Now here's something disturbing -- a nine page report from Homeland Security warning of right wing extremism. Among the problems:

1) It references the Pittsburgh shooting as an example of the rise of right wing extremism -- but the report is dated 7 April -- only three days after the shooting. How much analysis do you think went into a report in such a short time?

2) The report slanders veterans as a threat, and points to Timothy McVeigh as an example. 42 million Americans have worn the uniform, and McVeigh was one of them. ONE. That hardly constitutes a pattern. Besides, McVeigh was 14 years ago.

3) Apparently if you are critical of Obama's policies, it's because you're racist.

4) This report is like a Jeff Foxworthy routine. And if you're buying weapons or ammunition because you believe his promise to restrict them, you might be a dangerous right-wing extremist. If you have a problem with anything the administration is doing, you're probably a right wing extremist. If you make critical remarks on the internet, you're a right wing extremist. Want to stop illegal immigration? You're probably a right wing extremist. In the military? Extremist. Veteran? Extremist about to snap.

5) The "prominent civil rights organization" mentioned in the report that claims the military is full of skinheads is the Southern Poverty Law Center -- the same organization that branded the American Legion a hate group because it advocated enforcement of immigration law.

6) Interestingly, the report went public the day before tea party protest day. Is the administration that desperate to stifle criticism among the American public?

I've read a lot of intelligence reports and analyses, and this isn't either -- if it was, it would address specific groups and indicators as threats. This has been done in the past with reports that addressed left-wing extremism by talking about organizations like ALF and ELF. This report doesn't specify any groups or any events that involve groups or organization. It says there could be a bunch of "lone wolves" out there, but doesn't specify why it thinks so. This is an editorial -- a complete piece of fluff devoid of facts that was built around a foregone conclusion -- the sorriest example of government "analysis" I've seen. It really isn't that different from the Missouri report that said you could be a member of a right-wing extremist group if your car had a Ron Paul or NRA bumper sticker.

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uplo...