f the founding fathers were reincarnated today, they’d probably start another revolution, this time to break away from an American government that has become far too imperial for its own good.
And as such, they’d be labeled “extremists” by those who mean to rule us.
In fact, the nation’s founders are considered extremists by the Pentagon, according to a new “training manual” that explicitly labels the framers as such.
Discovered by legal watchdog Judicial Watch via a Freedom of Information Act request, the manual was part of 133 documents provided by the Air Force. The January 2013 Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute “student guide” is entitled “Extremism.” The document says that it is “for training purposes only” and “do not use on the job.”
Believe in freedom? You’re an extremist…
The manual defines an “extremist” as “a person who advocates the use of force or violence; advocates supremacist causes based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or national origin; or otherwise engages to illegally deprive individuals or groups of their civil rights.”
In addition, it says, “Nowadays, instead of dressing in sheets or publicly espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.”
So, if ye love liberty and freedom more than ye love a big, powerful central government that has grown well beyond its constitutional boundaries, you’re an extremist. If ye dare to take care of yourself, to be an individual who grows his own food (weren’t there a number of farmers and plantation owners in the group of founding fathers?) ye are an enemy of the state.
Under the section, “Extremist Ideologies,” the manual states, “In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.”
Though the document released today by Judicial Watch was obtained from the Air Force, it originated in a DOD office and is, therefore, thought to likely be used in other agency components, said Judicial Watch.
“The Obama administration has a nasty habit of equating basic conservative values with terrorism. And now, in a document full of claptrap, its Defense Department suggests that the Founding Fathers, and many conservative Americans, would not be welcome in today’s military,” long-serving JW president Tom Fitton said.
“And it is striking that some [of] the language in this new document echoes the IRS targeting language of conservative and Tea Party investigations. After reviewing this document, one can’t help but worry for the future and morale of our nation’s armed forces,” he added.
This isn’t the first time the federal government, one of its agencies or some other “official” source has equated freedom-loving Americans who have an originalist view of the Constitution and its meaning with extremists.
Irreconcilable violence ahead?
In 2009, Infowars obtained the “law enforcement sensitive” contents of a Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report entitled “The Modern Militia Movement” which listed supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as potential “militia” influenced terrorists.
Also, in July 2012 Infowars blew the lid on a Department of Homeland Security-funded study, produced by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland, that characterized Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.
In the past couple of decades it became clear that the federal government has become increasingly hostile towards anyone or any political movement that seeks to curb its power. Constitutionalists are portrayed as kooks and psychos, while the ruling class is portrayed as righteous, forthright and proper.
This is dangerous, for not only has it made dialogue next to impossible, but it has also created a climate of irreconcilability that could someday lead to violence.