Skellum's Ramblings 2.0

What's the big difference between a Trump administration and the previous one?

noreply@blogger.com (Blog Friend) — Mon, 13 Feb 2017 00:51:00 +0000

So far, it looks like the biggest difference Globalist vs Nationalist. Certainly, there are many differences of varying degree. But, for the moment, it looks like a knock down drag out fight between those that consider America to be it's own country and those that consider America to be a global father figure.

As much is one would prefer to lend a helping hand, what we do is often more likely considered meddling than helping. More to the point, it was no accident, nor was it short sighted that the founders of this country enumerated the necessity to avoid foreign entanglement.

As we have seen for the past 100 years in this country, the downfall of the USA has been tied to foreign entanglement.

Snowflake Storm 2017

noreply@blogger.com (Blog Friend) — Mon, 13 Feb 2017 00:26:00 +0000

#NotMySnowflake

The snow(flake) storm of 2017 has been vicious. Everywhere you look there are entitled babies screaming about hatred, racism, and intolerance.

The interesting part is that the build their message on their own hatred, racism, and intolerance.

Not only is it incredibly convenient to call others these names, but it is also significantly hypocritical. How does one expect to be taken seriously when they use hate to attack those that do not hate? How can a snowflake project their own racism on others simply because they don't yet understand that emotion without logic is less "right" and more closely identified as a mental disease?

If snowflakes wish to be taken seriously, there are a few things they must do. Firstly, put down the kool aide. Just because emotion is "easier" to process than logic, give logic a chance. Sometimes just saying something doesn't make it true. Sometimes saying it enough and getting others to say it makes it feel so good that reality is no longer important. Once a snowflake falls into that trap, they are no longer able to understand why others do not experience the same reality that they do. Secondly, be honest. Admit you don't want to debate or even discuss. You want others to agree with you wholeheartedly. You find yourself empowered by the notion that you are abe to dismiss somebody with self righteous anger for not agreeing with you. Relax, realize that you're not as special as the participation trophy made you feel. Take a breath and realize that your parents and teachers let you down when they led you to believe that being such a short sighted and annoying creature was somehow "ok".

Privacy, the iPhone, and your Fingerprint

noreply@blogger.com (Blog Friend) — Fri, 20 Sep 2013 15:44:00 +0000

Technology has a way of making things easy. Its easy to get reminded about appointments otherwise forgotten. Its easy to get a thought instantly delivered to the recipient via quick txt message. We have the ability to discover, save, and share with the click of a button (or voice command).

However, technology comes with a price. Forgetting the 2yr contract, the monthly bill, and the exposure to various electromagnetic fields, users of technology are giving up their privacy in order to get these conveniences.

In the past, people have joked about the government or some hidden entity having a "file" on them. While there may or may not have been a file on you, there have been files on individuals in the past. Creating these files required first identifying the person as being "of interest". From that point, actual "work" was required to create this file, fill it with as much pertinent information as possible, and keep it updated. This was a manual process and rather laborious.

Even with the proliferation of internet access, this was still excessively manual. While aggregating information or sharing it would be easier, tracking was still hit or miss and required much vetting of bulk data.

However, the advent of accessible portable electronics such as telephones has changed the game. Not only do we have constant access to these devices, but they are linked to us in a much more personal manner than ever before in the history of tech. The vetting of data is flipped where the 10% is invalid data and the 90% of automatically aggregated data is accurate. More to the point, we dont have to be targeted in order for a file to be created. With facebook and google, we build our own file.

Our likes, dislikes, opinions, interests, strengths, and weaknesses are cataloged by us. Our locations, habits, and actions are tied through a battery operated device we pay to track us. While these are all great conveniences, there is potential for abuse.

Having worked in tech since the early 1990's, there are many undocumented aspects of this technology which are ripe for abuse. Personally, I've processed a few FBI subpoenas and noticed the "reaching" aspect of their requests. At that point, there were no agreements with google, apple, facebook to streamline getting information "directly" from their databases. Of course NSA was rumored to have direct access to global telecommunication switching equipement inside the USA. While I wont go into the location or company, its long been since known that they do have that access (even before Snowden released the information he acquired.)

Back to the point, data aggregation is no longer hard, no longer complicated, and no longer single digit percentage in accuracy. Add the ability to tie a fingerprint to a device and one can pinpoint the location of a specific person or group of persons with great accuracy. The ability to make a psychological profile of a random individual can be made with much greater accuracy based on information collected within minutes of deeming that person "of interest".

Lets forget IOS for a minute and skip over to Android. The newer Galaxy S4 has the ability to read the eye of its user. Slight software modifications can cause this device (or subsequent devices) read/monitor and log microexpressions. Instead of keeping track of what you read, this type of device has the ability to log how you react to what you read.

Not only can a profile be built by targeting what information you are exposed to, but information can be tailored to your profile in order to nudge your opinion on a subject. We dont live in a world where one story is written for a publication, printed thousands of times, and delivered to many doors. We now have the technological ability to make 10 different versions of the news, and deliver the versions that people want to read. Although it is not happening today, the ability to nudge the minds of millions exists and its in your pocket every day.

The unfortunate aspect of technology is its potential for abuse. Of course its being abused already, but not to the point that it can be used. However, be aware, the devices you surround yourself with have the potential to see, hear, save, and relay everything that happens around them.

the basics of "gun control"

noreply@blogger.com (Blog Friend) — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 04:14:00 +0000

Possibly alternately titled "gun control for dummies" or "simplicity of gun control"

To start, the phrase "gun control" is misleading. Historically, gun control has been associated with attempts to disarm populations. The United States, having the right to keep and bear arms enumerated in the Constitution, has had a harder time disarming their people.

Disarming Americans is complicated by a number of factors. The states would have to all agree at the same time to ignore or rewrite the constitution. Considering that there is a mixture of red and blue states, that has not happened. Additionally, Americans are aware of the fact that their natural right to defend themselves happens to be enumerated in the founding documents of the country.

More to the point, Americans are aware of the OBVIOUS attempts to INFRINGE the natural rights enumerated in the Constitution. Given that, there is national murmuring about what to do should the government turn on its citizens. The general consensus is that military and police would never go along with it and the citizens would be safe from that particular tyranny.

Considering this, there are a few things about gun control that seem to be commonly misunderstood. For one, the militia is not the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines. The militia is "the people". Also, the weapons protected by the constitution would be those sufficient for defending a person or the people from threats to themselves or their country.

Of course there are certain shoe horned legislations which ban some of these weapons. Right or wrong, it happened and the people have not found a need to stand up and make an issue of it. That is one of the reasons that political currents push towards further limitations. Politicians understand that their agendas will usually not be realized with one piece of legislations, but rather chipped away over time.

- insert tragedy here: we must ban guns in order to prevent this from happening again.
sadly, this is an opportunistic use of tragedy twisted to attack the innocent by comparing unrelated concepts. this was made obvious in the recent senate hearings and subsequent followup comments by various people iincluding joe biden.

- nobody needs an ar15: the largest problem with this statement is that its not consistent with the subject at hand. there has never been a requirement that a person "need" to exercise a right in order to exercise it. most popularly as of late, Rosa Parks didn't "need" to sit in the front of the bus. in summary, we don't need to need an ar15 in order to have one. the government, if it wishes to take them, does however, "want" to take them away.

- nobody needs more than 7 rounds: this is a recently popularized statement. the biggest problem with this statement is that it falls back to the subjective term "need". who determines need? at what point does a third party defining need become infringement? defense experts, including police and military, have acknowledged that the more rounds available to a defender, the less that defender has to interact with the weapon beyond using it directly for defence.

