It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Homeland Security Recognizes New Terrorist Threat: Republicans

page: 1
12

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   
It's a slightly misleading subject, in that the document states that it's the radical right-wingers who need to be monitored, and of those, primarily those dangerous individuals who served in the military. However, it does go on to describe what a "radical right-wing extremist" is, part of which I quote below. Here's a link to the Intel Assessment, as well as a link to a pdf of a brief filed by the Thomas Moore Law Center filed regarding the assessment and three individuals being charged using the Homeland Security's findings.

Now note, these aren't those often hated neo-cons we're talking about here. To quote the footnote on page 2 of the assessment: (sorry, the quote's going to be a little ugly, but the emphasis and underlining was done by me)


Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into these 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.


So, if you're ex-military (you can find reasons that all of our soldiers are terrorist threats on just about every page of the document) and don't believe in big government, at least for the next 4 years, you are considered a terrorist threat by your government. If you're ex-military and are passionate about a political issue (the paper mentions anti-abortion or illegal immigration numerous times), for at least the next 4 years, you are considered a terrorist threat by your government. If you're ex-military and don't like big government, would like to see individual states take back what the federal government has wrested from them over the past 70 years, congrats, you, too, are, at least for the next 4 years, a terrorist threat according to your government.

What is this going to mean? It's unclear. There's already the one complaint filed against the use of this assessment regarding 3 individuals. However, one of the individuals associated with the brief is Michael Savage, who is a very staunch political activist, and I haven't been able to find a response yet, so the brief is the he said without the she said. However, the assessment from Homeland Security speaks loudly as to where this administration's efforts of protection are going to be focused. Guess I'm lucky I live in a blue state?




posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Here's an article about the intelligence assessment. Apparently I'm not the only one flabbergasted by this:


“The fact the report singles out issues like abortion and immigration shows it was put together from a left-wing political perspective in order to vilify mainstream conservatism by lumping those values into the same category as neo-nazis and terrorists,” charged Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.). “This is a dangerous road to travel,” he continued. “The last time a liberal left administration tried to increase public apprehension about alleged right wing extremism, they ended up with tragedies like Waco while ignoring the increasing presence of radical Islamic terrorists on American soil that ended up with 9-11.”

Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the Democratic chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, shares those concerns. In an April 14 letter (pdf) to Obama’s DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, he wrote he was “dumbfounded” by the contents of the report. “I am disappointed and surprised that the department would allow this report to be disseminated" to law-enforcement agencies, he said.


So apparently both sides of the aisle see the danger in this. Now to see what happens next...



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Thank you for helping bring this issue into our collective consciousness, and keeping it there.

Democrats and liberals need to remember that no matter how shrill their anti-Bush rhetoric was, they never got classified by the DHS or any other government agency as potential terrorists as this report from DHS and Napolitano has done about Republicans.



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Holy crap, how did more people not respond to this?? Guess ATS is mainly democratic
( I kid )
I remember hearing this when it came out, my friend forwarded it to me joking that we are enemies of the state. haha, pretty much I guess...



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by junglejake
 


In all honesty, however, the bureaucracy should fear prior military who are fairly upset with where the government is heading.

It is not beyond the realm of possibility for militant action to arise. I am opposed to taking militant action at this time, and for the foreseeable future - but there are others who do not see it this way. The job of homeland security is to secure the homeland - people who are pissed at the government (for understandable reasons, or not) as well as having military training (and access to arms), are a valid risk to security. When you consider these guys are a lot of Vietnam and Iraq war veterans - I'd be rather scared, too - they've actually fought a guerrilla war.

Although this report does attempt to place some very specific labels on groups of people, and overstate the problem and possibility - clearly politically motivated.

That said, there are groups out there willing to take militant action. Who are those acts going to be against? Local military bases not involved in legislation, on the local Sheriff's office?

I presently wear the uniform. I'm rather upset with the way things are going in the government. I'm also somewhat concerned I might get shot at by disgruntled 'civilians' because I am part of the federal military and people have the strange belief we're telepathically controlled by "the government."

I'm fairly certain most of the prior military have enough sense and understanding of who/what the military is to not do something like that... but the others? I'm not so confident.



