The scary title of this post is actually the title of a new report released by the Department of Homeland Security this week. According to the new Homeland Security directive to law enforcement, real terrorists are no longer called "terrorists"--but conservatives are. The agency's report on "Rightwing Extremism," surfaced this week in police departments all across the U.S. advising law enforcers to be on the lookout for conservative radicals, which includes veterans, and which they define as anyone who agrees that the power of the federal government should yield to state and local control.
In other words, even the Founding Fathers would have qualified--along with everyone who believes in the Tenth Amendment. And, this is the official position of the Obama Administration.
So now. political speech is no longer free, and the the government is compiling a list of conservatives who are considered a "threat to the nation". What is next?
Well, we got a hint when Speaker Pelosi said (on ABC's "Good Morning America") that, "We don't want to take their guns away. We want them registered." But, a Washington Times editorial points out that Mrs. Pelosi's own state of California already has used existing registration lists to confiscate so-called assault weapons just a half-dozen years ago.
The document and the Speaker's remarks are a vivid reminder that "freedom is not free", and that abrogation of our rights may be nearer than we realized. The Obama administration has shown little regard for out Constitutional rights or the Constitutional limits imposed on government, so we don't know when they will take action against their political enemies.
In the words of the great philosopher, Elmer Fudd, "Be afwaid, be vewy afwaid!"
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 96
"
And what rights would those be, Randy?
In the discussion of this report on the news programs I have seen it has been pointed out that the word "conservatives" does not appear anywhere in the report.
Second, banning assault weapons is not the same as banning all guns.
I'll come back after I'm able to read the report.
I checked, It does not contain that word at all. On the other hand, the following description does not contain the word "duck" either -
It quacks, is not a goose, has feathers that repel water, webbed feet, swims on water, eats from the bottom of the pond/lake, lays eggs, hatches babies that grow up to be the same species, and has a flat, wide bill." An old adage, "If it swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck!"
Seriously, thought this article was a joke until I did read the report. Crap! I really didn't think the novel 1984 would ever really happen! Still not happening, but this really is how that begins.
Do we then ignore this too, as we ignored the President of the US, who fired a CEO and replaced him with a government worker? Capitalism has not died. It was thrashed soundly on that day. Freedom has not died. It has been thrashed soundly, for a lot more people, then used to be not protected by the Articles in our Constitution. Really, when you can read the report. (Do not ignore the footnotes.) And, please, come back and tell us it does not scare you.
You're right. Single shot fire arms are not banned. Of course, neither are they used by game hunters.
I can think of nothing I want to do less than go hunting or play with guns. I'd even rather go golfing. That being said, I do not understand why anyone wants a gun to play with or wants to go golfing. Unlike golfing, I see purpose to guns. Even not liking them, I do not see freedom in anyone choosing the hobbies of others. That too, is hinted at in that report.
How much freedom are you willing to give away? Does it only matter when the government decides computers are dangerous? (And, they are!) Should we make computers illegal? Maybe just the Internet. After all we do not want to incite right-winged extremist (synonym for conservative as laid out in that report - and yeah, really thought they were just talking about Nazis too) to dare go online, find this report and notice the government is actually even trying to strip our freedom of thought.
Where is your line? Mine was past when Obama fired a business man. This makes that seem like "the good ole days."
You really should read the report Randy. No where in the report does it mention "conservative," "Republican" or any other political ideology. Nor does it suggest any restrictions on free speech at all. In fact, the entire report is focused on the upsurge of "racist" and "right wing extremist" (like Timothy McVeigh) groups who have been recruiting fellow extremists, in part due to the election of the nation's first African-American president.
So unless you are insinuating that conservatives fit either the "racist" or "right wing extremist" label, your article is completely without basis.
Once you have had a chance to review the definition, read the report and select the parts that you think are synonymous with Randy's statements or that contradict my own comment. If you do that and post it with citations and clear explanations I will return and explain where you have misinterpreted. Or you can just just my word for it. Or, if you wish, you can just type some bumper sticker retort in a huff and not bother actually trying to provide support for your position. The latter is easier and will probably make you feel all superior and everything, but not particularly meaningful.
Have a nice day.
Can you give me an example?
Let me know when you've posted the section, along with a clear and comprehensive explanation of why you think that part of the Constitution is applicable.
Best regards
President & Executives :::::stole from their shareholders::: by running the once Largest Company in the world (1960) into the ground?
Then went (flying in private jet) begging for the buyout.
I guess she would have handed over the money and let him keep his jet,
in fact, Limbaugh was quite vehemetly defending the jets, and not condemning the begging, not the destruction of GM by GM executives.
The word "CONservatives," which in fact, are America's true homegrown terrorist organization, never appears in this document. That word was thrown out by the rightwing propagandists, along with the false claim that this is some sort of vicious partisan attack that never happened under BOoshie. In fact, two previously similar reports warned of "leftwing extremists." Funny, but I just don't seem to recall the wacky wingnuts being all up in arms back then, for some reason.
"The Obama administration is practicing a lot of what Orwell called 'doublespeak'."
Lucky for us, the previous administration just flat out lied, even when facts were presented to them. They didn't even TRY to parse it.
