Another Janet, Same Mistakes

In the 1990s, Janet Reno was the new sheriff in town, who had a tendency to go in with guns-a-blazing with little or no thought as to what the repercussions would be. Maybe she wanted to show she could do a man's job, without looking weak or overly given to emotion. But who knows for sure, as to her motive? Only she knows for sure, I just know she wasn't the smartest person for the job.

Ruby Ridge and Waco were tests of her authority, and her inept handling of these incidents certainly did not endear here to a lot of people. The result was a backlash of hate groups and domestic terror. Her incompetence in handling these affairs generated a certain amount of sympathy from people, who otherwise may not have been so quick to jump on the bandwagons of these groups. And it seriously angered those who were already predisposed to such stupidity.

Today, we see another Janet trying to prove she has what it takes to be a shrewd and competent leader, in national law enforcement and security. But nothing has changed from her predecessor in the Clinton Justice Department, in that -- she is not able to understand how to handle sensitive subjects like domestic terrorism.

The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in "rightwing extremist activity," saying the economic recession, the election of America's first black president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of white-power militias.

A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines "rightwing extremism in the United States" as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

This all stems from a report that has since been deemed overzealous.

Gov. Jay Nixon on Thursday blamed the "overzealousness" of a Missouri State Highway Patrol unit for a report slammed by conservatives because it links various right-wing organizations with the modern militia movement.

The Democratic governor faced numerous questions about the report and how the state's police agencies gather intelligence during a news conference following a signing ceremony for legislation creating two new state accounts for federal stimulus money.

"I'm confident that some of the overzealousness of this previously formed unit will be appropriately managed," Nixon said.

The report, which no longer is being distributed because of the controversy, says many militia members subscribe to fundamentalist Christian, anti-abortion or anti-immigration movements. It also notes that members usually support third-party presidential candidates and Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who ran unsuccessfully for president last year.

I don't have a problem with the DHS keeping an eye on groups who may fall into a scary one, worth watching. I don't like racist organizations who preach hate or advocate any kind of supremacy of one group over another; especially those who may be actively seeking to carry out some kind of senseless act. They are always fair game for any law enforcement or security force to be watching.

But I have two problems with the way this is being handled now.

#1) I question the need to continue to advance the contents of a skewed and exaggerated report. If it's already been debunked as an overstatement, using it further lessens even more credibility with an Administration that is desperate to find some.

#2) Even if most of the findings of the report were dead-on accurate, you have just compromised an investigation by telling people who you are looking at. Not the most brilliant thing to put on a resume, is it?

Parts of this report of concern me, but I am not totally surprised. It does not amaze me that a liberal government will usually ratchet up the rhetoric against the gun ownership. Yes, it does worry me, but it is not unexpected in the least.

What is particularly disturbing to me is the fact that these people are trying to label those who are proponents of state's rights, as right wing whackos capable of domestic terrorism. Many who call themselves Ron Paul supporters are part of this belief system. I would be willing to bet that very few of them are capable of terrorist violence.

Many who agree with him on this, but disagree with the way he would have handled the War On Terror, are for returning to the fundamental concept of state's rights and maintaining as much of their independence as possible. I am one of those. But I am not willing to use illegal means to advance my beliefs. I will use the power of my pen (or in this case keyboard) to make this argument. And again I would be willing to bet, I would wager there are many more like me than Timothy McVeigh.

I know the Governor of Texas is a state's rights advocate.

Gov. Rick Perry today joined state Rep. Brandon Creighton and sponsors of House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50 in support of states’ rights under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

So, why does this Janet want to use her position as a means to re-kindle old wounds and possibly goad these people into getting into a snit? Is she trying to provoke these people into an incident, whereby she can be like the first Janet?

Why does she want to allow a report that is weak and faulty to shape policy and procedure, or questioning people's patriotism based on different ideology? Could it be, she wants to suppress dissent against a government that is sharply out of touch?




(Here is the pdf of the official unclassified Homeland Security Report.)