Archive for Conservative

Pro-life leader who once survived arson attack challenges “obstructionist Republican establishment” in Ohio Senate

Posted in Janet Porter, pro-choice violence with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 30, 2015 by saynsumthn

A long-time pro-life leader has decided to run for the Senate in the state of Ohio to challenge what she calls “the establishment” which has refused to pass the pro-life Heartbeat bill. Janet Folger Porter has been fighting abortion for over thirty years. Her leadership helped pass the first ban on the infamous partial birth abortion method. In that procedure, the abortionist delivers the preborn child up to the shoulders, he then pierces the child’s skull with a pair of medical scissors and suctions out the brain tissue, enabling the collapse of the baby’s head which kills the child. The procedure was defended by Hillary Clinton during her term as a US Senator.

Janet Head Shot Hi-Res

It was this now illegal abortion procedure that appeared to be described by a high ranking staffer at Planned Parenthood caught on under cover video by the Center for Medical Progress who exposed their grisly baby harvesting operation. As a result, pro-lifers have called for an investigation into the potential that Planned Parenthood is violating the law.

I have known Janet Porter for many years. I have followed her bold stand as well as her witty and brilliant personality. What you see in Janet publicly, rest assured is the same privately. She is one of the most honest, godly, and hard working woman I have ever met. Janet is 100% committed to the cause of defending the preborn child in the womb. But, her stand has not been an easy one. Over the years, Janet has made a number of enemies. She is feared by groups like Right-Wing Watch who describes her an “anti-choice” threat and has published numerous alerts on her views. Janet told Saynsumthn that she is the most “watched” female by the pro-abortion group, second only to Michele Bauchman. In response to the criticism, Janet said that she not deterred by those who oppose her, telling Saynsumthn that, “When you spend your life standing for God’s word and His principles people don’t always say nice things about you.”

Janet Folger Porter prolife Bomb Threat

Tragically, words are not the only “ammunition” that have been used by Janet’s enemies over the years. The pro-life leader has also received numerous threats, including having her vehicle sabotaged when someone cut her gas line. It happened in 1994 when abortion was front and center in the news much like it is today. Janet recalled seeing smoke coming out of her car prior to a political rally for a pro-life Democrat candidate she had planned to attend. After getting out of the car she saw a line of fire from the driveway into her garage, but thankfully the fire was confined to her car engine and she was not hurt. The fire was ruled as arson and although no one was ever charged, Janet had her suspicions that she was targeted because of her pro-life activism.

“The arson investigator said the attack was deliberate. The banner headline of the Cleveland Plain Dealer on Friday, May 13, 1994, read: Right to Life Leader’s car Sabotaged, Odds are it is connected to abortion issue, police say.” The sticker on the bumper read: “Abortion? Pick on someone your own size.”

Janet Folger Porter prolifer threatened bomb abortion

Janet wrote about the incident in her book, True to Life where she published this image of her burnt out car.

968813_1027421377316527_8182336174187530996_n

Janet Folger Porter prolife threatened bomb abortion Cleveland paper

Janet’s thirty years of pro-life activism began in high school where she was first convicted about abortion after she was shown a picture of an aborted baby for the first time. Today, Janet has spent the last few years working to pass the Heartbeat Bill in Ohio. This legislation works on the premise that if death is decided when a heartbeat ends, then life should be protected when the heartbeat begins. She told Saynsumthn that her involvement in a failed pro-life initiative in South Dakota helped birth the concept behind the Heartbeat Bill.

“The Supreme Court has said states can intervene and protect life in the womb if there is a likelihood of survival to live birth. But right now they are picking viability as their marker. Well, we have a better one. It’s called the heartbeat,” she said adding that, “Heartbeat is an indicator of life that is universally recognized across the wold, why should we ignore it when it comes to the very young?” she asked.

janet-porter-heart-balloons

Janet said she is committed to protecting every preborn child in the womb, but for now, “If we can’t rescue all the children out of the burning building all at once, you carry out as many as you can – then go back for the rest,” she explained.

It was her passion to pass the Heartbeat Bill in the Ohio legislature that promoted her decision to run for state Senate. Janet said that she is hoping to unseat incumbent state Republican Senator Larry Obhof and that she is running against what she calls “the Republican establishment.” According to Janet the so-called “establishment” has “blocked the most pro-life bill to ever pass the Ohio House of Representatives, the Heartbeat Bill” which Janet calls, “our best chance to save the most lives.”

