A controversial nine-page “assessment” issued earlier this month by the Department of Homeland Security (DSH) was like gasoline on a fire, as already-angry taxpayers have now been essentially linked at the hip to white supremacists and “violent antigovernment groups.”
The report made headlines in the Washington Times, and the ensuing controversy was also covered by Reuters and WorldNetDaily.
The DHS document, titled Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment has outraged people who don’t even own firearms, but who do advocate smaller government, and criticize government intrusion into their personal lives. It appeared on the heels of another controversial document issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center that linked Libertarians to the militia movement. Release of that report, and the angry public reaction to it, caused the removal of the director of that agency.
"The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergency of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.
This DHS report – which used the term “rightwing extremists” 26 times, as if to pound the term into the vocabulary of everyone who was initially supposed to have read this document – is the kind of fear mongering that the Left has traditionally blamed on people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and others with whom it disagrees. It was prepared by the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A), and its existence has people wondering just what kind of agency is being run by Janet Napolitano, former anti-gun Arizona governor who once worked in the Clinton Justice Department.
It is steeped in alarmist rhetoric: “Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.”
My colleague, David Codrea, offered his perspective on the report, which is now making the rounds on Internet chat forums.
Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the Bellevue-based gun rights organization, has demanded an apology to veterans, conservatives and gun owners from Napolitano and the Obama administration. He sees this document as a not-so-subtle attempt by the administration to stifle dissent by silencing, or at least marginalizing and demonizing those who disagree with the Obama agenda.
“Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement.
“I guess the phrase ‘dissent is patriotic’ has now disappeared from the liberal lexicon,” Gottlieb told me during an interview for Gun Week.
This “assessment” is an Us-against-Them manifesto that clearly demonstrates paranoia, alright; paranoia on the part of the Department of Homeland Security. It is an alarming document that goes beyond merely suggesting that citizens who have fought for this country, who defend an important civil right to keep and bear arms, and those who seek to limit government as the Founders envisioned, are enemies of the state.
Perhaps not coincidentally, a recent e-mail from a pal now working in Iraq brought home an interesting contrast. The message contained two boxes with quotes, one from Thomas Jefferson, and the other from vehemently anti-gun California Congressman Henry Waxman.
In one frame, Jefferson was quoted observing: “When the Government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the Government, there is tyranny.”
The other frame enclosed Waxman’s infamous quote, “If someone is so fearful that, that they’re going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all!”
Read new entries from these Gun Rights Examiners:
For more info: Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment , Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Comments
What concerns me most is this statement: "rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat." Google "Terrorist training camps in the U.S." and see who's operating them. If DHS (and Congress) think the biggest threat is the rightwing, that implies they know nothing about Jihadist camps right here in America!?? How can we ask foreign countries like Pakistan to shut down their camps when we allow them to continue operating on our own soil? How can we call the “greatest” threat rightwing Americans when the report is full of speculation on what “may” or “could” increase recruitment, while Jihadist camps are operating in full swing across the nation? How can they afford the effort to worry about what "may" be when they should be countering know threats right here on U.S. soil?
I’ve written all of my representatives expressing my concern over the Islamic training camps. I suggest everyone reading this do the same. Our nation’s resources should be directed toward addressing known threats, not making up threats based on very, very poor evidence.
It appears to me that with each passing month, the Democrats and their appointed minions are doing all they can to remove the wool they so expertly pulled over the eyes of so many people.
That they are doing this without any overt will towards that end is the real irony.
They are just being themselves.
Mr. Workman, I'm disappointed in you. I am a regular reader of your column and you have always presented thought-out, researched arguments. However, you dropped the ball on this one. A few points:
1. Nowhere in this entire report is the word "conservative" used. Not once. So how is this an insult to conservatives? The report targets right-wing extremists. They are not the same thing and, as a conservative, I'm insulted that you are insinuating that I am an extremist. You would be, too.
2. The basis of this report is a detailed FBI study released in 2008 that focused on the increasing numbers of veterans returning from combat and being recruited into extremist groups. This report combined research from 2001 to 2008.
