U.S. military veterans "right-wing extremists"

[Zed]

Found this link on a WSJ site today. I'm not familiar with prisonplanet.com, what do you think...

"Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, April 13, 2009

A Department of Homeland Security intelligence assessment equates gun owners with violent terrorists and states that radical extremists are “stockpiling” weapons in fear of an Obama administration gun ban.

This newly uncovered document is just the latest in a long sordid line of training manuals in which the federal government characterizes millions of American citizens as potentially violent terrorists who are a threat to law enforcement."

Article link (http://www.prisonplanet.com/secret-homeland-security-threat-assessment-labels-gun-owners-potential-terrorists.html)

Document link (http://infowars.com/media/rightwing-dhs.pdf)

Steve ..

[d90king]

I think that there is to much bias from the source to be credible. There are others sites as well that contain small amounts of fact wrapped around large amounts of speculation.

There has been a big change in our government for more than a decade but not to the level some would like you to believe.

All just my thoughts, others might disagree.

[d90king]

This document appears to be gaining traction......... Drudge and others have picked up on it. I will try to find a link from a "news" source....

[Mannlicher]

Prison Planet is not a source that I feel is worth looking at. The owner is somewhat of a 'crank'.

In this case though, its pretty obvious that the DHS is looking to create a mechanism for depriving soldiers, and others of their right to keep and bear arms.

Washington Times had a great article on this today, but the best view was on Michelle Malkin's blog.

[Zed]

I see The Washington Times has picked up on it. Don't know if that's much better than Prison Planet, at least I've heard of the Times...

Washington Times link (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/14/federal-agency-warns-of-radicals-on-right/)

Ahhh... Good timing Mannlicher, I'll check out Malkin's blog.

[BluegrazzGuy]

Here's a link to the actual Homeland Security Department document. Appears legit to me. Sad that simply believing in the Constitution and the Second Amendment makes us right wing extremists who need to be monitored.

http://wnd.com/images/dhs-rightwing-extremism.pdf

[kenhwind]

Thats one of the problems with the net, is that info good and bad can be spread at hyper speed.
I used to visit Townhall.com and I'm going back. You can trust Michele Malkin the lady is good, very good.

[Rich-D]

I am not so sure that all the criticism is warranted. When we speak of Islamic Terrorists, should all the people of the muslim world feel singled out. Or White Supremest, should all caucasians think that the finger is pointing at them. The report is referring to radicals, whose intent it is to overthrow or defy the government by violence.

It's not me, and most likely not anyone in here that the report is focused on!

Rich

[dogdollar]

So...whackos are stockpiling ammo and guns.
This kind of worries me. because I am, too.
DD

[Rich-D]

DD, I'll back you on that notion! :)


Rich

[Rich-D]

Oh! BTW: HAPPY BIRTHDAY Dogdollar!http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc267/Rich-D345/13_10_11.gif


Richhttp://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc267/Rich-D345/applause.gif

[dogdollar]

Rich,
I often wonder what it is I have done to deserve such a fine friend.
Thank you.........
DD

[OD*]

It appears our King fears the peasants
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94803

[Carole-K]

I'm not sure that it is a case of the king (Obama) fearing the peasants as it is a case of an idiot with too much perceived power acting like a paranoid lunatic.

From other reports the White House is trying to distance itself from this DHS report.

I found this:

The report from DHS' Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines right-wing extremism in the U.S. as "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 anti-government, 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."

very amusing. It is amazing that the same liberals who decry the idea of racial profiling are coming up with the idea that opposing even one of their liberal platforms can brand one an "extremist" of any kind.

Though I have to admit that my first response on reading your post OD* was, "He should." I believe that the ability to stand against a totalitarian regime that refused to represent, support and defend the rights of all of the people subject to that government was exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they drafted the Constitution.

I'm pretty sure they'd be appalled at the idea of a system of government here in the United States that has grown to such an extent that the ideas of individual liberty and states' rights are sacrificed regularly.

Maybe they should all, Democrat and Republican alike, be afraid.

[d90king]

In Missouri, if you have a Gadsden flag (don't tread on me) you "could" be an extremist. Gotta love some of this stuff coming from our government.

[d90king]

Sad that simply believing in the Constitution and the Second Amendment makes us right wing extremists who need to be monitored.

It's not just sad, it is WRONG! Our forefathers are rolling in their graves......

