Federal agency warns of radicals on right

[Bill F]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...cals-on-right/
I know this does not mean anyone here.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[dryheat]

The pic accompanying the article has a caption that says, click to enlarge. Why woould anyone want to do that?!

[Vern Humphrey]

The link doesn't work for me. Can someone post a quote?

[Rob Mitch]

Vern, I had a lot of trouble getting the link to work too. I assume it is because of too many "Right Wing Extremest" trying to access the article. I'll past part of the article that I was able to copy eralier and email to a friend.
To me this looks like a step in preperation for communism/national socialism. This really smells of Rahm Emanuel.
BELOW is from Washington times.

Federal agency warns of radicals on right
9-page report sent to police

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."

[tigre_fish]

If this sort of crap happened under a republican president, regarding a "radical leftist" organization, you know what would happen - that's right, a Congressional Investigation & hearings! Write to your reps, demand an inquiry, perhaps then the Congress can stay out of trouble and just churn and be indignant for the press.

[Jim K]

Looks like a classic distraction technique to me. They won't go after radical leftists and Islamic terrorists because the president wants to "extend the hand of friendship" (and bow to) those people. So, in order to pretend to be "doing something" he invents a serious right-wing threat, a nice "evil" bogey man he can claim to defeat to show he is protecting the people.

Of course, there is just enough truth there to be somewhat reasonable. There are right-wing nuts, and they could be dangerous, but I don't recall any of them killing American troops in Asia or destroying the WTC.

Jim

[Litt'le Lee]

Ron Paul-Bob Barr and ex GI's

[comm pogue]

Did John Kerry make their list, he was a dis-gruntled Vet? oh i guess he must be ok Semper Fi Al

[Bat Guano]

Who will guard the guardians?

[Bill F]

I am struck by the fact our government fears US.The good guys.
By Judge Andrew Napolitano
FOX News Senior Judicial Analyst

Homeland Security Warns of Rise in Right-Wing Extremism

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment”, dated April 7, 2009, which I have read, is apparently an unclassified summary of a larger classified report.

1. The summary contains few proper names, has no footnotes of any significance, lists very few sources, and is drafted with a prejudice against anyone who criticizes the role of the federal government in our lives today. It lumps together in its definition of “rightwing extremism” hate groups, anti-government groups, and single issue groups “such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

My guess is that the sentiments revealed in the report I read are the tip of an iceberg that the DHS would prefer to keep submerged until it needs to reveal it. This iceberg is the heavy-hand of government; a government with large and awful eyes, in whose heart there is no love for freedom, and on whose face there is no smile.

2. The document itself cautions the reader that the document is “not to be released to the public, the media, or other personnel who do not have a valid need-to-know without prior approval” of the DHS. The document refers to itself as one of a series of intelligence assessments intended to “deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States.”

3. The thrust of this report is that in the present environment of economic instability, returning military veterans, those who fear of the loss of Second Amendment-protected rights, those threatened by an African-American president, and those who fear “Jewish ‘financial elites’” could all be a fertile breeding ground for groups whose power and ideas the government hates and fears. The document is essentially a warning for DHS and FBI officials to be on the look-out for rootless persons looking for the comfort of groups as they may be a danger to American security.

4. The summary (unclassified) document is terrifying. One can only imagine what is contained in the classified version. This document runs directly counter to numerous U.S. Supreme decisions prohibiting the government from engaging in any activities that could serve to chill the exercise of expressive liberties. Liberties are chilled, in constitutional parlance, when people are afraid to express themselves for fear of government omnipresence, monitoring, or reprisals. The document also informs the reader that Big Brother is watching both public and private behavior.

5. The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to guarantee open, broad, robust debate on the policies and personnel of the government. The First Amendment presumes that individuals — NOT THE GOVERNMENT — are free to choose what they believe and espouse, what they read and say, and with whom they associate in public and in private. The writers of this abominable report are particularly concerned with the expression of opinions that might be used to fuel ideas that challenge federal authority or favor state and local government over the federal government. Unfortunately, legislation passed during the past eight years gives the DHS and the FBI the tools to monitor everything from a telephone conversation to the keystrokes used on a personal computer without a warrant issued by a federal judge.

6. My guess is that the sentiments revealed in the report I read are the tip of an iceberg that the DHS would prefer to keep submerged until it needs to reveal it. This iceberg is the heavy-hand of government; a government with large and awful eyes, in whose heart there is no love for freedom, and on whose face there is no smile.