Right-wing extremists

A couple of months ago the DHS issued a report to law enforcement agencies warning them of the possiblity of right-wing extremist activites. This was met with great indignation from many conservatives, and treated it as an attack on their ideology....

Limabugh said this: This is the Democrat Party Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano put this together. There is not one instance they can cite as evidence where any of these right-wing groups have done anything. And this: Conservatives are the biggest threat to America. That's the message coming out of Washington from Obama and Janet Napolitano.

And Glen Beck said this: Most statements by rightwing extremists have been rhetorical, expressing concerns about the election of the first African‑American president but stopping short of calls for violent action.

This from James Dobson: They're making a big deal out of something that hasn't happened and may not happen... They're trying to create an issue out of what to this point is a non-issue and I think for political purposes.”

MIchelle Malkin: The “report” was one of the most embarrassingly shoddy pieces of propaganda I’d ever read out of DHS. I couldn’t believe it was real. And: By contrast, the piece of crap report issued on April 7 is a sweeping indictment of conservatives. And the intent is clear.

Since Obama was elected there has been an uptick in violence from right wing extremist. There were a series of racially motivated beatings in california that began right after the election. Last month an abortion doctor was murdered, and yesterday a white-supremacist shot and killed a security gaurd at the holocost museum.

Given these recent events, would you say that the report was accurate in describing these warnings and the DHS was doing what it is supposed to do?

Or do you think the conservative talking heads were right in saying it was just an attack on all conservatives and their ideology, and the threat was not real?

Remember Barry Goldwater's famous quote:

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.

Conservatives see themselves as the standard bearers of everything good and right. Therefore to many of them the logical extension of conservativism is the ideal America.

It is inherently insulting to a group to refer to criminals as extremists within their group. Think of how often the media has referred to Middle Eastern terrorists as Muslim extremists. The implication here is that only moderate Muslims are ok; people can follow Islam as long as they don't take it too seriously. Wouldn't mainstream Christians feel insulted if Scott Roeder was constantly referred to as a Christian extremist?

I don't know the exact verbiage used by the Dept of Homeland Security but this may have not even been news if they used less provocative terms to describe the groups they were concerned about.

I am a libertarian. There is no doubt there has been an increase in right wing extremism just as there was an increase in left wing extremism when bush was elected. The problem that most conservatives have with the white house rhetoric and the various reports is that the government seems to be trying to paint regular conservatives as extremists. I have read one such report issued by the DOD which insinuated that anyone who is pro life, or supports ron paul might be a right wing extremist/ domestic terrorist.

White supremacist are NOT right wing extremist. Hitler was a socialist, not a captialist.
The Tiller killer was probably a right wing extremist but just because someone is pro life does not mean that they are republican. There are after all a few democrats who are against abortion.
What Janet said was wrong. I understand that people can blow up sometimes and say some things that they don't really mean. I am living proof, but when she defends most of what she has said then it is creating an irrational fear. So even the left are guilty of fear mongering. Yes it was just a speech but still speeches can turn into action.

There is no doubt there has been an increase in right wing extremism just as there was an increase in left wing extremism when bush was elected.

Have any examples? I don't remember hearing about any leftwing extremists murdering people.

The problem that most conservatives have with the white house rhetoric and the various reports is that the government seems to be trying to paint regular conservatives as extremists.

Since they were called extremists, I am pretty sure that would exclude regular conservatives. And it wasn't various reports. It was one.

I have read one such report issued by the DOD which insinuated that anyone who is pro life, or supports ron paul might be a right wing extremist/ domestic terrorist.

Care to share this report with us? Or should we just take your word for it? Why would the DOD be even involved with any kind of warning like this?

White supremacist are NOT right wing extremist.

Are they left wing? Do you think they voted for Obama?

Hitler was a socialist, not a captialist.

Hitler was not really a socialist. He was a facist. This is from the wikipedia page on the Nazi Party: The Nazi Party is generally described as being at the extreme or far right of the left-right political axis

The Tiller killer was probably a right wing extremist but just because someone is pro life does not mean that they are republican.

