DHS 9-page Report on Rightwing Extremism

[Hallen]

You guys rant a lot and so I'll throw in my two cents. I'm all for a balanced budget and reduced taxes/gov't spending.

I do believe in gov't regulation because I think when businesses can succeed by acting unethically, they will. To me it's like having a football game with no referees. If there's no one penalizing you for cheating, you have to cheat to win.

With that said, why can't the Republicans get a Presidential candidate with this simple platform: Reduce taxes, reduce gov't waste and balance the budget. I would vote for something like this. IMO, if the Republicans came back in 2010 and said that what we really, really care about is making our country fiscally sound, people would rally behind that.

As far as the gun thing, I personally don't really care. I don't choose to own a gun, but if my neighbor wants one, I couldn't give a shit.

Instead, the Republican mantra has to be, "less taxes, and let's have a Christian Nation". If I turn on Fox I'm going to see a count of how long it's been since Obama went to church. What's that about? That waffleswaffleswaffleswaffles Ann Coulter is going to be going off about how all of the "secular progressives" are ruining the country. I'm not going to vote for that.

So then when the Republicans lose, they can't take responsibility for it. If the tax thing was that big of a deal, why did you have to package it with the religion? People would vote for the smaller government thing, but why should the government be telling me what the proper religion is? Are we all supposed to vote for which god to worship? Huckabee, Palin?

And again, personally I don't care if people want to arm themselves to the teeth, but if you're waving a gun threatening to disrupt the government, I hope they shoot you dead (whether you're a vet or not). In America, we have elections to pick our leaders and policies (remember, I don't care how many guns you own, it doesn't make your vote worth more than mine).

I know, you're all Libertarians.

I would agree with a lot of that. I too wish the Republican party would step back from their association with religion. I am not saying for anybody to ignore their religion, what I am saying is that associating the Republican party with religious organizations is perceived as overstepping the bounds of the separation of church and state. It scares a lot of people and I can't blame them for that.

I don't want government regulating morality, either from the right OR from the left. Yes, the left does it too, they just do it differently.

I would disagree with the business needs regulation comment though. I do agree that in specific cases some regulation needs to be in place. However, if you replace the word "regulation" with "law", then I am with you. The difference is that regulations tell you what you have to do, law tells you what you can't do. I know it is more complicated than that, but the basic presmise is still important.

I do agree that law enforcement may need to step up their monitoring of right-wing radical organizations. Those idiots, with their puny egos and narrow views, just might do something horrible. But that simply does not excuse this report. The wording clearing vilafies conservatives, implying suseptability, racism and anti-government activities. And honestly the opening phrases are dispicable because they place political motivation ahead of national security.

[E30 Cabrio]

Ragged 325, don't expect anyone to engage you in a debate when you make false arguments...

[mrsleeve]

Not saying you are a hippie,

Now you are starting to get it. We are in no way saying to ignore the right, or the life, but how about we watch the ones that need to be watched, you know the ones that have ties to Groups that are out there on the extremist fringe. Or keep a better eye on the groups them selves. Not a bad idea ehh, leave me the hell alone, I am a threat to no one.

Not just say all of us need to be watched. Because of your own posts you fall into the watch right wing watch list because you favor lower taxes and smaller govt.

[ragged325]

This country was founded on Jewdeo . . . values,

I'm sorry, I thought that was funny. I didn't read all of this thread and I didn't read all (i.e., any) of the memo. While you may call me a hippy, I consider myself to be a moderate. It's not really my issue, but I can see why the gov't would want to take an interest in some of the people on the extreme right of this country and watch what they're doing. I think the debate should be about how far they go to do that.

[mrsleeve]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This country was founded on Jewdeo / Christian values, with a constitutional clause that you will left alone if you choose to believe/worship anyone or anything you wish. So yes we are a christian nation in general but if you want to pray to your belly button lint or to Joe Pesci you are free to do so.

The R's moved the religious right to get votes 30ish years ago and thats their biggest base, many people vote for them solely on the pro life platform. They appeal to the christian values (that most people in the country are, in some form of another) they are not mandating a national religion. (me, I am a independent conservative)

I guess I am armed to the teeth, but I am not waving my gun threatening any one, I have not had to draw weapon in response to a threat, and I hope it stays that way (I am one of the 90million+ responsible ones) now anyone threatens me, my family, or friends in my presence God help you because thats all your gonna have.


I do agree with you that there needs to be some regulation and penalties if you break the law and cheat the system to get ahead. But the regulation and taxation needs to kept to a minimum, this is not the road we are going down.

edit:
Dude you are not getting it.

Your poll makes no sense to me sorry.

