It's a slightly misleading subject, in that the document states that it's the
radical right-wingers who need to be monitored, and of those,
primarily those dangerous individuals who served in the military. However, it does go on to describe what a "radical right-wing extremist" is, part
of which I quote below. Here's a link to the
Intel Assessment, as well as a link to a
pdf of a brief filed by the Thomas Moore
Law Center filed regarding the assessment and three individuals being charged using the Homeland Security's findings.
Now note, these aren't those often hated neo-cons we're talking about here. To quote the footnote on page 2 of the assessment: (sorry, the quote's
going to be a little ugly, but the emphasis and underlining was done by me)
Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into these groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented
(based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, 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.
So, if you're ex-military (you can find reasons that all of our soldiers are terrorist threats on just about every page of the document) and don't
believe in big government, at least for the next 4 years, you are considered a terrorist threat by your government. If you're ex-military and are
passionate about a political issue (the paper mentions anti-abortion or illegal immigration numerous times), for at least the next 4 years, you are
considered a terrorist threat by your government. If you're ex-military and don't like big government, would like to see individual states take back
what the federal government has wrested from them over the past 70 years, congrats, you, too, are, at least for the next 4 years, a terrorist threat
according to your government.
What is this going to mean? It's unclear. There's already the one complaint filed against the use of this assessment regarding 3 individuals.
However, one of the individuals associated with the brief is Michael Savage, who is a very staunch political activist, and I haven't been able to
find a response yet, so the brief is the he said without the she said. However, the assessment from Homeland Security speaks loudly as to where this
administration's efforts of protection are going to be focused. Guess I'm lucky I live in a blue state?
( I kid ) 
