Earth to Michelle Malkin
Michelle Malkin is completely bent out of shape over the release of a Department of Homeland Security report analyzing the risk of violence in the coming years from radical right wing extremist groups. One of the report's rather obvious conclusions is that the combination of the current economic climate (record unemployment) and the current political climate (Democrats in control the government, black man with Muslim-sounding name as President) is a recipe for increased violence among fringe right wing groups.
Malkin seems to think this report represents some sort of plot by leftists in the Obama administration to target people like herself and her merry band of teabaggers. Implicit in her rant is the notion that there couldn't possibly be any legitimate concerns underlying this report. The reality, though, is that this report was almost surely written by a career analyst at DHS, not a partisan operative, and its conclusions are as obvious as they are non-controversial.
I wonder if Malkin happens to remember what the single deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil was prior to 9/11. That's right, it was the 1995 bombing in Oklahoma City that killed 168 people (many of them children) and wounded over 800. And it was carried out by right wing extremists. Moreover, in the years directly preceding the bombing, the country had been in recession and the Democrats had taken control of Congress and the White House. Indeed, the entire Clinton presidency was marked by increasing radicalism among fringe right wingers that eventually led to the creation of armed militia groups all over the country.
Maybe I'm crazy, but this sounds like exactly the sort of threat the Department Homeland Security is responsible for monitoring. Wouldn't DHS be frighteningly derelict in its duties if it wasn't trying find the next Tim McVeigh before he blows up hundreds of people?
There's a huge irony in Malkin's paranoia, too. For the last few years, she and her pals have been vigorously defending the Bush administration's claimed authority to conduct warrantless domestic surveillance in violation of the law. But those very laws were put in place to protect people like Malkin from exactly the kind of abuse she now fears. Luckily for Malkin, it's very unlikely that the Obama administration would ever claim the authority to violate those laws, which means that if DHS wants to listen to her inane and delusional conversations, it'll have to get a warrant.
Malkin seems to think this report represents some sort of plot by leftists in the Obama administration to target people like herself and her merry band of teabaggers. Implicit in her rant is the notion that there couldn't possibly be any legitimate concerns underlying this report. The reality, though, is that this report was almost surely written by a career analyst at DHS, not a partisan operative, and its conclusions are as obvious as they are non-controversial.
I wonder if Malkin happens to remember what the single deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil was prior to 9/11. That's right, it was the 1995 bombing in Oklahoma City that killed 168 people (many of them children) and wounded over 800. And it was carried out by right wing extremists. Moreover, in the years directly preceding the bombing, the country had been in recession and the Democrats had taken control of Congress and the White House. Indeed, the entire Clinton presidency was marked by increasing radicalism among fringe right wingers that eventually led to the creation of armed militia groups all over the country.
Maybe I'm crazy, but this sounds like exactly the sort of threat the Department Homeland Security is responsible for monitoring. Wouldn't DHS be frighteningly derelict in its duties if it wasn't trying find the next Tim McVeigh before he blows up hundreds of people?
There's a huge irony in Malkin's paranoia, too. For the last few years, she and her pals have been vigorously defending the Bush administration's claimed authority to conduct warrantless domestic surveillance in violation of the law. But those very laws were put in place to protect people like Malkin from exactly the kind of abuse she now fears. Luckily for Malkin, it's very unlikely that the Obama administration would ever claim the authority to violate those laws, which means that if DHS wants to listen to her inane and delusional conversations, it'll have to get a warrant.
posted by A.L. at 12:18 PM
17 Comments:
Why do you find it unlikely that Obama would use warrantless wiretaps?
He immunized the telecomms, his justice department has not pursued any of the people who did it before, he seems bent on continuing Bush's illegal incarceration and secrecy actions.
What planet are you on?
Ditto to Phaedrus. Haven't you been following the powers Obama has been claiming lately?
I think that you and Malkin should get married. You could be the internet's answer to Carville and Matalin.
Ditto to Phaedrus. Haven't you been following the powers Obama has been claiming lately?Guys, I think some perspective is warranted here. As disappointed as I've been with some of the Obama DOJ's recent choices, they aren't even in the same ballpark as launching a blatantly illegal surveillance program or claiming the inherent authority to disregard congressional statutes.
I'm proud of the left of taking Obama to task for his recent decisions. He deserves it. But don't create false equivalences. Obama's OLC doesn't have any John Yoos in it.
I think that you and Malkin should get married. You could be the internet's answer to Carville and Matalin.Speaking of false equivalences. Look, mls, if you really think that I'm the equivalent of Michelle Malkin, why do you read this blog. And by the way, have you ever actually read Michelle Malkin's blog?
“....the report...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.”
--Michelle Malkin
"I also don't think there is too much debate about the eventuality of a collapse of economic and social order in this country. All signs seem to point to a once great nation in the midst its last gasp, suffocating under the weight [of] fiscal irresponsibility. Poisoned by design by the moral decadence that is a direct byproduct of [the fact that] the federal government, mainstream media, and banking system in these United States are strongly under the influence of—if not completely controlled by—Zionist interest."
--Richard Polawski, posting on Stromfront shortly before murdering three Pittsburgh police officers
I have read Malkin's blog, ususally when there is a link from Hot Air. In fact, I read the DHS article this morning, and I thought that it would get a rise out of you.
Anyway, marriage doesn't imply equivalence. Just ask my wife.
Eight years of listening to left whine and screech over Bush "reading the emails of every American" and Bush "listening in on all Americans' phone calls", even though those assertions were all hogwash. So what happens when a President, someone from the left, actually wants to monitor fellow Americans? Acceptance. Because, of course, "rightwingers" are more "dangerous" than those who murdered 3000 on 9/11, and have murdered thousands upon thousands of others around the world.
Here's what's funny about "rightwinger" McVeigh; I noticed there haven't been a slew of arrests, let alone convictions, of those like him over the last 14 years. The government would have made mention of it if they had. It's probably because there aren't groups of McVeighs running around like the paranoid left thinks there are.
I don't mean to imply equivalency in actions - Obama has stopped torture, closed some black sites and no longer uses extraordinary rendition.
That said, there exists and equivalency in both his disregard for constitutional rights of detainees and his lying about his position on these issues.
In Obama land you get treated better, but you're still in a legal black hole.
Yoo's work is done, Obama is working to incorporating the parts that he finds useful and doing his damnedest to see that the other parts (illegal wiretapping, torture, etc) never are officially acknowledged or overthrown.
Acceptance? Pull your head out and listen, Steveil -- there's been a lot of criticism from the left on Obama policies.
As for no groups of McVeighs being arrested, perhaps you need to get out more. See this, this, or this.
C2H50H:
Do you actually believe any of us Americans on the right actually encourage or support nuts like those? Or those that have bombed abortion clinics or killed abortion doctors? And those killers from stories you linked to weren't groups; those were three individual criminals. I would also add that they may have been mentally deranged, which, despite what many on the left think, is not indicative of being part of the right.
There is a very good story on Columbine in USA TODAY. It does, however, say one thing wrong; it calls the shooters terrorists, when in fact, they were mass murderers, killing for their own reasons that had nothing to do with politics.
Pull your head out and listen, Steveil -- there's been a lot of criticism from the left on Obama policies.Then why no criticism from those on the left here?
Remember, Michelle Malkin is also part of the radical fringe that calls for states to SCECEDE from the United States because the GOP lost an election.
At best, this whole 10th Amendment jive would give conservative states the ability to simply roll back or even eliminate Federal Civil Rights laws with the stroke of a pen.
Frankly, Rick Perry should be promptly impeached and jailed for advocating scecession today.
Steveil,
Quibble if you wish. You asked for examples, you got them.
Did you read the comments above? Obama's continuance and even furthering of the "state secrets" doctrine and his refusal to initiate criminal investigation of the illegal activities of the Bush administration are two issues on which many of us (and myself in particular) violently disagree with Obama.
C2H50H:
You asked for examples, you got them.All you gave me were some individuals, not some organized "rightwing terrorist cabal". Even the idiots McVeigh and Nichol weren't part of any "cabal"; just mass murderers.
Obama's continuance and even furthering of the "state secrets" doctrine and his refusal to initiate criminal investigation of the illegal activities of the Bush administration are two issues on which many of us (and myself in particular) violently disagree with Obama.Surprisingly enough, those are about the only things I do agree with Obama on, at least when it comes to the war the United States is still in.
C2H50H,
I wouldn't waste your breath on trash like SteveIL. I lived in AZ during that time and had plenty of friends from Kingman. The idea that McVeigh and Nichols were some lone wolves far outside the norm is ludicrous. They didn't have to have an official name for their "cabal", it was just the guys at the bar.
Anyone who is willing to give up our constitutional rights as easily as Steve does really doesn't warrant rebuttal. Our founders thought of certain truths as self-evident.
Phaedrus,
I grew up in South Dakota, and I know a lot of people out there who still think McVeigh had the right idea. It's not "organized", but it is endemic.
They yearn for a dictatorship run by someone they think is "like them." Like they think George W. Bush was like them.
The fundamental hypocrisy and delusions of the right today are two of the primary reasons why there's no point in trying to work with them.
One of the most controversial parts of the report is where it says these groups might try to recruit veterans. People are going crazy about this, but aside from in this string, no one has mentioned McVeigh (who was a Gulf War veteran) at all. Not to mention the fact that recruiting veterans or even sending members into the military to get training has been a tactic of all kinds of groups and gangs for decades. Those who don't learn from history...
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home