“They will tell you how pro-life they are. In fact, my opponent will claim to have a 100%n voting record. Well that is easy to do when you never vote on the most pro-life bill, the Heartbeat Bill which has the most chance to save lives,” she stated.

Janet has accused her opponent, Larry Obhof, with refusing to initiate and sign a discharge petition to bring the pro-life Heartbeat Bill to the floor for a vote. “He claimed to a local news outlet that I never asked him to sign it,” Porter said.

Porter holds certified receipt of letter she delivered to her opponent

Porter holds certified receipt of letter she delivered to her opponent

So I delivered the proof: the receipt of the certified letter which I sent to him on October 21st along with the return postcard which showed that he, in fact, received it.”

Janet’s determination has brought her before Ohio lawmakers many times with several victories along the way. Janet has had plenty of experience with lawmakers. After she co-founded Students for Life in 1985 at Cleveland State University as an undergrad student she became Legislative Director of Ohio Right to Life for nearly a decade. It was in this role that Janet helped pass pro-life laws including the Woman’s Right to Know law (with a 24 hour waiting period), Parental Consent, Fetal Homicide, protection against dehydration and starvation, as well as the nation’s first ban on Partial Birth Abortion.

Janet explained that after asking others to run against what she calls the “obstructionist Republican establishment” she stepped up when no one responded. “If nobody else would do it, I put my own faith to action and I pulled petitions to run for the state Senate.” But, the feisty pro-life female leader said she has also launched her political campaign for the cause of liberty, “The more I think about it, we could have a lot of fun in the Ohio Senate. Instead of being on the outside begging them for their vote, we could actually take our government back! Because, you know what? It doesn’t belong to the establishment incumbents – it belongs to we the people.”

Janet Folger Porter for Senate

Janet said that her campaign needs a lot of prayer, support, feet on the ground and, of course plenty of contributions. Early voting in the state begins in a few months and the election will take place March 15, 2016. But, despite the uphill battle, Janet remained optimistic about her chances of winning:

“Here’s my chances with God all things are possible.”

CJ Pearson, a young black 12 year-old blasts Obama gets shut down by Facebook

Posted in Black Conservative, Censorship, Facebook, Obama with tags , , , , , , , , , on March 2, 2015 by saynsumthn

CJ Pearson, a young 12 year-old who blasted Obama last week saying the president does not love America says Facebook has retaliated by pulling down his personal page.

The video link I used last week to post his vid- has also been removed by YouTube:

Thankfully- the original is still online:

CJ Pearson  1

According to the Examiner:

    On Friday, C.J. Pearson, a 12-year-old conservative from Georgia who posted a viral video supporting Rudy Giuliani, discovered that his personal Facebook page was locked. In an exclusive interview with Examiner.com on Saturday, Pearson said he received a message from someone about 6 a.m. Friday. That’s when he learned his account and page had been locked for “suspicious activity.”

    He jumped through all of Facebook’s hoops, but wasn’t able to recover his account. So he created a new profile to take its place. His public page was not affected, he said, however, he can no longer administer the page. Fortunately, he said, a friend is helping post links to that page.

    As is so often the case in these situations, Facebook did not respond to his requests for help. Nor would they tell him what the alleged suspicious activity was. We reached out to Facebook, but the social media giant has so far refused to respond to our request for comments.

Young supporters are already taking action:

His story will get out- he says he will also appear on Hannity:

CJ Pearson

1950 Hope + Crosby Vid: Our Liberty Depends Upon God

Posted in Communist, Declaration of Independence with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on July 17, 2014 by saynsumthn

Crosby Bob Hope Christopher Movement

A 1952 classic which featured Hollywood legends Jack Benny, Bob Hope, Bing Crosby, William Holden and more emphasizes the importance of the fact that our liberty comes from God as defined in the Declaration of Independence. The film has a single theme: You Can Change the World.

images

The film attempts to educate others on Communism and the truth that America was based on God. It features a meeting of these actors to advance the Christopher Movement. That movement was founded by Fr. James Keller. He coined the term “Christopher,” from the Greek words for Christbearer – an individual who sought to apply the principles of the Gospel in the marketplace of everyday life.

Fr CHristopher

Fr. Keller explains that his goal is to, “get more people of vital purpose into the high fields that affect the lives of the majority of mankind.”

Now, this blogger is not familiar with Keller or his movement, but, I found the video intriguing in that it seems applicable to today.

I’m convinced we are on the greatest brink of peace the world has ever seen or the worst disaster,” Fr. Keller states, “here we are in the greatest country in the world, about the only country left intact, and whether we like it or not, I’m afraid, as America goes – do goes the world.”

He calls it a wonderful time to be alive and says, “A little handful of people could change the whole course of history…1% is nothing more than a handful…Just think of what that 1% had been doing to mess up the world, they get into the fields that count…they hate the basic truth of which our nation is founded. That every human being is a child of God. That he gets his rights from God…everyone of them get into fields where they can eliminate that truth…”

Bing Crosby Christopher Mvmy

In the video, the group reminds their audience of the importance of the Declaration of Independence and how our founders repeated that our liberty depends on God. They then quote and read from the original version of the Declaration of Independence.
Image of Declaration of Independence

They warn about the views of Karl Marx and the ideas of Hitler.

Most of the good Germans wanted good government, good education, good everything else. But they didn’t want to be bothered, they wanted somebody else to do it. You know the old story? Everybody wanted to eat but no one wanted to cook,” Fr. Keller says, “The Nazis weren’t strong in the beginning. But they swarmed into every field. The lines were drawn then and the lines are drawn now. We’re either for God or against God. If its the later – we’ll pay the penalty and soon.”

In the vid, Fr. Keller calls Bob Hope about his movement and Hope responds, “I just want you to know I’m behind this project,” Hope states.

Bob Hope

Seems like a good idea to me getting the people back to the basic idea behind the idea of the Declaration of Independence. You couldn’t push a better product. Seems to me you don’t hear very much anymore about the Declaration. All you hear about is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Let’s not forget for a moment that they don’t add up to much if you pass up the Declaration,” he says.

The video ends with the group reading Lincoln’s Lost Speech, “Now, my countrymen, if you have been taught doctrines conflicting with the great landmarks of the Declaration of Independence; if you have listened to suggestions which would take away from its grandeur, and mutilate the fair symmetry of its proportions; if you have been inclined to believe that all men are not created equal in those inalienable rights enumerated by our chart of liberty, let me entreat you to come back. Return to the fountain whose waters spring close by the blood of the Revolution. Think nothing of me—take no thought for the political fate of any man whomsoever—but come back to the truths that are in the Declaration of Independence. You may do anything with me you choose, if you will but heed these sacred principles. You may not only defeat me for the Senate, but you may take me and put me to death. While pretending no indifference to earthly honors, I do claim to be actuated in this contest by something higher than an anxiety for office. I charge you to drop every paltry and insignificant thought for any man’s success. It is nothing; I am nothing; Judge Douglas is nothing. But do not destroy that immortal emblem of Humanity—the Declaration of American Independence.”

I want to emphasize that my posting this is not to promote a movement I am not familiar with. But rather to state that we MUST get about reminding people where their rights come from and why. We must get involved at every turn. Our country is at a crossroads and if we do not speak out and get involved, who will? .

Watch here….

Student: Planned Parenthood / Left-wing sites available Pro-life / Conservative sites blocked

Posted in Censorship with tags , , , , , , on June 25, 2014 by saynsumthn

According to this news report Planned Parenthood and other left-wing political websites were accessible at a school website but conservative – pro-life and Christian websites were blocked !

Andrew Lampart says that he was researching gun control in May for his studies at Nonnewaug High School in Woodbury, but was unable to view the National Rifle Association’s website from a school computer, he told FoxCt.com.

According to Fox News, Lampart claims the issue went even further down the political divide, to issues including abortion and religion. He told the station he had full access to Planned Parenthood’s website, but could not access pro-life groups’ websites. He was also blocked from Christianity.com and the Vatican’s website, but not Islam-guide.com, he said.

The Woodbury school district issued a statement Thursday, saying that it pressed Dell SonicWall, its filtering provider, as to why the liberal websites fell into a “not rated” category and the conservative sites fell into “political/advocacy group” category, barring them from school computers.

“The district is trying to determine the reason for the inconsistency and if the bias is pervasive enough to justify switching to another content filtering provider,” the statement read. “The district does not block individual sites, only categories of websites. The categories are supposed to be inclusive of all sites that fall into a common description. The district does engage in unblocking sites to provide diverse points of view and balance in the instructional process.”

SonicWallSecurity

According to their website, The Dell SonicWALL Content Filtering Service allows administrators to block any site that has not been rated by providing a category called “Not Rated”. It is important to note that Not Rated means that we have not yet had the opportunity to rate the URL. It does not mean that we have reviewed the site and decided to rate it “Not Rated”. Many organizations block the “Not Rated” category since millions of new URLs are introduced monthly and will not make it into the rating queue until there is sufficient traffic or an end user submits the site for rating. Not Rated should be blocked since millions of new malware sites appear monthly.

