Is the DHS watching returning veterans? Only when they join far-right hate groups

-- by Dave

Well, the talkers at Fox, along with the rest of the right-wing propaganda machine, just can't stop talking about that Department of Homeland Security bulletin about the potential threat of right-wing domestic terrorism. Which means, as always, that they are spreading the bullmanure far and wide.

Of course, what they're doing in the process is essentially substantiating one of the central theses of my book The Eliminationists -- namely, that the gravitational effect of the extremist right on mainstream conservatism in recent years has pulled conservatism even farther right, to the point that the differences between them are rapidly vanishing. Hey, if they want to make my point for me, I'm all too happy to let them.

Now, here are the main talking points raised by Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and their guests about the DHS bulletin:

-- Beck says the report specifically singled out veterans and targeted them for investigation of possible far-right extremism.

-- Byron York says the report really was based on nothing but speculation, since in its opening lines it explains there is no evidence of specific plots yet.

-- York adds that the similar report on left-wing terrorists named specific groups, while the right-wing report was more amorphous (and thus had less "meat on its bones") since it did not list any specific groups.

-- Col. Ralph Peters (last seen attacking President Obama for his "weakness" on the Somali pirates just before Obama's order freed that ship captain) says this report is the product of military-hating "Hollywood" people in the new Obama administration.

-- O'Reilly says the report was "unnecessary," cooked up by a bevy of myopic "far left" liberals freshly ensconced in their DHS offices.

-- O'Reilly tells Beck that these liberals' myopia leads them to ignore Al Qaeda while pinning the terrorism label on ordinary conservatives. (He echoes Pat Robertson in this claim.)

All of it, of course, is wrong. Complete, freshly laid, unfettered bullmanure.

OK, I'm going to walk quickly through these backwards, since the first talking point is the most pervasive and most in need of addressing:

-- This bulletin was just one of several assessing various terrorism threats to our national security; because these bulletins were intended for local law-enforcement officials, they necessarily focused on domestic threats. Overseas-based threats are a completely different bailiwick and would not be part of this particular assessment, but that doesn't mean the threat is being ignored or that, for that matter, Homeland Security's ongoing focus on Al Qaeda has dropped even one iota since Janet Napolitano took over.

-- Neither O'Reilly nor Peters appear to have watched what Shepard Smith reported on Fox the day before: Namely, that the bulletin was ordered by the Bush administration, well before Obama took office, and was conducted by Bush-hired intelligence specialists.

-- York is right that the DHS was much more specific in its similar bulletin about left-wing extremists. But there's a reason for that: Far-right extremists absurdly outnumber eco-terrorists, by an exponential factor. It's easy for DHS to list ELF and a handful of other far-left groups capable of acts of terrorism because that's about all there are. On the other hand, there are over 900 hate groups in the SPLC's database, including a large number of them outfits fully capable of (in fact, some essentially built around) inflicting violence on the public. If York (and Michelle Malkin, who's made a similar claim) wanted more specifics in this bulletin, there'd have been quite a bit of ink and space wasted listing them all. If Byron wants a few, let me give him just those in New York state, where he lives. There are 25 of them there. Or just look around a little: Do the names National Socialist Movement, or National Alliance, or Stormfront, or White Aryan Resistance, or Aryan Nations ring a bell anywhere?

-- What the report says is that DHS "has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence", which is very specific language that is quite correct in what it does say -- but it doesn't say that this assessment is based on speculation about economic stresses and political anger. Rather, as anyone can assess from reading the bulletin itself throughout, it's predicated on a good deal of solid factual data regarding the activities of far-right extremists. Some of this, as we'll see, comes from FBI intelligence; and some of it from publicly available sources.

-- Finally, and most on the tip of wingnut tongues, is the claim that the report "singles out" all returning veterans as potential recruits for right-wing extremists. In reality, the report only singles out returning veterans who become active in violent hate groups.

Here's the actual language of the report:

U//FOUO) Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.

This is, in fact, precisely accurate -- and as we pointed out from the get-go, this is the view not merely of DHS, but of the FBI. A July 2008 assessment of the situation by the FBI (titled White Supremacist Recruitment of Military Personnel Since 9/11) found that the numbers of identifiable neo-Nazis within the ranks was quite small (only a little over 200), but warned:

Military experience—ranging from failure at basic training to success in special operations forces—is found throughout the white supremacist extremist movement. FBI reporting indicates extremist leaders have historically favored recruiting active and former military personnel for their knowledge of firearms, explosives, and tactical skills and their access to weapons and intelligence in preparation for an anticipated war against the federal government, Jews, and people of color.

... The prestige which the extremist movement bestows upon members with military experience grants them the potential for influence beyond their numbers. Most extremist groups have some members with military experience, and those with military experience often hold positions of authority within the groups to which they belong.

... Military experience—often regardless of its length or type—distinguishes one within the extremist movement. While those with military backgrounds constitute a small percentage of white supremacist extremists, FBI investigations indicate they frequently have higher profiles within the movement, including recruitment and leadership roles.

... New groups led or significantly populated by military veterans could very likely pursue more operationally minded agendas with greater tactical confidence. In addition, the military training veterans bring to the movement and their potential to pass this training on to others can increase the ability of lone offenders to carry out violence from the movement’s fringes.

This is underscored by a Wall Street Journal story today outlining the FBI work that both produced this assessment and the operation that followed:

The FBI said in the memo that its conclusion about a surge in such activities was based on confidential sources, undercover operations, reporting from other law-enforcement agencies and publicly available information. The memo said the main goal of the multipronged operation was to get a better handle on "the scope of this emerging threat." The operation also seeks to identify gaps in intelligence efforts surrounding these groups and their leaders.

The aim of the FBI's effort with the Defense Department, which was rolled into the Vigilant Eagle program, is to "share information regarding Iraqi and Afghanistan war veterans whose involvement in white supremacy and/or militia sovereign citizen extremist groups poses a domestic terrorism threat," according to the Feb. 23 FBI memo.

Michael Ward, FBI deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, said in an interview Thursday that the portion of the operation focusing on the military related only to veterans who draw the attention of Defense Department officials for joining white-supremacist or other extremist groups.

"We're not doing an investigation into the military, we're not looking at former military members," he said. "It would have to be something they were concerned about, or someone they're concerned is involved" with extremist groups.

It's important to understand how FBI investigations into these kinds of activities take place: The FBI is constrained by DOJ guidelines that do not allow them to investigate organizations merely because of incendiary rhetoric or politically worrisome beliefs. They only open investigations into the activities of members of such groups when there is evidence of actual criminal activity.

And it's at that time that the presence of an extremist with a military background becomes not merely relevant, but potentially important. This is especially so considering one of the realities of the extremist right -- namely, that the vast majority of its members are incapable of anything remotely resembling a terrorist act; what they actually specialize in is the Verbose Bellyache. Yet simultaneously they have developed over recent years a decidedly militaristic culture that prizes actual military background.

So when investigators begin dealing with potential criminal or terrorist activity by right-wing extremists, the presence and involvement of people with military backgrounds -- particularly with skill at armaments -- is a huge red flag. Because these kinds of people transform these groups from Verbose Bellyachers to potentially competent -- lethally competent -- extremist cells.

The most famous example of this, of course, is Timothy McVeigh. But -- contrary to what the right-wing talkers have been saying this week -- McVeigh is hardly the only example of what happens when an alienated veteran is radicalized by these kinds of belief systems -- he's just the most famous. There have, in fact, been a number of veterans who have played significant roles in the radical right in recent years, including acting as terrorists. Besides McVeigh, for instance, there is also Eric Rudolph, who spent two years in the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell in Kentucky, attending the Air Assault School there, and earning the rank of Specialist/E-4.

