You could be a terrorist if......

Anonymous
Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
edited June 2014 in Life After Breast Cancer

Could this be you?  Here's the link to the assessment by DHS.  Note that this is unclassified for official use only. 

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf 

Here's a little interpretation that I received via email in case you want to read it first or second.

"And just so it's perfectly clear, we aren't talking about her resigning (either gracefully or in disgrace). And it's way too late for backhanded apologies, like the 'slap-in-the-face' she already gave the brave men and women who have wore a uniform and proudly served this country.

     Janet Napolitano must be FIRED... and it should have been done yesterday!

     You see, the problem is not just that Janet Napolitano's Department of Homeland Security (DHS) put together a so-called anti-terrorism security assessment that targets mainstream Americans as dangerous extremists.

     We're talking about millions of people who believe that our government is too large and taxes us too much, like those who participated in the TEA Parties on tax day. We are talking about everyday Americans who believe that the 2nd Amendment actually gives people the right to bear arms; people who are pro-life; the millions of people who believe that our nation's immigration laws should be strictly enforced.

     And the problem is not simply that this so-called security assessment targets patriotic Americans - and they are talking about YOU - as "right wing extremists," or, as Peter Kirsanow with the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights put it:

"That DHS report warning about all manner of 'right-wing extremists' could be considerably shortened if it simply alerted law-enforcement officials to be on the lookout for people from 'small towns (who are) bitter (and) cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment.'"

     The problem is that this is the same Janet Napolitano who just recently told us that horrendous, unspeakable acts committed by actual terrorists, dead set on destroying our country and killing Americans, should be called "man-caused disasters."

     Specifically she told Der Spiegel:

"In my speech, although I did not use the word 'terrorism,' I referred to 'man-caused' disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur."

     So... when it comes to actual acts or threats of terrorism against mainstream Americans, we should move beyond the "politics of fear."

     But patriotic Americans like YOU -- who exercise your Constitutionally-protected First Amendment rights -- pose a threat to the government.

     Is it actually possible that Napolitano and Barack Obama and even some within the Obama Administration are so twisted as to believe that Islamic Terrorists are the good guys and that you are the bad guys?

     Syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin in Thursday's Washington Times wrote:

"What and who exactly are President Obama's homeland security officials afraid of these days? If you are a member of an active conservative group that opposes abortion, favors strict immigration enforcement, lobbies to protect Second Amendment rights, protests big government, advocates federalism, or represents veterans who believe in any of the above, the answer is: You."

     If what is contained in this leaked DHS security assessment does not bring you to the realization that it is time for all patriotic Americans who love freedom to stand up and shout that we're not going to take it anymore... it is quite possible that nothing will.

So, here's what we're going to do. We're going to make it very clear that we want drastic action. We're going to make it very clear that Janet Napolitano needs to go. We're going to make it very clear that we want her FIRED - PERIOD... no resignations will be allowed... no meaningless apologies will be accepted.

     We're going to bang this issue like a gong. 

     The DHS Report Targets All Of You Bitter People Out There Who Cling To Guns And Religion.

     Malkin is not alone. Syndicated radio talk-show host Michael Reagan went so far as to ask the following:

"Have we really come to this? Has Adolf Hitler's propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels been reborn and recruited by the Obama administration to scare the heck out of the American people with absurdities such as this whacked-out document?"

     Lance Fairchok writing for AmericanThinker.com hits the nail squarely on the head.

     Calling this so-called security assessment "a shot across the bow" he plainly states that DHS is NOT simply referring to individuals living on society's fringe.

     The assessment is, in fact, referring to YOU and patriotic Americans like you.

     Moreover, Fairchok believes this assessment was hastily and sloppily written in order to fit a sick and disgusting preconceived notion:

"This 'assessment' is not an analysis of a national trend or an examination of existing evidence or even recent radical literature; it is targeting those whose politics fall within the broad insinuations contained within its pages, namely mainstream conservatives."

     Judge Andrew Napolitano with FOX News essentially says the same thing:

"The summary contains few proper names, has no footnotes of any significance, lists very few sources, and is drafted with a prejudice against anyone who criticizes the role of the federal government in our lives today. It lumps together in its definition of 'rightwing extremism' hate groups, anti-government groups, and single issue groups 'such as opposition to abortion or immigration.'"

     Let's state it more plainly. As far as Janet Napolitano's DHS is concerned, if you are pro-life or believe in strict enforcement of our immigration laws, or if you attended one of those TEA parties, you're the same as a neo-Nazi, or a member of the KKK. You are dangerous and pose no less a threat than the real terrorists trying to destroy our great country. Is it possible that when Barack Obama spoke of bitter people from small towns who cling to God and their guns that he was not just simply being derisive?

