About Me

My photo
Paul Hair is a national security expert and an author. He writes under his own name and as a ghostwriter. Connect with him at http://www.liberateliberty.com/. Contact him at paul@liberateliberty.com.

Sunday, April 20, 2014

The Domestic National Security Threat, Part V: Leftists Accuse Constitution-supporting Americans of Being a National Security Threat because They Hate Them

Editorial Note: Emerging information and actions over the past few years has demonstrated that the United States government and a significant portion of the left-leaning population believe that those Americans who firmly believe in the Constitution are a potential threat and that the government one day might be justified in conducting military operations against them. Is there really a threat from those who value the Constitution or are the government and its leftist allies purposely creating strife for their own nefarious purposes? SCI analyzes this in a multi-part series.

Parts I, II, III, IV-A, IV-B, and IV-C Are Here:

Government, media, and leftist accusations of right-wing and patriotic Americans being a literal domestic national security threat are false but they continue making the accusations simply because they hate right-wing/patriotic Americans and have no common ground with them, which in turn is further dividing the nation and could lead to something much worse.

The standoff between the Bureau of Land Management and the Bundy family in Nevada, along with the reflexive left-wing habit of lying about “right-wing extremists” being responsible for the attack near the Jewish Community Center of Greater Kansas City have perfectly demonstrated two things. First, there are severe tensions and differences in ideology between the government, media, and leftists, and right-wing and/or patriotic Americans. Secondly, the government, media, and leftists utterly hate right-wing and/or patriotic Americans.

Information on what actually occurred at the Bundy ranch and what the grievances are behind this decades-long issue are still forthcoming with some information in initial reports likely being correct and others likely being wrong. One of the pieces of information that the political left and right seem to agree on is that the Bundy family is violating the law.

This has been enough for leftist pundits and government officials to condemn the Bundy family or their supporters (or both) as wanting violence or even of being domestic terrorists.

There have been some reports of questionable activity by those supporting the Bundy family, but even these activities—condemned by both left and right—seem debatable at worst. For instance, one supporter supposedly wanted to put women between them and the BLM so that if the BLM fired on them the women would be among the first casualties. Left and right condemned this idea. Yet no one has asked why the Bundy supporters would have been fearful enough to the point that they thought the BLM would fire on them. And no one has asked why women dying in a hail of bullets would have been such a negative thing since the United States has decided to go forth with the progressive idea of putting women into combat positions.

Furthermore, others have pointed out that there is more that is going on with why people are supporting the Bundy family and why they are so angry at the federal government. The fact that the federal government owns so much western U.S. land is one issue, and the fact that it creates laws and regulations that are so invasive and pervasive as to be oppressive is another.

On top of this, people have noted that the government, media, and leftists are highly selective in their outrage at lawlessness. Breitbart published the following on the matter:
So all the guns, helicopters, and armored vehicles go back to their bases, and the Bundy cattle saga rolls back into the courts. What’s really striking about the whole incident is how it comes after months of watching our lawless government and aristocratic ruling class ignore and rewrite every rule that gets in their way. Yes, court decisions must eventually be enforced, and the rule of law matters. But enforcement seems highly... variable in modern America. 
Cliven Bundy supposedly owes a million bucks in grazing fees? Well, President Obama had absolutely no problem speaking before Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, and they owe two million in back taxes, which no one in the federal government seems terribly exercised about collecting. The “rule of law” works very differently for people with the right political connections, doesn’t it?
In addition to what the Breitbart blog post mentioned, there’s also the fact that government officials regularly praise illegal aliens—even attend rallies with them and invite them in front of Congress to both advocate for their lawlessness and lecture citizens who dare to call them on it. And left-wing pundits, media outlets, and the government praised Occupy Wall Street despite it being rampant with lawlessness and violence. The President of the United States openly sympathized with the Occupy movement (which apparently involved over 2,000 acts of breaking the law in Manhattan alone) and other elected officials did as well. In fact, some people think the President of the United States has been so cavalier about enforcing the laws of the U.S. that they have said that his legacy will be the “Establishment of Lawlessness in [the] United States.”

