My larger point in the postscript, though, is the reflex that some conservatives had to the report. The automatic assumption that the report was a signal to the non-violent conservative movement that they would soon be watched (or worse) as Enemies of the State was not the reaction the report should have engendered. Not everyone has the time or desire to sift through government reports and examining their minutiae – those folks tend to consume the media outlet(s) of their choice, and it’s simple intellectual dishonesty for folks (and I’m going to name names here) like Malkin to cherry-pick quotes for the masses to hear, knowing full well that most people won’t take the time to verify what they’re being told.

Also, what’s been almost completely ignored is the fact that a mirror report about leftwing extremism was also released by the DHS back in January, and while the report does paint some similarly broad strokes against animal rights activists and environmental extremists, there wasn’t the same sense of outrage. It’s my contention that, as with the report that came out this week, it is clear (in context) what groups or individuals were the objects of scrutiny – and it’s not your everyday, run-of-the-mill treesitter.

Unfortunately, most of the document is covered in For Official Use Only and Law Enforcement Sensitive markings, so it can’t really be quoted directly to prove my point.

One particularly frightening thing in the document is the claim that even though several of these groups are not now and have never before been violent that they should be investigated anyway because they are likely to be unhappy with the policies of the current administration.

And no, I hadn’t heard that about our dear Mr. Nichols. What a colossal ass.