about bashing democrats, it's not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston Tea Party was about. They don't know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. (Notice she attempts to even talk "black" -- Robert) That is nothing but a bunch of tea-bagging rednecks. And there is no way around that... They are now dependent upon immigrant bashing, and hating the black guy in the White House. Will people act on that? It's not new, but Fox doesn't mind fomenting it. Michelle Bachman doesn't mind fomenting it. Glen Beck doesn't mind fomenting it... but what have they got if they don't have this?' ~Janeane Garaofalo, 4/16 MSNBC.

"Note to Rupert Murdoch: Janeane Garofalo your d-lister on 24; needs to have her mouth washed out with soap, she should be spanked, and her parents should be called to take her home early today. She has slandered your broadcast network, doesn't seem to understand the difference between your news operation and the entertainment company that writes her paycheck, and is perhaps one of the more vile human beings to ever call herself an American.

"But enough with her best qualities."

Thou Shall Not Question Barack Obama

I question. I question. I question. I question. I question. I question. I question. I question. I question. I question. I question. I question.I question.I question. I question. I question. I question. I question.I question. I question. I question. I question. I question. I question. I question.

I don't think I'm making myself clear.

"After attempting to change the subject, and get the focus of the conversation OFF of dear leader Obama, the second line of attack from the minions seems to be to demonize the talk show host, and talk radio generally. I got an earful of this during a recent show I hosted at Phoenix, Arizona’s NewsTalk 92-3 KTAR. Noting President Obama’s plans to set earnings limits on corporate executives, I posed the question, 'should President Obama determine how much money you’re allowed to earn?'

"You all can’t do anything but hate on this guy' a caller said in response. 'All you talk radio guys know how to do is trash Obama' another caller said.

"Oh really? I was 'hating on' the dear leader, and 'trashing' him? I pressed further with one caller, saying “seriously…should President Obama set the limit on how much money you’re allowed to make at your job - - just to make certain that you don’t make ‘too much’?”

“'He’s not proposing to limit my pay, you idiot' the minion replied. 'He’s only limiting the salaries of corporate CEO’s, which he should be doing.' (Ja, mein Fuehrer! -- Robert)

“'So, are you saying that some of your fellow Americans deserve less freedom that you do?' I asked. 'You should be free to make as much money as you can, but your fellow American should not - - is that your point?'

“'That’s not what I’m saying, you idiot!' the angry minion replied.

"Of course, that was precisely what the angry minion was saying."

Obamatopia

"My only confusion is over motive. Does Obama do this for (a) domestic political purposes: trashing Bush abroad*, coupled with fawning foreign crowds and photo-ops, remind Americans that someone made them liked abroad after someone else did not? (b) Is it more personal, as in messianic: he sees himself as a sort of Mandela/Gandhi figure, post-national, post-patriotic, post-American in whom the souls of 6 billion are invested for ‘hope and change’? (c) Is there a touch of Democratic savvy as well—the more these “breakthroughs” are associated with Obama, the more Hillary seems sidelined, and / or forced to implement his lead? Compared to the high Rice profile, her stature seems more and more dwarfish. (d) Does he really believe in conflict resolution theory that postulates escalating disagreements arise from miscommunication and misunderstanding rather than an aggressive party sensing that its putative opponent cannot or will not impede it—in other words faith in the UN rather than age-old balance of power, deterrence, and ‘quiet but carry a big stick’ preparedness? (e) Does Obama, whether being nourished on the mother milk of Wright, Ayers, Khalidi, etc, or from his university training and Chicago organizing, really see the U.S. as historically a uniquely oppressive society in terms of race, class, and gender, and hence perhaps have empathy for a Castro or Chavez, at least more than he does for Americans of the sort who go to tea parties and listen to Fox News? I’ll let readers decide, but so far his rhetoric has been harsher to those on Wall Street, his opponents in Congress, those who make over $250,000, and those who criticize him than it has to those who clearly don’t like us abroad.

"And the result will be soon, as Sarkozy presciently saw, a general sizing up of the Obama two-step. They will either believe that we are weak, and cannot stand in the way of their illiberal agendas, or believe that Obama is somewhat sympathetic to their anti-capitalist, anti-democratic scenarios, or believe that he is a true multiculturalist who believes in the 'Post-American world.'”

The ‘Right-Wing Extremism’ Report and Europeanization

"A search of government records turns up a similar paucity of the expression in official American political discourse. Here again, when the expression does appear, it is typically employed to refer to European and, above all, German political phenomena. (See here, for instance, in the entry on Germany in the State Department’s 2008 Human Rights Report.) Here again, when the expression is used to refer to American political phenomena, it is typically employed in an obviously politicized and hyperbolic manner to refer to mainstream Republicans — as, for instance, when Bernie Sanders, America’s only self-described 'socialist' senator, linked 'right-wing extremism' and the Bush administration. There is some scattered evidence of law enforcement officials occasionally using the term.

"If the expression 'right-wing extremism' is uncommon in American political discourse, however, its German equivalent — Rechtsextremismus — is a standard element of German political discourse. A search of the electronic archives of Germany’s paper of record, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), turns up over 2000 articles in which the term is used in just the last 16 years. A search of just the last year of the FAZ archives turns up 121 articles: more than twice the number found in the New York Times in the last twenty years. The German domestic intelligence service, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution [Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz], includes detailed information on “right-wing extremist” movements and detailed statistics on 'right-wing extremist' violence in each of its yearly reports. The section specifically devoted to the analysis of 'right-wing extremist' movements in the last available report (covering 2007) is over 80 pages long — this as compared to the scanty seven pages of would-be analysis in the DHS report. The Verfassungsschutz report also includes a section on 'left-wing extremism' [Linksextremismus] of about the same length."