White House Counterterror Chief: “Confrontational” Children Could be Terrorists
White House counterterrorism and Homeland Security adviser Lisa Monaco gave a speech this week in which she urged parents to watch their children for signs of “confrontational” behavior which could be an indication of them becoming terrorists.
During the speech at at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government on Tuesday night, Monaco, who replaced John Brennan last year in overseeing the executive branch’s homeland-security activities, said that parents need to be suspicious of “sudden personality changes in their children at home.”
“What kinds of behaviors are we talking about?” she asked. “For the most part, they’re not related directly to plotting attacks. They’re more subtle. For instance, parents might see sudden personality changes in their children at home—becoming confrontational.”
Monaco lamented the fact that, “The government is rarely in a position to observe these early signals,” encouraging parents to act as watchdogs to detect radicalization in line with President Obama’s goal of combating homegrown extremism.
Over the last decade, the federal government has broadened its definition of what constitutes potential terrorism to such a degree that the term has lost all meaning and is clearly being used as a political tool to demonize adversarial political activism.
Indeed, only yesterday Senator Harry Reid caused outrage when he labeled supporters of Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy “domestic terrorists”.
Although such tactics pre-date the 2009 release of the MIAC report, the Missouri Information Analysis Center document was perhaps the most shocking in that it characterized a whole swathe of conservative Americans as domestic extremists, including Ron Paul supporters, people who own gold and people who display political bumper stickers.
A Homeland Security study leaked in 2012 upped the ante even further, demonizing Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.
Lisa Monaco’s speech and the federal government’s track record in assailing both banal behavior and political activism as potential “terrorism” serves as a reminder that the war on terror has now been focused inwardly against innocent Americans, making it all the more harder to detect actual terrorists.
Much more with videos and live links will be found at D.C. Clothesline.
Labeling It’s Own Citizens as Domestic Terrorists – The Ultimate Betrayal by the Federal Government
When a young man or woman joins the United States military, one of the first things they do before even being shipped off to boot camp is take the loyalty oath. “I (state your name) do solemnly swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.” The oath of enlistment goes on to say that the service member will follow orders of the president and the officers appointed over them per the regulations of the uniformed code of military justice. Most service members, at least I hope anyway, understand that there are illegal orders, and any order that goes against the Constitution is, in fact, an illegal order.
This oath means something to military personnel because most of us joined to defend the rights and liberties of all Americans, even those that don’t share our views. Sadly, many people have been inundated with the belief that the Constitution is an oppressive document that stands in the way of government creating the perfect paradise. In fact, in a report called Rightwing extremism: Current economic and political climate fueling resurgence in radicalization and recruitment the government calls anyone who refers to the Constitution and the limits of government power a domestic terrorist. Anyone who owns a gun is a terrorist, anyone who didn’t vote for Obama is a racist terrorist and anyone who is buying more than seven days of food at a time is now even referred to as a potential terrorist. Veterans are potential terrorists, probably because the government fears them finding out how they have been used, abused and lied to. Also, those who hold anti-abortion views are domestic terrorists.
Many of you may be wondering what the significance of all of this is. Harry Reid just referred to the Bundy ranch protesters as domestic terrorists and claimed that he was told a special task force is being set up to “deal with them.” A task force, mind you that is not loyal to the U.S. Constitution, but has likely been beaten down with the same lies and propaganda that is published in that fallacious report.
Read all of this HERE.
Let’s Call It Patriotism
A government unloosed from its authorizing document, in open revolt against the principles laid out and defined therein, with the will, intent and ability to execute citizens for trivial offenses, basically parking tickets (oops, forgot to feed the meter on the cattle) is, by definition, a domestic terrorist. The politicians and agents involved in such criminal activity as theft of property (water rights in U.S. v Hage a similar, but much more egregious case than the issue with Cliven Bundy) involving the BLM, determined by the judge to be involved in a criminal conspiracy is the definition of domestic terrorists.
Mr. Reid, those who stand against such criminal acts are called patriots.
To engage in criminal activity with the threat of death and kidnapping (incarceration) to U.S. citizens is domestic terrorism.
But, all of that is really a sideshow. In the main tent is the fact that this government have brutalized its citizens so often, so willingly that word is out, public sentiment is changing. Investor’s Business Daily is pointing out the obvious, but at least they are pointing.
In the Constitution, there is no provision for the United States to own any land that is not directly associated with conducting the business of government and provision for military bases and arsenals. There is no provision for national parks, land management, national forests, those are all the legacy of the first round of progressives to invade the halls of government with ill intent to the citizens.
The coming hot war was instigated by the government over one hundred years ago, but only recently, with the total corruption of the government, with politicians in violation of their oaths: stealing lands; stealing water rights; stealing funds; as they have grown more desperate and more despotic as the inevitable bankruptcy of the federal government looms. They have cast off the pretense. The president operates in total disregard for the wishes of the people and the Constitution, refuses to enforce borders, invites criminals into the nation in contravention of Section 8, Clause 4, where it states: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States. To enforce rules of naturalization on some immigrants and not on others violates the “uniform rule” requirement.