- assault weapons should not be available to the public: this is the most frustrating argument. weapons are identified with a term easily marketed as FUD to those that have no knowledge on the subject allowing quick uninformed opinions to be formed. The weapons classified as "assault weapons" are so classified based on looks. their function is identical to other semi-automatic weapons, but they "look" scary. More to the point, considering that the 2nd Amendment was for defense against anything, modern weapons were required to provide defense.

Sadly, FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt), misinformation, outright lies, and political bullies seem to be twisting an important part of our Constitution against the people.

He's Got A Gun

noreply@blogger.com (Blog Friend) — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:12:00 +0000

This phrase holds many meanings. Depending upon the situation, it can be a good thing, a bad thing, or a simple point of fact.

In a situation where the "he" is a criminal intent upon doing something violent, it has a very negative connotation. It is a warning cry. It is an exclamation of distress.

In a situation where help is needed, and somebody able to help has a gun, it is a phrase of hope.

In a situation where somebody is wondering who happens to have a gun nearby, simply out of curiosity, it is an indifferent answer to a request for information.

The simple act of "having a gun" is sometimes misconstrued to be an act of (or at least precursor) to violence. At some point, society has let itself be programmed to think of guns as evil. While not all have this opinion, there is significant evidence that large demographics have come to view guns as evil.

This change has caused many to fear guns. Of course there are many houses with guns behind the door. In point of fact, I see them all the time. Some would say that I have become desensitized to their evil simply because I see them so frequently. However, that is the contrary argument in that it is based on guns actually being evil. We are actually seeing people being desensitized to the usefulness of guns.

Nightly, we are faced with television programming (an apt word actually) where guns are either horribly evil devices OR they are salvation when in the hands of government employees. I find it interesting that we are willingly subjecting ourselves to reeducation about guns. How can we seriously allow ourselves to be trained to think that guns are bad when citizens have them, but somehow good when a random third party with three letters on their jacket has them?

There is no gun training available that makes their use sacred when controlled by the government and evil when controlled by the individual. The best ATF/FBI/DHS agent in the world is still "following orders" from a third party. By programming people to think that only the government can be trusted with guns, we are abdicating their use to the oversight of an often unnamed bureaucrat of which we should have no trust.

Lets Talk About Gun Control

noreply@blogger.com (Blog Friend) — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 20:21:00 +0000

Gun Control is a hot topic at times. Certain agendists get terribly excited when there is a tragedy which can be capitalized on in order to trick the unknowing masses into ignorantly jumping on to their bandwagon.

With the proper framing, one can easily be led by emotion to irresponsible conclusions. A prime example would be the opportunistic abuse of a mass shooting which took over the news media recently. Rather than understanding what happened and dealing with that, certain groups and politicians have stolen the incident and tailored it to their needs. Before facts were known, they made up their own. Before motivations were known, they made up their own. Unfortunately, many members of the public, to blind and weak to form their own opinions, have glommed on to the agendized version of the story and formed knee jerk opinions.

Sadly, many of these people are unaware of the direction the country would take should their knee jerk reactions become policy. The generations before them knew what it was like to live in a country without freedom. Much blood has been shed by those that built this country in order to create the freedom that we have been born into. This seems to have created an environment where freedom is owed, not preserved. Our generations are burning through our remaining freedom like a trust fund kid that never had to earn his/her keep.

Not only have we allowed freedom to erode, but we've done it in the name of expedience. We pretend that packing people into cities like cattle (without opportunity) and increasing the headcount exponentially is somehow only a problem because guns exist. We have media that reports every time a crime is committed with a firearm, but never when a crime is stopped with one. We have an anti-firearm indoctrination that says the 2nd amendment was about muskets and hunting rather than preserving the foundation of our country (that the people tell the government what to do, not that the government tells the people what to do).

On the surface, this seems like a mixture of laziness (the government will do it for me) and the indoctrination that we are owed (the government has to take care of me). The 4th amendment has been eviscerated by Bush and Obama with the Patriot Act (which oddly has nothing to do with anything patriotic. Presumably this was named "patriot" in an effort to make people ignore the fact that it directly violates the 4th amendment.) Freedom is fading. We havn't had to earn it. We havn't stood up when politicians attack the core of our country. We have been lazy. We have become the herd of cattle of which the government has assumed ownership.

Something as simple as this blog is possible only because of the 1st Amendment. At the rate of which we are losing freedom and control of our Democratic Republic, how long will we even have that? We are so busy fighting over which letter is better (D or R) that we run in circles while DR railroads us with stupid legislation. The best thing that could happen to our government would be denying them any authority not specifically allowed in the Constitution. Imagine if our legislator were required to DO THEIR JOBS as provided by the laws of our country instead of making up new laws to the contrary?

Imagine waking up and finding the average citizen is done letting the media use emotional stories to shape their opinions. Imagine a country of critical thinkers that can see through the BS of Washington. There needs to be a national dialog. We need to "Demand A Plan". Of course, this dialog and resulting plan should be directed at preventing politicians from destroying freedom in exchange for campaign contributions.

iFtHEN-ThenIf-iFtHEN- IF THEN

noreply@blogger.com (Blog Friend) — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:56:00 +0000

World of Ifs.

Ideology is based on core tenets. Those concepts are either correct or incorrect. However, they are not usually "provable". Further, they are generally in contrast with what is considered right or wrong in some other ideology.

In politics, for example, there are numerous ideologies in contention at all times. Group A is "right" and must enforce their views upon groups B-Z. logically, groups B though Z can be substituted for A and iterated through for a more expansive, exhaustive, and redundant list of how ideological contention predicated on "right" or "correct" begins to lose it's sure standing as actually being "right" or "correct".

However, the larger point is that they are ALL right when analyzed from a specific perspective and filtered with the word IF.

The most obvious example would be pro life vs pro choice.

IF life begins at conception, then pro life is correct. pro choice simply has no argument that choice displaces killing.

IF life begins at the first breath, then pro choice is correct in that there is no life to kill, hence the fetus is simply an extension of the bearers body.

Nearly every political point that is used to divide the population in argument is based on an IF. We even vote under the assumption that IF this election is fair, my vote will be counted. Further, we vote with the presumption that IF this candidate gets elected, he/she will or will not generate some specific change or stability.

However, people seldom consider that IF the thing that they base their assumption on is incorrect, that they are promoting a false cause. To this point, we are all subject becoming the "sheep" or "useful idiots" of those that provide said information.

Consider how many opinions are dictated, directly or otherwise, by various media. In the most popular case, "Mainstream Media" feeds populations with specific information at a specific pace. To a growing extent, alternate media feeds populations with information contrary to mainstream. More often than not, those bits of information are inconsistent with each other.

Which is right? How can we know? Simply put, those with power and influence do have the ability to rewrite history. The average person will never be truly "in the know" and will react and respond to those things in media which resonate with them. Every person on this planet is subjected to information that cannot be personally verified each day. Every person on this planet makes some sort of decision about those bits of information. We chose to make them true or false.

Furthermore, debating is not about finding the truth. Debate is about beating your opponent with words and ideas with no regard to fact. Debate winners are often supporting the fact of weaker stance with better performance.

The next time we stand up and claim to know something, we should realize that we do not honestly know enough truth about the situation to know anything. Our knowledge is predicated upon the IF that we base out truth...

Tea Party Racism

noreply@blogger.com (Blog Friend) — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 05:42:00 +0000

Definition
rac·ism [rey-siz-uhm] noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Definition (Obama/Pelosi media era)
1.
Using race to marginalized or vilify dissenting opinions.

Nancy Pelosi is a racist. There was an old while lady in one picture holding a racist sign. Nancy Pelosi is anold white lady. Coincidence?

Obama is also a racist. There have been pictures of well dressed men of color at Tea Party events. Therefore, all well dressed men of color are racist.

