Why do these groups have to be new? Their tactics might be new prompting a report on their new activities and tactics. Which, by the way the report discusses their recruiting techniques, is fairly plausible.
You also said, "But of course, the assessment *never names "these groups" or provides any evidence "these groups" have even been investigated*." But clearly, they did and they have. My previous post destroys this argument, which is probably why you avoided it and went another direction. (From it's too vague to it doesn't unhash any *new* extremist plots.) Blah blah"...because I believed that you would understand it still applied to my overall point." Your point was that the assessment is "so vague and generalized" that is can be applied to any right winger. Well, unless you're hanging out with Skin-heads, Neo-Nazis, Anti-Semetics, Anti-Hispanics, or stockpiling explosives, you have nothing to worry about--which, by the way the 'assessment' clearly pointed out. Your point *now* is that it doesn't "unhash any *new *existing right wing extremist plots that have been uncovered *since the new administration took office*." But the report, as you clearly pointed out, admits this; and, even goes so far as to say that the groups are recruiting for larger operations, while also bringing attention to smaller terrorist cells and rouge militia that might spring up out of desperation. So, again, how is this different from Bush, other than Bush had to have attacks happen on his watch before he ordered any reports? Perhaps, Obama's just ahead of the game and that's what is really pissing off the loosing side. When did the GOP become such sore loosers? -Lance On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Jarrad Reiner <[email protected]> wrote: > In the first part of my email I specifically said this report does not > unhash any new existing right wing extremist plots that have been uncovered > since the new administration took office. > > I did not repeat that qualification in my conclusion sentence (which you > quoted) because I believed that you would understand it still applied to my > overall point. But that's what you get for assuming.... > > Jarrad > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Apr 14, 2009, at 4:35 PM, Lance McCulley <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Just because they don't give cute acronyms for the specific groups > (neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists) doesn't mean they > weren't being specific. They still named groups, and even those associated > with a particular individual (i.e. Timothy Mc Veigh). It seems though, that > perhaps, the author of this article felt threatened and that's why he tried > to downplay the similarities. > > "If they have specific threats from specific groups with evidence than lets > here it." --Jarrad > > "A militia member in Wyoming was arrested in February 2007 after > *communicating his plans* to travel to the Mexican border to *kill > immigrants * > crossing into the United States." > > "In April 2007, six militia members were arrested for various weapons and > explosives violations. Open source reporting alleged that those arrested > had > *discussed and conducted surveillance for a machinegun attack on Hispanics > *." > > "In two instances in the run-up to the > election, *extremists appeared to be in the early planning stages of some > threatening activity* targeting the Democratic nominee, *but law > enforcement interceded*. " > > Those are all from the > report<http://www.thelibertypapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/hsa-rightwing-extremism-09-04-07.pdf>. > > > -Lance > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Jarrad Reiner < <[email protected]> > [email protected]> wrote: > >> How is this any different than Bush's DHS Policies? (assuming you mean >> past DHS reports on "leftwing extremism"): >> >> Past <http://www.scribd.com/doc/12251436/DHS-Eco-Terrorism-in-US-2008> >> DHS <http://www.scribd.com/doc/12251436/DHS-Eco-Terrorism-in-US-2008> >> <http://www.scribd.com/doc/12251436/DHS-Eco-Terrorism-in-US-2008>and >> FBI assessments on "left-wing groups" are specific >> <http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm>in >> identifying the exact groups, causes and the targets of their >> terrorism,(ALF, ELF, etc). >> This new 9 page lists right wing extremists as those that oppose Obama on >> immigration, 2nd amendment and welfare, etc... As well as those who >> believe, as many of the founders did, in >> federalism<http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/mar95nl.html>. >> This report is so vague and generalized in does not name one specific >> extremist group or even one plot that right wing extremists have hatched >> since the new administration. The report actually admits that threats from >> these groups "have been rhetorical and *have not indicated plans to carry >> out violent acts". *But of course, the assessment never names "these >> groups" or provides any evidence "these groups" have even been investigated. >> >> >> From the Report >> >> *”right wing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential >> administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including >> immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to >> minorities, and restrictions on firearms and use.”* >> * >> * >> *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.* >> >> Full >> Report<http://www.thelibertypapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/hsa-rightwing-extremism-09-04-07.pdf> >> >> >> If they have specific threats from specific groups with evidence than lets >> here it. But this report does none of that. Its an assessment that >> attempts to label and stereotype conservative beliefs as being "right wing >> extremist", much like the recent (and later redacted) Missouri Law >> Enforcement Report <http://www.kansascity.com/116/story/1086524.html> that >> those with Ron Paul bumper stickers maybe "Militia Members" . >> >> Jarrad >> >> >> >> >> On Apr 14, 2009, at 2:36 PM, Lance McCulley wrote: >> >> So, the Bush Admin targets hippies and the Obama Admin targets >> hillbillies. Sounds fair and balanced to me. ;-) >> >> On a more serious note, how is this any different than Bush's DHS >> policies? Both policies take away liberties and target specific individuals >> with enough obscurity that the DHS can imprison anyone for any period of >> time without reason. The only 1up for Obama is the fact that he can't be >> charged with the creation of such a large government institution. >> >> -Lance >> >> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Jarrad Reiner < <[email protected]> >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> <http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/14/confirme-the-obama-dhs-hit-job-on-conservatives-is-real/> >>> http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/14/confirme-the-obama-dhs-hit-job-on-conservatives-is-real/ >>> >>> >>> Jarrad >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Politically Opinionated Outspoken People Expounding Religion" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pooper?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
