Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
THE VET 'THREAT' - New York Post
Threat from the vets!
By Ralph Peters Sunday, April 19, 2009
Hollywood and countless professors warned us:
Military vets are drooling trailer trash who beat their wives and, at best, wind up as homeless street people and, at worst, as homicidal psychos deformed by war.
Now, thanks to our ever-vigilant Department of Homeland Security, the full extent of the danger has been revealed:
Our so-called "war heroes" are rushing back to join right-wing-extremist hate groups to overthrow our government.
Let's not quibble about little things like evidence. The Obama administration just knows that vets are all racist, Jew-hating crazies waiting to explode. Thank God, DHS has a fearless leader, Janet-from-another-planet Napolitano, who isn't afraid to call white trash "white trash."
In this administration's published opinion, those who've served in our military are a menace to society and the state. And DHS's racist, bigoted implication is that the only danger comes from white, Christian vets (there's not a whisper about minority violence).
Thanks for bringing us together, Mr. President.
Racism is racism (unless you're a left-wing celebrity; then it's just humor). The left-wing propaganda document, published officially by your government under the title "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," might be the shabbiest U.S. government publication of our time.
The report warns that "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 ... carrying out violent attacks."
The document's evidence? None.
The report contains no hard data, no statistics. It's nothing but a racist, anti-military opinion column that might pass muster in The New York Times but shouldn't be issued by our government.
The report continues by saying "rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans" who "possess combat skills."
The point? Our hayseed, uneducated, unskilled, wacko vets aren't able to think for themselves and will be patsies for right-wing fanatics. Guess that's how things look from Harvard.
Then the report warns us that "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.'"
Which civil-rights organization? The Rev. Wright's? Why not name it? Why accept this bigoted hearsay? Where's the proof? Where's the data?
And where are those "large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis," anyway? Last time I checked, American Nazis had trouble mustering a couple dozen overweight losers in Halloween costumes.
Of course, Timothy McVeigh is invoked. Repeatedly. He's the sole example of a violent anti-government vet the report's drafters could produce. And there's no mention of the fact that, when he tried to join Special Forces, McVeigh promptly washed out and soon found his butt on the street.
No, McVeigh will serve as eternal evidence that a homicidal nut lurks within every former soldier.
In just eight-and-a-half pages of text, the report manages to link our veterans to anti-Semitism, racism, economic failure and those dangerous citizens who think illegal immigration's a bad idea. Oh, and vets can't be trusted with firearms.
Your tax dollars at work.
Obama's commissars at the Department of Homeland Security have already responded that DHS simultaneously issued a report on extremist danger from the left. Its title? "Leftwing Extremists Likely to Increase Use of Cyber Attacks over the Coming Decade."
Get the point? Leftwing extremists aren't violent (and rightwingers are too stupid to understand computers).
Timothy McVeigh can be invoked but let's not mention Bill Ayres, our president's good buddy (until he became inconvenient) or his murderous wife. Left-wing fanatics might make a little online mischief, but, hey, kids will be kids.
Read both reports. You'll find that those on the political right (not just vets) are unable to cope with the stress of economic hardship, the real-estate crisis or job loss. Not a word about those issues driving leftists to extremes.They're just defending animal rights and the environment (honest -- read the reports).
Narco gangs aren't a threat, either. And the real and present danger from Islamist fanatics resident in our country goes unmentioned -- even though there's plenty of data on that threat.
The only anti-government violence DHS fears comes from crackers with carbines.
And from chimps so dumb they joined the military.
We're the threat to our fellow citizens. You and I.
Our first minority president just took a giant step toward creating the most bigoted administration since that of arch-segregationist Woodrow Wilson.
Apologize to our veterans, Mr. President.
And send Ms. Napolitano back to the minors.
THE VET 'THREAT' - New York Post
Threat from the vets!
By Ralph Peters Sunday, April 19, 2009
Hollywood and countless professors warned us:
Military vets are drooling trailer trash who beat their wives and, at best, wind up as homeless street people and, at worst, as homicidal psychos deformed by war.
Now, thanks to our ever-vigilant Department of Homeland Security, the full extent of the danger has been revealed:
Our so-called "war heroes" are rushing back to join right-wing-extremist hate groups to overthrow our government.
Let's not quibble about little things like evidence. The Obama administration just knows that vets are all racist, Jew-hating crazies waiting to explode. Thank God, DHS has a fearless leader, Janet-from-another-planet Napolitano, who isn't afraid to call white trash "white trash."
In this administration's published opinion, those who've served in our military are a menace to society and the state. And DHS's racist, bigoted implication is that the only danger comes from white, Christian vets (there's not a whisper about minority violence).
Thanks for bringing us together, Mr. President.
Racism is racism (unless you're a left-wing celebrity; then it's just humor). The left-wing propaganda document, published officially by your government under the title "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," might be the shabbiest U.S. government publication of our time.
The report warns that "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 ... carrying out violent attacks."
The document's evidence? None.
The report contains no hard data, no statistics. It's nothing but a racist, anti-military opinion column that might pass muster in The New York Times but shouldn't be issued by our government.
The report continues by saying "rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans" who "possess combat skills."
The point? Our hayseed, uneducated, unskilled, wacko vets aren't able to think for themselves and will be patsies for right-wing fanatics. Guess that's how things look from Harvard.
Then the report warns us that "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.'"
Which civil-rights organization? The Rev. Wright's? Why not name it? Why accept this bigoted hearsay? Where's the proof? Where's the data?
And where are those "large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis," anyway? Last time I checked, American Nazis had trouble mustering a couple dozen overweight losers in Halloween costumes.
Of course, Timothy McVeigh is invoked. Repeatedly. He's the sole example of a violent anti-government vet the report's drafters could produce. And there's no mention of the fact that, when he tried to join Special Forces, McVeigh promptly washed out and soon found his butt on the street.
No, McVeigh will serve as eternal evidence that a homicidal nut lurks within every former soldier.
In just eight-and-a-half pages of text, the report manages to link our veterans to anti-Semitism, racism, economic failure and those dangerous citizens who think illegal immigration's a bad idea. Oh, and vets can't be trusted with firearms.
Your tax dollars at work.
Obama's commissars at the Department of Homeland Security have already responded that DHS simultaneously issued a report on extremist danger from the left. Its title? "Leftwing Extremists Likely to Increase Use of Cyber Attacks over the Coming Decade."
Get the point? Leftwing extremists aren't violent (and rightwingers are too stupid to understand computers).
Timothy McVeigh can be invoked but let's not mention Bill Ayres, our president's good buddy (until he became inconvenient) or his murderous wife. Left-wing fanatics might make a little online mischief, but, hey, kids will be kids.
Read both reports. You'll find that those on the political right (not just vets) are unable to cope with the stress of economic hardship, the real-estate crisis or job loss. Not a word about those issues driving leftists to extremes.They're just defending animal rights and the environment (honest -- read the reports).
Narco gangs aren't a threat, either. And the real and present danger from Islamist fanatics resident in our country goes unmentioned -- even though there's plenty of data on that threat.
The only anti-government violence DHS fears comes from crackers with carbines.
And from chimps so dumb they joined the military.
We're the threat to our fellow citizens. You and I.
Our first minority president just took a giant step toward creating the most bigoted administration since that of arch-segregationist Woodrow Wilson.
Apologize to our veterans, Mr. President.
And send Ms. Napolitano back to the minors.
The REAL victims syndrome ... the right.
The report said returning vets would be "TARGETED" by right wing extremist group recruiting.
Details and nuance...things the right wing mind is oblivious to...
Ag... come on... get serious. Anarcho-communism is a JOKE. Anarchy is a state absent LAW... COMMUNISM IS A STATE OF LAWS WITHOUT END... AGAIN, jackass, the issue is the PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF THESE IDEAS... NOT THE ETHEREAL "GEE WOULDN'T IT BE NICE IF... nonsense of addle-minded poli-sci academics. Anarcho-communism is an oxymoron dipstick, you're simply not bright enough to recognise it.
I'm not interested in discussions of anarcho-communism. I'm not an anarcho-communist; I'm a market socialist.
We are communists. But our communism is not that of the authoritarian school: it is anarchist communism, communism without government, free communism.
But again, my objections to anarcho-communism are still plenty, and accordingly, I prefer to discuss the viability of market socialism.
