Apr 14 2009
The Threat Of Far Right Extremism – Updated!
Latest Update: Reader Colin from DHS comments below. Key points by which he debunks the entire shrillness emanating from the right today:
The report is labeled “Rightwing Extremism”. It should not have been. It should not have been because it is not an accurate statement.
…
Now, as I mentioned, this is not the first report of this type to come out of DHS. Domestic terrorist assessments were released during the Bush Administration, as well. In fact, the publishing of assessments of this nature is a fairly regualr occurrance. DHS publishes these kind of reports every few months, publishes a regular border security report, publishes assessments of radical Islamist terrorist groups, and publishes alerts on terrorist methods. Most of those are not leaked, and if they are, people don’t care. However, with Obama around, many on the right (including, often, myself) are so horrified by what he’s doing and saying, that we are just looking for a reason to feel under attack. Frankly, Obama had nothing to do with this report. The people who authorized this intelligence assessment are the same people who were authorizing assessments under Bush.
See, no conspiracy. Classic bureaucratic clumsiness, typical leftward lean to the Feds, and possibly a way for the workers to stoke some interest from the new Democrat boss in their work (and funding requests). No Michelle, they are not out to get us!
BTW LGF linked to this post (thanks man) and there is a helluva good discussion going on there - end update
Final Addendum: I have been watching this brush fire grow and consume nearly everyone on the right side of the political spectrum. It is truly sad, because this is worse than the claims by the left under President Bush that the NSA was spying on Americans for political reasons. Now, the right is accusing the men and women of DHS of not protecting them from violent groups but of being a political Gestapo going after conservatives (because ‘conservative’ and ‘rightwing’ mean the same thing to some!).
In my book one better have irrefutable proof that DHS is (a) ignoring its responsibility to protect this nation and its people from attack and (b) performing political oppression against constitutionally protected political activities. These are serious charges to be throwing around like the folks on the right are doing today. They better have good evidence this is the case given the slander they are slinging at the good people at DHS.
I did not like it when the left did this to the good people at NSA protecting us, and I am not liking it now with the right making wild accusations against DHS.
Addendum: Folks, there is no mention of Tea Parties in the DHS report. Tea Parties are NOT conservative events, they are grass roots broadly supported events. If these turn into GOP only (purity, remember the drive for purity!) events they will die off. But the DHS is not targeting Tea Parties – for heaven’s sake! -end update
A little reminder of what right wing extremist terrorism brought to this country
Drama Queen Updates At End
There is a lot of hemming and hawing on conservative blogs about a threat assessment out of the Homeland Security Department which discusses the threat of violent extremism from right wing groups. Somehow the bloggers, media heads, etc think this threat assessment is about them! A strange and egotistical conclusion to be sure.
There are groups who use violence against others who do not follow their beliefs. The history of this country is replete with examples (KKK, Skinheads, Weather Underground). These groups rationalize their violent and deadly actions by using good, reasonable causes as cover. They can and have corrupted good causes on the left and right with their poisonous hate. These are historical facts.
I am not concerned about Homeland Security generating a threat analysis on these people, and I do not take it personally because some of the causes the radicals use to rationalize their violent actions happen to be causes I believe in. I know I am not them and I know their use of violence cannot make a good cause a bad cause. Killing young humans is wrong, and killing people tied to abortion clinics does not change that basic moral value.
But some on the right are acting as if the Obama administration is putting out some PR hit on conservatives! Too many are fantasizing that there are dark, secret forces in the government working to keep liberals in power by arresting and harassing conservative people (who just happen to be violent). It is the strangest and silliest crock I have ever seen. Now I understand how all those conspiracy driven liberals assumed Bush and Cheney were behind 9-11 and were using the NSA to listening in on their mad hatter ranting!
Seems some on the right are now seeing black helicopters on their tin hat mind expanding devices.
First, lets look at some of the ‘offending’ passages. The title itself seems to set the stage for martyrs on the right.
Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment
This is one reason I don’t like the terms ‘rightwinger’ and ‘leftwinger’, though I have occasionally used them. We need terms to separate fringe ideology (e.g., ‘far right’ and ‘far left’) from extreme and radical ideology. I am at a loss for better words, but the way the internet slings around right and left winger I can see how some could have a fleeting initial reaction this is aimed at them. But that initial effect should disappear really quick once you read on and realize this is not aimed at Rush Limbaugh or John McCain, but at truly sick people.
The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but 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.
— (U//LES) Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts. Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit—could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past.
— (U//LES) Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.
This clearly indicates this is not about your conservative PAC or GOP neighborhood planning team. To claim otherwise is to actually support the threat this report is assessing. We cannot make these radical extremists part of normal society. We cannot defend them by pretending they are us. We cannot allow people like the Weather Underground (Bill Ayers, et al) to be an example of how to solve differences in our country. There is plenty of blood on the hands of the right and left in this country from times when we did not stop violence because it was done in the name of a cause we believed in. There are those who did not turn in the neighbor, friend or family member who went off the deep end and decided they would play God and decide who should live or die. We cannot allow this to happen again.
These radicals are preying on the anger and frustration of ‘true conservatives’ – and they are doing it by pretending to believe in their heart felt causes. That is why we see this in the report:
(U//FOUO) Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages. They also opposed free trade agreements, arguing that these arrangements resulted in Americans losing jobs to countries such as Mexico.
(U//FOUO) Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists, including militias and white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action, rallying point, and recruiting tool.
