Skip to content

The Enemy Walks Among Us Targeting Military & Vets

April 19, 2009

The recent attacks against military and veterans found within the recent report published by the Department of Homeland Security is only a small portion of the overall systematic and coordinated attempt carried out over the last year that has finally escalated to a full scale assassination of character.

With the biased remarks of Seymour Hersch with the unfounded accusation of soldiers executing world leaders or dignitaries of foreign countries at the bequest of the former VP.  To the unfounded accusation that JSOC did not have congressional oversight.  The “enemy” is no longer at the gate.  The “enemy” is within.

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”

The most chilling aspect of the report issued by the Department of Homeland Security is the fact the claims and sources remain undocumented. The report was written on 7 April 2008 and  was initiated by the past administration, but the information within the report is what causes for alarm:

slide1

slide2

slide3

Based on this report the generalization that military and veterans are more than likely to be considered possible recruits to right wing terrorists based on unsubstantiated claims and the actions of McVeigh, a former service member.  Utilizing the horrific carnage wrought by McVeigh.  This report attempts to paint all of us with the same brush in the attempt to incite fear among the population that once service members return from faithfully serving there country on foreign soil. They are now no better than individuals who are now “disgruntled” and “disillusioned” and looking for a hate group to sign on too based on this report.  Other than the one organization cited, there are questions to be answered:

slide-4

So where does this information originate? Let’s look at first, a recent article from Charles Blow in the NYT, titled: “The Enemies Within” in which he attempts to explain why we, military, to include vets are now considered our nations “enemies” instead of our nations hero’s.  First he starts off with this remark:

Though only a tiny number of conservatives and veterans are members of hate groups, they seek out new recruits with military experience.

The question now becomes where are the polls of militia groups to include McVeigh that indicate his political party affiliation. In order to make such a heinous claim, one would need the supporting evidence that hate groups and militias, military and veterans all belong to the exact same political establishment.  As a registered Democrat, military service member, and African American.  I find the words of Mr Blow in this article biased, racially tinged and inflammatory.

Even more, this continuous stream of biased anti military reporting raises a very important question. Why is there an attack on those in the military from this administration?  Case in point the article today calling for funding to be cut to include the closing of West Point, a prestigious military school, as well as the war colleges teaching strategic defense. Or you can go back to the attempt to allow veterans to pay for there own insurance due to injuries suffered in deployment.  Or even the words of Seymour Hersch who came forward with a tale of a “assassination” ring led by the former VP of the last administration. Without evidence to support his claims, he was interviewed by two major networks without having to provide any tangible evidence his claims were the truth.  Even more Napolitano goes to make this statement attempting to clarify her point:

WASHINGTON — The head of homeland security said Sunday she regrets that some people took offense over a report warning that right-wing extremist groups were trying to recruit disgruntled troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

But Secretary Janet Napolitano added that “a number of groups far too numerous to mention” want to commit domestic terrorism attacks and are looking for new recruits.

She told a cable news network the warning report that went out to American law enforcement agencies was consistent with reports that were issued before.

“Here is the important point. The report is not saying that veterans are extremists. Far from it. What it is saying is returning veterans are targets of right-wing extremist groups that are trying to recruit those to commit violent acts within the country. We want to do all we can to prevent that,” she said.

Napolitano states that there are “far to many to count”.  Does that include listing as supporting documentation within this report as well? Does that include listing the names of these organizations to provide law enforcement the opportunity to do there job based on fact and not hypothetical rhetoric?  Another example of bias can be found in this statement on page 6 & 7:

“(U//FOUO) Law enforcement in 1996 arrested three rightwing militia members in Battle Creek, Michigan with pipe bombs, automatic weapons, and military ordinance that they planned to use in attacks on nearby military and federal facilities and infrastructure targets.

