Federal Lawsuit, Senators Demand Answers from DHS; Levin Responds
In reaction to the Department of Homeland Security’s recent threat analysis, the Ann Arbor, Michigan-based Thomas Moore Law Center announced that it had filed a federal lawsuit in US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against DHS on behalf of 3 Plaintiffs:
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host, Michael Savage, Gregg Cunningham (President of the pro-life organization Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc (CBR)), and Iraqi War Marine veteran Kevin Murray. The Law Center claims that Napolitano’s Department (DHS) has violated the First and Fifth Amendment Constitutional rights of these three plaintiffs by attempting to chill their free speech, expressive association, and equal protection rights. The lawsuit further claims that the Department of Homeland Security encourages law enforcement officers throughout the nation to target and report citizens to federal officials as suspicious rightwing extremists and potential terrorists because of their political beliefs.
The Law Center stated the following as the basis for their suit:
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center stated, “Janet Napolitano is lying to the American people when she says the Report is not based on ideology or political beliefs. In fact, her report would have the admiration of the Gestapo and any current or past dictator in the way it targets political opponents. This incompetently written intelligence assessment, which directs law enforcement officials across the country to target and report on American citizens who have the political beliefs mentioned in the report, will be used as a tool to stifle political opposition and opinions. It will give a pretext for opponents of those Americans to report them to police as rightwing extremists and terrorists. You can imagine what happens then.”
The Report specifically mentions the following political beliefs that law enforcement should use to determine whether someone is a “rightwing extremist”:
- 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
- . . . and the list goes on
…
The Law Center is asking the court to declare that the DHS policy violates the First and Fifth Amendments, to permanently enjoin the Policy and its application to the plaintiffs’ speech and other activities, and to award the plaintiffs their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for having to bring the lawsuit.
The complaint can be found here.
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano released a statement following up on the report. The following except is quite telling in what it doesn’t say:
Let me be very clear: we monitor the risks of violent extremism taking root here in the United States. We don’t have the luxury of focusing our efforts on one group; we must protect the country from terrorism whether foreign or homegrown, and regardless of the ideology that motivates its violence.
We are on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not – nor will we ever – monitor ideology or political beliefs. We take seriously our responsibility to protect the civil rights and liberties of the American people, including subjecting our activities to rigorous oversight from numerous internal and external sources. [emphasis mine]
One must admit that this is a bit of a politicat canard, as DHS isn’t in the business of doing the actual monitoring of activities; that’s left up to other agencies, such as the FBI, CIA, etc. who all happen to have a hand in the DHS. Therefore, of course DHS doesn’t do any actual monitoring. Rather, they take data that has been collected by other agencies and analyze that data.
In fact, Pamela Gellar at AtlasShrugs makes the point quite clearly (of course, in relation to the tea parties):
Md. Guard Issues Warning to Staff about Local TEA Party Protestors Southern Maryland (hat tip Randall)CALLAWAY, Md. (April 15, 2009) - A document issued by the Maryland National Guard on April 9 warns full-time Guard personnel to be aware of threats from local citizens protesting income taxes during grass roots events known as TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Parties -- one of which was held on Solomons Island March 22. The Guard document, “Planned TEA Party Protests (FPCON Advisory 09-004),” was believed to have first been revealed by a blog called The Jawa Report. A call today to Col. Kohler, Md. National Guard Public Affairs in Baltimore, confirmed the authenticity of the document. The document was officially classified as UNCLASSIFIED/FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (U/FOUO). (The document appears in its entirety at the bottom of this article)
The Guard document describes the TEA Party protests as a movement. “Numerous entities have formed recently to express displeasure/anger over recent federal/state government actions: more taxes, increased spending, higher deficits, a surge of borrowing to pay for it all, bailout of the financial institutions,” stated the document under the heading of SITUATION.
The document appears to treat protestors as potential terrorists. The Point of Contact is identified as “Antiterrorism Program Coordinator” and provides a redacted army.mil email address.
