DOMESTIC TERRORISTS… WHAT’S IT’S ORIGIN?

Over the last few weeks, you have heard the term “Domestic Terrorist” in the media by Senator Harry Reid, when speaking about the supporters of Mr. Cliven Bundy.

One would ask thy self, what exactly is a domestic terrorist and why did Mr. Reid coin the term when speaking about these individuals?

Let me give you a history lesson about this very subject. Keep in mind, I am ONLY speaking about the N.D.A.A. of 2012. (I will get into the N.D.A.A. of 2014, which is a total BEAST within itself, in another article.)

On December 14th, 2011, the National Defense Authorization Act was passed by the U.S. House of Representative. The bill was subsequently sent to the U.S. Senate where it was voted on and passed The bill landed on the President’s desk and was signed (quietly on New Years Eve) into law on December 31, 2011.

There are MANY issues that I could cover on this topic, however, we are going to stay on the one issue that has been presented at present.

Deep within the N.D.A.A. is Section 1021 and 1022, is where we run into the “Counter-terrorism” sections of the bill. [Title X, Subtitle D] Within this, is  the authorization for the indefinite military detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism, including U.S. citizens arrested on American soil.

The AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) already authorizes the President to indefinitely detain an individual, so why would we need this added into the N.D.A.A? Because of one very small word with a very big definition. The N.D.A.A. now states that CONGRESS  affirms this authority and makes specific provisions as to the exercise of that authority.

Your definition of Affirm is different than Black’s Law Dictionary of the word.

 Black’s Law Dictionary:

Affirm:  To ratify, make firm, confirm, establish, reassert. To ratify or confirm a former law or judgment. Cowell. In the practice of appellate courts, to affirm a judgment, decree, or order, is to declare that it is valid and right, and must stand as rendered below; to ratify and reassert it; to I concur in its correctness and confirm its efficacy. In pleading. To allege or aver a matter of fact; to state it affirmatively; the opposite of deny or traverse. . In practice. To make an affirmation; to  make a solemn and formal declaration or asseveration that an affidavit is true, that the witness will tell the truth, etc.. this being substituted for an oath in certain cases. Also, to give testimony on affirmation. In the law of contracts. A party is said to affirm a contract the same being voidable at his election, when he ratifies and accepts it, waives his right to annul it, and proceeds under it as if it had been valid ^ originally.

So, what just happened there? Well, congress vested the power in themselves to bypass the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution and took the President out of the equation.

Note that in section (f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

So, who defines what a domestic terrorist is? The Department of Homeland Security. The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (S.T.A.R.T.) at the University of Maryland (Which was partly funded by the DHS)

In their review, on pages 9 and 10, the definition of particular groups are mentioned below:

Extreme Right-Wing: groups 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.

Extreme Left-Wing: groups that want to bring about change through violent revolution rather than through established political processes. This category also includes secular left-wing groups that rely heavily on terrorism to overthrow the capitalist system and either establish “a dictatorship of the proletariat” (Marxist-Leninists) or, much more rarely, a decentralized, non-hierarchical political system (anarchists).

Religious: groups that seek to smite the purported enemies of God and other evildoers, impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists), forcibly insert religion into the political sphere (e.g., those who seek to politicize religion, such as Christian Reconstructionists and Islamists), and/or bring about Armageddon (apocalyptic millenarian cults; 2010: 17). For example, Jewish Direct Action, Mormon extremist, Jamaat-al-Fuqra, and Covenant, Sword and the Arm of the Lord (CSA) are included in this category. 

Ethno-Nationalist/Separatist: regionally concentrated groups with a history of organized political autonomy with their own state, traditional ruler, or regional government, who are committed to gaining or regaining political independence through any means and who have supported political movements for autonomy at some time since 1945. 

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). This category includes groups from all sides of the political spectrum.

So, as we move forward in the election process you will continually hear politician’s, specifically Paul Broun, try and defend their position on voting for the N.D.A.A. in 2012. Congress Paul Broun brings up that he voted for the Amash/Smith Amendment and then the Amash/Gibson Amendment that would have repealed sections 1021 and 1022. Don’t be fooled by this nonsense. If you KNOWINGLY vote for a bill, this radical, why on God’s Green Earth would you vote for this bill to begin with?!

This is known in Washington as “Double Speak.”

I have to give it to Congressmen Phil Gingrey and Jack Kingston though, they are both owning their votes like a champ!

Our Constitutional Rights are NOT up for debate nor compromise. If you give up one, you give up all.