Utilizing a one time event of arresting three individual militia members from 13 years ago as a basis, the foundation, to support this report without citing key pertinent information to include documentation supporting the militia members were conservative could be viewed as racial profiling unless you have evidence to support your claim.

The report from the Department Of Homeland Security contains many talking points stated as fact which also can be seen in there stance on Illegal Immigration:

illigal1

illega2illegal3

It is my belief that the resignation of Janet Napolotino should be forthcoming based on the fact that the Department of Homeland Security should utilize intelligence based on facts and not political affiliation or any form of “campaign” propaganda.  Each section within this report manages to touch on issues that are currently in the spotlight within this administration.  The fact that certain aspects for example in regards to “anti Hispanics” and “machine guns” just happen to be a issue that is currently center stage shows that this reports intent is to serve an agenda and not serve as a tool to keep our nation safe from enemies foreign and domestic.

This reports sole intent and purpose is to sway public opinion not based on fact, but insinuation.  However, the attempt to paint service members in a bad light is a ongoing  narrative that can be seen daily within the MSM.  Case in Point the article today by Rick Warren as he states:

Thomas Ricks believes that we should shutter West Point and the other service academies because they’re expensive and, as far as he can tell, they produce no better officers than ROTC.  Plus, their instructors don’t have PhDs, making them essentially junior colleges.

Mr Ricks article is only a small percentage of articles that carry the same underlying narrative to either attack the character of military personnel similar to the tone  found in the DHS report.  As well as the on going narrative of cutting military programs that are beneficial to career and training enhancement.  One could draw the conclusion that there is a coordinated effort by those making these claims without any source documentation or statistics.  Never in our nations history has such a transparent and unprecedented effort has been made to systematically tare down the military establishment as if we are the enemy at the gate instead of those who cross that gate and guard that gate to keep them out. Even more, the danger in not only considering but announcing the institutions that train us and teach leadership qualities is even considered as avenues to “cut costs” has equivacally initiated the groundwork and foundation of creating what could be the worst breach and weakness in our national security and defense never witnessed before through previous administrations.  Combine that the announcement of cutting defense spending, cutting various programs all while deployed.  In my opinion we have just opened the door for a future national security crisis.  This report also touches on a topic that defies reasoning especially with this report originating from a agency tasked with homeland security. Protecting our nation and one of the main reasons a investigation should be conducted immediately into the origins of this information.

The author of this report attempts to convince that we no longer face any terrorist threat from any nation, or organization abroad:

(U) Perceived Threat from Rise of Other Countries

(U//FOUO) Rightwing extremist paranoia of foreign regimes could escalate or be
magnified in the event of an economic crisis or military confrontation, harkening back to
the “New World Order” conspiracy theories of the 1990s. The dissolution of Communist
countries in Eastern Europe and the end of the Soviet Union in the 1990s 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 upon their liberty. The dynamics in 2009 are somewhat similar, as other
countries, including China, India, and Russia, as well as some smaller, oil-producing
states, are experiencing a rise in economic power and influence.

Although there are many questionable discrepancies within this report. This one paragraph outlined above is cause for hearings, impeachment and resignation.  To attempt to mis inform the people within this nation, this country, that there is not any form of  a real world threat is not only baseless, but dangerous.  This entire report gives the perception that we as a whole do not face enemies or have enemies on foreign soil. It’s a literal attack against our very own citizens.   This does not lower our guard, but totally destroys it if the agencies in place refuse to acknowledge the fact we face threats abroad therefore all energy is focusing on imaginary threats within our own borders against our very own people.  This is a chilling assessment to make.  So where does this information come from?  Let’s examine the evidence of where the information within this report derived from:

dk

Daily Kos Article: “I love my country, but I fear for it”

I’m frightened. Not, ‘the world is a scary place’ frightened. Not, ‘times are a’changin’ frightened. No, I’m legitimately frightened for my life. I can’t sleep at night, I have no appetite, and I’m scared to leave my apartment. Why? ACORN. Homosexuals, too. And fascism, socialism, Marxism, and Islam, all rolled into one really scary black man. I’m scared that they want to take my guns and my savings and hand them out to poor people and Muslim countries. I’m scared that they’re going to take my Bible and my values and throw them into the flames. I’m scared that they’re going to indoctrinate my children with materialism, atheism, evolution, and absurd amounts of political correctness. Who are they?