We are just trying to get across that the broad sweeping allegations, of easily over 50% of the US civilian population and that of all returning Vets are being swept into the "Right Wing Extremist" With no evidence, no probable cause, or combat experience for only disagreeing or questioning the the Elected saviors, policies and sweeping socialist leaning agenda. Why is this, because information in the hands of the unwashed masses on a saturation level will be a threat to the agenda. people with combat knowledge are a threat because of what the Govt trained them to do. Its as simple as that.

[ragged325]

Poll for e30 Cabrio and mrsleeve:

a. It is not likely that some right-wing loner is going to take this teabagging stuff too far and plot to blow up some gov't building. It is ridiculous to believe that there are right wing extremists out there who own lots of guns and bombs and are super-angry about Obama/taxes and may act violently.

b. While there are right wing extremists plotting violence against the gov't, it would be silly to pay attention to them.

c. POTUS

d. SCOTUS

e. Other _________________________________________

[ragged325]

You guys rant a lot and so I'll throw in my two cents. I'm all for a balanced budget and reduced taxes/gov't spending.

I do believe in gov't regulation because I think when businesses can succeed by acting unethically, they will. To me it's like having a football game with no referees. If there's no one penalizing you for cheating, you have to cheat to win.

With that said, why can't the Republicans get a Presidential candidate with this simple platform: Reduce taxes, reduce gov't waste and balance the budget. I would vote for something like this. IMO, if the Republicans came back in 2010 and said that what we really, really care about is making our country fiscally sound, people would rally behind that.

As far as the gun thing, I personally don't really care. I don't choose to own a gun, but if my neighbor wants one, I couldn't give a shit.

Instead, the Republican mantra has to be, "less taxes, and let's have a Christian Nation". If I turn on Fox I'm going to see a count of how long it's been since Obama went to church. What's that about? That waffleswaffleswaffleswaffles Ann Coulter is going to be going off about how all of the "secular progressives" are ruining the country. I'm not going to vote for that.

So then when the Republicans lose, they can't take responsibility for it. If the tax thing was that big of a deal, why did you have to package it with the religion? People would vote for the smaller government thing, but why should the government be telling me what the proper religion is? Are we all supposed to vote for which god to worship? Huckabee, Palin?

And again, personally I don't care if people want to arm themselves to the teeth, but if you're waving a gun threatening to disrupt the government, I hope they shoot you dead (whether you're a vet or not). In America, we have elections to pick our leaders and policies (remember, I don't care how many guns you own, it doesn't make your vote worth more than mine).

I know, you're all Libertarians.

[mrsleeve]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Again 1 lunatic out of millions upon millions of current and former Service men and women. Living in a Free society has some risk involved in it, that bad things can and will happen form time to time. There are crazy people in every bunch no mater where you go or what group you associate with.

Why is in the Govt interest to protect you may I ask??? Other than to prevent the needless loss of hundreds or thousands innocent lives????

Yes that works in theory, but when there is some thing political to gain from it can and some times is ignored, it has com to light in recent years "the day that will live in infmay" Dec 7 1941 was know about in advance an preparations could have been taken to lessen the damage loss of life or even stop the attack before it started. Its the crisis (after all Mr Holder has said to the press lately "Never let a good crisis go to waste") that FDR needed to plunge the US head long into WWII. So funny thing is since the Japanese were the ones to hit us in port, why did we devote the bulk of our resources to the European theater because it was an excuse to get into the war and help our allies/political allies with force rather than just aid.

Did the Govt not have an interest in protecting its territory citizens and war machines from attack???? The 2400 killed (including 800 civilians) plus another 1178 wounded in that attack made a great Political reason to plunge the US into one of bloodiest wars in history. What makes you so special that you need to be protected???

Yeah I know Foreign aggressor, Vs domestic terrorist (sorry man made disaster perpetrator). Its not a direct comparison, its to show historical pattern that when there is a political agenda that can benefit from a tragedy or the loss of life or destruction of assets they are all just a casualty of the greater agenda. . Did the feds know about McVeigh who knows, prolly not.

In the end the Govt. dose not give two shits about you or anyone you care about (unless you are blood related to a elected official even then it would be a stretch). You, me, and every one else would be just a nice foot note to a tragic event that would serve the political wills and whims of the govt. No thats not how its supposed to work but sadly thats how its worked out.

I enjoy living in a free society,(well whats left of it) and if I happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time because a idiot decides to blow up a building so be it. I dont have any control over that, I control the things I can, and accept the things I cant. Its all part of life,

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. - Ben Franklin

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Take note of that quote you might be wise to heed its warning, and rethink your position on this, for you are asking all of us to give up some of our liberties in return for you to "feel" just a little bit safer. All because everything you see on the nightly news or read in the paper, tells you there is nothing but bad and evil surrounding you and you need the govt to protect you. The returning vet's are the last people you need to be fearful of.