"So now. political speech is no longer free"
Looks as if somebody's forgotten 8 years of "free speech zones," where protesters were cordoned off and not allowed access to a microphone to voice their opposition to der fuhrer. Also forgotten, it appears, were the numerous peace groups that were infiltrated, spied on, and threatened, and the fact that nobody so much as wearing a tshirt that depicted peace was even allowed into a presidential speaking event.
Another pathetic, sad example of rightwing hypocrisy here, I'm afraid. Randy W is chock full of it.
"In the words of the great philosopher, Elmer Fudd, "Be afwaid, be vewy afwaid!""
Why don't you and the rest of you cowardly little pussified wingnuts move, if you hate this country so much?
* (U) Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements,
and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or
rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a
single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
Obama Signs Presidential Determination Allowing Palestinians Loyal to
Hamas to Resettle in US
Here is yet another unilateral action taken by our new President, for which
we must rely upon the information of friends to discover. I wonder how the
"Jewish" block of Democratic voters now feels about their choice for
President.
Try and tell the American people that Obama doesn't have ties to the Islamic
terrorist world. Obama funds $20M tax payer dollars to immigrate Hamas
Refugees to the USA
This is the news that didn't make the headlines...
By executive order, President Barack Obama has ordered the expenditure of
$20.3 million in migration assistance to the Palestinian refugees and conflict
victims in Gaza . The "presidential determination" which allows hundreds of
thousands of Palestinians with ties to Hamas to resettle in the United
States was signed on January 27 and appeared in the Federal Register on February 4.
Few on Capitol Hill took note that the order provides a free ticket replete
with housing and food allowances to individuals who have displayed their
overwhelming support of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in the
parliamentary election of January 2006.
A review of Barack Obama's most recent actions since he was inaugurated:
His first call to any head of state as president was to Mahmoud Abbas,
leader of Fatah party in the Palestinian territory.
His first one-on-one interview with any news organization was with Al Arabia television.
He ordered Guantanamo Bay closed and all military trials of detainees halted.
He ordered all overseas CIA interrogation centers closed.
He withdrew all charges against the masterminds behind the USS Cole and 9/11.
Now we learn that he is allowing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refuges to move to and live in the US at American taxpayer expense.
To verify for yourself: http://www.thefederalregister.com/d.p/2009-02-04-E9-2488
PLEASE PASS THIS ON... AMERICA NEEDS TO KNOW!
About a hundred years ago the communists were open about wanting to take over one or both political parties. They succeeded with the Democrat party, and have been highly successful in neutralizing the Republican party by splitting it internally.
Until there is enough general education to get good, educated people into office and thus change the prevailing value systems in Washington, it will always be an uphill battle.
So according to you the break up of the Republican party was done by the Pinko Commie Scum
And All Democrats are Pinko Commie Scum
I didn't realize the Koch brothers were still funding the John Birch Society.
Well, I supposed the term "right-wing extremist" could be a liberal, LOL! And David, "right-wing" doesn't sound like a political ideology to you? I don't agree with that. You can have right-wing and left-wing extremist, which both express a political ideology.
Some of the single issues they talk about are clearly on the conservative agenda. No, conservatives are neither racist (that applies more to left-wing), nor extremist, but it sets up people following a conservative agenda as possible extremists to watch.
It's been on Gather before, so how is it some big secret?
It's obvious that you'll post anything without even thinking about it.
This is what it actually says:
Presidential Determination No. 2009-15 of January 27, 2009
Unexpected Urgent Refugee and Migration Needs Related To Gaza
Memorandum for the Secretary of State
By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 2(c)(1) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 (the ``Act''), as amended (22 U.S.C. 2601), I hereby determine, pursuant to section 2(c)(1) of the Act, that it is important to the national interest to furnish assistance under the Act in an amount not to exceed $20.3 million from the United States Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund for the purpose of meeting unexpected and urgent refugee and migration needs, including by contributions to international, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations and payment of administrative expenses of Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration of the Department of State, related to humanitarian needs of Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza.
You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.
That's not exactly the same thing, is it?
And Clark, we are not wingnuts and we don't hate this country; that is precisely why we are being called, in so many words, terrorists. Calling We The People names is the oldest con in the book - discredit those trying to spread the real news.
Eight years of built up resentment should be against the policies, which the Repulicrats ALL supported, not a political party or 'conservatives'. Look at the voting records for proof.
And feels that her vision of what the U.S.A. is is the only valid one.
Is that extreme?
http://www.newswithviews.com/Daubenmire/dave150.htm
"What Obama's minions are attempting to do is create friction between local cops and the military," said Detective Sydney Frances (NYPD-Ret.).
"This is Obama's first shot at dissenters who are not willing to turn their nation over to Marxism and socialism," he said in an interview with NewsWithViews.com.
Where was your concern when the same agency published reports warning of leftwing extremist groups? Hmmmmm? Strangely silent over those, for some odd reason.
"And Clark, we are not wingnuts and we don't hate this country; that is precisely why we are being called, in so many words, terrorists."
Yes, sadly, you do. You hate everything that this nation stands for: equality, human rights, fairness, "promoting the general welfare," a stand against torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners, a stand against illegal wars of aggression, a stand against corporate welfare handouts, strong environmental laws and protections, caring for the most needy, etc., etc., etc. etc.
