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."  

"It only takes one man with courage to make a majority"

President Andrew Jackson, "The American Lion"

             For years, millions of unhappy Americans have toiled silently from day to day. They have diligently tended to families, careers, and education while subversive elements of society have focused on controlling government institutions. While they balanced their checkbooks, their government mortgaged their future. While, they decried the excesses of the 1960s counterculture from churches, offices, and homes radicals overtook the educational system and began an exercise in mass brainwashing. Still, they largely remained quiet, burdened by their obligations and uninformed by a media firmly in the pocket of radicals. They believed in the justice of the law and a right to freedom speech and, when religion was chased from the public sphere by judges pursuing their own agendas rather than the letter of the law, they respected governing institutions even if they disagreed with those who ran them.  At every turn, they extended courtesy and a public platform to their opponents only to find that one day, their children were strangers, their leaders… despots, and their views labeled un-American. On that day, the silence was broken, the obedience faltered, and a new movement was born. Ladies and gentlemen, that day was April 15, 2009 and the Tax Day Tea Parties mark the start of a new grassroots, conservative movement.

                Thankfully, I was able to able to make the time to attend the New Haven, Connecticut tea party where I joined nearly a thousand of my fellow patriots to protest everything from expanding federal power to uncontrolled spending. Our protest permit (don’t even get me started on the absurdity of permit to protest… what happened to free speech?) was for Long Wharf, a location quite some distance from the center of New Haven, but it was all for the best. The location allowed us to get within a hundred feet of the highway where we were able to wreak havoc with the traffic on I-95. Some of the protesters climbed dirt mounds next to the highway where they displayed banners and posters such as "Taxes = Violence." As I stood there, just taking in the scene, hundreds if not thousands of cars and trucks honked as they past. By the end of the protest traffic on I-95 was backed up from New Haven to Milford, a distance of at least 9 miles. The joy of finally being surrounded by like-minded people who can listen to different opinions without resorting to baseless, hate-filled labels such as racist, reactionary, fascist, Nazi, etc. was marvelous. In short, reason and civility reigned supreme.

                If you’ve followed the mainstream media’s coverage of the Tea Parties, however, you’d think that put on my white KKK robes, grabbed some gasoline, and rounded up my white supremacist buddies. We jeered at some foreign looking pedestrians on the street before tooling around the town and arriving at a local gathering of neo-Nazis to protest the black man in the Whitehouse. The media’s coverage of the parties has been everything from disingenuous and misleading to outright propaganda. CNN sent one of its reporters to the Chicago tea party where she was so taken aback by a man who equated Obama to a fascist that she had to resort to, "don’t you realize how offensive that is?" It seems she missed the memo. Conservatives have been called fascists for over 70 years and there hasn’t been much of an outcry. Perhaps the real problem was that she had a sudden crisis of faith in the secular gods of free speech and democratic process when she realized that there are dissenting opinions and some who hold them are finding the courage and the strength to stand tall and proclaim them to the world. Whatever her motivations, her coverage of the scene was the most unbalanced I have seen in years and that includes segments on political commentary shows. She ended her coverage by saying that the scene was not "family viewing." You can see the entire clip below (as well as what cnn didn’t show you):

CNN’s Coverage

www.youtube.com/watch?v=2baxw_YScxc

What they didn’t show you:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6xWGvdRQ9Q

The Same Reporter’s Reaction Two Years Earlier to a Protestor Comparing Bush to Hitler 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WQbNaXJ8Pw

               Some might be surprised to find the media so hostile to traditional Americans standing up for their beliefs. Others might laugh off the incident as further evidence of a media bias they have long been aware of. I, on the other hand, think the negative media coverage was the icing on the cake; mainstream news outlets across the nation, from CNN to NBC do not know how to react. This is perhaps the first time in the history of America that conservatives and traditionalists have made such a large and coordinate effort (perhaps a half million or more attended over 1000 Tea Parties) to make their views heard. The elitists who comprise the news corps cannot come to terms with a movement this large and widespread being organized by average, everyday people. 

                      A recurring theme in the coverage was just how many protesters were present and, often, a reporter would remark how much larger the Tea Party was compared to previous anti-war protests in the same location. On their faces there was confusion. Their speech was riddled with negative buzzwords like right-wing, bashers, ugly, and hate-filled. No doubt they hoped these words would trigger the negative emotions our society has conditioned us to experience at their very mention. Some, like CNN’s Susan Roesgen, tried to blame the movement on evil Fox News and conservative organizations, frantically searching for an explanation for an event that couldn’t be easily reconciled to her world view. Ironically, she was standing in front of signs that said "Republicans suck too" and "Rick Santelli for President" when she attempted to link the events to the Republican Party.

                If there’s one thing that I have learned in life, it’s that people, when they feel threatened, do not rely on logic and rational thinking, rather they resort to instinct, name calling,  and violence to defend themselves. If you haven’t seen the writing on the wall, let me be the first to tell you that the mainstream media outlets are scared. Some of them will try to ignore the movement in the hopes that it will simply go away. What they fear, however, are the implications of success. Their vacuous drivel, manufactured for the numbed and manipulated masses they helped to create, will be far worse than worthless; it will be an indictment of their hypocrisy, poor character, and treasonous actions. Even now their bias and incompetence is forcing them to the brink of bankruptcy, and they will face the terrifying choice of respecting conservatives or dissolving entirely. The age of the liberal media hegemony is now at an end. They are on the run and we need to forge bravely ahead, with the courage to ignore the lies and the slander. As Jackson said, "one man with courage makes a majority." We have not just one man, not just a thousand men, but hundreds of thousands and millions of men and women filled with courage and with hope. You are not wrong to demand accountability and you are most certainly not wrong to proclaim your beliefs. God bless you all and may God bless America, the land of the free and the home of the brave. 

Pictures of Tea Parties Around the Country: http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/15/massive-tax-day-tea-party-usa/

If you missed the April 15 Tea Parties or you want to continue your involvement, there are plans for a July 4 Tea Party in the capital and rumors of protests outside of mainstream media headquarters in May. Everybody counts in this war of ideas, support what you believe in. Details will be posted here as soon as they are available.