An Evening Among Extremists

"Rage. Goddess, sing the rage of Peleus' son Achilles, murderous, doomed...and the will of Zeus was moving toward its end," The Iliad, page 1, first stanza.

In a fantastic twist thought possible only in the realm of quasi political fictional thrillers like "24" or in the imaginings of a conspiratorial fanatic, a US government agency has declared a massive segment of the American population a potential enemy of the state. In what can legitimately be called government sanctioned racial/political profiling justified under the guise of rooting out the next Timothy McVeigh, the federal government, under the direction of Secretary Napolitano, lists as potential terrorists the following Caucasian demographics: Recent War Vets, Men Suffering Extended Unemployment, Gun Owners Outspoken on the Second Amendment, and Opponents to Illegal Immigration. Any one of the factors above may constitute probable cause of suspicion of an individual.

The following are segments taken from the official document (if you are concerned these passages are taken out of context you may do a simple Google search of "(U//FOUO) Rightwing Extremism" to read the document in its entirety):

"Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment"

• "This product is one of a series of intelligence assessments published by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch to facilitate a greater understanding of the phenomenon of violent radicalization in the United States. The information is provided to federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States. Federal efforts to influence domestic public opinion must be conducted in an overt and transparent manner, clearly identifying United StatesGovernment sponsorship."


• The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.


• Rightwing 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 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.


• Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primaryconcern to law enforcement.


• Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities."

Among other so-called Red Flags for law enforcement officials to monitor and assess are concerns over globalization, abortion, gun/ammunition registration legislation, and a dislike of President Barak Hussein Obama (which opinion is presupposed to be based on the Chief Executive's race as opposed to his policies and behavior).

On April 16th, The Wall Street Journal quoted the Homeland Security Secretary as saying, "Let me be very clear: We monitor the risks of violent extremism taking root here in the United States. We don't have the luxury of focusing our efforts on one group; we must protect the country from terrorism whether foreign or homegrown, and regardless of the ideology that motivates its violence," find the entire article at the following website: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/ Homeland Security is tasked with stopping terrorism, as Napolitano says. Yet, the issue isn’t the mission of Homeland Security. We all want any kind of terrorism stopped. The issue is vagueness. What separates a real threat from simple political dissent guaranteed by the first amendment? Freedom of speech and right of assembly are threatened in a real way.

Your local police department received this document. Also troubling, an earlier, similarly ominous document was made public a couple weeks ago titled "The Modern Militia Movement-Missouri MIAC Strategic Report 20Feb09 " that actually categorized supporters of certain political candidates, citizens who believed in states rights (essentially a federal system specified in the tenth amendment of the Constitution in which all powers not specified as being lent to the federal government were retained by the states themselves. The states created the federal government and not the other way around), and citizens opposed to heavy taxation as potential militia members. To be sure, terror is terror. If a man with the will and means to destroy a building, or injure a police officer, or hurt citizens can be stopped, the government has a duty to stop him and We the People have a duty to sustain the efforts of the agents involved. What's true for one terrorist must be true of all: Muslim Jihadists, ELF, ALF, and White Supremacists alike.

Napolitano's intent, whether partially politically motivated or entirely altruistic, is irrelevant. There is a swath of room for deviant officials to take undue liberties to infringe on privacy of and very possibly persecute law abiding, patriotic citizens merely for political views. The first amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Does the aforementioned Homeland Security document reinforce the first amendment? Is it a stretch to say a person in a position of power could use profiling to stifle political thought? Years ago, a friend of mine had an on and off spat with a disgruntled neighbor. After a hot argument, the neighbor called Child Protective Services on him and levied a false accusation to get even. Agents of this government agency went to his little boy's school and pulled him out of class to question him without the knowledge of my friend or his wife. Agents then came to his house where they questioned he and his wife separately. After a brief investigation, it was discovered the charge was baseless. My friend's name is on record as having been investigated for child abuse. Of course, Child Protective Services did not instigate this, it was initiated by an angry neighbor. Now, let's apply the elements of that incident to the present day, and I again ask, is it a stretch to say a person could abuse this policy and use it as a means to a political end?

As well as a lethal political weapon, this could be a drag on the overall War on Terror. As police departments get more involved in tracking political activists, and using somewhat arbitrary judgements to discern the so-called extremists from the harmless political dissenters, it is all too likely the real terrorists, whatever race, creed, or rally they cling to, will find the ability to move and operate much easier. This type of foolish government stretching makes the citizenry less safe, and in fact, can create the very movements it is designed to crush. If a militia or a so-called domestic terrorist cell needed a recruiting tool Napolitano just provided one.

There is no word that will mount government sanctioned military action against US citizens faster than "militia." Not Blood, Not Crip, Not MS13, not Mexican drug cartel, but the word "Militia." It draws the wrath of jealous government agencies like no other. Perhaps we ought to ask, how is it that the government was able to smash such a wide scale militia movement in the ninties, as it claims, but seems unable to do so with any of the other gangs listed above? The reason, in my opinion, and please excuse the digression, is MS13, the Bloods, and the other legions of street gangs that run violently amok in our ever expanding urban jungles are a threat to Us, whereas a militia is a threat to the government.

This is the type of arrogant, ideological government action that the flag "Don't Tread on Me" was designed for. Do you realize, that by my making this type of statement, I myself could be considered a potential terror suspect? By blogging this opinion I could be construed as a potential militia member and a threat to the state according to the Department of Homeland Security? I certainly hope this raises eyebrows. The quote, "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely," by Lord Acton, is most fitting.

Let me add this. I just spent the evening attending our local "Tea Party." I’d have actually preferred to name it something like “Constitutional Convention 2009,“ but Tea Party works. Gatherings of this kind are not in my comfort zone. Chants, cheers, and clapping are just not in my nature in a large social gathering. But the purpose of the Tea Parties was worth the social discomfort, because in my analysis, American citizens are in real danger of loosing key Constitutional rights. I recruited friends and family to take part over the past couple of weeks. Again, something very uncomfortable to me. My family and friends have family, household, career, and community responsibilities; they do not wish to be seen as malcontents or people of excess of any kind. They are conservative; they are thoughtful people who quietly sacrifice for each other, their neighbors, and even strangers, and they do so of their own free will - the significance of which can‘t be understated as its worth to the overall nation. These are patriots who were drawn to assemble not by hatred, not by desire to destroy, not by the excitement of a new popular fad, but by concern and love for their country.

The gathering had originally been intended to take place at a small park with a little pavilion in the center of town. A spring storm hovered around all day darkening the sky; it sporadically dropped a few minor snow flurries so the event was moved to a building at the nearby state college. My buddy Chris and I left work at the same time to attend. I followed behind his pride and joy, a BMW with a sunroof. As we drove down the road I saw a medium sized American flag emerge from the sunroof and its bright colors Red, White, and Blue earned a few quirky looks at stop lights. When we arrived, we parked and walked to the designated building looking for Tiffany and other family and friends.

As we walked I observed who was there. The people present represented a broad range of generations from toddler to senior citizen. Flags of all kinds flapped in the cold spring breeze. Old ladies with poster board signs, young mothers, old vets who inched along with walkers - all gathered inside the college’s student union building. Inside, it was crowded and stuffy, but full of bright eyes. I saw neighbors, old college classmates, family, friends, and strangers. As I expected, there were a couple of guys who made me, and had to have made others, a little uncomfortable who were dressed in fatigues with mesh masks. I'm bothered when I can't look at a person's eyes, but I'm sure Homeland Security would take note of these men in particular.

We met up with my dad, who couldn't stay long because of obligations he had to the Boy Scouts. Chris and I linked up with Tiffany and her Mom and with Dirk his wife, Maria, and baby boy, Eli. When we entered the ball room where the stage was set up everyone was singing. When people saw Tiffany was in a wheelchair they moved aside and helped her get to a place where she could see the stage. There were a few musical numbers and short speeches by local representatives. The two Republican Senators, Bennett and Hatch, were vigorously booed when the MC announced they would not be in attendance. The best speakers were the nobodies, the average people who had helped organize not for any political capital they might gain, but because of the same reasons I choose to attend.

There was nothing spectacular that happened. No dramatic historical moment that will live on in bronze statues. Certainly nothing the news would cover. After all, who wants to see a bunch of average looking middle class conservatives? But several times I felt myself drawn to the faces of the people around me. The little boy on his dad’s shoulders singing along with the songs, the young mother with three children clinging to her legs, the old veteran with his American Legion cap, the giant biker with the handle barred mustache, my friends Chris and Dirk from work, my Mother in Law, my little sister in law, and my wife, Tiffany in her wheelchair proudly showing everyone who passed by the yellow Gadsden flag she brought from home. Many times this evening, I had what I have always known reaffirmed, I love my country, because I love my countrymen, and I want my countrymen to be free. It is in them, the simple middle class families who have no antidefamation league to rise to their defense, who know of their heritage, who serve silently, on whom my hope for our country rests.

The first line of the Iliad seemed to express what was in my heart after I read the Homeland Security report on domestic terrorism. It just seemed like another outrage in a long series of unbelievable affronts to our Republic. It is a testament then, to those people the federal government seems to find cause to suspect as enemies, who tempered my anger and gave me hope; not a distant government official who speaks with a sugar tongue, not an assigned caseworker, not an aid worker on the state's dime, but simply remembering rubbing shoulders with my countrymen.