Alejandro Mayorkas' "Pyramid of Far-Right Radicalization" is scary

Thanks to the investigation of the Media Research Center, the Department of Homeland Security has been exposed as fully weaponized. DHS should expect a call from House Judiciary Commitee Chairman Jordan in the not-that-distant future.

This RedState article doesn't bury the lede, starting with the opening paragraph. That opening paragraph says "Documents obtained by conservative watchdog group The Media Research Center (MRC) reveal that the Biden administration weaponized taxpayer dollars against mainstream conservative groups and the GOP. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) awarded over $350,000 in grant funding in FY 2022 to a University of Dayton program, known as PREVENTS-OH, as part of the DHS’ Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention Grant Program (TVTP)."

It continues, saying "A seminar was held at the University of Dayton’s Human Rights Center, where researcher Michael Loadenthal from the University of Cincinnati linked organizations such as the Republican National Committee (RNC), The American Conservative Union Foundation (CPAC Foundation), the Heritage Foundation, the National Rifle Association (NRA), and Fox News to radicalized fringe neo-Nazi paramilitary groups like The Base and the white supremacist website The Daily Stormer." Based on this reporting, DHS is essentially part of the DNC. This is the 'Pyramid Tweet:

Brent Bozell lays things out perfectly in his interview with Maria Bartiromo:

That's the definition of the weaponization of government. This isn't surprising, though. Back on the first Tax Day TEA Party, a Homeland Security Department intelligence assessment unfairly characterizes military veterans as right-wing extremists. Military veterans who've risked their lives are potentially extremists? Since when? Based on the MRC reporting and this report, it's certainly a pattern for Democrats to weaponize the DHS. Check this out:
Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts. Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit—could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past.
That's doublespeak. How can this report highlight "violent anti-government groups", then mention that those groups "have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts?" They're either violent or they aren't. Veterans' organizations have every right to be upset with Janet Napolitano's report. It isn't surprising that Napolitano was Obama's first DHS Secretary. This is what Obama said on the campaign trail in 2008:

This isn't an aberration. This is who today's Democrats are. Paul Wellstone's Democrats might've been slightly like this, though not to this degree. This is frightening:
Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.
The report states "They have not yet turned to attack planning." That means DHS had infiltrated these organizations. Otherwise, how would DHS know things like this? Again, this was part of a report from April, 2009. Why shouldn't I think that Alejandro Mayorkas, the least trustworthy secretary of DHS in its short history, is weaponizing his entire department? Finally, there's this:
The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.
To the DHS, everything has the potential for conservatives planning violent attacks. Where's the proof of that type of thinking?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tim Walz's Confederate Flag Fiasco

Image
After Minnesota's Democrats shoved the most controversial progressive legislation down Minnesotans' throats, gossip started popping up about Gov. Walz being interested in running for president . That's died off but Gov. Walz is still making headlines, this time for all the wrong reasons. First, Gov. Walz isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier. Still, Gov. Walz is fighting against Minnesota's history. This Alpha News article quotes David Hann, the chairman of Minnesota's Republican Party, as saying " The flag the DFL has eliminated was a version of the historic flag our regiments fought under during the Civil War. Minnesota was the first state to offer troops to the Union cause in 1861 , beginning a long tradition of leading the nation in confronting injustice. The DFL quest to erase our history is repugnant and should be rejected." Gov. Walz, though, sees things differently. He's quoted as saying "Minnesota is a diverse state, it continue
Read more

What is Kamala Harris afraid of?

Image
Apparently, Kamala Harris suddenly loves debating. Let me rephrase that. Harris loves debating as long as the moderators are partisan hacks. She wants nothing to do with a debate moderated by Fox's Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum. She's afraid of Bret and Martha because a) they'll either fact-check both her and Trump or they won't fact-check either of them and b) Bret and Martha aren't afraid of asking follow-up questions. To a candidate whose answers are scripted and who isn't quick on her feet, the last thing you want is a follow-up question. Kamala fears follow-up questions like vampires hate wooden stakes, sunlight and holy water. Why has Kamala Harris avoided Fox News like the plague? The moderators/propagandists fact-checked Donald Trump aggressively but didn't fact-check Harris . Why didn't David Muir and Linsey Davis fact-check both candidates equally? Is it because Harris doesn't like fair fights? Perhaps she's just afraid of getting exp
Read more

Why is Joe Biden letting Hamas off the hook?

Image
It isn't disputable whether Joe Biden's administration is letting Hamas off the hook. That issue was settled months ago, when a spineless Joe Biden caved to activists interested in saving Hamas and thwarting the Israelis' attempt to defend themselves. Gerard Baker's op-ed highlights what's at stake for the U.S. if the terrorists are permitted to survive. In his op-ed, Baker wrote "If, under the pressure of internal Democratic politics and global public opinion, the Biden administration forces a 'cease-fire' that leaves our closest ally in the region short of victory over an enemy that seeks to destroy it, sooner or later we shall all pay the price." It's time to revisit George W. Bush's speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001. It's required that we remind ourselves of one of its most important paragraphs. In talking about who committed the atrocities of 9/11, President Bush identified al-Qa'ida as "a collectio
Read more