When Loving Your Country Marks You As A Domestic Terrorist

There needs to be an immediate Congressional investigation into the ties between the Department of Homeland Security and the Southern Poverty Law Center and any other radical groups. When Loving Your Country Marks You As A Domestic Terrorist

When I first became involved in political issues and events some , years ago as a young man just out of high school, it was because I believed in the ideals of our Founding Fathers. I had a young man’s zeal for the American dream of individuals living their lives free of government control and harassment. I was comfortable in the knowledge that I lived in the greatest nation on earth, where I could speak my mind; choose my own future; and nothing but my own limitations would stand in my way.

The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were my guidelines. I learned of them in a public school classroom, where we were taught why the American system of free enterprise and limited government were the reasons the United States had the highest standard of living in the world. It was the reason our solders were proud to serve and defend those ideas. Around the world, we were known as honest, trustworthy friends and allies. We were the envy of the world.

I got involved in politics, supporting these ideas, at a time when radical leftists who hated our style of government, were marching in the streets, carrying placards of Mao and labeling our nation “Amerika.” I stood against them. I gave speeches to local service clubs; I wrote articles; I took action on college campuses, fighting to keep them open and safe as these extremists were shutting down classes and even burning buildings. It was a time of great violence and it was the beginning of a long revolution that has now completely changed our nation.

How severe has America changed? Today, as I stand for exactly the same ideals of American liberty as I did in 1967, I have just been labeled a threat to my country by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). In fact, they say I am a right wing extremist, a racist and a potentially violent domestic terrorist.

In a recent SPLC report entitled, “30 New Activists Heading Up The Radical Right,” I have been named along with what SPLC calls “Islamophobes,” “Political Opportunists,” “Religious Right Anti-Gay groups” and “Patriot groups.” Says the report, “Most dramatically, so- called ‘Patriot’ groups – which, unlike most hate groups, see the federal government as their primary enemy – have grown explosively in just the last three years…” Of course they’re talking about the Tea Party as a hate movement, and I’m pretty sure that’s why I’m listed. In particular, they report on my efforts against Agenda 21, saying “DeWeese’s outfit is only one of several obsessed with what has become one of the main conspiracy theories of the anti-government ‘Patriot’ movement.” This new report from SPLC is just the latest in a series of attacks against Conservatives and others who support the founding principles of the United States, dating back over the past few years.

In March 2010, SPLC issued a report entitled “Rage on the Right: The Year in Hate and Extremism,” in which groups opposed to issues like the Obama health care plan and illegal immigration were lumped with white supremacist groups like the National Socialist Movement and Neo-Nazi Skin Heads.

In August 2010 SPLC launched an attack against my organization, the American Policy Center, and our national conference, The Freedom Action Conference, held at Valley Forge, PA. The event featured such speakers as best selling author Tom Woods, former presidential candidate Michael Badnarik, Sheriff Richard Mack, five respected state legislators, and many more well known spokesmen.

The title of the SPLC attack against me read, “Patriot Rhetoric Becomes Increasingly Violent,” and said we were “united by rage” at the federal government. Not one speaker at our conference advocated violence or lawlessness of any kind. I can prove these statements because we have the entire conference on video tape. Yet we were labeled as dangerous and potentially violent terrorists by SPLC. In fact, Sheriff Richard Mack was specifically singled out as one of our speakers whom they say advocated violence. He has filed a law suit against SPLC and will use our video as part of his evidence. Of course, annually SPLC puts out its list of what it calls “hate” groups and individuals it deems dangerous to the nation. That list is almost exclusively respected pro-Constitution spokesmen.

I live in the world of rough-and-tumble politics. Charges are regularly made in both directions. I give as good as I get. I attack over opposition to policy. They attack me for the same reason. It’s called political discourse; debate; and free speech. It’s been our right to participate in such public activity for over 200 years. So, why do I care what this one private organization (SPLC), with its own political agenda, says about me? I care because the Southern Poverty Law Center has direct ties to the Department of Homeland Security, helping to write official DHS policy that may affect my life, my freedom, my ability to travel and my ability to speak out. Consider the following facts:

Item: In 2009, The DHS issued a report entitled “Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” That official document of an agency of the United States government said “Right- wing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly anti- government, 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.”

