There is a continuing trend when it
comes to the issue of terrorism. With increasing regularity, acts of terror
committed by radical Muslims are ignored while the white Christian male gradually
becomes the new threat. The shooting in New Zealand for example, is being
called an act of terrorism. The white male shooter, being portrayed as a white supremacist,
was said to be triggered by a hatred of immigrants. In the United States, when
a Muslim commits a mass shooting, he is portrayed as a crazy individual who isn’t
motivated by religious fundamentalism. When a white male commits a mass shooting,
he is referred to as an angry right-wing extremist driven by an anti-government
ideology. Don’t misunderstand, the shooting in New Zealand was most certainly a
terrorist attack complete with socio-political objectives. The point of this article,
however, will be to show the deliberate attempts to change the public’s
perception of what extremism is and the efforts to shield Muslim extremists
from any criticism.
(Personal note: This
author believes all peaceful people have the fundamental right to pray without
fear of violence. The real people at fault are the ones who deny law abiding
people their inalienable right to armed defense. Some reports suggest it took
police more than a half hour to respond to the situation in New Zealand.)
Since the beginning of
2019 more than 120 Christians
have been slaughtered by radical Islamic militants in Nigeria. Many people
don’t know this because it isn’t reported in the news. In fact, throughout 2018
the thousands killed in the African
nation have led some to believe that a literal genocide is occurring. In the
United States, the left wing press has reported that anti-government,
right-wing extremists are responsible for more acts of terror on our soil than radical Muslims. For instance, Time
reported since September 11, 2001, more Americans have been killed by white
supremacists than by Islamic terrorists. This is a ridiculous assertion as in
each case the number is rather insignificant, and the September 11th
attacks took the lives of thousands in the first place.
There is a worldwide
effort to criminalize any criticism of Muslims. According to The
Clarion Project, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation has launched a
global initiative to “correct” the public’s perception of Islam where one of
the goals is seemingly to disconnect the images of the Islamic faith from any acts
of terror. In 2011, The
Obama administration pushed through UN resolution 16/18, which was pushed
by the OIC. This resolution essentially criminalizes criticism of Islam by equating
any negative speech to potential threats of violence. Recently, Fox News
hostess Jeanine Pirro has fallen under increased scrutiny in response to her
comments about Representative
IIhan Omar. Furthermore, the New
York City Police Department and the FBI,
likely as a result of the UN resolution have removed all references to Islamic
terrorism from their training manuals. The focus is now on alleged right wing extremism, or
white nationalism. As time goes on, and younger generations are brought up
under these guide lines, the reality of Islamic terrorism will be non-existent in
the minds of our law enforcement officers.
It is ironic that one of
the motivations listed in the manifesto of the New Zealand killer is
immigration because according to the United States Department of
Homeland Security report a concern about illegal immigration is enough to
have someone considered a potential threat.
(U) Illegal Immigration
(U//FOUO) Rightwing extremists were concerned during
the 1990s with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American
jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages. They also opposed free trade agreements,
arguing that these arrangements resulted in Americans losing jobs to countries
such as Mexico.
(U//FOUO) Over the past five years, various rightwing
extremists, including militias and white supremacists, have adopted the
immigration issue as a call to action, rallying point, and recruiting
tool. Debates over appropriate
immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of
protected political speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration
or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups
and has the potential to turn violent.
(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremist
groups’ frustration over a perceived lack of government action on illegal
immigration has the potential to incite individuals or small groups toward
violence. If such violence were to
occur, it likely would be isolated, small-scale, and directed at specific
immigration-related targets.
It
is also ironic that such an event occurred days before Senator Lindsey Graham
holds a hearing on his nation Red Flag gun confiscation bill. After the
shooting in New Zealand it is entirely possible that any one questioning
illegal immigration could be viewed as suspect in the eyes of an ignorant
public.
In
the eighteen years since the September 11 attacks, Americans have been
conditioned through a process called Associationism
to view people who support the second amendment, oppose illegal immigration and
question the government as potential terrorists. Associationism refers to how
human beings learn by associating ideas. According to Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy the ideas of associative learning can be traced back to David Hume's Treatise of Human
Nature. Hume's theory elaborated on how a person’s perceptions
are influenced by previous experience. Furthermore, Hume believed that there
was no idea that existed in a person’s mind that was not first shaped by a
previous experience. Associative theories of learning were later expanded on by
Ivan Pavlov when he developed his theories on classical conditioning.
Essentially, it was discovered that trained responses to a given stimulus can
be replicated by simply replacing one stimulus with another. For nearly two
decades now we have been inundated with images of Islamic terrorism (stimulus)
which provoked feelings of fear and panic. This stimulus was accepted by the
American people due the nature of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. Slowly
and ever so surely, this stimulus is being replaced with suggestions of right-wing
extremism. Which, because of the already preconditioned perception of terror,
is easily provoking the same pre-conditioned response. In other words, the word
terror is now being associated with images of patriotic Americans standing up
for their rights.
We
are approaching a dangerous time. If the Red Flag laws pass and become national
it will virtually create a closed society where everyone will be suspect of
everyone. People will no longer speak freely for fear of being labeled a
potential extremist and having a Red Flag order placed against them. They will no
longer seek help if they are experiencing mental duress for the same fear. The
more people resist such unconstitutional actions the more people expressing
patriotic sentiment will be viewed as extremists and a potential threat to themselves
or others. Every time an event like the one in New Zealand occurs the more this
narrative will develop. Donald Trump not only
supports the idea of Red Flag confiscation laws he agrees with Clinton on
the idea of preventing people on the terror watch list from buying guns. According
to the DHS you are suspected of being an extremist if you oppose immigration or
are concerned about an infringement on your gun rights. How are they going to
determine who or who isn't a potential terrorist? Donald Trump has also stated that he believes
large purchases of ammunition and body armor should be considered “red flags.”
Many of the Red Flag bills being passed at the state level suggest simply
purchasing a firearm is enough to have an individual “red flagged.” Where is
this going to end?
Red flag laws are part and parcel of a messianic police state that, in turn, is the inevitable consequence of governments without an immutable ethical standard (found only the Bible's triune moral law) as their foundational law.
ReplyDeleteCase in point: the US Constitutional Republic.
Where is this going to end?
Hopefully with Christians and patriots waking up to the fact that they've been had as it pertains to the biblical compatibility and virtue of the Constitution. If, instead, they persist in promoting the Constitution as the reason for America's former greatness, America is doomed to destruction:
"The United States Constitutional Republic was destined to fall from its inception. This is borne out in the following two passages:
'And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it'. (Matthew 7:26-27)
'[E]very kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.' (Matthew 12:25)
"The house known as the Constitutional Republic was not built upon the rock of Yahweh’s1 word, but instead upon Enlightenment and Masonic concepts.2 It began and continues as a divided house....
"The day is therefore approaching when the Republic’s cup of iniquity will be full3 and Yahweh’s longsuffering is exhausted. At that time, the Republic will be subjected to His judgment. Like all nations before her built on sand, she will cease to exist. The question that remains is whether that generation’s Christians will be prepared to build upon her ruins. If not, another ungodly nation will fill the void until finally a future generation of our posterity are prepared to erect a government and society upon Yahweh’s righteousness as expressed in His triune moral law (His commandments, statutes, and judgments). "It is therefore incumbent upon this and all intervening generations of Christians to do everything in their power to help prepare for that future generation of Christians to do it right(eous) the next time...." For more, see free online book "A Biblical Constitution: A Scriptural Replacement for Secular Government." Then find out how much you *really* know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar and receive a complimentary copy of a book that examines the Constitution by the Bible.