• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Here's the LeftWing Extremist DHS doc.

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
They even name some of the groups they are watching in this one. Anybody with any common sense and honesty will admit that the documents are totally different in their intention.

But I do have a bit of a problem with this one too. If they think that it is only the Leftwing extremists that know how to use computers and the internet, they are incorrect.

Most of it is based on the threat of cyber attacks

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Leftwing_Extremist_Threat.pdf
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
They even name some of the groups they are watching in this one. Anybody with any common sense and honesty will admit that the documents are totally different in their intention.

But I do have a bit of a problem with this one too. If they think that it is only the Leftwing extremists that know how to use computers and the internet, they are incorrect.

Most of it is based on the threat of cyber attacks

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Leftwing_Extremist_Threat.pdf

Today a Washington Post writer appeared on C-SPAN news-- and he confirmed that both the studys/assessments were commissioned by President Bush and released by Napolitano... He said that some of the info traced back to independent studies and FBI studies reports done in 2006- and the assessment was put together by long time civil servants of the intelligence division of Homeland Security- that have no political connection- and that were not appointed by either Napolitano or Obama...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Maybe they were commisioned by Bush, but they were not written or approved by the same administrations, that is evident.

If they were commisioned by Bush, it makes sense then that the President would have to take a look at them before they are released.

Meaning Obama knew what was in this document, and controlled the timing of it's release.



Herb London, president of the Hudson Institute, a Washington-based think tank, said DHS' latest report "clearly appears to censor right-wing opinion," while its earlier assessment of left-wing extremists does not.

"I must say it's chilling, it worries me a great deal," London said. "I never have encountered a time in American life when condemnation of a president is not permitted. This really did strike me as odd, indeed."

London called on President Obama to repudiate the right-wing report.

"What is the message here? That conservative organizations are not permitted to engage in any language that might be described as unfavorable to the president," London said. "Keep in mind this is entirely subjective to begin with."
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
So you believe the politicians should be censoring and altering reports developed from qualitative and quantitative research of nonpolitical scientists and professionals to put a better political spin on it :???:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
So you believe the politicians should be censoring and altering reports developed from qualitative and quantitative research of nonpolitical scientists and professionals to put a better political spin on it Say what?[/b]

That's exactly what they did in the RWE document, and there is no need for it. Yes that is more or less what I am saying.

Read the 2 documents, and be honest with yourself. One is politically biased and one is not.

Why the outrage from bipartisan groups on the RWE and not the LWE, Why were they separated into 2 individual reports, when commisioned by the same man? Any material added after Obama was President?

Why were they not entitled "Extremism"? Simple, they were separated into 2 parts for a reason.

Commisioned by Bush, compiled by Obama, released as 2 separate documents, 2-3 months apart, and one is politically biased. Use your head man!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
So you believe the politicians should be censoring and altering reports developed from qualitative and quantitative research of nonpolitical scientists and professionals to put a better political spin on it Say what?[/b]

That's exactly what they did in the RWE document, and there is no need for it. Yes that is more or less what I am saying.

Read the 2 documents, and be honest with yourself. One is politically biased and one is not.

Why the outrage from bipartisan groups on the RWE and not the LWE, Why were they separated into 2 individual reports, when commisioned by the same man? Any material added after Obama was President?

Why were they not entitled "Extremism"? Simple, they were separated into 2 parts for a reason.

Commisioned by Bush, compiled by Obama, released as 2 separate documents, 2-3 months apart, and one is politically biased. Use your head man!

Washington Post says they were all done nonpolitically...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Good for the Washington post!

They can call it whatever they want, get the word out I say!

The more people that read these 2 documents, and are honest with themselves, will also be the people that determine the Washington Post's readership numbers.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Good for the Washington post!

They can call it whatever they want, get the word out I say!

