On Friday, August 13, The Department of Homeland Security issued a “guidance” paper to police and federal “law enforcement” that targets those opposed to COVID mandates (mask orders, vax “passports,” lockdowns) and those who might be skeptical of the integrity of the 2020 Presidential election, labeling them as “potential terror threats.”
It also, very broadly, and very subtly, implies that online free-speech sites are the dangerous places where these subversives will use their “coded language” (read: any language, wording, or sentiment, we government folks target) to organize and find one another.
It’s a serious and open-ended threat to dissent and freedom of communication, and it’s coming from a wildly out-of-control government that already has claimed the power to arrest, torture, indefinitely hold, sterilize, rob, and kill without trial, thousands of people over the past century.
In advance of the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued new guidance to local police departments warning that, among other things, opposition to pandemic-related lockdown policies could constitute a ‘terror threat.’
And Biden’s DHS can get a two-fer out of this, because, as those who suffer through NBC Nightly News already know, leftist media can take the “guidance” report and use it to reinforce their own attacks on peace-loving, Constitutionally-minded, “live-and-let-live” Americans.
Which, is precisely what NBC has done. Offers Boehm:
Conspiracy theories regarding the 2020 presidential election—including one that falsely claimed former President Donald Trump would unconstitutionally be reinstated to office in mid-August—are also considered potential threats. That's despite the fact that, as NBC News reports, the new advisory is ‘not based on any actual threats or plots’ but was spurred by a ‘rise in anti-government rhetoric’ connected to mask and vaccine mandates.
Which is curious, because those who correctly cite as unconstitutional the slew of government-imposed lockdowns, mask mandates, travel bans, jab-passports, church closures and many other edicts…? Those folks actually could be considered not “anti-government” but pro-Constitution.
So, where does that put the US government? And what would have been the reaction on the left if Trump's DHS had labeled as "terrorist threats" those who questioned his victory in 2016?
The left seems not to care about this double-standard, which mimics their silence concerning the 2012 Obama “Justice Department” leak, labeling Ron Paul supporters, pro-life advocates, gun rights supporters, “Oath Keepers,” and “constitutionalists,” among others, as potential terror threats.
Which was something many of us in liberty circles noted was tragically ironic, since the DC politicians and DHS “law enforcement” folks (as well as state and local politicians and bureaucrats) are the ones who swear oaths to uphold the US Constitution. It is THEY who, one would hope, would call themselves “Constitutionalists,” is it not?
The document also warns that reopening schools, churches, and other places where people gather could 'provide increased targets of opportunity for violence though there are currently no credible or imminent threats identified to these locations' (emphasis mine).
Which could apply to anyplace, anytime. If it’s open, and it attracts people, it could be a target – so how about parasitic politicians stop trying to disarm us? And how about the POLITICIANS and BUREAUCRATS stop targeting people who want to open their businesses, air their grievances, and/or go to CHURCH?
Boehm adds key observations that remind us how threatened our rights really are:
It should go without saying that challenging or questioning the various constitutionally dubious, contradictory, and oftentimes nonsensical government policies that are ostensibly meant to combat the pandemic does not make someone a terrorist. Indeed, if that were the case, some government officials would be top suspects.
It's equally true that holding or sharing inaccurate opinions about the outcome of the last presidential election does not make someone a threat to the country.
In a world where Democrat politicians have begun pushing for HR 4980, perhaps people who believe in smaller government -- who would at least like to see those who swear to abide by the Constitution actually do so -- might have a point.
What’s that? You’re only hearing about HR 4980 now? Well, that’s the bill proposed by Ritchie Torres (D-NY), the header for which reads:
H.R. 4980: To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to ensure that any individual traveling on a flight that departs from or arrives to an airport inside the United States or a territory of the United States is fully vaccinated against COVID-19, and for other purposes.
We’ll keep smiling as they apply more and more pressure. As they label us potential terror threats and continue to propose new, completely anti-constitutional rules such as this, over our air travel.
By the way, as I’ve written previously, the insane federal control over air travel we see today has a long and dark history derived from a misreading of the Interstate Commerce Clause that James Madison warned politicians was completely inappropriate. Is it terroristic to mention that?
Would Madison be considered a potential terror threat for bringing it up?
Meanwhile, let’s continue to populate the free speech sites and communicating with each other and engaging in the information war, because some folks involved in that info battle have been warning us about this kind of thing for years.