Terror Alert: HR 1505!

By: Syver Alton Larsen and MJ

Voting on HR 1505, the inspiration of Rob Bishop of Utah, is ominously imminent. The simply stated purpose of the bill is to allow Border Patrol agents to access public lands in the interest of securing the border. In actuality, HR 1505 wipes out our Constitution, overrides the jurisdiction of other agencies, negates over one hundred years of law and policy, infringes on state’s rights… without congressional oversight and without recourse.

As Chuck Baldwin inscribes:

“Let’s first acknowledge that the federal government has absolutely no natural right or constitutional jurisdiction to claim (much less seize) land and territory outside of the District of Columbia. In many of the western states of the US, for example, the vast majority of land in any given State is now regarded as “federal” land. Ask yourself, where is the constitutional authorization for this federal land grab? When did the various State legislatures vote to give these properties to the federal government? When did the various State governors sign the State laws giving these properties to the federal government? When did the citizens of the various states vote to give these properties to the federal government? The answer is, nowhere, and they didn’t!”

Please look at the red area below… 80% of the United States is a massive amount of land that will be removed from individual and state authority. It includes ten entire states including Florida and Hawaii!

Map Source

What does HR 1505 do?

One will notice in the text of HR 1505, that it doesn’t seek to alleviate jurisdictional conflict, but rather completely decimate all other authority. Note the word “prohibit.”

• H.R. 1505 (R. Bishop), To prohibit the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from taking action on public lands which impede border security on such lands, and for other purposes. “National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act”

o Press Release – Groups Call for Passage of Republican Legislation to Enhance Border Security on Federal Lands (7/8/2011)

Related Hearing – Subcommittee on National Parks, Forest and Public Lands Legislative Hearing on H.R. 1505 and H.R. 587 (7/8/2011)

“To prohibit the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from taking action on public lands which impede border security on such lands, and for other purposes.”

HR 1505 hands total control to DHS in the interests of ‘border security.’ Here’s a sampling:

“(b) Authorized Activities – The Secretary of Homeland Security shall have immediate access to any public land managed by the Federal Government (including land managed by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture) for purposes of conducting activities that assist in securing the border (including access to maintain and construct roads, construct a fence, use vehicles to patrol, and set up monitoring equipment).”

This states very emphatically that HS can do what they want, not just in violation of authority of other departments, it also gives HS a waiver to violate Congressional statute, which directs the actions of those other departments. An explanation of those waivers is given in section (c), the clarifications.

Please take your time as you read all the laws HR 1505 wipes off the books:

“(c)(2) DESCRIPTION OF LAWS WAIVED – The laws referred to in paragraph (1) are:

• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),
• Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),
• Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.),
• National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.),
• Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.),
• Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.),
• Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq.),
• Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.),
• Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.),
• Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.),
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.),
• Public Law 86-523 (16 U.S.C. 469 et seq.),
• Act of June 8, 1906 (commonly known as the `Antiquities Act of 1906′) (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.),
• Act of August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.),
• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.),
• Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.),
• Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.),
• Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.),
• Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.),
• National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.),
• Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a et seq.),
• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.),
• Subchapter II of chapter 5, and chapter 7, of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the `Administrative Procedure Act’),
• Otay Mountain Wilderness Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-145, 113 Stat. 1711),
• Sections 102(29) and 103 of California Desert Protection Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 410aaa et seq.),
• National Park Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.),
• Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-1 et seq.),
• Sections 401(7), 403, and 404 of the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-625, 92 Stat. 3467),
• Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 1132 note; Public Law 101-628),
• Section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403),
• Act of June 8, 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.),
• Public Law 95-341 (42 U.S.C. 1996),
• Public Law 103-141 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.),
• Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.),
• Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.)

Is this a monumental bill or what? Has there ever been another bill that has sought to remove so many of the laws of our land and seek complete and uncontested jurisdiction for over 80% of our physical territory? From an opinion piece by Scott Nicol:

Would complying with our nation’s laws really prevent CBP (Customs Border Patrol) from securing our borders?

Not according to the Border Patrol.

The irony is that the Border Patrol has not asked for the power to ignore environmental laws, but instead has sent officials to testify against Bishop’s bill in Congress. Last spring, the Government Accountability Office said, “Most agents reported that land management laws have had no effect on Border Patrol’s overall measure of border security.”

Source: http://njtoday.net/2011/11/03/an-environmental-assault-disguised-as-border-security/

Quote:

“Let’s say someone wants to close an access road across land for an oil lease project? Appeal to Homeland Security— no problem. You want a cell phone tap station deep in the boonies? Appeal to Homeland security— no problem. You want a pipeline transfer station and can’t get the appropriate environmental review? Oil supply is a matter of national security. Appeal to the DHS—no problem.

In short, if this bill passes (which it won’t), the laws of the US will apply, until they don’t based on the whims of whatever administration is in the White House. Does that truly sound like ‘small government’ to you?”

Even as amended, the bill allows Department of Homeland Security to build roads, fences, patrol vehicles, install surveillance equipment and deploy tactical infrastructure called “forward operating bases.” The bill waves 36 conservation management laws, including the Fish and Wildlife Act and the National Parks and Recreation Act.

http://www.norehberglandgrab.org/issues_nationalsecurity.html”>Quote:

John Leshy, a University of California-Hastings law professor and a former House committee staffer stated, “under the bill, Homeland Security’s actions would be immune from court review, except for constitutional claims.” The Great Falls Tribune further states, “Supporters of the measure say that’s exactly the point.” See “House measure would expand Homeland Security powers, waive environmental laws,” by John S. Adams, Great Falls Tribune, September 19, 2011.

