Say It Ain’t So… Obama’s Homeland Security Targets Conservatives as Potential Terrorists
Posted By Vicki McClure Davidson on April 14, 2009
By Vicki McClure Davidson * Frugal Café Blog Zone
Say it ain’t so.
But, it’s true. Our US Department of Homeland Security has just issued an unclassified document that cites potential dangers of terrorism from US conservatives. Any American, per the report, who is not liberal or leftwing is a potential terrorist.
The report, titled Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment, is available online (PDF format).
A portion of the DHS report, spearheaded by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano:
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 anti-government, rejecting 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.
Through out the document, there are no specific targets or substantiated claims. Historical radicalism is brought up, but only if its rightwing. No leftwing radicalism or racism is included in the document from what I could glean. So, the message here is pretty clear: The Right is bad, the Left is good.
Conservatives who are unemployed, underemployed, are returning military veterans, are against increased taxes, government waste, pork barrel spending, illegal aliens, abortions, gun control, and other related activities or beliefs all fall into the “radical” definition.
I did a search through the PDF file. The term “Christian” is in the report, but “Islam” and “Muslim” is not, nor any other religion. What in the heck is that about? Those murderous Somali pirates who held Captain Phillips at gunpoint for five days were Muslim… but my 74-year-old Christian mom with Parkinson’s disease who used to do charity work is an extremist? She’s a registered Democrat. Does that take her off the list as a potential terrorist, Homeland Security?
Citizens who are planning to attend tax protest tea parties most certainly are cited as potentially dangerous foes of the Obama administration and of America.
For a breakdown on the Homeland Security report, read Michelle Malkin’s post, Confirmed: The Obama DHS hit job on conservatives is real. Here’s a portion of her findings:
My b.s. detector went off the chart, and yours will, too, if you read through the entire report — which asserts with no evidence that an unquantified “resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalizations activity” is due to home foreclosures, job losses, and… the historical presidential election.
In Obama land, there are no coincidences. It is no coincidence that this report echoes Tea Party-bashing left-wing blogs (check this one out comparing the Tea Party movement to the Weather Underground!) and demonizes the very Americans who will be protesting in the thousands on Wednesday for the nationwide Tax Day Tea Party.
…There’s no hackneyed left-wing stereotype of conservatives left behind in this DHS intelligence and analysis assessment. I asked both DHS spokespeople to tell me who, specifically, the report was accusing of “rightwing extremist chatter” and which “antigovernment” groups are being monitored as “extremists.” They say they’ll get back to me.
Stephen Gordon of The Liberty Papers wrote, “According to this new Homeland Security report, all it takes to fit the terrorist profile is to have general anti-government feelings or prefer local/state government to federal control over everything.”
So, evil, murderous people, plus you and I, are now all lumped together in this poorly written, poorly documented government report. There is no real distinction drawn between conservatives or the likes of murderers like Waco leader David Karesh or Unabomber Ted Kaczinski or Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVie (who is specifically mentioned in the DHS report), or Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho.
If this document was submitted as a college paper, it would be rejected and kicked back (or just given its deserved D-minus or F) because of its bias and its lack of authoritative citations to back any of its claims. In other words, it reads much like a frantic, caffeine-revved student copied/pasted it together the night before it was due.
Our government seems to now fear and loath conservatives, the very type of people who founded this country, have protected and nurtured this country, and have died for this country for hundreds of years. Patriots of all shapes, sizes, races, genders, sexual persuasions, and religions are under suspicion and are targeted by our very own Homeland Security. Our officials in Washington. The 9-page report has been sent to police across the country.
The Washington Post reported, “The White House has distanced itself from the analysis… The report, which was first disclosed to the public by nationally syndicated radio host Roger Hedgecock, makes clear that the Homeland Security Department does not have ’specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence.’ It warns that fringe organizations are gaining recruits, but it provides no numbers. The report says extremist groups have used President Obama as a recruiting tool. The nine-page document was sent to police and sheriff’s departments across the United States on April 7 under the headline, ‘Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.’”
Patrick Sperry of Conservative Libertarian Outpost observed, “Before the recent election it was considered patriotic to engage in dissent. However, since the election that has changed apparently. Indeed, it appears that most, if not all citizens that are not completely in line with the current administration are being squarely placed within the sights of government enforcers. What follows is a recently unclassified document. It is, at minimum disturbing. Dissent and freedom of speech are fine, at least so long as you are into boot licking.”