--

The sad fact happens to be that racism is not isolated to men and women that love their country. There are many people of many races that can be called racist. The attempt to marginalize common sense (ie: the ability to use a calculator) with name calling is an age old tactic of those that have no ability to support their position.

--

Somehow slavery keeps being brought up as if the Tea Party is a family reunion of the descendants of southern slave owners. Of course, everyone forgets that there is a big monument in DC (Lincoln Memorial) with a giant statue of a descendant of a slave owning family in the ... wait for it ... "North". It would seem that "The South" wasn't the only place where human beings were bought and sold as property.

It is also somehow forgotten that Africans were knee deep in harvesting fresh crops of slaves for sell to the Americas. More to the point, it is forgotten that slavery was not invented when the Declaration of Independence was written. Most seem to forget that slavery predates the United States, hence The South, by ... pretty much the birth of man. All known civilizations in history have practiced slavery.

The North can put a button on it's vest saying they stopped before the south did. However, it cannot accurately assert that The South would have slavery today were it not for the Civil War. While it sped up the process, slavery in The South would not be an aspect of 2011 life.

There is no excuse for enslaving human beings. It doesn't matter if the slaves are the same race, same tribe, different race, or different tribe. The United States learned that lesson. However, we have allowed the media and "race pimps" to profiteer from that time in history. We've allowed politicians to use racism as a blank check on those that disagree.

I've yet to meet a person who can trace their family tree back to a slave owner. The most likely candidates for that particular genealogy would be elected officials in the Democratic and Republican party. The average "white guy" that is called a racist does not come from an affluent family with historical ties to slavery. However, that guy is the one being called a racist. His only sins are 1. being white 2. being able to use a calculator. 3. pointing out that a political movement is a lie.

In short, those that dismiss the Tea Party with name calling should probably wonder why they do so. They might find that they "heard it on tv". Abdicating all of your decision making to mass media is essentially what people refer to as "drinking the Kool-Aid"...

Tent City

noreply@blogger.com (Blog Friend) — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 23:20:00 +0000

The land of the free and the home of the brave. Out of the houses and into the tents.

The American dream has not been so long forgotten that we forget growing up in a country where a good work ethic and some drive meant you could achieve home ownership. Paying attention to your monthly expenses, saving for a rainy day, and making sure to work hard was all it took. However, those days are either gone or on hiatus.

For decades people have been hard working responsible individuals that paid their bills on time, saved for the future, and contributed back to society. However, our current economy does not pay them the respect that their responsible nature deserves. Obviously I'm not referring to individuals that expect to be taken care of.

There is a common story across our once great nation. People that have earned, invested, saved, and WORKED for whatever they had are suddenly finding themselves with nothing. Retirement plans are emptied to pay mortgages, basic necessities, repairs, and other bills. Jobs disappear and the savings soon disappear also. Within a couple of years, people that were once thriving members of society are reduced to bankruptcy, no health insurance, no job, no money, and no help.

These people are sometimes willing to sign up for Unemployment or some other form of welfare. They have often paid into it for decades without once utilizing it. However, the sad truth is that these people played it safe and lost. They paid their bills on time. They worked every day. They saved for a rainy day. They planned for the future. Then, they lost their income, were not able to get jobs, and have utilized all of those resources they planned for so well.

Meanwhile, the government continues to dig the economy into a deeper hole with no end in sight. To those that once said "We have determined that your entire system sucks", maybe you were on to something...

Conspiracy Theory

noreply@blogger.com (Blog Friend) — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 01:27:00 +0000

Conspiracy Theory

These days, political discussions quickly boil down to facts vs fiction. Unfortunately, there is no obvious ownership of the facts. Are the "crackpots" telling the truth or making up elaborate scenarios based in wild imagination? Is the government telling the truth or making up some sanitized theory of convenient plausibility?

Emotions get out of control when topics such as 9/11/01, OKC, Waco, Ruby Ridge, or JFK come up. There are those that blindly believe anything the news reports. There are those that believe any rumor that disagrees with the mainstream news. There are also people that support and believe in both sides that either love or hate conspiracy theory.

However, one wonders who benefits from conspiracy theory. Some claim that the theories are created as a subversive mechanism to make people question the government. Some claim that they are natural phenomenon created by years of government secrecy. Some even claim that these conspiracy theories are needed by the government in order to cloud the issue when they do have something to hide.

Unfortunately, there is no easy or obvious answer. There are people that profit from conspiracy theory. There are people that wish to promote distrust in the government. Also, the prolific nature of conspiracy theory does give a significant amount of plausible deniability to the government in that they can dismiss any fact or story as "false" by lumping it in with other things that have been coined "conspiracy theory".

That being said, any three of the above cases can be made with significant plausibility. Was Ruby Ridge an example of bad cops killing witnesses when their operation went bad? Was OKC a failed plot by the FBI to "save the day"? Was 911 an attempt to garner support for the war on terror or to make a leaseholder rich? Was the banking crisis created in an attempt to destabilize the economy and collapse the middle class?

We are unfortunately drawn into a world of "IFs". The support or detraction of any theory boils down to "IF" this is true or "IF" that is false. The items in question are almost always just out of reach. The information could be classified. If there is information that is classified, then only those with access to that information will ever know the truth. (assuming that classified information is accurate in the first place.) While National Security is an important reason to keep some secrets, it is also an aspect of the information haves and have nots.

In a situation where one party to a discussion has access to some earthshaking revelation that makes everything clear and the other does not, they are NOT free to share the information. While they may find it frustrating that somebody "doesn't get it", the other person is just as frustrated that "maybe", "somewhere", exists something that answers the missing "IF".

Even if granted that information, they would likely view it with suspicion as the creator of the information is only as factual as "they" or "them", whoever "they" actually are.

In short, conspiracy theory is a great tool for a government to use to separate the info-haves and info-have nots thus propagating the long standing unknowing that allows a government to function in secret 99% of the time.

Airport Security

noreply@blogger.com (Blog Friend) — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 03:04:00 +0000

Airport Security, while a hot topic, is somewhat misleading. Much in the same way that locks keep honest people honest rather than bad people out, security is mostly a dog and pony show that keeps honest people honest.

As we've seen over the past few years, those that "need" to smuggle something onto a plane will. Contraband will find it's way into the air.

Our current issues are less about security than about promoting agendas. Molesting children is not something that TSA or any government agency should be involved in. Should they choose to become involved in such activities, they should not be allowed a free pass from recourse by the American people.

Random searches are little more than an inconvenience to terrorists and smuggler. At the same time, they are a violation to honest citizens they "intend" to protect. For years, smugglers have abdicated the danger of being caught to 3rd party mules. Terrorists have utilized indoctrinated suicide bombers or zealots willing to get caught.

Smuggling something through security has always been a law of numbers. Even when you ignore the corruption factor (getting people/items on planes with a complete bypass of all security), If there is a random search, and only 1 in 20 people are selected, the smuggler instantly has 95% chance to get through without being checked. In short, random screenings keep honest people honest. Since the screenings are necessitated by the dishonest, security must address that factor directly.

If we seriously want to get people from point A to point B with 99% assurance of security, we must immediately implement the following:

1. Baggage and Cargo of any kinda cannot be permitted on the same plane as human beings.
2. At the security checkpoint, ALL people must remove all clothing and have it placed in a shipping container to arrive at the same destination before the travelers arrive.
3. The naked people must then be examined fully before being chained together like cattle.

This would eliminate human cargo being exposed to explosives in the cargo area of the airplanes. This would also prevent people from being able to overtake the crew of a flight.

