PDA

View Full Version : Homeland Security Lexicon: You’re All ‘Militia Extremists’ Now


NoJoke
02-06-2012, 11:29 AM
Homeland Security Lexicon: You’re All ‘Militia Extremists’ Now

Love the Constitution? Hate government regulations? New DHS "lexicon" brands you a "militia extremist."


http://pjmedia.com/blog/homeland-sec...inglepage=true

A recently published “lexicon” distributed to thousands of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) targets citizens concerned about their Second Amendment rights and the steady encroachment of the federal government, categorizing such as “militia extremists.”

The “lexicon,” marked Unclassified/For Official Use Only (FOUO), is dated November 10, 2011, and was sent out by email to law enforcement and homeland security agencies on November 14 by LaJuan E. Washington of the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis.

We have exclusively posted the DHS “lexicon” here.

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, emphasis added)

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.

Another indicator, according to DHS, is that militia extremists “often belong to paramilitary groups,” which would mean that there are “militia extremists” who aren’t part of a militia. So if you oppose federal regulations and support the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and though you don’t actually belong to a militia, you can still be branded a “militia extremist” by your own government, and presumably be targeted by law enforcement agencies. The “Reporting Notice” found on Page 3 of 3 of the “lexicon” encourages recipients to do exactly that:

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.

And for those who would scoff that my reading is over the top and claim that DHS would never target anyone who wasn’t knowingly and willingly involved in “facilitating and engaging in acts of violence,” the DHS lexicon adds another category, “unwitting co-optees”:

(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.

Amazingly, the “lexicon” appears to directly violate standards published by DHS just weeks before the document was sent out.

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. (emphasis added)

But not only does the “lexicon” target constitutionally protected activity, it specifically targets groups based on race, namely “black supremacist extremists” and “white supremacist extremists.” I have absolutely no problem targeting groups promoting violence based on racial supremacist ideology, but if DHS is going to proscribe the use of such terms and promptly turn around and use such — while in the same breath targeting private citizens for exercising their constitutional rights and freedom of speech in violation of DHS’s own standards — needless to say, that’s a serious problem.

It bears mentioning that an earlier incarnation of the DHS lexicon was the subject of criticism from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress for its targeting of “alternative media” and its shockingly broad definition of the “patriot movement.” A DHS spokesman later claimed that the “lexicon” was sent out prematurely.

Which raises the question of why these various “lexicons” published by the federal government exist in the first place.

Going back to the Bush administration, these “lexicons” have seemingly had a singular purpose: purging the use of “Islam,” “jihad,” and “Muslim” from any official discussion of terrorism. No one should be surprised that none of those terms can be found in the current DHS “lexicon,” despite the fact that even by the most generous estimates, more than 40 percent of domestic terrorism has come from within the Muslim community, which accounts for less than one percent of the population. In its place, federal bureaucrats have invented and promoted a patently meaningless and undefinable category, “violent extremism.”

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.

And as seen with the criticism of the previous version of the “lexicon,” this is hardly the first time that the DHS Office for Intelligence and Analysis has come under fire for targeting citizens with no connection whatsoever to terrorism.

In 2009, DHS came under fire for a 10-page report, “Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” which classified returning war veterans as potential threats. When government watchdogs submitted FOIAs for the sources used in preparing the report, they found that conspiracy websites and far-left outfits had been used, including the Southern Poverty Law Center, which branded the American Legion veterans organization as a “hate group.” Information also surfaced that the report had been rushed out over the objections of civil liberties officials. DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano was forced to apologize to veterans groups and withdraw the report.

Nor is this the first time that homeland security agencies have pushed the boundaries on defining “militia extremists.”

Just a few weeks prior to DHS coming under fire for that “right-wing” report, the Missouri Information Analysis Center, funded by DHS grants, issued a report titled “The Modern Militia Movement,” which branded pro-life groups and those opposed to illegal immigration as potential domestic terrorists. Indicators identified in the report included support for third-party candidates. Political signs and bumper stickers were also suspect, with the Revolutionary War-era “Gadsden flag” specifically called out as a “militia symbol.” The Missouri fusion center later announced it would stop publishing reports altogether.