What are other possible purposes of HR 1505?

In order for us to understand the full implications of HR 1505, one needs only to look at what the highly qualified professional, Dr. Ed Berry wrote in his article “Fatal betrayal: HR 1505.” Dr. Ed Berry described our Department of Homeland Security as a beast with “seven heads.” DHS is seven agencies wrapped into one:

1. TSA—Transportation Security Administration
2. CBP—US Customs and Border Protection
3. CIS—US Citizenship and Immigration Services
4. ICE—US Immigration and Customs Enforcement
5. SS—US Secret Service
6. FEMA—Federal Emergency Management Agency
7. USCG—US Coast Guard

Organizational Chart of the Department of Homeland Security

http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0644.shtm”>

Daily news is constantly referring to the excessive outreach and abuses of DHS, especially that of the Transportation Security Administration. As one can see from the chart above, there are six other “heads” coming from the main body of the DHS. In fiscal year 2011 it was allocated a budget of $98.8 billion and spent, net, $66.4 billion.

If this past year is an indication of the power grab the DHS is attempting, we can logically postulate that they have plans to continue their strangle hold in the following areas:

• DHS will eventually control travel
• DHS will eventually control food
• DHS will eventually control water
• DHS will control the land
• DHS will be building fortresses (underground fuel tanks, horse facilities)
• DHS will serve as Obama’s “civilian national security force that’s just as powerful (as our military) and fully funded”
• DHS will destroy the Tenth Amendment and State Rights
• DHS will enforce UN Agenda 21

So basically, it gives the federal government permission to ignore their own laws on public land.

A reader wrote an interesting observation regarding DHS’s power reach.

I said then that the SFA (Secure Fence Act) was only the beginning of a federal land grab that would not end until the federal government, under DHS / FEMA, had complete authority over the population. We wanted to feel safe from terror and we wanted to control illegal immigration. Well, that’s what happens when we look to the Feds to save us. Please note that the fence turned out to be a complete waste of money. Why? Because it was never about a fence. Though I have no evidence to support my claim, I am confident that part of The Secure Fence Act was to create an intra-governmental conflict between DHS, other federal department that would have to be resolved by further legislation. Enter H.R. 1505. The ultimate goal has always been DHS control over as much land and as many citizens as possible. Bush failed us badly with DHS. He used our fear of terrorism to create a monster in DHS and that monster is now roaming the countryside looking to constitutional rights to stomp on.

H.R. 1505 is the next logical step to the SFA; give DHS control of ‘public’ land. Once we get used to the impact of H.R. 1505, the step will be introduce legislation to redefine ‘public’ land. Imagine a law that expands DHS jurisdiction to include the ‘inspections’ of privately owned but state and/or federally subsidized housing, manufacturing, transportation, communication, utility, warehousing and storage facilities under the ubiquitous ‘security’ label.

Both The Secure Fence Act and H.R. 1505 seek to expand “Operational Control” over federal land. To the Feds, Operational Control is defined as: “the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.”

Instruments of terrorism and other contraband are so broad in scope as to allow the federal government the right to access virtually any property at any time for any reason with or without a search warrant so long as the goal is the prevention of contraband into the U.S. Notice the lack of definitions for instruments of terrorism and contraband.

Also, notice that the DHS definition of extremists include: people who are antagonistic toward the Obama Administration, people who stockpile food, people who oppose illegal immigration, people who oppose global governance, those who oppose the loss of US manufacturing to overseas nations, those who criticize free trade programs and those who consider themselves Patriots!

If DHS has failed to control our southern border, why should we trust them with even more power? To date, DHS has prosecuted three Border Patrol agents for doing their jobs. The Border agents’ sentences were for far greater time than the drug dealers. What makes DHS think that they will do any better on our northern border? DHS has even stopped routine Visa checks on our Canadian border!

What sane United States Citizen would want to give total control of 80% of our country’s territory to an organization that is currently field testing equipment to detect pre-crime? If the DHS is field-testing a thought crime device now, it means this technology is being considered for use. Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST), a US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) programme designed to spot people who are intending to commit a terrorist act, has in the past few months completed its first round of field tests at an undisclosed location in the northeast.

As one reader composed:

The antithesis of U.S. law is the presumption of guilt. Guilt, then, necessarily hinges upon the actual commission or provable conspiracy to commit a criminal act. Even if an individual contemplates a crime but does nothing to carry it out that person is innocent under the law. Who hasn’t considered doing something unwise or illegal but changed their mind after having thought it through? Should they be arrested or surveilled (sic. Surveillanced) based upon the objective speculation of a machine? What psychological conditions produce the physical responses detectable by such a machine? Perhaps anger at a spouse, anxiety of travel to an important, time sensitive event, a wedding, a funeral or injury of a loved one might do it.

This is why lie detector (polygraph) tests are inadmissible as evidence in court. We already treat allegedly innocent people as criminal suspects every time we illegally search travelers at airports on the assumption that treating everyone as a potential terrorist is somehow preferable to proper police work. This mindset probably stems from the failure of said police work to prevent 9/11 and the resulting embarrassment of the various agencies involved. So, rather than correcting their mistakes, they simply oppress everyone.

There is, of course, the underlying agenda of complete social control by those in power. That, ultimately is what we all must resist. This Orwellian approach must be stopped.

From this evidence proving that DHS is experimenting with thought crime detection, we can only see that DHS has big plans for our future. If HR 1505 passes, it would give the seven-headed monster total control of 80% of our country’s land and even more tools to control our liberty, wipe out our Constitution and become an inescapable controlling force in our lives.  Alert: HR1505 is the real terrorist.

What you can do:

Contact your senators and representatives.

Communicate with others the dangers of HR 1505.

Contest the spread of Communism.

Sources:

Rob Bishop

Chuck Baldwin:
HR 1505: GIANT LAND GRAB FOR THE POLICE STATE

Map Source

H.R. 1505

Press Release:
Groups Call for Passage of Republican Legislation to Enhance Border Security on Federal Lands

Scott Nicol:
An Environmental Assault Disguised As Border Security

Quote:
A Leader and A Panderer: Bullock and Rehberg on HR 1505

Amended:
AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 1505
OFFERED BY MR. BISHOP OF UTAH

Quote:
Oppose H.R. 1505, the Rehberg Land Grab

Fatal betrayal: HR 1505

DHS Organizational Chart

In fiscal year 2011 it was allocated a budget of $98.8 billion and spent, net, $66.4 billion.

A reader wrote:
Republican Sponsored H.R. 1505 Would give DHS Police State Powers over 80% of the U.S.

DHS definition of extremists:
Federal agency warns of radicals on right

Those who consider themselves Patriots:
New SPLC Report: “Patriot” Groups, Militias Surge in Number in Past Year

DHS has even stopped routine Visa checks on our Canadian border!
US immigration checks eased on Canadian border

Future Attribute Screening Technology:
Terrorist ‘pre-crime’ detector field tested in United States

As one reader composed:
Terrorist ‘pre-crime’ detector field tested in United States

Contact your senators and representatives.

DOH! Extreme Leftist Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Reveals Democrat Strategy For Budget Bill & Rubio (R_FL) on Not Raising Debt Ceiling

Posted by Jared Law on March 29, 2011 at 10:01pm in Elections, Issues, News, & Politics

• Send Message View Discussions

This is rich, especially coming from such an extreme, radical leftist like Chuck Schumer. Talk about the soot-encrusted pot calling the gleaming, polished-stainless steel kettle (with a solid copper bottom) black!

The fact of the matter is that the Democrats in 'leadership' positions in the U.S. Senate are hardcore, radical leftists. Many who call themselves Communists are just as far left, as Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Frank Lautenberg, and other 'Progressives' in the Democrat party.

It's nice to see what we all know is happening, exposed to the light of day. Those dirty, radical leftists can't hide their scheming to combine against the liberty of the American People forever; thankfully, we have examples to show potential recruits to our cause. Cold, hard evidence which cannot be explained away by the honest and honorable.
--------

On a Senate Call, a Glimpse of Marching Orders

By JENNIFER STEINHAUER | March 29, 2011, 12:30 PM 4:58 p.m. | Updated: Um, senators, ever heard of the mute button?

Moments before a conference call with reporters was scheduled to get underway on Tuesday morning, Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate, apparently unaware that many of the reporters were already on the line, began to instruct his fellow senators on how to talk to reporters about the contentious budget process.

After thanking his colleagues — Barbara Boxer of California, Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, Thomas R. Carper of Delaware and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut — for doing the budget bidding for the Senate Democrats, who are facing off against the House Republicans over how to cut spending for the rest of the fiscal year, Mr. Schumer told them to portray John A. Boehner of Ohio, the speaker of the House, as painted into a box by the Tea Party, and to decry the spending cuts that he wants as extreme. “I always use the word extreme,” Mr. Schumer said. “That is what the caucus instructed me to use this week.”

A minute or two into the talking-points tutorial, though, someone apparently figured out that reporters were listening, and silence fell.

Then the conference call began in earnest, with the Democrats right on message.

“We are urging Mr. Boehner to abandon the extreme right wing,” said Ms. Boxer, urging the House to compromise on the scale of spending cuts and to drop proposed amendments that would deny federal financing for Planned Parenthood and for government agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. Carper continued with the theme, referring to some House Republicans’ “right-wing extremist friends.” Mr. Cardin decried Mr. Boehner’s giving into “extremes of his party.” Mr. Blumenthal closed by speaking of the “relatively small extreme group of ideologues” who are “an anchor” dragging down the budget negotiation process.
How news is made . . .

Update: Later in the day, Mr. Schumer’s spokesman, Brian Fallon, issued this statement about the senator’s remarks: “There’s nothing wrong with reporters overhearing him calling the House Republicans’ [position] extreme, because that’s what it is. He had just given a speech on the Senate floor saying the same thing. The sooner Speaker Boehner abandons the Tea Party’s extreme demands, the sooner there can be a bipartisan deal on the budget.”

--------
CAUGHT: REPORTERS OVERHEAR DEM’S SECRET BUDGET STRATEGY — ‘ALWAYS U...

Posted on March 29, 2011 at 2:21pm by Jonathon M. Seidl
“Um, Senators, ever heard of the mute button?”
That’s how the New York Times — yes the New York Times — begins its story on how Democratic Senators were caught Tuesday morning discussing secret marching orders before a conference call. Apparently, the senators didn’t realize that several of the reporters were already logged into the call and began discussing just how they wanted to verbally paint the GOP, House Speaker John Boehner, and the Tea Party.

The instructions came from the Senate’s No. 3 Democrat, New York’s Charles Schumer. The Times explains his instructions:

After thanking his colleagues — Barbara Boxer of California, Ben Cardin of Maryland, Tom Carper of Delaware and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut — for doing the budget bidding for the Senate Democrats, who are facing off against the House Republicans over how spending for the rest of the fiscal year, Mr. Schumer told them to portray John Boehner of Ohio, the Speaker of the House, as painted into a box by the Tea Party, and to decry the spending cuts that he wants as extreme. “I always use the word extreme,” Mr. Schumer said, “That is what the caucus instructed me to use this week.” [Emphasis added]

Eventually, it seems someone did find that mute button. But Schumer‘s instructions didn’t fall on deaf ears. As soon as the call officially started the senators accomplished their mission:

“We are urging Mr. Boehner to abandon the extreme right wing,” said Ms. Boxer, urging the House to compromise on the scale of spending cuts and to drop proposed amendments that would deny federal financing for Planned Parenthood and for government agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. Carper continued with the theme, referring to some House Republicans’ “right-wing extremist friends.” Mr. Cardin decried Mr. Boehner giving into “extremes of his party.” Mr. Blumenthal closed by speaking of the “relatively small extreme group of ideologues” who are “an anchor” dragging down the budget negotiation process. [Emphasis added]

Sure, this isn‘t we’re-involved-in-a-third-war shocking — securing messaging is a fact of political life. But it is, if nothing else, worth a chuckle. Especially considering the Democrats — possibly oblivious to the gaffe — said exactly what they said they were going to say.

That, folks, is how the political sausage is made.

Why I Won't Vote to Raise the Debt Limit

Everyone in Washington knows how to cut spending. The time to start is now

By MARCO RUBIO

Americans have built the single greatest nation in all of human history. But America's exceptionalism was not preordained. Every generation has had to confront and solve serious challenges and, because they did, each has left the next better off. Until now.

Our generation's greatest challenge is an economy that isn't growing, alongside a national debt that is. If we fail to confront this, our children will be the first Americans ever to inherit a country worse off than the one their parents were given.

Current federal policies make it harder for job creators to start and grow businesses. Taxes on individuals are complicated and set to rise in less than two years. Corporate taxes will soon be the highest in the industrialized world. Federal agencies torment job creators with an endless string of rules and regulations.

On top of all this, we have an unsustainable national debt. Leaders of both parties have grown our government for decades by spending money we didn't have. To pay for it, they borrowed $4 billion a day, leaving us with today's $14 trillion debt. Half of that debt is held by foreign investors, mostly China. And there is no plan to stop. In fact, President Obama's latest budget request spends more than $46 trillion over the next decade. Under this plan, public debt will equal 87% of our economy in less than 10 years. This will scare away job creators and lead to higher taxes, higher interest rates and greater inflation.

Betting on America used to be a sure thing, but job creators see the warning signs that our leaders ignore. Even the world's largest bond fund, PIMCO, recently dumped its holdings of U.S. debt.

We're therefore at a defining moment in American history. In a few weeks, we will once again reach our legal limit for borrowing, the so-called debt ceiling. The president and others want to raise this limit. They say it is the mature, responsible thing to do.

In fact, it's nothing more than putting off the tough decisions until after the next election. We cannot afford to continue waiting. This may be our last chance to force Washington to tackle the central economic issue of our time.

"Raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure." So said then-Sen. Obama in 2006, when he voted against raising the debt ceiling by less than $800 billion to a new limit of $8.965 trillion. As America's debt now approaches its current $14.29 trillion limit, we are witnessing leadership failure of epic proportions.

I will vote to defeat an increase in the debt limit unless it is the last one we ever authorize and is accompanied by a plan for fundamental tax reform, an overhaul of our regulatory structure, a cut to discretionary spending, a balanced-budget amendment, and reforms to save Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

View Full Image

There is still time to accomplish all this. Rep. Dave Camp has already introduced proposals to lower and simplify our tax rates, close loopholes, and make permanent low rates on capital gains and dividends. Even Mr. Obama has endorsed the idea of lowering our corporate tax rate. Sen. Rand Paul, meanwhile, has a bill that would require an up-or-down vote on "major" regulations, those that cost the economy $100 million or more. And the House has already passed a spending plan this year that lowered discretionary spending by $862 billion over 10 years.

Such reductions are important, but nondefense discretionary spending is a mere 19% of the budget. Focusing on this alone would lead to draconian cuts to essential and legitimate programs. To get our debt under control, we must reform and save our entitlement programs.

No changes should be made to Medicare and Social Security for people who are currently in the system, like my mother. But people decades away from retirement, like me, must accept that reforms are necessary if we want Social Security and Medicare to exist at all by the time we are eligible for them.

Finally, instead of simply raising the debt limit, we should reassure job creators by setting a firm statutory cap on our public debt-to-GDP ratio. A comprehensive plan would wind down our debt to sustainable levels of approximately 60% within a decade and no more than half of the economy shortly thereafter. If Congress fails to meet these debt targets, automatic across-the-board spending reductions should be triggered to close the gap. These public debt caps could go in tandem with a Constitutional balanced budget amendment.

Some say we will go into default if we don't increase the debt limit. But if we simply raise it once again, without a real plan to bring spending under control and get our economy growing, America faces the very real danger of a catastrophic economic crisis.

I know that by writing this, I am inviting political attack. When I proposed reforms to Social Security during my campaign, my opponent spent millions on attack ads designed to frighten seniors. But demagoguery is the last refuge of the spineless politician willing to do anything to win the next election.

Whether they admit it or not, everyone in Washington knows how to solve these problems. What is missing is the political will to do it. I ran for the U.S. Senate because I want my children to inherit what I inherited: the greatest nation in human history. It's not too late. The 21st century can also be the American Century. Our people are ready. Now it's time for their leaders to join them.

Mr. Rubio, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Florida.

Related:

Red Ink Rumble | The American Spectator

Terrorism or Tragic Shooting? Analysts Divided on Fort Hood Massacre - Updated

The shooting rampage at Fort Hood that left 13 dead and as many as 38 wounded this week has sparked a debate about whether it was an act of terrorism

It was one of the of the deadliest mass shootings on a U.S. base, but the shooting rampage at Fort Hood that killed 13 and wounded as many as 38 this week has sparked a debate about whether it was an act of terrorism.

The alleged gunman, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a Palestinian-American and an Army psychiatrist, reportedly shouted "Allahu akbar! -- Arabic for "God is great!" when he opened fire. He was seriously wounded by police and is being treated in a military hospital.

The military has said he was scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan, and family members suggested he was trying to avoid serving overseas.

That doesn't add up to the prelude to a terrorist attack, said Carl Tobias, a professor of law at University of Richmond who analyzes terrorist investigations across the country.

"Terrorist attacks are undertaken by people who typically ... have some agenda they want to forward politically, and from what I see in the news, this is just a person acting individually because he doesn't want to deploy overseas," he said. "So I just don't see that angle."

But others disagreed.

"Clearly I think it was a terrorist act. Whether he was connected to another group or not or a formal group is question we'll find out over the next couple of days," said Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit.

"But for years now, it's been very clear that two of the targets for Al Qaeda and other Islamic groups for recruitment were in the U.S. military and in the U.S. prison system," he said. "So this is not really much of anything new."

Walid Phares, an expert on terrorism and a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, called the shooting "the largest single terror act in America since 9/11."

"What happened at Ft. Hood is not about being frustrated by America's foreign policy or exacting revenge for racial slurs. Nor is it about simply being a Muslim-American serving in the military or about being a member of any faith," he wrote in an opinion piece published in FoxNews.com's Fox Forum.

"The murders at Ft. Hood are about the radicalization of individuals by an extremist ideology -- jihadism -- which fuels acts of terror," he said. "The main question we should be asking is when did Hasan become radicalized and who indoctrinated him? Everything else will fall in place once we have these answers. Moreover, this would allow us to detect other potential terror acts that may be in the making."

The authorities have not ruled out terrorism in the shooting, but they said the preliminary evidence suggests that it wasn't.

Phares said he doesn't expect the shooting to be ruled an act of terrorism because he believes the Obama administration has made a political calculation to not fight a war on terror. He cited the administration's decision to substitute "Overseas Contingency Operation" for the "global war on terror."

"Had this occurred under the previous administration or any other previous administration, the natural position would have been America is under attack," he said. "It would have been a different posture. Now because a strategic decision has been made to disengage, our efforts will be suffering. They're not going to coin it as terrorism."

Scheuer said law enforcement officials have been loathe to rule the shooting an act of terrorism because "they're politically correct."

"Over the last 24 hours it appears this major was a very devout Muslim, and his pending deployment overseas put him in a position where he was going to be assisting in killing other Muslims," he said. "And that's a very big decision for a Muslim to do, not only killing another Muslim but killing on behalf of an infidel or a Christian."

But Tobias remained skeptical.

"To me, it looks more like the other shootings where one person seems mentally deranged," he said, adding that the rampage reminded him of the Virginia Tech shootings in 2007.

Update (11.09.09: Latest: Ft. Hood Shooter Linked to 9/11 Hijackers

"Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army major suspected of killing 13 people and wounding 29 others at Fort Hood, worshipped at the same mosque as two of the 9/11 terrorists.

According to the London Sunday Telegraph, Hasan attended services at the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Va., in 2001 at the same time as Sept. 11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hamzi and Hani Hanjour. Funeral services for Hasan's mother also was held at that mosque.

The FBI wants to interrogate Hasan to see if he met or knew al-Hamzi or Hanjour, reports the Telegraph.

The imam at the mosque at the time Hasan attended services there was Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical cleric who has been described as a supporter of al-Qaida. A third 9/11 hijacker attended al-Awlaki's lectures in California."

Source: NightHawk/AARP Blog

Related:

We Were Fools to Think the Fall of the Berlin Wall had killed off the Far Left

Political Correctness – Revenge of Marxism

Lt. Col Ralph Peters on the Factor – On Ft Hood Incident – Vide0

Mass Murdering Muslim Major Worked to Assist Obama’s Transition Team With University Project - ARTICLE FROM THE CANADIAN FREE PRESS

Obama’s Frightening Insensitivity Following Ft Hood Shooting

Dick Morris - Ft. Hood Attack was Terrorism

Special On Fox on Anniversary of Americans Held Hostages – Our First Encounter With Islamic Terrorism

Do You Know What (Is In) Textbooks Your Children are Really Reading #3

Muslim Demographics

Sharia Trumps Yale’s Free Speech and Free Speech in General – Time to Pay Attention

The Death of the Grown-Up: How America's Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization.

Losing Our Way to Victory

ISLAM: The Fastest Growing Religion in the World – Time to Pay Some Attention

Report: Nearly 1 in 4 People Worldwide is Muslim

American Prisons Now Hothouses For Islam

Muslim World Becomes Less Intolerant as West Continues to Reach Out in Tolerance

VERY YOUNG MUSLIM GIRL PRAISED FOR HATE AND TALK OF DEATH – 3-yrs-old - Video

YOUNG MUSLIM GIRL PRAISED FOR HATE AND TALK OF DEATH TO INFIDELS (US) – 11-yrs-old - Video

UK Couple in Court for Offending Muslin

Immigration Updates

They Must Be Stopped

The Death of the Grown-Up: How America's Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization.

Newsmax -Ft Hood Raises Critical Issues By Tawfik Hamid -Tawkfik Hamid

The Devil We Know

Cruel and Unusual

Man Detained by Police for Displaying Patriotic Bumper Sticker

The Department of Homeland Security Strikes Again
A Special Report by Archie Jones, American Vision Staff Writer

A customer service representative at The Patriot Depot just received a call from Rosemary in Ball, Louisiana alerting him that her brother-in-law was stopped by small town Louisiana police and detained by the roadside for half an hour. A background check was conducted to determine whether he was a member of an “extremist” group. Why? Her brother-in-law (name not disclosed for privacy) had purchased a conservative “Don’t Tread on Me” bumper sticker from The Patriot Depot and displayed it on his car.

The bumper sticker is based on the famous flag designed by American Revolution era general and statesman Christopher Gadsden.  The yellow flag featured a coiled diamondback rattlesnake ready to strike, with the slogan “Don’t Tread on Me!” underneath it.  Benjamin Franklin helped make the rattlesnake a symbol of Americans’ reluctance to quarrel but vigilance and resolve in defense of their rights.  By 1775 when Gadsden presented his flag to the commander-in-chief of the Navy, the rattlesnake   was a symbol of the colonies and of their need to unite in defense of threats to their God-given and inherited rights.  The flag and the bumper sticker symbolize American patriotism, the need to defend Americans’ rights, and resistance to tyranny’s threats to American liberty.  Those threats included—and include—illegal taxation, profanation of Americans’ rights, and violation of the fundamental principles of American law. 

MAY SPECIAL: Pick Any 5 Bumper Stickers for ONLY $10!

The mission of The Patriot Depot is to rescue our country from the tyrannical clutches of the Left. One way we can do this is to send powerful conservative messages to our fellow citizens. These bumper stickers rally the conservative base and might convince fellow Americans duped by Liberals to rethink their beliefs. That's why we are offering this very special deal...Pick any of five bumper stickers for ONLY $10! — We have several more from which to choose!

Retail: $25.00 • ONLY $10
ORDER TODAY!

The notorious Department of Homeland Security memo, which was apparently based on the infamous Missouri State Police Report that described supporters of presidential candidates Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and Chuck Baldwin as “militia”-type potential extremists and potential terrorists, is not the first effort of leftist radicals to slander their political opponents as “extremists.”   Some observers have noted that similar “reports” emerged during the Clinton administration.  But “liberals” and other leftists have been calling defenders of traditional American limited, constitutional government, free enterprise, and individual liberty “extremists” since at least the 1964 election. 

The political left’s attempts to establish a false equivalence between genuine left wing extremists and those who oppose the left’s assault on our culture, law, and liberty is more than propaganda to fool the ignorant and manipulate public opinion.  Combined with the power of government, it is an attempt to harass, intimidate, and silence all political opposition—and probably an attempt to demonize them as a prelude to governmental oppression and persecution. Keep in mind that the First Amendment states,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Small town police misled by phony left wing “reports” are bad enough.  Federal government agencies and their armed agents under the direction of leftist radicals are exponentially worse.  They will tread on us. The time has come to let our voices be heard!

Order your 2-pack of these stickers today for only $9.95 and get FREE SHIPPING!

OR...

Get a FREE 4" x 5" Mini "Don't Tread on Me" Bumper Sticker!

(We've added just $.97 to cover our costs for postage, the envelope, and credit card/PayPal transaction fees. There's no profit for us -- we just want to get the word out!)

Napolitano is Lying to Americans About Her Department’s Rightwing Extremism Report; TMLC Files Suit

SAVAGE SUES NAPOLITANO OVER 'RIGHTWING EXTREMISM' REPORT

SAN FRANCISCO -- April 17, 2009: Talk Radio Network host Michael Savage, in conjunction with the Thomas More Law Center, has filed suit against Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. The suit claims that the recent DHS report "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" reflects a policy on "rightwing extremism" that violates the civil liberties of veterans and targets Americans for their political beliefs.

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced that yesterday evening it filed a federal lawsuit against Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.  The lawsuit claims that her Department’s “Rightwing Extremism Policy,” as reflected in the recently publicized Intelligence Assessment, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” violates the civil liberties of combat veterans as well as American citizens by targeting them for disfavored treatment on account of their political beliefs.

  Click here to read the complaint filed by the Thomas More Law Center.

Napolitano tried to blunt the public furor over the Report by a half-hearted apology to veterans, but she left out of her apology all of the other Americans her Department has targeted because of their political beliefs. In fact, officials in DHS now admit that their internal office of civil liberties objected to the language in the extremism report, but the Department issued it anyway.

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 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.

Thompson added, “The Obama Administration has declared war on American patriots and our Constitution.  The Report even admits that the Department has no specific information on any plans of violence by so-called ‘rightwing extremists.’  Rather, what they do have is the expression of political opinions by certain individuals and organizations that oppose the Obama administration’s policies, and this expression is protected speech under the First Amendment.”

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.

Click here to read the DHS extremism report.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life.  It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America.  The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities.  It does not charge for its services.  The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization.  You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website atwww.thomasmore.org.

TMLC Demands Dept. of Homeland Security Reveal Basis for its Report Targeting Right Wing Extremists

April 15, 2009

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center announced today that is has filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Department of Homeland Security demanding to know the basis for their recent intelligence assessment targeting as “rightwing extremists” those who oppose abortion, gun control, lax immigration laws, and a myriad of other policies supported by President Obama’s administration.  The Law Center filed its request after consultation with conservative talk show host Michael Savage.

The Department of Homeland Security’s document in question, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” was released to law enforcement agencies throughout the country.  Of particular concern was the report’s singling out of military veterans as vulnerable to rightwing extremism.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center stated, “This is not an intelligence report but a diatribe against those who oppose the policies of the Obama administration.  It is a declaration of war against the American people and our constitution.  It is a prelude to extreme gun control legislation and hate speech laws targeting Christian churches and others who oppose abortion and same sex marriage.  The federal government should be focusing its attention on the 35 radical Muslim compounds in the U.S. training its followers on how to kidnap and kill Americans.”

Thompson went on to say that this may be another opportunity for the Law Center to team up with Dr. Michael Savage.  Michael Savage, the nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host of The Savage Nation, recently teamed with the Thomas More Law Center in order to protect free speech by opposing the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.”  Michael Savage warned of the possibility of a document like this being produced by DHS when he raised the issue of “Fusion Cells.”  Fusion Cells are a set of local intelligence centers across the country created by the Department of Homeland Security to combat terrorism and related criminal activity, which includes pro-life activity. 

Michael Savage is a longtime on-air supporter of the Thomas More Law Center.  He used his radio show to marshal overwhelming support for one of the Law Center’s clients, Marine LtCol Jeffrey Chessani.  Chessani is being prosecuted by the government in the so-called Haditha massacre – a massacre that never happened.  A military judge ultimately dismissed the case.  The government appealed the ruling and lost, but may appeal again.  

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life.  It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America.  The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities.  It does not charge for its services.  The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. 

You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at: www.thomasmore.org.

Janet Napolitano made the media rounds this morning to face the public firestorm over DHS’s hit job on conservatives.

I’m calling it the Extremist Makeover tour.

She offered an apology to veterans, saying it wasn’t her intention to offend. It may not have been the intention of the report authors or Napolitano to offend or overreach, but that was certainly the effect. And it remains a mystery why Napolitano felt it necessary to distribute a shoddy nine-page report that was supposedly in the works under the Bush administration for a year, as Napolitano claims, containing zero data backing up the claim of a “resurgence” of rightwing extremist violence — and was padded with analysis from the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center to stir fear of “disgruntled military veterans.”

On Fox and Friends this morning, Napolitano admitted that she would have changed the definition included in the report.

A reminder:

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.

So, how exactly would she rewrite the definition?  We rightwing extremists want to know.

Million Taxpayer March

Let's use liberal math to calculate attendance at this week's nationwide Tax Day Tea Party protests. When left-wing activists make crowd estimates, the algorithm is: six figures = one million. An incomplete survey of newspaper accounts and organizer estimates pegged the Tea Party protest population at a minimum of 250,000. We can now, therefore, officially call it the Million Taxpayer March.

Or the Million Right-Wing Extremists March if you work for the Department of Homeland Security.

To George Soros-funded grievance professionals, 250,000 is an insignificant number. But unlike recent anti-war and pro-illegal immigration rallies padded with union workers, college students and homeless people, the Tax Day Tea Party demonstrations featured small-business owners, working taxpayers and families. This wasn't a weekend or holiday, mind you. A quarter-million people took time off in the middle of the workweek to raise their voices against reckless taxing and bipartisan spending.

Multimillionaire jetsetter Nancy Pelosi scoffed that the Tax Day Tea Party movement was nothing more than "Astroturf" politics to protect the "wealthiest people" in America. Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky called the peaceable assemblies "despicable." Other bitter, clingy Tea Party-bashers grumbled that activists only showed up where Fox News cameras were. But tens of thousands more came out in rain, snow and cold -- in Bozeman, Mont.; Eau Claire, Wis.; Carson City, Nev.; White Plains, N.Y.; Bend, Ore.; Lansing, Mich.; Hilo, Hawaii; Nashville, Tenn.; and everywhere in between -- with no media personalities or celebrities in sight.

If only the condescending cable TV anchors at CNN and MSNBC had paused from wallowing in gutter puns about tea bags, they might have reported an even more significant phenomenon: Tea Party protesters were as vocal in their criticism of Republicans as they were of Democrats. In Salt Lake City, Utah, a crowd of 2,000 repeatedly booed GOP Sens. Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett, who both supported the $700 billion TARP bailout, and protested GOP Gov. Jon Huntsman's decision to accept $1.6 billion in porky stimulus funds.

In Sacramento, Tea Party organizer Mark Meckler singled out California GOP Chair Ron Nehring for waffling on proposed $16 billion tax hikes. The crowd of 5,000 greeted Nehring -- who unsuccessfully tried to hitch his wagon to the Tea Party movement -- with a roar of boos and catcalls. Speaker after speaker lambasted Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for abandoning fiscal-conservative principles. The loudest chant of the day: "Throw them out."

In Madison, Wis., GOP Rep. Paul Ryan -- hyped as a conservative "rock star" -- was well received. But I heard from staunch fiscal-conservative constituents who refused to be silent about Ryan's complicity. He gave one of the most hysterical speeches in the rush to pass TARP last fall; voted for the auto bailout; and voted with the Barney Frank-Nancy Pelosi AIG bonus-bashing stampede. Milwaukee blogger Nick Schweitzer wrote: "He ought to be apologizing for his previous votes, not pretending he was being responsible the entire time, but I don't see one bit of regret for what he did previously. And I'll be damned if I'm going to let him get away with it."

Other Tea Party participants pointed out that Newt Gingrich, who jumped aboard the bandwagon, flip-flopped on TARP in the space of a week last September and made common cause with Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi in ads calling for immediate action on "climate change."

Before the grassroots Tea Party movement took them by surprise, Beltway GOP strategists argued fervently that the party's traditional focus on taxes and spending had become outdated. The re-branders pitched their own expansive ideas to replace the anti-tax-and-spend agenda and inspire new voters. These included Gingrich's "green conservatism," David Frum's proposal to raise carbon taxes, and open-borders Republicans' plans for alternative forms of amnesty.

Newsflash: Eco-zealotry and in-state tuition discounts for illegal aliens didn't bring out thousands of first-time activists on the streets. Stay-at-home moms weren't up all night making signs that read "Tax me more, please!"

What resonated on Tax Day were nonpartisan calls to roll back pork, hold the line on taxing and spending, end the endless government bailouts, and stop the congressional steamrollers that have pushed through mountains of legislation without deliberation. This is a teachable moment for GOP public relations peddlers in Washington. While they search for the Holy Grail of Re-branding in tony salons and country club conferences, the agenda for 2010 is smacking them in the face. It's the three T's, stupid: Too Many Taxes, Trillions in Debt, and Transparency.

The GOP path to reclaiming power lies with candidates who can make a credible case that they will support and defend fiscal responsibility. That means acting on fiscal-conservative principles now, not paying lip service later. The reckonable forces of the Tea Party movement didn't let opportunists escape accountability on Tax Day. The GOP shouldn't assume they'll get a pass on Election Day, either. As one of the most popular Tea Party signs read: "You can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out."

• Tea Party - July Fourth, 2009 Washington DC - Tea Party July 4th, 2009 John Marshall Park, 4th and Constitution Ave Washington DC two blocks from Washington DC Mall

By: Michelle Malkin

Source: Townhall.com

Posted:  Daily Thought Pad

The Obama Administration Says We're Dangerous, Rightwing Extremists by Michael Reagan

Do you reject "federal authority in favor of state or local authority," or "government authority entirely"? Are you "dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration"?

If so, you are a dangerous, rightwing extremist according to Obama's Department of Homeland Security, which bans the use of the word "terrorist" unless it's applied to us rightwing extremists who, for example, are so extreme as to view the grisly murder of the unborn in their mothers' wombs as cold-blooded murder.

Are you a veteran returning from Iraq or Afghanistan after risking life and limb to protect your fellow Americans? If so, you are a ticking time bomb likely to the recruited by those dangerous rightwing extremists

After all, the vaunted Extremism and Radicalization Branch of the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division, Department of Homeland Security, warns that you "possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists," and these Obama-ite loons are concerned that rightwing extremists "will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities."

Have we really come to this? Has Adolf Hitler's propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels been reborn and recruited by the Obama administration to scare the heck out of the American people with absurdities such as this whacked-out document?

Obviously recognizing that public knowledge of the nonsense alleged in this document is very undesirable, the weirdoes who prepared it did not want you to see it.

They warn: "No portion of the LES information should be released to the media, the general public, or over non-secure Internet servers."

Too bad. The Washington Times got their hands on a copy and revealed it to the entire world.

Once it became public and many Americans reacted in disbelief, the Obama White House disavowed it despite the fact that a document as explosive as this could never have been distributed without the president's explicit approval in the first place.

The screed was prepared long before tens of thousands of outraged Americans banded together in today's peaceful Tea Party demonstrations, which by their very nature gave the lie to the outrageous allegations contained in the document.

The demonstrations were conducted by people who believe strongly in the very issues cited by the administration as those that incite violence, yet who themselves abhor violence as a political tactic.

They're getting ready to take names, so beware if you say anything negative about abortion or gay marriage or our out-of-control system of taxation.

Sounding like something out of a Gestapo directive, the document reveals that Homeland Security "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."

Such as baby killing in abortion mills .

They want America's law enforcement agencies "to report information concerning suspicious or criminal activity to DHS and the FBI." So watch out if you attend an anti-abortion rally or a Tea Party. Big Brother will be watching.

They want your friendly neighborhood cop to send "comments or questions related to the content or dissemination of this document," to the DHS/I&A Production Branch at IA.PM@hq.dhs.gov, IA.PM@dhs.sgov.gov, or IA.PM@dhs.ic.gov.

Why not join in on the fun and contact them at the above address and let them know what you're thinking -- in a nice, non-threatening way, of course. You wouldn't want them to think you're some kind of rightwing extremist. Would you?

Related Articles:

• You Might Be a "Radicalized Right-Wing Extremist" If…

• Napolitano stands by controversial report

Posted:  Daily Thought Pad