Perverting everything: Obama regime goes after 'right wing extremists"


Shame on the nation: American Hero Michael Behenna Loses Final Appeal

Pamela Geller: there is something horribly wrong in America when a soldier is jailed for killing the enemy. The criminalization of our heroes is the liberal wet dream and the goal of the enemy, Islamic supremacists. Indeed, they make common cause of their hatred of the good.

Lt. Behenna shot a known al qaeda killer on the battlefield, a terrorist the Army had actually issued a kill/capture order for before they realized he was already dead.

Michael Behenna Loses Final Appeal Bob McCartey/ Pamela Geller:  Shame on the nation

Confirmed: The Obama DHS hit job on conservatives is real   (Michelle Malkin)

That’s because the U.S. government sided with the  Muslims, against US.

In this video exchange on Fox & Friends, Retired Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer talks about the latest literature from DHS. Also, take note of how Shaffer singles out CAIR and wants to know why there’s not more concern about them since they were an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial.


  • Former Marine Charged With Illegally Possessing Chrome-Plated AK-47 That May Have Belonged to Saddam Regime: Faces up to 10 years in prison!–Read More »

No country that allows itself to be ruled (or ‘educated’) by its enemies is likely to survive.

Madrassahs around the world are funded by the Koranimals who run Saudi Arabia.  The schools teach children to hate  (and kill) non-Muslims. Classes often consist of kids rocking to and fro like schizophrenics as they memorize the evil gibberings of a bloodthirsty warlord from 7th century Arabia in a language they don’t understand.

But like any contagious disease, it spreads:

Dem Rep Wants US Schools Modeled After Islamic Madrassahs


Now Dem Rep. Andre’ Carson is changing his tune:

My remarks at ICNA call attention to the fact that faith-based schools throughout this country have excelled because of innovative instructional methods and a willingness to engage different learning styles — whether visual, auditory, or kinesthetic. While I do not believe that any particular faith should be the foundation of our public schools, it is important that we take note of the instructional tools these schools utilize to empower their young people. Christian, Jewish, and Islamic schools have experienced notable success by casting off a one-size-fits-all approach to education, and this is a model we must replicate. Having attended a parochial elementary school myself, I’ve seen these successes first hand. If we are going to take American education to the next level, we must expand successful models and implement the practices that will enable success for our students.

“It starts with us being proud to be Muslim.”–Read More »

4 thoughts on “Perverting everything: Obama regime goes after 'right wing extremists"”

  1. Re: Not a Big Deal?

    By Jonah Goldberg

    Interesting email, from a reader:

    Thanks for addressing this issue. Two points:

    “If the Bush administration had issued a sweeping indictment of “leftwing” groups in America, arguing that they needed to be monitored, something tells me we’d be hearing a lot about it.”

    They did. We didn’t. See “Left-Wing Extremism: The Current Threat,” published by the DOE in April 2001 (thus before DHS existed):

    “The concern is that because they are rightwing they might be violent as if there is causation between being rightwing and being violent.”

    That’s not what they’re saying. At all. They’re talking about the specific groups within the right wing that are violent, and they’re describing the methods and ideologies those groups use to inspire violence. They play on anti-abortion and anti-immigration views. They don’t play on opposition to increased CAFE standards.

    Just out of curiosity, would you feel better if they’d added PC guff about how not all right-wingers are necessarily violent, that they’re talking about only a small percentage of right-wingers, that most right-wingers are perfectly good citizens, etc., etc.? If so–if you understand why such language would make you feel better–then maybe you should consider why people find it reassuring when similar provisions are added to characterizations of (say) black people. But it’s odd to think that conservatives would want *more* abstruse and cuddly rhetoric in a government report.

    Me: Nice rebuttal on the first point! Or at least it looks like it is, from a quick look at the report. Though I suspect if such a report came out after 9/11 (the relevant time frame, after all) it wouldn’t have gone down the memory hole.

    On the second point. Here’s what I said in greater context:

    Readers insist the report is focused solely on violent groups, and they’re probably right that this is the authors’ intent. But that isn’t how it reads necessarily. Indeed, it goes out of its way to note that many of these groups haven’t done anything violent. The concern is that because they are right-wing they might be violent as if there is causation between being right-wing and being violent.

    I’m perfectly willing to credit this reader’s argument that the authors didn’t intend to say what they sound like they’re saying, but I’m not so sure that it’s so clear-cut that this is how the report reads which, again, was the point of my post in response to the analyst who also agreed that the report is badly written.

    No, I don’t want more PC guff from the government. But I’m afraid that’s exactly what we got here.

    Update: Man, a lot of folks are really unimpressed with the first point about the 2001 report. A few examples:

    There are differences between the “Left Wing” report ( reader provided the link to and today’s “Right Wing” report. For example, the older report cites actual leftwing groups and activities rather than everybody to the right of John Kerry. It also helpfully compare leftwing and right wing extremists in a table (again apparently using real data).

    Is it really paranoid to be concerned that maybe the DHS report’s authors really mean what they are apparently saying? That if you grudgingly voted for John McCain because he was really too liberal for your tastes, but better than Barack Obama, then you REALLY ARE a Right Wing Extremist who needs to be monitored by the government?


    Don’t concede the point so easily. Read/skim the 2001 report, and then note how it compares with the partisan cheapshot DHS report that is currently making waves.

    Some contrasts:
    (1) The 2001 cites statistics and names actual groups. The 2009 report mentions Timothy McVeigh and a couple of other dudes.

    (2) The 2001 study carries more cautionary language regarding the balance of civil liberties and public safety than does the one from 2009, which seems to lament political freedom.

    (3) The 2001 study was intentionally written to counterbalance the overemphasis on right-wing terrorist activities that was characteristic of the day. I’m not aware of any overemphasis on left-wing terrorist activities today, especially if you figure that Islamic terrorists are hardly ever considered “liberals.” (And yes, Jonah, I’m in agreement with you on the whole “liberal fascist” concept, having discussed it at great length before your book went to print. But that’s another discussion entirely.)

    I could go on, but I won’t. These are the most glaring differences one discerns upon first glance, and they actually tend to defeat your emailer’s attempt at moral equivalence. We should not be surprised that politicians tend to be biased toward a political worldview, but the naked partisanship on display in this DHS report was something of an anomaly to say the least.


    The April 2001 report on left-wing terrorist groups names specific
    groups as early as page iii, and throughout discusses acts and plans
    by various groups — the DHS report names no groups and even states
    there is no evidence of any plans.

    On page 4 of the April 2001 report there’s discussion of right-wing
    groups and how those groups are an increasing threat. On page 16, it
    reinforces that while the (then) current focus is on right-wing
    groups, left-wing groups should not be forgotten when assessing
    security threats.

    On page 22, the report says, “Although the United States has not
    experienced any major leftist terrorist movements or
    actions in recent years” — ignoring the activities of environmental
    and animal-rights terrorists.

    The parallels aren’t there. The April 2001 report reads like a
    responsible survey intended to inform; the DHS report reads like a
    sensationalist piece of tripe like you’d find in the New York Times.

    And from one of my military guys:

    I’m an analyst, too.

    It’s “just one report.”

    But it’s “just one report” that will make it’s way into hundreds of other reports used by law enforcement.

    It’s a “primary source report” that has real gravitas (setting aside the actual value of it) and will get incorporated, whether cited or not, into those other reports.

    And it’s disturbingly similar to the MIAC report out of Missouri.

    Because they all use the same source. SPLC. Only in many ways, they’ve laundered that, and lent credence to it by providing cover.

    Just like the MIAC report, it’s badly done intel, when you uncritically incorporate advocacy masquerading as analysis.

  2. Very, very dangerous language and the slippery slope to tyranny.

    From a very dangerous cabal in and around the WH.

    If we can get rid of the communist in the WH in the 2012 election, providing there is no vote rigging. Every single visitor to the WH for the last four years needs to be investigated for treason.

  3. @kaw,

    With the Spanish company, SCYTL involved in counting votes and it is allegedly associated with that toad Soros, rigging is indeed a possibility.

    Obama, has already lost most of the independent votes that put him in and remember he did not win the election by that many votes. It certainly was not a landslide.

Comments are closed.