Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," Department of Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis, April 7, 2009 (For Official Use Only).
My official use happens to be mockery.
The report is pretty absurd. Absurd in that a government report was prepared and disseminated to tell law enforcement officials something everyone already knows: instability nourishes discontent, some racists dislike Obama, and as the "out" group, the fringes of the right are more unhappy than usual. Absurd in that it's duplicative; the FBI does this stuff better, more frequently, and with more detail. The report is absurd, in that its absurd (though legalized) generalities unintentionally reveal the insanity of modern classification guidelines; we are told that the idea that lone domestic extremists are the top domestic terrorist threat is a conclusion that's "law enforcement sensitive." How? Why? Either the top domestic threat comes from groups or from individuals. Not sure why choosing one draws the curtain around the conclusion. For some reason, this sentence is suspect to some government officials: "DHS/I&A notes that prominent civil rights organizations have observed an increase in anti-Hispanic crimes over the past five years." Really? That the DHS analysts read public releases is somehow sensitive info?
The report contains an absurdly overdrawn caricature of the right:
"Historically, domestic rightwing extremists have feared, predicted, and anticipated a cataclysmic economic collapse in the United States."
The logical fallacy aside, this makes WIlliam Grieder a right-wing extremist.
Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perceptionOne, this gives too much credit to some right-wing extremists, leaving out xenophobia as an explanation. The politically correct explanation for agita about immigration is, indeed, that immigrants drove wages down. And a whole lot of Americans -- in excess of 40% at times -- believed this in the 90s. The paragraph -- and the report -- makes no effort to distinguish between valid, albeit thinly considered political beliefs and true extremism, which is often coldly rational and whose adherents are much more prone to go outside the system to press their claims.
that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to
work at significantly lower wages. They also opposed free trade agreements, arguing that these arrangements resulted in Americans losing jobs to countries such as Mexico.
The right's reaction, in general, seems a little too contrived. It's kind of funny -- conservative opinionists get all nervous when they read stuff like this because they think it applies to them. There's a little bit of self-examination mixed in with the outrage. The report is so broadly drawn, so utterly inconsequential, so laughable in its conclusions -- that it ought not be taken seriously. Except -- of course -- intelligence analysts for the U.S. government were tasked with writing and distributing a report like this. And DHS insists that similar reports were prepared about liberals(!).
Believe it or not, the White House is not interested in criminalizing conservative belief. Making fun of Rush Limbaugh is one thing.... you can kind of picture a recent WH meeting:
Rahm: "Who's responsible for this?"
Senior staff: [Silence]
Senior staff: [Silence]
Rahm: "F#*$( it, guys, we can't let small mistakes like this happen. Who's liaising with DHS? Why wasn't this report vetted? Or at least edited?"
Senior Staff: [Silence]
Rahm: "Ronda, get me cabinet affairs on the phone."
Ronda: "One minute, sir."
Voice: "Cabinet affairs."
Rahm: "Who the hell was watching DHS on the day that right wing thing was published?"
Voice: "Uh, I'll check sir. But you know... the government produces 100 reports a day... and we don't have the resources to backstop everything DHS does, particularly the not-for-public-release stuff...you gotta check with their intergovernmental affairs office."
Rahm: "Fine. Transfer me."
Voice: "Homeland Security, intergovernment affairs, may I help you?"
Rahm: "This is the chief of staff. I want to know, right now, who was responsible for approving the dissemination of that report on right-wing extremists. I know it wasn't Rand."
Voice: "I'm sorry sir, I'll have to transfer you. Who am I speaking to again?"
Voice: "Cabinet affairs."
Rahm: "Who the hell was watching DHS on the day that right wing thing was published?"
Voice: "Uh, I'll check sir. But you know... the government produces 100 reports a day... and we don't have the resources to backstop everything DHS does, particularly the not-for-public-release stuff...you gotta check with their intergovernmental affairs office."
Rahm: "Fine. Transfer me."
Voice: "Homeland Security, intergovernment affairs, may I help you?"
Rahm: "This is the chief of staff. I want to know, right now, who was responsible for approving the dissemination of that report on right-wing extremists. I know it wasn't Rand."
Voice: "I'm sorry sir, I'll have to transfer you. Who am I speaking to again?"
Given that folks in Stormfront are organizing some of the Tea Parties tomorrow, and given that members there have been involved in particularly violent incidents, most recently in the Pittsburgh police shooting http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/us/07pittsburgh.html?_r=1&ref=us ... it seems reasonable to be somewhat more vigilant now than usual.
Yes, it's politically stupid to release a public report, and particularly this public report, but as we saw during every terror warning since 9/11, anything sent to local PDs gets leaked if it's interesting.
Quoting the executive summary of the report is by definition going to seem incomplete and overly broad. The actual report is somewhat more than that. I don't know what the degree of guidance flowing from the FBI to local law enforcement during the militia/separatist era in the 90s, but this seems like a pretty reasonable summary to distribute.
Particularly, the guidance on the influence of the Internet on the likelihood and severity of attacks by individuals seems useful; for example, Operation Rescue routinely posts online pictures of women supposedly getting late-term abortions as well as addresses and photos of judges, doctors and lawyers. This is a bit of a game-changer in terms of possible threats. I don't know that all of this is entirely intuitive for everyone at the receiving end of these assessments.
