Cavuto continues Fox paranoia about DHS report
SUMMARY: Neil Cavuto repeatedly advanced the claim that the DHS report detailing potential increases in right-wing extremism targets conservatives simply for holding beliefs contrary to the Obama administration's policies and proposals. In fact, the report does not target conservatives for their beliefs, and Shepard Smith had debunked such claims on Fox News the previous day.
On the April 16 edition of Fox News' Your World, host Neil Cavuto repeatedly advanced the claim that the recently released Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report, which detailed potential increases in right-wing extremism, targets conservatives simply for holding beliefs contrary to the Obama administration's policies and proposals. Cavuto made these claims even though on the April 15 edition of Fox News' Studio B, host Shepard Smith stated that the DHS report "isn't about the tea-party folks." Fox News correspondent Catherine Herridge agreed, stating: "[T]he driver in these intelligence assessments is the downturn in the economy. What they say essentially is that when people have less money, they're out of work, they feel disenfranchised, this is fertile ground for groups on the left as well as groups on the right." Smith later added that "it sounds like just regular-old everyday people who are conservative just got, you know -- got their dander up over something that is not like that."
Media Matters for America has documented that numerous Fox News figures -- including Cavuto -- have responded to the DHS report by alleging or suggesting that the Obama administration is targeting Americans simply because of political differences. In fact, while the report addressed potential issues that could spur right-wing extremism, it did not allege that someone is an extremist simply because he or she holds conservative views.
On the April 16 edition of Your World, Cavuto asserted that the report "more or less states the government considers you a terrorist threat if you oppose abortion, speak out against illegal immigration, or you are a returning war veteran." Additionally, after Sirius XM Radio host Andrew Wilkow asked, "Who's not at this point a right-wing extremist?" Cavuto responded, "Everyone at Fox. Everyone at Fox, right?" Cavuto also stated to Wilkow, "So, you think that if it was a left-wing fringe group, it wouldn't be getting this much attention." Later in the program, Cavuto suggested that because Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) is "speaking to a big right-to-life group tonight," she could be considered a "radical" or "a Homeland Security target" and asked of the report: "Does that make anyone who is pro-life a radical?"
In fact, the report does not define everyone who opposes abortion as a right-wing extremist. The report states only that right-wing extremism "may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration" and that in the 1990s, extremists "exploited a variety of social issues and political themes to increase group visibility and recruit new members," including abortion:
* (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.
[...]
(U//FOUO) Paralleling the current national climate, rightwing extremists during the 1990s exploited a variety of social issues and political themes to increase group visibility and recruit new members. Prominent among these themes were the militia movement's opposition to gun control efforts, criticism of free trade agreements (particularly those with Mexico), and highlighting perceived government infringement on civil liberties as well as white supremacists' longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion, inter-racial crimes, and same-sex marriage. During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors.
Regarding illegal immigration, the report does not state that "the government considers you a terrorist threat if you ... speak out against illegal immigration," but rather states, "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." From the report:
(U) Illegal Immigration
(U//FOUO) Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages. They also opposed free trade agreements, arguing that these arrangements resulted in Americans losing jobs to countries such as Mexico.
(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) DHS/I&A notes that prominent civil rights organizations have observed an increase in anti-Hispanic crimes over the past five years.
-- (U) In April 2007, six militia members were arrested for various weapons and explosives violations. Open source reporting alleged that those arrested had discussed and conducted surveillance for a machinegun attack on Hispanics.
-- (U) A militia member in Wyoming was arrested in February 2007 after communicating his plans to travel to the Mexican border to kill immigrants crossing into the United States.
Moreover, the report does not claim that "the government considers you a terrorist threat if you ... are a returning veteran." It concludes that "rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat." In reaching that conclusion, the DHS cited a 2008 FBI report -- authored during the Bush administration -- that stated, in the words of the DHS, that "some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups."
Further, despite Cavuto's suggestion that "a left-wing fringe group wouldn't be getting this much attention," DHS also issued an assessment on January 26 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," as Herridge noted on the April 15 edition of Studio B. Herridge later added, referring to the reports on left-wing and right-wing extremists, "I would point out that both of these assessments, Shep, were commissioned under the Bush administration. It takes some time to do them. They only came out after he had left office."
From the April 16 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
CAVUTO: Meanwhile, calls are growing at this hour for the president to slam down the controversial Homeland Security report on so-called right-wing extremists. It more or less states the government considers you a terrorist threat if you oppose abortion, speak out against illegal immigration, or you are a returning war veteran. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano apologizing today for at least the war-veteran part, but what about the rest? Conservative Andrew Wilkow, host of The Wilkow Majority on Sirius XM Radio, what do you think?
