DHS to intensify attacks on freedom oriented citizens

http://www.examiner.com/article/dhs-to-intensify-attacks-on-freedom-oriented-citizens

DHS to intensify attacks on freedom oriented citizens

Within the last two weeks several tips came into the Examiner indicating pending dangers to certain groups of citizens. These tips led to a source who, speaking on condition of anonymity, alleges that just after the election a major initiative will be launched against citizens whose values are diametrically opposite to that of Barack Obama and the current Washington elitist leadership in Congress. According to the source, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will greatly intensify its attacks on freedom oriented citizens.

The source indicated that the those within DHS and the rest of the Obama Administration who support a massive crackdown on the liberties of citizens are ready to make a dramatic move once the midterm elections in November are over. These particular government employees, particularly those at the top levels, believe that Christians, Tea Party participants, and those who support the Constitution and oppose Obama and his "progressive" agenda are dangerous and need to be subjected to a purge.

This purge would be in the form of prosecution through the courts. The objective would be to silence their voices and remove them from society by tossing them into prison where they could spend years and a ton of money attempting to get out of jail and defend their reputations. The "progressives" in the administration and Congress believe that the lame duck period just after the November midterm elections is the time to move swiftly to get these things done. Obama doesn't have to face reelection. And if the internal polling being done by both Democrats and Republicans is true, the Democrats will be forced into minority status in the Senate in addition to the House. Thus, in the two months after the election prior to the time when the new Congress is sworn in in January of 2015, a golden opportunity exists for the "progressive" elitist tyrants to make their move. After all, they have nothing to lose.

Although the tip concerning this information came within the last two weeks, the publication of it was on hold until more verification could be received. That verification came today in an article written by colleague David Codrea, who is the National Gun Rights Examiner.

Shortly after the election of Barack Obama, it became all too clear that DHS intended to lay the foundation for a massive purge of Christians and liberty oriented citizens. Internal memos were discovered that referred to these citizens as "potential homegrown terrorists." The objective was to crank up the propaganda machine in an effort to malign, demonize, and ruin the reputations of otherwise good citizens so that eventually it would be easier to persecute and prosecute them without running too far afield of public opinion.

In 2012 the Examiner received at least one document from DHS that listed the various categories of citizens that would be deemed as "potential homegrown terrorists." This document is one of the most important, but as you will see, it has been revised to include an apologetic to counteract the heavy criticism the report received. DHS used this report to compile its policy on "potential homegrown terrorists."

But not once was Islamic extremists mentioned. Those whom DHS mentioned specifically is very telling -- Ron Paul supporters, gun owners and gun rights activists, those who promote the Constitution as the final rule of law, U.S. war veterans returning home from overseas, those who support the right of Israel to exist, evangelical Christians and others who are pro-life and who believe the Bible and take it seriously, Tea Party activists, conservative voters who take to the streets to march or to demonstrate in opposition to high taxes, runaway government spending, Obamacare, and other programs of the "progressives" in the current administration. Michelle Malkin provided this report on the issue at the time.

So controversial were these DHS pronouncements that angry citizens began calling their elected representatives. When it became clear that this mindset at DHS may become a political liability for Democrats seeking election or reelection, the agency backed off its public statements concerning "potential homegrown terrorists." It did not help matters for the elitists that a series of high profile terrorist actions, conducted by Islamic extremists, made the news and only confirmed in the minds of most Americans that DHS had its eye on all of the wrong people. While they were watching us "conservative Christians clinging to our guns and Bibles," the Islamo-fascists were busy at work behind the scenes planning a resurgence. And now, at least half of what our men and women in the military fought for, and gave their lives for, have fallen back into the hands of Islamic extremists who behead their opposition. Not only does this denote a failed Obama foreign policy but it clearly demonstrates that the current administration does not care about the spread of extremist Islam. They had rather go after ordinary citizens who disagree with their warped view of the world.

