I’m a right wing extremist!
I always considered myself a conservative first, and a Republican second. My core values are based on moralist views, and a respect for the history of the Constitution. I try to craft my views on the principles of our founding fathers. Some people have called me a neocon, bigot, tinfoil hatter, birther, and other names not fit for publishing. I have been physically threatened for writing about my views, and those threats have increased as the new Administration gains in its power.
Being called names by others that don’t believe the same way as I do, has until now been a moot point. They are my opinions, and I am entitled to them, but now I have a new label, one that has been attached to me by way of a Department of Homeland Security report to the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. First let’s show you who they label as a “Right Wing Extremist.” All wording from the report will appear in blue.
(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.
Although the Constitution grants states the majority of control, this report tends to label that authority and the people who agree with it as extremists. This only goes from bad to worse, as we see from the wording of this report, that ANYONE who disagrees with the Administration as a right wing extremist. Nowhere in the report is “left wing extremism” even mentioned. The report speaks about “skinheads” and militias, but never speaks a word about ACORN as being detrimental to the well being of our country. Let’s view more.
(U//LES) The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific
information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence,
but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about
several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first
African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and
(U//LES) Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first
African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new
members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal
through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.
(U//FOUO) The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of
military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities
could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists
capable of carrying out violent attacks.
The DHS report speaks nothing of proof of the claims they make, only to instill a paranoid delusion in law enforcement units across the country. It is very obvious this is a mandate handed down from the Oval Office to demonize any and all people who don’t believe in present governmental policies. This reads like the movie “1984,” let’s read on.
(U//FOUO) Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans
likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups,
as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for
violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and
stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation
of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary
concern to law enforcement
(U//FOUO) Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are
attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing
extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to
boost their violent capabilities.
(U//LES) Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment
tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential
administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and
citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms
ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns
and leverage them as drivers for recruitment. From the 2008 election timeframe to the
present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential sympathizers.
They don’t think twice to label my opinions as “propoganda,” but think nothing of furthering their own, they site specific issues that separate the two parties and ideologies, but consider what we believe as extremist, and worthy of violence.
(U//FOUO) Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists, including militias and
white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action, rallying point, and recruiting tool. Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent.
(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremist groups’ frustration over a
perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration has the potential to incite
individuals or small groups toward violence. If such violence were to occur, it likely
would be isolated, small-scale, and directed at specific immigration-related targets
(U//FOUO) Many rightwing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a
threat to their right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition stockpiling, as well as renewed participation in paramilitary training exercises. Such activity, combined with a heightened level of extremist paranoia, has the potential to facilitate criminal activity and violence.
This report tries to link people who disagree with current policies as being on the same plain with Timothy McVeigh. Like I said earlier, no proof…….just the same phrase “potential to facilitate criminal activity and violence.”
(U//FOUO) On the current front, legislation has been proposed this year
requiring mandatory registration of all firearms in the United States. Similar
legislation was introduced in 2008 in several states proposing mandatory tagging
and registration of ammunition. It is unclear if either bill will be passed into law;
nonetheless, a correlation may exist between the potential passage of gun control
legislation and increased hoarding of ammunition, weapons stockpiling, and
paramilitary training activities among rightwing extremists.
(U//FOUO) Weapons rights and gun-control legislation are likely to be hotly contested
subjects of political debate in light of the 2008 Supreme Court’s decision in District of
Columbia v. Heller in which the Court reaffirmed an individual’s right to keep and bear
arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but left open to debate the
precise contours of that right. Because debates over constitutional rights are intense, and
parties on all sides have deeply held, sincere, but vastly divergent beliefs, violent
extremists may attempt to co-opt the debate and use the controversy as a radicalization
At least they are tipping their hand on further legislation on guns in the U.S. They wonder why we are upset about current policies? Controversy as a radicalization tool?
(U//FOUO) Rightwing extremist paranoia of foreign regimes could escalate or be
magnified in the event of an economic crisis or military confrontation, harkening back to
the “New World Order” conspiracy theories of the 1990s. The dissolution of Communist
countries in Eastern Europe and the end of the Soviet Union in the 1990s led some
rightwing extremists to believe that a “New World Order” would bring about a world
government that would usurp the sovereignty of the United States and its Constitution,
thus infringing upon their liberty. The dynamics in 2009 are somewhat similar, as other
countries, including China, India, and Russia, as well as some smaller, oil-producing
states, are experiencing a rise in economic power and influence.
The demonizing of people who think that the new administration has crossed the boundary of world governance, is in a way a violation of free speech, at the least it minimizes the credibility of another point of view, in the worst it enforces the “one view” of the Obama Administration.
To see the whole disgusting report: