Missouri Police Report: RP supporters, Libertarians, anti-NWO movement are TERRORISTS

[Doktor_Jeep]

Totally uncalled for and untrue.

Missouri Militia response.
http://usanewsthatmatters.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!9118791428895678!315.entry

Not necessarily.

I think you are ALL naughty and in need of a spanking.

 

[Minarchy4Sale]

I wrote Jay an e-mail today. I hope it gets in front of him.

"Dear Mr. Nixon,

I am a Missouri native, born in X, raised in Y (W County), and attended Z High School in X, and Y Missouri State University. You and I met, many years ago, in your office, when you were the state senator from my district, and I visited Jefferson City as a member of student government from Z. My deceased mother was well acquainted with now Sen. X, a close colleague of yours. In fact, I and my siblings just recently sold my mother's home in X County. Missouri will always be close to my heart.

Today, Mr. Nixon, I am writing to you to tell you that my home state has shamed me. A recent report published by the MIAC, part of a fusion center between the MHP and federal agencies, funded with Missouri tax dollars, casts tens of thousands of Missourians, and Millions of Americans as potential terrorists or criminals because they engage the political process outside the two major parties, support pro-liberty candidates, fly old flags, support the constitution of the United States, play paintball, or engage in strong advocacy of the 2nd Amendment. This is reprehensible, irresponsible, and does nothing to improve the security of our great home state.

I encourage you to order the MIAC to issue an apology for their recent demonization campaign and to cease all similar profiling activities. I for one will not enter Missouri again, or spend another dollar on a Missouri product or business until the Missouri law enforcement community is no longer being primed for hostility towards liberty advocates. I am not alone in my convictions.

With respect and admiration for your long and distinguished service to X County and the Great State of Missouri,

Minarchy4Sale"

 

[revolutionary8]

Secret Report Targets Americans

From the Constitution Party:

Police Told Which Political Beliefs to Consider “Dangerous”

Lancaster, PA: A secret police report targets millions of Americans as potential “domestic terrorists” if they support the Constitution, oppose unlawful taxation, supported 2008 presidential candidates Republican Ron Paul, Libertarian Bob Barr or Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin (Seen here on Lou Dobbs program ), or if they are opposed to abortion, are against unconstitutional gun control, if they display pro-Constitution bumper stickers or own copies of certain books and documentaries.



The report is part of an ongoing attempt by a number of organizations (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/intrep.jsp) and movements to characterize law-abiding citizens as “white supremacists”, members of “hate groups” or, more recently as “terrorists”.

The report was generated by the Missouri Information Analysis Center

The Center is described as “the mechanism to collect incident reports of suspicious activities to be evaluated and analyzed in an effort to identify potential trends or patterns of terrorist or criminal operations within the state of Missouri. MIAC will also function as a vehicle for two-way communication between federal, state and local law enforcement community within our region.”


The secret report, distributed to Missouri law enforcement, lists as dangerous legitimate organizations including those who follow a Constitutionally-based ideology in regard to states’ rights, firearm ownership, free speech and sanctity of life.



The Constitution Party , the fastest- growing third party, subscribes to the Constitutionally- based, limited role of the federal government and calls on members of all political ideologies to voice strong opposition to smear campaigns that demonize Americans because of their political beliefs.



The Constitution Party made numerous calls to MIAC and was told an “officer” would respond to questions regarding this report.



No one at MIAC returned our calls.



The MIAC report states “rightwing” militia movements “continuously exploit world events in order to increase participation in their movements. Due to the current economical and political situation, a lush environment for militia activity has been created.”



The terms “constitutionalist” and “white supremacist” are often used interchangeably.



Page 7 of the report warns law enforcement that “militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups. It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional [sic] Party, Campaign for Liberty or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former presidential candidate:[sic] Ron Paul Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr.”



Issues of concern to those listed by MIAC as reason for law enforcement to label them “terrorists” include: Opposition to illegal immigration, implementation of RFID (radio frequency identification) and the planned merger of the US, Canada and Mexico (North American Union). The so-called “militia movement” contains people who own copies of the late Aaron Russo’s anti-tax documentary America: Freedom to Fascism.



