Right Wing Extremist? Maybe...

...sigh.

< Sarcasm alert! >

How come there is never any coverage about Left-Wing extremists? Oh, sorry. The Media doesn't like to self-promote. I forgot.

Anyhoo, former loon Governor of Arizona and current DHS Gadfly in Command, Janet Napolitano, has published the famous hit piece on mainstream Americans entitled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment". This piece of un-balanced excretia was a swing-and-a-miss from the get-go. It was rushed through to publication, against the advice of the lawyers and advisors with a longer view of things, and hit the distro list just in time for the "TEA Parties".

I am shocked...

I mean, partisan hack-jobs being released immediately prior to a media (non)-event? Whodathunkit? I mean, that kind of stuff NEVER happens in politics, does it?

Nah. That's just paranoia talking, right?

Right?

Or not...

So, the author of the document is listed on page 1 as: "(U) Prepared by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division. Coordinated with the FBI."

The Department of Homeland Security has an Extremism and Radicalization Branch? Doesn't that mean that in this branch, they are fomenting radicals and extremists? With the help of the FBI? Wow. If I was one of the tinfoil-hat crowd, I might get concerned.

If you understand what a trial balloon is, you might think that this report was floated just to see WHICH groups jumped. It is kind of like the highway patrol man person Trooper activating the radar gun to see which cars' brake lights illuminate. Can you say "Gotcha"? I knew you could...

I like this next part: "The information is provided to federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States. Federal efforts to influence domestic public opinion must be conducted in an overt and transparent manner, clearly identifying United States Government sponsorship. (emphasis mine). I read this to mean that the Federal Government has decided that, in an effort directed towards focusing local law-enforcement activities in their preferred manner, this report is designed to influence domestic public opinion overtly.

Transparency was only achieved after this report was leaked publicly...

So, the Department of Homeland Security is advocating that Law Enforcement take pre-emptive measures to "prevent" terrorist attacks against the United States. Remember this line when you read further into the report. It has a VERY chilling effect on your rights as citizens and Americans.

Page two lists in great detail the fact that NO SPECIFIC INFORMATION exists about potential attacks, and then in the next sentence states unequivocally that "rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues."

That takes balls.

So does the lumping together of neo-Nazis and skinheads with the guy down the street who got laid off due to the economic downturn. Yep, if you have just lost your job, you are now a racist hate-monger who is angry that a black man is president. I wonder how that logic squares with the minorities who have lost their jobs due to the economic downturn? Are they now neo-Nazi Skinheads too?

I'm just asking.

Who is playing on whom's fears???

Page two also re-hashes the old canard about Tim McVeigh... C'mon guys! McVeigh was a dirtbag who had militant Islamic ties. Really, he did. Would someone at DHS PLEASE go look it up? Or, at least, go ask someone intelligent and knowledgeable in the FBI? Pretty please?

Oh, Bottom of Page two...all you military types fresh from the front lines. You are now terrorists in the eyes of your government. Sorry. Potential terrorists. Because, you know, you might have seen things that might give you trouble sleeping. Or something. Because, you know, you might be human...or something.

Page three: (paraphrasing here) Just because the President PROMISED his constituents and POSTED on the official White House web page that he intends to take your guns away, doesn't mean that the threat is credible. Really it doesn't. He didn't really mean it when he said it, posted it, stumped on it, talked to the President of Mexico about it, blamed YOU for the problems in Mexico because of it, and promised to ram through a treaty with that effect. Nope. Just smoke and mirrors. So all of you people buying guns for the first (second, fourth, fortieth) time can cut it out already. The police are getting worried that it will be harder to confiscate them now that you bought all of them.

This goes double for you returning vets with combat experience. Because, you know, unlike us poor civilian boobs, you guys and gals actually know how to use guns and you have the overseers a wee bit worried that you won't forget those skills any time soon.

The rest of page three is some PSH about how the Zionists are running things now and so we are arming up...or something like that.

Page four: If you oppose Gun Control efforts, Free Trade agreements with the Mexican Narco-State, Abortion, Same-sex Marriage, and "inter-racial crime", you might be a redneck Right Wing Extremist. (Although, parsing this, I guess inter-racial crime means crimes by members of one racial group against members of another. I am opposed to crimes against persons, regardless of race. Does this count?)

