[jsherman999]

And Obama wants to tax ammo etc. out of sight we're wackos?

Obviously, what's going on here is this: Obama wants to tax ammo so much that you won't be able to afford target practice, so that it will be easier for the army of gay commies to invade your compounds to steal your children and force them into gay, mixed-race marriages. Oh, and while you're shooting wildly and inaccurately at the gay commie army, U.N black helicopters will be hovering, using giant magnets to collect your firearms, which will then be distributed to Chicago street gangs and Muslim terrorists. Gay Muslim terrorists.


.

[deadwolfbones]

So just because we exercise our right to bear arms we're wackos? And Obama wants to tax ammo etc. out of sight we're wackos?

But the other side feels it's ok to murder the unborn ala partial birth abortions we're wackos?

Well thank you for the compliment. Just don't ask me to pull my gun to defend you. But you know I will.

Nowhere does it say that. You're inferring it because it's what you want to hear.

It says that the particulars of the political and cultural climate are being used as tools to recruit members to radical "right-wing" (yes, I agree that's not a particularly useful label, but it is what it is) extremist groups a la skinhead and militia groups. It doesn't say that people who live in a house in the suburbs and go to their 9-5 jobs and happen to own a gun and vote Republican are radical extremists. That's your reading.

The concept of it. They way it was done. It is written as a Big Brother political tool.

Again, that's the reading (inference) you're taking from it. The report as it's written is an assessment of the current landscape of potential extremist activity in one broadly defined political subgroup, just as the assessments of left-wing cyberterrorism that came out in February were. If an objective assessment has to be neutered to avoid hurting the feelings of those who are looking to have their feelings hurt, that's just the type of political correctness that conservatives have been decrying for decades. Or, as a senator put it more eloquently:

The report has turned into a "political football," Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., said. Harman, who chairs a House subcommittee on intelligence and information sharing, said the report could have been written more artfully, but "it was a well-intended effort to describe to law enforcement what things to look for."

Harman said, "If the result is to dumb down intelligence products that could prevent the next attack to the homeland, we will all lose."

[Blue]

. . What has Finland gotta do with the invasion of France? England and France were already at war with Germany when the Soviets invaded Finland.

What are you, in third grade?

Finland is something people leave out of WWII history. People seem to not be aware of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between the USSR & 3rd Reich. The fact is, the French and English were slow to send help to Finland. Britain declared war due to the Poland invasion but hadn't been pushed into the sea at Dunkirk yet.

You really do need to review your history. Start with Finland and the Winter War which they fought alone.

As far as 3rd grade, is that to high a grade level for you?

[Blue]

Again, that's the reading (inference) you're taking from it. The report as it's written is an assessment of the current landscape of potential extremist activity in one broadly defined political subgroup, just as the assessments of left-wing cyberterrorism that came out in February were. If an objective assessment has to be neutered to avoid hurting the feelings of those who are looking to have their feelings hurt, that's just the type of political correctness that conservatives have been decrying for decades. Or, as a senator put it more eloquently:

That's inference on the part of the analysts and likely subjective as hell. I'm not arguing the left right thing, I'm talking about a potential for problems originating from the government. I expressed concerns with Bush's unPatriot act as well. However, there are way too many left-wing nuts in places at the moment that sympathize with the likes of Ayers and W. Churchill.

If the "Summary" of either mentioned specific problems, It may be a different story. However, they failed to mention organizations like the KKK, Black Panthers, ELF, ALF etc..

What both reports do is spread paranoia. As far as the cyber shit goes, well duh. Counter measures should be standard procedure.

[Blue]

Obviously, what's going on here is this: Obama wants to tax ammo so much that you won't be able to afford target practice, so that it will be easier for the army of gay commies to invade your compounds to steal your children and force them into gay, mixed-race marriages. Oh, and while you're shooting wildly and inaccurately at the gay commie army, U.N black helicopters will be hovering, using giant magnets to collect your firearms, which will then be distributed to Chicago street gangs and Muslim terrorists. Gay Muslim terrorists.


.

You will already be converted to soylent green so it won't matter.

helicopters will be hovering, using giant magnets to collect your firearms,

I have that covered with a Bear Done Deal.

[monochrome]

<rant>

OK - this is really getting out of hand. This is why some members want to ban political threads.

There is NOTHING wrong with the report itself, nor with the report done last fall on Earth First and other anarchist groups, assuming the facts as reported are correct.