Then there was our old friend Col. James "Bo" Gritz, ex-Green Beret and Special Forces veteran:



Though he adamantly denied harboring such beliefs much of the time he was promoting militias back in the 1990s, Gritz is now a full-fledged adherent of Christian Identity.

More recently -- and certainly more relevant to the point here -- there's the case of Kody Brittingham, recently of the U.S. Marines:

Brittingham, 20, was with Headquarters and Support Battalion, 2nd Tank Battalion, when he allegedly made the threats against Obama, president-elect at the time. Brittingham was administratively separated from the Corps on Jan. 3.

Brittingham’s legal troubles began in mid-December, when he and three other Lejeune Marines were arrested by Jacksonville police in connection with attempted robbery. He was charged Dec. 16 with attempted robbery, breaking and entering, and conspiracy. His bond was set at that time.

After his arrest, Naval investigators found a journal allegedly written by Brittingham in his barracks room, containing plans on how to kill the president and white supremacist material, a federal law enforcement official told The Daily News of Jacksonville.

This points to a significant dimension of the problem: The recruitment of young men into the military who already harbor white-supremacist beliefs.

It's been long reported that hate groups and other extremists, including neo-Nazis, have been making actual inroads into the ranks of the military in recent years. A July 2006 report by the SPLC found this infiltration occurring at an alarming rate. Neo-Nazis "stretch across all branches of service, they are linking up across the branches once they're inside, and they are hard-core," Department of Defense gang detective Scott Barfield told the SPLC. "We've got Aryan Nations graffiti in Baghdad," he added. "That's a problem."

The source of the problem, as the report explained, was the extreme pressure military recruiters were under to fill their recruitment quotas. "Recruiters are knowingly allowing neo-Nazis and white supremacists to join the armed forces," said Barfield, "and commanders don’t remove them . . . even after we positively identify them as extremists or gang members." The military downplayed a neo-Nazi presence in the ranks, Barfield added, "because then parents who are already worried about their kids signing up and dying in Iraq are going to be even more reluctant about their kids enlisting if they feel they’ll be exposed to gangs and white supremacists."

An example of this kind of crossover is the case of Shaun Stuart, a young man from Montana who returned from Iraq ready to join the National Socialist Movement, and gave a speech three years ago at the state Capitol steps in Olympia:



And, as we noted awhile back, there are predictable results:

Earlier this year, the founder of White Military Men identified himself in his New Saxon account as "Lance Corporal Burton" of the 2nd Battalion Fox Company Pit 2097, from Florida, according to a master's thesis by graduate student Matthew Kennard. Under his "About Me" section, Burton writes: "Love to shoot my M16A2 service rifle effectively at the Hachies (Iraqis)," and, "Love to watch things blow up (Hachies House)."

Kennard, who was working on his thesis for Columbia University's Toni Stabile Center for Investigative Journalism, also monitored claims of active-duty military service earlier this year on the neo-Nazi online forum Blood & Honour, where "88Soldier88" posted this message on Feb. 18: "I am in the ARMY right now. I work in the Detainee Holding Area [in Iraq]. … I am in this until 2013. I am in the infantry but want to go to SF [Special Forces]. Hopefully the training will prepare me for what I hope is to come."

One of the Blood & Honour members claiming to be an active-duty soldier taking part in combat operations in Iraq identified himself to Kennard as Jacob Berg. He did not disclose his rank or branch of service. "There are actually a lot more 'skinheads,' 'nazis,' white supremacists now [in the military] than there has been in a long time," Berg wrote in an E-mail exchange with Kennard. "Us racists are actually getting into the military a lot now because if we don't every one who already is [in the military] will take pity on killing sand niggers. Yes I have killed women, yes I have killed children and yes I have killed older people. But the biggest reason I'm so proud of my kills is because by killing a brown many white people will live to see a new dawn."

This phenomenon reflects the increasingly military style of the Far Right in recent years, particularly the militias in the 1990s, who openly recruited veterans and current military members. The two cultures have become increasingly enmeshed, as embodied by Steven Barry's recruitment plan for neo-Nazis considering a military career as a way to sharpen their "warrior" skills.

And yes, the economic conditions are a worrying potential, particularly given the rising tide of hate-group activity in America:

Last year, 926 hate groups were active in the U.S., up more than 4% from 888 in 2007. That's more than a 50% increase since 2000, when there were 602 groups.

This is where I wonder about the grotesquely skewed priorities of the conservative movement and its leading pundits. Because all the yammering has been fearmongering about the DHS potentially targeting ordinary conservatives -- especially VETERANS!!!! -- when in fact there is not a scintilla of evidence they have done so or are considering it.

Yet in the meantime, as we just pointed out, these right-wing extremists who are the subject and the raison d'etre of this bulletin are also known lethal threats for the men and women who work in law enforcement:

* In the United States, 42 law enforcement officers have been killed in 32 incidents in which at least one of the suspects was a far-rightist since 1990.

* 94% of these incidents involved local or state law enforcement. Only two events—high-profile attacks at Ruby Ridge and at the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City—involved federal agents. Much more common are events like the tragic Pittsburgh triple slayings.

* Attacks on police by far-rightists tend to occur during routine law enforcement activities. 34% of the officers killed by far-rightists were slain during a traffic stop, and a number of law enforcement officers have been killed while responding to calls for service similar to the domestic violence call that precipitated the Pittsburgh murders.

So while the folks at Faux News fearmonger for the sake of yet-unharmed veterans and conservatives, they're completely turning their backs on the interests of the men and women who risk their lives each day serving as law-enforcement officers.

Evidently, not even three dead cops in Pittsburgh can convince them otherwise.

Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.

Pat Robertson urges his callers to crash Homeland Security hotline

-- by Dave

Pat Robertson, on The 700 Club yesterday, got in on the collective right-wing teeth-gnashing over that Department of Homeland Security bulletin on the threat posed by right-wing extremists in America.

You know, the controversy that's been demonstrated to be a lot of hot air -- not to mention a terribly revealing one about how mainstream right-wingers see themselves.

Not that such mere trifles would ever deter Pat Robertson. His attack on the DHS yesterday, alongside his coanchor Terry Meeuwsen, featured an unending stream of flatly false information and mischaracterizations. Plus, of course, the requisite gay-bashing and liberal bashing, all wrapped up in a neat little ball:

Robertson: If that had been a Republican, there would be outrage and screams for Janet Napolitano to resign immediately. That -- Terry, you're somebody who favors life, wants to keep little babies alive. Somebody who has been a veteran and served our country as a proud member of the military. Somebody who is opposed to the left-wing policies of the administration and who wants to express his or her views as they are entitled to under our Constitution, these people are now being stigmatized as terrorists! This is an outrage!

Ladies and gentlemen, I want you to do something about it. If that doesn't get you excited, I don't know what would. And I want you to call a number. This is the Department of Homeland Security.

[Reads number]

... And just say you protest. This is an outrage!

And Janet Napolitano has got a lot of explaining to do. And that lame excuse she was giving -- 'Oh, I'm sorry they characterized all veterans that way' -- I mean, come off it!

Meeuwsen: The report was the report. I mean, it is astonishing that it was allowed to leave under that --

Robertson: It -- it shows somebody down in the bowels of that organization is either a convinced left-winger or somebody whose sexual orientation is somewhat in question.

