"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Mike" nospam @ aol.com wrote:
My "point" was that there's plenty of valid reasons for the DHS
report,

Those valid reasons appear to require a scanning probe microscope to
find. The report didn't name a single organization or group needing
scrutiny. It was entirely speculative - and a reasonably well-read
twelve year old of average intelligence could have produced it. Utterly
useless for its target audience unless one has a low opinion of law
enforcement. Lastly, the author seemed to be cribbing points from the
Stallone movie "First Blood".

In order to believe you are correct requires that one completely ignore all
past historical precedent and the current climate of right wing extremism
resurgency. Considering you seem to prefer using revisionist historian
Michelle Malkin as your source of information, I really can't say as I'm all
that surprised.


which makes pretty much all of the rest of the wingnut rants
impotent (as if they ever had a chance of being valid anyway).

The main objection from genuine conservatives and libertarians is that
the DHS report defined "right wing extremism" as also including anyone
that is "...mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor
of state or local authority...."

If you're pro-government, well then I can see why you see nothing of
concern. A chasm between views.

I suppose if you are the type to cherrypick statements, hack them up, then
draw your own ****ed up conclusions (or more precisely allow wingnut pundits
to do so for you), then I can see your concern.

I do find it rather funny when a wingnut pundit (like Michelle Malkin) comes
up with the most off the wall **** imaginable and the wingnuts come out of
the woodwork swearing to the same nonsense as if the garbage they just
parroted out were their own thoughts. It does give testament to the ability
of the puppets to all march in lockstep with each other, but it doesn't say
much for their ability to think outside what they are told.