Feds Often Create Terror Threats, Study Finds


The U.S. government often manufactures and creates the alleged “terrorism threats” it purports to be fighting, in some cases even prodding mentally challenged dupes into bogus “plots” that authorities concocted in the first place, according to a newly released report highlighting the troubling practices. Perhaps the most outrageous finding: Almost every high-profile domestic terror case across America since the September 11 attacks featured the “direct involvement” of government agents or informants. In some cases, virtually the entire “terrorism” plot — from start to finish — was actually led and financed by government operatives.

Also alarming, the investigation found, are routine violations of constitutionally protected rights such as due process and fair treatment amid the never-ending and increasingly domestic-oriented terror war. From the use of “secret evidence” and anonymous juries to schemes that border on “entrapment,” the report suggests that U.S. terror policies are officially out of control. The authors of the report said the controversial tactics may even be putting national security at risk by diverting law enforcement and other resources from real threats.

The 214-page report, dubbed “Illusion of Justice: Human Rights Abuses in US Terrorism Prosecutions,” focused specifically on more than two dozen federal terror cases. As part of the probe, the non-profit Human Rights Watch and Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute examined all elements of the 27 cases, from initiation of the federal investigations to eventual sentencing and even the conditions of confinement after conviction. Their findings, unveiled last week, paint a troubling picture of the U.S. “terror” apparatus, its human-rights implications, and the direction in which it is all going.

The human rights-focused investigators found numerous concerns in all aspects of the process, including what they called “overly aggressive” sting operations and “unnecessarily restrictive” conditions in prison. Many of the examples highlighted in the report are truly shocking — even to the judges presiding over the cases. For example, in the “Newburgh Four” case, the judge slammed the government’s tactics, saying it “came up with the crime, provided the means, and removed all relevant obstacles.” Authorities made a terrorist out of a man “whose buffoonery is positively Shakespearean in scope,” the judge added in his stinging rebuke.

Since the September 11, 2001, attacks on U.S. soil, there have been some 500 terrorism-related cases in federal courts. “This is a number that sounds really big, and it makes it sound like Americans are being kept safe from terrorism attacks,” explained Andrea Prasow, deputy Washington director for Human Rights Watch. “But we found that in a lot of these cases, people were prosecuted who never would have committed a terrorist attack in the first place, if it weren’t for the involvement of the FBI.”

The New American has also documented more than a few similar cases in recent years. Among the myriad examples: Duping mentally ill Muslims into agreeing to help with fake government-orchestrated terror plots, providing fake “bombs” and convincing a group of young anarchists to plant them on a bridge, and countless more. In press releases announcing arrests and prosecutions, authorities regularly boast about the fact that the “terrorists” it arrests were actually prodded and led into the scheme by government agents and informants. Sometimes the dupes are even offered taxpayer money.

The latest report offers more evidence that the problem has become widespread. “Americans have been told that their government is keeping them safe by preventing and prosecuting terrorism inside the U.S.,” continued Prasow, who also served as one of the authors of the new report. “But take a closer look and you realize that many of these people would never have committed a crime if not for law enforcement encouraging, pressuring, and sometimes paying them to commit terrorist acts.”

Of the terror-related cases prosecuted since 9/11, the plurality of convictions came from so-called “material support” charges, the report found. Those normally stem from offering any sort of assistance, which can even include advice, to a proscribed organization or individual. Among the more outrageous examples highlighted in the human-rights investigation and subsequent news reports was a man initially accused of providing “military gear” to al-Qaeda. It turned out to be waterproof socks in his luggage.

Especially vulnerable, according to the human-rights report, are Muslims in the United States. The report suggests that the authorities have been burning bridges with the Islamic community in their zeal to uncover or invent terror plots; even employing troubling tactics such as paying mentally ill dupes to engage in fake terrorism schemes concocted by government officials from the start. Despite prohibitions on outright entrapment, the human-rights investigators also found that the legal burden of proving it means U.S. courts are often going along with the dubious tactics.

“The U.S. government should stop treating American Muslims as terrorists-in-waiting,” Prasow continued in a statement about the findings. “The bar on entrapment in U.S. law is so high that it’s almost impossible for a terrorism suspect to prove. Add that to law enforcement preying on the particularly vulnerable, such as those with mental or intellectual disabilities, and the very poor, and you have a recipe for rampant human rights abuses.”

As The New American magazine has documented, Muslims are not the only ones in the crosshairs. In fact, in recent years, the federal government has become increasingly brazen in labeling everyday Americans — veterans, conservatives, libertarians, pro-life activists, and more — as potential terror threats merely for their political views. Under the Obama administration, those trends have accelerated quickly, with numerous departments already exposed for officially painting a target on the backs of tens of millions of innocent Americans. Today, top U.S. officials openly admit to murdering “suspected militants” who have never been charged with a crime.

“Far from protecting Americans, including American Muslims, from the threat of terrorism, the policies documented in this report have diverted law enforcement from pursuing real threats,” Prasow added. “It is possible to protect people’s rights and also prosecute terrorists, which increases the chances of catching genuine criminals.” Other experts, including constitutional scholars, have documented similar problems with terror-war tactics.

The federal government, on the other hand, defended U.S. policies in response to the accusations in the report. “The Department of Justice has been a steadfast ally of our nation’s civil rights groups for decades,” DOJ spokesman Marc Raimondi was quoted as saying by the Washington Post. “The report itself acknowledges that the legal process used in the cases it highlighted is not only lawful but is also specifically approved by federal judges…. We do not and cannot target individuals solely for engaging in activities protected by the First Amendment, which includes free speech and religion.”

Assistant Director Michael Kortan with the FBI Office of Public Affairs claimed the Bureau’s use of informants and undercover agents was legal, important to keeping America “safe,” and already subject to what he called “rigorous oversight.” He also denied suggestions in the new report that the federal government was deploying infiltrators into communities without any evidence of wrongdoing. “The FBI does not target individuals or groups on the basis of race, ethnicity or religion and engages in outreach with diverse communities to combat all criminal activity, including terrorism,” Kortan said.

