Dept. of Homeland Sec. Again Calls Patriotic Americans ‘Potential Terrorists’

Are you a patriotic American that thinks that our American way of life is in danger? Are you a Tea Partier? If so, Obama’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) wants you to know that you might be a terrorist. Or, at least, the DHS wants to characterize you as a potential terrorist, anyway.

Once again the DHS is warning that believing in American exceptionalism or hailing from the right side of American politics is a dangerous thing, just as they did in 2009. It might be recalled that in 2009 the DHS released a report that said our veterans or anyone that held a conservative viewpoint should be eyed suspiciously by government as a potential domestic terrorist.

This new report, titled Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970-2008, has a different way of defining the exact same position as the 2009 report that brought so much embarrassment to Obama’s administration. Apparently police should be suspicious of anyone that feels their way of life is endangered, anyone that is religious, and anyone that might be interested in “personal liberty,” or “national sovereignty,” or firearms.

That’s a pretty wide net, isn’t it?

Here is how the new report defines the “extreme right-wing”:

Extreme Right-Wing: groups that believe that one’s personal and/or national “way of life” is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent (for some the threat is from a specific ethnic, racial, or religious group), and believe in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism. Groups may also be fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation), anti-global, suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty, and believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.

Interestingly, the report breaks down terror attacks by the counties in which they were perpetrated. From 1970 to 2009 the report finds that nearly one-third of them occurred in five heavily urban counties run by Democrats. The report identifies those counties as Manhattan, New York, Los Angeles County, Miami-Dade County, San Francisco County and Washington, D.C.

One good thing, though, we finally got the federal government to sponsor a study that says Islamic extremism is dangerous. Even still, in the data there seems to be several instances of Islamic terror missing. Patrick Poole of PJMedia recently highlighted these interesting omissions.

But there seems to be some data missing when it comes to known Islamic terrorist incidents in New York City and Los Angeles. The study shows no religious terrorism in Manhattan during the 1990s. How about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? Or the 1994 Brooklyn Bridge Jewish student van shooting by Rashid Baz that killed 16-year-old Ari Halberstam after Baz heard a fiery anti-Jewish sermon at his local mosque? Or the 1997 Empire State Building observation deck shooting by Ali Abu Kamal that killed one tourist and injured six others before Kamal took his own life?

It is intersting that so many instances of Islamic terror are being ignored by this report, isn’t it? And yet, you Tea Partiers? Well, Obama wants you to know that you just might be a terrorist.

Shortlink:

Posted by on July 11, 2012.
Filed under Barack Obama, Big government, Conservatives, corruption, Culture Of Corruption, Democrats, Liberals, Media, Military, Moonbats, National Security, Patriotism, Society, War On Terror.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, RightPundits.com, StoptheACLU.com, Human Events Magazine, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events.He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture" which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions, EMAIL Warner Todd Huston: igcolonel .at. hotmail.com"The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it." --Samuel Johnson

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • Guest

    Hey Todd, it’s now official. The US Government has labeled you and your ilk correctly.

    So what part of this is not correctly described as “extreme”, Todd?

    Extreme Right-Wing: groups that believe that one’s personal and/or
    national “way of life” is under attack and is either already lost or
    that the threat is imminent (for some the threat is from a specific
    ethnic, racial, or religious group), and believe in the need to be
    prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary
    preparations and training or survivalism.

    Serioiusly – what part of that description is incorrectly labeled as “extreme”?

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      DERP!

    • Gmacr1

      Your thinking is somewhat perplexing. The first people up against the wall once the communist ‘revolutions’ were over were their most fervent supporters. No reducation camp for you!

  • herddog505

    Groups may also be fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation), anti-global, suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty, and believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.

    Jebus, they sound like redcoats writing about the patriots and Minutemen a couple of centuries ago.

    ANd when the hell did it become “extreme” to be reverent of individual liberty? When did it become (apparently) good and right and proper to be “universal and international in orientation”? What does this say about the members of the armed forces who swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America? Are they “fiercely nationalistic”?

    I hope we don’t pay the morons at DHS who write this drivel very much.