     Is it possible that pointing out that Barack Obama sat in a Church for years listening to a lunatic pontificate, "Not God Bless America... God D___ America" WAS relevant after all?


You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet. 

     What purpose can be served by a document that classifies mainstream Americans as "extremists" who pose a clear and present danger to our nation's security?

     Fairchok again:

"It is a manipulative information tool intended to paint the loyal opposition as reactionary kooks who are prone to violence and a danger to the country. ... This is part of a more widespread ongoing information campaign to plant and reinforce critical themes into the American official, and broader public psyche, a continuation of the 'clinging to guns and religion' message so frequently found in the rhetoric of President Obama and his acolytes."

     And Fairchok concludes by issuing a very somber warning.

"And we ain't seen nothin' yet."

     But what is even more disturbing is that DHS NEVER intended the public to see this so-called security assessment. It was a secret.

     Reagan again:

"Obviously recognizing that public knowledge of the nonsense alleged in this document is very undesirable, the weirdoes who prepared it did not want you to see it. ... They warn: 'No portion of the LES (Law Enforcement Sensitive) information should be released to the media, the general public, or over non-secure Internet servers.'"

     Judge Napolitano again:

"The document itself cautions the reader that the document is 'not to be released to the public, the media, or other personnel who do not have a valid need-to-know without prior approval' of the DHS. The document refers to itself as one of a series of intelligence assessments intended to 'deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States.'"

     But there's even more.

     Are you ready for this?

     The portion of this so-called security assessment that was leaked is only a SUMMARY.

     The bulk of it remains CLASSIFIED. We have no idea what's in it.

     Judge Napolitano continues:

"The summary (unclassified) document is terrifying. One can only imagine what is contained in the classified version. This document runs directly counter to numerous U.S. Supreme decisions prohibiting the government from engaging in any activities that could serve to chill the exercise of expressive liberties. Liberties are chilled, in constitutional parlance, when people are afraid to express themselves for fear of government omnipresence, monitoring, or reprisals. The document also informs the reader that Big Brother is watching both public and private behavior."

     But whatever else is in there... it cannot be pretty.

     Judge Napolitano yet again:

"My guess is that the sentiments revealed in the report I read are the tip of an iceberg that the DHS would prefer to keep submerged until it needs to reveal it. This iceberg is the heavy-hand of government; a government with large and awful eyes, in whose heart there is no love for freedom, and on whose face there is no smile." 

Tell them that the recently leaked DHS security assessment is so repulsive that rational, freedom-loving individuals are disgusted by it. Let Barack Obama know that there can be no middle ground. The only natural and acceptable reaction is to FIRE Janet Napolitano immediately." 

Yours In Freedom,

Jeffrey Mazzella


Center for Individual Freedom
917-B King Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-535-5836
Fax:703-535-5838
 

 

«1

Comments

  • Member_of_the_Club
    Member_of_the_Club Member Posts: 3,646
    edited April 2009

    Calm down.  The report is not talking about mainstream conservatives and it is not talking about you.  It is talking about the militant, anti-government, white supremacist fringe.  The folks behind the Oklahoma City bombing, the militia movement, those guys.  They are absolutely a threat -- remember how many people were killed in Oklahoma City -- and they are freaking out over the fact we have an African American president.  I want my government to monitor these folks, they are genuinely dangerous.  I don't know why you are taking this so personally, it has nothing to do with you.  And i don't know why this Jeffrey Mazzella guy is so offended unless he is sympathetic to these fringe groups.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited April 2009

    shirley, like MOTC said, CALM DOWN unless you are a member of the militant, anti-government, white supremacist fringe.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited April 2009

    MOTC, I am a right winged "believer."  I don't like to be lumped in with Timothy McVeigh.

    I don't need to calm down.  I am calm, thank you.  Read the assessment. 

    Why wasn't Ayers and his wife?  What kind of "extremist" were they?  They were anti-government.  They are anti-capitalism.  Why not mention their names..not only McVeigh who happened to have been a vet and was a nut.  Was Ayer and his wife a nut?  Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited April 2009

    shirley says:

    Read the assessment. 

    jeffrey mazzella, Center for Individual Freedom?????

    rotf...seriously, an unbiased assessment?

    you really need to add a disclaimer to your flammatory sources.......

    jmo.... 

