PDA

View Full Version : For all conservatives...



Uncle Bill
04-22-2009, 03:29 PM
...being dubbed an extremist, read what Ollie has to say about the Obama government that should infuriate you. Any comments?

UB




I Am An Extremist
By Oliver North
April 17, 2009

According to the U.S. government, I am an extremist. I am a Christian and meet regularly with other Christians to study God's word. My faith convinces me the prophecies in the Holy Bible are true. I believe in the sanctity of human life, oppose abortion, and want to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman. I am a veteran with skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. I own several firearms, and I frequently shoot them, buy ammunition, and consider efforts to infringe on my Second Amendment rights to be wrong and unconstitutional. I fervently support the sovereignty of the United States, and I am deeply concerned about our economy, increasingly higher taxes, illegal immigration, soaring unemployment, and actions by our government that will bury my children beneath a mountain of debt.

Apparently, all this makes me a "rightwing extremist." At least, that's what it says in the April 7 "Assessment" issued by the Office of Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security. The nine-page report, titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," is full of warnings about American citizens who share any part of my background or subscribe to the beliefs above. It is one of the most alarming documents produced by our government that I ever have read.

Evidently, neither you nor I ever was supposed to read this "Assessment." At the bottom of the cover page is a warning that it is "not to be released to the public, the media, or other personnel who do not have a valid need-to-know." We're Americans. We have a need to know what's going on in our government, especially in an administration that promised to be "transparent." A full copy of the report is posted at http://www.FreedomAlliance.org (http://www.freedomalliance.org/).

The "Assessment" purports to alert law enforcement officials that "rightwing extremists" -- the term is used more than 35 times -- are intent on exploiting Americans who have strongly held beliefs on everything from Christian faith to rising unemployment, U.S. sovereignty and the Second Amendment. It vilifies those of us in these categories by references to neo-Nazis, racists, militias, white supremacists and other "hate groups." Notably, the report includes a warning that right-wing extremism "may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

Though the report proffers a passing reference to the First Amendment, it is replete with bias against conservative thought, writing and communications. On Page 3, law enforcement authorities are warned, "Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures."

That is a frightening acknowledgment that political speech is being monitored in America. It is also wrong. It's not "perception." It is fact. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the manufacturing and construction sectors have lost 161,000 jobs and 126,000 jobs, respectively, last month alone.

In its "Key Findings," the DHS manuscript boldly charges that "rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues" and offers this warning: "The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."

Under the heading "Disgruntled Military Veterans," the report alleges: "Rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists -- including lone wolves or small terrorist cells -- to carry out violence." These unsubstantiated claims are followed by reminders that Timothy McVeigh, who bombed the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995, was a military veteran. Omitted is any reference to the fact that McVeigh was simply one of more than 40 million veterans of the U.S. armed forces.

Thirteen lines after this egregious, unconscionable slander against those of us who are military combat veterans, DHS makes the stunning charge that "lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States."

According to this DHS "Assessment," the most dangerous threat we face here at home isn't from radical imams preaching violence in U.S. mosques and madrassas, Islamists recruiting in our prisons, Somali terrorists enticing young immigrants to become suicide bombers, or Hamas, Hezbollah or al-Qaida operatives plotting mass murder. No, according to DHS, the real threat comes from what our government labels "rightwing extremist ideology."

Mr. Obama should disavow this report publicly and fire the officials responsible for issuing it. Those who prepare his remarks for the occasion should insert in the teleprompter former Sen. Barry Goldwater's words on the subject: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

---

Oliver North is the host of "War Stories" on Fox News Channel, the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance, and the author of "American Heroes."

