I haven't even read the full article yet, but even after the first two paragraphs this is obvious. The rhetoric is thick, and echoes what this administration has been saying since they took over regarding whom they perceive to be the enemy.
...change in control of the White House and Congress in 2012, the governing party cuts off all funding ... dedicated to boosting the economy or toward relief.
See what will happen when we get thrown out? Those greedy Republicans want it all for themselves!
...extremist militia motivated ... “tea party” movement
Oh no! Those extremists will be in charge! (Let's ignore the extremists that are currently in charge.)
...taxes on the middle class remain relatively high ...vocal minority has directed the public’s fear and frustration at nonwhites and immigrants.
Reinforcing the evil, greedy, bigoted depiction of the "enemy".
...race-baiting and immigrant-bashing by right-wing demagogues.
Again, we are to ignore that which has already been occurring, perpetrated and encouraged by this administration and its sycophants, and ignored or deliberately mischaracterized by the useful idiots in the so-called mainstream media.
...nonwhites have become occasional targets for mobs of angry whites
Uh huh. This is getting tedious.
Telegraphing, are they?
So, the authors are suggesting that the DHS be called into crush a right-wing insurgency when the right controls congress and the President is a squishy center-right moderate? Mitt Romney is a lot of things, but Abe Lincoln ain't one of them.
Although if Mitt really did cut spending to the level the article suggests, the Tea Party wouldn't be in armed revolt; they'd be out campaigning for his reelection and looking to add him to Mount Rushmore. Even if the taxes rates remained high (which is somewhat hard to fathom assuming the right controlled the legislative and executive branches), the benefits of reduced government spending would hurt the progressives and their special interests, not the middle class Tea Party types. It's the middle class Tea Party section of America that winds up paying for programs they don't use. Conversely, it would be left who'd be ready to fight back and draw blood if those programs were cut.
But people who work for government think tanks don't get paid to consider a left wing / statist revolt in protest of lower spending, now do they? In reality, this scenario only makes sense under Democratic rule, which makes me wonder why they'd avoid the obvious 'Obama is reelected and everything goes to hell' storyline, which fits their overall narrative much more neatly. Unless they find it politically unthinkable to admit that Obama + reality = failure. That's possible. Ideology often trumps honesty in government. When you maneuver around 'unthinkable obstacles' because you don't like the implication, it invariably leads to cartoonish analysis. And here we are.
I think Benson is just trolling for violent threats.