Chorus of Protest Grows Over Report Warning of Right Wing Radicalization

Conservative groups are up in arms following a recent Department of Homeland Security report that warns of the possible radicalization of right-wing extremists.

FOXNews.com

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

The government considers you a terrorist threat if you oppose abortion, own a gun or are a returning war veteran.

That's what House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said Wednesday in response to a Department of Homeland Security report warning of the rise of right-wing extremist groups.

Smith, who said the report on "right-wing extremism" amounts to "political profiling," said that DHS is "using people's political views to assess an individual's susceptibility to terror recruitment." He joins a growing chorus of protest from irate conservative groups that are protesting the report's findings.

The report, titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," released last week by DHS' Office of Intelligence and Analysis, said while there is no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are planning acts of violence, it suggests acts of violence could come from unnamed "rightwing extremists" concerned about illegal immigration, abortion, increasing federal power and restrictions on firearms -- and it singles out returning war veterans as susceptible to recruitment.

A senior Republican Judiciary Committee aide tells FOX News that the Obama administration "should immediately retract the report and apologize," saying that according to the report, pro-lifers, anyone who lost their jobs or are one of the thousands of military veterans who have fought to prevent another 9/11 could be suspect.

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano defended the report Wednesday, saying it is part of an ongoing series of assessments to provide information to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies on "violent radicalization" in the United States.

"Let me be clear: we monitor the risks of violent extremism taking root here in the United States," Napolitano said in a statement. "We don't have the luxury of focusing our efforts on one group; we must protect the country from terrorism whether foreign or homegrown, and regardless of the ideology that motivates its violence."

The report follows a similar report released in January by DHS that detailed left-wing threats, focusing on cyberattacks and radical "eco-terrorist" groups like Earth Liberation Front, accused of firebombing construction sites, logging companies, car dealerships and food science labs. The report notes that left-wing extremists prefer economic damage on businesses to get the message across.

"Their leftwing assessment identifies actual terrorist organizations, like the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front. The rightwing report uses broad generalizations about veterans, pro-life groups, federalists and supporters of gun rights," said Smith. "That's like saying if you love puppies you might be susceptible to recruitment by the Animal Liberation Front. It is ridiculous and deeply offensive to millions of Americans."

U.S. Rep. Gus Bilirakis, R-FL, told FOX News he was "offended" by the report's suggestion that returning troops could be potential targets for extremist groups.

"I am very offended and really disturbed that they would even say our military veterans, our returning war heroes would be capable of committing any terrorist acts," he said. "Where do they get off doing that? I demand an apology from [Napolitano] and even the President of the United States."

Veterans' groups are also taking issue with the report, which says disgruntled vets are considered coveted recruits for groups looking for "combat skills and experience."

"Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists," the report reads. "[DHS] is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities."

Pete Hegseth, chairman of Vets for Freedom, said the report represents a "gross misunderstanding and oversimplification" of the country's service members.

"It's amazing they would single out veterans as a threat to this country," said Hegseth, an Army veteran who served in Iraq. "It underscores a pervasive belief that some are trying to spread that veterans are victims and we're coming home as damaged goods that need to be coddled instead of celebrated."

The report prompted a harsh and swift reaction for the American Legion on Tuesday. In a letter to Napolitano, American Legion National Commander David Rehbein blasted the report as incomplete and politically-biased.

"The American Legion is well aware and horrified at the pain inflicted during the Oklahoma City bombing, but Timothy McVeigh was only one of more than 42 million veterans who have worn this nation's uniform during wartime," Rehbein wrote. "To continue to use McVeigh as an example of the stereotypical 'disgruntled military veteran' is as unfair as using Osama bin Laden as the sole example of Islam."

Napolitano said in her statement on Wednesday that she was aware of the letter, and plans to meet with Rehbein sometime next week.

"I will tell him face-to-face that we honor veterans at DHS and employ thousands across the department, up to and including the Deputy Secretary."