YardleyLabs
04-22-2009, 04:09 PM
I assume that you are equally upset by the parallel report concerning left wing extremists including animal rights and environmental extremists. That report is located at http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Leftwing_Extremist_Threat.pdf. (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Leftwing_Extremist_Threat.pdf)

Of course, the left wing report was issued in January 2009 so it must have been a last political attack by Cheney and his friends. I'm sure that the Obama administration must have already disavowed it given their love of all things "lefty", but somehow I haven't been able to locate the statement they must have issued to that effect.:rolleyes:

WaterDogRem
04-22-2009, 04:48 PM
I assume that you are equally upset by the parallel report concerning left wing extremists including animal rights and environmental extremists. That report is located at http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Leftwing_Extremist_Threat.pdf. (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Leftwing_Extremist_Threat.pdf)

Of course, the left wing report was issued in January 2009 so it must have been a last political attack by Cheney and his friends. I'm sure that the Obama administration must have already disavowed it given their love of all things "lefty", but somehow I haven't been able to locate the statement they must have issued to that effect.:rolleyes:

First, I don't agree or condone many of the tactics, policies, and choices the last administration made but there is a major difference between the two reports in their opening paragraphs (after the copy/paste paragraph).

Leftwing Extremist Report:
"(U//FOUO) This assessment examines the potential threat to homeland security from cyber attacks conducted by leftwing extremists, a threat that DHS/I&A believes likely will grow over the next decade."

Rightwing Extremist Report:
"(U//LES) The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremist may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues."

YardleyLabs
04-22-2009, 05:09 PM
First, I don't agree or condone many of the tactics, policies, and choices the last administration made but there is a major difference between the two reports in their opening paragraphs (after the copy/paste paragraph).

Leftwing Extremist Report:
"(U//FOUO) This assessment examines the potential threat to homeland security from cyber attacks conducted by leftwing extremists, a threat that DHS/I&A believes likely will grow over the next decade."

Rightwing Extremist Report:
"(U//LES) The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremist may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues."

Specific information was lacking in both. The basis for assuming that cyber attacks would come from the left was that this form of attack is consistent with their philosophical principles. There's a strong piece of evidence.

WaterDogRem
04-22-2009, 05:35 PM
Specific information was lacking in both. The basis for assuming that cyber attacks would come from the left was that this form of attack is consistent with their philosophical principles. There's a strong piece of evidence.

They did give at least three specific attacks from Leftwing extremist with estimated loss of millions.

I do believe cyber attacks could come from either Left or Right extremist groups, and there may be some cyber incidents of rightwing groups which should of been included too or in another report.

The point is the Leftwing extremist report at least used examples of illegal activity. The Rightwing extremist report as no basis or facts to support it's claims. The Rightwing report is based on arrogance and hatred towards opposing views of the current administration.

BrianW
04-22-2009, 06:16 PM
Of course, the left wing report was issued in January 2009 so it must have been a last political attack by Cheney and his friends. I'm sure that the Obama administration must have already disavowed it given their love of all things "lefty", but somehow I haven't been able to locate the statement they must have issued to that effect.:rolleyes:

So sorry, release date on the LWE's is 26 Jan 2009. Whether or not the Bushies prepared the info, Barack & Janet are the the ones who had to sign off on it for release..

Legacy 6
04-23-2009, 12:39 AM
Yardley,

I think many people's MAJOR issue here is no matter what the assessments of the Lefties or Righties say, the fact that they have to reach WAY back to McVeigh and loosley tie the PI shooter to Rightwing extremism sucks.

I can think of MANY Left-wing groups that take violent action in their attempts to get their agenda across. Sierra Club/Green Peace, Anti-Whaler groups, etc are involved or sponser many activities that involve some violence or delinquent actions by their people.

Might I point to ALL those chairs being thrown through building windows at the Tax Day Tea Parties all over the US? Oh, wait! That was at the G-20 Summit with the Lefty-Anti-Capitalism people... sweet.

I'm not referencing events with enough specificity, but for the sake of being brief, I'm refraining... I'm not trying to insult you or your point of view. I know there is a whole spectrum of Left just as there is a Right... just thought I'd put that out there...

Your thoughts?

zeus3925
04-23-2009, 08:49 AM
Yardley,

I can think of MANY Left-wing groups that take violent action in their attempts to get their agenda across. Sierra Club/Green Peace, Anti-Whaler groups, etc are involved or sponser many activities that involve some violence or delinquent actions by their people.



Rich,

I am a past chairman of the North Star Chapter( Minnesota) of the Sierra Club. I must challenge with your labeling the Sierra Club as a violent organization. The organization does not nor has it ever condoned acts of violence as a means of obtaining its goals. Violence is a sure way to get discharged from membership. It does pursue its goals by legal means. It is highly effective in its ability to mount grassroots campaigns. It is a dogged litigant for the environment. It has used public rallies and demonstrations at times but violence is strictly NOT tolerated. (Personally I did not like demonstrations as I view them as counter productive.)

