Wednesday, June 10, 2009

uh, yeah...about that dhs warning, ctd.

in april, janet napolitano's homeland security department released a report on right-wing extremism that included this warning:
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.
nine days ago, following the murder of dr. george tiller, i wrote:
the april dhs report was widely criticized by the right for many things, some perhaps legitimate. but here's a case where it might have been a good idea to sort the wheat from the chaff, and some think it might be time to re-examine some of that criticism.
to which a commenter replied:
"it's always good to sort the wheat from the chaff. shit happens. abortion doctors were killed before the April DHS report and i'm sure some whacko will do it again at some point in the future. doesn't lend any more credence to the report because one event occurred."
so i'm wondering, how about two events?
June 10, 2009, Washington, DC An elderly gunman known to authorities as a white supremacist fatally shot a private security guard at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in downtown Washington today before being wounded by guards who returned fire, officials said.

what happens when a "lone wolf" like this murders more than just one abortion doctor, or one security guard? what happens when it's a crowd of people at a synagogue? or a mosque? or 168 people in a federal building in oklahoma? then can we take that dhs report seriously?


  1. well, according to our poor-excuse-for-a-homeland-security-chief, I'M a right wing extremist. really? for poor-excuse-for-a-homeland-security-chief to lump me, my brother, my father and mother AND a large percentage of the people i know into the right extremist faction is ridiculous. it's a knee-jerk reaction - her statement. i might add, she apologized to veterans for her comments. also, this is the same women who said "crossing the border isn't a crime (per se)" when the subject being discussed was illegal aliens - not just anyone crossing the Mexican border. it's doublespeak - something Obama has stated this country has had enough of.

  2. maybe it's just me, but when you post photos of the head of the department of homeland security on a website and scribble "cunt" over her face, that's a bit extreme in my book. so if the shoe fits.

    but you answered my question, i guess. now we wait for the third "event," or the fourth...

  3. by they way, from your very own alex jones:

    The Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment document was produced during the Bush administration, as a quick check of the PDF document’s properties reveals. It was created on January 23, 2007.

  4. calling napolitano a "cunt" is very different than grabbing a gun and blasting her head off. words are hurtful and sometimes the right word, in lieu of something that might put me in jail, is effective.

    the communist witch hunt in the 50's i'm sure was thought of as in the best interests of this country too. we know what history has said about that.

  5. that communist witch hunt was led by...wait for it...a republican. (wisconsin's own joseph mccarthy, often referred to as "the father of extremism")

    (btw, we're coming to take your guns away too, jeff.)

  6. and mccarthy's witchhunt doesn't make it right.

    ...and isn't napolitano being EXTREME in referring to my 71-year-old father and 65-year-old mother as being extremists because they're pro gun rights?

  7. i think you don't like janet napolitano 'cause she's not a babe, that's what i think.

    you've pretty much lost me on everything else, so...back to the original point -- sort the wheat from the chaff. be pissed off about the non-specific-ness of the report; be pissed off that it sort of "generally" lumps returning veterans in there; be pissed off that it talks about people opposed to gun control. you have every right.

    but while you were ranting and raving and discounting the entire report, calling napolitano names and being outraged for your "extremist" parents, other people were paying attention to the entirety of a document that pretty clearly warned about stuff like the tiller murder and the holocaust museum shooting.

  8. "warned about stuff like the tiller murder and the holocaust museum shooting"? based on these two incidents and you're saying that her report somehow has credibility? like it's a crystal ball into the future? let me look at it from your side of things for a second, tony. if napolitano's document is so tell-tale and accurate and so many people were paying attention to the report, why wasn't something done to help prevent the tiller murder and the holocaust museum shooting?

    i'm not trying to be a dick, tony. i just don't see the need to place credibility in a report that somehow "predicts" events that our bound to happen in the future - whether napolitano writes a report or doesn't write a report. people die every day at the hands of nutjobs. atrocities, crimes on the poor, the elderly, the innocent. horrible things. that shit ain't gonna change. it's nice to think it will but some report that lumps John Doe Conservative in with a gun wielding lunatic who walks into a church and shoots a doctor...well, that's a little extreme for me.

    (and no...napolitano is NOT a babe. that is correct)


Inappropriate comments, including spam and advertising, will be removed.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.