DHS Should be More Afraid of Left Wing Attacks

Friday, April 17, 2009

The right has been up in arms over the DHS memo regarding fears of a right wing attack. The report itself admits that “(It) has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence.” With that being said, perhaps we should be focusing in on the leftwing domestic terrorists that are currently planning attacks. Let’s take a look at the FBI’s top 11 domestic terrorists.

What’s a left wing attack? Never heard of one? Well, they are out there and the FBI is trying to hunt them down. On the top 11 list, 9 of them are left wing crazies. The other 2 were Puerto Rico freedom fighters. Surprisingly, there were no feared rightwingers on the list. The groups these leftist extremists were associated with include BLF, ALF, anti war groups and communist party members. DHS has put out a leftwing memo as well, but it doesn’t seem as though they paint the leftwing groups with similar stereotypes, nor the same concern (especially in regards to recruiting veterans).

The left has many crazy left groups if not more than the rightwing groups and it would seem that these left wing groups are the one’s causing the most trouble. Janet Napolitano seems to be a little too worried about the war veterans, those opposed to gay marriage and abortion, those who support the 2nd amendment, oppose immigration amnesty, and disagree with President Obama’s administration. When is she going to put out a memo warning of the leftwing extremists who are vegans, think we should “spread the wealth around,” support cap and trade, hate George Bush, and believe that African American’s are oppressed?

Maybe I’m off base. You be the Judge.

Rightwing Extremist Report
Leftwing Extremist Report

14 comments

Obama Nation said...

Wow the FBI thing was really interesting. But not surprising.

April 17, 2009 at 7:37 PM
Devrim said...

Shhhhhh... there is no LEFT wing nuts in the USA. They are just Obama supporters.

April 17, 2009 at 10:14 PM

If you had read her previous reports you would have seen that she also put out warnings against many left wing conservation groups and animal protection groups and left wing environmental groups. Please don't just show your side in this matter. I will admit I do the same thing on my blog but I also attack my side when I feel they are wrong or if I just disagree with them.

Regards,

Joseph

April 18, 2009 at 2:57 AM

Joseph,

??? I posted the Leftwing report as well. I'm certainly not unbiased, but I wasn't misleading. You can read both reports and if you don't agree, I have no problem with that.

April 18, 2009 at 6:50 AM
The Law said...

The difference is the right wing extremists have members in white supremacist groups who *may* harbor ambitions of assassinating our president. To put this in perspective, I wanted to double check to see if I spelled assassinate correctly, so I typed it into a google search (it pops up with the current most relevant search queries) and before i finished typing the word "assassinate" the query for assassinate obama was ranked 2.

Extremist groups no matter who they are and what ideology they represent are dangerous. The point of the report was not to lump all conservative thought into one sum, but rather illustrate that these tea party movements (much like the Sarah Palin "death to Obama" rallies) could create a hostile environment that could potentially endnager the president's life.

This is not to say there shouldn't be conservative rallies. But the conservative message is very much diluted when you have protesters with "Show me your real birth certificate" or "Obama bin Lyin" or "Obama is a dirty muslim" signs. Again, we have seen this with Bush. But one would be wholly ignorant if they fail recognize the unique security risk for our first Black president. There will always be dissenters amongst the ranks who hate the president's policies from the left or right, but for the first time, there are people who also hate his skin tone as well.

Many fail to realize, or at worst continue to sweep under the rug, that racism is still alive and well in some parts of this country, and Obama's ascension to the presidency does not at the very least negate any feelings of racial tension. In fact, in some parts, it seems to have strengthened it. So that's where this report is coming from. And it's portrayal in the news is doesn't clearly illustrate the issue because whenever race comes up in the converstation, people tend to become very defensive, and the person talking about it is too afraid to step on toes to make any sense.

On a side note, I dig the new look of this blog, and I reckon i need a new idea for episode 51 =)

April 18, 2009 at 7:35 PM

tL,

Thanks! I've been debating all day on whether I'd keep the new template.