It is not anti-hunter as some of its detractors claim. In fact, half of the Executive Board I chaired were "Caster-Blasters". I have hunted all my life as many of the SC members. Some of the efforts I have been involved in were preserving hunting lands.

Politically the organization is a mix of liberals and conservatives. While the SC has supported mainly Democrats, it will support readily support a Republican when the voting record merits.

I must also issue a disclaimer here. I am no longer a Sierra Club member nor am I now associated with it in anyway. Training and trialing dogs is my interest now.

I can not respond your charges about the other organizations. I know only what I see in the media about them.

Patrick Johndrow
04-23-2009, 09:41 AM
I might be in the minority but after disgrace Oliver North brought upon the USMC I am not a big fan of anything the man has to say. The guys is nothing more than a selfpromoting snake.

Hew
04-23-2009, 10:32 AM
It is not anti-hunter as some of its detractors claim. In fact, half of the Executive Board I chaired were "Caster-Blasters". I have hunted all my life as many of the SC members. Some of the efforts I have been involved in were preserving hunting lands.


Yes, yes. The Sierra Club isn't officially anti-hunting. Just like the NRA isn't officially politically conservative or anti-liberal. But I think we know the sentiments of both organizations. <<nudge, nudge, wink, wink>>

By the way, were you the chairman of NorthStar when they fought to prevent dove hunting in Minnesota? http://northstar.sierraclubaction.org/showalert.asp?aaid=308 But I'm sure that was a pro-environment stance and not an anti-hunter stance, right?

Joe S.
04-23-2009, 11:43 AM
I might be in the minority but after disgrace Oliver North brought upon the USMC I am not a big fan of anything the man has to say. The guys is nothing more than a selfpromoting snake.

Careful, Patrick, Bobby G. and Uncle Bill are going to revoke your card...;-)

Be Well My Brother In Arms Regards,

Joe S.

zeus3925
04-23-2009, 05:29 PM
Yes, yes. The Sierra Club isn't officially anti-hunting. Just like the NRA isn't officially politically conservative or anti-liberal. But I think we know the sentiments of both organizations. <<nudge, nudge, wink, wink>>

By the way, were you the chairman of NorthStar when they fought to prevent dove hunting in Minnesota? http://northstar.sierraclubaction.org/showalert.asp?aaid=308 But I'm sure that was a pro-environment stance and not an anti-hunter stance, right?

It is more than nudge, nudge, wink ,wink. The policy of strict non- opposition to hunting goes back to the very early days when there was a very spirited debate about the issue. The policy gave me a great deal of clout in putting the kibosh to any anti hunting movement that might try to enlist the backing of the SC.

I was no longer involved with the organization when the the dove issue was being discussed. I had gone over to Kingdom of the Caster-Blasters and Dog Runners by that time.

zeus3925
04-23-2009, 05:36 PM
Hew:

I read the link on your post and I would not concur with the SC stance on the dove hunting issue. But since I am not a member, I do not have any influence there any longer.

Thanks

Hew
04-23-2009, 05:52 PM
I was no longer involved with the organization when the the dove issue was being discussed. I had gone over to Kingdom of the Caster-Blasters and Dog Runners by that time.
Welcome aboard. How long after you quit did it take for the tree bark rash on your inner thighs to heal? :-P

zeus3925
04-23-2009, 06:36 PM
Welcome aboard. How long after you quit did it take for the tree bark rash on your inner thighs to heal? :-P

A couple of years if I remember correctly. Walking bow legged helps.:D

sinner
04-23-2009, 08:15 PM
It is too bad that this much energy and brain power can't be put to "The improvement of Judging of Field Trials!
The quality continues to fall.

Patrick Johndrow
04-23-2009, 11:37 PM
Careful, Patrick, Bobby G. and Uncle Bill are going to revoke your card...;-)

Be Well My Brother In Arms Regards,

Joe S.

No way...that sorry sack of crap brought dishonor to the Corps...he was loose cannon on the deck...I donít care how conservative he claims to be.