The issue is with the media suppression of the first report, media coverage of this report (uneven coverage raises questions of bias and intent, not proof) and the unfortunate decision to use charged words such as "right wing extremist groups" instead of actually naming the groups.

The American Nazi Party is having its annual convention this weekend in St. Louis )our Convention Center is desperate for business). Our local media is reporting on the Police preparation for crowd management, the heads of protest groups have been interviewed, everyone has agreed to be civil and peaceful and keep thier distance -- right-wing and left-wing have never been mentioned.

No one is projecting that handguns will be banned in St. Louis and ammo taxed into oblivion (they'll actually sell MORE ammo if they raise the tax - and get more tax, too - because people will be afraid it is going away).

Stop and think - deal with reality. No one here is going to lose any freedoms. No one here is going to stop me from exercising my rights.

This whole thread is unnecessary.

</rant>

[jsherman999]

<rant>

OK - this is really getting out of hand. This is why some members want to ban political threads.

There is NOTHING wrong with the report itself, nor with the report done last fall on Earth First and other anarchist groups, assuming the facts as reported are correct.

The issue is with the media suppression of the first report, media coverage of this report (uneven coverage raises questions of bias and intent, not proof) and the unfortunate decision to use charged words such as "right wing extremist groups" instead of actually naming the groups.

The American Nazi Party is having its annual convention this weekend in St. Louis )our Convention Center is desperate for business). Our local media is reporting on the Police preparation for crowd management, the heads of protest groups have been interviewed, everyone has agreed to be civil and peaceful and keep thier distance -- right-wing and left-wing have never been mentioned.

No one is projecting that handguns will be banned in St. Louis and ammo taxed into oblivion (they'll actually sell MORE ammo if they raise the tax - and get more tax, too - because people will be afraid it is going away).

Stop and think - deal with reality. No one here is going to lose any freedoms. No one here is going to stop me from exercising my rights.

This whole thread is unnecessary.

</rant>

Great post.

Also, just when I thought we could write off Republicans for the next couple cycles, they go and grow a brain - it's a small, walnut-sized dinosaur brain at this point, but ... ---> Who woulda thunk.

Money quote:

Politically, he will say that becoming more open and accepting is critical to reversing an alarming trend for Republicans — a shrinking coalition. He will note that Republicans should be especially concerned that McCain got crushed by Barack Obama among voters under 30, who are generally more accepting of gay couples and at odds with the GOP.


...snip...

In his speech Friday, Schmidt will acknowledge that his is a "minority view" in the GOP, but will also say, "I'm confident American public opinion will continue to move on the question toward majority support, and sooner or later the Republican Party will catch up to it."

.

You made a mistake there - you meant to say:

CNN sucks.


.

You're right CNN sucks

Great post.

Also, just when I thought we could write off Republicans for the next couple cycles, they go and grow a brain - it's a small, walnut-sized dinosaur brain at this point, but ... ---> Who woulda thunk.

.

Typical liberal crapulus

<rant>

OK - this is really getting out of hand. This is why some members want to ban political threads.

There is NOTHING wrong with the report itself, nor with the report done last fall on Earth First and other anarchist groups, assuming the facts as reported are correct.

The issue is with the media suppression of the first report, media coverage of this report (uneven coverage raises questions of bias and intent, not proof) and the unfortunate decision to use charged words such as "right wing extremist groups" instead of actually naming the groups.

The American Nazi Party is having its annual convention this weekend in St. Louis )our Convention Center is desperate for business). Our local media is reporting on the Police preparation for crowd management, the heads of protest groups have been interviewed, everyone has agreed to be civil and peaceful and keep thier distance -- right-wing and left-wing have never been mentioned.

No one is projecting that handguns will be banned in St. Louis and ammo taxed into oblivion (they'll actually sell MORE ammo if they raise the tax - and get more tax, too - because people will be afraid it is going away).

Stop and think - deal with reality. No one here is going to lose any freedoms. No one here is going to stop me from exercising my rights.

This whole thread is unnecessary.

</rant>

Actually there is EVERYTHING wrong with the report. And I eal with reality. That, after all is all there is.

Orwell was off a few years but he WAS right.

[deadwolfbones]

That's inference on the part of the analysts and likely subjective as hell.

