I Believe I Found a Dangerous Terrorist At the Airport

[David]

 

I don't know anything about the driver of this pickup, but based on the bumper sticker alone, I'm certain (s)he is more prone to rightwing extremism, and perhaps even planing acts of violence against the United States.

 

Actually, that's not my perspective, but that's what was contained in a memo to Missouri law enforcement, based on a report issued by the Department of Homeland Security last week (though it was begun in 2008) on that subject (Google "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment").

 

That report itself identifies the following groups as particularly worth watching. These possible criminals are those:

 

• Purchasing high volumes of weapons and ammunition in anticipation of a possible ban, probably in response to public promises to pursue that on the White House's website.
  
• Who feel strongly that the issue of the Pro Choice perspective on abortion rises above many other issues.
  
• Fighting for fewer restrictions of the Second Amendment.
  
• Veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
  
• Who voted for Ron Paul.
  
• Who believe strongly in trade protectionism.
  
• Who are very much against illegal immigration.
  
• Citizens who would like to reverse the swing back from federal power to state power.
  

Statistically, it may very well be true that these subsets of the population are more prone to planning violence, but it's a little disconcerting seeing a government document single out individuals in such a way that the founding fathers--if this were applied to them--would probably have been on some watch list. Viewed through a modern lens, it's almost McCarthyism in reverse.

 

Personally, I only embrace three of the eight criteria above, but I still don't like it. Based on what I've read, some other people don't like it, either.

[4wheeldog]

Uh.......Ron Paul struck me as being more to the center than McCain. I didn't actually vote for him, because I actually thought the election was going to be close, and I wanted a move away from the last 8 years more than I wanted to make a statement with a candidate that had no chance. But I would vote for someone like Mr. Paul in the future, if he/she developed the national standing to have a shot. Just sayin'.

[David]

"Having a shot" might not be the right phrase.

 

I only used that candidates name because it was used in the report. I'm hoping we can stay away from discussion of specific candidates so that this doesn't stray across the line and angst-inducing for a moderator.

[Dave McReynolds]

Personally, I only embrace three of the eight criteria above, but I still don't like it.

 

A couple of those could be embraced by those on the far left as well as those on the far right (bet they're not the same three you embraced, though).

[Paul_Burkett]

My only suggestion to those that don't want to be on the government list of people that need to be watched.....DRINK THE KOOL-AID.

[Matts_12GS]

My only suggestion to those that don't want to be on the government list of people that need to be watched.....DRINK THE KOOL-AID.

[Whip]

Don't worry.

 

I'm sure the ACLU will protect ya from being "profiled".

 

 

[brennaman]

Wow, I fell into 6 of those categories, and I live in MO. Better start watching my back.

[Huzband]

These possible criminals are those:

 

• Purchasing high volumes of weapons and ammunition in anticipation of a possible ban, probably in response to public promises to pursue that on the White House's website.
  
• Who feel strongly that the issue of the Pro Choice perspective on abortion rises above many other issues.
  
• Fighting for fewer restrictions of the Second Amendment.
  
• Veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
  
• Who voted for Ron Paul.
  
• Who believe strongly in trade protectionism.
  
• Who are very much against illegal immigration.
  
• Citizens who would like to reverse the swing back from federal power to state power.
  

 

In other words, Americans.

 

I find the latest DHS report to be disgusting.

[smiller]

My only suggestion to those that don't want to be on the government list of people that need to be watched.....DRINK THE KOOL-AID.

As Dave mentioned several items on that list could apply to the far left or the far right... so which flavor Kool-Aid to drink..?

[DavidEBSmith]

I find the latest DHS report to be disgusting.

 

How many of you who find the DHS report to be disgusting would agree with this guy (or have even expressed these same opinions here):

 

Taxes are a joke. Regardless of what a political candidate "promises," they will increase. More taxes are always the answer to government mismanagement. They mess up. We suffer. Taxes are reaching cataclysmic levels, with no slowdown in sight

 

It is a lie if we tell ourselves that the police can protect us everywhere at all times. Firearms restrictions are bad enough, but now a woman can't even carry Mace in her purse?

 

(to the government) Go ahead, take everything I own; take my dignity. Feel good as you grow fat and rich at my expense; sucking my tax dollars and property

 

The government is afraid of the guns people have because they have to have control of the people at all times. Once you take away the guns, you can do anything to the people. You give them an inch and they take a mile. I believe we are slowly turning into a socialist government. The government is continually growing bigger and more powerful, and the people need to prepare to defend themselves against government control

 

Sound like a good, right-thinking patriotic American? Then you agree with this guy:

 

 

This guy killed many more Americans than Bill Ayers, the Weathermen, the Black Panthers, the EcoTerrorists, and PETA combined ever did. (And he fits the profile in the DHS report to a T). And people like this guy and this guy are taking up the slack.

 

What I find disgusting are radio hosts and bloggers who have been whipping up violent hatred against their opponents for years, and now that their followers are acting on it, are whining about how mean everybody is for calling them on it.