But it's that kind of thing, somebody who doesn't think that we should have abortion on demand, is labeled a terrorist! It's outrageous!

Then, after a news segment that ended with a story about Somali pirates, Robertson gets back to his rant:

Robertson: These people [pirates] are terrorists. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. The extreme Muslims are terrorists and they are being trained to destroy America.

So what does our Homeland Security Department come out with? They say, well, the real terrorists are people who are conservative, who are former veterans of the United States military, who believe in the sanctity of human life, and who don't like the policies of the current administration. These are the major threat to America.

Now, that in my opinion, is an outrage. And I think if you don't speak out against it, it's going to be allowed to stand. So I want to give you that number again. Ring those phones up there in Washington, let them know people care.

[Reads number]

That you protest this -- ah, stigmatism of law-abiding Americans as being right-wing threats to America.

[Repeats number]

And if you jam up their lines, good for you!

While I could think of a few organizations whose lines it might be a good idea to jam, Homeland Security would not be one of them.

Hell, if Janet Napolitano and Obama were half the tyrants Pat Robertson makes them out to be, wouldn't they be charging him with an act of terrorism?

I'll have a lot more about the DHS bulletin and the wingnut furor around it later today.

[A hat tip to Becky.]

Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.

Shepard Smith blows the 'DHS is picking on the Tea Parties' meme out of the water

-- by Dave

Shepard Smith brought that rarest of things to Fox News yesterday: amid the cacophony over the Tea Parties, he actually committed an act of journalism. In the process, he also managed to also bring a voice of sanity to the nonstop right-wing shrieking at Fox over the recent Department of Homeland Security bulletin about the possible rise of right-wing extremism.

In fact, Smith confirms everything we've reported here: Not only is the report focused entirely on the very real problem of the lethally violent potential of extremist right-wing terrorism, but mainstream conservatives' wailing and teeth-gnashing over it is -- besides being an egregious display of a persecution complex -- if anything a tacit admission of their own complicity in fueling extremist rhetoric.

Catherine Herridge looked into the claims of the Malkinites and essentially blew it all out of the water:

Herridge: Essentially, the driver in these intelligence assessments is the downturn in the economy. What they say, essentially, is that when people have less money, that they're out of work, they feel disenfranchised. This is fertile ground for groups on the left as well as groups on the right.

And you remember, from reporting on this show, Shep, that even at the end of last year, prior to the inauguration, the Department of Homeland Security under the Bush administration was sounding the alarm about the potential for right-wing groups to act, specifically because of the economy, and also because America was going to have its first African-American president.

Smith: So if this bulletin from April 7 looks at the right-wing groups, is there a bulletin that looks at left-wing groups as well?

Herridge: Yeah, we were able to obtain that bulletin as well. It came out in January, and didn't get -- there it is -- didn't get the same attention. It looked specifically at groups like the Earth Liberation Front, or ELF, groups that in the opinion of Homeland Security, in the future will try and attack economic targets and specifically use cyber-attacks, because they see that is sympatico, or in concert with some of their other beliefs.

So there are two assessments. The one on the left, the one on the right is the one that's getting the attention because of the leak.

... I would point out that both of these assessments, Shep, were commissioned under the Bush administration. It takes some time to do them. They only came out after he left office.

Smith then featured an interview with intelligence specialist Mike Baker, who confirmed Herridge's reporting further and suggested that conservatives were grasping at some self-revealing straws here.

Still, that didn't prevent Sean Hannity, only a few hours later, from pontificating at length with Joe the Plumber about how the mean DHS was targeting the tea parties:




They never learn. Indeed, it seems the more wrong the wingnuts are, the more relentless they become. This morning, Janet Napolitano went on Fox to try to explain, and apologized that it came out looking bad -- though that was more the fault of her critics. Here's DHS' official statement.

Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.

That DHS domestic-terror report isn't about the Tea Parties -- it's about the Poplawskis

-- by Dave

One of conservatives' least endearing social traits is that It's All About Them. Always.

In the video above, you can see everyone from Rush Limbaugh to the usual Fox talking heads ranting and whining that the recent internal Department of Homeland Security intelligence report on right-wing domestic terrorists was inspired by government fear over today's Tea Parties.

As if. Do any of these people have any idea how long it takes to compile this kind of threat assessment? Ah, but how can we forget? On Planet Wingnuttia, all the world revolves around them and their serial dumbassery.

Minnesota Independent has a wrapup on all the right-wing bloggers who leapt to the assumption that the DHS report was aimed at the "tea parties."

Then there's Lou Dobbs:



He's so certain it's All About Him, he even put up one of his fake polls asking if someone like himself might be a domestic terrorist:

Our poll question tonight is: Do you think a person concerned about borders and ports that are unsecured, illegal immigration, Second Amendment rights or returning veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is likely or even possibly probable, as the Department of Homeland Security suggests to be a right-wing extremist? Yes or no. Cast your vote at LouDobbs.com. We'll have the results here later in the broadcast.

OK, here's a cluestick for the wingnuts: This report, and the timing of its release, is not about Tea Parties. It's also not about Latino-bashers, except to the extent that Latino-bashers like Dobbs get the serious haters all worked up.

It's about Richard Poplawski. And the dozens, if not hundreds, of little latent Poplawskis out there, waiting to pop off and kill more police officers, or just as likely, a crowd of innocent bystanders.

Of course, you all would like us to forget about Richard Poplawski as soon as possible, wouldn't you, given the mainstream right's culpability in that case?

The Department of Homeland Security more than likely couldn't give a rat's patoot about today's right-wing Tea Tantrums, because they're mostly exercises in futility and stupidity anyway.

But I'll tell you who they do care about: the people in uniform who go out every day and put their lives on the line to keep you and I and our families and neighborhoods safe -- that is, the men and women in law enforcement. People like those three officers in Pittsburgh, who had no reason to suspect a killer was about to ambush them.

A recent study by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism lays out in painful detail the very real threat that right-wing extremists pose to people in law enforcement:

Research led by Dr. Joshua D. Freilich (John Jay College, CUNY) and Dr. Steven Chermak (Michigan State University) and funded by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) has revealed a violent history of fatal attacks against law enforcement officers in the United States by individuals who adhere to far-right ideology.

* In the United States, 42 law enforcement officers have been killed in 32 incidents in which at least one of the suspects was a far-rightist since 1990.

* 94% of these incidents involved local or state law enforcement. Only two events—high-profile attacks at Ruby Ridge and at the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City—involved federal agents. Much more common are events like the tragic Pittsburgh triple slayings.

* Attacks on police by far-rightists tend to occur during routine law enforcement activities. 34% of the officers killed by far-rightists were slain during a traffic stop, and a number of law enforcement officers have been killed while responding to calls for service similar to the domestic violence call that precipitated the Pittsburgh murders.

* Firearms were the most common type of weapon used during these fatal anti-police attacks. 88% of the incidents involved guns, while only 6% involved explosives and 6% involved knives. 81% of the victims were killed by guns.

* Only 12% of the suspects in these attacks were members of formal groups with far-right ideologies. The vast majority—like Poplawski—acted alone. This greatly complicates law-enforcement efforts to anticipate which individuals might pose a threat to police officers.

* Beyond these law enforcement murders, far-right violence presents a broader threat to national security and American citizens. Since 1990, far-rightists have been linked to more than 275 homicide incidents in 36 states. These crimes have resulted in the more than 530 fatalities, including the 168 victims murdered by Timothy McVeigh when he bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The vast majority of these suspects are white and male, with almost 70% being 30 years old or younger.

