[kopride]

In the past twenty years, there has been exactly one terroristic attack of domestic origin that has caused widespread personal and property damage, which was the attack on the USDC in Oklahoma City. The planners could be properly characterized as right wing and disgruntled Army vets. In the late 60s and 70s, the Government was properly concerned about left wing domestic terror groups, including the weather underground, black panthers, and SLA. With the change in administrations, it is reasonable to be more concerned about right wing groups.

Irrespective of politics, there is a tendency when Democrats are in power for domestic right wing groups to become more reactive in response. The converse is also true, during the Nixon/Ford admministrations, there was much more activity by left leaning terror groups.

There are also legitimate concerns about foreign terror groups with mid-east ties as well. It is difficult to characterize these groups politically, but there is no evidence that they have ties to traditional right or left wing domestic groups. Therefore, a proper DHS plan would study the potential threats from both domestic groups and foreign groups.

As an aside, domestic groups tend to turn to terror when they feel that they have no real voice in the government. My educated guess is that various left leaning groups currently feel that their voices are being heard through governmental channels, much to the chagrin of right leaning groups that feel that they are not being heard.

Given the criticism, much of it proper, that the Clinton administration ignored a growing threat from foreign islamic groups; in light of Oklahoma City, wouldn't it be inprudent to not analyze whether there is a potential threat from the right. Democrats and Republicans died in the twin towers. And , people from both parties, including children, died in Oklahoma City.

I don't know about you, but I would like to think that the Obama Administration is doing everything they can to prevent another 9/11 incident and an Oklahoma City type bombing. As to whether the Obama Administration intends to use political capital to really clamp down on gun rights, I find it highly doubtful. The post-Columbine gun measures are widely blamed by savvy democrats for widespread congressional losses during Clinton's terms, and very few of those same democrats really feel that they made the country any safer or picked up any real votes from supporting anti-gun measures. Most will admit that it was a political disaster. Like or hate Obama's politics, I think he is too smart a politician to really address this on a federal level. And the most recent SCOTUS decision concerning DC gun bans has made folks advocating legislative action on guns very reluctant to push this agenda.

Like the gay marriage issue, you are going to see gun issues pushed on the state level and ignored on the federal level. Obama is also going to tread very lightly on the abortion issue. That's why the left is pushing abortion reduction etc, rather than expanding abortion rights.

But, unless Obama starts drifting very far to the right, which is doubtful, or reinstitutes a draft, which is also doubtful, domestic threats will most likely originate from right wing extremists rather than the left. And foreign threats will most likely originate from where it has for the past 20 years; and that is from our friends in Saudi Arabia. We should all hope that DHS keeps an eye on these threats for the next four (or 8) years. If something new happens out of the blue, i.e. animal rights loonies, Quebec Seperatists, French Socialists, then perhaps we can cut him a break because these groups have been pretty inactive lately, but if there is another terror attack by Oklahoma City type extremists, I for one will not cut him a break. Nor, should he get a free pass if we see another group with ties to the King he just bowed to, cause havoc domestically.

IOW, even a broken clock is right twice a day.