Episode 186 Show Notes- Every American Should Fear The Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism
↓ The P.A.S. Report Podcast is on every podcast platform! ↓
Episode Description
The Biden administration has released their National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism. This document should frighten every American, regardless of political ideology, as it can easily be used to target political opponents. In this episode, Professor Giordano goes page-by-page, and breaks it all down showing why the document is dangerous and destructive, how it can be easily manipulated and exploited, and what will happen if fully implemented.
Don’t forget to share this episode of The P.A.S. Report with family and friends, and on all your social media channels.
(You can listen to the entire episode by clicking the play button above or go to any podcast platform)
Show Transcript- Every American Should Fear The Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism
P.A.S. Report Listeners Get 10% Off at Design It Yourself Gift Baskets! Use Code: PAS
*PA Strategies, LLC. earns a small commission when you make a purchase through any affiliate links on this website and within this post.
Intro
Welcome everyone to another episode of The PAS Report Podcast.
As I told you on Monday, today, I am going to focus on the Biden administration’s National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism. Thanks to the Tucker Carlson segment on Friday night, a lot of people are interested to learn more, and I got a lot of great feedback.
There are also the haters out there who try and downplay the threat and criticize me saying I’m not qualified to speak on these matters because I’m a community college professor. They think that label is an insult. I hate to break it to these people; I wear the label community college professor as a badge of honor. Many of the same geniuses, the so-called experts, at the ivy league institutions have been wrong on many policy issues time and time again. They operate in the world of theory. I operate in reality.
But more importantly, here’s what allows me to be an authority on the subject. I have a master’s degree in Political Science and a Master’s degree in Homeland Security Management. I’ve been teaching political science, the structures of government, the roles and responsibilities of institutions, as well as the policy agendas out there for over 15-years. I’m constantly reading and interpreting government documents as part of my job.
It’s also important to note that I have several years of experience working in multiple capacities in the homeland security/emergency management arena, from the private sector to the state. Interacting with all levels of government and stakeholders. I’ve written emergency management plans. I’ve conducted threat assessments and hazard analyses for both manmade and natural incidents. I’ve responded to disasters. I’ve conducted training and exercises for numerous government agencies and the private sector.
I’ve authored government reports and I know how to read and interpret them. I understand terrorism very well, both domestic and international. I know exactly what I am talking about.
This is what differentiates The P.A.S. Report from a lot of other outlets there. While some may have experience in one area, I have experience in multiple areas and can look at issues through a variety of different prisms, while keeping the intent of the system intact.
So, I am going to provide an in-depth analysis of the National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism. It’s a 31-page document and I encourage everyone to read it and come to their own conclusions. You’ll hear about this document in the media, but few of them will cover it with the depth I do. Most will just argue it’s good or bad without pointing to real specifics.
Today, I’m going to focus on the problems within the documents, and how the language of the document is troublesome, to say the least. I will show why this reads more like a political document rather than a real strategy. I will take on the proponents of this document, and I’ll show why they are misguided or outright lying to you. I will explain how everything will go down if this document is fully implemented. And I’ll wrap up the episode explaining why it’s not about politics. It’s not about Democrats or Republicans. Why every American should be concerned regardless of political ideology.
I have the document on the website in the show transcript so be sure to go to The P.A.S. Report website. While you’re there, sign up for The P.A.S. Report Newsletter, and be sure to subscribe to the podcast so you never miss an episode.
Largely Predictable
Before I jump directly to the report, this report was largely predictable. It’s not like the powers that be have been quiet about this. It’s not like they haven’t telegraphed it. In fact, I called it out in February. I released an episode titled, Who are the Domestic Enemies the Government Speaks Of?
When the phrase domestic enemy began to be thrown around with impunity, I grew alarmed. I said it was ill-defined and can encompass anyone. I warned that the government wanted to bring the tools used in the international War on Terror, here to the United States.
And here we are just 5-months later. Understand that you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to understand government and politics. If you did, I wouldn’t be in this field. When you understand the power dynamics of government and politics, things are largely predictable. Remember, human beings are creatures of habit, and the officials, both elected and appointed, are not immune. Since human beings are the ones who staff the government, the government becomes a creature of habit.
History is replete with examples of how governments constantly seek more power in the name of doing what’s in the people’s best interests, and unfortunately, people continue to grant the government more power.
It’s why Plato said that all democracies will end in tyranny. Our founding fathers were students of history, and they understood this well. They feared an all-powerful government, but they also learned a powerless government doesn’t work either as they found out when the Articles of Confederation collapsed.
It’s why they created the Constitutional Republic where safeguards are built-in to the system in an attempt to limit the abuse of power. Unfortunately, these safeguards are starting to buckle because we don’t know or understand why and how our system operates. Many are unfamiliar with who’s responsible for what. Many have forgotten the role they play within the system.
Because the American people have taken such a laissez-affaire approach to the government, the government has consistently grown larger and more powerful. As government gets more powerful, the abuses of power increase and we lose more liberty.
This is what led us to this moment.
The National Strategy For Countering Domestic Terrorism
Let’s jump right into the document. This document is 31-pages, I have the link up on The P.A.S. Report website in the show transcript. (National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism) I suggest you read it for yourselves.
And this isn’t about partisan politics. It’s not about Democrats or Republicans. This is about a massive government power grab. Where is our Congress? You know, the ones who are supposed to debate the issues and make laws? Aren’t you curious that we are witnessing a massive shift in our 230-year history without any debate and solely through executive action?
If you’re a Democrat out there, read this document, and tell me if you would be you would be comfortable with a Republican president putting this out there?
Another thing that’s pretty clear is that this document that’s supposed to be focusing on combating domestic terrorism wasn’t written by the analysts, it was written by political appointees pushing a political agenda.
What is the Threat Posed by Domestic Terrorism?
If you turn to page 6, right at the top of the page, it states, “The intelligence and law enforcement communities have articulated publicly the threat posed by domestic terrorism today.”
Have they really articulated the threat posed by domestic terrorists? Can any of you clearly define the threat?
Listen, I’m engrossed in this stuff all day long, every day. I pay particular attention to issues pertaining to homeland security and terrorism. Yet, I can’t explain to you what the threat is, and my contacts who are still in the field can’t explain it either, and they get situation reports every day.
If the government is going to usurp power and authority, defining the actual threat we face should be easy. Not only should it be easy, but they should also be able to provide specific information as to what the threat is and how serious the threat is.
Sorry, but I am not willing to turn over power until I know the details, and I’m not willing to simply trust the government.
Factors Leading to Domestic Terrorism
Continuing on page 6, the document states that “Today’s domestic terrorists espouse a range of violent ideological motivations,” and they list three factors that drive domestic terrorism.
The first is racism. Now they don’t clearly define what racism is, and throughout the document, it appears racism only exists within white communities. Throughout the document, you’ll see references to “superiority of the white race,” “white supremacy,” “white race,” etc. I’m used to this by now.
Ordinarily, I wouldn’t be concerned with the racism label. However, over the last several years, we’ve seen anything, and everything declared as racist. It’s been politically weaponized. The term is loosely thrown around, and many people have been accused of racism for simple policy disagreements.
Based on this report, just think of how easy it would be to exploit this. And I said to Tucker Carlson on Friday night, the same people pushing this document are the same ones that believe racism is inherent. That we are born racist. So, if people are born inherently racist would that automatically make them a domestic terrorist at birth?
Obviously, I’m using hyperbole there, but it’s not that far off because if you read a little further down the page in the third paragraph, it states, “Among that wide range of animating ideologies, racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists (principally those who promote the superiority of the white race).”
I always say language, and how it’s written and used is extremely important. The words used are carefully crafted. Take the word principally. Principally means for the most part. So, when they are talking about racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, for the most part, it’s white people. This defies logic as we know that people of all races can engage in racism. I know there are some who will say that if you are part of a minority class, you can’t be racist, but that’s nonsense.
Unfortunately, though, that’s not the worst of it. The other two factors are far more dangerous and open-ended. They are anti-government and anti-authority sentiments. Throughout this document, all three of these factors are vague and never defined. While we can use our judgment when it comes to racism, the same cannot be said about the anti-government or anti-authority sentiment.
Let’s take anti-government sentiment first. Does this mean if someone criticizes the government or its policies, they can be labeled as anti-government? Does that mean if someone advocates for small-limited government, would they be deemed anti-government?