    • Brucehenry

      If you take apart the paragraph phrase by phrase you can twist it into an attack on the Tea Party, if you’re Warner, lol. But the paragraph Grumpy quotes, above, taken in its entirety, describes right wing extremism pretty well.

      It’s describing nutjob groups who drill in the woods in paramilitary garb and spout nonsense about black helicopters, not your average Joe Teaparty types.

      It’s a matter of degree. I’m pretty sure the government has no problem with me, for instance, a squishy FDR/RFK lefty. But I bet they’re still keeping an eye on, say, Mark Rudd. Similarly, I’m pretty sure DHS isn’t much interested in gun-loving, pickup-driving Billy Bob, but they’re on the lookout for the next Tim McVeigh, as they should be.

      • Brucehenry

        Also, I just skimmed the report. Maybe I missed it, but I don’t think the Tea Party is mentioned — at all.

        • jim_m

          Past reports and training advisories have singled out conservatives for legal activities like home schooling suggesting that those who do that are threats to national security and possible threats to their own children.

          The left has a history of trying to criminalize dissent.

        • Guest

          Don’t let reality get in the way of things Bruce.

          Put on the tinfoil hat and drink the Fox News kool-aid. Conservatives just know that the Tea Party is a target.

          How do they know that?

          Tin foil…

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            DERP! DERP!

          • retired.military

            Bruce

            Can you relieve Grumpy chickenshit there of his racism porn?

      • herddog505

        “right wing extremism”

        What, pray, is this and why is it apparently enough of a threat to get DHS’s collective knickers in a twist? I’ve seen photos of lefties sh*tting on police cars and rioting; I’ve seen pics of Black Panthers standing outside a polling station with clubs in their hands; I’ve read about lefties making assassination pr0n about George Bush, but I’ve not really seen too much about right wingers doing much more than going to Tea Parties… end being decried as terrorists for this.

        There’s a blogger I enjoy; she and many of her friends and commenters are into the “paramilitary” thing, i.e. they enjoy shooting and “tactical” training. Should DHS be keeping an eye on her? For that matter, should we worry about Commander_Chico, who has on several occasions expressed his fears that hoardes of starving proles may arise if we don’t pay them off as well as his (more or less tongue-in-cheek… I think) intent to move offshore to avoid the collapse of our country?

        I realize that it’s a liberal shibboleth to connect McVeigh with conservatives just as it has been to connect Sarah Palin to Jared Loughner and the shooting in Tuscon, but this doesn’t make it so. McVeigh was a loon who, among other things, imagined that the Army had implanted a microchip in his a**. I certainly have no love for him, and I doubt you’ll find very many conservatives who do. Grim satisfaction that he’s taking a dirty nap is closer to the mark.

        But, I suppose that it makes libs feel good about themselves to imagine that their political adversaries are crazy, and it’s good policy to paint them as “extremists” who must be carefully watched and, if need be, taken care of by the government.

        And you people rant that WE live in fear…

        • Guest

          Sharron Angle suggesting the overthrow of the US government might be needed in order to establish Tea Party rule is just one example.

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/16/sharron-angle-floated-2nd_n_614003.html

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            DERP!

          • herddog505

            Shhh! Dude, didn’t you get the memo?? This report is TOTALLY not about the Tea Party! So, ix-nay the ea-Tay arty-Pay are errorists-tay, OK?

          • http://www.facebook.com/david.berthiaume3 David Berthiaume

            So let me see if I get this right… A member of the tea party who supports our Constitution, in the 2nd Amendment, makes a statement regarding our founding fathers. That our Founding fathers put that in there to allow its own citizens the right to prevent the tyranny of an out of control government. This somehow translates into Terrorism?

            You make my hair itch. Can we please remove this filth from this website. Grumpy is just a waste of Digital Bits and Bytes.

          • Guest

            FOAD.

            Yeah, it’s terrorism. The violent overthrow of the US government is terrorism, you clown.

            She suggested that guns might be needed to fight back the Tyranny of the federal government.

            She’s a bona fide lunatic, and apparently you are as well.

            Make your hair itch? Like I said in the beginning…

          • Commander_Chico

            Well, Mr. Grumpy, you might disagree on the definition of “tyranny” from Sharon Angle, but don’t you think that guns might be needed to fight back the tyranny of the federal government someday? Maybe soon someday?