I’m offended, and you should be, too. Only another day to go before Tea Party Day. One more thing to add to the taxpaying citizens’ list against government waste and the growth of socialism.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” — Edmund Burke
UPDATE: Eileen Sullivan, Breitbart.com: Homeland security chief defends agency risk report
******
Similar articles and posts:
Pamela Gellar, Atlas Shrugs: Shocking New Report! Obama’s Real Terrorists: Targeting Patriots and the Right
The Anchoress: DHS document picking a fight? UPDATED
Legal Insurrection: The Constitution Is A Subversive Manifesto Per DHS
Persifler’s Weblog: By posting this do I become a person of interest?
Stephen Gordon, The Liberty Papers: If you are reading this, you may well be a terrorist
Vets on the Watch: Homeland Security Targets conservatism
Washington Post: Federal agency warns of radicals on right
Conservative Libertarian Outpost: Before it was patriotic to dissent
The Loud Talker: Obama-Nation: Targeting Right-Wing “Extremism”
Michelle Malkin: Janet Napolitano said what? and Confirmed: The Obama DHS hit job on conservatives is real and American Legion responds to DHS
This Ain’t Hell, but You Can See It from Here: American Legion responds to DHS’ unwarranted fear of veterans
John T. Simpson, Big Hollywood: Official: Dissent Now Unpatriotic
JB Williams, Canada Free Press: Castro, Chavez, Alinsky and Ayers: Obama’s Peeps!
Jim Blazsik: Warning: If you are a pro-life conservative, you may be considered an enemy of the State
Goodtimepolitics: Goldman Sachs hires law firm to shut blogger’s site
Moderate in the Middle: Update: American Legion Responds…The Criminalization of Politics and Free Expression Has Begun…
About the author
[...] Say It Ain’t So… Obama’s Homeland Security Targets Conservatives as Potential Terrorists « Fr… [...]
[...] (2) Say It Ain’t So… Obama’s Homeland Security Targets Conservatives as Potential Terrorists [...]
Well, during the Bush era and the warrantless wiretapping and violations of Constitutional protection against warrantless searches, the neo-coonservatives were fond of proclaiming “if you’ve done nothing wrong, then you’ve nothing to worry about”.
-
Shouldn’t that same mindset hold true today? Or has the morbidity of hypocrisy come home to the practitioners of that black craft?
-
So, what’s the problem? Take it like real men and quit whining.
Joe, not all conservatives were in lockstep with Bush. I’m assuming you have a brain and don’t agree with everything coming out of the Obama administration. But maybe you do.
What makes this new DHS document so troubling is that ANYONE who doesn’t agree with Obama’s policies or the federal government in general (like Congress spending/pork, higher taxes, illegal aliens, entitlements, abortion, gay issues, socialized medicine, blah blah blah) will be a defined suspect of potential terrorism. Even military veterans are on the “to be watched” list. Even grandmas attending anti-abortion meetings at their church fall into the “potential terrorist” category. Your mom could be put in this “rightwing extremist list” or your minister’s wife or your best friend because of being against abortion or supportive of people’s rights to bear arms.
Be flippant, bash Bush… but this is really BAD. Bush didn’t target more than half his country. And I did indeed make phone calls to DC back then, protesting Bush’s invasion of privacy. As I am now, and sending emails, with this “witch hunt” document and all the previous bailouts/porkulus bills and the cap and trade bill (which, thank God, was defeated).
Did you even read the DHS document before you posted that weird “blame Bush” comment? The link is up in the article. It should be freaking you out IF you cherish what we have in this great nation.
This is America. We have amazing freedoms, more than any other nation in the world. This document is trying to remove them all from law-abiding citizens who don’t agree with this administration. That is what socialism/communism does to its people. Breaking the law is disagreeing with the government. Imagine how many people who didn’t like George W. Bush’s policies would be in prison right now if this document had been put into effect by his administration. Scary, huh?
I never approved the wiretapping, no matter the reason Bush gave. I thought he did many good things, and that was not one of them. It eroded our rights to privacy. This document goes a zillion miles past that. It has nothing to do with security (the wire taps were a direct result of the 9/11 attacks), but with the zealous power grab of this administration.
So, if you want to lump millions of conservatives in one pile and damn them to the whims of socialist government, go ahead.
But, be careful, because guess what… you may have a few opinions or activities that will make you a target to be watched for potential terrorism. Maybe not today. Maybe today you’re still 100 percent in agreement with every single thing Obama and Congress are doing and are happy with the trillion-dollar deficit. But if that changed in six months, you’d be in the same sinking boat as conservatives are today with this doc. Based on the definitions in the document, the real bad guys are not lumped in there at all.
If the Bush wiretapping and the violation of the Constitution problems sincerely upset you, Joe, you’d be screaming at the top of your lungs now with the DHS doc. It’s not a “Democrat vs. Republican” problem with this report, it’s a “government vs. citizen” problem.
But you’re not upset, Joe. Why not? You wrote, “Take it like real men and quit whining”. What’s that about? Childish response. Think about the full impact of this Homeland Security document and how it changes America. Think outside the “changey-hopey” box. It isn’t selective like Bush installing some wire taps for people who had terrorist ties. It’s a handbook to ALL POLICE in all states on identifying anti-government citizens everywhere in the nation.
You seem to be enjoying it, enjoying the removal of liberties this doc proposes, like it won’t affect you or your loved ones. But it will if it remains unchallenged.
If you really cared about the Constitution like you said in your post (or did you add that just for effect?), you’d be up in arms back when Bush did it and even more upset now, when Obama’s people do it now. Don’t be against Bush when it’s convenient and then support Obama when he does something in a similar vein. Otherwise, I’d be inclined to call you a hypocrite. But we’re not suppose to insult on this site, so let’s just say you are coming across as disingenuous.
I will defend the right of anyone I disagree with, including you Joe, the freedom to disagree with me. It’s in our Constitution – freedom of speech, ESPECIALLY when you disagree with the government in a law-abiding fashion. This DHS document will silence all dissenters of the government whether they break the law or not. If Obama or his cabinet do indeed abolish the Second Amendment or allow illegal aliens to get welfare or anything else, you will not be allowed to disagree. They are also seeing how they can apply censorship on the Internet, much like China does now.
This is a horrible document, and if Bush had introduced it, I would have been a loud voice against it. As you should be, too.
Or, do you just bring up Bush in your post to slap him around a bit and as some candy-ass justification to support Obama’s horrible crap when it’s convenient for you, but you have no real interest in what is happening to your country today? Because then, yeah, I’ll call you a hypocrite right to your face if necessary.
this bill is bad news. i checked it because my friend said it targets Christians. IT DOES. Yes, the word Christian is in the list. But Muslim isn’t or any other religion, and the pirates last week in Somallya (sp?) were muslim. why are Chirstians being watched by Homeland Security?
I read ths bill. it is like a spy movie not real life. we gotta rebel against it. My mom would be one of the main targets because she goes to church two times a wekk, reads bible is against abortion and thinks Obamma is taxing Amrericans too much. My mom is awesome and she is not a threat to anyone. I am a Christian too and most of my freinds are too. This report is total bull$h*t. How do we stop it?
[...] of the Department of Homeland Security « Thoughts Of A Conservative Christian…Say It Ain’t So… Obama’s Homeland Security Targets Conservatives as Potential Terr…Orbiting the blogosphere – Dept. of Homeland Security makes headlines | Daily Newscaster… [...]
[...] Say It Ain’t So… Obama’s Homeland Security Targets Conservatives as Potential Terrorists « Fr… [...]
[...] Say It Ain’t So… Obama’s Homeland Security Targets Conservatives as Potential Terrorists « Fr… [...]
There seems to be delusions of grandeur by many here. How you can infer all these wild cockamanie assumptions. Eric Rudolph was a domestic terrorist that shared the views of many of you. I doubt any of you agree with his actions but noone would lump all of you in the same boat for being pro-life. Militia groups were popular in the 90’s that were anti-government until a fringe element, like Mcveigh, made many want to disassocite themselves from them. I think by pretending their is a conspiracy against Christians , the predominant religion in America, and Christian ideals you are feeding a fringe element that will embarass you in the long run. I here people saying there are already on some list. You’re frightening people for what gain I don’t know. Can I be miising something here…. please help.
Jeff, with all due respect, your statement about “pretending” there is a conspiracy against Christians is without merit. The term “conspiracy” was never used in my commentary, although it IS used in the DHS report. The only mention of it that I can see is in your comment, no one else’s, so that in and of itself seems to be disingenous.
From the DHS report, Page 4: Antigovernment conspiracy theories and “end times” prophecies could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition, and weapons. These teachings also have been linked with the radicalization of domestic extremist individuals and groups in the past, such as violent Christian Identity organizations and
extremist members of the militia movement.
There is no other religion singled out in the report. This, despite that it was Muslim radicals who were directly involved in the murder of more than 3,000 Americans in the 9/11 attack. Dylan Klebold, one of the two teens responsible for the Columbine High School massacre, while raised Lutheran, also was raised with Jewish traditions. Many American terrorists claim no religion. For our government to draw conclusions about one’s predisposition to commit heinous acts of terrorism upon others by their religion is reckless and bigotted.
Citing any one religion or group as an example of potential terrorism and omitting all others is biased and faulty in presenting balance of indisputable facts. As you cite that Christianity is the predominant religion in America, then the numbers of Christian perpetrators of violent terrorist crimes would naturally be high. However, there is no evidence to support that in the DHS report. Nor does such evidence exist. If it did, I would presume that Homeland Security would have included it as an authoritative reference in the report.