 

[Lawman]

"How many of you who find the DHS report to be disgusting would agree with this guy"

 

 

 

I do...

[Huzband]

You just don't get it.

[smiller]

I think he nailed it, particularly with respect to the demagoguery displayed by some popular talk show hosts and bloggers who rake in cash by popularizing hate speech.

[Whip]

WOW!!!

 

How'd we get from a dude with a R P bumper sticker to T M??????

 

 

Talk bout reachin??????

 

 

Sooooooo......anyone with a R P sticker.....returning from Iraq......with a bunch of kids is a threat to our national security?????

 

 

Amazing how defending stupid policies will twist ya into a pretzel.

 

 

Sometimes it's better to take a deep breath and let folks vent a little and when the dust clears you'll see the powers at be will back off a silly note between staffers that should never have seen the light of day.

 

 

No one is as shallow and silly as this note implies.

 

 

Relax folks.......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[David]

I don't know about the others, but I read it in the Wall Street Journal, don't listen to talk radio, and don't read any blogs.

 

David, assuming you've read the briefing, is there anything in there you find objectionable?

[beemerman2k]

Two of my favorite politicians: Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan I have always admired these men. Now, having said that, someone's going to dig up the many non-racially sensitive comments either of them might have made over the years/decades. Who cares? I don't. These men are for the betterment of my country, and they have demonstrated to me that they care more about their country than they do about their own, growing, view of things. Pat Buchanan ran for President with a black female, Ezola Foster, as his running mate. I found it rather interesting that there wasn't much media coverage of that ticket.

 

In any case, I fall into several of these categories as well.

[Lawman]

I think he nailed it, particularly with respect to the demagoguery displayed by some popular talk show hosts and bloggers who rake in cash by popularizing hate speech.

 

The only one I see projecting hate is David Smith. The report and his provocative response only serves to confirm and substantiate Timothy MeVeigh's grievances.

[smiller]

Uh-oh... I think we're headed towards a 'if you hate the haters then you're a hater yourself' infinite loop...

 

The DHS advisory was hamfisted, clumsy, and poorly-thought out... as are most profiling schemes, and I do understand the point of the OP. But I also think that some of the responses by conservative commentators are just a tad hypocritical.

[Whip]

Uh-oh... I think we're headed towards a 'if you hate the haters then you're a hater yourself' infinite loop...

 

I'm a lover not a......awwwwww.......hater??????

[DavidEBSmith]

I think he nailed it, particularly with respect to the demagoguery displayed by some popular talk show hosts and bloggers who rake in cash by popularizing hate speech.

 

The only one I see projecting hate is David Smith. The report and his provocative response only serves to confirm and substantiate Timothy MeVeigh's grievances.

 

OK, I really don't understand what that's supposed to mean, especially when you're talking about substantiating McVeigh's grievances. I hope to G-d you're not meaning to say that McVeigh was right, because that's what you said. And if you mean that, it goes a long way to proving the point of the DHS report.

 

I read the report. I don't know if anybody else read the report. I understood the report to be telling law enforcement to keep an eye out for threats from right-wing extremists as well as for threats from foreign Muslim extremists. Considering that the second largest terrorist act on American soil was perpetrated by someone who was rabidly right-wing, anti-government and ex-military, it is not unreasonable to think we should be keeping an eye out for extremists who fall into those categories.

 

It is no less reasonable than thinking we should keep an eye on everyone who is of Arabic descent or of the Muslim religion, which some have advocated. Some have been willing to consider all Muslims guilty of terrorist sympathies until proven innocent. With the recent surge in right-wing violence and paranoia, consider it, to use Malcolm X's phrase, the chickens coming home to roost.

 

Is everyone of a rightist persuasion a terrorist? No, just as not every Muslim is a terrorist. Are there domestic right-wing terrorist organizations? Absolutely. Are they recruiting among the military? The FBI says so (and said so under the previous administration, for you paranoids out there). Is there an increase in right-wing extremist activity? Well, certainly you all want law enforcement to nip problems in the bud before they blow up. We know that there a lot of people suddenly buying a lot of guns and they're not doing it because they're Obama liberals. We know there is a lot of rhetoric about the present administration being socialist and communist and fascist and there is an increasing amount of rhetoric about opposing the government, including using those guns to violently oppose the government.

 

The DHS report told law enforcement to be aware that threats can come from right field as well as left field. Considering that history tells us that it has happened, I have a hard time understanding why some people would be so violently upset about that, unless they have a guilty conscience.

 

On edit: these statistics come from the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and the Response to Terrorism:

 

- In the United States, 42 law enforcement officers have been killed in 32 incidents in which at least one of the suspects was a far-rightist since 1990.

 

- 94% of these incidents involved local or state law enforcement.

 

- Attacks on police by far-rightists tend to occur during routine law enforcement activities. 34% of the officers killed by far-rightists were slain during a traffic stop

 

- Since 1990, far-rightists have been linked to more than 275 homicide incidents in 36 states. These crimes have resulted in the more than 530 fatalities, including the 168 victims murdered by Timothy McVeigh

 

If that doesn't call for a heads-up to law enforcement officers, I don't know what does.