I would not disagree with you on racism, but the problem with the report in my opinion is that there is no particular threat, such as assassination listed in the report. The leftwing report has specific, criminal intentions that they are talking about. The rightwing report is blank. That leads one to the conclusion that any rightwing assembly could be scrutinized as extremist.

Also, the leftwing report is much more concise in leftwing ideology, such as animal and environmental rights. The rightwing report says basically anyone who disagrees with Obama may be an extremist.

April 19, 2009 at 12:15 AM
The Law said...

Your assement is not correct... the point of that report is not to point out specific groups, but rather to raise awareness that (ultra) right conservastive extremists are in white supremacy groups and pose a threat to our president. They are NOT lumping together all conservatives.

This is exactly why race is hard to cope with in this country... the mere mention of race relations makes people incredibly defensive, and as a result, many people see it as a personal attack. I can assure you it is not. I can 99.8% guarantee that is say John Kerry was president with the exact same messga and policies, this report would have never been issued.

When you consider the police shootings in pittsburg, the teenagers who made a planned (though juevenile, ill-planned, and destined for failure) Obama assassination on during the inauguration, the KKK... the list goes on, we really do have a unique security issue here that we never had to address. THAT is what the report is about.

It's not about whether you disagree with Obama, that is fine and we have the right to disagree with the president. But when we are flinging racial slurs at out president that is a grim reminder of our tragic past, it is prudent to raise awareness on the issue.

By the by, last halloween, these college kids thought it would be a funny gag to make a replica of George W Bush and hang him from a tree. Keith Olbermann, the left wing Rush Limbaugh... he his a big voice for progressives. And he condemed the act, saying that though we may disagree with the president, there is no excuse for making gestures that suggest killing our president.

That is what this report is calling for - the awareness that there is a unique threat to the president, not to end conservative protest, and not to label all dissenters as extremists.

April 19, 2009 at 2:20 AM

Ultimately, this all goes to speculation. So any point you raise is as valid as mine. However, what awareness? There is no threat listed in the report. It could have been one line, we expect a rise in rightwing extremism and that would be OK.

The report basically says, watch out for people who disagree with Obama. By the way, we don't have any reason why you should be watching out for them. It's just stereotyping and that's all.

April 19, 2009 at 6:51 AM
Devrim said...

When I was 17 I used to proudly wear a Green Peace t-shirt. Under the DHS guidelines I am an extremist (I support 3rd party candidates, I defend the 2nd amendment, I believe in a smaller government... )

Believe me, at 35 and father of 3, my right wing extremist beliefs are much more peaceful than when I belonged to a moderately leftist group.

The report basically says, watch out for people who disagree with Obama. Uhhhmmm, that would be 48% of the country, do we have enough people to watch that many people or do we need a new government agency just to watch those people ? And by "watch" what do we mean, should we tap phones w/o court order? Maybe screen e-mail and IRC chats ? How about censoring certain web sites and periodicals ? While we are at it, why not scrap the whole 1st amendment ? By the way that 10th amendment is bothersome too....

April 19, 2009 at 9:35 PM
The Law said...

Well, convincing people that whether you are the president of the US or an averge joe american, if you are Black in this country (and for that matter, not white) there is always an inherent risk of danger to your life. Fortunately I have not been assaulted before, but I have had my fair share of N words tossed my way, and being black on a campus that is 99% white carried its social burdens as well. Point is an assassination attempt or any kind of harm is far less likely to come from someone of the left. It is no secret that there are some who if given an open shot and had no fear of the consequences would kill the president, not because of his policies, but because of his skin tone. And all the report is saying, is far right fringe groups that use extreme tactics, should have a little more attention focused in their direction than any OTHER activist group, left AND right. To say that the report is saying to watch out for ALL conservatives is nothign short of a gross distortion of the report's intent.

April 20, 2009 at 12:58 AM
Devrim said...

if you are Black in this country (and for that matter, not white) there is always an inherent risk of danger to your life. I am sure you jest, try walking sidestreets of Harlem while white ?

It is no secret that there are some who if given an open shot I am quite sure the Secret Service is doing their best so that doesn't happen.