So please, wingnuts, enjoy your little exercise in narcissism today. Because no one really cares.

Just don't whine so loudly when the adults in the room go about their business without paying you a lot of attention. Really, it's not all about you.

Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.

Conservatives indict themselves with shrieking over DHS report on right-wing terrorism

My my my. The right, led by Michelle Malkin, is up in arms over the Department of Homeland Security's internal intelligence report on right-wing extremism and its post-Obama resurgence.

Malkin's headline wails:

"The Obama DHS Hit Job on Conservatives Is Real"

So, I have a question for Malkin: Are you saying that mainstream conservatives are now right-wing extremists?

Because, you know, the report -- which in fact is perfectly accurate in every jot and tittle -- couldn't be more clear. It carefully delineates that the subject of its report is "rightwing extremists," "domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups," "terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks," "white supremacists," and similar very real threats described in similar language.

Nothing about conservatives. The word never appears in the report.

Because, you know, we always thought there was a difference between right-wing extremists and mainstream conservatives too. My new book, The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right, does explain that the distance between them has in fact shrunk considerably, thanks to the help of people like Malkin.

And now she's evidently intent on shrinking it further:

By contrast, the piece of crap report issued on April 7 is a sweeping indictment of conservatives. And the intent is clear. As the two spokespeople I talked with on the phone today made clear: They both pinpointed the recent “economic downturn” and the “general state of the economy” for stoking “rightwing extremism.” One of the spokespeople said he was told that the report has been in the works for a year. My b.s. detector went off the chart, and yours will, too, if you read through the entire report — which asserts with no evidence that an unquantified “resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalizations activity” is due to home foreclosures, job losses, and…the historical presidential election.

Well, Michelle, it's an "indictment of conservatives" if you say so. The report itself, in fact, is all about accurately identifying very real looming threats. And, while it's obvious Malkin hasn't been paying attention, there in fact is considerable data coming over the transom to indicate that there's a real problem looming with the far right.

Don't forget: Before he'd even been sworn into office, we had skinheads [photo above] being arrested for plotting Obama's assassination.

Malkin complains that the report indulges in "anti-military bigotry" by warning that returning veterans who have been radicalized, or were already right-wing extremists, are a particular threat:

(U) Disgruntled Military Veterans

(U//FOUO) 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.

Well, as we've reported previously, this is in fact a well-identified problem. The FBI says so too:

Military experience—ranging from failure at basic training to success in special operations forces—is found throughout the white supremacist extremist movement. FBI reporting indicates extremist leaders have historically favored recruiting active and former military personnel for their knowledge of firearms, explosives, and tactical skills and their access to weapons and intelligence in preparation for an anticipated war against the federal government, Jews, and people of color.

... The prestige which the extremist movement bestows upon members with military experience grants them the potential for influence beyond their numbers. Most extremist groups have some members with military experience, and those with military experience often hold positions of authority within the groups to which they belong.

... Military experience—often regardless of its length or type—distinguishes one within the extremist movement. While those with military backgrounds constitute a small percentage of white supremacist extremists, FBI investigations indicate they frequently have higher profiles within the movement, including recruitment and leadership roles.

Yet quoth Malkin:

There’s no hackneyed left-wing stereotype of conservatives left behind in this DHS intelligence and analysis assessment. I asked both DHS spokespeople to tell me who, specifically, the report was accusing of “rightwing extremist chatter” and which “antigovernment” groups are being monitored as “extremists.” They say they’ll get back to me.

I'd be astonished if any of the groups identified by right-leaning law-enforcement organizations like the FBI and DHS were actually anything identifiably mainstream conservative -- though of course it's important to remember that hate groups like VDare -- which runs Malkin's column at their website -- the Federation for American Immigration Reform, and American Renaissance have been doing their damnedest to blur that line over the years. And sites like Free Republic are rife with extreme Patriot-style rhetoric, too.

Look, however, at some of the things the report says:

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.

(U) Economic Hardship and Extremism
(U//FOUO) 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.

Everything about this is exactly accurate in every detail. But it also reminds people like Malkin just how much they themselves have been trafficking in this kind of extremism. She may not intend to be helping inflame white supremacists -- but she is.

What's actually happened is this: The DHS accidentally held a mirror up to Michelle Malkin. And she's shrieking at the self-recognition.

Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.

Glenn Beck's 'Liberal Fascism Hour': Revising history as Newspeak

-- by Dave

Back early last year when I was busy critiquing Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism, the question came up frequently: Why would I bother? Isn't it a problem to be treating a book of junk political philosophy like this with more respect than it deserves? Isn't flat-out mockery perhaps the better response?

Well, as I noted then:

[T]he problem with dismissing Liberal Fascism out of hand is that the mainstream media certainly haven't dismissed the book out of hand: Goldberg's been on a regular rotation of cable-talk shows since the book's release, and more certainly are on the way. As much as we might wish this noxious meme would choke on its own fumes, it's clear that isn't going to happen: the "liberal media" is all too happy to present this fraud as "serious," and there are going to be large swaths of the public lapping it up. (There already are, in fact.) Pretty soon any discussion of actual fascists will be dismissed with a wave of the "ah, you libruls are the real fascists" hand.

Moreover, from where I stand, his grotesque misreadings of history and the realities of the rise of fascism both in Europe and America, his eradication and trivialization of genuine American fascist elements from the pages of that history -- those things simply cannot go unanswered. Someone needs to point out that the Pantload has no clothes.

Of course, at the time I couldn't have predicted that only a little more than a year later, the hottest talk-show host ratings-wise on cable TV -- Glenn Beck, on Fox News -- would not only be regularly plumping Goldberg's book, he'd be devoting the core thesis of his show to the proposition that under Barack Obama, the nation is proceeding on a direct fascist course.

And that, as he did Friday, he'd devote an entire hour, replete with select historians, to exploring this crackpot notion.



As you can see, the entire show was such a mix of distorted fact and outright misconceptions, piled on top with tendentious misreadings of actual history, that it's hard to tell where to begin.

But a side remark Beck makes is fairly indicative of the problem with this whole enterprise -- namely, it is a grossly blinkered version of history, revised and selectively edited to serve as a nice bedtime story for conservatives. He turns to Amity Shlaes (we told you it was a select bunch) to ask her about FDR and the Depression:

Beck: Amity, let me start with you, because I want to go to the Depression, I want to talk about that. But what I really want to do, because we're running up against the clock here, is spend a little time on: Who is the person we should look to that stood up against this? Who are the people that were successful?

I know Henry Ford was one of them -- in FDR. He stood up against them and said, 'This is wrong!' Who else?

[Shlaes, FWIW, chooses Wendell Wilkie. Yah shoor, he was such a success.]

This isn't the first time Beck has invoked Henry Ford as a consummate anti-fascist. This is very funny.



I walked through all this the last time Beck did this, but Hume's Ghost has a succinct wrapup:

Ok, let's walk through this. F.D.R. headed up the war efforts against the Nazis during World War II. Henry Ford did everything he possibly could to prevent the United States from fighting the Nazis because he was a fan of the Nazi regime. Henry Ford was awarded and accepted the highest medal that Germany bestowed upon foreigners in 1938. The Ford factories in Europe helped build the Nazi war machine. The rabidly anti-Semitic paper that Ford published helped inspire the Holocaust and popularized the notorious Protocols of Zion.

