When Do We Arrest the Tea Party?
(The Future of Freedom Foundation) -- by Wend McElroy --
...The latest anti-terrorism document to issue from the White House is entitled “Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States” (“Empowering”); as the title suggests, it addresses domestic terrorism. Published in early August, “Empowering” is a blatant expansion of state power not only into the lives but also into the minds of American communities and families. But the agenda is carefully presented in politically correct language and vague bureaucratese. In short, Boss Obama’s team has coated “Empowering” with such a thick patina of PR that few people are reacting to anything else...
The Introductory page, signed “Barack Obama”, states, “As a government we are working to prevent all types of extremism that leads to violence no matter who inspires it.... The strategy that follows outlines how the Federal Government will support and help American communities and their local partners in their grassroots efforts to prevent violent extremism. This strategy commits the Federal Government to improving support to communities, including sharing more information about the threat of radicalization....”
The document defines “extremists” in such a manner as to include half the Founding Fathers and anyone who believes in resisting tyranny. The definition of “extremists” offered is, “individuals who support or commit ideologically-motivated violence to further political goals.” Note that merely supporting “ideologically-motivated violence” makes a person an extremist; presumably that includes those who express approval of the ideologies, whether or not they take violent action.
Al-Qaeda is identified as the key ideological threat, with passing mention of neo-Nazis, anti-Semitic groups, and a broad unspecified “range of ideologies” that promote radicalization. Thus, al-Qaeda would seem to be the focus. Nevertheless, “Empowering” carefully states, “Any solution that focuses on a single, current form of violent extremism, without regard to other threats, will fail to secure our country and communities. Our threat environment is constantly evolving, which is why we must consistently [sic] revisit our priorities and ensure our domestic approach can address multiple types of violent extremism.” In other words, who or what is defined as an ideology of “violent extremism” tomorrow is open-ended. Given that Tea Party congressmen were recently called “terrorists” by powerful Democrats simply because they refused to pass a debt-ceiling bill, this definitional blank check is disquieting.
Equally disturbing are earlier attempts by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to identify extremists. In 2009, DHS issued a nine-page report entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” The document stated, “Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented ... 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.” Veterans were also included as extremist threats...
What, then, is the mechanism “Empowering” advocates to prevent radicalizing ideologies? The document rejects the creation of “a new architecture of institutions and funding.” Instead, it stresses the need to employ “successful models, increasing their scope and scale where appropriate.” In more concrete terms (or as concrete as it gets), that involves the coordination of existing federal agencies and resources to expand the federal government’s relationships with grassroots groups and the private sector down to the family level. Those at “ground level,” it is said, are best equipped to identify the radicalizing threats within their own communities and institutions, and so they can better report suspicious activity. What will be done with the flow of information to government is not disclosed...MORE...LINK
Chris Moore comments:
So in addition to Muslims and tea partiers, the liberal fascists and neocons are now targeting anti-Zionists as terrorists.
Predictable from an ideology that is getting its strings pulled by Judeofascists.
Citing risk of "terror," Judeofascist Blinkin calls for repatriation of Islamic State fighters, but not of Jewish State fighters (he needs them on Wall Street) - Secretary of State Antony Blinken emphasized the importance of repatriating foreign terrorist fighters to limit the risk of them returning to the Islamic S...
10 hours ago
>>Note that merely supporting “ideologically-motivated violence” makes a person an extremist <<
Okay, duly noted.
If you think that it is ACCEPTABLE to go into a Unitarian church in Knoxville, TN to shoot people who disagree with your beliefs, and you agree with this type of action...then YES, you are an extremist.
If you celebrate someone who goes to a youth camp to kill teenagers and staff in Norway, again, because you disagree with their beliefs, then YES, you are an extremist.
If someone blows up a daycare center in Oklahoma because it shares a building with a federal office, and you SUPPORT such an action because of ideological differences, then you are an extremist.
In a free and civil society, sometimes you win elections...and sometimes you loose. You are free to work to gather votes and persuade others to join you, because elections come often here. You are not free to kill or maim people who hold different views, nor should we reward such violence with our approval. If you think otherwise in this great land of opportunity, then yes, you most definitely are an extremist.
Post a Comment