Showing Signs of Patriotism This 4th of July with Fireworks and Sparklers; Showing Love for Individual Liberty and Freedom…..DHS May Brand YOU “Right Wing Extremist”?

==============

==============================

The same DHS that now tells our Border Patrol agents to Run and Hide if facing assaults.

READ AT LINK BELOW

DHS Tells Border Patrol Agents To “Run Away” And “Hide” From Gunmen…

=============================

From The Blaze:

HOMELAND SECURITY-FUNDED STUDY LISTS PEOPLE ‘REVERENT OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY’ AS ‘EXTREME RIGHT-WING’ TERRORISTS

By  Jason Howerton

July 3, 2012

Are you “reverent of individual liberty?“ Are you ”suspicious of centralized federal authority?“ Do you think there is a ”grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty?”

Well, then you fall into the category of “extreme right-wing” terrorist, according to a new study out of the University of Maryland, which was funded in part by the Department of Homeland Security.

The study, titled Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970-2008,” was conducted by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) at the university. The organization has received roughly $12 million from DHS and is set to get another $3.6 million in future funding. It is also listed as one of DHS’s “Centers for Excellence” on the agency’s website.

The study says right-wing extremists are “groups that believe that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent.”

Further, right-wing extremist groups “believe in the need to be prepared” by taking part in “paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism.“ Groups may also be ”fiercely nationalistic“ and ”suspicious of centralized federal authority.”

Right-wing extremism also involves a belief in “conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty,” the study claims.

Interestingly, in an oversight that is not explained, the report barely mentions radical Islam. Instead the study lumps religious terrorist groups into one category and describes them as “groups that seen to smite the purported enemies of God and other evildoers, impose strict religious tenants or laws on society (fundamentalists), forcibly insert religion into the political sphere.”

The recently appointed director of the START center is Bill Braniff, who argues that widespread “Islamophobia” is present in law enforcement training materials. He was quoted in a July 2011 NPR article saying, “I think this is something that happens across the nation fairly consistently… No one is tracking this with numbers, but anecdotally we are hearing about it all the time. The Muslim-American community is being preyed upon from two different directions.”

According to START’s website, “Braniff has also taken a keen interest in the field of Countering Violent Extremism (CVE). He has consulted with the Department of Justice, the FBI and the National Security Staff, playing a key role in an interagency working group dedicated to the topic.”

So it shouldn’t be surprising that the study also appears to leave out some important data about “religious terrorism.” As pointed out by PJ Media:

In Table 4 (p. 22), titled “Hot Spots of Religious Terrorism by Decade”, three “hot spot” areas — Los Angeles, Manhattan, and Wasco, Oregon (former home of the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) — are identified:

Homeland Security Funded Study Lists People Reverent of Individual Liberty as Extreme Right Wing Terrorists

But there seems to be some data missing when it comes to known Islamic terrorist incidents in New York City and Los Angeles. The study shows no religious terrorism in Manhattan during the 1990s. How about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? Or the 1994 Brooklyn Bridge Jewish student van shooting by Rashid Baz that killed 16-year-old Ari Halberstam after Baz heard a fiery anti-Jewish sermon at his local mosque? Or the 1997 Empire State Building observation deck shooting by Ali Abu Kamal that killed one tourist and injured six others before Kamal took his own life?

And then there was the 2002 shooting at the Los Angeles Airport El Al counter by Hesham Mohamed Hadayet that killed two and wounded four others. The FBI and Justice Department concluded that the attack was a terrorist attack by an Egyptian assailant bent on becoming a Muslim martyr.

These are reflected nowhere in the study. Perhaps, like the 2009 Fort Hood massacre by Major Nidal Hasan, who gunned down his U.S. Army colleagues while shouting “Allahu Akbar,” these incidents are considered acts of “workplace violence” and not religious terrorism?

Have these incidents been redefined to prevent facts from conflicting with an agenda-driven narrative? Or have these data points been excluded altogether?

To be sure, the definition of extreme left-wing terrorists describes the Occupy Wall Street movement almost perfectly:

Groups that want to bring about change through violent revolution rather than through established political processes. This category also includes secular left-wing groups that rely heavily on terrorism to overthrow the capitalist system and either establish a “dictatorship of the proletariat” (Marxist-Leninists) or, much more rarely, a decentralized, non-hierarchical political system (anarchists).

