top of page
Wave

You're a Violent Militia Extremist?

Scary times folks. While I don't like falling down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories, I do keep an ear out when I can. At the least the ideas are entertaining, but sometimes they're also a good indicator of possible directions things might take.


Before going any further, I must admit, for the first time in my media career, that I left the intelligence community under the Obama administration because, as I saw it, the administration was using the intelligence community, including the military arm of that community which I was a member, in ways that violated not just the spirit of our nation, but also the basic structure, concept, and some federal laws. With that off my chest let's take a look at something that just caught my eye.


What is a "Violent Militia Extremist"? According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence:

"Those who take overt steps to violently resist or facilitate the overthrow of the US Government in support of their belief that the US Government is purposely exceeding its Constitutional authority and is trying to establish a totalitarian regime; oppose many federal and state laws and regulations, particularly those related to firearms ownership."


While I doubt many of us have any interest in facilitating violence of any kind, the wording of this definition causes some concern. Apparently, simply believing the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed qualifies someone to be labeled as a violent militia extremist. We've seen this level of judgement before. Not long ago Facebook had been categorizing users not just for ad revenue (a wise business practice that I support. If a free platform I use is free because of ad revenue, at least make sure the ads I see are relevant. I don't care about upgrading the plumbing in an RV, I don't own one. I do care about seeing ads for outdoor gear as I do spend time outdoors year round.) Facebook took things too far when they began labeling folks politically based on who they knew and what posts they liked and did not like. By digging through my settings I was able to find that I had been improperly been labeled as an extremist, most likely because I spend a lot of time supporting the First and Second Amendment.


What's extra scary is that this definition is being used to categorize users of several platforms (list below) so that censorship can be applied. Because platforms like YouTube, Facebook, etc. are private businesses they can turn off a voice without the same legal duties to the First Amendment that the government has. That's no big deal unless you've become and effective monopoly. "Big Tech" as they're often referred to has so far escaped having to ensure civil rights on their platforms despite being nearly the sole source of their media type. Until they're deemed a public utility they have the right to act as they wish, or in this case, act as their favorite political party wishes. We've all seen YouTube channels disappear, and many of you must be aware of the "shadow bans' and repression that many social media platforms also enforce. For example, our Facebook community has over 5,500 members, but we're lucky is a post is seen by even 200 of those members. You can forget about being discovered by non-members all together. These are some of the reasons we created this website where we pay to have a page and so are free from many of the restrictions we face or could face on the "free" platforms.


There's a lot to digest here, and I mean only to start the thought process, but do you think you're a "violent militia extremist"? Did you know that the government thinks you are simply for opposing laws and regulations? Though I may have the means and skills to do violence, I am not a violent person. I do not like violence, I have been to two wars (on behalf of American freedom) and conducted, witnessed, and been the target of violence there. I hope to never see that again and yet according to the government my belief in our basic civil rights qualifies me as "violent".



List of participating companies. These companies started this as a way to crackdown on international terrorism. The tools they've created however appear to now be used politically here in the US. The same kind of stuff that I wanted nothing to do with years ago and so left the Intelligence Community.

  • YouTube

  • Twitter

  • Facebook

  • Microsoft

  • tumbler

  • WordPress

  • JustPaste.it

  • Airbnb

  • MailChimp

  • Discord

  • Instagram

  • WhatsApp

  • Pintrest

  • Amazon

  • DropBox

  • Mega

  • LinkedIn


383 views18 comments

Recent Posts

See All

18 Comments


Creighton Demarest
Creighton Demarest
Aug 04, 2021

I think the key meaning here is at the very beginning stating " Those who take overt steps " . All the other is opinion, conjecture, assumptions. Pistol , long gun sporting owners need not worry. Obey laws and rules. Just my humble opinion.

Like
fmchavesmd
fmchavesmd
Aug 04, 2021
Replying to

I would tend to agree, until and unless the laws and regulations transgress our rights...which seems to be a constant issue. I think the Declaration of Independence clearly and properly lays out how such things are to be dealt with when an impasse is reached.

Like

In Russia there is a pacifistic religion that has been marked as an “Extremist Group” while not a single one of them even owns a firearm of any kind. The term Extremist is passed out like candy these days, and I don’t see an end to that in the near future.

Like

Kimball Scarr
Kimball Scarr
Aug 03, 2021

Arbitrary Acts of Government Violate Hebeas Corpus... 9 parts - Habeas Corpus is the freedom from arbitrary acts of government or in governance. However, it most often is brought to the courts nowadays in extradition hearings, where the court balances your rights to freedom of movement, the conveniences and support afforded in you home state and place of residence, against the states rights, reasons, and strength of case to prosecute the crime you are charged with. These the court balances against the prosecuting states rights to prosecuting crime, strength of case, seriousness of the crime, availability of witnesses, likelihood of flight, venue, and conveniences for the state in the prosecution of crime. However, Habeas Corpus can involve much more than…


Like
Kimball Scarr
Kimball Scarr
Aug 03, 2021
Replying to

Reply 9

Conclusion follows

The answer is Federal Agencies do have legislative powers, and a separate untouchable court system. All Federal Agencies work under this system. In 1946 the Administrative Procedures Act was passed and signed into law by Harry Truman. FDR had been trying to pass this but ran into constant slap downs by the Supreme Court. It has been ruled by liberal leaning Supreme Courts as stare decisis, or settled law. What it did is transfer legislative power of the Congress to the executive branch, and create a separate administrative law along with an agency controlled court system. Congress did this and took solely a role of "oversight". How it works, if an agency creates a new regulation,…


Like

Kimball Scarr
Kimball Scarr
Aug 03, 2021

It has been about a year ago I posted on Facebook explaining the historical basis behind our "Absolute Rights of the Individual" that existed in the English Common Law 1769 just before our Revolution. This post along with others on how our law works are not controversial. The result was warnings on FB that this was factually incorrect. So after a time of making several other posts, FB put my post(s) up for review. This was to the 'Global Community Standards Committee' or some such adoration of "The Committee of Public Safety" French Comité De Salut Public that political body of the French Revolution that had absolute totalitarian control over France during much of the French Revolution, particularly the Reig…

Like
Kimball Scarr
Kimball Scarr
Aug 03, 2021
Replying to

American law... it is based on balance not truth.... Most people do not understand our legal system. It goes back a millennia based on English Common Law. But to understand it you must understand another for comparison.


In France after the Napoleonic Code the system has been at its core tasked with finding truth, punishment is secondary. This truth, scientific fact, and statutory law system was first suggested by Francis Bacon the Chancellor of England (in charge of the Courts and holding the Queen's Justice) for Elizabeth I, he also served as the Clerk / Recorder of the Kings Star Chamber Court in King James I rule. That is how a French Court works, as one of the Judges run…


Like

fmchavesmd
fmchavesmd
Aug 03, 2021

"There's a lot to digest here, and I mean only to start the thought process, but do you think you're a "violent militia extremist"?" No, I know I am not.


"Did you know that the government thinks you are simply for opposing laws and regulations?"


First, the government is not a person, it cannot "think" anything.


"Those who take overt steps to violently resist or facilitate the overthrow of the US Government in support of their belief that the US Government is purposely exceeding its Constitutional authority and is trying to establish a totalitarian regime; oppose many federal and state laws and regulations, particularly those related to firearms ownership."


If you haven't taken overt violent steps, you don't fit th…


Like
bottom of page