[Matts_12GS]

I think he nailed it, particularly with respect to the demagoguery displayed by some popular talk show hosts and bloggers who rake in cash by popularizing hate speech.

 

The only one I see projecting hate is David Smith. The report and his provocative response only serves to confirm and substantiate Timothy MeVeigh's grievances.

 

OK, I really don't understand what that's supposed to mean, especially when you're talking about substantiating McVeigh's grievances. I hope to G-d you're not meaning to say that McVeigh was right, because that's what you said. And if you mean that, it goes a long way to proving the point of the DHS report.

 

I read the report. I don't know if anybody else read the report. I understood the report to be telling law enforcement to keep an eye out for threats from right-wing extremists as well as for threats from foreign Muslim extremists. Considering that the second largest terrorist act on American soil was perpetrated by someone who was rabidly right-wing, anti-government and ex-military, it is not unreasonable to think we should be keeping an eye out for extremists who fall into those categories.

 

It is no less reasonable than thinking we should keep an eye on everyone who is of Arabic descent or of the Muslim religion, which some have advocated. Some have been willing to consider all Muslims guilty of terrorist sympathies until proven innocent. With the recent surge in right-wing violence and paranoia, consider it, to use Malcolm X's phrase, the chickens coming home to roost.

 

Is everyone of a rightist persuasion a terrorist? No, just as not every Muslim is a terrorist. Are there domestic right-wing terrorist organizations? Absolutely. Are they recruiting among the military? The FBI says so (and said so under the previous administration, for you paranoids out there). Is there an increase in right-wing extremist activity? Well, certainly you all want law enforcement to nip problems in the bud before they blow up. We know that there a lot of people suddenly buying a lot of guns and they're not doing it because they're Obama liberals. We know there is a lot of rhetoric about the present administration being socialist and communist and fascist and there is an increasing amount of rhetoric about opposing the government, including using those guns to violently oppose the government.

 

The DHS report told law enforcement to be aware that threats can come from right field as well as left field. Considering that history tells us that it has happened, I have a hard time understanding why some people would be so violently upset about that, unless they have a guilty conscience.

 

Shocked.... SHOCKED I tell you...

 

Eebie, I hope that was for effect...

[Lawman]

"If that doesn't call for a heads-up to law enforcement officers, I don't know what does"

 

 

I've been in law enforcement for 34 years and I'm more afraid of you than anyone described on that list...

[DavidEBSmith]

WOW!!!

 

How'd we get from a dude with a R P bumper sticker to T M??????

 

 

Yes, how did we get from that to this?

 

Somebody wrote a post that mischaracterizes the DHS report and is intended to get you riled up.

 

Everybody bites on it hook line and sinker.

 

You start feeding off each others misinformed opinions about what the report says and get angrier and angrier.

 

Here is the report.

 

Read the freaking thing. Quote the text and tell us how it's wrong. Don't parrot David Baker's or Rush's or Glenn Beck's version of what it says. I challenge you to read it and tell us what's wrong.

 

Certain politicians said that the report made out veterans to be criminals. Here is the closest passage I can find to support that:

 

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.

 

What is offensive about that? Extremists will attempt to recruit veterans to take advantage of their skills in blowing sh*t up? Seems logical, and it doesn't say that the veterans will be successfully recruited. Military skills would be useful to extremists? Duh. A very small number of veterans joined extremist groups in the past? Timothy McVeigh, Exhibit A.

 

Or maybe it's this passage:

 

DHS/I&A assesses that lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States

 

Well, if they violently hate the government to the point of armed rebellion, they're small hard-to-detect groups, they have guns, and they're already here in the U.S., I would have to agree that they're a more dangerous domestic threat than a bunch of tree-hugging hippies chaining themselves to bulldozers.

 

Read the report. Come back with an informed opinion as to why you think its wrong.

[DavidEBSmith]

"If that doesn't call for a heads-up to law enforcement officers, I don't know what does"

 

 

I've been in law enforcement for 34 years and I'm more afraid of you than anyone described on that list...

 

Well, if you're in law enforcement and you're more scared of a local prosecutor than you are of armed neo-Nazi skinhead militia terrorists who blow up Federal office buildings, then we really are all f*cked. Or we really need to let Texas secede.

[chrisd]

"If that doesn't call for a heads-up to law enforcement officers, I don't know what does"

 

 

I've been in law enforcement for 34 years and I'm more afraid of you than anyone described on that list...

 

Well, if you're in law enforcement and you're more scared of a local prosecutor than you are of armed neo-Nazi skinhead militia terrorists who blow up Federal office buildings, then we really are all f*cked. Or we really need to let Texas secede.

 

Actually, there are no "armed neo-Nazi skinhead militia terrorists who blow up Federal office buildings" on that list. There's no one on that list. But if someone did meet all the criteria on that list, he may very well be Timothy McVeigh (although I don't know how he could have voted for Mr. Paul). They might also very well be an American exercising his or her rights as an American to act as they please, vote as they please and choose as they please.

[John Ranalletta]

A federal or local prosecutor with a political agenda will do more damage than

most of those about whom the report fantasizes; as they can do deeper, more

persistent damage than most others in our society. They have the force of law,

"can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich" and have virtually unlimited

funds to pursue their aims and control the courts systems.

 

Debate class taught the "inoculation" technique. That's where one takes a

piece of the opponent's argument and "inoculates" the audience by introducing

it in a very negative light. Not to mention the "straw horse" or "red herring"

gambit such as the McVey reference.

 

This report by an agency headed by a political appointee begins by stating,

"Federal efforts to influence domestic public opinion must be conducted

in an overt and transparent manner, clearly identifying United States Government

sponsorship.". Ergo, the reason for this initial report: to influence rather

than to just inform public opinion.

 

Further, "The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific

information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts

of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by

playing on their fears about several emergent issues."

 

I would rather the White House had been more straightforward and used

wording like this:

 

"Our efforts are geared to identify and marginalize people who:

• Disagree with our liberal, Democrat agenda
• Disagree with the election of President Obama
• Who are afraid of having their 2nd amendment rights revoked by fiat
• Who are Pro Life
• Who have a greater faith in states' rights than federalism
  
• Who think the US should control our southern border to eliminate illegal
  immigration and repatriate illegal immigrants
  
• Groups who have traditionally voted for conservative candidates
  (military and ex-military)

This appears to me to be a blatant attempt by a political appointee to serve

the incumbent party's political needs; and, it's the opening volley in a long,

public, political, publicity campaign. It's the opening statement to the

grand jury to create a mindset conducive to the prosecutor's case where he has

no real evidence but doesn't like the accused. This is a political maneuver

geared to "inoculate" public opinion against this administration's most likely opponents.

 

To iterate from the report:

 

"The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information

that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but

rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about

several emergent issues."

 

This is typical Rahm Emmanuel, "But in RahmObama world, it's the political tasks

that always come first, foremost among them rewarding your friends and punishing

your enemies." He grew up in Chicago politics, so he knows how to do that.

 

 

[David]

Dave, your usual careful analysis doesn't seem present in what you've written, here. For one thing, I clearly referenced how Missouri law enforcement went beyond the DHS report. It was very clear that I wasn't basing my concern on just the DHS report itself (which I DID read). I don't think it's fair to mischaracterize my concerns as coming entirely from the DHS report, or I guess maybe you're not referred to me at all in your response, which seems a little strange. Incidentally, a number of higher level officials have apologized for the report.

 

I don't really care that much about the specifics in the report as much as I am wondering if this is a development we should be watching simply because it is a small step down a long, dangerous path. I don't believe I'm paranoid, either. As I mentioned, only a few of those qualifications describe me, and I clearly noted that this was not about this administration by pointing out that it was initiated last year. In fact, I've been even more upset about the previous generation's encroachment on privacy laws, in the name of safety (that's always the easiest thing to swap liberties for).

 

There are repressive governments out there: Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, North Korea, and every Muslim country. The US isn't anywhere near any of those, but none of those countries became repressive overnight. It was a slow movement combining centralized power and "disarmed" people, both literally and in their ability to protest or publish their perspectives or gather to compare notes.

 

The key to make that happen was to make it so slow, toward the beginning of the process, that not enough "sane" citizens would object. Or if they did object, they were called paranoid.

 

[Whip]

Okay....I've read the report.(I wish I didn't)

 

It reads like, from what I remember, the Nixon Tapes.

 

A whole lot of political paranoia from a bunch of clueless powerful DC folks.

 

The biggest problem I see is that this report is exactly what the extreme right has been warning everyone about.

 

 

I have not changed my life in the smallest way because of the last election. Now I'm thinkin I should, and that ain't a good thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[smiller]

I have not changed my life in the smallest way because of the last election. Now I'm thinkin I should, and that ain't a good thing.

It's pretty much the same as the past, just with different people in power. Kind of illustrates the lesson that any government program that proposes to 'protect' us via surveillance/profiling/etc. should be viewed with a large dose of skepticism. It's just more obvious to some now that the shoe is on the other foot.

 

[Quinn]

My problem is being profiled as a terrorist and using isolated quotes from Timothy Mcveigh as "evidence." I'll bet Timothy Mcveigh also thought that the sun rose in the East, gravity makes things fall, and that we, as Americans, are supposed to suport the Constitution as written and not as interpreted. Oh my God, I'm probably even more guilty. All because he went wacky doesn't mean he didn't have some valid points.

 

 

[Whip]

I have not changed my life in the smallest way because of the last election. Now I'm thinkin I should, and that ain't a good thing.

It's pretty much the same as the past, just with different people in power. Kind of illustrates the lesson that any government program that proposes to 'protect' us via surveillance/profiling/etc. should be viewed with a large dose of skepticism. It's just more obvious to some now that the shoe is on the other foot.

 

 

 

Agreed........I'll cancel that 100,000 rounds of 9mm.

