Posted on 01/20/2013 6:42:42 PM PST by neverdem
The world is beset by terrorists — witness the American hostages taken in Algeria this week — but portions of our federal government continue to obsess about alleged home-grown threats from the “far right.”
The Combating Terrorism Center, which is based at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, has issued a new report on its website entitled
“Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right.”
Normally, the center’s activities are focused on al-Qaeda and other violent Islamic groups seeking to topple governments around the world. But the latest report looks inside America itself, and if the center is to be judged by the quality of its analysis in this report, it might be wise for all of us to be skeptical of its other work. The Center’s report lumps together entirely legitimate tea-party-style activists with three groups it says represent “a racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement.” Together all these forces are said to have engaged in 350 “attacks initiated by far-right groups/individuals” in 2011, although the report never specifies what makes an attack a “far right” action.
The report’s author is Arie Perliger, who directs the Center’s terrorism studies and teaches social sciences at West Point. I can only imagine what his classes are like as his report manages to lump together every known liberal stereotype about conservatives between its covers.
As Rowan Scarborough of the Washington Times, who broke news of the report on Thursday, recounts:
[The Center’s report] says anti-federalists “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”
The report also draws a link between the mainstream conservative movement and the violent “far right,” and describes liberals as “future oriented” and conservatives as living in the past.
“While liberal worldviews are future- or progressive -oriented, conservative perspectives are more past-oriented, and in general, are interested in preserving the status quo,” the report says. “The far right represents a more extreme version of conservatism, as its political vision is usually justified by the aspiration to restore or preserve values and practices that are part of the idealized historical heritage of the nation or ethnic community.”
The report adds: “While far-right groups’ ideology is designed to exclude minorities and foreigners, the liberal-democratic system is designed to emphasize civil rights, minority rights and the balance of power.”
The Times quotes a congressional staffer who has served in the military calling the report a “junk study.” The staffer then asked: “The $64,000 dollar question is when will the Combating Terrorism Center publish their study on real left-wing terrorists like the Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, and the Weather Underground?”
This is not the first time elements of the federal government have tried to smear conservatives with sloppy work and a broadbrush analysis.
In 2009, liberals in the Department of Homeland Security prepared a report defining “rightwing extremism in the United States” as including not just hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of federalism or local control. “It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” a footnote in the report warned.
The DHS report bore the ominous title: “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” Sent to hundreds of local law enforcement officials, the report claimed that “right wing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African-American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.”
A casual reader might have concluded that “attack planning” by said groups is inevitable. But the report is silent on just how the groups will attack, and indeed since 2009 there has been precious little evidence any of them ever did.
After much public ridicule, the DHS report vanished from public view as did a similar effort at the same time by the Missouri Highway Patrol, which had to retract its own report linking conservative groups with militia activity and mentioning 2008 presidential candidates Ron Paul and Bob Barr.
No one doubts the existence of racist and hate-filled groups that require monitoring. But both the DHS and West Point reports read as if they were laying the groundwork for a rhetorical attack on mainstream conservatism of the sort that President Clinton launched in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995, when he blamed talk radio for stirring up anti-government passions. No one should be surprised if supporters of new gun-control measures begin justifying them by referring to the West Point report.
The Obama administration raised eyebrows back in 2009 when Janet Napolitano’s DHS substituted the phrase “man-made disasters” for the dangers posed by Islamic terrorism. My sources inside Congress tell me they continue to worry that efforts to monitor domestic Muslim extremists as well as interdiction efforts against radical Islamists crossing the U.S. border are sometimes put on the back burner. The government denies this, but it seems to me its protestations would be more persuasive if it spent less time producing half-baked warnings about the danger of “right-wing extremists.”
If a left wing extremist wants to brand me as a right wing extremist, I can live with that and respond in kind. They will never silence the truth.
Save
It’s hard to believe this came from West Point. This Arie Perliger needs to be removed from West Point as I didn’t know they employed communists. I hope our West Point cadets reject this man and his “report”.
Royalists, Dictators, Communists, Fascists, Socialists and liberals (progressives) are all left wing. This is on of the fundamental myths the left pushes; that left wing competitors are actually right wing. The left sees chaos and tries to dictate order. The right sees complexity and embraces freedom. Libertarians are actually the farthest right. That is because the right embraces freedom and not anarchy. Conservatives are in the middle of the right wing. The Tea party is in the middle of the right wing. The so called moderates are defined by their willingness to give up some level of freedom for some perceived good. The problem with that is: the perceived good never occurs, often backfires and the freedom is gone. Conservatives have the wisdom to know this and defend their freedoms.
The implications here were stunning to me when I heard this, but I'm sure not an eyebrow is raised by 99% of these folks. Among them this view is de rigueur: That government exists to serve government, that this is the greatest good, and that any opposed to that end are the enemy.
Much as how cancer views the body of the host as an enemy, so too does this government view the body of the nation that hosts it. That's just how it is inside the Beltway.
Pitcavage was right in there with the "Southern Poverty Law Center", the "Anti-Defamation League", and similar groups.
As I have said many, many, many times none of this applies to American politics since, as it turns out, we don't have a CENTER ~ we even have a different political history than France.
If you want to discuss the Founders you need to discuss our Founders, not their Founders, nor modern concepts.
George Washington formally rejected being a monarch ~ and that's all it takes to NOT be a monarchist or royalist. He also rebelled against a King ~ guy was called George III of the then ruling regime in most of North America.
Obama is a far bigger threat IMO than anything Al-Qaeda could do to this country.
Really depends on your point of view and level of sanity in my book...; )
He rejected being a monarch himself. He rebelled against a King.
In his day the French perceived they'd come up with some sort of left/right dichotomy balanced on a center. George wasn't part of that. He was an American of a very special revolutionary class. If you hadn't noticed, he wasn't French either.
To be a Conservative in America you must first reject the notion that left/right dichotomies have any relevance for us. You are with us, or you are against us ~ there is no center!
Government agents who dwell extensively on the left/right thesis and try to apply it to Americans are the enemy and must be rejected out of hand.
Anti-federalists? You mean the current people in power. Yes. They set acting like the enemy. I bet if we asked our founding fathers who the terrorists were he would point to the current CIC and his regime.
a photo of the author. Now tell me you are surprised...lol:
Didn’t work. Maybe this will:
The article is written by a liberal Jew and is completely subjective and based on his own personal views and is not fact. Once again intellectualism is used to create dissension because we all know that if you continuously use 3 - 5 syllable words in your biased article because you hate federalists yet call them ant-federalists to put a target on their backs that it means you are smarter than your audience and know what’s best for them...sheesh
Our terrorists have seized thereigns and are calling us the enemy. Hopefully the troops will be intelligent enough to know ego the real terrorists are if they are dispatched to deal with them.
He did not mention the American holocaust that he fears
Perliger's article at West Point is just another so called "study," in the continuous drum beat to gin up hate against Americans who believe in the Constitution. These and other articles in the state controlled media will be used to influence public opinion to disarm law abiding Americans.
Since this "study," is directed at the officer corp, 0bama will more than likely have most of the military follow his orders when the time comes. Oh, make no mistake about it, the time will come.
5.56mm
This is not the first time elements of the federal government have tried to smear conservatives with sloppy work and a broadbrush analysis.
In 2009, liberals in the Department of Homeland Security prepared a report defining “rightwing extremism in the United States” as including not just hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of federalism or local control. “It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” a footnote in the report warned.
This started with Hillary's 'vast right wing conspiracy' an idea that collapsed as soon as the light of day was shown on it's idiocy. It became a joke. But the people who started that totalitarian lie - the Southern Poverty Lawlessness Center - just slunk underground.
Considering the MSM is owned by the democrats - if there was ANY current information about violent right wingers it would be covered in every effing suck up newspaper in the country. They carry water for dems - and if dems had proof we would hear about it... non stop.
That comment tugs at my inner American. I've long held the consideration that our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution supersede, and rise far above, mere partisan politics (and they do).
When having the rare civil conversation about politics with my liberal kin, I've attempted to convey to them that I care less for political labels and the interminable wars of red vs blue, and more for the timeless concepts of freedom and liberty contained in our founding documents.
For a long time, I've thought that simply calling myself a conservative patriot should make that stance plain to anyone, but unfortunately, we conservatives are easily sucked into partisan politics, and allow ourselves to be defined and firmly positioned within the Republican party by the enemies of the republic.
In this way, we set ourselves up to engage in battles that the enemy has great potential to win. They've been mostly winning this game since Woodrow Wilson's day, and we still haven't learned.
With the emergence of the Tea Party, I believed that we patriots had finally coalesced into a nationwide movement that forwarded the higher concepts of our founding, yet with applied political muscle. I still believe the Tea Party is capable of this, though it's going to take determination and persistence to achieve the results we seek.
When I look at what it is we're attempting to preserve and restore in this great country, I see our sacred founding principles and fundamentals of government organization. That's what the founding generation fought, sacrificed, and died for. Not partisan politics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.