  • Member_of_the_Club
    Member_of_the_Club Member Posts: 3,646
    edited April 2009

    Nobody is lumping you in with Timothy McVeigh unless you've taken up arms against the government.  I read the document you linked to.  It is entirely about groups that are using violence against the government and other institutions.  This wingnut's "assessment" of the document is some paranoid rant that has nothing to do with what the actual document says.  And the document mentions nobody by name.  Ayers is a nut.  So what?  What does that have to do with this?  And what does it have to do with you?  nothing.

  • Analemma
    Analemma Member Posts: 1,622
    edited April 2009

    I was behind a man in the post offce who was loudly ranting much like this "assessment" and he scared the crap out of me.  He said "we need to get rid of every one of them in Washington; I'll show them what a terrorist is."  And then he said "the ACLU has destroyed our ability to defend this country."  And then, he followed me in his van from the post office to the next store and told me, "you'll be scraping that Obama sticker off your car, I'll guarantee it!" 

    Yep, it was a little unnerving.

    Of course, I did provoke him, I guess.  He was ranting about how the government is taking over everything - the banks, private enterprise  ....  And he was mailing a package and I asked him why he was using the USPS and not a private carrier.

  • Member_of_the_Club
    Member_of_the_Club Member Posts: 3,646
    edited April 2009
  • Member_of_the_Club
    Member_of_the_Club Member Posts: 3,646
    edited April 2009

    Oh whoops, it did mention McVeigh and referred to the Oklahoma City bombing.  But I am assuming you aren't defending McVeigh.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited April 2009

    shirley ...  a little transparency?

    shirley says:

    Okay, I've posted a couple of "political" topics on bco.
    http://www.breastcanswers.com/bcforum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=114&start=650


    I'll probably be getting kicked off soon. I am so tired of people not knowing OR caring what's going on in our country. We were at my sil's house tonight for dinner. Her gs is being shipped out...he's a Navy Corpsman and will be assigned to a ship. Anyway, I was talking to my bil (not her dh..the other borther of my dh :? ) about Obama. Actually, he mentioned HIM first. He said he liked him. However, he did say he's NEVER VOTED IN HIS ENTIRE LIKE and WE'RE NOT YOUNG! Well, I printed two copies about the new DHS assessment just put out that wasn't supposed to get out to the public...about right-winged extremist and terrorism. I am so angry. He knew nothing about it. He didn't know what the tea parties were about. He talked about going green and how good it would be. He knows NOTHING about cap and trade. I told him (he's cheap..he thinks Ihop is expensive to eat breakfast when he and my dh and my other bril meet for breakfast) when he gets his electricity bill after cap and trade (if it happens) he's going to be very upset. I agree we need to do all...drill and go green..but no cap and trade.

    I am absolutely astounded that people really do not care what's going on. My bil likes the way Obama talked..well spoken. Big deal. My great nephew who's being shipped out says he likes Obama...he got a good raise! I wonder if Obama gave him that raise or did it go into effect under Bush's administration. Makes no difference, but......

    ARRRGGGHHHHH! DUMB PEOPLE!
    Shirley

    edited to add italics.

  • BethNY
    BethNY Member Posts: 2,710
    edited April 2009

    I thought everyone was in agreement to stop posting political things that cause nothing but discord around here...

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited April 2009
    laura, I'm not taking your bait.  I posted a link where you can find the assessment from the government and read it for yourself.  http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf  There it is again.  Forget about the Center for Individual Freedom...read the document..assessment for yourself.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited April 2009

    Very interesting.  Democrats don't like this "assessment" either.  (Emphasis mine.)

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/   Washington Times

    Napolitano stands by controversial report

    Top Democrat says he's 'dumbfounded'

    Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday that she was briefed before the release of a controversial intelligence assessment and that she stands by the report, which lists returning veterans among terrorist risks to the U.S.

    But the top House Democrat with oversight of the Department of Homeland Security said in a letter to Ms. Napolitano that he was "dumbfounded" that such a report would be issued.

    "This report appears to raise significant issues involving the privacy and civil liberties of many Americans - including war veterans," said Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, in his letter sent Tuesday night.

    The letter was representative of a public furor over the nine-page document since its existence was reported in The Washington Times on Tuesday.

    In her statement Wednesday, Ms. Napolitano defended the report, which says "rightwing extremism" may include groups opposed to abortion and immigration, as merely one among several threat assessments. But she agreed to meet with the head of the American Legion, who had expressed anger over the report, when she returns to Washington next week from a tour of the U.S.-Mexico border.

    "The document on right-wing extremism sent last week by this department's Office of Intelligence and Analysis is one in an ongoing series of assessments to provide situational awareness to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies on the phenomenon and trends of violent radicalization in the United States," Ms. Napolitano said in her statement.

    "I was briefed on the general topic, which is one that struck a nerve as someone personally involved in the Timothy McVeigh prosecution," Ms. Napolitano said.

