Labeling patriots a threat to national security
may be the end game for civilian disarmament
David Risselada

Last week, at the height of the border crisis fiasco, the FBI arrested a Tennessee man for coordinating with several militia groups to go to the border and, to use his words, “get to work.” Paul Faye told the FBI he believed the government was planning to wage a war against its citizens and that he was hoping to unleash the hornet’s nest. He also revealed to the FBI that he intended to transport explosive munitions to the border to be used against government agents and illegal immigrants. It sounds like a perfect opportunity to charge him under the nation’s anti-terrorism laws. Yet, despite these intentions to start the next American revolution, Faye was only charged with selling an unregistered NFA item to an undercover agent.

Paul Faye

You would think that transporting deadly explosives would produce more serious charges, but no. He sold an unregistered silencer to the agent, and that is what they charged him with. Why? Because that is the only thing that would stick. There was no proof of anything else, aside from Faye’s words, which, except for any direct threats to kill, are protected by the First Amendment. The government has been working overtime to create the perception that America’s “patriot movement” comprises dangerous white supremacists who are the nation’s biggest terrorist threat.

Any American, according to the document, Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment, who opposes illegal immigration, opposes homosexual marriage, supports the Second Amendment, or thinks taxation is theft is a potential threat to national security. This arrest just happened to take place at the same time an anti-militia training bill was getting attention in Congress. Imagine that.

The citizen militia caught the FBI’s attention in the late 80s and early 90s. According to a national security policy paper by The New American Foundation, entitled PATCON: The FBI’s Secret War against the patriot movement, and How Infiltration Tactics Relate to Radicalizing Influences, the FBI labeled all militia groups as racist, white supremacists and used the term “patriot” in reference to them. The belief then was the same as it is now. Militia groups were organizing because they believed the government was planning a hostile takeover of the country, stripping us of our rights, and merging us with a one-world global government. Hard to believe. In response, the FBI, operating under a program similar to COINTELPRO (counterintelligence operations), created a group of its own in 1991 called The Veterans Aryan Movement to infiltrate and investigate the possibility that these groups may commit acts of violence. There are some interesting correlations to be made here.

First, after two years of investigations into various groups across the country, nothing of any substantial weight was ever uncovered that went beyond mere First Amendment implications. Second, many of the speeches given by militia group leaders were taken wildly out of context by the FBI, giving the impression there was a call to arms to overthrow the government. According to the report, this led to the justification of further investigations and new infiltration tactics. Paranoia spread that the FBI was attempting to lure militia members into committing acts of violence through the use of agent provocateurs. They wouldn’t do that, would they?

According to Peter Aldous of Buzzfeed News, the FBI once recruited a man named Shahed Hussain, who was acting as an informant, to entice four others who shared views in line with radical Islam to bomb two synagogues in New York City. Even the judge in this case noted that the individuals involved would not have been able to commit such an act if not provided the materials and the know-how by the FBI.

A few years ago in Oklahoma City, the FBI enticed a young man, known to cling to the three percenter ideology, to bomb a local bank. He was provided with the necessary materials and believed he was driving real bombs to the location in question. The only problem was that the parents told the media, after all was said and done, that the FBI knew the individual was schizophrenic and had been deemed incompetent by a court of law. He was living at home with his parents, and had he not been provided with the materials to carry out the deed, he would have never conceived of it. Let’s not forget about the time during the Oregon mining standoff when the FBI posed as local militia members and staged a break-in of the local armory to make the militia that was present look radical.

These are just a few examples, but they bring into question the validity of the claim that Paul Faye was coordinating a massive militia action at the border. The only thing he was charged with was selling an unregistered NFA item. If there was any real possibility he had explosives, given the evidence in the previous examples, they would have possibly coaxed him along further.

Many Americans believe this type of activity, commonly known as entrapment, to be illegal. U.S. Code 645-Entrapment, however, states that an individual’s willingness to participate in an activity that an undercover agent may be coaxing them into committing may be considered a predisposition to engaging in that type of crime. In other words, entrapment isn’t illegal if the individual in question belongs to a group that law enforcement believes, may cling to an ideology that may be capable of committing the type of crime they are being set up to commit.

Let’s look at the young man from Oklahoma City for a moment. He identified with the three percent ideology. The Three Percenters are a group of patriots organized across the country, taking their name from the fact that during the Revolutionary War, only three percent of the people agreed with the cause. They have been deemed a potential threat to national security because of their belief that the government wants to eliminate the Second Amendment. At this point, can that even be questioned? Because of this ideation with the Three Percenters group, the FBI was justified in coaxing him into committing an act of terror because the group he identifies with has been labeled a potential terror threat. The same is true with the Shahed Hussain story. The individuals in question held views that were deemed to be threatening, but there was no proof of anything being planned. Under USC 645, however, it is the ideology that makes them likely to commit the crime.

Slowly but surely, the perception of terrorism has been shifting from Islamic radicalism to so-called right-wing extremism. When Obama was president, there was a concerted effort to strip any mention of Islamic terrorism from law-enforcement training manuals. If the FBI was engaging in fake sting operations, where they were deliberately coaxing people into committing acts of terror, then it would be reasonable to do that on some level. In its absence, however, the threat of the right-winger took its place. Nearly half the country now believes that conservative Americans are the nation’s biggest threat and that we are just sitting on the edge, waiting for the next civil war to start.

One of the key points of the New American Foundation Paper was that an increase in surveillance and infiltration activity led to an increase in paranoia and mistrust of the government. People are concerned that our government is stripping us of our rights while pushing us towards a global government. To turn around and call us threats to national security isn’t going to make the problem any better; it is only going to exacerbate it and reinforce that belief. How does the United States government handle perceived threats to national security? Look at the events of WACO and Ruby Ridge as an example.

There are serious questions to consider.

This June, SCOTUS is expected to rule on a Second Amendment case that will dictate how that nation’s dangerousness laws can be used to disarm groups of people considered to be a threat to the social order. The case revolves around the use of domestic restraining orders as the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled them unconstitutional under the Bruen V. NYSRPA standards. There are very few gun restrictions going back to the founding era; however, there is a legal precedent for disarming groups that were deemed threatening. One such group of people is cited as “those disaffected by the American Cause.”

Is it possible, with all of the rhetoric geared towards the patriot movement and the alleged threat they pose to national security, that the objective is to label them a threat to the social order, laying the legal groundwork for civilian disarmament? That may be a bit of a leap, but there is clearly an end game here. Why else would they be so intent on calling us terrorists while ignoring real threats that are crossing the border? Maybe they figured they could give away a few thousand-dollar gift cards, and that would make the real terrorists love us. We are, after all, dealing with a bunch of liberal dingalings.

  

David Risselada is a writer focusing on the psychological process of propaganda and how it affects the perceptions of all Americans. David is a graduate of Liberty University’s Master of Professional Writing Program and holds a Bachelor of Social Work from Oklahoma’s Northeastern State University, where he was told he wasn’t fit for the field because of his opposition to the social justice agenda. He also focuses on the Second Amendment, Critical Race Theory, and behavioral sciences. David is the author of two books ̶ Without a Shot Indeed: Inducing Compliance to Tyranny Through Conditioning and Persuasion, and A Critical Look at CRT In Education, Research, and Social Policy. Since 2012, David has contributed to several websites, including Sons of Liberty Media, The Liberty Loft, Global Liberty Media, Natural News and The Western Free Press. David has also appeared on Sons of Liberty Radio, Spouting off With Karen Kataline and Gun Owners of America Radio with Larry Pratt.

 

www.americaoutloud.news