 

 

I'll stick with sling shots and fast feet.

 

 

 

 

 

[smiller]

Agreed........I'll cancel that 100,000 rounds of 9mm.

So that's where it's all going...

[Polo]

Okay....I've read the report.(I wish I didn't)

 

A whole lot of political paranoia from a bunch of clueless powerful DC folks.

 

The biggest problem I see is that this report is exactly what the extreme right has been warning everyone about.

 

I have not changed my life in the smallest way because of the last election. Now I'm thinkin I should, and that ain't a good thing.

 

I agree with you in that I also wish I hadn't read it. I disagree with you with respect to calling it paranoia from a bunch of clueless DC folks.

 

But this actually isn't a reply aimed at Whip. I just read in his post a measure understated cool headedness (a word?)

 

I don't believe it's as much paranoia as a formal attempt to justify their paychecks by producing 10 pages of unsubstantiated hear say that makes reference to "Right wing extremists" as a group that you or I could go to the yellow pages and look up. If they are so readily identifiable, then what's the problem? We have the Law Enforcement Agencies to keep tabs on them, why make me Joe Q Public paranoid?

 

This report in a way reminded me of a book my son commented on "Behold a Pale Horse"; he was talking about facts(?) and information(?) within its covers. I bought the book, read it and found that the references were vague and it was full of unsubstantiated factoids and compilations of unilateral write-ups and comments. the most moving allegations were comments about veiled threats the author had received, and ultimately the reader is left with the doubt whether his death during a confrontation with police was a staged plot to justify his killing.

 

I discussed the book with my son and together we concluded on the lack of evidence one way or another. The book created more questions that provided answers, and for those who were already susceptible to that particular conspiracy theory persuasion, these questions fueled their thought vacuum. My son got his thoughts straight and severed his friendship with the kids who introduced him to these trends.

 

I see in the DHS report the same generation of questions and the same lack of answers. References to factoids that I, the average Joe, don't have a real way to confirm nor dispute.

 

Like Whip, my life hasn't changed much since January 2009; it did change much since May, 2008; those last few months of looting by the oil companies were the coup de grâce before leaving house, but we don't have any proof that the Arbusto family had any interests in oil, or do we?. Obama has been in office for three months and he's already credited with the downfall of our economy. We are here even talking about the U.S. loosing its place as a World Superpower. Damn! does it take only three months for this Country to go into the gutter because we have a black president? If so, then all this might and power are just illusions. Hell it takes me longer than that to get my yard back to snuff after winter...

 

Let's get a grip.

 

If you're employed; work.

 

If you're unemployed; get a job, write a book or start a business.

 

If you have a business; make it grow and hire more people.

 

If all you have to do is peddle fear and disinformation... move on, I'm not buying!

[David]

Obama has been in office for three months and he's already credited with the downfall of our economy. We are here even talking about the U.S. loosing its place as a World Superpower. Damn! does it take only three months for this Country to go into the gutter because we have a black president? If so, then all this might and power are just illusions. Hell it takes me longer than that to get my yard back to snuff after winter...

 

Let's not violate the mods requests about specific people.

 

Anyhow, you're mixing a lot of things in there that have nothing to do with the topics I started, like the economy and race. It's unfortunate to introduce those topics, as they aren't relevant and are even more divisive.

 

If all you have to do is peddle fear and disinformation... move on, I'm not buying!

 

Just to make sure I'm understanding, Polo, are you directing that at the people who are expressing their discontent with the memo, or those who wrote the memo itself? I'm not sure I'm following.

 

And to your point about destroying everything in three months, nobody is saying that and in fact this thread is full of references that say just the opposite. It's more about direction than distance, and I've been concerned for about six years.

[John Ranalletta]

Anyhow, you're mixing a lot of things in there that have nothing to do with the topics I started

What's new. He still thinks I sell cars for a living.

[Polo]

Let's not violate the mods requests about specific people.

 

Anyhow, you're mixing a lot of things in there that have nothing to do with the topics I started, like the economy and race. It's unfortunate to introduce those topics, as they aren't relevant and are even more divisive.

 

The whole thread digressed towards topics you didin't start. Your initial reference was to a bumper sticker and its broad application. From there it degraded into people being afraid of people, I just kept up with the digression. There was mention in the memo about Right Wing Extremists resenting am African American President; the memo is part of this discussion; thus the subject is part of this discussion.

 

If all you have to do is peddle fear and disinformation... move on, I'm not buying!

 

Just to make sure I'm understanding, Polo, are you directing that at the people who are expressing their discontent with the memo, or those who wrote the memo itself? I'm not sure I'm following.

 

And to your point about destroying everything in three months, nobody is saying that and in fact this thread is full of references that say just the opposite. It's more about direction than distance, and I've been concerned for about six years.

 

Everyone is entitled to agree or disagree with a memeo. I'm directing my disaproval to the half cooked information left for folks to interpret them in the context of to their own beliefs and inclinations. The term used here was innoculation. The memo is a product of those who produced it, I see no difference; the intent is the echo of the intender.