Racism

noreply@blogger.com (Blog Friend) — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 00:43:00 +0000

It is no surprise that the progressives are calling their opposition "racists". The age old tactic in shutting up an opponent while avoiding the issue is name calling. Instead of acknowledging the facts of the argument, they are doing everything in their power to avoid them.

There are a number of issues involved with the current push to defend the border of our country. The first and most obvious is that it is a "border". Being the outer edge of our country, it only stands to reason that our government should be enforcing the fact that there is a difference between our country and the countries to which it is connected.

There are significant social and economic aspects to border security. An open border, such as the one we now have, has contributed to serious criminal activities in both our country and Mexico. On our side, we have "illegals" (not undocumented workers, not immigrants) that are bringing violent crimes (rape, assault, kidnap, murder) and activities (drugs, prostitution, smuggling) into our country. (as if we didn't already have enough of that already) On their side, we have violent criminal enterprises built on the fact that we DO NOT secure our border.

Were the United States of America to have secured the borders after "Operation Wetback" (I didn't name it), the rampant criminal activities of human smuggling, kidnap, drugs, etc would have not been cultivated to the point that it is now. Of course those things would still exist, however, our government has created an environment where they will simply THRIVE.

More to the point of the accusations, defending the border is not racist simply because a progressive activist organization has deemed it as a way to avoid defending our country. For some reason, they think American's are stupid enough to think that if you are for securing the border, that you want to kill people from Mexico as part of some ethnic cleansing ritual.

The next time you hear a pundit cry racism, look at it differently. Instead of mindlessly agreeing with them, take a moment to wonder what issue they are really trying to avoid talking about.

Illegal Immigration

noreply@blogger.com (Blog Friend) — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 02:32:00 +0000

Illegal Immigration

An honest discussion about this topic is almost instantly derailed by misinformation and distraction.

Racism is the most commonly used lie to prevent rational discussion. Any attempt to begin a conversation that is in contrast with the agenda of the average liberal will result in calls of racism. While there may be racists that think the border needs to be enforced, not all people that think the border needs to be enforced are racists. In math, we would say the converse is not necessarily true.

Many of the arguments against enforcing the border draw comparisons to the settlers coming into this continent and starting what would eventually become the USA. Essentially, everybody is an illegal immigrant and we have no right to tell anybody to follow any legal process if they wish to live here.

Sadly, this seems to be the most honest argument that I've heard. It's significantly more honest than "they do jobs white people won't do" (which happens to be a racist statement).

Lets assume for a minute that this is true. Lets say that, specifically the flow of people from Mexico, is identical to European settlers. That would put us in the position of the Native Americans so long ago. Americans would be in a position of watching the "invaders/settlers" move in and not being able to stop them. We would be faced with the consequences of losing our government, language, and culture to the "settlers".

Unlike the Native Americans that inhabited this country before the "settlers", we have the resources and ability to stop the settlers. However, we do not have the political will. We do not have leaders that are willing to obey the law. In fact, we have a president that will sue a state for attempting to protect it's border.

Regardless of the terminology that is in use (illegal, migrant, settler, etc), the fact remains that our government is making an overt choice to allow the steady flow of trespassers a free ride to citizenship. Why is this OK? With non citizens voting, our elections are a joke. Why not just allow China or the UN make all legal decisions in our country?

A secure border is not racist. A secure border is the responsibility of the government. Rounding up all people of a specific nationality/ethnicity and oppressing them because of their race is racist. In the age of misinformation, the opposition is always a "racist". They don't need facts, they just need simple minded people that are afraid of being unjustly called racist.

Ideological Subversion

noreply@blogger.com (Blog Friend) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:55:00 +0000

How To Brainwash A Nation

[Taken from an interview with ex KGB agent Thomas Schuman (Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov)]

Ideological Subversion: (aka Active Measures/Psychological Warfare)
The process of changing America's perception of reality to such an extent that in spite of an abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their communities and their country.

The Marxist/Leninist brainwashing project goes very slow and is divided in 4 basic stages.

Stage 1: Demoralization
This initial phase takes at least 15 to 20 years by design. That is approximately the time required to "educate" a generation of children. The idea is to expose them to Marxist/Leninist ideas while they have "soft heads". According to Yuri, this process was in full swing by the early 60's. It was also said that the progress of Demoralization in the US was not only beyond the expectations of Andropov, but that much of the work was being done by Americans to Americans. Key influences of this stage were progressive liberal politicians, liberal college professors, and organizations such as the ACLU.

Upon completion of this stage, the subverted are no longer able to assess true information even when the facts are in front of them.

Stage 2: Destabilization

The second phase assumes a 2-5yr time frame. In this phase, the movement no longer cares about the ideals or consumption practices of the indoctrinated. Those things are aspects of the completed subversion or indoctrination phase. At this point, the focus becomes destabilization of:

- Economy
- Foreign Relations
- Defense Systems

State 3: Crisis
In this phase, the details of the crisis are related to the country in question. Historically the crisis is specific to the region being subverted. A credit crisis in one country is more significant than a food crisis would be in another. In our country, the economy is the soft mushy target that provides the most significant reach. This stage is the shortest and may take less than 6 weeks.

This phase includes the destabilization of the economy, promises of "all kinds of goodies", promises of "paradise on earth", elimination of free market principles, and culminates in the placement of "big brother" government.

Stage 4: Normalization

In this final stage, the violent change of power structure and economy born in Crisis leads to normalization that lasts indefinitely. The benevolent dictator(s) will make lots of promises and it will not matter that the promises are not fulfilled. The leftists professors and civil rights organizations that were instrumental in the subversion process will longer be needed or relevant. It is expected that those forces will then become disillusioned with the resulting Marxist/Leninist power structure that shunned them and become bitter enemies of the resulting power system.

"This is what will happen in the United States if you allow all the schmucks to bring the country to crisis." - Yuri

If we see the ACLU attempt to use the US Constitution as a weapon rather than a target, we would likely be in Stage 4 of the Marxist/Leninist/Progressive subversion of the United States of America.

All Your Internet Is Belong To Obama

noreply@blogger.com (Blog Friend) — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:44:00 +0000

At least for the rest of his term. After that, it belongs to the next guy that Obama's masters give us as president.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

The most interesting aspects include:

1. Government certification may be required of key employees of private communication companies. (ATT, Verizon, Sprint, Cox, etc)

2. The federal government could require private companies to support, maintain, and disclose upon request extensive layout maps and documentation. (probably including router and firewall passwords in clear text *lol*)

3. The current reworded version of the bill doesn't limit power that alarmed Internet companies and civil liberties groups but rather obfuscates what power the bill would give.

In the end, it is humorous that the powers that be like to invoke the Constitution when they are justifying an attack on it and it's people.

The deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee said:

"The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States . . ." -Jena Longo

The Constitution, once for "the people", has been turned into a weapon used to attack the people. This most obviously has been during the Bush and Obama administrations.

How Obama Can Make You Rich In a Recession!

noreply@blogger.com (Blog Friend) — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:14:00 +0000

Forgetting everything else that is going on with our geopolitical puppet show, one may find a thread of silver lining in Mr Obama. In troubles times, people become more concerned with money and jobs. Everybody wishes they had a little bit more or that things were a little bit easier.

Often times, the conversations roll around to winning the lottery, finding out your secretly the last remaining heir to Bill Gates, or inventing something everybody on the planet needs. Essentially, people seem to want to be rich.

You can thank your president. Obama's Hope for you to be rich and his ever Changing stance has made many Americans rich overnight! Most don't read between the lines so they don't even know that they are rich yet!

The greedy and evil republicans classified the rich as people that made more than $1Million per year. Obama, being more of an ACORN lackey than a "rich white guy" decided that was too high. The bar needed to be lowered because there are a LOT of Americans out there that make less than $1Million dollars. He promised to only tax the rich, so he redefined rich in order to keep that promise?