Liberals. And they’re coming to get you, too.

Don’t believe me? Ask Glenn Beck. Ask Newt Gingrich. Ask Rush Limbaugh or Michele Bachmann. Or better yet, ask Richard Poplawski. Two weeks ago he shot three police officers in the face in Pittsburgh, PA. Having coaxed the officers to his house with a domestic disturbance call, he loaded up his AK-47 and answered the front door with a message: you’re not taking my guns. A friend of his said that Poplawski, an avid fan of Fox News, feared “the Obama gun ban that’s on the way” and “didn’t like our rights being infringed upon.” The best part? There is no gun ban on the way.

But the assault on your freedoms doesn’t end there. Liberals aren’t just coming for your guns, they want your values as well. Ask the National Organization for Marriage. They recently ran a minute long ad depicting ‘real’ people expressing their fear of the upcoming moral crisis. A crisis so devastating that it could only be caused by one thing: gay marriage. Featuring men and women expressing such persecution as, “I’m a California doctor who must choose between my faith and my job,” the ad shows clips of actors talking about how their rights are being infringed upon because homosexuals can now marry in four states. Let me clarify this: four out of fifty states now allow homosexuals marriage-associated tax benefits and health care benefits, and conservatives are up in arms because their poor, poor children must be taught that God loves all his creations – not just the straight ones. Watch out Louisiana, the gays are marryin’ again.

Are you frightened yet? If not, then maybe you should tune into the ring-leader of the paranoia-fest: Fox News – more specifically, Glenn Beck. Stating that the only way to save our country is to “drive a stake through the heart of the bloodsuckers” (I wish I were making this up), Glenn Beck has launched the most aggressive fear campaign since – dare I say – the 2008 Republican presidential bid. He recently aired his ‘9/12’ project in which he cried on television about how he “loves [his] country and he fears for it.” “It seems like the voices of our leaders and special interests and the media, they’re surrounding us,” he admitted on Fox News. He then aired an actor dressed as Thomas Paine (this poor soul must be rolling in his grave) to incite populist rage like that “not seen in recent history like December 7th, 1941.” Mr. Not-Paine informed the American people that it was their duty to rise up and take back control of their government. “Your democracy has deteriorated to government of the government, by the government, and for the government,” he told the fearful viewers.

Enough is enough. Conservatism still exists in this country because of one thing: paranoia – sheer insuppressible fear that the world (meaning: democratically elected government) is out to get you. Glenn Beck just compared the 2008 election to the attack on Pearl Harbor. The National Marriage Association wants you to believe that homosexuals are going to convert your children to gayness. Michele Malkin is convinced that ACORN is an anti-American organization planning to violently disrupt conservative Tea Parties. Newt Gingrich told the people that Obama appointed a gay rights activist to the council on faith-based initiatives to help his “anti-religious…war on churches”. The liberals want your life, your liberties, and your pursuit of happiness. And you’re never getting them back.

When will the Republicans learn? Since 2004 they’ve been labeling Democrats as ‘anti-American’ and ‘terrorists’. It is now 2009, and still blind to the fact that their fear mongering lost them the presidential election, the Republican Party insists on stirring up populist rage. When they aren’t lying to the people about the imminent gun ban, they’re inciting anger about homosexual rights. When they aren’t labeling our democratically elected leaders as ‘fascists’ and ‘totalitarians’, they’re warning Americans about the dangers of secularism and progressivism. The American people are sick and tired of this paranoia propaganda.

