I knew when Janet Napolitano was appointed the head of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)it was a lousy choice. What were her credentials to begin with-that she was the governor of Arizona, a state whose borders were being overrun with the flow of illegal aliens? Now she is exhibiting the politicization of a federal law enforcement agency under a liberal administration by issuing a DHS "assessment" of the threat of ...........
Extreme Right-wingers
Don't take my word for it. The handbook is online and you can read the following excerpts yourself. (I got these from Michelle Malkin.com)
Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.
"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."
Comment: Please be specific, DHS. Who are the groups or movements you are talking about? Hate-oriented? We know about the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Brotherhood, but who else are you talking about on the right? The KKK and the Aryan Brotherhood are guilky of racial hate, but what other conservative issues are they even aware of, frankly? If the DHS hacks who produced this document want to accuse conservatives of being racists, that is an old canard that has no basis in fact.
As for the anti-government stuff, please be more specific. There are highly-trained legal minds who argue for less government or that states should have more authority vis-a-vis the federal government. So what? Was Ronald Reagan a dangerous right-wing extremist when he preached that government was the problem and should be smaller and less intrusive? No, it is a legitimate political and philosophical question that should always be open to debate in a free society.
As for the single issue examples that are mentioned (abortion and immigration), aside from a few kooks, there are millions of people in this country who think abortion is morally wrong. Are they dangerous rightwing extremists? When the handbook mentions "immigration", don't you think they should have said "illegal immigration"? Few of us are opposed to legal immigration. We are opposed to illegal immigration, and why should we apologize for it? We have the law on our side. All we are saying is enforce the law. But to say that people are against "immigration" implies racism-particularly against Hispanics. My wife is a Mexican immigrant, for cryin' out loud.
"Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical (stress mine)election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment. From the 2008 election timeframe to the present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential sympathizers."
Comment: Note the subtle political jab by pointing out President Obama's election as "historic". Implication? Rightwingers are opposed to the election of a black president. We are racists. In addition, we are extremists because we disagree with Obama's leftwing agenda. What rightwing extremists, DHS, capitalized on racial prejudices to try and defeat Obama in the election? The only ones I detected were on the Hillary Clinton campaign. Who, DHS, stated that Obama should be defeated in the election because he was black? Which "propaganda campaigns" are you referring to, DHS?
Exploiting Economic Downturn
"Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures. Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish “financial elites.” These “accusatory” tactics are employed to draw new recruits into rightwing extremist groups and further radicalize those already subscribing to extremist beliefs. DHS/I&A assesses this trend is likely to accelerate if the economy is perceived to worsen."
This is a slam dunk. I would like DHS to name these anti-Semitic elements on the right who speak of a Jewish cabal of financial elites. I can name some names, but they are not on the right. It is on the right that you find support for Israel and documentation of anti-Semitism coming from the supporters of those who want to destroy Israel. So, I am going to do what DHS didn't do and name names. They are the radical Muslim elements, not only in the Middle East, who openly speak of Jews in the same manner as the Nazis did in the 1930-40s, but right here in the US, Canada and Europe- aided and abetted by their leftist radical supporters on university campuses. Jewish banking cabal? Go back and watch Maxine Waters, hardly a rightwinger, questioning Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner about "talk going around" about Goldman-Sachs and their role in the financial mess. It was obvious what she was implying (It's the Jews). DHS should check out the blogosphere (which apparently they are doing) and see which end of the spectrum is defending Jews against a very real resurgence in anti-Semitism. I suggest they start with this very blog.
From the report, p. 5:
"Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists, including militias and white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action, rallying point, and recruiting tool. Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent."
Comment: I think I adequately addressed this issue above, but if they are referring to groups like the Minutemen, I would point out that this group has not, to my knowledge, committed one violent, provocative or illegal act in carrying out their mission on the border. What acts can DHS point to where opponents of illegal immigration have engaged in violence against illegal aliens?
Disgruntled Military Veterans
"DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today."
Comment: Please be specific. It doesn't say that "extremists are attempting to recruit and radicalize returning veterans". It says they "will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans". What basis or empirical evidence does DHS have for this prediction, which can only cast a shadow over our servicemen, women and veterans? It is insulting, and, like the other statements made in the report, is not backed up by any concrete evidence. It is speculation.
p. 8:
"DHS/I&A will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in rightwing extremist activity in the United States, with a particular emphasis on the political, economic, and social factors that drive rightwing extremist radicalization."
Comment: Ominous. It basically says that if you disagree with the current administration, you are going to be investigated.
What is going on here is what we can expect when the far-left takes over federal law enforcement. There are voices of dissent out there, and the new administration, along with their Democratic majority, is looking for ways to stifle said dissent-witness the attempt to revive the Fairness Doctrine-targeted at conservative talk radio.
Of course, for eight years, George Bush, who was called every name in the book by his opponents, was accused of trying to stifle dissent, but there was never any substance to those charges. If there was such an attempt, how come every day, we heard the press, media, Hollywood, the Democrats and universities screaming bloody murder about Bush, Cheney et al?
Some stifling of dissent.
But now that we have a Democrat in the White House and a Democrat-controlled Congress, we are all supposed to shut up. If we disagree with the direction the country is going, we are labeled dangerous rightwing extremists who must be investigated. And don't forget those guns that they are so in love with. Gotta do something about that too. (It was mentioned above by DHS.)
Let's set partisanship aside (if it's possible). Those of who voted for Obama remember very well how unhappy you were with President Bush-and you made your feelings known every day till the day he left office. Are you comfortable with this document put out by DHS?
If DHS can identify any individuals who are preaching racial or religious hatred and advocating violence, revolution or threatening the physical well-being of the president, then they should investigate such persons or organizations. To simply identify the threat as being "Rightwing extremists" is not only irresponsible, but implies that our freedom of speech may be under attack by the current government-namely, the Dept.of Homeland Security.
Afterthought: Wasn't DHS created to fight terrorists?
25 comments:
Gary, how short is your memory? Do you even remember the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995? That domestic terrorist attack is the perfect example of what the DHS is trying to prevent from happening again. Why are you so defensive? This document repeatedly uses the term "right-wing extremists." It is YOU who is making the mistake of automatically equating that with the term "conservative." Is this thing saying conservatives are dangerous or need to be watched? No. It's saying RIGHT-WING EXTREMISTS. If you honestly don't believe such people exist in this country, well then that's just naive.
Bryan,
That's a good example for your argument, and I don't take it lightly because 5 people died in the DEA office. But to equate that with the real terrorist threat we face today doesn't hold water. DHS was supposedly created to protect us from more 9-11s, which is a much more distinct possibility than another McVeigh.
Are right-wing extremists the people who will demonstrate against taxes tomorrow? Are they the ones who disagree with Obama's socialist bent and the direction he is taking the country? Some, perhaps, but to apply that brush to the rest of us is wrong.
That's my point though, Gary. It's NOT saying that all conservatives are "right-wing extremists." But they do exist and are a legitimate threat to our citizens, as shown by the OKC bombing. The DHS can walk and chew gum at the same time, I'm sure. In other words, they can tackle both the internal and external terrorist threats simultaneously. This isn't an either/or dilemma.
Also, remember the the video I posted of the right-wing extremists at the John and Ken Show rally a while back? Another perfect example of their existence.
What happened in Oklahoma City was condemned by every Christian Church in the US. What happen on 9/11 was cheered by every Muslim group in the world.
If the government is worried about returning vets becoming radical, they are barking up the wrong tree. They won't call for the overthrow of this nation. By their service, they have shown that they love it too much.
Can you give me an exact, specific quotation where the DHS says that?
Bryan,
I did give you the quotations. They're in the text of the article (in quotes).
What happen on 9/11 was cheered by every Muslim group in the world.That may very well be the stupidest and most ignorant thing I've EVER heard.
Gary, you can dance around it all you want, but Lance is right, Findalis' statement might very well be the stupidest, most ignorant thing she has ever said. And that's saying a lot! It's so ridiculous, I don't even want to bother responding to her directly anymore, because it's like talking to a brick wall. Well, a completely insane brick wall that is detached from all reality.
Gary, I find it shameful and ironic that you, who frequently refuses to see any nuance in various debates, suddenly wants to split hairs over a statement like that.
She said that it was "cheered by every Muslim group". That's insane. It's not even close to what you're saying.
