List of 72 Types of Americans that could be Domestic Terrorists According to the Government

List of 72 Types of Americans that could be Domestic Terrorists According to the Government

Do you wave a “Don’t Tread on Me” flag in your front yard or attend church on Sunday? Well the government has a new classification for you that lines you right up with the Al Qaeda. You’re now considered a domestic terrorist. If you made this list, congratulations, you are everything the government is worried about: (adsbygoogle=window.adsbygoogle||[]).push({}); 1. Those that talk about “individual liberties” 2. Those that advocate for states’ rights 3. Those that want “to make the world a better place” 4. “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule” 5. Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists” 6. Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation areseparate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations” 7. Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable” 8. Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions” 9. Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of theenvironment and/or animals” 10. “Anti-Gay” 11. “Anti-Immigrant” 12. “Anti-Muslim” 13. “The Patriot Movement” 14. “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians” 15. Members of the Family Research Council 16. Members of the American Family Association 17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union’” 18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol 19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform 20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition 21. Members of the Christian Action Network 22. Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order” 23. Anyone that is engaged in “conspiracy theorizing” 24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21 25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps 26. Anyone that “fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations” 27. The militia movement 28. The sovereign citizen movement 29. Those that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes” 30. Anyone that “complains about bias” 31. Anyone that “believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia” 32. Anyone that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies” 33. Anyone that “visits extremist websites/blogs” 34. Anyone that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views” 35. Anyone that “attends rallies for extremist causes” 36. Anyone that “exhibits extreme religious intolerance” 37. Anyone that “is personally connected with a grievance” 38. Anyone that “suddenly acquires weapons” 39. Anyone that “organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology” 40. “Militia or unorganized militia” 41. “General right-wing extremist” 42. Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N. 43. Those that refer to an “Army of God” 44. Those that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)” 45. Those that are “anti-global” 46. Those that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority” 47. Those that are “reverent of individual liberty” 48. Those that “believe in conspiracy theories” 49. Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack” 50. Those that possess “a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism” 51. Those that would “impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)” 52. Those that would “insert religion into the political sphere” 53. Anyone that would “seek to politicize religion” 54. Those that have “supported political movements for autonomy” 55. Anyone that is “anti-abortion” 56. Anyone that is “anti-Catholic” 57. Anyone that is “anti-nuclear” 58. “Rightwing extremists” 59. “Returning veterans” 60. Those concerned about “illegal immigration” 61. Those that “believe in the right to bear arms” 62. Anyone that is engaged in “ammunition stockpiling” 63. Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes” 64. “Anti-abortion activists” 65. Those that are against illegal immigration 66. Those that talk about “the New World Order” in a “derogatory” manner 67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations 68. Those that are opposed “to the collection of federal income taxes” 69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr 70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”) 71. Those that believe in “end times” prophecies 72. Evangelical Christians – See more at: http://viralsurvival.com/2014/02/27/american-domestic-terrorists-list/#sthash.8Gp3LUBP.dpuf

‘Hands off’ list? Senator questions whether DHS allowing those with terror ties into US

'Hands off' list? Senator questions whether DHS allowing those with terror ties into US

The Department of Homeland Security is facing questions about a so-called “hands off” list which, according to one senator, might allow people with terror ties to enter the U.S.

Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, flagged the issue after obtaining an internal email exchange which discussed an airline passenger with apparent ties to Middle East terror groups.

The May 2012 exchange between Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection focused on whether to admit the person — who had a scheduled flight into the U.S. and allegedly was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and a “close associate” of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The email also states the person had been the subject of advance screenings — known as secondary inspections — several dozen times in the past several years but not since 2010.

A response email states that a Customs and Border Protection National Targeting Center watch commander said the person had twice sued the federal government, he’s “one of the several hands off passengers nationwide” and the DHS secretary is personally involved in the matter. The email also states the person was removed from the watchlist in December 2010.

“I am puzzled how someone could be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, indicted as a co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trail … say that the U.S. is staging car bombings in Iraq … and be afforded the luxury of a visitor visa and de-watchlisted,” the email said.

Grassley on Tuesday released the emails — which he calls “disturbing” — after starting an inquiry in February into the situation.

CBP Commissioner R. Gil Kerlikowske responded to Grassley’s concerns in a letter last month in which he gave only “general information” on screening procedures. However, he offered to hold a more detailed briefing on the particular case “in the appropriate setting.”

Kerlikowske also directed all questions about the terror watchlist to the Justice Department.

Among the questions raised by the senator, in a separate letter to DHS Secretary Jeh Johson, is why the individual referenced in the 2012 emails was removed from the watchlist.

Grassley spokeswoman Beth Levine said Wednesday the senator is taking a wait-and-see approach on the Obama administration’s offer to hold a briefing.

“The senator hopes for appropriate answers to his questions,” she said.

DHS did not respond to further questions about the alleged incident or the briefing.

We Sure Hope John McCain Was Sitting Down When He Got This News…

We Sure Hope John McCain Was Sitting Down When He Got This News...

“It’s easy for me to go to Washington and, frankly, be somewhat divorced from the day-to-day challenges people have.”

Those words were spoken by Senator John McCain on September 11, 2008… and now it appears they may finally be hitting home for his long-suffering constituents. In fact, courtesy of Citizens United, we have a poll to prove it.

Kellyanne Conway, who conducted the poll and analyzed the results, says that “GOP primary voters actually prefer three very different Republicans to McCain on the ballot. In Arizona, only 29.3% of ‘likely 2016 Republican primary voters’ agreed [that] McCain deserved re-election, while 64.2% agreed that ‘it’s time to give a new person a chance to do the job.’ The other 6.5% did not know.”

Time for the Changing of the Guard?

Senator John McCain is easily the conservative movement’s least favorite senator, not just because he has the most liberal voting record, but because he fancies himself a deal maker. He’s the guy who likes to strike big political bargains; and at times, he rescues flailing liberals with his antics.

Conservatives also don’t like dealing with McCain’s compelling biography. You see, John McCain is a certified war hero. Born into a Navy family, he started down his career path early by attending the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. Then, after being shot down over Vietnam during his 23rd bombing mission, he spent much of the Vietnam War as a prisoner in the infamous Hanoi Hilton.

In 1981, McCain left the Navy and went to Arizona to run for political office. In 1982, he was elected to the U.S. Congress. In 1986, he was promoted by his constituents to the U.S. Senate. Finally, in 2008, he had the honor of being the Republican nominee for president. Of course, as we all know from history, Barack Obama toasted him in the election.

Yet in spite of his presidential setbacks and advancing age – McCain is nearing 80 years old – he’s preparing to run for re-election to the U.S. Senate in 2016.

The long-serving senator recently gave an extended interview with Phoenix’s daily newspaper, The Arizona Republic, in which he acknowledged that many voters would like for him to retire. The fact is, voters are tired of him after more than 30 years of service. But when questioned about potential Republican primary opponents, McCain said emphatically, “You know me: A fight not joined is a fight not enjoyed… I know that I will be very well prepared.”

Indeed, it’s unusual for a senator to be making such aggressive moves this far ahead of a possible campaign; and McCain’s rotten poll numbers are likely the reason. That said, McCain still has plenty of resources at his disposal. He recently held a fundraiser at the swanky Phoenix Ritz-Carlton, near Camelback Mountain; and the guest list reads like a “Who’s Who” of Arizona.

The list included current Governor Jan Brewer, Senator Jeff Flake, former Senator Jon Kyl, former Vice President Dan Quayle, former Governor Fife Symington, Phoenix City Councilman Jim Waring, former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods, Arizona Diamondbacks owner Ken Kendrick, and Phoenix Suns owner Robert Sarver.

McCain may be an underdog for the first time in 30 years; but any challenger needs to understand that, even in old age, McCain is a formidable campaigner. In the senator’s own words, “Bring it on.”

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/sure-hope-john-mccain-sitting-got-news/#LesC3BAXKQa52mGh.99

German parliament defies Merkel, will hear testimony from Snowden

The USA Freedom Act, which is designed to reform the National Security Agency, will proceed out of committee and be debated by the full House of Representatives. Drafted by the House Judiciary Committee, the bill won unanimous approval by the committee’s members, beating out a less stringent bill from the House Intelligence Committee. This news comes on the heels of an announcement that the German parliament will hear testimony directly from NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. While German Chancellor Angela Merkel tried to stop the move, opposition parties have pushed-back forcefully in their effort to hear from Snowden. RT’s Lindsay France has more details on these NSA related developments.

Ted Cruz Releases List of Obama Lawless Actions

Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has released a list of “lawless” actions by the Obama administration. Heritage legal experts Elizabeth Slattery and Andrew Kloster have also been following this closely and issued a report earlier this year. Here are seven of the most egregious examples of the administration’s overreach.

1. Delaying Obamacare’s employer mandate

The administration announced that Obamacare won’t be implemented as it was passed, so employers with 50 or more employees don’t have to provide the mandated health coverage for at least another year (and longer if they play their cards right). Slattery and Kloster observe that “The law does not authorize the president to push back the employer mandate’s effective date.”

2. Giving Congress and their staffs special taxpayer-funded subsidies for Obamacare

It was uncomfortable for members of Congress when they realized that, through Obamacare, they had kicked themselves and their staffs out of the taxpayer-funded subsidies they were enjoying for health coverage. But the administration said no problem and gave them new subsidies. In this case, “the administration opted to stretch the law to save Obamacare—at the taxpayers’ expense.”

3. Trying to fulfill the “If you like your plan, you can keep it” promise—after it was broken

When Americans started getting cancellation notices from their insurance companies because Obamacare’s new rules were kicking in, the president’s broken promise was exposed. He tried to fix things by telling insurance companies to go back to old plans that don’t comply with Obamacare—just for one year. Slattery and Kloster note that “The letter announcing this non-enforcement has no basis in law.”

4. Preventing layoff notices from going out just days before the 2012 election

There’s a law that says large employers have to give employees 60 days’ notice before mass layoffs. And layoffs were looming due to federal budget cuts in 2012. But the Obama administration told employers to go against the law and not issue those notices—which would have hit mailboxes just days before the presidential election. The administration “also offered to reimburse those employers at the taxpayers’ expense if challenged for failure to give that notice.”

5. Gutting the work requirement from welfare reform

The welfare reform that President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1996 required that welfare recipients in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program work or prepare for work to receive the aid. The Obama administration essentially took out that requirement by offering waivers to states, even though the law expressly states that waivers of the work requirement are not allowed. “Despite [the law’s] unambiguous language, the Obama administration continues to flout the law with its ‘revisionist’ interpretation,” write Slattery and Kloster.

6. Stonewalling an application for storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain

This was another case where the administration simply refused to do what was required by law. An application was submitted for nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain, but “Despite the legal requirement, the Obama Administration refused to consider the application.”

7. Making “recess” appointments that were not really recess appointments

Slattery and Kloster explain that “In January 2012, President Obama made four ‘recess’ appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, claiming that, since the Senate was conducting only periodic pro forma sessions, it was not available to confirm those appointees.” The catch: The Senate wasn’t in recess at the time. Courts have since struck down the appointments, but the illegitimate appointees already moved forward some harmful policies.