When "rich" was redefined to $280k, most Americans decided that was fine, "we don't make that much" or "everybody that makes more than me should PAY UP!" This is human nature and not a surprise. However, some people looked past that and wondered how this would effect small businesses that employ people. Would this place a burden on a small company that caused them to have to scale back employees?

However, this was soon redefined to $250k. It seems that the extra $30k wasn't enough. Obama so needed the additional tax base, that he would turn around and change his stance only days later. Sadly, most people still accepted this and figured it was "still OK" since it didn't touch them. They didn't see the direction the freight train was headed.

Currently, we're looking at an income of $100,000 being considered rich. This instantly turns the suburbs into Beverly Hills. Although $100,000 seems rich to the average ACORN volunteer, it happens to be where the "Jones's" live. It's the salary range that sells new homes, boats and BMW's, anything that credit will finance. $100,000 is now rich according to Obama. This is not the end unfortunately, this is just the biggest cloud of smoke yet to billow from our burning house of a government.

Ponder this: Obama and ACORN seem to be responsible for defining what "Rich" is. The number, another moving target, can almost be identified with a mathematical equation. The numbers we've seen so far (ex: 280k, 250, $100k) are little more than desensitization before the actual "Rich" are unveiled.

When you do this math, you will realize, that you are probably rich beyond your wildest dreams already!

Rich = (((MinWage * 20hr) * 4wk) * 12mo) + 1

So, consider $6.55 for a 20 hour week, every week, for an entire year. If you're only working 20 hours, you probably work all year cause you get a vacation every week anyway. That number works out to: $6,288yr. my "+ 1" may be a little bit of dramatization. More likely it would be changed to "x3 or x5) as the current definition of "Rich", according to Obama, is that formula with x16 instead of " +1 or "a dollar more than everybody else expects to make".

So, to recap.

Rich According to Greedy White Men:

MinWage * AnnualWork * 160 ($1,000,000)

Rich according to Obama:

Originally
MinWage * AnnualWork * 45 ($280,000)
Then
MinWage * AnnualWork * 40 ($250,000)
Now
MinWage * AnnualWork * 16 ($100,000)

In order to better visualize this trend, picture the multiplier as a group of people. The base formula (MinWage * AnnualWork) identifies what any one person in American should be making under the Obama ACORN structure. The multiplier identifies how many of these Obama/ACORN Americans it takes to make the salary of the rich.

In short, if you make more than $6,288 per year, you will be considered rich by the time Obama and ACORN come out of the closet on this.

Obama's Latest Gun Control Lies

noreply@blogger.com (Blog Friend) — Wed, 13 May 2009 18:59:00 +0000

(The honest double talk of the President would be as follows: "90% of the 100% of the 10% of Mexico's guns are from America". However, it's not as scandalous to say that 9% of the weapons are from America and the remaining 89% are not.)

In the most recent volley of attacks on the Constitution of the United States of America, President Obama makes the argument that our 2nd Amendment is trumped by distorted facts associated with the problems of a country that is NOT the United States of America.

The Assertion: American guns make up 90% of the weapons used in Mexico.

The Underlying Argument: In order to fix the problem in Mexico, we must lock down firearm rights in the United States.

The Reality: Mexico's problems are significantly larger than American firearms. If one were to pick a substantial contributor to Mexican problems related to America, it would have to be the conscious decision to not enforce the border.

The lack of enforcement has contributed to more problems for America and Mexico than a singular issue such as weapon traffic. The refusal to enforce border security has contributed to human and drug trafficking. Weapon trafficking is a byproduct of those two "industries".

Using the border caused problems as a marketing device to pursue anti-gun legislation is a thinly veiled attempt to generate support for the progressive anti-American (anti constitution) policies of our current administration (or at least the people that paid for him and his teleprompter).

If our President Obama were honestly interested in Mexico, he would acknowledge the obvious fact that these issues are associated to years of consciously not enforcing and not allowing enforcement of the US/Mexico border. He would acknowledge that that any American guns in Mexico are trafficked as a byproduct of that past/present/forseable future policy to NOT enforce the border.

Back to the root of the lie: 90% of the guns confiscated by Mexico that are "assumed" to be American are "shipped" back to America and then checked. 90% of the ones selected to be checked are deemed to be from America. That is a significant difference. Consider the following statements:

"90% of the guns in Mexico are from America"
-AND-
"90% of the guns Mexico thinks are American actually come from America"

The more honest statement would be that approximately 10% of the guns in Mexico are sent to the United States, checked, and 90% of those turn out to be from America. The additional fact would be that over 80% of the weapons in Mexico are from Russia, China, Korea and do not arrive via our borders.

Even when we factor in the results of not enforcing the border, only 10% are coming into their country in that manner. The bulk of weapons are arriving via ship through Mexican government controlled ports. While enforcing the border wouldn't stop most of the guns coming in, it would assist in limiting human and drug trafficking.

The thing that should get Americans fired up: The President is using the problems of another country to attempt to limit freedoms within the United States of America. The President is lying about the facts in an attempt to cause Americans to think we're supplying 90% of Mexico's weapons when in fact we are not. The President is abusing Mexico's situation in an attempt to promote an unpopular and unconstitutional agenda. When Obama says "The Stars Have Aligned", we should be scared. We should be very scared.

Those unfamiliar with "Wounded Knee" (1890) should take a moment to imagine the burial pictures as follows:

look at the pictures and imagine Law Abiding Americans in the mass graves. Imagine Obama and congress standing on the edge holding guns over the dead bodies piled on top of each other. The anti-American politics that are so popular today will likely contribute to a lesser violent situation of the same result.

Attempting to Understand the Federal Government

noreply@blogger.com (Blog Friend) — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:28:00 +0000

Recently, a couple of documents surfaced that warned law enforcement of Right Wing Extremists. The first of these documents to be leaked was the MIAC report from Missouri. This document was made public in February of 2009. The second of these documents was Janet Napolitano's DHS document of which an edited version was made public in April of 2009.

Unfortunately, these documents highlight the Federal Government's need to limit free speech. The following is a list of speech or thinking that the government uses to identify Right Wing Extremists:

Opposes restrictions on firearms
Opposes lax immigration
Opposes the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship, and the expansion of social programs
Opposes continuation of free trade agreements
Opposes same-sex marriage
Has paranoia of foreign regimes
Fear of Communist regimes
Opposes one world government
Bemoans the decline of U.S. stature in the world.
Upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India

Some items in the above list deal with the Federal Governments refusal to abide by the Constitution of the United States of America. Some items are pro America anti Globalism. Some are social policy. However, they all have an interesting commonality in that they oppose current progressive politics.

The unfortunate message is that those that do not agree with those progressive policies must be vilified and given a title such as "Domestic Terrorist" in an attempt to marginalize the views, polarize society, and create an official "bad guy".

While the list includes items that are not "Politically Correct", there are no anti American sentiments. In fact, most are directed at protecting the country from foreign interests.

In short, this list does little more than identify the agenda and create a political environment where it is acceptable to "hate" those that dare assume that the Federal Government is not bigger than the States or the Constitution of the United States of America.

Janet Napolitano: The Real Questions We Should Be Asking

noreply@blogger.com (Blog Friend) — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 14:27:00 +0000

The recent revelation by Janet Napolitano of the redefinition of "Terrorism" has created both fear and outrage among those that love the United States of America.

Incidents that were previously considered "terrorist acts" (referring to acts performed by foreign combatants targeting Americans or American interests) are now called "Man-Caused Disasters".