Our economy is in shambles. Republicans need to face the issue at hand. Instead of voting ‘no’ to every bill placed on their desk, they need to embrace the will of the people. Conservatism lost this election because its McCarthy-esque politics are worthless, and while the American people have made their political choice plenty clear, Republican pundits and journalists continue to scream ‘persecution’ at every turn. There is no doubt in my mind that if our government’s plans to fix the economy fail, the blame will lie on the immaturity and idiocy of the Republican Party. And frankly, I’m frightened.

The narrative of the story of the police officers being killed based on a “fear” of a gun ban originated within the blogs prior to the DHS report even being completed and released.  The author of this diary makes the following statement: Two weeks ago he shot three police officers in the face in Pittsburgh, PA. Having coaxed the officers to his house with a domestic disturbance call, he loaded up his AK-47 and answered the front door with a message: you’re not taking my guns. A friend of his said that Poplawski, an avid fan of Fox News, feared “the Obama gun ban that’s on the way” and “didn’t like our rights being infringed upon.

How is it possible the remarks of the shooter, “your not taking my guns” was known?  Why would individuals request the party affiliation in this investigation? Where is the report to back this claim? Why would the shooter be worried about police officers taking his guns? The diarist states that the shooter “coaxed” the officers to his home with a “domestic disturbance call”, then loaded his AK-47, opened the door and stated “Your not taking my guns”. So the question now is this.  If the shooter was worried about a gun ban and the police “taking his guns”. Why would he “coax” the police officers to his home?

I call for the immediate resignation of  the individuals responsible for this report because it is apparent that the intel used is not only bogus but is unsubstantiated.



FIXING THE PROBLEM

How do we fix the total breakdown, apparent by this report,  of the Department of Homeland Security during these unprecedented times they seem to believe do not exist?

  • New agency. We are not just fighting the war on terrorism. We are fighting the war on information as well. On that score he has that as an option which I think should be the choice and the most important aspect of the entire command. A agency like this created and fully functional would of been a hell of a backup choice to cover the agencies that had positions that required Senate approval so we wouldn’t get into scenario’s like the one in which Britian called us out for. Because now we have a gap, a weakness, one in which is being broadcast live and in color. Almost like a *shadow* gov mirroring the positions they are still trying to fulfill. In my opinion, this is equivalent to a logistics war room. Because anyone believing terrorists have not stepped the game up by using the online social networks, well, they should read the article on Fox and the group recruiting for a jihad.
  • Okay, so you have a new agency. What I do not like is his recommendation on who they should answer to. I believe that there should be a “board/council”. Hence the Clinton/Jones collabo that hopefully come into play. That board/council should contain only the heavy hitters and not those who just want to sit in and report back to someone else. This is big. Meaning representation from each agency. You can filter out information easier when you have the individuals involved who need to know to ensure we ALL are on the same sheet of music. That is how good information/intel trickles down. No one agency should have information the other does not. Since the entire point is to play defense against the threat I believe all applicable agencies need all hands on deck to include government and civilian agencies. That way the flow of information will be put out faster when you have representation there to receive it. So this is a rough draft of what it could look like, and yes, I love to create  powerpoint slides:

the-board

Recommendations:

Okay, if anything else, none of these positions should be tasked out anywhere else. One centralized location. Now you move into job description and that is where each of the agencies on the board come in because they can bring in to this imaginary agency individuals who will be tasked to do the job. That way any information gathered can be viewed and briefed by someone who can explain what it is or the logistics of it. But the main focus and goal and the point I am making to fix this problem is  based on this author article: A Ship with No Captain. Although the author is focused on Cyber defense. I think this could be expanded into something else as well. We have nothing even remotely like this or comes close. Within this agency they can have tasks forces that are responsible for an array all across the board of every aspect on national security. It could prevent disasters such as what this report is and this administration when it comes to verifiable intel and not hit pieces to promote your agenda.  Something that can be confirmed via other sources.

Advertisements
No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: