Obama Administration Fears Returning War Veterans

[Revmitchell]

I agree, just thought I would point out why they aren't called terrorist.

Terrorist ...no, murderer...yes

 

[LeBuick]

For those who want to know the truth the charge is made against returning veterans on page #2 of the report. The term Disgruntled Veterans is included as a section heading on page #7. The text then reverts to returning veterans.

Looking at the link you posted in the other thread, the first mention of vets is on page 3 not 2 which says, "military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups etc..."

So again, they are not saying all vets as you imply, they clearly said vets that have a hard time reintegrating into their communities. I think that's a fairly good description of a disgruntled vet.

 

[LeBuick]

You are aware, though, that folks who believe in the 10th amendment, those against abortion and "immigration reform," are also singled out?

No amount of defense excuses this anti-military, anti-freedom radical. She is a danger to our freedoms and our republic.

I don't see the 10th amendment putting anyone on this list. Can you show me where they singled those folks out? I thought we all believed in the constitution and Obama took an oath to defend it.

I likewise don't see an anti-military statement. They are very specific about a particular type of vet and did not make a blanket assertion as you suggest. They are very clear what vet they are referring to if you would take the time to read the document with an open mind.

Lastly, what in this document "endangers" your freedom? I don't think you will make the list unless you become "extreme" which I think is beyond any of the conservatives here. We are Christians first and would never put politics before the cross...

 

[carpro]

Looking at the link you posted in the other thread, the first mention of vets is on page 3 not 2 which says, "military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups etc..."

So again, they are not saying all vets as you imply, they clearly said vets that have a hard time reintegrating into their communities. I think that's a fairly good description of a disgruntled vet.

Rationalization is a useful tool of liberalism.

 

[rbell]

I don't see the 10th amendment putting anyone on this list. Can you show me where they singled those folks out? I thought we all believed in the constitution and Obama took an oath to defend it.

I likewise don't see an anti-military statement. They are very specific about a particular type of vet and did not make a blanket assertion as you suggest. They are very clear what vet they are referring to if you would take the time to read the document with an open mind.

Lastly, what in this document "endangers" your freedom? I don't think you will make the list unless you become "extreme" which I think is beyond any of the conservatives here. We are Christians first and would never put politics before the cross...

I don't know why I bother, but the article said...

Rightwing extremism," the report said in a footnote on Page 2, goes beyond religious and racial hate groups and extends to "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," said the report, which also listed gun owners and veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as potential risks.

Obviously, it casts a critical eye to those who believe the 10th amendment is being abused by Washington (which it is).

What's sad is that you seem incapable of recognizing the fragility of our civil rights and liberties. We have people in this administration who obviously look down on several groups of people.

I'm sure that you will--as you always seem to do--find a way to defend the indefensible. I just think it's sad that there are folks like you who think so little of our liberties so as to ignore when someone moves toward limiting/eliminating them.

 

[LeBuick]

Obviously, it casts a critical eye to those who believe the 10th amendment is being abused by Washington (which it is).

What's sad is that you seem incapable of recognizing the fragility of our civil rights and liberties. We have people in this administration who obviously look down on several groups of people.

I disagree, it appears to cast an eye on some peoples method of protest. Peaceful protest is given by the constitution. However, that is not the method of protest by some of the groups specifically named in the report. The civil rights protesters endured violence and did peaceful demonstrations with things like marching. Bull Conners made sure of that.

Rightwing extremism," the report said in a footnote on Page 2, goes beyond religious and racial hate groups and extends to "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," said the report, which also listed gun owners and veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as potential risks. .

Again, I must be blind because I do not see this quote on page 2. Are you sure you're reading the actual report or are you quoting from some other source. I seriously looked and do not see what you're quoting. The first mention of Iraq I find is on page 8 and is under the title containing "Disgruntled".

Lastly, why didn't you have this same degree of anger when Bush released this report? It basically says the exact same thing.

 

[Revmitchell]

Lastly, what in this document "endangers" your freedom? I don't think you will make the list unless you become "extreme" which I think is beyond any of the conservatives here. We are Christians first and would never put politics before the cross...

So how do they define extreme? How do they know they are extreme in advance? This whole thing appears like they see anyone with these views as a potential for what ever extreme is. Why is it people with these views have a potential for being extreme but Ayers and wright are ignored? That reveals the liberal agenda to shut down opposition.

 

[LeBuick]

Obviously, it casts a critical eye to those who believe the 10th amendment is being abused by Washington (which it is)..

One other thing, I keep hearing you guys mention the 10th amendment. Obviously you are referring to states right. Have you ever heard of what is taught in law schools as the "elastic clause" of the constitution? It is article 1 section 8. If so, how do you interpret it aganst the 10th amendment?