DHS has already apologized for its irresponsible maligning of US military veterans in the report. The same should be done for Christians. As it stands now, no such apology has come forward. Additionally, the title of the report is offensive. “Rightwing” is considered synomous with conservatives. Since this current administration and the head of DHS are liberal, there is undisputable bias in the report’s intent. No mention of leftwing extremists as threats are included. Had the term “rightwing” been replaced with “black” or “Hispanic” or “gay” or “Islamic” or “Muslim” or “Jewish,” the same bias would be present and would be unacceptable for a report written by our government.
Statistically, there are greater numbers of minorities in our prison systems for violent crimes. There is rising crime among gangs of Hispanic heritage. None of these are cited as potential security risks, despite concrete statistics to support concern. Some atheists, anti-military people, animal rights activists, and gays have also committed violent hate crimes. But only Christians and military veterans were specified as potential terrorists.
Frightening people? As it is written, the DHS report is indeed frightening because of its transparent attempt to smear both Christians and military veterans with no scientific analysis or proof. It is based on generalities and cherry-picked examples. Fallacious argumentation. This report is substantially lacking in evidence, has little authoritative citation, and lacks objectivity. Targeting one religion because of the crimes of a few evil people who are associated with that religion is a dangerous conclusion for our government to assert. It makes as much sense as judging all people with one color of skin or heritage as being one and the same.
You also assume that all Christians are pro-life, when in fact, many are pro-choice. With all due respect, saying that readers of this blog are much like Eric Rudolph is incredibly insulting. He is a murderer, a deranged, egomaniacal, violent man who did join up with a radical right-wing group. He also is anti-gay and a racist – these are characteristics, regrettably, of many religions, most notably those of the Middle East. Homosexuality is punishable by prison or death in many of these governments and their nation’s religions. Rudolph was raised a hateful racist by his racist mother, and not as a result of being raised a true Christian who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.
But it is not only military veterans or Christians that are targeted in the report. Anyone who disagrees with mandates from Washington, no matter their political party, can be considered a potential terrorist threat. Page 2 of the DHS 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, rejecting 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. From this paragraph, anyone (not just one religious group) who disagrees with the power of the federal government vs. state government is considered a potential terrorist threat, as are those who are oppose illegal immigration or abortion (and likely any number of other “single issues”). This portion of the report casts a wide net that is vague in its definitions (so is subject to personal interpretation, which is alarming), and clearly violates the First Amendment.
You stated “you’re frightening people for what gain I don’t know.” Jeff, if the point of the article isn’t clear to you, please read it again. Being made aware of documents such as this that are produced by our government must be made known to Americans. Our government was established by our founding fathers to protect all citizens, regardless of their religion. The oppression of certain religions in many tyrannical socialist countries is well documented. This DHS report does not reflect the values nor the principles of our Bill of Rights or Constitution. To not be armed with facts, one puts oneself into a precarious position of ignorance. Ignorance has its consequences. So, to answer your question, which seems rhetorical, is that the “gain” is to inform others. Knowledge is power.
Have you even read the DHS report? If so, and you’re asking these questions, you would want to read it again. It was sent on April 7 to all law enforcement agencies as a tool to help them profile potential terrorists.
Admin, Thanks for your summary. I do understand a lot better the concerns you have. I had a very strange encounter with a co-worker that made me question his sensibilities. While pointing out Napolitano’s comments, he went on a rant that made me wonder if I shouldn’t be concerned about him. The last election was pretty tough on some lifelong Republicans that I know. The DHS report was poorly written and like you said contains little specifics. I’m an American first and wish people didn’t relish wearing labels and accepting differences. I didn’t mean to offend with the Eric Rudolph comment only meaning to not lump people together because of a shared cause. I maybe the one that is worried just based on one cranky old man.
Wow, Jeff… thank you. And if I came off a bit strong, I would like to also apologize. The DHS report is a thorn in my side, and apparently, it now is also one in Janet’s. She’s taking a lot of heat on that piece of left-wing garbage that tramples the Constitution to pieces. As she should be. It is a veiled “first step,” in my opinion, to stifle First Amendment rights and one that could domino into other targeting documents. I may have misunderstood the tone of your post, and assumed that you were being cavalier in your comment. My bad.
Napolitano was the governor of Arizona until Obama appointed her head of Homeland Security. I’m a resident of Arizona. We have a huge illegal immigration problem here and Ja-No is one of the primary reasons. She targets a huge percentage of law-abiding Americans, but leaves out any mention of statistically proven threats? ‘Nuff said.
Thank you for clarifying. No worries, mate.