The real objection behind such reports is not that they are singling
out particular groups, though they clearly do this. The DHS also came
out with a report on “Leftwing Extremists.”

That’s balance, right? Wrong. Both reports are an affront to freedom. They
constitute, like Krugman and Rich’s remarks, an attempt to intimidate
anyone who has any disagreement with current federal policies by
tarring them as potential terrorists. It isn't "balance" if you paint
anyone who criticizes government policies as being a potential
terrorist. The "left" or "right" distinctions become meaningless in
such a context.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano lied i...

read more»

The real objection behind such reports is not that they are singling
out particular groups, though they clearly do this. The DHS also came
out with a report on “Leftwing Extremists.”

That’s balance, right? Wrong. Both reports are an affront to freedom. They
constitute, like Krugman and Rich’s remarks, an attempt to intimidate
anyone who has any disagreement with current federal policies by
tarring them as potential terrorists. It isn't "balance" if you paint
anyone who criticizes government policies as being a potential
terrorist. The "left" or "right" distinctions become meaningless in
such a context.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano lied in an April 15 statement ,
saying, “We are on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but
we do not — nor will we ever — monitor ideology or political beliefs.”
But that’s precisely what the reports do.

Conservatives and everyone else who criticize government policies have
been informed that they are being watched, and in the words of Frank
Rich, they have been “warned.” The question is, will citizens allow
themselves to be intimidated, or will they insist through their elected
representatives that the intimidation from Washington stop?