If a country has a Domestic Terrorism problem, the logical question—once that problem has been identified—is: What do we do about this problem?
As most readers will be aware, the somewhat unsettlingly named Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has stated on February 7th that the United States will remain in “a heightened threat environment” status until June. While DHS cites three distinct factors, its statement makes zero bones about what the primary “threat” is—it’s you and me. People who dissent from Tony Fauci’s gospel of Covid, or Nan Pelosi’s gospel of the J6 Insurrection:
The United States remains in a heightened threat environment fueled by several factors, including an online environment filled with false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories, and other forms of mis- dis- and mal-information (MDM) introduced and/or amplified by foreign and domestic threat actors. These threat actors seek to exacerbate societal friction to sow discord and undermine public trust in government institutions to encourage unrest, which could potentially inspire acts of violence. Mass casualty attacks and other acts of targeted violence conducted by lone offenders and small groups acting in furtherance of ideological beliefs and/or personal grievances pose an ongoing threat to the nation. While the conditions underlying the heightened threat landscape have not significantly changed over the last year, the convergence of the following factors has increased the volatility, unpredictability, and complexity of the threat environment: (1) the proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions; (2) continued calls for violence directed at U.S. critical infrastructure; soft targets and mass gatherings; faith-based institutions, such as churches, synagogues, and mosques; institutions of higher education; racial and religious minorities; government facilities and personnel, including law enforcement and the military; the media; and perceived ideological opponents; and (3) calls by foreign terrorist organizations for attacks on the United States based on recent events.
Further down in the details the type of speech being targeted is made explicit:
Key factors contributing to the current heightened threat environment include:
The proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions:
For example, there is widespread online proliferation of false or misleading narratives regarding unsubstantiated widespread election fraud and COVID-19. Grievances associated with these themes inspired violent extremist attacks during 2021.
Malign foreign powers have and continue to amplify these false or misleading narratives in efforts to damage the United States.
The bottom line to all of this appears to be something like this.
The proper state of affairs in the US is one in which the Dem party controls the House, the Senate and the White House. In that state of affairs, the proper response of the subject population is to accept without question the legitimacy of the election that led to this state of affairs and to trust the regime that was put in place. Those who dissent will be deemed to be sowers of discord, underminers of trust in the government, exacerbaters of societal friction. They will also be deemed to be either unwitting tools of foreign powers or witting agents of “malign foreign powers” engaged in efforts to damage the United States. As such, whether they know it or not, those who dissent from government orthodoxy are advancing the efforts of foreign powers to damage the United States. They constitute a potential threat to National Security. They are, or may be, Domestic Terrorists.
The federal agency must directly tasked to address—i.e., “do something about”— threats to National Security is the FBI. Having identified persons who dissent from government—i.e., Zhou regime—orthodoxy with regard to the 2020 election or the Covid Regime, what concrete actions might the FBI take?
There are two types of FBI investigations—Preliminary and Full Investigations. A PI can be opened “when there is information or an allegation indicating the existence” of a threat to the National Security. The idea behind a PI is to determine whether a FI is warranted. A FI, on the other hand, requires “specific and articulable facts that give reason to believe” that such a threat exists. In practical terms, the biggest difference between these two levels of investigation is that FISA warrants require the opening of a FI.
Of course, we all know how much information can be obtained just from surfing the internet. And that brings us to a third avenue that the FBI could pursue: a Threat Assessment. A TA doesn’t allow for the utilization of investigative techniques that are as directly intrusive as those utilized in a PI or FI, but …
Consider what can be done simply if a person dissents from government orthodoxy and is deemed a possible threat to National Security
THREAT ASSESSMENTS (U)
The FBI may, without opening a preliminary or full investigation, engage in the following activities to investigate or collect information relating to threats to the national security, including information on individuals, groups, and organizations of possible investigative interest, and information concerning possible targets of international terrorism, espionage, foreign computer intrusion, or other threats to the national security:
1. Obtain publicly available information. (U)
2. Access and examine FBI and other Department of Justice records, and obtain information from any FBI or other Department of Justice personnel. ( (U)
3. Check records maintained by, and request information from, other federal, state, and local government entities. (U)
4. Use online services and resources (whether non-profit or commercial). (U)
5. Interview previously established assets, informants, and cooperating witnesses (not including new tasking of such persons). (U)
6. Interview or request information from members of the public and private entities (other than pretext interviews or requests). (U)
7. Accept information voluntarily provided by governmental or private entities. (U)
The foregoing methods may also be used, without opening a preliminary or full investigation, to identify potential assets, or to collect information to maintain the cover or credibility of an asset or employee, in connection with activities related to a threat to the national security.
