Scarborough ignores Bush FBI report to claim Obama administration stoking fear
SUMMARY: Joe Scarborough distorted a DHS intelligence assessment to allege the Obama administration is warning that returning war veterans "are to be feared." In fact, the assessment, citing a Bush administration report, warned of a possible resurgence among extremist groups that "will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans."
On the April 15 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough distorted an April 7 intelligence assessment by the Department of Homeland Security to allege that the Obama administration is "specifically warning that veterans returning home from war, are to be feared -- that they could be right-wing extremists that want to launch terror attacks on America." In fact, the document, issued to law enforcement officials, warned of a possible resurgence among extremist groups that "will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat." The assessment further stated: "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." DHS cited a 2008 FBI report -- authored during the Bush administration -- as evidence that "some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups."
On Morning Joe, Scarborough also said, "I just ask this question to my Democratic friends out there -- and I'm serious about this -- what would you have said if George Bush, [former Bush adviser] Karl Rove, and the head of Homeland Security had issued a report warning about left-wing radicals wanting to blow up America? ... [I]t is frightening." In fact, DHS did issue an assessment on January 26, concluding that "a number of emerging trends point to leftwing extremists maturing and expanding their cyber attack capabilities over the next decade with the aim of attacking targets in the United States." Indeed, in response to a similar claim by conservative radio host Roger Hedgecock, CNN homeland security correspondent Jeanne Meserve reported during the April 14 edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight: "In fact, in January, there was a warning about left-wing extremists. It was issued by the Obama administration but both reports were begun under President Bush."
In its April 7 assessment, DHS stated, "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." As Media Matters for America has noted, in the July 2008 FBI report, titled "White Supremacist Recruitment of Military Personnel since 9/11," the FBI's Counterterrorism Division determined with "[h]igh confidence" that "[m]ilitary experience is found throughout the white supremacist extremist movement as the result of recruitment campaigns by extremist groups and self-recruitment by veterans sympathetic to white supremacist causes." The 2008 report further stated that a "review of FBI white supremacist extremist cases from October 2001 to May 2008 identified 203 individuals with confirmed or claimed military service active in the extremist movement at some time during the reporting period," and that "[a]ccording to FBI information, an estimated 19 veterans (approximately 9 percent of the 203) have verified or unverified service in the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
From the April 7 DHS report, titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment":
(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) Disgruntled Military Veterans
(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists -- including lone wolves or small terrorist cells -- to carry out violence. 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.
-- (U) After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military veterans -- including Timothy McVeigh -- joined or associated with rightwing extremist groups.
-- (U) A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that "large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces."
-- (U//LES) The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups.
From the April 15 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
SCARBOROUGH: This is scary.
BRZEZINSKI: This is --
SCARBOROUGH: This is scary.
BRZEZINSKI: -- spooky. While the report did not cite any impeding attack or name specific groups, it suggested military veterans could be particularly vulnerable to recruitment.
SCARBOROUGH: So -- so, let me --
BARNICLE: Dude, what the --
BRZEZINSKI: What?
SCARBOROUGH: So -- so, they have -- Janet Napolitano and her department have put out a report in the Obama administration, specifically warning that veterans returning home from war, are to be feared -- that they could be right-wing extremists that want to launch terror attacks on America. This, of course, coming at a time when we have a war on our southern border, when we have wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and threats of terrorism.
And Janet Napolitano, the Department of Homeland Security, and Barack Obama are concerned about veterans coming home from war --
BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.
SCARBOROUGH: -- and becoming right-wing extremists.
BRZEZINSKI: I want more --
SCARBOROUGH: This, of course, is the same administration, Mike Barnicle -- and I'm just stunned the media didn't say more about this. And I heard about this up at West Point, from the kids up there that were talking about it.
They were stunned that the Obama administration told veterans coming back from war, who had injuries, "You're going to have to take care of that yourself. Take it up with a third-party insurer."
BARNICLE: I've not heard that.
SCARBOROUGH: Oh, they did. They did.
BRZEZINSKI: I'm going to get a full writethru and --
SCARBOROUGH: Thank God, Paul Rikoff, who went over to the White House and asked the president what was going through his mind.
BARNICLE: But on this report, where you just read that news brief about it, I mean, off the top of it -- and I've not seen anything about this today --
BRZEZINSKI: Yeah, I haven't --
BARNICLE: -- in the newspapers -- off the top of it, it seems as if they're issuing a report basically warning us about returning Iraqi --
SCARBOROUGH: Veterans.
BARNICLE: -- and Afghan war veterans who might come back and do what? Say they don't agree with the war? What?
SCARBOROUGH: Blow up the -- blow it up. Blow up America. Kill people because they might --
BRZEZINSKI: Exploiting fears about the economy and the election of the first black president.
SCAROBOROUGH: Because the economy is bad and we have a black president, veterans may kill --
BRZEZINSKI: We'll talk more. I'm going to get a full writethru and print it out over here.
SCARBOROUGH: -- come back and kill people. It is stunning. Then I just ask this question to my Democratic friends out there -- and I'm serious about this -- what would you have said if George Bush, Karl Rove, and the head of Homeland Security had issued a report warning about left-wing radicals wanting to blow up America? Are -- you know, it's -- it is frightening.
[...]
SCARBOROUGH: You didn't put in there the part about how Janet Napolitano is going to follow --
BRZEZINSKI: I know. We haven't -- the top of the hour.
SCARBOROUGH: -- the Obama administration's orders --
BRZEZINSKI: 'Cause that's an amazing story.
SCARBOROUGH: -- to invade Utah. That's coming next.
BRZEZINSKI: That's not part of the story, but it's an amazing story.
SCARBOROUGH: But they're -- they're going to -- they're going after conservatives first. They're targeting soldiers for surveillance, according to this document, when they come home from war. I suspect an invasion of Salt Lake City is not far behind.
BRZEZINSKI: OK, that might be pushing it a little far, but it is an amazing story.
SCARBOROUGH: The second -- is the second, friends, you see the salt flats rumbling, OK, it's time to run to Vegas. They'll leave Vegas alone.
Scarborough didn't misrepresent the report. That's actually the way he understood it, which is sadder still.
What Scarborough misrepresented were the people of Florida, the whole time he was in Congress.
Amen to that, Easy. I've been trying to make that point about nut jobs like Joe, Hannity & Beck. We give them too much credit to claim that they consumed the information in such a report, analyzed it and are intentionally misrepsenting it.
They are too lazy and ignorant to do that.
Instead, they just regurgitate easy-to-understand segments of a much much larger context without researching it or verifying it.
I hope readers notice that MM doesn't actually tell everyone the title of Obama's report: "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment." (Notice the title says, "CURRENT Economic and Political Climate ...," not "2008 Economic and Political Climate ..." The report is about NOW.)
Gee, MM. Why not tell us the title?
By the way, that 2008 report that MM is all worked up about says,
Is there a reason that MM left that out also?
By the way, if the Bush administration ever put out a report like this about the far left, the media would have a year-long hissy fit. We'd never hear the end of how Bush is "targeting" the left and "attacking free speech."
The actual bias here is that much of the mainstream media is simply ignoring or downplaying this report.
Why so dishonest, MM?
#
By the way, if the Bush administration ever put out a report like this about the far left, the media would have a year-long hissy fit. We'd never hear the end of how Bush is "targeting" the left and "attacking free speech."
LEFT-WING EXTREMISM:
The Current Threat
Prepared for
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Safeguards and Security
Washington, DC
Prepared by
Karl A. Seger, Ph.D.
Center for Human Reliability Studies
Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education
Oak Ridge, TN
April 2001
LMFAO. Poor Shoes89, she keeps trying so hard.