Shocking Tape catches IRS agent scolding pro-life group not to protest abortion clinics and keep religion to themselves

Posted in free speech, IRS with tags , , , , , , , , , on June 11, 2013 by saynsumthn

In an audiotape released today, an IRS agent is heard lecturing the head of a pro-life group at length, telling her that her group cannot “force” their religion and beliefs on others, and that they shouldn’t reach out to women or protest against abortion clinics.

The agent told the group that while they have their “right of belief” they have “no right to go against other people’s beliefs.”

The conversation took place on March 8, 2012, between IRS Exempt Organization Specialist Sherry Wan and Ania Joseph, the president of Pro-Life Revolution, a group that ministers to women in crisis pregnancies.

During the conversation Agent Wan said that the group’s protests against an abortion facility are motivated by “blind, emotional feelings.”

“You can’t take all kinds of confrontation activities and also put something on a website and ask people to take action against the abortion clinic,” she said. “That’s not, that’s not really educational.”

“You reach out to woman, [sic] you can’t do that,” Wan says at another point, adding, “You cannot force your religion or force your beliefs on somebody else.”

Read more

Alliance Defending Freedom released audio today of a phone conversation that an IRS agent had with Ania Joseph, President of Pro-Life Revolution. In this recorded conversation an IRS agent, Sherry Wan, lectured Joseph about forcing its religious beliefs on others and then explains, inaccurately, that the group must remain neutral on issues like abortion.

Pro-Life Revolution, whom Alliance Defending Freedom represents, applied for tax-exempt status in January of 2011. The IRS regularly grants exemptions to religious, educational, and/or charitable organizations. The Texas-based organization operates under all three purposes.

After four months, Joseph received a letter from the IRS that requested more information and asked for an explanation of how her organization’s activities are educational or charitable. IRS rules specify that an organization only needs to operate under “one or more” of the tax exempt purpose. Joseph replied anyway and answered the IRS’s questions.

Then in March 2012, Joseph received a call from IRS Exempt Organization Specialist Sherry Wan, who told her that, in order to obtain a tax exemption, “You cannot force your religion or force your beliefs on somebody else…. You have to know your boundaries. You have to know your limits. You have to respect other people’s beliefs.” The IRS has approved applications for tax exemption for pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood and Life and Liberty for Women.

Here is the entire transcript in full (you can listen to the audio here):

(:00-:05) – [Unintelligible]

Agent Sherry Wan (:06-:41) – “…so you have your right. You have your freedom. You have your religious rights. You have a right to believe what you believe. You have the right to think about what you should do, what is right for you to do. OK. And, but, however, this freedom also [unintelligible] to other people. Other people also have the freedom. You know, for the personal view, maybe I go with you. However, I have to [unintelligible] the Internal Revenue Service. I have to stick with the law. Because, you know, we have to keep it neutral.

Client Ania Joseph (:41-:44) – I understand that you have to stick with the law.

Agent (:44-1:17) – Yeah, you have the religious freedom; the freedom of speech. And other people also have the civil rights; human rights. You cannot, you know, use your religious belief to tell other people you don’t have a belief, so I don’t believe you need the right to do this, start confrontation, protesting, uh, prot, uh, protest. [unintelligible] You don’t apply for tax exemption.

Crosstalk (1:17-1:18)

Agent (1:18-1:38) – Nobody will go after you as long as you don’t violate the law. But when you come to apply for tax exemption, you have to keep your action to, you know, exactly what is educational or religious, you know you [unintelligible].

Crosstalk (1:38-1:41)

Agent (1:41-1:56) – And like I said, you can’t, you have, your right to believe. You have your right of belief to do what you’re supposed to do. But you have no right to, against, other people’s beliefs.

Client (1:56-1:57) – I understand your concerns, but…

Agent (1:57-2:29) – There are really complicated, really subtle, you know, issues here. And they are also very complicated. This not you, you know, you and I, can’t solve it. This is a court. They decide, you know, whether it is right or not. So, but, as I said, we both, everybody, has the right to believe, have the right to do what is supposed to do. You believe your religion told you this is evil; that not supposed to do. [unintelligible]

Client (2:29-2:39) – My religion says that, you know, we have to reach out to women who are hurting, who are considering killing their own babies.

Agent (2:39-3:02) – You reach out to woman, you can’t do that. You can, you know, to educate the woman, to do, you know, you don’t do that. However, you can’t just like say, you know, the [unintelligible] woman, you fear the woman. You have to get the woman the opportunity to listen to you. You cannot force your religion or force your beliefs on somebody else.

Client (3:02-3:14) – Now can I ask you a question? [Crosstalk] I just have a question. I just have a question, Sherry. Is handing a brochure to somebody forcing somebody to do something they don’t want to do?

Agent (3:14-3:25) – No, handing a brochure [unintelligible] you can’t just leave and [unintelligible] brochure. You send the brochure to somebody, that’s right, that’s because you’ve just given them the opportunity to learn your belief.

Client (3:25-3:27) – Yeah, and that’s not forcing them…let me tell you what…

Agent (3:27-3:53) – You convince them. But when you take a lot of action, [unintelligible] other people. For example, when you, you know, go to, you know, the abortion clinic, and you found them [unintelligible], we don’t want, you know, to come against them. You can’t take all kinds of confrontation activities and also put something on a website and ask people to take action against the abortion clinic. That’s not, that’s not really educational.

Agent (3:53-4:01) – [unintelligible]

Agent (4:01-4:06) – So here, your action is based on more blind, emotional feelings.

Client (4:06-4:08) – It’s based on what?

Agent (4:08-4:10) – …an objective, factually a violation.

Client (4:10-4:12) –It’s a violation of what?

Agent (4:13-4:15) – [unintelligible]

Agent (4:15-4:46) – …we have a seminar. We have a workshop. We have materials [unintelligible]. Nobody will say you really forced your religion on them. But when you go to the door, go to the front of the abortion clinic, and [unintelligible] come for protesting activity, and then go up to the woman and tell the woman they should not do that, that is the kind of activity…

Crosstalk (4:46-4:48)

Client (4:48-4:51) – Actually, actually, a peaceful prayer vigil is not…

Agent (4:51-5:46) – You could speak to your value. OK. So that’s why, that’s why this is kind of like you know, kind of, you started from the beginning, I feel that when you’re talking to the [unintelligible] my religion, my religion [unintelligible]. And like I said, you have the right to believe. You have the right to do, your religion told you what’s right. You have a right to, you know, outreach to other people. But meanwhile, you have to know your boundaries. You have to know your limits. You have to respect other people’s beliefs. You have somebody else come to your door and know you don’t like them. When they come to you, how do you feel? [unintelligible]

Client (5:47-6:20) – OK, I understand what you’re saying and I think that we’re going to take it from here in a different manner. I’m going to have to seek some legal counsel in this case. So, I’m going to be contacting you through writing again through regular mail and we’ll take it from there. But I appreciate your phone call and your concerns and I understand your position. [Pause] Hello?

Agent (6:20-6:29) – Oh, OK, I’m trying yeah, you know, I’m just trying to say, OK, so you’re saying your claim to counsel, talking to your counsel, consulting legal counsel, right?

Client (6:30-6:51) – Yeah, I’m going to have to consult somebody because you know I understand your point, but I also understand as a ministry we have certain rights as well and I want to consult somebody and just take it from there and to get more information and…

Agent (6:51-7:32) – Yeah I can hear, yeah that’s good. I think, like I said, you know, you understand my point now? That means we have to, you know, we, we, everybody has their religious rights and religious belief. [unintelligible] But you have to respect other people’s beliefs, other people’s rights and not, you know, use some kind of confrontation, you know, practice, against, or court action against another group.

Client (7:33-7:36) – I understand your concerns and I will be in touch.

Agent (7:36-8:20) – That’s why I say, you know, I think this was, and if you wanted to send me something[unintelligible], you know, you are welcome to do so. OK? And if you, after you, you talk to your lawyer, or talk to your legal consultant, and if you say, OK, here we understand the position, I feel that you know, you know, we understand your position, understand your point and that we wanted to, wanted to, you know, get this kicked down quickly and we are willing to take those, no longer can do the activities, [unintelligible]. OK?

Client (8:20-8:23) – OK, so I will talk to somebody and I will be in touch from there, so.

Agent (8:23-8:48) – Yeah, I’ll just call you within one week, and then you know, I’ll just come back from my other project so then I can try to get everything done. And then you’ll be sending me something, you know, I’ll make a follow-up call within one week, and then we’ll see how we handle this situation. OK?

Client (8:48-8:52) – OK, great. I appreciate you getting back with me though.

