Extremist wingnuts are domestic terrorist threat.

[MaverickCowboy]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94803

Homeland Security on guard for 'right-wing extremists'
Returning U.S. military veterans singled out as particular threats
Posted: April 12, 2009
9:40 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – A newly unclassified Department of Homeland Security report warns against the possibility of violence by unnamed "right-wing extremists" concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty and singles out returning war veterans as particular threats.

The report, titled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," dated April 7, states that "threats from white supremacist and violent anti-government groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts."

However, the document, first reported by talk-radio host and WND columnist Roger Hedgecock, goes on to suggest worsening economic woes, potential new legislative 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."


The report from DHS' Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines right-wing extremism in the U.S. as "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 anti-government, 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."

"[T]he consequences of a prolonged economic downturn – including real estate foreclosures, unemployment and an inability to obtain credit – could create a fertile recruiting environment for right-wing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past," the report says.

(Story continues below)






It adds that "growth in 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 pre-eminent world power."

"Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of right-wing extremist groups as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government," the report continues. "The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by right-wing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement."

Most notable is the report's focus on the impact of returning war veterans.

"Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists," it says. "DHS/I&A is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities."

The report cites the April 4 shooting deaths of three police officers in Pittsburgh as an example of what may be coming, claiming the alleged gunman holds a racist ideology and believes in anti-government conspiracy theories about gun confiscations, citizen detention camps and "a Jewish-controlled 'one-world government.'"

It also suggests the election of an African-American president and the prospect of his policy changes "are proving to be a driving force for right-wing extremist recruitment and radicalization."

The report also mentions "'end times' prophecies could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition and weapons. These teachings also have been linked with the radicalization of domestic extremist individuals and groups in the past, such as the violent Christian Identity organizations and extremist members of the militia movement."

"DHS/I&A assesses that right-wing extremist groups' frustration over a perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration has the potential to incite individuals or small groups toward violence," the report continues.

The report states the DHS will be working with state and local partners over the next several months to determine the levels of right-wing extremist activity in the U.S.

Last month, the chief of the Missouri highway patrol blasted a report issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center that linked conservative groups to domestic terrorism, assuring that such reports no longer will be issued. The report had been compiled with the assistance of DHS.

The report warned law enforcement agencies to watch for suspicious individuals who may have bumper stickers for third-party political candidates such as Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin.

It further warned law enforcement to watch out for individuals with "radical" ideologies based on Christian views, such as opposing illegal immigration, abortion and federal taxes.

Chief James Keathley of the Missouri State Patrol issued a statement that the release of the report, which outraged conservatives nationwide, prompted him to "take a hard look" at the procedures through which the report was released by the MIAC.

"My review of the procedures used by the MIAC in the three years since its inception indicates that the mechanism in place for oversight of reports needs improvement," he wrote. "Until two weeks ago, the process for release of reports from the MIAC to law enforcement officers around the state required no review by leaders of the Missouri State Highway Patrol or the Department of Public Safety."

"For that reason, I have ordered the MIAC to permanently cease distribution of the militia report," he said. "Further, I am creating a new process for oversight of reports drafted by the MIAC that will require leaders of the Missouri State Highway Patrol and the Department of Public Safety to review the content of these reports before they are shared with law enforcement. My office will also undertake a review of the origin of the report by MIAC."

[Geezah]

The report also mentions "'end times' prophecies could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition and weapons. These teachings also have been linked with the radicalization of domestic extremist individuals and groups in the past, such as the violent Christian Identity organizations and extremist members of the militia movement."


As I remember, Mormons are meant to keep atleast 6mths worth of food in house. What does that mean for them?

So is this how it starts, there is a big push to remove possible threats to their throne.

[wildcat]

Today VA added to list of Terrorist Groups operating inside the USA.

[wildcat]

The report warned law enforcement agencies to watch for suspicious individuals who may have bumper stickers for third-party political candidates such as Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin.

so if you vote outside the big 2 parties then watch out they are coming for you.

[Aerosoul]

I looked through the PDF of the report and didn't find anything about bumper stickers.
I laughed when I read that line so I just had to look....if someone sees it and I missed it, please point it out.

And

"Conservatives are Domestic Terror Threat"
Lol, nice headline. :roll:

[PeterRJG]

Great misleading headline. There's nothing conservative, fiscally or socially, about right-wing extremism.

[Zarak]

Is there, perhaps, a more reliable source for this?

[loganinkosovo]

Nothing like slandering millions of Americans and your own Military to keep the Obama Buttboys in the Main Stream Media from reporting on Tea Parties.

This piece of crap has outlawed most Americans and all Real Americans....you know, the ones who believe in the Constitution, with ALL it's amendments, and the Bill of Rights.

Anymore of this BS and there WILL be a Civil War.

[Izmirlian]

This cannot be for real.

[Aerosoul]

Nothing like slandering millions of Americans and your own Military to keep the Obama Buttboys in the Main Stream Media from reporting on Tea Parties.

This piece of crap has outlawed most Americans and all Real Americans....you know, the ones who believe in the Constitution, with ALL it's amendments, and the Bill of Rights.

Anymore of this BS and there WILL be a Civil War.


You are right about one thing. This is BS, as far as I can tell. The article makes it sounds like half the country is now considered a terrorist...lol.

[Polygon]

They're comin' to getcha.

[Mu-Meson]

So actual foreign terrorism is called "man-made disasters", and hypothetical home grown extremism is called "terrorism". Nuance.

Opposing illegal immigration is 'radical'. Since Washington wrote the laws that make them illegal immigrants, does that make DC a terrorist entity?
Supporting gun rights? I guess the US Constitution is now a terrorist manifesto.
Single issue advocacy groups are a 'threat'. I doubt that includes Planned Parenthood or NOW or SEIU or any other liberal lobby group. Maybe the NRA should start lobbying for Dolphin rights on the side.

[Zarak]

They're comin' to getcha.

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/8959/youbetcha.jpg

[SBL]

Paranoia strikes deep.

[loganinkosovo]

Is there, perhaps, a more reliable source for this?


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/14/federal-agency-warns-of-radicals-on-right/

F@cking Al Ja*******, obama buttboys in the extreme, have run with the story, so instead of "Watch out for this" they report it's already happening!

http://www.*******.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE53D5SH20090414?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.10ed1f9e186b5df56ff5aa4eedbbf5dc.dd1&show_article=1

http://wnd.com/images/dhs-rightwing-extremism.pdf

[Zarak]

"white supremacist groups, antigovernment extremists and militia movements"
http://www.*******.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE53D5SH20090414?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

"The Homeland Security report added: 'Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists, including militias and white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action, rallying point, and recruiting tool.'"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/14/federal-agency-warns-of-radicals-on-right

Stormfronters and Michigan Militia Members != Conservatives in general

I get tired of hyped up crap.

[JJC]

Someone has been watching Glen Beck too much. Even if the report would single out Ron Paul bumper stickers (lol), I wouldn't be surprised why, considering the type of fan base he had.

[Dan2004]

Great misleading headline. There's nothing conservative, fiscally or socially, about right-wing extremism.

