The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[MikeC]

Great googily moogily...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA33u0PQOvw

You know that DHS report (written under the fucking Bush administration, no less) that says domestic law enforcement agencies should remain vigilant in regards to white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups, with a special concern towards their recruitment of veterans (whose honest to goodness military training and experience these groups could use to transform their loud bark to a Timothy McVeigh-, Eric Rudolph- or even Richard Poplawski-like bite)?

Michele Bachmann (R-MN)...

The information gathered may haev been done under the Bush administration but this particular Memo did not. It was dated April 7th, and it commented on the 3 Pittsburgh police officers who were killed.

The report, titled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," dated April 7, states that "threats from white supremacist and violent anti-government groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts."

However, the document, first reported by talk-radio host and WND columnist Roger Hedgecock, goes on to suggest worsening economic woes, potential new legislative 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."

It was not written under Bush, it was written during the Obama administration and put out by the stupid idiot Napolitano. It is amazing how Bush and his administration can write memos on future events for Obama to put out.

[Chuck to Chuck]

DHS: why does it exist, and what function does it perform that other departments do not perform (or what is gained from having it)?

Because the guys that created it were believers in big government.  Well, at least big government that they controlled.

A terrific president would shut down (at least as individual agencies):

DHS
Energy
Education
Transportation
Agriculture
Labor
Veteran's Affairs

All the functions of these agencies could be either combined into other functions (transportation, energy, ag and labor into commerce; DHS into justice; VA into Defense) or maybe even eliminated.

[Quality Start Machine]

http://washingtonindependent.com/40593/concerned-women-asking-about-swine-flu-panic

"Some people think that declaring a state of emergency about the flu was a political thing to push the Sebelius nomination through," said Wright. She pointed to news stories that ask whether the slow-walking of the Sebelius choice will hurt the response to the flu. "If there's even a hint that [Department of Homeland Security] is manipulating the health situation to push a political appointee through, well, it almost defies imagination that they'd be willing to that."

Wright said that she'd heard the speculation "on talk radio," and wanted to be skeptical, but "there's too much of a basis in that argument to easily dismiss it."

It almost defies imagination.

Apart, of course, from the part where she imagines it could be totally true.

It is unconscionable to think anyone would use DHS for political purposes.

Except, of course, when Tom Ridge held his "unspecified threats" press conferences a) the day after John Kerry announced John Edwards was his running mate, and b) the day after Kerry's acceptance speech, both times praising "the leadership of President Bush"

That was cool.

Or that anyone would use military jets for ill-advised photo shoots. I'm not sure the previous White House scheduled a covert photo shoot that might remind the locals of the worst thing they ever witnessed.  I guess when you put the guy who was on the Board of Indy Mac in charge of the WH Military Office...

That was Hall of Fame-caliber stupid, right there.

[Brownie]

DHS: why does it exist, and what function does it perform that other departments do not perform (or what is gained from having it)?

Because the guys that created it were believers in big government.  Well, at least big government that they controlled.

A terrific president would shut down (at least as individual agencies):

DHS
Energy
Education
Transportation
Agriculture
Labor
Veteran's Affairs

All the functions of these agencies could be either combined into other functions (transportation, energy, ag and labor into commerce; DHS into justice; VA into Defense) or maybe even eliminated.

This.

[morpheus]

DHS: why does it exist, and what function does it perform that other departments do not perform (or what is gained from having it)?

Because the guys that created it were believers in big government.  Well, at least big government that they controlled.

A terrific president would shut down (at least as individual agencies):

DHS
Energy
Education
Transportation
Agriculture
Labor
Veteran's Affairs

All the functions of these agencies could be either combined into other functions (transportation, energy, ag and labor into commerce; DHS into justice; VA into Defense) or maybe even eliminated.

I can't believe I'm going to say this...  CHUCK IS RIGHT!  Oh.  10.17(c) doesn't apply to politics, so I guess it's OK.

[Gil Gunderson]

Great googily moogily...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA33u0PQOvw

You know that DHS report (written under the fucking Bush administration, no less) that says domestic law enforcement agencies should remain vigilant in regards to white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups, with a special concern towards their recruitment of veterans (whose honest to goodness military training and experience these groups could use to transform their loud bark to a Timothy McVeigh-, Eric Rudolph- or even Richard Poplawski-like bite)?

Michele Bachmann (R-MN)...

The information gathered may haev been done under the Bush administration but this particular Memo did not. It was dated April 7th, and it commented on the 3 Pittsburgh police officers who were killed.

The report, titled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," dated April 7, states that "threats from white supremacist and violent anti-government groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts."

However, the document, first reported by talk-radio host and WND columnist Roger Hedgecock, goes on to suggest worsening economic woes, potential new legislative 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."

It was not written under Bush, it was written during the Obama administration and put out by the stupid idiot Napolitano. It is amazing how Bush and his administration can write memos on future events for Obama to put out.

No, but it was commissioned under Bush.  Bush wanted the document and the DHS civil servants wrote it during both administrations.

[Chuck to Chuck]

DHS: why does it exist, and what function does it perform that other departments do not perform (or what is gained from having it)?

Because the guys that created it were believers in big government.  Well, at least big government that they controlled.

A terrific president would shut down (at least as individual agencies):

DHS
Energy
Education
Transportation
Agriculture
Labor
Veteran's Affairs

All the functions of these agencies could be either combined into other functions (transportation, energy, ag and labor into commerce; DHS into justice; VA into Defense) or maybe even eliminated.

I can't believe I'm going to say this...  CHUCK IS RIGHT!  Oh.  10.17(c) doesn't apply to politics, so I guess it's OK.

The purpose of government is to create markets that the private sector cannot create efficiently.  National defense, police, courts, roads.  One could, perhaps, stretch that purpose to include parks (Dept of Interior) and blighted areas (HUD) as there's very little profit motive in parks and profit in correcting urban blight may have too long of a horizon for an equitable return.

[RV]

Dennis Byrne checks in with a truly revolting piece of tough-guy garbage.

I'd love to see their memos redefining the limits of "enhanced interrogation" as envisioned by Obama and his brain, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel: "Interrogations can only be conducted over three cups of tea in the presidential suite at the Drake Hotel. Care must be taken that the tea is not too tepid or too hot to cause discomfort to the detainee's lips. Interrogators who fall short of this standard will be shot."

I guess him and Ronnie will just have to agree to disagree on the enforcement of laws against torture.

George W. Bush's Justice Department said subjecting a person to the near drowning of waterboarding was not a crime and didn't even cause pain, but Ronald Reagan's Justice Department thought otherwise, prosecuting a Texas sheriff and three deputies for using the practice to get confessions.

At the trial of the Texas sheriff, Assistant US Attorney Scott Woodward said the prisoners who were subjected to waterboarding were not "model citizens," but they were still "victims" of torture.

"We make no bones about it. The victims of these crimes are criminals," Woodward said, according to a copy of the trial transcript.

One of the defendants, Deputy Floyd Allen Baker, said during the trial that he thought torture to be an immoral act, but he was unaware that it was illegal. His attorneys cited the "Nuremberg defense," that Baker was acting on orders from his superiors when he subjected prisoners to waterboarding.

But the jury in the Baker's case didn't buy the "didn't know it was illegal" defense, convicting the deputy on three counts of civil rights and constitutional violations related to the waterboarding.

[ChuckD]

It was not written under Bush, it was written during the Obama administration and put out by the stupid idiot Napolitano. It is amazing how Bush and his administration can write memos on future events for Obama to put out.

I haven't been watching the news, but apparently this is the contentious section of the memo:

(U)  Disgruntled Military Veterans

(U//FOUO)  DHS/I&A assesses that 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.  The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist
groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from
the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.

— (U)  After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military
veterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwing
extremist groups.

—  (U)  A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that "large numbers
of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now
learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces."

— (U//LES)  The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement
that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have
joined extremist groups.

Disregarding which administration is responsible for the memo, is the right that hard up for an issue? The only problem I can see with the section is that it says "rightwing extremists will attempt" instead of "rightwing extremists might attempt." There's no way of knowing without a doubt that this type of recruitment will occur. However, the memo isn't implying that returning veterans are America-hating terrorists.

Rather, it's simply stating that there's a portion of returning veterans who may be having issues integrating themselves back in to civilian life. If the support structure isn't in place to help them, then some of those veterans are going to become prime candidates for recruitment in to extremist groups.

This isn't a new phenomenon. This is a pattern you can see all around the world. Terrorist groups look to recruit marginalized people because they have little to lose in joining up (a low opportunity cost, in morph's parlance). By joining up, they are tying themselves in to a social structure that they lack, that will be supportive of them and may provide tangible benefits like food, shelter, etc (INCENTIVES!). So, the benefits (INCENTIVES!) can easily outweigh the costs.

If veterans have "fallen through the cracks", then there's a chance that they can become disillusioned with government because they perceive it (perhaps, rightly) as having failed them. These are going to be extremist groups' wet dreams in terms of new membership because they have skillsets that are valuable to the group.

So, how is this pissing on the service of our enlisted people? If anything, it seems to imply that better support for reintegrating returning veterans in to civilian life should be a priority. Isn't that supporting the troops?

[morpheus]

I don't know, folks.  My initial response upon hearing about this DHS report was to be ANGRY!  But then... I found that DHS also released a similar (although not quite as strongly worded) memo about lefist extremists... and upon further reading of this memo I kinda feel like it's being blown out of proportion.  There are plenty of things to not be happy about if you lean toward the right.

[Tonker]

Oh yeah?  Well we'll just see about that, shall we?

[MikeC]

I like pictures....



Obama saving 100 million dollars is like me killing 1 ant....

To put those numbers in perspective, imagine that the head of a household with annual spending of $100,000 called everyone in the family together to deal with a $34,000 budget shortfall. How much would he or she announce that spending had to be cut? By $3 over the course of the year–approximately the cost of one latte at Starbucks. The other $33,997? We can put that on the family credit card and worry about it next year."

[Philberto]

I like pictures....



Obama saving 100 million dollars is like me killing 1 ant....

To put those numbers in perspective, imagine that the head of a household with annual spending of $100,000 called everyone in the family together to deal with a $34,000 budget shortfall. How much would he or she announce that spending had to be cut? By $3 over the course of the year–approximately the cost of one latte at Starbucks. The other $33,997? We can put that on the family credit card and worry about it next year."

THIS?

[Gil Gunderson]

By no means do I think that 100 million is significant, but in terms of the spending, it helps to look at the picture in reality.

The federal budget is not 3.6 trillion dollars.  Approximately 2 trillion of that spending comes in the form of Medicare and Social Security, mandatory payments that the goverment must make by law.  The other 1.6 trillion is discretionary spending, meaning that which is at the control of Congress and the President.

So, that makes the request 100 million from each Agency and Department head (which there are alot of, I think somewhere in the neighborhood of 40+) out of a total 1.6 trillion dollars. 

It's not really that much more significant, but it is much better than out of 3.6 trillion.

Just to be accurate.

[ChuckD]

I take from your silence that the DHS memo really was just a red herring, MikeC?