    Ms. Napolitano insisted that the department was not planning on engaging in any form of ideological profiling.

    "Let me be very clear: We monitor the risks of violent extremism taking root here in the United States. 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," Ms. Napolitano said.

    "We are on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not - nor will we ever - monitor ideology or political beliefs. We take seriously our responsibility to protect the civil rights and liberties of the American people, including subjecting our activities to rigorous oversight from numerous internal and external sources."

    The Times reported Tuesday that the department's Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) issued April 7 the nine-page document titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment." Outcry from veterans groups, Republican lawmakers and conservative activists followed, but the reaction spread Wednesday to Democratic lawmakers and liberal-leaning groups.

    In his letter to Ms. Napolitano, Mr. Thompson demanded that Homeland Security officials explain how and why they wrote the report and whether it poses any threat to civil liberties.

    "As I am certain you agree, freedom of association and freedom of speech are guaranteed to all Americans - whether a person's beliefs, whatever their political orientation, are 'extremist' or not," Mr. Thompson said.

    Mr. Thompson said the report "blurred the line," and that he is "disappointed and surprised that the department would allow this report to be disseminated" to law enforcement officials nationwide.

    Homeland Security officials have declined to say who wrote report, except that it was a career official and not a political appointee.

    Only three employees are listed in the Federal Yellow Book as working for the I&A office - acting Undersecretary Roger Mackin and two executive assistants.

    Mr. Thompson's letter said, "I am particularly struck by the report's conclusion which states that I&A 'will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in rightwing extremist activity in the United States with a particular emphasis on the political, economic, and social factors that drive rightwing extremist radicalization.' " He demanded to know what types of activities the Homeland Security Department had planned for "the next several months."

    "Rightwing extremism," the report said in a footnote on Page 2, goes beyond religious and racial hate groups and extends to "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," said the report, which also listed gun owners and veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as potential risks.

    The assessment is not the first Homeland Security product to examine threats based on political extremism. In January, the department sent law enforcement officials an assessment of cyberterrorism threats from such left-leaning sources as environmental, animal rights and anarchist groups.

    Mike German, policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union and a former FBI agent, said his organization was concerned about law enforcement agencies' focus on radicalization, regardless of the specific ideology.

    "Certainly, the right-wing report is focused far too much on rhetoric and things people say and things people think rather than on criminal activity and the people involved in criminal activity," he said. "There is plenty of crime out there for federal, state and local law enforcement to worry about. They don't need to invent threats that they have no factual basis for supporting."

    The American Legion on Tuesday said the latest report unfairly stereotypes veterans.

    "I am aware of the letter from American Legion National Commander [David K.] Rehbein, and my staff has already contacted him to set up a meeting next week once I return from travel. I will tell him face-to-face that we honor veterans at DHS and employ thousands across the department, up to and including the Deputy Secretary," Ms. Napolitano said.

    "As the department responsible for protecting the homeland, DHS will continue to work with its state and local partners to prevent and protect against the potential threat to the United States associated with any rise in violent extremist activity," Ms. Napolitano said.

    Asked about the report at Wednesday's White House briefing, press secretary Robert Gibbs said he has not spoken with President Obama specifically about it.

    "Without getting into the report, I think the president works hard every day to make sure that all Americans are safe and secure," Mr. Gibbs said.

    "And I would say that, as it relates to some aspect of the report, that the president believes those who serve our country represent the very best of it," Mr. Gibbs said.

    House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, said Wednesday that the department owes veterans an apology.

    "To characterize men and women returning home after defending our country as potential terrorists is offensive and unacceptable," he said. "Everyone agrees that the department should be focused on protecting America, but using such broad-based generalizations about the American people is simply outrageous."

    Rep. Steve Buyer of Indiana, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, called it "inconceivable" that the Obama administration would categorize veterans as a potential threat.

    "This kind of mischaracterization can lead to discrimination against veterans in our society, especially in the job market," Mr. Buyer said. "Vietnam veterans were subjected to this unfair treatment, and I call upon President Obama and members of Congress to refute any similar stereotyping of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans."

    • Jon Ward contributed to this report.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited April 2009

    Laura, how many times did you report my posts that got me banned more than once and put on restriction also?  How many times did you report IBCspouse's posts that got him banned PERMANENTLY.  That was eventually overturned by the mods.  His wife has stage IV IBC and he is helpful to the ladies on the IBC forum and they are helpful to him.  And I think he only had two posts removed, but was banned.  And, Roctobermom was banned permanently and never had a posted reported or perhaps she had never been put on restriction.  And there are other members that had posts reported at certain hours in the evening. Very nice of you to come over here and post from another site something that I said.  But, go ahead..it's a public forum not hidden from you are anyone else.

    Have a great day.

    Shirley

  • Analemma
    Analemma Member Posts: 1,622
    edited April 2009

    Cut and paste, cut and paste....

    I read your link and I thought it was well-said.  JN's remarks have been taken ut of context and used to provoke discord.  I thought that in the context of the whole report, there was nothing that should be upsetting to returning veterans. 

    But then, I'm just a laid-back old hippie Democrat.

    Peace, sisters.

  • abbadoodles
    abbadoodles Member Posts: 2,618
    edited April 2009

    Geez, I'm sorry I posted anything here but I really, really, really do hate how ridiculous pc has become these days. 

    Oops, I posted this to the wrong thread. LOL  In the heat of the moment.  Shoulda been over on the Sad thread.  My mistake.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited April 2009

    beth-i was surprised to find shirley's BS post and felt compelled to respond to her interpretation posted. she used opinion highlights and not the source posted. washington times? center for individual freedom, a right wing conservative group? 

    my apologies for responding in this forum. i have no desire to upset the balance of this board,

    i am all about bc.org being politic-free but when i see opinion posted i feel the need to support the fact that it is an opinion and not a news source outlined.

    secondly, it is important to know where shirley is coming from, thus my further posting.

    but yes...i am in total agreement.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited April 2009

    shirley, clearly i have struck a nerve that has given you the need to make false claims in regards to my post reporting.

    my sympathy.

  • Member_of_the_Club
    Member_of_the_Club Member Posts: 3,646
    edited April 2009

    Beth, you are right.  And I try not to respond to political posts.  I always regret it when I do.  Shirley, perhaps you could find a sympathetic political website to post your views on, and restrict what you post here to breast cancer?  In any event, I will exercise more self-control and withdraw from the fray.

  • mzmiller99
    mzmiller99 Member Posts: 894
    edited April 2009

    Shoot - I thought this was a humorous thread!  Like, "You might be a terrorist if..." like Jeff Foxworthy, and company.

    Oh, well, I'll just take my liberal old self right out of here, but if anyone knows any funny endings to the statement, please post.  I do so need a good chuckle!

    Susan

  • NoH8
    NoH8 Member Posts: 2,726
    edited April 2009

    Laura, Laura Laura- is your ignore button broken?

    LOL- susan too funny-- I personally think false hysteria and histronics is humorous. In the immortal words of our president, "WE WON." You know what they say... when you lose your sense of humor, the terrorists win.

    Have you heard of the new book by Carole Leifer, "When you lie about your age, the terrorists win.

    Sometimes you just have to say... WTF.

  • sccruiser
    sccruiser Member Posts: 1,119
    edited April 2009

    Hey, I'm with Susan.

    There must be some folks out there who can finish the title of this thread. LOL

    I need a few good chuckles. After all, how could anyone take this stuff seriously.

  • mzmiller99
    mzmiller99 Member Posts: 894
    edited April 2009

    Ok, I do have one...you might be a terrorist if you own a pair of exploding shoes!!

  • Analemma
    Analemma Member Posts: 1,622
    edited April 2009

    You might be a terrorist if you insist on carrying your own refillable water bottle onto the plane.

  • gibby
    gibby Member Posts: 105
    edited April 2009

    Wow remind me not to come back to this bitter place!

  • Merilee
    Merilee Member Posts: 3,047
    edited April 2009

    OK Ladies time out.  What does this have to do with wellness? Which is the intention of the site.

  • gibby
    gibby Member Posts: 105
    edited April 2009

    I agree Merilee; I thought I would relax with a nice cup of coffee and then all of this crap started! Don't think I'll be talking to these ladies for support that I could really use right now.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited April 2009

    sure hope all the sisters looking for support through their journey find it on this site, i sure did....

    but

    you might be a terrorist if a  'pest control' company has stationed a van outside you house for a month.....

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited April 2009

    you might be a terrorist if you asked the driving instructor to teach you how to drive but not how to park.

  • mzmiller99
    mzmiller99 Member Posts: 894
    edited April 2009

    Oh, laurap!!  I was afraid I'd driven those ladies away with my attempt at humor, but yours is just as bad!!  Thanks so much!!Wink

    Susan

  • spar2
    spar2 Member Posts: 6,827
    edited April 2009

    All I can say if where is the respect, love, and caring that we are suppose to have for our breast cancer sisters and where is the right to say what you feel without getting attacked?  Come on guys, this is not the time in our lives for terrorist jokes.  It could happen anywhere at anytime and has.

Categories