Monday, January 10, 2011

Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment : USLaw.com’s Celebrity Justice

Concerned about the disenfranchising effects of the economic downturn, large numbers of returning combat veterans, election of first African American president, and a perception that gun control laws will soon be strengthened, Janet Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Security issued a report alerting law enforcement agencies of potential threats posed by “rightwing extremists”. The report, excerpted and included in full below, describes how the current economic and political climate is fueling the resurgence in radicalization and recruitment of individuals who might commit acts of domestic terrorism and/or commit other crimes. The nature of the report’s content will undoubtedly spark debate about whether the federal government is seeking to squelch what could be taken to be lawful political dissent. This is especially so when the report came to public light on the same day the Texas Governor made a high profile statement warning the federal government to “back off” and respect state’s rights under the 10th Amendment.

Key Findings

Rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.

The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.

The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.


Current Economic and Political Climate

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS/I&A) assesses that a number of economic and political factors are driving a resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization activity. Despite similarities to the climate of the 1990s, the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years. In addition, the historical election of an African American president and the prospect of policy changes are proving to be a driving force for rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization.

Exploiting Economic Downturn

Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures. Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish “financial elites.” These “accusatory” tactics are employed to draw new recruits into rightwing extremist groups and further radicalize those already subscribing to extremist beliefs. DHS/I&A assesses this trend is likely to accelerate if the economy is perceived to worsen.

Historical Presidential Election

Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment. From the 2008 election timeframe to the present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential sympathizers.

Revisiting the 1990s

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.

Economic Hardship and Extremism

Historically, domestic rightwing extremists have feared, predicted, and anticipated a cataclysmic economic collapse in the United States. Prominent antigovernment conspiracy theorists have incorporated aspects of an impending economic collapse to intensify fear and paranoia among like-minded individuals and to attract recruits during times of economic uncertainty. Conspiracy theories involving declarations of martial law, impending civil strife or racial conflict, suspension of the U.S. Constitution, and the creation of citizen detention camps often incorporate aspects of a failed economy. Antigovernment conspiracy theories and “end times” prophecies could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition, and weapons. These teachings also have been linked with the radicalization of domestic extremist individuals and groups in the past, such as violent Christian Identity organizations and extremist members of the militia movement.

Illegal Immigration

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.

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.

The Department of Homeland Security (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.

Legislative and Judicial Drivers

Many rightwing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a threat to their right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition stockpiling, as well as renewed participation in paramilitary training exercises. Such activity, combined with a heightened level of extremist paranoia, has the potential to facilitate criminal activity and violence.

Open source reporting of wartime ammunition shortages has likely spurred rightwing extremists as well as law-abiding Americans to make bulk purchases of ammunition. These shortages have increased the cost of ammunition, further exacerbating rightwing extremist paranoia and leading to further stockpiling activity. Both rightwing extremists and law-abiding citizens share a belief that rising crime rates attributed to a slumping economy make the purchase of legitimate firearms a wise move at this time.

Weapons rights and gun-control legislation are likely to be hotly contested subjects of political debate in light of the 2008 Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller in which the Court reaffirmed an individual’s right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but left open to debate the precise contours of that right. Because debates over constitutional rights are intense, and parties on all sides have deeply held, sincere, but vastly divergent beliefs, violent extremists may attempt to co-opt the debate and use the controversy as a radicalization tool.

Perceived Threat from Rise of Other Countries

Rightwing extremist paranoia of foreign regimes could escalate or be magnified in the event of an economic crisis or military confrontation, harkening back to the “New World Order” conspiracy theories of the 1990s. The dissolution of Communist countries in Eastern Europe and the end of the Soviet Union in the 1990s led some rightwing extremists to believe that a “New World Order” would bring about a world government that would usurp the sovereignty of the United States and its Constitution, thus infringing upon their liberty. The dynamics in 2009 are somewhat similar, as other countries, including China, India, and Russia, as well as some smaller, oil-producing states, are experiencing a rise in economic power and influence.

Disgruntled Military Veterans

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS/I&A) assesses 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. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists including lone wolves or small terrorist cells to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.

Report from April 2009.

Posted via email from liberalsarecool.com

Sunday, January 09, 2011

Untitled

Violence and the threat of violence is the calling card of the neo-Right Wing. Real conservatives must be pissed that they are being intimidated into following this rogue element. Or not. They love votes over morals.

Posted via email from liberalsarecool.com

Saturday, January 08, 2011

Judge John Roll Dead: Killed In Arizona Shooting

Federal Judge John Roll was killed during a shooting in Arizona that also involved an attack on U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

U.S. Marshal for Arizona David Gonzales confirmed to the Associated Press that the U.S. District Judge had died. He offered no other details on the shooting.

Arizona Central talked to Gonzales in 2009 after Roll allowed a $32 million civil-rights lawsuit to proceed against a local rancher. The case was filed by illegal immigrants and drew the ire of local talk radio hosts, who "spurred audiences into making threats."

In one afternoon, Roll logged more than 200 phone calls. Callers threatened the judge and his family. They posted personal information about Roll online.

"They said, 'We should kill him. He should be dead,' " Gonzales said.

Both Roll and his wife were given a U.S. Marshals Service protection detail at the time. Roll called the month-long protection experience "unnerving and invasive." According to Arizona Central, authorities identified four men believed to be responsible for the threats, but Roll declined to press charges at the recommendation of the Marshals Service.

Sad day in Arizona.

Posted via email from liberalsarecool.com

Giffords On Palin's "Target List"

"We need to realize that the rhetoric, and the firing people up and … for example, we’re on Sarah Palin’s ‘targeted’ list, but the thing is, the way she has it depicted, we’re in the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they’ve gotta realize that there are consequences to that action."

U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, in an interview with MSNBC after her office was targeted with threats, vandalism and harassment following her vote for healthcare last spring. (via misterhippity)

Posted via email from liberalsarecool.com

Pima Sheriff's Office Update

Pima sheriff’s office:

whatisanipomoea:

  • it was a pistol with an extended magazine
  • shooter is 22, between the ages of 18 and 22 he had one minor encounter with law enforcement.
  • They’re pulling surveillance video from surrounding areas and trying to figure out how he got there.
  • first 911 call came in at 10:11am, then many.
  • “several prominent individuals” in the crowd, and one federal employee was shot in addition to the congresswoman.

Posted via email from liberalsarecool.com

Jared Loughner, white male, 22 years old

Fox News identifies shooting suspect as Jared Loughner, white male, 22 years old.

(Source: inothernews)

Friday, January 07, 2011

Republican Attacks Light On Facts

thesmithian:

‘…since President Obama signed health reform into law on March 23, 2010, the economy has created approximately a total of 1.1 million new jobs in the private sector. One-fifth of the new jobs—over 200,000—have been in the health care industry.

Nevertheless, Republicans have spent the week decrying health reform as “job killing” legislation.’

Just like the “death panels”, “jobs killer” is another baseless, made up attack by the Republicans on behalf of the health insurance industry.

Posted via email from liberalsarecool.com

Oh CBO, Stop With All The Mathy Facts

The Affordable Health Care Act is the biggest fear for Republicans: it saves money and attracts voters to the Democratic Party.

Posted via email from liberalsarecool.com

Thursday, January 06, 2011

Untitled

When Murdoch’s Fox News and New York Post consider it important to consider what kind of shoes President Obama was wearing on vacation, you know the Republican Attack Machine needs some new material.

"This morning the trio of Brian Kilmeade, Steve Doocy, and Gretchen Carlson devoted two segments -- two whole segments -- to the New York Post's question of whether it was appropriate for Barack Obama, as the President of the United States, to wear flip-flops while on vacation. "

Faux News does it again.

Posted via email from liberalsarecool.com

How the Republican Assault on Health Care Could Backfire On Them

How the Republican Assault on Health Care Could Backfire On Them

robertreich:

When it comes to health care, Republicans should be careful what they wish for.

Their upcoming vote to repeal the health-care law will be largely symbolic — they don’t have the votes to override President Obama’s certain veto. The real thing happens later, when they try to strip the Department of Health and Human Services of money needed to implement the law’s requirement that all Americans buy health insurance. This could easily precipitate a showdown with the White House—and a government shutdown later this year.

