I hope you are joking. As I said, I examined their literature -- it is irrationally extreme. I suppose that if your views match theirs then you wouldn't see a problem with it, but I do. Their political views are on the extreme fringe, nowhere near the mainstream. There are "nuts" on both ends of the political spectrum.
I was just curious as to how some views come to be classified as either mainstream or on the fringe. Ever stop to think that perhaps the so-called mainstream news sources could have an agenda that prevents in-depth coverage on certain events? FR has proven that the internet provides far more depth and info on numerous issues as compared to what we usually hear from the nightly news or the talking heads on the radio. Many of us are much more informed on a multitude of issues and gov't policies than we ever would've been if our only source was a Dan Rather or someone like that.