Liberty Activists And ISIS Will Soon Be Treated As Identical ThreatsBy Brandon Smith My stance has always been that the elites would wait until there was ample social and political distraction; a fog of fear allowing them to move more aggressively against anti-globalists. We are not quite there yet, but the ground is clearly being prepared. Economic uncertainty looms large over our fiscal structure today, more so even than in 2008. Global instability is rampant, with Europe at the forefront as mass migrations of refugees invade wholesale. At best, most of them intend to leach off of the EUs already failing socialist welfare structure while refusing to integrate or respect Western social principles. At worst, a percentage of these migrants are members of ISIS with the goals of infiltration, disruption and coordinated destruction. With similar immigration and transplantation measures being applied to the U.S. on a smaller scale (for now) the ISIS plague will inevitably hit our shores in a manner that will undoubtedly strike panic in the masses. I believe 2016 will be dubbed the year of the terrorist, and ISIS will not be the only terrorists in the spotlight. While scanning the pages of mainstream propaganda machines like Reuters, I came across this little gem of an article, which outlines plans by the U.S. Justice Department to apply existing enemy combatant laws used against ISIS terrorists and their supporters to domestic extremists, specifically mentioning the Bundy takeover of the federal refuge in Burns, Oregon as an example. Extremist groups motivated by a range of U.S.-born philosophies present a clear and present danger, John Carlin, the Justice Departments chief of national security, told Reuters in an interview. Based on recent reports and the cases we are seeing, it seems like were in a heightened environment. Clear and present danger is a vital phrase implemented in this statement from Carlin and he used it quite deliberately. It refers to something called the clear and present danger doctrine or test, a doctrine rarely used except during times of mass panic, such as during WWI and WWII. The doctrine applies specifically to the removal of 1st Amendment rights of free speech during moments of distress. What does this mean, exactly? Clear and present danger is a legal mechanism by which the government claims the right not only to prosecute or destroy enemies of the state, but also anyone who publicly supports those same enemies through speech or writing. Recently, the prospect of allowing the Federal Communications Commission to target and shut down websites related to ISIS has been fielded by congressional representatives. Many people have warned against this as setting a dangerous precedent by which the government could be given free license to censor and silence ANY websites they deem harmful to the public good, even those not tied to ISIS in any way. Of course, overt hatred of Islamic extremism amongst conservatives is at Defcon 1 right now, and with good reason. Unfortunately, this may lead constitutional conservatives, the most stalwart proponents of free speech, to mistakenly set the stage for the erasure of free speech rights all in the name of stopping ISIS activity. The greatest proponents of constitutional liberties could very well become the greatest enemies of constitutional liberties if they fall for the ploy set up by the establishment. The Reuters article outlines the future implications quite plainly: The U.S. State Department designates international terrorist organizations to which it is illegal to provide material support. No domestic groups have that designation, helping to create a disparity in charges faced by international extremist suspects compared to domestic ones. It has been applied in 58 of the governments 79 Islamic State cases since 2014 against defendants who engaged in a wide range of activity, from traveling to Syria to fight alongside Islamic State to raising money for a friend who wished to do so. Prosecutors can bring material support terrorism charges against defendants who arent linked to groups on the State Departments list, but they have only done so twice against non-jihadist suspects since the law was enacted in 1994. The law, which prohibits supporting people who have been deemed to be terrorists by their actions, carries a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison. The Justice Department goes on to explain that they are exploring options to make material support charges more applicable to domestic extremists. So what constitutes material support? Well, as mentioned earlier, John Carlin just told us. His use of the phrase clear and present danger denotes that 1st Amendment speech will be restricted, ostensibly because some speech will be labeled material support of terrorist organizations. The liberty movement, likely in the near future, is about to be outwardly defined by the establishment as a terrorist movement, and those who support it through speech will be designated as material supporters of said terrorism. To be utterly clear, this could apply to any and everyone who promotes anti-government sentiments online, and will likely be aimed more prominently at liberty analysts and journalists. The argument for this move is rather humorous in my view bureaucrats and others complain that it is not fair that Islamic terrorists are being treated more harshly than white rural domestic extremists and that material support laws should be enforced against everyone equally. Yes, thats right, the 1st Amendment is under threat because the Justice Department does not want to appear racist. At least, that is their public excuse Im not sure whether it is depressing or hilariously ironic that the U.S. government (along with many other governments) is preparing the groundwork for prosecution of liberty activists for material support of terrorism when it is the government that has been proven time and again to be by far the most generous material supporter of terrorist organizations. Will this all take place in a vacuum? Of course not. Something terrible is brewing. Another Oklahoma City-style bombing, perhaps. Or a standoff gone horribly awry. The standoff in Oregon continues without Ammon Bundy and is about to get worse in the next week according to my information (you will see what I mean). The point is, the narrative is being finalized in preparation for whatever trigger events may be in store, and that narrative closely associates ISIS with liberty