Among other recommendations, Human Rights Watch said the use of “informants” by the FBI should be restricted and subject to “robust” oversight. Prosecutors should also stop charging people with “material support to terrorism” based on activities “protected under freedom of expression principles,” it added. Finally, in response to troubling findings surrounding prison conditions, the report recommended ensuring “humane” conditions, including an end to subjecting prisoners to prolonged periods of solitary confinement.

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU.

Related articles:

FBI Celebrates Duping Another Mentally Ill Man Into Fake Terror Plot

FBI Celebrates Foiling Its Own Terror Plot, Again

FBI Dupes May Day Anarchists into Bogus Terror Plot

“We Kill People Based on Metadata,” Admits Former CIA/NSA Boss

The FBI Imagines Crimes and Then Arrests the Criminals

Manufacturing Monsters to Mash

“Drug Lords” Targeted in Fast & Furious Worked for FBI

Obama’s Terrorist Ties and Radical Roots

Justice Department Trained Police to Link Political Activism With Terror

UN, Obama Fighting Alongside Al-Qaeda in Libya

Al-Qaeda & the West Back Syrian Rebels Against Assad

Bin Laden & Al-Qaeda: U.S. Govt. Creations

“Terroristic” Dress-code Violations and Other Threats to Gun Ownership

By Claire Wolfe, June 7th 2014
JPFO writer contributor, © 2014.



Click to enlarge

If Thursday’s news reports are accurate, hysterical fear of “terrorism” has just reached a new low. Two dozen middle schoolers were suspended because they commented on or shared a Facebook post urging mass resistance to their school’s dress code. This is the kind of small act of resistance adolescents have indulged in forever — particularly in the heady last week before summer vacation.

Whether they deserve punishment or not is in the eye of the beholder. But according to at least one of the students and one parent, the principle of Cowen (I’m tempted to write “Coward”) Road Middle School in Griffin, Georgia, accused participants in the FB discussion of making “terroristic threats.”

I’ll wait a moment while your eyeballs stop rolling.

Now, you might laugh at the idea of a school official being so diaper-wetting petrified of a conspiracy to commit sartorial infractions that he or she feels terrorized and threatened. The situation is less funny to the honor student who got kicked out of school merely for typing, “I’m in!”

But the situation is really, really, really unfunny when you consider how the growing misuse of the concept of “terrorism” is damaging both the future of freedom and the future of one of freedom’s essential protectors, the right to own and use firearms.

Words have meaning

Wikipedia defines a ” terroristic threat” as: “a declaration of intent to commit a crime of violence against another with the intent of threatening a person, building, facility, or public or private habitat.”

I’ve never heard of anybody violently threatening to wear an outfit, have you? Even with rising fear of kids wearing gang colors or pro-gun tee-shirts, it’s hard to imagine how someone could “violently” wear a skirt or pair of pants.

But it’s still worse. The very concept of “terroristic threat” only entered the U.S. lexicon after 9-11, and that panicked school principle is far from the first to misuse the term and stretch the concept past its limits. Legalmatch.com notes that many states are increasingly redefining all manner of violent criminals as “terrorists.”

The concept of “terrorism” legitimately applies only to “those violent acts that are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (e.g., neutral military personnel or civilians).”

So never mind said school official’s alleged “terror” of defiantly dressed 12 year olds. Even a genuinely violent person shouldn’t be called a terrorist or be said to make “terroristic threats” unless he or she is using or threatening violence against innocents with ideological goals in mind.

But (you may be saying) why should we care if a word is being misused? We live in an age when terrorism — no matter what you call it — is a geniune threat; quit being petty about definitions, Claire!

If you’re saying that, I’ll refer you to Mr. Orwell for discussion on the importance of the meaning of words and the perils of their political abuse.

But if you’re wondering something more along the lines of, “What does all this have to do with guns and gun-rights?” … follow me.

What “terrorist” hysteria has to do with gun rights

There is this abominable piece of legislation that’s been introduced in the U.S. House and Senate repeatedly since at least 2009. Its title is the “Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act” (of 2009, 2011, 2013, etc.). According to the bill’s summary:

Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2013 – Amends the federal criminal code to authorize the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of a firearms or explosives license or permit (or revoke such license or permit) if the Attorney General: (1) determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be engaged in terrorism or has provided material support or resources for terrorism; and (2) has a reasonable belief that the transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism. Allows any individual whose firearms or explosives license application has been denied to bring legal action to challenge the denial.

Extends the prohibition against the sale or distribution of firearms or explosives to include individuals whom the Attorney General has determined to be engaged in terrorist activities. Imposes criminal penalties on individuals engaged in terrorist activities who smuggle or knowingly bring firearms into the United States.

Authorizes the Attorney General to withhold information in firearms and explosives license denial revocation lawsuits and from employers if the Attorney General determines that the disclosure of such information would likely compromise national security.

Click to enlarge

In other words, if this bill ever became law, one unelected official (currently that paragon of honesty, openness, and fairness, Eric Holder) would unilaterally decide who would be “allowed” to own a firearm. The process would be completely arbitrary, based solely on the AG’s subjective “determination,” and the process could be kept secret based on an equally subjective (and unverifiable) claim of “national security.”

Lucky you, though, you’d still have the right to sue after being denied your other constitutional rights. Maybe after five or six years, half a million dollars in legal expenses, and constant denials of needed information in the name of “national security” you might even win.

Fortunately, so far, this “terroristic threat” of a bill has never made it out of committee. At the same time, it’s not just one of those little “hobby horse” bills that certain lone legislators submit over and over and over again without either hope or co-sponsors. Given the right moment — the most handy crisis — this one could eventually pick up and go somewhere. And that would be a very bad thing.

