F

resh from cancelling funding for anti-missile systems as North Korea threatens to launch a missile towards Hawaii, the Obama administration has found something else to cut … so it can keep valuable programs like research into why guys don’t like wearing condoms. Newest to go: a satellite upgrade that could help FEMA with, oh, the next Katrina.

The WSJ reports today that Obama is putting hte axe to “a controversial” Bush administration spy satellite program at Homeland Security that would have provided federal, state and local officials with access to spy-satellite imagery to assist with emergency response and domestic-security needs. What kind of domestic security needs? Oh,just stuff like being able to scout out suspicious terrorist-like activities at ports or border crossings.  Nothing that important.

I put the “a controversial” in quotes because what that Bush did wasn’t controversial.  Dems cooked up criticism of the satellite program because they were convinced the Bush-Cheney-Rove cabal was going to use the satellites for domestic spying.  But now that the Annointed One is in office, that should no longer be a  problem, right? And national security should come first, right.

No, sillies.  Campaign contributions from the ACLU come first. Always.

WSJ reports that CA Dem Rep Jane Harmon and Janet “Human-Caused Tragedites” Napolitano were behind the axing of the program.  As Jack Bauer would say, “Dammit!”

No Comments yet »

U

nlike its earlier report listing returning vets and anti-abortion activists as potential terrorist threats, which circulated to police departments nationally before being withdrawn, the newest act of ridiculousness from the Department of Homeland Security’s Intelligence & Analysis division was withdrawn within hours.

Norse mythology buffs can rest easy; they won’t be harassed by the local PD.

But why the rush with trying to make I&A’s Domestic Extremist Lexicon disappear? Perhaps because it listed some black groups as potential terrorists?

Yes, the black separatist movement was listed in the lexicon, along with the Norse mythology folks, as an extremist threat to be reckoned with.  True that; the separatists are a really big threat, especially now that America has elected a black president. The anger must be reaching a boil-over point among this community, which last did anything significant in the 1970s

Also a big threat, according to the report, white Norse mythology buffs. Give me Thor or give me death! When you see hefty gals with big horns on their helmets, give them plenty of leeway.

DHS couldn’t have pulled back from the document more dramatically.  Here’s the spokesgal:

“The lexicon was not an authorized I&A product, and it was recalled as soon as management discovered it had been released without authorization.  This product is not, nor was it ever, in operational use.”

Yes, but someone authorized it, and someone wrote it, and that someone wasn’t involved in assessing real threats, and we paid for the darn thing.  If this is the I&A work product, I’d rather they count paper clips.  Via WashTimes, here’s the GOP perspective:

Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the report “causes further concern that Congress needs to get to the bottom of exactly how DHS determines what intelligence products to distribute to law enforcement officials around the country.”

“Although we have evidence that some of the groups described in this and other DHS intelligence products are an active terror threat to our nation, I would be interested in knowing why this lexicon mentioning left-wing extremist groups was deemed inappropriate by DHS and recalled, yet a similar report focusing on veterans, antiabortion activists and anti-illegal immigration activists was fit for distribution and sent out by DHS to law enforcement agencies across the country.”

Watch it, Pete. You’re beginning to sound like some kind of rightwing extremist.

1 Comment »

S

o the Department of Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis (DHS/I&A) has looked at the right wing and assessed that it poses the most imminent terror threat to the U.S.  How then does it assess the radical left?

In short, they’re just a  bunch of cyber-pantywaists.

In a report titled very much like the controversial report on right-wing extremists, DHS looks at “the more prominent leftwing groups within the animal rights, environmental, and anarchist extremist movements” and finds that America is at risk … of cyber attacks.

