Obama Administration: Veterans, Pro-Lifers, Gun Enthusiasts and Those Skeptical of Washington are “Right Wing Extremists”

In a blatant propaganda effort designed to characterize conservatives as racist, anti-American, dangerous extremists, the Obama Administration is attacking many law abiding citizens – from veterans and pro-lifers to anyone who dares question the wisdom of Washington. For the many Americans increasingly skeptical of an out-of-control federal government that is more interested in international popularity than preservation of liberty – the Department of Homeland Security’s report titled, “Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” is an unfair characterization and is without question a naked, political effort to marginalize those who would question the wisdom of those in Washington.

The details of the report are being covered well. Drudge has linked to the WorldNet Daily story on his home page.
Michelle Malkin has excellent coverage of the story on her home page, as well, including numerous of the troubling excerpts.

Of particular note, however, is a footnote on the first page (a page that notes at the top, by the way, that there is no specific information of domestic “rightwing” organizations currently planning acts of violence…) defining “rightwing extremism:”

* (U) 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.

Now, setting aside the obvious question of a federal department focusing on supposed “rightwing” extremism as opposed to that of the left wing (see, e.g., the likes of ACORN, William Ayers, gay activists targeting Mormons and others supporting marriage legislation, leftist groups threatening disruption of the “tea parties,” etc…), the paragraph is dripping with the all-too-common false characterization of conservatives as racist and “hate-oriented.”

This is – without doubt – an intentional, willful effort to connect belief in federalism, skepticism of Washington, respect for the role of state and local government, and all other variations of limited government conservatism directly to extremism, to racism, to “hate,” and to generally marginalize conservatives as “right wing” extremists. It is so blatant, that the Obama Administration felt it necessary to distance itself from the report ever-so-slightly by saying the President is not focused on politics.

Consider that the report implicates as extremist or possible extremists the following:
– “Disgruntled” Military Veterans;
– Those who perceived threat from the rise of other countries;
– Gun owners/enthusiasts who are skeptical of judicial and legislative efforts to curtail their Second Amendment rights;
– Pro-life individuals and groups opposed to abortion;
– Individuals in favor of border security and stopping illegal immigration; and
– Those who discuss or believe in “end times” prophecies.

The language in the footnote above is particularly telling – and troubling. Consider the language of the last sentence suggestion that “rightwing extremism” “may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.” So, that you are particularly focused on one issue important to you is suddenly cause for concern by the federal government. And note that it is individuals AGAINST abortion (not for life) and against immigration (not against ILLEGAL immigration or FOR border security).

But what is particularly galling is the (at least implicit) assertion that anyone who holds the view of rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority is an extremist. This is, again, purposeful. It is an effort to suggest that if you believe that authority is better placed – or even more – Constitutionally required to be placed in the state, local government or individual… you are someone the Department of Homeland Security is concerned about.

Well… Let me be perfectly clear when I state emphatically that I do reject much of the authority asserted by the federal government over the people, the states and local governments. I absolutely do believe the federal government has overstepped its bounds, repeatedly and without the Constitutional basis to do so. I do reject the idea that America is better served by centralization of power and authority in Washington as opposed to deference to the states, local governments and the people – and once more, that as a Constitutional matter, whether America is better served or not is not the central question. Whether the authority exists in the first place IS the central question.

This is not extremism as the liberals at DHS and the White House are trying to define it. It may well be extremism relative to the anti-liberty view of the Statist. But if that is the case, then I proudly declare myself an extremist, for as Barry Goldwater said, “extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.”

Of interest from the report:

U) For comments or questions related to the content or dissemination of this document, please contact the DHS/I&A Production Branch at [email protected], [email protected], or [email protected]

Trending on RedState Video