The bill’s authors have never explained the difference between a “dangerous terrorist” and a harmless terrorist. Perhaps it’s the sort of tee shirts they wear. (Dangerous terrorists in red? Harmless terrorists in blue? It’s quite the mystery.) But the authors and co-sponsors are the heavyweights of authoritarian anti-gunnery. They include: Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer (of course) and Sens. Boxer, Gillibrand, Levin, and other usual suspects in the Senate. Signing on to this bill was one of the last legislative acts of Frank Lautenberg before his misspent (but very long and powerful) life ended. In the House, sponsors have included: Charles Rangel, Peter King, Henry Waxman, and others of their ilk.

But okay, maybe this bill will never, ever become law. We can hope. Still, it represents and reflects the very same trend that’s going on at Cowen Road Middle School — crying “terrorism” to justify every overreaction of authority. Not only is the language changing (through political manipulation), but so is the legal landscape of the U.S.

Don’t forget that, according to the FBI businesses should already report you as a suspected “domestic terrorist” if you do such innocuous things as pay with cash, buy MREs, get the same tattoo your friends have, talk about your constitutionally protected rights, or even park in the “wrong” parking space at a hotel or motel.

The Obama administration even cried “terrorism” to cover up a nasty paperwork error.

“Terrorism.” It’s so handy! So convenient!

Don’t think for one minute that this administration — or any other in the future — would hesitate to call all gun owners “terrorists” if it suited their political purposes. Don’t think power-seeking authoritarians would hesitate to declare gun ownership itself a “terroristic threat.” Maybe not this year or next. But when the word “terrorist” can be applied to anyone who challenges power, and that person so labeled can be punished accordingly — then eventually powerful people will use that “wonderful” control tool to fulfill their rapacious aims.

They haven’t succeeded yet, but already there are people in Congress who want to hand exactly that power over to unelected, secretive, gun-hating bureaucrats.

Army Considers Christians, Tea Party, a Terror Threat

by // Oct 23 2013 // 5:27pm


Soldiers attending a pre-deployment briefing at Fort Hood say they were told that evangelical Christians and members of the Tea Party were a threat to the nation and that any soldier donating to those groups would be subjected to punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

A soldier who attended the Oct. 17th briefing told me the counter-intelligence agent in charge of the meeting spent nearly a half hour discussing how evangelical Christians and groups like the American Family Association were “tearing the country apart.”

Michael Berry, an attorney with the Liberty Institute, is advising the soldier and has launched an investigation into the incident.

“The American public should be outraged that the U.S. Army is teaching our troops that evangelical Christians and Tea Party members are enemies of America, and that they can be punished for supporting or participating in those groups,” said Berry, a former Marine Corps JAG officer.

“These statements about evangelicals being domestic enemies are a serious charge.”

The soldier told me he fears reprisals and asked not to be identified. He said there was a blanket statement that donating to any groups that were considered a threat to the military and government was punishable under military regulations.

“My first concern was if I was going to be in trouble going to church,” the evangelical Christian soldier told me. “Can I tithe? Can I donate to Christian charities? What if I donate to a politician who is a part of the Tea Party movement?”

Another soldier who attended the briefing alerted the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty. That individual’s recollections of the briefing matched the soldier who reached out to me.

“I was very shocked and couldn’t believe what I was hearing,” the soldier said. “I felt like my religious liberties, that I risk my life and sacrifice time away from family to fight for, were being taken away.”

And while a large portion of the briefing dealt with the threat evangelicals and the Tea Party pose to the nation, barely a word was said about Islamic extremism, the soldier said.

“Our community is still healing from the act of terrorism brought on by Nidal Hasan – who really is a terrorist,” the soldier said. “This is a slap in the face. “The military is supposed to defend freedom and to classify the vast majority of the military that claim to be Christian as terrorists is sick.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, tells me the Pentagon is pushing anti-Christian propaganda.

“On the very base that was the site of mass murder carried out by a radicalized Muslim soldier, it is astonishing that it is evangelical groups that are being identified as a ‘threat,’” he said. “Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel must immediately intervene to stop this march against the rights and freedom of our soldiers.”

The soldier said they were also told that the pro-life movement is another example of “radicalization.”

“They said that evangelical Christians protesting abortions are the mobilization stage and that leads to the bombing of abortion clinics,” he said, recalling the discussion.

An Army spokesman at the Pentagon tells me they do not maintain or publish a list of organizations considered extremist.

“None of these slides [shown at the briefing] were produced by the Army, but by soldiers who included information found during an Internet search,” the spokesman said.

He said commanders and other leaders were cautioned that they should not use “lists of extremists, hate groups, radical factions or the like compiled by any outside non-governmental groups or organizations for briefings, command presentations, or as a short cut to determining if a group or activity is considered to be extremist.”

Meanwhile, the public affairs office at Fort Hood is denying the soldiers’ allegations.

“The allegations you are asking about were brought to the attention of the Fort Hood leadership immediately and a (sic) inquiry is occurring,” read a statement from Tom Rheinlander, the public affairs director at Fort Hood. “At this time, initial information gathered about the training and what you claim occurred is not substantiated by unit leadership and soldiers present at this training venue.”

I sent the public affairs officer additional questions about the specific content of the briefing but he declined to respond.

But this is not the first time an Army briefing has labeled evangelicals as extremists. Last April an Army Reserve briefing classified Evangelical Christianity and Catholicism as “religious extremism.”

In a letter to Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), Secretary of the Army John McHugh said the briefing in April was an isolated incident and the material used was not sanctioned by the Army.
McHugh said it was a “misguided attempt to explain that extremism is not limited to a single religion.”

Two weeks ago, several dozen active duty troops at Camp Shelby in Mississippi, were told the American Family Association, a well-respected Christian ministry, should be classified as a domestic hate group because it advocates for traditional family values.

Again, the military called it an isolated incident with a trainer using material that was not sanctioned by the military.

That explanation is wearing thin with American Christians.

“How much longer can the Army claim no knowledge or responsibility for these things?” Berry asked.

