Actually her comment about giving the same treatment to both borders makes quite a bit of sense to me. Certainly the relationships and borders are entirely different situations, however, in the sense of keeping both borders secure I don't think there's a difference other than the idea that border crossings in Canada are always clogged and need some relief. Trade, commerce, tourism, etc can all be maintained while also having ourselves a secure border. Massive portions of the northern border are far too insecure for my tastes, and leaves the door wide open for terrorists.

We've at the very least seen a lot of attention paid to the Mexican border, I think what she's trying to say is that we should not ignore the other.

Also don't forget about the foiled plot with the guy who crossed with a van full of explosives that was headed to Seattle from Vancouver.

I was not happy to see veterans associated with domestic terrorism. I agree that we need to treat service members and veterans with support and respect, and I think in a lot of ways we as a country has let them down. If we are going to send folks in harm's way we need to be prepared to care for their wounds, mental and physical, and care for the loved ones of those who are fallen. Proper care for service members and veterans should not be considered optional, but a requirement if we intend to send them into harm's way.

While people may construct endless scenarios where veterans may be drawn into this nefarious organization or that, haven't they earned the benefit of the doubt? For the record, this veteran does not own a weapon.

Absolutely. And while I don't see veterans as threats, I don't see the warning as something hostile either. None of the veterans I've known would ever join or participate in a group like that.

It's not a warning about veterans. It's a warning about extremist groups and a reminder to the agencies monitoring their activities.

Thank you.

You answered your own question right here. It doesn't matter what group a person comes from: People from all walks of life commit crimes, including veterans. They haven't earned a benefit of doubt so grand that it puts them above all suspicion regardless of circumstance, no. If the government receives intel and/or chatter that points to a specific rise in illegal activity amongst veterans(or any group), they have an obligation to warn people about it.