 

Not a reference to any particular person. I do not agree with the posture about destroying everything in three months. I strongly disagree with that. That's why I say that it takes me longer than that to straighten up my yard. It took much longer to drag the economy down to its present level.

 

It was implied that the present administration owns responsibility for presenet day affairs, and responsible for a perceived disarming of the people.

[Polo]

Anyhow, you're mixing a lot of things in there that have nothing to do with the topics I started

What's new. He still thinks I sell cars for a living.

 

Your profile still keeps you in hiding. You spoke with apparent knowledge of the automotive arena, "my dealerships", yet where does that come from? You didn't reply to that question.

 

Speaking of someone present to a third party is very... highschoolish?

[John Ranalletta]

I don't want HSE to find me and my stash of guns and ammo; so, I'm in stealth mode. You never know who's monitoring these radicals on motocycle forums.

 

I thought your Herb Tarleck rant was funny - kinda' highschool-ish, if you know what I mean.

[DavidEBSmith]

I would rather the White House had been more straightforward and used

wording like this:

 

"Our efforts are geared to identify and marginalize people who:

• Disagree with our liberal, Democrat agenda
• Disagree with the election of President Obama
• Who are afraid of having their 2nd amendment rights revoked by fiat
• Who are Pro Life
• Who have a greater faith in states' rights than federalism
  
• Who think the US should control our southern border to eliminate illegal
  immigration and repatriate illegal immigrants
  
• Groups who have traditionally voted for conservative candidates
  (military and ex-military)

This appears to me to be a blatant attempt by a political appointee to serve

the incumbent party's political needs; and, it's the opening volley in a long,

public, political, publicity campaign. It's the opening statement to the

grand jury to create a mindset conducive to the prosecutor's case where he has

no real evidence but doesn't like the accused. This is a political maneuver

geared to "inoculate" public opinion against this administration's most likely opponents.

 

 

Talk about inoculation. I think you should ponder whether you have been inoculated by the political opponents of the current administration, because you are parroting the party line here.

 

Do you believe that there are not potentially violent extremists at the far-right end of the political spectrum? Zero?

 

Do you believe that if there are such potentially violent extremists, the government shouldn't try to prevent them from committing violent acts and killing citizens?

 

Do you believe that potentially violent extremists should be given a free pass to commit violence because their political beliefs overlap with those of people who oppose the government but do it peacefully?

 

Are you comfortable with potentially violent extremists using your political beliefs as a shield to deflect government investigations into their criminal activities? Indeed, if one were paranoid, one might wonder if the extremists aren't the ones trying to whip up fears of political repression so that the government will be turned away from looking into what they're up to and turn back to investigating Muslim anesthesiologists and tax attorneys .

 

There's a Latin phrase, cui bono, "to whose benefit?" Who benefits from whipping up fears that the government is targeting conservatives for their political beliefs? Who benefits by driving moderate conservatives rightward and aligning them with more extreme elements?

 

The report talks about "rightwing extremists". These are extremists who have a rightwing viewpoint. They do exist, they are a danger, and the current political and economic situation plays into their strength. There is some dispute about the magnitude of the danger, but no opponent is seriously disputing that the danger exists, they are simply stirring up discontent that the words "rightwing" and "extremist" show up next to each other. The report doesn't say that "all rightwingers are extremists", or that anybody who disagrees with the current administration is an extremist, and anybody who suggests that is does it either intentionally being disingenuous or unintentionally being misinformed.

 

 

[brennaman]

Sure there are nut cases on the far right. Also the far left. Was there a report on them? Just asking. I also read a report on the number of former military in extreme right supremacist groups. They have found 203 former military join these groups in the past 8 years. That is out of over 23 million vets. Pretty small number. I don't disagree that we should keep an eye on any extreme group, but I could think of some other groups that might deserve more attention than what this report is looking at. Of course I would hate to see any racial profiling to find any groups out there that might want to do us harm.

[John Ranalletta]

Who benefits by driving moderate conservatives rightward and aligning them with more extreme elements?

If that means they vote for a smaller, more conservative federal government, everybody.

 

It seems that your reading and only your reading of the report is correct; and that mine isn't. Well, that's an opinion.

 

Personally, I'm pleased at the publishing of the report, even if it makes guns and ammo more scarce, because it mobilized a helluva lot of complacent "sleepers", i.e. conservatives who've been "called out" by it.

[Lawman]

I think JohnRan hit the nail on the head:

 

" It's the opening statement to the

grand jury to create a mindset conducive to the prosecutor's case where he has

no real evidence but doesn't like the accused. This is a political maneuver

geared to "inoculate" public opinion against this administration's most likely opponents."

 

Also I'm wondering as strong as your support seems to be for this "right wing extremist" profiling I'd be interested in knowing if you would likewise vigorously support racial profiling for the protection of U.S. citzens as well.

[DavidEBSmith]

Sure there are nut cases on the far right. Also the far left. Was there a report on them?

 

Yup. Of course, I'm sure it will be argued that this was just issued as a fig leaf for the real agenda of the Obama administration, which had come into power just 6 days before the report was released.

