MIAMI (Reuters) – Right-wing extremists in the United States are gaining new recruits by exploiting fears about the economy and the election of the first black U.S. president, the Department of Homeland Security warned in a report to law enforcement officials.
The April 7 report, which Reuters and other news media obtained on Tuesday, said such fears were driving a resurgence in "recruitment and radicalization activity" by white supremacist groups, antigovernment extremists and militia movements. It did not identify any by name.
DHS had no specific information about pending violence and said threats had so far been "largely rhetorical."
But it warned that home foreclosures, unemployment and other consequences of the economic recession "could create a fertile recruiting environment for right-wing extremists."
"To the extent that these factors persist, right-wing extremism is likely to grow in strength," DHS said.
The report warned that military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with combat skills could be recruitment targets, especially those having trouble finding jobs or fitting back into civilian society.
The department "is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities," the report said.
DHS spokeswoman Sara Kuban said on Tuesday the report was one of an ongoing series of threat assessments aimed at "a greater understanding of violent radicalization in the U.S."
A similar assessment of left-wing radicals completed in January was distributed to federal, state and local police agencies at that time.
"These assessments are done all the time, this is nothing unusual," Kuban said.
The Department of Homeland Security was formed in response to the September 11 attacks of 2001 and has focused largely on threats from Islamist extremists.
The report said domestic right-wing terrorist groups grew during the economic recession of the early 1990s but subsided as the economy improved.
Government scrutiny disrupted violent plots following the April 1995 bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City by Army veteran Timothy McVeigh which killed 168 people.
LONE WOLVES
"Despite similarities to the climate of the 1990s, the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years," the report said.
The Internet has made it easier to locate specific targets, communicate with like-minded people and find information on bombs and weapons, it said.
Extremist groups are preying on fears that President Barack Obama, the first African American U.S. president, would restrict gun ownership, boost immigration and expand social programs for minorities, the report said.
It said such groups were also exploiting anti-Semitic sentiment with accusations that "a cabal of Jewish financial elites" had conspired to collapse the economy.
"This trend is likely to accelerate if the economy is perceived to worsen," the report said.
Joe the Plumber saying that members of Congress should be shot:
As well as Sean Hannity and how on his forum where members discussed how they needed to stock up on weapons for the will of god was denied and the country sold to the mafia as well as a Poll on which revolution was the best form. http://levellers.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/sean-hannity-advocates-treason/
Of course this doesn't leave out Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage etc.
As was during the Presidential election where at McCain/Palin rallies members of the audience would shout death threats concerning Obama.
And un-American congress:
Sure the Democrats are not new to the whole mind boggling conspiracy theories etc but this is on a whole new level these people such as at the rallies are still out there etc. All this paranoia and fanaticism concerning Obama and the government. I figure if something happens to the President of the United States it won't be to hard to find out who helped fan the flames.
all the fox news stuff has been pretty insane lately. All of the hardcore conservatives and wackjobs werent as popular during the clinton years (aside from rush.....ugh) so this is the first we get to see of them when they dont agree with the government wholeheartedly.
I disagree with fiscal conservatives, but they are at least intelligent people and you can talk to them. These neo-cons are fucking nuts imo.
its almost like it has nothing to do with the country anymore and everything to do with if your guy is in office or not. Its pretty disgusting. While I understand if your ideology is not in office you will probably will initially disagree with some decisions.....but this is getting mind boggling.
Most of what you showed isn't really "right wing extremism", its nut jobs you could find anywhere. Secessionist movements (in general) aren't violent, and they certainly aren't threatening to anyone but those that enjoy a great deal of political power. Many of our founding fathers were strong supporters of secession, and there were many secessionist movements that made this country a much better place (up until Lincoln, who decided secession was not a power reserved to the states).
An article that espouses the views and reasonings for the current secessionist movements can be found here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo170.html Unlike most of what you posted, the articles on lewrockwell.com are well thought out and articulate. Much of the "right-wing extremists" are intellectual in nature, and the views are based off a strict moral framework.