Members of a so-called “patriot movement” are described as being “dangerous” to police in a section of the report titled “You Are the Enemy” which states:



“The militia subscribes to an anti-government and NWO mindset, which creates a threat to law enforcement officers. They view the military, National Guard, and law enforcement as a force that will confiscate their firearms and place them in FEMA concentration camps.”



The MIAC report distributed to Missouri law enforcement is a more virulent version of a similar report compiled by the FBI in Phoenix, AZ during the Clinton administration (see page one and page two of the document). The Phoenix FBI document calls “defenders” of the Constitution “right-wing extremists.”



Constitution Party 2008 presidential and vice presidential candidates Chuck Baldwin and Darrell Castle, along with CP National Chairman Jim Clymer, are available to discuss this disturbing report and the severe limitations it seeks to impose on free speech.




Inquiries regarding this secret report may be made to: MIAC at 866 362 6422.



To see where citizens are encouraged to submit a report that someone could be a “terrorist” click HERE.



###



Take Action Now!


1. Call the St. Louis Chamber of Commerce and say you will not be visiting Missouri out of concern of being PROFILED.
(314) 231-5555

2. Call the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission and tell them you won't visit Missouri because of "political profiling". (800) 325-7962

3. Call the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) and tell them their smear campaign is not acceptable.(866) 362-6422 and (573)-526-6115

 

[AuH2O]

Take a stand

My biggest problem with all of this, and perhaps also with the way that RP supporters and various other groups have responded, is the active separation from law-abiding, freedom-loving members of militias.

A militia is not a terrorist group. Historically, and almost by definition, it is a group the exists in defense of liberty, not in offense against those who seek to diminish freedom. Certainly, it is correct to dissociate from violent terrorists and those who actively seek to cause harm. Absolutely there have been members of the freedom movement who have perverted its fundamental principles to justify heinous acts, much like Islamic terrorists have perverted their own teachings to justify jihad. But many patriots have been slaughtered in acts of terrorism -- BY THE GOVERNMENT -- in what are commonly accepted, because of media bias and government spin, as raids on potentially violent militias.

Someone needs to stand up for those individuals who live a lifestyle dedicated to the defense of their own personal liberty, and, in a worst case scenario, the liberty of every single American, in the same way that the militias of our Founding did.

Living outside of "acceptable" social norms does not make you a threat. In past cases, many of which are presented in the MIAC report and similar documents, the government is the sole aggressive actor, the sole threat to life, liberty and property, and the sole party who can be described as a violent entity.

While it is certainly right to assert that we are non-violent patriots, it is not right to concede to the MIAC, BATFE, or any other group that members of militias are necessarily the narrow manifestation of the broad reactionary brush with with they sought to paint us all.

 

[tremendoustie]

My biggest problem with all of this, and perhaps also with the way that RP supporters and various other groups have responded, is the active separation from law-abiding, freedom-loving members of militias.

A militia is not a terrorist group. Historically, and almost by definition, it is a group the exists in defense of liberty, not in offense against those who seek to diminish freedom. Certainly, it is correct to dissociate from violent terrorists and those who actively seek to cause harm. Absolutely there have been members of the freedom movement who have perverted its fundamental principles to justify heinous acts, much like Islamic terrorists have perverted their own teachings to justify jihad. But many patriots have been slaughtered in acts of terrorism -- BY THE GOVERNMENT -- in what are commonly accepted because of media bias and government spin, as raids on potentially violent militias.

Someone needs to stand up for those individuals who live a lifestyle dedicated to the defense of their own personal liberty, and, in a worst case scenario, the liberty of every single American, in the same way that the militias of our Founding did.

Living outside of "acceptable" social norms does not make you a threat. In past cases, many of which are presented in the MIAC report and similar documents, the government is the sole aggressive actor, the sole threat to life, liberty and property, and the only party who can be described as a violent entity.

While it is certainly right to assert that we are non-violent patriots, it is not right to concede to the MIAC, BATFE, or any other group that members of militias are necessarily the narrow manifestation of the broad brush with with they sought to paint us all.

Agreed, and well said. I do think that most here understand this.

 

[AuH2O]

Agreed, and well said. I do think that most here understand this.

I agree that most people understand, but I disagree with the general approach. I think too many have seen the report as a too widely-thrown lasso that ropes in Ron Paul supporters, and have been outraged at the inclusion. I believe it is just as incumbent upon us to defend those peaceful, law-abiding, liberty-loving citizens -- those who were primarily in the crosshairs of this attack -- as it is to defend the organizations and individuals who are tenuously associated but nonetheless fully indicted.