The verbiage in the document advises Guard personnel to prepare for the worst. “Commanders are encouraged to update alert rosters and review emergency evacuation plans/rally points. Ensure all facilities have emergency phone lists posted (i.e. FBI, FIRE, POLICE, HOSPITALS, EMS, ETC…). Be aware of and avoid local protests.”
Despite the alarmist warnings in the document, the lead paragraph states, “there is no known direct threat to MDNG facilities and MDNG members, they may become a target of opportunity during plan protest activities throughout Maryland.”
The Guard document follows closely on the heels of a Dept. of Homeland Security document, released on April 7 that profiles American citizens who are concerned about gun rights and the “current economic and political climate” as potential rightwing extremists and domestic terrorists. The document is titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” and was recently profiled in a Washington Times article.
Yet another Homeland Security document from the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC), leaked to the press in March, profiles vocal supporters of Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin as potential domestic terrorists. The so-called MIAC document also cautions police to be aware of citizens carrying a copy of the U.S. Constitution, labeling the document as “political paraphernalia.”
Ron Miller, a prominent Republican from Calvert County who ran against Rep. Steny Hoyer in 2006, and one of the organizers of the TEA Party protests in Maryland, told somd.com that the revelation of the Md. Guard’s document was “kind of timely” given the discovery of the aforementioned Homeland Security document.
Miller said he had received reports from unknown sources that some individuals opposed to the TEA Party message might try to insert themselves into the protests to discredit the initiative. However, nothing happened at any event, to Miller’s knowledge, that supported the reports.
Miller was on the way home from today’s TEA Party protest in Annapolis when we spoke to him. The Annapolis event was specifically mentioned in the Guard document.
Miller said he estimated there were 2500 people at the event he attended. “There were no problems that we could determine,” said Miller. “Given the weather, it went very well.”
Protests were also scheduled today for Baltimore, Bel Air, Cecil County, Frederick, Cumberland, Havre de Grace, Salisbury, Westminster, and Washington, DC.
[...]RELATED INFORMATION:
Anti-Tax Protest Draws Hundreds on Solomons, April 1, 2009
HEADQUARTERS, MARYLAND ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
13620 Meuse Argonne Circle
Camp Fretterd Military Reservation
Reisterstown, Maryland 21136JFHQ-MDARNG-G3 9 April 2009
MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION
SUBJECT: Planned TEA Party Protests (FPCON Advisory 09-004)
1. (U) This Maryland Army National Guard (MDARNG) Force Protection advisory is in response to a nationwide planned protest activities scheduled for April 15, 2009. Although there is no known direct threat to MDNG facilities and MDNG members, they may become a target of opportunity during plan protest activities throughout Maryland.
2. (U) FORCE PROTECTION CONDITIONS.
a. (U) USNORTHCOM FPCON baseline for the continental United States, Alaska, and Canada remains unchanged at ALPHA.
b. (U) MDARNG is not recommending a FPCON baseline change at this time.
3. (U//FOUO) SITUATION: Numerous entities have formed recently to express displeasure/anger over recent federal/state government actions: more taxes, increased spending, higher deficits, a surge of borrowing to pay for it all, bailout of the financial institutions, and etc. This movement can be identified by different variations of “TEA Party” or “Tea Party.” Past “TEA Party” events have been peaceful. There was a “Tea party” event at Solomons, Maryland, on March 22, 2009. “TEA” stands for “Taxed Enough Already.”
