Homeland Security Document Targets Most Conservatives and Libertarians in The Country

The Department of Homeland Security has a new report called “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Environment Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” It contains the following definition of right-wing extremism:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

You can read the whole article here. Source: The Liberty Papers

22 thoughts on “Homeland Security Document Targets Most Conservatives and Libertarians in The Country

  1. sunshinebatman

    SHOCKING. I never thought this would happen after the pleasant, smiling, third-generation Communist was elected President! He seemed so nice.

  2. Morgan Brykein

    Barack Obama isn’t a communist. That’s taking it way too far to call him a communist. Yes, his “GIVE Act” bullshit sounds very collectivist, but many non-communist countries have things like that, not that I support such a thing.

  3. George Phillies

    Fortunately, the actual report does not appear to do these things, not for any credible interpretation of the groups being discussed. I have read the report, but I dhink the interpretation ehre is seriously overblown.

    It does, however, in talking about GIs and Marines returning from scenic Iraq, miss a major potential hazard. There are any number of urban areas whose constabularies do not treat impoverished members of minority groups the same way they treat caucasian bankers driving Cadillacs. At some point, someone is going to be annoyed enough to note that the methods that were effective against foreigners occupying Iraq would be subject to the same laws of nature in America, they are angry enough to put this observation into effect, and at that point come of those constabularies are going to be subject to IEDs and sniper attacks.

  4. Libertarian Joseph

    The truth is, there is no such thing as a “right wing” dictatorship. You need a large, pervasic govt in order for it to be totalitarian. Whoever heard of a small government dictatorship? Why would we support gun rights? The “left” are the tyrants, and I include bush in that category.

    I never indentified myself as “right wing,” just going by their terminologies. The less there is government = the more freedom everyone has. No government, at all, would be the best thing to ever happen.

  5. Erik Geib

    Joseph,

    The ‘right wing’ usually defined not in size of government, but in scope. ‘Right wing’ organizations are *said* to be for more capitalist economics (though right wing philosophy more closely mirrors corporatism), and very restrictive in terms of personal freedoms.

    The ‘left win’ is *said* to be more open concerning personal freedom, but more collectivist in terms of economic activity.

    What people forget is that most ‘far right’ (as defined by the media, the govt. or others) and ‘far left’ candidates are usually closer to ‘down left’ and ‘down right’ candidates, i.e. they are more populist and totalitarian in their authority.

    Nevertheless, you can most certainly have a right wing dictatorship.

  6. mdh

    The correct answer: right and left are meaningless and abstract other than as propaganda tools for dummies. In reality, the terms ‘right’ and ‘left’ in a political context are basically meaningless as they have been ascribed so many meanings as to no longer be of any use in intellectual discourse. Which is fine by me – generalizations are less useful than getting down to specifics anyway.

  7. paulie

    The ‘right wing’ usually defined not in size of government, but in scope.

    See
    http://www.wconger.blogspot.com/2005/08/karl-hess-left-right-spectrum.html

    “My own notion of politics is that it follows a straight line rather than a circle. The straight line stretches from the far right where (historically) we find monarchy, absolute dictatorships, and other forms of absolutely authoritarian rule. On the far right, law and order means the law of the ruler and the order that serves the interest of that ruler, usually the orderliness of drone workers, submissive students, elders either totally cowed into loyalty or totally indoctrinated and trained into that loyalty. Both Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler operated right-wing regimes, politically, despite the trappings of socialism with which both adorned their regimes. Huey Long, when governor-boss of Louisiana, was moving toward a truly right-wing regime, also adorned with many trappings of socialism (particularly public works and welfare) but held together not by social benefits but by a strong police force and a steady flow of money to subsidize and befriend businessmen.

    An American President could be said to move toward the right to the extent that he tended to make absolutely unilateral political decisions, with no reference to Congress, for instance, or to the people generally, and when the legitimacy of the regime was supported or made real more by sheer force, say of police power, than by voluntary allegiance from the people generally. Such a regime, also, would be likely to suppress or to swallow up potentially competing centers of power such as trade unions. Major financial interests, however, if Adolf Hitler’s relations with industry, for example, can be considered instructive, would be bought off, rather than fought off, with fat contracts and a continuing opportunity to enrich their owners. Joseph Stalin, of course, had no problem with anything such as independent trade unions or business, since both had been killed off earlier.

    “The overall characteristic of a right-wing regime, no matter the details of difference between this one and that one, is that it reflects the concentration of power in the fewest practical hands.

    “Power, concentrated in few hands, is the dominant historic characteristic of what most people, in most times, have considered the political and economic right wing.