Come on, man. This is your blog. When you refuse to call somebody out like that, obviously the sole reason being that she's on your "side", then it sounds like you condone that sort of statement. And an extra layer of irony is that you criticize moderate Muslims for the very same thing - not speaking out against extremists. Findalis' opinion is extreme to an absurd degree.
Lance,
Why is it whenever I don't agree with you and Bryan, it is "shameful"?
Please indulge yourselves to argue with Findalis all you want. The three of you are all big grownups capable of holding your own in a debate. I (almost) always let everybody have their say-even that illiterate boob Abraham a month or so ago. You guys are all exorcized over one word Findalis used (every) which you think should have been substituted with "some" or "a few" or something else.
Make your case.
You guys are all exorcized over one word Findalis used (every) which you think should have been substituted with "some" or "a few" or something else.Now you're getting desperate. Are you really trying to say that it's my responsibility to change the words in the false statements of others so I can make them true statements? Are you trying to be funny? Yeah, clearly it's my fault for not changing people's words so they don't sound ridiculous.
SHE'S the one who made the statement. SHE'S the one who should have used a different word.
Wow. I really can't believe you actually wrote that.
As to why I call it shameful, I do it for the same reason why I call that feathered quacking thing a duck. And it's not because you disagree with me - in fact, I don't even disagree with the statement that you made. It's because of the mental backflips that you're willing to make so you can defend somebody who's supposedly on your side.
So it turns out that the DHS report on right-wing extremists was requested by President Bush but only now completed. And that there was an equivalent report on left-wing extremist groups.Anyways, I think Lance made a very good point: you criticize Islamic groups and individuals alllllll the time for not specifically condemning extremist remarks made by their fellow Muslims. Yet when a fellow conservative makes extremist remarks, you huff and haw, walking a fine line of neither endorsement nor outright condemnation. It's ironic.
Bryan,
This is the first I have heard of this, so I'll keep an open mind, but let's dig a little deeper. Who signed off on the report? Who actually authored the report?
Was the report edited before release by the new administration?
I'll tell you something else. Even assuming this report was written by W himself, I still argue with its content. If you want to single out the Aryan Brotherhood, American Nazi Party and KKK and militias, fine. I'm with you. But don't focus on people who have certain views on abortion, illegal immigration, Obama, the economy and taxes plus returning vets as objects of suspicion. That's much too general and partisan in my view.
At this point, I have to assume that the final report that came out was the product of the administration that released it.
As for my not condemning what you label "extremist remarks" made by those who I agree with, I say Horsefeathers!
I repeat-engage Findalis in debate on the issue. Make a list of Muslim groups that have publicy opposed terrorism-without making moral equivalence with Israel and US foreign policy. As I told Lance, don't mention Cair or ISNA. They have condemned 9-11 and Mumbai etc without talking about who did it and without mentioning the Jewish Center in Mumbai that was targeted. Every time a Muslim is arrested, they cry foul. They have no credibility with me.
My list would consist of people likeand the young lady from Canada whose name I can't recall. As a result of their outspokeness, they have to live under security.
You might also link to two of my links. Muslims against Shariah and Muslims for an Inclusive Society-or something like that (Steven Schwartz's org.) Those are two legit examples.
PS Bryan
Center for Islamic Pluralism
check it out.
Gary, you're not addressing the point. Just as some of these Muslim groups won't address the real issue, you're not even addressing what Findalis actually wrote. Good thing it's there for anybody else to read it though.
I can only conclude that you're more concerned with being part of this group called "conservatives" than you are with what's actually true. And bringing up people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a total non-sequitor.
Lance,
Are you not using me as your straw man?
I gave you and Bryan 2 links to Muslim groups that I support on my blog-Muslims against Sharia and Center for Islamic Pluralism. Surely, they did not cheer 9-11.
So what exactly is the point?
The point is that they believe that one cannot criticize Muslims, only pro-lifers, gun rights proponents, and returning veterans are to be condemned. The usual tactic of the left.
I did need to correct it. 99% of Muslim groups cheered on 9/11 and 7/7. 2 did not.
It is too bad those 2 groups don't represent Muslims.
Gary - evasion noted.
Findalis - I'm a gun-rights proponent. Thanks for making assumptions about me though that in no way reflect reality, and thanks for making your 100% ignorant statement only 99% ignorant.
