So, now its official. Express public support for non-approved candidates for President, and you'll be suspected of being a 'terrorist' by that friendly state trooper you are driving past.
The Feb. 20 report called “The Modern Militia Movement” specifically identifies people who “display Campaign for Liberty, Constitution Party, or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former Presidential candidate: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr.”
The report identifies red flags that can identify potential domestic terrorists:
* Bumper stickers for third-party candiates like Ron Paul
* Talk of “New World Order” conspiracy theories
* Opposition to the Federal Reserve and support of the gold standard
* Opposition to US Army takeover of Homeland Security
* Opposition to the North American Union
* Opposition to universal military service
* Tax resistance
* Possession of subversive literature: “pictures, cartoons, bumper stickers that contain anti-government rhetoric. Most of this material will depict the FRS, IRS, FBI, ATF, CIA, UN, Law Enforcement, and ‘New World Order’ in a derogatory manner.”
One of the examples shown is the Gadsden Flag (”Don’t Tread on Me”).
The last gets even better. If you show support for the American Revolution by showing a historic flag from that era, then you are to be considered a 'terrorist'. King George III must be looking up from hell a look of pride on his face in the accomplishments of those who've come after him.
Of course, sometimes the scariest thing in a police state is that the police aren't really very smart. Ron Paul did not run as a 'third party'. He's a Republican Congressman from Texas. But hey, he rocks the boat so he must be both kooky and dangerous. Still, the report is written by someone who probably voted Republican, but couldn't tell you who just ran for President in the Republican primaries. Given the power of the police, that's just scary.
The article had this link to the report.
It gets even better than this as I read the report. For instance, this is listed under the section talking about militia 'Organization.'
Committees of Safety (COS) Organizations formed to lobby government officials and confront corruption. These groups claim to be a voice of the people and usually control or associate with militia organizations in their area.
Wow, so citizens who organize to 'lobby government officials and confront corruption' are smeared as associating with militia members. Remember, this report went out to the Missouri State Troopers as what to look out for with regards to dangerous militias, so if you are a Missouri citizen who has a habit of trying to confront local corruption, don't be surprised when that Missouri State Trooper first pulls you over for no reason (he'll say the tail-light blinked out or something, or maybe that you touched a line), then approaches the car with his weapon drawn and forces you out of the car to lay face down on the pavement. He's gotten this report from his superior officers telling him that you my friend are a dangerous terrorist and a threat to the American way of life by daring to challenge that local corruption.
To make sure that message comes through loud and clear, that exact section of text quoted above is next to a picture of a group of men in camoflauge and carrying automatic rifles captioned "Missouri militia members during a field training event." There is a visual image of men with automatic weapons designed to scream 'danger' to police officers in the field, and it is paired with text about those awful people in the community who try to 'lobby government officials and confront corruption.'
So, when you drive past that state trooper, with a bumper sticker supporting an alternative candidate to the corrupt local sheriff on one side of your rear bumper, and a Ron Paul for President sticker on the other side, what that state trooper is going to remember is a picture of a bunch of dangerous looking men with automatic weapons. Feel safer now?
This is from Missouri, but the AntiWar.com article points out that its done with information compiled by Dept Homeland Security. Thus its a reasonable assumption that similar reports are being compiled elsewhere under DHS prompting. And its another reasonable assumption that these viewpoints have some support in DHS and other federal agencies who are a part of this.