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
This is verging on the boundaries that many dictators liked to use. Hilter, Idi amin and the Chinese Government had assessments for who the classified as threats. These often are people who have thought and oppose certain measure brought about by the current government.

This is very disturbing. I am wondering how this man in the white house can get away with this. Apposing immigration and abortion are perfectly normal. Are we all meant to be puppets that follow the leader?

America, please stand up to this. It can not go on. Along with the ridiculous gun bans in New York your rights and lives are being drastically curtailed.

Time will tell who they will go after. Daily people will be getting arrested and charged and imprisoned. Where are they going to put all these people? FEMA camps? Sounds like concentration camps to me.



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Radicals, right or left, are cause for concern. While there are recent statements from the far right (i.e., Stephen Broden saying he would not rule out violent overthrow of the government ), we never (in recent times anyway) heard anyone on the left make such comments when the Republicans were in power. So, I believe that the far right is a legitimate concern for our national security and as such, should be monitored closely along with all other "terror threats".



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Rejecting Federal Authority in favor of State or local authority?

So any Arizona lawmaker who voted for the anti illegal immigrant bill is a right wing extemist? Yikes.



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
This is getting frankly ridiculous. They are in a frenzy of creating new legislations, day by day, to counter anything and everything they see as a threat to the plan they want to impose.

Whoever needs this ridiculous amount of legislation? Only someone who can't do what they want by any other means - ie. can't convince the public that their policies are valid.

The more they want to control, the more legislation will need to be created.



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
When the war on terror started, is when our liberties were visually usurped. That is when we were no longer in a war of the US vs "Country A", it became us vs them, the little people vs the "elites". Of course this has been the plan all along, we only have the "illusion" of freedom, 2 choices are not choices, they are "forced choices". I see the world going to hell in a hand-basket, and I think "they" are wanting this so "they" can impose draconian rule. They want us to rebel so they can shoot us in the street without regard to life.

Problem-Reaction-Solution

Not to mention all the "laws" "they" "must pass" so we can read them to see what the contents are loaded with. I have a bad feeling that something is going to happen that will not be good for anyone but "them".



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
They mean anyone not wanting to have sex with females, and has a shaven head.

Clowns in gov, wanting to torture innocent people.

Next they will pay people to hound them, oh no i forgot they do that already.



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Michael Savage is a powerfull and sharp tounged speaker behind the mic. He slices and dices no slack and reads scripture form time to time. One should be able to see that his real foes are the progressive hard left types that are now in power. But then again he is scary to many on the right that he rips as well. Its as much in his tone and energy as what he says. Hes a true believer.

Many of use should be able to see whatever side we tend to lean on that these reports amount to nazi and soviet style smearing. The big machine doesnt like states rights talk its just that simple. They have been buying off the states for years with your tax money!



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
get ready !!!
The snip is about to hit the fan.
This is only an elite's perspective
and it's so apparent. They know
what's coming and are scared
to death of it. And that can be
used as a chink in their armor.
I hope you elite's have your
bunkers ready. I suspect
you'll be spending a lot of time
in them very VERY soon.
The days of the elite's control
mechanisms are coming to an
end. And it will start with the
fraud invested and corrupt
banks. Once, your printed
dollars are worthless,
so will be your control.
Time is short, make it count.
lol, and I'm not even a Republican

nor a Democrat .......
I am an American !!!!



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Radicals, right or left, are cause for concern.... we never (in recent times anyway) heard anyone on the left make such comments when the Republicans were in power. So, I believe that the far right is a legitimate concern for our national security and as such, should be monitored closely along with all other "terror threats".


You what? Havent heard anything coming from the left when the republicans were in power? I saw plenty of it about the last two years of Bush and its out there now masked behind groups likw those that are sending out these memos. And you should hang around the average college campus these days and for the last 40 years.

Study the radical left durring the 60s and 70s and you may see that the right has never come close to left terror, actual terror, in pure volume, spates and acts of terror in this country.



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   
They came first for the Muslims,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Muslim.

Then they came for the Militias,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Militiaman.

Then they came for the Conservatives,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Conservative.

Then they came for ATS
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Adapted liberally from:

"They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

- -Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 27-10-2010 by blamethegreys because: Sin-Tax Error



new topics

top topics



 
12

log in

join