[ragged325]

You may have the belief that it is the right of America's citizens to get riled up about the government's actions and gather arms to defend the Constitution. I'm saying that there is a line that can be crossed. It's in the government's interest to protect people like me from people like McVeigh. Take it for what it's worth. Get all offended if you want.

[mrsleeve]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^6

Ok well lets try this one on

-I Was introduced to guns and shooting by my grandpa at 7 (and I am rather good at it too)
-I am a Big supporter of the 2A ( all the amendments actually other than the 16th)
-Member of the NRA have been since I was 17
-write letters to my elected officials when I feel its necessary on many issues
-have written and editorial or 2 to the news paper in my day
-Read and have studied the Constitution
-I carry a gun every day
-I question the motives of the Govt as to weather its in the best interest of the the people and the views and principals this country was founded upon.


So dose this make me the next Tim McVeigh?????????

I was at the range today punching holes in a head size hunk of steel plate at 400yd with a 70 year old battle rifle with hits 97% of the time. Dose that mean I am gonna go nuts and start picking people off because I can or because I am disgruntled???????? FUCK no it dose not.


You post that up there like its the norm of all Vets and and conservatives. You are taking the life of 1 loon an painting vast numbers of people with that brush, that is just what the original report this thread is about and was doing.

You really have no clue do you. You guys cry when all the hippies and "alternative life style" and violent minorities get stereotyped all into the same category by the deeds/choices of a few.


Now you are doing the same thing with some of the best people of all walks of life and all backgrounds, based on the actions of one man out of the millions that have served and fought for this country. You ought to be ashamed of your self and those that have the same regards.

I know I am. :(

[ragged325]

McVeigh's grandfather introduced McVeigh to guns, and he grew fascinated by them. McVeigh told people he wanted to be a gun shop owner, and he sometimes took a gun to school to impress the other boys. After graduating high school with honors, McVeigh became intensely interested in gun rights and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and read magazines such as Soldier of Fortune. He went to work for Burke Armored Car Service.

McVeigh was known throughout his life as a loner; his only known affiliations were voter registration with the Republican Party when he lived in New York, and a membership in the National Rifle Association while in the military.[8] Despite the former, McVeigh self-identified as a libertarian in a statement that was reported by MSNBC.com and The Washington Post;[9] and in 1996, while in federal prison, he voted for Libertarian candidate Harry Browne in the United States presidential election, 1996.[10] The LP said that he violated the nonaggression principle and thus was not a true libertarian.[11]
[edit] Military career

In May 1988, McVeigh enlisted in the U.S. Army.[15] Michel and Herbeck comment on the process of brutalization he went through as a recruit:
“ During dawn runs and their long, exhausting marches over the Georgia sand, their sound-offs revolved around killing and mutilating the enemy, or violent sex with women.[16] ”

He had little interest in the bar scene, preferring to use his spare time to read about guns, sniper tactics, or explosives.[17] He once ordered a "White Power" T-shirt from the Ku Klux Klan in protest against black servicemen who wore "Black Power" T-shirts around his army camp.[18]

He was a decorated veteran of the United States Army, having served in the Gulf War, where he was awarded a Bronze Star. He had been a top-scoring gunner with the 25 mm cannon of the Bradley Fighting Vehicles used by the U.S. 1st Infantry Division to which he was assigned. He served at Fort Riley, Kansas, before Operation Desert Storm. During the Gulf War, McVeigh claimed to have heard his commanding officer order his men kill surrendering Iraqis.[citation needed] The carnage McVeigh witnessed created one of the early roots of his hatred of the US government.[citation needed] At Fort Riley, McVeigh completed the Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC). McVeigh later would say that the Army taught him how to switch off his emotions.[5] He had special lifesaving training and may have saved the life of a comrade who had life-threatening shrapnel wounds.[19]

McVeigh wanted to join the United States Army Special Forces. After returning from the Gulf War, he entered the selection program for United States Army Special Forces to become a SF soldier , but was quickly dropped from the program after failing to meet the physical fitness requirements. Shortly thereafter, McVeigh decided to leave the Army. He was discharged on December 31, 1991.[20] McVeigh was given an honorable discharge from the Army Reserve in May 1992.

[edit] Post-military activities and lifestyle

After leaving the Army in 1992, McVeigh grew increasingly transient. At first he worked briefly near his hometown of Pendleton as a security guard, where he sounded off daily to his co-worker Carl Lebron, Jr. about his loathing for government. Deciding the Buffalo area was too liberal, he left his job and began driving around America, seeking out his old friends from the Army.[21]

McVeigh wrote letters to local newspapers, complaining about taxes:
“ 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 ... Is a Civil War Imminent? Do we have to shed blood to reform the current system? I hope it doesn't come to that. But it might.:[22] ”

He also wrote to Congressman John J. LaFalce, complaining about the arrest of a woman for carrying Mace:
“ 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? ”