But in Beck's warped, alternate universe, Henry Ford is anti-fascist because he didn't like the New Deal ... - while the guy who actually headed up the government while it fought and defeated the fascists is a fascist. Here's a clue for the eternally clueless Beck: we actually had fascists in America during the New Deal - and some of them were opposed to it precisely because they were fascists.

Now, for anyone who really wants to delve the broader subject of fascism, "liberal fascism," and Jonah Goldberg's Bizarro thesis, I always recommend they scroll through some of the detailed work I did last year. Boiled down, my conclusion is that Liberal Fascism and its thesis are Newspeak: using a word to mean its opposite, thereby rendering the word itself meaningless.

Or, you can check out Chapter 6 of my new book, The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right (available at Amazon), which is titled "Understanding Fascism". An excerpt:

The term fascism has come to be nearly useless over the past 30 years or so. In many respects, leftists are most responsible for its degradation; lobbing it at anyone conservative or corporatist in the 1960s and ’70s became so common that its original meaning—describing a very distinct political style, if not quite philosophy—became utterly muddled, at least in the public lexicon.

Over the past 30 years or so, fascism is now loosely used to define the broader concept of totalitarianism, which encompasses communism as well. Liberals are every bit as prone to this particular confusion as conservatives. The difference, perhaps, is that the latter often do so deliberately, as a way of obscuring the genuine fascism that sits at their elbows.

The godfather of this obscurantism is Rush Limbaugh, who for years has been holding forth on the rise of “feminazis” on the ranks of the left; at various times he has told listeners that because Nazism had “socialism” in its original name (that is, National Socialism) it was actually a left-wing movement. Various other right-wing propagandists have proposed similar readings of history.

But this notion leapt onto the New York Times bestseller list in 2008 when Jonah Goldberg of the National Review published his book Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. Goldberg’s book was essentially an up-is-down-inside-is-out mishmash of history and political philosophy that stipulated, primarily, that "fascism, properly understood, is not a phenomenon of the right at all. Instead, it is, and always has been, a phenomenon of the left.”

He bases his argument on the following definition of fascism:

Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve that common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the "problem" and therefore defined as the enemy.

There’s an obvious problem with this: Goldberg's definition does not fit fascism per se. One could use nearly the same terms and ideas to define Marxist-Leninist, or any other kind of totalitarian state. His definition describes totalitarianism (or authoritarianism, if you will) generally, but not fascism specifically.

Fascism is a specific species of totalitarianism, and it is best understood not simply by the things it has in common with other forms of this phenomenon (and there are plenty, complete state control of the individual’s mind and life being the most essential) but what distinguishes it. The academic debate over the "fascist minimum" (that is, what is its ineluctable core), has raged for some years. Goldberg’s book did nothing to advance this debate; on the contrary, it muddied the waters of public understanding with illogical nonsense.

Most Americans believe they know what communism is, largely because it is an ideology based on a body of texts and revolving around specific ideas. In contrast, hardly anyone can explain what comprises fascism, mainly because all we really know about it is the regimes that arose under its banner. There are no extant texts, only a litany of dictatorships and atrocities. When we think of fascism, we think of Hitler and perhaps Mussolini, without understanding anything about the conditions that carried them to power.

At the same time, it’s important that both liberal and conservative Americans have a clear view of what fascism is, not just as an abstract definition, but as a real-life phenomenon. Fascism is not an extinct political force. Most Americans view Nazism as some kind of strange European virus that afflicted only the Germans and Italians, and only for a brief period—this by way of reassuring ourselves that “it couldn’t happen here.” But a look at the history of fascism shows this not to be the case; that the Germans and the Italians were ordinary, ostensibly civilized people like the rest of us. And that what went wrong there could someday go wrong here, too. How, then, are we to know if that is what’s happening, as it seems to happen so gradually that the populace scarcely recognizes it?

In its early years, fascism was best understood as an extreme reaction against socialism and communism, as “extremist anti-communism.” This view, predictably, was offered up by communists, who saw everything through their own ideological prisms. In reality, fascism was more complex than that, though the fear of communism was no doubt an essential element that fueled its recruitment and ideological appeal. At the time, there were very few attempts to systematize the ideology of fascism, though some existed (see, for example, Giovanni Gentile’s 1932 text, The Doctrine of Fascism ). Its true spirit was best expressed in an inchoate rant like Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf.

Fascism was explicitly anti-democratic, anti-liberal, and corporatist, and it endorsed violence as a chief means to its ends. It was “revolutionary” in its fervor, yet sought to defend status-quo institutions, particularly business interests. It was also, obviously, authoritarian; the claim that it was oriented toward "socialism" is crudely ahistorical, if not outrageously revisionist. Lest we forget, socialists were among the first people targeted by Mussolini’s black-shirted thugs, and they were among the first people imprisoned and "liquidated" by the Nazi regime.

However, it’s important not to confuse fascism as a movement on the rise with fascism as a power. If can only identify fascism in its mature form—the goose-stepping brownshirts, the full-fledged use of violence and intimidation tactics, the mass rallies—then it will be far too late to stop it. Fascism arose as a much more atomized phenomenon, at first mostly in rural areas, then it spread to the cities; and if we look at those origins, it becomes clear that similar forms already exist in America.

Fascism springs from very ancient sources; its antecedents have appeared all throughout history. It adapts to changing conditions. As the French specialist on the extreme Right, Pierre-André Taguieff, puts it:

Neither "fascism" nor "racism" will do us the favour of returning in such a way that we can recognise them easily. If vigilance was only a game of recognising something already well-known, then it would only be a question of remembering. Vigilance would be reduced to a social game using reminiscence and identification by recognition, a consoling illusion of an immobile history peopled with events which accord with our expectations or our fears.

Assessing the genuine potential for fascism in America requires identifying the core components of fascism itself: its ancient wellsprings that remain with us today. Then, we need to ask ourselves what we are doing to keep those forces in check.

One of the aspects of Friday night's show that was especially bothersome was the way Beck and Co. tried dragging Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson into the whole affair, since in Beck's view it was under these two that America first went astray by ignoring the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.

According to Beck, it was under Teddy that America first made its steps toward "fascism" by adopting the early versions of progressivism:

Beck: The turning point seems to be a guy that so many people say, 'Oh, Teddy Roosevelt. He was fantastic.' But he captured the Republicans where Woodrow Wilson and FDR captured the Democrats, for this Progressive movement and took us fundamentally off the tracks that our Founders had built and moved us in another direction.

Actually, anyone who's studied the larger scope of the history of that era is well aware that Roosevelt, in adopting a handful of Progressive positions, was essentially working to stave off the looming social chaos wrought by the robber-baron oligarchy that wealthy Americans had created at the turn of the 20th century. If America got "off track" in terms of what the Founders envisioned, it happened well before Teddy came along.

Maybe Glenn Beck should expose himself to a few other quarters of history. Maybe then he would meet such characters as the young fellows below:



If Beck had been alive in the USA back then, he very well could have been one of these boys, or at least have been among that class of citizens. Here's what he'd have faced:

Before 1874, when Massachusetts passed the nation's first legislation limiting the number of hours women and child factory workers could perform to 10 hours a day, virtually no labor legislation existed in the country. Indeed, it was not until the 1930s that the federal government would become actively involved. Until then, the field was left to the state and local authorities, few of whom were as responsive to the workers as they were to wealthy industrialists.