Item: Two weeks later, the DHS released a second report entitled: “Domestic Extremism Lexicon,” designed to provide specific definitions of just who may be Right wing extremists. That report labeled the following to be extremists, bordering on terrorism: Those concerned over the economy; loss of jobs; foreclosures; antagonism toward the Obama Administration; Criticism of free trade programs; anti-abortion; oppose same sex marriage; believe in the “end times;” stock pile food; oppose illegal immigration; oppose a New World Order; oppose the UN; oppose global governance; fear of Communist regimes; oppose loss of US manufacturing to overseas nations; oppose loss of US prestige; use of the internet (or alternative media) to express any of these ideas.

Right after both of these reports were issued, there was the shooting at the Holocaust Museum. Next to their news reports on the incident, many newspapers carried side bar articles citing the DHS reports, basically confirming that such violence is perpetrated by right wing nuts and justifying the concerns of the DHS – just like clockwork. Yet there was absolutely no connection found between that shooter and the right wing. But the damage was done. And there’s more. The Department of Homeland Security has established Fusion Centers in each state. These are designed to combine federal, state and local law enforcement. Their stated purpose is to assure immediate and efficient response to a terrorist attack or a Katrina-like disaster without bureaucratic red tape.

Item: However, in 2009, the Missouri Fusion Center set off a fire storm over a report it issued entitled “The Modern Militia Movement.” Reported Fox News, the report “identifies the warning signs of potential terrorists for law enforcement communities.” In other words, this report was issued to law enforcement agencies across the state as official documentation warning who the cops should look out for as potential violent terrorists.

The list of potential terrorists included Americans who voted for presidential candidate Ron Paul; Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin (who is included on the new 2012 list); and Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr. It also cited those of us who opposed the creation of a North American Union with Canada and Mexico.

Item: Immediately following the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the Arizona Fusion Center issued a report saying that the shooter was influenced by a right wing group called American Renaissance. Immediately the mainstream media picked up the report and flooded the airways with the story that the radical and violent right wing was responsible for the shootings. The information was completely wrong. There is no evidence that there was ever any connection between the shooter and American Renaissance. Moreover, American Renaissance has never advocated violence or extremism.

Item: in the Spring of 2010, the Department of Homeland Security organized a “Countering Violent Extremism Working Group.” This is an advisory council given the task of creating a plan to reach out to local law enforcement and community activists for training to respond to potential violence and terrorist threat. Leafing through the report, one gets the distinct impression that the plan is basically a “turn in your neighbor,” neighborhood- watch approach. It talks extensively of “sharing” information, along with “training, training, training.” Training for what? To identify potential terrorists, of course. And who are those potential terrorist? A look at the members of the working group offers a clue. While the group includes several public officials and law enforcement officials from around the nation, and it also includes Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an un-indicted co-conspirator in a case concerning the funding of Muslim terrorist organizations. Note that the new 2012 SPLC report labels those who oppose radical Islamic activities as “Islamophobes.” Coincidence?

The working group member list also includes Richard Cohen, President of the Southern Poverty Law Center. In addition, as one of the “Subject Matter Experts,” it lists Laurie Wood, an analyst for the Southern Poverty Law Center and an instructor for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. That training center is run by the Southern Poverty Law Center and is one of the most visible direct links between DHS, the Fusion Centers and SPLC. Law enforcement agencies actually send their personnel to these training classes to gain Federal Law Enforcement Training Center certification. That means that policy for this DHS working group is being created by the very organization that has labeled those who advocate Constitutional law to be potential terrorists. In addition, the “training” called for in the report will most likely be conducted, at least in part, by the SPLC’s Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.

The pattern is clear, one of the nation’s leading hate groups, the Southern Poverty Law Center, which opposes even the right of free speech by people it labels potential terrorists, is helping the largest federal enforcement agency in the nation to create its policy. That policy clearly implies, according to DHS reports, that anyone disagreeing with actions of the American government is a potential terrorist and must be, at least, watched and monitored by federal, state, and local authorities.

The result of such surveillance could possibly lead to loss of freedom, loss of jobs, loss of the ability to travel, and loss of the ability to speak publicly, for anyone who opposes the private agenda of the Southern Poverty Law Center. It is an effort to silence their opponents. Honest political debate is now being interpreted as dangerous extremism. Why is DHS dealing with such people? Are the policies of SPLC the same policies of the United States? If so, then freedom in America is in grave danger, indeed.

I believe there needs to be an immediate Congressional investigation into the ties between the Department of Homeland Security and the Southern Poverty Law Center and any other radical groups.