Bottom of page four: "(U//FOUO) Historically, domestic rightwing extremists have feared, predicted, and anticipated a cataclysmic economic collapse in the United States. Prominent antigovernment conspiracy theorists have incorporated aspects of an impending economic collapse to intensify fear and paranoia among like-minded individuals and to attract recruits during times of economic uncertainty. Conspiracy theories involving declarations of martial law, impending civil strife or racial conflict, suspension of the U.S. Constitution, and the creation of citizen detention camps often incorporate aspects of a failed economy. Antigovernment conspiracy theories and “end times” prophecies could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition, and weapons. These teachings also have been linked with the radicalization of domestic extremist individuals and groups in the past, such as violent Christian Identity organizations and extremist members of the militia movement."

They took four sentences to say one word: WACO. They are trying to self-fulfill a prophesy of their own creation...and will blame you just like they blamed Koresh and his followers.

Ummm. Hmmmm. If the economy collapses because we pumped a couple of trillion dollars into it without the production to back it up and caused hyper-inflation, you are branded an extremist if you prepared for it by putting aside food, weapons, and ammunition. To provide for your family, should it be required. To protect them, should it be required. To survive a very bad time, should it come to that. The Government (in all of its iterations) has absolutely no duty to protect an individual. This is established fact, cemented in the case law of the country. If Government has no duty to protect you, shouldn't you be prepared to if you have to? I am just asking...

As an aside: If the sun sets in the west and a million people watch it, did they conspire to achieve twilight? Or, did they look at their watches, see the time, read the signs, and prepare to witness it? Just because more than one person can read the signs of the times does not mean that they are a conspiratorial cabal. Really. You dim-witted horse's asses (with apologies to horses worldwide).

Page five: If you are against illegal immigration, you might be an extremist. If you are for it, you might be in Congress...

Page five: If you are against infringements against your Second Amendment rights, you are an extremist (no "maybe" here).

See above screed about page three.

Of course, just because the government wishes to foment violence against gun owners, prompting a response by the "three percenters", doesn't mean that they are wrong. Waco rules are in-effect, you know.

It says so, right at the bottom of page five and the top of page six.

Also at the top of page six is this gem: "On the current front, legislation has been proposed this year requiring mandatory registration of all firearms in the United States. Similar legislation was introduced in 2008 in several states proposing mandatory tagging and registration of ammunition."

Just so we can be clear here (all sarcasm aside): Registration schemes have been the prelude to ALL civilian disarmament efforts ever undertaken. Civilian disarmament has been the prelude to EVERY GENOCIDE IN THE 20TH CENTURY. In my mind, this means that EVERY CONGRESSMAN WHO PROPOSES GUN REGISTRATION IS PROPOSING THE MEANS TO EFFECT GENOCIDE IN THE UNITED STATES. Logically, If A leads to B, and B leads to C, then A leads to C. This is not hard. If you look at the facts objectively, like THIS reporter did HERE, the facts are inescapable.

Extreme? HELL YES! My life is MINE to live, NOT yours to run.

Back to the sarcasm...

Page six continues with more Zionist diatribes, and some fear-mongering about Russia (cuddly-bear would never use petro-muscle as an extortion tool, would they?), China (Tibet? Hong Kong? Taiwan? No worries!), and India ("thank you for calling the -yourcompanynamehere- help desk, my name is "Bob", how can I help?") using their rising influence on the world stage, as well as some drivel about the fact that treaties have the effect of over-riding and diluting our Constitution. Nothing to see here. Really. Oh, and that decade-old treaty about Inter-American Arms Control something-or-other doesn't really mean anything. Keep moving.

Look!!! Shiny!!!!

(Warning, extreme sarcasm below. With apologies to the true heroes serving in our fine armed forces. You guys and gals deserve every possible benefit that a free society can accord to you.)

Page seven. More military extremism. You guys know you are terrorists. Sorry, "Potential terrorists". (Abu Ghraib.) No problem. (Haditha.) We don't really mean to tar you guys with the broad brush...you know, like saying that you are "going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not..." (John Kerry, CBS Face the Nation, 12/04/2005, transcript pages 3 and 4). Really we don't. The DHS is an understanding agency with absolutely no bias against our military, except for pointing out that you guys might be good if you ever fought with us.

