U.S. Measures May Incite Domestic Terror (militia)

In the wake of terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, the U.S. government is moving quickly to create a new Cabinet-level agency for homeland defense and ease restrictions on law enforcement agencies. But while these measures may prove effective against foreign attacks, they may also lead to increased domestic terrorism.

In a televised State of the Union address Sept. 20, U.S. President George W. Bush announced the creation of a new Cabinet-level agency designed to "lead, oversee and coordinate" a national strategy to guard the United States against terrorism. Congress meanwhile is considering new laws to ease restrictions on wiretapping and eavesdropping.

These new measures may be necessary components to protect the United States from further attacks by foreign terrorists. But they will also likely fuel the fears and anger of domestic groups such as the Michigan Militia or the North American Volunteer Militia. In time, as the U.S. security apparatus looks for threats coming from outside the country, the United States may again face attacks from within.

More than 800 militia-style groups existed at the peak of the anti-government movement in the mid-1990s, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. The number has decreased dramatically in the past five years, thanks to a combination of a strong economy and heavy pressure from law enforcement agencies in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing. The SPLC now identifies only 194 "Patriot" groups that were active in 2000.

Generally Patriot groups define themselves as opposed to the "New World Order" or advocate extreme anti-government doctrines, fearing the growth of government bureaucracies and intrusion upon civil liberties. Such groups are likely to enjoy a resurgence in interest, membership and activities as the government adopts more stringent security measures.

U.S. lawmakers historically have been very cautious about tipping the balance between law enforcement and civil liberties. It took Congress nearly a year to pass former U.S. President Bill Clinton's anti-terrorism bill after the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa. In the weeks before the recent terror attacks, privacy advocates hailed a major victory when a San Diego judge banned the use of automatic cameras to catch cars driving through red lights.

But the attacks in New York and Washington have dramatically altered much of the nation's thinking, as many Americans are beginning to place a greater value on security. This shift is reflected in the federal government.

The newly announced Office of Homeland Security, to be headed by Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, is aimed at knitting together counter terrorism functions now scattered across more than 40 federal agencies, including the FBI, CIA, National Guard and local police and firefighting forces. It will focus not only on preventing terrorist attacks but also on fortifying potential targets by developing plans to protect the nation's transportation, power and food systems, according to officials cited by the Associated Press.

The "Mobilization Against Terrorism Act" still under consideration in Congress would rewrite laws dealing with wiretapping, eavesdropping and immigration. Included in the bill are provisions to ease the restrictions the FBI faces on installing its Carnivore Internet-surveillance system as well as streamlining procedures to obtaining voicemail recordings.

Further provisions include eliminating the statue of limitations for terrorism-related crimes and allowing federal authorities to detain without a court order non-U.S. citizens suspected of involvement in terrorist activities. Also under consideration is a modification to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to make it easier for prosecutors in certain highly sensitive cases to look through the records of a business, credit card company or Internet provider.

Fewer restrictions on law enforcement agents and the creation of a new federal office may be necessary steps to protect the United States from foreign terrorists. But powerful bureaucracies and narrowed civil liberties are exactly the sort of triggers that set off militia groups.

We are likely to see a resurgence of militia group activity just at the time that law enforcement agencies are retasking themselves to counter foreign threats. Even if law enforcement agents continue to infiltrate militia groups, it is much more difficult to monitor and prevent activity from individuals. As militia ranks fill, it is not unlikely to expect some of them to resort to the same kind of armed activity as Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski did in the past.

--this is a re-paste of my comments on the other relevant thread to this, I take nothing back, by the way:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3baaf5260b79.htm

---I have been suspicious of this whole attack since day one, but it's hard in the middle of the rah rah nuke the a-rabs postings to approach this subject with any sort of rationality. The evidence is overwhelming that middle easterners did the attack, but there has also been reams of evidence that the shadow international forces of the NWO have been behind a variety of actions in the past as well. Their goals-some of them- are definetly a world two class society, and an armed and aware US population is a direct threat to them. I put NOTHING past them as they seek the culmination of their goals.

This new homeland defense head is obviously anti gun for the average person. he's had to tread carefully in his home state, too many hunters, etc, but the impetus is there to see. Other actions of the fedgov in the past are still there, they have still happened.

Guess what I am saying is that there still exists a chance that way back behind the scenes this latest attack is a variation on the reichstagg gambit. We need to be vigilant all the time. When it comes to "the government" we need to "trust-but verify", I am not giving them a free skate and a blank check to do whatever they want, and to continually demonize people. I listened to an interview with senator bill graham of florida, who very loudly stated that the OKC blast was 'the work of domestic militias". this was right after the wtc attack. He's on the senate intel committee. He's also a moron and/or a liar if he thinks that. There is a huge coverup in the OKC case, plenty of linkages to various fedgov groups and shadowy middle easterners have come out. What there isn't is much of any linkage to any domestic peoples militia.