Particular attention should be paid to SPLC’s tax exempt status and the amount of money it receives from DHS or any other agency. And there should be an immediate stop to American law enforcement being trained by SPLC’s Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. The specific purpose of the Department of Homeland Security is to protect the “STATE” against all enemies. According to its own reports, that has come to include anyone who uses their first amendment right to speak out against specific policies. Apparently, that has been interpreted by DHS to mean a threat to the STATE. May I remind every American that the tanks which ran over the student protesters in Tiananmen Square in Communist China were also protecting the STATE against its enemies. I fear that if private groups with their own political agendas, like the SPLC are allowed to continue feeding their own brand of hatred into the policies of DHS, then such a comparison with China is not too far off. I don’t think that is the America any of us, whether liberal or conservative, wants.

Obama was a very apt pupil of Alinsky’s game plan.

Obama was a very apt pupil of Alinsky’s game plan. It’s time we all became familiar with those principles Operating principles

Beaurat Obama laid-off his Jobs Council Thursday and added to the unemployment rolls. These rolls are at 7.8% at this time down from 9 % when he initially founded the foundering entity it came to be in January of 2011. It was a then bold statement as to Obama’s commitment to create fact-finding commissions he loves initializing.

The problem is they never accomplish anything; much like he does nothing in his career.

Nobody can argue Obama does what he’ says he’ll do. He said he’d establish this council and he did. But nobody ever asks him: what substantive good did this council accomplish? What has the establishment of this Salvatore Daliesque painting you’ve framed for us to “appreciate” really done for us and those unemployed for so long? What lessons have we learned from the exercise in bureaucratic construction we now see was created with crepe paper and flour based glue?

Those queries never get to be presented to the Great Obliviator in open news conferences or “pressers” or when he holds one of his heavily vetted public speechifying events. The women on The View have NO interest in getting to the bottom of any particular issue unless it involves tearing a conservative to shreds and walking out when they disagree with the talking points of an intended victim. They don’t have the intellectual depth or integrity to actually ask the hard questions of their deity when given the chance to sing his praises.

This entire administration has put in place a history of vapid promises and hopes for change and self-congratulatory primping to assure the American people understand Obama deserves elevation to Olympus. Now if that means he should have the mountain of lies shoved where the “sun don’t shine” in response to the manure laid on so thickly as to choke the airwaves with the stench they produce; I can go along with that elevation. Otherwise let’s start looking at just how effective this guy has been so far.

Oh yeah; that would be damned little.

It’s been stated that an administration is noted for the ability of the president to bring the nation together. Franklin Roosevelt administrated us out of the Great Depression and shepherded us into, through and almost out of World War II. (He died in office.) George W. Bush accepted the call and worked to pull us through the act of war we know as “9/11”. We’ve watched his efforts at securing our safety and pursuing our enemies denigrated by a third rate wannabee Nero intent on reconstructing his Rome, our nation, in his image.

The pomposity, the primping and preening and that bloody finger he always points to emphasize his point is maddening rather than instructive and regal. It’s like getting a lecture from an idiot postulating on the greater meaning of the world and its influence on his life. The man has substantively produced NO results guaranteeing him a place in history other than as the most divisive influence in the history of the republic.

All bipartisan negotiation and participation in the conduct of national interests has come to a complete halt under his administration. In spite of his admonitions it’s all the fault of the Republican Party we now understand this is a tactic spelled out in Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky’s manifesto as to how government is to be disrupted and eventually overthrown and laid low.

First you accuse the opposition of what you yourself are guilty of doing. Jump on that accusation until you get the results you desire. Change the subject whenever necessary and then arbitrarily return to the accusations of misdoing done by your opponent. Scream racism when necessary to unnerve people. Recognize nothing else stops a conservative faster than making him stop what he’s doing to drive him into self-doubt and analysis of their own motives.

Derail the train of thought and replace it with a handcar alleged to be, but is nowhere near as good as the locomotive meant to pilot the argument in the first place. Obama was a very apt pupil of Alinsky’s game plan. It’s time we all became familiar with those principles.

Thanks for listening

So Europe got the American president it wanted

So Europe got the American president it wanted

So Europe got the American president it wanted – the one who would present no threat to its own delusions. The United States is now officially one of us: an Old World country complete with class hatred, ethnic Balkanisation, bourgeois guilt and a paternalist ruling elite. And it is locked into the same death spiral of high public spending and self-defeating wealth redistribution as we are. Welcome to the future, and the beginning of what may turn out to be the terminal decline of the West.

