Thursday, April 16, 2009

Nothing to see here, move along.

By now, most of the Dextrosphere (including our own MuscleDaddy) has weighed in on the DHS Memo on "Rightwing Extremism" Those of the sinister persuasion, and even "moderates" like Jazz Shaw think we're all a-twitter about nothing.
His basic point seems to be this:

The only way this isn’t Fauxrage is if you you think these extremist descriptions apply to you. If you don’t, then you’re dancing with straw men to score cheap political points. If you do, then I hope the DHS catches up with you before you kill someone.
Hardly. The problem is not that I think the "extremist descriptions" apply to me, but that DHS may think so. After all, I'm a white male who has actually read the Constitution, and thinks that our national government far exceeds the authority it has been granted. Anyone who's heard my opinions on political issues (whether they like it or not) knows that I advocate repeal of several Amendments that have increased that authority (16, 17, and 23 right off the top of my head). I've opposed nearly everything the current administration has done (allowing SEALs the green light to pop pirates is the obvious exception). That makes me an "extremist" from the frame of reference of a typical government employee. Given the similar report in Missouri (located less than a mile from my home in Kansas City, KS), there's plenty of reason for concern that someone would think I'm one of those wack jobs.

In reading the DHS document, I found something that really chilled me. Under the final section of the report, entitled "Outlook", are these ominous paragraphs (emphasis mine):
(U//FOUO) A number of law enforcement actions and external factors were effective in limiting the militia movement during the 1990s and could be utilized in today’s climate.
— (U//FOUO) Following the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City, the militia movement declined in total membership and in the number of organized groups because many members distanced themselves from the movement as a result of the intense scrutiny militias received after the bombing.
— (U//FOUO) Militia membership continued to decline after the turn of the millennium as a result of law enforcement disruptions of multiple terrorist plots linked to violent rightwing extremists, new legislation banning paramilitary training, and militia frustration that the “revolution” never materialized.
Apparently I'm paranoid to connect the dots here. I see the Department of Homeland Security saying that either a successful Reichstagsbrand bombing of a government office building, or one which Law Enforcement happens to disrupt, but "link" to those extremist RethugliKKKan wingnuts, could be utilized in today's climate to effectively limit the "militia movement".

I'm told that the word "could" means they're just talking about a possibility here. They aren't actually planning to have an agent provacateur push some poor soul into plotting a terrorist act, and then either stop it before too many people get hurt, or let it actually happen to more effectively utilize the crisis. I'm completely nuts to think someone could want to do that:

"You never want to let a serious crisis go to waste" -White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel

Hey, if I'm paranoid to connect those dots and say that a government employee could want a pretext for a crackdown on political opposition, what does it make the DHS staffers who produced this report about what members of that political opposition could do?
[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]


  1. Sigh. I mentioned this to my wife today, and she opined that all the domestic terrorists were right-wingnuts (Our political philosophies have massively diverged over the years).

    I pointed out Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground, she said, "Pfft. They never did anything."

  2. It seems to me a repeat of history. First you marginalize a segement of the population, like gun owning, Bible having white people. Then you denegrate the military. Then you institute your equally funded and equipped "civilian security force" or as I like to call them the SA. It's Hitler 101.

  3. Ugh!

    Tried to go over to The(leftist)ModerateVoice to get a piece of that fight.

    Apparently, the downside to LOTS of comments is uncontrollable mission-creep - they're already arguing about Social Security now.

    - MuscleDaddy


We reserve the right to delete comments, but the failure to delete any particular comment should not be interpreted as an endorsement thereof.

In general, we expect comments to be relevant to the story, or to a prior comment that is relevant; and we expect some minimal level of civility. Defining that line is inherently subjective, so try to stay clear of insulting remarks. If you respond to a comment that is later deleted, we may take your response with it. Deleting your comment isn't a personal knock on you, so don't take it as such.

We allow a variety of ways for commenters to identify themselves; those who choose not to do so should take extra care. Absent any prior context in which they may be understood, ironic comments may be misinterpreted. Once you've earned a reputation for contributing to a conversation, we are likely to be more tolerant in those gray areas, as we'll understand where you're coming from.