Posted by H. Brandon Fry on April 30th 2009 to
General
In the interest of national security, I’m going to cross-check myself against the recent assessment by the Department of Homeland Security concerning potential threats from Right Wings Extremists.
- Opposed to abortion? Check!
- Opposed to illegal immigration? Check!
- In favor of enforcement of existing immigration law? Check!
- Concerned about same-sex marriage? Check!
- Favoring state or local authority over federal? Check! (darn that Constitution!)
- Concerned about impending firearms restrictions? Check! (stupid Founders!)
- Subscribe to “End Times” prophecies? Check!
- Concerned about the U.S. yielding its sovereignty to a globalized government? Check!
My threat-o-meter is off the chart! I’m afraid to be alone in a room with myself!
Was that a black helicopter flying by?!
If you’ve read the document to which I refer, you may well note that it does not say that people holding these beliefs are threats, but rather that extremist groups may appeal to these beliefs in order to recruit like-minded individuals for terrorist activities.
And some of that may well occur. There’s no question that folks on the right are getting riled up by the wrong-headed governance to which the country is being subjected at the moment. And it may not be a stretch to suggest, as the report does, that rising unemployment could increase the likelihood of frustrated individuals seeking to lash out at whomever they choose to blame for their situation. So why all the flap over the report?
There are two chief objections, I believe, to the assessment. First is the mistrust of our veterans, echoing the liberals’ long-cherished view of returning combat soldiers as damaged goods with a tenuous grip on sanity, no doubt caused by the terrible things they have been forced to do for their country. Don’t mistake me; I know that war is terrible and that soldiers are often scarred by the experience. But there is a segment of our population that think our combat troops are trained and ordered to kill civilians (notwithstanding that terrorists technically are civilians), women and children, and that every returning soldier has a covered-up massacre on their conscience. Some of the people who think that way have prominent positions in our government.
The second objection stems from the attempt to associate socially conservative positions with hatred and a propensity to violence. Yes, there are people who hate homosexuals. That doesn’t make opposition to same-sex marriage a bigoted or hateful position, despite the long-standing insistence by homosexual activists and liberal supporters to characterize any negative view of homosexuality as just that. Nor are pro-lifers generally given to organizing into cells and engaging in terrorist plots, despite the actions of a handful of individuals over the decades that abortion has been legal.
And as to Homeland Security concerning themselves with citizens who possess a “strident fervor” for enforcement of immigration law, perhaps they would be better served to direct their attention to the known influx of violent gang-affiliated criminals from South of the border.
And that, essentially, illustrates the biggest issue with a report such as this one. A governmental agency that was established by President Bush to orchestrate our nation’s law enforcement and intelligence bodies toward the more effective prevention of terror attacks, understanding the primary threat to be the enmity of Islamic fundamentalists toward the United States, would seem to be turning its attention more inward than outward under the new regime.
I acknowledge that the report claims it is “one of a series of intelligence assessments,” and that if it were viewed in context of the rest of the series perhaps the affront to us right-wingers would be softened a bit were it to be seen that potential threats from “extreme” elements of every stripe were being considered in an effort to be thorough. After all, a terror attack is a terror attack regardless of the nationality and ideology of its perpetrator.
This particular assessment, however, remains troubling. It can’t help but give one a sense of foreboding to see enumerated as threat-risk factors so many of one’s very own beliefs.
Because what this document conveys, in a nutshell, is that law enforcement needs to keep a careful eye on people who disagree with the policies of the Obama administration.
3 Comments
