Apr 15 2009
What If Rightwing Extremism IS On The Rise?
Important Updates Below
One thing my former colleagues in the conservative movement better brace themselves for is the possibility the DHS report may be true, and in fact there are indication rightwing extremism is heating up.
One of the things a lot of us heard while debating this subject is that there is a lot of real concern with these groups right now. It is not “Obama trying to attack his opponents” concern (they are imploding so fast he has no need to worry). There are hints and whispers that there really are disturbing signals starting to show. I won’t go into it any further right now. But things could be going in a direction the conservatives suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome may just not be aware of – or worse are not willing to admit is happening.
Update: Looks like the Freepers are getting their mental wake up call today:
Heads up: Hedgecock, who broke the DHS story is talking to DHS spokseman.Â
…
Bush ADMIN Report? In the works for a year
Why would Bush target right wing?
This my friends is someone trying to wake up from the throws of delusion – let’s see if they can pull it off:
Napolitano never saw it…never signed off.
Oops. What will the right wing conspiracy theorists do now? How can they connect Obama to this report? Stay tuned, I am sure some fictional fantasy will come out, just like it did with Obama’s birth certificate nonsense.
Hedgecock says, why target Vets, broad brush?
Smith says yes, its a broad brush. Things about assessment poorly written.
Well, because Vets weren’t targeted. Seems Hedgecock can’t let go of his alarmist theory which got him all this great traffic.
Why would Bush target right wing?why did he enact the patriot act?
ummm – lemme think
maybe because he was a rino? …because he sure as heck wasnt a conservativeÂ
And there we  have it folks! It was the evil President Bush who was behind targeting those devilish conservatives. He is in cahoots with Obama, probably placed McCain at the head of the GOP ticket to ensure Obama’s win. He also was responsible for losing the Iraq war until to the point he could wipe out conservatives in Congress. It is an evil plot that goes back to 9-11, where Bush plotted with Soros to set up the Democrat landslide of 2008. It’s all so damn clear now!
Ugh, am I glad I am out of that fevered swamp.
Update: Actually, I think people should be let in on a few more details known to conservative bloggers.
Update: The essence of the problem appears to be the conservatives cannot distinguish between leftwing nattering about conservatives and hard working protectors of this nation in DHS trying to stop any more attacks like OKC and the killing of 3 police in PA. Connecting DHS to the far left is the insult that went to far.
As my above link notes, the drama queens on the right have been told that the vagueness of the report (wherein specific groups were mentioned to ensure the focus was clear) was due to a request to remove those names from the report. If anyone was paying attention to the NSA-FISA debate over the last 6 years they would know that in order to monitor such groups requires significant evidence of potential risk. To monitor anyone in the US requires a FIS Court warrant. Get clue people. There are some scary reasons why this report came out the way it did. Bottom line, it was to alert law enforcement and only law enforcement. That has now gone bust with mainstream conservative folks crying its all about them.
When the left exposed our efforts to stop attacks on this nation I was on the forefront of objecting loudly to the smears against those trying to stop the attacks. I have not changed. Conservatives now feel they have the right to do the same thing they lambasted the NY Times and others for. If you believe the right is endowed with certain morale rights to insert themselves like this in stopping attacks, I would suggest you just moved into a fragile glass house.
The right has been notified about how they got this all wrong. The new DHS Director did not see or influence this report. They have been told by respectable sources. They have not admitted this to their readers or listeners. And now they are trying to hunt down names of people in order to pressure them publicly. This needs to end.
AJ, apparently Napolitano really things the right wing in America may be as great a threat as Al Quaeda:
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=4625
Which details an interview with Wolf Blitzer.
Money question and answer:
BLITZER: Is it a bigger threat from your perspective and other [ed. – another?] al Qaeda and foreign related terror attack against the United States or domestic terrorism along the lines of an Oklahoma City bombing?
NAPOLITANO: That’s difficult to say because both are risks that are with us and will be with us and so what the American people need to know is that the Department of Homeland Security, as the secretary of Homeland Security, we’re thinking all the time about these issues.
AJ, the only way there would be any real threat from the ‘right’ would be if the regime attempted unconstitutional measures against individual liberty and private property. The second amendment was put in the Constitution precisely to deter potential tyrants. It is the left that is for disarming the population. Thank God the Supremes decided Heller correctly, and that a large number of “conservative” citizens take the right to keep and bear arms very seriously.
The left simply does not accept the fundamental premise that power resides in the people, and that the government’s powers are delegated and limited.
AJ, the report’s problems were also apparently admitted to by the DHS spokesman: The report was poorly-written, painting with a broad brush (hell, broad enough to paint a Nimitz-class carrier with ONE stroke), and yet it will stand.
Compare the DHS Report that caused all the fuss with this (a href=”http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/780410-SHVVvq/native/780410.PDF”>this 2001 analysis by the Department of Energy.
AJ, the conservative movement had screwed up big-time over the last four years. It grossly mishandled issues on which they had reasonable points (like Terri Schiavo). It took an all-or-nothing approach that not only failed to solve the problem, but also either ticked off or drove out many who would support it on other issues (like immigration).
However, the objections to this are coming from folks who are NOT extremists, including the American Legion. Plus, I have to put this report in context – provided by Andrew McCarthy:
* During the campaign, both Obama and Biden were at least open to the idea of prosecuting Bush Administration officials over their polices regarding Gitmo and interrogation of suspected terrorists.
* Obama’s campaign all but tried to shout down Stanley Kurtz during a radio appearance to discuss Obama’s background.
* There were the Obama supporters in Missouri who were looking into libel prosecutions aimed at Obama critics.
Then, of course, there is the reaction by gay activists to Proposition 8 in California – things went to the point of domestic terrorism against Mormons and shouting down supporters on live TV.
AJ, I can understand how you view conservative reaction to this as being beyond the pale. That said, when I look at how the Obama campaign went, and combined with the post-Prop 8 reactions that led to my faith being a domestic terrorism target, I cannot give the Obama Administration the benefit of the doubt in this case.
AJ,
Be careful about screaming about conservatives jumping the shark. The shark that is being jumped may be your own.
This is from the bottom of the Verum Serum post referenced above:
“Finally, one note of caution about the source. The statement quoted above does not appear to have made it to air on CNN. A You Tube clip of the segment, available here, shows that this section (plus a little more) was edited out of the broadcast. The rush transcript at CNN.com follows what aired and does not include this section either. However, the transcript on the Arizona Central website (linked above) appears to be a fuller transcript of the complete interview. Notably, this AZ Central version is the one currently linked on the DHS’s own website.”
See these link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqxzTB8huzk
http://www.dhs.gov/xopnbiz/gc_1236356650763.shtm
It appears highly likely that the DHS report in question was writting to conform to comments DHS Sec Napolitano said in public to CNN.
Leadership can focus the energies of a nation to solve problems or leadership can inspire further chaos. Just saying.
Harold,
Thanks, but none of that changes the bottom line. Malkin smeared people at DHS and accused them of criminal acts of negligence and abuse of power. The fact she was able to jump to conclusions based on a report that we know had the specific names of organizations yanked out of it does not excuse her smears. The names were removed by request from other Feds (try and guess why).
Making charges against those who stand watch requires solid proof, not good intentions running amok on paranoid emotion.
There is no reason to smear DHS on this one. Their blunders are not a license to go off half cocked – now are they?
VDH says it so well. A good read, find it at FREEREPUBLIC
Victor Davis Hanson: President of the World …deeply pessimistic view of what America was and is
NRO ^ | April 15, 2009 | Victor Davis Hanson
Posted on 04/15/2009 7:25:03 AM PDT by Tolik
Given Obama’s performance on his recent trip, three developments were quite astounding.
First, despite this fresh climate of atonement, there was a complete absence of a single apology from any other foreign leader — odd for the new shared spirit of multi-polarity and reciprocity.
AJ, I can’t understand how you can paint all conservatives as being like Michelle Malkin! I can’t stand her but I am most avidly against what this administration is doing on just about every front. I am very concerned about how you are approaching all this.
Is the entire liberal movement like Bill Ayers?
And, frankly, the DHS better get their act together then (or personally, I believe this was orchestrated-I KNOW THESE PEOPLE!). I want to know why they did not just use the words Extremists. There are many types of extremists in this country. Their words, yes, THEIR words, were extremely misleading at best, and inflammatory at worst. Who’s causing the problem? They are!
If this administration had not been so adamant about shutting down Talk Radio, cavorting with ACORN, Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, et al, then perhaps the context would be different. How you cannot see this is beyond me. I feel as if I don’t know you anymore….
LOL! Ivehadit,
Did you just compared Malkin to Ayers? I do not mean to group everyone together, but if Malkin is a leading voice in that movement I am out of it.
“…freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it”…
“Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals”, by Saul Alinsky
“1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people. It may result in confusion, fear and retreat.
3. Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat.