The report is clearly stating that heated anti-immigrant rhetoric is making people so angry it CAN drive them into the hands of violent radicals. It DOES NOT say that anyone opposed to immigration or illegal immigration is a rightwing extremists. To say otherwise is an outright lie.
(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.
(U) After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military veterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwing extremist groups.
This paragraph DOES NOT say our war hero veterans are rightwing radicals. It says the emotional stress on our war hero veterans makes them vulnerable to being preyed upon by rightwing radicals. The concern is these heros are being manipulated and used to give the radicals training and weapons to attack this country. To say otherwise is an outright lie.
The fact is things happened during the Clinton years which were horrible and which stained the conservative movement just as Bill Ayers is a stain on the Vietnam anti-war movement. John Kerry may have invented lies about others to make his fame as an anti-war protestor, but he did not build bombs which killed people. While what Kerry did was despicable, it wasn’t extreme and radical like Ayers. We need to understand when lines are crossed, especially among our own ranks.
During the Clinton years there were murders and attempted murders of Americans in the name of “Pro-Life”:
In the U.S., violence directed toward abortion providers has killed at least 7 people, including 3 doctors, 2 clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort.[4]
- March 10, 1993: Dr. David Gunn of Pensacola, Florida was fatally shot during a protest. He had been the subject of wanted-style posters distributed by Operation Rescue in the summer of the year before. Michael F. Griffin was found guilty of Dr. Gunn’s murder and was sentenced to life in prison.
- June 29, 1994: Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, a clinic escort, were both shot to death outside of another facility in Pensacola. Rev. Paul Jennings Hill was charged with the killings, received a death sentence, and was executed September 3, 2003.
- December 30, 1994: Two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were killed in two clinic attacks in Brookline, Massachusetts. John Salvi, who prior to his arrest was distributing pamphlets from Human Life International,[5] was arrested and confessed to the killings. He committed suicide in prison and guards found his body under his bed with a plastic garbage bag tied around his head. Salvi had also confessed to a non-lethal attack in Norfolk, Virginia days before the Brookline killings.
- January 29, 1998: Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, was killed when his workplace was bombed. Eric Robert Rudolph, who was also responsible for the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing, was charged with the crime and received two life sentences as a result.
- October 23, 1998: Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot to death at his home in Amherst, New York. His was the last in a series of similar shootings against providers inCanada and northern New York state which were all likely committed by James Kopp. Kopp was convicted of Dr. Slepian’s murder after finally being apprehended inFrance in 2001.
It is stunning how these incidents start with President Clinton’s election and end around the time of his impeachment. As noted in the report this was the period when Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people, many children going into day care, in Oklahoma City.
The Homeland Security report rightfully and accurately notes this horrible period in our history as an example of what is possible today. Recall, much of this violence and killing was while the GOP held Congress. It was not the GOP who called for this to happen, but it shows how these radicals can exploit someone’s frustration with American political policy (with some emotional issues thrown in I am sure) to create havoc, and leave good causes tainted and crippled. The fear of Clinton drove a lot of people into violence.
Anyone who is simply a conservative who believes liberal policies suck eggs and Reagan and Bush were on the right path do not have pretend the focus of this report is about them. I don’t. I cannot fathom why anyone else would. And if some liberal shows up who cannot tell the difference between Timothy McVeigh and President George Bush, that is a problem with their world view. Not mine, or the intent of this report. This report is meant to identify possible threats and stop the killing of innocent Americans.
Conservatives, the government is not out to get you, just as the NSA was not listening in on the left but was seriously tracking down terrorists. Get a grip people, this is getting embarrassing.
Update: Speaking of embarrassing, it seems Michelle Malkin has decided she resembles rightwing extremists who bomb buildings and murder Americans:
Confirmed: The Obama DHS hit job on conservatives is real
…
By contrast, the piece of crap report issued on April 7 is a sweeping indictment of conservatives.
What a frigging drama queen! She even notes that DHS has done reports like this on extreme left wing groups, but she cannot help seeing herself as the victim here! This is beyond embarrassing. Is she planning to recruit our war hero veterans and manipulate them into attacking America? Damn, the need for attention with that one is strong.
69 Responses to “The Threat Of Far Right Extremism – Updated!”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You and Obama same plan. Apologize enough to your enemy and maybe they’ll like you. Pehaps a tour of the DNC building is in order.
What you say AJ is absolutely true. The normal “right wing” or the conservative wing of the republican party is not part of this study.
However, many on the left, I’m talking politicians, insinuate that the conservative wing of the republican party is scary, narrow minded, crazy and leads to the Tim McVeigh’s of the world. Look what they made Cheney into! Bush was Hitler, our armed men and woman were killing children and were tortures. So the republican party is not designated as a terrorist organization by the government, the politicians certainly define republicans in an unsavory light and try to connect the “right wing” of the government study to the “right wing” of the political party.
Absolutely Kathie. As I said when the left tries to make Bush into Hitler it tells me is how low an intellect they have. Sadly, I can say the same for those on the right who called El Presidente Jorge Bustrada a traitor over immigration.
We need to watch both fringes and call them on it.
Joe456, I have no clue what you are babbling about.
Michelle Malkin is melodramatic a lot of the time. Big Sigh.
good op ed piece… strong, levelheaded and concise. thank you for putting into words very eloquently what needs to be said outloud. I want to be able to critisize the administration and I want to participate in a tea party protest without being labeled a rightwing terrorist and to think that the administration is targeting average people like me is frightening. Your op ed is timed perfectly and is a sane word in the middle of a firestorm of panic.
keep up the good work
cathy
From Legal Insurrection he notes the following from the DHS piece:
“Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”
I do have a slight problem with this language – what if a person is a ONE ISSUE person? (hypothetically) It does not necessarily mean they are violent – This is TOO broad.
HMMMM – I have to think about this.
Thanks for the discussion!
Good post. Average people are not for violence. But can’t figure why you’re Michelle Malkin bashing, she said approximately what you did. That when bashing the left, the DHS was very specific at who they were naming but when attacking the right, they were generalizing, specifically to create speculation. Basically, you were pointing that out: Anyone who is simply a conservative who believes liberal policies suck eggs and Reagan and Bush were on the right path do not have pretend the focus of this report is about them. I don’t. I cannot fathom why anyone else would. and The report is clearly stating that heated anti-immigrant rhetoric is making people so angry it CAN drive them into the hands of violent radicals. It DOES NOT say that anyone opposed to immigration or illegal immigration is a rightwing extremists.
Michelle tends to use hyperbole, maybe a little more than you, but she was making the same point.
Did anyone but me notice that the report called Americans right wing ‘terrorists’ but doesn’t want to call Islamic Jihadists, terrorists?
I see the report as cover to cast anyone who is opposed to the President politically as an “extremist” and to mark them as potentially “dangerous” in order to justify intimidation tactics. Things such as searching someone’s home if they don’t like your “Honk if I am paying your mortgage” bumper sticker.
Left wing extremists are just as deadly as right wing. Lee Harvey Oswald was a communist, for example. The Weathermen were socialists as were the Bader-Meinhof and Red Brigades.
The more I read the contents of this DHS report, the more it appears to be designed to produce justification to intimidate political enemies of the Democrats.
CP,
Please don’t sink into the paranoid fever swamps. When GOPAC is raided as an enemy to the state then we can discuss the oppression. But trying to stop the next McVeigh is not definitive proof that Obama has spun up a Goebbels PR machine.
Man, I need your sane, objective voice here. Not sure what life would be like if you sunk into the depths …
AJStrata
Here is an example that illustrates my above comment (waiting moderation):
It is a four page article and includes video taken by the person involved. Read it.
Now I am certainly no Ron Paul fan but the government has no right to harass the supporters of political candidates as they have in this case. There was another case where a person with an anti-Obama bumper sticker had their home searched.
I fear that our various Homeland security groups are being used as political “Brown Shirts” to intimidate political opposition.
CP,
The problem is these violent nutjobs do support fringe parties and candidates. It is not that the candidates want their support or agree with their views.
Some of this is genuine, some of it is cover. The fact someone was stopped and questioned for a measly 30 minutes by TSA is NOT evidence of anything than a overly cautious and or ambitious TSA agent. My son worked TSA and I tell you who gets stopped is up to the TSA person on station 9 times out of 10. There are NO orders from the White House to stop people at airports.
If this was real, he would have been incarcerated, not set on his way.
Gads, the place is nuts.
I think I agree with Crosspatch on this one – after reading the whole report. It is kind of a YIKES moment…
AJ,
“The problem is these violent nutjobs do support fringe parties and candidates. ”
Of course and they always have and they always will. And we never had such a document produced before, except maybe with the Nixon “enemies” list. This is all very Nixonian paranoia. My read on all if this is that they are very worried. Once the impact of these trillion dollar deficits seeps into the economy and it becomes widely known that Social Security has gone into deficit a decade earlier than planned, people are going to start getting quite upset.
When their 90 year old Aunt Maisey’s electric bill hits $200, people are going to start screaming. In California it was reported as “good news” that stimulus money was being used to expand the state Employment Development Agency … because they were crushed under the load of unemployment applications.
We have trillions of dollars being given away to bankers who supported the Democrats and nothing really to stimulate the economy aside from increasing the size of government and expanding “give away” programs that don’t build anything that adds to the economy.
It is as if the fire has gone out, there is no wood left, and they are attempting to keep it going with lighter fluid. They should be out planting trees but they are burning up lighter fluid instead. Sure, it makes a flame for a while, but the moment you stop squirting it, the fire goes out.
Sorry for the bad metaphor.
CP
Lee Harvey Oswald was working for Naval Intelligence/CIA, very, very far away from being a communist. He was not involved in the assassination in any way other than as a patsy for the mob.
And another thing … that photo op with the troops in Iraq. First the troops were asked to raise their hands if they voted for Obama. Those troops were asked to go “front and center”. Then they were given cameras by the White House staff (notice how many identical cameras you see in that photo). This was reported by several people who were there.
Now imagine if Bush had asked “if you vote for me, come front and center”. The press would be ablaze with it. Another way of looking at it is “if you didn’t vote for me, get away from me”.
It seems that behaviors that would be blasted as obvious manipulation if Republicans did it are perfectly acceptable if the Democrats do it. For example, re-word that DHS report and substitute Left Wing for Right Wing and imagine the report was put out by the Bush administration. The press would be going absolutely nuts with cries of BushHitlerNazi!
“Lee Harvey Oswald was working for Naval Intelligence/CIA, very, very far away from being a communist.”
Hmm, interesting because after he returned from the US from living in Russia his work consisted mostly of handing out Cuban communist propaganda leaflets.
Sure, the mob wanted Kennedy to take Cuba back, the mob lost a fortune when the casinos were closed there. When Kennedy allowed the Bay of Pigs operation to more-or-less die on the vine and he had Bobby start an aggressive campaign against organized crime, they would have had a vested interest in getting rid of him. The loss of the Cuban casino racket combined with the exposure of the links between labor unions and organized crime (Teamsters/Jimmy Hoffa) cost the mob a great deal. But mobsters are Democrats. Not Republicans.
“Ms. Kuban said, however, that the department had published reports on left-wing radicalization as well, though she could not name one. ”
Hmmmmmmmm
This is a bit troubling also:
“(U//FOUO) Lone Wolves and Small Terrorist Cells
(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States”
The most dangerous? What about 20 Somalian-Americans going to a training camp in Somalia? What about al Qaeda secret cells in the US? What about Mosques and Islamic schools that teach “Death to America”? What about Islamofascist internet recruitment sites? No. It is the right wing extremists (that the report, itself, says doesn’t seem to have any violent plans).
I don’t know. I think these reports should simply be on “crazy radical people” who are “prone to violence”.
I appreciate AJ’s sensible post on this. I certainly support the Government assessing/investigating/preparing for domestic violence. However, I will wait to see how the Obama Administration and Democrats actually “use” this report. No black helicopters in my mind, AJ. But, I’ve seen the Democrats tailor make reports for the purpose of painting an image or justifying a charge. Let me see the “leftist radical extremism is the biggest domestic threat” report from the past (the one Ms. Kuban said existed; but, couldn’t name) …..
and I’ll change my analysis.
Al, I congratulate you on this article !!
I’ve been spending some time in the “fever swamps” of the net,and can confirm there IS a loose conglomeration of “militia” wannabees,klansmen (klanpersons ?),and theocrats out there; and that it is interested in assasination of the President,overthrow of the government, and the establishment of “racially pure” enclaves.
The “truthers” and the “birthers” are hip-deep in this mess, and I can’t help but wonder who is funding things : a foreign government ?
a coalition of religious extremists looking to get the biblical Armageddon off and running ? Lord only knows !!
Frogg,
You are using your definition for ‘domestic’, not theirs. They would lump al Qaed as a foreign threat, even if they have sleeper cells here which include US citizens.
Forget it. I have been checking the other conservative sites and they are in full panic mode.
Just like on the immigration matter when the right self destructed, like the silliness of the Obama COLB conspiracies, this genie is out of the bottle and the damage is done again to the conservative image.
The movement looks like a punch of paranoid dupes. Sadly, I think it is a very accurate image at the moment.
CP,
The problem with your scenario where the nation rises up in anger (which I do believe could happen before the end of this year) is the fact that the Dems will not be damaged by the GOP or conservatives, they will be destroyed by their base rejecting them and moving to the center.
As most dictators note, handling your enemies is easy, handling your allies is the hard part.
AJ, you are probably right about the definition of “domestic terrorism”. I was using the Patriot Act definition, and I thought it included “homegrown terrorists” (including those affiliated with Islamofascist groups) commiting violent acts within the US. If I am wrong on that definition….
then I give the arguement win on that aspect to you.
Drudge headline:
“right wing radicals”
from the story:
“right wing extremists”
But from the actual report:
“that domestic rightwing terrorists”
as I said before, the government won’t call Islamic jihadists ‘terrorists’ but they have no problem calling Americans terrorists.
CP
Hmm, interesting because after he returned from the US from living in Russia his work consisted mostly of handing out Cuban communist propaganda leaflets.
that’s a function you would expect of an agent infiltrating an organization.
I don’t think many people that have knowledge of the JFK assassination would deny Oswald’s intelligence role.
AJ:
I have been checking the other conservative sites and they are in full panic mode.
could you give me a couple examples. I’ve checked a few conservative sites and haven’t found any yet that seem to be even surprised. must not be the same sites you are checking.
Thanks.
Breaking: St. Louis News Links Tea Party Protesters to “Extremist” Group …Update: Confirmed- Story Is Crap
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/04/breaking-st-louis-news-accuses-tea.html
Ed Morrisey has a good post on this report, including some statements that are false and conclusions that aren’t supported.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/14/the-execrable-dhs-report-on-right-wing-extremism/
excerpt:
“In the first place, the “outsourcing of jobs” outrage didn’t get stoked by the Right. That outrage got fed by the Democrats in the last two elections, and it’s a feature of the same anti-globalization loons of the hard Left that continually disrupt G-20 summits as they violently did in London. Barack Obama himself stoked a fair share of it during the presidential campaign with his NAFTA Dance.”
Here’s the part of the report that concerns me because, quite frankly, it’s a very broad brush they’re painting with.
There are a whole lot of Conservatives that fall under that broad umbrella, myself included.
I truly have to wonder if those who are not concerned with this are really paying attention to what is going on in our country and how this sort of broad reaching directive could easily be used to affect anyone who presents an opposing viewpoint.
BGG,
Your response is why I called Malkin and others paranoid and delusional. Unless you are planning to be the next MCVeigh this report is not about you.
It is about how people can manipulate gullible, paranoid, delusional people into committing violent crimes.
Egads, can’t you even tell the difference between yourself and McVeigh?????
Are you going to get angry and attack the government over this?
Cut the puppet strings people.
Maybe we’re doing something right after all if the fringes on both sides think that the government is after them!
On the other hand, as a right winger and someone who has worked with the government on a variety of levels, the only thing I fear is government fear.
For the government to even write about the right wing militia groups is silly because the right wing militia groups are silly. Spend sometime with any of these well meaning gun groups and you’ll know exactly why I say this! They talk like John Wayne, but walk like the rest of us.
It’s easy for government fear to get out of hand and we should worry about it no matter who’s the target. The fact that a compassionate conservative started the process gives me little solace. I would be less concerned about these reports if they would talk about these fringe groups’ tactical strengths with a few “LOL’s” in parentheticals.
These boogie-man reports should be left to the Bloggers and not to governmental watch-men.
AJ,
The report uses a very broad brush.
No, I am not planning to be the next McVeigh and yes, I can tell the difference.
Must you talk down and be insulting to your readers?
The point you seem willing to dismiss is the fact that this report contains far reaching generalizations which, if the decision is ever made to apply them, will affect people far beyond the “next McVeigh.”
BGG,
The report only applies to future McVeighs, that is why saying otherwise is a lie, or a play for attention, or paranoia, or victimhood …
See, to conclude this is a conspiracy gives me no choice – it is crazy to think these things without proof.
Uh-oh! The American Legion is upset about the report also. I guess they are just a bunch of right wing conspiracy kooks also.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/14/american-legion-to-napolitano-apologize/
I think AJ’s post is great. I also have no problem with any of the posts I have read from conservative bloggers. I don’t have a problem with the debate about the report because it does bring up some valid questions.
Folks,
This ridiculous indignation can only lead to one result – and that is a green light to some nutjobs who will see this as a sign they will be vindicated as heros for the acts of violence they are planning.
The one thing the internet has not done is teach people that playing with the emotions of the mob is liking playing with nuclear fire. A lesson that should not be learned by having things blow up in our faces.
AJStrata
Speaking of far right nutjobs how come AJ hasn’t mentioned John McCain humiliating Sarah Palin on Jay Leno last night? Isn’t she the heroine of all these future McVeighs?
AJ,
I haven’t commented here in a while, but I may be able to add something on this topic.
I may have mentioned before that I work as an intelligence analyst. I work as part of a DHS program, and have regular contact with the intelligence folks as DHS I&A.
Frankly, this wasn’t a very good intelligence assessment. There was nothing very insightful in this assessment (that hasn’t been in dozens of other assessments, assessments published during the Bush Administration, mind you). Also, DHS I&A, like many components of the intelligence community, tends to have a liberal outlook overall. Some analysts are conservative, but most are either “non-ideological”, but accept the liberal spin on every issue discussed, or are liberal. There is nothing wrong with this, and it is a common occurance within the field of intelligence. However, when writing an assessment like this, they should have been careful to make sure their key assumptions were not bleeding through. I think they did bleed through, and here’s an example as to how.
The report is labeled “Rightwing Extremism”. It should not have been. It should not have been because it is not an accurate statement. Domestic terrorism is broken up into several areas: Race/Hate groups (neo-nazis, klan-type groups), Militia Groups, Soveriegn Citizen groups, animal rights extremists, environmental extremists, anti-abortion extremists, and anarchists. The “right-wing” groups are never called right-wing, they are usually referred to, using hyphens, as Race/Hate-Milita-SovCit. The “left-wing” groups are called “single-issue extremists”, and anti-abortion groups are included under this category. Using “rightwing” was sloppy. It should have been titled “domestic extremists”, and covered the other groups as well.
Now, as I mentioned, this is not the first report of this type to come out of DHS. Domestic terrorist assessments were released during the Bush Administration, as well. In fact, the publishing of assessments of this nature is a fairly regualr occurrance. DHS publishes these kind of reports every few months, publishes a regular border security report, publishes assessments of radical Islamist terrorist groups, and publishes alerts on terrorist methods. Most of those are not leaked, and if they are, people don’t care. However, with Obama around, many on the right (including, often, myself) are so horrified by what he’s doing and saying, that we are just looking for a reason to feel under attack. Frankly, Obama had nothing to do with this report. The people who authorized this intelligence assessment are the same people who were authorizing assessments under Bush.
Now, with Napolitano in office, these concerns will most likely increase. Napolitano, quite simply, is not as concerned with external threats as Chertoff was, at least in my opinion. Chertoff, like me, wanted to know what was going on every morning, afternoon, and night with al Qaeda and their affiliates in Pakistan, Africa, the Middle East, and Europe, and how they might threaten the homeland. Napolitano seems to see herself more as a national police chief than as the senior counterterrorism officer in the government. That is a dangerous and short-sighted position to take. That’s the real travesty happening in the Obama DHS, and this intelligence assessment issue is distracting us from that fact.
Thanks
Colin,
No, thank you for providing clarity and insight. I am much more worried about the new top brass being asleep at the switch than this false victimhood schtick by the right.
Jules,
Did not watch Leno – in fact I rarely watch Leno. McCain looking foolish? Stop the presses! Palin is the future of the conservative movement – not McCain (looking stupid or otherwise).
AJ, to a degree, I have to agree with BGG on this one.
For a while, there is an effort on the left to not treat disagreements on issues like Gitmo as something reasonable people can disagree on, but instead to treat it as being criminal. Look at the way that people like Andrew Sullivan have clamored for trials of Bush Administration legal officials and people in the Bush’s DOD.
The reaction of the “tolerant” left to Proposition 8 is also instructive. Never mind that I have come to oppose gay marriage due to concerns about the effect it will have on religious freedom – they have decided that those who oppose them are bigots, and thus, it is acceptable for gay activists to target my church (never mind Ayers, ACORN’s funny voter registration, and other actions on the left).
We saw no real reports of this nature aimed at the left during the Bush Administration, despite the clear actions above. Nothing at all to imply that Keith Olbermann or Randi Rhodes were inciting their followers. Or that anti-war protestors were going to do anything violent. There was some discussion of ecoterrorism, but not with the broad strokes of this report.
AJ, I’m not saying they are out to get me, but I do want some straight answers about the Obama Administration’s attitude towards me. Because, let’s be honest… Obama’s supporters WERE the Kos-types on the hard left of the Democratic Party.
Harold:
“We saw no real reports of this nature aimed at the left during the Bush Administration, despite the clear actions above. [...]
I’m not saying they are out to get me, but I do want some straight answers about the Obama Administration’s attitude towards me.”
I assume the fact that this report was put together during the Bush Administration, and that Obama HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, is somewhat irrelevant to you?
AJ:
Sincere thanks to you (and LGF) for being a voice of reason out here in the wilderness. I wasn’t alive during the 60’s, so I missed the true lefty crazies like Ayers, etc. I can only imagine what it’s like to watch an entire political party lose their freaking minds in just 3 short months.
If you want to get an idea of what conservatives are apprehensive of, look at this entry. You’re constantly blending in the far right extremists with solid conservatives. At one point you say: “But some on the right are acting as if the Obama administration is putting out some PR hit on conservatives!”
But a little later, you announce:
“Recall, much of this violence and killing was while the GOP held Congress. It was not the GOP who called for this to happen, but it shows how these radicals can exploit someone’s frustration with American political policy (with some emotional issues thrown in I am sure) to create havoc, and leave good causes tainted and crippled. The fear of Clinton drove a lot of people into violence.”
A lot? Really? You name 7 — 5 of them involving abortion clinic violence, which has nothing to do with conservatism, mainstream or otherwise (unless, of course, you think anti-smoking, animal-loving vegetarians are Nazi’s, because Hitler was all those things), leaving McVeigh and Nichols.
I don’t know much about Nichols, but McVeigh was an atheist and an anarchist, not remotely conservative. Granted, conservatives are Federalist, but you may as well say that the Young Democrats are no better than the Khmer Rouge because they both want government involvement in medical care.
Furthermore, it wasn’t some amorphous “fear” of Clinton that he claimed to justify his actions, but Waco and that attack on that family in Idaho, I think. People who love to kill, love to kill, regardless of their justification.
Clinton, however, used Oklahoma City to save his career, and neither he nor the Democrats nor the mass media had any problem tying the Republicans, conservatives, Limbaugh, et al to “right wing extremism.”
I think it is very peculiar that you don’t even mention this, but then I’ve always thought you were around my age; perhaps you’re too young to remember.
No, I’m not, and neither are most conservatives, afraid of a police dragnet for anyone with a bottle of bourbon and a copy of the Federalist Papers, but, well, try this on for size, say about 2007:
“…that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting state or local authority in favor of a single centralized authority, or rejecting democratically-elected government altogether. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposing US foreign policy or being radically pro-environment.
“Many leftwing extremists were antagonistic toward the presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, innovations in social programs to minorities, and preserving the rights of citizens for firearm ownership and use.
“It is not uncommon for leftwingers to display Green Party, Campaign for a free Iraq, or ANSWER material. These members are usually supporters of former presidential candidates Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean.”
I assume the fact that this report was put together during the Bush Administration, and that Obama HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, is somewhat irrelevant to you?
Do you really expect me to believe that this document was in preparation for a whole damn year like the PR flack said? It’s a cut-and-paste hack job from SPLC, La Raza, Handgun Control, Inc., and Code Pink talking points. It probably took all of a week to put together.
It’s very different from reports that were actually written during the Bush Administration, because it’s awfully damn short on names of people and organizations (the one guy they actually name has been dead and buried for almost eight years, GFR). The lack of hard information in the report makes it worthless to anyone doing actual threat analysis.
You, Charles from LGF, Rick from Rightwing Nuthouse, and some others are emerging as the new conservative voices of reason. The rest of the right-wing blogosphere, on the other hand, is emerging as the new moonbatocracy. Ironic, since it’s Malkin and her ilk that love to call anyone left of center “moonbats.” Now she’s the one wearing the tinfoil hat.
Wasn’t it Bill Clinton that suggested that Rush and the Rush’s of the world incited people like Tim McVeigh to blow up things? It’s easy to go from government talk to political accusations just for fun and a little edge when the poll numbers indicate a needed boost. Just saying!
Regardless of the fact that this report is just one in a series it’s title, Rightwing Extremism, incites discontent and worry on the right and rightly so. At a time when those of us on the right feel as if we are constantly being attacked by the left and its media wing it’s not a far jump to worry that this report will be used against us by them. Even though the report may not have been intended to be an indictment of the right that doesn’t for a minute mean that it isn’t being used just as that. And after all the horribly unfounded and completely fabricated accusations that have been made against Bush and Cheney and Palin and our military I find it ironic that someone would demand we have rock solid evidence “before” we voice our worries.
Also being that the report was released during the Obama administration is it wrong to wonder if the title wasn’t planned
after all? I don’t think so as this administration has shown it has no problem misleading the public. To me the report would have made more sense titled something like Homegrown Extremists or the like and should have had everyone from ELF
to ACORN listed also. I’m sorry but the threat of being listed as
an extremist because I’m pro-life or a flat taxer or third party member is wrong and potentially scary.
Is it too much to ask liberals to follow standards they demand others adhere to?
Every person involved in the 9/11 attacks was of Middle Eastern origin. Imagine the outcry from liberals had the DHS issued a report on them, filled with the same sloppy generalizations this report has. Would AJ Strata council all Americans of Middle Eastern decent ‘not to worry because the DHS isn’t targeting them.’? I doubt it.
