Federal agency warns of radicals on right

[Parkbandit]

The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in "rightwing extremist activity," saying the economic recession, the election of America's first black president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of white-power militias.

A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines "rightwing extremism in the United States" as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

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

The White House has distanced itself from the analysis. When asked for comment on its contents, White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said, "The President is focused not on politics but rather taking the steps necessary to protect all Americans from the threat of violence and terrorism regardless of its origins. He also believes those who serve represent the best of this country, and he will continue to ensure that our veterans receive the respect and benefits they have earned."

The nine-page document was sent to police and sheriff's departments across the United States on April 7 under the headline, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."

It says the federal government "will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months" to gather information on "rightwing extremist activity in the United States."

The joint federal-state activities will have "a particular emphasis" on the causes of "rightwing extremist radicalization."

Homeland Security spokeswoman Sara Kuban said the report is one in an ongoing series of assessments by the department to "facilitate a greater understanding of the phenomenon of violent radicalization in the U.S."

The report, which was first disclosed to the public by nationally syndicated radio host Roger Hedgecock, makes clear that the Homeland Security Department does not have "specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence."It warns that fringe organizations are gaining recruits, but it provides no numbers.
(con't)

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

Ton's of radicals on both sides of the fence. I have no problem with it if they are handling it the same way as they do with any political radical group.

Of course, if they are targeting them BECAUSE they aren't left leaning.. then obviously I'll take issue with it.

[Keller]

I had this same discussion with a co-worker.

I'll make the same point to you I made to him.

I'm not afraid in any way, shape, or form, of some pimpled college anarchist that listens to folk songs about a communist revolution or a yuppie stay-at-home moms discussion the revocation of the second amendment over a thai-chi latte at Starbucks.

I am very afraid of some white trash hick from West Virginia with a small arsenal who has lost his job and blames immigrants and a black president or a middle-class Texan with a rack of shotguns in his truck who blames the government for his inability to ascend out of the middle class.

That, to me, is why one group is worthy of being noted by DHS and the other is not. It's as fundamental as one group owns weapons and are a bunch of idiots, and the other group doesn't own guns and is a bunch of idiots.

[Parkbandit]

I'll agree with you to a certain point, but there are militant wings on both side of the isle and to target one side simply because you don't agree with them is wrong.

[Keller]

I'll agree with you to a certain point, but there are militant wings on both side of the isle and to target one side simply because you don't agree with them is wrong.

I think it appears (I'm not opining on whether they are or are not, just stating the appearence) that one side is being "targetted" because of who is in power.

I genuinely believe that one side is more likely and more capable to act on their discontent and for that reason, I'm fine with it.

But again, I'm not saying that the persons responsible for drafting and releasing that document genuinely believe that and that it is not a political ploy. I'd like to think it's not, but I'm not naive enough to believe that.

[Parkbandit]

"Interesting article."

My response, in ParkBandit's mind:

"Isn't the government just warning about the same people who showed up at the RNC this past election to cheer on Palin? OHHH! I blame Bush. ELF AND PETA FOREVER!"

You don't have the intelligence necessary to speak for me, so don't try. Speak for yourself.. so I can be entertained by your stupidity.

[Parkbandit]

I think it appears (I'm not opining on whether they are or are not, just stating the appearence) that one side is being "targetted" because of who is in power.

I genuinely believe that one side is more likely and more capable to act on their discontent and for that reason, I'm fine with it.

But again, I'm not saying that the persons responsible for drafting and releasing that document genuinely believe that and that it is not a political ploy. I'd like to think it's not, but I'm not naive enough to believe that.

I don't think the current US Government has much threat from the radical left group.. so it makes sense that a left leaning government would be concerned about a far right group or groups. Like I said, I don't really have a problem with it anymore than I did with Bush targeting left leaning radical groups.

[Parkbandit]

And you don't have the intelligence necessary to make judgments about other people's intelligence. Let the flame war commence! Neoconservative pig.

I'll make a thread for you to play in today It... one second, because I heard something this morning that would be more of a concern for you.

[Keller]

I don't think the current US Government has much threat from the radical left group.. so it makes sense that a left leaning government would be concerned about a far right group or groups. Like I said, I don't really have a problem with it anymore than I did with Bush targeting left leaning radical groups.

I don't know if the government is threatened as much as the citizens of the US are threatened.

And I don't think that even when Bush was in office, there were radical liberals doing much other than protesting. Again, it's a matter of each groups capacity to act on their discontent.

