There are -- gasp! -- radical rightwingers!

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 19:22:26 PM MST

The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in "rightwing extremist activity," saying the economic recession, the election of America's first black president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of white-power militias.

A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines "rightwing extremism in the United States" as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

"It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration," the warning says.

Rightie bloggers have been apoplyeptic about the news -- Malkin's response is typical -- they claim it's a "hit job" on the right hours before their tax-day protests.

My initial reaction was two-fold. The first was, hey! I've been saying for years that right-wing extremism is a much more real and present threat than Islamic extremism. Or have we forgotten the violence latent in the anti-abortion movement? The militia movement? Timothy McVeigh? That the Bush administration and its agencies were focusing our attention on the Middle East -- and not terrorism, per se -- was a political decision. They used the specter of terrorism to further their foreign-policy objectives, not to actually combat or curb terror. Especially the rightwing domestic kind, because that's kind of embarrassing, isn't it?

Protecting America, one accessory at a time

by: Jay Stevens

Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:53:20 AM MST

I kid you not.

Apparently, the scarf looks like something that a Palestinian might wear.

The best reaction to this bit of news belongs to Kossak Hunter (well worth the read):

S o this is what we've (well, I say "we", but I mean a small subset of American patriots who, having absolutely no intention of doing anything meaningful for their country that involves getting out of their chairs, spend their days looking for secret terrorist messages in television commercials) been reduced to. We're examining the fashion statements of donut ads and parsing them for hints of surreptitious Islamic culture. We're locked into a mortal combat against those that casually accessorize without remembering that we are at war; we're mere weeks away from probing the hidden alliances of the doilies on our grandmothers' coffee tables.

We are a nation that sees images of Jesus on toast. Admit it; there was absolutely no possibility that we would not eventually devolve to this point.

Malkin, of course, is the same blogger that broke the big story about the kitchen countertops of a CHIP family.  

Malkin v. Bush

by: Jay Stevens

Tue May 29, 2007 at 22:42:17 PM MST

Malkin is angry at Bush for hammering out the immigration bill, an attitude not uncommon to...well...everybody. She rails against Bush for using "empty rhetoric" (ironic, eh?), then quotes Article IV, Section IV of the Constitution, and accuses Bush of his own empty rhetoric for, apparently, not upholding his office by enforcing Malkin's bolded, italicized sections of said Constitutional section:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Er...I think it's safe to say the constitutional architects had a military invasion by a sovereign nation on their mind, not immigration. And...how does illegal immigration fit in, one assumes, with a threat of domestic violence?

Is Malkin saying that there's a concerted and willful plot to destroy the United States by Latino immigrants? Seriously?

Someone more attuned to Malkin-speak please clarify. She can't be this ridiculously uninformed.

Right?