DHS, Nazis, and the Democratic Party...

If you've read both reports, you're aware that there was not a 'footnote' for the left wing report. No organization or group, as they were named in the left wing report, were named in the right wing report, either.

"It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as abortion or immigration."

Now, what if the left wing report had contained a footnote such as:

"It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as animal rights or the environment."

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and
adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups),
and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or
rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a
single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines leftwing extremists as
groups or individuals who embrace radical elements of the anarchist, animal rights, or
environmental movements and are often willing to violate the law to achieve their
objectives.

But it wouldn't be fair to lump those extremists with those who are simply 'dedicated,' would it?

Again, trying to be objective, could you imagine the outcry from the liberal media and the left?

Coming from the other side of the ideological fence, you certainly don't identify with those who hold ‘single beliefs’. But imagine, (please) how you would feel if the left wing report had a footnote as I illustrated.

BTW, I don't believe the govt has any business telling women what they can or can't do with their bodies.

But it should bother anyone when a law enforcement agency of the fed govt looks at individuals based on their beliefs, don't you think?

Ok. But what's that supposed to indicate, though? One had a footnote, the other didn't. One named names, the other didn't. If anything, I think naming names is worse, as it gives the impression that the government has declared those entities to be terrorist groups or some such.

DHS wrote:
"Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

This is a categorization not a definition. In other words, given that these groups are extremists, they fall into these sub categories. It doesn't mean that you are an extremist if you are dedicated to opposing abortion. If you are dedicated to using violence to oppose abortion, that's another story.

It may be a fair criticism that the left wing report does actually define left wing extremism whereas the right wing report does not, but that hardly justifies the mass freak-out that followed this report based on a single line from the footnote.


Well, it might help you to understand that I don't identify with animal rights activists or environmentalists either. I believe I'm coming from my perch atop the fence, and not from the other side.

If I thought that's what they were doing, yes. I don't read it the same way, though, and the overreaction I see by some people -- end-timers who think that Obama is persecuting Christians with this report -- only reinforces that.

No, what this report does is reinforce the beliefs by ignorant liberals that most conservatives are right wing nut jobs ready to explode in violence.

If the right wing report had named specific groups, such as the KKK, skinheads, or any other group, it would have been received as a legitimate, non-biased report.

“large numbers
of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now
learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces.”

(U) Key Findings
(U//FOUO) DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) judges that a number of
emerging trends point to leftwing extremists maturing and expanding their cyber attack
capabilities over the next decade with the aim of attacking targets in the United States.
" (U//FOUO) The potential for economic damage, the individually-initiated and
anonymous nature of cyber attacks, and the perception that cyber attacks are
nonviolent align well with the ideological beliefs, strategic objectives, and
tactics of many leftwing extremists.
" (U//FOUO) The increasing reliance of commercial businesses and other
enterprises on cyber technologies, including interconnected networks and
remote access, creates new and expanding vulnerabilities that technically-savvy
leftwing extremists will exploit.
" (U//FOUO) The proliferation of cyber technologies and expertise as well as the
public availability of online hacking tools and “hackers-for-hire” offer leftwing
extremists incentives to adopt a cyber attack strategy.

(U) Key Findings
(U//LES) 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. The economic downturn and the election of the first
African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and
recruitment.
" (U//LES) Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups
during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry
out violent acts. Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic
downturn"including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability
to obtain credit"could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing
extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and
government authorities similar to those in the past.
" (U//LES) Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first
African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new
members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal
through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.
(U//FOUO) The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the
1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an
economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to
U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.
" (U//FOUO) During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the
number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in
violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks,
and infrastructure sectors.
" (U//FOUO) Growth of these groups subsided in reaction to increased
government scrutiny as a result of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and
disrupted plots, improvements in the economy, and the continued U.S. standing
as the preeminent world power.
(U//FOUO) 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 emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists
capable of carrying out violent attacks.
* (U) Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and
adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups),
and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or
rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a
single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

Page 3 of 9
" (U//FOUO) 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.
" (U//FOUO) 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.

2002?

Not only did the report not list any groups. It didn't even discuss issues. It just used the term "left wing" Your argument is made up crap LV. The leftwing report doesn't list groups in its key findings and is even less specific than the rightwing report.

Quote:

2002?

Do you mean the 2000 presidential election?

End timers? Persecuting Christians?

No, not necessarily. But this is a good example of how some see the right.

As those on the right are doing now, after being incorrectly profiled by law enforcement.

BTW, you didn't mention what you thought the PETA or Sierra Club response would be, if the DHS had issued a similar left wing report/footnote...

Let's compare the key findings from each report LV.

None of those names you listed were in the key findings LV which is what you are complaining about in the RW report.

Of course, it could be that RW groups that oppose federalism tend to be localized. Why is that do you think? Oh.. they oppose federalism and want LOCAL control.

I suppose you would have complained if they named the Branch Davidians and Posse Comitatus.

I'm specifically speaking about the people that I know who sent me chain emails about this issue and who specifically said to me that this report targets Christians and says that anyone who opposes abortion or is for small government is an extremist. That isn't what this report says at all. Again, the footnote is categorizing extremists, not defining what it means to be one. Did you perchance ever do any work with set theory and logic? " Some extremists are against abortion" is not equivalent to "all who oppose abortion are extremists."

There's no evidence that law enforcement is profiling conservatives.

I quoted you where the left-wing report does in fact name animal rights activists. I don't know what PETA's reaction was but I"m sure you could find out just as easily as I can. In other words, it's not a hypothetical question.

As for issues that I care about: 1) the rule of law and 2) individual liberty and human rights. If there are groups who care about these same things but who use violence to further their goals I wouldn't associate with them nor would I identify and sympathize with them in the government's efforts to crack down on them. And that's what I don't get. Surely you and most conservatives must know that right wing extremists do exist. Why would you want to identify with them by taking offense at this report?

It's a hypothetical question because it didn't happen. But if DHS had stated "It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as animal rights," in warning the county's law enforcement of extremists in their midst, I think we would have heard plenty.

But my point is an individual who might be dedicated to opposing a 'single issue' is being lumped together with right wing extremists in the report. The left has certainly taken this view, ironically, based on the DHS report.

Gosh, look at your last statement: why would you believe I'm identifying with right wing extremists? Just because as a person who also cares about liberty, I'm concerned about federal law enforcement painting individuals with a broad brush?

Do those who march for the environment support tree spiking?

Again, if political pundits had spouted such nonsense, I wouldn't be too concerned. But just as civil libertarians are bothered by federal law enforcement taking action against groups on the left, those of us on the right are concerned about such a political report when it comes to individuals and their beliefs.

Gee, then I suppose an apology means Bush lied about Iraq's nuclear capabilities. An apology only means they are apologizing. It doesn't mean they think they were wrong.

But they did specifically mention animal rights activists in the left-wing report. I quoted it.

But I think it's you and others who take offense who are doing the lumping. The report is just categorizing extremists. Folks who are upset about this report have reversed the logic in order to take offense -- because some extremists may be dedicated to a single issue, that must mean the government thinks those who are dedicated to a single issue are extremists. It's illogical.

I think you're choosing to include yourself in a report that warns about people who are nothing like you and who have nothing to do with you. I think you are choosing to identify with them. Identify does not equal support.

But there has been no action. If agents start infiltrating peaceful political groups then I will be solidly in your corner. But you guys are flipping your lid over a stupid report that was not even requested by this administration, but the previous one. It smacks of paranoia.

None of those names you listed were in the key findings LV which is what you are complaining about in the RW report.