It's independent's day on the podcast, which returns with gusto after a brief hiatus. Ben Boychuk and guest host Robb Leatherwood talk "post-partisanship" with Jackie Salit, an activist, political consultant, executive editor of the Neo-Independent and spokeswoman for IndependentVoting.org.
Among the issues Ben and Robb discuss with Jackie Salit:
• Just who are these independent voters, anyway?
• Is there an independent agenda?
• Is the independent movement left, right or center?
• How did 19 million independents end up voting for Barack Obama?
• What are the most important policy changes needed for an independent voting bloc to grow and thrive?
• Is "post-partisanship" possible, let alone desireable?
After you've listened to the podcast, watch Jackie Salit's video presentation, "How the Independent Movement Went Left By Going Right."
Music heard in this podcast:
• "In It for the Money," by Supergrass
• "Bossa Per Due" by Nicola Conte
• "Sun Hits the Sky," by Supergrass
• "Lunera," by Trio Electrico
Writes William Voegeli at NoLeftTurns:
“Chrysler by Fiat” is the perfect name for America’s first eminent domain manufacturing concern, one being created by arbitrary government actions that jettison law when it is inconvenient for policy goals and political coalitions...
...The sooner Chrysler by Fiat is driven into a bankruptcy from which it cannot be bailed out, the sooner will we repudiate the lousy products and lawless processes of thugocratic capitalism.
I really don't have the energy right now to comment. So I'll just lift this observation from 'Kate' in the post's comments: "The thugocratic part I see; capitalism, I do not see." Yep.
I had planned to take a break from all non-paid writing, including blogging, I swear. I was going to stop reading other blogs for a little while, too. But between writing iPhone app reviews, I keep clicking around where I shouldn't, and so I find this:
Federal Felony To Use Blogs, the Web, Etc. To Cause Substantial Emotional Distress Through "Severe, Repeated, and Hostile" Speech?
Eugene Volokh goes on to discuss the obvious constitutional problems with HR 1966 by Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., which is aimed at curbing "cyberbullying" in the wake of the vicious harassment and tragic suicide of Megan Meier. The bill, if passed, would go well beyond criminalizing the cruel MySpace hoax Lori Drew and her compatriots pulled on young Megan in 2006. Volokh lists off a few examples and concludes:
The law, if enacted, would clearly be facially overbroad (and probably unconstitutionally vague), and would thus be struck down on its face under the First Amendment. But beyond that, surely even the law's supporters don't really want to cover all this speech.
What are Rep. Linda Sanchez and the others thinking here? Are they just taking the view that "criminalize it all, let the prosecutors sort it out"? Even if that's so, won't their work amount to nothing, if the law is struck down as facially overbroad -- as I'm pretty certain it would be? Or are they just trying to score political points here with their constituents, with little regard to whether the law will actually do any good? I try to focus my posts mostly on what people do, not on their motives, but here the drafting is so shoddy that I just wonder why this happened.
I resurrected the headline because here is yet another example of the "progressive" response to the problem of speech: blunt-force regulation through criminal statutes. I recommend reading the entire discussion at The Volokh Conspiracy. Unlike the comments at most blogs, the Volokh Conspiracy readers generally know their stuff.
As for me, I'm going back to paying work now.
How is this possible? "Lobbyists prosper in downturn," according to the Associated Press.
Senate lobbying records show that dozens of cities and counties signed up with lobbying firms in the first three months of this year. Their goal is to get a greater share of the money flowing out of Washington, from a record federal budget to the $787 billion economic stimulus package.
Some of the communities hiring lobbyists have done so before and are simply shuffling their lineup or adding to it. But others are getting into the lobbying game for the first time.
It's possible because anyone paying attention can see that the Obama administration is drastically altering the rules underlying the Rule of Law. When the president begins threatening creditors who oppose his plans for handing over two of the big three U.S. auto manufacturers to the United Auto Workers, you should have a fair idea of the way in which the winds are blowing.
According to the story:
The change in administrations has spurred interest, too. The Bush administration was viewed as less supportive of aiming federal tax dollars at local initiatives. Cities and counties now believe they have a better shot at securing federal money.
The Bush administration was a profligate as any other, and perhaps more so given the rise in federal outlays over the past eight years. The difference, as always, is flow. What the local governments fail to understand -- incredibly -- is that the federal dollars they seek always -- always -- come with strings attached.
But it's not just the local governments, of course. The corporations that have accepted TARP money and those that have not rightly worry about the direction in which the administration is headed. Picking winners and losers. Favoring special interests amenable to the powerful party's agenda. Reshaping political patronage. This is change? This is the new post-partisan direction?
Did anyone really believe that?
That would have been my sub-headline for this piece at The New Republic: "After Souter: Will Obama Move the Court?" (The headline on the RealClearPolitics link was "Will Obama Move The Court Leftward?")
The answer author Tom Goldstein offers is "Who knows?" I'm going to go out on a limb and say, "Yes." I have no better or worse reasons than Goldstein has. And he doesn't really answer the question. Matter of fact, don't even bother clicking on the link. Forget I mentioned it.
Ramesh Ponurru at the Corner wonders how it's possible that lawyers who wrote memos offering legal advice about interrogation could be prosecuted, and what they could be prosecuted for.
"It seems hard to believe that you would ever be able to prove that they knowingly misdescribed the law," writes Ponurru. "And if they sincerely believed the law to say what they said it said, then of what offense could they be guilty?"
I'm no lawyer, but I do know my David Mamet plays...
(Click "read more" below the icons for the rest of this post)
Ed Harris plays John Yoo in the film adaptation David Mamet's "Glen bin Laden, Glen Bush," a gritty drama about Justice Department lawyers struggling to please their bosses after 9/11.
Imagine the outrage and withering news coverage of Bush did this:
WASHINGTON – An administration official says a presidential Boeing 747 and a fighter jet flew low near ground zero in New York City Monday because the White House Military Office wanted to update its file photo of the president's plane near the Statue of Liberty.
This official said the White House Military Office told the Federal Aviation Administration that it periodically updates file photos of Air Force One near national landmarks, like the statute in New York harbor and the Grand Canyon.
The official requested anonymity to give more details than the official White House announcement that took the blame.
The incident on Monday caused a brief panic among workers, who weren't warned. They recalled the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
All this panic is caused so Obama could have a photo of Air Force One with the Statue of Liberty in the background for a promotional shot? Ever hear of photoshop, you moron?! This is an example, writ-large, of how this administration is firmly in a Sept. 10 mindset. It obviously didn't dawn on them — despite issuing a routine heads up to NYC officials — what their little stunt would look and sound like. You have to inform the public, not just a couple of bureaucrats in New York. Those of us who still view every low-flying plane with at least a tinge of "is that? ... " would instinctively think something horrible was afoot upon witnessing this in the sky:
According to The Washington Times, the flybys "rattled windows" in dozens of office high-rises as it kept circling and buzzing low over New York for about 30 minutes. NBC's New York affiliate reported that some people across the Hudson River in New Jersey were injured fleeing their office building.
"Everybody panicked," said Daisy Cooper, a Merrill Lynch worker in Jersey City, who lost a nephew on 9/11. "Everybody was screaming and we all ran downstairs. I'm devastated. ..Everybody was running, we didn't know why we were running. We just knew it was a plane, there we go, 9/11 again."
Breitbart has video of panicked office workers yelling "run" and "Oh My God" as they run for safety.
Another video, via The Jawa Report:
The stupidity of this amateurish stunt is pretty breathtaking. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs was characteristically flip about the incident:
“I was working on other things. You might be surprised to know that I don’t know every movement of Air Force One.”
Michelle Malkin quips:
What’s going to be the next Obama administration photo op? My money is on lighting firecrackers next to a group of napping D-Day veterans.
The previous president wouldn't be seen within a million yards of the commie, totalitarian tyrant Hugh Chavez. Our current president?
What a disgrace. And what did Chavez give our president as a gift? An anti-American, anti-Western book-length screed by Eduardo Galeano, a lefty "revolutionary" and anti-American. Nice. Obama accepted it with a grin from California to the Caribbean.
Let's remember that Chavez — who was worthy of not only a photo, but of a "soul brother" handshake — said of America in 2006:
"The United States empire is on its way down and it will be finished in the near future, inshallah," Chavez told reporters, ending the statement with the Arabic phrase for 'God willing.'
Want more? Via Power Line, when asked what he thought of Obama, Chavez replied:
"I think it was a good moment," Chavez said about their initial encounter. "I think President Obama is an intelligent man, compared to the previous U.S. president."
Wow. That's awesome! Don't it feel great to have the world love us? And, let's be clear: That asinine and patronizing comment by Chavez was not possible without Obama's fealty to his ideological friends. More, you say? OK.
PORT-OF-SPAIN, Trinidad and Tobago — President Obama endured a 50-minute diatribe from socialist Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega that lashed out at a century of what he called terroristic U.S. aggression in Central America and included a rambling denunciation of the U.S.-imposed isolation of Cuba's Communist government.
Obama sat mostly unmoved during the speech but at times jotted notes. The speech was part of the opening ceremonies at the fifth Summit of the Americas here.
Later, at a photo opportunity with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Obama held his tongue when asked what he thought about Ortega's speech.
"It was 50 minutes long. That's what I thought."
I'd love to file a FOIA request for those Obama notes. But we have a good idea of what Obama was thinking already.
"I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old," Obama said, to laughter and applause from the other leaders.
HA HA HA HA HA !!!
You know what I, and most Americans, think of that insult? Let's just say that it's probably different from Obama's — and my version is not acceptable for a quasi-family friendly blog. When is our president going to wake up to the fact that insults against America ... well ... are insults of his own country and many of the people who live there?. Or does he still consider himself more of an ambassador of the world, and not of this country?
We're learning the dreadful answer to that question daily.
(Big time HT to Power Line)
A few years ago, in a moment of weakness, my wife gave $100 to the California Republican Party. I wasn't sore about it -- it was her money, after all -- but I warned her that we would never be left alone by party hacks asking for money incessantly.
Making such a prediction, of course, is like predicting the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. I've lost count of the number of times I've had to cut off a hapless phone bank worker with a curt but polite, "Sorry, can't help you today." Some disgruntled Republicans and stand-up conservatives like to explain to the caller why they won't hand over another penny to the party. (Articles have been written. I'm too tired to look for them now. Google 'em yourselves.)
Well, I don't explain. I don't think they care what I think, nor would they understand what I have to say. What's more, I feel sort of bad for the poor schlub on the other end of the line who has to listen to cranky retirees lecture them for the thousandth time about how the GOP is weak on illegal immigration or whatever. It's a waste of time.
Point is, withholding my money is enough. They want it. They keep asking for it. I don't give it to them. Simple as that.
If pressed, however, I might point to a story that landed in my inbox from the Sacramento Bee on Friday: State GOP faces Prop 1A pickle.
The good news, ostensibly, is that the Republican party is planning to come out against the deceptive initiative on next month's special election ballot that would extend recent tax increases while imposing weak spending curbs on the Legislature. It's a bad measure and nobody should vote for it. In a sense, then, opposing Prop. 1A is the very definition of no brainer.
So why does the state GOP face a Prop. 1A "pickle"? Let the SacBee explain:
The CRP will find itself in a tricky position explaining how it can oppose Proposition 1A after it already gave Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger $650,000, much of which is going toward the pro-1A effort. Schwarzenegger laid claim to that money in January and February ($1.3 million shows up on the secretary of state's Web site, but the transfers have been double-posted, according to Schwarzenegger campaign spokesman Julie Soderlund).
CRP spokesman Hector Barajas already faced questions of this sort from Los Angeles talk-show hosts John and Ken on Wednesday, who grilled Barajas on KFI-AM about how his party could give so much money that ended up supporting Proposition 1A. John and Ken held a protest in front of the California Republican Party headquarters in Burbank, largely due to that money transfer.
Barajas later said by phone that the CRP board decided to give Schwarzenegger $650,000 to pay for "the governor's activities, whether it's for conferences, his plane, his travel, other expenses." He said it was not earmarked for any one purpose.
He said the party routinely helps its governors and other elected officials. "Whether an individual is a fundraising machine or not, a partnership is a partnership. If we provide money for the governor so he can go out to conferences or promote his agenda, that's the function of the party."
Money is fungible. The $650,000 the state GOP gave to Schwarzenegger for "activities" is money he won't have to worry about as he raises funds and campaigns for Prop. 1A. So although it's nice the California Republican establishment is chiming in to oppose a bad ballot initiative, they've given their financial support, even if indirectly.
Former EBay exec and GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman came out against Prop. 1A a month ago and urged the party to do the same. Good for her. Unfortunately, she still hasn't gotten around to writing a check to the No on 1A campaign. I hope that's on her to-do list somewhere.
The new Scripps-Howard column surveys yesterday's tea parties and asks if it's time for a new tax revolt.
I posted my thoughts late last night. A condensed version appears in the column. Also in the column, and over at his Philly Weekly lair*, Joel issues his verdict on yesterday's mass demonstration of anti-tax, anti-spending, anti-debt fervor:
Sad to say, but the tea parties were one of the biggest displays of sore loserdom seen in recent U.S. history.
I'll leave it to Dr. Zaius to unearth bigger displays of "sore loserdom" from the party of who gave us that tireless phrase, "selected, not elected." But for now I wonder what Joel would have these people do?
He complains that the tens of thousands of people who turned out yesterday, often under less than ideal weather conditions, weren't in the streets months ago. Well, so what? If it turns out that a million or even just 250,000 people around the country took the time to show up for these events, does that mean anything at all? I'm not sure what the answer is myself, but I don't think it's merely "sore loserdom" at work.
Nevertheless, Joel apparently buys the line that the whole thing is just Fox News-driven "astroturf":
No doubt the demonstrations included many people legitimately concerned about the growth of government, regardless of which party is in power. But the glee of Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and the rest of the Fox News gang in promoting the tea parties suggests those sincere folks were co-opted by Republican operatives less concerned about free market capitalism and more interested in undermining a Democratic president.
Notwithstanding a couple of caveats about the protesters' sincerity and "legitimate concerns," Joel really doesn't know who these people are, except that they watch Fox News and listen to AM talk radio. These are disaffected Bush voters and "Anybody But McCain" people. These are Palin 2012 fanatics and Ron Paul die-hards. Although I guess they are "losers" in the technical sense of not only having lost the general election but, in most cases, the primaries as well, they've been complaining for a long time. It just took a Democratic president, a reckless Congress, and the prospect of $1 trillion budget deficits every year for the next 10 years to get them together and yelling on street corners and in front of government buildings. This has been a long time coming.
Events shape politics. Joel knows this. So do other liberal Democrats who have tried to dismiss the anti-tax, anti-big-government protests. They shouldn't act so surprised.
Joel then goes on to express his dismay at the "alarming rhetoric" on display, which is pretty commonplace at mass demonstrations. Yglesias got all hot and bothered about this, too. And the Huffington Post is touting "The 10 Most Offensive Tea Party Signs," which includes a picture of the Statue of Liberty with her head in her hands. (Qu'elle horror! Have the Rethugs no shame!) "Maobama" = "Bushitler". I guess Obama Derangement Syndrome going to be a fact of life, after all.
Outrageous signs are one of those things we like to focus our attention on -- just peruse Zombie Time's Hall of Shame -- to show how crazy some of our political opponents are. But from what I could tell, there was remarkably little seditious libel or overt displays of imagining the king's death to be found yesterday. Texans -- not unlike San Franciscans -- talk about seceding every few years. Big deal. This is political street theater, after all, not the Oxford Union.
Finally, there's this:
Many carried signs warning of 'taxation without representation,' which is ridiculous: Whether you love or hate the new policies in Washington D.C., they are being crafted and carried out by duly elected representatives of the people.
"Taxation without representation" -- yeah, that's dumb. One of the problems with this tea party business, and the main reason I've been so ambivalent about it, is that it puts a lot of hope in lightning striking twice. I'm all about recurring to first principles, especially the American Founding's principles, but our situation today isn't Boston circa 1773. It's different, and therefore requires a different response. But beyond decrying (frequently misspelled) slogans on homemade placards, you would do well to actually listen to what these people are saying. It's all pretty much the same thing. The debt is going to kill us. Big tax increases are inevitable. We have to vote the bums out.
Again, I don't know whether this movement will spark a Proposition 13-like tax backlash or what. And I don't think rallies persuade anyone of anything, for the most part. But dismissing this as Joel does -- and as some of his fellow travelers do in a far more contemptuous way -- would be a regrettable error.
* Speaking of regrettable errors, I spelled "lair" wrong in the paragraph near the top of the post. Not a Freudian slip, just carelessness. Sorry.
