Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has been the subject of much controversy since Barack Obama elevated her to the national stage. As Homeland Security Secretary, her actions have drawn more attention as she made perhaps the biggest blunder yet of her career when her office released a report titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment. 

The report was released April 7, 2009 and most commentators and news outlets covered it a week later on April 13, 2009. In the report, the Department of Homeland Security attempts to link several conservative social and legal issues to domestic terrorists and white supremacists. The report refers to "white supremacists’ longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion, inter-racial crimes, and same-sex marriage" as a reason to fear the "right-wing" individuals might join the cause. It then highlights that the rapid growth in gun and ammunition sales, largely attributed to President Obama’s murky stance on gun control issues, as a potential concern for law enforcement given that, "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." It does clarify that law-abiding citizens are also stockpiling weapons but the report fails to specify how law enforcement should differentiate between an extremist and a concerned citizen. 

The reason it fails is that, until a so-called extremists commits a crime, there is absolutely no-difference between a right-wing extremist and a law-abiding citizen purchasing a weapon. Until the "extremist" commits a crime, there is no legal difference between the two; there is no extremist. Gun control legislation is a threat to the right to bear arms. The constitution says "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." That very clearly says the right to bear any weapon of an individual’s choosing, in any quantity, shall not be infringed. To add insult to injury, the report warns law enforcement to be aware of the potential that disgruntled veterans will be recruited by these groups.  

The report continues and indicts citizens concerned about the implications of various free-trade agreements and illegal-immigration. It acknowledges that "[d]ebates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of protected political speech," only to continue with the warning that "in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent." Again, the report has directed suspicion primarily at an ideology and not a criminal element. Like gun rights, there is no way to differentiate between those who favor illegal (i.e. violent) responses to threats to their ideology and those who will dissent peaceful. In recent memory, there have been very few "right-wing" protests and even fewer cases of "right-wing" violence. Compared to outright left-wing terrorist groups such as ELF and the controversial tactics of fringe groups like PETA and Greenpeace, right-wingers generally favor more constructive, although lower profile, outlets for their displeasure.

Most of the home grown terrorism of the past 14 years has been attempted or perpetrated by radical Muslims (both illegal and legal) and left-wing eco-terrorist groups. Examples include ELF, the attempted murder of soldiers at Fort Dix, NJ, the 9/11 attacks, and the Jose Padilla Bomb Plot. Thousands of violent gang members and drug runners have been pouring over the southern border ever year. Despite all of these clear and present dangers, Janet Napolitano and her Department of Homeland Security decided to create a distribute a report that focuses solely on the potential "threat" from the right-wing, hard evidence for which they do not cite. It’s interesting that she allowed the report to so clearly target an ideology in its title. After all, this was the Arizonan governor who refused to acknowledge a violent border problem to further her own political career and prefers to call acts of terrorism "man-made disasters." Despite her history of preferring euphemism and ignorance over facing real security threats, she allowed an over-reaching and ideologically motivated report to be distributed by her department. 

The report has indeed generated a lot of controversy, particular in the conservative press, but the ire has largely been directed at the provisions referring to veterans. Secretary Napolitano promised to discuss the issue with the head of the American Legion and finally did so on Friday, April 24. At the meeting, Napolitano passed the buck when she blamed a subordinate for the report, insisting that it had been sent out before it was fully completed. Her comments appear to have mollified much of the opposition to the report, but they should trigger more questions than they answer. 

First of all, how could further preparation of the report have changed its conclusions? If it was a well researched and valid assessment, which one would hope it is, no amount of rewording and embellishment would have altered its conclusions. Gun owners, be they "right-wing extremists," or "law-abiding citizens with the potential to be mislead," would still be a focus of law enforcement. Veterans, likewise, would still be a concern of law-enforcement no matter how the report referred to them. This leaves two obvious conclusions. 

Either Napolitano is lying about the report and it was completed as intended or she intended to alter the conclusions of her analysts and lie in the final report, putting law enforcement officers in danger with faulty information. Neither one of these conclusions is palatable as they both imply that Secretary Napolitano has a problem facing reality. Whether she intended to hide the report’s conclusions to protect herself or she threw an analyst under the bus to protect her reputation, this incident only adds to her reputation of preferring rhetoric and fantasy over reality. 

Furthermore, Napolitano insists that the report originated under the Bush administration, but several aspects of the report throw this claim into question as well. The report is only ten pages long including a cover page and a partially filled final page with a standard reporting notice. Excluding these two pages, the entire report is only eight pages long. The report does not cite an original research nor does it directly cite any evidence besides the ideology its targeted individuals share with pervious domestic terrorists such as the Oklahoma City Bomber, Timothy McVeigh. 

The report, stripped of section titles and legal disclaimers, can be condensed to only seven pages and only 2,799 words. Janet Napolitano, on the day of the report’s release, had been in her position for over 40 days. If a 2,799 word report with almost no original research nor content took more than 40 days to write, then our Department of Homeland Security is likely one of the least efficient entities in the world; a drunken college student could do better. If the report did not take 40 days to write, then Secretary Napolitano once again covered her mistake by throwing someone under a bus, this time the former Bush administration. Either way the conclusion is not a comforting one. 

Finally, one has to wonder, given the generally law-abiding sensibilities of conservatives or "right-wingers," why the report chose to frame itself in terms of "right-wing extremists". Is it merely coincidence that the DHS chose to release a report with the ideologically loaded "right-wing" label a mere week and a half before what is likely the largest conservative or "right-wing" protest of this decade, if not the past sixty years: the Tea Parties? Given that the attendees of these events likely held most of the beliefs highlighted by the DHS’s report as flags for potential extremism, was this a politically motivated attempt to portray the attendees as radicals? 

The report could just as easily have been framed in terms of domestic terrorism or it could have highlighted the continued danger from both left and right wing extremists. The report presented no factual evidence besides the actions of concerned citizens and conjecture to suggest that the need to guard against conservative ideology leading to acts of terror was so urgent that a report on "right-wing" terrorists needed to be published. Despite this, the DHS still chose a title and a target ideology that would almost certainly link the Tea Partiers (which were planned months in advance) to the DHS report. If Napolitano’s claim that the report was released early is true, then it would appear one of her subordinates was overly eager to get this dry report out. It is difficult to imagine what might motivate anyone to release this dry and content-devoid report early except for the Tea Parties. Again, Napolitano’s excuse should raise more questions than it answers. Perhaps Napolitano should have insisted the report be titled "The Possibly Imminent Danger of Home-Grown, Man-Made Disasters."