Tag Archives: domestic terrorists

Obama’s DOJ considers “racist” and “anti-government” Americans to be domestic terrorists

Remember that 2008 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secret memo that identified Americans who love liberty, are “fiercely nationalistic,” “anti-global,” pro-life, pro-Second Amendment gun rights, Christian, and military veterans, to be “domestic terrorists”?

Now the POS is going one step further by creating a new position in the Department of Justice (DOJ) — the Domestic Terrorism Counsel — who is charged with coordinating investigations into “domestic terrorists,” specifically Americans who are “racist” (whatever that means) and “anti-government” (whatever that means).

Assistant Attorney General John Carlin

Eric Tucker reports for the AP, Oct. 14, 2015, that in a question-and-answer session after a George Washington University speech, Assistant Attorney General John Carlin, head of the DOJ’s national security division, said that while the international terror threat occupies the public attention, federal officials are just as concerned about domestic terrorism from Americans motivated by anti-government views and racist ideologies. 

Carlin said that Americans inspired by racial hatred (whatever that means) — but without any ties to established terror groups — are a “clear and present danger” to the public. He claimed that more Americans have been killed in recent years in attacks by domestic extremists than in attacks associated with international terrorist groups.

The new Domestic Terrorism Counsel will be the main point of contact for U.S. Attorney offices nationwide and will work to identify trends across cases, help shape strategy and analyze legal gaps that need to be closed.

By the latter the Obama administration seems to mean a specific legal gap between how the DOJ deals with “international” terrorists like Islamic State sympathizers and how it deals with “domestic terrorists.” In the case of IS sympathizers, they are routinely charged with providing material (financial) support to foreign terror groups. But, due to First Amendment concerns, there’s no comparable legal statute for “domestic terrorists” like Americans who aid white supremacist organizations.

Carlin said, “To do that for a group here would mean, based on who the group is and what they’re doing, that the entire group is designated as the terrorist group.” 

In other words, the DOJ is proposing that any and all Americans whom the Obama administration deems to be “racist” or “anti-government” would be designated as domestic terrorists. 

How does the Obama administration define “racist” or “anti-government”?:

  1. Is it by behavior, and if so, what specific behaviors constitute “racist” or “anti-government”?
  2. Or is the Obama administration defining “racist” and “anti-government” not just by behavior, but also by speech and thought? — which appears to be the case, given the administration’s identification of the First Amendment, with its guarantee of freedom of speech, as a legal obstacle to going after “domestic terrorists.”

Welcome to George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.

To the liberals=Democrats=Progressives=socialists=commies who are applauding this chilling new notion of “domestic terrorists”:

Today, “racist” and “anti-government” Americans are designated to be “domestic terrorists.” Tomorrow, the definition of “domestic terrorists” may well be expanded to include liberals.

To those Americans (and who knows how many illegal aliens) who had voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012:

May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits.

Founding Fathers were domestic terrorists

See also:

~Éowyn

Advertisements

Embryonic Islamic States Forming In America

I first posted this article from Front Page more than 2 years ago, on July 16, 2010, but I’m restoring this to FOTM’s front page. Here’s why.

In a recent report and a 2008 secret memo, the Obama Administration’s Department of Homeland Security identifies Americans who love liberty, are “fiercely nationalistic,” “anti-global,” pro-life, pro-Second Amendment gun rights, Christian, and military veterans, to be “domestic terrorists.”

Recently, we learnt the dismaying and alarming news that the United States Army’s Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) published a document, Pamphlet 525-3-1: Army’s Operating Concept 2016-2028, on likely future scenarios in which the United States may find ourselves and how the US Army will conduct its operations. One scenario is a civil war in 2016, which was instigated by an “extremist militia” of “political reactionaries” animated by the goals of the Tea Party movement.

