I will note that “high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition” are not illegitimate and in fact the right to make them is guaranteed in the Constitution. And, that much of any high-volume buying was sparked by Democratic promises to enact strict controls on gun and ammo purchases.
Acquaintances who keep in touch with the avid wing of the anti-abortion movement also report that the (also constitutionally protected. whether you agree with them or not) peaceful pickets outside abortion clinics have recently seen DHS “observers.”
I think this guy nails it. The “radical right” bogeyman is an effort to take certain issues completely off the table for discussion in the name of “terrorism.”
It was disgusting when GWB used security/patriotism to delegitimize debate on foreign policy, and it’s equally disgusting what Napolitano (under the Boss’s orders, no doubt) is trying to do to create a permanent monopoly on allowable opinions (and thus on the Government).
What exactly is the debate here? Do you have any factual refutations for DHS’s claims that right wing extremism is on the rise? It certainly looks that way to me?
What is the basis of your assertion that Napolitano is trying to stifle free speech.
I say kudos to Napolitano for being on top of the threat. We don’t need any more Oklahoma Cities.
As told to me, they saw guys wearing LE style jackets and snapping photos, asked them who they were, and were quite politely told, “DHS observers.” It happened, it didn’t – I wasn’t there, but that account is not on its face ridiculous.
Well, their claims aren’t “factual” to begin with, so why would I be obligated to refute them with facts so as to prove the negative of a non-existent positive fact assertion? Language such as “could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violence attacks,”
and
"But DHS said in a secret April 7 advisory for local law-enforcement officials that threats so far had been “largely rhetorical” and had "not yet turned to attack planning."
and
“has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits” who could someday resort to attacks.
and
“The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment,” according to the report. **
and
"The department did not name any active rightwing extremist groups, "
Tells me that they’ve got jack. The one actual data point, as opposed to theory or supposition or ass-pulling-out-of that they cite – increased gun purchases, in anticipation of promised Democratic gun-control legislation, is, as noted, a reference to the exercise of a right enshrined in the Constitution.
A more legitimate rock solid source has never been found. Some guy told you that some other guys said something? People are going to compare this to the 2001 report on left-wing extremists, when of course an unbiased report on extremists of any nature is the proper thing to do. Investigating possible violent acts is not the same as squashing speech and dissent.
Is there a law against taking pictures of pro-life protests?
Get back to us when you can show that somebody’s rights are being infringed. Simply taking note of a rise in rhetoric among Stormtrooper types is a sign of nothing but the DHS doing its job.
I acknowledge that changes my view on who’s responsible. I still think it’s an overblown response to a hypothetical threat, and one that – unlike focusing resources on foreign terrorist suspects – could well have a chilling effect on constitutionally-protected rights.
The pope is Catholic, bears shit in the woods, and the group with power classifies what they don’t understand or disagree with as potentially dangerous. News below:
The Linux operating system is apparently a cause for arrest.
These cites aren’t meant to be even remotely close to unbiased, only examples of the crap that the right side of the blogosphere is so traumatized about going in every direction possible. It was total crap when the Bush administration did it to lefties, and it’s the same now that an overly broad brush has been used on the righties. I’d have a lot more sympathy, though, if the righties hadn’t looked the other way when it was the lefties being labeled as dangerous.
On Preview: elucidator’s link and others’ comments makes the outrage appear even more phony.
I know you’re clear on this, but I want to emphasize that this particular one is especially despicable: the CCF is a one-man lobbying operation for the restaurant industry that does everything he can to discredit animal welfare groups. The fact that he used his lobbying firm money to buy an ad in the NYT, and then issued a press release about his ad, is pretty par for the course.
Uh, no. But without buying into conspiracy theories, it is clear that there are differences between the reports - the one linked about left-wing threats references a number of known organizations and movements known to have caused recent trouble and that are still active. The other report is mighty vague by contrast, and refers to amorphous threats by everyone from antiabortion protesters to militia members to returning veterans.
Without looking at the other studies in the series - referenced by both documents - the fact that one is so specific and one is so general does not inspire tremendous confidence in me, personally. Maybe this is fleshed out more in other documents, but I don’t have proof of that, and neither does anyone here.
For sure. I question only the proportionality vis a vis the ability of most KKK types to tie their shoes. And, I do question the elision (as the Romano article notes) between KKK<----->peaceful abortion protestors<------>McVeigh<-----> people who (100% lawfully) “stockpile guns and ammunition.” Don’t mention all these things in the same paragraph unless you’re implying they are equal in nature or threat level or illegitimacy.
FYI, here (in pdf) is the DHS Assessment in question. DHS apparently has an “Extremism and Radicalization Branch,” which published this. The report was prepared in coordination with the FBI, which, to put it mildly, has never been known for leftist politics. Which parts of this do you think are “fabricated,” Huerta88?