I submit that mainstream Republicans were targeted and blamed after the OKC Bombing. Bill Clinton blamed Rush Limbaugh and other Right Wing radio talk show hosts who ’spread an atmosphere of hate.’
I have yet to meet a conservative that approves of what McVeigh or Eric Rudolph did. I do know, however, prominent liberal leaders like Barbara Lee who have supported cop killers like Mumia Abu-Jamal. And let’s not forget our Teleprompter President, who’s first fund raiser was hosted by a Mr. Bill Ayers. Ayers too, bombed federal buildings. One of his buddies was killed building a nail bomb intended for use at a civilian dance. Of course, Mr. Obama says Ayers was ‘just some guy in his neighborhood.’ Is he really that naive, or just lying?
I despise what McVeigh did. But if he had done it to protest global warming or capitalism, he’d probably get a professorship instead of the Big Sleep.
AJ, I can’t go with you on this one. If this report had come out under Ford, or Reagan or GHWBush or John Kennedy for that matter, I would not have my antennae up. Why not? Because none of these past presidents were members of the INDUSTRIAL AREAS FOUNDATION nor did any of them consort with ACORN or Rev. Wright or Father Pflager, or Bill Ayers nor did they have Saul Alinsky’s thinly disguised contempt for America, imho. Patterns and context are everything now, imho.
I have read parts of the report that SPECIFICALLY identify anti-abortion, Christians, against taxes,”against an overreaching federal government” as extremists. Say what? Where is Bill Ayers in this report? Did you hear Chuck Schumer lately?
I know how this works. They are in a HUGE PR campaign up there in Washington to diminish conservatives, imho. They are masters at fudging the meaning of words to create their “reality”, imho. It’s been done for the past 8 years!
I would NOT be surprised if FENTON COMMUNICATIONS is helping with this….not one bit surprised.
A quote from the report from the Washington Times article: “It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” the warning says. ”
Go watch The Sound of Music again…it will give you chills as to how easily freedom can be manipulated…right under your very eyes.
Needless to say, I do.not.trust the occupants in Our Houses. Just my gut opinion. And btw, I was a leader with one of the IAF groups.
As colin implies or pretty much says above, these intelligence departments are basically liberal. As is the case I think with most government agencies/bureaucracies. Did anyone notice the raucous, jubilant reception Michelle O. got when she made her recent tour of these places? Could it be that the prosecutors of Ted Stevens were of a certain ideological bent, even though they worked under a Bush administration?
That’s just the way it is, I guess, after all, you work for the government, and the Democratic party is the party that always argues for bigger government in control of more things. Entrepreneurs tend to be Republicans, I think, because Republicans in general work to hold back the endless tide of new ideas for more government control that only get in their way.
It’s the same way with journalism, academia and law. Largely liberal. It seems as though it’s up to ordinary average folks out here, who understand that one of the main ideas behind the constitution was to LIMIT the power of government, to carry the bulk of sentiment on the other side. We don’t have giant institutions with massive influence.
So, I would suspect that reports like this, that tend to reflect worse on the right than they do on the left, ARE routinely conceived of and prepared, regardless of who is the President, but the difference is that now we have people — Janet Napolitano and Barack Obama — who are very willing to approve of such a report — complete with the inaccurate and insulting implications about so many average citizens — getting published and distributed.
Just a theory, perhaps completely wrong, but one that seems to fit with history and the facts of just who tends to work in these places.
Perhaps some undue paranoia on the right about this, but at the same time, IF government is being misused to unfairly taint in people’s minds one side of the spectrum using inappropriate references and too broad generalities, this needs to be pointed out, and those doing it need to understand that we are aware of what’s going on.
We need to demand equal-opportunity demonization.
We need to have a report detailing the destructive activities of E.L.F., and the pool of ‘leftwingers’ THEY draw from, released on the eve of Earth Day.
How bout that, Janet?
[...] People talk about tipping points. Today I have reached one with regards to the conservative movement and the GOP, due in no small part to the debacle started on the far right blogs regarding the DHS report I posted on earlier. [...]
[...] only with members of violent fringe groups and actual rightwing extremists — those who, we are assured, are quite different in kind from the rightwing extremists as they are defined in the report [...]
[...] Strata has an interesting post on the DHS report (be sure to read Colin’s comment)… For the most part I agree with [...]
I am not sure why you are so angry. I thought the comments were reasoned and calm here. I read other sites and did not come away with the same sense of anger you seem to be feeling, AJ. I am sorry you are so upset by this. I think this is a topic with valid responses and no one was purposely trying to be vicious. I think the report was boiler plate which had been cut and paste recently using words like “right wing” to make a subtle point. I think that is a valid assumption. Even Colin said, “The report is labeled “Rightwing Extremism”. It should not have been. It should not have been because it is not an accurate statement. ”
It kind of boils down to that. It isn’t accurate and that makes people nervous… But, everyone respects your thoughts, AJ. I’m really saddened to read your new post.
I like this post from TammyBruce.com:
“The Tenth Amendment
A post by Maynard
This seems like a good moment to review the Tenth Amendment.
The Bill of Rights consists of the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution was adopted in 1787, and the first order of business was to amend it to protect the rights of the states and the people from Federal encroachment.
The final amendment, the Tenth Amendment, simply reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In other words, the Federal Government is only allowed to exercise powers that have been explicitly yielded to it in the Constitution. That’s the law.
