PDA

View Full Version : DHS targeting 'right-wing' and returning veterans!



KSigMason
04-13-2009, 01:25 AM
I was perusing the news and found this little article.


Homeland Security on guard for 'right-wing extremists'
Returning U.S. military veterans singled out as particular threats

WASHINGTON – A newly unclassified Department of Homeland Security report warns against the possibility of violence by unnamed "right-wing extremists" concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty and singles out returning war veterans as particular threats.

Rest of Article (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94803)
The report seems like a big fear mongering by the DHS.

Here are some exerts of the report (http://images.logicsix.com/DHS_RWE.pdf) that pissed me off:


(U//FOUO) The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.


(U) Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.


(U//FOUO) Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement.
This would include my entire family and most of my hometown who have been saving up ammo. People are scared of the prices skyrocketing or the supplies depleting.


(U//FOUO) Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.
So out of the fear of the .gov Veterans are going to have their rights restricted?! The .gov expects us to give our life to our country, but when we return they take away our rights because of some fear of a radical movement? This leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

VWkid06
04-13-2009, 09:47 AM
i love the free use of the term right wing extremist. you'd get the impression that anyone who serves in the military or wons a gun is an extremist.:rolleyes:

ReaganForRus
04-13-2009, 10:27 AM
This is about control. Notice that the DHS uses broad descriptions of individuals and of movements of unknown organizations to label them as malcontents and dangers. Never mind the 89 known gangs in over 200 American cities that are already conducting illegal criminal activities, from kidnapping to slavery to drug trafficking. How about enforcing current laws already on the books?

No, they want to create an entirely new boogie man, the American citizen. They want a compliant mass that won't hold them accountable for their collective actions......Pass a bailout bill that no one member of Congress read or understood?...No problem!, it's the American citizen's problem!

Tea parties?....No problem!.......what are they going to do after April 15th?, call talk radio?....Na, they won't march on D.C.. 2010 elections? No problem! 98% of us are re-elected as long as we bring home the pork!

The way we nip this is in the bud is to tell our elected officials that this DHS trial balloon isn't going to cut it and that we are engaged, we are focused and that we are coming to take our country back.

FlaGator
04-13-2009, 10:29 AM
Why are they almost always " unnamed right-wing extremists"?

megimoo
04-13-2009, 11:46 AM
I was perusing the news and found this little article.


The report seems like a big fear mongering by the DHS.

Here are some exerts of the report (http://images.logicsix.com/DHS_RWE.pdf) that pissed me off:






This would include my entire family and most of my hometown who have been saving up ammo. People are scared of the prices skyrocketing or the supplies depleting.


So out of the fear of the .gov Veterans are going to have their rights restricted?! The .gov expects us to give our life to our country, but when we return they take away our rights because of some fear of a radical movement? This leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
They seem to expect an right wing uprising and are getting prepared for it.They don't trust the American troops and never have.

They will use a posse of ACORN types tied in with BATF, DEA And DHS to round up the trouble makers on the nets using Koss and Media Matters to demonize them first.

The Freepers then other conservative sites and finally shut them all down using the FCC on some fraudulent pretense.They have already had Koss sic ACORN types on the Tea Party's to disrupt them .You can see the pattern as it develops !

noonwitch
04-13-2009, 04:11 PM
Why are they almost always " unnamed right-wing extremists"?


Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were right-wing extremists, so the media feels free to paint all people on the right with the same brush, while ignoring the radical animal rights' activists that are currently issuing death threats to dog breeders and the vice president.


Lunatics with guns and/or explosives are always a threat, it doesn't matter what their political views are when it comes to deciding what type of threat they pose to the general public.

lacarnut
04-13-2009, 04:41 PM
What bothers me is that some of the returning Vets will have their medical benefits cut and disability benefits cut. I know it is coming because every sorry ass piece of shit Democratic Prez has done it since Jimmy Carter. Obama is no different; he will reduce the size of the military and reduce funds spent on new weapons so that he can funnel it to the lazy. Pisslosi stated a couple of years ago that Vets made enough money and did not need a cost of living raise. Many Democrats in Congress are anti-military.