Probably? Do you think there is any doubt?

There are after all a few democrats who are against abortion.

But they don't go around killing doctors.

What Janet said was wrong. I understand that people can blow up sometimes and say some things that they don't really mean. I am living proof, but when she defends most of what she has said then it is creating an irrational fear. So even the left are guilty of fear mongering. Yes it was just a speech but still speeches can turn into action.

What are you talking about? I didn't say she said anything. This was based on a warning issued by the DHS, not any speech. Please try to keep up.

Are you suggesting they should not have issued that warning? That it was unfounded? That it wasn't accurate? Because that is what most conservatives were saying at the time. Now that those warnings have come to fruition, don't you think these conservatives should be appologizing for mis-characterising the report?

No, the threat is not real...it's manufacted and manipulated in the press, by those who seem to feel that dividing the country is somehow a benefit to the liberal cause.

***Last month an abortion doctor was murdered***

Nothing new here...they were knocking off abortion clinics with bombs and killing Dr's in the parking lots 20 years ago...

***yesterday a white-supremacist shot and killed a security gaurd at the holocost museum.***

An 88 year old nutcase...who thinks Obama is a friend of Jews... obviously he hasn't been listening to the news, and very possibly suffering from demensia... White Supremists have been around forever, and never once have I heard them tagged into the general poplations's idea of conservative...

There isn't an increase of anything other than the politicalicizing of every crackpot who pokes his head above ground, and acts on his whacko thinking. (AS LONG as he can be passed off in some form of non-liberal light)...when that happens, the killing will be reported as nutcase kills army recruiter.

In the past the majority of ALL Americans agreed...Whack job when a news worthy assasination or murder took place...today, there is an agenda...and it's to divide the people, portray a very few crackpots as examples of conservatives. Gee, I wonder who benefits from all this manipulation...Hmmm...

p

Phrannie, of course the threat is real, as is evidenced by events. Is the threat widespread? Hopefully not. The point was, this DHS warning that the conservative talking heads went nuts over was politicized by THEM. It was a warning issued to law enforcement. One that said to look out for the exact types of situations that just happened. It was probably one of many warnings the DHS sends out to law enforcement all the time. That is their job. It was picked up by the right wing media and used as a propaganda tool against the administration. Otherwise it would never have even been reported on. So who politicized it? I agree with filetofspam that the language could have been better, and the whitehouse agreed. But the warnings themselves were obviously warranted.

There has been a concerted effort coming from the right to ramp up the hate. Look at how things went with the McCain campaign. We had a presidential candidate being called a terrorist at a campaign rally, and calls to kill him at another. We had people accusing him of being an Arab, as if that were something dangerous. Not that I think McCain necessarily did anything to encourage these events, but these people didn't just come out of the wood work. They were spurred on by the Limbaugh's, Beck's, Savage's, Hannities, and O'Rielly's of the world. There is no equilavent of this on the left. How many times did O'Reilly call him Tiller the baby killer? That is inciteful, and if he worked anywhere else but Fox, he would have lost his job by now. Now if these people can be spurred on to say these things at campaign rallys, what effect do you think that type of rhetoric has on an extremist?

To think that the election of the first african american president doesn't warrant keeping a close eye on white supremacist groups and activities is just naive.

Have any examples? I don't remember hearing about any leftwing extremists murdering people.

Anti war riots

Since they were called extremists, I am pretty sure that would exclude regular conservatives. And it wasn't various reports. It was one.

You know that, and I know that. Now go tell that to president Obama. It was more than one. One by Homeland, some slandering by Napolitano herself, and one by the state of Missouri.

Care to share this report with us? Or should we just take your word for it? Why would the DOD be even involved with any kind of warning like this?

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=13121

Are they left wing? Do you think they voted for Obama?

White supremacists are off on their own planet somewhere. They might be more left wing. Obama and the supremacists both dislike Jews.

