Janet Napolitano’s non-apologetic apology and a Savage lawsuit

Radio talk show host Michael Savage has teamed up with the Thomas More Law Center to file a lawsuit against Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

The complaint can be read here.

“It is a civil rights action brought under the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, challenging the policy, practice, and custom of the United States Government that targets for disfavored treatment those individuals and groups that are considered to be ‘rightwing extremists.”  Read the full report on WorldNetDaily

Napolitano has inflamed people across the country with release of a Department of Homeland Security report in which she warns against the possibility of violence by unnamed “right-wing extremists” concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty — singling out returning war veterans as particular threats

Seeing Red AZ previously covered her ill-advised report.

Her not-quite-an-apology, (“To the extent veterans read it as an accusation … an apology is owed.”) was greeted by the liberal taxpayer-subsidized National Public Radio (NPR) questioning whether an apology was even necessary.

“It wasn’t an apology in my view,” said Iraq Army veteran Pete Hegseth, chairman of Vets for Freedom. “It was one of those non-apology apologies. She was sorry that veterans were offended. She should either apologize for the content of the report as it stands or they should rewrite the report and reissue it.”

5 Responses to Janet Napolitano’s non-apologetic apology and a Savage lawsuit

  1. Joe Evans says:

    Janet Napolitano was a lousy Arizona governor which was bad enough. Having this unqualified partisan hack appointee in charge of our national security in these stressful times is worse than preposterous. It is risky and terrifying. Say what you will about George W. Bush, he kept this nation safe in the years since September 11, 2001. Barack Hussein Obama willingly bows to Muslim Saudi royalty, denudes our military preparedness and relinquishes our classified information. What a splendid trade-off.

  2. Ron says:

    Of course, Napolitano has no children to be concerned about as she insults our military and leaves our country vulnerable with her non-secure policy on our borders. Kyrsten Sinema can take care of herself.

    Bravo to Michael Savage and the lawyers at Thomas More.

  3. Tom Darby says:

    Here is a frightening thought: This is a great way of thinning the swelling ranks of veterans and the benefits the federal government will be paying out in the coming years. Label a person, then convict a person and those bennys could easily be taken away. Jus’ a thought.

  4. Calypso says:

    Makes sense to me, Tom. I hope you’re wrong, of course. We are in the thick of the worst right now.

  5. reaganiterepublican says:

    Napolitano’s use of Oklahoma City in 1995 certainly is an intriguing example of how US military veterans are supposedly some sort of threat to us all.

    That bombing was a single event, staged almost 14 years ago- hasn’t Al Qaida staged hundreds of attacks on US interests since then? Why so little mention of them since she was appointed three months ago- isn’t keeping a lid on those medieval savages 80% of her job description? Isn’t that why the Department of Homeland Security created in the first-place?

    Apparently there is no bounds to what government assets Obama will prostitute for his own purposes… while neglecting daunting, actual threats in the meantime.

    So all who wondered why Obama chose this obedient toady to head Homeland Security now have their answer: a serious choice who would have focused upon real terrorist threats -not imaginary, partisan ones- like, say, a Rudolph Giuliani, wouldn’t have been a willing participant in such a sham report.