Thursday, April 16, 2009
Enemy of the State!, part II
One of the interesting aspects of the DHS assessment entitled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" was the curious choice of terminology that was used in it. For instance, the contraction of two words into the single term "rightwing." Even my spellchecker doesn't recognize it as a single word. Since the political Left and their agitprop press lackeys cannot seem to say "right" without adding the adjective "extreme," I've always assumed that the day would come when it would devolve into a single word -- "rightwingextremist" or "extremerightwing." Government being what it is, that would lend itself to a further contraction in the form of an acronym.
I suggest that those of us broad-brushed with DHS's apparent phobia of citizen participation -- at least from those who favor smaller government, i.e., eliminating inefficient, abusive, or out-of-control agencies and departments -- take a proactive approach to this and create our own acronym, based on their contracted terminology. We should proudly refer to ourselves as RWE's (pronounced are-we?, with an emphasis on the inquisitive ending as in California valleyspeak).
DHS: "We have it on good authority from secret sources that you're a rightwingextremist!"
ME: "You mean, are we?"
DHS: "Uh, you are, aren't you?"
ME: "Are we?"
DHS: "Uh, are you admitting it or not?"
ME: "Are we?"
We could have a lot of fun with this!
On a more serious note, another term DHS used was "immigration" interchangeably with "illegal immigration." This is another leftist tactic, especially in the agitprop press and media, to tarbrush thinking citizens as racist or xenophobic if they claim to be opposed to illegal immigration.
On page 5 of the DHS assessment, after stating that "rightwing extremists were concerned. . . with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs. . . .", the next paragraph noted "various rightwing extremists. . . have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action. . . ."
There may well be people who are opposed to all immigration, or certain immigrant groups. But if we use the term trespassers instead of illegal immigrants, it will force the opposition to address the distinction.
The assessment also expresses concern on page 6 about parallels to the "conspiracy theories" in the 1990's, which "led some rightwing extremists to believe that a 'New World Order' would bring about a world government that would usurp the sovereignty of the United States and its Constitution, thus infringing on their liberty."
It would be easier for DHS to dispel such perceptions as hallucinatory, if only the President would stop making cabinet and advisor appointments of people who advocate exactly those sorts of treaties and modifications to the Constitution.
For example, President Obama's recent appointment of Harold Hongju Koh, former Yale Law School dean, as State Department legal adviser. As reported in a well-respected weekly journal, Mr Koh claims that the US is a "renegade" because it "disobeys" global authority. No advocate for sovereign self determination, his preference is for "a smoothly functioning international legal regime" with "universal jurisdiction." He would have the Constitution "'evolve' to incorporate foreign law norms -- thus invalidating, for instance, the death penalty and the right to own guns, while enforcing diktats from the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court."
Or Charles "Chas" Freeman (name since withdrawn) to the National Intelligence Council. Mr Freeman, a mouthpiece for the Saudis, and a supporter of China's vicious crackdown on the Tiananmen Square demonstrators, has his own conspiracy theory problems of which DHS ought to take note: namely, that the "Israel lobby" torpedoed his nomination. He claimed that the aim of the "lobby is control of the process through . . . veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views." But apparently DHS is only concerned about "rightwing" anti-Semites.
Today, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano assertively defended the assessment, claiming that it was a useful tool for increasing the "situational awareness" of law enforcement officials. She recalled being a federal attorney in Arizona when Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh did his purely evil deed. McVeigh is the sole named example in the assessment of why law enforcement officials should be increasingly observant of returning combat veterans.
Like the president, perhaps Ms Napolitano was too young to recall the domestic terrorist bombings carried out by Obama's friend and neighbor Bill Ayers, who could not be regarded by any stretch of the imagination as a returning combat veteran or a "rightwing" extremist.
Ms Napolitano might wish to consider that the assessment also raises the situational awareness of law-abiding Americans with regard to the motives of her department and of this administration. Out here in fly-over country, Madame Secretary, we know BS when we smell it!
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Enemy of the State!
With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy,
- if you're concerned about "the perceived threat to US power and sovereignty by other foreign powers" (pg 2), you might be a "rightwing extremist!"