These people at the top have some weird agendas all the time. This new homeland defense is just the new and improved version of the FEMA martial law package basically. "Homeland" makes it automatically sound like you are a terroist if you are against any of their actions in the future, no matter how harmful or weird they might be. These globalists allowed all these terrorists into the country, it was THEIR CALL on it, they used governmental force and policy to strip us of any sane border control, and they have forceably resisted any attemtps at a national dialogue on trading with the enemy or sane immigration policies. It's their turkey, not the people who have been steadfast in arguing for sane domestic security for decades and have been ignored or called rascists by the do-nothinbg free traders, the blood money profiteers. Along with the so called war on so called some drugs, their actions are always suspect in my book. Wheels within wheels here all the time.

There are plenty of patriots left in government, and in the large corporate leadership levels, however, there are plenty of non patriot globalist NWO types mixed in as well, and little way to tell them apart except for their actions. The Heglian Dialectic is still there, hasn't gone away. Even making use of a random nasty event is not beyond their thinking or capabilities to further their anti freedom agendas.

I will watch the next terrorist attrack. If these bozos use some mind controlled manchurian candidate domestic bubbas, that will be all the clue I need to see through their smokescreens that this is the mother of all scams. I've seen the linkages already in the newscasts several times now. The demonizations are lurking right there in the open, you can see it and hear it. As hitler blamed the external communists and the internal communists and "jews" and other assorted "untermenschen", I think we might see a similar tactic used at some point here as well. Global politics is as old as history, nothing changes really. Always the wolves out there seeking total power and control.

--well, I have answered you. Ready to admit you were wrong, or what? I have no problems if you concede you went off half cocked on my posting handle. I noticed you called in a group, ready to flag them, as you should? Quick with the assumptions and aspersions, real slow with the follow ups it appears, as you are still posting around today, doing the same exact thing, maligning people, adding little else. Getting people to watch the big wizard on the screen, with all his flames and signs and wonders, but to pay no attention to the man behind the screen. an old trick, but that's all, an old, tired trick, too many people see past that lie anymore.

You can post what you want, but you asked me a direct question so I replied, and it's obvious to anyone you were trying to make me out to be some sort of racist, when I am not. Or is hit and run verbal terrorism your forte here? Or are your masters getting nervous perhaps, the false flag wavers and the globalists, the ones who seek a two class master/slave society and want to fake everyone out that they are nice guys?

See how it is with assumptions?

You are as full of crap as Freaneau apparently. Jefferson was not a supporter of the constitution and would have undoubtably opposed it had he not been in France during the ratification. He never understood how it was to work and his States Rights idiocy blinded him as to what the functions of the different branches of government were. He did not understand the role of the Supreme Court and came up with some of the most contrived lunacy imaginable such as that each state could decide on the constitutionality of federal laws. A prescription for anarchy.

He was not a conservative in any sense of the term being a complete ally of the French revolutionaries including the Jacobins. He and Freaneau contrived with all their might to involve the U.S. in a war with England on the side of the French while at the same time working to destroy the U.S. military.

During the American revolution he was essentially useless and his military ineptness led to his hatred of military men. His presidency was a disaster with the exception of the Louisiana purchase which was essentially thrown in his lap by Napoleon as payment for past favors and the treachery he had worked while in Washington's administration. Jefferson is the most overrated president in our history.

He was the perfect democrat: a sneaky liar, afraid of confrontation, riding to power on the back of the mob, a total hypocrit,anti-military, working against the constitution, and an impractical dreamer without a clue as to the role of the U.S. in the world or the dangers surrounding it.

I will address the rest of your nonsense tomorrow. NOw bed calls.

What on earth have you been reading? U.S. History by Jesse Jackson? Don't you think it a bit peculiar that for 200 years Jefferson's achievements were admired by our nation, only to be trashed by modern-day revisionists. In 1961, Jefferson was categorized in encyclopedias as a man who spent his entire adult life fighting against a tradition: the tradition that governments passed laws to protect the people from themselves (e.g., Nanny Statism). Now he is being ingrained into the memory of our children as the father of the illegitimate children of one of his slaves, and, of course, as the instigator of various and sundry unspeakable acts against our nation and Constitution (by those, who, like you, always provide veiled apologia, such as "he did give us the Louisana Purchase"). Doubling the size of our nation carries little weight in the discourse of the anti-Jeffersons

Yet, in all your eloquence, you did not even hint of the fact that one of Jefferson's first acts as President was to restore freedom of the press so abruptly taken away by the Federalists via their insane Sedition Act. So who was the most ardent supporter of the Constitution in those days? The Federalists or Jeffersonians? It was not even close, and the people recognized it. The people, under the Jeffersonians, put the final nails in the coffin of the Federalist Party. Hell, even John Adams blamed the Federalists (his own party) for his political demise, and he was much closer to the 'front' than you, or I, will ever be.