 

[tremendoustie]

I agree that most people understand, but I disagree with the general approach. I think too many have seen the report as a too widely-thrown lasso that ropes in Ron Paul supporters, and have been outraged at the inclusion. I believe it is just as incumbent upon us to defend those peaceful, law-abiding, liberty-loving citizens -- those who were primarily in the crosshairs of this attack -- as it is to defend the organizations and individuals who are tenuously associated but nonetheless fully indicted.

Yet, even these peaceful law-abiding militia members were associated with violent terrorists. The problem is still one of false association. Libertarians, peaceful militia members, and violent terrorists were all thrown in together.

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

My biggest problem with all of this, and perhaps also with the way that RP supporters and various other groups have responded, is the active separation from law-abiding, freedom-loving members of militias.

A militia is not a terrorist group. Historically, and almost by definition, it is a group the exists in defense of liberty, not in offense against those who seek to diminish freedom. Certainly, it is correct to dissociate from violent terrorists and those who actively seek to cause harm. Absolutely there have been members of the freedom movement who have perverted its fundamental principles to justify heinous acts, much like Islamic terrorists have perverted their own teachings to justify jihad. But many patriots have been slaughtered in acts of terrorism -- BY THE GOVERNMENT -- in what are commonly accepted, because of media bias and government spin, as raids on potentially violent militias.

Someone needs to stand up for those individuals who live a lifestyle dedicated to the defense of their own personal liberty, and, in a worst case scenario, the liberty of every single American, in the same way that the militias of our Founding did.

Living outside of "acceptable" social norms does not make you a threat. In past cases, many of which are presented in the MIAC report and similar documents, the government is the sole aggressive actor, the sole threat to life, liberty and property, and the sole party who can be described as a violent entity.

While it is certainly right to assert that we are non-violent patriots, it is not right to concede to the MIAC, BATFE, or any other group that members of militias are necessarily the narrow manifestation of the broad reactionary brush with with they sought to paint us all.

I fully agree with your sentiments.

Time changes all circumstances, and I think a few people around here would have a problem with the mandatory nature of the militia of our founders...

Hence my support of that big link in my sig Perhaps their new front page better illuminates this topic:

Committees of Safety Public Policy Statement and Disclaimer


Committees of Safety is an organization dedicated to the individual and collective exercise of Americans’ freedoms of speech, association, and petitioning under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, for the ultimate purpose of revitalizing “the Militia of the several States” under the Second Amendment and other provisions of the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions and laws of the several States.

Committees of Safety is not now, and does not intend to become, any kind of “private militia”, “para-military group”, “firearms-training association”, “gun-rights organization”, or other entity of like nature or purpose. And no individual should seek to become, or to remain, a volunteer for Committees of Safety who proposes that Committees of Safety ought to identify itself as some form of such a group, or that volunteers for Committees of Safety should engage in “militia”, “para-military”, or like activities as part of their association with Committees of Safety. Committees of Safety recognizes as constitutional “Militia” only such groups as have been formed and operate under lawfully mandated statutes within particular States.

 

[AuH2O]

Yet, even these peaceful law-abiding militia members were associated with violent terrorists. The problem is still one of false association. Libertarians, peaceful militia members, and violent terrorists were all thrown in together.

You are absolutely right. My point is that I see many arguments in defense of libertarians, constitutionalists, and the like, but few -- if any -- of peaceful militias. It should be, in my opinion, standard practice for mainstream pro-liberty folks to stand up for the less-mainstream, though no less committed, patriots. I guess I just feel that there has not been enough outrage about these good people being demonized, despite having read my fill of outcry over run-of-the-mill Ron Paul supporters being vilified.

 

[AuH2O]

I fully agree with your sentiments.

Time changes all circumstances, and I think a few people around here would have a problem with the mandatory nature of the militia of our founders...

Hence my support of that big link in my sig Perhaps their new front page better illuminates this topic:

I had never read your link, though I find it interesting.

I am not defending militias because I necessarily find them to be intrinsic to general public's liberty. I am defending militias because clearly, whoever joins one believes it intrinsic, or at least potentially intrinsic, to HIS OWN liberty. And what government ought deny a man the means to do whatever he deems necessary to secure the blessings of liberty for himself and his posterity? Isn't that principle immortalized in some old piece of paper I read somewhere? I don't think it was a terrorist manifesto, no matter what the MIAC might have you believe.

