On April 15, timed to coincide with the more than 2,000 tax day "TEA Party" or "Taxed Enough Already" protests [Ed.: a largely conservative movement reacting to increases in taxes and government spending], Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano released a new report citing the supposed increasing "threat" of right-wing extremists. Unfortunately, having read the report, there are a few problems with it. OK, more than a few; the report is devoid of almost any validity.
First, the report seems to lump neo-Nazis together with soccer moms who have pro-life bumper stickers on their minivans. The following comes from the report itself:
"Prominent among [themes of right -wing extremists] were the militia movement's opposition to gun control efforts, criticism of free trade agreements (particularly those with Mexico) and highlighting perceived government infringement on civil liberties as well as white supremacists' long-standing exploitation of social issues such as abortion, inter-racial crimes and same-sex marriage."
Translated from bureaucrat into English, this means that those who oppose abortion or same-sex marriage or gun control are all at risk of the extremism of neo-Nazis. Are we serious here? By this standard, Thomas Jefferson was a right-wing extremist.
Also at issue, the report only vaguely generalizes the targets of the department's scrutiny. Are they talking about the religious right of Jerry Falwell? Are they talking about anti-tax protestors? Are they talking about Americans who support the FairTax plan? Are they talking about NRA members? The report hints that any and all of these groups may be lumped together - although they couldn't be more different - but never once cites a specific example of a specific group that has crossed into the levels of violent extremism.
I don't understand the logic here. Likely because there is none. It does not make sense that the tax day "TEA Party" attendees could be called "extremists," but the lunatics who took to the streets for the past eight years to throw things at military recruitment centers and burn soldiers in effigy are merely "dissenters." What is the litmus test here?
A DHS report that came out in January cited the dangers of left-wing extremism. There was one glaring difference between this report and the right-wing one, however: The January report actually had legitimate targets. Where the right-wing report generalizes about "dangers" of anti-abortion groups, veterans, federalists and supporters of the Second Amendment, this first report focused specifically on cyber-terrorism and terrorist groups like the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front.
Does Napolitano actually expect us to treat states' rights groups with the same degree of concern that we pay to groups that fire-bomb car dealerships (like the ELF has done)? Let's be honest, here: This report was released to keep the far-left cadre happy. DHS couldn't point to specific groups because there currently are no significant right-wing threats to national security. The report even says so: "The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence." But, again: The left-wing report had a legitimate purpose. It says, "DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) judges that a number of emerging trends point to left-wing extremists maturing and expanding their cyber attack capabilities over the next decade with the aim of attacking targets in the United States."
The bottom line is this: The new administration has a desire to make all people with a conservative bent of any kind - from the Goldwaters, to the Reagans, to the Huckabees, to the Romneys, to the McCains - look like radicals. That would, they hope, make their far-left governing posture thus far look moderate. Thankfully, rational America knows both charges to be false. ? ?
Michael Coyne is a staff columnist. mcoyne1@luc.edu
Be the first to comment on this article!