This isn't about extremism. This is about targeting people who don't toe either party line and squelching independent political thought.

This rag labels millions and millions of Americans as potential terrorists/enemies of the state simply for speaking their minds or expressing their political views that, even under the previous administration, made them "suspect."

It's wrong. It's the antithesis of the ideals that this great nation was founded on. It's Un-American, plain and simple.

Hooah!

Dan

[budgie]

Great misleading headline. There's nothing conservative, fiscally or socially, about right-wing extremism.

Just what I thought. Should read "Right-Wing Extremists are a threat"

As for the content, nothing unusual. Bad economic times, a black president in a country with more than a few fringe groups dedicated to racism, a bitter right-wing electorate because their lesser-of-two-evils party (few are actually GOP supporters) didn't win. There was a spike in racist incidents after the elction and the FBI have noticed a general uptick as reported in earlier threads.

As for returning vets, before you all get your knickers in a knot, this was released by the DHS, not the "anti-military" Obama administration. The military attracts its share of nut jobs just as well as the civilian sector and some of these guys come home trained to do awful things, like Timothy McVeigh. If the DHS has singled out returning vets as likely candidates for right-wing terror plots that's probably because they have the figures to back it up. Don't take it as an attack (presumably by the Dems) on vets in general.

[Alpheus]

"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."


"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 right-wing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past,"

"Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of right-wing extremist groups as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government,"

"Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists," it says. "DHS/I&A is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities."

"DHS/I&A assesses that right-wing extremist groups' frustration over a perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration has the potential to incite individuals or small groups toward violence," the report continues.

Could? Likely? Potentially? Attempt?

Does the DHS have any actual evidence or are they just guessing?

[budgie]

Could? Likely? Potentially? Attempt?

Does the DHS have any actual evidence or are they just guessing?


No of course not - unless they've got george Tenet running the show again. Funny how the DHS was a champion of freedom only a few months ago under Dubya and now suddenly they're all coming in black helicopters to "pry yer gurns from yer cold dead fangers".

And bear in mind that despite the carefully planted thread title, nobody is actually accusing genuine conservatives of plotting anything. It is right-wing hate groups, Mav was just trying to stir the pot.




Anymore of this BS and there WILL be a Civil War.

I can almost hear the hands rubbing together gleefully. There won't be a civil war between Liberals and conservatives. For starters the military is conservative and they hold all the guns, so i dunno what the libs would fight with. Hardened tofu perhaps? Perhaps you're hoping for a whitehouse coup instead? Enough with the silly fantasies.

[tennesseedave]

"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."


I have a major problem with this quote. What statistics do they have do back this up? Timothy McVeigh was in 1995 and has nothing to do with the current conflict. To compare returning vets to that POS is ludicrous.

I see this as targeting those that are opposed to the current administration. Everyone attending a tea party tomorrow better watch out. You'll probably be video taped and put on the radical extremist list.

[Gleipnir]

This is the ******* article logan provided a link for:


MIAMI (*******) - Right-wing extremists in the United States are gaining new recruits by exploiting fears about the economy and the election of the first black U.S. president, the Department of Homeland Security warned in a report to law enforcement officials.
The April 7 report, which ******* and other news media obtained on Tuesday, said such fears were driving a resurgence in "recruitment and radicalization activity" by white supremacist groups, antigovernment extremists and militia movements. It did not identify any by name.
DHS had no specific information about pending violence and said threats had so far been "largely rhetorical."

But it warned that home foreclosures, unemployment and other consequences of the economic recession "could create a fertile recruiting environment for right-wing extremists."
"To the extent that these factors persist, right-wing extremism is likely to grow in strength," DHS said.


The report warned that military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with combat skills could be recruitment targets, especially those having trouble finding jobs or fitting back into civilian society.
The department "is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities," the report said.


DHS spokeswoman Sara Kuban said on Tuesday the report was one of an ongoing series of threat assessments aimed at "a greater understanding of violent radicalization in the U.S."
A similar assessment of left-wing radicals completed in January was distributed to federal, state and local police agencies at that time.
"These assessments are done all the time, this is nothing unusual," Kuban said.

The Department of Homeland Security was formed in response to the September 11 attacks of 2001 and has focused largely on threats from Islamist extremists.


The report said domestic right-wing terrorist groups grew during the economic recession of the early 1990s but subsided as the economy improved.
Government scrutiny disrupted violent plots following the April 1995 bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City by Army veteran Timothy McVeigh which killed 168 people.

LONE WOLVES
"Despite similarities to the climate of the 1990s, the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more ****ounced than in past years," the report said.
The Internet has made it easier to locate specific targets, communicate with like-minded people and find information on bombs and weapons, it said.

Extremist groups are preying on fears that President Barack Obama (http://www.*******.com/news/globalcoverage/barackobama), the first African American U.S. president, would restrict gun ownership, boost immigration and expand social programs for minorities, the report said.
It said such groups were also exploiting anti-Semitic sentiment with accusations that "a cabal of Jewish financial elites" had conspired to collapse the economy.
"This trend is likely to accelerate if the economy is perceived to worsen," the report said.


No need for hysteria.

[Gleipnir]

I have a major problem with this quote. What statistics do they have do back this up? Timothy McVeigh was in 1995 and has nothing to do with the current conflict. To compare returning vets to that POS is ludicrous.




The report warned that military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with combat skills could be recruitment targets, especially those having trouble finding jobs or fitting back into civilian society.
The department "is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities," the report said.

[vryhpyammoadded]

Blah, blah, blah more of the same guberment hand wringing and the resultant crying of the authoritarian Eric Cartman wannabies. Big deal.
I know people within their own organization that would register hits in the system based on that criteria. rofl

Respect my authoritah…

[sinophile]

MP.net posters are #1.

In more ways then one... booowhaahhahaa! <--- sinister laugh.

[Dan2004]

MP.net posters are #1.

In more ways then one... booowhaahhahaa! <--- sinister laugh.

Apparently, I meet more than a few of the criteria required to be an enemy of the state....I gotta say, I'm pretty proud of that. p-)

[scrybe]

You are right about one thing. This is BS, as far as I can tell. The article makes it sounds like half the country is now considered a terrorist...lol.

Where does the BS start? :|

[WARPIG]

Right wingnuts have always been around. Domestic terrorists come from all walks of life and every sort of political view. Conservatives don't have the market cornered. The liberal lunatic spin on this article is not only misleading but expected. Victimizing the poor Obama Office by Equating some half wit a55hats with conservatives is just more of the same from all the usual suspects.

[khaz]

Damm they are trying to say the "vast right wing conspiracy" is back.

Dont worry comrade obama will protect you from the cradle to the grave, constitution be dammed.

Alinskys RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

They are just laying the groundwork.

[deagle]

govt is the cause for anti-govt fervor it seems, lol

[Cstafford]

Neal Bortz and Sean Hanity will be the first to go if there are "conservative" crack downs.

[Mackie]

Racist veterans become terrorists?
What they are expecting? A new "SturmAbteilung"?

[PeterRJG]

This isn't about extremism. This is about targeting people who don't toe either party line and squelching independent political thought.

This rag labels millions and millions of Americans as potential terrorists/enemies of the state simply for speaking their minds or expressing their political views that, even under the previous administration, made them "suspect."

It's wrong. It's the antithesis of the ideals that this great nation was founded on. It's Un-American, plain and simple.

Hooah!

Dan

It's un-Western, to be honest.

My beef was actually with the post headline rather than any content.

[Brasi]

Apparently, I meet more than a few of the criteria required to be an enemy of the state....I gotta say, I'm pretty proud of that. p-)


Same here.

1. Owner of several assault weapons. (Check)
2. Prior military service (Check)
3. Independent voter. (Check)
4. Ron Paul supporter. (Check)
5. Believes in the 2nd amendment. (Check)
6. Believes in minimal federal government. (Check)
7. Member of GOA or NRA. (Check)

Man, I'm screwed.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

You guys just love your black helicopter stories over there :)

[Bia]

worldnetdaily.... is a conspiracy website.

It's no surprise MaverickTheCowboyWolf is in a perpetual state of paranoia.


Wow... until you actually type out "MaverickTheCowBoyWolf" you dont realize how long of a name it is.

[MaverickCowboy]

worldnetdaily.... is a conspiracy website.

It's no surprise MaverickTheCowboyWolf is in a perpetual state of paranoia.


Wow... until you actually type out "MaverickTheCowBoyWolf" you dont realize how long of a name it is.


Nah, i aint paranoid, i just copy pasted this. i saw this story run on CNN actually but this was the first thing i found.

as for the name.......
I know its a pain in the *** to type it out everyday.... i wanna shorten it. wonder if some of the mods can change it for me.

[Fargin]

It's conserning that intelligence agencies are monitoring and profiling all right-wing extremeists, based on the action of few, it's not like they are muslims and such.

[Geezah]

Federal agency warns of radicals on right (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/14/federal-agency-warns-of-radicals-on-right/)

Recession fueling right-wing extremism, U.S. says (http://www.*******.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE53D5SH20090414?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true)

US recession, 1st black president, 'fuel extremism' (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.10ed1f9e186b5df56ff5aa4eedbbf5dc.dd1&show_article=1)

...............

[MaverickCowboy]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/14/homeland-security-report_n_186834.html

[MaverickCowboy]

Hey Geezah, you damn extremist!

[California Joe]

I agree with the report. I think it's important to analyze the potential for "emergence" in volatile times. This is nothing new, there are endless reports written about subjects like this by people within DOD and 3 letter agencies.

Personally I don't understand why some of you are so anxious to act like they're talking about you. Unless you moonlight as psycho ****heads on Stormfront when you're not posting here. In which case, I hope someone drops a 10,000 pound cartoon anvil on your head.

[CPLHUNTER]

Read the entire actual document for yourself and then come to your own conclusion:

http://www.thelibertypapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/hsa-rightwing-extremism-09-04-07.pdf

This section stood out to me as being a very general definition of "right wing extremists" Guess you can count me in on that list :)

* (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.

[California Joe]

Especially if your answer to the bolded parts is to take your AK down to the local abortion clinic and shoot the place up.

[CPLHUNTER]

Not necessary...this document paints a large group of us as being extremists simply because we don't tow the line in regards to such issues as immigration or abortion.

Has nothing to do with whether or not I'm going to take my AK down the local clinic.

I don't know what an AK is...

[California Joe]

The report lists commonalities among people that hold extreme views and could be potentially dangerous. Just because you believe that abortion isn't right it or the 2nd amendment is inviolate it doesn't mean they're speaking about you.

That's like taking a list of cancer symptoms and picking 1 of them like a "runny nose" and assuming you too have cancer because your allergies are acting up.

[RxOnco]

I think it's quite coincidental that this information comes on the eve of thousands of these "extremeists" gathering to protest stimulus/tax spending at the Tea Parties across the nation. Could it be to discredit them before they even take the stage? Maybe...

[wildcat]

My beef about the report is it is make assumptions, and really has not any evidence of such trouble to come, just fear mongering inside the DHS, or even inside the Administration. it is more a view on how the administration thinks, and really fears, or using this to create fear. But at the end of the day this report is to LE to tell them just keep you eyes open, this might happen.

[CPLHUNTER]

The report lists commonalities among people that hold extreme views and could be potentially dangerous. Just because you believe that abortion isn't right it or the 2nd amendment is inviolate it doesn't mean they're speaking about you.

That's like taking a list of cancer symptoms and picking 1 of them like a "runny nose" and assuming you too have cancer because your allergies are acting up.

The document also implies depending of course on how you read it is that those who expose anti goverment views may become violent in the future. Thereby taking a huge number of the population and potentially putting specific people under watch etc.

Just like w/ the Patriot Act...it worked quite well to prevent terror attacks in the US, although the possibly for abuse exists.

Just like with a ton of other laws meant to protect us that can be abused.

So when I read stuff like this and then take statements by DHS, Obama's admin and others into account, you might start taking note.

No one is saying be a paraniod crazy, however there's nothing wrong with being aware and prepared.

[California Joe]

And my point is that this report was compiled by professional analysts and GS employees of various agencies that have been monitoring said areas of interest since Oklahoma. These people are not some sort of left wing propaganda machine. They also write reports on Left Wing fringe groups like ecoterrorists.

This information isn't new, it's using common sense to figure out where flashpoints may occur. For chrissakes, the potential for abuse always exists, but noting where problems could arise, and the reasons for those problems is what we used to call "proactive policing". Liberals hate it and call it "profiling", but it is a valid means of predicting possible trouble. The FBI released a similar report under the Bush Administration. There are probably thousands of pages of research on the subject.

[Hot Lips]

I agree with the report. I think it's important to analyze the potential for "emergence" in volatile times. This is nothing new, there are endless reports written about subjects like this by people within DOD and 3 letter agencies.

Personally I don't understand why some of you are so anxious to act like they're talking about you. Unless you moonlight as psycho ****heads on Stormfront when you're not posting here. In which case, I hope someone drops a 10,000 pound cartoon anvil on your head.


The report lists commonalities among people that hold extreme views and could be potentially dangerous. Just because you believe that abortion isn't right it or the 2nd amendment is inviolate it doesn't mean they're speaking about you.

That's like taking a list of cancer symptoms and picking 1 of them like a "runny nose" and assuming you too have cancer because your allergies are acting up.

Amazing how many people identify with and jump to the defense of extremists. The reaction is more disturbing than the report. They do also report on Left Wing Extremists as well. That's what they do... monitor them, analize patterns, and report potential problem areas in order to protect us all.

Being against illegal immigration doesn't make one an extremist. Being against abortion doesn't making one an extremist. They know that! Embracing extreme solutions (violence) to such issues is what they are looking for and they simply can not afford to ignore the fact that violent extremist have a tendency to lean towards certain issues, identify with certain media personalities, etc.

That's all part of LE profiling to weed out the bad eggs in society.

I wish they had been able to identify the nut job in Pittsburgh who assassinated three police officers last week as a potential risk and somehow possibly prevented those murders from happening. Likewise with similar cases throughout the country.

What do Democrats, Republicans, and other organizations do to actively disassociate themselves with extremists? Tolerating and/or pandering to them for their votes, IMO, does more harm then good.

[Chulo]

Just what I thought. Should read "Right-Wing Extremists are a threat"

.
But left wing extremist are not? Why not just point out extremist overall

[Gleipnir]

I think it's quite coincidental that this information comes on the eve of thousands of these "extremeists" gathering to protest stimulus/tax spending at the Tea Parties across the nation. Could it be to discredit them before they even take the stage? Maybe...

No. There really is no need for hysteria or wild speculation-
The aims of this report are not to discredit anyone, the aims of this report are to assess a possible future threat.



DHS spokeswoman Sara Kuban said on Tuesday the report was one of an ongoing series of threat assessments aimed at "a greater understanding of violent radicalization in the U.S."
A similar assessment of left-wing radicals completed in January was distributed to federal, state and local police agencies at that time.
"These assessments are done all the time, this is nothing unusual," Kuban said.

Why now?


But it warned that home foreclosures, unemployment and other consequences of the economic recession "could create a fertile recruiting environment for right-wing extremists."
"To the extent that these factors persist, right-wing extremism is likely to grow in strength," DHS said.

Why would they think that?


The report said domestic right-wing terrorist groups grew during the economic recession of the early 1990s but subsided as the economy improved.

Why make such assessments in the first place?


Government scrutiny disrupted violent plots following the April 1995 bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City by Army veteran Timothy McVeigh which killed 168 people.

New developments since the 1990s-


"Despite similarities to the climate of the 1990s, the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more ****ounced than in past years," the report said.
The Internet has made it easier to locate specific targets, communicate with like-minded people and find information on bombs and weapons, it said.

THIS IS WHO IS BEING SCRUTINIZED


The April 7 report, which ******* and other news media obtained on Tuesday, said such fears were driving a resurgence in "recruitment and radicalization activity" by white supremacist groups, antigovernment extremists and militia movements. It did not identify any by name.
DHS had no specific information about pending violence and said threats had so far been "largely rhetorical."

SO CALM YOURSELVES DOWN
READ CAREFULLY
EMPLOY LOGIC AND RATIONALITY
SET ASIDE EMOTIONS AND BIASES FOR A MOMENT

[Gleipnir]

But left wing extremist are not? Why not just point out extremist overall

Dude, it has already been said here a number of times:

A similar assessment of left-wing radicals completed in January was distributed to federal, state and local police agencies at that time.

[khukuri]

Cali joe spot on as usual...

I see some people really like to feel special and wanted.

[Albatross]

FUUUCCCKKKKKK.....Why didn't someone tell me I was a terror threat? gawdamnit!

I dont give a ****, this is all BS. Who cares. The odds of there being a civil war or a revolution are about .000000000000000000000000000001%. If the obamanite hoards would settle down and cool their jets for a few months all this stupid stuff would be gone.

Also, they played the race card. Weak.

[Hot Lips]

DHS Report: Rightwing Estremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5410658/DHS-Report-on-Right-Wing-Extremism)(PDF) April 2009

DHS Report: Leftwing Extremists Likely to Increase Use of Cyber Attacks over the Coming Decade (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Leftwing_Extremist_Threat.pdf)(PDF) January 2009

[Soldat_Américain]

Aryan Nations and the kkk come to mind...should have done some cracking down a lot earlier.

[Hot Lips]

FUUUCCCKKKKKK.....Why didn't someone tell me I was a terror threat? gawdamnit!

Thank you for identifying yourself as a potentially violent right-wing extremists since the report failed to do that.

[California Joe]

FUUUCCCKKKKKK.....Why didn't someone tell me I was a terror threat? gawdamnit!

I dont give a ****, this is all BS. Who cares. The odds of there being a civil war or a revolution are about .000000000000000000000000000001%. If the obamanite hoards would settle down and cool their jets for a few months all this stupid stuff would be gone.

Also, they played the race card. Weak.

Nice reading comprehension there skin head. Now get back to polishing your Doc Martens.

[Albatross]

Nice reading comprehension there skin head. Now get back to polishing your Doc Martens.


I have minons for that.

Hotlips. POST!

[martinexsquaddie]

just because you have have a dozen semi automatic rifles and 6 months food tonnes of ammo and holed up in a reinforced bunker in the Rockies.
doesn't make you a terrorist.
just a fairly normal armerican:)

when you believe the UN is planning to take your guns away and the only way to stop them is to start waging war against the UN right this minute with pipe bombs in shopping malls.

uk right wing nuts are always being done for stockpiling bombs knives and the like
left wing nut jobs for attacking the police etc

[WARPIG]

"Payband" level analysts put this info together.. World News Daily made a crappy conspiracy theory story out of it. FFS Tim McVeigh fit this friggin description, it doesn't take a gang of 3 letter agency douchenozzles to tell me that a bunch of burn't out 20 year old vets are going to have some ruffled feathers about the liberal messiah as the CinC. You'd have to be a moron to think some gun loving COD4 junkies with military training aren't going to be a bit jumpy when you talk about taking their carbines away from them. Heck they bought that crap with the enlistment bonus we gave them. I mean does it really take much study to assume that a bunch of vets that did nothing more than play shooter games in their hooch in between patrols in Fallujah, go paycheck to paycheck getting ripped drunk at ***** bars in Fayettville, and try and make it back from Myrtle Beach on their crotch rockets in time for morning PT... to not be disgruntled and pissed off back in the world? Not with this economy and the liberal power curve. How well adjusted were Nam vets when they came home to the Peace and Love generation?

Basically, old news that is just the sort of thing that newsies are going to spin the way they see fit. The info isn't the crappy part of the article, the whole "right wing" movement to extremes garbage is what stinks.

[IraGlacialis]

Amazing how many people identify with and jump to the defense of extremists. The reaction is more disturbing than the report. They do also report on Left Wing Extremists as well. That's what they do... monitor them, analize patterns, and report potential problem areas in order to protect us all.
Spot on.
And I am betting that if the GOP was in power, many liberal groups and publications will cry victim as well at the exact same report.

[WARPIG]

Spot on.
And I am betting that if the GOP was in power, many liberal groups and publications will cry victim as well at the exact same report.

This thread does sort of read like a roll call for wingnuts. But, you must see the obvious bias of the "article" right? The report is nothing new really.. but the way it was reported seems pretty slanted.

[little icebear]

I´d like to raise another important question.

Are the future inmates of those FEMA camps going to have internet access, or will we have to miss a couple of fellow mp.net members in the near future? :(

[CPLHUNTER]

The article is quite slanted most notably in the aspect of implying that returning vets can be sucked into these crazy groups.

Janet Napolitano is now apologizing for the security brief and the context.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/16/napolitano.apology/

[wildcat]

The article is quite slanted most notably in the aspect of implying that returning vets can be sucked into these crazy groups.

Janet Napolitano is now apologizing for the security brief and the context.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/16/napolitano.apology/
she is saying sorry, but not meaning it, typical.

[IraGlacialis]

But, you must see the obvious bias of the "article" right? The report is nothing new really.. but the way it was reported seems pretty slanted.I of course I do. Which is why you can take this report and make an article that can stir the hysterical masses on one or the other far end of the isle (which it seems to have done here).

[RxOnco]

http://lonestartimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/janetnapolitano.jpg (http://lonestartimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/janetnapolitano.jpg)
Allow me to suggest a new report for the DHS, “Leftwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Marxist Radicalization - in the Obama Administration”.

[Dominique]

http://lonestartimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/janetnapolitano.jpg (http://lonestartimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/janetnapolitano.jpg)
Allow me to suggest a new report for the DHS, “Leftwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Marxist Radicalization - in the Obama Administration”.

It's quotes like that that are causing many of the problems we currently have in the US. Everyone wants to point a fingers and blame "them", instead of looking in the mirror and taking an honest self-assessment. If people spent more time making sure their own house was in order, instead of worrying about what "they" are doing, a lot of this sh*t would never have happened in the first place.

As far as the actual report goes, how many of you, that are complaining about it, have actually sat down and read the actual report? Or are you just basing your statements on a few cherry pick blurbs posted on the internet? How many of you are aware that reports like this are constantly generated? And if they're not, and something happens, then people cry about the government not being prepared. No matter what they do, there's always someone crying that the government is out to get them. It's a not win situation no matter what they do.

[Gleipnir]

^^^^^^^^
x2

[California Joe]

Don't worry Dom, his solution is to support some pandering dink of a Governor in Texas that fires up the faithful by threatening to seceed from the Union.

[RxOnco]

Spoken like a true Left-Coaster.

[Hot Lips]

Well said Dominique.

I don't think any of us has any thing to gain by trying to defend extremists.

[California Joe]

Not where I live. It's the name of a Civil War sharpshooter.

Maybe you didn't see the link Hot Lips posted showing a report done on Left wing radical groups?

Maybe you were just itching for a chance to take a shot at the President even though it had nothing to do with the thread?

[Laworkerbee]

Spoken like a true Left-Coaster.

Did someone call?

[commanding]

Actually, I used to think Gov. Perry was just an "empty suit"....now I am starting to think, he may have either a brain in his head, or a PR man telling him what to say. His pretty boy looks, and his helmet hair, I don't care for...but I try not to judge a person by his/her looks.
If Texas were to secede, it would be a Jolt cola for me. I could name a bunch of other states who have worse governors. To me, an empty suit is okay...just means less government in my life.

[RxOnco]

...No matter what they do, there's always someone crying that the government is out to get them. It's a not win situation no matter what they do.

That's why most of what I say is tongue-in-cheek. Yes, I understand that these reports are constantly coming and going. I understand that there were numerous reports listing "left-wing" goups on the watch lists. I also remember them crying foul when it happened.
I tend to find it amusing. If I were in a lower tax bracket, I would probably be on someone's watch list. I'm a member of a couple of different secessionist organizations, a registered member of the constitution party, am a concealed carry permit holder, etc...

As Obama so eloquently put it, "we won." Yes, Dems, you won. Now be prepared for 4 years of nitpicking and microscopic evaluation of everything you do. Very much like we've experienced over the last 8 years.

[Dominique]

That's why most of what I say is tongue-in-cheek. Yes, I understand that these reports are constantly coming and going. I understand that there were numerous reports listing "left-wing" goups on the watch lists. I also remember them crying foul when it happened.
I tend to find it amusing. If I were in a lower tax bracket, I would probably be on someone's watch list. I'm a member of a couple of different secessionist organizations, a registered member of the constitution party, am a concealed carry permit holder, etc...

As Obama so eloquently put it, "we won." Yes, Dems, you won. Now be prepared for 4 years of nitpicking and microscopic evaluation of everything you do. Very much like we've experienced over the last 8 years.

I' asked this question over in the Texas thread, exactly what do you think would be accomplished by seceding from the U.S.? What is it you're trying to accomplish that you feel only secession will be able to achieve?

[commanding]

I' asked this question over in the Texas thread, exactly what do you think would be accomplished by seceding from the U.S.? What is it you're trying to accomplish that you feel only secession will be able to achieve?

I do not think this will ever happen, at least in the next 40 years or so, but to answer your question (in the vein of friendly discussion), the exact same things that were accomplished by the North American colonies when they seceded from England. The same thing that was accomplished when Texas broke away from Mexico in 1836, ....namely that you start with a "clean slate" and put the best minds to work drafting a basic set of laws to govern and guide a new republic. You start out with FEWER laws, and LESS govt. control, which is what most of us in the USA long for. Less government interference in our short lives, more LIBERTY and self reliance.
Basically the government should exist to provide very limited service, defense of the country, and enforcement of the few laws on the books. Get rid of the waste, the subsidies, the foreign aid, entitlement programs, welfare, grants, etc. When Texas was a Republic, we had the Texas Rangers as state law enforcement, there was no income tax, no rich bloated senators who had been on the job for 40 years etc.

[Izmirlian]

Oh my god, they're turning us against each other.

It's gonna be every man for himself.

[millertime]

and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.


this is the line that bothers me.

Does our Constitution not say that the states have the real power, not the federal government?

Worst part of that line is where they use OR instead of AND... I can see it saying AND rejecting government authority entirely (or just drop the "state and local" part) .... that would be an anarchist. But when they mention respecting the state over the federal and then throw the OR in there makes Constitutionalists appear equivalent to anarchists.

If wanting to live by the Constitution of the United States of America makes me a threat.... SIGN ME THE **** UP!

[Chulo]

this is the line that bothers me.

Does our Constitution not say that the states have the real power, not the federal government?

Worst part of that line is where they use OR instead of AND... I can see it saying AND rejecting government authority entirely (or just drop the "state and local" part) .... that would be an anarchist. But when they mention respecting the state over the federal and then throw the OR in there makes Constitutionalists appear equivalent to anarchists.

If wanting to live by the Constitution of the United States of America makes me a threat.... SIGN ME THE **** UP!
Good point. The federal government does not have say all when it comes to the Constitution, rather it was formed to enforce and help the States. There has been a trend to where Federal trumps everything and the states are only there to fund it. But i guess people forget that it is the UNITED STATES not the Federal Government of America

[budgie]

Oh if that's the case let's bring back slavery and segregation then. Sates rights are not a bad thing but the federal government must lean over the shoulder from time to time to ensure the ule of law is followed. Yes, it may be the case that they meddle too much on taxes, schools, healthcare and so on, but that doesn't make states' rights the be-all-end-all.

[Chulo]

Oh if that's the case let's bring back slavery and segregation then.
That has nothing do to with state rights. Why does everything have to revert back to racism. Sounds like if you question the government now a days its only because you are a racist and dont like Obama.

It is the United States of America, where separate and free states share a common Federal government for (initially) limited purposes. Where each state has its own governments and sovereignty and voice in a Republic governmental system.

I dont see how slavery and segregation have anything to do with believing in the basic foundation of State rights and what the United States of America was developed on.

[Hot Lips]

I don't think he was referring to people not liking Obama, but the fact that certain states formerly baulked at the Union over those issues as well.

[millertime]

Oh if that's the case let's bring back slavery and segregation then.


Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce to you, Whoppie Goldberg!

[budgie]

That has nothing do to with state rights. Why does everything have to revert back to racism. Sounds like if you question the government now a days its only because you are a racist and dont like Obama.



I was merely pointing out that overconfidence in states' rights can go overboard as in the civil war and in the tardiness of the South to accept desegregation. Shouting out "Hussein", now that would be racist.

[Chulo]

I don't think he was referring to people not liking Obama, but the fact that certain states formerly baulked at the Union over those issues as well.


I was merely pointing out that overconfidence in states' rights can go overboard as in the civil war and in the tardiness of the South to accept desegregation. Shouting out "Hussein", now that would be racist.

And that happened only because of State rights? Just because there was a federal government people had a moral conscience which would have not happened if it were up to individual states?

If there was a federal government there would have been no civil war? I think we have plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Just because there were individual states there was racism and slavery? And without the Federal government we would have stayed that way?

Over confidence in Federal Rights was the main concern that the founding fathers had. They didnt trust the Federal government. That is why there had sovereign states, that is why they ensured that states could over turn the federal government, and that is why there is the 2nd Amendment. That is the the basic and foundational aspect of what America is, the constitution was designed ensure the FEDERAL government didnt get too big. A REPUBLIC of UNITED but SEPRATE States, otherwise we might as well get rid of all the seprate states as sovereign and remove the "United states" part of the name.

Government should be afraid of the people, not the people afraid the Government

[Hot Lips]

The government are the people. They are selected from our ranks by us. We have supported and put them where they are.

What are the overwhelming flaws in our government system (local + state + federal) that you would like changed?

[Chulo]

The government are the people. They are selected from our ranks by us. We have supported and put them where they are.

What are the overwhelming flaws in our government system (local + state + federal) that you would like changed?
Right now, the over reaching aspect of the Federal government if you ask me personally. Something that has progressed over the past 50 years or so

as the report says
rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority
Which is the THE authority in the eyes of the report? The Federal government or the State/local authority?

[Dominique]

Well ****, lets just scrap the whole federal government thing all together and go back to each state printing it's own money, and while we're at it, scrap things like the federal hwy system, and the FAA, Immigration policy, customs, federal law enforcement, etc. we'll just let each state assert its rights to control what happens within in it's borders.

Or let anyone who doesn't want to play anymore pack it in, and call it quits. But before they go, give back every federal tax dollar their state has benefited from, and any benefits they've taken advantage of, to include things like VA Loans, the GI Bill, VA hospitals, grants, etc. Seems fair to me.

[Chulo]

Well ****, lets just scrap the whole federal government thing all together and go back to each state printing it's own money, and while we're at it, scrap things like the federal hwy system, and the FAA, Immigration policy, customs, federal law enforcement, etc. we'll just let each state assert its rights to control what happens within in it's borders.

Or let anyone who doesn't want to play anymore pack it in, and call it quits. But before they go, give back every federal tax dollar their state has benefited from, and any benefits they've taken advantage of, to include things like VA Loans, the GI Bill, VA hospitals, grants, etc. Seems fair to me.

I didnt say the Federal Government is bad or evil. It is necessary if you want to have 50 different sovereign states work together as one. But the Constitution was put in place to ensure they didnt over reach.

Federal Tax dollars which was raised by taxing the very people who live in the state. So if they give back the money to the Feds, woudnt the Feds have to give back the taxes to the very people that gave it to them? Unless the feds are rasing their taxes from people other than americans.

If the Federal government is scared of the people that identify with state sovereignty, then who are they protecting? The states or the people that identify with the Federal government? Then is the federal government representing the people of the states or the people that believe in a federal government?

[bryanleu2002]

Response from a vet..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj-jygzoyZM

[Gleipnir]

It is becoming increasingly clear that people are taking this report too personally and continue to misread and misinterpret what it is saying and what its aims are.

WHY IS THIS REPORT BEING MADE? To assess a possible future threat.


Right-wing extremists in the United States are gaining new recruits by exploiting fears about the economy and the election of the first black U.S. president, the Department of Homeland Security warned in a report to law enforcement officials.

WHO IS BEING SCRUTINIZED?

The April 7 report, which ******* and other news media obtained on Tuesday, said such fears were driving a resurgence in "recruitment and radicalization activity" by white supremacist groups, antigovernment extremists and militia movements. It did not identify any by name.
DHS had no specific information about pending violence and said threats had so far been "largely rhetorical."

WHY THE TIMING OF THE REPORT?

But it warned that home foreclosures, unemployment and other consequences of the economic recession "could create a fertile recruiting environment for right-wing extremists."
"To the extent that these factors persist, right-wing extremism is likely to grow in strength," DHS said.

THESE FACTORS PLAYED A ROLE IN THE PAST:

The report said domestic right-wing terrorist groups grew during the economic recession of the early 1990s but subsided as the economy improved.

HOW HAS THIS TYPE OF THREAT CHANGED SINCE THEN:

"Despite similarities to the climate of the 1990s, the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more ****ounced than in past years," the report said.
The Internet has made it easier to locate specific targets, communicate with like-minded people and find information on bombs and weapons, it said.

WHY ARE VETERANS MENTIONED IN THE REPORT?

The report warned that military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with combat skills could be recruitment targets, especially those having trouble finding jobs or fitting back into civilian society.
The department "is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities," the report said.
THEY ARE NOT SAYING VETERANS ARE THE DIRECT CAUSE OF THE ASSESSMENT BUT THAT THEIR VULNERABILITY IN RETURNING TO SOCIETY AND THE VALUABLE ROLE THEY COULD PLAY TO EXTREMIST GROUPS MAKE THEM A HIGH PRIORITY TARGET OF THOSE DOING THE RECRUITING.

THIS IS A SPECIFIC CONCERN BECAUSE A PAST THREAT CAME FROM THIS DEMOGRAPHIC:

Government scrutiny disrupted violent plots following the April 1995 bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City by Army veteran Timothy McVeigh which killed 168 people.

A SIMILAR ASSESSMENT WAS MADE OF LEFT-WING RADICALS
FURTHERMORE THESE REPORTS ARE MADE FREQUENTLY

DHS spokeswoman Sara Kuban said on Tuesday the report was one of an ongoing series of threat assessments aimed at "a greater understanding of violent radicalization in the U.S."
A similar assessment of left-wing radicals completed in January was distributed to federal, state and local police agencies at that time.
"These assessments are done all the time, this is nothing unusual," Kuban said.

AND THIS IS FOR ALL OF YOU MISREADING CRYBABIES OUT THERE:

http://i41.tinypic.com/1607onk.jpg

[millertime]

At least the DHS report on the lefties cited actual groups, and actual crimes committed by said groups. Not just generalized crap that fits a large number of people who don't "Toe the line" of the current administration.

http://www.hstoday.us/images/stories/leftwing_extremist_threat.pdf

[Hot Lips]

millertime, did you actually read them?

The report addresses recruitment by extremist groups, thus is speaks about their would be target groups.

It does make reference to specific crimes and groups that have been dealt with in the past -- including the more recent shooting of 3 officers in Pittsburgh.

[millertime]

read them both.

Since I am not the best at "putting my words on paper" I'll throw out something I read. This sums up what I feel about the two, but in better words than I could put together.




DHS Report on Leftists Not Like Napolitano Report on Right-Wing Extremism

April 16, 2009 04:34 PM ET

By Peter Roff, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
In Wednesday's blog post (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2009/04/15/the-new-mccarthyism-dhs-reports-on-right-wing-extremism-.html) I took Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to task over her department's production of a report (http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf) titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment." That report, I said, amounted to "little more than a nine-page screed against phantoms" and was an overly broad attack that lumped returning veterans and people who hold certain political beliefs that are well within the mainstream of American political thought in with what the department referred to as religious and racial hate groups.
Several of the people who left comments—not to mention my Thomas Jefferson Street colleague Robert Schlesinger (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/4/15/dhs-report-on-right-wing-extremists-is-no-attack-on-tea-party-conservatives.html)—pointed to the existence of a similar report released under the auspices of the Bush administration that they maintained was the functional equivalent of the Napolitano report, only with its rhetoric directed at the American left. In fact, it is remarkably different, and I'd like to show how.
The Napolitano report, first and foremost, includes "no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence" but is written in contemplation by the Department of Homeland Security that "The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization." It is, in a word, supposition.
The earlier report, Leftwing Extremists Likely to Increase Use of Cyber Attacks over the Coming Decade (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Leftwing_Extremist_Threat.pdf), "focuses on the more prominent leftwing groups within the animal rights, environmental, and anarchist extremist movements that promote or have conducted criminal or terrorist activities."
And it cites specific examples, something the Napolitano report, with the exception of references to the Oklahoma City bombing (which is cast as a reason to be concerned about returning veterans), fails to do in anything resembling the same level of detail. The earlier report on left-wing extremism cites cyber attacks as being "attractive options to leftwing extremists who view attacks on economic targets as aligning with their nonviolent, "no harm" doctrine and tactic of "direction action."
And to support this claim, DHS offers up the following: "The North American Earth Liberation Front Press Office, the media arm of the Earth Liberation front (ELF), published the following guidance for activists: 'By inflicting as much economic damage as possible, the ELF can allow a given entity to decide it is in their [sic] best economic interest to stop destroying life for the sake of profit.'"
And, also in support of its thesis, the earlier report documents several specific actions committed by liberal organizations that included the deletion of user accounts and flooding a company's servers with E-mails.
"On 13 July 2007, an animal rights extremist hacked into a U.S. company's computer system and deleted more than 300 associates' user accounts. To restore the accounts, the perpetrator demanded that the company sell its shares in a corporation that conducts tests using animal subjects," the report says.
And there's more. "In October 2005, animal rights extremists launched an e-mail attack against a Milwaukee, Wisconsin firm that held stock in an animal testing laboratory. The firm subsequently sold its shares in the laboratory, with losses it estimated at approximately $1.4 million."
The report on threats to cyberspace from left-wing extremist groups even goes so far as to identify national organizations that "seek to end the perceived abuse and suffering of animals and the degradation of the natural environment perpetrated by humans" by name: the Animal Liberation Front, the Earth Liberation Front, Stop Hunting and Animal Cruelty, and chapters within the Animal Defense League. It also identifies groups it refers to as "Anarchist extremists" who, the report says, "generally embrace a number of radical philosophical components of anticapitalist, antiglobalization, communist, socialist, and other movements."
The groups, DHS says, "seek abolition of social, political, and economic hierarchies, including Western-style governments and large business enterprises, and frequently advocate criminal actions of varying scale and scope to accomplish their goals," identifying by name Crimethinc, the Ruckus Society, and Recreate 68—groups I have to admit I am not familiar with.
You get the idea. In any case, the level of specificity in the earlier report—while still thin—is nonetheless light years ahead of what is contained in the Napolitano report. And its a far cry from "be wary of returning veterans," as the Napolitano report suggests, because they may be disgruntled and Timothy McVeigh, who blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City, was both disgruntled and a returning veteran.
Whether it is, in a global sense, right or wrong for the U.S. government to produce reports such as these and to share them with state and local police officials is another issue entirely. The simple fact is that the two reports discussed are, beyond the fact that they both purport to examine the threat of ideologically motivated extremists, significantly dissimilar.


http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2009/04/16/dhs-report-on-leftists-not-like-napolitano-report-on-right-wing-extremism.html

[Gleipnir]

read them both.

Since I am not the best at "putting my words on paper" I'll throw out something I read. This sums up what I feel about the two, but in better words than I could put together.

Wow, people are nitpicking- clutching desperately for a reason to affirm and validate their emotionally constructed, logically challenged outrage over little more than misreadings.
Reading comprehension still continues to be a problem.


That report, I said, amounted to "little more than a nine-page screed against phantoms" and was an overly broad attack that lumped returning veterans and people who hold certain political beliefs that are well within the mainstream of American political thought in with what the department referred to as religious and racial hate groups.The DHS report is in no way 'lumping' returning veterans or 'people who hold certain political beliefs well within the mainstream of American political thought' in with "religious,racial hate groups".

The report says that this demographic:
returning veterans and 'people who hold certain political beliefs well within the mainstream of American political thought' (yes, that is as vague as the 'phantoms' this guy is whining about) are the ones who the 'religious, racial hate groups' would most likely aim to recruit.

It is not saying that this demographic is a 'religious, racial hate group' it is saying that this demographic is the one that these 'religious, racial hate groups' target for recruitment.

It is not 'lumping them in' at all.


The Napolitano report, first and foremost, includes "no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence" but is written in contemplation by the Department of Homeland Security that "The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization." It is, in a word, supposition.Yes, it is supposition- I don't understand how this is an enlightening point- everyone should be well aware that this report is supposition. IT IS AN ASSESSMENT OF A POSSIBLE FUTURE THREAT. Of course it is supposition, I don't know why this would invalidate what the report has outlined.

Yes, 'it is written in contemplation' and describes a climate that has similarities to a climate that saw increased activity by 'religious, racial hate groups'.

The DHS, Department of Homeland Security, was started after 9/11 to assess possible future threats on home soil. They are doing their job and as has been stated previously- these reports are done all the time.

Why all the crying and moaning and outrage?


In any case, the level of specificity in the earlier report—while still thin—is nonetheless light years ahead of what is contained in the Napolitano report. And its a far cry from "be wary of returning veterans," as the Napolitano report suggests, because they may be disgruntled and Timothy McVeigh, who blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City, was both disgruntled and a returning veteran.The level of specificity is different, yes, that is true.
As it stands, the left wing radicals have been far more active, and using information solely gathered from reading the report, the activities of the right wing groups as can be seen from past behaviours and economic conditions similar to current circumstances may likely begin increasing activities.

The lack of specificity does not support the fact that these right wing groups do not exist.

