TIMES SQUARE ATTACK RESPONSE: NONE DARE CALL IT THINKING
On May 1, 2010, when news of the Times Square terrorist attack first broke, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said, on national television, as to who might have done it, “If I had to guess 25 cents, this would be exactly that, somebody who’s homegrown, maybe a mentally deranged person or someone with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something . . . .” Bloomberg was not alone. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano declared that there was no evidence that the attack was “anything other than a one-off,” a British expression for “one of a kind.” At least the country was spared President Obama telling Americans that they should not “jump to conclusions,” as he did after the Fort Hood Massacre when the media reported that “Major Hasan . . . killed 13 and left 31 injured after he jumped on to a desk screaming ‘Allahu Akbar’ – God is Great – and fired on defenseless colleagues.”
Where did Mayor Bloomberg and Secretary Napolitano get the idea that the terrorist was a “lone wolf”? Perhaps they were “hoping” like MSNBC reporter Contessa Brewer, “[T]here was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country . . . .” Or maybe it was this from The Nation [“the flagship of the left”], where Robert Dreyfuss declared, “It seems far more likely to me [he] was either a lone nut job or a member of some squirrelly branch of the Tea Party, anti-government far right.”
What makes Bloomberg, Napolitano, and Obama think—if one can call it thinking or anything more than wishful thinking—that Americans should fear terrorist attacks, not from those who embrace radical Islam, but from their countrymen with strong views on important issues of the day? The answer, perhaps, is an “intelligence analysis report,” released on April 7, 2009, by the DHS regarding “rightwing extremists” and “rightwing terrorist groups” in the United States, which Napolitano sent to sheriffs and police departments across the country with instructions that they report back to the DHS regarding any sightings.
Entitled, Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment, the report targeted unnamed individuals and groups because of their views on such issues as illegal immigration, centralizing power in Washington, D.C. rather than in state and local governments, restricting the right to keep and bear arms, abortion, and the loss of American sovereignty. The report asserted that people espousing these views are “rightwing extremists” and are or could become members of “rightwing terrorist groups” and that both pose a threat to national security. More shocking, the report singled out military veterans returning from service in Iraq and Afghanistan due to their “combat skills and experience.”
Recently, in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) demands for copies of the documents upon which the DHS relied in preparing its report, the DHS provided 411 pages of documents. As the basis for the claims made in the April 2009 report, these documents are laughable. In fact, one critic, after viewing them, called the report, “frighteningly kooky.” Obviously, there is no basis, in those documents, for Bloomberg, Napolitano, and Obama to maintain that those who have strong political views regarding the actions of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are “rightwing extremists” likely to engage in acts of domestic terrorism.
There is a reason why Obama and his officials as well as Reid and Pelosi keep up the drum beat that those espousing strong views regarding the mischief afoot in Washington, D.C. are “extremists.” They seek to discredit and to silence their critics. It does not appear to be working; the American people believe that much is at stake, such as the future of the country. They remember Benjamin Franklin counseled that the Founding Fathers create, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” They intend to keep it.
William Perry Pendley