It has become clear why it was so easy to misjudge the significance of the apparently lacklustre Obama campaign – the drastically reduced crowds at his events; his underwhelming, peevish performances in the debates, and his failure to produce any substantive plan for a second term – as signs of how the election would go. Mitt Romney may have pulled far larger and more enthusiastic audiences for his stump speeches but this contest was not, in the end, going to be about speeches or arguments. The reason that so many of those who would vote for the incumbent president did not bother to turn out to see him as he toured the country was that they were largely untouched by the campaign: their voting allegiance was always a certainty. It was not about political ideas at all. It was about identity: about who and what you were in the most visceral and personal sense – about race, about class, about being the kind of person you believed it was necessary to be.

The saddest development is the one that is most counter-intuitive. Mr Obama – who famously ran in 2008 as the post-racial candidate – has polarised the nation racially in a way that it has not been for half a century, reversing what had been the progressive trend toward real social integration and colour blindness in American political life. Ninety-three per cent of black voters – 93 per cent – voted for Obama in this election, as did 71 per cent of Latino voters and 73 per cent of Asian ones. But if non-white ethnic groups are choosing to segregate themselves electorally – quite often with little regard for their actual economic or social interests – white voters are not. Only 59 per cent of them supported Romney: a majority but not an overwhelming one. Some of this was down to the class war issue: blue collar voters were encouraged to see Romney as a rapacious capitalist who would destroy people’s livelihoods if the balance sheet dictated it.

But that was an unfortunate consequence of this particular candidate’s credentials. There is a more historically significant, and possibly more permanent, development too. The United States has now acquired an electorally powerful liberal bourgeoisie who are convinced, as their European counterparts have been for several generations, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, that public spending is inherently virtuous, that poverty can be cured by penalising wealth creation, and that government intervention can engineer social “fairness”. But just when some of Europe’s political class has begun to appreciate the dangers of this philosophy – that taken to its logical conclusion, it leads to economic stagnation and social division – America seems to have decided that it is the quintessence of enlightened sophistication.

This is precisely the model – the Gordon Brown vision of government as omnipotent benefactor and purveyor of “social justice” – from which we in Britain are attempting to escape, and in which the EU is still hopelessly trapped. But it should run deeply against all the traditional American values of ferocious self-reliance and personal aspiration. How does the resentment of the rich, which Obama’s campaign fostered so successfully, sit with the old American dream that the United States was a place where anybody who had talent and worked hard could become rich – even if he had arrived as a penniless immigrant? The idea of “the rich” as an unreachable and undeserving class apart is an Old World concept rooted in the landed, hereditary wealth of an established aristocracy. Almost all wealth in America was, traditionally, self-made. Related Articles Analysis: resignation could boost Obama 09 Nov 2012 Hank the cat claims third place in Senate race 09 Nov 2012 US politics on international trial as fiscal cliff looms 08 Nov 2012 Obama wells up as he thanks campaign staff 09 Nov 2012 Dispatch: Green Rush beckons in Denver, the Mile High City 09 Nov 2012 Obama declares victory in Florida 09 Nov 2012

But something has changed. The Protestant ethic that ruled my childhood has been downgraded. When I was at university in America in the Sixties, I had friends whose parents were rich. But there was never any question that the children would have to earn their own living. After graduation, and even during the summer holidays, they were expected to find jobs. Eventually they might be absorbed into the family business but even then, they would probably start at the bottom and work their way up. I have been truly shocked to discover that America now has a “trustafarian” generation: trust fund babies who live on what we euphemistically call “private incomes”.

Rich parents no longer demand that their children make their own way. So there is a whole tranche of adults in the United States now who will never work for a living: an idea that would once have been virtually unthinkable. One of the most damaging facts that came to light about John Kennedy when he was running for president was that his father had given him a million dollars so that he could devote all his time to running for political office: an indulgence that was regarded as almost sinful.

With unearned wealth comes guilt and from that comes paternalism: the idea that you are obliged to elect a government that will take responsibility for all those people who are worse off than you – and not just by providing them with opportunities to better themselves in the traditional American way. American voters still want jobs – the mantra of Romney’s campaign still held for half the population – but they are less convinced that work is the only route to salvation. Which is a pity because it remains far and away the best and most permanent route out of poverty. The United States always had its share of poor people but, until recently, when welfare dependency created a permanent underclass, they were not the same people from one decade to another. The whole point was to move up and out of hardship, as wave after wave of newcomers did.

Back in its less sophisticated, less European, days, the United States had actually discovered the formula for extraordinary social vitality, and the miraculous ability to turn people who started with nothing into proud, self-determining citizens. It said to everyone who arrived: “The state only exists to give you the chance to make your own way – to that end it will give you freedom under the rule of law, the right to live your life, to own property and to pursue happiness.” That was the deal.

