About us Login Get email updates
Karl Frisch
Print

About that DHS report

June 11, 2009 9:50 pm ET

Fringe extremism is a scary, sometimes deadly reality, regardless of the ideology that creates it.

In early April, a Department of Homeland Security report detailing potential increases in right-wing extremism was made public. The report concluded that "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 recruitment." The report also cited as potential mobilizing issues for right-wing extremism "immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use."

The DHS also cited a 2008 FBI report from the Bush administration in which the FBI's Counterterrorism Division found with "[h]igh confidence" that "[m]ilitary experience is found throughout the white supremacist extremist movement as the result of recruitment campaigns by extremist groups and self-recruitment by veterans sympathetic to white supremacist causes."

For many, the report was a chilling reminder of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 by Timothy McVeigh that killed 168 American men, women, and children.

To others, namely media conservatives, the report was seen as an affront to conservatives and conservatism in general.

In the days and weeks following the release of the DHS report, conservative cable news and radio hosts, columnists, bloggers, and political pundits mounted an all-out assault on the Obama administration for, in their eyes, targeting those who disagree with his policies.

CNN's Lou Dobbs asked viewers, "Do you think a person concerned about borders and ports that are unsecured, illegal immigration, Second Amendment rights, or a returning veteran from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is likely or even possibly probable, as the Department of Homeland Security suggests, to be a right-wing extremist?"

Fox News' Sean Hannity said of the report, "Now if you disagree with that liberal path that President Obama's taken the country down, you may soon catch the attention of the Department of Homeland Security."

Michelle Malkin posted an entry on her conservative blog titled "Confirmed: The Obama DHS hit job on conservatives is real," writing, "[T]he piece of crap report issued on April 7 is a sweeping indictment of conservatives."

During an appearance on Fox News, conservative columnist William Kristol called the report "juvenile," saying it "reveal[ed]" that the Obama administration "think[s] about veterans" as "pathological killers." It must have slipped Kristol's mind that the DHS report drew upon a Bush-era FBI report for its conclusion on some returning "military personnel."

Responding to the report, Michael Savage, America's third-most-listened-to radio host, declared that the government was out "to take your" freedom and guns, predicting "a Reichstag fire in this country within one year."

And yet, even to conservatives often thought of as more reasonable, like MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, it was the Obama administration that was stoking fear, and worse.

This DHS report was hardly unique. In fact, just a few months earlier, on January 26, the DHS issued a similar assessment of left-wing extremism, concluding that "a number of emerging trends point to leftwing extremists maturing and expanding their cyber attack capabilities over the next decade with the aim of attacking targets in the United States."

It mattered little that similar reports on the threat of other extremist elements had been released in the past. Acknowledging the existence of such reports would be to deny the conservative chattering class yet another opportunity to stoke the fears of its audience.

Far from lumping all conservatives, liberals, and religious people in with the fringe extremist elements of which they speak, these reports are meant to warn law-enforcement agencies of potential domestic security threats.

Of late, we've seen too much evidence to ignore the threat of homegrown extremism, right-wing or otherwise.

On April 4, Richard Poplawski, a conspiracy nut who embraced radical rhetoric and, as one friend put it, feared "the Obama gun ban that's on the way" (no such ban is in the works) and "didn't like our rights being infringed upon," shot and killed three police officers.

On May 31, Dr. George Tiller, whose clinic legally performed late-term abortions, was shot to death as he entered his Kansas church by Scott Roeder, an anti-choice extremist. In 1985, Tiller's clinic was bombed, and in 1993, he was shot in both arms by an anti-choice activist.

On June 1, Muslim convert Abdulhakim Bledsoe, in an act of domestic terrorism, opened fire on a military recruiting center in Arkansas, killing Pvt. William Long and wounding Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula.

On June 12, James W. von Brunn, a reported white supremacist with extreme anti-government views, entered the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum with a rifle, shooting and killing a security guard while leaving another unnamed victim injured.