Going through the same repetitive nonproductive motions daily is the sure sign of a shopworn dis-info lob-job.
'She' is PAID to toss troll chaff and chads IN YOUR FACE. 'Her' dept. has downsized, so having a scarce agent assigned here proves the strong damage Media Matters for America does tearing holes in the righTVing imposed-ignorance propaganda blanket.
The Def.Dept. (after Bush the Belligerent slunked drunk into hiding) spending shifted from employing blogspam-and-spit subversives, (we see fewer jackboot Shoes), and nowadays our taxmoney for 'bad intelligence' is spent against us on stranglers of internet bandwidth (e.g., WiFi rollbacks) and slashers at-large surrepTECHtitiously redacting content where it runs anti-DHS/PATRIOT Act/germ weapon/concentration camping/medical experimentation torturing/etc.
Lose Shoes. Shoo.
- -
On topic in another regard, medical research in civilian settings has FOUND a curative TREATMENT for P.T.S.D. and related military-injected mad depravities and mental breakdowns.
What despoTV don't say:
Psychedelic Healing?, December 2007 Scientific American MIND
----------
Shoes needs a sugar cube on 'her' tongue. The antidote for fear-flinging humankind haters.
<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
I don't know, Meremark. I see that suggestion here often, that these are paid trolls, but i find it hard to believe anybody would shell out for such incompetence.If Shoes89 is the best the rightys can do, they're in more trouble than I thought.Her constant failure can't be anything but a help to Liberals.
Nice try, psp.
By no means is the report you link comparable to the one Obama put out.
READ THE REPORT. The report is largely about people in the United States working on behalf of foreign governments.
And an additional third of the report is about international groups.
Compare the two reports. It's apples and oranges.
Nice try, tho', psp.
Failed again. Read PSP's report, it covers international and domestic. Looks like today isn't your day either...
snoopy: "Read PSP's report, it covers international and domestic."
That's why I wrote, "The report is largely about people in the United States working on behalf of foreign governments" (bold to "largely" added).
Try and work on that reading comprehension thing. OK?
Fox Reporter Contradicts Fox: DHS Report On Right Wing Was ‘Requested By The Bush Administration’
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/15/fox-dhs-bush/
However, this morning, Fox News’s Catherine Herridge revealed that the report, along with an earlier report on radicalized left-wing groups, was actually “requested by the Bush administration” but not completed until recently:
HERRIDGE: Well this is an element of the story which has largely gone unreported. One looks at right-wing groups, as you mentioned. And a second is on left-wing groups. Significantly, both were requested by the Bush administration but not finished until President Bush left office.
Still can't get over the fact that the reichwing puts out reports about leftists after you claim that doesn't happen, huh?
Not really, we conservatives are amazed at how spellbound you liberals are over obama, who will go down in history as the WORST president ever elected. Hell his birth certificate is faker than his speeches. You liberals get your knee pads out and practice kneeling before your master.
Homophobic much?
Good work psp-- love it.
You'd think that would silence these guys, eh?
Anyone think Joe will correct himself, or that any of his stooges (sorry, co-hosts) will mention this tomorrow?
Nice try, shoes, No sale.
First of all, the loons in the timothy mcveigh/randy weaver wing of the gop always go off the deep end this time of year with the anniversary of OKC and der fuhrer's birthday and all that, so what's the fuss? The report just reconfirms the obvious and serves as a reminder of how delusional and dangerous gun show trash can be - particularly at this time of year - as they've proved over the past month or so.
Secondly, once again, just which part of MMFA's mission statement continues to elude you?
The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence.
As we've seen recently, hysterical, hate-filled rhetoric will lead to carnage, sooner or later. Yes, I'm talking to you, Beck, Limpnuts etc. I'm personally more than a little amused by the right-wing outrage over this. During the CheneyBush years they cheered on the power-grasping of the State, secure in the knowledge that it would be used against the "libruls." Don't worry, guy. Just repeat your old mantra "If you haven't done anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about." Ri-i-i-ght. It has always struck me as ludicrous that the security organs of the state have been more focused on peace groups than on gun and mayhem loving wingnuts.
Sorry about the bold. I'm not shouting and I don't think this is deathless prose, not to be skipped. I cut and pasted the quote in bold and I can't get rid of it in my response.
I don't know about that. We hear very little about the RNC arresting people for "conspiracy to riot".
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/09/01/radio-news-host-arre.html
In addition to Psp's link, here's another one for you. Only a week after Obama took office:
DHS: "Leftwing Extremists Likely to Increase Use of Cyber Attacks over the Coming Decade"
26 January 2009
Where's the media hissy fit?
Thank god there is at least one person on here who can read. MM fails to mention that it is extremely unfair to 42 million veterans to associate them to the radicalism of 1 veteran. But I agree with you on your comment.
Disaffected veterans have always been a historical problem. Witness Iraq.
This from someone with the handle "anebriated..."
Veterans who suffer mental afflictions during war should be helped, not made fun of Shadibadoo. You are sterotyping a group of americans who have gave in some cases their life and limbs for your freedom. There is no proof out of 42 million veterans other than one that backs the DHS claims. It is absurd and I hope Janet N is removed from her position.
Let's hope we don't have to start counting...
Why is the concept of radicals recruiting soldiers so amazing to anyone? Combat experience and basic strategic training are valuable assets. Many have some sort of trauma from their experiences. They're accustomed to taking orders, and being part of an atmosphere of tight structure and discipline. And conservatives love to claim that those in the military lean to the right to begin with.
So what I get from conservatives is this:"OK we're going to take a bunch of Republicans, get them used to taking orders, numb them to violence and bake their brains in the desert for a few years, then scream bloody murder when anyone suggests that right-wing extremists might want to take advantage of them."
Mandatory troll disclaimer:I'm not badmouthing veterans. It's just that when the military creates lean, mean killing machines for their own purposes, it's quite obvious that they can be exploited by others at some point.
One would have to be pretty disingenuous or paranoid to think you were badmouthing veterans. Oh, wait, that's what these people do, isn't it?
In any case, this has been a worry since the military started lowering its standards for recruits a few years ago. Some white supremacist groups, according to the Southern Law Poverty Center, were (and most probably still are) actually encouraging some of their younger members to enlist in order to gain combat experience and lethal skills. At least one of them has been convicted of wilfull slaughter of civilians in Iraq.
Speaking as a former CITIZEN soldier (drafted in '66), I think it's very dangerous for a society to romanticise/iconize its military. It's also, of course, obscene to forget the debt we have to those who've fought to (ostensibly) protect us. But we should also never forget that no one is a saint when he goes in, and many are wounded in more than body when they come out.
Oh Royal Irish Dog Lover--first let me thank you for your service.
I think you're exactly on point; we cannot either worship or ignore the military. We are obligated to remember their sacrifice and service, including taking care of any and all wounds (physical, mental, or emotional) sustained in the service of our country, and simultaneously must be realistic about both the conflicts we involve ourselves in and keep a realistic image of the soldiers themselves. We are also obligated to treat the troops as well as we possibly can, and I don't think that happened under W. Using the military to justify military action ("You hate the troops if you don't support the Iraq war") is ludicrous, disingenuous, and unfair to the troops as well as everybody else.
Thanks for the back-up and well said, Sage of the Red Branch.
You are grouping all veterans with no proof just like DHS. There are going to be people who come back and lead productive lives. They deserve our support instead of labeling them misfits. The broad statement made by DHS is based upon 1 veteran out of 42 million. Wake up
Yeah, God willing they're coming home. They'll have my support, they always have. But they'll probably become Democrats, at least those who go into politics will. That's just how it is. Democrats actually serve in the military while Republicans talk about not wanting to impede anyone's ability to go fight in their place.