The laissez-faire capitalism, which dominated the second half of the 19th century and fostered huge concentrations of wealth and power, was backed by a judiciary which time and again ruled against those who challenged the system. In this, they were merely following the prevailing philosophy of the times. As John D. Rockefeller is reported to have said: "the growth of a large business is merely a survival of the fittest." This "Social Darwinism," as it was known, had many proponents who argued that any attempt to regulate business was tantamount to impeding the natural evolution of the species.

Yet the costs of this indifference to the victims of capital were high. For millions, living and working conditions were poor, and the hope of escaping from a lifetime of poverty slight. As late as the year 1900, the United States had the highest job-related fatality rate of any industrialized nation in the world. Most industrial workers still worked a 10-hour day (12 hours in the steel industry), yet earned from 20 to 40 percent less than the minimum deemed necessary for a decent life. The situation was only worse for children, whose numbers in the work force doubled between 1870 and 1900.

You see, when Teddy was president, there was no such thing as a 40-hour workweek; most Americans, in fact, worked between 60 and 80 hours per week. The average family lived in real poverty. Child labor, like the little boy miners above, was common. And the courts, especially the Supreme Court -- which relied on a doctrine called formalism, which is essentially identical to today's "strict construction" -- effectively supported the oligarchy and refused to evince any sympathy at all for working Americans. Unrest was rising: Not just progressives, but ardent socialists and communists were making waves.

America was off its track then because of the greed of a few.

The task Roosevelt faced was finding a way to mollify the increasingly angry working-class Americans, and subdue the unrest, while keeping his own class -- the landed gentry -- relatively behind him. So in most regards, Roosevelt chose a very middle-of-the-road path of moderate progressivism. He was no friend of the unions, but he did begin making government concessions to the needs of working people. (In my mind, the best portrait of this moment in American history is J. Anthony Lukas' Big Trouble.)

Mind you, Teddy only took baby steps toward adopting progressive solutions to the problem. It wasn't until FDR that they began to gain traction: The Fair Labor Standards Act passed in 1938, which established the 40-hour workweek. Under FDR labor unions were officially welcomed into the fold of the American workplace. And under FDR, the Great American Middle Class -- which we all take so readily for granted now -- was born.

Indeed, if we listen to the Glenn Becks of the world, we will effectively have handed the country back to the oligarchs.

Now, were these progressive solutions a betrayal of our Founders' intent? Hardly. Indeed, it seems far more reasonable to argue that they intended their successors to adapt the Constitution as needed to changing conditions of the tides of time. After all, it was Thomas Jefferson who wrote:

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves were they to rise from the dead.

Even more to the point, perhaps, is Thomas Paine's Agrarian Justice, which is essentially a treatise on the need for community sharing and consensual taxation:

It is a position not to be controverted that the earth, in its natural, cultivated state was, and ever would have continued to be, the common property of the human race. In that state every man would have been born to property. He would have been a joint life proprietor with rest in the property of the soil, and in all its natural productions, vegetable and animal. ...

Every proprietor, therefore, of cultivated lands, owes to the community ground-rent (for I know of no better term to express the idea) for the land which he holds; and it is from this ground-rent that the fund prod in this plan is to issue.

As for Glenn Beck's oft-stated view that charities, and not government, should be taking care of the poor, here's Paine's view of that:

There are, in every country, some magnificent charities established by individuals. It is, however, but little that any individual can do, when the whole extent of the misery to be relieved is considered. He may satisfy his conscience, but not his heart. He may give all that he has, and that all will relieve but little. It is only by organizing civilization upon such principles as to act like a system of pulleys, that the whole weight of misery can be removed.

The plan here proposed will reach the whole. It will immediately relieve and take out of view three classes of wretchedness-the blind, the lame, and the aged poor; and it will furnish the rising generation with means to prevent their becoming poor; and it will do this without deranging or interfering with any national measures.

Of course, Thomas Paine's name is familiar to anyone who watched Friday. At the end of the same show, Beck tried to "channel" Paine with a right-wing rant that was all about inspiring Americans to rise up against the administration they just got finished electing. Why? Because they're taxing us.

And the real Thomas Paine's grave was registering the whirling on the Richter scale.

Digby has more.

Right-wing fearmongering about guns reaching a fever pitch

-- by Dave

One of the hallmarks of the militia movement of the 1990s was the way it inspired violence: by essentially loosing the moorings of their followers from reality by promulgating a toxic brew of conspiracy theories, right-wing historical revisionism, and a bevy of false "facts" and claims against government officials and liberals generally. Chief among these, of course, was the belief that Bill Clinton and the New World Order were coming to take their guns away -- which, of course, he never did, though he did manage to pass an assault-weapons ban.

So when we point out the toxic effects of the revival of this kind of irresponsible rhetoric, it's because there's a real history behind it. It's not mere presupposition to point out that fearmongering that promotes palpably false and distorted claims often brings violent results; we already are too familiar with this causal relationship from experience.

The difference between the 1990s and now? When I was hearing talk like this then, it was coming out of the mouths of the Bo Gritzes and John Trochmanns -- the leaders and fanatical ideologues who drove the militia movement.

Now, it's coming out of the mouths of people with mainstream media programs: Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter.

Media Matters has compiled a video documenting how rabidly the "Obama wants to grab our guns" meme has been broadcast to the True Believers of the American Right including Beck -- who reiterated his belief the Monday after the Pittsburgh shootings:

Later on his radio show, Beck said that Obama "will slowly but surely take away your gun or take away your ability to shoot a gun, carry a gun. He will make them more expensive; he'll tax them out of existence. He will because he has said he would. He will tax your gun or take your gun away one way or another." Beck is not alone -- since Obama's election, several conservative media figures have similarly warned that Obama would seize their guns or have suggested that a government effort to ban guns is likely.

Examples of conservative media figures advancing this claim include:

* On the November 7, 2008, broadcast of his nationally syndicated show, conservative radio host Lars Larson said of Obama: "I'm worried that when he starts naming people to the court, when that -- when that happens, and it's likely to during his administration, we're going to end up with justices who think they can break free of the constraints of the Constitution -- perhaps on the Second Amendment, one of my favorites." Larson later read a letter from a listener stating, "Lars, I've always said that if the gun-grabbers come to my front door and demand my guns due to some unconstitutional law being passed by the loony lefties in Washington, D.C., I'll have no choice but to hand them over. However, they will receive all of my ammunition first, all of it, just as fast as I can possibly give it to them."

* On December 4, 2008, after a caller stated that "gun manufacturers" would be able to raise prices during the economic crisis, Milwaukee radio host Mark Belling responded, "Well, OK. You're right about that. Everybody's buying guns before Obama comes in and outlaws them all."

* On the February 11 broadcast of ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show, conservative columnist Ann Coulter said, "[B]y the way, the NRA also has information on how they [the Obama administration] are going to be expanding the concept of national parks to include, you know, highways running from Rhode Island to Virginia. National parks have gun bans imposed throughout." She then stated of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, "This bill is so much worse than earmarks and pork. This is a total government takeover, and Big Brother coming in and taking our guns and schools and doctors." Host Sean Hannity responded, in part: "All right. Let me -- Pat, let's -- lest those out there on the left think Ann Coulter is paranoid -- let's look at this. We've got the Democrats now want to politicize the census by moving it into Rahm -- Rahmbo [White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel], deadfish -- Emanuel's hands."