Hitler was not really a socialist. He was a facist. This is from the wikipedia page on the Nazi Party: The Nazi Party is generally described as being at the extreme or far right of the left-right political axis

wrong. NATIONAL SOCIALSIM, the GERMAN WORKERS PARTY
doesn't sound very right wing to me.

Probably? Do you think there is any doubt?
yes. He could very well be a pro life democrat, None of that matters anyway. Bottom line he was a psycho.

There are after all a few democrats who are against abortion.

But they don't go around killing doctors.
Neither do 99.999999999999999999999999999999% of pro life republicans.

What Janet said was wrong. I understand that people can blow up sometimes and say some things that they don't

Are you suggesting they should not have issued that warning? That it was unfounded? That it wasn't accurate? Because that is what most conservatives were saying at the time. Now that those warnings have come to fruition, don't you think these conservatives should be appologizing for mis-characterising the report?

Absolutly not. It was not mis characterised. I could call all liberals terrorists, then find three instances where it looks like left wing extremism and then boast how right I am. that is exactly what has happened.

Anti war riots

That is not an example? You know, when, where, what? That kind of thing.

You know that, and I know that. Now go tell that to president Obama. It was more than one. One by Homeland, some slandering by Napolitano herself, and one by the state of Missouri.

Please give something, links, quotes, something?

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=13121

First off, this is a conservative wingnut site. Give me real news, not propaganda. The report in this link is not from the DOD as you stated originally. It is from agnency in Missouri. The administration had nothing to do with writing of this report as you implied. The agency later scrapped the report in march and sent out appologies to Ron Paul and Bob Barr.

White supremacists are off on their own planet somewhere. They might be more left wing. Obama and the supremacists both dislike Jews.

How idiotic is this? More left wing? Show me one democratic presidential candidate that was ever supported by white supremacists. So Obama is an anti-semite? Is that really what your are saying? Your credibility just fell off the meter.

wrong. NATIONAL SOCIALSIM, the GERMAN WORKERS PARTY
doesn't sound very right wing to me.

And before the berlin wall came down, east Germany was called the German Democratic Republic. Was it a democracy? If you think the nazi party was a leftist organization, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you in brooklyn.

He could very well be a pro life democrat, None of that matters anyway. Bottom line he was a psycho.

And have you ever heard of a pro-life democrat murdering an abortion doctor? If you know of one, please let me know. Of course he was a psycho. No one disputes that.

Neither do 99.999999999999999999999999999999% of pro life republicans.

What part of the word extremist don't you understand. Of course the vast majority of republicans are not extremists. No one disputes that either.

Absolutly not. It was not mis characterised.

The morons on the right who railed against this insisted that the administration was targeting all conservatives. That was a mis-characterization.

could call all liberals terrorists, then find three instances where it looks like left wing extremism and then boast how right I am.

No one called all conservatives extremists. So your point is moot.

that is exactly what has happened.

No it isn't. Not even close.

The DHS warning targeted soldiers returning from Iraq...that's what got them into hot water...

***of course the threat is real, as is evidenced by events. Is the threat widespread? .***

News flash...you're threatened everytime you walk out the door...However, the chances are, that you WILL walk back in that door...the chances of your running into a crazy, conservative with murder on his mind are slim.

***Hopefully not***

OBVIOUSLY not...geeez

There's one bad nut in every can...like houghtrain said, 99.999999999999999% of ALL Americans aren't going to go out and shoot somebody...

p

*** Given these recent events, would you say that the report was accurate in describing these warnings and the DHS was doing what it is supposed to do?

A sample of 3 is not statistically significant, and these things were happening before Obama even ran for office, so it seems more hype than reality, even if there is a small amount of reality to it.

My guess is, that there is always a slight uptick in reactionary crimes by the losers in all major elections.

The DHS warning targeted soldiers returning from Iraq...that's what got them into hot water...

Hot water? I wouldn't characterize it that way. Thatt was part of it. But they heard chatter that pinted to hate groups targeting returning soldiers, you know since they already know how to fight and use guns. It was a proper warning.