Against that backdrop, David Codrea reports that DHS issued a report Friday that once again places the spotlight on an odd group of people to be tracking -- ordinary U.S. citizens who once again are being tarred and feathered verbally as "potential homegrown terrorists." This time, however, their specific target is U.S. gun owners, 99 percent of whom never use their firearms to commit crimes.

DHS tipped its hand when it cited as a basis for its report the discredited and dangerous Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which never saw a gun owner it did not hate nor a conservative Christian it did not view as deranged. This organization is a million times worse than anything Joe McCarthy did in the Senate in the 1950s when he warned that Communists had infiltrated the U.S. government. They had. And his charges were confirmed when the old KGB was forced to open its books after the demise of the old Soviet Union, and the new Russian president Boris Yeltsin ordered that those secret records be made public. It turns out that McCarthy was 95 percent correct. But the SPLC can claim no such accuracy. They have maligned and falsely charged a plethora of individuals as "racists" or "anti-government extremists" with absolutely no basis upon which to issue such a charge.

Codrea notes that one of the incidents that SPLC is now using to malign gun owners is the standoff at the Bundy Ranch. Not only did SPLC get many of its facts wrong but it claims that supporters of Bundy prove that they are dangerous homegrown extremists who wish to attack the government. Many gun owners went to the Bundy Ranch to provide protection for Bundy as dozens of government snipers took aim at the Bundy family, ready to blow them all away. Thus, they were there to protect a fellow citizen from government snipers who apparently were ready to initiate another Ruby Ridge or Waco.

Apparently SPLC is oblivious to the possibility that citizens can support the right of a fellow citizen to keep and bear arms and have control over his property without supporting all of that citizen's political views. Bundy's views may be problematic for many gun owners, but that does not prevent us from protecting his right to be on that property and to keep and bear arms.

In spite of its dubious agenda, SPLC was used as an important source for Friday's report issued by DHS. This does not bode well for the next step. If the anonymous source mentioned above is correct, this is all a precursor to massive government action to silence all of the administration's most effective critics.

You may also be interested in the following:

My personal blog at The Liberty Sphere.

My popular series, Musings After Midnight.

My ministry site at Martin Christian Ministries.

MORRIS DEES::SPLC SMOKE AND MIRRORS

Former SPLC fundraiser raises questions

http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/sycophants/former-splc-fundraiser-raises-questions/

Morris Dees is the founder and driving force behind the Southern Poverty Law Center. I first became aware of him in my early twenties, after the fund-raising company for which I worked accepted the SPLC as a client. Morris Dees was sold to us as a champion of civil rights. I bought it. I was proud to work for them and I raised more money for them than I’d ever raised for any other client – until it came to my attention that they didn’t really need the money as much as I’d believed. [1]

In the years following I put the SPLC out of my mind completely. A little while ago, I started hearing the SPLC mentioned when opponents of men’s rights decide to smear AVfM as a hate group- one of the hate groups SPLC fundraisers use to sweet talk their way into to wallets of poor, elderly contributors and wealthy supporters alike. I love a scam case as much as the next gal so, with the help of a colleague, I hunkered down and did some digging.

I found that there are already so many articles and blog posts concerning the hypocritical nature of this organization that I almost didn’t bother to write this article at all – But my colleague managed to get her hands on a copy of Morris Dees divorce documents. One read through those forms left me wondering how, in this day of tabloids and shock television, Mr. Dees manages to maintain his knight-in-shining-armor image.

These documents read like the script of a Lifetime network movie. Morris is portrayed as a run-of-the-mill, evil male monster. There’s allegations of child molestation, spousal abuse and unconventional sexual behavior described in enough detail to upset most anyone. The document is so sensational that I hesitate to believe most of the details. The sole source of the information seems to be a very angry soon to be ex – spouse, who, considering the probable payoff, had every reason to lie. If the allegations brought against him by his ex wife are actually false and if Dees lost any money in this apparently very nasty divorce, it seems to me that he should be supporting men’s rights, rather than idly allowing the organization he founded to attack men’s rights activists. Call me old fashioned.

The only reason I mention these documents at all, and posted them along with the other sources[2], is because one of the milder events detailed makes an excellent analogy for what appears to be Mr. Dees’ approach to business.

The event occurred on July 3, 1978. Morris Dees met with both his wife and his mistress and asked each one to tell him how much she loved him. Upon hearing their statements he told them that he couldn’t live without either of them. Seeing that he meant to carry on with both of them, his wife forced him to choose. In the end he chose his wife but continued to sneak around with his mistress.

Analogy for what, you ask? Allow me to explain.

In many of the biographies about Morris Dees publicly available online, it is said that as a teen he was punished by his father for using a derogatory term in reference to a black man.[3] In his own autobiography Dees’ admits to having earned money doing legal work for the KKK in 1962.[4] The information surrounding the former incident of racially bigoted behavior suggests that Mr. Dees’ father taught him that being a bigot was wrong, but if that were the lesson learned would the latter have occurred?

I think that the lesson teenaged Morris Dees took from his father’s punishment was something more along the lines of; If you’re going to be a bigot you’d better not be obvious about it. On close inspection, the Southern Poverty law Center isn’t quite as concerned with the plight of black people as they’d have us believe.

Supporting this observation is an incident in 1986 when the SPLC’s entire legal staff quit in protest of Dees’ refusal to address any of the issues presenting real problems to the black community. Gloria Browne, a lawyer who quit a few years after the incident in 1986 criticized the SPLC for “cashing in on white guilt and black pain.” Former black employees complained that the Center was run like a plantation. [5]

All of this information is publicly available as the SPLC continues ride it’s reputation for fighting racism. Although their impact in civil rights is relatively small when compared to other civil rights charities, the SPLC’s income dwarfs those of its contemporaries. That fact has been pointed out several times.

Question: How do they do it?

Answer: Silence.

In 1995 the Montgomery Advertiser ran a series of articles examining the SPLC’s fund-raising tactics and vast wealth. The articles were nominated and became finalist for a Pulitzer Prize.[6] Those articles are now very well hidden if they are available at all. When confronted with his divorce documents, which he tried to have legally sealed, Dees simply refuses to respond. All criticisms of their financial workings are met with silence.

Remember that analogy I mentioned? Now consider the fact that the SPLC’s ‘work’ on the side of civil rights is supported by contributors -over two hundred million dollars to date[7], while Mr. Dees’ efforts of behalf of a Klan member brought him only what would amount to tens of thousands in today’s dollar value. Clearly the ‘Champion of Tolerance’ image loves him far more than that of bigoted Southerner.

When it comes to the criticisms and accusations directed at Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center, silence is just good business. After all it just isn’t wise for a man to argue with his mistress within earshot of his wife.

[1] http://salientsight.com/nurdydancing/the-southern-poverty-law-center/
[2] http://www.avoiceformen.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2012/09/SPLC-Founder-Morris-Dees.pdf
[3] http://biography.yourdictionary.com/morris-s-dees-jr
[4] http://rkeefe57.wordpress.com/tag/klan/
[5] http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center
[6] http://www.pulitzer.org/finalists/1995
[7] http://cdna.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/downloads/resource/SPLC_Annual_Report_2011.pdf

~Special thanks to my friend I.M. Zed who managed to get the really interesting files from the hard to reach places~

DEES DIVORCE BRIEF

http://www.zianet.com/web/dees1.htm

MORAL RELATIVISM AND THE LEFT

Moral relativism is the curse of our society, and unbridled hedonism is being taught, promoted, as a more worthy goal than self discipline. The Left has labeled morality as "tyranny". Once that happens, hedonism becomes their religion and restriction of that religion an immoral act. There is no argument that can counteract hedonism as immoral if that is the "religious" belief. That is why it is so important for the Left to deny the existence of God. If there is a God then there IS a moral standard, and if there is a moral standard, the right to pursue pleasure at all cost is immorality. Man must declare himself his OWN God to make his own moral rules. But then, that is too difficult a line of thinking for some...most. (JGR)

Quoting from the following article:

"Their greatest act of self-delusion - their ultimate denial of reality and the one that facilitates all others - is their embrace of moral relativism, the idea that there are no moral absolutes. The appeal of this fiction is that it allows one to justify any behavior imaginable. After all, my sins are not sins if there's no vice, only viewpoint. Who is to judge? Who is to say? There's no black and white, only gray."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/02/m-why_obama_is_uneducated.html

Why Obama is Uneducated

A few years ago I participated in a radio debate on "white privilege" with a certain man, whose name is unimportant, who had a Ph.D. in "ethnic studies." At one point he introduced an argument by saying, "If whites are 80 percent of the population...," which prompted me to interject and point out that whites (non-Hispanic) are now only 63 percent of America. Of course, you might think that someone with a doctorate in "ethnic studies" would know what the ethnic and racial composition of the country is.

While no one wants to be a real-life Cliff Clavin (of Cheers fame), mistaking trivia for intellectualism, facts matter because they're small snippets of reality. They're little pictures - and, as with a jigsaw puzzle - if you have enough of them, assembled properly, you can see the big picture. This is otherwise known as being in touch with reality.

This is why a certain trend in that liberal bastion called education is quite interesting. Educators will often say today, "We don't just teach kids facts [uttered dripping with derision]; we teach them how to think." This is quite convenient. After all, it's easy to test knowledge of facts; thus, such measures can reveal modern education as a fraudulent enterprise. But "how to think" is a bit more nebulous, and, if you define the expression of feelings-derived folderol as reason, your students cannot fail.

Yet there is a deeper reason why liberals eschew facts: they refute fiction. And since leftist agendas have no basis in reality, exposure to snippets of it is deadly; for, just as one small pin can pop a balloon, one little fact can shatter a rationalization.

This brings us back to Dr. Ethnic Studies. His field of expertise isn't about anything as old-fashioned as facts, but he can expound at length on oppression, white privilege, critical-race theory and "micro-aggressions." These things, you see, are the stuff of sophisticated modern men. Never mind that they're complete fiction.

But liberals are raised on fiction. Fiction about America's nature and Western influence; fiction about the races and sexes (not to mention "genders"), and fiction about sex; fiction about history and culture; fiction about economics; fiction about religion. Heck, with how liberals claim old fairy tales are destructive, they're raised with fiction about fiction. This brings us to another fiction: Barack Obama as educated man.  

If we were to mention, again, that he thought "Austrian" was spoken in Austria, pronounced "corpsman" "corpse-man" (three times in one speech) or that he called the "transcontinental" railroad the "intercontinental" one (Amtrak to Bangkok, anyone?), we'd obviously have to be racists. After all, anyone can make a mistake. But it's one thing to commit a Spoonerism and say "a scoop of boy trouts" or, like Dan Quayle, correct a spelling-bee participant based upon the antiquated word form "potatoe" (which The New York Times used as recently as 1988). But then there are those mistakes indicating that, just perhaps, you don't really possess the knowledge base one might expect from an educated Western gentleman.

And a fact about Obama's upbringing is that it was defined by fiction. Clergyman Hosea Ballou said, "Education commences at the mother's knee...," but not only was Obama's mother's knee not around all the time, but what an odd knee it was. Her father had given her his first name, Stanley, because he'd wanted a boy, and Stanley Ann Dunham's personal development reflected that bizarre beginning. She attended Mercer Island High in Seattle, which had a wing known as "anarchy alley" that was infested with radical leftist teachers. It is said that Dunham "thrived" in that atmosphere, and she became a committed left-wing atheist herself. Then there was Obama's mentor in Hawaii, Frank Marshall Davis, a pornographic-novel writer and anti-white, card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA. And how radical were Obama's leftist grandparents, with whom he lived in the Aloha State? Obama's grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham, was the one who chose Davis to be scrambler of young Barry's brains.

The point is that there was no prominent person in the young Obama's life who could or would expose him to reality. It was all anti-American, anti-Western isms and destructive schism. This brings us to Obama's mind-numbingly ridiculous description of his 2008 campaign travels: "I've now been in 57 states; I think, one left to go." Where does such a bizarre mistake come from? After all, that there are 50 states is drummed into every American child so that it just instinctively rolls off the tongue: 50 states, 50 states, 50 states....

That is, again, every "American child."

It's not that I don't think Obama knew there are 50 states. Rather, he doesn't have the intellectual foundation you'd expect of an educated Western man, and this includes a lack of the rote knowledge that, like an actor who has spoken a certain line in 500 rehearsals and performances, is expressed the same way every time. And this, by the way, has nothing to do with where anyone thinks Obama was born.

But to fully grasp the nature of leftists' ignorance, an understanding of their philosophical foundation is necessary. There is a certain experience many conservatives know very well: You debate a liberal, and he just seems immune to facts and reason. No matter how airtight your point, it rolls off him like water off a duck.

To explain this, let's start with an analogy. Becoming proficient at golf involves gaining knowledge about the swing. And if you realize you've fallen victim to a misconception, improvement depends upon rejecting it and accepting the truth in question. But what if you were so bent on using your old swing - so attached to "hackerism" - that you simply would not accept that truth? A pustule on the face of the game you'd remain.

So it is in all of life. Everyone falls victim to certain misconceptions, and growing in knowledge and wisdom involves rejecting them when we're blessed enough to discover refutative truths. But this can be difficult for two reasons. First, it may involve relinquishing ideas to which we're strongly attached. This could be because they're integral pieces of an incorrect jigsaw puzzle we've glommed onto, an example of which would be a committed atheist who insists there are no moral absolutes because he knows their existence implies God's. Or it could be that an incorrect belief is embraced as a justification for a behavior (e.g., sexual perversion, heavy drinking) to which we're attached. Or it could be both.

Second, pride can get in the way, as correcting oneself involves admitting error, often with respect to ideas we've spent an entire lifetime defending. It can be like giving up a cherished son.

And while most everyone exhibits to some degree this tendency to rationalize, leftists are defined by it. They are, to use a favored psycho-babble term, morally and philosophically "dysfunctional" people. They live lives of rationalization - which is when you lie to yourself, sell yourself on a fiction - and for this reason only intensify whatever dislocation from reality their upbringing, sometimes, might have wrought.  

Their greatest act of self-delusion - their ultimate denial of reality and the one that facilitates all others - is their embrace of moral relativism, the idea that there are no moral absolutes. The appeal of this fiction is that it allows one to justify any behavior imaginable. After all, my sins are not sins if there's no vice, only viewpoint. Who is to judge? Who is to say? There's no black and white, only gray.

But once you unmoor yourself from objective moral reality, there is no limit to how immoral you can become. This is why Fyodor Dostoevsky's Ivan Karamazov said that without God, "everything is permitted." It's why occultist Aleister Crowley insisted, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." And it explains leftists' bizarre thinking. Did you ever wonder, for instance, how modern liberals can say something so preposterous as "The truth is no defense against a hate-speech charge"? It's not hard to understand.

When a person who lives a sincere life finds that part of his ideology conflicts with the Truth, he alters his ideology. But what if you not only were attached to your ideology like a drunkard to drink, but didn't acknowledge Truth's existence? It is then that you, instead, rationalize away the Truth.

In fact, with his denial of Truth, the leftist places his ideology where Truth should be: the center of his life. This ideology, which just reflects his emotions, anyway, then takes on the role of God. It becomes the ultimate arbiter, the fiction that becomes "fact." This is why Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels once said, "National Socialism is a religion. ...My Party is my church...." Like him, today's leftists have repeated a big lie to themselves so often that it has become the "truth."

Interestingly, or maybe ominously, the Bible speaks of the end times in 2 Timothy 3 and writes of "men of depraved minds" who are "always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth." I don't know if these are the last days, or just the last days of freedom, but our republic is now beset by millions of fiction voters who elected a fiction president based on fairy-tale promises. And it's looking less and less like our story ends with "happily ever after."

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com