[Poohbah]

Get this through your head (of unknown thickness): the word "defenders" was in quotes in this pamphlet. There are some folks out there who loudly--and falsely--claim to be "defenders" of the Constitution.

Differentiating between someone who is a defender of the Constitution and someone who is a "defender" of the Constitution requires judgement and discrimination--just like reading this pamphlet does.

[JRadcliffe]

"Differentiating between someone who is a defender of the Constitution and someone who is a "defender" of the Constitution requires judgement and discrimination--just like reading this pamphlet does."

You may feel comfortable allowing government to use good judgement and descrimination -- I DO NOT!

[Verax]

--and falsely--claim to be "defenders" of the Constitution.

Think about what you're writing.

Claiming either falsely or truthfully to be a defender of the Constitution is IN NO WAY A TERRORIST ACT.

There's no damn good reason for "defender of the Constitution" to be on this brochure at all!

as an act which represents suspicion of domestic terrorism.

Who's going to decide who is claiming TRUTHFULLY or FALSELY?

[freefly]

"Differentiating between someone who is a defender of the Constitution and someone
who is a "defender" of the Constitution requires judgement and discrimination--"

Maybe you havn't noticed, but both tend to be in short supply where
the fed is concerned. As I pointed out to dane (and as Travis McGee
pointed out) this is as open-ended as they CHOOSE to make it.
We can see how this worked in Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, and Mao's China.
You can be declared an "enemy of the state" at the discression of the federal (or local) police.
And now it takes VERY little to be branded as such.