DHS 9-page Report on Rightwing Extremism

[Collin]

Your logic is a bit flawed on this one. They are not not labeling returning troops as terrorists; not suggesting it, hinting at it, or even implying it. What the report does say is that right-wing extremists may try to recruit ex-soldiers for their ranks. That is completely different that calling ex-soldiers terrorists. But if you're too dumb to understand that, I can't help you.

I don't think you're going to get through to him, but you are right.

[E30 Cabrio]

Your logic is a bit flawed on this one. They are not not labeling returning troops as terrorists; not suggesting it, hinting at it, or even implying it. What the report does say is that right-wing extremists may try to recruit ex-soldiers for their ranks. That is completely different that calling ex-soldiers terrorists. But if you're too dumb to understand that, I can't help you.

Don't play dumb - the inference is clearly there as is the profiling.

Everyone I know in the military that has read this have also been offended by the report for the same reason that others have and that is due to its generalities of painting large groups of people, mainly those who oppose this administrations policies, with a broad brush and not backed up by any specific examples.

Many people, myself included, believed this report to be false due to how offensive and how ridiculously unprofessional it is. If you read back to the beginning of this thread I posted that there is no way that this is real and that someone is playing a joke to get people riled up.

The fact that the leaders of our country wrote and approved of this document proves what people were saying about Obama, and that is, he doesn't have the executive experience for the job. Again, this document proves it as does some of his other actions such as bowing to Saudi Kings then denying it even though it is on film and video, shaking hands with murderous tyrants like Hugo Chavez and being critical of his own country just to gain the approval of people in other countries.

The people defending this report are playing the semantics game and the "It all depends on what your definition of 'is' is" game.

Do we have to copy and paste quotations from the report and pick them apart and parse them?

If the Bush administration released a report like this about people of Arabic descent and/or followers of Islam, the media and the left would be howling like wolves on a full moon night and rightly so.

You're defending the indefensible.

This current administration is full of clueless amateurs.

[CorvallisBMW]

... but his administration has no problem profiling and labeling our returning troops as "terrorists" without a shred of evidence.

Your logic is a bit flawed on this one. They are not not labeling returning troops as terrorists; not suggesting it, hinting at it, or even implying it. What the report does say is that right-wing extremists may try to recruit ex-soldiers for their ranks. That is completely different that calling ex-soldiers terrorists. But if you're too dumb to understand that, I can't help you.

[E30 Cabrio]

+1 Well said !! For the first time in over 35 years I am going to a protest today - a tea party - they are being held all over the country on TAX day to protest Obama's world record tax increases - the news just showed that Boston has 200,000 attending their's - perhaps a few more "right wing extremists" around than the "black suits" thought.

Actually it was 20,000 people and not 200,000 people, but a compilation of news articles from around the country that were added up came out to about 650,000 people nationwide and still counting and the final numbers expect to be around 750,000 people, which is impressive since the MSM didn't publicize the protest before it took place (or after, unless it was to mock the protesters) and since it was put together in such a short time.

Very few people knew about it only after it happened.

I imagine when this event is held on a weekend in a few years when the 15th of April falls on a Saturday and a Sunday, those numbers will be much bigger as most taxpayers have jobs, unlike many of the hippies that usually protest, sit in trees for months at a time or are collecting welfare or some combination of all of the above.

April 15th of 2012 should be quite interesting as it is an election year and it falls on a Sunday. I expect Millions of people to turn out all across the country.

Sadly, the media and even some of our elected officials belittled and demeaned these patriots for exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

But if you get 5 member of "Code Pink" in the same zip code, it's front page news (unlike the "Tea Party" which the NYTimes didn't put on their front page) and no one in the media questions their objectives or who funded them, who organized them and they don't demean them unlike the MSM did about the "Tea Party" participants.

And unlike many of the protesters on the left, no one was arrested, acted out violently, tied up traffic, chained themselves together to deny access to public places, and they didn't leave behind a bunch of trash.