Language, language, language : " “rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented . . . 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." . So if I just say "the federal government is getting too big", it puts me on the radar of the DHS, then what ?

April 20, 2009 at 3:23 AM
The Law said...

I've lived in the NYC area all my life... I cannot remember the last time I have heard of white on black race related violence. I HAVE heard of cross burnings and gay bashings more than a few times. Everyone likes to bring up Harlem as an example of where to get you a$$ kicked if you're white, but I can assure you that is a stereotype that simply just doesn't happen.

Language, Language, Language.... You, CGen, and others on this blog represent the conservative voice... I'm pretty sure I can speak for any passers by that your commentary has been FAR from extremist. When you have a issue with policy, you cite news articles, memos, and reports. You offer a rational argument based on life experience, moral beliefs, and intellectual curiosity. I've been reading this blog since its inception and I have not once, from either perspective seen anything like "I hate Obama's policies because he is a filthy muslim" or "Obama bin Lyin is gonna eat your babies and drinks stems cells for desert" If the former is where your political opposition derives, then that report is NOT talking about you. The key word is "extremist" and I'm pretty sure you are not one.

"It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."So if you are saying I value human life in all of its stages so I disagree with abortion, then the report is not talking about you. If your hatred for abortion causes a killing spree of abortion doctors and the bombing of abortion clinics, then yes you are indeed an extremist.

Likewise if you say the government is too big because federal spedning is out of control, then you are well within your purview to have such an opinion. However if you think the govenment is too big, and you stock pile a bunch of weapons and prepare for insurrection, then yes again, you are an extremist. This is really an issue of syntactic distortion, and nothing more.

April 20, 2009 at 1:56 PM
Devrim said...

You, CGen, and others on this blog represent the conservative voice... I demand an immediate retraction !!!! I am the "libertarian" voice :D

Back to the issue at hand, I admit Harlem was a distasteful example, but you wouldn't know where Tecumceh St is (which is in my town), and why - MS-13 - no whites wonder over there.

Now imagine you are a law enforcement officer, you just received a memo from the DHS, which says "people who are against abortion are a threat", and you saw a "pro-life" bumper sticker on my car. Would you be inclined to investigate more to see if I am stockpiling IED material or just keep walking? Isn't it " profiling " ? If "profiling" is OK, why did you guys cry foul for 8 years ? And, once you "profile" somebody, how far should the investigation go (wiretaps without court orders, tapping e-mail, forum posts) ?

I'll give you another bit from my life. I am from a 99% Muslim country. In 2004 me and my fiancee took a vacation in Florida, and we took a flight on a WW II plane(TBF Avenger). On my return home, I found a message asking me to call the local FBI office. I called, arranged a meeting and had to explain why I flied, and why I am not a good candidate to fly a plane into a building.

Now I ask you again, are we going to "profile", if we are going to "profile" will you apologize to the former administration, and where will / should the surveillance end ?

April 20, 2009 at 7:20 PM
The Law said...

I really don't how else to put it. If you have a "save a child, and God will love you... NO abortion" bumper sticker on your car, people who see your bumper sticker will pass their own judgements, and continue on with their day. Your right to express your beliefs is clearly protected under the 1st amendment, so there isn't anything at all any government official could do to you.

If you were at an anti-abortion rally, and you had a sign that said, "OBAMA IS A BABY KILLER" the sign has a picture of Obama at a dinner table, fork, and knife, carving away at a fetus, well hell yea, you had better expect to be profiled. No one has an interest in relegating every conservative opinion to the nutbag crazy pile. There are people on the *extreme* right that dont even know the poltics... they hate Obama soley because he is black. And they *may* seek to attack him, or start a dangerous anti-Obama movement.

All I can say is if you fail to, or refuse to recognize the unique security risk that arises from having a black president in office, then there is no amount of debate that will ease your mind that this report has nothing to do with you.

Again, the report references EXTREME right-wing groups. As long as you're not talking about stockpiling your guns and bombs, putting the women and chillren in the bunker, and preparing for insurrection, rest assured, you are fine.

April 21, 2009 at 7:42 PM

Post a Comment