[Stanley Burrell]

I'll agree with you to a certain point, but there are militant wings on both side of the isle and to target one side simply because you don't agree with them is wrong.

Because the Black Panthers and Triads are seriously in the business of making the papers via hate crimes all the damn time.

[ClydeR]

Michelle Malkin reviewed the DHS report and determined (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/14/confirme-the-obama-dhs-hit-job-on-conservatives-is-real/) that it was a "hit job on conservatives." We need to investigate people with ties to terrorists and other unpatriotic groups, not conservatives. Terrorists, like those on 9/11, will be people from other countries who have moved here.

[Stanley Burrell]

Michelle Malkin reviewed the DHS report and determined (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/14/confirme-the-obama-dhs-hit-job-on-conservatives-is-real/) that it was a "hit job on conservatives." We need to investigate people with ties to terrorists and other unpatriotic groups, not conservatives.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gR69Y_TWWxs/Rw9TzjwPR-I/AAAAAAAAADQ/s4G-hZF6fss/s320/vlcsnap-410621.png

WHITE POWA!

[Parkbandit]

Michelle Malkin reviewed the DHS report and determined (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/14/confirme-the-obama-dhs-hit-job-on-conservatives-is-real/) that it was a "hit job on conservatives." We need to investigate people with ties to terrorists and other unpatriotic groups, not conservatives. Terrorists, like those on 9/11, will be people from other countries who have moved here.


Riiiight... because Timothy McVeigh was from Saudi Arabia.

Please swallow a gun.

[BigWorm]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gR69Y_TWWxs/Rw9TzjwPR-I/AAAAAAAAADQ/s4G-hZF6fss/s320/vlcsnap-410621.png

WHITE POWA!

The best part of that sketch was the end where he divorces his wife because she is a nigger lover.

EDIT: I also enjoy when he says if anyone is going to fuck his sister, its going to be him.

[radamanthys]

Today's Liberals enjoy big government- this government has no reason to fear liberals. Liberals give them power. (as long as there's no more war, that is)

Conservatives (real ones) are trying to take governmental power away. Government doesn't like that. So they call up the law enforcement. Kinda like in Chicago in '68 during the Democratic National Convention.


It's understandable. But is it really worth deploying the dogs on our citizenry?

[Warriorbird]

Chicago 68 was Democrat on Democrat.

The idea that the 'tea party' jokers are real conservatives is also pretty ludicrous.

More at issue here is the people who actually hate black people or the people who really do think that Obama is part of some 'secret socialist cabal.' Of those two groups I'd say the people who actually hate black people are a fair bit more dangerous. You only find the other group with tin foil hats on in the trailer park or on Fox News.

[radamanthys]

Chicago 68 was Democrat on Democrat.

The idea that the 'tea party' jokers are real conservatives is also pretty ludicrous.

More at issue here is the people who actually hate black people or the people who really do think that Obama is part of some 'secret socialist cabal.' Of those two groups I'd say the people who actually hate black people are a fair bit more dangerous. You only find the other group with tin foil hats on in the trailer park or on Fox News.

Chicago '68 was anti-government vs government.

The 'radicals who hate blacks' are only dangerous to one man, in this case. Obama isn't part of a secret socialist cabal. Obama is a just a socialist-side democrat.

What's your idea of a 'real conservative' then? I always figured it was those who championed small government and reduced taxation. But correct me if I'm wrong. I'd like to know if I was faking it this whole time.

[Warriorbird]

Definitely not most anybody in Congress. Ron Paul's about the closest. The 'we're reducing govenment' people are largely full of shit. Earmarking is a tiny part of the massive bloat that is our system.

[radamanthys]

Definitely not most anybody in Congress. Ron Paul's about the closest. The 'we're reducing govenment' people are largely full of shit. Earmarking is a tiny part of the massive bloat that is our system.

Agreed that there are very few in congress. Why would anyone, especially career congressmen, want to vote to reduce their own power?

However, why do you say that everyone at the tea parties are "not real conservatives"? Seems an awfully broad statement.

[Warriorbird]

They're mostly people who voted Republican. Actual Libertarians are pretty limited in America. This drastically reduces the poignance of it... along with the fact that Americans theoretically have representation these days. It comes off as sour grapes over the election and the bailouts rather than what it could be.

[Parkbandit]

Agreed that there are very few in congress. Why would anyone, especially career congressmen, want to vote to reduce their own power?

However, why do you say that everyone at the tea parties are "not real conservatives"? Seems an awfully broad statement.

/agreed.. which is why we should seriously have term limits. These fools that make a career out of Congress need to be thrown out on their ass.. from both sides of the isle.