Republicans start wars that liberals win.
DHS did no such thing, and neither did anyone here. You were just praising the group for having one person who could read. It's obvious that you are not that one.
Like minds eh Conchobar. I'm just a bit slower today.
Yeah, but you got the SPLC right. Just ran across this from AlterNet. Right on topic.
http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/135195/how_can_we_stop_the_epidemic_of_killing_women_and_children_by_returning_soldiers/
way to support the troops Joe, make the populace be afraid of them
"Because the economy is bad and we have a black president, veterans may kill--come back and kill people. It is stunning."
Hey Joe--do you think maybe a "disgruntled vet" killed Lori Klausitis? If I had to choose between a 'disgruntled radicalized vet' and, oh say, you--the evidence against you looks much stronger. Just sayin'...
Funny, I've made several posts about Lori Klausutis whenever an article about hypocritical Joe comes up, and they're flagged and removed within seconds.
Good job, Blueneck.
Thanks Easy. I am struck speechless at how wingnut media is so riddled with drug addled, sociopathic miscreants who get paid bundles of cash for the regular dissemination of contemptible distortions, hate, and outright lies--yet there is no accountability. The Scarborough-Klausutis case was never properly invetigated. But Joe is, perhaps, in good company with his wingnut criminal soul mates Ollie North, G. Gordon Liddy, Karl Rove, and Mark Fuhrman (to name only a few); cashing a bloated paycheck and never having to pay the piper.
Joe Scarborough was beginning to "indulge" in his bias 'rants' of blame game on Pres. Obama's Administration and I immediately emailed him to "STOP". I told Joe that this was just plain and simple a "shameless" thing that he was doing. Btw, I did "NOT" hear that much from Joe commenting on the Republicans' and FoxNews' Tea Parties across the country today. I wonder why?
Where is the proof, its easy to call someone a name, but back it up. Call rush or sean's program instead badmouthing them. If you have not listened to them you need to cause thats where the truth is. The mainstream media and sites like MM have brainwashed you people
Where is the proof
Go through the old threads on this site.
MMfa goes to the original sources. Check their achives on Rush and get back to us. The Country Fair section in just the last few days has a nice selection of Rush quotes.
Joe totally went off the rails with this one. This is one of the reasons I don't watch his show. He's offensive. There are terrorists right here in America and we should be glad that DHS keeps track of their activity. It's just a fact that there are more extremists on the rightwing.
Show the facts, don't toss the word around.
Joe totally went off the rails with this one.
He did indeed. It was interesting, too-- when he got outraged, the rest of them were silent-- then only after a few minutes did they start to tsk tsk. Why was that-- did they disagree with him...? And they all kept looking at the camera in a weird way, too.
If its a Bush FBI report, it has a better than average chance of being wrong....afterall, he couldn't get anything right, remember? Just look at his spending habits or border security.
Spending habits? Obama makes bush look like a tightwad.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/
I chose not to go to your link. 1) It's a blog. 2) It looks like it's from the Heritage Foundation.
And it's not surprising that you chose a link that was "in pictures".
Ouch!!! You go Foghorn...
Maulkin claimed the report was a hit piece on conservatives. What a poor choice of words on her part - she just lumped RINO's in with terrorists. You RINO's really should split off and form a 3rd party...
Amen Snoopy..The Cons have been the extremists who have destroyed the Republicans.
Mentioned in one of the links by MMFA is a report on January 26, 2009 using reports by the Bush Admin that "..leftwing" extremists maturing and expanding their cyber attacks.." This report was put out by the Obama Administration.
So, Shoes, where were you when this report about the leftwing extremists was circulated? I'll bet you would have kicked up your heels on that one and blasted the Bush reports.
Also, to all of the Tea Toddlers who appear here, I hope that you attend these parties around the country and I hope you find people with like minds and all of you go home thrilled after creating a STD... SUPER TAX DAY.
You have now become the eltiist TEA-DRINKERS while us poor liberals will be forced to stay with a lowly KOOL-AID beverage.
I'm curious if they all do the same thing like I saw a video of from a Dallas event. They "ceromoniously" threw wads of paper into a vat of tea. I want to know if those papers are tax forms? That would be ironic, tea baggers who are protesting taxes (so they say) throwing IRS forms that are paid for with taxes into vats of tea...
You naughty double-entenderer, you.
Reality is a hit piece of clueless cons. To hell with Scarborough and Malkin.
Snoopy,
Why RINOs, Republicans in name only?
I mentioned this to Wes once, he can vouch. IMHO the right has firmly pushed out true conservatives who are much more moderate (if you need a tag, call them goldwater conservatives). I would much rather prefer a Paul Harvey type of conservative to what sieg heil on your AM dial passes off as a conservative today.
Whatever the wingnuts and neocons might say about them and against them, most RINOs do consider themselves conservative.
Its of a pattern, if a meme seems to suceed then they take credit with their "brave new vision", if its going pear shaped then they step back into the conservative mask. That way if complaints emerge then its an attack on all conservatives.
When is obama's administration going to stop blaming everything on bush, can he grow some cohones please. There is no proof that backs up this report and targeting all veterans for something McVeigh did is shamefully wrong and should be called out for what it is, BS. I support our troops during war and after war, may god bless them everyday as they fight for our freedom.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2229000/posts
http://www.webloggin.com/obama%E2%80%99s-dhs-targets-right-wing/
Jaysus, child, sober up, stop mainlining the freepers, and take a logic course. Who is "targeting all veterans for something McVeigh did?"
I'll say this very slowly. If I'm attacked and badly injured by a neighbor's dog and that dog has to be put down, that doesn't mean all dogs in the town, state, country etc. should be killed.
By the way, about this "supporting the troops during war and after war..." What kind of taxes are you willing to pay to support them?
I pay 42%, under obama 50%.
http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=9661
anebriated, get a new tax guy. I know people who probably made more while you were typing your last comment than you'll make this year, and they don't pay 50%.
Maybe this is why Repubs are so angry about taxes. They're just putting half their income in the mailbox with no return address.
The apalling biased and political nature of the DHS report ought to have Napolitano fired.
Characterizing anyone who opposes abortion, among others, as right wing extremists shows the absolute partisanship of these radical leftists.
When you add it up, Napolitano's report identifies just about anyone who is not a leftwing Democrat as a "right wing extremist" and a potential threat to the U.S. That is laughable and tragic at the same time.
She should be fired and Obama apologize for such shoddy partaisanship.
>>Characterizing anyone who opposes abortion, among others, as right wing extremists shows the absolute partisanship of these radical leftists.
Because no one has ever used that as an excuse for violence...
So, AA, through a combination of poor reading comprehension, mindless far-right ideology,and emotional kneejerk reaction, has called some "radical leftists" based on something they didn't do.
Laughable and tragic, Barney. You should apologize for such shoddy partisanship.But being a right wing extremist means never having to say you're sorry , I guess.
And being a liberal means you never take responsibility for your mistakes.
Examples? Or projection? We ponder, you assume.
Excuse me, anebriated, anything to say on topic, or just popping off with the stuff Sean Hannity told you?
>>Characterizing anyone who opposes abortion, among others, as right wing extremists shows the absolute partisanship of these radical leftists
Keep up the kookiness, AA. The report doesn't call anyone an extremist simply for opposing abortion. Nor does it characterize as radical anyone who is not a "leftwing Democrat."
funnyman,
You are mistaken. This found at the bottom of page 2 of the report
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, reje ting 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.
http://www.gordonunleashed.com/HSA%20-%20Rightwing%20Extremism%20-%2009%2004%2007.pdf
You mistakenly interpreted my comment about "left wing Democrat". I invite you to read my post again.