“These repeated incidents show either that this training was directed from Army leadership at the Pentagon, or else the Army has a real discipline and leadership problem on its hands because a bunch of rogue soldiers are teaching this nonsense.”

The most recent allegations at Fort Hood have drawn sharp rebuke from religious liberty groups around the nation.

“Why is the Army engaged in these anti-Christian training propaganda briefings?” asked Perkins, himself a veteran of the Marine Corps. “The only explanation is that this is a deliberate effort of the Obama administration to intimidate and separate soldiers from Christian groups that they support and that support them.”

Ron Crews, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance, called the military’s behavior dishonorable.

“Far from mere ‘isolated incidents,’ as the Army has dismissed previous occurrences, this latest incident demonstrates a pattern and practice of Army briefings identifying mainstream religions, such as Evangelical Christianity, Judaism, and Catholicism, as examples of ‘religious extremism’ similar to Al Qaeda, Hamas and the Ku Klux Klan,” he told me.

Perkins said it’s time for the Pentagon to “ensure that instructors carry out their role to train our troops to defend our freedom, and not push anti-Christian propaganda.”

All Over America Evangelical Christians Are Being Labeled As “Extremists” And “Hate Groups”

Michael Snyder

American Dream

April 8, 2013

All Over America Evangelical Christians Are Being Labeled As Extremists And Hate GroupsAre evangelical Christians rapidly becoming one of the most hated minorities in America?  Once upon a time such a notion would have been unthinkable, but these days things are changing dramatically.  All over the United States, evangelical Christians are being called “extremists” and evangelical Christian organizations are being labeled as “hate groups”.  In fact, as I will detail later on in this article, a U.S. Army Reserve training presentation recently specifically identified evangelical Christians as “religious extremists”.  This should be extremely chilling for all evangelical Christians out there, because as history has shown us over and over again, when you want to persecute a particular group of people the first step is always to demonize them.  And that is exactly what is being done to evangelical Christians today.  Just look at how evangelical Christians are being portrayed on television and in the movies.  Just look at how much hate is being spewed at Christians on the Internet.  The Southern Poverty Law Center and the ACLU, both of which are considered to be among the most prominent “civil rights” organizations in the United States, are seemingly obsessed with attacking evangelical Christians.  It has become trendy to bash Christians, and that is a very frightening thing.  After they have finished demonizing evangelical Christians, what will the next step be?

A U.S. Army Reserve equal opportunity training presentation entitled “Extremism and Extremist Organizations” actually included “Evangelical Christianity” as an example of “Religious Extremism” in a list that also included al-Qaeda, Hamas and the Ku Klux Klan.  You can find a copy of the entire presentation right here.

Is this how evangelical Christians will be treated in the future?  Will evangelical Christians be treated like members of the Ku Klux Klan or like members of al-Qaeda?

The following is how a Christian Post article described this chilling report…

A U.S. Army Reserve Equal Opportunity training brief describes “Evangelical Christianity” and “Catholicism” as examples of “religious extremism,” according to the Archdiocese for the Military Services and the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, who shared a copy of the documents with The Christian Post.

“The number of hate groups, extremists and anti‐govt organizations in the U.S. has continued to grow over the past three years, according to reports by the Southern Poverty Law Center. They increased to 1,018 in 2011, up from 1,002 in 2010 and 602 in 2000,” reads the first page of the slide presentation labeled “Extremism & Extremist Organizations.”

Listed alongside “extremist” groups and organizations like the Klu Klux Klan and al-Qaida, the U.S. Army slideshow has “Evangelical Christianity” as the first bullet, followed by the Muslim Brotherhood, Ultra-Orthodox Judaism and farther down on the slide, Catholicism.

Posted below is a picture of the slide entitled “Religious Extremism”…

Religious Extremism

Below that slide there is accompanying text that condemns any religion that believes that it is the only “right way” and that believes that other religions are wrong…

Extremism is a complex phenomenon; it is defined as beliefs, attitudes, feelings, actions, or strategies of a character far removed from the “ordinary.” Because “ordinary” is subjective, no religious group would label itself extreme or its doctrine “extremism.” However, religious extremism is not limited to any single religion, ethnic group, or region of the world; every religion has some followers that believe that their beliefs, customs and traditions are the only “right way” and that all others are practicing their faith the “wrong way,” seeing and believing that their faith/religion superior to all others.

Well, that is exactly what evangelical Christians believe.  They believe that the death of Jesus Christ on the cross is the only payment for sin and thus the only way to be reconciled to God.  Unfortunately, this belief is now enough to be labeled as a “religious extremist”.

And sadly this is far from an isolated incident.  Since Barack Obama was first elected, Christians have been demonized in government report after government report.  In a previous article entitled “Patriots And Christians Have Been Repeatedly Labeled As Potential Terrorists Since Obama Became President” I detailed many of these instances.

But of course it is not just the government that is demonizing Christians these days.

Just look at what the reaction on social media has been to the death of the son of Pastor Rick Warren.

A lot of people out there have decided to use the death of his mentally ill son as an opportunity to spew hatred toward Pastor Rick Warren and his faith.  The following are a few examples of this hate that have been posted on Twitter…

@Goatyeah Rick Warren compared Gay 2 mental illness/his son just killed himself 4 mental illness..Is Karma paying a visit 2 the ?

@WagCasey So pastor Rick Warren’s son killed himself? Gee, I wonder what drove him to that?

@BarberaLaPeters @BryanJFischer well after all the dead gay kids Rick Warren is responsible for, I guess one of his is a small price to pay.

@SamirPerez Was @RickWarren‘s son gay? Maybe conversion therapy, condemnation and hatred towards gays was too much for matt…

@War_of_Kings I wonder if Rick Warren’s son was gay and killed himself because of his father’s anti-gay bashing?

@rashid7053 @BlazePhoenix_ I would’ve committed suicide if my dad was Rick Warren too.

@GinsburgJobs @marlenan21 Rick Warren has done terrible damage; my first thought was that his son was gay thats why he did it. Its sad for the boy.

@anyprophet so who else is shocked that rick warren drove his gay son to suicide?

@TheReallyRick Son of Saddleback Church pastor Rick Warren has committed suicide. Place your bets on when its discovered he was gay.

Sadly, those are some of the cleaner examples.  There are many more which include language that is definitely not appropriate for children to read.

So why are evangelical Christians hated so much?  Well, the truth is that they are primarily hated because of what they believe.  Attempts to intimidate evangelical Christians into changing their beliefs continue to become more frightening.  The following are just a few examples…

1 – A student at Florida Atlantic University was recently suspended from class for refusing “to write the word ‘Jesus’ on a piece of paper, fold it up, and step on it.”

2 – A 14-year-old homeschooler in Maryland received multiple death threats after testifying in favor of traditional marriage before the Maryland state senate.

3 – A 14-year-old student at a public school in Texas was suspended from school for saying that he believes that homosexuality is wrong.

4 – A gay activist group that smashed up a church in Oregon says that it hopes that it will “strike fear into the hearts” of Christian leaders…

The group that allegedly smashed up a Portland church hopes its “small act of vengeance will strike fear into the hearts of” Christian leaders who teach traditional sexual morality, according to an e-mail message the group released to the public. A group calling itself “Angry Queers” has claimed responsibility for throwing baseball-sized rocks through nine church windows in Portland’s Mars Hill Church, including two 100-year-old stained glass panes.

5 – A high school teacher in Oregon was recently escorted from his school by police for objecting to the presence of Planned Parenthood in the school.

6 – Some gay activists up in Illinois actually threw concrete brick pavers through the glass doors of one Christian organization in an attempt to intimidate them…

Pro-homosexual activists attacked the Christian Liberty Academy early October 15th – throwing two large, concrete brick pavers through its glass doors with a hate-note attached– and then issued an online statement claiming responsibility for the crime. The attackers demanded that CLA “shut down” a banquet it was hosting later that evening for the “homophobic hate group,” Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH).

7 – All over the country people are being fired from their jobs for expressing their belief in the Biblical view of sexual morality.

8 – Street preachers all over America are being threatened with arrest just for standing on street corners and preaching the gospel.  Here is one recent example from Illinois

“I did pretty much the same thing: I preached about twenty minutes, and I handed out a few tracts,” Johnson explained. “[W]hen I got in my car to leave, … and as I was getting ready to start the car, the police zoomed up and turned on their lights, and told me to get out of the car.”

“They pretty much said the same thing,” he continued. “They said, ‘You’re not supposed to raise your voice or scare anybody and tell people they’re going to die.’ I said, ‘Well, what if that building’s on fire and I raise my voice and tell people if they don’t leave, they’re going to die? Is that wrong?’”

And the Southern Poverty Law Center is very open about who they consider the enemy to be.  The following are just a few prominent evangelical Christian organizations that the SPLC identifies as hate groups

The American Family Association

Concerned Women for America

Coral Ridge Ministries

Family Research Council

Anyone that is familiar with any of those groups knows that they are absolutely not hate groups.  In fact, they are filled with tremendously loving people.  The people that make up organizations such as those are the backbone of America.

But these days there are many liberal organizations that will label anyone that does not agree with them as a “hate group” at the drop of a hat.

In another report entitled “The Year in Hate and Extremism“, the Southern Poverty Law Center mentions the following individuals and groups…

Rand Paul

Chuck Baldwin



Judicial Watch

The Oath Keepers

The truth, of course, is that all of those individuals and organizations are deeply patriotic and are trying to turn America around.  It is the SPLC that is the one that is filled with hate, and they clearly have a very deep hatred for anyone that does not agree with them.

Sadly, what is happening to evangelical Christians in America is just part of a larger trend that is happening all over the globe.  The following is from a recent Reuters article

About 100 million Christians are persecuted around the world, with conditions worsening for them most rapidly in Syria and Ethiopia, according to an annual report by a group supporting oppressed Christians worldwide.

Open Doors, a non-denominational Christian group, listed North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan as the three toughest countries for Christians last year. They topped the 50-country ranking for 2011 as well.

Persecution of Christians is on the rise, and it is probably only going to get worse in the years ahead.

Remember what happened in Nazi Germany.  There was a long program of demonization against the groups that the Nazis hated before they ever started to round them up and take them off to camps.

In the end, those that are now demonizing evangelical Christians will not just be satisfied with calling them names.  They ultimately want much more, and what we are witnessing now is just the warm-up act.

“Extremism and Extremist Organizations” Original source


Army Reserve presentation calls Christians ‘extremists’

Army Labeled Evangelicals as Religious Extremists

Police teach tactics for handling ‘sovereign citizens’

Feds Identify 100,000 to 300,000 Americans as Terrorists

Afghan President Karzai in TV address claims the US is working with the Taliban to destabilize Afghanistan

Updated March 11, 2013, 1:22 p.m. ET


Wall Street Journal Online

KABUL—America’s fraught ties with Afghanistan suffered a jarring blow Sunday, when Afghan President Hamid Karzai said during a visit by the new U.S. defense secretary that the Taliban were killing Afghan civilians “in service to America.”

The remarks, in a televised speech hours before Mr. Karzai’s meeting with U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, capped a series of confrontations between the Afghan president and the U.S. over his demands to assert Afghan sovereignty and curtail American military operations.

Mr. Karzai met Mr. Hagel a day after suspected Taliban suicide bombers killed at least 18 people at the Ministry of Defense in Kabul and in the eastern province of Khost.

In his address, Mr. Karzai said the U.S. doesn’t want to leave the country after the NATO coalition’s mandate expires at the end of 2014 because it covets Afghan resources and is talking with Taliban leaders behind his back.

“Taliban are every day in talks with America, but in Kabul and Khost they set off bombs to show strength to America,” Mr. Karzai said. “The bombs that went off in Kabul and Khost yesterday were not a show of power to America, but were in service to America…It was in the service of foreigners not withdrawing from Afghanistan.”