But that lawlessness doesn’t matter to the government, the media, and leftists. Their lawlessness is moral and just; Bundy’s (and those who support him) is not.

And the same unwavering belief that the government, the media, and leftists have about their own agenda being inherently moral regardless of the law is the same belief that forces them to immediately blame any act of (unacceptable) violence on “right-wing extremists.” This is exactly what occurred when Frazier Glenn Cross (aka: Frazier Glenn Miller) shot and murdered people in the vicinity of the Jewish Community Center of Greater Kansas City.

In this particular case, the government didn’t have much to say on the shooting but its affiliates and allies did. The media immediately turned to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for comment on the murders. “The Domestic National Security Threat, Part IV-A” noted that the SPLC is both government-affiliated and an unreliable source of information—an organization dedicated to smearing right-wing and/or patriotic Americans as “domestic national security threats.”

The media was able to use SPLC-provided information, as well as other sources of information, to declare that Cross’s murders were “right-wing.” “Right-wing extremists get help from older assailants,” blared a Detroit Free Press headline as it ran a USA Today story.

Cross ran for elected office on multiple occasions and under different party labels (apparently including as a Democrat, Republican, and Independent). So he could be described as neither left nor right. But since the left and its allies want to paint him as a “right-wing extremist” it makes it worth the time to see if he could more easily be described as right or left. Cross ran at least twice as a Democrat and apparently most recently as a Democrat (in 2006). He also had an affinity for noted leftist and anti-Israel pundit Max Blumenthal. Max Blumenthal’s father, Sidney, has prominent ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton. So if leftists want to pin an ideological label to Cross, there clearly are more ties to the left than the right.

But the facts didn’t matter to leftists or their media allies, and so Peter Bergen doubled down on his allegation that “right-wing extremists” are a severe domestic national security threat. “The Domestic National Security Threat, Part IV-A” detailed the flaws in Bergen’s previous allegations of “right-wing extremists” being as big of or a larger domestic national security threat than Islamic jihadists. Nevertheless, he jumped on the opportunity to use Cross’s murders to promote again his thoroughly discredited claims. “U.S. right wing extremists more deadly than jihadists,” was the latest headline appearing over his propaganda at CNN. His continued disinformation on “right-wing extremists” at CNN is particularly ironic since CNN uses the services of Marc Lamont Hill, who had this to say about Christopher Dorner and his 2013 murder rampage:
MARC LAMONT HILL, PROFESSOR, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: There is no waste here, though. I mean, this has been an important public conversation that we have had about police brutality, about police corruption, about state violence. There are even talks about making him the first domestic drone target. 
I mean, this is serious business here. I don’t think it has been a waste of time at all. As far as Dorner himself goes, he’s been like a real life superhero to many people. Don’t get me wrong. What he did was awful, killing innocent people is bad. 
But when you read his manifesto, when you read the message that he left, he wasn’t entirely crazy. He had a plan and mission here and many people aren’t rooting for him to kill innocent people. They’re rooting for somebody who was wronged, to get a kind of revenge against the system. It is almost like watching “Django Unchained” in real life. It is kind of exciting.
Media Matters promoted the same “right-wing extremist” narrative, with Eric Boehlert publishing a series of Tweets that insisted that Cross’s murders were “right-wing” no matter how much evidence to the contrary emerged. It remains to be seen if he and other leftists will try to link Mohammed Whitaker, another Kansas City shooter, to “right-wing extremists.”

Boehlert’s Tweets are particularly informative because they show that the disagreements between left and right have become so severe that there no longer is any hope for reconciliation. The government, media, and leftists hate the right-wing and/or patriotic Americans and vice versa. There is a Cold Civil War going on in the United States complete with information operations and disinformation campaigns, lawlessness, and violence.


No comments:

Post a Comment