Federal agency warns of radicals on right
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.
Federal agency warns of radicals on right - Washington Times
Homeland Security Warns of Rise in Right-Wing Extremism
Homeland Security Warns of Rise in Right-Wing Extremism - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com
"Right-wing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning," the assessment reads.
"The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when right-wing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.," it continues.
The report also suggests that returning veterans are attractive recruits for right-wing groups looking for "combat skills and experience" so as to boost their "violent capabilities." It adds that new restrictions on gun ownership and the difficulty of veterans to reintegrate into their communities "could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."
The Department of Homeland Security needs to be disbanded.
So let me get this straight, Military people are people that need to be watched?
This is pathetic. Anyone who does not agree with Obama, seems to be an "extremist" these days.
They attacked the tea parties, and now they are suggesting Vets are attracted to right wing "Extremist" groups?
If the Obama admin keeps up with this rhetoric, He might just create the reality he is ralling against.
The link no longer works for some reason. Regardless, I saw a similar story the other day on CNN and they had pictures of nazi skinheads which leads me to believe that they are referring to them as the extremists as opposed to people who are just simply right wing. It would certainly make sense that there is a rise in hate groups like that who do allign themselves with a right wing ideology, though their views obviously are far more extreme than the typical right-winger.
And military people are still people and can be susceptible to these types of groups. I don't think that they are indicating that they need to be watched though.
If you have a ron paul sticker on your car, you are considered an extremist.
Secret State Police Report: Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, Libertarians are Terrorists
That was a report issued by the MIAC (Missouri Information Analysis Center). What does that have to do with the Dept. of Homeland Security? I know a lot of anti-Obama people would like to interpret this as an attack on right wingers but they used the word extremists. What reason do you have other than a report from the MIAC to believe that they are targetting typical right wing people and not going after groups like neo-nazis and KKK?
So let me get this straight, Military people are people that need to be watched?
This is pathetic. Anyone who does not agree with Obama, seems to be an "extremist" these days.
They attacked the tea parties, and now they are suggesting Vets are attracted to right wing "Extremist" groups?
If the Obama admin keeps up with this rhetoric, He might just create the reality he is ralling against.
Ok sure whatever, its all about the "extremist groups".....
Do you think that its appropriate to suggest that returning troops are joining their ranks?
The report also suggests that returning veterans are attractive recruits for right-wing groups looking for "combat skills and experience" so as to boost their "violent capabilities." It adds that new restrictions on gun ownership and the difficulty of veterans to reintegrate into their communities "could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."
That's not what the article said:
It merely suggested that they are attractive recruits for these extremist groups because of their combat skills and experience. Regardless, why is it bad to suggest that troops would join their ranks? Troops are human beings too and are capable of extremism. I will never understand why some people place troops on such a high (almost super-human) pedestal like they are incapable of being susceptible to things that any average joe would.
back to my other point:
"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. "
I am in favor of state and local authority as outlined in the US Constitution, I guess I am a "right wing extremist" and need to be monitored. :roll:
Again, that's not what it said. You posted it yourself. It talks about groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority. I think it's obvious that it isn't referring to people who in many cases favor state authority over federal authority but people who completely reject federal authority. Do you completely reject federal authority?
See those quotes. it had a footnote stating exactly that. right, nothing to worry about, the obama government will provide. :roll::roll:
I reject it yes in favor of local and state, does not mean i break the law however. I think the federal government is too big and too powerful.
Oh damn, I'm an extremist, former military too, my god, let me get my Gadsden flag and I'll hit the trifecta! :roll:
I think you know that's not at all what the report was saying. Do you federal law in favor of local and state in ALL cases? The fact that you don't break the law would imply that you do respect and abide by federal laws so you obviously wouldn't qualify as an extremist. And thinking the federal government is too big and powerful doesn't make you an extremist either.
And there's no need for the hyperbole routine. We both know that is not what the article was saying at all.
That was a report issued by the MIAC (Missouri Information Analysis Center). What does that have to do with the Dept. of Homeland Security? I know a lot of anti-Obama people would like to interpret this as an attack on right wingers but they used the word extremists. What reason do you have other than a report from the MIAC to believe that they are targetting typical right wing people and not going after groups like neo-nazis and KKK?
Open source reporting of wartime ammunition shortages has spurred right-wing extremists - as well as law-abiding Americans - to make bulk purchases of ammunition.
(U//LES) Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms
(U//FOUO) Weapons rights and gun-control legislation are likely to be hotly contested subjects of political debate in light of the 2008 Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller in which the Court reaffirmed an individual’s right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but left open to debate the precise contours of that right. Because debates over constitutional rights are intense, and parties on all sides have deeply held, sincere, but vastly divergent beliefs, violent extremists may attempt to co-opt the debate and use the controversy as a radicalization tool.
back to my other point:
"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. "
I am in favor of state and local authority as outlined in the US Constitution, I guess I am a "right wing extremist" and need to be monitored. :roll:
:shock: I participate in "right wing extremism" because I belong to National Right to Life? --a single issue group opposed to abortion-- ...And Homeland Security "'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.'"
In other words, gather information on people like me? :shock: What country do we live in?
The MIAC report insinuated that "terrorists" are likely to support third party candidates like Libertarians, Constitutionalists, etc. A coalition of third party candidates and people named directly in the report threatened a lawsuit and the government of Missouri issued an apology. Even in spite of the apology, it's disturbing because it indicates the thinking of the "analysts" and LE officers who put the report together and perhaps a systemic problem.
This report is even more disturbing because instead of referencing organizations, it makes reference to abstract ideas such as being opposed to diminished national sovereignty, being against illegal immigration, being opposed to abortion, etc.
Having said all that, I actually agree with some of the text of the report. Having grown up among the right-wing movement, I can say that there is a very real chance that some nutjob will do something crazy and cause a real catastrophe.
However, a large part of this report is total crap. I'd like so see some specificity to these vague and seemingly baseless claims. I'd like some clarification on passages such as this one:
I'd like a clear definition of "right-wing extremist" and I'd also why to know why "right-wing extremist" and "law-abiding Americans" are mutually exclusive.
And this one:
Why is it just to "social programs to minorities" and not "social programs" in general? This report seems to conflate right-wing movements with racist movements. Isn't this kind of politically charged outreach exactly what the left calls "community organizing?"
Co-opt the debate? What does this even mean?
This is just the beginning. There's a lot of crap in there. Read for yourself:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/041609_extremism.pdf
I agree that it is somewhat disturbing, but I still fail to see any connection between that report and the one in this story. Perhaps the MIAC do consider people who support 3rd party candidates to be more prone to terrorism, but that means nothing. It makes sense that a terrorist organization wouldn't subscribe to a normal politically ideology, but as you said it should have clarified more.
Hotz said MIAC, which opened in 2005, is a “fusion center” that combines resources from the federal Department of Homeland Security and other agencies. It was set up to collect local intelligence to better combat terrorism and other criminal activity, he said.
WTF? That's not right. The NRL is not an extremist group. I have given money to them and you know I wouldn't support an extremist group.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?