The long hours in a dead-end job, the feeling that he did not have a home, and his failure to establish a relationship with a woman brought McVeigh to the breaking point. He sought romance, but was rejected by his co-worker Andrea Peters, and still felt nervous around women. He felt he brought too much pain to his loved ones.[23] He grew angry and frustrated at his difficulties acquiring a girlfriend, and took up obsessive gambling.[24] Unable to pay back gambling debts, he took a cash advance and then stiffed the credit card company. He then began looking for a state without heavy government regulation or high taxes. He became enraged when the government informed him that he had been overpaid $1,058 while in the Army, and he would need to pay back the money. He wrote an angry letter to the government inviting them to:
“ 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.[25] ”

McVeigh introduced his sister to anti-government literature, but his father had little interest in these views. He moved out of his father's house and into an apartment that had no telephone, which had the advantage of making it impossible for his boss to contact him. He also quit the NRA, viewing its stance on gun rights to be too weak.[26]

[mrsleeve]

Returning soldiers are not domestic terrorists, people who try to recruit them into domestic terrorist organizations are.

That is all the report says about returning soldiers.

While this is true and again you are splitting hairs on the meaning. The point remains, it says that returning soldiers should be watched because they may be approached to be recruited, because they may share some similar values but not necessarily the same motives. Because of their combat experience, they may be dangerous to the govt. (Yeah thats the idea to keep the Govt from overstepping it self)

That is a slap in the face to any one who has served this country to protect and defend it period end of story. Everyone in this country should be up in arms over this as its infers that our greatest citizens who put their lives on the line FOR THE REST OF US, would betray their allegiance to our country

[Collin]

From the stuff in there that I read, you're right, they don't technically label them as terrorists. in so many words. But, you are splitting hairs here. You are intentionally playing dumb and reading things literally because you don't want to see the intended meaning.

Read my earlier post in this thread. They in essence label people with the traits described in the document as right-wing extremists. Do I need to spell it out for from there? They basically define right-wing extremists as terrorists. They don't flat out say that people who object to the President's policies are terrorists, but they do say that these are the people who become right-wing extremists and, by extension, should be suspected as right-wing extremists.

You simply can't get past the fact that this document is clearly biased in its evaluation of (non)threats, driven by fear of the ideas supported by your average conservative.

Put it this way, if the DHS were to put out the same exact document but instead of the profile they have they change it to people who study liberal arts at upscale universities (instead of returning soldiers), people who support universal health care (instead of oppose it), people who support affirmative action (over those who oppose it), and people who support higher taxes (rather than oppose them), then what would you be saying about this report? What would the ACLU be saying about this report? What if it were the Bush administration that had put this out? You would be howling about it... and I would probably support you in that outrage.

Profiling is actually OK. It is normal police work. Identifying threats is OK and I sincerely hope that DHS catches every single right-wing radical dirtbag out there... as long as they really are radicals. This report defines pretty much everybody who is conservative in one way or another as potential radicals because they share the same ideas as radicals (which is blatantly false, btw). It is amateur night at DHS and I would bet the reason this report got leaked is because some of the more reasonable people at DHS were horrified by it and slipped it to the press.

Returning soldiers are not domestic terrorists, people who try to recruit them into domestic terrorist organizations are.

That is all the report says about returning soldiers.

[Hallen]

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.

From the stuff in there that I read, you're right, they don't technically label them as terrorists. in so many words. But, you are splitting hairs here. You are intentionally playing dumb and reading things literally because you don't want to see the intended meaning.

Read my earlier post in this thread. They in essence label people with the traits described in the document as right-wing extremists. Do I need to spell it out for from there? They basically define right-wing extremists as terrorists. They don't flat out say that people who object to the President's policies are terrorists, but they do say that these are the people who become right-wing extremists and, by extension, should be suspected as right-wing extremists.

You simply can't get past the fact that this document is clearly biased in its evaluation of (non)threats, driven by fear of the ideas supported by your average conservative.

Put it this way, if the DHS were to put out the same exact document but instead of the profile they have they change it to people who study liberal arts at upscale universities (instead of returning soldiers), people who support universal health care (instead of oppose it), people who support affirmative action (over those who oppose it), and people who support higher taxes (rather than oppose them), then what would you be saying about this report? What would the ACLU be saying about this report? What if it were the Bush administration that had put this out? You would be howling about it... and I would probably support you in that outrage.

Profiling is actually OK. It is normal police work. Identifying threats is OK and I sincerely hope that DHS catches every single right-wing radical dirtbag out there... as long as they really are radicals. This report defines pretty much everybody who is conservative in one way or another as potential radicals because they share the same ideas as radicals (which is blatantly false, btw). It is amateur night at DHS and I would bet the reason this report got leaked is because some of the more reasonable people at DHS were horrified by it and slipped it to the press.

[BobombETA]

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.

+1