Over at War on Guns there is a post about the governuts' paranoia.
Apparently the military sees possibilities for "violent extremism" everywhere- which is funny, coming as it does from the most violently extreme radicals on the planet. It doesn't matter which "nation" sends these murderers out into the world- what matters is the actions they take. Killing people and destroying stuff to protect a government is insane.
But, back to the point... Me having this blog is a "warning sign", as is you reading it.
Here's the funny part of the "list". Look over at the far right column to the most serious and dangerous warning signs- the "ACTION prior to violent activity" column.
Notice how many of those criteria are met by government employees/agents.
"Suddenly acquires weapons". You have heard of the "sudden" gigantic ammo orders by seemingly "non-shooting" agencies, right?
"Organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology". Isn't that what "community organizing" is all about, Obamney 1.0? I'd even say the Republican and Democratic conventions qualify.
"Takes part in criminal activity or has trouble with law enforcement". Wow, where to start? Fast and Furious? All the recent "terrorist plots" that had no terrorists other than the FBI (or whoever) agents who were the driving force behind them? This one point could be filled out to be an entire book in itself.
"Advocates violence as a viable option for various situations". Like war? Like invading and violently occupying countries that were not a threat? Like the War on Politically-Incorrect Drugs? Like reavers murdering innocent people while breaking in to "the wrong house"? Like reavers murdering people in wheel chairs who are holding an ink pen because they feel threatened by it? Once again, fodder for an entire book.
"Shows a sudden visual shift from radical to 'normal' behavior to conceal radical behavior". Kinda like what puppeticians do in public when campaigning as opposed to what they do while they are actually carrying out their "jobs"?
"Takes suspicious or unreported travel (inside or outside of the continental United States)". How many times does the president or one of his familiars unexpectedly show up in one of the occupied territories where the military is freeing the natives to death? How many times is the president's itinerary hidden? Suspicious? Unreported? Check.
"Stores or collects mass weapons or hazardous materials". Ummm. Hello- GOVERNMENT! It's almost a definition.
"Verbally indicates hatred for the United States and/or the Constitution". Which is worse, saying out loud that you hate something, or actively trying to kill it? Yet, every time some puppetician proposes a new "law" that violates the Constitution (ObamaCare, Social Security, gun "control", airport "security", etc) or funds an agency that violates the Constitution (TSA, Department of Education, FBI, CIA, a "standing army"/the Pentagon, in other words, the entire federal government) he is putting words out there that express hatred for both the country and the Constitution. If that isn't verbally indicating hatred, then I don't know what would qualify.
"Indicates new interest in public of government facilities". What, like installing cameras to watch them and those around them all the time? That sounds like an "interest" that has morphed into an obsession.
"Inquires about weapons of mass effects". So, no destruction, just "effects". That sounds nice. Isn't this what all the weapons labs run by the feds are doing? Scientific inquiry? Looking for more ways to "affect" things on a mass scale?
So, yeah, the government meets all its own criteria for being radicalized into violent extremism.
Or, do they claim it can't apply to them, but only to those who are not them?
.