AA, you oughtta think about spending less time telling others that they're mistaken, and taking care of your own confusion.
The report says that Right wing extremist groups may include those who are primarily motivated by a single issue. It does not say that anybody who opposes abortion is a right wing extremist. It's not really that subtle a distinction.
FMP's "interpretation" of your comment was a straightforward reading. You're floundering.
Hope this helps you on the road out of Confusionville.
But in AA's defense couldn't this report be sort of like the Beatles song "Helter Skelter" was to Manson?
Maybe the report speaks to him in ways we could never understand.
Quite possible, WK. The boy does seem to live in his own distorted reality, where Facts Vs. Fiction is only an "agree to disagree" moment.
I think the report talks to AA liks Son of Sam's dogs did.
I should have refreshed the page.
No problem, Brab. Maybe if 40 or 50 more posters explain this to Barney it'll sink in.
I wouldn't bet on it, though. ;0)
"It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."
That doesn't indicate in the slightest that anyone who opposes abortion is an extremist. All that means is that extremists may be dedicated to a single issue, which would include some people who oppose abortion. Otherwise it would say "This includes groups and individuals..."
Brab,
The definition is very clear in what it defines as a right wing extremist. You just quoted it.
Your recasting of the definition fails. Saying "It may include..." does not differentiate between the 50 million members of the Catholic Church and many millions more who belong to mainline Evangelical Churches, (who both oppose abortion), from any other group. In fact, there is no mention of any group who had opposition to abortion as on of their reasons for existance. The only references I saw were unsupported and undocumented references to unnamed groups in the 1990s.
If there is no right wing extremist group named that opposed abortion, nor any supported evidence provided that there are any single issue anti-abortion right wing extremists, then there is no reason for abortion to even be mentioned... except it fits with Obama and Napolitano's leftist view of conservatives and is an attempt to marginalize those who seek to protect the unborn as extremists.
It's a sad world where those who want to protect the unborn are being mischaracterized as extremists, while those who either directly or indirectly support the killing of over one million unborn babies a year convince themsleves they are not.
"It may include" means that it's not a sweeping statement. It's just saying that extremists may come from single-issue groups. It doesn't need to differentiate between the groups of millions of people belonging to different churches because it's not saying that those groups are extremist by nature. A radical could come from either or any group, so what distinction between the groups do you expect to see?
And by the way, are those churches really "dedicated to a single issue"? That's all they talk about?
There are single issue groups within those Churches opposed to abortion. Again, you are trying to do an end around when the meaning of the definition is clear. Napolitano feels anyone who opposes abortion is a right wing extremist.
And some members of those groups may be extremists. That doesn't speak to the entire group, much less the entire church.
Brab,
Using the word, "may", broadens the scope to all single issue organizations that may oppose abortion or immigration. That is readily apparent. You are simply parsing to make the clear definition limited when it is not.
As an aside, the definition again shows the left bias by not including "illegal" with the word immigration.
What are you smoking? You said that it was talking about everyone who opposed abortion. If it may include people of a certain group, then that does not indicate everyone. If I have to analyze the wording to explain it to you, then you shouldn't have made the ridiculous accusation in the first place.
"As an aside, the definition again shows the left bias by not including "illegal" with the word immigration."
Gosh, maybe because they're not talking about some mainstream group? Maybe they're talking about people who are on the fringe who don't like any immigrants.
Criminy, man.
I'm going to pile on and point out exactly how idiotic your argument is.
"Napolitano feels anyone who opposes abortion is a right wing extremist."
"Using the word, "may", broadens the scope to all single issue organizations that may oppose abortion or immigration."
"Saying "It may include..." does not differentiate between the 50 million members of the Catholic Church and many millions more who belong to mainline Evangelical Churches, (who both oppose abortion), from any other group."
"There are single issue groups within those Churches opposed to abortion."
If the scope is broadened to single issue organizations, then that is a clear distinction between churches with 50 million members and other groups. Even more obviously, you are arguing that everyone who opposes abortion belongs to a single-issue group.
That would seem difficult to substantiate.
Brab,
It gets tiresome pointing out that you are again parsing in order to defend the indefensible.
I use the Catholic Church and Evangelical Churches as examples of groups that oppose abortion. There are single issue groups supported by the Catholic Church that also oppose abortion. Napolitano does not differentiate between the groups supported by the Church with any particular group. In fact, Napolitano never identifies any anti-abortion group at all!
Since Napolitano never identifies any group, it is safe to say there are none that her intelligence brief has found. So if there are no identifiable "right wing extremist" single issue groups opposing abortion out recruiting new members, why is there any mention of it all? Why include legitimate organizations that are not extremist in the definition?
The only reason I can tell is that this report is purely ideologically driven and written to build a case against political opponents of Obama. It is apparent Napolitano is trying marginalize political opponents by casting them as extremists.
That is not the function of the DHS and is purely political. In my view she abused her office for political gain and betrayed her trust by implying good, honest citizens, who happend to disagree with her, as security threats. She should be fired.
If they're talking about individuals within groups, then why would they list the groups? Such people could belong to any or all such groups. Again, this doesn't say that everyone who opposes abortion is an extremist. You're conflating "anyone" with "everyone".
Why would they have to be recruiting new members? Anyone who holds radical views could very well be driven to violence right now, especially with the extremist rhetoric out there.
"Since Napolitano never identifies any group, it is safe to say there are none that her intelligence brief has found."
I forgot to mention this rather incredible comment. If the report is available to the public, why on earth would specific groups be mentioned? That would quite obviously hinder any attempts to investigate or infiltrate such groups.
If this is what your argument hinges on, and it sure seems to be, you fail.
Brab,
You make my point. There is no one identified in the right wing report.
But why does the left wing report specifically identifies groups?
This is from that report: "Many of these extremists claim they are conducting these activities on behalf of two of the most active groups, the Animal Liberation Front and its sister organization, the Earth Liberation Front. Other prominent groups include Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty; and chapters within the Animal Defense League, and Earth First!.
My point is that there are none to report on. Otherwise Napolitano would have done so like was done in the previous report on leftist extremists.
So my argument doesn't fail. Yours does.
For one thing, the report specifically says that it's part of a series, so you can't say for sure that some group might not be named in the future. For another, are you sure that the purpose and scope of both reports are the same (it does seem to be about potential threats and the general atmosphere)? And again, you don't know that they consider it prudent to release anything of the sort in this case. You can't assert that a lack of such specifics means that they're making something up out of whole cloth.
If you recognize that some people go too far with their views, then it shouldn't be shocking that a report would identify characteristics of such people in order to help identify them and prevent violence. That's exactly what the report says its intent is.
Brab,
You fail to acknowledge the differences between the two reports. You are burying your head in the sand in avoidance, making up all sorts of "possible" excuses because the facts regarding the two show you are wrong.
You have to resort to posibilities and guesses about intent in order to justify your argument. Very weak. Very.
As for your second paragraph, everyone knows some people go to far with their views. However our government DHS is not in business to make unfounded accusations using criiteria that may includes a good portion of the citizenery, who disagree with the administration in good faith, in an attempt to brand them as extremists and possible threats to the state.
That's what this report does. That is why Napolitano should be fired.
>>You fail to acknowledge the differences between the two reports. You are burying your head in the sand in avoidance, making up all sorts of "possible" excuses because the facts regarding the two show you are wrong.
And you fail to acknowledge that nowhere does the report state what you said it did, that *anyone* opposed to abortion is a right wing extremist.
Oh, and as to your belief that there are no right wing anti abortion groups:
link
I thought your point was that the nature of the two reports are the same. Otherwise, how do you compare them? Why don't you answer the questions?
"Guesses about intent"? You have got to be kidding. Is this coming from the person who's been asserting that there's some partisan intent behind this report?
The DHS is most certainly in the business of identifying people who go too far with their views.
>>You make my point. There is no one identified in the right wing report.
Oh really? Your pont was that the report classified anyone opposed to abortion as a right wing extermist. You have yet to back that up with any support. I notice that you have shifted the target to whether a specific group is named, unable to back up your first point.
funnyman,
You are misaken again. I have shown time and again to Brab that the lack of specifics in the report of any particular group broadens the definition in that report to include any and all who happend to have political viewpoints opposite those of the administration, specifically those who oppose abortion.
You have not countered anything. All you are really saying is, "Is not." Brab tried to argue that the report is not inclusive and failed time and again. The report is indefensible because the implication's in the report are clear. Napolitano acccuses anyone who doesn't tow the Obama line on abortion, immigration, or federal authority, is in Napolitano's mind, a right wing extremist and possible threat to the country. That is ludicrious, offensive, and so partisain as to disqualify her from holding such an important job.
>>You are misaken again.
No, I'm not. Your own quote doesn't even back up what you claim it did!
Please, AA, show us where the report says that *anyone* opposed to abortion is considered an extremist?
As to the lack of specific groups named, so what?
>>Napolitano acccuses anyone who doesn't tow the Obama line on abortion, immigration, or federal authority, is in Napolitano's mind, a right wing extremist and possible threat to the country.
Groan! I guess you think you can make up things all day, don't you? Please show us where the report says this.
Let's simplify this a bit.
You understand that sometimes people's views go too far.
Are you saying such people are not a threat? I hope not.
Next step. Do you contend that this group can't possibly include people who are fixated on issues like abortion or immigration? Again, that would be difficult for you.
Now, where would you expect to find such people? Maybe you might find some in groups that focus on that one specific issue.
Show me where that logic doesn't work. Please.
>>t gets tiresome pointing out that you are again parsing in order to defend the indefensible.
Translation: AA is parsing again. What the f** are you talking about? See my first post. As Brab points out, you pretty much doomed your stupid case to begin with when you included the word "anyone" in your original post. Please show us where Napolitano states what you claim he states
You doomed your reply by not knowing Napolitano is a woman. :-)
I'll invite you to read my posts. Take it or leave it. you are simply repeating Brab.
>>I'll invite you to read my posts. Take it or leave it. you are simply repeating Brab.
In other words, after all your huffing and puffing, you can't provide any text to support your argument. What a surprise. It's the AA rule: make grand claims that aren't backed up by support.
But AA did catch a typo with "he" instead of "she", FMP, and I think that was his last attempt at a bailout. Almost as sad as another wingnuts being confused by an "h" on the end of "Cheeto" on another thread.
I haven't been around this site as much lately, I'd forgotten how shamelessly dishonest these trolls can be. I've been missing some laughs.
And it gets even more tiresome pointing out to you that you are again failing to comprehend the simplest of statements in order to advance the incomprehensible.
AA, I presumed to take up your invitation to Pants to "read my post again." His interpretatin is spot on. Perhaps you should read it again.
"Napolitano's report identifies just about anyone who is not a leftwing Democrat as a "right wing extremist" and a potential threat to the U.S. "
Pretty clear, and clearly hysterical.
>>Pretty clear, and clearly hysterical.
Agree. Really, AA, who are you trying to fool? Do you think we can't read what you wrote when it is 2 inches above?
Conch,
That quote is simply my interpretation based on deduction. Some are going of on a tangent purposely misinterpreting this statement so as to deflect the obvious characterization in the report that links principled people of good will, who happen to be conservative, as right wing extremists.
It really is not that hard to follow.
In this case, I assume you are using the word "deduction" to mean "subtraction." Because if one subtracts all logic from the world, one is left with arguments like yours.
>>You are mistaken. This found at the bottom of page 2 of the report
It's the AA rule: whenever he posts something, it almost *never* supports what he thinks it does. Usually he provides a link, perhaps hoping no one will follow the link. This time he provides a direct quotation and still can't see his foolishness!
As others have pointed out, did you miss the phrase "It mas include?" And did you miss the entire text that came before it? Here's an exercise. What does this quote say?
"In order to win Wimbeldon, you have to have a strong serve and good net playing skils. In the 80's, such players included left handers (whose serve gave them an advantage) such as Connoer and McEnroe."
a) Only left handers play well at Wimbeldon
b) Many types of players can win at Wimbeldon, and left handers have had notable success?
(Hint: the answer is B)
I mean really, your own text basically states "Extremists reject government authority and may include those who are anti abortion."
Like I say, keep up the kookiness, AA. Is it your hyper, knee jerk partisanship that makes you such a sloppy reader, or are you just that way in general?
funnyman,
You are only repeating Brabs failed arguments to parse the word 'may' and make it mean something it clearly does not. Oh and adding juvenile snarkiness to boot does not improve your argument at all.
You have so little confidence in the perceptions of others that you have to warn them about me and my previous posts? Hahahaha. Weak. Very weak.
"May" simply does not suggest anything about everyone in a group. You have no argument as to how "it may include" means that everyone who opposes abortion is a dangerous radical. The fact that you've contradicted yourself by saying that it's about single-issue groups bolsters that impression.
In the report on left wing extremism, the report specifically notes that while most members have never engaged in any activity that is illegal it is important to include them because some members do. Sounds to me like the same standard is being applied to the right wing extremism report. Will you denounce both reports as unfair now?
Snoop,
Do you have a link to that report? Do you think both reports are unfair?
Not sure which one Snoop is talking about, but here's the one from January of this year:
DHS: "Leftwing Extremists Likely to Increase Use of Cyber Attacks over the Coming Decade"
26 January 2009
Does this lump all ljberals as left-wing extremists?
BTW, that's not some fancy new way to spell liberal.
I ljke it.
pete,
If you compare the definitions, the leftwing extremists are identified as those who are willing to break the law, while there is no such caveat in the right wing definition.
You simply have to disagree with Napolitano on states authority vs federal authority, or abortion, or immigration to be targeted as an extremist on the right.
psp linked the report up above, AA. IMHO the only thing unfair about either would be the fact that it only targets one audience. C'mon, terrorism is terrorism.
Characterizing anyone who opposes abortion, among others, as right wing extremists shows the absolute partisanship of these radical leftists.
AA, looks like you need another vacation.
Taking a rifle and shooting a doctor who does HIS freaking job? Bombing an clinic that LEGALLY performs abortions, killing a policeman and severly injuring a nurse? THOSE actions are not considered extremise in YOUR world?
When you add it up, Napolitano's report identifies just about anyone who is not a leftwing Democrat as a "right wing extremist" and a potential threat to the U.S. That is laughable and tragic at the same time.
Buy a clue, the DHS issued a report on "left wing extremists" back in January 2009. The only reason you didn't notice it is the majority on the left DON'T consider the report about them.
A similar assessment of left-wing radicals completed in January was distributed to federal, state and local police agencies at that time.
"These assessments are done all the time, this is nothing unusual," Kuban said.
Which begs the question, if right wing nuts don't consider themselves extremists WHY are you whinning about the report?
She should be fired and Obama apologize for such shoddy partaisanship.
She is doing her freaking job!!!!
The DHS under President Bush was apparently more reluctant to make such assessments about the right. According to CQ, a 2005 report outlining terrorist threats “does not mention anti-government groups, white supremacists and other radical right-wing movements.” Bush’s report did, however, list the threat of left-wing groups such as the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front. And a 2001 report from the Energy Department examined “Left-Wing Extremism: The Current Threat.”
Pearlene,
Nice snark.
Perhaps you could point out the exact example of the doctor being shot, the bombing and when each took place? While you are at it, please identify the radical right wing extremist group shown to be responsible. Finally please show me where that group is identified in the DHS report.
As for the differences betwen the "left wing" and the "right wing" reports, please see my reply to Pete above. Of course the left didn't think it was about them. It was specific to those groups you mentioned and qualified those leftist exremists to be those who would break the law. There is no such qualifier for those on the right.
>>Perhaps you could point out the exact example of the doctor being shot, the bombing and when each took place? While you are at it, please identify the radical right wing extremist group shown to be responsible.
"In letters sent to the media, the Army of God claimed responsibility for the bombing of an abortion clinic and a gay bar in Atlanta, GA. Eric Robert Rudolph was on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List prior to his capture in May 2003. He pled guilty to these crimes."
link
funny,
I didn't know you were Pearlene? Can't she defend her own post?
Besides funny your proof is six years out of date. Eric Robert Rudolph is imprisoned for life. I doubt very much he is still considered a security threat.
Bill Ayers bombed the Pentagon and Capital. Is he still also a security threat?
>>Besides funny your proof is six years out of date.
Wow! You asked for proof of a person who bomed an abortion clinic. I gave you a person who was convicted, and in your mind, this is irrelevant because: the person was convicted! Besides that, the Army of God is still operating.
Here's another quote, by the way:
"Army of God member James Kopp, alias Atomic Dog, was convicted for the fatal shooting of Dr. Barnett Slepian in 1998."
PS: you must be really desperate if your line of defense is that I can't answer a post responding to someone else. Since when does that break posting etiquett?
funny,
You can respond all you like. Like I said - your examples are years out of date. Going back even farther with your latest example does not help you.
So your point is that radical abortion opponents might have been dangerous in the past, but they aren't today.
Why?
Because he says so. That's his entire argument. Not a shred of evidence to back up anything he says, and rejecting out of hand evidence that proves him foolish.
I didn't know you were Pearlene? Can't she defend her own post?
YES SHE CAN!
AA, IF you bothered to actually read the DHS report, you'd find that the main concern was not groups, "but the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells".
What I don't understand and what YOU failed to address is WHY you're sooo upset with the report? WHY does a report on right wing EXTREMISTS offend YOU?
You wanted examples:
March 10, 1993: Dr. David Gunn of Pensacola, Florida was fatally shot during a protest. He had been the subject of wanted-style posters distributed by Operation Rescue in the summer of the year before. Michael F. Griffin was found guilty of Dr. Gunn's murder and was sentenced to life in prison.
June 29, 1994: Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, a clinic escort, were both shot to death outside of another facility in Pensacola. Rev. Paul Jennings Hill was charged with the killings, received a death sentence, and was executed September 3, 2003.
December 30, 1994: Two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were killed in two clinic attacks in Brookline, Massachusetts. John Salvi, who prior to his arrest was distributing pamphlets from Human Life International,[5] was arrested and confessed to the killings. He committed suicide in prison and guards found his body under his bed with a plastic garbage bag tied around his head. Salvi had also confessed to a non-lethal attack in Norfolk, Virginia days before the Brookline killings.
January 29, 1998: Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, was killed when his workplace was bombed. Eric Robert Rudolph, who was also responsible for the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing, was charged with the crime and received two life sentences as a result.
October 23, 1998: Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot to death at his home in Amherst, New York. His was the last in a series of similar shootings against providers in Canada and northern New York state which were all likely committed by James Kopp. Kopp was convicted of Dr. Slepian's murder after finally being apprehended in France in 2001.
December 25, 1984: An abortion clinic and two physicians' offices in Pensacola, Florida were bombed in the early morning of Christmas Day by a quartet of young people (Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons, Kaye Wiggins) who later called the bombings "a gift to Jesus on his birthday."[13]
October 1999: Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage. He was later sentenced to 60 months in prison.[14]
May 28, 2000: An arson at a clinic in Concord, New Hampshire on resulted in damage estimated at US$20,000. The case remains unsolved.[15]
September 30, 2000: A Catholic priest drove his car into the Northern Illinois Health Clinic after learning that the FDA had approved the drug RU-486. He pulled out an ax before being shot at by a security guard.[16]
June 11, 2001: An unsolved bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington destroyed a wall, resulting in US$6000 in damages. [14]
July 4, 2005: A clinic Palm Beach, Florida was the target of an arson. The case remains open.[14]
December 12, 2005: Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a “memorial lamp” for an abortion she had had there. [17]
September 13, 2006 David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and then started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions, however Edgerton is not an abortion clinc.[18]
April 25, 2007: A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building. Paul Ross Evans (who had a criminal record for armed robbery and theft) was found guilty of the crime. [19]
May 9, 2007: An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.[20]
December 6, 2007: Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd's clinic in Albuquerque. Altman’s girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at the clinic. [21]
January 22, 2009 Matthew L. Derosia, 32, who was reported to have had a history of mental illness [22]rammed a SUV into the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota.[23]
Hi Pearlene!
I bet Barney wishes he hadn't mentioned you. LOL. Take it easy on him, that's a pretty mean beatdown after what's already happened to him on this thread.
Hey Col!
Sometimes I think he's crazy as a betsy bug. :-)
Pearlene,
Great one sided view from some unknown link Thanks.
Take a look at these statistics:
The National Abortion Federation (NAF) keeps a running tally of "anti-choice violence and disruption" on its Web site at http://www.prochoice.org/violence. Many news outlets rely on the NAF's numbers and accept them uncritically. But an examination of the NAF's statistics show that they are grossly bloated.
The NAF shows 42,818 incidents of violence and disruption during the time period 1977-1999. Of these, 33,235 (77.6%) are mere picketing and 6,679 (15.6%) are "hate mail & harassing phone calls." Since a "harrasing" phone call may consist of merely disagreement with them or that a Christmas card is "hate mail," we can safely assume that the vast majority of these are trivial incidents.
The Differences.
The numbers below are a comparison of the list of documented pro-abortion violence and a comparison to alleged "pro-life" violence.
Deadly and extreme crimes against persons (murder,
manslaughter, infanticide, attempted murder,
kidnapping, torture and rape):
VERIFIABLE CRIMES BY PRO- ABORTION ADVOCATES: 121
ALLEGED CRIMES BY "PRO- LIFE" ADVOCATES: 26
Less serious crimes against persons resulting in
actual injury (assault, sex crimes, reckless
endangerment, and violation of civil rights):
VERIFIABLE CRIMES BY PRO- ABORTION ADVOCATES: 651
ALLEGED CRIMES BY "PRO- LIFE" ADVOCATES: 112
Property crimes (arson, firebombing, burglary,
vandalism, destruction of property, theft
and larceny):
VERIFIABLE CRIMES BY PRO- ABORTION ADVOCATES: 143
ALLEGED CRIMES BY "PRO- LIFE" ADVOCATES: 1094
These statistics highlight three vivid contrasts;
(1) Deadly pro-abortion violence has been reported at least since 1965, and is escalating rapidly, with 21 murders committed since 1992 alone. Deadly "pro-life" violence only began when the pro-abortion movement started to choke off peaceful means of protest through Congress and the courts (Michael Griffin committed the first murder by a "pro-lifer" in March 1993, just a couple of weeks after Congress began to selectively crack down on peaceful protest with the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Bill.
(2) "Pro-life" violence is almost always directed at the burning and destruction of abortion mills. Clinic bombers have explicitly testified that they carried out their activities in the middle of the night to avoid hurting anyone. As shown in the comparison above, the vast majority of pro-abortion violence is directed against human beings exhibiting a logical digression. If a movement can advocate the killing of millions of inconvenient or unwanted preborn people, its members will naturally extend this killing to born people.
(3) As the documentation list shows, many instances of pro-abortion assault are extremely cowardly. Pro-abortionists always like their victims�born or preborn�to be helpless. Pro-abortion men prefer to kick, punch, slap and spit on small children, women and elderly adults. They only attack young adult pro-lifers when they are in mobs.
Hundreds of Attacks. Pro-abortionists have violently attacked those who oppose them in literally hundreds of instances. They have attacked pro-lifers with guns, cars, acid, hypodermic syringes, and baseball bats, and other pro-abortionists have applauded and supported these actions.
They have raped, forcibly aborted and killed their patients, they have murdered their girlfriends and wives, they have botched third-trimester abortions and callously left their victims to die.
http://tree-in-the-sea.blogspot.com/2008/05/pro-abortion-violence.html
Who is more prone to violence? Why does not Napolitano highlight the pro-abortion extremists?
First off, aren't you the person who linked to a rapture site? Why are you talking about one-sided views from unknown sites?
Why would you expect to see anything about "pro-abortion" in a report on rightwing extremism? And I hope you realize that you're arguing that if there's more violence on the left, you're admitting that there is still violence on the right. And that's exactly what you challenged Pearlene over.
Finally, aren't you associating everyone who is pro-choice with these extremists, especially since you're obsessed with referring to them as "pro-abortion"?
Hey Brab, Another day...
No, I never linked to a rapture site. So you are wrong again.
I listed the link. Hence it is not an unkown sige. So you are wrong again.
You miss my point entirely. Pearlene rant about pro-life violence is 10 years out of date. Her original assertion about a doctor being killed is over 10 years old. Her later follow up is from as yet an unkown website. And tosses in a bunch of claims that are unsolved. Some accounts of arson are staged by pro-abortionists themselves in instances of fraud. The unsolved ones are simply that.
I have never argued that there are not occasional acts of violence. However, it is apparent by the lack of evidence provided by Napolitano that there is no organized effort and no evidence any single issue pro life group is a threat. It is simply textbook leftist propaganda to marginalize the pro-life movement.
It has been If you were serious about sources, rather than arguing for arguing sake, you would have brought it up to Pearlene rather than me.
No I am not associating everyone who is pro-choice with extremists. However the statistics I showed seem to prove the pro-abortion side seems to exhibit far more violent behavior than the pro-life side.
I find it curious that Napolitano doesn't have a report showing the tendency for violence on the left to include pro-abortionists. Actually, no I don't. I understand it completely. She is an unabashed left-winger and is using DHS in a dishonest manner to discredit people of good will who are politically and ideologically opposed to the leftist agenda.
"No, I never linked to a rapture site."
I believe you're forgetful or dishonest. I'm quite sure that was you. In any event, the site you provided is hardly objective, and it's not as if you haven't cut-and-pasted without citation multiple times. I took the bit about "unknown" to mean "obscure".
"Pearlene rant about pro-life violence is 10 years out of date."
Again, why are pro-life radicals capable of violence then but not now?
"And tosses in a bunch of claims that are unsolved. Some accounts of arson are staged by pro-abortionists themselves in instances of fraud."
There's a few of those claims there. Are the specific instances she mentioned staged by "pro-abortionists"? Do you have evidence of that?
"No I am not associating everyone who is pro-choice with extremists."
Oh, now you rediscover the term "pro-choice", as opposed to the extremist-sounding "pro-abortion", which creates the impression that we want people to have more abortions.
"She is an unabashed left-winger and is using DHS in a dishonest manner to discredit people of good will who are politically and ideologically opposed to the leftist agenda."
Except the report was commissioned while Bush was in office. How does that influence your perception? Or is such a thing possible?
AA now thinks it is the year 2019, because Pearlene posted an example from January, 2009.
AA, you are aware this was requested by the Bush administration, right?
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/15/fox-dhs-bush/
Fox Reporter Contradicts Fox: DHS Report On Right Wing Was ‘Requested By The Bush Administration’
Yesterday, a Department of Homeland Security report about the rising radicalization of “rightwing extremists” was leaked. The right wing was immediately incensed, viewing the report on radical “extremists” as an attack on “conservatives.” MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, for example, tried to suggest it was a report about Republican “loyalists.”
However, this morning, Fox News’s Catherine Herridge revealed that the report, along with an earlier report on radicalized left-wing groups, was actually “requested by the Bush administration” but not completed until recently:
HERRIDGE: Well this is an element of the story which has largely gone unreported. One looks at right-wing groups, as you mentioned. And a second is on left-wing groups. Significantly, both were requested by the Bush administration but not finished until President Bush left office.
tman,
I do not have a problem with ordering a report. In case you missed it, the problem lies with the definitions of a right wing extremist to include just about anyone who isn't a left wing follower of Obama. It is a purely partisain hack job and Napolitano, as the person responsible for it's very offensive nature, should be fired.
ps. I saw her on the Today show and she mischaracterized the principled objections to the report and the people who objected. It was government double speak at it's best. But then she represented Anita Hill so we know she is blatantly dishonest.
That would be a problem if the report actually did that. It's a good thing it didn't.
Your reply is laughable. It is the slanted DHS report that is doing the fear mongering by lumping all conservatives as right wing extremists.
ps. by conservatives I mean those who favor states authrority over federal authority, or those opposed to illegal immigration, or those opposed to abortion.
It's "1994" when Napalitno tries to redefine Obama's political opponents as right wing extremists.
This report is just an ideological mishmash from the left of generalizations and unfounded conjecture and nowhere does it provide any facts to base it's contention that right wing groups are actually recruiting more do to current economic conditions.
It's all the same old trope that Obama arrogantly told his private supporters about those in the midwest when he said, ""And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
It is apparent that Napalitano still 'clings' to left wing myths about conservatives.
People who don't recognize the authority of the federal government, people who commit violence against illegal immigrants, and people who threaten or bomb abortion clinics would all be conservative. They would also be extremists.
One clarification that AA failed to mention in his post is that conservatives favor states authority over federal authority unless they don't agree with the states decision as in the Schiavo case, Oregon's Death with Dignity law, gay marriage cases or abortion.
Good point.
You are mixing apples with oranges.
One can oppose the actions of the State in certain instances while still favoring state authority over federal authority.
Sounds like you're making the same clarification that Worrier just did, only less divulged.
Pete,
No. As I explained above, there is a difference between favoring state authority over federal authority with certain actions of the state.
I assume you disagreed with California's rejection of Prop 8, while at the same time preferring the Obama nationalize healthcare. You favor federal authority over state authority in the case of healthcare, but disagree with a State over it's election outcome. You can be for one and against the other as they are different issues.
I don't prefer that Obama nationalize health care. He's making no such proposal. I would prefer that the health care itself stay private, but have our mechanism for paying for it be nationalized. But Obama is not proposing either one. His proposal is to have a government-run insurance compete with private insurance. He is not proposing nationalized health care.
Pete,
Thanks for sharing your views. I stand corrected.
The only problem is that the government run insurance will effectively run the privates out of business. But that is a different subject for a later time.
However I do hope you now understand the analogy I originally made.
Brab,
Nice bit of ideological defining. You remind me of Napolitano. However you are in error again.
People on the left who do not recognize the authority of the federal government could include Obama's first political supporter and friend, Bill Ayers, The list from past include the SDS, the Weathermen, the Black Panthers. Other's are mayors of sanctuary cities, like San Francisco's mayor Gavin Newsom. Obviously they are not conservatives and yet they are extremists.