ROFLMNAO... OH! So you're not a Anarcho-Capitalist any more... opting for another oxymoron, the rare Market Socialist...
Super.
Well that's cool... but who cares? Non-Authoritarian Communists are never going to form a national government, so who could POSSIBLY CARE?
Great... let's discuss the viability of Market Socialism...
ROFLMNAO.... -0-
What more can be said about it? Which is to say that NOTHING can be added to that... which is NOT to suggest that I'm interested in hearing any form of advocacy for it.
Oh, it's probably another psuedonym of Ag-whats-her-name... at best it's another Central or south American communist... a sychophant of the Che, Fidel and more recently Hugo...
Ravi would liked to have offered a well reasoned, logically valid, intellectually sound response to this, but being that she lacks the intellectual means to do so, she was relegated to offering up a flaccid retort, born of her importent leftist rage, wherein she lamented the feminized nature of leftist males... projecting my observation of such as representing a hatred of woman; of course she was unable to state a reasoned basis for such... but that is after all the nature of the irrational, now isn't it?
I don't read your rants anymore, Pubic. I just check to see if you've again called a male poster a she. Yes, it displays your disrespect and probable hatred of women and I will neg rep you when I see you do it.
Nice choice of big font...I actually did read this. I've never claimed to be a moderate. You fail. Again.a self declared 'moderate' who is OPENLY Advocating for COERCION...
ROFLMNAO... OH! So you're not a Anarcho-Capitalist any more... opting for another oxymoron, the rare Market Socialist...
Super.
"Anarcho"-capitalism is indeed an oxymoron. I'm glad you realize that.
However, your identification of "market socialism" as an "oxymoron" is simply another indication of your far-reaching ignorance of political economy, inasmuch as the ideas that "market=capitalism" and "government=socialism" are fallacious myths mainly branded about by ignorant rightists.
Well that's cool... but who cares? Non-Authoritarian Communists are never going to form a national government, so who could POSSIBLY CARE?
As far as I know, anarcho-communists would have a greater interest in decentralization as opposed to "national government." The varieties of association that would exist on a national level would merely be federative in nature, and would be managed in a "bottom-up" manner.
Great... let's discuss the viability of Market Socialism...
ROFLMNAO.... -0-
What more can be said about it? Which is to say that NOTHING can be added to that... which is NOT to suggest that I'm interested in hearing any form of advocacy for it.
I've already explained this in another thread just a few minutes ago. Market socialism improves on capitalism because it fine-tunes wage and compensation norms to accurately reflect ability criteria, thus eliminating the "Rockefeller grandson" problem mentioned by parecon advocates Albert and Hahnel. Its focus on the worker-owned enterprise will also necessarily result in efficiency improvements over capitalism.
Nice choice of big font...I actually did read this. I've never claimed to be a moderate. You fail. Again.And as evidence of that, we see this individual; an overt leftists; a self declared 'moderate' who is OPENLY Advocating for COERCION...
How PC the right has become. Why would anyone pretend that a report that looks out for both the best interests of Americans and the best interests of troubled vets is somehow a bad thing?
Hey Ag... Socialism destroys the market, through trying to control it...
IF THE MARKET COULD BE CONTROLLED, IT WOULD BE... those who try to control the market, destroy the markets natural rythems and end up making matters VASTLY WORSE.
The notion that people who CAN'T come to grips with the responsibilities of GUN OWNERSHIP want to "CONTROL THE MARKET" is beyond absurd.
So Anarcho-communists... of which you're decidely NOT one... but... you're SURE they would DECENTRALIZE GOVERNMENT... where one presumes they'd have to make some kind of law for that... which is the very anthesis of anarchy... and after they did THAT, they'd have some federal government, but not much of one, just some loosely tossed together element designed to ... provide for say... the general welfare and maybe... Ohhh I dunno.... the common defense and such.
Gee... that sounds great... except it's not anarchy... which is what you wanted to define it as.
There is no improving on Capitalism... Capitalism simply "IS"...
but if you COULD 'improve' on Capitalism, you certainly wouldn't do it, through the application of the simgle most discredited ideology in human history... an ideology which has failed in every form of experiment which has been 'tried'...
