Is this for real?…was this composed by our government?

This is one of the more Scary things I’ve read….I have a question…did the ‘Talking point’ come first or did this Doc.?

Is there a report on Leftwing extremism also?..probably not

“Why yes, I *am* a Right Wing Extremist!”

Two points that jump out at me:

1. The report makes much of rightwing angst over NAFTA and international trade, outsourcing, job losses, etc. as being issues that drive supposed extremism. It’s certainly true that in the 1990′s (which serves as the reference point for much of the discussion) these issues did foment extremism on the fringe right, as well as in the mainstream right. But this seems less an issue of the right than the left these days, kicking off most notably with the 1999 Seattle riots against the World Trade Organization, which were distinctly leftist in nature.

2. As noted by Moe, the reports authors fail to attach any sort of meaningful numbers to “extremists,” although militias and the Christian Identity movement are referenced. More importantly, it fails to set any meaningful boundaries or definitions on what is and is not extremism. On the issue of immigration, for instance, is everybody that says “No more immigration” or “round all the illegals up and deport them” an extremist? What if they throw in a few anti-hispanic slurs? Is there some meaningful distinction between an extremist and someone who’s merely passionate on the issue?

I would suggest there is, one that the report touches on but does not include in their definition: the use, advocacy, or tolerance of violence in order to achieve their aims. It’s one thing to advocate a hard-line position on gun rights, “out of my cold, dead fingers” and so forth, but it’s entirely another to go gunning for cops in Pittsburgh.

Instead the report seizes on the idea that “hate” can somehow be used to identify extremists, the problem being that a sizeable portion of the political left has essentially decreed that failure to adhere to their approved orthodoxy on certain issues is proof that one is motivated by hate. Not all on the left by any means have this perspective, and too many on the right buy into it as well, but the fact remains that a large segment of the American public simply cannot tolerate the idea that others may have legitimate and sincere, if mistaken, beliefs that do not conform to their own. Allowing someone with such a mindset to labeling groups as “hate-based” would lead to potentially horrifying outcomes, particularly given curious ideas about the First Amendment, such as that it doesn’t apply to “lies” or “hate speech.”

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
sparnell@campaignfreedom.org

The trick is you have to precede “terrorist” with “rightwing” and you’re golden. If you use oh I don’t know, let’s say “Islamic” in front of it you’re misusing language if not out and out committing a hate crime.

I suppose they can’t simply come out and say “Any person who doesn’t support the vision for a socialist United States with all power emanating solely from the Federal government.” will be branded a ‘right-wing extremist’.

Count me in.

Since I support the Tea Parties and am proud to be a Conservative Tea Bagger!

Admittedly, I haven’t completely devoured both documents but isn’t this quite similar to the “report” issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center that targeted “militias” and “Ron Paul” bumper stickers??

http://www.privacylives.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/miacreport_022009.pdf

(I still can’t seem to be able to post a link…arggh.)

First, there wouldn’t have been a “leaker”; this is marked as “Unclassified” on it’s cover. I was a little suspicious that it would be maked both “Unclassified” and “For Official Use Only”; the only place I’ve ever seen that phrase is on government office supplies (envelopes, pens, etc). Any document that is intended for restricted distribution would have been marked “Confidential” or “Restricted”, not “Unclassified”.

Second, all official government documents have control numbers, and any that are marked “Unclassified” as this one is, are available through the Government Printing Office. I checked the number on the cover (IA-205709) with the GPO’s catalog, and found nothing.

I’m pretty sure this is a hoax; these days an official-looking document isn’t all that hard to fake.

As is anyone who prefers Washington, Madison and the rest over Robespierre, Marx and Lenin.

Count me in.

Hmmm, I wonder who is more likely to shoot up a McDonalds today. Al Qaeda, or a recently unemployed militia member convinced Obama is coming to convert him to Islam and take away his guns, bolstered in part by Michelle Bachman’s call to armed resistance?

If we were in Vegas, the odds wouldn’t even be close.

Numerous weapons -Check, Government Contractor -Check…
Out of a Job – wait a minute I am not an extremist, what are you saying I am fired, because of this document, What? I serve my country for the last 10+ years and now you are firing me because I have a DTOM Flag, I am a Conservative, with numerous weapons.

Simply priceless, no doubt they will be coming for me soon.

Proudly. Be afraid, be very afraid, be scared of all 5’4″, 115 pounds of me….and my bite is far worse than my bark. Mainly because I am a cardcarrying, gun toting, Coulter reading, Limbaugh listening, crazy person who knows how to create an actual thought in her head.

Please honor me with adding me to the “list”.

I was raised a Democrat, but married into a conservative family, and found myself consistently loosing arguments; not because they argue better (I’m an Italian from the East Coast, they’re from the Midwest – arguing is in my genes), but because, dang it, I was just finding it harder and harder to defend what the Democrats stood for. Then came 9/11…

Truth is, one of the first things I plan to do once I have a full-time job again and we’re back on our feet financially, is to buy a gun, and a LOT of ammunition. Not because I feel I need a gun to protect my family from the government (and God help me if I ever do, cuz, well, “three shots for three kills off the faintail of a destroyer at sea, at night with a few seconds warning” – DANG!). Nope, I want that handgun because it’s my right to own one, and no one has the right to tell me that I can’t (except maybe the wife, but that’s another story)

Count me in.

We gun owners who know the 2nd Amendment is about more than hunting and target shooting are John McClaine.

“Welcome to the party, pal!”

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/

To what lengths won’t the left go? Now our own government legitimizes undermining the Right as “domestic terrorists” ? So now we are lumped in with loonies and skin heads. If this wasn’t so serious it would be laughable. so when can we expect the Secret Service knock at the door? Watch for the guys with the white ear mics in the crowds at the Tea Parties,and the PTO,and church fish fries.
Well we knew this coming,time to step it up!
Thing is the Democrats are standing next to us at these Tea Parties so now are they rightwingers,too?

If this is real, and if it hasn’t already been mentioned, the scariest thing about this is the fact that somebody in government sees a reason to categorize some “extremists” as “rightwing.” Yet the effect is to convert the term “rightwing” into a synonym for “extremist.”

Most of the activities mentioned are neither extreme nor illegal; they simply are activities or beliefs that the author disagrees with. The effect works something like (for example)

“Extremist = Terrorist Wacko = Timothy McVeigh = Returning Military Member = Typical of Military Members = Second Amendment Defenders = …Extremists?”

None of this is political, yet “rightwing” is by definition political.

This paper is an attempt to defame a political movement as being somehow extreme, irrational, and illegal, when in fact the individual activities being examined are squarely mainstream and Constitutionally protected.

In fact, it’s clever propaganda and a dangerous statement of orientation if genuine, and a fantastic parody of the Left’s approach to political debate if it’s fake.

This passage is very troubling indeed:

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.

Who will be the ultimate arbiter of what is protected speech under the First Amendment and what is deemed hate-orientated extremism?

I would expect this type of document to come out of the governments of Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, or Saddam Husein.

It reads like a “How to identify” Gestapo guide or should I dare say O-stapo.