It's their job to draw conclusions on the probability of the formation of extremist groups from the objective data. That's what these DHS analysts do when they make assessments. What would you have them do?

Drawing conclusions is an inherently subjective process, but in this case it's a consensus opinion, which is as close as you can get to objectivity with these things.

I agree that the media coverage is less than optimal--neither of these reports should be put in the public eye, in my opinion--but of course it's the voices on the far right who are throwing up the most fuss and making it the media circus that it is. Because it's the kind of attention they want.

[Blue]

It's their job to draw conclusions on the probability of the formation of extremist groups from the objective data. That's what these DHS analysts do when they make assessments. What would you have them do?

Drawing conclusions is an inherently subjective process, but in this case it's a consensus opinion, which is as close as you can get to objectivity with these things.

I agree that the media coverage is less than optimal--neither of these reports should be put in the public eye, in my opinion--but of course it's the voices on the far right who are throwing up the most fuss and making it the media circus that it is. Because it's the kind of attention they want.

A consensus of who and how many? It is still opinion and they are creating a broad profiling standard that will be applied by whom?

Therein lies the problem. I agree that certain National Security measures need to be classified. However, this is to much like a SS thing or KGB thing and that is trampling all over the Constitution.

Just think, if you have a green peace bumper sticker or a Ron Paul bumper sticker, you could be pigeon holed by some police group as a left-wingnut or right-wingnut. I wonder if the computer would melt down if you had a Sierra Club sticker and an NRA sticker!

A consensus of who and how many? It is still opinion and they are creating a broad profiling standard that will be applied by whom?

Therein lies the problem. I agree that certain National Security measures need to be classified. However, this is to much like a SS thing or KGB thing and that is trampling all over the Constitution.

Just think, if you have a green peace bumper sticker or a Ron Paul bumper sticker, you could be pigeon holed by some police group as a left-wingnut or right-wingnut. I wonder if the computer would melt down if you had a Sierra Club sticker and an NRA sticker!

Blue, is it ok to profile Right wingers but wrong to profile arabian looking people who might actually be planning man made disasters?

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano apologized to veterans after a report issued by her department said troops returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were at risk for being recruited by right-wing extremists.

"To the extent veterans read it as an accusation ... an apology is owed," she said during an on-air interview on FOX News Thursday, a day after veterans' groups and members of Congress blasted her for the report, which they said libeled members of the armed forces.

"This was an assessment, not an accusation," Napolitano continued. "It was limited to extremists those who seek to commit violence within the United States. And all this was meant to do was to give law enforcement what we call 'situational awareness.'"

"The last thing I want to do is offend or castigate all veterans. To the contrary, let's meet and clear the air," she said.

A footnote in the report, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," said that while there is no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are planning acts of violence, such acts could come from unnamed "rightwing extremists" concerned about illegal immigration, abortion, increasing federal power and restrictions on firearms -- and singled out returning war veterans as susceptible to recruitment.

"If there's one part of this report that I would rewrite ... it would be that footnote," Napolitano said.

American Legion National Commander David Rehbein, who blasted the report earlier this week as incomplete and politically-biased, said he was pleased with Napolitano's apology.

"I am glad that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has apologized for the language used in the report about 'Rightwing Extremism,'" Rehbein said in a statement obtained by FOXNews.com. "I look forward to meeting with her next Friday, putting this behind us and discussing critical issues involving Homeland Security and The American Legion."

At least one veterans group, however, wasn't moved by Napolitano's mea culpa.

"It wasn't an apology in my view," said Pete Hegseth, chairman of Vets for Freedom. "It was one of those non-apology apologies. She was sorry that veterans were offended. She should either apologize for the content of the report as it stands or they should rewrite the report and reissue it."

Hegseth, an Army veteran who served in Iraq, said the report represents a "gross misunderstanding and oversimplification" of the country's service members. He did not call for Napolitano's ouster, but said he would accept her resignation.

"If she volunteered to step down, that'd be very honorable of her," Hegseth said. "It would be a recognition of what she did."

Napolitano defended the report Wednesday, saying it is part of an ongoing series of assessments to provide information to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies on "violent radicalization" in the United States.

"Let me be clear: we monitor the risks of violent extremism taking root here in the United States," Napolitano said in a statement. "We don't have the luxury of focusing our efforts on one group; we must protect the country from terrorism whether foreign or homegrown, and regardless of the ideology that motivates its violence."

But the unclassified report, which was produced by DHS' Office of Intelligence and Analysis also cited the case of Timothy McVeigh, a decorated Gulf War veteran who was executed in 2001 after being convicted of killing 168 people during the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995.

"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," the report reads.

Rehbein criticized the report in a letter sent to Napolitano on Monday.

"The American Legion is well aware and horrified at the pain inflicted during the Oklahoma City bombing, but Timothy McVeigh was only one of more than 42 million veterans who have worn this nation's uniform during wartime," Rehbein wrote. "To continue to use McVeigh as an example of the stereotypical 'disgruntled military veteran' is unfair as using Osama bin Laden as the sole example of Islam."

Hegseth said he found it "amazing they would single out veterans as a threat to this country. It underscores a pervasive belief that some are trying to spread that veterans are victims and we're coming home as damaged goods that need to be coddled instead of celebrated."

Napolitano acknowledged Rehbein's letter on Wednesday and said she plans to meet with him sometime next week. But she told FOX News that the report's reference to the Oklahoma City bombing "rang true" to her.

"Unfortunately [McVeigh] was a vet, that's where he got his training and so when I was told about the report, it rang true with me, this has happened in the past," Napolitano told FOX News. "That is a far cry, however, from saying veterans somehow are at risk."

Hegseth said he was also troubled by the report's assertion that returning veterans who face "significant challenges reintegrating into their communities" could be easy targets for extremist groups seeking new members.

"If anything, veterans have an allegiance to this country greater than the average citizen," he said. "Veterans have learned where their allegiances lie and are less prone to extremism. Something's wrong with the editing process or [DHS officials] just don't understand veterans. The report demonstrates a true lack of understanding of who veterans are."

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, also criticized the report, saying its portrayal of veterans was "offensive and unacceptable."

The report follows a similar DHS assessment released in January that detailed left-wing threats, focusing on cyberattacks and radical "eco-terrorist" groups like Earth Liberation Front, accused of firebombing construction sites, logging companies, car dealerships and food science labs. The report noted that left-wing extremists prefer economic damage to get their message across.

"Their leftwing assessment identifies actual terrorist organizations, like the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front," House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said in a statement issued Wednesday. "The rightwing report uses broad generalizations about veterans, pro-life groups, federalists and supporters of gun rights. That's like saying if you love puppies, you might be susceptible to recruitment by the Animal Liberation Front. It is ridiculous and deeply offensive to millions of Americans

Janet Napolitano Refuses to Use the Term “Terrorist”
2009 March 22
tags: Janet Napolitanoby Mr Pink Eyes During an interview that Janet Napolitano, Obama’s Homeland Security Secretary, did last week she was asked why she did not use the word “terrorism” while addressing congress for the first time. This was her answer:

In my speech, although I did not use the word “terrorism,” I referred to “man-caused” disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

Terrorism is just such a dirty word, it makes those who commit man-caused disasters seem like such bad people. When you call someone a terrorist you are using the politics of fear, the term man caused disaster doesn’t make the terrorists, or the acts they commit, sound as bad. It diminishes the act of the terrorist. And besides calling someone a terrorist might make them mad and we need to fight a kinder, gentler war on man caused disasters. This is life under President Obama, we have people in the Homeland Security Department that can’t even call the enemy what and who they really are. Besides the president has some friends that have ties to man caused disasters in their past, and we wouldn’t want to offend the president’s friends.

But this brings up another issue that I have on this issue. When I hear reporters and politicians on television refer to September 11th as a tragedy or a disaster it aggravates the hell out of me. September 11th was neither of those terms, it was an ATTACK! We do not call the attack on Pearl Harbor the “tragedy” or the “disaster” of Pearl Harbor and September 11th was no different.

The term disaster that Janet Napolitano wants to use isn’t even the right term.

We have people in our own government, in Homeland Security, who don’t want to call the terrorists what they are because that would be using the politics of fear. By using the term man caused disasters we are shifting the focus away from the person who committed the act and more towards the end result. We are dehumanizing the act of terrorism by making it sound like it is just another disaster.

Janet Napolitano may think that the shift from the term “terrorism” to the term “man caused disaster” is just nuance but it goes much deeper than that. It shows a weakness and an unwillingness to confront the enemy. If people in Homeland Security are too afraid to accurately describe the enemy because it sounds too bad how can we trust them?