- if you're concerned about "outsourcing of jobs" (pg 2), you might be a "rightwing extremist!"
- if you're unhappy about the "perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures" (pg 3), you might be a "rightwing extremist!"
- if you're "in favor state or local authority" over federal authority (pg 2), you might be a "rightwing extremist!"
- if you're against the "proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans" (pg 3), you might be a "rightwing extremist!"
- if you're a "returning veteran possessing combat skills and experience" (pg 3), you might be a "rightwing extremist!"
- if you hold views that "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" (pg 3,4), you might be a "rightwing extremist!"
- if you're one of the "law-abiding citizens [who] share a belief that rising crime rates attributed to a slumping economy make the purchase of legitimate firearms a wise move at this time" (pg 6), you might be a "rightwing extremist!"
The source for all of the above is the report titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" published on 7 April 2009 by the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Intelligence and Analysis, to be "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."
The assessment is only ten pages long, and poorly documented, citing several "open source reporting," two unidentified "prominent civil rights organizations," and a 2007 study by the "German Institute for Economic Research, which claims an unquantified association between a "parent's unemployment status and the formation of rightwing extremist beliefs in their children --specifically xenophobia and antidemocratic ideals." That must explain the propensity for so many in black communities to join right wing extremist groups!
But "antidemocratic ideals?" Apparently, they're referring to the "antidemocratic ideal" of holding philosophical differences with the administration on how best to restore economic prosperity and defense of the nation. Or the "antidemocratic ideal" of believing as did the Founding Fathers that Rights come from a Creator, not from government. Did they mean the "antidemocratic ideal" of welcoming legal immigrants and helping them to assimilate, while opposing trespassers who drain our public resources and strain our legal system? Perhaps they meant the "antidemocratic ideal" of opposing the Attorney General's advocacy of using flawed federal watch lists to determine which rights and privileges our citizens might be allowed to exercise. Or maybe the "antidemocratic ideal" of finding a policy that prohibits a physician from exercising conscientious objection to a medical procedure, while continuing to grant conscientious objection status to pacifists, to be outrageous. Or the "antidemocratic ideal" of feeling that it's repugnant to provide an organization that is under criminal investigation with $4 billion tax dollars and operational control of the 2010 census for this administration.
We've come to expect this sort of rhetoric and labeling from the likes of Senators Schumer, Durbin, Reid, and Feinstein, and Congresspersons Frank, Pelosi, Lee, and Waters (to name a few). For better or worse, that's what passes for political discourse and debate today. What is disconcerting about this document is that it's produced by a law enforcement agency within the executive branch. It uses the same verbiage as do leftist politicians to vilify their political opponents. Unfortunately for democracy and freedom, the authors no longer appear to be able to discern the difference!! Attempting to equate legitimate philosophical opposition views with potential domestic terror threats only compounds the perception of a central government moving rapidly toward totalitarianism.
The document compares the "heightened level of extremist paranoia" with the "hostility toward government [that] was fueled by the implementation of restrictive gun laws. . . and federal law enforcement's handling of the confrontations at Waco, Texas, and Ruby Ridge, Idaho" in the 1990's. Apparently there wasn't enough room in the assessment to further analyze the impact of those confrontations -- such as the fact that in both cases they were initiated by federal agencies, and badly botched by them.
The public was less than impressed by the inept federal operation at Ruby Ridge, ID, resulting in the killing of an unarmed woman by an FBI sniper (who was subsequently criminally charged; later dropped due to "immunity for federal officers"), exoneration of the surviving suspects with $3.1 million in civil damages awarded to them. Waco was perceived by many in the public as a failed BATF operation that resulted in a horrific conflagration when taken over by other federal agencies, and then concluded with sloppy coverups and "lost" documents by none other than Eric Holder, working in the Department of Justice. The report also neglected to mention how the poster-boy of Clinton administration federal law enforcement agencies -- the black-clad, helmeted, masked agent wielding a real assault rifle in the face of an unarmed, terrified woman while grabbing a wailing little boy from her arms to be forcibly repatriated to the democratic workers' paradise of Cuba -- raised at least a modicum of concern in most citizens! If anybody fueled a "hostility toward government," it was government!