    “The far left, as far as you can get away from the right, would logically represent the opposite tendency and, in fact, has done just that throughout history. The left has been the side of politics and economics that opposes the concentration of power and wealth and, instead, advocates and works toward the distribution of power into the maximum number of hands.

    “Just as the scale along this line would show gradations of the right, so would it show gradations of the left.

    “Before getting to a far-right monarchy or dictatorship, there are many intermediate right-wing positions. Some are called conservative.

    “Somewhere along the line, for instance, a certain concentration of power, particularly economic power, would be acceptable in the name of tradition. The children of the rich, characteristically, are accorded very special places in the regimes of the right, or of conservatives. Also, there is a great deference to stability and a preference for it rather than change — all other things being equal. Caution might be the watchword toward the center of this right-wing scale, simply a go-slow attitude. That is, admittedly, a long way from the far right and dictatorship, but it is a way that can and should be measured on a straight line. The natural preference for law and order that seems such a worthwhile and innocent conservative preference is from a political tradition that came to us from kings and emperors, not from ancient democracy.

    “This hardly means that every conservative, if pressed, will go farther and farther right until embracing absolute dictatorship or monarchy. Far from it. It does mean to suggest only that the ghosts of royal power whisper in the conservative tradition.

    “The left shows similar gradations. The farthest left you can go, historically at any rate, is anarchism — the total opposition to any institutionalized power, a state of completely voluntary social organization in which people would establish their ways of life in small, consenting groups, and cooperate with others as they see fit.

    “The attitude on that farthest left toward law and order was summed up by an early French anarchist, Proudhon, who said that ‘order is the daughter of and not the mother of liberty.’ Let people be absolutely free, says this farthest of the far, far left (the left that Communism regularly denounces as too left; Lenin called it ‘infantile left’). If they are free they will be decent, but they never can be decent until they are free. Concentrated power, bureaucracy, et cetera, will doom that decency. A bit further along the left line there might be some agreement or at least sympathy with this left libertarianism but, it would be said, there are practical and immediate reasons for putting off that sort of liberty. People just aren’t quite ready for it. Roughly, that’s the position of the Communist Party today…

    “At any rate, at some point on the spectrum there is the great modern American liberal position. Through a series of unfortunate but certainly understandable distortions of political terminology, the liberal position has come to be known as a left-wing position. Actually, it lies right alongside the conservative tradition, down toward the middle of the line, but decidedly, I think, to the right of its center. Liberals believe in concentrated power — in the hands of liberals, the supposedly educated and genteel elite. They believe in concentrating that power as heavily and effectively as possible. They believe in great size of enterprise, whether corporate or political, and have a great and profound disdain for the homely and the local. They think nationally but they also think globally and now even intergalactically. Actually, because they believe in far more authoritarian rule than a lot of conservatives, it probably would be best to say that liberals lie next to but actually to the right of many conservatives.”

  8. Arthur DiBianca

    It is pretty funny that the report lists “highlighting perceived government infringement on civil liberties” as a characteristic of rightwing extremism.

  9. paulie

    “highlighting perceived government infringement on civil liberties” as a characteristic of rightwing extremism.

    Damn that ACLU!

  10. Donald Raymond Lake

    I am not in sinc with the anti abortion types philosophically, but they would appear to be some of the last folks on a ‘near terrorists’ list. Home Land Security has too much time and money on its bumbling hands.

    We alternative polliticals, in and out Missouri, need to be afraid, very afraid…..

  11. John C

    The third generation communist was elected president…in 2001. But he’s out now, right?

  12. sunshinebatman

    re 17, more like third-generation fascist. The membership ties to the CPUSA aren’t there, certinaly vitiating the capitalized C. You could definitely say third-generation fascist Com-symp given the Chinese connection. You did see Homeland Security reports approaching this kind of rhetoric, but it was not as central.

    But this certainly is the kind of “Homeland Security” report you’d expect to be issued when the executive’s roots in the CPUSA go back to his maternal grandfather. It’s not rocket science.

  13. pdsa

    —————-[
    Republicans on Wednesday said a Homeland Security Department intelligence assessment unfairly characterizes military veterans as right-wing extremists. House Republican leader John Boehner described the report as offensive and called on the agency to apologize to veterans.

    Eileen Sullivan/AP, “Republicans Criticize Report on Right-Wing Groups“, ABC News, April 15, 2009
    ]—————-
    —————-[
    Boehner enlisted in the United States Navy during the height of the Vietnam War. He was discharged after eight weeks of training because of a bad back.

    John Boehner, Wikipedia stub
    ]—————-

    ROTFLMAO…

  14. Dave

    Hey Guys! Hey, remember back when Bush was pushing the Patriot Act, developing Dept. of Homeland Security, and making the case for looser restrictions on gov’t wiretaps? A

Leave a Reply