* On the April 7 edition of Salem Radio Network's The Mike Gallagher Show, host Mike Gallagher discussed an exchange between the Second Amendment Foundation's Alan Gottlieb and MSNBC anchor David Shuster on the April 6 edition of Hardball. Gallagher stated, "Now listen to the way Gottlieb does a great job in explaining logically why people are worried about what the Obama administration wants to do with our guns," then aired a clip in which Shuster asked Gottlieb, "Do you believe that the Obama administration and the Feds are coming to take away everybody's guns?" Gottlieb replied, "I believe that's what they would like to do. I don't think we're going to let them get away with it." Gallagher later stated, "[L]isten to the way Gottlieb leaves the liberal columnist stuttering and stammering, explaining very eloquently why so many of us are worried and scurrying to buy guns right now." He then aired a clip from the same Hardball segment in which New York Times columnist Charles Blow asked Gottlieb, "And we should confront that fear with guns?" and Gottlieb responded in part: "[I]f you think the government might take your rights away from you, you want to try and exercise them before that happens. It's a normal reaction."

Look, people: There is no factual basis for claiming that Obama "wants to take away our guns." There is a big difference between favoring reinstitution of an assault-weapons ban, or any other limited gun-control measure, and such sweeping attacks on gun ownership as the NRA and Glenn Beck have suggested are in the works.

It's a simple fact: Obama is focused on repairing the economy. This is why his broader initiatives so far have been about health care, education, energy, and immigration -- all of which have a direct bearing on the economy. He understands that gun control is a volatile and divisive issue, and pushing it at a time when we need some national unity is both unwise and counterproductive.

Sure, I think we all would like to have a serious conversation about guns somewhere down the road. But it can and will wait. Right now we need as many shoulders to the boulders as we can muster.

In other words: Why won't conservatives do the right thing, get over the silly stuff, and get serious about our national problems right now? All we're getting so far is tea parties and conspiracy theories.

And judging by their behavior since Obama's been elected, that's all we can expect to get from here on out -- that, and the inevitable spiral of violence.

Read The Eliminationists for an in-depth discussion of this.

Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.

O'Reilly and Beck know why evil liberal bloggers criticize their fearmongering: it's jealousy

-- by Dave

Bill O'Reilly is unhappy that evil liberal bloggers are connecting the hateful, violent, and paranoid rhetoric coming from the likes of himself and Glenn Beck to actual incidents of violence.

So he and Beck sat down to talk about it last night. And of course, much unintentional hilarity ensued:

O'Reilly: As you may know, the Factor and the Glenn Beck Program are enjoying huge ratings. ... On the flip side, CNN and NBC, their cable networks are doing very poorly. In the first quarter of the month, Fox News had 10 of the Top 10 cable news programs. That means the others didn't have any. We had all 10.

That's causing anger and desperation on the left. And now some of these haters are accusing Beck, me and others of inciting violence. As we reported last night on Policing the Net, these despicable people are now using murder to attack people with whom they disagree.

With us now to respond is Glenn Beck. So you understand that this is just the jealousy factor.

Beck: Oh yeah. ... [Nattering about ratings]

O'Reilly: Now, you had actually addressed -- for the folks that don't know what we're talking about, the tragedies in Binghamton and Pittsburgh, where 14 people were killed in Binghamton and three police officers in Pittsburgh, were driven by madmen. People who flip and they go in and they do this. And then these commentators, if you want to call them that, Internet fanatics, whatever word you wanna use, say, 'Oh no, O'Reilly and Beck, because they are complaining about the state of the union right now, they're responsible.'

It's absurd. It is hateful, obviously. I tend to ignore it. But you actually did something on it, on your show.

Actually, Bill, the connections to violent incidents we pointed out had nothing to do with you "complaining about the state of the union right now." They had to to with mainstream conservative commentators like you and Mr. Beck irresponsibly promulgating conspiracy theories and political beliefs systems that are both paranoiac and bereft of any factual basis in the real world, such as the notion of a looming One World Government or the claims that the government is building concentration camps and that Obama wants to take our guns away.

Because all three of these claims, as we saw this weekend, play out in horrific ways in real life. It's classic fearmongering, and the fact that it produces violent behavior should not surprise anyone.

Not that these guys care about that. They're too giddy about those most excellent ratings.

Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.

Obama's next big political battle: Immigration reform

-- by Dave

Pat Buchanan is promising a "bloodbath." Brad Blakeman is vowing that Republicans will line up against it en masse. But according to the New York Times, President Obama is planning to push for comprehensive immigration reform this year anyway:

Mr. Obama will frame the new effort — likely to rouse passions on all sides of the highly divisive issue — as “policy reform that controls immigration and makes it an orderly system,” said the official, Cecilia Muñoz, deputy assistant to the president and director of intergovernmental affairs in the White House.

Mr. Obama plans to speak publicly about the issue in May, administration officials said, and over the summer he will convene working groups, including lawmakers from both parties and a range of immigration groups, to begin discussing possible legislation for as early as this fall.

Some White House officials said that immigration would not take precedence over the health care and energy proposals that Mr. Obama has identified as priorities. But the timetable is consistent with pledges Mr. Obama made to Hispanic groups in last year’s campaign.

He said then that comprehensive immigration legislation, including a plan to make legal status possible for an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, would be a priority in his first year in office. Latino voters turned out strongly for Mr. Obama in the election.

The legislation that Obama favors, in fact, sounds pretty familiar:

In broad outlines, officials said, the Obama administration favors legislation that would bring illegal immigrants into the legal system by recognizing that they violated the law, and imposing fines and other penalties to fit the offense. The legislation would seek to prevent future illegal immigration by strengthening border enforcement and cracking down on employers who hire illegal immigrants, while creating a national system for verifying the legal immigration status of new workers.

If this sounds an awful lot like the immigration-reform legislation, promoted by then-President Bush, that died in 2007 because Rush Limbaugh's flying monkeys descended upon it, that's because largely it is. In other words, it's not very different from what a Republican President recently proffered -- but which died at the hands of the rabid nativist wing of his party.

So there was Pitchfork Pat today on MSNBC's Morning Joe:

They will face a bloodbath if he tries try to legalize 12 million illegal aliens when the unemployment rate is rising, and it is huge among working-class Americans.

Republican strategist Brad Blakeman came on MSNBC today to discuss it, and said Republicans will line up against it because: "It's just bad policy." One wonders if he thought so back in 2007.

He went on to suggest that John McCain, who's championed this kind of legislation for many years, may be the lone Republican this time out:

Blakeman: John McCain is not going to be able to push this legislation through, because the Republicans are going to rally and unite, as well as I believe independents -- and blue-collar Democrats. Their jobs are going to be threatened.

And Nora, I'll make a prediction: We're going to be in double-digit unemployment in this country in the summer. The President claims to unveil this plan and have it done in the first year. Well, that's going to be awful hard to do when millions of Americans are out of work, and inflation is creeping up, and our economy isn't doing well. And he is now going to legalize 12 million illegal aliens and give them the rights that workers in this country should be having? It isn't going to work.

Well, at least the argument this time out is about employment and not about "Reconquista" or leprosy or crime -- which means there can be a reasonable debate. But Blakeman's argument runs aground on a very simple reality: it is immigrants' illegal status that undermines Americans' working wages.

Employers are able to get away with paying lower wages when they have workers who live under threat of deportation. Ending that situation, and helping these immigrants obtain the ordinary rights of citizenship, will actually play a key role in America's economic recovery. Because, as Time's Nathan Thornburgh noted a couple of years ago, immigration holds the key to the future economic competitiveness of the United States: "For all the stresses of immigration, it is the only industrialized nation with a population that is growing fast enough and skews young enough to provide the kind of workforce that a dynamic economy needs."

It's a classic rising-tide-lifts-all-boats scenario: By helping the immigrants already here find a path to citizenship -- which in turn makes them less vulnerable to the exploitation that hurts everyone except the exploiters -- while making the system of immigration built on rational economic needs instead of xenophobic ethnic fears, Americans will be helping themselves, too.

As Frank Sharry at America's Voice observed:

Moreover, the version of immigration reform that is likely to be debated this year will focus primarily on cracking down on bad actor employers who violate immigration, labor, and tax laws, combined with the legalization of workers and families already contributing and living here in the United States. This approach will lift wages for American and immigrant workers alike, enhance tax fairness and boost revenues, and create a level playing field for honest employers. The majority of Americans believe that earned citizenship combined with smart policies that will significantly reduce illegal immigration is the American way to solve this complex challenge.

Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.

Poplawski's neo-Nazi activism included posting Glenn Beck video, but media talk about dog pee

-- by Dave

An astonishing thing seems to have happened to the case of Richard Poplawski and the three dead Pittsburgh policemen: It's been turned into a story about dog pee -- and not about the fact that Poplawski was fueled by a toxic mix of white-supremacist/conspiracy-theorist paranoia and mainstream-media fearmongering, including from the likes of Glenn Beck and Fox News.

Maybe the media are collectively embarrassed by the way this case demonstrates how they play an important role in whipping up the far-right crazies out there -- and they should be. Because not only did Richard Poplawski avidly participate in white-supremacist online forums and right-wing conspiracy-theory sites, he also avidly consumed mainstream conservative media, particularly Fox.

The classic instance of this: A few weeks ago, Poplawski posted a clip of Beck talking about FEMA concentration camps on the neo-Nazi Stormfront forum site. (You can see the clip from the show in question above.)

Eric Boehlert at Media Matters noticed yesterday that the New York Times completely ignored the white-supremacy aspect of the story, running an AP story that only briefly alluded to Poplawski's paranoiac fears and instead focused on the dog-pee-on-the-carpet angle. David Waldman at Daily Kos noted a similar trend.

MSNBC, which ran the same story, had this for a headline:



Meanwhile, Mark Pitcavage at the Anti-Defamation League published his findings Monday:

-- Poplawski believed that the federal government, the media, and the banking system are all largely or completely controlled by Jews. He thought African-Americans were "vile" and non-white races inferior to whites.

-- He also believed that a conspiracy led by "evil Zionists" and "greedy traitorous goyim" was "ramping up" a police state in the United States for malign purposes.

-- Web sites like the neo-Nazi Stormfront forums and the anti-government conspiracy Infowars site fueled his racist, anti-Semitic, and conspiratorial mindset.

... Poplawski bought into the SHTF/TEOTWAKI [S--t Hits The Fan/The End Of The World As We Know It] conspiracy theories hook, line and sinker, even posting a link to Stormfront of a YouTube video featuring talk show host Glenn Beck talking about FEMA camps with Congressman Ron Paul. When the city of Pittsburgh got a Homeland Security grant to add surveillance cameras to protect downtown bridges, Poplawski told Stormfronters that it was "ramping up the police state." He said, too, that he gave warnings to grocery store customers he encountered (but only if they were white) to stock up on canned goods and other long-lasting foods.

Well, at least Dennis Roddy of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette -- who was one of the first reporters on this story -- carried most of the details and more in his Monday story:

Accused cop-killer Richard Poplawski spent hours posting racist messages on an extremist right-wing Web site, decrying blacks and Latinos and warning of forthcoming economic collapse fueled by the "Zionist occupation" of America, an expert in political extremism has determined. Earlier, he had praised the "AK" rifle as his ideal weapon.

It was an AK-47 that police say Mr. Poplawski used to gun down three Pittsburgh police officers who arrived at his house Saturday morning in the midst of a domestic dispute.

An account kept on Stormfront, a gathering place for racial extremists and others from the far-right show Mr. Poplawski's increasing belief in a coming economic and political collapse in the days leading up to the time of the deadly standoff in which he is charged with killing three Pittsburgh police officers.

The ADL report also delves his love of Alex Jones' conspiracy theories. Roddy has more details on this today. Boehlert observes that this is the same Alex Jones who's been prominently featured on Fox News lately.

This is a classic example of how "the Transmission Belt", by which far-right ideas are borne into the mainstream of American political discourse, actually works -- "how stuff gets essentially a trial run in ... the far right, and the messages will get refined, and then they'll be picked up by these intermediary groups and individuals, and refined some more, and then there'll be a buzz that's created, and then that gets media attention in the mainstream press."

It's important to point out the relationship between the mainstream media and the far right in these situations, especially for unstable and violent actors like Poplawski: Typically, full-on subscribers to extremist beliefs view mainstream conservatives with distaste and distrust, since they believe them to be weak-kneed sellouts. They instead tend to trust the Joneses and the John Trochmanns and Lew Rockwells and Ron Pauls first.

So when the memes regarding "suppressed knowledge" that these extremists organize around suddenly appear in the mainstream media -- in places like Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs' and Sean Hannity's cable-network shows -- it has a real amplifying effect: Not only is it final and consummate confirmation of their beliefs in these conspiracy theories, but it induces an extreme apocalypticism, a fear that things must be even worse than they suspected.

That's why Poplawski posted that Beck video on FEMA camps: If even the mainstream media were reporting it, then you know it had to be coming.

Now, the dog-pee angle is in fact handy for one thing: It lets neo-Confederates like Robert Stacy McCain simply sneer at reportage pointing out the white-supremacy aspect of the story, in a futile effort to kick some sand to cover the scent.

But it's probably not what journalists interested in reporting the truth of this kind of tragic story should be writing about.

Max Blumenthal has more.

Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.

Announcing 'The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right'

-- by Dave

I'm proud to announce today the publication of my fourth book: The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right, by PoliPoint Press.

The book is an outgrowth of the work I've done over the years at my old blog Orcinus, where the chief subject since the very first post has been the intersection of right-wing extremism and mainstream politics. Indeed, anyone who's read my work over the years -- especially those Koufax-winning series on fascism -- will recognize at least some of the prose contained herein.

It's also probably worth noting that the subject of eliminationism encompasses all three of my previous books as well: In God's Country was about the Patriot movement, which I describe there as proto-fascist; Death on the Fourth of July deals with one of the main manifestations of eliminationist violence -- namely, hate crimes; and Strawberry Days was about one of the worst episodes of officially sanctioned eliminationism in the country's history. So The Eliminationists represents a sharpening of the focus into a subject I think is going to preoccupy many of us shortly.

Indeed, as this past weekend's events have demonstrated, the need to discuss this issue has never been clearer or greater -- and it may become even more so over the coming weeks and months.

The book is currently available through Amazon and Barnes and Noble. We're still waiting for the books to work their way through the distribution chain and reach people's local bookstores.

Because of that, we'll have a chat here hosted by Digby on May 2, by which time the book should be on store shelves. I'll also be chatting at Firedoglake on May 16, and some undetermined date at Daily Kos.

We're also planning to run pertinent excerpts from the book at C&L in the coming week or so. And in the coming weeks, I'll be hosting a series of other journalists who are similarly concerned about the issues the book addresses in live chats here at C&L. Later on, I'll announce the plans for my book tour.

And I'm looking forward to every bit of it.

(You can also read Tristero's lovely review over at Digby's Hullabaloo.)