The National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) has released the 2021 edition of its ‘U.S. Violent Extremist Mobilization Indicators’ manual.
It’s worrying from the perspective of constitutional principles, law, and US juridical precedent, because it appears to be a deliberate attempt to circumvent and/or override all three of them. American Thinker reports:
A new federal terror advisory contains a threat assessment that characterizes Americans who “mislead” others into questioning government-approved messages as being on par with terrorists. That is as anti-American messaging as could be imagined. America was founded on questioning governments, foreign and domestic. And that has been her saving grace, the reason for her unique success.
The assessment specifically identifies those who engage in “the proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions” as “threat actors.” It also cites “widespread online proliferation of false or misleading narratives regarding unsubstantiated widespread election fraud and COVID-19” as having a deleterious effect on government institutions.
Actually, it’s the actions of government institutions that often have a deleterious effect on (people’s views of) government institutions…and on the people. But no matter — our First Amendment rights are out the window. Nineteen eighty-four is here. “Wrongthink” has been criminalized.
If not stopped — and reversed — this is the end of the Great Experiment and the Land of Opportunity.
There’s more at the link.
The presumptions inherent in the report are very dangerous, in that they will almost certainly be advanced as “authoritative” evidence of someone’s guilt in being an alleged “violent extremist”. However, the terms used are so vague and ill-defined as to make it a broad-brush indictment of almost any opposition to government. For example:
- “the proliferation of false or misleading narratives” – who says they’re false? Who says they’re misleading? By what standard are they judged to be so? Who decides?
- Spreading “unsubstantiated” rumors – but who says they’re unsubstantiated? I maintain, with solid mathematical certainty, that there was indeed massive electoral fraud in November 2020. It’s statistically undeniable, as has been demonstrated by former forensic auditor Larry Correia and many others (cited in these pages). Yet there are still those who say such arguments are “unsubstantiated”. Sorry, that won’t wash – unless their perspective gains the force of law, to ride roughshod over any and all statistical analysis in the name of political correctness. Is that what this official document is trying to achieve?
FINANCIAL
Disposing of meaningful personal assets or belongings in an unusual manner, particularly with a sense of urgency or without regard for personal financial gain Who defines “unusual”?
Sending or receiving unexplained financial resources or equipment to/from violent extremists And here I thought I was just sending my Yuppie larvae to college
IDEOLOGY
Seeking or claiming religious, political, or ideological justification or validation for a planned violent act Hmmm! Does this apply to Antifa, BLM and Islamic Terrorists or do they get a mulligan — AGAIN
Producing, promoting, or extensively consuming violent extremist content online or in person, including violent extremist videos, narratives, media, and messaging for suspected criminal purposes “…suspected criminal purposes…” It sounds like this is a thought crime that occurs before an actual, observable crime. So will warrents be issued with no evidence and solely on what an investigator “suspects”?
Posing with weapons and imagery associated with violent extremism in photos or videos, especially if paired with threats or expressed interest in carrying out violence against an ideological target for suspected criminal purposes Did I post the picture of the buck I got this year?
There’s more at the link. Useful and recommended reading.
This may, indeed, be a legitimate and useful document; but it’s also a potentially ominous development, using officialese and security jargon to justify an attack on democracy, constitutional rights, and due process of law. Given the actions of the Biden administration so far against the people of this country, I fear the latter far more than I hope for the former. We should all be on our guard.
Peter
I would go as far as saying that anyone investigating 'far-right extremism' that did not arrest and prosecute Antifa, CHOP, and other rioters of the left over the last 5 years is itself committing political persecution and should be arrested, prosecuted, and jailed. Their organization should be disbanded and, if needed, completely rebuilt from the ground up with new personnel, policies, and procedures.
And yes, I believe this applies to the FBI and much of DHS.
This only ends with their heads on pikes, and bodies swinging from lamp posts and overpasses.
Nothing less will avail.
Since they seem so eager to call it down, I think it's only fitting their wishes are one day obliged.
They will certainly create the thing they seem to fear and want to stamp out.
That will be a terrible monster indeed and it might just consume us all.
Canadian Truckers Convoy…
Ottawa, Ontario Canada called a State of Emergency…nothing really happened.
Ontario, Canada called a State of Emergency…nothing really happened.
The Trudeau government is also about to call a State of Emergency. But no military is in consideration.
September 20 election that saw Liberals regain office with 32.6 percent of the vote, a record low.
I wonder who's the minority in this claim?
Take a look at this link to the history of NCTC. Talk about mission creep. Thank you G. W. Bush.
DHS delenda est
This sort of document is exactly the sort of thing that will "sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions." So I conclude that the people that wrote this are "threat actors."
Hello Peter:
Thanks for the exposure.
We are all in this together.
-Joe
There is more to this. If you haven't read of it, Democrats are talking of launching law suites against Republicans under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment as insurrectionist if they support the January 6th 2020 protesters. I think they want to move even further. They want to declare all of those that oppose the current regime in Washington D.C. as terrorist. Those that are running for office then will be hit with the law suites. It is not that the law suites will be successful but they will tie people up. But since they can cherry pick some judges that will go along, I believe they will initially have many Republicans that are not squishy neoLeftist judged against.
Will they go after the "terrorist" voters and declare that they are ineligible to vote?
There is a whole lot more packed into this than meets the eye.
I hate it when a law suite lands on me. Those things are heavy.
I remember not thinking much about that DHS domestic terrorism document that was leaked to the press shortly after Obama won his first term, which, among other things, labeled Ron Paul supporters as potential candidates. But then I got pulled over for a routine traffic stop one afternoon in my car which had one of his bumper stickers on it, and the cop asked me for my license and registration while standing a good couple of feet behind my door and with his hand by his hip.
Interesting times.