https://web.archive.org/web/20100108060904/media.kspr.com/do...
And I still can't find it. This report isn't about domestic terrorism, it's about the militia movement (which correlates, but it's not the same thing). And it's absolutely not about Ron Paul, I can't even find where it mentions that fact in passing.
You're spinning like crazy here, about a 12 year old report saying (apparently) unflattering things about a 16 year old presidential campaign. No one is being called a domestic terrorist anywhere in these links.
Report, top of page 7: "Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups. It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former Presidential Candidate: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr."
Honestly, I'm sympathetic to many of the ideologies and ideas that are described in this report, but I actually think the document is important as an internal document for police. They need to be informed about radicals within these ideologies, and knowing who they might vote for for president is very relevant for helping to understand or empathize with them, especially for conflict deescalation.
Say you're in a hostage negotiation with a sovereign-citizen type who's worried you're going to disappear them to some black-ops prison. If you knew enough about the movement to abolish the Fed, about FEMA camps, or about the NWO, and said you're a Ron Paul supporter, you might be able to establish trust. Ron Paul isn't strictly someone involved with the latter two conspiracies, but there is a heavy correlation between the three, and he's the highest profile figure supporting the first.
These documents aren't political, they're tactical information for real-life police work. Police have to deal with the radicals, even if they're a fringe minority.
(this is a mental exercise in principled reasoning. I'm not racist).
"Racial profiling" isn't bad because it's based on the (correct, though specious -- they're poorer) observation that young black men commit more per-capita crimes, it's bad because it leads to law enforcement behavior that causes young black men to be stopped, frisked, detained, prosecuted and incarcerated at rates MUCH HIGHER than their per-capita crime statistics would indicate.
Basically: the idea that "black kids are criminals" leads police to disproportionately enforce the laws against black kids while letting "non-criminal" demographics off the hook.
But no one argues we should censor reports that detail youth crime statistics by race, which is what's happening here.