WILKOW: You forgot coffee drinkers, car owners --
CAVTUO: Yeah, where do you draw the line, right?
WILKOW: Who's not at this point a right-wing extremist?
CAVUTO: Everyone at Fox.
WILKOW: Who's --
CAVUTO: Everyone at Fox, right?
WILKOW: [unintelligible] oogedy-boogedy people. It seems like anyone that doesn't worship in front of the White House is an extremist. I mean -- and this coming from a group of people -- my God, for eight years did you hear the stuff they said about President Bush? Come on. This list is getting -- this list is getting a little extreme.
CAVUTO: So, you think that if it was a left-wing fringe group, it wouldn't be getting this much attention.
WILKOW: Well, I don't see anyone torching cars, throwing garbage cans through. I was at the New York City tea party with Newt Gingrich. I spoke right before Newt. Not one person torched a car, threw a bottle, threw a rock, threw a garbage can through a window. Not one act of incivility at all. Everybody was civil. I saw a beach ball. It was a very -- it was almost like a rock-concert environment, lot of fun. And I just don't understand where this comes from. Who's not a -- seriously? At this point, who's not --
CAVUTO: So, you think they deliberately targeted conservatives and lumped them in the same path as crazies.
WILKOW: You know, people on both sides of the aisle will say things -- "Well I'm not that liberal, I'm not that conservative." All of a sudden, people are finding out that they are in a political ideology that they might not have thought of themselves to be lumped in with because of something on that list. I'm -- If you're pro-life, you're an extremist?
[...]
CAVUTO: Well, you betcha, she's pro-life. Sara Palin speaking to a big right-to-life group tonight. Should that make her a Homeland Security target? Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty weighs in.
[...]
CAVUTO: Well, Sarah Palin is set to address a pro-life group shortly. Does that make her a radical? Governor Tim Pawlenty weighs in on that controversial Homeland Security report.
[...]
CAVUTO: Welcome back, everyone. Former vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin set to address a pro-life group tonight in Indiana. It follows the release of this report on right-wing extremism, singling out groups opposed to abortion. Does that make anyone who is pro-life a radical? Because that would include my next guest, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. Governor, good to have you. What do you make of this?
PAWLENTY: Mr. Cavuto, good to be with you. I think it's absurd. I mean, to suggest that the threat should be characterized in partisan philosophical terms is ridiculous. We had a national convention here in the Twin Cities this past summer, and the groups that were wanting to and in did fact break up the city were, you know, leftists, were anarchists, were people who were opposed to conservative thinking. So, at a minimum, it's unfair, and I think more candidly and bluntly, it's absurd.
CAVUTO: But do you notice that it puts your party in a bit of a box then, because then those who want to remain loyal within the party run way to the right, which, if the Obama folks are right, marginalizes you on the main stage after that?
PAWLENTY: It's quite insidious, Neil, and it's not limited to just the Democrats. There's a kind of a media perspective that if you're conservative, you're somehow, you know, deranged or you're somehow deficient, that if, you know, you were a rational, you know, well-thought-of, intelligent person that you couldn't be a conservative. So, that's embedded I think as a bias in our media culture more broadly. And it's insidious and it's unfair, and I think they should be called on it. And I heard your report earlier that Secretary Napolitano at least partially apologized. They should fully apologize.
CAVUTO: Well, we had a conservative radio host here who all but said, "Look, I see where this is going. If you're on the right, you're wrong and you're a target." Are you?
PAWLENTY: Well, you know, we get the label of "extremists." You know, you saw it early in the earlier decades. They always say, "Well, the religious right." Well, there's also in this country a religious left. And so if you're going to express concerns like that, at least express them fairly. But it's worse than that. I think this is a stigmatizing label. It kind of implies -- in fact, asserts that if you're conservative, you're, you know, dangerous, reckless, deficient. And it's really insulting.
CAVUTO: Well, Sarah Palin is set to address a pro-life group shortly. Does that make her a radical?
No, her view that rape victims shouldn't get emergency contraception is what makes her a radical. It's an excellent example of how all conservatives are not being painted as extremists, Neil, if only someone on your propaganda network would point it out.
Pro lifers, as a whole, aren't radical. But the small sub set of people within that larger group that have, in the past, bombed doctor's offices, and shot and killed doctors are the radicals.
I would argue that someone who takes the risk of putting a rape victim into pregnancy for the sake of some moral absolutism about birth control (as if God wanted the woman to be pregnant from rape or something) is doing harm. It indicates a mode of thinking that one's personal views trump the well-being of others. Whether she's capable of violence herself or not, I would definitely classify her as a radical.
Lets say you are right. Lets say that could be interpreted as radical for someone to be against abortions for religious reasons...I don't think you are, but lets say you are...why is this something homeland security needs to take care of. I think we can agree that terrorism (excuse me, "man-caused disasters") is the priority, not the political positions of american citizens.
That line item is included in both the left and right reports. But as I noted yesterday, the right has latched on to a footnote on page 2 as proof the entire report biasly targets all conservatives. They are getting really good at setting themselves up as victims, aren't they?
"They are getting really good at setting themselves up as victims, aren't they?"
What do you mean "getting"? They should be good at it...they've had LOTS of practice.
No, governor, those people trying to break up the convention were anarchists and EXTREMISTS from the left. We've got them in spades on our side. so does your side.
The difference is that we'll denounce our extremists. We'll say that they don't speak or act for us. I'm still waiting for the right to disown theirs. Isn't that what the report is about, extremism?
This morning i just read an article about Chuck Norris volunteering to run for the presidency. some would say that everyone has that right. But he wasn't interested in the Presidency of The United States, he was talking about becoming the President of Texas. That is extremism.
Say what you will about the left. We deserve a lot of it, but I guarantee you that outside of the extreme leftists who have been marginalized by the progressive movement, you won't find us speaking even theoretically about dissolving our Union.
Their right has been redefining "Patriotism" for more than eight years now. It's time that we show our patriotism on the left and speak out about the secessionist movement.
I agree. I find it incredible that these Troglodytes call us anti-American for wanting universal healthcare, then turn right around and defend some wackjob who wants to dissolve the Union, calling him a "patriot". Have these dunderheads learned nothing from history?
Complete and utter stupidity.
A couple comments here. You can shout me down if you like, but I'm truly interested in something more along the lines of spirited discourse.
From 2000-2008, one of the left's more popular slogans was "Dissent is the greatest form of Patriotism." Has that changed? Did I miss the memo?
As far as the secession movement goes, I don't doubt for a moment that, if Obama's current trend of policies continue that there are states (like Texas) that would more seriously consider secession. And I wouldn't blame them. And you can't call it un-patriotic. This country was founded on the basis of a weak federal government. Some folks are of the opinion that the Obama administration is making the largest power-grab in the history of this country. That's tough to deny. So, the secessionist movement isn't really all that extreme when viewed through that lens.
As far as universal health care - I nearly laughed out loud. How on Earth is universal health care "patriotic"? Can you point to any historical instance where universal health care has worked?
Ease up on the stone-throwing there, glass-house guy. At the very least - QC your post for blatantly obvious contradictions.
I agree with you about taking back the language, and critizing extremist from the "left",but i don't know if all those arrested were trying to break-up the Republican Convention. Amy Goodman was arrested and here is what she said: http://i2.democracynow.org/blog/2008/9/8/amy_goodman_interviewd_for_now_on_pbs_about_rnc_arrests
The obscene thing is, FOX is probably doing this massive disservice to the country in the name of profit. Otherwise, we'd have to admit that these people are actually stupid enough to believe the nonsense they put on the air. Is that possible?
And it's being done in the name of profit by an Australian named Murdock.
True, W-King, an Australian who saw a rich market of ignorant-Americans to tap.
Righty radio is going nuts on this DHS BS. The callers are telling the hosts what their radical views are ("I'm against abortion and for freedom") and the hosts are assuring them that they're being monitored by the Obama administration. And they seem very proud of the imagined importance they've suddenly acquired.
But it's the LEFT that loves to play the victim, according to Ann Coulter. So you must be wrong.
I'm disappointed. I shaved my tea bags real close for wednesday, and all I got was the finger.
Maybe you can make it to Fox's Rusty Trombone event next month, Snoop.
Fawlty, the wingnuts are in full victim mode over this,almost as much as regarding the "media attacks" on the teabagger parties.Don't they understand that, without the comedy they provide, they wouldn't have any redeeming value?
Greta lost credibilty when she left CNN and started working for FOX
I understand why people are concerned with this report. They support the rightwing causes that the report notes may have dangerously radical elements. I wouldn't want law enforcement investigating a law-abiding pro-life group any more than I would peaceful environmental group. Not only would it be an unwarranted invasion that could lead to political abuse and intimidation, but it is an unwise use of a limited and valuable resource.
However, the reaction from the wingnuts is both hysterical and hypocritical. For years they cheered every new authority ceded to the executive in this area, despite the potential for abuse and even actual reports of abuse. Whenever anyone -- liberal, moderate or conservative -- suggesting having the smallest safeguard put in place, the wingnuts roared that would endanger the nation, going so far as saying that if their efforts were successful, they would have blood on their hands. Now that the cons fear the national security state has turned its powerful eye in their direction, they're up in arms, when they should be apologizing for enabling it.
Of course what this is really about is the same thing everything is about with them. Another opportunity to play the victim, bash Obama, and stir up distrust and anger towards the government.
Well said, Craig. I think this is one of those issues that's being aimed specifically at the most ignorant and paranoid group of people.
Ask any of the suckers falling for it if they believe there are terrorist organizations in the Islamic world that may include religious fundamentalists , and if that should be part of the criteria for doing intelligence work.
Blows their whole argument up. I'm not saying it would make most of them understand, but it might help the least frightened get a grip.
You are exactly correct. I am uncomfortable with the entire idea of the DHS, but I've been unformforatble with it since day 1. These "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about" crowd crying the blues now is insulting. If you're going to cry victimization now, you'd better put up some tape of you decrying "left-wing extremists" ie. anti-war, animal-rights and anti-globalization protesters. If you were silent then, STFU now.
Exactly - Jon Stewart illustrated your point quite well last night.
"However, the reaction from the wingnuts is both hysterical and hypocritical. For years they cheered every new authority ceded to the executive in this area, despite the potential for abuse and even actual reports of abuse. Whenever anyone -- liberal, moderate or conservative -- suggesting having the smallest safeguard put in place, the wingnuts roared that would endanger the nation, going so far as saying that if their efforts were successful, they would have blood on their hands. Now that the cons fear the national security state has turned its powerful eye in their direction, they're up in arms, when they should be apologizing for enabling it."
Truer words were never spoken.
The wingnuts are cockroaches - and we all know what cockroaches do when the light gets turned on.
And let's not forget: the ONLY reason these wingers were so in favor of all the unprecedented new authority ceded to the "unitary executive", is because they thought the "permanent" Republican majority would always be in charge.
They never envisioned the possibility that a Democrat would win the WH and have those same powers . . . especially a "scary black Muslim" one . . .
Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.
Obviously Cavuto's no gentleman, but the point remains the same.
DHS report says:
1. "The economic downturn and the election of the first
African American president present unique drivers for rightwing
radicalization and recruitment."
Irrespective of what follows, this statement is prejudice
in its purest form.
Here's the logic based on the definition of an extremist in the
footnote:
Because a black man was elected president, the
{Baptists | liberatarians | rule-of-law-people} will
recruit more converts.
Outstanding logic.
2. "Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first
African American president ..."
Statement undocumentand and is racist. YIKES!!!! A racist document
published by the US Government. Janet's bad.
3. "small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing
extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in
the United States"
Does anyone believe that? Leave the border open and eliminate high
pressure interrogation and the result is DHS spends it money looking
in Greensboro, GA. This is really wise leadership. Do you feel safer?
4. DEFINITION OF RIGHTWING EXTREMISM (from footnote)
"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."
So our DHS is now focused on many Christians (anti-abortion), rule of
law people (anti illegal immigration) and liberatarians (less government
types like Thomas Jefferson and Ron Paul). DHS is looking in the wrong
places and doesn't even know it.
Can the people of America fire a DHS Secretary for incompetence?
It would be naive on the part of DHS to assume that there are no individuals or groups in the US who are unhappy that a black man occupies the White House and, hence, to ignore the whole issue. It's not the DHS that is prejudiced. But there certainly is still prejudice out there. Actually, more than many of us realized, sadly.
Ridiculous. It is NOT racism to RECOGNIZE that racism itself HAS been a powerful motivation for extremist groups throughout history. Nazis, KKK, et al.
3 YES I believe that. Look at the weapons caches the FBI has siezed over the last ten years virtually ALL rightwing extremist groups. Who was the last American to commit a huge terrorists action agains the US. Timothy McViegh and was he or was he NOT part of a rightwing militia group?
4 No they arent. Hate oriented groups is where they should be looking. Anti abortion groups that organize and protest have nothing to fear. IF you are going to shoot doctors and blow up clinics then you SHOULD be looking over your shoulder. You blur the violence distinction very easily but DHS hasnt. Your blithely tossing out the names of Jefferson and Ron Paul is precious in its niavity. Do you really think Ron Paul fears being locked up?
If a DHS sceretary could be fired for incompetence Ridge would have been fired about six months into his term but for producing a report that was started under the BUSH administration you want Napalitano to be fired? Is that a joke? It is dumb in the extreme do you think this study was done in the two or three months Napalitano has had the job? It was funny to see you talk about logic since it is clear you have no concept what logic even is.