The HB Nation Concludes; Janet Napolitano Top Domestic Terrorist

Terrorism.

It’s supposed to be a big scary word that strikes fear into our hearts that Godzilla is about to walk out of the ocean and start eating everyone and knocking down buildings and crushing cars and eating more people.

But, we don’t live in Tokyo.

Back in 2002, the government took the official stance that “religiously insane guys taking over planes with box cutters so they could crash into buildings because the people on the plane did nothing because they’re scared sheep” was considered terrorism.  Then, even though it only happened that once, terrorism became such a horrific thing that we had to fight a whole war against it.  Subsequently, anyone who was classified a ‘terrorist’ became an enemy combatant – and we’re all scared to death of terrorists so we have to change all our laws to be able to deal with this new, menacing and evil threat – that’s existed since the beginning of time.

The problem for the government was that if anyone with any sense – like a 10 year old kid in school – were to look in the dictionary, they would find out what a terrorist actually is:

Terrorism

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
Dictionary.com

If that 10 year old kid stayed on top of the news and followed what the government was up to, they would probably be smart enough to figure out that the United States Government was a MAJOR Terrorist!

You don’t have to read very much of the news coming out of Washington D.C. to figure out that our government has become a serious terrorist both internationally and domestically.

It’s the Domestic Terrorism that we’re actually interested in though – we don’t really care about what goes on outside the US because it doesn’t affect us.

To try to deflect the actual real definition of terrorism away from themselves, the government decided to spend a bunch of our money to commission some academic nerds to mix a bunch of numbers around and come up with a new definition of Terrorist.  Low and behold, the highly paid government cronies came up with this beauty not too long ago!

Extreme Right-Wing: groups that subscribe to aspects of the following ideals: they are fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation), anti-global, suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty (especially their right to own guns, be free of taxes), believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty and a belief that one’s personal and/or national “way of life” is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent (sometimes such beliefs are amorphous and vague, but for some the threat is from a specific ethnic, racial, or religious group), and a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism. (2011: 26)
Hot Spots Report Pg. 9

Here are the stuipidities of this definition:

  1. “Extreme Right-Wing” – this is a political vernacular that is loosely defined as people who believe that the Constitution of the United States is the ultimate guiding document of the country and defines, outlines and gives (or doesn’t give) power to the government.  So, in other words, this definition specifically defines people who subscribe to the constitution as Domestic Terrorists.  The logical question here is “Terrorists against whom?”  to which the logical answer is “Those who don’t believe in the US Constitution” or “Everybody else”.  The stupidity of this definition is that those who derive their power from the Constitution just defined everyone who supports the document that gives them that power as Domestic Terrorists.  But, that’s probably because their whole strategy here is to shred the Constitution and take way more power than that stupid document ever gave them.
  2. “Fiercely Nationalistic” – Wait just a minute!  Isn’t this whole process Fiercely Nationalistic?  Aren’t we defining the great white risk to the United States?  Or did we miss something and this actually applies to Zimbabwe?  But, I digress – this is “Fiercely Nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation), anti-global” WTF?  So we’re saying anyone who isn’t oriented towards universal or international (government I guess?) ism and is instead focused on the success of their OWN COUNTRY is a Terroristic risk to the country they’re “Fierce” about?  Yeah, like I said – this is the stupidities part.
  3. “Suspicious of centralized federal authority” – so, if we think that those who have power might abuse it and should be checked on to make sure they don’t escape the bounds of power given to them by the U.S. Constitution…… oh wait, this is circular.
  4. “Reverent of Individual Liberty (especially their right to own guns)” – WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE?????  Are they saying that unless you don’t give a crap about being enslaved to the government then you’re a terrorist?  That if I appreciate and value my right to own a gun, I’m a Terrorist???  How could any American possibly think that?  Uh, yeah.  They are.  They do.  Like I mentioned, no American who believed in America would ever de-value Individual Liberty.
  5. “Belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism.” – If I train in survivalism so that I’m prepared for some kind of an attack against the U.S. – including a Terrorist Attack – then I’m a Terrorist?  You have got to be kidding me!  They are all over the news talking about the “Terrorist Threat Levels” and all these horrific, scary things that could come at us – but I better not do anything to prepare for it or I’m part of the problem?  Who in the hec do they think they are to tell me whether I can prepare for a possible attack and to tell me how and whether I should protect my family?
The U.S. Constitution affords the government its just powers.  NOTHING, NOTHING in this definition is in accordance with the Constitution.  In fact, this definition may be the MOST ANTI-AMERICAN THING I’VE EVER READ!  They are basically saying if you don’t fall in line and let them do whatever they want, you’re a freaking terrorist.  Refer to number 3 in that list up there – suspicious of centralized federal authority – well, if “centralized federal authority” is putting this kind of garbage out, you had better be paying attention and you better be suspicious!  This is NOTHING but a power grab and NOTHING but an attempt to legalize criminalizing any and all who would stand up against them.
Let me stop ranting for a minute and refer you to something written by some other guys a while ago, maybe you’ll recognize it:

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The Declaration of Independence

We once went to war over these same kinds of abuses of power!  This artfully crafted and ludicrous attempt to re-define Terrorists as anybody who would oppose the Government taking all the power it wants is outrageous!

I reject their attempts to redefine the definition of Terrorism!  In fact, I refer again, directly, to the original definition of Terrorism:

Terrorism

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
Dictionary.com

Are they not threatening violence against so-called “Right-Wing Extremists” by classifying them as “Domestic Terrorists” and by extension an enemy of the state?  Are they not saying emphatically that if you support the U.S. Constitution you are an enemy of the state?  And are they not also, by definition defining themselves as Anti-Constitution?  As Anti-American?  Are they not then, defining themselves as something other than a Government of the people, by the people and for the people?  As a government specifically NOT supported by the Constitution?

They are threatening this violence against those who believe in America specifically for their own political purposes.  The ENTIRETY of definition One of a Terrorist.

Are they not attempting to create a state of fear and submission by their threats against true Patriots?  Definition 2 is met as well.

Is this not a terroristic method of governing?  Definition 3 is met.

By ACTUAL definition – this document is an Act of Terrorism.

So, where did this Terroristic document come from?  It came straight from the Department of Homeland Security, that ridiculous institution created by George Bush to supposedly protect the United States itself.  And, who is the Head of DHS?  None other than Janet Napolitano.  She is the one that authorized, approved and released this document.

Who then, is responsible for this act of Terrorism against all Patriotic citizens of the United States?  None other than the Queen Bee herself.

Janet Napolitano is by her ignorant, arrogant and completely self-serving political move to attempt to reclassify all Patriots as Domestic Terrorists – the Top Terrorist in the United States.

By the way, whatever happened to all the Muslim Jihadists we were supposed to scared of 10 years ago?

Changing the definition of something does not make it so.  Terrorism is terrorism.  Aren’t we at war with it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>