She posted the Michele Bachmann CSPAN video where Bachmann asks Janet Napolitano to resign over the DHS report that warns of rightwing extremist groups reqruiting returning military veterans. I commented that Bachmann was grandstanding and the report has some valid arguments. The report is talking about extremists like the KKK and individuals like Tim McVeigh who pose a credible threat to our security - she's not trying to take away bibles and the 2nd amendment.
My cousin got pissed and posted this note in response:
First of all I am assuming you figured my point wasn’t going to be the same as yours (after all I posted the C-Span utube). Since it was on my Facebook I am assuming you will have no problem if I disagree with what you posted. Don’t take what I say personally but in the spirit it is intended. You and I already know that we are polar opposites when it comes to politics. I like to discuss political facts and opinions, but not political emotions. Nonetheless I am aware no party is correct 100% of the time. Let me start by saying that it is not a crime to be an extremist. If a person chooses to have an extreme view on any point it does not mean that person will react violently. Freedom of speech, assembly, and the pursuit of happiness are foundational freedoms we share in the United States.
Our military has always scrutinized the men and women prior to their release from service for potential danger to the general populace, especially those who have been in combat. In America we have had only an extremely small percentage of military personnel involved in terrorist acts. The references to Tim McVeigh are an attempt by this memo to emotionally charge their contention regarding veterans by using a single event, with no apparent relationship to military service and gain public support through an emotional appeal instead of substantive facts.
I read the memo several times and have a few observations. Starting with a quote:
“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.”
As can be seen from the quote above, the memo uses words like “including white supremacist” and “including the militia”, but does not restrict terrorist to those groups.. This is a broad and unsupported generalization. To say that Bachmann is the one making abroad sweep flies in the face of hypocrisy.
The document repeatedly insulted our military on two fronts. First by unjustifiably accusing them of being susceptible to the advances of violent seeking groups after their capability and ability to do violence (if we are honest everybody is capable of violence). Second it accuses them of being the next threat of homeland security based on the actions of a very small unrepresentative percentage of veterans who did not integrate back into civilian life.
Another Quote:
“Many rightwing 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 ownership and use.”
Using these two quotes I and many of my friends and family members qualify as right wing terrorists. Again an unsubstantiated qualifying generalization, I don’t believe in abortion and have been known to protest it. I am against illegal immigration; after all it is an insult to immigrants who came here legally like my husband’s family. Plus no one is above the law. I am not a fan of our new president, but this has nothing to do with his color and everything to do with his extreme leftist policies. I also don’t believe we need any more gun control laws. The ones we have are just fine. They just need to be enforced. Based on my beliefs I would qualify as a terrorist according to this memo. But based on recent polling so would at least 50% of Americans…and, based on historical records so would George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, FDR, Abraham Lincoln… This memo is more than just a controversial document, but a document that attacks the foundational doctrines from which this country was born. I do not need to defend George Washington. His record defends itself. “What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” --George Washington in a speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779. "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible." George Washington.
Everyone is aware there are violent extremists on both sides of controversial issues and the need to protect ourselves from this potential violence. Nonetheless we have significant difficulty determining the agreeable balance between surrendering certain freedoms in the return for potential safety. But one thing we should be able to agree upon is that our military has proven through the entire history of American that its men and women can be trusted and should not be reduced to defending its character as a corporate entity or individually as a serving or veteran soldier, sailor, airman or marine. When we as a people defame our military we do not bring discredit to them but on ourselves. Our military are a cross section of our society and represent all that is good in America. Too many times we forget that simple fact. Our military does not kill “innocents”, but they do pride themselves in the precision of their strikes. In war innocent people do die, but this is typically and unavoidable and unintended collateral event. A large majority of our military is Christian. In their faith it is unconscionable to kill innocent people. However, I can think of a few religions that do practice, preach and advocate in the name of their religion the killing innocent people. Human sacrifices of the occults and the execution of infidels by Muslims to name just two. There are also the largely unnoticed religions of humanists, relativists, atheists, and agnostics that support the killing of children through abortion. Regardless of your view of when life begins a human fetus is human and is simply in its most basic form. To deny this fact is to deny their own religion – science.
After searching both documents, I could not find any reference to the Holy Bible, so I assume that comment must have been directed at me and/or Bible believers. I was never concerned that she was taking away my Bible; but it is something I would never give up. May God have mercy on our nation. We’re doomed without it.~ My thoughts.I posted back:
I have also read the memo as well as statements made by Janet Napolitano and the Department of Homeland Security. The report in question is not blaming the military or associating them as terrorists – it is simply stating that “rightwing extremist groups will try to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat” (
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf , pg 8, para 3). They base this assumption on the cultural, economic, and political climate that we experienced in the early to mid 90’s that resulted in domestic terrorist acts such as the Oklahoma City bombing (
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf , pg 8, para 7-9) – a social climate very similar to the one we are experiencing today. While you may see this as unjustifiably accusing the military of being susceptible to the advances of violent groups, from a security standpoint the recruiting of members of the military from extremist organizations such as the KKK isn’t out of the realm of possibility. While you have stated that your dislike of President Obama has nothing to do with the color of his skin, there are those whom we know have a problem with the fact that our President is black. Ever since his election, hate racial hate crimes have been on the rise. A November 23rd Los Angeles Times article stated that since the November 4th election, “more than 200 hate-related incidents, including cross burnings, assassination betting pools and effigies of President-elect Barack Obama, have been reported so far, according to law enforcement authorities and the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate groups” (
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/23/nation/na-klan23). It also went on to note that racist websites had been boasting that their servers are crashing under the weight of an exponential increase in page views. It went on to report that a “Klan chapter in Kentucky were charged in a bizarre plot to kill 88 black students and then decapitate an additional 14 students -- and then assassinate Obama by shooting him from a speeding car while wearing white tuxedos and top hats” (
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/23/nation/na-klan23). While the DHS report does say at that extremist groups will try to recruit returning military, it is ridiculous to assume that all or even most returning military were likely to be recruited into these cells. Extreme behavior from individual men with military backgrounds, however, has been detrimental to the security of our communities as of late. In the past month we have had 2 separate incidences of cops being killed from shoot outs involving men who were ex-military and outraged over the election of President Obama (
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2009/04/27/alleged-cop-killer-reportedly-%e2%80%98disturbed%e2%80%99-over-obama-win/ ,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/04/police-several-pa-officer_n_183130.html ). This report isn’t suggesting that the military is going to be the next threat to homeland security. It simply takes into account that history has a way of repeating itself, and when you consider that when the standards of military recruiting have been lowered to the point that, until as of late, have allowed felons and drug addicts into the ranks (
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/18/AR2009041801992.html?hpid=topnews?xid=rss-page ), and note the rise personality disorder and military misconduct dismissals (
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16330374 ) the mental state of some returning servicemen are indeed questionable. According to November 15, 2007 Pentagon Figures, these servicemen and women come home with serious mental-health problems, such as PTSD, often can't get the medical treatment they need (
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16330374 ) so it would stand to reason that some of these people may be susceptible to the persuasive tactics and appealing ire of extremist groups looking for loan wolves to do their bidding. If you value fact, then it is not hypocritical to think that this scenario is possible and it by no means taints members of the military that successfully integrate back into civilian society. If an apology is what you are looking for the DHS has issued one and Janet Napolitano has apologized directly to the Head of the American Legion over the assumption. It doesn’t, however mean that the validity of the report should be questioned. It didn’t take an army of extremists to take down the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City – it only took a handful. I feel better knowing that at least DHS is keeping this possibility on the radar – we aren’t doomed if our government employs those with the ability to exercise foresight.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