Fair enough, but the obvious point is that the attributes of conservatives that you yourself laid out are not mutually exclusive from the behavior of extremists. There's no "lumping together" because it's simply recognizing the simple fact that some people go too far with their beliefs.
Brab,
To me, your argument is similar to this... You could also say extremists have two eyes therefore they are conservative. Obviously having eyes is not mutually exclusive to conservatives and just because they share that attribute with right wing extremists, does mean you can legitimately say, they "may" be right wing extremists.
It is obvious some people go to far with their beliefs. My contention is that Napolitano is going way too far for clearly partisain political purposes, (and without any proof,) of writing an intelligence report that in essence associates conservative views with right wing extremism. She is politicizing DHS in order to marginalize Obama's political opponents as potential enemies of the state.
I am deeply offended by that and as citizen of the United States I strenuously object to be cast in such a light simply because of my political views. Napolitano is supposed to be there to protect me and my family. She is not there to accuse me and those with whom I agree of being an extremists and a threat.
"To me, your argument is similar to this... You could also say extremists have two eyes therefore they are conservative. Obviously having eyes is not mutually exclusive to conservatives and just because they share that attribute with right wing extremists, does mean you can legitimately say, they "may" be right wing extremists."
What the hell? The number of eyes you have isn't much of a question of degree. That is completely random and makes no sense whatsoever.
The common factor between conservatives and rightwing extremists are core values. How the hell are you supposed to talk about those that fixate and obsess over certain issues without mentioning what those issues are? Please explain.
Pete,
There is no proof that a "core" value of being against abortion is evident in any right wing extremist group identified by the report. There is no proof given in the report of any single issue anti-abortion group that even exists. If that is so, why are they included in this report and how does Napolitano know they are recruiting new members?
Obviously she doesnt. Instead her report, which isclearly an ideological and political document, paints anyone who belongs to a right-to-life group or is opposed to abortion is now considered by Napolitano to maybe a right wing extremist and therefore a potential security threat.
That is completely offensive besides being without any proof.
You're changing your tune. Now you're saying that the report says "anyone" who belongs to such a group may be an extremist. Before it was the report saying that anyone who opposes abortion is an extremist. Which is it?
And you're not answering the question. If you're concerned about leftwing extremists, and one sign of such extremism was belonging to a single-issue group opposing animal cruelty, then how would you mention that without being nakedly partisan and ideological? Please explain.
Brab,
To answer your first question, take your pick. I believe the definition is vague enough to include both. You are simply parsing again.
I assume you are trying to create an argument with your leftwing example. If you mention the name of the group that is single issued and extremist and breaks the law, that is something one can argue because there are tangible facts to associate with that group.
When there is no group named, as in the case of Napolitano's right wing report, then you can try and argue that some unknown groups exist and they are extremists. You don't have to provide any facts backing up whether or not they are single issue groups, whether they are law breaking, or whether they are recruiting dissafected veterans. You simply make unsupported claims that they may be all the above and at the same time infer everyone who belongs to groups you are ideologically and pollitcally opposed fall into this extremist category.
That is why Napolitano's report is nakedly partisain and ideological. There is nothing in that report that identifies any actual group. There is only guilt by association and accusations of being right wing extremists using a defintion made up to suit her political and ideological views.
Look at it this way. Lets say How would you like Michael Chertoff, a political appointee of Presidnte Bush issuing a report regarding homeland security saying anyone who comes to the MMFA website may belong to a left wing extremist group. Not only that, but unnamed left wing extremist groups are using the recession to recruit people dissafected over losing their job. Be on the watch for illegal activities and threats to the homeland.
Would that bother you? Do you like being associated with extremists who might pose a security threat to the United States? Do you want the DHS or FBI doing survelience on you and your family because of this type of report and the fact that you happen to log on to this website? Do you like being cast as a left wing extremist and potential threat? How does that make you feel to know the DHS considers you someone who may be a security threat based on some of your political stances expressed here at MMFA?
That's what the report by Napolitano does only it doesn't imply threats to those who log into MMFA, but rather those who oppose abortion or illegal immigration or limiting federal authority, which in essence are simply conservative views. I don't know about you, but I am deeply offended and worried that a government official would state that people of differing political views, (who have not broken the law,) are now considered threats to the state.
Liberal Fascism 101.
"To answer your first question, take your pick."
They're two completely different concepts. "Any of them" is not at all similar to "all of them".
"Lets say How would you like Michael Chertoff, a political appointee of Presidnte Bush issuing a report regarding homeland security saying anyone who comes to the MMFA website may belong to a left wing extremist group."
You'd have to show cause. Obviously people who fixate on certain issues are more likely to be single-issue advocates, and are also more likely to be extreme in their beliefs. It doesn't mean that everyone of that sort is a threat, but it's a matter of identification. So again, how would you identify an ideological trait of a leftwing extremist without coming off as ideological yourself? It's a very straightforward question.
Logically, that's a true statement. Left-wing extremists may, in fact, come to the MMfA website. By the logic you are trying to push, however, that means that everyone who comes to the MMfA website, including you, is a left-wing extremist.
You just shot your own argument down by providing an example where your logic (and I use the term loosely) is full of holes.
>>My contention is that Napolitano is going way too far for clearly partisain political purposes, (and without any proof,)
Translation: AA's point is that he makes a statement he can't support in order to be a hyper partisan, and then accuse the report of doing that. Oh, and no proof?
link
funny,
You are way behind as usual. I answered your "link" to Pearlene. Your examples are at best six years old and those miscreants are behind bars. They are hardly a security threat today. You guys arguing that there is an organized effort of lawbreaking by pro-lifers is simply regurgitated propaganda and woefully out of date.
As for your comprehension skills. Not one of them was mentioned in the Napolitano's report nor was there any proof any exist. But then I've proved that to Brab way back too.
I'm done now with this thread. Thanks for the discussions.
Funny. Earlier you got your knickers in a twist because someone else answered a post that you made to Pearlene. Now you're saying that you answered someone else in a reply to Pearlene. You can't have it both ways. Either your responses are only for those you address them to, or they are open for anyone to respond to.
The last remnants of your sand castle of distortion are being washed out to sea, and you're trying to protect the moat.
The question I had yesterday and the question I have today , Do Joe scarborough have a drinking problem? Because every time I take a change in watching his show, he always seem to be drunk, My next question is why MSNBC let drunks like Joe Scarborough, Chirsterfer Hitchens and Others, to speak lies, hate and racism.on their shows?
Off topic, just for fun. You know, to balance the stupefying ignorance the wingnuts have been filling this website with of late.
Conservative, Christian, Right Wing Republican, Straight, White, American, Male.
Round,
Gotta love the intellectual level of argumentation on the left in resorting to cartoons expressing dishonest and false sterotypes of those on the right.
Sadly, I've come to expect it.
Sadly, you've come to represent it.
It seems to me that the Conservative/Republican movement has such a small tent that it can't denounce the fringe elements of its support.Consequently extreme rhetoric,racist commentary/actions and potentially violent behavior is not denounced when it occurs.(just look at Sarah Palin during tthe campaign).The same outrage was expressed when they were warned about playing with fireThere is no reason for mainstream non violent conservatives to be this upset.Its as if they are in denial that these extremists exist and are dangerous.When was the last time an identifiable left wing extremist went on a shooting spree.By contrast we've already had arrests for 2 plots to assassinate Obama,the church shooting in Knoxville and the policemen shot in Pittsburgh where the shooters embraced extreme right wing ideology!! These are the facts that the report was based on I'm sure.Kinda hard to shoot people with a computer or Blackberry!!!
Thanks for the laugh.
Your laugh looks more like hysteria to me.