Cato.org has little sympathy for conservatives (are there any left in America?) who are “outraged” by this report, but not because conservative concerns are unwarranted:

Obama’s Justice Department has fought to retain most of the Bush-era powers governing enemy combatants and surveillance. They’ve embraced the Bush-Cheney position that the State Secrets Privilege bars the courthouse door to litigants who claim they’ve been harmed by warrantless wiretapping.
Worse, according to constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald, the Obama DOJ has gone even further than the Bush team, arguing that “all claims of illegal government surveillance are immunized in the absence of ‘willful disclosure’ to the public of the intercepted communications.” (This means the government now cannot be sued unless the results of an illegal  surveillance are made public).
Conservatives who recently screamed bloody murder over a DHS report targeting “right-wing extremists” (including pro-lifers and gun enthusiasts) ought to ask themselves if it was such a good idea to have fought relentlessly to expand federal wiretapping powers over the last eight years.

As you know, Bush et al. increased domestic surveillance and wiretaps — perhaps not to an unprecedented degree, but the increase was significant. 

What does surveillance, privacy, and freedom of speech have to do with this report?  Rep. Bennie G. Thompson pointed out the connection in this AP report:

The top House Democrat overseeing the Department of Homeland Security is demanding that officials there explain how and why they wrote and released a controversial report identifying veterans as potential terrorist threats.
Rep. Bennie G. Thompson of Mississippi, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said in a letter to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano that he was “dumbfounded” such a report would be issued.
“This report appears to raise significant issues involving the privacy and civil liberties of many Americans — including war veterans,” Mr. Thompson said in the letter sent Tuesday.
“As I am certain you agree, freedom of association and freedom of speech are guaranteed to all Americans — whether a person’s beliefs, whatever their political orientation, are ‘extremist’ or not,” Mr. Thompson said.

Apparently, at the end of the report, the DHS has planned, with law enforcement officials, to monitor legitimate public political activity.  Thompson said he was “particularly struck” by this statement. 

I don’t know law, but this seems a violation of the presumption of innocence.   The danger, the slippy slope, is that it brings the  government uncomfortably close to treating political discourse as a potentially subversive activity.  I think this is what “struck”  Thompson.

I think anyone, on the right or left, concerned with the encroachment  on privacy and increased govt. surveillance would be — and should be — concerned with such a statement.

Thompson’s a liberal al in every sense of the word.  If he’s worried — I’m worried.

That footnote is being taken as having a meaning far different from what it actually says. It does not say that everyone who supports federalism or is upset about taxes is considered a potentially dangerous extremist. It is speaking of the extremists who outright reject federal authority or who reject all government authority. It doesn”t even mention taxes.

The real purpose of the footnote is to point out that rightwing extremism can broadly be divided into two groups, those which are primarily hate groups and those which are primarily based upon opposition to government authority.

Those who are concerned about this document are claiming it says things which are quite different from what it actually does say.

“Malicious Malkin”

Diane — I think you’re correct that the report wasn’t aimed at the conservative mind set (at least I hope not!), but it appears it was a sloppy piece of work, especially the footnote that 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.

Taken at face value, it says that everyone supportive of federalism and/or upset about taxes, etc., is now considered a potentially dangerous “rightwing extremist” by Homeland Security.

The Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis really should elaborate on that rather than leave it hanging in a footnote . . .