At BEST what you're possibly saying is by blending Socialism with Capitalism... you give SOCIALISM the ONLY POTENTIAL MEANS OF SUSTAINING IT... and the combination of socialism and capitalism is called FASCISM; not 'market Socialism.
Sadly, Fascism leads to socialism, socialism to communism and communism is slavery; which is to say that Market Socialism is the fast tract to tyranny.
Hey Ag... Socialism destroys the market, through trying to control it...
IF THE MARKET COULD BE CONTROLLED, IT WOULD BE... those who try to control the market, destroy the markets natural rythems and end up making matters VASTLY WORSE.
The notion that people who CAN'T come to grips with the responsibilities of GUN OWNERSHIP want to "CONTROL THE MARKET" is beyond absurd.
This is more of your absurdity. As I've previously explained, capitalism relies on extensive economic planning in order to facilitate market coordination. Market socialism would fundamentally differ from this scheme in that it would abolish the capital and labor markets, instead establishing mutual banking, worker-owned enterprises and the like. It is thus able to vastly surpass capitalism in terms of efficiency.
So Anarcho-communists... of which you're decidely NOT one... but... you're SURE they would DECENTRALIZE GOVERNMENT... where one presumes they'd have to make some kind of law for that... which is the very anthesis of anarchy... and after they did THAT, they'd have some federal government, but not much of one, just some loosely tossed together element designed to ... provide for say... the general welfare and maybe... Ohhh I dunno.... the common defense and such.
Gee... that sounds great... except it's not anarchy... which is what you wanted to define it as.
WEBSTER'S said:an·ar·chy [ánnərkee]
n
1. chaotic situation: a situation in which there is a total lack of organization or control
2. lack of government: the absence of any formal system of government in a society
That's obviously not the case. I've described the inefficiency of capitalism in detail to you
Market socialism as I conceive of it hasn't been tried
At BEST what you're possibly saying is by blending Socialism with Capitalism... you give SOCIALISM the ONLY POTENTIAL MEANS OF SUSTAINING IT... and the combination of socialism and capitalism is called FASCISM; not 'market Socialism. Sadly, Fascism leads to socialism, socialism to communism and communism is slavery; which is to say that Market Socialism is the fast tract to tyranny.
The Washington Times -- The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in "rightwing extremist activity," saying the economic recession, the election of America's first black president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of white-power militias.
The nine-page document was sent to police and sheriff's departments across the United States on April 7 under the headline, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."
It says the federal government "will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months" to gather information on "rightwing extremist activity in the United States."
When Janet Napolitano was warning about right-wingers and mentioning Tim McVeigh, too bad she didn't also warn of left-wingers like Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dorn, (Obama friends) conducting a campaign of bombing public buildings.
No, I don't. I also don't think this is the conclusion you can draw from this report.How PC the right has become. Why would anyone pretend that a report that looks out for both the best interests of Americans and the best interests of troubled vets is somehow a bad thing?
I don't think that Americans that haven't been convicted of any wrongdoing should be put under surveillance, you do? What about due process? What about the right to your beliefs?
Pubic in well known to cry like a small child if neg repped.Oh no. Neg Reps? Say it aint so.
No, I don't. I also don't think this is the conclusion you can draw from this report.How PC the right has become. Why would anyone pretend that a report that looks out for both the best interests of Americans and the best interests of troubled vets is somehow a bad thing?
I don't think that Americans that haven't been convicted of any wrongdoing should be put under surveillance, you do? What about due process? What about the right to your beliefs?
No, I don't. I also don't think this is the conclusion you can draw from this report.I don't think that Americans that haven't been convicted of any wrongdoing should be put under surveillance, you do? What about due process? What about the right to your beliefs?
What other conclusion could you possibly draw then?
Veterans a Focus of FBI Extremist Probe - WSJ.comMichael Ward, FBI deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, said in an interview Thursday that the portion of the operation focusing on the military related only to veterans who draw the attention of Defense Department officials for joining white-supremacist or other extremist groups.
"We're not doing an investigation into the military, we're not looking at former military members," he said. "It would have to be something they were concerned about, or someone they're concerned is involved" with extremist groups.
Mr. Ward said that the FBI's general counsel reviewed the operation before it began, "to make sure any tripwires we set do not violate any civil liberties."