Terrorism is now reserved for Americans that do not agree with the Anti-American policies of the Obama administration or the illegal expansion of power that the people within the political structure of our government are currently exploring.

In short, we should not be interested in an apology. We should also not be interested in her firing. However, we should be asking some very important questions.

1. How long has this information been available to law enforcement?

The documents were partially released to the public. We have not seen the original versions. We have not seen the complete documents. At the point that "we the people" were able to view the documents, they had already been made available to the Law Enforcement community. How long have these documents been in use by Law Enforcement?

2. Who ordered the creation of these documents?

Janet Napolitano likely hasn't the power to, on her own, create a policy of treating Americans as villains because they do not agree with the Federal Government. It is a fairly large step to move focus from foreign combatants to Americans when creating an enemy in the eye of public opinion. The contents of the documents should be of less concern than finding out WHO it is that wants Americans vilified for loving their country.

3. What is the end game?

This is the question that inspires "fear" in the hearts and minds of Americans. Why would the government need to create a fake sense of "bad guy" that can be applied to those who speak or think differently than the Federal Government? The most obvious answers range from marginalizing political opponents to creating an atmosphere where the FedGov can get popular support for rounding up people that think they still have a First Amendment right to free speech.

ATF, FBI, Secret Service, and Military personnel will always think twice about randomly raiding an American residence on American soil for political reasons. But what if you take that person exercising their freedom of speech, their 2ND Amendment, and their love for the United States of America and make them out to be a TERRORIST? Suddenly, you get the ability to send armed people into law abiding citizens homes and shut them up with impunity.

Simply associating a law abiding citizen with Timothy McVeigh will create a sense of danger and urgency. No one will ask why. The news will report a great victory in defeating a terrorist.

Will this happen? Why has the Federal Government unleashed a negative marketing campaign on the very people that support the documents that allow it to exist? Has the Federal Government grown to the point that it supersedes the Constitution of the United States of America? Is the fear of playing by the rules so condescending that the Federal Government would choose to vilify the citizens that have somehow escaped the indoctrination they should have already absorbed?

DHS(Civil Liberties) Feelings About Released RWE Warning

noreply@blogger.com (Blog Friend) — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 05:50:00 +0000

News Story: http://tinyurl.com/c6mv24
RWE: Right Wing Extremist

According to the news, Civil Liberties officials at the DHS were not happy with some of the language used in the RWE release. It would seem that people might find it offensive.

Unfortunately, this entirely misses the point. The words used to describe the individuals to look out for are not the problem. The fact that they are officially making it a point to begin polarizing society is the problem.

The people being labeled as "bad" or "potential terrorists" or people to "watch" are the enemies of "bad government" or "oppressive government". This is particularly scary in that government is overstepping it's bounds as seen in it's attempt to assume non-existent power and exert that power over industry and the state governments.

However, the fedgov knows that it only has to convince a significant portion of the country that the unindoctrinated are somehow "evil" or "dangerous". Those that believe in the United States of America, it's Constitution, it's Union of States, and the limits of fedgov are now being treated as if they are traitors to their country.

This is a classic redefinition of terms. When the fedgov moves to break the laws which made this nation official, they are the ones "attacking" the country. When they usurp the title of United States of America they defy that the States are individual and united within a "specific" framework. When they overcome the will of the state governments they attack those states. Since there is no ability to hide the Constitution or change history overnight, the fedgov redefines the roles.

Under this redefinition, those that adhere to the Constitution of the United States of America are now to be considered RWE (Right Wing Extremists) and dangerous to the government. This begins to paint the "good guy/bad guy" picture in the heads of those that blindly trudge through life with no concern for anything other than what the government offers them in handouts and misinformation. With enough time and reinforcement, the average sheeple will begin to forget the Constitution and believe that real Americans are somehow Terrorists.

Sadly, it makes me wonder if the USA will have it's own Tiananmen Square once the government has achieve it's propaganda campaign against it's own citizens. Remember, Freedom of Speech only applies to them and their supporters. With this new watch list, opposing opinions are now officially "dangerous" to the state.

AAIM:DS (Anti-American Indoctrination Media: Daily Show

noreply@blogger.com (Blog Friend) — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:12:00 +0000

Why do I watch the Daily Show?

- Centralizing yourself to a single news outlet limits your ability to understand the news and get the concepts that literally "drive" society and information.

- To understand the indoctrinated (those who get news/information/knowledge from a single source).

- To gauge the level and direction of indoctrination.

- Because it's funny.

Sadly, many people confuse humor with fact. Individuals who rely upon John Stewart for accurate reporting will find themselves led like sheep to information and conclusions based in the comedic twists of fact that are required to achieve a punch line.

On a number of occasions, I've found myself discussing an issue with an overly confident purveyor of "fact" that was obviously gleaned from John Stewart. After listening to their points, I acknowledge that I also watched that episode of the Daily Show. From there, you are able to talk about the facts of the matter w/o necessarily having to argue directly with the agenda of the writers of a television show which are not part of that conversation.

In short, you can't discuss issues with people that are indoctrinated by the media unless you understand what weapons have been used against them. If you get all of your news from ABC, MSNBC, CNN, FOX, etc. you will find yourself unable to accurately form an opinion other than the one handed to you.

It is healthy to get information from multiple sources, preferably with different agendas, in order to read between the lines. If base your opinions upon what you are told, then you're missing the truth, which lives between the lines...

Document: Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment

noreply@blogger.com (Blog Friend) — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:27:00 +0000