Read it all HERE.
Left-Wing Muslim Group CAIR Says Sharia Law Is Compatible With Democracy
Shariah is a primitive, backwards system of law usually championed by illiterate savages. It encourages rape, makes women into property and drags a society screaming back into the dark ages. No intelligent person who means well could possibly believe that Shariah is compatible with a free and democratic society. Which brings us to CAIR.
[B]ut, as you may have noticed, the ideals, the principles behind our expression of democracy do offer us a guide to the target of our thoughts tonight.
Two documents give us a sense of the recipe:
The Declaration of Independence asserts that the right of the people “to alter or to abolish their government” must remain intact and the people must have the freedom to lay government’s “foundation on such principles” and organize “its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
The Constitution adds additional thoughts: “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.””
These are the goals of the democracy our founders created. These are the ideals, the recipe.
Let me remind you of the two main goals and six main principles of sharia. The two goals are to bring good to humanity, and to repel harm from humanity.
All religious rules must be in line with these six principles of sharia:
The right to the protection of life.
The right to the protection of family.
The right to the protection of education (intellect).
The right to the protection of property (access to resources).
The right to the protection of human dignity.
The right to the protection of religion.
I hope you are beginning to hear what I concluded long ago — that the similarities between Islamic sharia ideals and western democratic ideals are fairly obvious. [...]
So, to my understanding, our original topic tonight has the effect of slicing us into two different camps. “Is sharia (them) compatible with democracy (us)?”
I am pretty sure, hearing that topic, most of you did not come here expecting an American history lesson. However, I pray that what I have said tonight brings you to share my conviction that we are, in fact, allies.
Islam and American democracy may disagree on some things. However, just as best friends often disagree without it hurting their relations we too can be adults and debate differences while partnering on ideals. Frankly, those differences are relatively minor. Violent extremists like al-Qaeda may trying to convince you otherwise, but they are everyone’s enemy.
I also pray that we can now start our conversation from a healthy place — not one of “us vs. them,” but of how do we work together to establish our shared ideals of justice.
This is exactly the sort of thing that gets people frustrated with “moderate Muslims.” They KNOW this isn’t true and if they wanted to live in a nation with Shariah law, they’d be there now. Instead, they sit by silently while terrorist sympathizing dirtbags like CAIR claim to represent them and champion primeval stupidity like Shariah in their names.
There are a lot of good, patriotic Muslims in this country. We need you to stand up, speak out and fight back against groups like CAIR.
From Joe for America.
What’s wrong with the Right
This article hits the nail on the head: the Right is its own worst enemy. It has allowed the Left to put it on the defensive to such a degree that whenever establishment conservatives take a stand against the Left, such as in this case defending Ayaan Hirsi Ali against the Hamas-linked CAIR smear campaign that got her honorary degree rescinded by Brandeis, they believe that they have to give their stand legitimacy by denouncing someone else the Left hates. The idea is that they will establish their bona fides by acquiescing to the Leftist character assassination of one person, thereby showing that they’re really good guys after all, not “racists” or “bigots,” and so therefore the Left should go easy on them when they come out against them regarding a different person or issue.
This triangulation tactic is increasingly common. The craven and self-serving British professional moderate Muslim Maajid Nawaz does the same thing when he comes out against Islamic jihad terrorists while denouncing Pamela Geller and me for “Islamophobia”: he thinks that he saves himself from charges of “Islamophobia” himself by joining in on the smear campaign against us (he doesn’t). The anti-Semitic Communist ex-Muslim Maryam Namazie and the Council of Ex-Muslims in Britain does the same thing, trying to buy themselves a spurious legitimacy by joining the defamation against us, thinking the Left will not then defame them.
“What’s Wrong with the Right,” by Pamela Geller, American Thinker, April 18:
Indicted Businessman Names Harry Reid as Alleged Recipient of Massive Bribe
A Utah businessman is rocking both state and national politics after claiming Utah Attorney General John Swallow helped him broker a deal with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to make a federal investigation into his company quietly disappear, the Salt Lake Tribune reports.
Jeremy Johnson was allegedly told that the price would be $600,000, and claims to have made an initial payment of $250,000 when he was slapped with a federal lawsuit. Now he says he wants his money back.
The Salt Lake Tribune points out that Johnson has no way of knowing whether the funds actually made it to Reid, even if he did make a massive payment to Reid’s alleged intermediary.
Though the connection to Reid remains unverified, some are remembering how Reid claimed on the Senate floor that Mitt Romney hadn’t paid his taxesfor ten years based on far less evidence.
Read the full story at The Blaze.