"We are on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not nor will we ever monitor ideology or political beliefs," read Napolitano's statement. "We take seriously our responsibility to protect civil rights and liberties of the American people, including subjecting our activities to rigorous oversight from numerous internal and external sources."

Herb London, president of the Hudson Institute, a Washington-based think tank, said DHS' latest report "clearly appears to censor right-wing opinion," while its earlier assessment of left-wing extremists does not.

"I must say it's chilling, it worries me a great deal," London said. "I never have encountered a time in American life when condemnation of a president is not permitted. This really did strike me as odd, indeed."

London called on President Obama to repudiate the right-wing report.

"What is the message here? That conservative organizations are not permitted to engage in any language that might be described as unfavorable to the president," London said. "Keep in mind this is entirely subjective to begin with."

FOXNews.com's Joshua Rhett Miller and FOX News Radio's Mike Majchrowitz contributed to this report.

Did anyone actually read that Report that the Right is pissy over?

There is no real evidence, but more a glorified official "speculation," which is quite possible I suppose but those motivations are nothing remarkably new within American history, save for the first black President bit.

Hell, HS released a report about extremist Left Wing activity in Janurary, revolving around Environmentalist/Animal Rights groups and so forth.

But again, what else is new?

Nevermind that the Nazis and Socialists/Communists were sworn blood enemies in Weimar Germany, and when Hitler became Chancellor...well, lets just say the Jews weren't the only ones shipped off to the local death camp.

Oh and that whole umm Spanish Civil War thing...

By your supposed European, much less British, politics.

Of course those Tories, which I assume you despise, would be slammed as too liberal in America.

I guess I'm married to a terrorist.

"He's a Fascist!"

"Why?"

"Because he is!"

Damn, I sure do love when logic and critical thinking get put to use.

Ha ha ha ha! Talk about not knowing what you're talking about. Very amusing.

I heard that Secret Service stopped at least part of one protest because somebody threw a package over the WH fence or something. I have to say this though, I am kind of worried about the few "dangerous whackos" that might be out there and resort to violence.

TIS

I'm not into organized demonstrations, so no Ronnie, I did not attend a tea party. I hope that doesn't ruin your day.

I think a teabagging demonstration was planned here at the steps of the capitol building, but the rain kept the numbers low.

Actually, I'm glad that you don't teabag.

If you did, that would have given me a mental picture that....I rather live without.

By any stretch, there is no genuine Left operating in mainstream American politics. I don't think even an educated, contented Democrat could say their party holds genuine Leftist beliefs.

So long as the US operates under the ruthless non-rules of capitalism, it'll be the opposite to an egalitarian society.

But who says yours is genuine? You?

Didn't we have a debate about confusing subjectivity with fact at FCM about movies once?

I think it is safe to conclude that what is "center" in America is what they call "right" in most industrial democracies. What is "socialism" in America is what they call "center."

Is Obama a leftist? Is he more left than Carter (who put solar panels on the White House roof and 'gave back' the Panama Canal)? More left than LBJ and his War on Poverty and civil rights legislation? More than Kennedy with the Alliance for Progress and the Peace Corps? More than FDR and his New Deal? More liberal than Teddy Roosevelt (who proposed the first real environmental regulation and broke up the corporate monopolies)? I don't think so.

IMHO, he is solidly center with some "right-leaning" ideas. He appealed to the left wing in order to make it through the primaries, then veered back to center for the general election. At least it seems he is interested in listening to as many sides as possible. This is in contrast to Mr Bush, at least.

I'm not interested in this question because it's irrelevant. I'm a Marxist; by extension, a humanist, an egalitarian. I don't see any genuine socialist policies in the current US set-up. You can make "progress" this way and that, but without the abolishment of capitalism, any leeway is still going to leave gross and abhorred injustices.

Not that I remember, but again: irrelevant.

I'm not interested in this question because it's irrelevant. I'm a Marxist; by extension, a humanist, an egalitarian. I don't see any genuine socialist policies in the current US set-up. You can make "progress" this way and that, but without the abolishment of capitalism, any leeway is still going to leave gross and abhorred injustices. [/quote]

And has your nation abolished capitalism?

Better yet, which nations have "socialism" within your context succeeded within their goals without betraying them?

My nationality has absolutely nothing to do with the question. I could just as well be an American. If I ask certain things of America, it's because I'm posting in a thread on Obama, because I'm on a predominantly American board and I enjoy discussing things with the people on this board, because I recognise the influence and power America has over the Western World.

I'm not anti-American, nor am I a nationalist; I'm a socialist - I oppose capitalism and all that goes with it - imperialism, territorialism, racism, sexism, militarism; all injustice.

The notion that a "nation" can "betray" itself is absurd. And it's a common tendency of anti-socialist propaganda to portray it as such - that socialists outdo themselves and come undone, that they somehow betray themselves because of socialism's inherent capacity to fail. That's a lie.

Stalinism betrayed socialism, if you want a poetic simplification. But it's never as simple as that. It's a gross misconception that the Soviet Union failed at socialism; it never achieved it fully, thanks to unique and specific historical and social factors; likewise with Cuba, whose revolution was an amazing achievement, but whose dependence on further social revolution made certain compromises inevitable - add to that the Bolivian disaster, the Bolshevik disillusionment, Stalinism's betrayal and all anti-Red propaganda that was quick to throw Stalin and communism in (or under) the same bed.

The revolution must be permanent.

God bless America.

Err, I mean...Bruce Campbell bless America.



"I hate prejudicial people!" - Gloria Steinem

With that logical paradigm, then why would you be upset when I tried to use your nationality against you? Its like if we went overseas, and the foreigners called us "Brown Tooth." We don't know what it means, good or bad, so instead of being happy or upset, we're just fucking confused or just shrug it off and forget it.

Better yet, why did you call yourself British if you reject nationalism? Wouldn't such purging include such labels? I'm confused now.



Then what of the great socialist superpowers in Russia and China, and Cuba, selling out to capitalism ultimately? What does that say?



Well dictatorships tend to do that.

And no, they didn't "fail" at socialism, but they still tapped out. Also, how would you explain Gorbachev's well-meaning-if-ultimately-fatal reforms in the 1980s?



The only true achievement of that regime, toward their ideological goals, was Cuba freed to be independent from the American sphere of influence...and only escaped Russia's in the 1990s. Though now its a whore of your much despised capitalist Western Europe/Canada/Japan and soon America* inevitably



Yes Yes Yes

And I end my posting with this quote from the very good actioneer UNDER SIEGE. Take away Mr. Tommy Lee Jones!

"Yes, of course! Hence the name: movement. It moves a certain distance, then it stops, you see? A revolution gets its name by always coming back around in your face. You tried to kill me you son of a bitch... so welcome to the revolution. "

*=Obama just gave permission to American telecom corporations to apply for licenses to do business in Cuba.

Everyone shouldn't have the image of some Russia type of civilization in mind when we talk about "Socialism". That's just scare-mongering. Instead, should have the image of The Netherlands, or Sweden in mind.

And saying "Marxism is socialism" is akin to saying "Calculus is mathematics". Marxism shares some fundamental economic and political principles but its not completely the same thing.

And finally, the word "Socialism" is being used in the US like I would use "child molester" when in reality we have lots of very good socialistic systems in place here that we rely on. Be thankful that when we dial 911 we aren't also hoping that our credit card isn't maxed out before they can come save us.

But I would associate them, with Costa Rica, with a socialist-flavored Democracy that doesn't abolish Capitalism as Capo wishes...but not Socialist per say.



Yes, which is why I dont get Capo mixing Cuba and that Latin American-flavor of socialism with USSR/China (and those two famously split ideologically over which one practiced the "true" Communism.)