Other terrorist groups include “entho-nationalist/separatists” (think New Black Panther Party) and “single issue” organizations, such as “anti-abortion” advocates.

Further, taking a look at the START dataset’s codebook, two subgroups of “right-wing extremism“ were identified as ”gun rights“ and ”tax protest,” according to PJ Media.

Keep reading here……….

======================

ADD THIS:

DHS Funded Study Pushing TEA Party Terrorism Narrative

By Patrick Poole
June 14, 2012

In an era of agenda-driven academic research, who watches the watchers? Or more accurately, who gets to designate and categorize the “objective” data? This is the question raised after examining a study and related dataset recently published by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Response to Terrorism (START) at the University of Maryland.

START was launched in 2005 with a $12 million grant from the Department of Homeland Security, and is recognized by DHS as one of its “Centers for Excellence”. In December, DHS announced it had renewed START’s funding to the tune of $3.6 million.

A recent START study entitled Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970 to 2008“, puts the “excellence” description in question. A press release announcing the report states the study concluded that nearly a third of all terrorist attacks between 1970 and 2008 occurred in just five major metropolitan areas. The study was based on a START database called “Profiles of Perpetrators of Terrorism in the United States“, and both the report and database are supported by the DHS Science and Technology Directorate’s Human Factors/Behavioral Sciences Division.

Reading through the study, some baffling issues arose. In Table 4 (p. 22), entitled “Hot Spots of Religious Terrorism by Decade”, three “hot spot” areas — Los Angeles, Manhattan, and Wasco, Oregon (former home of the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) — are identified: But there seems to be some data missing when it comes to known Islamic terrorist incidents in New York City and Los Angeles. The study shows no religious terrorism in Manhattan during the 1990s. How about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? Or the 1994 Brooklyn Bridge Jewish student van shooting by Rashid Baz that killed 16-year old Ari Halberstam after Baz heard a fiery anti-Jewish sermon at his local mosque? Or the 1997 Empire State Building observation deck shooting by Ali Abu Kamal that killed one tourist and injured six others before Kamal took his own life?

And then there was the 2002 shooting at the Los Angeles Airport El Al counter by Hesham Mohamed Hadayet that killed two and wounded four others. The FBI and Justice Department concluded that the attack was a terrorist attack by an Egyptian assailant bent on becoming a Muslim martyr.

These are reflected nowhere in the study. Perhaps, like the 2009 Fort Hood massacre by Major Nidal Hasan, who gunned down his U.S. Army colleagues while shouting “Allahu Akbar”, these incidents are considered acts of “workplace violence and not religious terrorism?

Have these incidents been redefined to prevent facts from conflicting with an agenda-driven narrative? Or have these data points been excluded altogether?

Struck by these glaring omissions, I went to the START “Profiles of Perpetrators of Terrorism in the United States (PPT-US)” dataset that the study is based upon. START describes the findings from the database:


Preliminary findings from PPT-US data also illustrate a distinct shift in the dominant ideologies of these terrorist groups over time (see Figure 1), with the proportion of emerging ethnonationalist/separatist terrorist groups declining and the proportion of emerging religious terrorist groups increasing. However, while terrorist groups with religious ideologies represent half of all emergent groups in the 2000s (three out of six), they only account for six percent of groups over time.

It’s easy to conclude that religious ideologies are insignificant when you exclude well-known instances of religious-based terrorism from your analysis. And speaking of the Fort Hood massacre, I would note that the cutoff date of the database, 2008, excludes other acts of Islamic terrorism (Fort Hood, the Little Rock Army Recruiting Center shooting). Convenient, indeed.

But looking at the START dataset’s codebook, other startling problems emerge.

Compare how the START researchers define “left wing” and “right wing” extremism.

Left-wing extremism is defined at follows:


Extreme left-wing groups want to bring about change through violent revolution rather than through established political processes. In addition, this category includes secular left-wing groups that rely heavily on terrorism to overthrow the capitalist system and either establish “a dictatorship of the proletariat” (Marxist-Leninists) or, much more rarely, a decentralized, non-hierarchical sociopolitical system (anarchists).

Fair enough. Now, right-wing extremism:


The extreme far-right is composed of groups that believe that one’s personal and/or national “way of life” is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent (for some the threat is from a specific ethnic, racial, or religious group), and believe in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism. Groups may also be fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation), anti-global, suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty, and believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.