Not that you would.

Or something.

We hope.

Page eight. Rehash of the McVeigh crapola on ice.

Janet! Get an editor. Really. Brevity counts for something.

Page nine: Contact US!

(U) DHS encourages recipients of this document to report information concerning suspicious or criminal activity to DHS and the FBI. The DHS National Operations Center (NOC) can be reached by telephone at 202-282-9685 or by e-mail at NOC.Fusion@dhs.gov. For information affecting the private sector and critical infrastructure, contact the National Infrastructure Coordinating Center (NICC), a sub-element of the NOC. The NICC can be reached by telephone at 202-282-9201 or by e-mail at NICC@dhs.gov. The FBI regional phone numbers can be found online at http://www.fbi.gov/contact/fo/fo.htm. When available, each report submitted should include the date, time, location, type of activity, number of people and type of equipment used for the activity, the name of the submitting company or organization, and a designated point of contact.

(U) For comments or questions related to the content or dissemination of this document, please contact the DHS/I&A Production Branch at IA.PM@hq.dhs.gov, IA.PM@dhs.sgov.gov, or IA.PM@dhs.ic.gov.

So, If you are concerned about the direction that the Republicans and Democrats have taken us during the last, say, 20 years...you just might be a terrorist. Domestic, of course.

If you are concerned that, despite the assertions of the Democrats who have stated publicly they wish to disarm us, they might actually wish to disarm us. You might be a terrorist. Domestic, of course.

If you are concerned that uncontrolled illegal immigration of unknown persons coming over our border from a failed narco-state might have the potential to harm our country, you might be a terrorist. Domestic, of course.

If you oppose killing unborn babies, almost-newly born babies, or actual newborn babies, you might be a terrorist. Domestic, of course.

If you have ACTUALLY BOMBED Federal buildings, Conspired to bomb Federal buildings, or married someone who has actually done so...you might be William Ayers, a trusted friend and neighbor of the President. Meaning, you are definitely NOT a domestic terrorist.

Go figure.


< /sarcasm>

Pax,

Newbius

|||

This isn't hard...

On 11/28/2007, Paul Helmke wrote a minor diatribe about the phrasing of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. His contention was that the Parker decision went the wrong way, and that the Second Amendment refers only to Militia prerogative for arms ownership; that self-defense was too narrow a view and misses the thrust of the amendment, as written. These remarks were pre-Heller.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State; the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Bon.

If we were to parse it, it would go as follows:

A

well regulated ("in proper and working order")

militia ("the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service")
or, alternately, under 10 USC 311
("-STATUTE-

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.")

being (conjunction, emphasizing the following word)

necessary ("logically unavoidable, absolutely needed")

for the

security (" the quality or state of being secure: as a: freedom from danger")

of a

free ("1 a: having the legal and political rights of a citizen b: enjoying civil and political liberty c: enjoying political independence or freedom from outside domination d: enjoying personal freedom : not subject to the control or domination of another")

State; (individually - "mode or condition of being", collectively " a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory ; especially : one that is sovereign")

The

right ("something to which one has a just claim")

of the

people ("the body of enfranchised citizens of a state")

to

keep (" to retain in one's possession or power")

and

bear ("to carry or possess arms")

Arms ("a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense ; especially : firearm")

shall ("used to express a command or exhortation")

not ("used as a function word to make negative a group of words or a word")

be (" intransitive verb: to take place") Together "shall not be" means "an absolute prohibition"

infringed. ("to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another")

So, to play Paul Helmke's game, we should look at every word of the Amendment, not leaving anything aside, and also address the Militia clause. To wit:

A properly functioning and in regular working order Militia (those citizens NOT a member of the Armed Forces or of the National Guard), being necessary, logically unavoidable, and absolutely needed for the security of a free state - as defined "a politically organized, sovereign body of the people having the legal and political rights of citizens, enjoying civil and political liberty, independence, and freedom; and not subject to the control and domination of another"; the Right (just claim) of the People (the body of the enfranchised citizens of the above free state) to keep and bear arms (to possess and carry weapons of offense or defense, especially firearms) shall not be infringed (absolutely no encroachments on this right whatsoever).

