PJ Media

Yes, the Government Is Out to Get 'Right-Wing Extremists'

The Department of Homeland Security’s release of the “right-wing extremism” report should anger everyone. Janet Napolitano’s faux apology to veterans glossed over the real message of this memo: to intimidate the 60 million Americans who voted against Obama.

Consider the current Department of Homeland Security’s definitions of “extremists” according to this memo: those worried about the usurpation of the Constitution, illegal immigration, and the threat of gun control legislation. Consider the way these real fears are cast: “Many right-wing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a threat to their right to bear arms”; also they have the “perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs” (emphases added).

This administration labels those who see such real dangers for what they are as delusional. Perhaps they see us as needing a little help from government psychiatrists?

Obama himself, far from the bipartisan spirit promised — indeed, even the respect expected from the officeholder — mocks opposing opinions. He did it recently by ridiculing those who listen to Rush Limbaugh and he did it during his “town hall” meeting in Arnold, Missouri, to mark his first 100 days. He cast tea party participants as those “waving tea bags around.” His assertion then that he would be happy to have a “conversation” about federal spending and his warning that while “we have to tighten belts, [we] have to do it in an intelligent way” were audacious displays of disdain for Americans in light of his midnight-3:00 p.m. push-through of the “stimulus” bill. Does he think we have forgotten how much time he gave Congress to sign a bill over a thousand pages long — and after promising five days for public review of all bills?

In light of the events of just the first 100 days, we should be worried.

Those who would be concerned about Obama’s anti-America rhetoric and friendliness to world dictators, as well as appointments of advisors who believe international law should trump American law, might very well and quite logically fear “a world government that would usurp the sovereignty of the United States and its Constitution, thus infringing upon their liberty.” But it’s a belief that Homeland Security casts as extreme.

There is nothing in Obama’s background to suggest a love for his country, from the church he attended for twenty years to his work for the subversive ACORN to his law school teaching of anti-constitutional critical race theory courses. Obama rivals the tyrants of history in his race to nationalize companies and banks. Although he asserted during his town hall meeting that he has no interest in running companies, he has forced financial institutions to accept TARP money and then refused to allow them to pay that money back. He has fired the top GM executive and forced the merger of Chrysler with a foreign car company. He told bank executives that only he stands between them and the “pitchforks” — after Soros-supported “protesters” showed up at executives’ homes days earlier. The repeated refrains by Obama and his administration that “we won” to upbraid dissenters reveal a profound divergence from the traditional notions of national service. This refrain is suited to the leader of a coup.

The Homeland Security memo was “released” coincidentally the day before tea party rallies by citizens not given to protests and street theater, people who work for a living. They are not naive and idealistic college kids; nor are they uneducated welfare moms spurred on by ACORN or community organizing rabble rousers like the young Obama.

But one blogger noted a visit from Homeland Security on his commercial website after he became involved in a tea party.

Obama has displayed the same kind of hatred of the middle class or the bourgeois that tyrants from Hitler to Mao did. We heard it on the campaign trail in his ridicule of Joe the Plumber and contempt for those who cling to their “guns and religion.” We are not in their voter base because we are not as ignorant as the peasants. Nor do we enjoy the privileges of wealth and celebrity. The next strategy is to recruit more pliable voters and Obama is using the power of his office to control the census and then give the vote to illegals. At the same time, he allocates billions of our tax dollars for more indoctrination through Americorps and voter fraud through ACORN. Yet the thin gruel of his two autobiographies is taken as display of his intellectual acumen.

In a campaign speech Michelle Obama quoted from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals in referring to her husband’s vision for the world “as it should be.” We are now getting a taste of Obama’s vision of how this country should be, and it is a drastic shift from the founders’ vision of a democratic republic “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” to one where the government tells us how much money we can make, which charities we can support, and what cars we can drive.

Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler: The Age of Social Catastrophe, by Robert Gellately, illustrates how these tyrants began with the assumption that they knew how to run people’s lives better than average citizens did. Paul Johnson, in Intellectuals, writes, “Intellectuals have the arrogance to believe that they can use their brains to tell humanity how to conduct its affairs. In so doing, they turn their backs on natural law, inherited wisdom, and the religious background that have traditionally defined the aims of society. … They find it hard to admit that there is a higher authority than their own judgment; they have a deep-rooted and tremendously powerful arrogance.”

This administration is arrogant enough to believe that they can mock and intimidate the opposition into submission.

Their report was intended to get the moderates in the Republican Party to distance themselves from conservatives so as not to be labeled “extremist.” Exit Arlen Specter, after much courting by Democrats. It’s an age-old strategy: divide and conquer.

The report was intended to shame and silence us.

It was intended to foster feelings of persecution and to make middle Americans paranoid about their government and by their behavior look more like extremists.

Which would give Homeland Security justification for taking further measures against “extremists.”

In the age of Obama, where definitions of words are changed, we should proudly call ourselves “right-wing extremists” — and monitor visits from Homeland Security.