DHS/I&A assesses that cyber attacks are attractive options to leftwing extremists who view attacks on economic targets as aligning with their nonviolent, “no-harm” doctrine and tactic of “direct action.” (emphasis added)

The companion report on the rightwing went back nearly 20 years to cite examples of real action by the militias, but this report does not mention any leftists with “violent, harm doctrines.”  Ted Kaczynski isn’t mentioned, nor is the Weather Underground, which would be pretty hard to overlook given Bill Ayres’ prominence in the presidential campaign.  Also not mentioned are the violent leftists from Puerto Rico’s liberation movement, which got a pretty pointed message in FBI Director Louis Freeh’s 2001 testimony to Congress on domestic terror:

Acts of terrorism continue to be perpetrated, however, by violent separatists in Puerto Rico. Three acts of terrorism and one suspected act of terrorism have taken place in various Puerto Rican locales during the past three years. These acts, including the March 1998 bombing of a super-aqueduct project in Arecibo, the bombings of bank offices in Rio Piedras and Santa Isabel in June 1998, and the bombing of a highway in Hato Rey, remain under investigation. The extremist Puerto Rican separatist group Los Macheteros is suspected in each of these attacks.

Instead, the report mentions three incidents between 2005 and 2007 when leftwing animal rights whackos hacked into computers, launched email attacks or overwhelmed servers, targeting companies that were related in one way or another to animal testing.  And we are duly cautioned:

DHS/I&A judges that the cyber attack option will become increasingly attractive to leftwing extremists as companies’ reliance on cyber technologies grows.  DHS/I&A also assesses that these extremists will improve their cyber attack capabilities by keeping pace with emerging technologies and overcoming countermesasures that develop over the period of this assessment.

Duck and cover!  Even the readily prone to violent anarchists don’t get much attention in the report.  In its appendix on leftwing extremists, it says of the groups:

Anarchist groups seek abolition of social, political, and economic hierarchies, incluidng Western’style governments and large business enterprises, and frequently advocate criminal actions of varying scale and scope to accomplish their goals.

That’s it.  You know, if I recall correctly, al-Qaeda frequently advocates criminal actions of varying scale and scope to accomplish theri goals.  But don’t worry about the anarchists; DHS just lumps them in with the animal lovers in a big, happy non-violent movement of cyber losers.

Not mentioned anywhere in the report is the Earth Liberation Front’s attacks on homes, resorts, forestry research centers and construction sites.  The group has burned millions of dollars in property, destroyed the valuable work of forest scientists and continuously put lives at risk.  That the haven’t killed anyone yet is a testament to luck, not a non-violent doctrine.

Contrasting the rightwing and leftwing reports, we see a hyper-awareness of risk from the right and a passive blowing off of risk from the left.  This could be passed off as an accurate assessment of the two movements, but before we make that call, let’s go back to Freeh’s testimony:

Anarchists and extremist socialist groups — many of which, such as the Workers’ World Party, Reclaim the Streets, and Carnival Against Capitalism — have an international presence and, at times, also represent a potential threat in the United States. For example, anarchists, operating individually and in groups, caused much of the damage during the 1999 World Trade Organization ministerial meeting in Seattle. …

A distinct but related [to ALF, the Animal Liberation Front] group, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), claimed responsibility for the arson fires set at a Vail, Colorado, ski resort in October 1998 that destroyed eight separate structures and caused $12 million dollars in damages. In a communique issued after the fires, ELF claimed that the fires were in retaliation for the resort’s planned expansion that would destroy the last remaining habitat in Colorado for the lynx. Eight of the terrorist incidents occurring in the United States during 1999 have been attributed to either ALF or ELF. Several additional acts committed during 2000 and 2001 are currently being reviewed for possible designation as terrorist incidents.

I realize that the report I read focuses on the radical left’s cyber capabilities and that there may be another assessment into their more violent efforts. DHS/I&A does’t list its studies on its page of the DHS site.  But this is the document that suddenly became available yesterday as criticism of the DHS/I&S assessment of rightwing extremists took off, so I’m assuming it’s the best they’ve got.