            How about when they are detaining, torturing and killing US citizens without due process? When there is an infrastructure for total surveillance of personal communications? When they pass a law authorizing imprisonment without trial? When they stop people from flying and won’t tell them the reasons why?

          • Guest

            I’m not suggesting we do away with the second amendment.

            Sharron Angle suggested that the violent overthrow of the government might be needed if Harry Reid didn’t give the Tea Party what they wanted.

            Here’s another one that could be tough for Sharron Angle
            to explain away: In an interview in January, Angle appeared to float
            the possibility of armed insurrection if “this Congress keeps going the
            way it is.”

            I’m not kidding. In an interview she gave to a right-wing talk show host,
            Angle approvingly quoted Thomas Jefferson saying it’s good for a
            country to have a revolution every 20 years — and said that if Congress
            keeps it up, people may find themselves resorting to “Second Amendment
            remedies.”

            What’s more, the talk show host she spoke to tells me he doesn’t have
            any doubt that she was floating the possibility of armed insurrection
            as a valid response if Congress continues along its current course.

            Feel free, anyone, to explain what the Congress was doing that would suggest the Tea Party needed to rise up and exercise a violent overthrow of the US Government?

            Cause, you know, the Tea Party lunatics are the real patriots. The rest of us are commie socialists.

            http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/sharron_angle_floated_possibil.html

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            DERP! DERP! DERP! DERP! DERP! DERP! DERP!

          • Guest

            (duplicate comment removed)

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            DERP! DERP! DERP! DERP! DERP! DERP! DERP! DERP!

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Doc-Musgrove/100000620620015 Doc Musgrove

            No, the violent overthrow of a tyrannical government which usurps the power of the Constitution of the United States is a directive passed down to us by the founding fathers who had the foresight to see just this type of situation arising. Watering the tree of Liberty with the blood of Tyrants is an anticipated event to assure we retain our Freedom. Why don’t you, Chico, and Bruce just go there and cut your throats and save others the inconvenience? I took my Oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic and MEANT it. If there are members of our government who blatantly call for disregard, or willfully pass legislation in contradiction to the Constitution are they not then domestic enemies? Peaceful resolution to remove these enemies is preferred, if not successful there are prescribed alternatives.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            DERP! DERP! DERP! DERP! DERP! DERP!

          • http://www.facebook.com/david.berthiaume3 David Berthiaume

            We have a responsibility to make our government accountable. If our government begins to over step its bounds. We have the responsibility to stop it. Meaning to remove from office those that are not adhering to what the citizenry wants.

            Once said government begins to stop listening to its citizens and does whatever it wants. We have the right and the responsibility to oppose that government. Either in peaceful protest, or armed insurrection as a last resort. My home state we have the right to revolt against our government. It is in our state constitution. The Second Amendment and its right to bear arms is a check and balance against the government. Just like the reason we have 3 branches of government to act as checks and balances against each other. Anyone who wants to limit your right to bear arms, is effectively saying we don’t want you to have the right, or responsibility to keep our power in check. That is soft tyranny, and unfortunately, we are already at that point in out civilization.

            You seem to think that the first be all end all solution, to those that exercise their right to bear arms, is for us to go on a rampage and tear our government down. That in your eyes, and your statements on this blog makes us all psychotic madmen bent on the destruction of our government.

            We, being like minded liberty loving citizens, just want to be left alone. We want to live the dream. We want our rights because they are god given and unalienable. When the “Man” Steps up and says that I can’t have my rights anymore, because I’m not smart enough, or responsible enough to have those rights. I am going to take issue with it. Because it’s my right to do so.

            I said you make my hair itch. You made some smart comment back, that honestly, I didn’t get because I can’t lower myself to your level. I’ve re-thought my position on you. I don’t hate you Grumpy, and you have just as much right to believe what you want. You have just as much right to spew your memes, and talking points, and your strawman arguments here as anyone else.

            What I do feel for you is pity. Because someday, maybe in the near future, maybe in the far future. Someone like you, or maybe yourself even, will be fed into the oven of Tyranny and you will go happily, willingly. It won’t be until the last possible moment when you realize, or the person like you realizes how big of a mistake your misguided views really are.