3. This past January, the DHS I&A released a report warning of left-wing extremists using cyber-attacks over the next decade. So, this isn't the DHS suddenly deciding to be partisan.
4. Both of these reports were led by the DHS under-secretary who was appointed by G.W. Bush.flat. Furthermore, both of these reports were started when G.W. Bush was President.
So, the claims of Obama and Napolitano being partisan and attacking the right has no substance whatsoever.
5. This report, as well as the 2008 FBI report, are basically pointing out similarities between current events and the early 1990's in terms of economic downturn, veterans returning from a war, increases in gun sales over fears of bans, etc. At that time, a disturbingly large number of veterans were recruited into extremist groups.
What happened? A veteran who joined one of these groups ultimately blew up a building in Oklahoma City.
So, is it really fair to paint the report as "alarmist" when they have evidence (from the past 7+ years) demonstrating patterns that have resulted in domestic terrorism in the past? It seems to me that the report is just another example of the DHS doing their job.
I guess what I'm saying is that this report is NOT a lot of things:
It is NOT a partisan attack by the Obama administration. It was started and is based on work done by a Bush appointee begun during the Bush administration.
It is NOT "alarmist" jibberish pulled out of thin air. It is pointing out disturbing similarities to indicators leading to a major domestic terrorist attack.
It is NOT a broad indictment of veterans or the military. It is raising awareness that a few are going into extremist groups. That few, however, is rising.
I guess what I'm saying is that I am disheartened that your column fails to mention any of the facts behind this report. As a conservative, gun-owning veteran I would hope that you and the others reading this would take it upon yourselves to do the research and learn about these things because, let's face it, no one else is going to do it for you.
[As a side note, the Missouri analysis warning law enforcement to be wary of gun owners or libertarians was complete BS that wasn't grounded in any sort of research or fact at all.]
I DO NOT CARE IF THIS CRAP WAS INITIATED BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, IT IS AN OUT AND OUT INSULT TO ALL VETERANS WHO SERVED HONORABLY. I SERVED HONORABLY IN THE ARMY DURING THE 80S, AND I RESENT BEING EVEN INDIRECTLY COMPARED TO THAT VIOLENT NUT TIMOTHY MCVEIGH. I GUESS THAT ESCAPED YOUR ATTENTION. DID YOU EVER SERVE IN THE MILITARY, BOBBY? ARE YOU AWARE OF THE FACT THAT ILLEGAL ALIENS AND ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS IN THIS COUNTRY POSE A FAR MORE SERIOUS THREAT THAN OUR HONORED VETERANS? I GUESS THAT ESCAPED YOUR ATTENTION. YOU MUST BE A LIBERAL.
Bob,
It does not mention explicitly, conservatives, no. However in the page 2 footnote the report defines "right-wing extremist" as not only hate oriented groups like neo-nazis, and the KKK -- the kind of groups most would think of when they hear "right-wing extremist". The report also includes "those who are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority". Apparently the founders of this country would today be considered "right-wing extremist" according to this report. It also includes groups that "are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration". They clarify in page 5 that when they say immigration, they mean illegal immigration.
They also never once mention a single specific group, and only one specific individual -- Timothy McVeigh --.
The complete lack of specifics makes the report paint with broad strokes. Coloring basically all conservatives and probably most libertarians as well, with the same brush as neo-nazis and the KKK.
"2. The basis of this report is a detailed FBI study released in 2008 that focused on the increasing numbers of veterans returning from combat and being recruited into extremist groups. This report combined research from 2001 to 2008."
The report you mention identified only 203 individuals with confirmed or claimed military experience over those 7 some years of cases. The projected veteran population in that same report as of May 2008 is 23,816,000. That's something along the lines of .0000008% of the military population who joined the extremist groups in that FBI report. The report itself admits that the number is minuscule. Yet the DHS "right-wing extremist" report paints with broad strokes, the entirety of the veteran population, as if they are highly likely to join those neo-nazi and racist groups. If they admitted in the DHS report the miniscule chances -- according to the FBI report you say it is based off of -- of a military veteran joining those groups it wouldn't be quite so bad. It didn't.