[Parkbandit]

They're mostly people who voted Republican. Actual Libertarians are pretty limited in America. This drastically reduces the poignance of it... along with the fact that we theoretically have representation these days.

Then why would they go to these tea parties to protest about government waste and high taxes? Are they all racist and illiterates who just polish their guns at the trailer parks like you want us to believe?

[Warriorbird]

/agreed.. which is why we should seriously have term limits. These fools that make a career out of Congress need to be thrown out on their ass.. from both sides of the isle.
-PB

I agree completely. The problem is the existing system is really afraid of term limits and campaign finance reform.



Then why would they go to these tea parties to protest about government waste and high taxes? Are they all racist and illiterates who just polish their guns at the trailer parks like you want us to believe?
-PB

Way to connect two entirely unrelated statements, Parkbandit. I don't think the people at the tea parties are dangerous. They're merely looking for the next Bob Roberts.

Salving their pride, trying really hard to 'believe' that they vote for conservatives, and searching around for someone to get behind.

http://www.prdream.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/Bob-Roberts.jpg

[radamanthys]

They're mostly people who voted Republican. Actual Libertarians are pretty limited in America. This drastically reduces the poignance of it... along with the fact that Americans theoretically have representation these days. It comes off as sour grapes over the election and the bailouts rather than what it could be.

And so, if you vote Republican, you're not a real Conservative? I don't follow.

I disagree on the second point. I think that there are quite a few libertarian-leaning moderates out there. Non-religious Republicans tend to be closer to the libertarian end. Plus all the registered Libs, the Ron Paul people, and the 'economically conservative democrats'.


/agreed.. which is why we should seriously have term limits. These fools that make a career out of Congress need to be thrown out on their ass.. from both sides of the isle.

Agreed².

[Warriorbird]

Neither party is conservative. Congressional spending grew under a Republican Congress at an even greater pace than it does under a Democratic Congress.

Much of my vote was choosing which epic waste of money I'd prefer. I choose America and Americans over Iraq/private contracting firms/abstinence education/the 'War on Terror'/the 'War on Drugs' and so on.

Ron Paul's social views put me off, unfortunately. I can appreciate the ocassional non religious wacko Republican and some Southern Democrats for economic reasons but mostly I have to decide off social issues or from a 'who's harmful spending do I prefer' perspective.

None of that actually connects with any threat from 'radicals on the right' for the most part.

[Parkbandit]

Neither party is conservative. Congressional spending grew under a Republican Congress at an even greater pace than it does under a Democratic Congress.

Incorrect. The 2006 Democratic Congress is far ahead of any pace set by any prior evil Republican Congress.



Much of my vote was choosing which epic waste of money I'd prefer. I choose America and Americans over Iraq/private contracting firms/abstinence education/the 'War on Terror'/the 'War on Drugs' and so on.

Ah.. I hadn't realized that Obama has stopped these programs. Fantastic!

[Warriorbird]

Congressional spending expands, PB. Percentage wise they still have a long ways to go to catch the last Republicans in debt production.

Neither is thrilling.

Obama hasn't expanded those programs (other than allowing Iraq to continue for a time to keep Republicans from BAWWWWing about hating America). Abstinence education and the 'War on Drugs' have already taken hits.

also


the private security companies that are now being encouraged to leave Iraq.
-Clove

[Parkbandit]

Congressional spending expands, PB. Percentage wise they still have a long ways to go to catch the last Republicans in debt production.

Neither is thrilling.

Obama hasn't expanded those programs (other than allowing Iraq to continue for a time to keep Republicans from BAWWWWing about hating America). Abstinence education and the 'War on Drugs' have already taken hits.

also

You keep touting Abstinence education... exactly how much money have we put into that program? Is it even in the top 100 line items being spent? Top 250?

And that's precious.. Obama didn't pull troops out of Iraq because of those evil Republicans forced him into keeping them there. Delusional much.. or are you really that far detached from reality?

[Warriorbird]

It's at least as noteworthy as all the earmarks that get wailed about. There are now minimum requirements built into spending bills for it.

I feel quiet connected to reality. I'm not trying to liken myself to the Boston Tea Party because my party lost an election and I'm bitter about it.

[Parkbandit]

It's at least as noteworthy as all the earmarks that get wailed about. There are now minimum requirements built into spending bills for it.

Just answer the question. What percentage of the federal budget is being spent on abstinence education? You named it as a top 3 issue of yours.. so you should already know the answer. From your hysteria about it, I would guess it would be in the trillions of dollars.