As for me condemning veterans, where have I ever done that? You're really sinking to a new low here. Gary, are you going to let that one slide too?
Seriously, this is starting to become like a cartoon. I'm starting to think that you're just having fun at my expense.
Lance,
Seriously, I am not poking fun at you. I am just not going to do your bidding and throw Findalis under the bus like you want me to do. She is my ally. I have pointed out-and I think she has acknowledged- that there are at least 2 Muslim groups that have unequivocally opposed Islamic terrorism. And where did Findalis or I imply that you are condemning veterans? I know you don't.
Gary, are you not even reading what she wrote?
All I can tell you is that if you posted on my blog, and somebody wrote false statements about you, I would call that person out on that - whether they were my ally or not.
Unfortunately, Gary, sometimes we're judged by the company we keep. You are a reasonable person - Findalis is not, and your devotion to this "conservative" cause is blinding you to her extremism.
lance,
What did Findalis say about you?
She has revised her statement about "every" Muslim group cheering 9-11 and acknowledged the two I pointed out.
So where do we go from here?
For Pete's sakes, Gary, I don't mean to be rude, but are you really this obtuse?
Here's her exact quote:
The point is that they believe that one cannot criticize Muslims, only pro-lifers, gun rights proponents, and returning veterans are to be condemned. The usual tactic of the left.The "they" to whom she's referring is me and Bryan.
Then she states:
I did need to correct it. 99% of Muslim groups cheered on 9/11 and 7/7. 2 did not.Look, if you want to have a conversation about how Muslims aren't doing enough to condemn terrorism, you'll probably find that I agree with you more than I don't. However, the above statement is totally ignorant, extremist, and it's questionable as to whether a sane person would even write such a thing.
Cheered? Seriously? That's a stupid thing to say. But apparently since I don't support such an extreme statement, I think that Muslims can't be criticized. Damn, talk about not having any sense of nuance whatsoever! It's all one way or the other, isn't it?
I stated it before, and I'll state it again - Findalis, in order to prove her point, will make stuff up. But what can I expect when that's the M.O. of so many conservative commentators?
Lance,
Can I get out of the way and let you and Findalis have your debate?
Findalis, please offer evidence for the following:
1. Me telling Gary to censor your comments. (Asking him to comment is not the same as asking him to censor, mind you.)
2. Me condemning veterans.
3. 98% of Muslim groups "cheering" 9/11. (Those are your words. That's a bold statement that requires EVIDENCE, not assertions.)
4. Me writing any words of support for "Earth First".
I call you an extremist because you make extremist statements. I'm not doing it just to call you names. If I wanted to do that, I could get a lot more creative - trust me.
In all seriousness, I do not think that you are mentally well. I'm not saying that to be cute or funny. You keep arguing points that I'm not even making. Are you debating the voices in your head?
Until then, I'm done with you. And honestly, I think that I'm done with this blog as well.
I really, truly used to come here so I could get another perspective on things. I didn't want to fall into the trap of believing that conservatives are all crazy or of below-average intelligence.
Honestly though, with this thread, it's pretty hard not to think that. And the sad thing is that you both will write it off as me simply not agreeing with your point of view. It's not that. It's the total lack of any kind of intellectual honesty or integrity. It's the repeated strawmen arguments (yes, strawmen - arguing points that I'm not even making!). It's the hypocrisy. It's the total one-sidedness. It's the inability to even acknowledge what the arguments of the opposition EVEN ARE in the first place.
I'd have a more constructive time debating my dog as to why he shouldn't chase squirrels.
Lance I never wrote that you condemn veterans, that the Obama Administration was in regard to the article. And so does the far left (such as Code Pink, etc...). I assume that you, like the majority of Americans support our men and women in uniform. DHS doesn't seem to be, does it?
I used Earth First as an example of the true terrorism that has occurred in this nation by far left. I did not link you or any person to that or any group.
I have given you evidence of what Muslims through out the world did and believe about 9/11. These attitudes don't arise in a vacuum. If you bother to view the sites I gave, you would understand my viewpoint.
Strange that you find the truth about my views extreme. Those who have researched the issue, they are right on target.
It is a shame that you close your mind to the truth about what is happening in the world. Until it will bite you on the ass that is. Then what will you do?
Post a Comment