In light of the recent publication of the DHS “lexicon” that violates their own guidelines, it seems clear that under Secretary Napolitano, DHS officials are intent on continuing to target innocent citizens merely exercising their constitutional rights.

Meanwhile, groups and individuals that federal prosecutors and even federal judges have identified as supporting foreign terrorist groups are actively courted and legitimized by the Obama administration. Leaders from these terror-tied organizations are even being used to help write the DHS department guidelines on “countering violent extremism.”

Is it any wonder then that just last week it was revealed that a DHS-funded study likened terrorism to “ordinary crime” while omitting any reference to the radicalizing effects of Islamic extremist ideology?

Until Congress pushes back on this malfeasance by DHS and holds Secretary Napolitano accountable, it is likely to continue.

winnre
02-06-2012, 11:38 AM
I'm a militia liberal. Guns for everyone!

duggan
02-06-2012, 12:04 PM
Oh noes!

I ordered an ammo can of 5.56 last week and it hasn't moved (according to ups) maybe DHS is putting a tracking device/audio/visual recorder on it.:TFH:

We'll know for sure how far this goes if CGN members are put on no fly lists.

ziegenbock
02-06-2012, 12:14 PM
Looks like something MO wrote up a couple of years ago. :rolleyes:

Read this: http://documents.scribd.com/docs/1xd...npsq67kt0c.pdf

Arondos
02-06-2012, 12:32 PM
Well then I guess I am a “militia extremist." Sure not going to lose any sleep over it. I have been called far worse by better people who I have more respect for.

doug-y-doug
02-06-2012, 1:02 PM
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.

I don't think many of us fit this description. And yes, there have been several instances of these types engaging in terror. Timothy McVeigh comes to mind.

FatalKitty
02-06-2012, 3:01 PM
sorry, I am in a Militia and I still don't fit into their extremist category - because we as a militia are pro-government and don't facilitate or engage in acts of violence or even peaceful demonstration against any government entity. we love our country - that does't mean we hate our government.

BTW McVeigh was not militia

taperxz
02-06-2012, 3:06 PM
HMMM, they can't be concerned with "militia extremists" in CA because the federal government knows our 2A rights are already being infringed in this state. I don't think its time to pat ourselves on the back just yet.

a1c
02-06-2012, 4:05 PM
Well then I guess I am a “militia extremist." Sure not going to lose any sleep over it. I have been called far worse by better people who I have more respect for.

Are you an individual "who facilitate or engage in acts of violence directed at federal, state, or local government officials"?

If not, then sorry, you're not a "militia extremist" according to that document.

There seems to be some spin here, and much ado about nothing.

NoJoke
02-06-2012, 4:10 PM
This COULD be an explanation for why this site is soooo slow though. :facepalm:

POLICESTATE
02-06-2012, 4:16 PM
Fine DHS, whatever you say, I'm a right-wing extremist.

What of it?

Suvhater
02-06-2012, 6:21 PM
So who is starting the --==GROUP BUY AMMONIUM NITRATE==-- thread?

ziegenbock
02-07-2012, 6:28 AM
http://documents.scribd.com/docs/1xd...npsq67kt0c.pdf

haole_50
02-07-2012, 6:57 AM
Retired from the govt militia; now I'm an independent, working for whomever pays the most.

Wherryj
02-07-2012, 8:36 AM
Homeland Security Lexicon: You’re All ‘Militia Extremists’ Now

Love the Constitution? Hate government regulations? New DHS "lexicon" brands you a "militia extremist."


http://pjmedia.com/blog/homeland-sec...inglepage=true

A recently published “lexicon” distributed to thousands of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) targets citizens concerned about their Second Amendment rights and the steady encroachment of the federal government, categorizing such as “militia extremists.”