U.S. Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, who took command of coalition forces last month, called Mr. Karzai’s charges “categorically false.”

“We have fought too hard over the past 12 years, we have shed too much blood over the last 12 years, we have done too much to help the Afghan security forces grow over the last 12 years to ever think that violence or instability would ever be to our advantage,” he said.

Mr. Karzai’s remarks blindsided American officials who had hoped to use Mr. Hagel’s two-day visit, his first overseas trip as defense secretary, to shore up fragile relations with the Afghan president as the U.S. ends its longest foreign war.

Though most of the 66,000 U.S. troops now in Afghanistan are slated to go home next year, the U.S. hopes to leave behind an advisory and counterterrorism force that would support the Afghan government after 2014.


European Pressphoto AgencyAfghan President Hamid Karzai said in a speech Sunday recent Taliban attacks were ‘in service to America.’

American defense officials now have to assess how much damage Mr. Karzai’s allegations will have on their plans, already threatened by discord over whether to grant immunity from prosecution to U.S. troops and by the Afghan leader’s refusal to negotiate with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The war against the Taliban has claimed the lives of 2,179 American service members since 2001, says the casualty tracking website icasualties.org. While the U.S. has held talks with the Taliban in the past, contacts were stalled by the Taliban’s refusal to negotiate directly with Kabul.

Mr. Karzai’s speech on Sunday sparked some frank exchanges during Mr. Karzai’s dinner at the presidential palace with Mr. Hagel, Gen. Dunford and other officials from both nations, U.S. officials said. Mr. Hagel “struck the right balance between expressing support for Afghanistan and strongly pushing back on wildly inaccurate claims,” one U.S. official said.

After the dinner, Mr. Hagel offered a muted public response to Mr. Karzai’s comments that came in contrast to the forceful defense from Gen. Dunford. “I told the president it was not true that the United States was unilaterally working with the Taliban,” Mr. Hagel told reporters.

The defense secretary suggested that the Afghan president might have been baiting America to cultivate support from anti-Western forces in the politically fractured country. Mr. Karzai’s term expires next year, and the field of potential successors is wide open, ranging from his brother and other allies to bitter political foes. “I was once a politician, so I can understand the kind of pressures that especially leaders of countries are always under, so I would hope that, again, we can move forward—and I have confidence that we will,” Mr. Hagel said.

The Afghan president’s spokesman, Aimal Faizi, said the Afghan leader used the occasion to complain about civilian casualties of U.S. operations and the detentions of Afghan citizens.

In particular, Mr. Faizi said, Mr. Karzai raised the issue of an engineering student who, he said, had been seized illegally at Kandahar University by an Afghan militia working for the Central Intelligence Agency. Mr. Karzai mentioned in his speech that he was up until as late as midnight on Saturday to win the student’s release; on Sunday, he issued a decree banning foreign forces from entering universities and detaining Afghan students.

The CIA declined to comment on the matter.

“Such incidents, if they continue, are a clear breach of Afghan national sovereignty, and will create anger among the people,” Mr. Faizi said. “Any kind of bilateral relations should be based on respect of sovereignty of the two nations.”

Mr. Karzai gained power following the U.S. ouster of the Taliban regime in 2001, and initially enjoyed close ties with the U.S., holding weekly videoconference calls with President George W. Bush.

These relations deteriorated during the 2009 Afghan presidential elections, after which Mr. Karzai accused some Obama administration officials of scheming to oust him.

In previous statements, Mr. Karzai also alleged that the U.S. was secretly flying insurgents into northern Afghanistan in helicopters, as part of a plan to destabilize the country, and once even threatened to join the Taliban himself.

Mr. Karzai and Mr. Hagel have a strained personal history. In 2008, Mr. Hagel joined fellow Senators Joe Biden and John Kerry for a turbulent dinner in which they pressed the Afghan president to seriously tackle corruption in his government. When Mr. Karzai dismissed the concerns as unfounded, Mr. Biden stormed out of the meeting, throwing down his napkin.

Mr. Hagel’s restrained comments on the Afghan president Sunday suggested that U.S. leaders recognize that they need Mr. Karzai’s cooperation to complete the withdrawal of U.S. troops and equipment. Military analysts said Mr. Karzai might be trying to challenge Mr. Hagel, who has orders from President Barack Obama to quickly end the war.

“President Karzai has a history of testing new [coalition] commanders to see what the response is to his demands,” said Kimberly Kagan, founder of the Institute for the Study of War who has consulted with the U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan.

U.S. officials have envisaged that NATO allies would make up a large part of the residual force after 2014. Mr. Karzai, however, on Sunday reiterated his opposition to any deal with NATO as a whole, saying nations wanting to keep troops here would need to negotiate directly with Kabul.

“If you want to stay beyond 2014, all of you separately need to sign agreements with the Afghan people,” Mr. Karzai said Sunday. “Limited numbers, in a location we chose and under our conditions and framework, with respect for our laws, our sovereignty, our traditions and culture.”

Few, if any, Western allies would consider contributing troops outside the NATO framework, diplomats say. “They want us out, that is for sure,” a Western official said. “They feel that we are part of the problem.”

Despite these tensions, Gen. Dunford defended U.S.-Afghan relations, especially between military leaders of the two countries, as dynamic partnerships that can be the “shock absorbers” through turbulent times. “We don’t have a broken relationship,” he said. “We don’t have a lack of trust. We have a relationship that can actually absorb this tension as we work through difficult issues.”

But Mr. Karzai’s Sunday speech was only one such shock to the relationship. It followed the U.S.’s abrupt cancellation of its planned handover of the main U.S. detention facility at Bagram Air Field, and Mr. Karzai’s demand that U.S. Special Operations forces leave the strategic province of Wardak near Kabul.