How did Washington get so huge and intrusive and overwhelming when its enumerated functions are so limited? Does anyone care that what we’re seeing today is, aside being reprehensible and suicidal, also blatantly illegal?
Does citing the Constitution make me one of Janet Napolitano’s dangerous extremists?”
Posted by Maynard · April 14, 2009 04:07 PM ·
And btw, I am NO FAN of Michelle Malkin whatsoever.
AJ, I am hearing now about Ms. Brooks being placed at the Defense Dept. Do you know about her????????????? !!!!!!!
VERY DISTURBING.
[...] Johnson. Then they went after AJ [...]
lacegrl,
This is the result of emails with other conservative bloggers in the background. One woman even sent a backhanded slap at my wife.
Trust me folks, if you are decent, family oriented, neighborhood loving American – the GOP and conservative movement is not for you.
It seem some have such emotional issues with being rejected by the voters that the DHS report may be striking closer to home than I would have ever suspected.
Wow, “Strata,” you’d really better watch out for your creeping rationality. What’s next, are you going to tell your fellow nutcases that, while the gays might want to grab their guns, they are no threat to their weapons?
[...] extremism is certainly something to be concerned about, just as we should be concerned about the sort of far-left extremism we saw in Europe during the [...]
AJ:
“Trust me folks, if you are decent, family oriented, neighborhood loving American – the GOP and conservative movement is not for you.”
Ummm… WOW. I think I might have gotten banned for typing that before today.
So, if you are no longer a member of the GOP, or the “conservative movement” — where do your political loyalties lie now (as well as those of your family, since they all post here too)?
Colin:
Now that is the most clear-headed thinking I have read to date on this issue. Simply changing the reference from “right-wing” to “domestic” would have removed the fuse from this. “Right-wing” means different things to different people. The title “spring-loaded” a lot of people before they even started reading it and once primed, much of the rest of the text could tend to add even more tension. When it is insinuated that the “right” is bad, and that veterans are potentially bad, a lot of people can go off half-cocked.
The aiming of the report at the “right” and apparently not mentioning the “left” appears discriminatory and can cause an emotional reaction in people who identify with the “right” more than the “left”. It could feel like a personal attack on their own beliefs and a demonizing of the political opposition to the party currently in power.
This is exactly the kind of thing I have been worried that this report will act to enhance.
The legitimate protests of people who are tired of irresponsible spending being twisted into “terror” and people will associate that with “the right” and will use the “right wing terrorist” document from DHS to further their agenda of making anyone protesting the government into a terrorist of some sort.
The wording of this report was unfortunate but a bonanza for partisans on the left. Not sure if it was by design or idiocy.
But it wasn’t a report on domestic terrorism as a whole, it was a report on rightwing extremism. The DHS produces lots of reports. Chances are, they’ve produced one on leftwing extremism, and chances are, they will again. This one just happened to be about rightwing extremism.
Here’s something from Colin’s excellent comment which AJ did not include in the top-of-page excerpt:
I’m sure that AJ already knows this, but the conservatives who are upset by this report don’t. Because the report (1) does not (and apparently does not even try to) distinguish between the lunatic right and mainstream conservatives and (2) is sloppily vague and unfocused, there’s a natural tendency to see it as applying very broadly. OTOH, people who know more about the extremists assume the report is narrowly focused. (And who in their right minds would study the nasty/bizarre/convoluted far right unless they had to? Well, me, but I’m strange like that.)
The proper thing for the DHS to do is withdraw this version of the report in favor of an much clearer rewritten version.
CChittleborough,
What people also don’t know is that the names of the specific groups were removed and the report made vague to protect certain ongoing government actions.
Which the conservatives probably impacted due to their victimhood drama.
Fact is, they can’t clean it up – right now.
What did they leave out?
Domestic terrorism is broken up into several areas: Race/Hate groups (neo-nazis, klan-type groups), Militia Groups, Soveriegn Citizen groups, animal rights extremists, environmental extremists, anti-abortion extremists, and anarchists.
Bill Ayers, Acorn, Far Lefties, Democrats, etc.
DHS Report On “Rightwing Extremists”…
I know, late to the party again, but better late than never, I suppose*.
By now, you’ve all re…
……
AJ wrote (at 7:32 am)
Ah-hah! That is a very important piece of information.
I’d still suggest that the report should have included some boilerplate text along the lines of “of course, the majority of people who are upset at deficits/taxation/whatever are not extremists”. But knowing why the report was so vague makes a big difference.
I suspect that most leaders of the US far right act are trying first of all to make money, second to gain power over followers, then to boost their immature egos and only after that to express an ideology. (It is possible to make a living, even a very good living, as a far right activist in the US, but not here in Australia, nor in New Zealand, nor in Canada AFAICT.) People like David Duke said last year that a President Obama would be good for their cause (ie., their businesses). No one should be surprised to see the far right working as hard as they can at recruiting followers (ie., suckers). In the midst of that, it is only to be expected that some of the true believer minority will plan something violent.
The Obama birth certificate truthers are
Err … that last sentence should be:
The Obama birth certificate truthers are a classic example of agile entrepreneurs taking up a new business opportunity while their staid competitors stay in a fading market (9-11 trutherism).
[...] AJ Strata has a good take on this: The Threat Of Far Right Extremism – Updated! [...]
Here’s Orly Taitz-who has jumped the shark and linked up with the Troofers and the Wingnut Militia wannabees:
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/?p=411
[...] all day long they are the victims of concern with right wing extremists, but as I pointed out when this DHS mess came out, the track record for pro lifers under democrat presidents is damn violent and conservatives would [...]