Republicans hate people of color, gays, women, the environment, equality, fairness, and everything else that this once-great nation stands for. That's precisely why your party has done so much in the past 28 years to destroy everything that we stood for. Thanks a bunch. Go away now, and let REAL Americans rebuild what you've torn apart, please.
Again. Seriously? Your best comeback is a lie? No wonder this country goes along with Obama - no thinking required. Hell, no thinking demanded.
Have a link, Clark? Hmmmmmm? Strangely silent? Were you in my pocket at the time? LOL!
Republicans hate people of color, gays, women, the environment, equality, fairness, and everything else that this once-great nation stands for.
Liar, liar pants on fire! Dang, it's a good thing I'm not a Republican! Linda, this must be all on you, girl! And here I thought you were pretty nice. I didn't know you hated all of that! It's a good thing we have Clark, huh?
That's weak, even by a republiCON's woeful standards.
"Liar, liar pants on fire!"
Sorry, but republiCONs are the party of hatred, bigotry, and intolerance, and have been for decades. They wear it very proudly every election cycle, in case you hadn't noticed.
republiCON? Is that like Ben & Jerry's ice cream Yes, PeCON?
Where was your concern when the same agency published reports warning of leftwing extremist groups?
Clark, you ask me a question and answered it at the same time all the while tapping your little tights covered toe. Do you have a quote from me saying I was silent? Were you with me? I'd have to say that's a pretty lame argument. Wait, that's actually arguing with yourself. You don't need me to answer questions, huh?
Homeland Security Warns of Rise in Right-Wing Extremism
..and here is the pertinent quote from that article --
"...some critics have said the DHS is equating conservative views to right-wing terrorism, but a DHS official countered that earlier this year, the department issued a mirror intelligence assessment of left-wing extremist groups."
As for your not saying anything when the left-wing extremist report was issued, I guess we will just have to scroll back through your postings and comments to see if you were as vocal here on Gather then, as you are now.
As for scrolling back through past post, ummm, no Internet in the 60s. ;)
The Napolitano report, first and foremost, includes "no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence" but is written in contemplation by the Department of Homeland Security that "The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization." It is, in a word, supposition.
The earlier report, Leftwing Extremists Likely to Increase Use of Cyber Attacks over the Coming Decade, "focuses on the more prominent leftwing groups within the animal rights, environmental, and anarchist extremist movements that promote or have conducted criminal or terrorist activities."
And it cites specific examples, something the Napolitano report, with the exception of references to the Oklahoma City bombing (which is cast as a reason to be concerned about returning veterans), fails to do in anything resembling the same level of detail. The earlier report on left-wing extremism cites cyber attacks as being "attractive options to leftwing extremists who view attacks on economic targets as aligning with their nonviolent, "no harm" doctrine and tactic of "direction action."
.....
You get the idea. In any case, the level of specificity in the earlier report—while still thin—is nonetheless light years ahead of what is contained in the Napolitano report. And its a far cry from "be wary of returning veterans," as the Napolitano report suggests, because they may be disgruntled and Timothy McVeigh, who blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City, was both disgruntled and a returning veteran.
Whether it is, in a global sense, right or wrong for the U.S. government to produce reports such as these and to share them with state and local police officials is another issue entirely. The simple fact is that the two reports discussed are, beyond the fact that they both purport to examine the threat of ideologically motivated extremists, significantly dissimilar.
Hmm...interesting. I guess I can understand why there wasn't much outrage amongst Gatherites on this one.
Ha, it appears both you AND Bill's Spirit were strange and silent about this, too! Where's your outrage? No articles about the warning on left-wing extremism? My goodness.
You point out the conservatives and Republicans are mentioned in the report. However, they do mention rather pointedly “rightwing extremists”. (I was unable to find a definition of “rightwing extremists”. Should I create my own definition or should I use the media as a reference, where they talk about Republicans being rightwing and extremists or about conservatives being rightwing extremists. Have you ever heard Rush Limbaugh called a rightwing extremists? Do you think that is who the Report is referring to? If not. Why not?)
It doesn’t seem that long ago the media was up in arms about “profiling when it came to members of the public. This report seems to be profiling a group not because of appearance or heritage, but rather based on their government employment. I am disappointed in the report because it refers to a board group of people based on a single veteran’s acts over a decade ago. “the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists
capable of carrying out violent attacks.”
“Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are
attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing
extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to
boost their violent capabilities.”
“Disgruntled Military Veterans”
“After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military
veterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwing
extremist groups.”
This reports at best it is worthless since it seems to give no more guidance than suggesting being wary of “rightwing extremists” and returning veterans. Did I missing something that gives more guidance that be suspicious of former military and right-wingers.
Not being a law enforcement person and having the specialize training that maybe need to glean value from this report; I would say it demonstrates a disappointing ability and the authors and approvers are way over paid.
Oh sure, we had the weather underground in the 6os, yup they were left wing. McVeigh killed 160, the weather underground killed a couple of their own members in accidents. It seems that right wingers are much better at killing. Oh yeah, there was the unabomber, okay, one example of a leftie who managed to kill someone.
PETA Not Democrats
ELF Not Democrats
Earth First Not Democrats
But according to the conservatives they are.
It makes them feel all giggley.
elaine d.
It's really not that hard to understand, folks.
Extremists, in terms of all of the DHS reports, are defined as those who might be willing to use violence to further their goals. Would that include Rush Limbaugh, even though he is a rabid right winger? Of course not. Would it include the rabid left wing equivalents of Limbaugh? Of course not.
This whole thing is a completely manufactured and manipulated self-defined absurdity designed to give a convenient straw man for whipping up the ideologues. The blatant misrepresentation of the facts is the reason why the Republican party has lost all credibility. Playing the victim is not really very becoming. Hoping the Democrats screw up their Congressional majority is really not a very good marketing tool for regaining seats, not to mention not a credible way to show the public that the Republicans have new ideas to deal with current and future governance.
I'll address this point in particular because it is a shameful exploitation of the men and women who have struggled on the front lines for all of us, many of whom, as Lincoln once said, "gave the last full measure of devotion."
The report has been viciously misconstrued as somehow suggesting that military veterans are being singled out as potential threats. That is simply a blatant and despicable lie that does severe injustice to all veterans, both those still in uniform and those no longer so. As a country we value and appreciate tremendously the efforts of our military men and women and their families, who undergo severe stress and sacrifice serving their country. And that gratitude and appreciation is no less felt when our civilian leadership makes bad choices about their mission. Our military always serves the mission they are given with excellence and dedication.
The report does not suggest anything of the sort being tossed about so shamelessly by the blogosphere. What it does do is acknowledge the severe stress that our troops undergo with repeated combat tours. Some percentage of our military return to civilian life severely physically maimed - missing legs, arms, head, and other severe injuries. Some other percentage return with significant psychological stress, a situation that is understandable given the conditions under which they must endure during repeated tours. The report merely acknowledges that this stress may be too much for some veterans, especially if programs that are designed to assist their transition back to civilian life are subject to decreased funding. [It should be noted that the current administration is trying very hard to restore funding that the previous administration cut from veterans programs.]
So the report, as with all the reports of this nature, looks at all of the situations that might pose potential threats so that law enforcement agencies and policy-makers can be fully informed when making decisions. To not do so would be irresponsible.
To mischaracterize the report and exploit our veterans as so many right wing bloggers have done is unconscionable and shameful. Our veterans, whether still on active service or returned to civilian life, deserve better treatment than that.
People like Randy W will not go to non-conservative site for information.
Randy W, thinks he is searching, but he doesn't stray.
Linda W. knows exactly what she is doing.
David's distinction between political viewpoints and extremism is very perceptive and true. It's the bottom line. Ready to talk? Fine. Ready to pick up a gun or a bomb? Not fine.
But I still say that really radical talk like "it's getting to the point that we all need to defend our rights by any means necessary" does have results when the wrong person hears it.
Wasn't it in late January when the report about "left wing extremists" were mentioned? About cyber attacks?
I also find it very ironic and disingenuous to start whining about "civil rights and freedom of speech" after the bush regime.....
Why didn't more people take issue with the warnings about left-wing extremists? Well, someone has to report it. It was mentioned that Fox reported it, but I missed that. I certainly didn't see it on mainstream media. And I didn't see anyone here talking about it either.
This is another absolute and bold faced lie.
There is nothing in the report that has anything to do with people wanting a strengthened state and local government. Nothing. You made that up, or you got it from some blog that made it up.
The report, in fact, is designed to inform and empower state and local governments.
"Why didn't more people take issue with the warnings about left-wing extremists? Well, someone has to report it. It was mentioned that Fox reported it, but I missed that. I certainly didn't see it on mainstream media. And I didn't see anyone here talking about it either."
Think about it. Why would the no one be be worried about the report about left wing extemists? Because it's a standard report that is done routinely to inform law enforcement about possible threats. Just like the report that looks at the threat of an invasion from Canada. No one cared because it is routine. It is also responsible governance to know what possible threats are out there. If we had been more aware of bin Laden and the reports in August 2001 of possible use of airliners to crash into tall buildings we might have avoided 9/11.
Or maybe because the Republican party has been taken over by the whining far right ideologues who exploit the pain and suffering of veterans for their own reelection propaganda. Perhaps because the Republican party wants more time in the wilderness to achieve adulthood and remember that there is a government to run, not merely a reelection campaign.
Play partisan games if you will. But such blatant bold faced lying isn't going to improve what currently is a complete lack of credibility.
"What does show up in the report is the warning to look out for persons who are against the federal government and for strengthened state and local government."
"* (U) Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority,"
That's a quote.
This is another absolute and bold faced lie.
There is nothing in the report that has anything to do with people wanting a strengthened state and local government. Nothing. You made that up, or you got it from some blog that made it up.
Page 2 of 9, at the bottom:
Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
I'm sorry, is this another joke? Try reading it again.
I really hope that the Republican party gets its act together soon, otherwise we're destined to a Democratic congress and White House for a long time.
Reminds me of the viciously anti-American rallies that Palin held during her and grandpee's debacle of a campaign late last year. She openly fueled the hatred and bile of these rightwing extremists, and now the same people who supported her are embracing that dangerous group of terrorists as well. Interesting. And troubling.
“Some other percentage return with significant psychological stress, a situation that is understandable given the conditions under which they must endure during repeated tours. The report merely acknowledges that this stress may be too much for some veterans…”,
This infers that because someone has experienced military stresses that we should expect some adverse societal response from them. Consider the millions that are part of that group and how many have actually committed the acts that Homeland Security is concerned about. Our country and for that matter the rest of world has been put on Official notice by the US Homeland Security to be concerned about a select and well defined group of Americans, military veterans.
That has to be a most positive reinforcement for those how have sacrificed to suffer those stresses. If the stresses are enough the US government has officially labeled them as a security concern because of their potential for recruitment by “rightwing extremists”.
I wonder if all those who so strongly defend this report or challenge those that disparage this report, have considered that Homeland Security by officially designating the military veterans as an at risk group is implying that it is military service that has made put these people a risk and that they would not have been candidates for recruitment if they had not served their country.
Many seem to sluff off this report and suggest that anyone who reacts to it is spinning a political agenda or is overly sensitive.
My view is that the report as an aid to improving national security is worthless and most probably simply an effort for some people in Homeland Security to show work done. The down side, what I am most frustrated about, is that it has identified a group so large that if the actual cases we have experienced would be less than the one in a million and has placed the specter of official distrust on them. I doubt that the authors of the document or even many of those who challenge those who are finding fault with the report have considered what that can mean to those in that group. Did they ever wonder what it might be like for one of those veterans who wants to further their education and have to attend class with the students around them knowing they are officially designated a potential “rightwing extremists” candidate for recruitment. How comfortable would you be sitting next to a person that Homeland Security has put out a warning on? How would you feel if you were a Homeland Security person of concern?
Now think about one of those military veterans, lets narrow it combat veterans since their stresses maybe a bit about the average and they should have extreme expertise, wanting to move into a nice community. I wonder how their neighbor’s would view them and treat them with this Homeland Security warning?
Based on this report, I wonder how many people trained or untrained will be better prepared to protect our national security? I wonder how many people that have read or even heard of this report are less confident in the Homeland Security focus on this nation’s security.
This report focuses on Timothy McVeigh to justify the broad inclusion of military veterans, did the “Leftist extremist” report focus on the “Unabomber” and include all the Univ. of Michigan students past and present?
I don’t know the military records of your examples justifying this report, but I suspect they had their penchant for such acts established before they entered the military and it wasn’t their service that triggered their ultimate actions. If military service were the trigger for your two examples then we should have had thousands of such cases. I suspect that there are millions of veterans that have had more extreme military stress experiences than your two.
"Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration. "
I'm sorry, is this another joke? Try reading it again.
I'm sorry, is this another joke? Try reading it again.
Not too much space for actual thinking up there with all those loonies, huh Clark. What I find very interesting (and more than a little troubling, I might add) is that our government is blurring the line between extremists and simple political differences. Why on earth would they want to do that, other than to stifle free speech?
Duane, the only thing accurate in that statement is your use of the word "infer." Even though you used it inaccurately in your sentence, the meaning of the word accurately confers the problem here. Inferrence is your interpretation; Imply is what would have been the correct word for your sentence if my statement had implied what you said.
Which it in no way, shape or form does anything of the sort.
And that is the problem. You (in the global sense, not necessarily you personally, though the comment is illustrative)...that is, you "infer" a whole lot of things that just aren't there. The whole lot of folks have taken a routine situation report and extracted lines out of context and twisted them to mean to them something they don't mean at all.
In your comment, for example, you take my statement that some veterans who underwent severe psychological (as well as physical) stress may not handle the return to civilian life. This is fact. There are documented cases.
But no, you have taken this and twisted it into some sort of statement that anyone who has experienced military stress can be expected to be a danger to society.
Again, I most clearly and unequivocally did not say or imply anything of the sort. You inferred it for whatever reason that drove the lack of simple understanding of what that statement said, as well as the entire context of my comment.
What you did is akin to inferring that I said that every day from now until eternity would be sunny because I said "some days are sunny."
This, again, is the problem with the credibility factor. Simple statements in the report were taken completely out of context and twisted into something they were not, then railed against as if they were real. This current article is a good example of a complete fabrication of a storyline that isn't part of the report at all.
I saw in a comment from Clark Kent above that the conservatives seem to be defending and glorifying right wing extremists. How is that possible? Have conservatives let their party be hijacked completely by the mindless Limbaughians? That they can't tell the difference between a political ideology and a violent extremist?
Take this reply to Clark's comment by Cathi.
"What I find very interesting (and more than a little troubling, I might add) is that our government is blurring the line between extremists and simple political differences."
This is exactly what I was just talking about. The government isn't "blurring the line between extremists and simple political differences." They aren't doing that at all. Not at all. It is YOU who are blurring the line between extremists and simple political differences.
And most of the country has finally caught on to that blatant inability, or perhaps unwillingess, to make basic distinctions. To reiterate what I already said in this comment, this entire article is a perfect example of how some ideological color blindness is reflected in a complete disregard for the facts, and the complete fabrication of a story line that is right out of fantasyland.
This is why the Republican party and some of the people here on Gather have zero credibilty. It has nothing to do with political differences, there will always be different ways of looking at the same situation. But those different ways must be based in some reality bracketed by this dimension, not some fantasy created out of whole cloth.
And for the record, yes, there are plenty of left wing fantasy writers here on Gather too, so don't just ignore everything and mime some idiotic "liberal media" "leftie" etc platitude or talking point. Take responsibility for your interpretation. You can't just create a fantasy that has nothing to do with the facts and then beat that straw man as if it were real. This is not Oz, this is Kansas, Dorothy.
This report does absolutely nothing of the sort that you have suggested. Nothing. And you dishonor our veterans and those still in the military by exploiting them for this ridiculous notion.
"This report focuses on Timothy McVeigh to justify the broad inclusion of military veterans"
No it does not. It focuses on McVeigh as an example of the rare ones who go wrong. It doesn't by any stretch of the imagination create a "broad inclusion of military veterans."
" it has identified a group so large that if the actual cases we have experienced would be less than the one in a million and has placed the specter of official distrust on them."
No it did not. You incorrectly inferred something that isn't what the report says at all.
"Did they ever wonder what it might be like for one of those veterans who wants to further their education and have to attend class with the students around them knowing they are officially designated a potential “rightwing extremists” candidate for recruitment."
The report does nothing of the sort. It does not "officially designate" any veteran as a potential rightwing extremist. Your interpretation is so inaccurate as to wonder how you could possibly have come to it. Today is sunny, but acknowledging that does not mean that we are "officially designating" that all days will be sunny.
"I wonder how their neighbor’s would view them and treat them with this Homeland Security warning?"
There is no Homeland Security warning. None. There is a routine report - just like the one on left wing extremists - that informs law enforcement so they can do their jobs. No veteran is labeled as a right wing extremist. None.
And as I have said but will reiterate one more time because it is a critical point.
You disparage and dishonor our veterans with this inane misinterpretation of the report. I, for one, will not sit idly by and allow our veterans and current military to be disparaged and exploited by such blatant misrepresentation as this post and many of the commenters.
You all should be ashamed of yourselves.
Sadly, these people have no shame.
If that is your interpretation, then you should be happy that so many have joined you, Clark.
David, this thread, and the other one has gotten really nasty and I want it to stop. You can't discuss when people are being called stupid and, well, all the name calling in Clark's comments, and I think this is an important subject.
You say to take responsibility for your interpretation. But it appears that means only if the interpretation is your version. This isn't one or two people misinterpreting a document. A whole slew of people see this document differently than you, including military and military veterans. Isn't it possible you are missing the fact that it is clumsily written, which left it open to various interpretations, and needlessly aggravated many groups?
I don't understand how you are able to tell all the people who are upset by this document that they are reading into something that's not there. Everybody is lying and playing partisan politics except you? Whoa.
The government, which includes the writers of this document, did indeed blur the line. Whether intentionally or through lack of care, many across the country see this. And you are going to write them off as jokers and liars because that's not your interpretation?
I acknowledge my error, and readily admit I was not as diligent in my academic pursuits. I know both my grammar and other literacy skills are wanting. Thank you for the correction.
Let me wipe my comments away and ask for help in understanding why the JHomeland Security has singled out the returning military veterans as being especially at risk for recruitment by “rightwing extremists”.
The Report metions their combat experience as being particualry appealing to the “rightwing
The Report gives for focusing on the returning veterans is their military experience. Are they the only group with experiences, skills and knowledge that are appealing to the “rightwing extremists”” If so, then the Report is fair and accurate. Howevr, if there are other groups then I would say that there was room for speculation for the why of focusing on the returning veterans. Nor do they say why they feel this group is particularly susceptible to recruitment by the “rightwing extremists”. They suggest that economic times and potential legal activities would be a reason seems to imply that that the military veterans are somehow more susceptible than any other group or the general population. And yet they give no reasons or data that would indicate why that is the case. Without data (I forgot Timothy Mc Viegh) rather with that overwhelming data they have made the case that military veterans are a particularly at risk group.
“The report merely acknowledges that this stress may be too much for some veterans, especially if programs that are designed to assist their transition back to civilian life are subject to decreased funding. [It should be noted that the current administration is trying very hard to restore funding that the previous administration cut from veterans programs.]” Can you help me find in this Report where loss of funding for government programs is identified or is this your inference from the reference to economic conditions?
I have raised the questions that had caused me to infer problems with the Report. I offer my reasons why I see this as an unfair and unwarranted disregard for the returning veterans. With regard to stress do you feel that the stress that our domestic law enforcement people experience is any less likely to make them as at risk as Homeland Security see the military veterans? Do you feel that the knowledge and skills and experience that our domestic law enforcement people have makes them any less desirable than returning veterans? Do you expect the next Homeland Security Report to identify the domestic law enforcement people as group for those same people to be concerned about?
The men and woman who make up the military veterans the Homeland Security are focusing on have demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice for national security just as our domestic law enforcement eople have and through that sacrifice I see more reason to be less concerned with their being recruited than people from the general public.
I wonder what stresses that are unique to these citizens that make them more at risk to national security, is risk of life and limb, is seeing people die, is it not knowing if you will survive gun fire during an attack on those around you, is it having their efforts demeaned by the media, which of these stresses make people more susceptible to recruitment by the “rightwing extremists”? Which ones make the military veterans so much more susceptible than you or any others? Is it the frequency of the risks or is the duration of the stresses? When things aren’t specified it sure seems that they are left open for speculation and inference.