The more people that read these 2 documents, and are honest with themselves, will also be the people that determine the Washington Post's readership numbers.

hypocrit-- the wording in both these reports is no different than the several years old pamphlet that was posted in last weeks thread on this....I've seen the same wording for 20-30+ years....Some of the names of the organizations change a little- was Posse Comitatus- then became Freemen....Probably more so with some of the left wingnut and greenie weenie groups...

They also reported on C-SPAN that the warning on the disgruntled returning servicemen turning to radical groups or committing radical acts on their own came from a several year assessment by the FBI that was released in 2008....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
They also reported on C-SPAN that the warning on the disgruntled returning servicemen turning to radical groups or committing radical acts on their own came from a several year assessment by the FBI that was released in 2008....

Great, with a little more massaging, it won't sound so much like they are trying to group all veterans together, but the very few, that may act like Gangbangers!

You are totally missing what is going on, if you truly believe what you are saying.

It's not the factual information that is upsetting people, it is the obvious slant that was put on it. (I know drunk drivers are prone to kill others, but because I have a beer now and then, please don't start sitting outside my house waiting for me to get in the truck)

Do you actually believe that FBI intelligence agents sat down and typed this out? Political strategists were involved, and an aide typed it up, and someone approved the message it was sending. (maybe Bush planted a political timebomb for Obama, that he didn't notice, eh?:)

Then there was the timing. As Reader has said before she was impressed with the way Obama ran his campaign. She was talking about the strategy and orchestrated precision of how it was managed.

People are beginning to notice, and realizing that it is not as obvious to others.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
They also reported on C-SPAN that the warning on the disgruntled returning servicemen turning to radical groups or committing radical acts on their own came from a several year assessment by the FBI that was released in 2008....

Great, with a little more massaging, it won't sound so much like they are trying to group all veterans together, but the very few, that may act like Gangbangers!

You are totally missing what is going on, if you truly believe what you are saying.

It's not the factual information that is upsetting people, it is the obvious slant that was put on it. (I know drunk drivers are prone to kill others, but because I have a beer now and then, please don't start sitting outside my house waiting for me to get in the truck)

Do you actually believe that FBI intelligence agents sat down and typed this out? Political strategists were involved, and an aide typed it up, and someone approved the message it was sending. (maybe Bush planted a political timebomb for Obama, that he didn't notice, eh?:)

Then there was the timing. As Reader has said before she was impressed with the way Obama ran his campaign. She was talking about the strategy and orchestrated precision of how it was managed.

People are beginning to notice, and realizing that it is not as obvious to others.

You can believe what you want to- because you will anyway...But it (both reports) don't look any different than the ones I looked at during the Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Ford, Bush 1, and Clinton years....They've (Justice Dept./FBI-now Homeland Security since Bush expanded the Bureaucracy) done these assessments for years- same type wording....Some are still even the same groups or types of groups...Some have new names- all have the same intents...

Its just now that the radical right is fearmongering lead by their cheerleaders Rush, Anne, and Malkin.....And all the rightwingernuts that live in a world of conspiracy and dribbling in their shorts because everyones out to get them buy right into it....

This article Reader 2 posted hits the nail right on the head...

Rewind to Tuesday morning: a Homeland Security report covering potential threats from "right wing extremist" groups, including militias, white supremacists and neo-Nazis, was attained by talk show host Roger Hedgecock. And, predictably, the gang who can't seem to decipher basic high school level social studies concepts, kneejerked into one of their paranoid tantrums -- insisting that the report was entirely about them.

Almost right away, the far-right blogs and FOX News Channel were set ablaze with reports that the Obama administration was targeting conservatives with a massive surveillance operation. But here's the thing: the DHS report wasn't about conservatives. The word "conservatives" doesn't appear anywhere in the report. It was all about radical domestic terrorist groups who happen to subscribe to outlandish ideologies well beyond the mainstream of political discourse. Notwithstanding this very clear distinction, Malkin and the broader wingnutosphere lost their collective shpadoinkle and insisted the DHS was targeting the mainstream tea baggers.