If you give these seven categories a bit of thought, I think you will quickly realize that in the digital world we are now part of—willy nilly—there is a vast amount of information that can be collected under these categories of inquiry. We also know that data can be selectively used to construct desired narratives, so that have a clean conscience may not be all the protection you need. Consider: White supremacists are a real, clear, and present danger to our National Security. A years worth of violent rioting? Not so much. Just ask Chris Wray. It’s the regime that decides what individuals and groups to target and what data to collect, as well as what use to make of the data that is collected.
It’s true that all of the described activities—dissenting from election results or from public health policy—have for most of American history fallen well within what would have been considered “protected speech” under the First Amendment. However, in the paranoid style of the National Security State that the American Republic has morphed into during the last generation, freedom of speech is no longer an American value—or, as Dems like to say—it’s no longer who we are.
Consider that the WH press secretary openly calls on private corporations to restrain the speech of individual Americans known to be critical of the Zhou regime in one respect or another. That follows on the heels of the Department of Justice’s initiative to monitor people who attend School Board meetings. And the Capitol Police program of monitoring with whom Republican representatives meet. It appears that Tucker Carlson was explicitly targeted in some manner close to this.
That sure looks like government infringement on freedom of speech and association—and, who knows, maybe years down the road some action will be taken by the courts to discourage such government actions. Nevertheless, for the time being we’ll be living in an environment in which the FBI will be conducting Threat Assessments against targets of their choosing based on claims that the target is propagating “false” narratives. Or, maybe, “misleading” narratives. The FBI will decide, but they will have a file in which they will document that you were considered a potential threat to the National Security. Or had potential to become a domestic terrorist. I’d say that could have serious chilling effects on the exercise of First Amendment rights.
There’s been a fair amount of commentary on this DHS Bulletin. Much of that commentary ridicules the bulletin—while recognizing that there are serious implications to what’s being said. I believe we need to be realistic about the concrete actions that the Zhou regime is taking to ensure there is no societal friction and no discord in America—friction and discord to be defined by the regime. Those actions are being taken even as we speak, and have been underway since the installation of this regime.
To put this in a slightly different perspective, a bit less legaistic, I want to quote from a liberal who is also concerned:
The Biden Administration says I'm a terrorist threat.
Alex Berenson
That headline sounds like a joke.
It’s not.
The White House has begun an extraordinary assault on free speech in America. It is no longer content merely to force social media companies to suppress dissenting views. It appears to be setting the stage to use federal police powers.
…
I have no doubt whatsoever that I fit as a terrorist threat under these guidelines.
So does Joe Rogan. And Tucker Carlson. After all, we’ve “undermine[d] public trust in government institutions” about Covid and the mRNA shots (I try not to call them vaccines anymore).
This bulletin marks an extraordinary escalation of the war on speech and the First Amendment.
…
…, Monday’s bulletin clearly equates speech with terroristic activity. That connection may seem ridiculous and absurd. It is not.
These public statements are not merely wallpaper. They can reflect secret government decisions about what police or intelligence tactics are acceptable against targeted groups.
This is not a conspiracy theory; in 2017, Central Intelligence Agency director Mike Pompeo publicly called Wikileaks a “non-state hostile intelligence service.” As Yahoo News reported three years later:
More than just a provocative talking point, the designation opened the door for agency operatives to take far more aggressive actions, treating the organization as it does adversary spy services.
Yahoo article about the CIA and Wikileaks
What, if anything, are government agencies planning to do about the terrorist threat that I and other Covid skeptics represent? I have no idea.
But make no mistake. This bulletin marks a clear escalation of the targeting from the highest levels of the federal government that began last year.
Remember: in July President Biden, Jennifer Psaki, and Surgeon General Vivek Murthy all encouraged social media companies to clamp down on Covid vaccine skeptics less than 24 hours before Twitter began the process of deplatforming me. Last week Psaki specifically targeted Rogan, who has a much larger audience.
Now, though, the government appears to want to target my First Amendment rights directly.
As i recall this is part and parcel of Atlas Shrugged notion of controlling the population by making everyone a criminal and subject to arbitrary arrest, and the Stalinist idea, "show me the man and I'll show you the crime."
I wonder if this isnt another attempt by the Regime to choke off any USA Trucker convoy by subjecting anyone attempting to organize or fund the convoy to investigation, harassment, and arrest if the resistance doesn't cease? The Regime may lack resources to stop a convoy once it rolls but they have ample resources to keep it from forming by going after key leaders who dare raise their heads.
Seems like I went from being deplorable, to being a racist, to being a domestic terrorist all in 6 years. And I've learned that when they come for you to fight to the death because if they capture you they'll put you in prison for years with no trial. Because the process is the punishment.