Agent (8:52-9:57) – Yeah. I apologize for this because it is a holiday and everything and I’m off and on another project, so I apologize for the delay, but I think we’re talking about more time to discuss and think about your application and want to give you more time to think about this, too. So, I just want you to know that, you know, we understand your position, we know where you’re coming from, and we want to respect your religion, and we think that you think your intentions are good, OK? You want to do something good for the society, your religion, and we understand that. But meanwhile, we want you to be aware that, you know, when you conduct religious activities, meanwhile you have to respect other people’s beliefs, other people’s religion. You cannot use any kind of, you know, confrontation way, or to, or against other groups or devalue other groups, other people’s beliefs. OK?

Client (9:57-10:03) – I understand and we’ll be in touch. Thank you, though, for calling.

Agent (10:03-10:09) – OK, you’re welcome anytime. Thank you very much for your time.

Client (10:09-10:11) – Great, no problem. Have a great day.

Agent (10:11-10:12) – Oh, you, too.

In February of this year, the IRS requested yet more information in another letter and attempted to apply a standard for tax exemption to Pro-Life Revolution that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held to be unconstitutional in 1980. Alliance Defending Freedom pointed this out in a letter responding to the IRS, which finally granted tax-exempt status to the organization in a letter received Thursday.

“The IRS is a tax collector; it shouldn’t be allowed to be the speech and belief police,” said Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley. “The current scandal isn’t new but has merely exposed the abuse of power that characterizes this agency and threatens our fundamental freedoms.”

“The power to tax is the power to destroy. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We cannot allow the IRS to ruthlessly dictate against legitimate non-profits simply because it does not approve of the organization’s mission. It must be held accountable,” Stanley added.

Cavuto cuts off lib’s mike over partisan blindness on IRS/NSA programs

Posted in NSA with tags , , , , , , , on June 10, 2013 by saynsumthn

Norway Attacks: Europe’s Far-Right really last bastion of liberalism-Stratfor analysis

Posted in terrorism with tags , , , , , , , , , on July 27, 2011 by saynsumthn

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Norway Attacks: Europe’s Far-Right really last …, posted with vodpod

Analyst Marko Papic from Stratfor discusses the causal link between the electoral success of far-right political parties in Europe and the attacks that took place in Norway.

Editor’s Note: Transcripts are generated using speech-recognition technology. Therefore, STRATFOR cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.

The attack in Norway has prompted a debate in Europe over whether the recent electoral success of far-right parties has had any causal linkages to the attack of extremism on full display in Oslo.

Recent success of far-right parties across Europe has actually a lot to do with the fact that the extremist far right has cleaned up and become part of the mainstream. One of the main avenues of electoral success has been the idea that the far right, especially in Nordic and northern Europe — so countries such as Sweden, Finland, Denmark, the Netherlands — that the far right in these countries is actually the last bastion of liberalism and protector of European-styled tolerance. The idea being that the reason these parties are anti-immigrant is because immigrants coming to Europe, specifically Muslims, are intolerant and that they therefore cannot be part of a tolerant, liberal society. This has played very well with voters in northern Europe.

However, there could be a mechanical linkage between the legitimization of the far right on the electoral side of things and the rise of extremism such as what was on display in Norway. In particular, as the far right becomes part of the electoral process in Europe, as it becomes a legitimate party, political choice for center-right and conservative electorate across many countries, the fringe elements of these parties will feel that they are no longer really capable of expressing themselves in an open forum in these parties. This is really not a novel phenomenon. In the ’60s and the ’70s in Europe the rise of left-wing extremism was in many ways prompted by the failure of the more extremist left-wing political organizations that really effect any change in the process. What happened was that many simply cleaned up and became part of the Social Democratic center-left parties that to this day rule many of the countries in Europe, whereas the fringe elements pursued in some instances extremism and militant attacks.

As far-right political parties in Europe have become just part of the political process, yet another party to vote for, they have had to jettison their most extremist elements, leaving them out in the cold without a public forum where they can voice their extremist ideas. But forum was also in many ways very useful in tempering them because in a group setting they had other individuals who could satisfy their extremist ideology and at the same time temper their actual actions.

Therefore, it is very likely that in 2011 there are more individuals such as the attacker in Norway who are contemplating these types of attacks. Outside of a group setting, no longer part of a far-right group because of their ultimate extremism, they may be contemplating similar actions.

Read more: Dispatch: Europe’s Far-Right Parties and the Norway Attacks | STRATFOR