This article indicates how far the U.S. government has gone to define “Constitutionalist” as militia extremist.
This is from a recently published “lexicon” distributed to thousands of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It was marked Unclassified/For Official Use Only (FOUO),. It is dated November 10, 2011. Its definition of “militia extremists” states:
(U//FOUO) Groups or individuals who facilitate or engage in acts of violence directed at federal, state, or local government officials or infrastructure in response to their belief that the government deliberately is stripping Americans of their freedoms and is attempting to establish a totalitarian regime. These individuals consequently oppose many federal and state authorities’ laws and regulations, (particularly those related to firearms ownership), and often belong to armed paramilitary groups. They often conduct paramilitary training designed to violently resist perceived government oppression or to violently overthrow the US Government. (Page 2 of 3
There is no definition of “often.”
So what drives militia extremism according to DHS now is “belief that the government deliberately is stripping Americans of their freedoms.” It is demonstrated by opposing “many federal and state authorities’ laws and regulations, (particularly those related to firearms ownership).” Would writing about those topics (as I am now) fall under “facilitation”? On its face, it’s hard to see how it could be excluded under DHS’s broad definition.
What does the lexicon recommend? A national system of informants. This appears on page 3:
DHS and FBI encourage recipients of this document to report information concerning suspicious or criminal activity to the nearest State and Major Urban Area Fusion Center and to the local FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force.
There are also what Comrade Lenin called useful idiots.
(U//FOUO) Groups or individuals who provide support to terrorism without knowing that their actions are contributing to terrorism. Such individuals may suspect that they are being used. Not all unwitting co-optees are engaging in criminal behavior.
The lexicon violates standards sent out a month earlier.
In October 2011, DHS published its “Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Training Guidance and Best Practices,” which was produced by the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and posted on the agency’s website.
Section 2 of that document, titled “Training should be sensitive to constitutional values,” directs:
a) Review the training program to ensure that it uses examples to demonstrate that terrorists and violent extremists vary in ethnicity, race, gender, and religion.
b) Training should focus on behavior, not appearance or membership in particular ethnic or religious communities.
c) Training should support the protection of civil rights and civil liberties as part of national security. Don’t use training that equates religious expression, protests, or other constitutionally protected activity with criminal activity.
Where did this lexicon originate?
The roots of this go back to the end of the Bush administration and a March 2008 “lexicon” published by the National Counterterrorism Center. Titled “Words that Work and Words that Don’t: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication,” it began the effort to purge the usage of the terms “Islam,” “Muslim,” and “jihad” from the vocabulary of government officials.
The Obama administration has taken those efforts even further, removing those terms from the 2009 National Intelligence Strategy, the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, the Quadrennial Defense Review, the FBI Counterterrorism Analytical Lexicon, and the DOD Fort Hood report.
So, one set of conditions (9-11) led to one set of restrictions. Then, as if by magic, the the victimized targets became the threats.
This is how government works. We are expected to accept this and cheer. Sadly, millions of Americans do just that.