Like Glenn Beck.



Technically we've been socialist at the latest since 1933.

I didn't get upset. But you're right when you say "use your nationality against you"; I rejected that as irrelevant.


I'm English in that I was born in England, and I live in England. Those are biological and geographical facts. But I'm not a nationalist.

Stop making strawman arguments.

As for the rest of your post, it's the same old, same old: "Socialism fails because of its own shortcomings," yeah yeah yeah. Other people's indifference to other people's needs doesn't come into it at all. "Let's all laugh at socialism... meanwhile, though, why is my own country so fucked?" God bless America indeed.

Again: the revolution must be permanent. Socialism can't and won't happen overnight. To expect that is a symptom of capitalism: impatience to the utmost. Anything that requires hard work, patience and a bit of solidarity must somehow be deemed a hindrance to human progress. Ah, the logic!

So in short, you answer my questions by ignoring them.

Capo, in another universe, you're an American and a Republican. Ah the logical mechanics you both share!

No, by grouping them all together as "Same Old, Same Old", which I did. All of your questions, posed as rhetorical, imply socialism fails from within. It's the lazy, cynical, resigned thing to do: "Well intending, but ultimately fatal. We won't touch it, thank you, ma'am."

In another still I'm a black mother of three in a developing country, and you're still a White Comfort Zone Western Worldian who, at the very most, might have it in him to concede inequality isn't fair, only to lick your lips with relish as you declare that that's just the natural order of things and nobody can do a thing about it.

No, I'm whitey living in the UK, where in my reality, the country actually won a World Cup within my lifetime.

Here is the president chumming it up with Hugo Chavez, the socialist leader of Venezuela, a man who called the previous president "the devil". It was Obama who approached Chavez.

Chavez does not deserve to be greeted by the U.S. President, especially with a smile. Obama even said "como estas", the tu form which is only used with friends, with a man who has time and again spoken bad about America and its leaders.

I already know that you Obamamaniacs think its ok to befriend our enemies and will brush this off as no big deal, so spare me your "so what?" responses.

Chavez is like that geeky kid who mouths off against the cool kids... until he is accepted by one of them, at which point he comes pathetic and clingy and desperately needs their approval.

The dude was planning to be a dick and grandstand that summit again, but then that news came of the Cuban government possibly willing to put human rights/freedom of speech on the negotiating table with the U.S., and now Chavez comes off as he always has...irrelevant.

This sounds like a bad FAMILY GUY joke, doesn't it?

"Yes, you hold my buddy Cuba in chains and...wait, you guys are making up? Ohhh, thats...awkward. Well umm, err, Hello!"

Besides Freddie C., just the other day the French President Sarkozy had a private meeting with his country's oppositional leaders, and it was leaked of how he practically was jealous of Obama's global popularity and was pissy in general that France was sidekick again. Now comes off the jerk?

Not America baby.



And Obama personally an "Idiot," I seem to recall. I wonder how Venezuela's propaganda media will spin this moment for their fearless leader.

Shit, China badmouths us to their peasant populace all the time, but you ever hear Dubya not shake the hands of China's leadership? I'm not slapping Dubya here on this instance, but just context is usually nice you know?

Nevermind all those supposed pro-American allied states in the Middle East where their state-run media and press issue daily some rather racist/jingoistic anti-American propaganda yet where were you Freddie C.? Teabagging I hope you weren't.

Besides, you right wingers make Chavez a much bigger threat than he really is, which is a glorified Banana Republic dictator that maybe people might pay attention to because he has oil. You know, same asshole who was all pissy not wanting to sell oil to U.S., but when that economic meltdown happened last year, Chavez gladly sold his oil to us.

In short, he's an asshole who's about as threatening to America as the Kansas City Royals are to baseball, and whom Capo will probably defend.



So why?

I just love it when Obama drives you wingholes crazy.

Hey Freddie.... SO WHAT?