But I do understand where you are coming from: after 16 years of two 'terrible' Jeffersonian Republicans as president (e.g., Jefferson and Madison), our nation was ready for change. The people elected James Monroe (What? Another Jeffersonian Republican?) as the 5th President of the United States.

Was Jefferson perfect? Not a chance. None of our Founders were perfect. But all were great men, serving our revolution and young nation in some pretty tough times. Even Alex Hamilton had many good days, and he left us brilliant and inspirational political literature and quotes.

But if your mission in life is to trash our Founders, that is your right (thanks to our Founders -- no thanks to you or modern day politicos). But don't expect me, or others, to roll over and play dead.

As to Freneau's editorial, since it came from a Republican newspaper one can assume that it is mere rhetoric and filled with lies. These can be listed one by one with great ease.

There was never any serious question of titles or monarchy or aristocracy (except for the aristocrats like Jefferson) but that didn't stop the Freneau's of the day from attacking such a strawman knowing that the dumbclucks who believed the Republicans would swallow it without question.

(4) is really a warning that we can't look too deeply at the meaning of the constitution but should take the superficial glosses of a Jefferson as gospel.

(5)Is a weak attempt to distract attention from the horrors of the Jacobin Terror (which Freneau and Jefferson would happily have imported into this land.)

(6)Demonstrates the financial and economic ingnorance of the Republicans. Jefferson's understanding of such matters was obsolete twice over since he was still a Physiocrat. Madison not much better. Both hated with a passion the man with absolute genius in these matters, the incredible Hamilton.

(7)this is mere verbiage with little or no meaning designed to cast doubt upon the Congress. Dishonesty was the stock in trade of Madison and Jefferson when they switched from support of measures to strengthen the nation to those designed to weaken it.

(8)Further demonstration of the total ignorance of the function of the National Bank and its benefit to all parties. Only because the Bank was created was the country able to grow as rapidly as it did. Hamilton so demolished the pitiful arguments of Jefferson, Madison and Randolph with his opinion on the constitutionality of the bank that I almost felt sorry for them. As sorry as one could feel for deluded unscrupulous liars and mountbanks.(9) Same issue financial and economic ignorance iced with partisian lies.

(10)Seems to be an argument against determining and describing the nature of the differences within the Nation. Just a concatenation of crap of no value.(11)More paranoid fantasies and lies. The general welfare clause has never been interpreted as giving the federal government the capacity to seize all powers. Even Madison admitted there were implied powers until he cast his lot in with the Jeffersonian liars.(12)Babbling nonsense illustrating the hatred and misunderstanding of the role of the military in a republic. Showing the fanaticism and incomprehension of the real world that Jefferson labored under.(13)Such fanaticism as this led to republican opposition to an adequate army and navy, the blundering into the War of 1812 w/o strong military and the burning of Washington. Only due to British distractions elsewhere did the U.S. escape defeat and even dismemberment. Jefferson and Madison's policies led to complete disaster in almost everyway.(14)More paranoid raving about Monarchy. Meaningless drivel completely in character with Freneau and similiar liars.(15)Even more paranoid lunacy about monarchy.

Thanks for posting this idiotic screed it is an excellent reminder of what a lying piece of crap your namesake was. Everyone who reads it (though there probably won't be many) need to understand clearly that the targets of his calumnies and lunatic attacks were Washington, Adams, Hamilton and anyone else who had fought and bled for the nation for many years. His allies were the airchair warriors and impractical visionaries like Jefferson and Madison who had no understanding of war and military necessities.

For many years I swallowed the crap that Jefferson was a great man and a great president. This was because there has been a massive propaganda effort to promote that belief. It began with Freneau and the liars in the republican press. Left wing university professors lionized him for two centuries and that has not changed. Jefferson merely wanted the governmental power to leave aristocrats like him along not to interfere with his power of life and death over slaves not to sign treaties with England which would allow the banks to collect debts from debtors like himself. Complete self interest paraded as principle.

If you care to examine the freedom of the press issue you should be aware that the Alien and Sedition Acts (opposed by Hamilton and some other Federalists) were less oppressive to the press than similiar acts in the States. In fact, George Clinton (Jefferson's ally and 2d V.P.) instigated prosecution of a newpaperman in N.Y. under similiar laws. Hamilton's defense eventually led to the changing of the law by the NY legislature to allow the truth of a statement to be a defense (as it was in the Federal A/S acts.) Jefferson was also ready to prosecute Federalist newspapers for the same actions.