          • http://www.facebook.com/david.berthiaume3 David Berthiaume

            We have a responsibility to make our government accountable. If our government begins to over step its bounds. We have the responsibility to stop it. Meaning to remove from office those that are not adhering to what the citizenry wants.

            Once said government begins to stop listening to its citizens and does whatever it wants. We have the right and the responsibility to oppose that government. Either in peaceful protest, or armed insurrection as a last resort. My home state we have the right to revolt against our government. It is in our state constitution. The Second Amendment and its right to bear arms is a check and balance against the government. Just like the reason we have 3 branches of government to act as checks and balances against each other. Anyone who wants to limit your right to bear arms, is effectively saying we don’t want you to have the right, or responsibility to keep our power in check. That is soft tyranny, and unfortunately, we are already at that point in out civilization.

            You seem to think that the first be all end all solution, to those that exercise their right to bear arms, is for us to go on a rampage and tear our government down. That in your eyes, and your statements on this blog makes us all psychotic madmen bent on the destruction of our government.

            We, being like minded liberty loving citizens, just want to be left alone. We want to live the dream. We want our rights because they are god given and unalienable. When the “Man” Steps up and says that I can’t have my rights anymore, because I’m not smart enough, or responsible enough to have those rights. I am going to take issue with it. Because it’s my right to do so.

            I said you make my hair itch. You made some smart comment back, that honestly, I didn’t get because I can’t lower myself to your level. I’ve re-thought my position on you. I don’t hate you Grumpy, and you have just as much right to believe what you want. You have just as much right to spew your memes, and talking points, and your strawman arguments here as anyone else.

            What I do feel for you is pity. Because someday, maybe in the near future, maybe in the far future. Someone like you, or maybe yourself even, will be fed into the oven of Tyranny and you will go happily, willingly. It won’t be until the last possible moment when you realize, or the person like you realizes how big of a mistake your misguided views really are.

          • Guest

            “Meaning to remove from office those that are not adhering to what the citizenry wants.”

            Sounds like treason to me.

            Actually, you don’t get to overthrow the US government even if a majority of US citizens think it’s a good idea. But you go right ahead believing otherwise.

            “You seem to think that the first be all end all solution, to those that exercise their right to bear arms, is for us to go on a rampage and tear our government down. That in your eyes, and your statements on this blog makes us all psychotic madmen bent on the destruction of our government.”

            No, I’m just relaying what’s been said here and elsewhere, as underscored by Sharron Angle’s statement that “2nd amendment remedies” might be needed if Harry Red doesn’t do what the Tea Party wants him to do.

            Sorry, pal, but the violent overthrow of the U.S. government is a terrorist act. Even if the lunatics were born and are citizens of the USA.

            Next 4th grader who was absent during civics class…

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Not to mention a waste of oxygen, a superfluous contributor of carbon dioxide, and an annoyance to electrons.

          • herddog505

            What Angle said:

            Angle: I feel that the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for our citizenry. This not for someone who’s in the military. This not for law enforcement. This is for us. And in fact when you read that Constitution and the founding fathers, they intended this to stop tyranny. This is for us when our government becomes tyrannical…

            Manders: If we needed it at any time in history, it might be right now.

            Angle: Well it’s to defend ourselves. And you know, I’m hoping that we’re not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.

            1. She says that she hopes that revolution WON’T be necessary;

            2. Her grasp of the Second Amendment is spot-on and nothing out of the ordinary;

            3. When I think of the libs who suggested that the military “remove” Bush, or the lib who talked about shooting Sarah Palin, I must say that this little bit from Angle seems pretty mild.

          • Guest

            Really?

            Threatening to violently overthrow the US Government if Harry Reid doesn’t do what the Tea Party wants him to do borders on terrorism.

          • herddog505

            Where does she say this?

            Further, as others point out, overthrow of a TYRANNICAL government is (shall we say?) a core American value:

            “[T]o secure these rights [i.e. to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

            This is WHY the Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights in the first place, not because Washington, Madison, Jefferson et al enjoyed duck hunting.

          • jim_m

            Quoting the founding fathers is akin to sedition to the left. Grumpy will be reporting you to the FBI.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            DERP! DERP! DERP! DERP! DERP!

        • Brucehenry

          OK, Herd, whatever. There ARE no neo-Nazi groups, no Klan, no Aryan Nations, no “Christian Identity” movement, none of that stuff. Imaginary.

          Warner claims this report is evidence that DHS regards the Tea Party as terrorists. There is NOTHING in this report to suggest that, and it is dishonest to say there is. Funny coming from a guy who is always whining about dishonest articles in the WaPo or the NYT, huh?

          I’ve corrected you guys before about the “assassination porn” canard, too. That movie was a fable about what might have happened to civil liberties had Dick Cheney suddenly been thrust into the presidency under those circumstances. As I’ve said before, it was no more “assassination porn” than Brokeback Mountain was “gay porn.”

          • jim_m

            The point is that none of them have been historical terrorist threats like some enviro groups on the left have been, and yet the government does not single out those left wing groups.

            The other point is that this leftist government makes their description so vague that virtually every conservative group could be considered a terrorist threat including the GOP.

          • Brucehenry

            The Klan, Aryan Nations, and neo-Nazi groups have not been historical terrorist threats? I’ll be dogged.

            This particular report DOES mention single-issue groups, like anti-abortion, anti-Catholic, etc. I assume ELF would fit into that category.

            I don’t see this description as all that vague. It’s fairly clear to non-paranoid English-readers that it doesn’t include the Tea Party of East Armpit, Arkansas.

          • jim_m

            There are a lot of single issue groups that are not threats to the nation. Anti-abortion groups are not a threat.

            And no, none of the groups you mentioned in your first paragraph are anything like a security threat today and (in the case of the left wing Klan) haven’t been for decades and even then were not a threat against the nation.

            So you really think that people who advocate for gun rights are a national security threat? You think that NRA members should be surveilled by the FBI?

          • Brucehenry

            It has to be a threat “to the nation” to be a terror threat?

            You’re right that Moms Against Abortion is not a terror threat. Eric Rudolph, however, WAS a terror threat. See the nuance? LOL.

            The 2002 Freeway Shooters were not a threat “to the nation” but they were terrorists, weren’t they?

            And yeah, yeah, I know, the Klan was full of Democrats, but only an idiot would call them left wing. Tell you what, though. You should try to find a Klan meeting, show up, and call them “left-wingers.” See what happens.

          • jim_m

            You should try to find a Klan meeting. Are there any meetings anymore? It’s almost kept alive solely by the dems and the SPLC. Have there been any meetings since Robert Byrd passed away?

            I see your point about threats, but I think that you could define threats in a way that excludes the local Right to Life chapter and the local Home Schooling group.

          • retired.military

            If it mentions antiCatholic is Obama listed as a terrorist organization?

          • jim_m

            There was plenty of other assassination fantasizing from the left. You don’t see any of that with 0bama and you didn’t see it with Clinton. The left is that side with a fixation on murdering their opponents.

          • Brucehenry

            Like what?

          • retired.military

            The movie with Bush being assinated for one. Plenty of burning Bush in effigy. But as I said I havent seen Obama with crosshairs yet. Do you have a link?

          • herddog505

            Ah, so any group that lefties don’t like are automatically “right wing”. Got it. ’cause, you know, we reichwingers just LOVES us some nazis and klansmen. And Christians are well-known for blowing things up, gunning people down, rioting, and generally raising hell (no pun intended).

            Say, when’s the last time any of these people actually DID anything other than march around and make (bigger) fools of themselves?

            And that’s rather the point: DHS is wringing its hands over “rightwing” groups, yet can’t quite seem to get too exercized over the people who flew planes into the WTC and who’ve tried to set off bombs on other planes, in NYC, etc.

            RE: Bush

            And his head on a spike in “Game of Thrones”? Yeah, that was TOTALLY an accident. “Oh, we just happened to have a likeness of his head lying about and Bob (he’s never read anything but the sports sections and the comics for the past thirty years) just pulled it out of storage, never DREAMING that it was the head of a former president. Who happens to be despised by lefties, including many in Hollywood and the entertainment industry in general.”