There is NO sign — zero, nada, zilch — that the Tea Party movement has formed or is planning to organize a militia, “extremist” or not. But there is plenty of evidence that Muslims have formed not just militia within the United States, but embryonic states. Why did the TRADOC Operational Concept use the Tea Party movement, instead of the more plausible Muslims, for their hypothetical scenario?

~Eowyn

Muslim Enclaves U.S.A.

By Ryan Mauro – Front Page – July 9, 2010

It seems almost unthinkable, but Islamist groups are, as we speak, hard at work creating Muslim states-within-states in the U.S. Indeed, this process has been unfolding for a long time across the Western world, through the creation of isolated Muslim enclaves in both rural and urban areas, as well as through the designation of “no-go zones” where governments admit to having little authority over Muslims living there, essentially leaving them to function as autonomous regions.

Daniel Pipes has tracked numerous examples since 2004 of Muslim groups working to create communities based solely on Islam and run by Sharia law. As discussed by David Kennedy Houck in 2006, “Although such concepts are antithetical to a free society, U.S. democracy allows the internal enclave to function beyond the established boundaries of our constitutional framework.”

For example, one such community, Gwynn Oak, has been created in Baltimore, Maryland, consisting of Muslim immigrants and African-American converts. The project is led by John Yahya Cason, director of the Islamic Education and Community Development Initiative. Cason explained that the neighborhood is a response to the problem that “Muslim communities are ruled by Western societal tenets, many of which clash with Islamic norms.” In his opinion, there is a need for communities with “the totality of the essential components of Muslim social, economic, and political structure.” As such, the Gwynn Oak enclave follows specific moral rules based on Islam and people there speak Arabic. On September 13, 2009, the construction of its three-story mosque began. Approximately 400 Muslims now live in the vicinity.

Another example involves the Islamic Center for Human Excellence, which receives funding from the United Arab Emirates. In August 2004, it was granted permission to build a Muslim neighborhood in Little Rock, Arkansas, complete with a mosque, school, and 22 homes; it would not allow the presence of alcohol. The goal was for Muslims to find an area to escape the alleged crime and depravity of American life, although the imam behind the effort said that non-Muslims are welcome to join.

Far more radical groups than these are now taking the lead in promoting and creating Islamic enclaves on U.S. soil.

One such organization is As-Sabiqun, headed by Imam Abdul Alim Musa, who is very honest about his disturbing objectives. The group’s website calls for installing Islamic law worldwide, fighting for “oppressed” Muslims, and “build[ing] model communities where Islam is lived.” The website contains a point-by-point plan to assemble mini-states in America, beginning with the construction of a mosque and finishing with “establishing geographical integrity by encouraging Muslims of the community to live in close proximity to the masjid [mosque]” and “establishing social welfare institutions.”

The ideology espoused by Musa and As-Sabiqun is undeniably radical. The website boasts about Musa’s early endorsement of Ayatollah Khomeini and the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran. It also is unafraid to say that As-Sabiqun members follow people like Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood; Maulana Mawdudi, who called on Muslims to wage jihad until Sharia law is in place over the globe; and Sayyid Qutb, the Muslim Brotherhood member whose preaching inspired Osama bin Laden. Musa himself has argued that the CIA and Israel were behind the 9/11 attacks. He has admitted that he “like[s]” bin Laden, calls Hezbollah “a great organization,” and says Hamas members are “very nice people.”

Muslims of the Americas, led by Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani in Pakistan, is a very similar group with very similar aims, though its focus is more rural than urban. It admits to owning at least 22 “villages” around the country that are dozens of acres large and operate under names like “Islamberg,” “Holy Islamville,” and “Aliville.” These Muslim-only lands are open to outsiders solely during planned outreach events and sometimes to journalists.

This group has received considerable media attention due to allegations that its isolated compounds are used for paramilitary training, an accusation bolstered by a videotape released by the Christian Action Network. On that tape, a speaker is seen declaring the U.S. a Muslim country and pledging that Muslims of the Americas will defend American Muslims from foreign and domestic enemies.

