As most people are aware, the Homeland Security Department released a paper saying that right wing extremism is a growing terrorist threat in this country. The bad economy coupled with such sentiments as anti-tax, second amendment rights, frustrated veterans, pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, and anti-government concerns raise the specter of persons associated with these causes becoming involved in right wing terrorism.
The report was roundly criticized by conservatives and the chair of House Homeland Security Committee, democrat Rep Bennie Thompson who said he was "dumbfounded" that the report was issued. "This report appears to raise significant issues involving the privacy and civil liberties of many Americans - including war veterans."
The connection is clear; if you hold traditionally conservative views on many issues, you are fertile ground to be exploited for right wing terrorism activity. At a time of growing frustration and concern among conservatives about the expansion of government by President Obama and Congressional leaders, the report only adds fuel to the fire.
Certainly, extremists can come from either the left or the right. But the report suggests links between individuals who hold traditional conservative views on a wide range of issues and possible terrorist threats. This is not only foolish and unnecessarily provocative. Especially so coming from a government agency responsible for addressing terrorist. And of course liberal Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano only made matters worse by defending the report.
13 comments:
You can title your beliefs anyway you want, but by just calling them "traditional" doesn't make them so. Your beliefs in the majority of opinion in the nation is full of bigotry and should be outlawed. If you need to live in a religious state, move to afganastan where its promoted.
How is this an attack on the right wing? this is an actual cut and past from the defending report
The report noted that military veterans who have difficulty reentering civilian life are susceptible to recruitment, as was the case with Timothy McVeigh, whose 1995 attack on a federal building in Oklahoma City killed 168 people
are you trying to say that Timothy was not a terroist? perhaps he was just a misunderstood christain boy?
This is such an obvious use of miscontext! Yes there are profiles from the extreme radical right (you know the ones you call "tradionalists") but, there are many many "profiles" that fits the bill for those types that get pulled from the line at airports, and this particular profile is not in the least or most the most attacked profile.
If anything, lets go to fact, not opinion pieces like this article.
ripped from headlines as early as today! and fact, not fiction....
WASHINGTON – For the first time, an accused domestic terrorist is being added to the FBI's list of "Most Wanted" terror suspects.
Daniel Andreas San Diego, a 31-year-old computer specialist from Berkeley, Calif., is wanted for the 2003 bombings of two corporate offices in California.
Authorities describe San Diego as an animal rights activist who turned to bomb attacks and say he has tattoo that proclaims, "It only takes a spark."
So get off the damn pitty pot MFC, you have much better cases to try and get the sympathy support for your daily martyr complex that seems to go hand in hand with the "profile" that your article implies. I am so tired of radical extremists groups like the MFC using the title of religion to back their ethically despicable and immoral attempts at conforming the mass public into their views and actions. and that is my opinion.
I believe the problem is the whining of the blog writer here. He obviously doesn't like the fact that there is documented proof legally accessible to title him, an extrememist and a good case for profiling and red flagging his particular actions and chosen lifestyle.
Forget about the if you have problems with gay people don't marry a gay person statement that is so commonly used here at this blog.... How about if you dont like being called a terrorist dont be one! Its not our fault that your actions, are red flagged as dangerous. Its yours.
My view is that the blogger here is upset that the use of his own prapaganda to recruit people over to his radical extremist group called the Minnesota Family Council, now has documentation as legal grounds for watching his particular extremist group. Because how is someone going to recruit to his side without the fear factor and propaganda?
lifted from the documented linked here... Go read the full documentaion, I urge you to see how out of context these people take things!
"are focusing their efforts to recruit new
members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal
through propaganda"
If you think of the radical extremist group of the MFC while reading about radical extremist profiles, it really comes to light why they are whining and complaining.
My giggle on this blog piece is the implication that a liberal homeland security secretary obviously doesn't know what she is talking about because she was a Dem when she was Governor of Arizona.
The thing about this Particular Gov that the radical extremists like the MFC group can't reply to is that she like sooooo many other Dem's are the only ones that can keep us out of Debt. As governor, she converted a $1 billion budget deficit in 2003 into a $300 million surplus in 2006 without raising state taxes.
The only place the extreme radical right side has gotten us to is homelessness at its highest, teenage pregnancy at its highest, and unemployment at its highest. Which is immorally unexceptable in any religion I would hope.
I might give these particular extremists (the mfc) some room for debate, they use the word pro marriage and we all know that the radical right who hold "traditional values" are not pro marriage at all.
Divorce rates are among the highest of any industrialized country, and the South, commonly known as the Bible Belt for its conservative religious views, has the highest divorce rates in the country (except for Nevada).
In other words, since one can not always here sarcasm, do not try and state that you are pro marriage. The radical right has the highest divorce rate, but perhaps thats because of Same sex couples getting married left and right now and decreasing the "value" of your One Woman One Man marriages?
Since the number one most wanted on the fbi list an animal rights activits, i guess I can start a blog now, complaining that any vegan, organic buying or producing bio green pro planet person is fertile ground to be becoming a left wing extremist and even terrorist!
The problem isn't the lifestyles you have chosen or taken, as extremists Tom, its the actions that have come forth from your extremist lifestyle. That is the danger. If a left right or centereed extremist is just that an extremist, like yourself, than that is a red flag for profiling and watching.
""expansion of government by President Obama and Congressional leaders""
Please are you really going to say this after the Bush's adminstration?
Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush’s first term. The federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5 percent of GDP on Clinton’s last day in office to 20.3 percent by the end of Bush’s first term.
The GOP was once effective at controlling nondefense spending. The final nondefense budgets under Clinton were a combined $57 billion smaller than what he proposed from 1996 to 2001.
That was just the first 4 years!
Bush trippled that in the second term.
He put our country into danger, in unpopular view globally, and almost morally bankrupted us with singlarly narrowed relgious views.
For the moment we start running our country that is based on freedom of speach, and all beliefs, on only one thought and only one direct line of behavior we are endangered of terminating all our rights as citizens of not only this great country but that of the world.
Shame on you for lieing!
you want to know why your profiled? because of people indincated below...
Matthew Derosia was convicted late last week for ramming his car into the entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic on Ford Parkway in St. Paul in January during an anti-abortion protest.
Derosia was sentenced to time served, but the state is seeking to have him permanently committed for mental illness. Derosia has faced at least two commitment proceedings in the last decade.
His family is opposing the current commitment, saying Derosia was only doing the Lord’s work.
In an email to the Minnesota Independent on Sunday, Derosia’s mother Georjean, came to his defense. “[It is] the state of Minnesota’s intention to LOCK UP my son for a non-violent protest against Planned Parenthood for THE REST OF HIS LIFE!!!”
Georgjean’s email was sent to anti-abortion activists soliciting funds to keep him out of full-time mental care.
“I agree he needs help and we are getting him the help he needs but without your help he will be lost to everyone forever. With Gods [sic] love we can get justice for this poor boy who was only doing what God asked him to do.”
Matthew Derosia pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 111 days time served and fined $50. He also must pay restitution to Planned Parenthood in the amount of $3,818.85.
The police report noted that after running a vehicle into the front of the clinic, Derosia was “holding a crucifix and shouting various Bible verses. ” He “refused to respond to police and continued to recite Bible verses and shout, ‘Close down the Auschwitz Death Camp.’”
He also told police that “he felt what he did was right and he would do it again if he were told to that he would do it again.”
The incident sparked condemnation from local anti-abortion leaders. Brian Gibson, executive director of Pro-Life Action Ministries, told KARE 11 at the time, “Not only do we not like this happening, we condemn this type of act. We’re against all violence,” Gibson said.
But the extreme wing of the anti-abortion movement has rallied to his defense.
Rev. Donald Spitz of the Army of God, a group that has expressed support for Derosia’s actions before, railed against Gibson.
“Brian Gibson, why did you condemn Matthew Derosia who only drive [sic] a van into a babykilling facility, yet accept women who actually murder their own children by abortion and have the blood of their own children on their hands?,” he wrote in an email to Gibson that’s posted on Spitz’s website.
“What is more important to the LORD Jesus Christ, to save babies about to be murdered in a babykilling abortion mill or the facade of that babykilling abortion mill? To you it is the facade of the babykilling abortion mill that needs protecting and not the babies being murdered.”
The reason why the extreme right is profiled is more representated by local mothers and fathers who deny their own children treatment because it goes against their religious beliefs. In this case, the mother is a criminal. And has used her religion the same way the mfc does. For Power sake, to rule over others in life and death situation. Forget about the idea that religion is an inner sanction to peace and godliness.
the point is that the mfc would see this case elaine, as the same, since they are not "christains" in what they think is the truest sense. they don't see the correlations you are making.
The correlations that groups such as that family belongs to, and the mfc are all cults.
What do you mean this isn't an attack on the right wing?
(U//LES) Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first
African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new
members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal
through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.
(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.
(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.
Doesn't that seem even slightly paranoid to you? At all?
The description of an extremist they give here accurately fits the description of anyone who holds right-wing veiws. They want to label anyone who disagrees with them as "terrorists" or "extremists".
Yes, most white supremicists are right-wing; but that doesn't mean that most right-wingers are white supremicists, does it? Hell, there are black people who went out and voted for John McCain, see Obama's healthcare plan (which he refuses to put his own family on, I might add) for the steaming s### that it is, and are now being labeled as terrorists and extremists.
As a lifelong right-winger, I can assure you that you only fear the threat of right-wing extremism if you have a very loose definition of "Extremism." Apparently, their definition of "extremist" is "anyone who disagrees with us."
Post a Comment