Following Mr. Karzai’s speech, Mr. Hagel also canceled a planned joint news conference with the Afghan leader at the presidential palace. U.S. officials said this was because of security concerns that rippled across Kabul in the wake of Saturday’s bombings.

U.S. bases in the capital were on heightened alert. Mr. Hagel previously canceled scheduled visits to the Ministry of Defense—site of Saturday’s Kabul bombing—and the Interior Ministry. Instead, he met with the two ministers at alternative locations in the city.

—Habib Khan Totakhil, Julian E. Barnes and Siobhan Gorman contributed to this article.



Afghan Leader Alleges U.S., Taliban Colluding

Afghan President Karzai Claims U.S. Colluding With Taliban Terrorists


Former White House Press secretary Gibbs admits he was told to lie

The Nature and Direction of the “War on Terror”

The Nature and Direction of the “War on Terror”

By Rocco J. Piserchia

Originally posted on January 13, 2012

The entire premise of the “War on Terror” must be rejected.  First and foremost it’s illegal and therefore illegitimate.  Article I Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress has the legal authority to declare war.  Any war that’s undertaken without a declaration of war by Congress is illegal.  This illegal practice of an executive or presidential war has characterized all US wars after World War II.  President Eisenhower committed the US to the Korean War under the authority of the United Nations, not Congress.

Of course it’s absurd to maintain that the “War on Terror” could be legally declared by Congress since it’s impossible to legally declare war on an ideology or, as Ron Paul has stated, a tactic.  Terrorism defined as either as ideology or tactic can not be vanquished by an illegal declaration of war.  (In order to win the “War on Terror” would all references to the words “terror” and “terrorism” need to be removed from every dictionary?) The “War on Terror” is open ended, i.e., no one can proclaim when it will end and what the objectives are. It’s been used as a pretext for illegal wars against Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Libya.  (The US military has routinely used air drones on targets in Pakistan which is an act of war.)

If you think the war in Afghanistan was justified it was still illegal in that Congress never declared war against Afghanistan. US forces continue to be deployed and engaged in Afghanistan after 10 years yet our nation managed to end World War II within 4 and a half years. Illegal wars often have no clear objectives and therefore may be used as pretext to indefinitely continue hostilities.  Another terrible result of illegal wars is that no clear resolution is ever achieved, i.e., “winning” is elusive if not impossible. When the objectives of a military invasion are intentionally ambiguous the results are also ambiguous.

The fact that the “War on Terror” is ambiguous is intentional.  By claiming that our nation is at war the federal government continues to exercise carte blanche to incrementally nullify the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. All of the unconstitutional executive orders and legislation that began during the Bush administration have been accepted and expanded under the Obama administration. Understanding the illegal and irrational nature of the “War on Terror” helps expose the two party system as a sham. It’s naïve to claim that the Republican Party is to the right of the Democratic Party when the Obama administration has advanced the “War on Terror”. The inherently bogus conflict between the Right and the Left is also evident in that both parties in Congress have passed legislation related to the “War on Terror”.

The Patriot Act was passed shortly after the terrorist attacks on 9/11/01.  The Patriot Act was largely written by John Yoo, an attorney with the Department of Justice under President George W. Bush.  Congress was told to pass the Patriot Act even though they had no time to even read, much less understand, the content of it.  Among its provisions we find that any misdemeanor is classified as an act of terrorism:


(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended–

(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping’ and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping’;

(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and’;

(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and’; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

`(5) the term `domestic terrorism’ means activities that–

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

After the Patriot Act other legislation has been passed by Congress including the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 and the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007.  Central to the mythology of the “War on Terror” is the fluid definition of what constitutes Terror and therefore who may be classified legally as a Terrorist. The Department of Defense (DoD) has trained employees that protest is a low level expression of terrorism. “A multiple choice question included on a Level 1 Antiterrorism Awareness training course required for all DoD personnel asks the following question: “Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorist activity?” The correct answer is “protests.”[1]

The Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) published a report dated 02/20/09, MIAC Strategic Report: The Modern Militia Movement. “According to the MIAC report, if you oppose any of the following, you could qualify for being profiled as a potential dangerous “militia member”:

The United Nations

The New World Order

Gun Control

The violation of Posse Comitatus

The Federal Reserve

The Income Tax

The Ammunition and Accountability Act

A possible Constitutional Convention

The North American Union

Universal Service Program

Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)


Illegal Immigration” [2]

In March of 2009 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a Domestic Extremism Lexicon. “This product provides definitions for key terms and phrases that often appear in DHS analysis that addresses the nature and scope of the threat that domestic, non-Islamic extremism poses to the United States.”[3] In this training document the following terms are listed: alternative media, antiabortion extremism, anti-immigration extremism, direct action (defined as “Lawful or unlawful acts of civil disobedience”), and patriot movement (“also: Christian patriots, patriot group, Constitutionalists, Constitutionist”)[4]

President G.W. Bush claimed that he had the authority to declare any US citizen an “enemy combatant” and that any one so classified could be detained indefinitely without a trial by the military.[5]  President Obama continued to claim this dictatorial power and his administration even claimed to have the authority to execute US citizens living abroad merely suspected of terrorism.[6]  It was also disclosed that the Obama administration has a list of US citizens who are targeted for assassination. [7] In September of 2011 President Obama proudly announced that two US citizens, Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, were executed by US air strikes in Yemen. [8] “”This is further proof that al Qaeda and its affiliates will find no safe haven anywhere in the world,” Mr. Obama said. “Working with Yemen and our other allies and partners, we will be determined, we will be deliberate, we will be relentless, we will be resolute in our commitment to destroy terrorist networks that aim to kill Americans, and to build a world in which people everywhere can live in greater peace, prosperity and security.” [9]  President Obama’s remarks are Orwellian – the US can execute anyone in the world including US citizens without due process or any disclosure of evidence and this somehow helps “to build a world in which people everywhere can live in greater peace, prosperity and security.”

The World is a Battlefield

The logical outcome of the “War on Terror” is that the entire world is to be considered a battlefield and therefore anyone accused of terrorism, including US citizens in the USA, are viable targets for indefinite military detention or even execution. The fabricated threat of terrorism is so great there’s no longer the necessity of due process and a jury trial.  This treasonous position was defended by President Obama.[10]  “In outlining its legal reasoning, the administration has cited broad congressional authorizations and presidential approvals, the international laws of war and the right to self-defense. But it has not offered the American public, uneasy allies or international authorities any specifics that would make it possible to judge how it is applying those laws.” [11] “It is dangerous in a climate where you can be labeled as or suspected of being a terrorist simply for questioning war, protesting anything, asking questions about pollution or about Wall Street shenanigans, supporting Ron Paul, being a libertarian, holding gold, or stocking up on more than 7 days of food. [And the FBI says that activists who investigate factory farms can be prosecuted as terrorists.] And see this.”[12]

The position that US citizens may be indefinitely detained without due process by the military has now been legislated in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) by Congress.[13]  Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) looks and sounds crazed when he proclaims on the Senate floor that anyone who requests a lawyer will be told to shut up:

In context Senator Graham said,

“Is the homeland the battlefield? You better believe it’s the battlefield!… Why would we say that if you’re in Afghanistan, we can blow you up and put you in jail forever, [snip] but if you can make it to America, you’re home free? You can’t be interrogated by our military, or CIA; you get a lawyer and that’s the end of discussion? That’s what you would be doing! That’s crazy! … It is not unfair to… hold American citizens as long as it takes to find intelligence [snip]. When they say, “I want my lawyer”, you tell them, “Shut up! You don’t get a lawyer. You’re an enemy combatant.”[14]

Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) described what he wants a person accused of terrorism to experience:

“I want that person to be terrified about what’s going to happen to them in American custody. I want them not to know what’s going to happen. I want the terror that they inflict on others to be felt by them as a result of the uncertainty of not knowing … what our interrogators are going to be limited to.” [15]

Senator Lieberman stressed that the greatest threat to the “homeland” are homegrown terrorists who are radicalized Americans.[16]

Senator Lieberman openly rejects the 8th Amendment,

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Senator Lieberman is at least consistent – he has no reason to support the 8th Amendment since he openly rejects the authority of the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments:

Amendment IV – The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V- No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI – In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. (Article III Section III also specifically guarantees a jury trial to any citizen accused of treason.)


The “War on Terror” is a massive and growing hoax.[17] This war is against the American populace and it continues to metastasize as the Constitution is methodically eviscerated and our country is being transitioned into martial law. The entire post 9/11 domestic security apparatus was designed to help erect a police state- the aim was never foreign terrorists.  If the “War on Terror” was valid the border with Mexico would have been secured shortly after 9/11/01. Under both the Republican Bush and Democratic Obama administrations the border with Mexico remains unsecured. However the TSA, as part of DHS, is being expanded beyond airports to rail stations, subways and other points of mass transit.[18] Regardless of presidential executive orders, court decisions or Congressional legislation, no laws that contradict the Constitution are legitimate.  “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void.” (Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison).

Our Founding Fathers keenly understood liberty as well as tyranny. “They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” (Benjamin Franklin).[19] “He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself” (Thomas Paine).[20] “I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the rights of the people by the gradual & silent encroachments of those in power than by violent & sudden usurpations.” (James Madison).[21] “If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify” (Alexander Hamilton).[22]  May God grant us the wisdom to understand the gravity of our situation and the courage to help restore the Republic.


[1] “Pentagon Multiple Choice: Dissenting Americans are Terrorists” by Kurt Nimmo

http://www.infowars.com/pentagon-multiple-choice-dissenting-americans-are-terrorists/ June 15, 2009

[2] “MY RESPONSE TO M.I.A.C. REPORT”  by Chuck Baldwin; March 24, 2009


[3] Domestic Extremism Lexicon;  26 March 2009; (U) Prepared by the Strategic Analysis Group and the Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division.

[4] Ibid

[5] “Enemy Combatants” by William Haynes; December 12, 2002; Council on Foreign Relations


[6] “ ‘Permission’ needed to kill U.S. terrorists” by Eli Lake; Thursday, February 4, 2010


[7] “How many Americans are targeted for assassination?” by Glenn Greenwald

Friday, Jun 25, 2010 http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/25/assassinations/index.html

[8] “Al Qaeda’s Anwar al-Awlaki killed in Yemen” September 30, 2011 5:02 AM


[9] Ibid

[10] Top Legal Expert: “President Obama … Says That He Can Kill [Any American Citizen Without Any Charge and] On His Own Discretion. He Can Jail You Indefinitely On His Own Discretion” Posted on December 21, 2011


[11] Ibid

[12] Ibid

[13] “Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial” by Chris McGreal

Wednesday 14 December 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/15/americans-face-guantanamo-detention-obama

[14] “Lindsey Graham: Want a lawyer? Shut Up.” by Jennifer Briney; Dec 1, 2011


[15] S. 1867 (NDAA): Secret Torture Provisions For Home Grown Terrorists  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0wpAcovRFk

[16] Ibid at 4:04; Sen. John McCain admitted that US citizens are subject to indefinite military detention without due process when questioned by Sen. Rand Paul. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXbwmqq-6Y4&feature=related

[17] “The War on Terror is a Hoax” by Paul Craig Roberts; February 4, 2009

http://www.infowars.com/the-war-on-terror-is-a-hoax/  and

“Neocons Admit that “War On Terror” Is a Hoax”; Wednesday, May 7, 2008


[18] “TSA screenings aren’t just for airports anymore” by Brian Bennett; December 20, 2011 http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-terror-checkpoints-20111220,0,3213641.story

[19] The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Sparks, ed., vol. 3 (107) 1759 [date of quote]

[20] 1791 [date of quote] Dissertation on First Principles of Government

[21] 1788 [date of quote] Virginia Convention

[22] 1788 [date of quote] Federalist No. 33