I feel quiet connected to reality. I'm not trying to liken myself to the Boston Tea Party because my party lost an election and I'm bitter about it.

Ah.. so all that talk about debt and spending was only bothering you when a Republican was President. Yes, yes.. you are "quiet" connected indeed.

[Warriorbird]

Did I say it was a top three issue? I mentioned it as a spending issue. The figure's something to the order of 141 million with a percentage requirement that should've nearly doubled that. Not much in the grand scheme of things... but there are 'earmarks' that are smaller that have been complained about a lot more. It is also difficult to represent the actual damage done to those exposed to abstinence education rather than something more pragmatic.

And if I were to go back and critique your posts for grammar you'd know I was reaching just as much as you just were...

I also love how you carefully avoid mentioning actual numbers yourself yet beg for it constantly.

[Mabus]

I'm not trying to liken myself to the Boston Tea Party because my party lost an election and I'm bitter about it.
If they were trying to "liken" themselves to the Boston Tea Party all that would be required is them being pissed that taxation was used as a tool by a government to aid a private company. The Tea Act was in a large measure meant to aid the East India Company.

This country was founded by people pissed off about taxes and bailouts.

I am not for or against the protests (as you would have to look at each, individually, to see how well run and effective they were), but I am happy anytime a citizen is willing to peaceably become a little less politically ignorant and a little less apathetic.

I was shocked that the left/liberals took the "Tea Party" name and called it "Tea Bagging" in their online posts. Maybe I should not have been, as making light of a perceived opponent's position seems to be all the rage, but when I heard the phrase on MSDNC I I did raise an eyebrow.

Celebrate their right to protest, even if you do not agree with their premise.

[Warriorbird]

Republicans 'celebrate' Democrats protesting constantly, Mabus. Politics from any side is a steady race to the bottom.

Doesn't make it right... but it explains some of the leap to vulgar mockery. Being told you hate America just because you disagree with a war tends to have some sort of lingering effect.

Me I find the suggestion that this is sour grapes over the election is far more annoying to Republicans.

[Mabus]

Republicans 'celebrate' Democrats protesting constantly, Mabus. Politics from any side is a steady race to the bottom.
As someone that has planned, coordinated and ran many protests I would say both parties (or perhaps more accurately whoever "the current keepers of the status quo" are) have a dislike for protests.


Doesn't make it right... but it explains some of the leap to vulgar mockery. Being told you hate America just because you disagree with a war tends to have some sort of lingering effect.
I found the vulgarity childish.

I did hear the whole "traitor" talk (and some related by people that I know that were in the forefront of anti-war protests) but they didn't call them "Gang bang" or "pussifier" protests. The still called them anti-war protests.

In this instance there seemed a coordinated effort to portray every protester as trailer-park-trash-GOP-racist-losers.

Some of them may well have been just that. Others were likely not. Each "party" was separately organized, and many had rules that no elected officials (from either party) could speak. As I neither planned or attended one of these functions what I have learned from various media and emails is about the extent of my knowledge of them.


Me I find the suggestion that this is sour grapes over the election is far more annoying to Republicans.
I am no republican, just an American that voted for the best candidate. Unfortunately, he lost. No sour grapes here, as it is not the first time I have voted for someone that I believed was the right choice (for me) and they did not win.

I cannot speak for whether others are protesting over "sour grapes", and it is always possible that some are.

While not a big fan and follower of polls, the polls seem to point to a more accepting stance by a larger majority of citizens over the outcome of the election then you (and a few others) seem to believe. 4-8 years isn't that long of a time. The republic will survive. Those that have been around a while know this.

[Warriorbird]

Most of the protestors around here were wealthy and entitled college students.

[Parkbandit]

Did I say it was a top three issue? I mentioned it as a spending issue. The figure's something to the order of 141 million with a percentage requirement that should've nearly doubled that. Not much in the grand scheme of things... but there are 'earmarks' that are smaller that have been complained about a lot more. It is also difficult to represent the actual damage done to those exposed to abstinence education rather than something more pragmatic.

And if I were to go back and critique your posts for grammar you'd know I was reaching just as much as you just were...

I also love how you carefully avoid mentioning actual numbers yourself yet beg for it constantly.

WB, YOU were the one that mentioned OMG ABSTENENCE EDUCATION when discussing government spending.. no one else. I merely asked how much spending there was in that program that so offends a "libertarian" like you. It's not my place to google up the amount spent, since I wouldn't get nearly the entertainment value of watching you squirm and realizing what a dumb point you were making. It would be like me complaining of how much my family spends in a year on our mortgage, out business expenses and a coffee from Dunkin Donuts once a month. One of those things just look foolish to bring up in that context.

[Warriorbird]

Criticizing other people's figures while providing none is an enjoyable position. I enjoy it myself.

Your emphasis is remarkable, given that none of the capitals or OMGs were included by me. It was merely in a list of expenses that I didn't particularly approve of.

It'd be like me saying that you were OMG! CARBON OFFSETS AM HORRIBLE! when instead you're profiteering off them, find them stupid, but they don't compare to the bailout package to you.

Going back to the actual topic, I thought John Cole summed up the 'tea party' idea well. I'm sure your complaints would've been an, "Oh well, but they're Republicans!" if John McCain would've won and passed the financial services bailout.


You know what really irritates me about the tea parties? The basic fact that if right now, it were President John McCain and not President Obama, and nothing else had changed, these tea parties wouldn’t exist. You know it, I know it, and even the teabaggers know it. It is just such transparent bullshit that it is offensive. The most these guys ever did during the last lost eight years was put a limp Porkbusters logo on their website, but now that we have President Malcom X George McGovern Shabazz, they are freaking out like there is no tomorrow. So absurd.
-John Cole, on the tea bag parties.

[ElanthianSiren]

Not to mention, they're definitely being taxed by their represented government. "No Taxation Without Representation" was the basis for the tea party, so I kind of laughed at the premise. Obama was elected. Obama is not a foreign head of state.

The other mention was of the monopoly British law gave to the EITC. I don't see a parallel.

I'd be less amused by it if they just called it the, "damnit, we don't like the amount of taxes we're paying" protest. Cool, knock yourselves out. This strange rewriting of history though, (unless I'm missing something, which is possible), not so much.

[thefarmer]

Shoulda been called the 'Anti-Bailout Party'

[Parkbandit]

Criticizing other people's figures while providing none is an enjoyable position. I enjoy it myself.

I didn't criticize any figures, I was criticizing you for making a stupid point. I'm sure we can agree.. "mission accomplished" (though it's not that difficult when you post, now is it)



Your emphasis is remarkable, given that none of the capitals or OMGs were included by me. It was merely in a list of expenses that I didn't particularly approve of.

Artistic license. I highlighted the stupidity that was already present.



It'd be like me saying that you were OMG! CARBON OFFSETS AM HORRIBLE! when instead you're profiteering off them, find them stupid, but they don't compare to the bailout package to you.

The streak continues. I've never, ever profited from carbon offsets. I've often say I SHOULD try to sell some from my company's energy conservation efforts, but have never done so. Can you be more wrong more often? Is that even possible?



Going back to the actual topic, I thought John Cole summed up the 'tea party' idea well. I'm sure your complaints would've been an, "Oh well, but they're Republicans!" if John McCain would've won and passed the financial services bailout.

Holy shit.. you CAN be more wrong! Please show me one single solitary post that shows I am for any bailout/handout. Feel free to do a search on these forums. When you do, you will find that I've been against bailouts from the get go.. even when Bush and McCain pushed them through. See, unlike you, I don't let a political party determine my own personal values or beliefs. I determine them.

[Parkbandit]

Not to mention, they're definitely being taxed by their represented government. "No Taxation Without Representation" was the basis for the tea party, so I kind of laughed at the premise. Obama was elected. Obama is not a foreign head of state.

The other mention was of the monopoly British law gave to the EITC. I don't see a parallel.

I'd be less amused by it if they just called it the, "damnit, we don't like the amount of taxes we're paying" protest. Cool, knock yourselves out. This strange rewriting of history though, (unless I'm missing something, which is possible), not so much.


You are taking it too literally... using the same logic, you should come up with the conclusion that people were against a tax on tea.

The tea parties were merely a vehicle (actually named by a member of the NBC family.. I think the video is on this forum somewhere.. I'll link it if I find it) to tell BOTH parties that people are sick and tired of Washington spending money like drunken sailors and then taxing the shit out of people to recover their spending.

[thefarmer]

I take back my earlier post.

They shoulda called it 'We h8 politicians' day

[Parkbandit]

Here's the clip of the naming these protests "Tea Parties" (I think.. my fucking sound doesn't work on this fucking shitty ass laptop.. and neither does the fucking powercord or power button!!!!111infewnjvkjcvslbhvwlisrliuweldcb)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA

[Bhuryn]

Hey atleast the right wing crazies aren't baby farmers :D.