IA-0257-09
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
(U//FOUO) Rightwing Extremism:
Current Economic and Political
Climate Fueling Resurgence in
Radicalization and Recruitment
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
(U) LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION NOTICE: This product contains Law Enforcement Sensitive (LES) information. No portion of the LES information
should be released to the media, the general public, or over non-secure Internet servers. Release of this information could adversely affect or jeopardize
investigative activities.
(U) Warning: This document is UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (U//FOUO). It contains information that may be exempt from public release under the
Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). It is to be controlled, stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in accordance with DHS policy relating to
FOUO information and is not to be released to the public, the media, or other personnel who do not have a valid need-to-know without prior approval of an authorized
DHS official. State and local homeland security officials may share this document with authorized security personnel without further approval from DHS.
(U) All U.S. person information has been minimized. Should you require the minimized U.S. person information, please contact the DHS/I&A Production Branch at
IA.PM@hq.dhs.gov, IA.PM@dhs.sgov.gov, or IA.PM@dhs.ic.gov.
(U//FOUO) Rightwing Extremism: Current
Economic and Political Climate Fueling
Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment
7 April 2009
(U) Prepared by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis
Division. Coordinated with the FBI.
(U) Scope
(U//FOUO) This product is one of a series of intelligence assessments published by the
Extremism and Radicalization Branch to facilitate a greater understanding of the
phenomenon of violent radicalization in the United States. The information is
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. Federal efforts to influence domestic public opinion must be
conducted in an overt and transparent manner, clearly identifying United States
Government sponsorship.
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.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 3 of 9
— (U//FOUO) Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans
likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups,
as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for
violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and
stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation
of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary
concern to law enforcement.
— (U//FOUO) Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are
attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing
extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to
boost their violent capabilities.
(U) Current Economic and Political Climate
(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that a number of economic and political factors are
driving a resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization activity.
Despite similarities to the climate of the 1990s, the threat posed by lone wolves and small
terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years. In addition, the historical election of
an African American president and the prospect of policy changes are proving to be a
driving force for rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization.
— (U) A recent example of the potential violence associated with a rise in rightwing
extremism may be found in the shooting deaths of three police officers in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on 4 April 2009. The alleged gunman’s reaction
reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment
conspiracy theories related to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a
Jewish-controlled “one world government.”
(U) Exploiting Economic Downturn
(U//FOUO) Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the
economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors,
and home foreclosures. Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate
conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish “financial elites.” These “accusatory” tactics
are employed to draw new recruits into rightwing extremist groups and further radicalize
those already subscribing to extremist beliefs. DHS/I&A assesses this trend is likely to
accelerate if the economy is perceived to worsen.
(U) Historical Presidential Election
(U//LES) Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment
tool. Many rightwing extremists 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
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 4 of 9
(U//FOUO) Perceptions on Poverty and Radicalization
(U//FOUO) Scholars and experts disagree over poverty’s role in motivating violent radicalization or
terrorist activity. High unemployment, however, has the potential to lead to alienation, thus increasing
an individual’s susceptibility to extremist ideas. According to a 2007 study from the German Institute
for Economic Research, there appears to be a strong association between a parent’s unemployment
status and the formation of rightwing extremist beliefs in their children—specifically xenophobia and
antidemocratic ideals.
ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns
and leverage them as drivers for recruitment. From the 2008 election timeframe to the
present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in
expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential
sympathizers.
— (U//LES) Most statements by rightwing extremists have been rhetorical,
expressing concerns about the election of the first African American president,
but stopping short of calls for violent action. In two instances in the run-up to the
election, extremists appeared to be in the early planning stages of some
threatening activity targeting the Democratic nominee, but law enforcement
interceded.
(U) Revisiting the 1990s
(U//FOUO) Paralleling the current national climate, rightwing extremists during the
1990s exploited a variety of social issues and political themes to increase group visibility
and recruit new members. Prominent among these themes were the militia movement’s
opposition to gun control efforts, criticism of free trade agreements (particularly those
with Mexico), and highlighting perceived government infringement on civil liberties as
well as white supremacists’ longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion,
inter-racial crimes, and same-sex marriage. 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) Economic Hardship and Extremism
(U//FOUO) Historically, domestic rightwing extremists have feared, predicted, and
anticipated a cataclysmic economic collapse in the United States. Prominent
antigovernment conspiracy theorists have incorporated aspects of an impending
economic collapse to intensify fear and paranoia among like-minded individuals and to
attract recruits during times of economic uncertainty. Conspiracy theories involving
declarations of martial law, impending civil strife or racial conflict, suspension of the
U.S. Constitution, and the creation of citizen detention camps often incorporate aspects of
a failed economy. Antigovernment conspiracy theories and “end times” prophecies could
motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition, and weapons.
These teachings also have been linked with the radicalization of domestic extremist
individuals and groups in the past, such as violent Christian Identity organizations and
extremist members of the militia movement.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 5 of 9
(U) Illegal Immigration
(U//FOUO) Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception
that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to
work at significantly lower wages. They also opposed free trade agreements, arguing that
these arrangements resulted in Americans losing jobs to countries such as Mexico.
(U//FOUO) Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists, including militias and
white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action, rallying point,
and recruiting tool. Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy
generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment,
but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed
against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent.
(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremist groups’ frustration over a
perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration has the potential to incite
individuals or small groups toward violence. If such violence were to occur, it likely
would be isolated, small-scale, and directed at specific immigration-related targets.
— (U//FOUO) DHS/I&A notes that prominent civil rights organizations have
observed an increase in anti-Hispanic crimes over the past five years.
— (U) In April 2007, six militia members were arrested for various weapons and
explosives violations. Open source reporting alleged that those arrested had
discussed and conducted surveillance for a machinegun attack on Hispanics.
— (U) A militia member in Wyoming was arrested in February 2007 after
communicating his plans to travel to the Mexican border to kill immigrants
crossing into the United States.
(U) Legislative and Judicial Drivers
(U//FOUO) Many rightwing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a
threat to their right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition
stockpiling, as well as renewed participation in paramilitary training exercises. Such
activity, combined with a heightened level of extremist paranoia, has the potential to
facilitate criminal activity and violence.
— (U//FOUO) During the 1990s, rightwing extremist hostility toward government
was fueled by the implementation of restrictive gun laws—such as the Brady Law
that established a 5-day waiting period prior to purchasing a handgun and the
1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act that limited the sale of
various types of assault rifles—and federal law enforcement’s handling of the
confrontations at Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 6 of 9
— (U//FOUO) On the current front, legislation has been proposed this year
requiring mandatory registration of all firearms in the United States. Similar
legislation was introduced in 2008 in several states proposing mandatory tagging
and registration of ammunition. It is unclear if either bill will be passed into law;
nonetheless, a correlation may exist between the potential passage of gun control
legislation and increased hoarding of ammunition, weapons stockpiling, and
paramilitary training activities among rightwing extremists.
(U//FOUO) Open source reporting of wartime ammunition shortages has likely spurred
rightwing extremists—as well as law-abiding Americans—to make bulk purchases of
ammunition. These shortages have increased the cost of ammunition, further
exacerbating rightwing extremist paranoia and leading to further stockpiling activity.
Both rightwing extremists and law-abiding citizens share a belief that rising crime rates
attributed to a slumping economy make the purchase of legitimate firearms a wise move
at this time.
(U//FOUO) Weapons rights and gun-control legislation are likely to be hotly contested
subjects of political debate in light of the 2008 Supreme Court’s decision in District of
Columbia v. Heller in which the Court reaffirmed an individual’s right to keep and bear
arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but left open to debate the
precise contours of that right. Because debates over constitutional rights are intense, and
parties on all sides have deeply held, sincere, but vastly divergent beliefs, violent
extremists may attempt to co-opt the debate and use the controversy as a radicalization
tool.
(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.
— (U//FOUO) Fear of Communist regimes and related conspiracy theories
characterizing the U.S. Government’s role as either complicit in a foreign
invasion or acquiescing as part of a “One World Government” plan inspired
extremist members of the militia movement to target government and military
facilities in past years.
— (U//FOUO) Law enforcement in 1996 arrested three rightwing militia members
in Battle Creek, Michigan with pipe bombs, automatic weapons, and military
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 7 of 9
(U//FOUO) Lone Wolves and Small Terrorist Cells
(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing
extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States. Information
from law enforcement and nongovernmental organizations indicates lone wolves and small terrorist
cells have shown intent—and, in some cases, the capability—to commit violent acts.
— (U//LES) DHS/I&A has concluded that white supremacist lone wolves pose the most
significant domestic terrorist threat because of their low profile and autonomy—separate from
any formalized group—which hampers warning efforts.
— (U//FOUO) Similarly, recent state and municipal law enforcement reporting has warned of the
dangers of rightwing extremists embracing the tactics of “leaderless resistance” and of lone
wolves carrying out acts of violence.
— (U//FOUO) Arrests in the past several years of radical militia members in Alabama, Arkansas,
and Pennsylvania on firearms, explosives, and other related violations indicates the emergence
of small, well-armed extremist groups in some rural areas.
ordnance that they planned to use in attacks on nearby military and federal
facilities and infrastructure targets.
— (U//FOUO) Rightwing extremist views bemoan the decline of U.S. stature and
have recently focused on themes such as the loss of U.S. manufacturing capability
to China and India, Russia’s control of energy resources and use of these to
pressure other countries, and China’s investment in U.S. real estate and
corporations as a part of subversion strategy.
(U) Disgruntled Military Veterans
(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and
radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from
military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the
capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out
violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist
groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from
the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.
— (U) After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military
veterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwing
extremist groups.
— (U) 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.”
— (U//LES) The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement
that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have
joined extremist groups.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 8 of 9
(U) Outlook
(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that the combination of environmental factors that echo
the 1990s, including heightened interest in legislation for tighter firearms restrictions and
returning military veterans, as well as several new trends, including an uncertain
economy and a perceived rising influence of other countries, may be invigorating
rightwing extremist activity, specifically the white supremacist and militia movements.
To the extent that these factors persist, rightwing extremism is likely to grow in strength.
(U//FOUO) Unlike the earlier period, the advent of the Internet and other informationage
technologies since the 1990s has given domestic extremists greater access to
information related to bomb-making, weapons training, and tactics, as well as targeting of
individuals, organizations, and facilities, potentially making extremist individuals and
groups more dangerous and the consequences of their violence more severe. New
technologies also permit domestic extremists to send and receive encrypted
communications and to network with other extremists throughout the country and abroad,
making it much more difficult for law enforcement to deter, prevent, or preempt a violent
extremist attack.
(U//FOUO) A number of law enforcement actions and external factors were effective in
limiting the militia movement during the 1990s and could be utilized in today’s climate.
— (U//FOUO) Following the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal
building in Oklahoma City, the militia movement declined in total membership
and in the number of organized groups because many members distanced
themselves from the movement as a result of the intense scrutiny militias received
after the bombing.
— (U//FOUO) Militia membership continued to decline after the turn of the
millennium as a result of law enforcement disruptions of multiple terrorist plots
linked to violent rightwing extremists, new legislation banning paramilitary
training, and militia frustration that the “revolution” never materialized.
— (U//FOUO) Although the U.S. economy experienced a significant recovery and
many perceived a concomitant rise in U.S. standing in the world, white
supremacist groups continued to experience slight growth.
(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A will be working with its state and local partners over the next
several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in rightwing
extremist activity in the United States, with a particular emphasis on the political,
economic, and social factors that drive rightwing extremist radicalization.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 9 of 9
(U) Reporting Notice:
(U) DHS encourages recipients of this document to report information concerning suspicious or criminal
activity to DHS and the FBI. The DHS National Operations Center (NOC) can be reached by telephone at
202-282-9685 or by e-mail at NOC.Fusion@dhs.gov. For information affecting the private sector and
critical infrastructure, contact the National Infrastructure Coordinating Center (NICC), a sub-element of the
NOC. The NICC can be reached by telephone at 202-282-9201 or by e-mail at NICC@dhs.gov. The FBI
regional phone numbers can be found online at http://www.fbi.gov/contact/fo/fo.htm. When available,
each report submitted should include the date, time, location, type of activity, number of people and type of
equipment used for the activity, the name of the submitting company or organization, and a designated
point of contact.
(U) For comments or questions related to the content or dissemination of this document, please contact the
DHS/I&A Production Branch at IA.PM@hq.dhs.gov, IA.PM@dhs.sgov.gov, or IA.PM@dhs.ic.gov.
(U) Tracked by: CRIM-040300-01-05, CRIM-040400-01-05, TERR-010000-01-05

Political Bashing ... The Never Ending Saga!

noreply@blogger.com (Blog Friend) — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 23:11:00 +0000

Regarding a DCCC.org post with the normal D vs R rhetoric. Of course there were lots of proD moderator approved comments. Here is my summation of how both sides suck ;-)

link: http://dccc.org/blog/archives/bachmann_i_want_peoplearmed_and_dangerous_on_this_issue/

Funny how both sides like to twist things so far in their direction that everybody starts to sound like an idiot.

Obama is more socialist/marxist than American in direction.
(requiring bank participation in order to allow government control is an obvious start)

Regarding her comments on Thomas Jefferson: Yes, when the government starts assuming power that it was never given, they probably do leave the people no option other than what Thomas Jefferson mentions.

She's no more over the top than whoever wrote this email and sent it out. If both sides were concerned with the well being of our country instead of pushing agendas and indoctrinating their audiences, the country, as a whole, would probably get something done.

When will the Democrats and Republicans stop petty fighting over made up issues? Probably when their leaders stop taking orders from the people that give them money and marching orders.

When somebody asks if you are Democrat or Republican, if you would say D or R, just replace admit that you're sheeple that do whatever the guy with "your letter" tell you.

Are FEMA Camps built to hold "True Americans" (patriots or terrorists)

noreply@blogger.com (Blog Friend) — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 16:14:00 +0000

One of the common questions in these uncertain times happens to revolve around the FEMA camps. In short, these are facilities designed to securely hold between 20,000 and 40,000 people.

Those that are aware of these facilities call them "concentration camps". This is primarily because they are guarded and designed to keep people inside rather than to keep people out. A video tour of a facility reminds one of doomsday movies where zombies are running rampant and the powers that be are quarantining people that may be infected with some virus.

Beyond the first impressions, the theory behind the camps is scary to those that do not trust the government and are worried that their Constitutional rights are hanging by a thread. While we do not know how those in power would actually use these facilities, we do know that they "can" do things that would normally be considered unheard of in the United States of America.

Unfortunately, we did see armed US military forces in New Orleans stripping people of their weapons, taking over buildings, and entering privately occupied homes with assault weapons drawn on law abiding citizens. We also saw troops patrolling the streets, that when interviewed, said they would much rather be patrolling in a foreign country as they had no stomach for shooting Americans in an American city.

In short, we don't know what the "plan" is. However, we do know that military forces can and have been placed in our own country with our own citizens as the target of their missions. The government is being trusted to have the best interest of the people at heart. Hopefully talking about it in a blog like this doesn't earn you a place on their list. With a 40,000 person capacity, the government would have to be selective about who was "chosen" to live in one of these facilities.

Among the unfortunate happenings in our current time, we have Obama enacting "change" that does little more than continue in the steps of Bush while devaluing our economy and destroying the hopes of our children. These are the things that make us fear the indoctrination that created mindless Obama supporters that are too blind to see that he's identical to the guy they hated and could not wait vote out of office.

Who Really Rules The World?

noreply@blogger.com (Blog Friend) — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 18:47:00 +0000

I've run into this question a number of times since the start of the 2008 Election hype. Before Obama skyrocketed on to the scene, my assumption was that Hillary was going to be the next president. This assumption dated back to when GWB became president in 2000. Although it was expected that a Democrat would be president by the time he finished his two terms, I had fully expected that Democrat would be Hillary. Leave it to Obama to make me look like an idiot. :-)

Enough digression. As with any crime, you need means, motive, and opportunity to direct politics. In order to begin understanding who "really" runs our government (kinda have to know before you can figure out who runs the entire world.), one needs to take a look at our policy, economy, and demographics to begin creating a framework to identify what forces are in play.

"Follow the money" is often a good rule of thumb. However, this does not account for the opportunistic nature of humanity. As such, we have to assume that not everybody that is profiting from a specific program or policy is the creator of that program or policy. As people, we have the ability to work within the bounds of a system, find loopholes, and exploit them for profit. Given that, there will always be people capable of profiting from a situation even if there was no conspiracy on their part to create that situation.

So, back to the matter and hand. In order to begin to understand who runs things, we have to find a verifiable trend over a large time period. Of course, the most obvious would be the banking industry that allegedly tricked our politician into setting up the fed in the early 1900s. While the FED itself doesn't run the country, it is often considered a tool (or secondary organization) for influencing the will of those that do run things.

Of course we're assuming that something is happening "behind the scenes" to dictate policy and that the people dictating that policy are not those that have been elected by the people.

Since I'm not connected to these groups, I cannot definitively say what goes on behind closed doors. However, I will leave links to some information about the various groups assumed to have varying degrees of policy making power for our government.

Bilderberg Group
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group
Bohemian Grove
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian_Grove
Pacific Union Club
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific-Union_Club

It's interesting to read. Of course there are references to Masons and Illuminati to be found, but at least the above referenced groups have had verifiable meetings during the time period in question.

Happy reading!