There may well be an increase in right wing extremist groups due to a heightened level of paranoia. However, claiming that the views held by many loyal and law-abiding citizens as equivalent to right wing extremism, appears more as a thinly veiled attempt by dogmatic leftists occupying the administration to stifle dissent, discourage debate, and promote fear. Coming from a federal law enforcement agency, it would seem that the heightened level of paranoia resides more in the increasingly isolated halls of federal agencies than in the American public.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Our "local content" talk radio station featured a caller with whom the host became quite agitated when the caller opined about the "heroes" of the rescue of the captain of the Maersk Alabama from the Somali pirates. The caller claimed that the SEALS who carried out the rescue were not heroes, but were just doing the jobs for which they had been trained.
The caller was correct that we are too ready to label people who are doing the jobs for which they rigorously trained, no matter how perfectly, "heroes." It's ironic to me that the veterans of World War II who flew unescorted bombers over the flak-shredded skies of Germany, who threw themselves against the heavily defended fortifications overlooking Omaha beach, who fought at bloody Anzio, Guadalcanal, and Iwo Jima -- men who went into harm's way with an uppermost thought of not letting their buddies down -- will tell you quietly today that they're not heroes, but were just doing their job. They are heroes, as are the men and women selflessly serving with the same motivations in today's combat zones.
But today, using the term "hero" has become a PR tactic initiated by special interests and lobbyists to get support for more money and equipment for their particular constituent group. We now have national police officer and fire officer memorials to those who have "fallen in the line of duty." Since the inception of this state's highway patrol, of the eleven troopers who had "fallen in the line of duty," one died of a heart attack, one was killed with his own weapon by a drunk driver, one was accidentally shot and killed by a fellow trooper on the training range, and six died in vehicular mishaps, of which four were pursuits. One of them spun out on an icy patch of road, something I suspect any of us could do if we were driving too fast for conditions, whether or not we were wearing a uniform! Yet any injury or death "in the line of duty" is "heroic," even if it results from poor training, poor fitness, poor procedure, poor execution. THEY laid down their lives for YOU! That's not heroic; that's tragic.
I tremendously respect the SEALS, Rangers, Special Ops, and all members of our elite military units, and I have great admiration for their willingness to embrace the warrior lifestyle and the tremendous rigors they endure in achieving the highest expertise in combat arms.
Their marksmanship feats, at night, on a pitching ship toward a pitching boat, is amazing and admirable -- but is it "heroic?" Heroic would have been swimming out to that lifeboat, armed only with knifes, and taking out the pirates hand-to-hand, while rescuing the captain unharmed. They were following orders to the best of their ability, but they weren't really putting themselves in harm's way like the heroes of WWII.
Today's real hero was the on-scene commander. Making the split-second decision and giving the order, knowing it would be obeyed instantly and unquestioningly by his subordinates, and trusting them to carry it out perfectly, even under less than ideal conditions, took heroism. Why the difference?
Because he also knows that after the euphoria dies down, his decision will be quietly reviewed, analyzed, and second-guessed all the way up the chain of command, and even publicly by some in Congress. If the outcome had been different -- if Captain Phillips had been killed because one of the marksmen had missed, or if their equipment malfunctioned -- the on-scene commander knew he would be burdened with the entire blame. And yet he made his decision instantly, unflinchingly, regardless of the possible consequences. That's heroic.
And, even though the operation was performed surgically and flawlessly, he still may have to face other issues.
Since the Obama administration has made the decision to try the surviving pirate in American courts, the usual anti-military, anti-American alphabet groups will probably file lawsuit after lawsuit on behalf of the families of the dead pirates against the government, the DoD, Navy, and the individual service members involved.
They'll claim violation of the pirates' civil and human rights, use of excessive force, loss of generation of income, and all the other usual claims, both criminal and civil. Eventually, they'll find some soft-brained leftist judge who will find an unwritten right in our Constitution that families of Somali pirates have legal standing in the US court system.