If you’re fiercely nationalistic (pro-American), anti-global (anti-UN), suspicious of centralized federal authority (like the Framers), reverent of individual liberty (like Patrick Henry), and believe in “conspiracy” theories (like the federal government allowing the sale of assault weapons to Mexican drug cartels to justify limiting American’s rights under the Second Amendment, a la Fast and Furious), then according to these taxpayer-funded researchers, you too are on the “extreme right-wing”. Many Americans would be surprised to find themselves so categorized by the researchers at START.

It should be no surprise that two subgroups identified in the codebook under “extreme right-wing” include “gun rights” and “tax protest”. Tea Party terrorists, anyone?

Again, this raises the question: who gets to categorize the data?

Anti-Semitism is included in the codebook as a subgroup for both the “racist” and “extreme right-wing” categories, but it is missing as a subgroup for the extreme left-wing. Because after all, it’s not like extreme left-wing groups like the Center for American Progress revel in their anti-Semitism, right?

It is amazing what you won’t find when you don’t look, or more specifically, when you define out the possibility or exclude data that conflicts with your predetermined conclusions altogether. But when you examine the roots of the taxpayer-funded START program, no one should be surprised at its agenda-driven study.

Keep reading here……….


======================

Having an inquiring mind and by doing further research into this START program that is connected to the University of Maryland and the DHS, one finds this:

National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START)

FEATURED RESEARCH

Masculine honor ideology shapes responses to terrorism
A new study funded through START found masculine honor ideology in the United States is a factor in the intergroup phenomenon of people’s responses to terrorism. Full story…

Database spotlight: Big Allied and Dangerous (BAAD) 
START researchers released the Big Allied and Dangerous (BAAD) dataset, which provides insight into the characteristics of more than 395 terrorist groups in relation to their lethality.

LINK

=====================

Clicking on the Masculine honor ideology link one finds this:

June 21, 2012

Masculine honor ideology shapes responses to terrorism

BY NICHOLAS MUNSON

In the new study, “Don’t Tread on Me: Masculine Honor Ideology in the U.S. and Militant Responses to Terrorism,” former START Terrorism Research Award recipient Collin Barnes argues that masculine honor ideology in the United States is a factor in the intergroup phenomenon of people’s responses to terrorism.

Barnes, along with co-authors Ryan Brown and Lindsey Osterman, used the connection between honor concerns and male violence and aggression to compare the so-called “honor states” in the southern U.S. with the northern “non-honor states.” The researchers examined men’s reputation for toughness, fearlessness and aggressiveness in the face of provocations. [Emphasis added]

“To date, scholars have almost exclusively emphasized the implications this mentality has for responses to provocations at the personal level,” Barnes said. “We move beyond this focus by considering the link between the ideology of masculine honor in the U.S. and militant responses to provocations experienced at the national level in the form of terrorism.”

Barnes and his colleagues performed two studies — one to establish the predicted association between masculine honor ideology in the U.S. and militant responses to terrorism, and another to measure the support of lethal retaliation against suspected terrorists between northern and southern individuals in the U.S. Through a hypothetical terrorist attack on the Statue of Liberty and controls such as patriotism and religiosity, they validated their first hypothesis, and correctly predicted more support for military action against terrorists from southern participants. They also found data supporting the hypothesis that the U.S. honor ideology could also be used to justify domestic terrorist acts.

The researchers identified honor-related motives — in particular, the desire to restore lost honor or to prevent future losses to honor — as a common feature underlying many terrorist attacks, including the rather extreme instances of suicide bombings

To view the study, visit http://psp.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/05/02/0146167212443383.

Keep reading here……….

============================

So going further and wanting to read the Study of Masculine Honor Ideology, I clicked the link and found:

Don’t Tread on Me: Masculine Honor Ideology in the U.S. and Militant Responses to Terrorism

  1. Collin D. Barnes collindbarnes@gmail.com
  2. Ryan P. Brown
  3. Lindsey L. Osterman

Abstract

Using both college students and a national sample of adults, the authors report evidence linking the ideology of masculine honor in the U.S. with militant responses to terrorism. In Study 1, individuals’ honor ideology endorsement predicted, among other outcomes, open-ended hostile responses to a fictitious attack on the Statue of Liberty and support for the use of extreme counterterrorism measures (e.g., severe interrogations), controlling for right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and other covariates. In Study 2, the authors used a regional classification to distinguish honor state respondents from nonhonor state respondents, as has traditionally been done in the literature, and showed that students attending a southwestern university desired the death of the terrorists responsible for 9/11 more than did their northern counterparts. These studies are the first to show that masculine honor ideology in the U.S. has implications for the intergroup phenomenon of people’s responses to terrorism.


LINK

==========================

Can one conclude:

1.  Gender bias since study termed “Masculine Honor Ideology”

2.  Political Party bias: Study was done comparing Northern and Southern participants. History of Civil War anyone?

Factors NOT included from Abstract:

Age

Gender

Religion

Just college students and a national sampling of adults……….

 ================================

==========================

Trying to classify Tea Party Patriots as terrorists?

******************

“Masculine Honor Ideology” ?

The Grey-Haired Brigade: Still Here and Invoking Liberty and Freedom

Excerpt:

They like to refer to us as senior citizens, old fogies, geezers, and in some cases dinosaurs. Some of us are “Baby Boomers” getting ready to retire. Others have been retired for some time.

We walk a little slower these days and our eyes and hearing are not what they once were. We have worked hard, raised our children, worshiped our God and grown old together.

Yes, we are the ones some refer to as being over the hill, and that is probably true. But before writing us off completely, there are a few things that need to be taken into consideration.

In school we studied English, history, math, and science which enabled us to lead America into the technological age. Most of us remember what outhouses were, many of us with firsthand experience. We remember the days of telephone
party-lines, 25 cent gasoline, and milk and ice being delivered to our homes. For those of you who don’t know what an icebox is, today they are electric and referred to as refrigerators. A few even remember when cars were started with a crank. Yes, we lived those days.

We are probably considered old fashioned and out-dated by many. But there are a few things you need to remember before completely writing us off. We won World War II, fought in Korea and Viet Nam. We can quote The Pledge of Allegiance, and know where to place our hand while doing so. We wore the uniform of our country with pride and lost many friends on the battlefield. We didn’t fight for the Socialist States of America; we fought for the “Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.” We wore different uniforms but carried the same flag.

We know the words to the Star Spangled Banner, America, and America the Beautiful by heart, and you may even see some tears running down our cheeks as we sing. We have lived what many of you have only read in history books and we feel no obligation to apologize to anyone for America.

Yes, we are old and slow these days but rest assured, we have at least one good fight left in us. We have loved this country, fought for it, and died for it, and now we are going to save it. It is our country and nobody is going to take it away from us. We took oaths to defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that is an oath we plan to keep. There are those who want to destroy this land we love but, like our founders, there is no way we are going to remain silent.

============================

=============================

What the Liberal Biased Media ISN’T telling Americans about the Tea Party:

LINK

===========================

MAYBE the START Group and Department of Homeland Security ought to look into this:

Rep. Allen West: The Muslim B’Hood takeover in Egypt shows Arab Spring is radical Islamic nightmare. Obama’s Ties to Muslim Brotherhood Exposed

AND THIS:

The Muslim Brotherhood “Project” for Israel and America

AND THIS

How Close is the Muslim Brotherhood to the Obama Administration? Is Obama Pro-Islamic Socialism? Is Sharia Creeping Into the US Government and into American’s Liberties?

OR THIS:

FBI: Number of Michigan IP addresses on jihadi websites is “staggering”

*********

OR THIS:

The 99%: Official list of Occupy Wall Street’s supporters, sponsors and sympathizers

*********************

OR EVEN THIS:

National Labor Racket: Obama LABOR BOARD Pick has Ties TO MOB

AND THIS:

Probe reveals New Black Panther ties to Hezbollah. Hezbollah at our Southern Border?

========================

================================

************************

*************

ADDITIONAL LINKS:

‘PRETEND WAR’: LEFTIST TEACHER SLAMS 4TH OF JULY FIREWORKS

******************

Marxist Utopia; the Ideology of the Democrat Party. Where is the American Dream of Success?

=====================

===========================

===================

==============================

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/showing-signs-of-patriotism-this-4th-of-july-with-fireworks-and-sparklers-showing-love-for-individual-liberty-and-freedom-dhs-may-brand-you-right-wing-extremist/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

One CommentLeave a comment

  1. Thank you for the link back my friend


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: