Dissent is patriotic. Except when the anti-government “extremists” do it. Those fuckers we need to watch…
Honestly. If the Left had a modicum of self-respect, its fellow-travelers, a cluster of pimples on the otherwise un-blighted ass of liberty, would literally pop from the pressure of trying to negotiate their own ever-throbbing red-edged hypocrisies:
A recently published “lexicon” distributed to thousands of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) targets citizens concerned about their Second Amendment rights and the steady encroachment of the federal government, categorizing such as “militia extremists.”
The “lexicon,” marked Unclassified/For Official Use Only (FOUO), is dated November 10, 2011, and was sent out by email to law enforcement and homeland security agencies on November 14 by LaJuan E. Washington of the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis.
Its definition of “militia extremists” states:
(U//FOUO) Groups or individuals who facilitate or engage in acts of violence directed at federal, state, or local government officials or infrastructure in response to their belief that the government deliberately is stripping Americans of their freedoms and is attempting to establish a totalitarian regime. These individuals consequently oppose many federal and state authorities’ laws and regulations, (particularly those related to firearms ownership), and often belong to armed paramilitary groups. They often conduct paramilitary training designed to violently resist perceived government oppression or to violently overthrow the US Government. (Page 2 of 3, emphasis added)
So what drives militia extremism according to DHS now is “belief that the government deliberately is stripping Americans of their freedoms.” It is demonstrated by opposing “many federal and state authorities’ laws and regulations, (particularly those related to firearms ownership).” Would writing about those topics (as I am now) fall under “facilitation”? On its face, it’s hard to see how it could be excluded under DHS’s broad definition.
Another indicator, according to DHS, is that militia extremists “often belong to paramilitary groups,” which would mean that there are “militia extremists” who aren’t part of a militia. So if you oppose federal regulations and support the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and though you don’t actually belong to a militia, you can still be branded a “militia extremist” by your own government, and presumably be targeted by law enforcement agencies.
And for those who would scoff that my reading is over the top and claim that DHS would never target anyone who wasn’t knowingly and willingly involved in “facilitating and engaging in acts of violence,” the DHS lexicon adds another category, “unwitting co-optees”:
(U//FOUO) Groups or individuals who provide support to terrorism without knowing that their actions are contributing to terrorism. Such individuals may suspect that they are being used. Not all unwitting co-optees are engaging in criminal behavior.
In 2009, DHS came under fire for a 10-page report, “Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” which classified returning war veterans as potential threats. When government watchdogs submitted FOIAs for the sources used in preparing the report, they found that conspiracy websites and far-left outfits had been used, including the Southern Poverty Law Center, which branded the American Legion veterans organization as a “hate group.” Information also surfaced that the report had been rushed out over the objections of civil liberties officials. DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano was forced to apologize to veterans groups and withdraw the report.
Nor is this the first time that homeland security agencies have pushed the boundaries on defining “militia extremists.”
Just a few weeks prior to DHS coming under fire for that “right-wing” report, the Missouri Information Analysis Center, funded by DHS grants, issued a report titled “The Modern Militia Movement,” which branded pro-life groups and those opposed to illegal immigration as potential domestic terrorists. Indicators identified in the report included support for third-party candidates. Political signs and bumper stickers were also suspect, with the Revolutionary War-era “Gadsden flag” specifically called out as a “militia symbol.” The Missouri fusion center later announced it would stop publishing reports altogether.
In light of the recent publication of the DHS “lexicon” that violates their own guidelines, it seems clear that under Secretary Napolitano, DHS officials are intent on continuing to target innocent citizens merely exercising their constitutional rights.
Meanwhile, groups and individuals that federal prosecutors and even federal judges have identified as supporting foreign terrorist groups are actively courted and legitimized by the Obama administration. Leaders from these terror-tied organizations are even being used to help write the DHS department guidelines on “countering violent extremism.”
Is it any wonder then that just last week it was revealed that a DHS-funded study likened terrorism to “ordinary crime” while omitting any reference to the radicalizing effects of Islamic extremist ideology?
No. Because to the left — and even to many in the GOP establishment — the real enemy in this country is the newly-engaged citizen who is distressed to see his liberties coopted by government; repulsed to see his future and his family’s future mortgaged to special interests and government cronies; and amazed by the complete and open disregard for the rule of law, creating a “legal” environment of lawlessness thanks in large part to an interpretive paradigm that makes it all but impossible to view the Constitution as a stable foundation for equal protection. The Muslim threat is a romanticized battle with far-away Otherness. The existential battle, for a ruling class elite, is with those it wishes to turn from employers to subjects in a coup that would fundamentally change the relationship between the individual and the State — and in so doing, overthrow the Constitutional republic, albeit by a long march through our institutions rather than with guns or military force.
Mark Levin has described what we’re living in as a post-Constitutional era. If he’s right, than so long as there remains a putative rule of law (albeit one no longer provided rigidity by the Declaration or Constitution), we are of necessity living under a form of tyranny, however soft and benevolent it may appear, and however kid-gloved are the intrusions of the police state that now provide its legal contours.
For noting this, I am likely on some watch list. And while the activist Left screeched at stamped its feet over the supposed violations of civil liberties incurred by data nodes under an NSA “wiretapping” program, they will be far less exercised, for the most part, over the attention paid to those who they see as their actual enemies — namely, those who would stand in the way of attempts to take the US down the road to Utopian democratic socialism.
Which, if they are watching right now, I hope they write this down: Don’t tread on me.
(thanks to jho)