“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” ― George Orwell
The thought that there’s something good or bad about the government is a crime if Obama, Eric Holder or Loretta Lynch says it is.
It’s been argued that the microaggression concept “fits into a larger class of conflict tactics in which the aggrieved seek to attract and mobilize the support of third parties” that sometimes involves “building a case for action by documenting, exaggerating, or even falsifying offenses” Recommendations inspired by microaggression theory, if “implemented, could have a chilling effect on free speech and on the willingness of White people…to interact with people of color.” It has been argued that microaggression theory pools trivial and ignorable instances of racism with real, genuine prejudice and exclusion, is a distraction from dealing with much more serious acts, and can actually cause more emotional trauma than the micro-aggressions.
Wednesday, 11 June 2014
Obama Justice Department Pushes to Target “Thought Crime”
Written by Raven Clabough
Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Justice Department will be utilizing a program originally designed to prevent domestic threats to the United States. The program will label as threats individuals the government has deemed anti-government or racially prejudiced, paving the way to targeting political dissenters.
WND reports, “The Domestic Terrorism Executive Committee was created in the wake of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing but was scrapped soon after the 2001 terrorist attacks as intelligence and law enforcement officials shifted their focus to threats from outside the country. The committee will be comprised of figures from the FBI, the National Security Division of the Justice Department and the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee.”
Holder justified the resurrection of the program by asserting that the DOJ is concerned by attacks prompted by Islamic extremists and added that the program will be identifying a variety of threats.
“We must also concern ourselves with the continued danger we face from individuals within our own borders who may be motivated by a variety of other causes from anti-government animus to racial prejudice,” Holder said.
First Lady Michelle Obama made headlines last month when she encouraged graduating high school students in Topeka, Kansas, to monitor their families for politically incorrect thoughts.
“Our laws may no longer separate us based on our skin color, but nothing in the Constitution says we have to eat together in the lunchroom, or live together in the same neighborhoods,” she said. “There’s no court case against believing in stereotypes or thinking that certain kinds of hateful jokes or comments are funny,” she said.
Cheryl Chumley, a reporter for the Washington Times and the author of Police State USA, referred to Michelle Obama’s remark as proof of a growing trend in America to target and attack individuals for committing “thought crime.”
“Michelle Obama’s push for kids around the nation to monitor their family members for perceived racist comments is just another way the government seeks to inject itself into an area it doesn’t really belong — the American home,” Chumley told the Daily Caller.
“Having the first lady wag her finger at us and send America’s youth on some sort of quest to scour the homes and backyards of our nation’s families for any mention of a racist joke, slur or slight is nanny-governance run amok — something that belongs in a George Orwell novel, not the White House,” Chumley said.
Attorney General Eric Holder who refused to prosecute the New Black Panthers for their acts of voter intimidation outside of a Philadelphia polling facility during the 2008 presidential elections. Years later, former Department of Justice Official Christian Adams testified before the Civil Rights commission and claimed that the Obama administration has generally failed to prosecute “non-whites” in voter intimidation cases.
The DOJ program appears to be the latest effort by this administration to target Americans who are heavily critical of the federal government. Alert Americans may recall the Stop Online Piracy Act, which would have given the Justice Department authority over websites and copyright infringement.
The International Business Times (IBT) noted in 2011 when the bill was being debated that the SOPA bill was aimed at “quashing dissent:”
The real purpose of the SOPA bill (and its sister bill, PIPA [Protect IP Act], in the Senate) is to target the web-based movements that have fueled revolutionaries both here and abroad.
IBT also pointed out the same type of insidious agenda in the NDAA:
Certain provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act have a similar purpose at heart. They are ostensibly aimed at al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, and will likely lead to some unconstitutional arrests of Muslim terror suspects. But the other purpose of the indefinite detention provisions, and the reason it is before the Congress now, is to allow the government to arrest those who loudly disagree with it.
IBT contended that the Internet provisions in the NDAA are intended to destroy “whistleblowers in independent news media from exposing corruption in the government.”