Last month, the Department of Homeland Security released its controversial report that warned against "right-wing extremists." Dated April 7th, the report entitled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" offered the following definition (or description) of extremists who were dangerous and potential terrorist threats

"Right-wing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

As Michelle Malkin noted in the Washington Times, it is difficult to believe the report's timing was a coincidence. It was disseminated about a week before the grass-root tax-revolts known as Tea Parties erupted across America. Although Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano eventually backed away from the report's targeting of military veterans, she has not similarly withdrawn from viewing anti-government sorts -- like libertarians -- as threats to security. (Of veterans, the report stated, "Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists,...DHS/I&A is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities." )

Compared to the April 7th report, an 11-page memo entitled "Domestic Extremism Lexicon" has received less attention -- perhaps because it did not mention veterans. Dated March 27th, its public lifespan was a flicker; the document was yanked back almost as soon as it saw the light of day. The memo defined dozens of groups as potential threats to security. It included those that advocated violence (skinheads) with those that are pacifist (green anarchism). It lumped animal rights activists together with black separatists and tax protesters. It targeted general categories like "alternative media" and specific beliefs like "Nordic mysticism." The memo included anti-technology zealots along with hackers and those who used denial-of-service attacks. Indeed, it seemed to target anyone who disagreed with specific government policies. For example, it described anti-immigrant extremists as people who "are highly critical of the U.S. Government’s response to illegal immigration and oppose government programs that are designed to extend 'rights' to illegal aliens, such as issuing driver’s licenses or national identification cards and providing in-state tuition, medical benefits, or public education."

Taken together, the two documents could chill the blood of anyone who believes in a free or civil society -- not just libertarians but anyone who values freedom of speech, religion, the press, etc. They are also chilling in that documents that establish definitions and guidelines are preliminary in nature; they are context setting documents. The context for what? Who knows...perhaps for legislative measures like H.R. 2159 -- the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009. H.R. 2159 allows the government to deny transfer/sale of a firearm to any "known or suspected dangerous terrorist." In short, the government can deny 2nd Amendment Rights to anyone suspected of being "dangerous." No prior conviction, no hearing, no legal proof seems to be necessary. H.R. 2159 has co-sponsors from both parties, and is currently with the House Committee on the Judiciary. I have no idea if it will pass. I have a very good idea that such legislation will draw upon the preliminary definitions and framework being provided by DHS on what constitutes a potential terrorist: namely, you and me.