Targeting returning Vets as a threat is just a smokescreen to disarm Americans of their 2ND amendment rights. That is what the loons on the left want and has absolutly nothing to do with Vets.

tacitus
04-13-2009, 04:44 PM
i love the free use of the term right wing extremist. you'd get the impression that anyone who serves in the military or wons a gun is an extremist.:rolleyes:

According to the socialists we are all insane, esp those with a Bible or a gun. If they had their way, we would all be exterminated.

MrsSmith
04-13-2009, 09:39 PM
Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were right-wing extremists, so the media feels free to paint all people on the right with the same brush, while ignoring the radical animal rights' activists that are currently issuing death threats to dog breeders and the vice president.


Lunatics with guns and/or explosives are always a threat, it doesn't matter what their political views are when it comes to deciding what type of threat they pose to the general public.

Left wing extremists, like ELF and PETA, have done billions of dollars worth of damage, burned housing developments and vehicles, threatened all kinds of animal breeders and research scientists, and killed people both directly and indirectly...yet they worry more about "right wing extremists" due to 2 guys than the madmen of their own party. :mad:

FlaGator
04-13-2009, 10:01 PM
According to the socialists we are all insane, esp those with a Bible or a gun. If they had their way, we would all be exterminated.

What about those of us with both Bibles and guns? I guess we are just completely around the bend.

tacitus
04-13-2009, 10:07 PM
What about those of us with both Bibles and guns? I guess we are just completely around the bend.

I guess WE are!:D

Dan D. Doty
04-13-2009, 10:40 PM
The Dark Storm is here.

marinejcksn
04-13-2009, 10:53 PM
Wait...so because I served my country in Iraq twice and enjoy my individual Liberty and Freedom, I'm a terrorist now? That's news to me....all this time I thought I was just a Patriotic Libertarian. Who knew? :rolleyes:

megimoo
04-13-2009, 11:28 PM
Wait...so because I served my country in Iraq twice and enjoy my individual Liberty and Freedom, I'm a terrorist now? That's news to me....all this time I thought I was just a Patriotic Libertarian. Who knew? :rolleyes:
"Patriotic Libertarian."...The very worst kind !

AlmostThere
04-14-2009, 01:06 AM
Lunatics with guns and/or explosives are always a threat, it doesn't matter what their political views are when it comes to deciding what type of threat they pose to the general public.

Dear Lady,
A lunatic with a pen or worse, a vote, is a greater threat by far.

noonwitch
04-14-2009, 09:15 AM
Dear Lady,
A lunatic with a pen or worse, a vote, is a greater threat by far.


I have no problem with law abiding, sane people having guns. I don't want dangeously crazy people to have them, that's all. It's not the gun owners who post here that are a threat, it's the lunatics who want to kill all their enemies, real and imagined, that the government needs to keep guns away from-the Hinckleys and Chapmans of the world, or the spree killers we seem to have popping up, every so often.

Lunatics are found on both extremes, left and right. The government would be not just wrong, but negligent to look only at the threat from the loons on one side.

Odysseus
04-14-2009, 10:44 AM
i love the free use of the term right wing extremist. you'd get the impression that anyone who serves in the military or wons a gun is an extremist.:rolleyes:
To this administration, we are.

Why are they almost always " unnamed right-wing extremists"?
Because the vast majority of them don't exist, hence no names.

They seem to expect an right wing uprising and are getting prepared for it.They don't trust the American troops and never have.

They will use a posse of ACORN types tied in with BATF, DEA And DHS to round up the trouble makers on the nets using Koss and Media Matters to demonize them first.

The Freepers then other conservative sites and finally shut them all down using the FCC on some fraudulent pretense.They have already had Koss sic ACORN types on the Tea Party's to disrupt them .You can see the pattern as it develops !
They don't expect a "right wing uprising," they're concocting one. The Fairness Doctrine is a non-starter even among Democrats, but a crackdown on "hate speech" based on a fictitious threat just might pass the smell test for enough of them to provide a workable scenario for censorship of talk radio and gun grabs. As Rahm Emmanuel pointed out, you never want to waste a crisis, and if you don't have one handy, you can always create one.

AlmostThere
04-14-2009, 12:16 PM
The Fairness Doctrine is a non-starter even among Democrats, but a crackdown on "hate speech" based on a fictitious threat just might pass the smell test for enough of them to provide a workable scenario for censorship of talk radio and gun grabs.

How clever; using an intentional violation of the 1st Amendment to construct an intentional violation of the 2nd Amendment. Call me crazy, but sometimes it seems like this administration is actually trying to provoke a confrontation. Perhaps its just ignorant arrogance, but the result will likely be just as devastating.

Teetop
04-14-2009, 02:35 PM
The Constitution Is A Subversive Manifesto Per DHS (http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/04/constitution-is-subversive-manifesto.html)


Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

:eek:

hazlnut
04-14-2009, 04:21 PM
I was perusing the news and found this little article.

People please, let's keep our heads here. The 'news' our friend was perusing was World Net Dailey.

When reading WND, one must compensate for the ultra-high Spin cycle.

I clicked on the DHS report, read some of it, and will respectfully disagree with your statement:


The report seems like a big fear mongering by the DHS.

To me, the report reads like a general survey of activities by many different groups. I do think it's unfair that they are all always labeled 'right-wing'. Why not just call them 'anti-government' or 'paramilitary' groups? I think that's a better description of what these groups are about anyways. The DHS is doing their job, keeping tabs on groups and their recruiting, etc.

As far as the excerpts that bothered you. I understand where you're coming from. The lines you quoted do read like the DHS is pointing an accusing finger and making suggestions about things that people may do. But in the context of the entire report, these are just a few of the many issues and areas of concern--quite of few of which, most people would agree should be monitored.


So out of the fear of the .gov Veterans are going to have their rights restricted?! The .gov expects us to give our life to our country, but when we return they take away our rights because of some fear of a radical movement? This leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

It's not about 'restricting' anyone's rights--at least that's not how I read it. The DHS just wants to keep tabs on recruiting and the likelihood of young, out-of-work veterans being targeted. They very realistically acknowledge the difficulties veterans face when returning home.

IMO

hazlnut
04-14-2009, 04:27 PM
The Constitution Is A Subversive Manifesto Per DHS (http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/04/constitution-is-subversive-manifesto.html)



:eek:

That is definitely a poorly worded section of the report.

However, I still think they're just trying to keep people safe--and these Internet blogs and WND are reading into it something that's not there.

Rebel Yell
04-14-2009, 04:28 PM
People please, let's keep our heads here. The 'news' our friend was perusing was World Net Dailey.

When reading WND, one must compensate for the ultra-high Spin cycle.



Does reuters count as "news"?

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE53D5SH20090414?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

hazlnut
04-14-2009, 05:33 PM
Does reuters count as "news"?

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE53D5SH20090414?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

I see your point. Both stories use an 'eye-catcher' headline.

But in fairness to the Reuters story, the writer does a better job of objectively paraphrasing the entire report:


DHS had no specific information about pending violence and said threats had so far been "largely rhetorical."

But it warned that home foreclosures, unemployment and other consequences of the economic recession "could create a fertile recruiting environment for right-wing extremists."

While the WND goes for more spin, highlighting specific aspects of the report that appear to target conservatives in general and implying that the government is coming after your guns.

There are some aspects of the DHS report that I think are poorly worded and overreaching, but in the interest of keeping people safe, the more info out there for law enforcement the better. Hopefully, not too many people with Ron Paul bumper stickers will get pulled over because of this report.

Odysseus
04-14-2009, 08:19 PM
That is definitely a poorly worded section of the report.

However, I still think they're just trying to keep people safe--and these Internet blogs and WND are reading into it something that's not there.
Let's take this to its logical conclusion. What would have happened it DHS had made the same claims about male Moslems? Can you imagine the screeching hysteria that would result in such blatantly politically incorrect profiling? Why is it okay to stereotype political conservatives who have never been inclined to violence as potential terrorists, but not male Moslems between the ages of 16 and 40, who have a real and historically documented propensity for it?

Does reuters count as "news"?
It depends on how much time their Photoshop guy has on his hands that day. :D

MrsSmith
04-14-2009, 11:20 PM
I see your point. Both stories use an 'eye-catcher' headline.

But in fairness to the Reuters story, the writer does a better job of objectively paraphrasing the entire report:



While the WND goes for more spin, highlighting specific aspects of the report that appear to target conservatives in general and implying that the government is coming after your guns.

There are some aspects of the DHS report that I think are poorly worded and overreaching, but in the interest of keeping people safe, the more info out there for law enforcement the better. Hopefully, not too many people with Ron Paul bumper stickers will get pulled over because of this report.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/14/extremism.report/index.html%3fsection=cnn_latest

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090414/us_nm/us_usa_security_extremists_3

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/14/homeland-security-warns-rise-right-wing-extremism

http:////blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/04/report-warns-of-rise-of-rightwing-extremists-.html%3fcsp=34

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21243.html

A new Department of Homeland Security report is warning law enforcement officials of a growing threat of “right-wing extremist groups.”

The report explains that threats so far have been “largely rhetorical,” but points to the April 4 shooting of three police officers in Pittsburgh as a “recent example of potential violence associated with right-wing extremism.”

Throughout the document comparisons are made to the 1990s, a period when the country was rocked by several acts of domestic terrorism including the 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City.

“Paralleling the current national climate, right-wing extremists during the 1990s exploited a variety of social issues and political themes to increase group visibility and recruit new members,” the report reads. “During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the number of domestic right-wing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors.


http://news.therecord.com/article/520496

One of the most popular white supremacist websites got more than 2,000 new members the day after the election, compared with 91 new members on Election Day, by an Associated Press count. The site, stormfront.org, was temporarily off-line Nov. 5 because of the overwhelming amount of activity it received after Election Day.


http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=afxnews&articleid=7269292&subject=economic&action=article


Yep, that WorldNetDaily...they never have accurate news. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

PoliCon
04-14-2009, 11:37 PM
You have to laugh at the way they look at idiots like the guy who shot the cops here in Pittsburgh and try to make it seem like he is representative of conservatives. :rolleyes:

PoliCon
04-14-2009, 11:38 PM
Let's take this to its logical conclusion. What would have happened it DHS had made the same claims about male Moslems? Can you imagine the screeching hysteria that would result in such blatantly politically incorrect profiling? Why is it okay to stereotype political conservatives who have never been inclined to violence as potential terrorists, but not male Moslems between the ages of 16 and 40, who have a real and historically documented propensity for it?
Yes but the difference is there are hundreds if not THOUSANDS of examples of islamic terrorists - and what? 1 example of a "conservative" terrorist? Lets try to keep things in perspective here man! OBVIOUSLY we need to profile conservatives!:rolleyes:

hazlnut
04-15-2009, 11:56 AM
Yep, that WorldNetDaily...they never have accurate news. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

You miss the point. It's not about accuracy. Look at the way the WND words its report compare to the others. Like I pointed out in an earlier post--the mainstream reporting looked at the report in its entirety and not just the most potentially offensive portions.

Also, I caught a follow up story on this on the way out the door this morning--it seems that DHS did publish a similar report on left-wing extremists back in Jan.

And--- both of these reports were generated and compiled under the previous administration.

The notion that this report was leaked just before the "Tea Parties" may hold a little water if the original leak was deliberate. However, given the response, it seems like the report was leaked by someone who didn't feel vets were being treated fairly.

raiderguy8
04-16-2009, 02:01 PM
Let me see if I have this straight. Calling a soldier phony is a major issue that is all over the news for weeks but it is perfectly acceptable to say that returning veterans pose a risk to become a right-wing extremist? One more example of how their is no bias in the reporting of news, right?

Odysseus
04-16-2009, 04:01 PM
Yes but the difference is there are hundreds if not THOUSANDS of examples of islamic terrorists - and what? 1 example of a "conservative" terrorist? Lets try to keep things in perspective here man! OBVIOUSLY we need to profile conservatives!:rolleyes:
From the perspective of people trying to undermine and subvert our consitutional order, the conservatives are more of a danger than the Islamists.

You miss the point. It's not about accuracy. Look at the way the WND words its report compare to the others. Like I pointed out in an earlier post--the mainstream reporting looked at the report in its entirety and not just the most potentially offensive portions.
Right. Cherry-picking potentially offensive portions of a government document is something that the MSM would never do. :rolleyes:

Let me see if I have this straight. Calling a soldier phony is a major issue that is all over the news for weeks but it is perfectly acceptable to say that returning veterans pose a risk to become a right-wing extremist? One more example of how their is no bias in the reporting of news, right?
Now, now, the Rush Limbaugh/phony soldier story disappeared right after Rush auctioned off the congressional letter to Clear Channel on E-Bay, matched the funds and donated several million dollars to charity. :rolleyes: