Obama insults half of the country

Careful Lois, speaking badly of toads and cubbies may shackle.

LoisLane wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

Careful Lois, speaking badly of toads and cubbies may shackle.

Been there, done that, bought the T-Shirt.
Besides which is worse being called a toad, or a Cubs fan? Tough call.

I guess it would depend on if you were a toad or a cubs fan and who you are being compared to

Heretic wrote:

If the "Oh yeah... uh... We'll look into it" isn't anything other than paltry lip service, I'll agree with you... we're hosed.

. . .

Quote :

Report citing veteran extremism is pulled

A contentious "Rightwing Extremism" report that warned of military veterans as possible recruits for terrorist attacks against the U.S. was not authorized, has been withdrawn and is being rewritten, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told Capitol Hill lawmakers.

Well... frak me. :shakehead: I thought this was done with. As if you couldn't tell it was bullshit from the start, you certainly can now by how quickly it faded from public consciousness. They were all so concerned right up until the teabaggings stopped.

First, the basics:

Quote :

-- This bulletin was just one of several assessing various terrorism threats to our national security; because these bulletins were intended for local law-enforcement officials, they necessarily focused on domestic threats. Overseas-based threats are a completely different bailiwick and would not be part of this particular assessment, but that doesn't mean the threat is being ignored or that, for that matter, Homeland Security's ongoing focus on Al Qaeda has dropped even one iota since Janet Napolitano took over.

-- Neither O'Reilly nor Peters appear to have watched what Shepard Smith reported on Fox the day before: Namely, that the bulletin was ordered by the Bush administration, well before Obama took office, and was conducted by Bush-hired intelligence specialists.

-- York is right that the DHS was much more specific in its similar bulletin about left-wing extremists. But there's a reason for that: Far-right extremists absurdly outnumber eco-terrorists, by an exponential factor. It's easy for DHS to list ELF and a handful of other far-left groups capable of acts of terrorism because that's about all there are. On the other hand, there are over 900 hate groups in the SPLC's database, including a large number of them outfits fully capable of (in fact, some essentially built around) inflicting violence on the public. If York (and Michelle Malkin, who's made a similar claim) wanted more specifics in this bulletin, there'd have been quite a bit of ink and space wasted listing them all. If Byron wants a few, let me give him just those in New York state, where he lives. There are 25 of them there. Or just look around a little: Do the names National Socialist Movement, or National Alliance, or Stormfront, or White Aryan Resistance, or Aryan Nations ring a bell anywhere?

-- What the report says is that DHS "has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence", which is very specific language that is quite correct in what it does say -- but it doesn't say that this assessment is based on speculation about economic stresses and political anger. Rather, as anyone can assess from reading the bulletin itself throughout, it's predicated on a good deal of solid factual data regarding the activities of far-right extremists. Some of this, as we'll see, comes from FBI intelligence; and some of it from publicly available sources.

-- Finally, and most on the tip of wingnut tongues, is the claim that the report "singles out" all returning veterans as potential recruits for right-wing extremists. In reality, the report only singles out returning veterans who become active in violent hate groups.

And lets not forget that this assessment is nearly identical to the FBI's that came out during the Bush administration warning that returning veterans really are a target for recruitment, mysteriously to no fanfare whatsoever (can anyone explain that? Anyone?).

...I'm staggered. This is unbelievable. So a valid national threat assessment commissioned by the Bush administration, conducted by their own people, supported with years of data, and echoing the same warnings issued by the FBI just a year prior gets yanked because conservatives let loose a bunch of crocodile tears about "insulted veterans" in order to drum up supported for their own teabaggings. Wow. I'm at a loss... I feel ill... :barf:

DHS is seriously catowing to public opinion on this? There really was an investigation? :bangwall:

So... what now? It's been withdrawn. So to all of you that were so concerned about this, I have a few questions if you wouldn't mind. I cannot fathom the logic behind this, so please help me to understand. Was this really necessary? Was getting the report yanked, people fired, etc, the desired outcome? What do we do with the information contained therein? Is the data actually in dispute or just merely the wording? Is there a threat to national security or not? Is the conservative objection to this report nothing more than vapid semantics? And how can this report possibly be reissued in a way that conservatives won't find insulting, considering that veterans really are a target for recruitment?

Ugh... teh stoopid... it burns us.

Heretic wrote:

Ugh... teh stoopid... it burns us.

Damn funny. But that's not why I dredged up this old thread.

I read an interesting Op-Ed piece by Robert Wright at the NYT site, so f figured I'd post it here... He makes a pretty convincing argument about why Joseph Stack, the right-wing crazy who flew his plane into the IRS building in Texas, qualifies as a "terrorist."

The First Tea-Party Terrorist?

Here's an excerpt...

Quote :

In common usage, a “terrorist” is someone who attacks in the name of a political cause and aims to spread terror — to foster fear that such attacks will be repeated until grievances are addressed. Thus, Amy Bishop, the vehement Alabama tenure-seeker, wouldn’t qualify as a terrorist; she seems to have no cause larger than herself and, when she gunned down colleagues, presumably wasn’t hoping to strike fear of the untenured into the hearts of tenured faculty everywhere.

Stack, in contrast, saw himself as part of a cause, as one in a long line of fighters against tyranny. The manifesto he left behind reads, “I know there have been countless before me and there are sure to be as many after. … I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be whitewashed and ignored” — at which point, God willing, “the American zombies wake up and revolt.” This man was, by prevailing semantic conventions, a terrorist.

The entire piece is definitely worth reading, for those of you who are interested.

There was never any doubt in my mind that this nut's actions constituted terrorism. If he were a Muslim the same loons that would disagree with my finding would be clamoring for him to get a one way ticket to Gitmo.

One question:What does this have to do with topic of this thread?

Artie60438 wrote:

One question:What does this have to do with topic of this thread?

Before the thread went off-topic, it was about the right-wingers whining about being singled out by an Intelligence Report that indicated that law enforcement agencies should not dismiss the threat posed by right wing domestic terrorists. Happy Jack in particular was all "enraged" over it, though I highly doubt that he ever read the report.

IMHO, the IRS incident is a great example of the dangers of the right wing "tea party" movement's reckless rhetoric and actions, and the warnings in that Intelligence Report now seem prescient.

So it reminded me of the debate we had early in this thread. That's the only reason that I posted it here. I'm guess I'm still used to posting info to a thread that is related to a prior discussion or as a "reminder" to other posters involved in that discussion.

I probably should have started a new thread, given the fact that the crybaby "righties" who used to post here have all run away... apparently because they were offended about being challenged.

Interesting. Conservatives were foaming at the mouth trying to make sure we called the underwear bomber a terrorist. Now we have a guy who mimicks the terrorists of 9/11 and some of them are sympathizing...

Truly dizzying.

Maybe the DHS report was pulled because it really was hitting too close to home.

Dammit. Wrong thread.

Quote :

Hammond man accused in militia plot to kill cops

HAMMOND | A 46-year-old Hammond man arrested over the weekend in an FBI operation targeting alleged members of an extremist Christian militia planning to kill a Michigan police officer and blow up cars of other cops in his funeral procession has contested his transfer from Indiana to Michigan, where he is charged with sedition and weapons violations.

. . .

Piatek is one of nine suspects indicted by a federal grand jury in Detroit and accused of taking part in a Christian militia group's plot to kill a police officer in Michigan, and then blow up the cars of law enforcement officials attending the funeral.

The suspects are tied to a group known as the Hutaree, and are charged with seditious conspiracy, attempted use of weapons of mass destruction, teaching the use of explosive materials and possessing a firearm during a crime of violence.

Boy... sure was a good thing they got that report pulled. Obviously no basis in reality whatsoever.

Thanks guys!

More links:

Militia Members Charged With Plotting To Kill Cops

The Hutaree militia and the rising risk of far-right violence

Hutaree militia arrests point to tripling of militias since 2008

And of course, conservatives come rallying to the defense of the Hutaree. And the asshat and former militia leader that's been telling everyone to throw bricks through DNC windows says this could mean war.

Stay classy!

They're really toning down the rhetoric,aren't they? This seems to be their latest sign. On the plus side,at least it's easier to spell.

Real world effects of this kind of bullshit:

Quote :

Inside the DHS: Former Top Analyst Says Agency Bowed to Political Pressure

Daryl Johnson has been battling extremist groups for two decades. He got his start in the field in 1991, when he worked on counterterrorism for the U.S. Army. In 1999, Johnson left the Army for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, where he was a subject-matter expert on violent antigovernment groups. In 2004, officials at the newly created Department of Homeland Security (DHS) approached Johnson to take a key post as the senior domestic terrorism analyst. He accepted and, for six years, Johnson led a team of experts on domestic extremist groups.

While at DHS, Johnson and his team wrote the April 7, 2009 report, "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment." The report, which was intended for law enforcement only, was quickly leaked and caused a firestorm among some on the political right who accused DHS of painting all kinds of conservatives as potential Timothy McVeighs. In fact, it had merely pointed out that some domestic extremists focused on single issues like immigration and abortion and also noted that extremists were interested in recruiting military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Its analysis of the causes of the surge of right-wing radicalism — the election of the nation's first black president and the economy, among other things — still seems completely accurate and is in line with similar findings by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

But DHS ultimately reacted to criticism from conservative columnists and groups like the American Legion by withdrawing the report. (Ironically, given the criticism of his report, Johnson describes himself as a registered Republican who "personifies conservativism.") In the months following the leak, Johnson says in the interview below, DHS gutted its domestic terrorism analysis unit.

Nothing like putting American lives at risk to score a few political points.

Congress Obsessed with American Muslims, Neglects real threat of White Supremacists

Quote :

The shooting of Kaufman, Texas district attorney Mike McLelland and his wife Cynthia remains a mystery. But investigators are increasingly looking into a cell of extremist white terrorists as the suspects. Two months ago, a county assistant district attorney, Mark Hasse, was murdered not far from his office at the court. (I used the term extremist white terrorists because that is what they are, but usually the American press only describes foreigners and Muslims as terrorists, while calling whites “extremists.”)

Likewise, a gang of white terrorists is suspected in the recent slaying of the head of Colorado’s prison system.

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) and other Islamophobes in Congress, seeking to look good to campaign donors who hate Muslims, has conducted several hearings on the alleged increased radicalization of American Muslims. Sociologists don’t find evidence of such a thing; American Muslims on the whole are relatively well-integrated into US society and are disproportionately well off and pillars of the society. The hearings are a form of McCarthyism.

. . .

In the meantime, Congress not only has held few or no hearings on the danger of white terrorism, it has actually pressured the Department of Homeland Security not to produce studies on the phenomenon.

Democracy at work? Or useless/detrimental pandering to a lunatic fringe?

Either way, we, as a free society, should be able to do better. Where do we go from here?

Just bumping up this old thread because it appears that jack has memory issues.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Just bumping up this old thread because it appears that jack has memory issues.

Well, then, Scorpion - refresh my memory.

Have I missed something?

Actually I was referring to Heretic's point in the other thread...

Heretic wrote:

This continues to remain relevant, even after six years:

Quote :

The leaders of right-wing talk are playing a dangerous game, tapping into a dark, paranoid underbelly of American politics. I’ve been following Orcinus pretty closely in the last few months and am increasingly disturbed by what I see. While we might want to dismiss the paranoid rantings of pundits like Beck, we should remember that such conspiratorial beliefs aren’t meant to convince the masses. They exist to radicalize ideologues, and ideologues are dangerous, whether left-wing or right-wing. Conservatives may be furious that the the FBI and DHS are tracking right wing extremism, but I see this as a rare example of them actually seeing a threat coming, and being ready to do something about it. For those of us old enough to remember Oklahoma City, I don’t think we should be dismissive about the terrorist potential of the militant right, especially with Beck and Limbaugh stoking the fires of paranoia.

The only reason that I bumped up this thread is because of the fact that you totally ignored his point, and instead chose to engage with Artie in a discussion about Islamic terrorism vs. right wing terrorism.  I don't have any intention of engaging in that discussion, because I think that it is irrelevant to the topic of the thread, which is titled "Tea Party Terrorism." (which is about right wing terrorism.)  

I have nothing further to say in this thread. Again, I bumped it for reference only, because the topic of this thread is directly related to Heretic's post in the "Tea Party Terrorism" thread.

I probably shouldn't have singled you out, but I will most likely be commenting in the other thread when I get a chance, and this thread is simply handy for me to have as a reference.  

Sorry for any confusion that I may have caused.

Specifically, I was referring to this...

Quote :

Conservatives may be furious that the the FBI and DHS are tracking right wing extremism, but I see this as a rare example of them actually seeing a threat coming, and being ready to do something about it.

This part refers specifically to the DHS report that prompted this thread... and that's why I resurrected this thread.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Specifically, I was referring to this...

Quote :

Conservatives may be furious that the the FBI and DHS are tracking right wing extremism, but I see this as a rare example of them actually seeing a threat coming, and being ready to do something about it.

This part refers specifically to the DHS report that prompted this thread... and that's why I resurrected this thread.

What is this threat?
Can you be more specific?

Right wing lunatics like this:

Gunman in Sikh temple shooting identified as ex-Army soldier Wade Michael Page
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/06/authorities-search-for-motive-in-deadly-shooting-at-wisconsin-sikh-temple/


Larry McQuilliams, Shooter In Austin, Had Extremist Views: Police
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/01/larry-mcquilliams-austin-shooter-extremist_n_6251928.html