The report from the DHS really just demonstrates that government agencies are being utilized by the party in power to threaten those not in power. The same thing happened under Bush, and its really quite disgusting.
It's like the fear of communists during the cold war, but backwards.
It used to be how the anti-communists (Americans) were deeply suspicious of much of left-wing philosophy. They railed against them as being communist while still ironically erecting such plans as being "American."
Now, we have left-wingers in power, and we fear "racism" and "terrorists" and "extremists."
Really, regardless of partisanship, government seems to always want to shut the opposing side up. Right-wing shuts up left wing through Red Scares, Left-wing shuts up right-wing through Race Scares.
That being said, 95% of anybody that appears on Fox News is clinically insane/retarded.
On April 15 2009 14:17 tec27 wrote: Most of what you showed isn't really "right wing extremism", its nut jobs you could find anywhere. Secessionist movements (in general) aren't violent, and they certainly aren't threatening to anyone but those that enjoy a great deal of political power. Many of our founding fathers were strong supporters of secession, and there were many secessionist movements that made this country a much better place (up until Lincoln, who decided secession was not a power reserved to the states).
An article that espouses the views and reasonings for the current secessionist movements can be found here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo170.html Unlike most of what you posted, the articles on lewrockwell.com are well thought out and articulate. Much of the "right-wing extremists" are intellectual in nature, and the views are based off a strict moral framework.
The report from the DHS really just demonstrates that government agencies are being utilized by the party in power to threaten those not in power. The same thing happened under Bush, and its really quite disgusting.
Except that these "nutjobs" are leaders of the right-wing movement in the country. They aren't extremists on the fringe, they are the core.
If you were against the Iraq War, you were un-American, unpatriotic, hated America, and should just leave. If you don't like the fact that you lost a fair election now, you are a patriot defending American virtues etc.
There was a story on reddit 2 weeks ago about a former pro-Nazi German who was in the Nazi Youth back in the 1930s/40s, and he, while watching Fox News for the first time recently, said that it was exactly like Nazi propaganda back in its heyday. I thought it was hyperbole and a made up story until I saw Glenn Beck and his emotional outbursts. Anybody remember the news-host guy from V from Vendetta? Glenn Beck is practically his double, lol, with the emotional outbursts and cries of being patriotic and only wanting to defend the virtues of the Constitution, etc.
Get over it, right-wing, you lost the election. What Obama is doing is nowhere near as bad as what Bush did, but yet people who said that Bush might be wrong were un-American, hated America, etc. Very strong hypocrisy from that camp.
Ha. Ha. Ha. First off, let me say, I was fine with O'Reilly and Hannity on Fox because every station had their own crazy guys. Hannity is an ignorant fuck but Whatever, it can slide. But Glenn Beck, he is something else. He came from no where to make a quick buck off a democratic Congress/Presidency. I saw his 'Book' at Barnes and Nobles the other day and decided to flip through some pages and I couldn't help but smile. The text was size 20 font, double spaced. I didn't even bother reading the context because it looked like it was made for Children. Ha. Being 'un'-american is being a Patriotic in the truest sense.
If these conservatives spent half the time reading what is Constitutional legal as they did spend their time protesting their new government, we actually might get a decent third party. Protesting for the sake of protesting proves one point: Facism isn't here - If you can say Obama is wrong on TV and not be in Jail the next day, (assuming you aren't blowing and being violent like that new Tea Party Organization), there is no Facism.
On April 15 2009 14:17 tec27 wrote: Most of what you showed isn't really "right wing extremism", its nut jobs you could find anywhere. Secessionist movements (in general) aren't violent, and they certainly aren't threatening to anyone but those that enjoy a great deal of political power. Many of our founding fathers were strong supporters of secession, and there were many secessionist movements that made this country a much better place (up until Lincoln, who decided secession was not a power reserved to the states).