Neither report focuses on a major threat to America.  The rightwing extremist report is just leftist paranoia; it has very little evidence within it.  The leftwing report details a more imminent threat, but says it’s just some corporate computers that are at risk.

I suggest DHS/I&A spend its time and our money on more meaningful research into threats against America.  They could start by reading Violent Islamic Extremism, the Internet, and the Home Grown Terrorist Threat, a report of the Senate’s homeland security committee.  Here’s the very first paragraph of that report:

This is the first in a series of reports by the Majority and Minority staff of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (Committee) on the threat of homegrown terrorism inspired by violent Islamist extremism. The Committee initiated an investigation into this threat during the 109th Congress under the leadership of Chairman Susan Collins (R-ME). The first hearing on the homegrown threat considered the potential for radicalization in U.S. prisons, including an examination of the activities of Kevin Lamar James, an American citizen. While in prison, James adopted a variant of violent Islamist ideology, founded an organization known as the Assembly for Authentic Islam (or JIS, the Arabic initials for the group), and began converting fellow prisoners to his cause. Upon release, James recruited members of JIS to commit at least 11 armed robberies, the proceeds from which were to be used to finance attacks against military installations and other targets in southern California. James and another member of the group eventually pled guilty to conspiring to wage war against the United States.

And it just keeps on intensifying from there.  The contrast between what’s in the Senate report and what’s in the DHS/I&A report on rightwing extremism plays up just how bad the latter report was – hysteric, biased and, most frighteningly, indicative that DHS has its priorities all wrong. 

No Comments yet »

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.

3 Comments »

I

was in LA all day … well, driving to and from, and in LA, so I got an earful of talk radio reports on the DHS “right-wing extremism” report with no keyboard at the ready, so here I find myself trying to figure out how to write about something that already generates nearly 20,000 hits on Google’s blog search.

That’s part of it: Those 20,000 blog hits mean this report won’t sink into a sea of media inattention, as would have happened a few years back, and that’s very good, indeed.

Anyone who didn’t see this coming doesn’t understand “progressive” thought, because the movement, to which our president subscribes, is all about repressing and vilifying those who don’t align with the carefully defined groupthink.  We saw enough of it during the Bush years, but back then their charges and actions couldn’t gain real traction since they were out of power.  But now that Congress and the White House are progressive, they have all the traction they need.

You’ve read it elsewhere, but allow a quick venting:  Veterans who fought for America are now enemies of America who need to be watched?!  Law enforcement also better watch people who reject federal authority?!  How much federal authority, precisely, needs to be rejected?  Just excessive new federal authority, or do we get busted for not currying to good ol’ FDR-era overstepping?  The report’s not clear, so we’re not in the clear. Opposing unabated abortion or immigration might be a sign of right-wing radicalism?!  Sorry, Bub, but last time I checked, I wasn’t plotting the radical fall of our country even though I seem to fit the profile.

I have a confession to make.  That’s my car there, with the “Don’t Tread On Me” flag on the back.  Just arrest me and throw away the key.  I’m obviously not a patriot.

Well, enough ranting.  Here’s the thing:  We cannot allow the authors of this report and those who delegated it and signed off on it to slink about in protective anonymity.  We need to know if the perpetrators of this Obamination are direct Obama appointees, and if so, what else they are working on.  We need to know if the report was prioritized over reports on more significant threats, like, you know, jihadists or maybe that radical legalize pot bunch … if they could ever get their act together, they could be really dangerous.  (But you could stop them with Twinkies and Doritos.)

The GOP can’t be afraid of this issue; they must push for release of documents and identification of the perps, because Lord knows, the NY Times, which was so intent to debilitate our foreign surveillance programs and out Scooter Libby, won’t.

Hot Air offers up a couple names for this phenomenon of expansive liberal fascism:  fauxrage and Obamateurisms.  I don’t think so.  My rage isn’t faux, any less than their rage at Bush was faux, and this isn’t amateur; it’s just the letting loose of the progressive hounds.

1 Comment »