News flash...you're threatened everytime you walk out the door...However, the chances are, that you WILL walk back in that door...the chances of your running into a crazy, conservative with murder on his mind are slim.

When did I say that I felt threatened? I never once said anything about these incidents being so widespread that we needed to be constantly looking over our sholders.

You are completely missing the point. This was a very appropriate warning issued for LAW ENFORCEMENT. Not the public. It was the right wing that publicized and politicized it as an attack on conservatism, when it was nothing of the sort. And recent events have proven the wanring to LAW ENFORCEMENT was warranted.

so it seems more hype than reality

Whose hype? It was the right wing media that brought it up in the first place.

My guess is, that there is always a slight uptick in reactionary crimes by the losers in all major elections.

I don't remember anything like these incidents happening when Bush was appointed in 2000, or when he stole the election in 2004. And there was plenty for the left wing to be mad about. I am not saying there aren't any leftist extremists out there. But I don't see them being encouraged by progressive talk show hosts.

Your words ***Hopefully not*** gave me the feeling that you might not see what is obviously to me...That a couple lone wolves aren't evidence of some sort conservative uprising...I'm glad to hear that's not the case...

p

Fact: George Tiller specialized in what is euphemistically called late-term abortion. It involves the breech (feet first) delivery of a full-term baby to the point where only the head remains inside the birth canal...ostensibly to soothe the conscience of the mother by muffling the child's screams as scissors penetrate the back of his tiny skull and the contents are brutally suctioned out. The lifeless little body is then fully removed and discarded, in pieces, into a trash sack - apparently he couldn't tell that it was a Life there in front of him.

I think the report was wrong to lump pro-lifers, gun right advocates, returning veterans, and small government minded people, as potential terrorists. It is equivalent to me to the way they labeled those who were anti-war as threats to american freedom (a crock), or it is like saying Environmentalists are terrorists because of groups like ELF, or that muslims are terrorists, because of groups like Al Qaeda.

Pretty much the report is useless because, saying that it is possible that one or a few of the 100 million pro-lifers could be a terrorist does nothing to stop those terrorist, because 99,999,997 others of that same group aren't terrorists.

As a leftwingnut I don't think you have the best opinion as to whether it is fair. While I disagree heavily with Republicans on many issues (especially war, and the size of our government) and with Democrats on many issues, my opinion is less likely to be biased.

I think the report was wrong to lump pro-lifers, gun right advocates, returning veterans, and small government minded people, as potential terrorists.

That is not what it did. That is what conservative talking heads SAID it did.

It is equivalent to me to the way they labeled those who were anti-war as threats to american freedom (a crock), or it is like saying Environmentalists are terrorists because of groups like ELF, or that muslims are terrorists, because of groups like Al Qaeda.

It was a warning. One that was obviously warranted. The report says nothing about labeling conservative ideology as a porblem bad. It labels EXTREMISM for what it is, dangerous, just as it does for other extrmist activities, like ELF and al Qaeda.

Pretty much the report is useless because, saying that it is possible that one or a few of the 100 million pro-lifers could be a terrorist does nothing to stop those terrorist, because 99,999,997 others of that same group aren't terrorists.

So when the DHS has evidence of extremist activities or hears chatter among extremist groups, they should not make law enforcement aware? It is part of their job.

As a leftwingnut I don't think you have the best opinion as to whether it is fair.

Call me a wingnut all you want, I care not. I am a proud progressive liberal, but I also am honest, and do not spin facts to suit my ideology. There is a difference.

While I disagree heavily with Republicans on many issues (especially war, and the size of our government) and with Democrats on many issues, my opinion is less likely to be biased.

Obvioulsy not, since you are still claiming that the report lumped right wing extremists with all conservatives, and labeled their entire ideology as extremist. It did not.

Fact: George Tiller specialized in what is euphemistically called late-term abortion.

Fact: Intact DX surgery represents .17% of all abortions.
Fact: The right wing targeted Tiller and constantly refered to him as Tiller the baby killer.
Fact: Geroge Tiller was investigated and found to be doing nothing illegal.
Fact: George Tiller was bruatally murdered is his church.

amblessed, are you glad Tiller he is dead? Please answer this.