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The elastic part is where is says, "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers etc...". It basically reads if they deem it necessary, they can make a law... That is my understanding.

 

[LeBuick]

So how do they define extreme? How do they know they are extreme in advance? This whole thing appears like they see anyone with these views as a potential for what ever extreme is. Why is it people with these views have a potential for being extreme but Ayers and wright are ignored? That reveals the liberal agenda to shut down opposition.

I took it to be this definition on page 3...

Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts.

I don't see anyone here as being white supremacist or part of a violent group. I think it's an unfortunate coincidence and stereo typing on the part of this report to 100% conclude those group exist only on the right. I believe most of those groups are actually libertarian which can be seen as a category all of it's own.

 

[Revmitchell]

Again, I must be blind because I do not see this quote on page 2. Are you sure you're reading the actual report or are you quoting from some other source. I seriously looked and do not see what you're quoting. The first mention of Iraq I find is on page 8 and is under the title containing "Disgruntled".

Then let me post the whole page for you:

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 2 of 9

(U) Key Findings

(U//LES) The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific
information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.

— (U//LES) Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts. Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit—could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past.

— (U//LES) Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first
African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new
members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal
through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.

(U//FOUO) The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.

— (U//FOUO) During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the
number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors.

— (U//FOUO) Growth of these groups subsided in reaction to increased
government scrutiny as a result of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and
disrupted plots, improvements in the economy, and the continued U.S. standing as the preeminent world power.

(U//FOUO) The possible passage of new 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.

* (U) 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.

 

[Revmitchell]

I took it to be this definition on page 3...



I don't see anyone here as being white supremacist or part of a violent group. I think it's an unfortunate coincidence and stereo typing on the part of this report to 100% conclude those group exist only on the right. I believe most of those groups are actually libertarian which can be seen as a category all of it's own.

And then you should read more.

 

[LeBuick]

Oh, and I forgot to add... I noticed this paragraph in the Bush report http://cryptome.org/spy-whites.pdf

(U) Several white supremacist extremist groups, including the Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations, adhere to Christian Identity teachings, which anticipate the end of the world and the Second Coming of Christ based upon idiosyncratic interpretations of the Bible. One interpretation anticipates God will use the chosen race (white Christians) as a divine weapon against the forces of evil (nonwhites and Jews) in a purifying race war preliminary to Christ’s establishing God’s kingdom on earth.

 

[LeBuick]

Then let me post the whole page for you:

Can you link me to the one you're reading. That is not page 2 of this report.

got a meeting guys but will try to follow up tonight. Gots to do the Lords work first...

 

[Revmitchell]

Can you link me to the one you're reading. That is not page 2 of this report.

got a meeting guys but will try to follow up tonight. Gots to do the Lords work first...

ummm.........do not go by the pdf count go by the actual document count. And it is page two.

 

[rbell]

LeBuick, you need a refresher civics course.

The Constitution gives power not explicitly given to the Federal government to the states.

I'm not telling you to sue your civics teacher...but she either didn't to a good job, or you've forgotten a lot...

 

[LeBuick]

LeBuick, you need a refresher civics course.

The Constitution gives power not explicitly given to the Federal government to the states.

I'm not telling you to sue your civics teacher...but she either didn't to a good job, or you've forgotten a lot...

Go read article 1 section 8 and tell me what power Congress wants and can't get. Look carefully at the last sentence... It says if congress decides it is necessary and proper they can make a law which gives them just about any power they want. so sure, if there is any power left then the states get it.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

[LadyEagle]

What an INSULT to our troops. They should be investigating mosques, but a closet muslim wouldn't want to investigate mosques, would he?

He makes me want to puke.

 

[LeBuick]

ummm.........do not go by the pdf count go by the actual document count. And it is page two.

Ok, I see it now. I was going by the page number in adobe.

So, do you realize the sentece that contains the word with the asterisk says, "has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence etc..." So even though the footnote define right wing the sentence is acknowledging they have no information about planned violence.

(U//LES) The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization andrecruitment.

You should also note that this report is extremely watered down from the last administration. But I guess it doesn't matter that the Bush administration came to the same conclusion.

 

[rbell]

I wonder, LeBuick...what would it take for you to not defend this administration? Is there possibly any action that Obama or his appointees could take that would cause you to cease your knee-jerk defense of them?

So far, you've defended tax cheats, trampling on the Constitution, and more.

I'm just curious...is it possible for them to do something that would make you rethink your undying support for them? If so...what?

 

[OldRegular]

Go read article 1 section 8 and tell me what power Congress wants and can't get. Look carefully at the last sentence... It says if congress decides it is necessary and proper they can make a law which gives them just about any power they want. so sure, if there is any power left then the states get it.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

You are reading more into this statement than is there. Congress cannot go beyond what the Constitution states and that includes the 10th amendment.