Janet Napolitano Carries a Big Brush
Posted on 25. Apr, 2009 by James Devere in American Politics, Political News
How wide is the brush stroke that Janet Napolitano used to paint her and her department’s view of Domestic Terror groups? The recently released/leaked intelligence assessment on right wing extremists and the MIAC report, both funded by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), give us an insight to the direction that DHS is taking. Are these reports on the threat of terrorism or character assassinations? They cast suspicion on such dangerous parties as a grandmother who has a pro-life bumper sticker to, believe-it-or-not, the Founding Fathers of this nation.
Detailed in the reports are attributes from groups as varied as militant racist hate groups (which do deserve the attention of law enforcement) to Ron Paul supporters, third party members, veterans, gun owners, and states’ rights advocates. No evidence is given as to specific threats or even specific organizations. The DHS report itself states that there is no evidence indicating that the besmirched parties intend to do harm.
These reports are opinion pieces masquerading as an intelligence report. The DHS report is about what the authors feel might happen, and belongs more in the pages of The Nation than in the halls of government. We can get away with conjecture while writing an opinion column such as this, but the administration should be ashamed to pass off the sullying of political opposition as an intelligence report.
One wonders if Ms. Napolitano has read the Bill of Rights. According to DHS, an extremist might be one rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority. In fact, it could be construed from the report that our Founding Fathers were right wing extremists for authoring the 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Just the use of “right wing” in a manner synonymous with “domestic terror” is a mischaracterization of a large number of people. But to then characterize right wingers in the same breath as racist hate groups further disparages conservatives and libertarians alike. The Administration has played wordsmith with a number of terms already: the “war on terror” is now an “overseas contingency operation”; “acts of terrorism” are now “man-caused disasters.” Soon, anything with the “right” moniker will be a “domestic terror group.” We cannot let Janet Napolitano and the President highjack an entire half of the political spectrum and characterize it thusly in the national debate. Let’s not forget that, by definition, the right half of that spectrum includes ½ of the moderates. However, the implications of the DHS report go far beyond simple word play.
In reading the reports, it became clear that Janet Napolitano was characterizing a group of people with such a broad brush stroke that this report cannot possibly have any value as a law enforcement tool. So I decided to test a theory. Using the report’s own language, I asked a number of friends, who all meet at least one of the criteria of “right wing extremists,” to describe themselves and their views on other political issues. It seems the only difference between my information and the government’s is that I did some research. So, according to DHS, here is an amalgamation of what an extremist might look like.
Be on the lookout for a: Gay, minimum wage-earning, millionaire, who is a pro-choice, bi-sexual, republican, lawyer, and a Catholic, agnostic, Jew, who is a former civil rights protester, environmentalist, Green party voter, and Democrat…(with a gun).
No one I spoke to, however, were members of the traditional racist groups that have long been the deserved target of law enforcement attention. Secretary Napolitano has so broadly determined what constitutes a right wing extremist that there could be one around every corner. And that means anyone can warrant increased scrutiny from law enforcement.
This report would be laughable if not for one caveat: the powers granted under the Patriot Act to protect against foreign terrorists are now in the hands of a group that is more concerned about the activities of law-abiding US Citizens that might dare to think the government has gotten a little too big. Two months on the job and Janet Napolitano has taken a shot at the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 10th Amendments. 4 out of 10– not bad shootin’, Janet.
What you think about news – GOPers Hold ‘Prayercast’ to Ask God to Stop Health Reform ?
Wanna hear your opinion
You need think about it. Despite the emails, the overwhelming evidence showing global warming is happening hasn’t changed.
“The e-mails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus . . . that tells us the Earth is warming, that warming is largely a result of human activity,” Jane Lubchenco, who heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told a House committee. She said that the e-mails don’t cover data from NOAA and NASA, whose independent climate records show dramatic warming.
Hello. I think the article is really interesting. I am even interested in reading more. How soon will you update your blog?
Gary,
Thank you for the post. I will have more updates in the coming weeks.