Update: Tim Slagle at Big Hollywood makes a similar, if a bit more cutting, point:
The popular meme circulating throughout the “unbiased” media yesterday was: The original Tea Party was about taxation without representation but Americans HAVE representation and Republicans are just mad because they lost. The more I twist that in my head, the more absurd it sounds. What they’re really saying is: you are only allowed representation in government if you’re the majority.
Funny how that didn’t seem to be the case in California when Prop. 8 passed. I don’t remember any snide reporter telling a disappointed same-sex couple “Hey, you lost, get over it.” In fact, their protests have been covered by teary-eyed reporterettes (too young to remember Selma) as a modern civil rights struggle. (How is the right to keep your income and raise children free from debt not a civil right?) And the justification of majority Democracy gave no comfort to Prop. 8 opponents who went to court to overturn the majority.
If you want to talk about taxation without representation, how about the millions of children who are not old enough to vote; the ones who have been saddled with thousands of dollars of debt in just the past hundred days of this administration? Certainly their voices should be heard, although it’s probably assumed Americans below voting age would have made the same childish misguided decision the Obamaphiles did.
It’s funny how Democrats only support democracy when it skews in their favor. Things like abortion rights, gun control, and nontraditional marriage, are just “too important” to leave up to the electorate. But when it’s a decision to limit salaries, ban smoking from bars, tax the rich, or any other thing the Left wants, populism rules.
I don't think I disagree with a word of that.
This sore loser mistakenly spray painted "1776" on his computer monitor, when he could have just typed in "2009."
Ignore the propaganda and to hell with the scoffers. The tea parties are the real deal.
If I had to guess, about 2,000 upbeat, patriotic, solidly middle-class denizens of Inland Southern California lined the busy intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Day Creek Avenue in Rancho Cucamonga between 5:00 and 7:00 on Wednesday evening. The police estimated the crowd at roughly 1,600, but that seemed awfully conservative. In any case, a spirited and diverse throng waved flags and signs, chanted and shouted and cheered as passing traffic along the bustling thoroughfare honked their horns in approval.
So... those are the “right-wing extremists” you may have read about recently.
I confess, I was a bit lukewarm about the whole "tea party" business at first. (Joel and I discuss why in the latest podcast. And I share many of Chad the Elder's sentiments here.) Not that I don't enjoy a demonstration. A few effigy burnings now and again would do the body politic good. But tea bags? Americans did tea 236 years ago. We're not arguing about taxation without representation anymore. We're arguing about spending the United States into ruin.
Wednesday's event allayed many of my doubts. The new American tea party protesters are harkening back to an old tax revolt to lend credence to a modern political movement. Two-thousand people here, another thousand there... multiply that by a several hundred events across the country and pretty soon you're talking about an honest-to-goodness movement. How far this thing goes, I wouldn't dare hazard a guess. But I do know there are already events in the works for May 18 -- the day before California's special election -- and July 4.
I have to believe Obama's partisans are more than a little concerned. Smug bloggers and pompous pundits spent the days leading up to April 15 mocking the tea party protests, dismissing them as "astroturf" -- fake grass roots -- created by Fox News and Dick Armey's FreedomWorks. (If support from a national organization disqualifies a local rally from being called "grassroots," then the word should never appear in the same sentence with "MoveOn.org" or "Kos" ever again.)
One of the worst pieces of anti-tea party dross I encountered Wednesday came courtesy of Democratic party hack and CNN commentator Paul Begala. The man who made a small fortune concocting elaborate fictions for the Clintons attempts to defame the tens of thousands of good people who turned out across the country as “goofballs,” “phonies,” “whiners” and -- get this -- “plutocrats.”
Plutocrats! I saw small business owners, teachers, Teamsters, stay-at-home moms, retirees, college kids, and even a few government workers angry and worried that the political establishment has saddled the next two or three generations of Americans with a ruinous debt fueled by government spending gone mad. I didn’t see a fat cat in the bunch. But, as I say, it was a big crowd. Who knows? Maybe one slipped in.
And, by the way, the tea partiers don’t merely blame Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress for the coming debt tsunami -- $35,000 and counting for every man, woman and child in America, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis. They blame Republicans, too, for years of fiscal irresponsibility when they held the purse strings. Naturally, they worry what Obama and the Democrats will do. They don't believe his promises about tax simplification, and they are not mollified by stupid giveaways and pitiful adjustments in withholding on their paychecks. They see a $1 trillion deficit and know that the government can't print enough money to paper it over.
The Rancho tea party, as well as an event earlier in the day in downtown San Bernardino, was organized by an energetic activist named Laura Boatright. She was thrilled with the turnout but slightly disappointed that no elected officials or chamber of commerce types bothered to show up. Maybe they knew they wouldn't be too welcome?
Boatright understands that the problem facing Californians and Americans generally is that we elected the people who brought us to this pretty fiscal pass. "You know how Harry Truman had that sign on his desk in the White House that said, 'The buck stops here'? Well, that's not true," Boatright said. "The buck stops with us... with the people. It's our responsibility to vote these politicians out of office."
And that requires money, organization and persistence. "This isn't the last event," Boatright assured me.
The Inland tea parties drew big crowds, surprising even the event planners. Events in Palm Springs and Temecula drew about 1,000 people, according to a Press-Enterprise story. Organizers in Temecula had only been expecting a few hundred people.
I've posted several photos of the event after the jump. (Click on "read more" below the icons.) Darleen Click of Protein Wisdom, whom I had the pleasure of meeting, was also on hand snapping pictures of the festivities. Check out her post and her photos.
Hundreds of people waved flags and demonstrated their support for lower taxes, restrained spending and smaller government along Foothill Boulevard in Rancho Cucamonga on April 15. Estimates put the crowd at 1,600 to 2,000 people.
Many people at the Rancho Cucamonga tea party are exercised about Prop. 1A, a deceptive measure on the May special election ballot that would extend tax increases in the guise of limiting spending. The gentleman in the center-left of the photo is wearing a shirt that reads "I don't need sex: The government screws me everyday."
Laura Boatright of Ontario, Ca., organized the tea parties in San Bernardino and Rancho Cucamonga. "The buck stops with us... with the people," she said.
There were at least a dozen Gadsden flags waving at the Rancho Cucamonga Tea Party. No doubt Janet Napolitano is gravely concerned.
There were surprisingly few freaks at the Rancho Cucamonga Tea Party on April 15, 2009. Memo to organizers: Next time, more freaks!
Seriously. According to Powerline, that's the White House position — that Obama has no idea they are occurring and could attract hundreds of thousands of people by day's end.
Obama is either clueless and "out of touch" with the people, or he's lying. I think he's out of touch and lying.
Reason has an easy quiz to help you eliminate any doubts.
Iain Murray observes the scene in Washington D.C.:
It turns out the the Park Service wasn't very happy about a million suspicious teabags being taken into Lafayette Square, and so forbade the organizers of the D.C. Tea Party from doing so. I overheard a reporter tut-tutting about how badly organized this was. Yes, it's such a shame when amateurs attempt to organize a protest, isn't it? This sort of thing should be left to the professionals at MoveOn . . .
So these are the dangerous right-wingers rallying against "the price we pay for civilization," eh? They can't even defend their right to keep and bear tea!
A new Department of Homeland Security report warns that dangerous right-wing elements could be exploiting the economic downturn, fears of gun control, and the presence of a black man in the Oval Office to recruit people to their extremist causes.
By way of evidence, DHS offers... well, not much. A bit of conjecture. A dollop of speculation. Pro forma invocation of the late, unlamented Timothy McVeigh. References to angry web chatter and some recycled propaganda from liberal activist groups and a foreign university. And that's about it.
Radio talk show host Roger Hedgecock touted the report on Monday and Eli Lake and Audrey Hudson of the Washington Times followed up with a story on Tuesday. That in turn provoked cries of alarm and outrage from conservatives who fear a crackdown on dissent from the Obama administration.
Truth is, the report is just the sort of blinkered, philistine, pig-ignorant analysis we've come expect from the career bureaucrats at Homeland Security. The nine-page brief is impossibly vague and open-ended. DHS names no specific groups, offers no specific numbers, and says the threat so far is "largely rhetorical." With maybe one exception, the report relies entirely on anecdotal evidence -- which hardly counts as evidence at all -- derived from dubious sources, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group unable to distinguish a Klansman from a policy wonk.
The report is almost wholly conjectural and so freighted with qualifiers and caveats as to be useless as a policy-making guide or as intelligence for law enforcement. Mind you, intelligence professionals wrote the thing! This is what you get when bureaucrats value "intelligence" over intelligence.
Please click the "Read More" link below the icons at the bottom of this post.