The on-scene commander will have to hire an expensive civilian legal team -- not paid for by the taxpayers -- to defend himself and his decision in a court system that has no regard for his rights or the honorable manner in which he did his duty and fulfilled his commitment to our nation's defense. He may even find it necessary to curtail his Navy career to devote full-time to his own defense and his family's future well-being.
That's why he, not the marksmen, is the hero. Long after the action, he may still find himself in harm's way.
And, I might add, to the talk show host and the caller: these SEALS, and all our other service members, will have to serve their country for twice as long, for about half the pay, in order to earn 1/4 to 1/3 the annual pension accorded to our metropolitan paramilitary constabulary.
Finally, I noticed that President Obama praised the success of the outcome of the mission with a majority of first person pronouns. I'm willing to give credit where credit is due, and he certainly deserves credit for authorizing the full range of options in dealing with this situation without micro-managing it. But, from the agitprop press that was always poised to criticize GWB's every mispronunciation or verbal gaffe, there was no mention that in announcing his new policy on Somali pirates, President Obama stated that we've got to stop "the rise in privacy." Such a telling Freudian slip!
Friday, April 03, 2009
TRILLION! It rolls off the tongue with so little effort. TRRRILL - YUN!
Have you noticed that almost nobody, in what has become the kleptocracy operating within the isolation bubble of the Greater Washington protective zone for government expansion and centralization, says MILLIONS anymore? Millions are for small thinkers; people who can't visualize the coming grand world order.
The Senate passed a budget of $3.55 trillion. The House budget figure was similar. The bank bailouts will amount to more than a trillion. The national debt is approaching tens of trillions. The G-20 group pledged a trillion dollars to poor countries.
For those of us outlanders in flyover country who have trouble comprehending what a trillion is, let's try this exercise.
Trillion. Even the total human world population doesn't approach that number. Put fractionally, all the world's people amount to only 6/1000 of a trillion, or 0.006%. If the entire world population had to cough up a trillion dollars today, it would cost every person $166.67 each.
Until ACORN completes their census tabulation for the Obama administration, the US population is about 300 million people. If every American man, woman, transgender, and child had to contribute an equal amount to raise a trillion dollars in the US alone, it would cost each of them $3,333.33. That's for "just" one trillion dollars!
Therefore, when Congress passes a budget of $3.55 trillion, that's $11,833.33 that each and every one of us will need to fork over someday. For the average American family of four people, their share of the budget that Congress passed is $47,333.33. That's not what they get; that's what Congress has obligated them to OWE. That's on top of the thousands of dollars that Congress has already obligated them to owe!
If your family actually had that money, you could buy a pretty fancy American car. Then GM and Chrysler wouldn't need a federal bailout. But you don't have that kind of money just laying around. Neither does Congress. If they did, they'd just spend it. Actually, even though they don't have it, they're spending it anyway.
It used to be that most of the politicians would at least act a little embarrassed publicly about the ever-increasing number of projects and expenditures, and their associated costs. But not anymore. They've discovered how easy it is to say "trillion." They like saying it! It feels so good to say it! "Trillion."
That's because it's so meaningless to them. To them, it's just a decimal point. They can't comprehend it any better than the rest of us.
Since shovel-ready projects seem to be in vogue this year, I propose this little instructive exercise. We should round up everybody in the executive and legislative branch of the federal government who is not a GS or WG grade employee (except the president himself and the military) and escort them to the Mexican border this summer. Senators, Congressmen, department Secretaries, staffers, aides -- and the Washington press corps. We'll put them to work 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. No time off for campaigning or recess. Two weeks vacation a year.
Beginning in Brownsville, TX, they will be required to lay a single line of bricks side-by-side just inside our side of the border all the way to the west coast at San Diego, CA. If they haven't achieved our goal by then, they'll start back with an adjacent row until they do.
The goal will be for them to be required to lay one trillion bricks. By hand. One at a time. And they'll have to pay a penny for each brick. Personally. Out of their own pocket. When they've met our goal, they can return to Washington, or to their homes.
Then maybe we'll start seeing reality set into their budget process. Their calluses will be a daily reminder of how much a trillion really is.