 

I also read a report on the number of former military in extreme right supremacist groups. They have found 203 former military join these groups in the past 8 years. That is out of over 23 million vets. Pretty small number.

 

Nineteen is an even smaller number. Three is a smaller number than nineteen. One is as small as you can get and still be a number.

 

The difficulty with extremists is that they have an effect disproportionate to their numbers.

[David]

Would one of you pass the word along to Eebie? I think he must have me on his ignore list, because he seems to be replying to everyone...except me.

[DavidEBSmith]

Also I'm wondering as strong as your support seems to be for this "right wing extremist" profiling I'd be interested in knowing if you would likewise vigorously support racial profiling for the protection of U.S. citzens as well.

 

Billy, Billy, don't be silly. Did you read the report? Can you explain how it advocates "right wing extremist" profiling? Did you answer my question about whether real-life violent extremists exist in the right-wing end of the political spectrum? (For what it's worth, I will happily agree that there are violent left-wing extremists and violent Muslim extremists, and that we ought not let them kill us, either).

 

Is this your "rightwing extremist profile"?

 

• terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.
• A recent example of the potential violence associated with a rise in rightwing extremism may be found in the shooting deaths of three police officers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on 4 April 2009. The alleged gunman’s reaction reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment conspiracy theories related to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a Jewish-controlled “one world government.”
• Most statements by rightwing extremists have been rhetorical, expressing concerns about the election of the first African American president, but stopping short of calls for violent action.
• In two instances in the run-up to the election, extremists appeared to be in the early planning stages of some threatening activity targeting the Democratic nominee, but law enforcement interceded.
• violent Christian Identity organizations and extremist members of the militia movement.
• DHS/I&A notes that prominent civil rights organizations have observed an increase in anti-Hispanic crimes over the past five years.
• In April 2007, six militia members were arrested for various weapons and explosives violations. Open source reporting alleged that those arrested had discussed and conducted surveillance for a machinegun attack on Hispanics.
• A militia member in Wyoming was arrested in February 2007 after communicating his plans to travel to the Mexican border to kill immigrants crossing into the United States.
• Open source reporting of wartime ammunition shortages has likely spurred rightwing extremists—as well as law-abiding Americans—to make bulk purchases of ammunition.
• Law enforcement in 1996 arrested three rightwing militia members in Battle Creek, Michigan with pipe bombs, automatic weapons, and military ordnance that they planned to use in attacks on nearby military and federal facilities and infrastructure targets
• Information from law enforcement and nongovernmental organizations indicates lone wolves and small terrorist cells have shown intent—and, in some cases, the capability—to commit violent acts.
• DHS/I&A has concluded that white supremacist lone wolves pose the most significant domestic terrorist threat because of their low profile and autonomy—separate from any formalized group—which hampers warning efforts.
• Similarly, recent state and municipal law enforcement reporting has warned of the dangers of rightwing extremists embracing the tactics of “leaderless resistance” and of lone wolves carrying out acts of violence.
• Arrests in the past several years of radical militia members in Alabama, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania on firearms, explosives, and other related violations indicates the emergence of small, well-armed extremist groups in some rural areas. ordnance that they planned to use in attacks on nearby military and federal facilities and infrastructure targets.
• After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military veterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwing extremist groups.
• A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that “large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the [u.S.] armed forces.”
• The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups.
• Arrests in the past several years of radical militia members in Alabama, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania on firearms, explosives, and other related violations indicates the emergence of small, well-armed extremist groups in some rural areas.
  

 

Be so kind as to point out which elements of the "profile" you believe are wrong or will cause the wrong people to be caught in the government's nets.

 

Racial profiling? You mean like the racial profiling that led law enforcement to search for Middle Eastern terrorists after the OKC bombing? Besides being racist and thus unconstitutional, the simple-minded racial profiling that has sometimes been engaged in is stupid and distracts and wastes resources.

 

And in the "politics makes strange bedfellows" category, for all you rightwing extremists who blame trial lawyers for all the woes of the country not caused by gays, abortion, gun control and Jane Fonda, upon reading the DHS report a bunch of rightwing extremists led by Michael Savage ran right out and filed a lawsuit complaining about how they were being repressed. As Instapundit would say, "Heh".

[Whip]

Would one of you pass the word along to Eebie? I think he must have me on his ignore list, because he seems to be replying to everyone...except me.

 

 

You could be right about that ignore list?????????

 

 

[Whip]

eebie my good man.......

 

I have read all your stuff.

 

I understand where your comin from.

 

I see the real world different than you do. I live with and love the folks you fear the most. They happen to be the same folks that DHS doc fears.

 

The folks that you fear, love this country so much they are willing to die for it. That BS report/doc doesn't have a clue about who or what they are offending. I really wish we could spend some time together. I think after a couple drinks and a few laughs we could find some common ground. The enemy is not in the Churches and voting booths of this country. Nor is it at "Tea Parties", gun shows or Am Vets Halls.