I guess the left is only interested in cleaning up the air, or wants others to do so as they usually leave behind a bunch of trash when they protest in addition to the above mentioned childish behavior.

Breaking windows, turning over trash cans and/or lighting them on fire, hanging the President in effigy, signs calling for the execution of elected officials, praising communists and murderous tyrants, etc...are all par for the course at lefty protests.

The MSM will usually avoid showing that on the news, but at the "Tea Party" protests, they looked for the lunatic fringe types on the right.

To see how the left protests, click here: www.zombietime.com

[E30 Cabrio]

Sadly, the Obama administration won't use the term "terrorist" to describe actual terrorists or use "profiling" to catch actual terrorists or to root them out, but his administration has no problem profiling and labeling our returning troops as "terrorists" without a shred of evidence.

[CorvallisBMW]

Where the fuck is the ALCU in all this......oh nevermind, they only protect left wing issues.

True, they are very left-leaning. But shouldn't they be all over the leftist-extremism report then? It's strange they haven't jumped all over this like a fat kid on cake yet.

[Pinepig]

Where the fuck is the ALCU in all this......oh nevermind, they only protect left wing issues.

[E30 Cabrio]

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/04/17/right-wing-extremism-report-released-despite-civil-rights-conc/

[Farbin Kaiber]

[Maluco]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97JU0881&show_article=1

Homeland Security spokeswoman Amy Kudwa said the report was issued before officials resolved problems raised by the agency's civil rights division.

The senior Democrat of the House committee with oversight of the department said the report raises privacy and civil liberty issues. "This report appears to have blurred the line between violent belief, which is constitutionally protected, and violent action, which is not,"

[E30 Cabrio]

What do you know, I was wrong. This thing is real. The level of complete incompetence at DHS to release something like this with that kind of verbiage in it is astounding. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090415/...y_extremists_9

The major difference between those two passages quoted above is one of potential actions by left-wind extremists and the definition and causational factors for a right-wing extremist.

The first does not try to define a left-wing extremist's motivations. It only talks about their potential attack vectors, which is mostly based on experience.

The right-wing extremist definition above is vague and obviously worded to imply any dissension with the current administration's policies is an indication of a possible right-wing extremist. Yes, it is worded in such a way as to qualify this type of dissension as belonging to right-wing extremists, but by doing so, they imply that dissension of this type indicates a right-wing extremist.

So, there are huge procedural differences between the two passages above and an obvious attempt at discrediting and undermining any dissension with the current administration.

I suspect the motivating factors behind this are because of the rising wave of dissatisfaction with the current administration's policies which the powers that be will perceive as right-wing extremist activities and propaganda when in fact, it is the average Joe American who is simply communicating their core values. 99.9% of the people attending things like the Tea Parties today, are just like me. They want responsibility in actions, accountability and ethical behaviour out of our government. They will use their votes and their communication ability to see that it happens. They won't be starting an armed revolution. It is just the extreme fear and distrust of this administration that paints it that way.

This kind of fear mongering and political maneuvering should never, ever find its way into an "intelligence" document like this one. Whether your are left-leaning or right-leaning, you all should be appalled at this document and start to seriously question the integrity of the people who produced it.

The inference of this PDF, which I didn't believe to be genuine at first shows an absolutely clear intent in who it is attempting to smear as "extremists" and "radicals"

The left chooses to play dumb, parse words and split hairs to make their argument.

The PDF makes my argument for me and it concerns me far more then anything I've ever seen from the Government. Even gun confiscation.

The message is clear: If you oppose "Dear Leader" you are an extremist and a threat to the country.

Obama is following Saul Alinsky's book, "Rules for Radicals" and this is straight of his playbook.

Anyone with an ounce of sense can see the inference of this document.