BUT THIS IS WHAT REALLY GETS ME:

And its a far cry from "be wary of returning veterans," as the Napolitano report suggests,WHERE DOES THE REPORT SAY THIS?
Where does the report say that we should be wary of returning veterans?
I can show you what the report does say about veterans as I have already done numerous times before.

THE REPORT SAYS THAT VETERANS ARE A HIGH PRIORITY TARGET OF THE GROUPS DOING THE RECRUITING- if anything, it suggests that Veterans should be wary of these groups!

The fact that this entire article has been written on the sole basis of the author's misreading and misinterpretation of the data- followed by inconsequential evidence to support a mistaken idea is really quite a blunder.

Seriously, why all the hysteria? Why find excuses to complain about something that isn't even being said.

Seriously- employ rational, logical readings and hold your emotional, pre-conceived biases in the background when reading.
All this hysteria isn't helping anyone.



Whether it is, in a global sense, right or wrong for the U.S. government to produce reports such as these and to share them with state and local police officials is another issue entirely. The simple fact is that the two reports discussed are, beyond the fact that they both purport to examine the threat of ideologically motivated extremists, significantly dissimilar.As I recall, people were quite upset with Government agencies for not predicting or doing more to prevent what happened on September 11, 2001.

To have the audacity to claim that the morality surrounding DHS reports need to be called into a question of RIGHT or WRONG is to understate it, quite an over-reaction.

If right wing groups do manage to commit any kind of attack on US soil then all kinds of people are going to come out of the woodwork to complain how the Government didn't do enough to assess the threat and how they should have been more responsible in predicting and preventing it.

These DHS reports are done all of the time, it is nothing to get worked up about and to see these reports continually be used as evidence of some theory that is supported by misreadings and misinterpretations isn't helping anyone.

[LineDoggie]

I understand most of the report was from Mark Potok of SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) and its eternal "sky is falling" leader Morris Dees & the Time

[Hot Lips]

I understand most of the report was from Mark Potok of SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) and its eternal "sky is falling" leader Morris Dees & the Time

And you are rushing to the defense of White Supremacists, Neo-cons, Timothy McVeighs, Richard Poplawskis, violent extremists, etc, why?

[Zarak]

And you are rushing to the defense of White Supremacists, Neo-cons, Timothy McVeighs, Richard Poplawskis, violent extremists, etc, why?

To be fair, according to the SPLC, any white person can and is an evil violent White Supremacist terrorist neo-con.

[Hot Lips]

To be fair, according to the SLPC, any white person can and is an evil violent White Supremacist terrorist neo-con.

To be even more fair - the report makes no such implications. It's about potential risks for right-wing extremists to gain new members and the demographics they would target for recruitment. Being part of the target demographic doesn't make a person an extremist. I know that. I'm sure the law enforcement officials receiving the report know that. Yet people continue to put themselves into the extremist category when the report did not.

The report is really isn't earth shattering news. Of course they are going to recruit from groups where common interests can prove to be a foot in the door. That's what recruiters in any organization do. If it said right-wing extremists were trying to recruit Nancy Pelosi to lead them - that would be news. As it is, there isn't anything shocking in that report.

[California Joe]

To be fair, according to the SPLC, any white person can and is an evil violent White Supremacist terrorist neo-con.

To be fair, according to me, you are a retard.

[wildcat]

To be even more fair - the report makes no such implications. It's about extremists and the demographics they would target for recruitment. Being part of that demographics doesn't make a person an extremist. Yet people continue to put themselves into that category when the report did not.
I see how who they could put themselves in that category, it was poorly written, should of been more specific. I think they should leave professional to write these reports, the report was vague and a bit what if-ishes.

[Zarak]

To be even more fair - the report makes no such implications. It's about extremists and the demographics they would target for recruitment. Being part of that demographics doesn't make a person an extremist. Yet people continue to put themselves into that category when the report did not.

Because the report was written by Homeland Security, not SPLC. Apparently the 'info' about 'threats' came from SPLC. As for SPLC's track record, look it up, they constantly and consistently target white people and nobody else (including 'extremist' groups like Ranch Rescue...). As an aside, I think they've done some good things, like their suits directed at the KKK, but it appears to me that its a racist organization (which only gets by because its okay to be racist against the evil white oppressors).

[Hot Lips]

I see how who they could put themselves in that category, it was poorly written, should of been more specific. I think they should leave professional to write these reports, the report was vague and a bit what if-ishes.

Who here is identifying with Richard Poplawski who killed 3 cops in Pittsburgh? Who here is identifying with Branch Davidians (Waco)? Who here is identifying with Timothy McVeigh? Those were specifics.

The report speaks of risks from Lone Wolfs and small terrorist cells (that likely don't give themselves gang names).... were you expecting a public list of their names before a crime a has been committed? These are groups for law enforcement to keep an eye on.

It's an analyst job to make projections on where potential, but not neccessarily provable risks reside.

[Bia]

To be fair, according to the SPLC, any white person can and is an evil violent White Supremacist terrorist neo-con.No no no the SPLC does not make that claim. Most of them are white... why would they say such a thing?

Your paranoia is the likely culprit.

[California Joe]

Honest to Christ, I don't understand some of you guys. I used to work with analysts that did this kind of stuff all the time. That is their job. To figure out possible flashpoints and "emergence". They analyzed everything. The incident in Mogadishu was of particular interest at the time. They analyzed every possible scenario, trying to actually plan for Murphy's Law. How could they have done things differently, how things should be done in the future, what they should have known, why didn't they....

Surely those of you that have actually served in the military know at least one asshole, that was always dodgy, that might be a possible recruit for some extremist group.

That is certainly no disrespect to our military, or the overwhelming majority of those serving, but you know they're out there and they may be pissed off, have PTSD, feel like they aren't being represented by the Government any longer etc...Only they may be the type that is drawn to a fringe group that advocates overthrow by violent means and a guy that's done a couple of tours in Iraq may have plenty of useful knowledge for them.

If I was a recruiter for a fringe group I'd be lurking on boards like this looking for people that thought like me, then I'd befriend them, maybe buy them dinner, introduce them to my sister...p-)

[wildcat]

I was just saying :(

no, I went and reread the document, and I retract what I said, it is clear enough, and does really target extremist and not generally every person on the right. The first passage says it all and anything else should be read in the context of it.



(U//LES) The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific
information that domestic right wing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence,
but right wing 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 right wing radicalization and
recruitment.

I guess this documents are normal, they probably have ones for eco terrorist and left wing extremist too.

also the document has spelling mistakes.

[California Joe]

They have them written for housewives that go mental because of botox parties and start shooting their mailmen. :)

[PeterRJG]

To be fair, according to me, you are a retard.

Count on CJ to deliver the goods, and on time. :D

[zonk]

To be fair, according to me, you are a retard.

this is an unalienable and undeniable fact, cj is awarded 5 points

[playtym]

If I was a recruiter for a fringe group I'd be lurking on boards like this looking for people that thought like me, then I'd befriend them, maybe buy them dinner, introduce them to my sister...p-)

Sweet. Just let me know when and where we're having dinner and I'll meet you there. p-)