Now, when this story first broke, I was at a bit of loss as to how to accurately interpret the right's wildly conspiratorial, victimized reaction. Either Malkin and Beck were just as confused and incoherent as always, and, in their loud noises anti-government rage, they were inadvertently coupling themselves with right wing extremists. Or they not-so-subtly admitted that there isn't much difference between a garden variety conservative, a garden variety wingnut and a garden variety right wing extremist -- that they're all basically militant racists who are plotting to blow up federal buildings. I don't know.

There's one thing we know for sure, however: they're definitely freaked out about the government's post-9/11 intelligence apparatus -- the very same bureaucracy they actively and vocally cheerleaded throughout the Bush years. Malkin, in particular, was one of the most outspoken and cheerleadery endorsers of allowing unchecked executive power via the vice president's office, the NSA, the CIA and the military, while encouraging these agencies to use any means necessary to smoke out the evildoers. This included illegal wiretapping, rendition, suspension of habeas rights and every awful provision found within the USA PATRIOT Act.

Yet in light of this DHS report, Malkin seems to believe that the government might be spying on people. Her people. "Right wing extremists."

So they're suddenly worried about privacy are they? Whatever happened to Rush Limbaugh's maxim: "Our civil liberties are worthless if we are dead!" Or Senator Big John Cornyn's words of wisdom: "None of your civil liberties matter much after you're dead."

Glenn Greenwald wrote on Tuesday:

When you cheer on a Surveillance State, you have no grounds to complain when it turns its eyes on you. If you create a massive and wildly empowered domestic surveillance apparatus, it's going to monitor and investigate domestic political activity. That's its nature.

It's like that classic SNL sketch from 1988 with Tom Hanks as Mr. Short Term Memory. Hanks is at a restaurant and orders his favorite meal: poached salmon. He takes a bite of his fish then, forgetting he took a bite, shouts, "Ah! There's something in my mouth! There's something in my mouth!" The wingnuts begged and fear-mongered for this gigantic overreaching surveillance state and now they're suddenly alarmed that it's covering terrorists other than brown-skinned foreigners with funny hats?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
And you can believe whatever you like.

If you want DHS to be a political tool, instead of it's true purpose go ahead.

Chase ghosts all you like, but watch out for the dog that's ready to bite, while you have your back turned!

And that article that Reader posted does give you some insight into what is going on. Break it down, study it from both sides and you'll get your answer!

I really don't care if you call me conservative or billy bob, unless you believe that all people named Bob believe the same things, and act the same way!
 

MoGal

Well-known member
Actually, the shadow government who runs our government (and you can call them whatever you like, the powers that be, global elite, the Luciferian new world order)
want the internet controlled............... bottom line............. and this report goes in hand with Obama's Cyber security act............. just watch and see if it don't play out that way......... of course any website that disagrees with the government will be labeled terrorist and blacked out.

Its becoming harder and harder for the government to lie to the people when they get their news on the internet.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Washington Post says they were all done nonpolitically..

OT, something has been bugging me?

How would DHS determine that Veterans are more prone to be recruited by "RWE" groups and not "LWE" groups. Are there not Veterans that are Vegans that like computers? They weren't mentioned in the LWE report!

And it doesn't stop there...

There is this MSM report, this reporter seems to think the Veterans mentioned in the RWE report are republicans.

2009-04-15-MSNBC-Brewer2.jpg
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Washington Post says they were all done nonpolitically..

OT, something has been bugging me?

How would DHS determine that Veterans are more prone to be recruited by "RWE" groups and not "LWE" groups. Are there not Veterans that are Vegans that like computers? They weren't mentioned in the LWE report!

And it doesn't stop there...

There is this MSM report, this reporter seems to think the Veterans mentioned in the RWE report are republicans.

2009-04-15-MSNBC-Brewer2.jpg

Nice catch on the graphic there. When some moonbat group pulls something stupid, do you think they'll have the Democrat donkey on the screen?

Nope, no liberal bias at CNN..... :roll:

Wake up, folks.
 
Top