An article that espouses the views and reasonings for the current secessionist movements can be found here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo170.html Unlike most of what you posted, the articles on lewrockwell.com are well thought out and articulate. Much of the "right-wing extremists" are intellectual in nature, and the views are based off a strict moral framework.
The report from the DHS really just demonstrates that government agencies are being utilized by the party in power to threaten those not in power. The same thing happened under Bush, and its really quite disgusting.
Except that these "nutjobs" are leaders of the right-wing movement in the country. They aren't extremists on the fringe, they are the core.
If you were against the Iraq War, you were un-American, unpatriotic, hated America, and should just leave. If you don't like the fact that you lost a fair election now, you are a patriot defending American virtues etc.
There was a story on reddit 2 weeks ago about a former pro-Nazi German who was in the Nazi Youth back in the 1930s/40s, and he, while watching Fox News for the first time recently, said that it was exactly like Nazi propaganda back in its heyday. I thought it was hyperbole and a made up story until I saw Glenn Beck and his emotional outbursts. Anybody remember the news-host guy from V from Vendetta? Glenn Beck is practically his double, lol, with the emotional outbursts and cries of being patriotic and only wanting to defend the virtues of the Constitution, etc.
Get over it, right-wing, you lost the election. What Obama is doing is nowhere near as bad as what Bush did, but yet people who said that Bush might be wrong were un-American, hated America, etc. Very strong hypocrisy from that camp.
Lol, it's not "right-wing" that we are, it's libertarianism (whom aren't left or right wing, we're more "up"). We hated Bush as much (if not more) than you did, mostly because he and his neoconservatism policies hijacked the liberty movement and twisted the ideas of individual liberty and free markets into "hating us for our freedoms" and bailouts. If anything, Obama is continuing those very same policies, despite all his claims of "change." But what worries us about Obama is that while people despised Bush as he enacted these policies that a libertarian like me would STRONGLY disapprove of, Obama has a very high approval rating and is maintaining these very same policies. This worries us, as the "cult of personality" and the "honeymoon period" has allowed some very damaging legislation to be passed that could threaten one's livelihood.
meh...this thread seems uninteresting. You quote a bunch of non-politicians (aka, people who need to make news and get attention to make money...and we all know that controversy brings news) right after a political defeat and try to say that what we see is some sort of permanent radical shift of 1 half of the political spectrum.
On April 15 2009 14:17 tec27 wrote: Most of what you showed isn't really "right wing extremism", its nut jobs you could find anywhere. Secessionist movements (in general) aren't violent, and they certainly aren't threatening to anyone but those that enjoy a great deal of political power. Many of our founding fathers were strong supporters of secession, and there were many secessionist movements that made this country a much better place (up until Lincoln, who decided secession was not a power reserved to the states).
An article that espouses the views and reasonings for the current secessionist movements can be found here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo170.html Unlike most of what you posted, the articles on lewrockwell.com are well thought out and articulate. Much of the "right-wing extremists" are intellectual in nature, and the views are based off a strict moral framework.
The report from the DHS really just demonstrates that government agencies are being utilized by the party in power to threaten those not in power. The same thing happened under Bush, and its really quite disgusting.
Except that these "nutjobs" are leaders of the right-wing movement in the country. They aren't extremists on the fringe, they are the core.
If you were against the Iraq War, you were un-American, unpatriotic, hated America, and should just leave. If you don't like the fact that you lost a fair election now, you are a patriot defending American virtues etc.
There was a story on reddit 2 weeks ago about a former pro-Nazi German who was in the Nazi Youth back in the 1930s/40s, and he, while watching Fox News for the first time recently, said that it was exactly like Nazi propaganda back in its heyday. I thought it was hyperbole and a made up story until I saw Glenn Beck and his emotional outbursts. Anybody remember the news-host guy from V from Vendetta? Glenn Beck is practically his double, lol, with the emotional outbursts and cries of being patriotic and only wanting to defend the virtues of the Constitution, etc.
Get over it, right-wing, you lost the election. What Obama is doing is nowhere near as bad as what Bush did, but yet people who said that Bush might be wrong were un-American, hated America, etc. Very strong hypocrisy from that camp.
Lol, it's not "right-wing" that we are, it's libertarianism (whom aren't left or right wing, we're more "up"). We hated Bush as much (if not more) than you did, mostly because he and his neoconservatism policies hijacked the liberty movement and twisted the ideas of individual liberty and free markets into "hating us for our freedoms" and bailouts. If anything, Obama is continuing those very same policies, despite all his claims of "change." But what worries us about Obama is that while people despised Bush as he enacted these policies that a libertarian like me would STRONGLY disapprove of, Obama has a very high approval rating and is maintaining these very same policies. This worries us, as the "cult of personality" and the "honeymoon period" has allowed some very damaging legislation to be passed that could threaten one's livelihood.
Obama never ran on any sort of Libertarian platform, so he doesn't really aim towards the Constitutional-strict interpretation crowd. He is letting abortion and marriage go to state, which is more then Bush did, and is more Constitutional then bush. What Obama is doing, for better or worse, is putting the Economy in strict Federal hands. I haven't decided how I feel about this, it'll strengthen the US, but weaken stronger state economies like NY's to compensate for Michigans and Ohio's downfall, but that is what the union was about I suppose.
On April 15 2009 15:25 Railz wrote: - If these conservatives spent half the time protesting their new government as they did actually reading what is Constitutional and what isn't, we actually might get a decent third party.
Sooo...you are saying conservatives read the constitution too much and should just get out there and protest something?
EDIT: He mistyped but corrected it after this post
I didn't watch all your videos but I did read the transcript of this + Show Spoiler +
I believe the federal government has become oppressive. It’s become oppressive in its size, its intrusion in the lives of its citizens, and its interference with the affaris of our state.
Texans need to ask themselves a question. Do they side with those in Washington who are pursuing this unprecendented expansion of power, or do they believe in individual rights and responsibilities laid down in our foundational documents.
Where’re you gonna’ stand? With an ever-growing Washington bureaucracy, or are you going to stand with the people of this state who understand the importance of state’s rights.
Texans need to stand up. They need to be heard, because the state of affairs that we find ourselves in cannot continue indefinitely…
…We think it’s time to draw the line in the sand and tell Washington that no longer are we going to accept their oppressive hand in the state of Texas. That’s what this press conference, that’s what these Texans are standing up for. There is a point in time where you stand up and say enough is enough, and I think Americans, and Texans especially have reached that point.
and the only take home message I got from it was the guy was saying that Texans should resist the expansion of the federal government. Thats sort of a "duh" moment. Every conservative politician/activist says that and has for years.
You try to make it sound like he wants to secede or something. Is this the kind of distortion I can expect if I watch all your other videos, or is it the exception?
Where the hell is this country going?!
Apparently towards misinterpreting other people's statements to make a political point.
On April 15 2009 15:25 Railz wrote: - If these conservatives spent half the time protesting their new government as they did actually reading what is Constitutional and what isn't, we actually might get a decent third party.
Sooo...you are saying conservatives read the constitution too much and should just get out there and protest something?
No I am saying, these self-labeled, conservatives (old values) need to actually understand what the values stated in the constitution are. They're not protesting the correct issues. What the government does with Taxes, is by the Constitution, by-and-by legal and these 'tea party' activists just look plain city. I worded it wrong, I meant if the Conservatives actually spent half the time reading the constitution as they did protesting -- ... I just swapped positions. Woops.
No I am saying, these self-labeled, conservatives (old values) need to actually understand what the values stated in the constitution are. They're not protesting the correct issues. What the government does with Taxes, is by the Constitution, by-and-by legal and these 'tea party' activists just look plain city. I worded it wrong, I meant if the Conservatives actually spent half the time reading the constitution as they did protesting -- ... I just swapped positions. Woops.
Its funny you say that cause I was under the impression that the liberals were the movement based on protesting. Starting with the Vietnam war, it has become a tradition.
Feminists, animal rights activists, anti-war protesters, militant environmentalists, even attacks/threats on churches who supported proposition 8, etc, etc. During the Bush years we never saw ANY protests now did we?
Also, take a look at any conservative university in the US (there are only like 3 total) and see if they protest more than Berkeley.
Its just funny to me to hear liberals complaining that conservatives protest too often.
EDIT: granted, part of this effect is probably explained by the fact that conservatives tend to be older than liberals. Young college students are the most likely to protest ANYTHING so its not surprising that you see more liberal protesters than conservative. At least you don't see Glen Beck and Sean Hannity and the other conservative entertainers walking around naked with signs promoting their agenda (*cough* PETA *cough*).
On April 15 2009 15:25 Railz wrote: - If these conservatives spent half the time protesting their new government as they did actually reading what is Constitutional and what isn't, we actually might get a decent third party.
Sooo...you are saying conservatives read the constitution too much and should just get out there and protest something?
No I am saying, these self-labeled, conservatives (old values) need to actually understand what the values stated in the constitution are. They're not protesting the correct issues. What the government does with Taxes, is by the Constitution, by-and-by legal and these 'tea party' activists just look plain city. I worded it wrong, I meant if the Conservatives actually spent half the time reading the constitution as they did protesting -- ... I just swapped positions. Woops.
Fun fact: The income tax was not originally in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, it's ratification was somewhat contentious.
No I am saying, these self-labeled, conservatives (old values) need to actually understand what the values stated in the constitution are. They're not protesting the correct issues. What the government does with Taxes, is by the Constitution, by-and-by legal and these 'tea party' activists just look plain city. I worded it wrong, I meant if the Conservatives actually spent half the time reading the constitution as they did protesting -- ... I just swapped positions. Woops.
Its funny you say that cause I was under the impression that the liberals were the movement based on protesting. Starting with the Vietnam war, it has become a tradition.
Feminists, animal rights activists, anti-war protesters, militant environmentalists, even attacks/threats on churches who supported proposition 8, etc, etc. During the Bush years we never saw ANY protests now did we?
Also, take a look at any conservative university in the US (there are only like 3 total) and see if they protest more than Berkeley.
Its just funny to me to hear liberals complaining that conservatives protest too often.
Well, I'm neither a Liberal nor a Conservative if you're done applying some sort of judgment based on such hostile text. I'm saying merely protesting in and of itself is not an issue. Its a free right. Code Pink is one of the stupidest organizations I've ever seen as far as a political protest group has gone. But that now is one of the few times in the past years where we've had both a Democratic Congress and President, and the 'conservatives' are lashing out at pretty asinine "Tea Bag Terror: Protests Causing Scares, Evacuations At Congressional Offices" by the http://taxdayteaparty.com/ group is really just a tad overboard. The ideal is fine, being against taxing, but sending unknown bags to Congress offices is pretty silly.
Also if you want to get into a fight over protest groups, I'm pretty sure WestBoro Baptist church takes the cake(I hate PETA and Code Pink so I have no sense saying they're right, but they get their just desserts), and they label themselves as Republicans, even though we both know they really don't hold those beliefs.
On April 15 2009 15:25 Railz wrote: - If these conservatives spent half the time protesting their new government as they did actually reading what is Constitutional and what isn't, we actually might get a decent third party.
Sooo...you are saying conservatives read the constitution too much and should just get out there and protest something?
No I am saying, these self-labeled, conservatives (old values) need to actually understand what the values stated in the constitution are. They're not protesting the correct issues. What the government does with Taxes, is by the Constitution, by-and-by legal and these 'tea party' activists just look plain city. I worded it wrong, I meant if the Conservatives actually spent half the time reading the constitution as they did protesting -- ... I just swapped positions. Woops.
Fun fact: The income tax was not originally in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, it's ratification was somewhat contentious.
I'd consider regulation and commerce having a hold on Taxation, but that again is the rise to interpretations of the Constitution.
If you were against the Iraq War, you were un-American, unpatriotic, hated America, and should just leave. If you don't like the fact that you lost a fair election now, you are a patriot defending American virtues etc.
Get over it, right-wing, you lost the election. What Obama is doing is nowhere near as bad as what Bush did, but yet people who said that Bush might be wrong were un-American, hated America, etc. Very strong hypocrisy from that camp.
I get the impression that your digestive tract is contiguous with a pipe leading from your mouth to your favorite news source's anus. Trying to compartmentalize everyone into a quaint little box is juvenile and shows how little you know about people.
You come across as very insecure suggesting that the party you don't agree with should, "get over it" -- followed by a statement to reassure yourself that you're on the winning side, but having the balls to end with a lecture of hypocrisy is the icing on the cake. If you really believe what you said then I'd venture to say that you're -- at best -- no better in your thinking than those you've aimed to demonize.
Free thinking will always trump blind faith and ignorant partisanship.
If you were against the Iraq War, you were un-American, unpatriotic, hated America, and should just leave. If you don't like the fact that you lost a fair election now, you are a patriot defending American virtues etc.
Get over it, right-wing, you lost the election. What Obama is doing is nowhere near as bad as what Bush did, but yet people who said that Bush might be wrong were un-American, hated America, etc. Very strong hypocrisy from that camp.
I get the impression that your digestive tract is contiguous with a pipe leading from your mouth to your favorite news source's anus. Trying to compartmentalize everyone into a quaint little box is juvenile and shows how little you know about people.
You come across as very insecure suggesting that the party you don't agree with should, "get over it" -- followed by a statement to reassure yourself that you're on the winning side, but having the balls to end with a lecture of hypocrisy is the icing on the cake. If you really believe what you said then I'd venture to say that you're -- at best -- no better in your thinking than those you've aimed to demonize.
Free thinking will always trump blind faith and ignorant partisanship.
I am thinking VERY seriously of making your first sentence my new quote. That post was brutal and poignant.
EDIT: Sorry, I finally decided to go with Winston Churchill instead.
At some point the republicain party has to change. They are playing to their base way to much. All these crazy fucking religulous nuts are NEVER going to vote democratic anyway. All they did with all this gay marriage/ stem cell research/abortion crap is push people in the center towards the democratic party because they look slightly less insane. There really is no place in both partys for fiscal conservatives anymore. People who want smaller goverment and low taxes are pretty much assed out. They wont split with the republican party because then you just have two smaller weaker partys. However they clearly have to retake control of the party and the neo cons have to go on the back burner for a while.
If you were against the Iraq War, you were un-American, unpatriotic, hated America, and should just leave. If you don't like the fact that you lost a fair election now, you are a patriot defending American virtues etc.
Get over it, right-wing, you lost the election. What Obama is doing is nowhere near as bad as what Bush did, but yet people who said that Bush might be wrong were un-American, hated America, etc. Very strong hypocrisy from that camp.
I get the impression that your digestive tract is contiguous with a pipe leading from your mouth to your favorite news source's anus. Trying to compartmentalize everyone into a quaint little box is juvenile and shows how little you know about people.
You come across as very insecure suggesting that the party you don't agree with should, "get over it" -- followed by a statement to reassure yourself that you're on the winning side, but having the balls to end with a lecture of hypocrisy is the icing on the cake. If you really believe what you said then I'd venture to say that you're -- at best -- no better in your thinking than those you've aimed to demonize.
Free thinking will always trump blind faith and ignorant partisanship.
I am thinking VERY seriously of making your first sentence my new quote. That post was brutal and poignant.
EDIT: Sorry, I finally decided to go with Winston Churchill instead.
Mister Churchill wasn't a fan of anything pertaining to forms of government. He definitely favored ultimate victory and a mob rule.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
EPT