The Report opens with this “The information is
provided to federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement
officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks
against the United States. Federal efforts to influence domestic public opinion must be
conducted in an overt and transparent manner, clearly identifying United States
Government sponsorship.” Nowhere in the Report is there any description of the types actions to be taken. Doesn’t this suggest that Homeland Security is opening what these agencies should do in deterring terrorist’s attacks for speculation? If they didn’t want actions to be taken then why write the report?
You may feel that all of the inferences and speculation are based on information taken out of context and yet has Homeland Security inferred that returning military veterans are more at risk than any other group based on antidotal cases (they don’t reference any statistically significant data)?
I have never called anyone stupid. Period. Why do you feel the need to lie? As for Clark's comments, how am I responsible for what Clark says?
"You say to take responsibility for your interpretation. But it appears that means only if the interpretation is your version. This isn't one or two people misinterpreting a document. A whole slew of people see this document differently than you, including military and military veterans. Isn't it possible you are missing the fact that it is clumsily written, which left it open to various interpretations, and needlessly aggravated many groups?"
I agree that many groups have been needlessly aggravated, but not by the "clumsily written" report. Rather by the blatant misinterpretation and creative fabrication by others of what the report says.
And this has nothing to do with "my" interpretation. This is the interpretation that the words in the report impart, which is nothing even close to the spun version that this post and so many others have created out of whole cloth. Nothing in the report can be interpreted as having said anything of the sort that is being implied and stated by those ideologically bent on making this into something it isn't.
"Everybody is lying and playing partisan politics except you?"
No, only the small minority of ideologues who willfully have exploited this for their own benefit. Actually, the vast majority of Americans see this for what it is - a routine report that has been ridiculously misinterpreted on purpose for political reasons. Again, we're not talking about my opinion or some minority opinion here, we're talking about the actual intent of the report as written clearly and by the further explanations of intent and meaning provided by DHS.
"The government, which includes the writers of this document, did indeed blur the line."
The government and the report did no such thing. The document is absolutely clear. There is no blurring the line at all in the report. Which is why the vast majority of Americans see it as a routine report that informs law enforcement of the potential for right wing extremists, just as the previous report informed law enforcement of the potential for left wing extremists.
"many across the country see this"
Yes, but "many" is still a very small minority who have chosen to base their opinion on misinterpretation of a clearly written report, or more likely, on some ideological blog (such as the one this article relies on) or ideological news station that misinterpreted the clearly written report - either willfully or through lack of logical analysis.
Fair enough.
"Homeland Security has singled out the returning military veterans as being especially at risk for recruitment by “rightwing extremists”."
This statement represents the fallacious premise on which the rest of your comment and other's comments are based. It simply is inaccurate, and thus makes all further discussion related to "singling out veterans" moot.
The report DOES NOT single out veterans. I have put the "does not" part in capitals not to yell it but to nonetheless emphasize it. The report looks at all of the factors that are important in examining extremism, one of which is the role of some returning veterans. It doesn't single them out, nor does it suggest that all returning veterans are somehow dangerous or ripe for becoming right wing extremists. It merely states the obvious, that those with military training can be targeted by right wing extremist groups for recruitment. It also correctly points out that right wing extremist groups may actually intentionally join the military to get the training they need to carry out violent acts. It accurately points out that there are documented cases of former veterans who join extremist groups upon their return. It gives the example of Timothy McVeigh not to suggest that all veterans are Timothy McVeigh's, but that most certainly one of them was, and thus it is possible that one or two others might be as well. To not acknowledge this potential, though exceedingly small, would be irresponsible.
So, the premise that the report singles out veterans is absolutely and unequivocally false. Of course they are mentioned, as are all the other factors that must be considered as law enforcement decides how best to protect the American public from threats, right wing, left wing, internal, external, otherwise.
This needs to be emphasized. The report focuses on ALL factors. It discusses 1) the exploitation of the current economic downturn, 2) the historic presidential election (no, not everyone is a racist, but some are, and some of them have shown they can be violent), 3) the similarity of today's conditions to conditions of the 1990s in which the rise of extremist groups was documented, 4) the impact of illegal immigration, 5) various legislative and judicial drivers, 6) perceived threats from the rise of other countries (e.g., Iran, Russia, China), and 7) some disgruntled veterans. The last factor, number 7, makes up only about a 1/2 page or so of a 10 page document. Clearly the report does not "single out veterans," and to suggest it does is to misrepresent the facts and dishonor our military, both those currently serving and veterans.
"Nowhere in the Report is there any description of the types actions to be taken" [i.e., in reference to providing information to law enforcement to allow them to take appropriate action]
Of course not. Why should it?
First off, the purpose of the report is "to facilitate a greater understanding of the
phenomenon of violent radicalization in the United States." It is to define the risk factors, not the specific actions to be taken. That is done elsewhere.
Secondly, the specific actions taken will differ depending on which law enforcement organization you are talking about. Obviously the federal level enforcement (FBI, CIA, etc) will be taking different actions than the local sheriff or state troopers. Hopefully they will be coordinating their activities. That is one of the purposes of the report, to make sure information about potential threats are communicated to all levels of law enforcement. Knowledge of risk factors allows each agency to develop specific actions that are appropriate for them, in coordination with other agencies as necessary.
Thirdly, they are not going to make public at any time many of the specific actions to be taken. Consider when you take a flight. You can see the long lines at the security check, know that you have to remove your shoes and can't take liquids through the screeners, have to show your laptop computer separately, etc. But you don't know about the other things they are doing. You don't know how the TSA is trained to look at the x-ray screen, or how they select certain people for closer review, or a myriad of other things that are done that they will never make public. While it is helpful to reveal some procedures as a deterrent, it is not helpful to reveal other procedures, which work best when they are unknown to those who try to thwart them.
I accept, “It doesn't single them out, nor does it suggest that all returning veterans are somehow dangerous or ripe for becoming right wing extremists. It merely states the obvious, that those with military training can be targeted by right wing extremist groups for recruitment.”, when you quote the Homeland Security report that identifies another group that has equivalent knowledge and skills and experiences as a similar risk.
The media through reporting, entertainment vehicles find it so convenient to focus on a perception that the military experience is one that both makes people susceptible to “rightwing extremist” appeals and that they are somehow more likely to be overwhelmed by the stresses and traumas experienced in combat. That is a simple and regularly used rationale that too many seem to want to subscribe to. People simply accept it as the obvious since there is one in a million that makes national headlines.
The Report identifies one case to validate its warning. I wonder how many such warnings you would defend if they used one case to warn about other sub groups of our population. What sub groups was Ted Kaczynski a member of, should each one of those be highlighted in a Homeland Security report?
I have to admit I was surprised that Homeland Security didn’t add a second case, Lee Harvey Oswald. He had military experience though I don’t believe he had combat experience.
I am tired of people so easily accepting that Americans who experience combat are so weak that they would throw off all that they have learned and been willing to sacrifice for simply because they have gone through something that so many in this country have only watched on TV and in the movies. I have actually worked with men who have lived through those horrors (human wave attacks), I have gone to school with those who have not only lived through those horrors (watching buddies be dismembered by explosives) that were belittled by the media, were condemned by their classmates, disrespected by instructors and the school administrators, I have known men socially (that have had to deal with people trying to kill or maim then 24hours a day) who survived combat, in all those cases they were no less loyal to the values they had before their combat experiences and no less committed to the security of our country than when they went into service. But they are returned combat veterans so now they are part of a group officially identified by Homeland Security for special security attention.
I personally believe that a person’s susceptibility to recruitment by the “rightwing extremists” is due to nature and nurture in the early years of life, and a single experience does not create that susceptibility. But I don’t have an antidotal exception; I simply have millions of actual cases that didn’t happen. I know it is always easier to accept the “obvious” exceptions than it is to believe the overwhelming population. I wonder if the Homeland Security’s approach of focusing on an exception for veterans should be extended to all others. I really don’t wonder I know it shouldn’t.
“The report DOES NOT single out veterans.” “Of course they are mentioned, as are all the other factors that must be considered as law enforcement decides how best to protect the American public from threats, right wing, left wing, internal, external, otherwise.”What other groups did I miss that were mentioned in this Report?
This Report was an internal political effort (self justification work employment) since it brought no new information to the security community or to the public consciousness. All of the information is there and in the public record and veteran law enforcement people are well aware of it because the face it every day with the general population. It took the "obvious" and made it into a Report, doubt that they even considered that people would care or that it would be read.
POing vets is something that makes no political sense. While one can argue they weren't singled out as in pointedly saying they ARE the risk, they were noted as being a risk for recruitment to "right wing" terror groups. Why? There are lefties in the armed forces as evidenced by self proclaimed leftists here on gather. While I never personally met any, it does not mean that they aren't at least as likely to be recruited to that aspect of homegrown terror.
Maybe its the tone of such that bothers me, this was an unnecessary prodding of a hornets nest-one that isn't known as a very Obama friendly group of supporters. The leftist document at least has historical reason to be published.
I am not fond of the article, in at least three places it blames Obama.
My reaction to that:::Is Obama calling these people to get armed,
Is anger at a legally elected president by Democrats a reaon to get armed?
I would also say go find Dexter S. post about life in the armed camp part of Texas, where he lives.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/336/story/74553.html
McClatchy News, 3rd largest in the U.S.A. now.
I have not been able to make the link thing work. Yes, I will learn soon.
Obama may not be behind that incredibly stupid report but since it happened in his administration, he is tarred with it.
Some are quite serious, willing to actually act ? ? ?
Now you know all us Democrats have exhibited some extreme feelings about Geo. W. /Cheny policies and practices.
We did not 'go get guns"
Nor has anyone even suspected that we did or would
So I am quite angry that the newspaper seems to excuse the homemade militias and imply they are justified by their anger at President Obama.
Newspapers thrive on controversy as do other media sources. That they are often obnoxious and at times stupid is pretty common knowledge to those of us who follow the times. There is no excuse for encouraging this stuff by anyone regardless of their stance on politics.
As for not suspecting that some extremist Dems didn't do the same thing concerning Cheney as these angry people are doing about Obama, that is an impossible statement to make. I don't think that any party or political movement in this country can make such a blanket claim about their membership.
Politics as usual on Gather.