 

 

Don't let these powerful idiots play us like chumps. We need to stand together more and stop letting this s&%t divide us.

 

 

I hope to get to meet ya again real soon. I didn't get much time at the Torrey event we were both at.

 

Your fellow American...and friend.

 

Whip

 

 

 

 

[beemerman2k]

eebie my good man.......

 

I have read all your stuff.

 

I understand where your comin from.

 

I see the real world different than you do. I live with and love the folks you fear the most. They happen to be the same folks that DHS doc fears.

 

The folks that you fear, love this country so much they are willing to die for it. That BS report/doc doesn't have a clue about who or what they are offending. I really wish we could spend some time together. I think after a couple drinks and a few laughs we could find some common ground. The enemy is not in the Churches and voting booths of this country. Nor is it at "Tea Parties", gun shows or Am Vets Halls.

 

 

Don't let these powerful idiots play us like chumps. We need to stand together more and stop letting this s&%t divide us.

 

 

I hope to get to meet ya again real soon. I didn't get much time at the Torrey event we were both at.

 

Your fellow American...and friend.

 

Whip

 

I really like what you posted here, Whip. No matter what the issue we discuss/debate here, we have to come back to what you are promoting. That is: mutual respect, learning, and understanding.

 

From your point of view, eebie sees things differently. That is not a cause for division or strife, but a cause for learning, growth, and understanding. I see yours as a beautiful approach to bridging the wide gaps in how we all might see our common divisive issues.

 

We have to come here to learn as much as we come here to teach. Otherwise, we're are truly allowing ourselves to be played as chumps. The best of us only knows in part. Only together do we know in full.

[DavidEBSmith]

eebie my good man.......

 

I have read all your stuff.

 

I understand where your comin from.

 

I see the real world different than you do. I live with and love the folks you fear the most. They happen to be the same folks that DHS doc fears.

 

The folks that you fear, love this country so much they are willing to die for it. That BS report/doc doesn't have a clue about who or what they are offending. I really wish we could spend some time together. I think after a couple drinks and a few laughs we could find some common ground. The enemy is not in the Churches and voting booths of this country. Nor is it at "Tea Parties", gun shows or Am Vets Halls.

 

 

Don't let these powerful idiots play us like chumps. We need to stand together more and stop letting this s&%t divide us.

 

 

I hope to get to meet ya again real soon. I didn't get much time at the Torrey event we were both at.

 

Your fellow American...and friend.

 

 

The thing is . . . I don't fear 99% of the right side of the political spectrum, and the DHS doc doesn't fear them.

 

The problem is, there are some violent radical people who have beliefs that overlap with the 99% good people.

 

If you read the DHS document on left-wing extremists, it talks about environmental extremists who "seek to end the perceived . . . degradation of the natural environment perpetrated by humans". Well, I agree with ending the degradation of the natural environment perpetrated by humans. I'd even have to admit to reading lots of Ed Abbey's books. But I'm not freaking out that DHS is trying to unfairly target me as an eco-terrorist.

 

I think it's hilarious that right-wingers are the first ones to decry political correctness and tell people they need to be a little less sensitive to slights, and it's the right wing that is nearly hysterical about this report and is crying because they think everybody fears them. It's the right wing that is the first to decry the "victim mentality" among minorities, and there is no better exhibition of the victim mentality than the right-wing outcry over the DHS report.

 

How many times have you heard a right-wing critic of political correctness complain that the news media doesn't mention the race of criminals if they're black because of PC? (Like the example in the comments to this story: "The Tribune and WGN have done their best to hide the fact that this was an interracial crime, which the Tribune always does when the perpetrator is Black and the victim is White. (If the perpetrator is White and the victim is Black, it's a national story.)") How is that different from what the right-wing talking heads are doing with the DHS report? We know it is a fact that there is a small minority of violent extremists in the right wing, just as there is in the left wing. The report says that law enforcement should be aware of this. But the right wing talk radio hosts and bloggers are attacking DHS because stating a true fact offends all the law-abiding right wingers. It hurts their feelings. It makes returning veterans feel bad. Isn't this just right-wing PC? Isn't this a case of suppressing an idea because it is contrary to (what they would like to establish as) acceptable public discourse?

 

You are correct that they're playing us like chumps. But it's your intellectual leaders who are misrepresenting the facts, creating a controversy, generating divisiveness, and stirring up fear for political purposes. There are people on the right wing who want you to believe that everybody hates you and fears you, and they want you to believe this because it divides you from the rest of the country and drives you into their power base.

 

I don't hate or fear right-wingers. I fear right-wingers whose hatred impels them to want to kill me because I disagree with them. I also fear left-wingers whose hatred impels them to want to kill me because I disagree with them. I hate Illinois Nazis who show up to wave swastika flags at the opening of the Illinois Holocaust Museum, but I would also defend their right to do so, so long as they're waving flags, not guns.

 

I don't think that all right-wingers are the enemy. But I think we all have to admit that there are a small handful who are, and they're your enemy as much as mine, because they're enemies of what we both believe in.