 

[torchbearer]

I had never read your link, though I find it interesting.

I am not defending militias because I necessarily find them to be intrinsic to general public's liberty. I am defending militias because clearly, whoever joins one believes it intrinsic, or at least potentially intrinsic, to HIS OWN liberty. And what government ought deny a man the means to do whatever he deems necessary to secure the blessings of liberty for himself and his posterity? Isn't that principle immortalized in some old piece of paper I read somewhere?

extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.

 

[newbitech]

I agree that most people understand, but I disagree with the general approach. I think too many have seen the report as a too widely-thrown lasso that ropes in Ron Paul supporters, and have been outraged at the inclusion. I believe it is just as incumbent upon us to defend those peaceful, law-abiding, liberty-loving citizens -- those who were primarily in the crosshairs of this attack -- as it is to defend the organizations and individuals who are tenuously associated but nonetheless fully indicted.

I understand your point also but I disagree that the proper approach is to defend the militia. I believe the militia exists to defend against violent usurpation and abridgments of our constitutional law. We have seen some signs of the government being willing to do this, but certainly not enough for a populist militia movement.

I see this MIAC report/training as a slow steady abridgment that must be met with stiff broad based resistance. The approach that is being taken seems to be all encompassing rather than focused on the lawful militia. I believe the militia exists as lawful defenders of last resort that should only be used to meet violence with violence.

Certainly the militia needs to have a voice in this matter but the simple fact is that all sides agree upon is that the militia can be anyone. This MIAC report crossed the line by calling out a wide swath of groups as being potential illegal militias and in my opinion, there is no need to further muddy the waters between law abiding dissenters and law enforcement by focusing on the violent aspects of this report.

We need to remind cops that regardless of someones ideology, we are still all presumed innocent until some evidence exists to remove reasonable doubt. The paraphernalia and propaganda that the report mentions, including names and associations with groups is not evidence of any laws being broken and therefor cops should not conclude or attempt to further investigate a person based solely on those items mentioned in the training report.

This is in fact protecting law abiding militia members. The time to campaign for 2nd amendment rights is NOT when we are being accused of abusing those rights. We should continue to be in an educational non defensive posture. We need to work with law enforcement on a peaceful level and reject the notion that disagreements will be solved with violence.

Edit: You said peaceful militias. Think about that for a second.

 

[torchbearer]

I understand your point also but I disagree that the proper approach is to defend the militia. I believe the militia exists to defend against violent usurpation and abridgments of our constitutional law. We have seen some signs of the government being willing to do this, but certainly not enough for a populist militia movement.

I see this MIAC report/training as a slow steady abridgment that must be met with stiff broad based resistance. The approach that is being taken seems to be all encompassing rather than focused on the lawful militia. I believe the militia exists as lawful defenders of last resort that should only be used to meet violence with violence.

Certainly the militia needs to have a voice in this matter but the simple fact is that all sides agree upon is that the militia can be anyone. This MIAC report crossed the line by calling out a wide swath of groups as being potential illegal militias and in my opinion, there is no need to further muddy the waters between law abiding dissenters and law enforcement by focusing on the violent aspects of this report.

We need to remind cops that regardless of someones ideology, we are still all presumed innocent until some evidence exists to remove reasonable doubt. The paraphernalia and propaganda that the report mentions, including names and associations with groups is not evidence of any laws being broken and therefor cops should not conclude or attempt to further investigate a person based solely on those items mentioned in the training report.

This is in fact protecting law abiding militia members. The time to campaign for 2nd amendment rights is NOT when we are being accused of abusing those rights. We should continue to be in an educational non defensive posture. We need to work with law enforcement on a peaceful level and reject the notion that disagreements will be solved with violence.

Edit: You said peaceful militias. Think about that for a second.

peaceful militia = use of force as defense.

 

[AuH2O]

I understand your point also but I disagree that the proper approach is to defend the militia. I believe the militia exists to defend against violent usurpation and abridgments of our constitutional law. We have seen some signs of the government being willing to do this, but certainly not enough for a populist militia movement.