ANY loss of Life is tragic - since Roe vs Wade:
Aborted: 150 million
Abortion Dr's 5
Tragic - should never have happened - all will give account, judgement day.

amblessed, there have not been 150 million Intact DX surgeries. If you make no distinction between a zygote, blastocyst, fetus, and a fully born functioning human being, you will never convince anyone that the unborn have rights. If you actually stop using religion to make you argument, then maybe people might take you seriously. Once you start spouting stuff about judgement day, you have lost all credibility with the majority of people. I would have far more respect for pro-lifers if they would put down the bible and discuss things logically. They also need to be consistant about life, like opposing abortion at the same time supporting capital punishment. But I am sure that is asking too much.

Also, people having abortions do not believe they are doing something equivalant to killing a baby. Those who murder abortion doctors know exactly what they are doing is immoral and illegal. They are doing it out of vengence. WWJD? They are not saving any lives either. There will always be another doctor who will perform the procedure.

Still didn't answer my question. Are you glad Tiller is dead?

I think he answered it quite clearly.

---ANY loss of Life is tragic---

Well, you see, for some of us, our beliefs helped us become who we are, and are a part of who we are. In many cases, religion has significant influence in these beliefs. As I've stated before, my opinion is that abortions are wrong except when it is done to save the mother's life. If you don't want to get pregnant, don't practice unsafe sex. Condoms, birth control, morning-after pills, and spermicide are all cheaper and more morale alternatives to creating an unwanted baby. I don't consider it a baby until the zygote has embedded itself into the uterus, where it quickly develops into an embryo.

But I find it sad that even married couples are getting abortions because it's not financially convenient. Being the eldest in what is now an average middle-class family, I know for a fact that none of my 3 younger siblings, who are very dear to me, would have been born if my parents lived by that philosophy.

hivetyrant, believe it or not, I agree with most of what you said. I too consider myself pro-life, although I obviously don't base that any religious belief. But I also realize we live in a country of people with many different views and opinions, and mine is just one of them. Right now the majority of people support it. I wish that weren't so, but it is. But also don't think you are going to change anyones mind by hitting them over the head with the bible. The problem I have with many pro-lifers is there inconsistancy. If you support the death penalty, yet oppose abortion, to me that is hypocritical. The goal for both sides should be reducing the amount of abortions. You will never eliminate them. Even if they were illegal, they would still be happening. Proper sex ed and easy acces to birth control are the simpliest and most effective ways of reducing unwanted pregnancies.

I would not go as far as to say a that zygote, or a blastocyst needs to be protected. They are only a few cells at that point. Late term abortions, unless the health of the mother is an issue, are wrong in my opinion. There has to be a middle ground. The discussion should be not about banning all abortion, it should be about deciding at what point a fetus has rights separate and apart from its mother. That is the question, and it should have nothing to do with religious belief.

I don't think I was hitting anyone over the head with a Bible. I generally don't do that. I think that the New Testament, which is the law Christians are supposed to be abiding by(which is why I hate it when you try to use the Old Testament as negative evidence) has a lot of good ideas by which a person should live by. But even when I was going through my anti-religious stage, I understood the need for human discipline. Even while going through that stage, I did not go on to live an absolutely liberal lifestyle, though it was a bit more liberal than it is now.

My beliefs are my own, not my Father's, not my Mother's, not my church's, not my city's, not my state's; they are MINE, coming from the person I am. These all may have had an influence on the person I am(all of the prior stated actually an opposing one, since I do my best to be the opposite of what they all believe I should become), but ultimately, the choice is mine. I respect life in general, and after that, I respect human beings of all kinds. This includes born and not born, freeman and prisoner, educated and not educated. If my religion might have helped me develop this respect, so what? It is still my choice to love and respect, or hate and degrade, and I refuse to allow my choices to be made for me by God, my community, or my family.