Example of Right Wing Extremist Violence
People who are opposed to President Obama and the Democratic Party because of policy differences are not right wing extremists. Those that engage or plan to engage in violence because of those differences are.
Don’t know if anyone saw that Greg Sargent got a copy of the left-wing extremists DHS report today.
So the DHS is concerned with potential domestic terrorism from both ends of the fringe. But I doubt that the mainstream left is going to get their grievances on over this. Why? Because as I noted yesterday, the mainstream left is pretty good at shunning our own crazies, thankyouverymuch. Even if we might be politically sympatico, it is very difficult to stand with people who are indulging in criminal activity. And infiltrating animal research facilities to release the animals or to damage the research is NOT civil disobedience.
Maybe our wingnut friends are so acclimated to their own violent rhetoric that they can’t possibly see the difference between themselves, and, say these guys. Or perhaps these concerned rightwingers need to explain why it is that no one really needed law enforcement to be worried about those guys in the first place.
There’s always the same running theme/excuse for the visceral response you’ll get from wingnuttia about this photo, along with the maimed soldier pic from DV’s Vets Day post….
The rebel rousers on the right claim ignorance to the violence they set off. They’ll raise their self-professed clean hands and say: “Hey, we had nothing to do with it because we didn’t physically do it!”
They’ll raise their self-professed clean hands and say: “Hey, we had nothing to do with it because we didn’t physically do it!”
Of course, this excuse never applies to Muslims, illegal (and legal) immigrants, and other minorities.
That said, their silence towards the crazies drawn to their party is speaking. Sane Republicans must start speaking out, especially since the nuts are quoting present day Republican talking points.
IDK why, but I have been asking for a long time about what I call the “apology racket.” When some liberal somewhere says something crazy, then whenever a Democrat has to go on TV they are immediately asked to either apologize for someone else’s remark or disown it. It rarely if ever happens with conservatives. I always say that conservatives own their crazies and never apologize for them. I think I see this beginning to change because Bachmann had to apologize for her “anti America Congressmen” remark and some RWers seem awful upset to be lumped in with some of the extreme teabagger rhetoric.
I suppose that anyone who does not love Big Brother is defined as a radical in the NewSpeak that passes as political correctness.
Sane republicans are speaking out, but are mocked or blatantly defamed by the media (for example, yesterday’s Tea Party in Chicago “interview” by CNN). The problem that a lot of conservatives have with the DHS report is the broad wording that could easily include just about any conservative who stands for a particular issue.
I’m sure you’ve read it, but just in case:
“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.”
What is the definition of antigovernment? At this point, I am antigovernment. It is corrupt, it is doing things (both in this administration AND the last) that I vehemently stand against. But I am not an extremist. I am not a domestic terrorist. I believe in state sovereignty. I believe that the Federal government holds entirely too much power, thanks to Bush and Obama.
It’s frightening language and that’s why people are upset.
As for the comment on extreme teabagger rhetoric…why is protesting against what you don’t believe in considered extreme. I consider it a constitutional obligation.
Jen, you do know that DHS issued a similar report on liberal extremist groups in January, and that both reports were commissioned by Bush.
I’m really confused why conservatives are so upset by this. It’s not about you!
Jen – please enumerate the reasons that the Obama administration is corrupt. I find it hard to swallow that they are corrupt after 90 days in office.
In response to pandora, yes, I am aware of the leftwing report. As far as the reports being commissioned by Bush as opposed to Obama, I don’t really think that makes a difference and don’t believe I said anything in my first post to imply that it does.
While the reports are similar in nature, the language is very different. Here’s how DHS defined leftwing extremism:
“DHS…defines leftwing extremist as groups or individuals who embrace radical elements of the anarchist, animal rights, or environmental movements and are often willing to violate the law to achieve their objectives.”
This is very specific in stating that these people embrace the radical and prone to breaking the law to achieve their agenda. In the rightwing report, however, it states in the second part of the division (which would also imply that the second category would be non-violent since the first part concerned those that use violence) that you are an extremist if you are antigovernment, reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. Basically this can be interpreted as “If you disagree with us, we’re going to keep an eye on you because you are a radical.”
This country was established by our founders who were fleeing from tyranny. The wording of this report makes many of us fearful that if we raise our voice in opposition to the government, particularly the federal government, we could be censored or even punished.
In regards to liberalgeek, I was not stating the the Obama administration specifically is or isn’t corrupt, but rather that the government as a whole is (although, I think it may be a little naive to assume that anyone in office for only 90 days can’t be corrupt…it’s not like they pull presidents off the street. They have a long political history and plenty of opportunity to make shady deals). As far as general government corruption, Chris Dodd is a recent example. The office for sale in Illinois is another. I’m not trying to single our liberals either, but those were the ones that came to mind. Obviously there is corruption on both sides, Republicans and Democrats alike. (Hello, Bush…)
But the day that I cannot protest against my government when I see that they are more interested with putting money in their pockets and gaining personal power, well, that is a very scary day indeed.
The difference in language reflects the difference in the ways that the left vs the right wing extremists violate the law. The left wing extremists tend towards property crimes, while the rightwing extremists tend to want to hurt people. Think of these guys — Tim McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, James Kopp, Paul Hill — and you can see the difference between them.
Right, and agreed, but those people are covered in the first “division.”
Jen,
But the day that I cannot protest against my government when I see that they are more interested with putting money in their pockets and gaining personal power, well, that is a very scary day indeed.
it’s all about timing and the smell test
Art,
I suppose that anyone who does not love Big Brother is defined as a radical in the NewSpeak that passes as political correctness.
Again timing is everything. 8 years ago people that questioned were pussies. Now the people that question are patriots. Strange no?
Scratch that last comment, I re-read it and I am incorrect. It doesn’t mention violence specifically at all. I do not see the difference in language as having much to do with violence vs. non-violence as you say. The problem I have is the hugely broad definition of the second division where extremists are those who basically disagree with government, with no stipulation that they are law-breakers.
And also, I don’t think anyone is saying that this definition is being used against anyone at this point in time, but thanks to G.W. throwing away Habeas Corpus, it could very well be used in the future. Obama has already refused to get rid of the ridiculousness that is the Patriot Act. All it takes these days is suspicion, and your life is in ruins.
To those of you dogging the Tea Party, you obviously don’t know the meaning of it. So you should get educated before commits are made. You need to turn off msnbc who make stuff up. I know cause I watch them all and use my own brain. So stop being robots use your brains and try common sense and logic. I know that common sense and logic are strange words to you, but try it. Come on you can do it.
jeff, you mean as opposed to lord high Glenn who tells you to believe in something even if it isn’t true?
I am constantly amused by the exhortation to greater use of common sense and logic by those with the least familiarity with either.
he thought he was being witty. little does he know, DL invented wit and dickish sarcasm.
Delicious irony!
I am just a guy who is not radical right or loony left. I watch Fox, Cnn and MSNBC (even though MSNBC is the worst stuff I have ever seen). I watch local stuff and listen to various radio programs to get educated. Then I use that common sense and logic I was talking about to make my own decisions…..simple.
so what you are saying jeff, is that you watch/read “everything…. just anything that happens to come across your desk”. cograts bro. you are AS informed as Sarah Palin.
Ahh yes , but at least I am informed. Cracks me up that you actually still pick on Sarah Palin, that’s funny.