Thursday, April 16, 2009

Homeland Security Report on Rightwing Extremists - Revised

Below are excerpts from the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis report titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment".

“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.”

“Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures.”

“Disgruntled Military Veterans: DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.”

"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 firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment."

OK, I reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority, I oppose abortion, I am concerned about the economy and home foreclosures, and I am antagonistic toward the new presidential administration, especially in its views of immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use.

And what about those disgruntled military veterans?

Be afraid of those disgruntled, pro-life, states-rights,gun-toting war veterans. Be very afraid.


  1. Why do right-wing people find this report so threatening to them personally? If you're not an extremist, then this report isn't talking about you, even if you're rightwing. Left-wingers aren't worried about Homeland Security, so why are you? Romans 13:3

  2. Anonymous,
    Perhaps you need to read the excerpts presented before you comment. Janet's point, plainly stated, is that very ordinary people are being painted as extremists, including herself, simply for openly expressing their opinions as currently guaranteed by the First Amendment. And are you serious in saying that Left-wingers are not worried about DHS? Come now, what about all of your Left-wing brethren who were beside themselves about all of the civil rights they imagined they lost under Bush and his DHS? Puh-leez.

  3. Thank you both for your comments. I realized reading the comments from Anonymous that I needed to change the last paragraph. The "be afraid" comment was meant to be amusing, but I can see that it could be taken literally. I think the change was needed.

    Thanks Tom - I appreciate you comment. I enjoy seeing dialogue.

  4. Janet, I did read the be afraid as an amusing comment. I thought you were saying, "Haha, look at us the big bad right-wingers". But I still think that Homeland Security isn't trying to say that the right-wing views are what is extremist. It's the violent actions or terrorism that are extremist. If you don't do that stuff, then there's no reason to think that this report is talking about you.

    Tom, I'm not leftwing at all so they aren't my "brethren". I'm actually pretty rightwing. What I was referring to there was the Homeland Security report that came out earlier this year about leftwing extremism, and that didn't get nearly as much attention or cause nearly as much fuss in the media. Have you read this report?

  5. It's not true that the report paints these people as extremists either. Janet take excerpts but if you read the report as a whole they're not accusing people who hold these views of being extremists, they're just saying that rightwing extremists come from people who hold these views. It's like saying that the 9/11 terrorists were Arabic. It doesn't mean that they're being discriminitory against all arab people. They are just being specific about what sort of people they're interested in.

  6. That's the problem. They are NOT being specific. Groups should be named, the KKK, Youth for Western Civilization, Storm Front etc. The DHS should not go after Americans with such generalities.

  7. The phrase of the report, "...primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious...groups)" was scurrilous, too, and consistent with the multicultural ethos according to which all ways are worthy of reverence. Dare we say that the religion first in mind is Islam? and that if you oppose it, then hate, of course, must be your motive, or so thinks the multiculturalist, for how could anyone take a principled against an ancient faith from which millions draw spiritual comfort? and if you did oppose it, then how could you not hate the people of that faith, too? Any of you with leftish acquaintances (such as, say, a lawyer I know who makes >$200k at Sidley Austin) ought to be personally familiar with their venomous thinking. And be very concerned about their political activism during the next 4-8 yrs knowing as you do their readiness to connive at Islam as did the lawyer when I tested her.

    What needs to happen soon is to to give employees of DHS and those partisans with their thumb on it a re-education in basic reasoning before they make an even more serious error of tolerate an increase of Islamic activism in the states esp. making inroads into the states' bar associations and judiciary, or let the DHS or local police become a tool of Islamic malice, etc. It takes no imagination to see that the left could rapidly slide into Islam given their more or less latitudinarian theological views and that Islamic prosyletizers can be very smooth. If that happens, you can forget about any Free State Project. The Islamists and their leftist apologists would swarm it and smother it pronto. Farewell states' rights; hello White House of Salaam.

  8. Anonymous, You make some very good points.

    Director of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano seemed reluctant to use the word "terrorism" during a congressional testimony. When asked in an interview whether that reticence indicated that, in her view, Islamist terrorism is no longer a threat to the U.S. she replied: "I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word ‘terrorism,’ I referred to ‘man-caused’ disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

    Yet, Napolitano doesn't hesitate to refer to "domestic terrorism" even as she apologized to American war veterans following her report on "right-wing extremism".

    The ideology of the Obama administration becomes apparent in the difficulty it has in discerning good guys from bad guys.