Perhaps it was inevitable that the country would outgrow that fervent, youthful self-belief and become just another declining society, retreating from the world stage as brash new global powers loomed into view. Then again, after four more years, it might just rediscover its soul. WE ARE THE RESISTANCE WE STAND WITH THE PEOPLE FOR THRE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE

A SOLDIER SPEAKS OUT

OATHKEEPER151

Police Officer, Oath Keeper will not be used as a tool of oppression against the American people
Video: Oath Keeper Officer Calls on Brother Cops to Refuse to Enforce Gun Bans or Registration


http://youtu.be/8FpLyPP-9LU
 
Oathkeepers
In this video, Oathkeeper151, a New Jersey Police Officer who has been a member of Oath Keepers since 2009, makes it clear that he will not obey orders that violate the Bill of Rights. In particular, he says he will not be used as a tool of oppression against the American people who resist and refuse to comply with infringement on their right to bear arms, such as legislation or executive orders that decree they must register, get finger printed and photographed, like a criminal.
He asks his fellow officers what they are going to do if that happens. Will they keep their oaths? Here is his own description of his video:

  In this video I ask my fellow Police Officers what they would do, if they were given an unlawful order. I also touch on the Assault Weapons Ban introduced by Senator Feinstein, and how this bill has the potential of putting us Police Officers in a very bad/even fatal predicament.
I spoke to him on the phone and he made it clear that he is not afraid to take this public stand because this is what needs to happen.  He says the peace officers across America need to stand up and let the people know that they are on the side of the Bill of Rights, and that they will protect the rights of the people. In one of the comments on his video, another officer had this to say:

  I’ll lay my badge down, stop doing what I love if someone tries to make me do something immoral or unconstitutional. Good video, take care
Oathkeeper151 agrees. He told me that if there were door to door raids for guns against Americans who refused to comply with registration or bans, he would either defend the people with his badge on, stepping between them and the oath breakers doing the raids, or he would lay his badge down on the table and then go join the people in resisting. He loves his work as a police officer, but his oath, and his responsibility to protect the people of his community, is more important than his job. His oath comes first. The rights of the people come first…. and he is not alone.

Obama: selected to be the last president

Obama: selected to be the last president

America is more than a piece of land. It is a mindset, an ideology that was founded on the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Our founders left England and established our great nation to rid themselves of the oppression we are seeing return with even greater force and oppressiveness. But something happened to many of us over the years to make us more accepting of the British or European model of governance, which is exactly what we are seeing take over our nation. It is the push for globalism, a global governance, a singular mindset drafted and choreographed by the most rich and powerful families of the world.

As Americas, we’ve been set up. Perhaps it began in 1913, when America was force fed the lie of our current and corrupt monetary system with the establishment of the Federal Reserve. Then came the creation of the Internal Revenue Service, which was a consolidation of power regulating our wealth. From the League of Nations to the United Nations, the push for consolidation of power by the few to rule the many has been the objective.

As we progressed through the Twentieth century, can we now look back and see with increasing clarity that Communist infiltration of nearly every branch of government, our centers of higher learning and all schools, compliments of the creation of the Department of Education, as well as the media? Can we now see with clarity that America, too strong to be taken down from the outside, is being taken down from within?

Can any rational, sane person explain the run-up to, and consequences of the financial crisis of 2008? Our unbridled debt of over 16 TRILLION dollars? As you watch the evening news or listen to political pundits talk of recovery and improving economic conditions, do you wonder what planet they are from, or whether they actually believe their lies? Do you honestly believe that we had fair elections in 2012? How about 2008, 2004 or even 2000?

America was set up from the inside to be destroyed. Our children have been sold into slavery to illegal debt created by a cabal of central banks based… in London. Perhaps that’s the reason Barack Hussein Obama, or whatever his real name is, is so reluctant to show his papers, as perhaps he’s really a British citizen, as his father, who hailed from Kenya, was actually a British subject, which would make Obama a British national.

Could it be that we’ve been taken over once again by the British empire? Is European socialism being used a as a stepping stone to Communism and then to global governance, or a “New World Order?”

When the American dollar collapses, and it must, which country will play a major role in replacing our defunct economic system? Great Britain? So, in one fell swoop, America will become beholden to Great Britain and all of its laws once again. People like Michael Savage, who is already on Her Majesty’s radar might want to consider those implications.

Perhaps that’s why Piers Morgan is smirking and acting as if he owns America. In any event, what are we, true American patriots and not just keyboard warriors, prepared to do about it? The time to decide is now. The time to act will be soon.