activists as being in the same category. As law enforcement experts confront domestic militia groups, sovereign citizens who do not recognize government authority, and other anti-government extremists, they also face a heightened threat from Islamic extremists like the couple who carried out the Dec. 2 shootings in San Bernardino, California. This is why I have consistently argued against giving any extra-judicial powers to our already bloated federal system. I am a staunch opponent of Islamic immigration and terrorism, but some people are so desperate to fight one monster that they are willing to give unlimited powers to another monster thinking it will give their minds ease. These people are fools, and they are putting the rest of us at risk. If you want to fight ISIS, then fight them yourself. Do not give the same government that helped create ISIS and then deliberately transplanted them to Europe and the U.S. even more legal authority over our lives to supposedly stop ISIS. This would be absurd. In the meantime, I would point out that regardless of how the federal government wishes to label us, the liberty movement could not be more different from the Islamic State: 1) We dont enjoy covert funding and training from the government at large as ISIS does. (Though according to leftists, we all take our marching orders from the Koch Brothers). 2) Most of us were born in this country and are rather attached to it. 3) ISIS fights to dismantle traditional Western values. We fight to restore traditional Western values, and we will not only fight ISIS but also cultural Marxists and collectivists who share the same disdain for liberty. 4) Many of us are far better trained than ISIS goons so, if anything, we are a more severe threat to the enemies of free society. (We actually look down our sights when we shoot rather than hidingbehind cars with the rifle over our head and squatting like a constipated dog. We can also operate their AK-47s better than they can). 5) We are as opposed to Sharia Law as we are to martial law. In fact, we see them as essentially the same unacceptable circumstance. 6) We dont cannibalize our enemies. (Who would want to take a bite out of Henry Kissingers spleen?) 7) We might look down on the insane ramblings of todays feminists, but at least we would not stone them, enforce female circumcision, then rape them, then throw acid in their faces, then slap a hijab on them and take away their drivers licenses. So maybe, just maybe, we toxic masculine conservative barbarians arent as bad as they seem to think we are. 8) We understand that black pajamas are not the best camouflage, but ISIS may have better fashion sense than we do. 9) Our beards are all-American. Their beards are just plain creepy. 10) They fight to be martyred. We fight to win. When all is said and done, who is the greater threat to you and your freedoms? A psychotic theocrat that has taken his religion so far into the forbidden zone that any evil, no matter how heinous, is justified through the circular logic of zealotry? The criminal government that funded that psycho, trained him, slapped a rocket launcher in his hands and then gave him a free plane ride to your favorite shopping mall? Or, some weirdo that stores lots of food and gas masks in his basement and every once in a while talks to you about 9/11? Come on, think about it You can read more from Brandon Smith at his site Alt-Market.com. If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here. We greatly appreciate your patronage. You can contact Brandon Smith at: brandon@alt-market.com Must be a joke but its actually another distraction. ISIS isnt a threat to the amish but liberty selfnewss may very well be. The Amish have always been considered less than patriotic by mainstream politicos. I find it both depressing AND hilariously ironic. Also mind-numbingly ridiculous and whatever the word is for the urge to bang my head against the wall repeatedly. Insanity-inducingly retarded. Yeah thats it. Rulers throughout the ages have known one of the most effective ways to deal with troublesome groups is to eliminate the leadership. The lawnmower always seeks the tallest blade of grass. I agree with your first statement, but my lawnmower actually just hacks the legs of of any blade of grass it comes across Liberty activists = armed criminals,seeking to take over public lands. Ranchers have destroyed 90% of riparian corridors in the West and have run roughshod over the sacred lands of the native Americans. These liberty activists were not wanted by the locals, the natives, or many for whom they claimed they were fighting. Civil disobedience with weapons is a contradiction in terms. Well, its already established that many of the so-called activists were actually crisis actors and/or government stooges trying to stir things up. Indeed, the ranchers didnt didnt ask, but they are NOT the people responsible for the things you claim. Furthermore, per the Constitution (although it seems pretty null and void at this time), the Federal government does NOT, nor can they, own that or any land outside of Washington, D.C., and what forts and ports the States will allow. Of course, seeing how all of these constructs (Federal Government, State Government, etc.) are artificial and defy Natural Law, I say to heck with it. This is one of those fights, whether artificial or not, that needs to play out and see where the chips lie. The government is definitely overstepping its bounds; Im not so sure on the ranchers part, I dont really know enough about it (other than what both the MSM and alternative media spout, and both have agendas). The only thing that really concerns me, and thats in relation to this article, is my ability to think and say what I want to say, regardless of whether someone else agrees with it or not, or whether they have hurt feelings or not. If I disagree with a person, a corporation, or government policy, I want to know that I wont be systematically erased/disappeared/suicided just because my view might be contrary or dissenting. Rights are NOT granted by the goverment, indeed, they are given by the Creator, and this applies to ALL men, not JUST citizens of the United States of America, Inc. Peace. It is NOT well established,nor is it illegal for the Federal government to own land. I refuse to read any more since you are begging the question with outrageous claims for which all arguments proposed have been roundly debunked. Natural law is a human invention. What matters is the