William F. Jasper
The political profiling scandal at President Obama's Department of Homeland Security just keeps on growing. On Tuesday, May 5, the Washington Times reported on a newly leaked DHS document on "extremism" which reinforces concerns that the DHS is treading a dangerous path of attempting to stigmatize and criminalize, in the minds of members of the law enforcement community, those who dissent from or peacefully oppose government policies and the trend toward omnipotent government.
Feeling the heat from veterans groups, pro-life organizations, conservatives, and even Democratic members of Congress, President Barack Obama’s Secretary for Homeland Security Janet Napolitano was forced to make a slight about-face regarding a controversial intelligence report issued by her department for law-enforcement agencies, including federal-state "Fusion Centers." In a string of media appearances in mid-April, Secretary Napolitano half-apologized for a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report that has drawn severe criticism for targeting conservative political opponents and associating them with dangerous terrorists.
On April 7, when President Barack Obama was winding up an overseas tour that included bowing to Saudi King Abdullah and expressing mea culpas for America’s past sins, his Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was unleashing the dogs of war against his political opposition at home: Americans alarmed by his radical policies on gun control, abortion, illegal aliens, nationalizing the economy, and more. A secret 10-page DHS document sent to law-enforcement agencies nationwide is stirring up a political firestorm. Entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” the DHS report (pdf), dated April 7, sloppily (or cleverly and maliciously) demonizes millions of law-abiding Americans, conflating them with violent, criminal groups such as Neo-Nazis and “white supremacists” simply because they adhere to political beliefs at variance with those of the administration.
Are you on some government list as a possible "domestic terrorist" suspect because you have exercised your First Amendment right to express opposition to a government program or a proposed piece of legislation?
Over the past several months, a steady drumbeat in elite media circles has been pounding out a persistent theme: global crises have exposed the limits of national sovereignty and underscored the necessity for nations to embrace "global governance."
“We are in the midst of a phase of history in which nations will be redefined and their futures fundamentally altered,” wrote media mogul Rupert Murdoch in a recent memo to the management staff of News Corp, his global media empire, which includes Fox TV.
FBI Special Agent Jack Cloonan, a lead investigator in the bureau’s “bin Laden Unit,” was in Yemen on September 11, 2001 when airliners began crashing into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. As soon as he could get a flight, Cloonan flew back to New York. His first order of business upon his return was to go see a very special inmate who was being held in the secret section of a federal prison. The prisoner was Ali Mohamed, who, for at least a decade and a half, had been Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri’s top spy inside the U.S. government.
“Calling all terrorists! Calling all spies! Calling all current or future enemies of the United States! Uncle Sam wants YOU to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces — in exchange for valuable military and intelligence training … AND CITIZENSHIP!”
The United States Senate may vote very soon on one of the most far-reaching and dangerous treaties our government has ever considered for ratification: the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (also known as the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST). The treaty, which has simmered on the back burners of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for decades, would give the United Nations control and jurisdiction over the world's oceans, nearly three-quarters of the surface of our planet.
Like virtually all other treaties flowing out of the United Nations, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is not what it purports to be. Stripped to its bare essence, it is a naked grab for power, an effort to transfer power from the nation-state to the emerging world-state. It comes as no surprise to those who study U.S. foreign policy that the major organizational force promoting the convention is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the premier organization in the United States promoting global governance. One of the first major send-offs for LOST was an article entitled "Who Will Own the Oceans?" in the council's journal, Foreign Affairs, in April 1976. Between then and now the CFR's membership, along with its substantial assets and influence, has been summoned to propel this unwanted treaty to its near-ratified present status.