I see this MIAC report/training as a slow steady abridgement that must be met with stiff broad based resistance. The approach that is being taken seems to be all encompassing rather than focused on the lawful militia. I believe the militia exists as lawful defenders of last resort that should only be used to meet violence with violence.

Certainly the militia needs to have a voice in this matter but the simple fact is that all sides agree upon is that the militia can be anyone. This MIAC report crossed the line by calling out a wide swath of groups as being potential illegal militias and in my opinion, there is no need to further muddy the waters between law abiding dissesters and law enforcement by focusing on the violent aspects of this report.

We need to remind cops that regardless of someones ideology, we are still all presumed innocent until some evidence exists to remove reasonable doubt. The paraphenelia and propoganda that the report mentions, including names and associations with groups is not evidence of any laws being broken and therefor cops should not conclude or attempt to further investigate a person based solely on those items mentioned in the training report.

This is in fact protecting law abiding militia members. The time to campaign for 2nd amendment rights is NOT when we are being accused of abusing those rights. We should continue to be in an educational non defensive posture. We need to work with law enforcement on peaceful level and reject the notion that disagreements will be solve with violence.

Edit: You said peaceful militias. Think about that for a second.

I meant that "law abiding militias" -- which you referenced several times in your original post -- and "peaceful militias" -- which you referenced in your post script -- are the same thing. But a law-abiding and peaceful group that does nothing inciteful is fully within its rights to defend itself against aggression.

These libertarian principles apply to every community and level of self-affiliation; no country, state, family or militia is permitted to commit an act of unprovoked violence. We cannot invade another nation unless they have attacked us, and we cannot fight a person on the street unless they are the aggressor.

However, having a stockpile of weapons, ammunition and foodstuffs does not an act of aggression make. Nor does utilizing those resources in response to provocation a terrorist make.

 

[newbitech]

peaceful militia = use of force as defense.

nah, I am not buying that argument.

regardless of the reason why force is being used, it is never peaceful.

 

[AuH2O]

peaceful militia = use of force as defense.

A more succinct summary of my point.

 

[torchbearer]

nah, I am not buying that argument.

regardless of the reason why force is being used, it is never peaceful.

I was telling you what it meant... and the author confirmed it.
I am a student of phenomenology. It would be to your benefit to take my word on it.

 

[newbitech]

I meant that "law abiding militias" -- which you referenced several times in your original post -- and "peaceful militias" -- which you referenced in your post script -- are the same thing. But a law-abiding and peaceful group that does nothing inciteful is fully within its rights to defend itself against aggression.

These libertarian principles apply to every community and level of self-affiliation; no country, state, family or militia is permitted to commit an act of unprovoked violence. We cannot invade another nation unless they have attacked us, and we cannot fight a person on the street unless they are the aggressor.

However, having a stockpile of weapons, ammunition and foodstuffs does not an act of aggression make. Nor does utilizing those resources in response to provocation a terrorist make.

i agree with lawful militia, but you will have a hard time convincing most people that law abiding and peaceful are the same thing. maybe its just semantics, but i do think the people who have been out in front on this issue have been very careful to frame the response appropriately.

 

[AuH2O]

nah, I am not buying that argument.

regardless of the reason why force is being used, it is never peaceful.

His statement is a to-the-point summary of libertarianism in my book. I may be overwhelmingly capable of violating someone else's right to life, liberty or property, but it is morally wrong to deprive someone of any of the above without provocation. You seem to be saying that having the ability to use force is unpeaceful. I wholeheartedly disagree.

 

[newbitech]

I was telling you what it meant... and the author confirmed it.
I am a student of phenomenology. It would be to your benefit to take my word on it.

I understood what he said, I just disagree. If this were a case of the swat team laying siege to a Ron Paul supporters house with no warrant, and a bunch of us went down there with AR-15's to tell the government to back off, then yeah I agree that is the appropriate use and defense of militias.

However, we are talking about a training report that attacks basically anyone who doesn't agree with the political establishment. There is nothing violent about the report. While the implications certainly appear to be that law enforcement is preparing for such an event, I don't believe now is the time to start standing up for violently defending those rights. Its just not the time for it imo. This would be what I would consider offensive.

But again, I don't disagree with the point, I just agree more with the way this situation is being handled without highlighting the rights and duties of the militia. The militia would do well to keep a low profile here for the sake of allowing liberty to run its course.