I never denied Adams lost the presidency because of his own party (Hamilton actually)

The creation of the Virginia dynasty was more a reflection of the destruction of the Federalist party than a validation of any actions of the Republicans. Had Hamilton not been killed and Burr eliminated as Jefferson's two chief rivals things could have been different. But the Virginia dynasty and the further entrenchment of the Slaveocracy made its power so great that the civil war became unavoidable. Had Jefferson and Madison maintained some of the ideas they had had during the 1780s it may have been avoided. But they became too obsessed with the British boogeyman and drifted too far into the realms of paranoia and fantasy.

I do not thrash our founders but have found that the more I have discovered about the actions of Jefferson and Madison after 1790 the less I find to admire and the more screwy their ideas are.

Napoleon threw Louisiana into our lap when all Jefferson was trying to get was the port of New Orleans. He did so to prevent England from getting it and to reward Jefferson for the years of opposition to policies aiming at peace with England. Jefferson was duplicitous enough to take the deal even though in his foolishness he didn't think it was constitutional to do so. And he expected the region would form a separate nation and not even be part of the U.S. What a dunce! Adding those territories to the nation led to Republican dominance for the next 50 years since most of their occupants fell for the Republican propaganda hook line and sinker.

I could care less about the Hemmings allegations and don't believe it to be in character for Jefferson to be involved with a slave when he considered them unequal to whites. BTW there is nothing conservative or liberty loving about slaveholders (especially those who do not even free their slaves upon their own deaths like TJ.)

Your venom flows like a New England version of James Carville. Pretty one-sided, to be kind. It sounds suprisingly familiar, sorta like the Federalist 'literature' of Jefferson's most vehement opposition: the Antithesis of Freneau (you gotta admit, that's funny).

BTW, you stated that Madison became a strict constructionist after he became a "Jeffersonian"; and before that he assumed there were implied powers? This would indicate he became a Jeffersonian prior to his penning of Federalist 41, which I doubt. You must have assumed his first stance against implied power was in the 1792 General Welfare debate on the floor of the House.

This may come as a surprise to you, but there are History Professors that favor the Anti-Federalists. However, none (that I have debated) thought Jefferson to be a true Anti-Federalist. As for me, I couldn't care less. I think we got it about right for approximately the first 200 years, and lost our way the past 25.

My venom is the result of discovering that I had been duped for most of my life regarding the truth about Alexander Hamilton, Madison and Jefferson. Until a couple of years ago I was a great admirer of the latter two and not so much so the former. Then I started doing in depth research into Hamilton and indirectly because of their conflict with him the other two.

Much to my astonishment I discovered that Hamilton was indeed a great American hero while the underhanded activities of Jefferson and Madison to undermine his influence with Washington greatly diminished my respect for them. Freneau played a large role in this. Their attempts to hamstring him during his term of SecTreas consisted of dragging up outrageous lies about his honesty, throwing every conceivable roadblock into his attempts to place this nation on a firm financial footing and turning from supporters of the government to treacherous opposition (by Jefferson still SecState for Washington) and changing their interpretations of the Constitution to fit their convenience.

Madison's interpretations of the Constitution changed at least twice and he changed back once he discovered the extremes Jefferson was taking with regard to the Constitution. (A State being able to declare laws constitutional or no means there is no law of the land thus no real constituion for example.) He was also appalled at the encouragement to the concept of secession by Jefferson. And eventually called him on it.

The deviousness and outright lies cost J. and M. Washington's friendship. That right there says a lot.

Then to examine the later influence of the Slaveocracy which was utterly in contradiction to a Republic, causes me a lot of heartburn. Hamilton OTOH was vehemently anti-slavery. J. and M. were born rich landowners, Hamilton had nothing not even legitimacy. Yet, he was painted as "an Anglophile and a friend of the rich" a lie.

Had war with France or England occurred before 1800 Hamilton would have been commanding the U.S. armies while J. and M. sat on the sidelines and sniped.

I would accept the title of anti-Freneau as long as I, unlike he, restricts myself to the truth.

Left wing university professors lionized him for two centuries and that has not changed. Jefferson merely wanted the governmental power to leave aristocrats like him along not to interfere with his power of life and death over slaves not to sign treaties with England which would allow the banks to collect debts from debtors like himself. Complete self interest paraded as principle.
I could care less about the Hemmings allegations and don't believe it to be in character for Jefferson to be involved with a slave when he considered them unequal to whites. BTW there is nothing conservative or liberty loving about slaveholders (especially those who do not even free their slaves upon their own deaths like TJ.)

You cannot see that all your arguments are heavily biased. But it is obvious with anyone else.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.