The “lexicon,” marked Unclassified/For Official Use Only (FOUO), is dated November 10, 2011, and was sent out by email to law enforcement and homeland security agencies on November 14 by LaJuan E. Washington of the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis.

We have exclusively posted the DHS “lexicon” here.

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, emphasis added)

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.

Another indicator, according to DHS, is that militia extremists “often belong to paramilitary groups,” which would mean that there are “militia extremists” who aren’t part of a militia. So if you oppose federal regulations and support the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and though you don’t actually belong to a militia, you can still be branded a “militia extremist” by your own government, and presumably be targeted by law enforcement agencies. The “Reporting Notice” found on Page 3 of 3 of the “lexicon” encourages recipients to do exactly that:

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.

And for those who would scoff that my reading is over the top and claim that DHS would never target anyone who wasn’t knowingly and willingly involved in “facilitating and engaging in acts of violence,” the DHS lexicon adds another category, “unwitting co-optees”:

(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.

Amazingly, the “lexicon” appears to directly violate standards published by DHS just weeks before the document was sent out.

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. (emphasis added)

But not only does the “lexicon” target constitutionally protected activity, it specifically targets groups based on race, namely “black supremacist extremists” and “white supremacist extremists.” I have absolutely no problem targeting groups promoting violence based on racial supremacist ideology, but if DHS is going to proscribe the use of such terms and promptly turn around and use such — while in the same breath targeting private citizens for exercising their constitutional rights and freedom of speech in violation of DHS’s own standards — needless to say, that’s a serious problem.

It bears mentioning that an earlier incarnation of the DHS lexicon was the subject of criticism from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress for its targeting of “alternative media” and its shockingly broad definition of the “patriot movement.” A DHS spokesman later claimed that the “lexicon” was sent out prematurely.

Which raises the question of why these various “lexicons” published by the federal government exist in the first place.

Going back to the Bush administration, these “lexicons” have seemingly had a singular purpose: purging the use of “Islam,” “jihad,” and “Muslim” from any official discussion of terrorism. No one should be surprised that none of those terms can be found in the current DHS “lexicon,” despite the fact that even by the most generous estimates, more than 40 percent of domestic terrorism has come from within the Muslim community, which accounts for less than one percent of the population. In its place, federal bureaucrats have invented and promoted a patently meaningless and undefinable category, “violent extremism.”

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.

And as seen with the criticism of the previous version of the “lexicon,” this is hardly the first time that the DHS Office for Intelligence and Analysis has come under fire for targeting citizens with no connection whatsoever to terrorism.

In 2009, DHS came under fire for a 10-page report, “Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” which classified returning war veterans as potential threats. When government watchdogs submitted FOIAs for the sources used in preparing the report, they found that conspiracy websites and far-left outfits had been used, including the Southern Poverty Law Center, which branded the American Legion veterans organization as a “hate group.” Information also surfaced that the report had been rushed out over the objections of civil liberties officials. DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano was forced to apologize to veterans groups and withdraw the report.

Nor is this the first time that homeland security agencies have pushed the boundaries on defining “militia extremists.”

Just a few weeks prior to DHS coming under fire for that “right-wing” report, the Missouri Information Analysis Center, funded by DHS grants, issued a report titled “The Modern Militia Movement,” which branded pro-life groups and those opposed to illegal immigration as potential domestic terrorists. Indicators identified in the report included support for third-party candidates. Political signs and bumper stickers were also suspect, with the Revolutionary War-era “Gadsden flag” specifically called out as a “militia symbol.” The Missouri fusion center later announced it would stop publishing reports altogether.

In light of the recent publication of the DHS “lexicon” that violates their own guidelines, it seems clear that under Secretary Napolitano, DHS officials are intent on continuing to target innocent citizens merely exercising their constitutional rights.

Meanwhile, groups and individuals that federal prosecutors and even federal judges have identified as supporting foreign terrorist groups are actively courted and legitimized by the Obama administration. Leaders from these terror-tied organizations are even being used to help write the DHS department guidelines on “countering violent extremism.”

