In a lie-entitled article, "Napolitano defends report on right-wing extremist groups" (Apr15,2k9, CNN Politics.com, hypotheticals are built up to an absurd conclusion. It looks like a fandango to boost FBI funding for an Obama witchhunt of the rightwing.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Department of Homeland Security will never monitor ideology or political beliefs, the head of the agency said Wednesday, responding to criticism of a recent report on right-wing extremist groups.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says the U.S. will never monitor ideology or political beliefs.
It already does; and it's inevitable with a vengeance, if they target what rallies Iraq and Afghanistan combat vets may possibly attend.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says the U.S. will never monitor ideology or political beliefs.
Propagandistic repetitiveness.
"Let me be very clear: We monitor the risks of violent extremism taking root here in the United States," Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said in a written statement.
"Risks"? Note: not violent extremism, but theoretical risks she and her squads imagine but for which she has admittedly got no evidence. She means the FBI will concentrate on new targets, that don't presently exist to her or apparently anyone's knowledge, on the base of risk-management criteria that are of the broadest social kind regarding recent history. It's a theory about American combat soldiers, largely, but she tries to hide that ermbarassing truth in her next sentence.
"We don't have the luxury of focusing our efforts on one group; we must protect the country from terrorism whether foreign or homegrown and regardless of the ideology that motivates its violence."
"One group"? What group is that she cites but doesn't name? Why it's Islamacist terrorists, the jihadists, the pirates. But, of course, both her report and her defense of it does single out Iraq and Afghanistan combat veterans. A few of whom
may just possibly join groups she designates as "extremist"--not jihadists, not terrorists, just some group/s that are rightwing. This is a strategy to control thawt and political expression in America instead of getting rid of the terrorists already in existence in sleeper cells. Instead, Janet Napolitano resorts to the wildest hypotheticals to conjure up propaganda points.
The report, "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," said right-wing extremist groups may be using the recession and the election of the nation's first African-American president to recruit members.
"MAY BE"?--a guess, a hypothetical which when challenged becomes a theory but not a fact, a choice of words to cover her lack of evidence. A dishonest manoeuvre tricked up and trucked out just before the Tea Parties, where ... perhaps ... maybe some vets register their discontent regarding the dishonest unread tax laws that Congress passed and Obama signed.
The report, which was prepared in coordination with the FBI, was published last week. It was distributed to federal, state and local law enforcement officials. Mainstream media picked up the story after it was reported by conservative bloggers. ... »
Though the nine-page report said it had "no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence," it said real-estate foreclosures, unemployment and tight credit could create a fertile recruiting environment for right-wing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past."
The twitter-brained head of Insecurity is definitely implying
armed confrontation. Even that however was not the case with McVeigh (in the prosecution of whom Napolitano was involved), not so much that, rather truer to armed confrontation between the FBI and the
Branch Davidian sect's compound where a slawter was conducted by the FBI, "the 1993 siege on their property near Waco, Texas, by the ATF and the FBI, which resulted in the deaths of 82 of the followers of David Koresh" (
Wikipedia.)
"Mainstream media tended to discount the critical views presented in early documentary films, because they were seen as coming from the political fringes of the right and left. This changed in 1997, when professional film makers Dan Gifford and Amy Sommer produced their Emmy Award winning documentary, Waco: The Rules of Engagement.[46] This film presents a history of the Branch Davidian movement and, most importantly, a critical examination of the conduct of law enforcement, both leading up to the raid and through the aftermath of the fire. The film features footage of the Congressional hearings on Waco, and juxtaposition of official government spokespeople with footage and evidence often directly contradicting the government spokespeople. The documentary also shows infra-red footage demonstrating that the FBI likely used incendiary devices to start the fire which consumed the building and that the FBI did indeed fire on, and kill, Branch Davidians attempting to flee the fire.
Waco: The Rules of Engagement was nominated for a 1997 Academy Award for best documentary and was followed by another film: Waco: A New Revelation." (
Wikipedia.)
"The destruction of the Waco compound enraged McVeigh and convinced him that it was time to take action. The government's use of CS gas on women and children angered McVeigh; he had been exposed to the gas as part of his military training and thus was familiar with its effects. The disappearance of certain evidence, such as the bullet-ridden steel-reinforced front door to the complex, led him to suspect a cover-up. He believed that even if David Koresh had committed crimes, his followers did not deserve to be killed." (
Wikipedia.)
(blockquote)The report compared the current climate with that of the 1990s, saying a recession, criticism over outsourcing of jobs and a perceived threat to U.S. power at that time fueled a resurgence of right-wing extremism.
However, it said, "Despite similarities to the climate of the 1990s, the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years."
It warned that the groups
may use proposed restrictions on firearms and the debate on immigration as recruiting tools, and said the groups
may try to reach out to veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"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," the report said. It noted that Timothy McVeigh, the bomber of the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995, was a military veteran.
Radio talk show host Rush LimbaughI don't like him except for his recent support for the Humane Society, and his correctness as follows:
decried the report on Tuesday, saying, "There is not one instance they can cite as evidence where any of these right-wing groups have done anything," according to a transcript of his remarks on his Web site.
"You have a report from Janet Napolitano and Barack Obama, Department of Homeland Security portraying standard, ordinary, everyday conservatives as posing a bigger threat to this country than al Qaeda terrorists or genuine enemies of this country like Kim Jong Il," he said, referring to the leader of North Korea.
Michael Savage, another conservative commentator, also criticized the report.
"What does Big Sis say these right-wingers are concerned about?" he wrote on his Web site, referring to Napolitano.
"Illegal aliens, the increasing power of the federal government, gun grabs, abortion and the loss of U.S. national sovereignty. In other words, anyone who is worried about preserving our borders, language and culture is on Big Sis' watch list."
In her Wednesday statement, Napolitano said the agency is on "the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not -- nor will we ever -- monitor ideology or political beliefs."
She said she was briefed on the general topic, which "struck a nerve as someone personally involved in the Timothy McVeigh prosecution."
Napolitano said she intends to meet with American Legion National Commander David K. Rehbein, who sent her a letter Monday stating his concern about the report.
"Timothy McVeigh was only one of more than 42 million veterans who have worn this nation's uniform during wartime," he wrote. "To continue to use McVeigh as an example of the stereotypical 'disgruntled military veteran' is as unfair as using Osama bin Laden as the sole example of Islam."
He added, "I think it is important for all of us to remember that Americans are not the enemy. The terrorists are."
Napolitano said in her statement that she will tell Rehbein that the Department of Homeland Security honors veterans and employs thousands, including Deputy Secretary Jane Holl Lute.
So what? She can't discriminate in hiring because it's unlawful. Nor can she legally curtail the political expression of those employees who go to an Anti-Tax rally or want Obama's misguided tax laws repealed.The Obama administration in January issued a warning about left-wing extremists. Both reports were initiated during the administration of President George W. Bush.But how is "extremist" being defined? Why are there separate reports? Why is the timing so different, and why does the anti-vet press flood come out just before
Tax Day and the
Tea Parties? Why is Bush being referenced when all his other actions have been defamed and/or reversed. The FBI-like coverup by Nappy demonstrates that she is another Obama misguided appointment.
Using AdDesign, I made my own adtext to fit into a moving digital graphic structure. But I haven't yet gotten it to work here in my blogs. Blogs are not website's, but mine is a hybrid in some respects.