The ideology of Muslims of the Americas is comparable to that of As-Sabiqun, although it is more centered on following Gilani as a representative of God who is capable of creating miracles. Gilani is very anti-Semitic, describing Jews as “an example of human Satans”; like Musa, he insists that a Jewish-Zionist conspiracy is behind the attacks of September 11, 2001, and other schemes to harm Muslims. He calls bin Laden a “Saudi activist,” while claiming to meet with Jesus and personally to have introduced the Mahdi to a select few.

US Army targets Tea Party movement as extremists in 2016 civil war scenario

The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), established on July 1, 1973, is the official command component that is responsible for training and developing the United States Army.

TRADOC’s sleeve patch or insignia

Headquartered at Fort Eustis, Virginia. TRADOC is charged with overseeing training of Army forces, the development of operational doctrine, and the development and procurement of new weapons systems. TRADOC operates 33 schools and centers at 16 Army installations for our soldiers, other-service personnel, international soldiers and civilians.

The official mission statement for TRADOC states:

“TRADOC develops the Army’s Soldiers and Civilian leaders and designs, develops and integrates capabilities, concepts and doctrine in order to build a campaign-capable, expeditionary Army in support of joint warfighting capability through Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN).”

Those “concepts and doctrines” include the envisioning of likely future scenarios in which the United States may find ourselves and how the US Army will conduct its operations. That is why TRADOC’s Pamphlet 525-3-1, Army’s Operating Concept 2016-2028, issued on August 19, 2010, is of importance and concern. Why? Because the document envisions a civil war breaking out in America in 2016 — a war instigated by “political reactionaries” — “an extremist militia motivated by the goals of the ‘tea party’ movement.”

I tried to access the PDF of Operating Concept 2016-2028 (henceforth referred to as OC), but was told “Access Denied.” Therefore, we must depend on Kevin Benson and Jennifer Weber’s account of OC in Small Wars Journal. (Kevin Benson, Ph.D., is a retired Army colonel; Weber is an associate professor of history with a specialty in the American civil war, at the University of Kansas.)

UPDATE (Aug. 17): Thanks to reader Kevin McDonald, you can read OC (Army Operating Concept 2016-2028) for yourself by going here, or if that link is scrubbed, I’ve saved the document to FOTM’s media library: TRADOC Op Con 2016-2028!

No authorship is given for the 65-page OC, but the document bears the imprimatur and official approval of the United States Army. It begins with a “Foreword” by Martin E. Dempsey, General, U.S. Army, Commanding; followed by a brief explanation of the meaning of the Army’s “operating concept” by John E. Sterling, Jr., Lieutenant General, U. S. Army, Commanding General/Chief of Staff.

OC first lays out the rationale for the deployment of the U.S. military inside America’s borders. Benson and Weber write:

“If we face a period of persistent global conflict as outlined in successive National Security Strategy documents, then Army officers are professionally obligated to consider the conduct of operations on U.S. soil […] to defend the republic at home.  In this paper, we posit a scenario in which a group of political reactionaries take over a strategically positioned town and have the tacit support of not only local law enforcement but also state government officials, right up to the governor.  Under present law, which initially stemmed from bad feelings about Reconstruction, the military’s domestic role is highly circumscribed.  In the situation we lay out below, even though the governor refuses to seek federal help to quell the uprising (the usual channel for military assistance), the Constitution allows the president broad leeway in times of insurrection. Citing the precedents of Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War and Dwight D. Eisenhower sending troops to Little Rock in 1957, the president mobilizes the military and the Department of Homeland Security, to regain control of the city.  This scenario requires us to consider how domestic intelligence is gathered and shared, the role of local law enforcement (to the extent that it supports the operation), the scope and limits of the Insurrection Act–for example maintaining a military chain of command but in support of the Attorney General as the Department of Justice is the Lead Federal Agency (LFA) under the conditions of the Act–and the roles of the local, national, and international media. […]

The Insurrection Act does not need to be changed for the 21st century.  Because it is broadly written, the law allows the flexibility needed to address a range of threats to the Republic. 