Is it any wonder then that just last week it was revealed that a DHS-funded study likened terrorism to “ordinary crime” while omitting any reference to the radicalizing effects of Islamic extremist ideology?

Until Congress pushes back on this malfeasance by DHS and holds Secretary Napolitano accountable, it is likely to continue.

GREAT NEWS! If the administration has officially labelled all of us as "militia", I guess that puts and end to the "living Constitution" arguments that the 2A only applies to "militia".

Can we NOW get the right to not be infringed?

TwoAsoapbox
02-07-2012, 8:47 AM
I wonder if the colonists were seen as "militia extremists" by the King of England?

inapirekim
02-07-2012, 8:57 AM
http://documents.scribd.com/docs/1xd...npsq67kt0c.pdf

Your link is 403 forbidden. Hmmm.

Jason P
02-07-2012, 9:03 AM
I wonder if the colonists were seen as "militia extremists" by the King of England?

LOL - Almost certainly.

a1c
02-07-2012, 9:04 AM
Pff.

Some of you guys need to read the actual documents, not this lame spin. It DOES NOT label you as right wing extremists or militia.

Stop buying everything you read on the web.

Mulay El Raisuli
02-07-2012, 9:12 AM
GREAT NEWS! If the administration has officially labelled all of us as "militia", I guess that puts and end to the "living Constitution" arguments that the 2A only applies to "militia".

Can we NOW get the right to not be infringed?


LOL!


The Raisuli

The Wingnut
02-07-2012, 9:19 AM
Why is it when the left is running the show, they keep dragging the 'militia' out as some sort of boogeyman?

I've yet to meet any militia members or see any militias engaging in violent acts or attempts at overthrow. They're off the radar.

a1c
02-07-2012, 9:21 AM
Why is it when the left is running the show, they keep dragging the 'militia' out as some sort of boogeyman?

I've yet to meet any militia members or see any militias engaging in violent acts or attempts at overthrow. They're off the radar.

AGAIN: if you read the original documents, you will see it does not label ALL militia as extremists, only those that are anti-government, which means a tiny minority.

monk
02-07-2012, 9:29 AM
Are you an individual "who facilitate or engage in acts of violence directed at federal, state, or local government officials"?

If not, then sorry, you're not a "militia extremist" according to that document.

There seems to be some spin here, and much ado about nothing.



Seems like this post should be reiterated for truth.

How many members here are in a militia that promotes acts of violence against the government?

I'd go as far as say that the occupy movement is more terrorist than most people on CGF.

spiderpigs
02-07-2012, 10:35 AM
only those that are anti-government, which means a tiny minority.

define "anti-government"

sholling
02-07-2012, 10:49 AM
define "anti-government"
That's easy, to a lefty or the administration it's anybody that might vote out the socialist Messiah, or his minions in congress, or politically opposes the expansion of government, or belongs to the NRA. To them the most evil of all anti-government forces are those suspected of watching Fox News or listening to Glenn Beck while cleaning their guns and posting politically incorrect thoughts on gun boards. :rolleyes:

johnny_22
02-07-2012, 10:57 AM
With the "F*** the Police" campaign, they are starting to go the route of the Weather Underground and Black Panthers with a war on cops they can't win. I am more concerned about these hot-heads than the ones described above.

TwoAsoapbox
02-07-2012, 11:11 AM
Why is it when the left is running the show, they keep dragging the 'militia' out as some sort of boogeyman?

I've yet to meet any militia members or see any militias engaging in violent acts or attempts at overthrow. They're off the radar.
Blame Timothy McVeigh.

monk
02-07-2012, 11:22 AM
With the "F*** the Police" campaign, they are starting to go the route of the Weather Underground and Black Panthers with a war on cops they can't win. I am more concerned about these hot-heads than the ones described above.


Can you really compare BP with OWS? From what I remember, BP had a genuine reason, being that LEA's weren't protecting them.

Wherryj
02-07-2012, 11:31 AM
Pff.

Some of you guys need to read the actual documents, not this lame spin. It DOES NOT label you as right wing extremists or militia.

Stop buying everything you read on the web.

What fun is that? :cool:

NoJoke
02-07-2012, 11:32 AM
define "anti-government"

Good point. Would "anti-tyranny" be lumped into the "anti-government" crowd?

johnny_22
02-07-2012, 11:57 AM
Can you really compare BP with OWS? From what I remember, BP had a genuine reason, being that LEA's weren't protecting them.

But, when they shove a shotgun in the gap of bullet-resistant glass and kill random SFPD, I question their tactics.

A-J
02-07-2012, 1:41 PM
[SIZE="4"](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.


fa·cil·i·tate
   [fuh-sil-i-teyt]

verb (used with object), -tat·ed, -tat·ing.
1. to make easier or less difficult; help forward (an action, a process, etc.): Careful planning facilitates any kind of work.

2. to assist the progress of (a person).


While I disagree with a lot of policy decisions made in gov't, I have never and will never meet the definition. There is a significant difference between disagreeing with policy and working within the law to change things, and what this particular document is discussing.

ziegenbock
02-07-2012, 3:30 PM
Your link is 403 forbidden. Hmmm.

I just found that link this morning and then posted on mulitple fourms that were talking about the same thing. I download it and will post to this site.

a1c
02-07-2012, 4:41 PM
define "anti-government"

READ THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT. It defines it.

QQQ
02-07-2012, 6:19 PM
With the "F*** the Police" campaign, they are starting to go the route of the Weather Underground and Black Panthers with a war on cops they can't win. I am more concerned about these hot-heads than the ones described above.Craptastically poor comparison. It's not illegal to say "**** the Police". Nor should it be.

FatalKitty
02-07-2012, 10:38 PM
Blame Timothy McVeigh.

other than media, what sources do you have that leads you to believe that McVeigh was legitimately militia?


There is a huge difference between "extremist" and Militia... Militia is legal and protected - extremism is not... McVeigh was a terrorist, not militia.

monk
02-07-2012, 11:32 PM
But, when they shove a shotgun in the gap of bullet-resistant glass and kill random SFPD, I question their tactics.

I didn't learn too much about BP but was this wide spread? Or was it one of those anomalies?

motorhead
02-08-2012, 12:21 AM
now?

gunsandrockets
02-08-2012, 3:31 AM
Heck, if you think the games the Feds play regarding so-called "militia extremists" are scary, California is even worse.

See, back in the 1960's the liberal establishment was freaking out over 'right-wing extremism' just as much as the liberals freaked out during the 1990's over 'right-wing militias'. California back then even had an active branch of the Robert DePugh group, the Minuteman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minutemen_(anti-Communist_organization)

In typical over-reaction California passed a law banning para-military activity, which remains on the books today.

But here is where it gets interesting.

I've read this law, and it has very curious definitions of the terms used in the law. By my reading, in theory, taking a buddy down to the local gun range with the intention to train for self-defense is illegal paramilitary activity under this law!

gunsandrockets
02-08-2012, 3:39 AM
other than media, what sources do you have that leads you to believe that McVeigh was legitimately militia?


There is a huge difference between "extremist" and Militia... Militia is legal and protected - extremism is not... McVeigh was a terrorist, not militia.

I was sitting in my car during lunch break, listening to KNX news radio, when they announced the arrest of McVeigh, which they identified as a militia member. That is a media narrative which has continued through today, almost twenty years later, even though it was proven false almost immediately.

That's just how the media rolls. Just like we are still fighting the media over false claims made today that so-called "assault-weapons" are machine-guns.

RRichie09
02-08-2012, 3:48 AM
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.

Stopped reading at that point. Seems like you took a page out of the old yellow journalism play book when you wrote your title.

Dreaded Claymore
02-08-2012, 11:16 AM
Stopped reading at that point. Seems like you took a page out of the old yellow journalism play book when you wrote your title.

I'm inclined to agree.