truth. You provide zero evidence for a series of claims, which means they can be dismissed without evidence. You are such a Statist troll, every post you make, its unbelievable. Read the Constitution. It spells out clearly what the Federal government can own for land and what it cannot. I cannot help it if you are too lazy to read the Constitution yourself. Get off your statist, communist butt and READ the paper that is supposed to be the heart of our country. Natural Law is a God-made invention, all else is man-made. I find it amusing when people destroy their own argument by using personal attacks rather than evidence. ARTICLE IV, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 2 When cattle go to the riparian corridors to drink, they are very destructive and 90% of the Western riparian corridors have been harmed. I will quote an excerpt which highlights the damage done and the welfare costs of ranching on public lands. After the public gets finished paying for public-lands grazing in lost fish, wildlife, plants, soil, and water, it gets to pay for it again in dollars. According to the General Accounting Office, 10 federal agencies lost $123 million administering grazing in fiscal 2004. On average, an animal unit month (AUM)the amount of forage a cow and her calf supposedly can consume in a monthcosts ranchers $1.79 on public land and $13.30 on private land. Meanwhile, the public buys ranchers cattle guards, water troughs, water pipes, and wildlife-killing fences on its rangeland; it hires contractors to rip up its native plant communities and replace them with alien grasses favored by alien bovines but hurtful to its wildlife; it hires predator-control agents to shoot, trap, and poison its native mammals that might eat livestock; and it hires pest-control agents to poison its prairie dogs because ranchers imagine they compete with cattle. This bizarre system, known by its critics as welfare ranching ,Livestock are the main source of nonpoint water pollution in the West and the main reason 80 percent of the regions fishes and 90 percent of its grassland birds are declining. Although riparian corridors comprise only 1.5 percent of public land, 80 percent have been damaged by cattle. biololgicaldiversity.org reports: Despite these costs, livestock grazing continues on state and federal lands throughout the arid West. Livestock grazing is promoted, protected and subsidized by federal agencies on approximately 270 million acres of public land in the 11 western states. Federal-lands livestock grazing enjoys more than $100 million annually in direct subsidies; indirect subsidies may be three times Cattle destroy native vegetation, damage soils and stream banks, and contaminate waterways with fecal waste. After decades of livestock grazing, once-lush streams and riparian forests have been reduced to flat, dry wastelands; once-rich topsoil has been turned to dust, causing soil erosion, stream sedimentation and wholesale elimination of some aquatic habitats; overgrazing of native fire-carrying grasses has starved some western forests of fire, making them overly dense and prone to unnaturally severe fires. Natural law is a theory, as is the existence of a Creator who invents laws. Where is your evidence is is anything but a human-made theory seeking to claim a divine origin for human laws. Lets not forget, Brother, our enemy are only human. And, they are also cowards. At the moment boundaries are being tested around the world as to the human response to a situation, such as financial meltdown. If these cowards have any advantage it is organization and a fearful population. If people could only understand that death is nothing to fear, then, we would hold the true power Indeed. its why, when I see all this cop bashing (Im no fan of the boys in blue), I have to remember that theyre human, too, and only responding the way they were (poorly) trained. What would Lucifer do if he wanted to create social discord and have the people at odds with each other? Answer: exactly what we are witnessing. But we get to choose which Lucifer that will do it. They will turn friend against friend. If you are an activist your circle of friends should be VERY small. This wont end well for many of us truthers but fight we must We also dont force little girls, our daughters and grand daughters, that we are supposed to be defending and protecting, into combat duty to do our fighting for us. It is dishonorable, un-American, cowardly, shameful, embarrassing and stupid. Contact congress and tell them its political suicide and is not going to happen in our or their lifetime regardless of what kind of law they pass. If Rambo Jane wants to volunteer then thats her freedom and the governments problem but Real Americans Do Not Allow the drafting of their little girls to be sacrificed as cannon fodder. NOT GONNA HAPPEN, NEVER, FORGET ABOUT IT! So it is fine to submit young Americans to involuntary servitude in the service of their countrys military-intelligence complex as long as they have external plumbing? Although, for the most part, I agree wholeheartedly, I think the only people that should go to war, at least go to war first are the people that want to make us go to war in the first placecongressmen and the POTUS. Watch how quickly they WONT go to war. Problem solved. Nonetheless, war is STUPID, no matter what war is it. As a young, brainwashed youth I enlisted in the USN, desperate at the time for a better life than I had, during the late 80s and early 90s. Now, as a full-fledged father and husband, with my eyes opened a little wider than when I was a teenager, I understand the implications of war and see through the curtains to the men pulling the levers. Well said, Brother! Politicians all round the world need to take notice that there are millions of us who will not lay down and take it! I keep saying on these threads I would rather die fighting as a free man than die a coward slave the these pack of turds What if ISIS is the liberty activists of the countries that our military unconstitutionally and unlawfully attacked? Great Read ! Well only be on the list until Jan 2017 so not to worry patriots! Hi there, I live in Germany and know what I am talking about. The percentage of real refugees as opposed to leachers is about 1:10. That is the problem. Nobody here would mind to help people actually fleeing from Syria. But what about the other 90 percent that come here to do just that: have a free lunch? First, let me say, I love your name:) 