What we must consider in the design of homeland defense or security exercises is translating the Act into action. The Army Operating Concept describes Homeland Defense as the protection of ‘U.S. sovereignty, territory, domestic population, and critical defense infrastructure against external threats and aggression, or other threats as directed by the president’ (OC, p. 27).”

And now, read OC’s “Scenario 2016” envisioned by the U.S. Army:

The Scenario (2016) 

The Great Recession of the early twenty-first century lasts far longer than anyone anticipated.  After a change in control of the White House and Congress in 2012, the governing party cuts off all funding that had been dedicated to boosting the economy or toward relief.  The United States economy has flatlined, much like Japan’s in the 1990s, for the better part of a decade.  By 2016, the economy shows signs of reawakening, but the middle and lower-middle classes have yet to experience much in the way of job growth or pay raises.  Unemployment continues to hover perilously close to double digits, small businesses cannot meet bankers’ terms to borrow money, and taxes on the middle class remain relatively high.  A high-profile and vocal minority has directed the public’s fear and frustration at nonwhites and immigrants.  After almost ten years of race-baiting and immigrant-bashing by right-wing demagogues, nearly one in five Americans reports being vehemently opposed to immigration, legal or illegal, and even U.S.-born nonwhites have become occasional targets for mobs of angry whites.

In May 2016 an extremist militia motivated by the goals of the “tea party” movement takes over the government of Darlington, South Carolina, occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council, and placing the mayor under house arrest.  Activists remove the chief of police and either disarm local police and county sheriff departments or discourage them from interfering.  In truth, this is hardly necessary.  Many law enforcement officials already are sympathetic to the tea party’s agenda, know many of the people involved, and have made clear they will not challenge the takeover.  The militia members are organized and have a relatively well thought-out plan of action.

With Darlington under their control, militia members quickly move beyond the city limits to establish “check points” – in reality, something more like choke points — on major transportation lines.  Traffic on I-95, the East Coast’s main north-south artery; I-20; and commercial and passenger rail lines are stopped and searched, allegedly for “illegal aliens.”  Citizens who complain are immediately detained.  Activists also collect “tolls” from drivers, ostensibly to maintain public schools and various city and county programs, but evidence suggests the money is actually going toward quickly increasing stores of heavy weapons and ammunition.  They also take over the town web site and use social media sites to get their message out unrestricted. 

When the leaders of the group hold a press conference to announce their goals, they invoke the Declaration of Independence and argue that the current form of the federal government is not deriving its “just powers from the consent of the governed” but is actually “destructive to these ends.”  Therefore, they say, the people can alter or abolish the existing government and replace it with another that, in the words of the Declaration, “shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”  While mainstream politicians and citizens react with alarm, the “tea party” insurrectionists in South Carolina enjoy a groundswell of support from other tea party groups, militias, racist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan, anti-immigrant associations such as the Minutemen, and other right-wing groups.  At the press conference the masked militia members’ uniforms sport a unit seal with a man wearing a tricorn hat and carrying a musket over the motto “Today’s Minutemen.”  When a reporter asked the leaders who are the “red coats” the spokesman answered, “I don’t know who the redcoats are…it could be federal troops.” Experts warn that while these groups heretofore have been considered weak and marginal, the rapid coalescence among them poses a genuine national threat.

The mayor of Darlington calls the governor and his congressman.  He cannot act to counter the efforts of the local tea party because he is confined to his home and under guard.  The governor, who ran on a platform that professed sympathy with tea party goals, is reluctant to confront the militia directly.  He refuses to call out the National Guard.  He has the State Police monitor the roadblocks and checkpoints on the interstate and state roads but does not order the authorities to take further action.  In public the governor calls for calm and proposes talks with the local tea party to resolve issues.  Privately, he sends word through aides asking the federal government to act to restore order.  Due to his previous stance and the appearance of being “pro” tea party goals the governor has little political room to maneuver.

