April 15th 2009
I’m Not A Radical Right-Wing Extremist, But …
T
he Token Dem challenged my reaction yesterday to the Homeland Security report on the terror risk posed by right-wing extremists, and by extension, he challenged the conservative blogosphere’s reaction, so on behalf of said half of the U.S. political blogosphere, I thought I’d respond.
His point was simple: Unless I am - we are – racist militia types, the report is not directed at us, and our reaction is overamped. In a display of sharing the talking points, Crooks & Liars said the same thing:
My my my. The right, led by Michelle Malkin, is up in arms over the Department of Homeland Security’s internal intelligence report on right-wing extremism and its post-Obama resurgence.
Malkin’s headline wails: “The Obama DHS Hit Job on Conservatives Is Real”
So, I have a question for Malkin: Are you saying that mainstream conservatives are now right-wing extremists?
Because, you know, the report — which in fact is perfectly accurate in every jot and tittle — couldn’t be more clear. It carefully delineates that the subject of its report is “rightwing extremists,” “domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups,” “terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks,” “white supremacists,” and similar very real threats described in similar language.
‘Tis true; the word “conservative” never appears in the report. But those who react like this to our reaction to the report need to ask themselves how they’d respond if “leftwing extremists” or “Muslim extremists” or “lone wolf leftwing extremists who live in shacks in Montana and mail out letter bombs” had been substituted for the phrases Crooks & Liars excerpted. They would be … what’s the word? … wailing.
Besides, Crooks & Liars is wrong in saying the report “is perfectly accurate in every jot and tittle.” That dies on the cover page, where the title, er, wails, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” But the report documents no such resurgence; in fact, in the whole USA it names a total of seven individuals representing this resurgence – six busted in one instance, one in another. Every other reference is to the 1990s, and it offers no proof at all that a resurgence is occuring in 2009. All of HSA’s watchfulness has turned up nothing, as it states in its first sentence:
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. (emphasis added)
How does this lead justify the report’s title?
Beyond that, my biggest gripe with the report is one I haven’t heard others make: In at least two places, it cites a “prominent civil rights organization” as a source of information on “rightwing extremists,” and another cite names “nongovernmental organizations.” The report doesn’t name the organizations or supply any confirming documentation of their claims by HSA or the FBI. Could you imagine what would have happened if the Bush admin had issued a report warning of leftwing activism citing unnamed gun rights groups? Wailing! These cites could well be the fingerprints of the author – a left-wing hate-spewer formerly employed by this prominent civil rights organization now appointed to HSA by Obama.
The report is dangerous because it takes behavior typical of conservatives and recasts it as radical and rightwing extremism. It may not say “conservative,” but it says things like the phenomenon of people buying guns today because they fear gun bans tomorrow is “a primary concern of law enforcement.” Incredible Wife and I are planning on buying some firearms soon because we fear we may not be able to much longer. Are we a primary concern of law enforcement?
Worse, the report indelibly links opposition to Obama with extreme racism, like this:
Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearm ownership and use.
So, let’s see if I have this right. Because Obama is black, if we oppose his policies, we are doing so because it was an “historic” election? It would seem so, since the examples that follow can also be painted as racist. We are not concerned about our borders because we want the laws of the land to be enforced, it is just more of the same racism that has us upset about Obama’s election. We don’t want government freebies extented to illegals because (1) the economy is in the tank and (2) it’s, you know, illegal, but again, the report says such motivations are racial, not political, in nature. And how the Second Amendment gets thrown in as a race issue is utterly beyond comprehension.
The report opens the door to the elimination of not just Second Amendment rights, but First Amendment rights as well:
Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of protected speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent.
Do you feel a chill? Free speech is “generally” protected, but you’d better put a “but” in there because there’s the “potential” for violence. Did Bush limit the free speech of those filmmakers who made that lovely little film endorsing his assassination? Did they issue reports saying that anarchist anti-war protesters had the potential to be violent, so the entire anti-war movement was extreme and radical?
Finally, the report concludes that rightwing terror groups are “the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States.” These rightwing groups haven’t driven pick-up trucks through crowds, they haven’t attacked Jews, they haven’t tried to set off bombs at football games, they haven’t been arrested with explosives in their trunks on their way to military bases, they haven’t trained in Pakistan, they don’t publish magazines supporting jihad against the U.S. Yet they present the greatest threat? That is very, very frightening, indeed, because if HSA is going to use this report to realign its resources, it is the domestic jihadists who will benefit.
So, it’s obvious that the lack of the word “conservative” in this report was nothing more than evidence of artful editing. It makes such vast assumptions and paints so many people and beliefs with the “radical, extremist rightwing” brush that it is unavoidable to feel oneself painted when reading it.
Sure, HSA has an obligation to protect America from the few crackpots on the right, but this report is offensive to its core, the obvious work of someone who puts hatred of the right above love of America and the need to protect it from those who really threaten it.
Posted in Homeland Security, Intelligence | 3 Comments » | |
Trackbacks/Pings
Leave a Reply
[The "Comment Box" is WYSIWYG except that you have to double space between paragraphs!
Type it the way you want it to look -- Just remember to double up those line spaces.]
You must be logged in to post a comment.
April 15th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
April 15th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Comments
April 16th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Sadly enough, it does not appear that Intelligence is part of the Department of Homeland Security anymore.