From the Washington Times:
The same Homeland Security Department office that categorized veterans as potential terrorists issued an earlier report that defined dozens of “extremists” ranging from black power activists to abortion foes. The report was nixed within hours and recalled from state and local law enforcement officials.
Whites and blacks, Christians and Jews, Cubans and Mexicans, along with tax-hating Americans were among several political leanings listed in the “Domestic Extremism Lexicon” that came out of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) in late March.
“The lexicon was not an authorized I&A product, and it was recalled as soon as management discovered it had been released without authorization,” said Amy Kudwa, Homeland Security spokeswoman.
“This product is not, nor was it ever, in operational use,” Ms. Kudwa said.
While it may never have been in “operational use”, it is still disturbing that the head of this department saw fit to compile a “dictionary” of groups who would be labeled in such a broadly defined way.
One can only imagine the outcry from the pundits and kooks on the left if the Bush Administration had initiated a similar report. Cries of fascism would have been heard from all leftist corners of the country.
Of particular note is the fact that last month’s report on “right-wing extremism” was expanded into a nine page detailed document, while “left-wing extremism” was not mentioned at all.
A “left-wing extremist” is described as someone who opposes war or is dedicated to environmental and animal rights causes, while a “right-wing extremist” is someone who is against abortion or for border enforcement.
The same “right-wing” definition appeared in a report last month that prompted an outcry in the veterans community for also suggesting that veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were targets for extremist groups to recruit for attacks against the U.S.
Awww. Don’t the “left-wing extremists” just sound so cuddly and caring? I mean, they’re for peace and love to animals, man!
The latest report to become public, the lexicon on domestic extremism, stated that people involved with anti-immigration extremism “may have been known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and terrorism to advance their extremist goals.”
“They are highly critical of the U.S. government’s response to illegal immigration and oppose government programs that are designed to extend ‘rights’ to illegal aliens, such as issuing driver’s licenses or national identification cards and providing in-state tuition, medical benefits, or public education.”
It is not hard to fathom that “critical opposition” to the programs listed above would fall under the brush of this broad stroke definition. Wanting the government to lawfully enforce it’s border statutes should not be cause for mention as an “extremist” label.
And, the “tax-resistance movement” is described as “groups or individuals who vehemently believe taxes violate their constitutional rights.”
Presumably due to all of the “Lexington and Concord” type clashes occurring all over the country. How coincidental that this label would be conjured up after the occurrence of tea-party rallies.
Here are a few other notable “definitions” from the “Domestic Extremism Lexicon” book:
- alternative media: A term used to describe various information
sources that provide a forum for interpretations of events and
issues that differ radically from those presented in mass media products and outlets
- antiabortion extremism: A movement of groups or individuals who are
virulently antiabortion and advocate violence against
providers of abortion-related services, their employees, and
their facilities. Some cite various racist and anti-Semitic beliefs to justify their criminal activities.
- leftwing extremism: A movement of groups or individuals that
embraces anticapitalist, Communist, or Socialist doctrines
and seeks to bring about change through violent revolution
rather than through established political processes. The term
also refers to leftwing, single-issue extremist movements that
are dedicated to causes such as environmentalism, opposition
to war, and the rights of animals.
(Note that this definition implies that those who embrace these leftist views would be justified in acting on them through “established political processes”. How telling.)
Take a minute to read the whole document. It is noteworthy just how many times “right-wing” is used in the various definitions of differing categories.
Also, from what I read, not one word of Islamic or Muslim extremism was defined or mentioned in the entire document.
This document is an acknowledgment of just how the government perceives its citizenry.
Seems that if you disagree with anything this government proposes, you will find yourself conveniently fitting an extremist label. A label justified by tacking on the word “violent”.
The article also notes that the man responsible for the authorization of this document, Roger Mackin, has been removed from the agency, though not for reasons due to this. He is now going to be in charge of the “cybersecurity section at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence”.
Look for a document defining types of “extremist internet” users soon.