I was troubled right off the bat when I read:
This product is one of a series of intelligence assessments published by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch to facilitate a greater understanding of the phenomenon of violent radicalization in the United States. a
This is troubling because it assumes the existence of a "phenomenon of violent radicalization in the United States." Yet when one reads the report one reads only of possibilities never, or virtually never, factual instances of radicalization, violent or otherwise. Then, at the foot of the same opening paragraph the report states:
Federal efforts to influence domestic public opinion must be conducted in an overt and transparent manner, clearly identifying United States Government sponsorship.
Is this an admission that this report is itself an effort to "influence domestic public opinion"? It certainly would seem to be an accurate description of the report which deals in supposition and projection much like a global warming report.
The report also troubles me because it is reminiscent of the Kerner Commission Report which set in stone a left wing version of the causes and remedies for the riots in American inner cities: spend more money. In this case, it seems to be laying a predicate that conservative causes are virtually the equivalent of "radicalization" in the United States. This, of course, is only one step removed from "violent" radicalization.
All of this also smacks of the kind of slanderous broadsides issued by The Southern Poverty Law Center which is finding Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen and other haters behind every conservative cause. One is prompted again to ask, where in this report is the proof of the assertion that there is a "phenomenon of violent radicalization"? The report acknowledges that it is working with private groups to identify hate groups and even solicits informants to report to it at the address which appears at the foot of the report.
There is an appalling lack of statistical support for any of the propositions in this report. I do not believe it contains a single footnote. It is a compilation of speculation printed on government paper.
But because it is on government paper it has the potential to be the predicate for much mischief.
If this were done in a Bill Clinton administration I would be concerned enough to want to have the matter exposed and pursued. In a Hillary Clinton administration, I would be markedly more concerned. In this Obama administration my concern is amplified geometrically because of his moves against free speech, his planned indoctrination camps, his exploitation of groups like Acorn and his own Internet organization, his ill disguised narcissism, and his encouragement of his own cult of personality.
When one considers Obama's biography and his intimate associations with Communists and radicals and criminals, one realizes that one is not being governed by a humble Christian like George Bush but by a potential megalomaniac.