            At any rate, I feel EVER so much better knowing that the point of the movie WASN’T to revel in the death of George W. Bush, but rather to cringe and shiver at the thought of how bad things could get under Darth Cheney.

          • Brucehenry

            Relax, no one is accusing you or the Tea Party of loving Nazis or Klansmen. My point is that Nazis and Klansmen are who this report is talking about, not the Tea Party, as Warner dishonestly claims.

            And yes, despite the recent conservative effort to reach around Jonah Goldberg’s ass to get to their elbows, Nazis and Klansmen have historically been considered to be phenomena of the Right, not the Left. Sorry, Goldberg convinced no one but the most gullible.

            And OK, so you’ve got the Game of Thrones thing. Since I’ve demonstrated that that movie wasn’t “assassination porn” what else you got? Game of Thrones is ONE example. Got any others?

            I don’t get why anyone defends the kind of “reporting” that Warner practices. This is one more example of exaggerated paranoia masquerading as revelation. It’s no more true that this report shows that DHS thinks Tea Partiers are terrorists than it is that Dan Savage is “Obama’s Bullying Czar.” Why am I the only one to ever call him on this kind of nonsense?

            Do YOU think this report shows that Tea Partiers are regarded as terrorists by DHS?

          • jim_m

            Bruce, if I had a dollar for every time some idiot leftist portrayed Bush being killed or with a sniper’s crosshairs on him I could retire.

          • Brucehenry

            And if you had a dollar for every image of Obama in a similar situation you could retire rich.

          • jim_m

            Really? I haven’t seen any network putting obama in the crosshairs and running a chiron saying “Snipers wanted”, nor have I seen his head on a pike (not even on FOX). And unless the radical leftists are doing it because he is too conservative I haven’t seen any protesters doing it either.

            Sadly, the TEA Party hasn’t done any of that because Grumpy would still be linking to it if they had.

          • Brucehenry

            What network was that, Jim?

          • jim_m

            CBS. And my mistake, there were no crosshairs but the message was still on he screen. You can see it at the link. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/kilborn-cbs-target-bush-0

          • Brucehenry

            One example from before Bush was even elected. Yawn.

          • retired.military

            I havent seen one Bruce. Got any links? There must be a multitude out there if what you say is true

          • herddog505

            1. http://www.amazon.com/The-Assassination-George-W-Bush/dp/1430321350

            2. Whether nazis and the klan have “historically” been considered a phenomena of the right raises the question of who’s doing the considering. Let us recall especially that the klan was intimately linked with the democrat party, not the GOP.

            O’ course, racism, anti-Semitism, and other similar derangements really know no political allegiance; nazis and reds, though they detested each other (and are considered on opposite ends of the political spectrum) also had a pretty similar hatred of Jews, for example.

            3. My problem with the bilge coming out of DHS is two-fold:

            (A) Their criteria for “extremists” is so friggin’ generic that just about ANYBODY could conceivably fit the bill. What good does this do law enforcement officers around the country? Further, the report in question looks at data going back to 1970, fer cryin’ out loud. I think that SDS and SLA are probably less a threat these days than, say, al Qaeda.

            (B) It downplays what we KNOW is a threat: Islamic extremists. Does this mean that every Arab-looking person is a potential bomber? No. Does this mean that every person who goes to mosque is a potential hijacker? No. But, in what seems to be a certain zeal to prove that they are equal-opportunity paranoids, DHS is doing NOBODY any good.

            The other article cited by WTH raises a good point: the authors seems to (ahem) miss some incidents by our islamist enemies. For example, though they note two examples of “right-wing terrorism” in Mecklenburg County in the ’70s (I’m surprised that the massacre in Greensboro back in ’79 didn’t make the list), they seem to have missed that crazy b*stard who ran down those kids in Chapel Hill in ’06.

            And as far as singling out the Tea Party, no, the report doesn’t name them specifically. However, given the rhetoric out of liberals about how Tea Partiers are extremists and terrorists and the phrases “suspicious of centralized federal authority [and] reverent of individual liberty”, it seems reasonable to me to think that the report’s authors just might have had the Tea Party in mind.

