Domestic Right-Wing Terrorism Threat
In case you missed it despite the sounds of patriot hearts a-flutter and conservative jaws a-jawin, we've recently learned (via The Raw Story; they have a link to the report) that the Department of Homeland Security has released a report saying that right-wing extremist groups are the "most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States."
Apparently the only ones surprised by the assessment were extreme right-wing ideologues.
Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or ejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
Groups mentioned include white supremacists, anti-government militia, racist hate groups, and the like. This would appear to include seditious secessionist movements–Texas governor Perry take note. There is no word on how teabaggers fit into the scheme.
It is nice not to have gays and lesbians as the biggest threat to the US for a little bit (OK rep Sally Kern: "Studies show no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted, you know, more than a few decades. So it's the death knell in this country. I honestly think it's the biggest threat that our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam, which I think is a big threat." Alas, she didn't specify the "studies", but I think we can exclude this DHS report.)
8 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Friday, 17 April 2009 at 13.32
Permalink
(Bangs forehead on table) This is not new news.
on Friday, 17 April 2009 at 18.17
Permalink
Muslims should be as outraged at this woman's words as the GBLT community. After all, she says that, after gays, Islam (not radical Islam, not terror-driven Islam, but Islam pure and simple) is as big a threat to America as terrorism or homosexuality. But then, with tongue in cheek, I wonder which group Muslims would regard as the worse company: terrorists, or gays?
on Friday, 17 April 2009 at 22.58
Permalink
Of course it isn't news, SW, it just been suppressed information before this administration–suppressed in the interest of national security, one supposes.
Bill, Bill, everyone knows the answer to your question, and it's the same for Muslims or Christians: atheists! Remember, our former, far-from-lamented ex-president questioned our patriotism and even wondered whether we deserved to be citizens.
on Friday, 17 April 2009 at 23.24
Permalink
Jeff, Jeff, do you mean terrorist atheists or fag atheists? Of course, according to the representative from OK, they're the same! Of course, the problem with atheists, in the minds of the patriotic, is that they can't worship their country as if it were god. And that's just bad, bad, bad.
on Saturday, 18 April 2009 at 10.41
Permalink
Bill, Bill, you've got it exactly right: they're all the same. I can remember when Archie Bunker's "commie pinko fag" labels were funny because they were satirizing what the wacko wingnuts of the time believed. Oddly, they still believe it. I suppose trying to conserve ridiculous prejudices and stereotypes is at the forefront of conservative "philosophy".
The theory about worship of country sounds quite operational. The flag certainly seems to fill the role of holy relic, perhaps the transubstantiated body of the country not to be looked upon by infidel atheist liberal commie fags?
on Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 16.21
Permalink
I have a hunch the "studies" Kern mentioned either came out of one of those universities for the offspring of born-agains that Bush always made sure to campaign at or they're the work of some right-wing think tank keenly aware of which side of the bread its butter is on.
on Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 22.07
Permalink
I've always assumed they were referring to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, although it's debatable whether the Roman Empire "fell" (is it falling if it takes several hundred years?), and the lusty images of homosexual decadence that Kern-ites imagine 1) didn't happen; and 2) weren't responsible. It anything, it was the adoption of Christianity that weakened the Roman empire and led to its "fall".
But it could, indeed, be any one of the many silly, discredited "studies" by one of the notorious anti-gay "scholars".
on Monday, 20 April 2009 at 00.31
Permalink
Jeff, the way I learned it the Roman Empire fell in large part because its reach exceeded its grasp, in that it couldn't sustain defense and control of such vast territorial holdings and diverse populations from challenges within and without. Among the challenges was that occupying Romans tended to go native, even assimilate into some of the cultures and societies they were supposed to oversee.
Re: lusty images of decadence. I think that was more a Greek thing, although the Romans were by no means prudish wallflowers, whether hetero or homo.
On Christianity being a big factor in the Roman Empire's "fall," I don't know for sure but have doubts. In the Middle Ages you had the Holy Roman Empire, but that wasn't the same thing at all. Lord knows, though, it's history was rife with corruption, intrigue and violence.
But the bottom line, as you point out, is that the notion tolerance for homosexuality brought down the Roman or any other empire is ridiculous.