http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/?p=411

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).

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.

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

I know, late to the party again, but better late than never, I suppose*.
By now, you’ve all re…
……

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.

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.

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.

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.

Tea Bag Terror: Protests Causing Scares, Evacuations At Congressional Offices

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.

The report is labeled “Rightwing Extremism”. It should not have been. It should not have been because it is not an accurate statement.

…

Using “rightwing” was sloppy. It should have been titled “domestic extremists”, and covered the other groups as well.

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.

“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)?