The new Janet Reno? (Political, of course)

AxeMental · Post by **AxeMental** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:47 pm

Yep, this is an attempt to criminalize conservatives (all types) in the mind of the voter.

TRP: "Damn the fucking Bush II administration (and its complicit congressional stooges) for its Homeland of Nazi Security bullshit. The first time I heard of this new "office", I knew it for what it was: it's the newly resurrected, undead, mid-twentieth century Hitler/Stalinist police force to keep the rabble in line. It even sounds like the same type power-tripping bullshit."

Watch it 766540330453, or you'll be required to attend re-programing.

Boy, its at times like this I love Ayn Rand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand (When I was a kid she was required reading, my kid (now in 9th grade) didn't even know who she was).

Foster, its written in black and white. I'm not following your logic about how its not really there (even if its not the main thrust, its obviously something there worried about (not now but down the line). And you know what, they should be. One of the founding fathers (can't remember which) said something along the lines of "elections are bloodless revolutions, but every now and then a bloody revolution may be necessary to keep government in its place". Right now we have essentially one government party (there's not much difference between (Bush vs. Clinton or Obama). All are for big government and control of the populace. When elections stop mattering (ie. both parties are the same) and enough people "care" something might give.

Hopefully, we'll see some economic conservatives get nominated and win (but I'm not holding my breath).

T. Foster · Post by **T. Foster** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 3:54 pm

Interesting find online:

DHS report on Leftwing Extremist Threat (from January 2009)

JCBoney · Post by **JCBoney** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 4:04 pm

Hmmm. Interesting! Also interesting is the unspoken assumption that the rightwing extremists cannot conduct cyber-attacks. That's a mistake.

rogatny · Post by **rogatny** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:13 am

Napolitano's responses to this on the various news shows this morning was downright awesome in its pure Orwellian-ness...

After stating that she wished she could re-write the footnote that people are up in arms about...

"We're not accusing anyone, but making assessments."

"This is designed to promote situational awareness with law enforcement."

So, in other words, this was to promote the surveillance of people of a certain political stripe by law enforcement. Even MSNBC was critical.

By the way... isn't there something just a little... oh... Stalinist about the whole "watch out for returning veterans" thing?

AxeMental · Post by **AxeMental** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:29 am

I know she keeps digging the whole deeper.

T. Foster · Post by **T. Foster** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 12:21 pm

I'm still failing to grok the outrage here, at least outside of those who express mock-outrage for a living. Are you folks denying that there's such thing as a "rightwing extremist"? That there are potentially violent extremists out there who hold rightwing views, and that their rhetoric has racheted up a notch in the last several months? That it's reasonable and appropriate for law enforcement agencies to study and monitor such things, with an eye towards preventing another Oklahoma City bombing, or an assassination attempt on the president?

rogatny · Post by **rogatny** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 12:53 pm

T. Foster wrote:Are you folks denying that there's such thing as a "rightwing extremist"?

Certainly not.

That there are potentially violent extremists out there who hold rightwing views, and that their rhetoric has racheted up a notch in the last several months?

First part of the question I don't deny. The second part of the question, I've seen no evidence of, unless you're saying that statements from various fairly mainstream right-wing politicians and commentators (Gingrich, Limbaugh, etc.) over the last couple of months fall into this category. If that's the case, we have clashingly different views on what constitutes a "violent extremist."

That it's reasonable and appropriate for law enforcement agencies to study and monitor such things, with an eye towards preventing another Oklahoma City bombing, or an assassination attempt on the president?

And the resentment and answer to your question comes from the fact that many don't believe that veterans, 2nd or 10th amendment supporters, or pro-lifers are any more likely to attempt another OKC bombing or presidential assassination attempt than any of many other groups or causes out there, and many law-abiding Americans feel as if we've been painted with a broad brush.

For all the lefty criticism of racial profiling over the last 8 years... their instrument of change is engaging in political profiling, and it's just as reprehensible.

Flambeaux · Post by **Flambeaux** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 12:55 pm

rogatny wrote:For all the lefty criticism of racial profiling over the last 8 years... their instrument of change is engaging in political profiling, and it's just as reprehensible.

More reprehensible, since racial/ethnic profiling makes sense given the nature of the enemies we're fighting and political or idea-based profiling is considered fundamentally unAmerican.

T. Foster · Post by **T. Foster** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:09 pm

You've still got the cause-effect relationship reversed -- it's not "person who holds these views" = "right wing extremist," it's "extremist who holds these views" = "right wing extremist, the particular subset of extremist we're talking about in this particular document." There was another document (that I posted a link to yesterday) discussing left wing extremists in exactly the same manner, and probably even more documents discussing other types of extremists. The only ones making a connection between the extremists and mainstream right-wingers are you guys -- you're the ones painting with the broad brush and marginalizing yourselves by (apparently) identifying your own (presumably) mainstream beliefs with the actions of McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, etc. Why would you want to deliberately blur the distinction between yourself and this guy or this guy? I sure as hell don't take it personally when people condemn ELF or the Weathermen

rogatny · Post by **rogatny** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:31 pm

T. Foster wrote:You've still got the cause-effect relationship reversed -- it's not "person who holds these views" = "right wing extremist," it's "extremist who holds these views" = "right wing extremist, the particular subset of extremist we're talking about in this particular document." There was another document (that I posted a link to yesterday) discussing left wing extremists in exactly the same manner, and probably even more documents discussing other types of extremists. The only ones making a connection between the extremists and mainstream right-wingers are you guys -- you're the ones painting with the broad brush and marginalizing yourselves by (apparently) identifying your own (presumably) mainstream beliefs with the actions of McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, etc. Why would you want to deliberately blur the distinction between yourself and this guy or this guy? I sure as hell don't take it personally when people condemn ELF or the Weathermen

Only two points... We're hardly the only ones making the connection. The head of the American Legion also made the connection. As did a number of members of Congress (both sides of the aisle). Like I said, even the wonks on MSNBC's Cup of Joe were critical of it this morning.