The Department of Homeland Security responds to the governor’s request by asking for defense support to civil law enforcement.  After the Department of Justice states that the conditions in Darlington and surrounding areas meet the conditions necessary to invoke the Insurrection Act, the President invokes it.

(From Title 10 US Code the President may use the militia or Armed Forces to:

§ 331 – Suppress an insurrection against a State government at the request of the Legislature or, if not in session, the Governor.

§ 332 – Suppress unlawful obstruction or rebellion against the U.S.

§ 333 – Suppress insurrection or domestic violence if it (1) hinders the execution of the laws to the extent that a part or class of citizens are deprived of Constitutional rights and the State is unable or refuses to protect those rights or (2) obstructs the execution of any Federal law or impedes the course of justice under Federal laws.)

By proclamation he calls on the insurrectionists to disperse peacefully within 15 days.  There is no violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.  The President appoints the Attorney General and the Department of Justice as the lead federal agency to deal with the crisis.  The President calls the South Carolina National Guard to federal service.  The Joint Staff in Washington, D.C., alerts U.S. Northern Command, the headquarters responsible for the defense of North America, to begin crisis action planning.  Northern Command in turn alerts U.S. Army North/Fifth U.S. Army for operations as a Joint Task Force headquarters.  Army units at Fort Bragg, N.C.; Fort Stewart, Ga.; and Marines at Camp Lejuene, N.C. go on alert.  The full range of media, national and international, is on scene.

Read the rest of this most disturbing article, “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the Future,” by clicking here.

Now, the pieces finally are coming together as to why:

  • There are persistent rumors that the Obama administration is preparing for civil war (see here and here).
  • Supposedly civilian federal agencies (from DHS to the Dept. of Education to, good grief, the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Agency) have been buying ammunition.
  • The Department of Homeland Security, in a recent report and a 2008 secret memo, identifies Americans who love liberty, are “fiercely nationalistic” and “anti-global,” pro-life, pro-Second Amendment gun rights, Christian, and military veterans, to be “domestic terrorists.”
  • FBI Director Robert Mueller told a Congressional committee hearing that he’s unsure whether the U.S. government has the right to assassinate U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.
  • Both parties in both houses of Congress passed a bill, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which authorizes the President and the military to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens, without charge or trial.
  • There really are FEMA camps in every state of continental United States, ranging in size from 301 to 2,000 persons for up to 30 days of detention.

If the Founding Fathers were alive today, they would be deemed “domestic terrorists” by our government. I weep….

H/t FOTM’s Anon & Hardnox.

~Eowyn

National Guard ask police for names of gunowners and military vets

Two days ago, I received a very troubling phone call from a trusted friend. The friend does not want his name and that of his state to be made public. I will call my friend X and his state Y.

Here is what X told me:

Last Saturday, August 4, 2012, X got a phone call from a good friend, Z, who is a cop in a small town in Y.

Z said that both he and a cop in another neighboring town were paid a visit by two men, driving in separate unmarked Humvees, who identified themselves as members of the National Guard.

The two National Guardsmen (NGs) said they were “doing a survey” and asked the cops for those residents of their respective towns who:

  • own lots of firearms;
  • are long-distance shooters;
  • are military veterans.

The cops told the NGs that, it being a Saturday, they should come back on Monday when the police chiefs are at the stations. But the NGs said they are asking precisely the rank-and-file police officers; in other words, the NGs’ intent was to bypass the brass, i.e., the chain of command.

After the two NGs left, cop Z followed their vehicles and saw the NGs drive around town, making GPS readings.

