In a post
the other day on the violence against Pro-lifers that has cropped up recently, I mentioned the Homeland Security document
that was released on 31 January 2012. In it the Department of Homeland Secuirity talked about who it saw as potential domestic terrorists. & while it starts with what I call the copout disclaimer to give the Obama administration plausable deniability, the document is clearly intended to give guidance as to who the Obama administration sees as threats to their agenda more than actual threats to the security of the United States. & to justify their going after those of us who don't agree with what they are doing. In fact it all but says so.
“This report is part of a series sponsored by the Human Factors/Behavioral Sciences Division, Science and Technology Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in support of the Counter-IED Prevent/Deter program. The goal of this program is to sponsor research that will aid the intelligence and law enforcement communities in identifying potential terrorist threats and support policymakers in developing prevention efforts.” (emphasis mine)
So who do they see as potential terrorists?
Single issue groups! In the report they wrote “The most recent decade has been dominated by single issue attacks.” They went on to give examples of who they consider single issue groups. "Single Issue: groups or individuals that obsessively focus on very specific or narrowly-defined causes (e.g., anti-abortion, anti-Catholic, anti-nuclear, anti-Castro)."
Before I talk about the listing of anti-abortion & anti-Catholic in the single issue definition, I want to look at the other 2. Anti-nuclear as well as anti-Castro are included for what I call a smoke & mirrors move. They are meant to distract people by making it sound this is a balanced report looking at all potential terrorists & not singling out Pro-lifers & some other groups I will mention later as well.
As for anti-Catholic, to some extent that is smoke & mirrors as well. In this case to distract from the fact that the biggest anti-Catholic group out there is the Obama administration that is leading the attack on the religious liberties of Catholics, especially with the HHS mandate forcing virtually all Catholic organizations as well as individuals who own their own business & are opposed to artificial birth control & abortion to pay for insurance to cover them.
Of course, I did come up with one other possible definition of anti-Catholic. We need to remember that people in the Obama administration like Kathleen Sibelius (HHS), Tom Vilsack (agriculture & former Iowa governor) & VP Joe Biden all claim to be good Catholics. & let us not forget Nancy Pelosi who has taken it upon herself to define what the Catholic Church teaches & what makes a good Catholic. Toss into this mix groups like Catholics for a Free Choice & the Leadership Council of Women Religious. In short what faithful Catholics would call "Catholics in Name Only" & the Vatican as well as individual Bishops have said isn't authentic Catholic teaching or actions are probably the "Catholycs" HHS is really refering to. So by their definition, the Vatican, Bishops like Brustkewitz, Archbishop Naumann of Kansas City Kansas (for telling Sibelius no communion when she was governor) & even the USCCB (for reasons of opposition to the ObamaCare mandate) & Cardinal Timothy Dolan are terrorists. Additionally, any of us who publicly speak to uphold authentic Catholic teaching would also fit into their definition.
& any group, Catholic or not, that is Pro-life is definitely a source for terrorist activities by their very existance. Given that the Obama administration is so in the back pocket of Planned Parenthood as well as the rest of the abortion industry, it is clear that this is aimed at given the Obama administration the justification for silencing Pro-lifers as well as continuing to attack the religious liberty of Catholics & other Christians, especially if they are Pro-life instead of pro-Obama.
Brian Clowes, Director of Research for Human Life International was incensed with the report. He had this to say about it “They are cherry picking. They put in the anti-nukes as a sop when they’re really after the pro-lifers.” Clowes added “What’s amazing is that unions are not mentioned at all in the report, when they’ve likely been responsible for more terrorist acts than all the listed single issue group examples combined.” I've pointed this fact out myself in a few posts.
Other groups that come under attack include the following "Extreme Right-Wing" groups, those "that believe that one’s personal and/or national "way of life" is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent (for some the threat is from a specific ethnic, racial, or religious group), and believe in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism. Groups may also be fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation), anti-global, suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty, and believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty."
So under this definition, anyone who is concerned that their rights are being attacked & are working to defend them is a potential terrorist. The opening part seems especially aimed at those who are strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. That amendment was added to ensure people of the right to defend themselves against any attempt to take away their freedom. Remember, that dictators have usually taken away guns from individuals because they knew those guns could be used to fight for their rights.
Next we have groups that are "fiercely nationalistic". By showing what those groups are in opposition to, they make it clear that anyone who is a true patriot, not just extremists, is fiercely nationalist & thus a potential terrorist. In short, anyone who wants to defend the USA's sovereignty is a potential terrorist.
But what really makes it clear that they are going against anyone who would stand up for what the Constitution stands for is where it names those "suspicious of centralized federal authority" & those "reverent of individual liberty" as potential terrorists. & this is where our Founding Fathers come in.
Anyone who is familiar with the Revolutionary War period knows that our Founding Fathers were suspicious of too centralized a national government. They saw how dangerous an authoritarian government that denied them their basic rights could be. It could impose taxes or anything else, including taking away any & all liberites, including life & property as it wanted to. They wrote the Constitution to protect the rights of both the individual staes as well as those of the people. That is why the Constitution put strict limits on what the Federal government could do. & even after the Constitution was written many wanted stronger protections for those rights. That is why we have the "Bill of Rights".
What the Obama administration is doing is to ensure that it will have the justification to set up an authoritarian government & finish the work of shredding the Constitution. In short, we are on the verge of a dictatorship just like we saw in Pre-WW II Germany of Italy.
Like it or not, Obama wants to follow in their footsteps. & under laws passed over the past decade to go after who the government defines as domestic terrorists, he could very well do so. ObamaCare has already guarenteed that the IRS will be monitoring all we do when it goers into effect. Big brother has been created.
As more & more people are becoming aware of how our basic liberties are being assaulted, the chances of Obama staying in power decrease. Should he lose, what is to stop him from declaring martial law & arresting all those he sees as threats, pro 2nd Amendment people, Tea Party supporters & especially Pro-lifers? With the Democrats controlling the Senate, it wouldn't be Congress.
& if he wins, it is clear he will work to continue to erode our individual God given rights of "life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness".
As I look arround, I see the United Staes on the verge of destruction. Obama has made it clear that Catholics must do the modern equivalent of emperor worship found in the Roman empire. He demands that we must accept his efforts to promote abortion, homosexual marriage & everything else that goes contrary to what this nation was founded on. & not only accept it, but embrace it. If not, we could very well face persecution & even martyrdom. He has also made it clear that he wants total government control of our lives. The same control that men like Hitler, Stalin & Mussolini & many other dictators over the centuries attempted. It isn't just Catholics that are facing arrest, it is everyone who believes in what our nation actually stands for, those principles our Founding Fathers built this nation on.
As John Adams once explained “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
inadequate to the government of any other
.” It is clear that Obama & his supporters want to undermine the moral underpinings of the Constitution to free them up to take away our rights. We would do well to heed what the one Catholic signer of the Declaration, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
said "Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time;
they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so
sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and
[which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid
foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments
Our defense must start with prayer & repentance for the sins of the nation. But it must also include speaking the truth in love. We must call our nation back to God & the Judeo-Christian foundation it was built on.
I know some people think we have already gone over the edge & there is no turning back. Even so, we still have the responsibility & the duty to pray & speak up, no matter the cost. That is why the signers of the Declaration concluded with the following "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection
of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes
and our sacred Honor."
They knew that they had to rely on God, not themselves. They also knew the cost. & they were willing to pay for it. Can the same be said of us?
Labels: ObamaCare, Planned Parenthood, Violence/Vandalism Against Pro-Lifers