[d90king]

You can trust Michele Malkin the lady is good, very good

She is a pretty straight shooter. She can get a little hyper, but most of the time it is for good reason......

[d90king]

So...whackos are stockpiling ammo and guns.
This kind of worries me. because I am, too.


So am I, I guess I am a nut too. :confused:

[Carole-K]

I wonder what they think of all of the Confederate battle ensigns (otherwise known as the "Rebel Flag") that are nearly ubiquitous here in Dixie? I guess all of us in the Southern states must be right wing extremists.

We've already had one incident here in our small town where someone tying a Rebel Flag to a post outside of a predominantly black church was called a "hate crime." Now bear in mind that the only possible crime involved was criminal trespass - nothing was vandalized, damaged or stolen. Just a flag tied to a pole. And they wanted to call it a hate crime. Even called the FBI and asked them to investigate.

So yeah - if that's a hate crime I guess that makes all of us extremists.

Never underestimate the power of stupidity.

[Carole-K]

I am not so sure that all the criticism is warranted. When we speak of Islamic Terrorists, should all the people of the muslim world feel singled out. Or White Supremest, should all caucasians think that the finger is pointing at them. The report is referring to radicals, whose intent it is to overthrow or defy the government by violence.

It's not me, and most likely not anyone in here that the report is focused on!


Rich,

I think the problem is not with the idea that there are certain individuals or groups that may be identified as being dangerous, but rather with the very loose wording involved in describing who might be part of those groups.

For instance earlier I quoted from the article a passage that includes this sentence:

It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

Notice how this sentence claims that groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue. Such loose language could end up meaning any group that has an agenda that differs from the current liberal stance of the Democratic party.

With such an ambiguous definition it could mean that anyone who is a member of the NRA is deemed as being "dedicated to a single issue" and thus a possible extremist.

Now if you look at Tom and I, well clearly we must be right-wing extremists. We're:
* Pro-2nd Amendment and members of the NRA
* Pro-Life (and Catholic, to boot)
* Pro-Homeschooling (and I'm pretty outspoken about my anti-gov't schooling opinions)
* Tom is a veteran

So there we go - add up that list and we must be extremists.

Unless there's a lot of tightening up of the language as to what may indicate a so-called "right-wing extremist" then this document definitely deserves criticism.

[joffe]

Under their definition pretty much everyone capable of thinking for themselves, and even more than half of the adult population of the U.S., would be 'right wing extremists'.

Even the most left-wing liberals promoting 'home rule' in Chicago and gun bans in regions would be, given that they are much for 'local and state government in favor of federal government'. Not to mention those of us in favor of medical marijuana, which has actually provoked confrontations between feds and locals. That's an issue that crosses both party and non-party lines.

Now, suddenly, everyone is a right-wing extremist. Seems to me like they made this document solely to have some sort of excuse whenever they make illicit detentions, given that pretty much everyone can be labelled a political extremist under this.

[d90king]

I wonder what you have to do to be a LEFT wing extremist?!?!?! I can think of many LAWS that they break for their cause yet you don't see them listed.......

[d90king]

So...whackos are stockpiling ammo and guns.
This kind of worries me. because I am, too.
DD
Happy Birthday Dog... I hope you have a great day!!!!!

[Rich-D]

Carole. I respect you opinion and agree that home schooling is best for the child and parents.

However, Unless you and Tom are planning to overthrow the government or commit violence in the name of a cause. I do not believe that the bulletin pertains to you, gun owners, pro life advocates or veterans. It applies to the militant fringe groups who own guns, blow up clinic's, kill Doctor's, recruit young vets such as Timothy McVeigh and operate in a lawless and deadly manner.

When I was an LEO, I would receive bulletins that referred to bikers. I knew that it meant outlaw bikers. However, if the newspapers got hold of the bulletin, they would say that the Police were after all who rode motorcycles. That is what is occurring in this matter.

The fact that the bulletin was not drafted by a press secretary for public consumption is obvious. However, from a Law Enforcement prospective, the intent of the bulletin clearly pertains to militant fringe groups bent on defying the law by violent means.

Rich

[d90king]

I will be adding a thread shortly from a bulletin that was sent out in Missouri.......