"3. This past January, the DHS I&A released a report warning of left-wing extremists using cyber-attacks over the next decade. So, this isn't the DHS suddenly deciding to be partisan."
That report, unlike the "right-wing extremist" report. Is highly specific, mentioning explicitly groups like the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front(ELF). Both well known left wing eco-terrorist groups. That report as well as an earlier report on left-wing extremism is filled with specific names of both individual leaders, organizations, websites, and instructional materials encouraging and teaching how to use cyber attacks, as well as cases where such attacks were used. The report also clearly defines left-wing extremist in the appendix at the end of the report outlining their goals, methods, and specific organizations. It does not paint with the same broad strokes that this DHS "right-wing extremism" report does.
"4. Both of these reports were led by the DHS under-secretary who was appointed by G.W. Bush.flat. Furthermore, both of these reports were started when G.W. Bush was President."
Reading through the "right-wing extremist" report I saw no mention of any particular person who led the reports nor of any author, something I'm sure most of us would love to find out. The report itself dates itself on the first page as "7 April 2009" well after the inauguration of Obama and after he appointed Napolitano as head of DHS. That seems like it would provide plenty of substance to me.
"5. This report, as well as the 2008 FBI report, are basically pointing out similarities between current events and the early 1990's in terms of economic downturn, veterans returning from a war, increases in gun sales over fears of bans, etc. At that time, a disturbingly large number of veterans were recruited into extremist groups."
It repeatedly mentions the 1990s and similarities yes. But 203 individuals over 7 years out of millions does not sound like a particularly large number to me. And after the Clinton gun ban, I expect a number of those fears, are actually fairly justified today. What with Obama's stated desire to reinstate the AWB and Holder, and Clinton's repeated calls to reinstate the ban to "help Mexico"
"I guess what I'm saying is that this report is NOT a lot of things:
It is NOT a partisan attack by the Obama administration. It was started and is based on work done by a Bush appointee begun during the Bush administration."
Considering the reports date I don't believe it was done by or during the Bush administration until I receive some evidence stating otherwise. Preferably the name or names of the author(s) of the report.
"It is NOT a broad indictment of veterans or the military. It is raising awareness that a few are going into extremist groups. That few, however, is rising."
It may not have been intended as such, but the lack of specifics, qualifications, and much expanded definition of "right-wing extremist" from that of your average persons. It certainly makes the report seem to be a sweeping indictment of military veterans, and conservatives, among others.
the threat from patriotic American Veterans my well become a reality if communist infilitraters continue to infect the democratic party and move toward tyrannical rule by destroying our Second Ammendment rights by attempting to disarm us. by the people of the people for the people.let's keep it that way.
I just mailed a letter to Janet Napolitano DEMANDING that the Department of Homeland Security put me on their watch list as a "Right-Wing Extremist" since I am pro-life, pro-Second Amendmnet, and a veteran.
Maybe we should flood DHS with letters demanding we all be put on their list. just to show how absurd they're policy is.
I think there's a way to deal with the bureaucrats at DHS for this latest "assessment": A CLASS-ACTION LAWSUIT (brought about by a group of 10 million or more citizens) ON THE GROUNDS OF DEFAMATION/LIBEL! If this report is meant to be interpreted as written by LE, it will become a grounds for harassment to anyone that may fit, somehow, into the category of "political/idealogical enemy" of the progressives.
As far as I'm concerned (and perhaps many other citizens), it matters not a bit to me if a lawsuit takes years to win. The punitive effect of it may well serve as a lesson to agencies that single-out citizens for harassment/punishment, due to their political/religious/moral beliefs.
If any attorneys are willing, able or motivated enough to try this (on behalf of citizens and veterans who have been defamed/stigmatized by this assessment's release), please let your voice be heard. It may not be much, but I will personally volunteer my time for this cause (research, effort, etc.) to preserve our freedoms, right, liberty!!
I over heard a conversation the other day about some Youth programs. Allegedly they read a report about Youth civillian groups using training scenerios to combat veterans with guns. Another thing was that they were trying to use hitler youth and communist techniques to teach kids to spy on parents.
I am not sure about all this. Have you heard of anything like this and is there any validiy to it? Is so, why?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!