In the wake of these attacks, it shouldn't be too much to ask that these reports be taken seriously rather than used to score political points. Unfortunately, media conservatives seem more interested in stoking the unfounded fears of their audience -- the government is somehow out to get them -- than they are in the security and safety of the American people.

After all, a frightened audience is a captive audience.

Karl Frisch is a Senior Fellow at Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog and research and information center based in Washington, D.C. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook or sign up to receive his columns by email.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by njguy93 (June 11, 2009 11:37 pm ET)
      1  
      These idiots were calling for Janet Napolitano to resign. Now that she has been vindicated, they should resign.

      THANK YOU.
      njguy93@yahoo.com
      Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 12, 2009 10:29 am ET)
      1 1
      They're scum. They lie in order to be apologoiists for the indefensible. It's hard for me NOT to want to see some "left-wing extremeism" visited upon every single one of them. Of course... according to DHS, lefties use computers, while righties use guns. So unless Bill O'Rielly was strangled with a power chord or Mike Savage was beaten to death with a laptop, I doubt we'd even notice if they WERE "victims of left-wing extremins,"
      Report Abuse
      • Author by eddiebear2 (June 12, 2009 10:39 am ET)
          3
        So the recruiting station shooter was conservative?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (June 12, 2009 11:09 am ET)
          6  
          Yes, he was.

          Why? Typically religious zealots lie on the far right wing of the political spectrum. Terrorists, and religious fundamentalists are on the extreme right fringe of the political spectrum.

          What do you think the shooter was?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 12, 2009 1:23 pm ET)
          3  
          Socially speaking? YES. His actions were motivatde by RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM. That a RW phenomona. You bought it - you won it.

          Liberals despise religious extremism of ALL KINDS. (Conservtives of ANY religion only hate extremism when it's done by someone who doesn't share their own religious beliefs.) That the guy may have even voted democrat (and I don't believe that's been proven) is irrelevant, becasue there is NOTHING liberal about killing in the name of [insert name of your god hear]. That's a conservative disease.

          Otherwise, you show me where in Obama's books this guy woudl have gotten the idea to kill in the name of Allah. Good luck with that.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (June 12, 2009 2:58 pm ET)
          2  
          Yes he was, about as right wing as this guy is.

          Colmes: ...you then said, I asked for whom else are you praying in that fashion and you said President Obama. Are you praying for his death?

          Drake: Yes.

          Colmes: So you're praying for the death of the president of the United States?

          Drake: Yes. Are you concerned that by saying that you might find yourself on some secret service call or FBI most wanted list. Do you think it's appropriate to say something like that or even pray for something like that?

          Drake: I think it's appropriate to pray for the will of God. I'm not saying anything, what I'm doing is repeating what God is saying, if that puts me on somebodies list then I'll just have to be on their list.

          Colmes: You would like for the president of the United States to die?

          Drake: If he does not turn to God and does not turn his life around I am asking God to enforce in imprecatory prayers throughout the scripture that would cause him death, that's correct.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by ToddK_Chicago (June 12, 2009 10:33 am ET)
      3  
      But it was the MSM that gave rise to the pushback on the report. If they did a better job of explaining the inaccuracy of what these conservative talkers were saying, then the taint on the DHS report would have never been.

      It is like the third rail for the MSM -- if the conservatives feel at all slighted, ignore the facts or context and just report their ridiculous accusations. It is a recipe for disaster -- just like the Iraq War, torture, the prisoners in Guantanamo -- and now the abuse photos. They are never on the side of educating the public -- only creating conflict at opposite ends to increase their revenue. Ain't working so well for the NY Times though. They alienated their base readers -- you know, the ones looking for proper context and facts.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Suite16226 (June 12, 2009 12:17 pm ET)
      1 1
      "All things in moderation" is the moral to this story. The right has its own perspective, just as the left does - and there are lots of hybrids in between. What needs to STOP is the extreme fear mongering on both sides. The conservative media needs to stop pandering fear, hatred and racism, but alas, to focus merely on facts just isn't as sexy or compelling. The left can do some of the same - MSNBC was nothing but stories & headlines of "conservative extremism" last night, which is just as polarizing & devisive.

      Besides, the conservative media loves the role of martyr and persecuted, if you want to really irritate them, IGNORE THEM. You can almost make a drinking came out of the number of times Rush Limbaugh's name is mentioned on MSNBC nightly.

      I've seen so many relationships torn apart because of politics. What happened to intellectual debate? This is why I prefer NPR - their reports are THOUGHT provoking. Mainstream media is just trying to provoke fights, with hosts saying "ok, I'll mediate, you guys go at it now".

      I can only hope that now that we've had a series of unfortunate incidents, the media may finally start to understand the concept of CAUSE & EFFECT. There are consequences to their actions - when you fan the flame, you can't stand back and be surprised when a fire starts.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (June 12, 2009 3:46 pm ET)
        3 1
        This is the old cannard of "both sides are doing it", or have done it, and that's just not true.

        I can't find examples of left wingers on news and or radio who talk in such radical tones about Bush, or other republicans leaders such as conservatives have done. If there are examples out there, please point me in the correct direction.

        We shouldn't ignore the conservative media when they are espousing a potentially harmful and threatening standpoint. Ignore them at your own peril really.

        I agree, there are still some last bastions of intellectual debate, but more and more, I see more bluster and innuendo and misinformation from conservative sources, instead of arguing with facts, and opinion based on fact, they argue with strawmen, and bluster.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by LuvLuLu (June 13, 2009 1:10 am ET)
             
          You got it. It's almost as if they can't defend their political philosophy with facts opinions based upon reality. One has to wonder if they really think that their philosophy is so lacking that it can't be defended, or if they are just that incompetent!
          Report Abuse
    • Author by mikehuck1976 (June 12, 2009 4:11 pm ET)
      2  
      You reap what you sow. This site as well as right-wing radio and Fox News were full of contempt for Obama and his administration because the DHS came out with an honest law enforcement report detailing the upcoming threats. Where have we hear that before? The right-wing, which unfortunately is now the mainstream of the Republican party, could not stop saying that this report (which was aimed at right-wing extremism) was aimed at them directly. Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, Malkin, Coulter, "fair"-liberal, markb, could not get outraged enough that these "right-wing extremists" were really them. Couldn't be the McVeigh types, the Von Brunn types. No, clearly it's meant for Hannity.

      I was mystified as to why the Republican party would want to associate themselves with right-wing militias and anti-government extremist groups, but that is the modern Republican party and their tendency to cannabilize themselves at every turn. I have gone back and read comments from the right-wing apologists on this site and it was full of attacks on Obama of "fascism" and he was starting his own "police state", etc. These are the seeds you have sown.

      I find it sad and laughable that now that this report has been shown to have considerable merit, the right wing is so offended that anyone would dare connect them to these "right-wing extremists". That is exactly what they did for weeks in their pathetic attempt to lob some kind of feable attack at Napolitano and Obama. So to all of you apologists for the right-wing nuts on this site, think about this the next time you go off on some ridiculous, childish, phony outrage at Obama for what you surmise may be political points. Remember that you attacked Obama for daring to suggest that there may be right-wing anti-abortion groups out there willing to kill or that there may be anti-government nuts with a military background that may become incensed enough to launch attacks in our country. You attacked our president for daring to suggest such a thing and were then proven WRONG in very short order and you are now left flailing about suggesting that these nuts weren't "really right-wing" and maybe they even "leftists". Cause Hitler was really a liberal, and, and, and.... Get ahold of yourselves and look at what you have become. Look at what you are forced to defend within the modern day Republican party.
      Report Abuse