4. (U) KNOWN LOCATIONS AND EVENTS: According various websites and open source information, planned protest locations and time on April 15 in Maryland are:
*Annapolis, 12:00 pm -- 2:00 pm, Campbell Park (Dock/Boardwalk), Annapolis Harbor
*Baltimore, 3:00 pm -- 5:00 pm, The Inner Harbor
*Bel Air, 12:00 pm, Bel Air Courthouse Plaza on Main Street
*Cecil County, 4:00 pm -- 6:00 pm, Elkton Christian Academy, 144 Appleton Road
*Frederick, 3:00 pm, City Hall then march to Winchester Hall
*Cumberland, 12:00 pm, Baltimore and Mechanic Streets
*Havre de Grace, 4:00 pm -- 6:00 pm, Tydings Park Gazebo
*Salisbury, 4:30 pm -- 6:30 pm, Downtown Salisbury
*Westminster, 6:30 pm, Legends Cafe off of Route 140 in Westminster
*Washington DC, 12:00pm-2:00pm, US Treasury Department -- National Stage; 11:00am-3:00pm Lafayette Park -- Grassroots Stage (not MD)
5. (U) FORCE PROTECTION RECOMMENDATIONS:
a. (U) Full-time personnel (i.e. armories) and recruiters need to be aware their surroundings. Contact local law enforcement when feel threaten by protesters or protesters trespass into MDNG property.
b. (U//FOUO) Commanders at all levels should establish relationship with local police in order to understand the local threats. Keep family members informed. Talk to other service personnel to share information. Practice OPSEC. Don’t provide personal information to anyone you don’t know. Avoid high risk areas.
c. (U//FOUO) Commanders are encouraged to update alert rosters and review emergency evacuation plans/rally points. Ensure all facilities have emergency phone lists posted (i.e. FBI, FIRE, POLICE, HOSPITALS, EMS, ETC…). Be aware of and avoid local protests. Report all potential protest activities to your next higher headquarters.
d. (U//FOUO) Continue implementation of RAM and a review of policies and procedures, especially in regards to cooperation or assistance with local emergency responders.
5. POC is Antiterrorism Program Coordinator, –[redacted- at (410) 702-[redacted] or by e-mail [redacted]@us.army.mil
[Redacted LTC author's name]DISTRIBUTION:
ATOs
MSCs CDRs [emphases in posting]
RedState and Michelle Malkin report that 7 GOP Senators submitted a letter to DHS requesting the bases for the report’s claims (PDF):
Dear Secretary Napolitano,
We write today regarding the release of the Department of homeland Security (DHS) report entitled “Rightwing Extremism Current Economic and Policial Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment”and prepared by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch of the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division.
While we agree that extremists of all varieties represent a potential threat to the United States, we are troubled by some of the statements included as fact in the report titled above.
First, your report states 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.” Using the DHS rationale, do you also believe that weapons familiarity and tactical training means local, state, and federal law enforcement personnel, and members of the National Guard, are also being recruited? To suggest that a soldier returning from a combat tour is more prone to join an extremist group is unconscionable and insulting to our brave men and women who risk their lives protecting our freedom.
Second, the report states that the millions of Americans who believe in the Second Amendment are a potential threat to our national security. Why? Do you have statistics to prove that the law-abiding Americans who purchase a legal product are being recruited by so-called hate groups? If so, please present us with DHS’s independent data.
Third, the report identifies those individuals who believe in such issues as pro-life legislation, limited government, legal versus illegal immigration and limited federal government as potential terrorist threats. We can assure you that these beliefs are held by citizens of all races, party affiliations and sex, and should not be listed as a factor in determining potential terror threats. A better way to describe them is as citizens exercising their First Amendment rights.
Also, you listed those who bemoan the decline of U.S. stature and the loss of U.S. manufacturing capability to China and India as being potential rightwing extremists. We would suggest that the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs in the manufacturing industry to foreign countries are no potential terror threats, but rather, honest Americans worried about feeding their families and earning a paycheck. Once again, to classify Americans who have lost their jobs as potential terror threats does a disservice to millions of Americans.
In closing, we support the mission of the DHS in protecting our country from terror attacks and are proud of the many DHS employees who make it possible, in conjunction with our state and local law enforcement. We ask that DHS not use this report as a basis to unfairly target millions of Americans because of their beliefs and the rights afforded to them in the Constitution, and that you provide us with the data that supports the claims listed in the report titled above.
Sincerely,
David Vitter (R, Louis.)
Sam Brownback (R, Kansas)
Jim Demint (R, So Car.)
Tom Cobrun (R, Oklahoma)
Richard Burr (R, No. Car.)
Lisa Murkowski (R, Alaska)
James Inhofe (R, Oklahoma)
Nevertheless, another poster at RedState thinks that “Vitter, DeMint, et al: time to go Patrick Henry on Obama’s assault on conservatives.”
In fact, the report even got FoxNews’ Judge Andrew Napolitano in an uproar.
As HotAir.com notes, what’s really interesting is that civil liberties lawyers’ warnings were apparently ignored in the rush to release the report:
The DHS pushed its report out on right-wingers in one hell of a hurry, according tothe AP. Internal reviews of the document showed concerns over potential civil-liberties violations before its publication, but DHS ignored them in order to quickly make the document public. What was the rush?
Civil liberties officials at the Homeland Security Department flagged language in a controversial report on right-wing extremists, but the agency issued the report anyway. …
Homeland Security spokeswoman Amy Kudwa said the report was issued before officials resolved problems raised by the agency’s civil rights division about analysts’ definition of right-wing extremism.
In a footnote in the report, right-wing extremism was defined as hate-motivated groups and movements, such as hatred of certain religions, racial or ethnic groups. It went on to say, “It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”
This answers the rather absurd meme that has popped up on liberal blogs, that the Bush administration is responsible for this report. First, while the Bush administration might have wanted an assessment of right-wing extremist threats, it didn’t necessarily want one that painted returning veterans and conservative thought on abortion, illegal immigration, and federalism as extremist threats, nor did it want a threat assessment that couldn’t find a threat and had no data on actual, specific groups. Secondly, and most obviously, this report was dated April 7, 2009, almost 3 months after Bush left office. [emphasis original]
Update: Talk show host Mark Levin also promises to sue if DHS starts coming after conservatives (thanks, RovingPatrol):
This thing isn’t over by a long shot, folks, especially in light of the anecdotal evidence that seems to point to the President not only being aware of the tea parties happening (and remember that if there were only, say, 500 parties around the nation and they all averaged 500 attendees a pop, that’s still 250,000 based on that very conservative calculation; besides, if these things weren’t that big of a deal, why would even CNN stoop to the level of performing a journalistic hit job?) but likely rushed this report out in order to divert attention from the goings-on.
As I said in my previous DHS posting, never trust the government any more than that government trusts you.
-Phil
We need more people like Paul Harvey to get the rest of the story. Many people speak out like these senators did but we never hear the rest of the story because they go back in their closets once they get their political base satisfied with hope. Political BS is all it turns out to be.
The same thing has happened with the BC issue and it goes on and on.
Leftwing Extremists should be Waterboarded
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46949
earl said:
I have moved past no such thing. The man is a criminal and a usurper. He can be both and is both.
Perhaps you should stop trying to defend your liberal ways or your party and open your eyes to the bigger picture. If we continue down this path there won’t be an election in 8 years, let alone 4. Look around you and tell me things will be alright. I can tell you with full disgust that people continue to bicker in their partisan ways. Meanwhile our livelihood is disappearing under what’s called the “Fourth Turning”. Argue all you want. It is here and it will destroy our nation.
Please assure us our Constitution is being upheld and won’t be burned before 2010. Tell my neighbors their jobs will be saved. You can’t and you won’t because you have let your political agenda get in the way of your understanding of why people are truly destitute here. It’s definitely not sour grapes waiting in the unemployment line while your ineligible criminal usurper in chief galavants around the world instead of state-to-state helping the people he promised he would take care of. Where are you Mr. Soetoro, the savior?
This administration marks the end of the Republic. If you can’t see what’s going on perhaps you should review recent history on Argentina and other republics that have gone the way of the do-do in the past 100 years.
Pete says:
April 20, 2009 at 9:19 am
“your response is irrational”
Irrational is believing a convoluted yarn – that requires you to believe in dark of night, cloak and dagger, 47 year old subterfuge and a cast of hundreds to pull off – is going to get a President removed from office.
JeffM says:
“this election was ridden with corruption at a massive scale. Money talks and the highest bidder won the presidential seat.”
Well, good, at least you’ve moved past ” he’s just not eligible, and we’re defending the Constitution” to the more mundane ” he stole the election.” Whatever gets you through the next 8 years.
Earl says
“Certainly policies and laws that try to cleverly circumvent the 4th and 5th amendment are the threat to the Constitution, while the notion that Obama is not eligible to be President is a Fairy Tale. He IS the democratically elected President of the United States. He will be for at least 4 years and likely 8. You had a chance to elect someone else in November. Sorry, you don’t like him, but most of America does. Work harder to get your guy elected next time. In the meantime, put your energy into something real, like changing the PA, instead of carrying on with this eligibility foolishness.”
I answered your question without insult, and without being critical. You have response is irrational, and promotes mob rule. Using only the laws that benefit yourself is smacks of fascism. Earl, I’m sorry that you have chosen Party and POTUS, you should have picked Country and Constitution.
Quoted from Phil’s post: Reports to Congress on militia, 1789-1819
“What does clearly emerge is the total absence of any consideration of restricting firearms possession or use, other than for training purposes. The focus was on arming, organizing, and training citizens. If some could not afford to purchase weapons, there was discussion of paying for weapons from tax funds to be given to them. It is also clear that the weapons were to be the state of the art in military equipment.”
I wonder if the stimulous money is buying weapons for the ones that can’t afford to buy them?
The DHS has to answer to many, many people for their harsh words including our military. I wonder if this is a cover for something else? Maybe it was a distraction for the TEA parties???
Earl Said:
Sorry, but the framers never intended a democratically elected President. Hence the Electoral College.
They knew then people were easily fooled by smoke and mirrors. Mob rule was never intended, and it is clear this election was ridden with corruption at a massive scale. Money talks and the highest bidder won the presidential seat.
The Jihad Prez..allows hate America-marinated Palestinian (HAMAS) refugees to immigrate to US on your dime.
What is wrong with this picture?
Pete says:
“which is a greater threat to the Constitution?”
Certainly policies and laws that try to cleverly circumvent the 4th and 5th amendment are the threat to the Constitution, while the notion that Obama is not eligible to be President is a Fairy Tale. He IS the democratically elected President of the United States. He will be for at least 4 years and likely 8. You had a chance to elect someone else in November. Sorry, you don’t like him, but most of America does. Work harder to get your guy elected next time. In the meantime, put your energy into something real, like changing the PA, instead of carrying on with this eligibility foolishness.
We the people of the United States have to put and end to the Federal Reserve and the Bilderberg Society before we can rid our country of Obama. He is their puppet and will do what he is told in order for them to rob and steal everything we own.
Michael Savage is a highly intellagent man and what he has done by bringing this lawsuit is just the beginning – and each one of us has to continue to stand up for our country. It seems that people like you Phil with this site along with other conservative websites and fox-are all we can count on to tear down the Bankers from completely destroying our country.
I pray that we are not to late.
Pete,
Excellent comment.
-Phil
Phil,
I care about what the previous “Bush” government did just like I care about the current situation. What we must all realize is that the Federation of the United Socialist Union of States (FUSUS) has overtaken the Constitution and the USA over the past 20 years.
This usurping nonsense of a “government” continues to reveal the threat of big government that includes Republican and Democrat entities along with Socialists and Communists.
Adding all this together identifies a bigger issue: Our Constitution has been hijacked by a terrorist government. It is now time to reclaim our rights to remove this threat under Amendment X and the Bill of Rights, and pull the government back to center where it belongs.
“Earl says”
“Pete, I just have to ask, where have all you been since the Patriot Act was first written, passed, then amended, then extended, then renewed? Liberals have been concerned about what DHS, NSA, et al are doing under the guise of “protecting the homeland” for almost 8 years”
This is a fair question. So I will answer it. I don’t like the Patriot act, never have. Historically, FDR imprisoned US citizens during WWII for fear of sabotage. This was politically and legally questionable at the time, and most consider it a dark moment in US history. Bush, did essentially the same thing with pushing through the patriot act. Both FDR and Bush were wrong here, I believe that both knew that they would pay a political penalty, and they both did ultimately. I also strongly believe that both leaders believed they acted to protect the United States and the greater good, no matter how misguided. I have sympathy for those who make decisions that are politically unpopular for the good of the United States, while reserving the right to disagree strongly with the decisions. I don’t like the Patriot Act as it pertains to US citizens. That being said, non-citizens should NOT be protected by the Constitution.
I have NO sympathy for those POTUS that have abused the law for political or personal gain, such as Nixon and Clinton. The others may be errors, but this is just unacceptable.
Finally, the question shouldn’t be “where were you then?” but should be “how do you feel about the current POTUS hiding his records and investigating his political opponents for personal gain?” You have to look inside your soul and ask if Obama’s administration DHS decision is for security of the United States, or his own security. Then ask yourself who is swearing allegiance to the United States and the Constitution, and who is swearing it to Obama?
I believe Bush was wrong, but did so for the right reason…I believe Obama is wrong and doing so for the wrong reasons. They are both dangerous, but which is a greater threat to the Constitution?
I don’t really care about holding hands and singing, “Kum-ba-ya” over these kinds of things. What’s wrong is wrong, regardless of who’s in power.
************************************************************************************
Everyone—-Go to http://www.americasright.com to weigh in on a caption for BO’s handshake with Chavez….pretty funny to say the least…..here’s mine…………..
“Yo Bro……guess you were right when you said I was a “poor ignoramus”…why else would I be shaking your hand!!!!”
earl,
I don’t really care about holding hands and singing, “Kum-ba-ya” over these kinds of things. What’s wrong is wrong, regardless of who’s in power.
-Phil
earl,
This is a complete canard (my favorite word this weekend) because of the fact that sites like mine have only existed since October 24, 2008.
Not only this, but I don’t really care what any previous President did regarding this particular issue, as we are doing with what this President is doing at this time. I realize folks like you want to provide an opposing context to the situation, but let’s keep the main point the main point. Sorry if you don’t like Bush (presumably) but do like Obama (presumably); what’s wrong is still wrong.
-Phil
Phil says:
left and upholding the constitution.
The left has been gnawing on the upholding of our 1st, 4th and 5th amendment rights since the day the Patriot Act first came up. Truly, I am glad to see you guys getting interested too. However, if “upholding the constitution” is the buzz phrase for trying to eject the democratically elected President, no, we’ll never be for that. But we certainly don’t call for anyone to spy on you without probable cause even though we disagree with you.
Perhaps you understand now why we were so incensed every time we’d hear the likes of Ari Fleischer and all the other right wing mouthpieces saying: ” What are you worried about if you’re not doing anything wrong?” (sorry, I’ve repeated that about 3 times, you can see now why it sticks in the craw)
Pete says:
“even the Obots must be uneasy”
See my post below. Pete, I just have to ask, where have all you been since the Patriot Act was first written, passed, then amended, then extended, then renewed? Liberals have been concerned about what DHS, NSA, et al are doing under the guise of “protecting the homeland” for almost 8 years. When we were asking about the Bush Admin’s intent regarding 1st, 5th and particularly 4th amendment rights with all this snooping power, conservatives were saying over and over and over: ” What are you worried about if you aren’t doing anything wrong.” I am happy to see the right jump into this one because it affects all of us whether we’re doing something wrong or not.
Now if the problem is conservatives are offended that Homeland would even think they are a threat, too bad, I have no sympathy.
Phil,
Thanks for the link. Excellent historical data.
Obamahadinejihad sentences right wing extremist to 8 years
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/04/18/iran.us.journalist/index.html
JeffM,
I wanted to make note of the fact that this statement is a part of the individual’s 2nd Amendment right, as further explained here:
Reports to Congress on militia, 1789-1819
-Phil
Pete,
It simply goes to show that there’s plenty of hypocrisy on both sides of the issue. When one political party is in power in the Executive, then, naturally, those adherents will tend to remain more silent (as you’ve observed, basically indirectly supporting) about the stances of that given Administration.
Further, it also goes to show that many on the left simply don’t see a big deal with upholding the Constitution unless, of course, such controversy affects them personally. While the same could be said for the right, the truly “right side” is to always be outspoken whenever anyone in a governmental capacity decides to effectively say that certain folks “should” be seriously questioned, simply because “their” actions “might” (don’t you just love that loophole? “Might.” “Could.” “You never, never know!” The same argument against common law grand juries, too) break a law.
Heck, we’re all human, therefore we’re all liable to break laws. So, one would think that “everyone” should be watched “just in case.”
Never trust the government any more than the government trusts you.
-Phil
Soetoro and his goons are going down in a fiery ball of legal turmoil.
The giant has awoken. It is irritated beyond irritation. And it’s armed to the teeth ready to defend itself. Interesting times indeed.
While I am somewhat encouraged that the following United States Senators have sent the above-mentioned letter to DHS, I am more than disappointed in their closing of the letter, which states,
“In closing, we support the mission of the DHS in protecting our country from terror attacks and are proud of the many DHS employees who make it possible, in conjunction with our state and local law enforcement. We ask that DHS not use this report as a basis to unfairly target millions of Americans because of their beliefs and the rights afforded to them in the Constitution, and that you provide us with the data that supports the claims listed in the report titled above.”
David Vitter (R, Louis.)
Sam Brownback (R, Kansas)
Jim Demint (R, So Car.)
Tom Cobrun (R, Oklahoma)
Richard Burr (R, No. Car.)
Lisa Murkowski (R, Alaska)
James Inhofe (R, Oklahoma)
Do they NOT understand the gravity of Obama’s definition of a “right wing extremist”?
Do they NOT understand that through this report Obama openly admits that he is an enemy of “We the People”?
Do they NOT understand that through this report Obama openly admits that he intends to orchestrate a “crisis” through which he will set himself up as a dictator?
Where is the outrage from these Senators?
Is Gov. Perry of Texas the only politician in America that is willing to stand up to Obamahmadinejihad?
Is anyone in the mainstream media willing to ask politically incorrect questions?
If “We the People” remain silent, we are complicit in the coup that is taking place at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue…
Does upholding the United States Constitution mean anything to our military officers?
WWJWD: What would John Wayne do?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3AX4nw6JDg&feature=related
Phil,
This has been up since last night, and no comments. The lack of a comment here is ‘loud’ silence. Consider the following:
1.Virtually everyone is unsatisfied with Congress
2.DHS Report is suggests that administration is more interested in oppressing Americans than protecting them. Even the Obots must be uneasy about this report, and the implications.
Silence is much worse than outrage or debate, either people don’t care or they have given up on normal means to solve problems. The TEA parties forced the media to reveal their bias to the world, opened the eyes of many citizens who thought the networks were reporting the news.
Like conservative folks used to say during the Bush Admin: If you’re not doing anything wrong, what are you worried about?
It is truly rich to see the same concerns that were dismissed by the right when conservatives were in power, raised as a civil liberties crisis now that Obama is President. Can’t wait to hear the right start quoting Ben Franklin about trading off liberty for security. Been there, done that.
When it comes to the Patriot Act and “Homeland” surveillance, it’s your 4th amendment rights you should be worried about. More than happy to see you folks work to straighten it out. But the irony is delicious.
‘bama is trying to rewrite the constitution. Not gonna work reality check. ‘bama is a criminal and is desperate as ever to change this country to make it look like he was the father of this country. The man is now officially a sick psychotic piece of garbage along with his followers. Once again in the spirit of Nathan Hale “give me liberty or give me death”. It is now more obvious than ever that this anti-christ was born in kenya that sorry ass little third world country. Bye bye imposter nobody likes you and it is time to be impeached if you are not goin to follow the law. Change we can live with. I knew this was his objective three years ago. Wake up America or your next step will be worshipping a big bronze statue of this criminal mastermind or get shot in the head. Links to odinga and rezco criminals and the list goes on.
An open letter to Rush Limbaugh:
The United States is now behind enemy lines…
Are you willing to ask the politically incorrect questions?
The American people are entitled to know whether or not Barack Hussein Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981 as an Indonesian citizen, with an Indonesian passport.
The American people are entitled to know whether or not Barack Hussein Obama received grants as a foreign student while attending Occidental College.
The United States Constitution states the following: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President”.
The Supreme Court of the United States in THE VENUS relied upon Vattel’s “Law of Nations” as the authority in determining the citizenship status of a “domicil”.
With regard to Vattel, THE VENUS court specifically stated, “Vattel, …is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says, ‘the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’ ”
The natives, or natural born citizens, “are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
Barack Hussein Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. Thus, even if Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii, he is NOT a “natural born citizen”.
Vattel’s Law of Nations
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
U.S. Supreme Court, THE VENUS, 12 U.S. 253 (1814)
As this question is not only decisive of many claims now depending before this Court, but is also of vast importance to our merchants generally, I may be excused for stating, at some length, the reasons on which my opinion is founded.
The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject, rests on the law of nations as its base. It is, therefore, of some importance to enquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character, or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
Vattel, …is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says, ‘the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.’ ‘The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state, while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants
[Page 12 U.S. 253, 290]
them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws, or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages.’ ‘The domicil is the habitation fixed in any place, with an intention of always staying there. A man does not, then, establish his domicil in any place, unless he makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. However, this declaration is no reason why, if he afterwards changes his mind, he may not remove his domicil elsewhere. In this sense, he who stops, even for a long time, in a place, for the management of his affairs, has only a simple habitation there, but has no domicil.’
A domicil, then, in the sense in which this term is used by Vattel, requires not only actual residence in a foreign country, but ‘an intention of always staying there.’ Actual residence without this intention, amounts to no more than ’simple habitation.’
Although this intention may be implied without being expressed, it ought not, I think, to be implied, to the injury of the individual, from acts entirely equivocal. If the stranger has not the power of making his residence perpetual, if circumstances, after his arrival in a country, so change, as to make his continuance there disadvantageous to himself, and his power to continue, doubtful; ‘an intention always to stay there’ ought not, I think, to be fixed upon him, in consequence of an unexplained residence previous to that change of circumstances. Mere residence, under particular circumstances, would seem to me, at most, to prove only an intention to remain so long as those circumstances continue the same, or equally advantageous. This does not give a domicil. The intention which gives a domicil is an unconditional intention ‘to stay always.’
I think that Ms. Napolitano should
1. concentrate her efforts on the radical Islamic terrorist training camps that have been established throughout our Country and not the good American citizens she refers to as right wing extremists and terrorists. These radical Islamic camps are drawing from the impoverished youth of our inner cities and the penal system, which has been grossly influenced by Islam.
2. provide protection to the USA border from illegal entry by establishing a permanent defense to include military presence, along with electrical fences, moats, sentry animals.
And, finally, refer to the words of a notable BO cabinet member:
“I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic.
We should stand up and say, we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.”
Hillary Clinton
April 29, 2003
Thanks, Lovey in Las Vegas, NV and God bless America!