Mr. Helmke, the people ARE the Militia. The Constitution recognizes this, and 10 USC 311 codifies it in case there is any confusion. The Militia clause argument is self-defeating if you understand the words. Your failure to speak openly and honestly about this indicates that you are either a fraud or a liar, and your intention is perfectly clear to anybody who can read and understand the words. You are attempting to re-write history for your own purpose, to empower a central government who holds you in contempt but will use you for their own purpose, at the expense of free citizens who only wish to be left alone.

According to the Militia clause, the National Firearms Act of 1934 is unconstitutional. According to the Militia clause, the Miller decision was wrongly adjudged. According to the Militia clause, the Brady Assault Weapons Ban was patently unconstitutional, as were the infringements upon civilian purchases of high-capacity magazines, semi-automatic shotguns, and yes even machine guns.

Mr. Helmke's current position on the Heller case is one that presumes Heller to be an invitation to regulation, restriction, and imposition of onerous "common-sense gun laws" for the protection of the people, as the "Slippery Slope" that previously restrained legislators is "now gone".

If the previous position required one to believe that the Second Amendment was solely for Militia purpose, then, logically, the people should not be prohibited in their pursuit of Arms for defense of home and hearth, town, city, county, state, or country. If the current position is that the people really do have the right to self-defense, but that this right is subject to "reasonable restriction"; said restrictions being as many as he can force through the system to achieve the goal of effectively total civilian disarmament, then his previous argument was a smokescreen and a lie. In either case, the two positions are incompatible with each other as rational pieces of the whole. Unless, as mouthpiece of the Brady Campaign, he has no positions of his own and is merely a puppet or a stooge.

In either case: Mr. Helmke, your stated positions are on the side of those people who would gut the Constitution for their own aims. The Supreme Court in the Heller decision got it only half-right. Unfortunately, they limited their scope and dared not tread upon stare decisis and ALSO reverse Miller and declare NFA34 unconstitutional as well. It would have been the greatest blow for freedom that the United States would ever have experienced. Instead, we get to argue banalities about whether your position is one of moral bankruptcy or mental deficiency.

Good day to you.

Pax,

Newbius

|||


(NOTE: Previous version of this posting was removed and replaced by this version to correct a technical inaccuracy and a reference to the wrong court decision in the opening paragraph.)

Part Two...

It didn't take long for the ghouls to pounce on this, sadly..

As I stated in my Blog on Monday, the Gun Control Advocates use any tragedy as an excuse to attempt to advance their agenda. Unfortunately, another opportunity to do so made the headlines in Alabama.

The Brady Campaign issued a press release today, as did the Violence Policy Center about the Alabama shooting, calling for re-instatement of the "Assault Weapons" ban. The same VPC press release is duplicated at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and duplicated as well at the Freedom States Alliance, and the Legal Community Against Violence.

Had the shooter used a handgun instead, there would be similar calls from these same groups clamoring for the banning of handguns instead.

The only statement that I agree with in these organization's press releases is this one: "Our sympathies go to all those affected by this terrible tragedy."

Except that I actually mean it.

God bless the families in Alabama who are affected by this tragedy. My prayers go out to you. May you find comfort and peace in the knowledge that your loved ones will always be with you in your heart, even though they are no longer with us on Earth. I pray that your friends and family hold you close in this hour of your need, and that the community pulls together to support you and help you through this terrible time.

Pax,

Newbius

A tale of two countries...

Hat tip to Atlas Shrugs for this item.

I have a couple of comments:

1. Good for the Isreali police for stopping the attack.
2. Good for the armed Isreali citizens who assisted.
3. Based upon the response of Hamas, it is obvious that the "religion of peace" is anything but.

[EDIT: Sarcasm Alert!]
If this had happened in the United States, then the assisting citizen would have been shot by the police (and the report falsified to cover up the cop's actions), who would have been lauded as heroes. Then, some Liberal Democrat would propose a bill before the State or National Legislature attempting to ban tractors and bulldozers as assault weapons. Lastly, the Obama administration would issue a letter of apology to Hamas for the misunderstanding and offer another $900 Billion for the Palestinians.
[EDIT: /Sarcasm]

Did I miss anything?

|||

Pax,

Newbius