On  its face it’s a smart strategy for the GOP. The individual mandate is the lynchpin of the heath-care law because it spreads the risks. Without the participation of younger or healthier people, private insurers won’t be able to take on older or sicker customers with pre-existing medical conditions, or maintain coverage indefinitely for people who become seriously ill. The result would be to unravel the health-care law, which presumably is what many Republicans seek.

At the same time, the mandate is the least popular aspect of the law. According to a December 9-12 ABC/Washington Post survey, 60% of the public opposes the individual mandate. While they want help with their health-care bills, and over 60% want to prevent insurers from dropping coverage when customers become seriously ill, most Americans simply don’t like the idea of government requiring them to buy something. It not only offends libertarian sensibilities, but it also worries some moderates and liberals who fear private insurers will charge too much because of insufficient competition in the industry.

The individual mandate is also most susceptible to legal challenge. Twenty states, led by Florida, have joined together in a lawsuit to argue that the mandate oversteps federal authority. Virginia and some interest groups are also challenging the mandate’s constitutionality in federal court. In the first major ruling, on December 13, Judge Henry E. Hudson of the federal district court in Richmond called the mandate an “unbridled exercise of federal police powers” and an overreach of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. The U.S. government is now appealing that decision.

You might argue government mandates to buy insurance aren’t unusual. After all, most states require people to purchase auto insurance in order to drive a car, and most lenders (including those underwritten by Fannie May or Freddie Mac)  require potential homeowners to buy home insurance. But the analogy doesn’t quite hold. These requirements come from states or from banks—not directly from the federal government. More importantly, they rest on basic act of volition. No one has to buy a car or a house. Not so with health insurance under the new law.

Nonetheless, there’s a great irony in the Republican assault — and a hidden danger for Republicans.

The federal government wouldn’t be nearly as vulnerable to these political and legal obstacles had the health-care law been built upon the framework of Social Security or Medicare—public insurance financed by payroll taxes—as many Democrats had initially urged. Not only are these programs enormously popular (“Don’t take away my Medicare!” was a rallying cry among some conservative populists during the debates over the health-care law) but they also rest on a more widely accepted relationship between the individual, the government and the market.

Americans are accustomed to paying for public insurance through their payroll taxes. Such payments aren’t viewed as federal mandates that encroach upon individual freedoms, or as payoffs to private companies likely to make even more money from mandatory purchases of their products, but as well-deserved entitlements. Indeed, the biggest problem with Social Security and Medicare is they’re so popular that politicians have had a hard time trimming their benefits to match payroll tax revenues. Had health care been added as another public insurance program financed by payroll taxes, the challenge might be even greater — which may help explain the fierce resistance of Republicans to using Social Security and Medicare as templates for the new health-care law.

For 60 years, the battle over health-care reform has been waged over these two ways of spreading costs and risks: either through payroll taxes and public insurance, or mandated purchases from private insurers. For most of those six decades, Democrats advocated the former. Harry Truman’s initial plan for adding health insurance to Social Security was defeated, but Lyndon Johnson’s Medicare succeeded.

Apart from George W. Bush’s drug benefit, which was also based on this Democratic framework, Republicans have been on the side of mandated purchases from private insurers. In 1974, Richard Nixon’s proposed Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan would have required private employers to provide their employees with comprehensive health insurance coverage purchased from private insurers. (An employer mandate is tantamount to an individual mandate in that employees are forced to pay it indirectly, via lower wages.) Ted Kennedy simultaneously proposed universal coverage financed through Social Security taxes, essentially copying Medicare. Neither plan succeeded, but Nixon’s framework redefined idea of national health insurance from then onward.

President Obama and a majority of Democrats in the last Congress opted for the Republican model even though many Democrats would have preferred Medicare for all, or at the very least a public option. Most polls showed that the public favored such an option. But the White House hoped for Republican support and wanted to ward off opposition from health insurers and pharmaceutical companies by promising them some 30 million additional customers.

Set against this background, the current Republican attack on mandatory coverage is curious because it begs the essential question of how society would otherwise spread health-care risks. If successful—either in Congress or in the courts—a Republican victory could turn into a Phyrric one by opening the way to the alternative model, based on the system Americans seem to prefer: payroll taxes and public insurance.

(I wrote this for today’s Wall Street Journal)

Posted via email from liberalsarecool.com

House GOP Flub: 2 New Members Vote Before They’re Sworn In

Dave Weigel gets the details on two new House members who voted on the House rules package but they hadn’t been sworn in yet. Their votes should be removed from the record.

The GOP made a show of reading the Constitution, yet failed to uphold it on an actual vote. Genius.

Indicative of the GOP mindset: rules are relative to who breaks them.

Posted via email from liberalsarecool.com

Ted Williams: Meet The Felon With The Golden Voice

"Before becoming the country’s most distinctive new voice, Ted Williams compiled a lengthy rap sheet that landed him in several Ohio lockups on a variety of criminal charges, according to law enforcement records."

He also played a mean bass with Thin Lizzy in the 70s.

Posted via email from liberalsarecool.com

Women's Bodies Are Not Bargaining Chips

"You think abortion is wrong? Don’t have one. I think killing people is wrong, so I’m not in the army. My tax dollars still go to fund it, though (in fact about 21 cents of each of my tax dollars). My tax dollars also go to keep prisoners on death row even though I think the death penalty is morally wrong. My tax dollars fund Guantanamo and Bagram, extraordinary rendition, and Jim DeMint’s salary, all of which I find disgusting. So why is abortion, a legal medical procedure, so remarkably different that we have to go overboard making sure tax dollars don’t fund it?" - Sarah Jaffe
Source: GlobalComment

CBO Paints Grim Picture of Repeal

A few days ago I asked whether the Republicans would wait for a Congressional Budget Office score before voting on their proposal to repeal health care reform. To their credit, they have. And the news from the CBO is exactly what you would have thought: Getting rid of the Affordable Care Act will mean higher deficits.

The CBO is projecting that repeal would increase the federal deficit by around $230 billion in the next decade and by an even larger amount after that. Wait, there’s more. The CBO also estimated how repeal would affect insurance premiums.

And, once again, the effect is entirely predictable. Premiums for people buying coverage on their own would fall a bit, but only because people were getting less protective insurance and because many with pre-existing conditions would be locked out of the market altogether.

And even though premiums would be lower, many people buying coverage on their own would still end up paying more for their policies, because they would not benefit from the enormous subsidies that the Affordable Care Act makes available.

Source: tnr.com

Facts have not stopped Republicans in the past, hopefully their new Tea Bag deficit hawks can remember their rhetoric and fake rage.

Wednesday, January 05, 2011

Glenn Beck Dropped From New York Radio Station WOR

Glenn Beck has been dropped by New York radio station WOR due to poor ratings, the New York Daily News reports. Beck's radio show is due to go off the air on Jan. 17, and he is being replaced by Mike Gallagher, another nationally syndicated conservative talk show host.

Meanwhile, Politico notes that Beck's television ratings took a slight tumble in 2010. He was down 6.5% in total viewers compared to 2009, and 2.5% in the coveted A25-54 demo.

The End Is Nigh.

Not that New York is a hotbed for loony Right Wing drama queens, but it is the #1 market and WOR is the #2 talk radio station here. Suck the big one, Glenn.

Posted via email from liberalsarecool.com

Chomsky on Socialism

Chomsky on Socialism. A must watch.

Socialism is working people in control of the communities in which they live.

Socialism was used to smear the Soviet Union, which was the exact opposite, where people had no control on the communities in which they lived.

The history of America is based on socialism, being in control of your destiny. It is a extension of Democracy.

Posted via email from liberalsarecool.com

Ch-ch-ch-changes

Putting a lazy, “special interest loving”, old boy turd in charge of the House, while you have opposition from within by the Tea Klanners, and afar from a rejuvenated Democratic Party, will be quite the page turner.

One thing you can count on, Republicans will always do the wrong thing.

Posted via email from liberalsarecool.com