I know this won't surprise anyone here, but I am deeply anti violence being the "go to" tactic for getting what you want, no matter who is using it ~ but isn't it time for us to progress beyond the simple school-yard defenses of "he did it too"? ~ and don't GOP/TPers claim "self-responsibility" as a hallmark defining only themselves? ~ ~ there are "live links" to more/corroborating info in the original ~ Sooz

Think Progress / By Hayes Brown
New West Point Study Highlights Threat Posed by Far Right-Wing Groups In U.S.
The study is already coming under attack by Republicans for not properly defining what constitutes a member of the “far right.”

January 18, 2013 | A new study from a think tank connected to the West Point Military Academy highlights the threat of violent far-right movements in the United States, leading to the conclusion that, while diverse in their causes, they are similar in their use of violence to achieve their aims.

West Point’s Combatting Terrorism Center was founded in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, and has primarily focused its research on international terrorist threats. Titled “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right,” this new report instead looks at the risk that domestic groups pose to the U.S. Breaking down these groups into three categories — the Racist/White Supremacy Movement, the Anti-Federalist Movement, and the Christian Fundamentalist Movement — allows the study to examine the background ideologies and methods of each subset thoroughly, opposed to lumping them all together as most studies have.

Each of the groupings in the study represent competing ideological views, with none of them likely to cooperate in achieving their aims. The chances that each of these groups will use violence also varies. What they share, however, is a use of violence against their chosen targets — be it minority races or abortion clinics — to draw attention to and emphasize their given ideology. After charting out the various instances of violence carried out by each of the categories, the paper offers up several policy recommendations on responding to their actions:


The study is already coming under attack by Republicans for not properly defining what constitutes a member of the “far right.”


This pushback is unsurprising, given the unwelcome response a 2009 report on the same topic received. Titled “ Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” the Department of Homeland Security-commissioned report drew attention to the fact that right-wing groups have proved more of a threat than Islamic extremists during a similar period. Secretary Janet Napolitano withdrew that report under harsh criticism from conservatives at the time, but there is no sign that the CTC will pull this study any time soon.

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/new-west-point-study-highlights-threat-posed-far-right-wing-groups-us

“Shouldn’t the Combating Terrorism Center be combating radical Islam around the globe instead of perpetuating the left’s myth that right-wingers are terrorists?” the staffer said. “The $64,000 dollar question is when will the Combating Terrorism Center publish their study on real left-wing terrorists like the Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, and the Weather Underground?”

It's been done, bonehead, and it's old news.
Pay attention.

this is such a typical response. this is the same response that came to the report on media consolidation (which showed that it had an adverse and undesired impact on local broadcasting), which was put forth by Republicans then quashed when it showed the opposite of what they wanted it to show.