[E30 Cabrio]

what record tax increase are you talking about? There are no tax increases! 95% of the population is getting a tax cut, and even the top 1% isn't seeing a tax increase until 2011.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/...xes/index.html

I think you're confusing 'tax cut' with 'tax increase'. Can you point me in the direction of some data, or evidence, or anything to support your claims?

Who is going to pay for the Trillions of dollars of spending Obama has proposed and/or implemented?

What happens when Obama allows the Bush tax cuts to expire next year?

Smoker's (of which I'm not) just got hit with a huge per pack tax increase, directly countering Obama's promise that 95% of people would not see tax increases.

Obama can say anything he wants, but someone is going to have to pay for the Trillions of spending he has proposed/implemented.

Who do you think is going to pay for it?

The "rich"?

Nope. The math doesn't work.

The Wall Street Journal just did an article on this subject showing how the math doesn't work.

Obama is going to throw you a bone or two in an attempt to get reelected in 2012

After that, the bill is going to come due and it is not going to be pleasant.

Congress is complicit in this as well. At least the Dems in Congress as every "R" voted against this massive spending bill by Obama.

Paul Begala can spin it how he likes, but the facts are a huge bill is coming due and its going to have to be paid.

Obama will be sneaking off right around then, leaving the bill for the next President and us and our children and their children and their children...

Who is going to bail out America?

[Farbin Kaiber]

Well, I do know someone is gonna have to pay for his spending plans. Sounds like enough proof to me.

[CorvallisBMW]

easy - where have you been as his record tax increases take effect?

what record tax increase are you talking about? There are no tax increases! 95% of the population is getting a tax cut, and even the top 1% isn't seeing a tax increase until 2011.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/...xes/index.html

I think you're confusing 'tax cut' with 'tax increase'. Can you point me in the direction of some data, or evidence, or anything to support your claims?

[Hallen]

From the left wing PDF:

— (U//FOUO) Many leftwing extremists use the tactic of direct action to inflict economic damage on businesses and other targets to force the targeted organization to abandon what the extremists deem objectionable. Direct actions range from animal releases, property theft, vandalism, and cyber attacks—all of which extremists regard as nonviolent—to bombings and arson.

Does this mean that every vandal/hacker/thief is a left wing nutjob bent on taking down the government? No. It means that many left wing nut jobs are vandals/hackers/thieves.

From the right wing PDF:

— (U//FOUO) 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.

Does this mean that everyone that dislikes Obama is a right wing nut job bent on taking down the government? No. It means that many right wing nut jobs dislike Obama.

What do you know, I was wrong. This thing is real. The level of complete incompetence at DHS to release something like this with that kind of verbiage in it is astounding. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090415/...y_extremists_9

The major difference between those two passages quoted above is one of potential actions by left-wind extremists and the definition and causational factors for a right-wing extremist.

The first does not try to define a left-wing extremist's motivations. It only talks about their potential attack vectors, which is mostly based on experience.

The right-wing extremist definition above is vague and obviously worded to imply any dissension with the current administration's policies is an indication of a possible right-wing extremist. Yes, it is worded in such a way as to qualify this type of dissension as belonging to right-wing extremists, but by doing so, they imply that dissension of this type indicates a right-wing extremist.

So, there are huge procedural differences between the two passages above and an obvious attempt at discrediting and undermining any dissension with the current administration.

I suspect the motivating factors behind this are because of the rising wave of dissatisfaction with the current administration's policies which the powers that be will perceive as right-wing extremist activities and propaganda when in fact, it is the average Joe American who is simply communicating their core values. 99.9% of the people attending things like the Tea Parties today, are just like me. They want responsibility in actions, accountability and ethical behaviour out of our government. They will use their votes and their communication ability to see that it happens. They won't be starting an armed revolution. It is just the extreme fear and distrust of this administration that paints it that way.

This kind of fear mongering and political maneuvering should never, ever find its way into an "intelligence" document like this one. Whether your are left-leaning or right-leaning, you all should be appalled at this document and start to seriously question the integrity of the people who produced it.