Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment

14 Apr

Filed Under Citizen Justice | 11 Comments

Concerned about the disenfranchising effects of the economic downturn, large numbers of returning combat veterans, election of first African American president, and a perception that gun control laws will soon be strengthened, Janet Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Security issued a report alerting law enforcement agencies of potential threats posed by “rightwing extremists”. The report, excerpted and included in full below, describes how the current economic and political climate is fueling the resurgence in radicalization and recruitment of individuals who might commit acts of domestic terrorism and/or commit other crimes. The nature of the report’s content will undoubtedly spark debate about whether the federal government is seeking to squelch what could be taken to be lawful political dissent. This is especially so when the report came to public light on the same day the Texas Governor made a high profile statement warning the federal government to “back off” and respect state’s rights under the 10th Amendment.

Key Findings

Rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.

The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.

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.

Octomom Above the Law– For Now

30 Mar

Filed Under Octomom | Leave a Comment

It seems society can’t let go of the Nadia Suleman’s story and its desire to see the “Octomom” punished. With every move Suleman makes, including her latest “firing” of the free in-home child care services provided by a national charity, a question persists: Can she be charged with child abuse or neglect and stripped of her children for attempting to single-handedly mother 14 children, 8 of them premature infants? Well, she may have broken the taboos of parenting, but she hasn’t broken the law, yet.

Without reasonable suspicion of abuse or neglect, the state of California can’t terminate her parental rights, remove her children, or charge her with a crime. Being a welfare recipient, lacking financial resources, and being “crazy” do not constitute child abuse.

Child welfare and parenting law strongly favors children remaining with biological parents unless there is inadequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or supervision. The existence of any one of these conditions could constitute neglect. And if there is repeated neglect resulting in injury or harm to children, you would have a case of child abuse, punishable by jail and resulting in temporary or permanent removal of the children from the household.

Although Octomom had no resources when the octuplets were born (which predisposes the possibility of neglect), her circumstances have changed since her story has attracted a national spotlight. She probably already has generated enough money from book deals, interviews, and television appearances to provide the minimal support required by law. If she hires child caretakers, nurses, home health aids to help care for the babies (as no single mother on the planet can do it alone), the law will favor her remaining as their legal parent and guardian. There will be absolutely no legal cause to place her children in foster care or force her into a courtroom to defend criminal charges.

The law only requires that you be an adequate parent. It doesn’t require you to be a good parent, to be regarded as a successful parent, or to provide a preferred standard of living or “functional” home. As long as your children receive the minimum standard of care for that establishes their health and safety, you are safe from government interference in your parenting.

If the Octomom adequately nourishes and nurtures all of her 14 children, she is guilty of no crime and cannot be prosecuted. The only thing she may be guilty of is being a selfish and reckless parent.

Searchable Madoff Map and Client List Database

06 Feb

Filed Under Wall Street Crime | Leave a Comment

A list of 10,000 Clients of hedge fund schemer Bernie Madoff was recently released, revealing nearly 10,000 different account names, the following pop culture figures among them:

Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg of DreamWorks along with their Wunderkinder Foundation and their financial adviser Gerald Breslauer.
Eric Roth, who wrote the screenplay for “Forrest Gump” and “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” lost all of his retirement money.
Mort Zuckerman, owner of the New York Daily News and U.S. News & World Report, had one of his charities fully invested in a fund that was fully invested in Madoff’s schemes.
Palm Beach Country Club along with Country Club social networks in Dallas, Chicago, Boston and Minneapolis.
Kevin Bacon and his actress wife Kyra Sedgwick, who may have lost millions.
Former Philadelphia Eagles owner Norman Braman.
Elie Wiesel’s Foundation For Humanity. Lost $37 million.
Wilpon Family and Saul Katz, owners of the New York Mets .
The late musical philanthropist Avery Fisher and former television host and 1971 Miss America Phyllis George.
New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg.
Actpr John Malkovich.
Artist and author Alexandra Penney lost bulk of her life savings.
Arpad Busson, Uma Thurman’s billionaire fiance.
Hall of Fame pitcher Sandy Koufax.
Talk show host Larry King.

A complete searchable database along with addresses and graphical mapping has been available by USLaw.com at Madoff Database.

Police and Secret Service Shut Down Assassination Art Exhibit

04 Jun

Filed Under Yazmany Arboleda | 1 Comment

The New York City Police Department and Secret Service forced the closure of a political art show by artist Yazmany Arboleda titled “The Assassination of Barack Obama / Hillary Clinton”. While Police Commissioner Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly denied the artist was arrested or that the gallery show was forced to close, by detaining Mr. Arboleda for questioning on the basis he posed a threat that required investigation, the Secret Service effectively forced closure of the exhibition and thus political expression.

Were the police concerns valid you ask? Isn’t there a high probability that someone who titles a public show the “Assassination of ___________ (insert public figure)” is a dangerous individual with intent to commit a violent act? Wouldn’t the police be remiss if they didn’t furtherinvestigate such an individual?

Here’s the problem.

Individuals that pose actual risks to public figures are highly unlikely to advertise their intent so publicly. It is far more difficult for police and protective agencies to identify such individuals as what few telltale signs they present are far more ambiguous and require far more analysis to detect. Given the high volume of potential threats, federal agencies must be very efficient in their investigations and surveillance. They must be able to quickly determine which threats to invest resources in further investigating and which to dismiss as incredible.

How efficient and effective were the Secret Service and NYC Police Department in this instance? Let’s see… It would take the average casual observer less than 30 seconds to identify the images on display in the gallery as innocuous political art (judge for yourself below). The word ‘Assassination’ is clearly used artfully in the show’s title, of course, to connote the assassination of each presidential candidate’s character by the indecencies of the long political nominating process. The show is clearly about ‘character assassination’ not an incitement to murder (which, even if it were, is arguably within one’s rights to promote).

February Freedoms

01 Mar

Filed Under Wesley Snipes, Anthony Pellicano | Leave a Comment

Wesley Snipes found not guilty of fraud, conspiracy and three other counts of not filing a tax return, but found guilty of three misdemeanor charges of not filing tax returns for which he faces up to three years in prison.
Police investigation of drugging claims may provide Britney with excuse for her bad behavior.
The trial of private investigator Anthony Pellicano is set to call a star-studded list of witnesses including Sylvester Stallone, Keith Carradine, Garry Shandling, Chris Rock, Ron Meyer, Michael Ovitz, Brad Grey, and Mark Burnett.

keep looking »