1. The "past five years" bit is straight out of a report from the far-left SPLC. They have an indirect link to a foreign government, and they take nearly every chance they get to support illegal activity. Their report was also misleading:
http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/007591.html
BHO has also made false statements even worse than those by the SPLC:
24ahead.com/blog/archives/007708.html
Since the DHS probably returns Ambinder's phone calls, he should ask the DHS about the SPLC report specifically. How can we trust the DHS's report when they're relying on a misleading report from such a group? What other statements from the SPLC or similar groups (ADL, ACLU, etc.) informed the DHS's report?
2. Regarding "the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages", see the text of a bill that BHO supported admitting that same thing:
24ahead.com/blog/archives/007530.html
3. While Ambinder's mockery is welcome and more than I'd expect, he does continue to be a low-level member of the sheltered NE elite who knows very little about the topic of immigration. Subscribe to my feed to learn all the things that Ambinder doesn't know about that topic.
I am sorry but this whole thing is a joke. Can you imagine the uproar if a Republican administration were to put out a report that due to the economy that local PDs should be aware that there may be increased violence and crime in low-income predominantly black neighborhoods.
This is fear-mongering at its worst. Marc alludes to it, but I am going to say it.... by using the term right-wing the connotation is that it includes all from the right, whether they are extremists or not. People tend to paint with a broad brush
The other day I was in a classroom (I work at a school). A high school student asked a teacher what a conservative was. This teacher's response was that a conservative was someone who was "closeminded". I quickly called her on it...but the broad brush had certainly done its job. BTW, this teacher actually believed her definition was accurate. Talk about closeminded.
As you can probably guess from the posting by 24aheaddotcom, it is a far right nut job website. They are still foaming at the mouth about our President's birthplace. Take a look at the site if you need a good laugh. If you decide to check it out, for your own protection, wear rubber gloves. You have been warned!!
What's pretty funny is that, in nearly seven years of operating my site and leaving literally hundreds of comments all over, I'm very rarely challenged with an actual valid argument from the other side (whatever that may be). As you can see, they almost always engage in ad homs.
I don't want to drag this thread off into an off-topic discussion, but here's my page where I point out that where BHO was born has never been definitively proven:
http://24ahead.com/s/obama-citizenship
Please note that many of the things you might have heard about this issue are wrong. Also note that, rather than actually looking into what we know and what we don't know, Ambinder simply lied about this issue.
Ladies and gentleman, I bring you this report from April 2001 published by the Department of Energy (there was no DHS in 2001)...
LEFT-WING EXTREMISM:
The Current Threat
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/780410-SHVVvq/native/780410.PDF
It's filled with all kinds of talk about Marxist-Leninists and black militant threat. Oh, and Cubans. Can't leave out Cubans.
Thanks to Jonah Goldberg (yes, that Jonah Goldberg) for this. A reader pointed this out to him in response to his claim that if a GOP adminstration did this, we'd be hearing all about it. The reader stated that "They did. We didn't." Goldberg posted the email, including the link to the report.
To add...
In this polarized political environment - which Ron Brownstein notes is a continuing trend that really has little to do with Obama (or Bush, for that matter) - isn't it wise for DHS and law enforcement to be extra diligent about the potential threat coming from the extreme wing of the side that is currently out of power? That's probably how the Bush administration justified their report (not that they were called out on it) on left-wing extremists. (especially considering that many on the left viewed the 2000 election as "stolen" by Bush) I mean, it's not like left-wing extremists are shooting down police officers because they are afraid Obama is going to take their guns away. You can argue whether or not this should have been made public. (personally, I prefer the transparency) And you can argue that reports like this will only fuel the paranoia of these extremists. (as noted by another poster - not Jonah - on The Corner...there's an argument to be made there, although I think folks are more paranoid about the unknown and this report is no longer unknown) But with Glenn Beck broadcasting nightly about the coming socialist terror, it's hard to argue against DHS taking a closer look at the potential threat and reporting those findings to other law enforcement agencies. And anybody who doesn't think that the extreme right isn't very - even irrationally - unhappy right now didn't catch the Palin rallies late in the election season last year. Sometimes, that unhappiness and loss of power can lead to paranoia. And often, that paranoia can lead to irrational behavior. And that irrational behavior can, in some cases, lead to violence.
It is an interesting piece BUT....
1. It is a piece that was for internal dissemination provided by an outside source for a governmental agency...not the federal government telling local police departments to watch out for right wing extremists. That is a big difference to me.
2. If you read it, it talked about both left wing and right wing. The DHS report never mentioned threats from the left. Wonder why?
Here's an Obama-era DHS report on left-wing extremists:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Leftwing_Extremist_Threat.pdf
Give me a break. The report is from January 26th. You mean to tell me that the Obama Administration created a report in 6 days and had it issued? I wasn't born yesterday. Yes it was released under the Obama administration (an why didn't this report get the same coverage the RW DHS one did) but it certainly wasn't something produced by them.
"Yes it was released under the Obama administration (an why didn't this report get the same coverage the RW DHS one did) but it certainly wasn't something produced by them."
So then it must have been commissioned by the Bush administration, right? That means the Bush administration was singling out left-wing extremist groups? For the second time, if you include the April 2001 report. How dare the Bush administration DHS target the left-wing and attempt to smear anybody who disagreed with them as "extremists"!
Given that a)the largest domestic terrorism incident in the last 50 years was committed by some right wing fruitcakes b) only a couple of weeks ago three cops were killed by some right wing fruitcake c) right wing fruitcakes are issuing threats across the blogosphere....it sounds like a no brainer to me. The actual report was obviously put together by the previous admin who clearly even though conservative take this stuff more seriously than you do Marc.