[Mannlicher]

Rich-D However, Unless you and Tom are planning to overthrow the government or commit violence in the name of a cause. I do not believe that the bulletin pertains to you, gun owners, pro life advocates or veterans. It applies to the militant fringe groups who own guns, blow up clinic's, kill Doctor's, recruit young vets such as Timothy McVeigh and operate in a lawless and deadly manner.

What I see here in this, is that DHS is NOT really seperating the wheat from the chaff, Rich. They paint with a broad brush, using ZERO stats or facts to back it up.

The arrogance of Ms Janet N. is what we call "A teachable moment"

[OD*]

"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go around repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for independence." - Charles Austin Beard (November 27, 1874 – September 1, 1948)

Even more relevant today.

[d90king]

Very true, very true indeed.

Her response to the report was also a bit disturbing..... :mad:

[Rich-D]

Well, We must agree to disagree on some issues! Or debates may never end.

However, I suggest that the media accounts be discarded. And that the actual DHS document be read in it's entirety.

Rich

[BRSmith]

I think that this initial report is just the beginning. It will read in DC, and then further action will be taken to seperate the serious troublemakers from the others who just want a return to what the founding fathers had in mind. While I believe this site and others like it to be monitored, I don't think that anyone could realistically believe that we're out to overthrow the government.

Hope this makes some sort of sense...

[d90king]

Well, We must agree to disagree on some issues! Or debates may never end.

However, I suggest that the media accounts be discarded. And that the actual DHS document be read in it's entirety.

Rich
Good luck on reading the "actual" document, only the summary was released. I have a link to the document in the "response" thread. Tough to read but deserves the time........

Gotta love this new "transparency" in the new administration......

[Rich-D]

The 10 page Document that I was referring to was linked to in the first post.

http://infowars.com/media/rightwing-dhs.pdf


Rich

[d90king]

The 10 page Document that I was referring to was linked to in the first post.

http://infowars.com/media/rightwing-dhs.pdf


Rich
Not crazy about the Alex Jones type of sites for factual info. I didn't dig through it once I was on that site.

The thing that concerns me more is that the summary is only a overview of the actual report that "this" administration wrote that included labeling our true heroes (our soldiers) as "possible extremist". This report was supposed to go only to police and law enforcement, it was then leaked first from Missouri and now they are trying to do damage control.

According to Judge Napolatone from fox this is only a very small part of the content contained in the actual report. I believe that they will try and get access through the courts to the actual document.

[kenhwind]

Good thing my Old Man ain't around anymore. he liked to play "John Philip Sousa" on the stereo for reveille.
The Liberals would be offended for sure. Political Correctness wasn't part of Dad's vocabulary.

Gee, I was an Infantry Weapons Repairman, probably made the list, I'm sure I have good company>

"SEMPER FIDELIS"

[d90king]

Good thing my Old Man ain't around anymore. he liked to play "John Philip Sousa" on the stereo for reveille.
The Liberals would be offended for sure. Political Correctness wasn't part of Dad's vocabulary.

Gee, I was an Infantry Weapons Repairman, probably made the list, I'm sure I have good company>

"SEMPER FIDELIS"
I am sure with your resume you made "the list" like the rest of us. ;)

[Rich-D]

Well now! I am certain that you will not find me on one list!



Why? You may ask!



Because, I am on many lists!



Of course, Not deserving of the scrutiny, ;) But it's a long tangled web of intrigue!



Rich

[Frank]

There's nothing really new about this. Every age and every administration has its "boogey man." Let's not forget the "red baiting" of the '50s.

The important thing is to make this sort of nonsense public and, in a reasoned way, point out the flaws and inconsistencies in this sort of thinking.

[Old Fashioned]

I obtained a copy of the report. It is marked UNCLASSIFIED/FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY and states in a footnote that the contents of the report are not to be released to the press. It doesn't directly say that veterans are a threat but speculates that some disgruntled returning veterans may join extremist groups. It also mentions illegal immigration, the gun debates and possible restrictive gun legislation that may or may not be passed, and the economy. Speculation is made that any of these conditions may cause people to gravitate to or join far right extremist groups. It then goes on to warn about "lone wolves" and persons stockpiling arms and ammunition. The only reference made is to the Timothy McVeigh bombing. In my opinion it is very poorly written and based on sheer speculation. As a former Army Officer I can only say that if I had submitted a report like that with such a lack of factual documentation I would have so little left of my posterior end that I would still not be able to sit down.

[d90king]

I obtained a copy of the report. It is marked UNCLASSIFIED/FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY and states in a footnote that the contents of the report are not to be released to the press. It doesn't directly say that veterans are a threat but speculates that some disgruntled returning veterans may join extremist groups. It also mentions illegal immigration, the gun debates and possible restrictive gun legislation that may or may not be passed, and the economy. Speculation is made that any of these conditions may cause people to gravitate to or join far right extremist groups. It then goes on to warn about "lone wolves" and persons stockpiling arms and ammunition. The only reference made is to the Timothy McVeigh bombing. In my opinion it is very poorly written and based on sheer speculation. As a former Army Officer I can only say that if I had submitted a report like that with such a lack of factual documentation I would have so little left of my posterior end that I would still not be able to sit down.
How many pages are in the report that you obtained? My understanding is only the summary was declassified...... If your copy is 10 pages, that is just the summary released to LE.

[Old Fashioned]

This is 10 pages so it must be the summary. Makes you wonder what else there may be.

[d90king]

This is 10 pages so it must be the summary. Makes you wonder what else there may be.
Much more than is be shared by our head of DHS....

[Patriotic]

My understanding of the political spectrum is that there are two extremes, on the far Right we have Totalitarianism and on the far Left we have Anarchy. I would think extremes in either direction, Right or Left, would be considered radical, radical Left and radical Right. What is funny about the firearms issue is that the Left wants to swing to the far Right and regulate or prohibit firearm ownership. I would say it is a contradiction in political philosophy; unless they view firearm ownership by the citizenry a threat to a further Left agenda.

When I was in the military and lived in the barracks, your privately owned firearm had to be kept in the arms room. You received a receipt when you turned it in and turned over that receipt when you checked it out. The same with the weapon that was issued to you. If I remember correctly, there was never an issue about checking out your weapon to go to the firing range.

[kenhwind]

on the far Right we have Totalitarianism and on the far Left we have Anarchy.
I'm not so sure about the far Right here, maybe the EXTREME far right.
The Liberal LEFT is only interested in self gain at everybody's sacrifice. Anarchy, not hardly "Rule by The Elite" We say and you do. Can you say "Sieg Heil"

[Frank]

...My understanding of the political spectrum is that there are two extremes, on the far Right we have Totalitarianism and on the far Left we have Anarchy....I have to say that's not my understanding. The right of the political spectrum is associated with political conservatism. Conservative political thought tend to favor less government intrusion (and more personal discipline and responsibility). The left is associated with political liberalism. Liberal political thought tends to favor a greater role for government in human affairs and thus greater government intrusion and responsibility (and correspondingly less personal responsibility).

[Patriotic]

I can understand your point but as it was explained to me, the ultra-extreme Left takes no responsibility for their actions and are not restricted by laws. There is no such thing as individual ownership; what one person has is the property of the commune and therefore the strongest will prevail. On the ultra-extreme Right we have the expectation of personal discipline and responsibility to the state. Those who speak out against the state are undesirables and expendable. The strict order of the state is supreme.

[kenhwind]

This would be so true in a Democracy, but The United States Government is not a Democracy.
The United States is a Republic.

[Patriotic]

Kenhwind, you are correct, we were founded as a Federal Republic and not a Democracy. The founding fathers envisioned the problems of a pure democracy. They also decided we would be an Individualistic form of government and not a Collectivist form. Think of a lynch mob as collectivists where the meaning of law and justice is decided on the spot because the “collective” has decided what is right. The same with restricting the 2A because the “collective” has decided it is the right thing to do. I look at the US today and see more and more of this Collectivist attitude. “We the People” was never meant to indicate collectivism because in a republic “the People” are guided by law and the Constitution, rights are not given by man but by a higher authority to man and cannot be taken away.

I view the Left as Collectivists who say that because they are the majority their view of what rights you should have and should not have is supreme. The Right on the other hand believes in individual rights; you stay within the law and the Constitution and you are free to exercise your rights regardless of the majority view.

[kenhwind]

I view the Left as Collectivists who say that because they are the majority their view of what rights you should have and should not have is supreme. The Right on the other hand believes in individual rights; you stay within the law and the Constitution and you are free to exercise your rights regardless of the majority view.
This is pretty much the way I see things also. The Liberal Left believe they are elite and their rules are for everyone else.