Other point... That liberal extremist pamphlet named specific groups and their specific activities. If this most recent pamphlet said "watch out for a resurgence of the KKK based on such and such evidence" or something to that extent, I don't think there'd be anywhere near the hubbub. Rather, this was a broadly phrased shot across the bow at American Conservatism.

Keolander · Post by **Keolander** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:33 pm

T. Foster wrote:You've still got the cause-effect relationship reversed -- it's not "person who holds these views" = "right wing extremist," it's "extremist who holds these views" = "right wing extremist

Sorry, but I call bullshit. The leaked MIAC report that equated Ron Paul supporters with Timothy McVeigh was just the tip of the iceberg. The simple fact is that Janet Napolitano and DHS has now made an 'enemies list'. Those of us who were afraid of this very scenario are now seeing it come to pass. We wanted DHS disbanded when Bush was in office, so this is not some misplaced cognitive dissonance laced outrage.

AxeMental · Post by **AxeMental** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:59 pm

Foster, your starting to sound a bit like an apologist. I know you'll disagree with this.

Imagine if this was reversed. What if some Conservative Republican administration started using the DHS to put together a list of possible left wing liberals that "might" attempt terrorist activity. The DHS didn't collect information only on those that had criminal records or associated with criminals but instructed cops on the beat to be on the watch out for cars with Obama stickers on the back (insinuating anyone that supports him is radical and "might" be a terrorist). I mean, please, this isn't a complicated issue. You should be as disgusted at this as much as any of us.

The thing is Ron Paul is totally normal (would make a great president in the mold of a Reagan for instance), I He's not an extremist, but by putting him on this list it makes him out to be. Reasonable people are going to (perhaps subconsciously) disassociate themselves with him and anyone that supports him (sorry Semaj, your now infected).

If nothing else, it will push those who believe in the conservative platform (small govt., low taxes, strong military, support for small business, etc.) to be more quiet about thier beliefs. Suddenly I feel like I need to take a shower because I'm not an Obama-big government guy. Go figure.

PS if the DHS sent out a message to watch out for cars with "go Taliban" that would be reasonable. But to pick a guy probably 90% of the Republicans would be happy with (so 100 million people give ortake) is outragous. The fact is this Janet Reno clone really thinks Ron Paul is radical, and people that follow him are unstable (so what % of people can be crazy before crazy is normal. If Ron Paul hadn't had the press and a huge part of the Republican party against him (not to mention Bush) he might be the sitting president today.

rogatny · Post by **rogatny** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 3:18 pm

AxeMental wrote:If Ron Paul hadn't had the press and a huge part of the Republican party against him (not to mention Bush) he might be the sitting president today.

If Ron Paul hadn't published those blatantly racist newsletters back in the 80's and early 90's he might be the sitting President today.

I know he's completely disavowed them and apologized profusely for them. I know he didn't actually write them, and that he has never actually believed anything in them. But they still had his name on them and he allowed them to go out with his name on them, exhibiting some extraordinarily poor judgment. I know there was a complete double standard between the way Ron Paul's past haunted him during the '08 camaign and how the uhm... eccentric past (and not so past) of a certain other politician was largely brushed away or ignored.

I like what Ron Paul says and does now. But he's got some major buggaboos in his past that will prevent him from ever being anything other than a fringe candidate for President.

T. Foster · Post by **T. Foster** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 3:33 pm

rogatny wrote:Only two points... We're hardly the only ones making the connection. The head of the American Legion also made the connection. As did a number of members of Congress (both sides of the aisle). Like I said, even the wonks on MSNBC's Cup of Joe were critical of it this morning.

Oh, I know. And I totally get why people who sense an opportunity to gain an advantage politically (or ratings-wise) from this story are all over it, I just had trouble grasping why that sentiment is also filtering down to "regular folks."

Other point... That liberal extremist pamphlet named specific groups and their specific activities. If this most recent pamphlet said "watch out for a resurgence of the KKK based on such and such evidence" or something to that extent, I don't think there'd be anywhere near the hubbub. Rather, this was a broadly phrased shot across the bow at American Conservatism.

OK, I can actually get that, and am starting to see where the objections are based. I still think there's a reasonable (i.e. non-conspiracy-based) explanation, in that, as the memo states (in the gray box on p. 7), rightwing extremists tend to operate as lone wolves or small cells, and thus naming specific groups or organizations isn't really feasible, but I can see how it could be read another way, even by someone without anything to be gained by demagoguing the issue. Thanks for responding and helping clarify that.

Flambeaux · Post by **Flambeaux** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 3:42 pm

T. Foster wrote:Oh, I know. And I totally get why people who sense an opportunity to gain an advantage politically (or ratings-wise) from this story are all over it, I just had trouble grasping why that sentiment is also filtering down to "regular folks."

Because I don't trust the government and I hate Leftism.