4. Make the enemy live up to his/her own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.”
Aj, I think #11 has affected you! 🙂
I can’t stand Michelle. I don’t consider her a leader!
And, no, you know I didn’t compare her to Bill Ayers. 🙂
The new DHS Director did not see or influence this report.
AJ, you might want to brush up on the concept of plausible deniability. This thing was very carefully routed away from Napolitano.
This report looks like something my daughter would’ve come up with in 10 minutes of cutting and pasting from the websites of the usual suspects to keep her BDSing 6th-grade teacher happy.
It’s utterly worthless as a threat assessment; it’s polemics utterly devoid of substance (i.e., who these “right-wing extremists” are). It’s almost as if the federal government DOESN’T want the real right-wing extremist terrorists caught until after they’ve struck–whereupon, if history is any sort of reliable guide (and it usually is), they’ll proceed to blame the attack on conservative pundits, radio hosts, and the NRA.
This isn’t a threat assessment; it’s an exercise in political theater.
AJ,
Malkin is one of the people who led me to depart conservatism myself.
But the blunders in this report are huge, and DHS needs to give a better explanation than they have.
“I can’t stand Michelle. I don’t consider her a leader!”
Ivehadit I am not a big fan either. I have to admit I wonder how the Republican and conservative blogsphere all became so concerned about pundits and gave them so much power
I mean at the end of the day Malkin is out to make a buck. I still wonder if bloggers (and I am talking about the biggies) get paid by consulting companies to promote person x or cause x.
It is almost like we forget we have 535 elected leaders in the Congress. It seems we all spend time more concerned with what Malkin or person x says
Now don’t get me wrong I am not saying that these people outside elected ooficials cannot be leaders or have influence. Still I sometimes think we are gone way overboard with this.
I think this defining footnote is what really puts the tone on this “poorly” but carefully written report:
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 think someone needs to give these people a copy of the Constitution/Bill of Rights and make sure they read it and understand what it means.
And based on that definition above, would that mean that those “socialist” in the U.S. who seek to have a “revolution” and replace our republic and capitalist ways with something else are “right wing extremist”?? What about the moonbats banging gongs to protest our oppressive, imperialist gov., and capitalist greed who ARE violent in their expressions of opposition? Are they “right-wing extremists” too? Should we be watching them too?
Are we now dictating who you can and cannot hate? Or..that if you believe in sovereignty of States over Fed (which is in our Constitution), you are somehow a right wing extremists. LOL. That one had me rolling on the floor.
My God, AJ, the stupidity of your commentors burns.
This shows what a bunch of pussies “movement” Conservtives are today. Total and complete pussified cowards who wet their underroos over non-existent threats.
Real conservatives have balls. Cato, Cobalt, and the rest ….. grow some or stop embarassing the rest of us by telling people that you couple of whiny pree-teen girls are “Conservatives”.
DC,
I will repeat this one more time. The lack of naming known extremists groups was due to a request by Feds in other agencies to remove the names that were in the original. There were excellent reasons cited to remove the names. People need to understand that without these names the document was not as focused as it should have been, but it was NEVER intended to target the drama queens in the mainstream conservative movement.
How many times do we have to point this out before it sinks in? I have posed the question directly to people with contacts inside DHS. Here is my question and their response:
> Did people at DHS ignore their sworn duty to protect this nation and
> investigate threats,
Not that I can tell.
> and did they abuse their official powers to target
> all conservatives in an effort run by the Obama administration to take out
> mainstream conservative opposition?
The word is that this was not their intentions. If vague and sloppy wording leads readers or law enforcement officers to that conclusion, then apologies are in order.”
No conspiracy.
Oh, and Cobat, 10 points for the most pedantic term-dropping.
No one has to look up or “Brush up” on “Plausible Deniability” because its a simple concept that we all already understand.
Pathetic attempt to sound intelligent, though it might have worked against significantly dumber people.
AJ, even accepting that this particular report named specific groups who really were (by any definition, even most conservatives’) “right wing extremists” and that those names were removed at the request of other agencies, the report is very troubling when taken in the context of (1) Napolitano’s remarks (in my first post above) that treat the al quaeda and the right in some way as equivalent by refusing to label foreign terrorism as a greater threat in answer to Blitzer’s direct question, and (2) Obama’s connections with groups like Acorn and the thuggish Chicago tactics he and his supporters have been using from the time of his senate campaign (when sealed divorce records were TWICE opened conveniently) and (3) his avowed goals of increasing government’s role in the lives of citizens.
Sometimes, even paranoids have enemies.
Cato,
This time the drama queens are wrong.