Cop Z told my friend X that:

  • The National Guard is working under the Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS).
  • Obama and Eric Holder, known for their antipathy toward the Second Amendment and private gun ownership, found a legal loophole that allows the federal government to ask the questions the two NGs had asked the cops. And so Obama issued a presidential directive empowering such agencies as the FBI, U.S. Marshalls, BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms), and the National Guard to gather this information to compile a data base.

So I went looking on the web. This is what I found:

1. I found NOTHING about the National Guard going around asking cops for information on owners of firearms and military vets, in Y or any other state.

2. The U.S. National Guard is considered to be a reserve military force and, as such, is under the Dept. of Defense, not Homeland Security. The agencies that are under DHS are Customs and Border Protection, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Transportation Security Administration (TSA), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Secret Service, and the Office of Inspector General. (See DHS’s organizational chart).

3. I cannot find a presidential directive that specifically orders federal agencies like the National Guard to conduct a firearms survey by asking cops in towns across America. But that is not to say that such a presidential directive doesn’t exist. Here’s why:

I discovered and opened a can of worms about which I’d never even known until now. The “can of worms” is something called Presidential Directives. This is what Wikipedia says:

Presidential Directives … are a form of an executive order issued by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the National Security Council. The directives articulate the executive’s national security policy and carry the “full force and effect of law”.

Since many of the Presidential Directives pertain to the national security of the United States, many were or are secret (“classified“).

Presidents have issued such directives under various names.

Under President George W. Bush (2001-2009), they were called National Security Presidential Directives (NSPD) and Homeland Security Presidential Directives.

Under Barack Obama (2009- ), they are called NSPD, Presidential Study Directives (to initiate policy review procedures), and Presidential Policy Directives (to promulgate Presidential decisions on national security matters).

Regarding the secrecy of presidential directives, Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy stated in February 2008 that:

“Of the 54 National Security Presidential Directives issued by the (George W.) Bush Administration to date, the titles of only about half have been publicly identified. There is descriptive material or actual text in the public domain for only about a third. In other words, there are dozens of undisclosed Presidential directives that define U.S. national security policy and task government agencies, but whose substance is unknown either to the public or, as a rule, to Congress.”

For the list of known Homeland Security Presidential Directives of George W. Bush, click here.

As for Obama’s Presidential Policy Directives (PPD), you can see from the table below that:

  • The titles of most of his Directives are unknown.
  • Of those Directives with titles, the contents (texts) of only 4 Directives (Nos. 1, 2, 8, 14) are made public.
  • The list of Obama’s Presidential Policy Directives hasn’t been updated since February 28, 2012, which means there must be more subsequent Directives for which we don’t even have a number!

Number

Presidential Policy Directive
Title

Date

PPD 1 Organization of the National Security Council System 02/13/09
PPD 2 Implementation of the National Strategy for Countering Biological Threats (National Strategy) 11/23/09
PPD 3
PPD 4 National Space Policy (Fact Sheet) 06/28/10
PPD 5
PPD 6 Global Development (Fact Sheet) 09/22/10
PPD 7 National Terrorism Advisory System (NTAS) 01/26/11
PPD 8 National Preparedness 03/30/11
PPD 9
PPD 10
PPD 11
PPD 12
PPD 13
PPD 14 Procedures Implementing Section 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Fact Sheet) 02/28/12

To conclude, given:

  • The known fact that the POS in the White House and his attorney general Eric Holder want nothing more than to limit private gun ownership;
  • The fact that Presidential Directives carry “the full force and effect of law,” but are so secretive that the substance of many of these Directives is unknown to, not just the American people, but “as a rule” to Congress as well;

Then I see no reason to doubt the account of the two cops of a visit by two mysterious National Guardsmen.

We live in perilous times. The Establishment Media are not doing their job, so it is left to the alternative New Media. Our weapon is truth. Please help this post to go viral by publishing this to your Facebook page and e-mailing it to your family, friends, and acquaintances.

~Eowyn