          • Brucehenry

            Whether the report is useful or useless is not what I’m addressing. I’m addressing, as always, Warner’s exaggerations, paranoia, and hypocrisy.

            The report is an overview of terrorism over the last 40-odd years. It mentions terror from the left, right, and fringes. I skimmed the report and find no mention of the Tea Party or of any groups resembling the Tea Party. What seems reasonable to think to you (and Warner, and Jim) doesn’t seem reasonable to me in this case.

            If Warner had criticized this report as an overly broad waste of taxpayer money I might have agreed with him. But he, as usual, donned his martyr’s robes and claimed it was an example of government persecution of the Tea Party. Ridiculous. Period.

          • SCSIwuzzy

            Who happens to be despised by lefties, including many in Hollywood and the entertainment industry in general.

            And the author of the books, who is also a producer of the series…

          • retired.military

            Can you do us all a favor Bruce? Correct Grumpy on his racism porn. He is making the left look worse than they already do.

          • Brucehenry

            Not my job.

        • Commander_Chico

          Apart from a mild interest in Vermont secession, Chico isn’t a threat to the USA, unless they close the borders and don’t let him out when the fascist crackdown comes.

          SPLC goes looking for boogiemen, because there aren’t too many Klansmen left nowadays. Even harmless portly bloggers like Warner end up on their list.

          That is not to say there aren’t a lot of armed nutballs, who might go shooting some black helicopters, but wait: maybe the black helicopters really are coming.

          Remember: under NDAA, they can “detain” (imprison) you without trial if they say you’re a “terrorist.” And their definition of “terrorist” is very broad – it includes writing stuff.

          • herddog505

            Dude, do you WANT to end up on The List???

            ;-)

          • Commander_Chico

            My index of whether I’m on the List is how the TSA treats me: so far not any worse than any other non-Mohammed-American.

            If that changes, time to start “offshoring” assets.

      • retired.military

        Bruce

        What about left wing extremism? Why arent the targetting ohh lets seee. The Occupy Wall street crowd. After all they have murderers, rapists, child predators, racists, and lawbreakers of every type.

        • Brucehenry

          Left wing extremism is addressed in the report, as is terror from religious and “single-issue” sources.

  • jim_m

    Of course. The left has always characterized people who believe in American values as a threat. Moore to the point, however, is that the left considers anyone who disagrees with them to be a threat.

    If they had their own way they would put everyone who disagreed with obama’s policies into a concentration camp and they wouldn’t think twice about it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Stan25 Stan Brewer

    This report was paid for in part by the Southern Poverty Law Center. These are the people that support any major left wing group that happens to come along. this outfit is so extreme, they makes KGB and Gestapo look like nice guys.

    • Guest

      SPLC fights racism.

      No wonder some conservatives hate them.

      • jim_m

        HAHAHAHA!!

        Look who’s delusional now!

        The SPLC fights racism? Why don’t they have a single minority in a senior level position? You’d get a woman into Augusta National before you found a black working in a senior position at the SPLC. Another fine example of left wing racist projection.

        http://rkeefe57.wordpress.com/2010/08/19/splc-whites-only/

        • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

          And they’ll create some out of thin air at need…

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        DERP! DERP! DERP!

    • Brucehenry

      Where does that information come from?

      • herddog505

        Agree. It appears to have been funded by DHS. How does the SPLC come into the picture?

  • Vagabond661

    Tell this guy he is not under attack: http://www.examiner.com/article/social-media-ablaze-after-arizona-pastor-is-arrested-for-home-bible-study

    Invite 20 people over for a wedding, no problem…football game? I will bring the beer…study the Bible? Off with their heads!!!

  • Vagabond661

    And another thing, that phrase “reverent of individual liberty”, they act like that is a bad thing. That terrorist Patrick Henry sure thought a lot of it. And “belief in conspiracy theories”. Rosie O’Donnell and the Twin Towers?

    • jim_m

      Hey! If you aren’t loyal to the collective you are a danger to everyone. The individual has no value. Only groups have value. Without membership in a group the human being is nothing. This individual liberty stuff is dangerous and needs to be stamped out immediately!