In my classes, I’m constantly criticizing the government. I’m constantly telling my students to question the government and its policies even if they agree with those policies and those in power. I’m constantly reminding them to be skeptical of government. That’s my job. In fact, it’s our civic obligation to be critical of the government. Would this make me fall into the classification of being a domestic terrorist?
Now, some would push back and say it’s obvious what the government means when they say anti-government sentiment. I’ll remind those people that nothing is obvious and those in power can use this label as they see fit because of the vagueness. Do you think it’s a coincidence that anti-government sentiment isn’t really spelled out in this document? Do you think they just forgot to specify it? Realize how many hands this document passed through before its publication, and you would know that this is done intentionally.
The last one, anti-authority sentiment, is by far the most dangerous of the factors they list. What does anti-authority sentiment even mean? So, if you are someone who believes the government exceeded their authority during the pandemic, and that many of the decrees were unconstitutional, will you now be classified as a domestic terrorist because this criticism is deemed anti-authority?
I’ll remind everyone, last year over 1,200 public health officials signed a letter stating that those exercising what’s supposed to be their Constitutionally protected right under the First Amendment, those protesting lockdowns, masks, and other orders, was rooted in white nationalism. Would these public officials have the authority to refer protestors to law enforcement because they have been deemed racist and anti-authority by the powers that be?
These are serious and important questions, and to show how it’s not about politics, I want you to think about those who come out and protest in the name of climate change, socialism, gun control, whatever policy you can think of, and what’s to stop the government from deeming those people anti-authority. Sure, the Biden administration may support your initiatives now, but what about the next administration? Are you sure you want to go down this road?
Where’s the Data?
So, we have vague and general factors when it comes to who is targeted as a domestic terrorist. Essentially, you can fill in the blank and use these ill-defined factors to target anyone.
On page 8, it talks about violence only being perpetrated against defined minority groups. It talks about how this is the main motivation behind domestic terrorism. That sometimes it’s explicit, and other times it’s less explicit, “lurking in ideologies rooted in a perception of the superiority of the white race that calls for violence in furtherance of perverse and abhorrent notions of racial “purity” or “cleansing.”
I would like to know the data the government is working with. If we are going to take a major shift in our policies, one that grants government extraordinary power over the people, shouldn’t we know what the basis is? We’re always told to follow the data.
We currently live in a time where we have the most open and tolerant generation to ever exist, we have more interracial and interethnic families than ever before, yet this document makes it as if the United States is more racist and discriminatory than ever before.
Racism in any form cannot be tolerated, but I challenge the media and the powers that be to go into communities of color and ask the ordinary people, not the elite academics who operate in the world of theory, as ordinary Americans, how many white supremacists have they encountered in their life? Go into the Hispanic community and ask them if they worry more about white supremacy or MS-13? Go into the Black communities in places like Chicago, and ask them if they worry more about white supremacy or gang violence?
This is not to say racism doesn’t exist. It’s not to say people haven’t been discriminated against. It’s to point out reality. If we are going to be honest and claim that we care about lives, where is the national strategy against gang violence where far more people will be killed and every day is one of survival?
This section also ignores any violence between minority groups as if people of a minority can’t be racist.
Other Vague Terms
And there are other vague terms and phrases that are used in this document. Continuing on page 8, it talks about people, “who take steps to violently resist government authority or facilitate the overthrow of the U.S. Government based on perceived overreach.”
Now in normal times, normal people could easily define violence, but we are not living in normal times. We live in a time where anything classified as a microaggression is considered a form of violence. So, I would like to know what “violently resist government” actually means.
I would also like to know what perceived overreach means. The document states that anti-government and anti-authority sentiment is based on perceived overreach. Using the word perceived was carefully placed here. Who gets to decide whether the overreach is perceived?
Basically, if you say the government is overreaching, as I have done many times throughout the coronavirus. If you say the government is abusing its power, that’s your perception and it is not allowed.
Apparently, the same government that your accusing of overreach is the one who will determine whether they are overreaching or not. Think about that for a minute.
We also see a major contradiction on Page 9, up until this point, and after, it states that long-held beliefs of white supremacy are the root causes of domestic terrorism. However, on page 9, it states that “ideologies can be fluid, evolving, and overlapping.” So which is it, are the ideologies steeped in long-standing beliefs in racism, anti-government sentiment, and anti-authority sentiment, or is it fluid and ever-evolving?
When it comes to anti-authority, anti-government sentiments, aren’t usually based on who you support and who’s in power. Let’s be honest, politics and hypocrisy know no bounds, and opinions often change. While you may not be considered anti-government under a current administration, what happens when the next administration comes in?
What is Incitement?
And while the document consistently uses the word violence throughout the document, and we can all agree that violence is unacceptable, on page 9 we begin to see that it’s not only about those who commit, or plan to commit acts of violence, it also talks about those who, “incite imminent violence – in opposition to legislative, regulatory, or other actions taken by the government.”
So, what exactly do they mean by inciting? It’s overly broad, and factor in the word imminent, and that’s overly broad as well. I’ll remind you in 2012/2013, the Department of Justice came out with a memo justifying that the president can use armed predator drones on U.S. soil for “imminent threats.” It’s what led to Senator Paul’s filibuster, and ultimately the withdrawal of the memo.
So, they don’t define what incitement actually means, but on page 10, you begin to get an idea. It discusses what motivates domestic violent extremists and it talks about narratives. The document says, “such as narratives of fraud in the recent general election, the emboldening impact of the violent breach of the U.S. Capitol, conditions related to the COVID–19 pandemic, and conspiracy theories promoting violence–will almost certainly spur some DVEs to try to engage in violence this year.”
If narratives are what motivates domestic violent extremism, it means if you subscribe to these narratives, you may be inciting them to commit acts of violence. Now, look at the issues those who authored this document selected. Funny how the issues they list are the same ones that target their political opposition.
So, it doesn’t matter if you’re raising legitimate questions pertaining to certain issues, if you feed into the narrative, you can be tagged with incitement.
This page, page 10, is extremely troubling, and anyone can be ensnared into the incitement trap. It states that lone offenders and small cells are the ones who will usually carry out domestic terror attacks. Using the document’s own language, these lone offenders or small cells get radicalized by what they see and hear. The document argues that those putting out the content don’t engage in direct attacks on the United States.
Well, if someone gets “radicalized” by something you post, does that fall into the category of incitement. And I want everyone to see how this isn’t exclusive to one political party over another.
Let’s say you believe in climate change, and you constantly post information that the government is destroying the environment and not doing enough to fight the effects of climate change. Someone follows your feed because they agree. They get angrier and angrier with every social media post you put out there, and then that person goes out and commits an act of ecoterrorism. Are you now considered a domestic terrorist?
The National Strategy Approach
On page 12, the document begins to focus on the government’s approach to preventing and combating domestic terrorism. I’m going to come back to page 12 in a few minutes. But, at the top of page 13, it talks about the American tradition of “robust speech and it is a tradition we cherish.” It then goes on to say, “violence and its incitement are generally neither tolerated nor protected.” Again, as incitement is never defined, it encapsulates everything.
On page 14, the document states, “pursuing the goal of preventing, disrupting, and deterring acts of domestic terrorism means achieving the type of resilience that can prevent domestic terrorists from gaining traction and adherents in the first place,” and so, we need to ask how they intend to do this.
That brings us to the Four Pillars the National Strategy is going to focus on.
Pillar One
Pillar One begins on page 15, and it sounds fairly innocuous although one can easily see the abuses and the politicization that can happen. Pillar One focuses on “Understanding and Sharing Domestic Terrorism-Related Information.”
It discusses how in order to address the threat, we must thoroughly understand. I have no problems with that, and we should be trying to understand it. That’s the smart thing to do and when I was in emergency management, we constantly conducted risk and threat assessments.
What does concern me is how the strategy says, “Maximizing the Federal Government’s understanding of this particular threat also means supporting and making appropriate use of the analysis performed by entities outside the government.”
While the document says it will avoid bias and improper influence, we need to know who these entities are. Just to give you an example, the government and the media routinely use data from far-left organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). This organization is nothing more than a far-left organization that seeks to target political opponents. This is an organization that labeled Ayaan Hirsi Ali Maajid Nawaz as anti-Muslim extremists because they dare to speak out against the hardcore Salafist/Wahabi sect of Islam. This is an organization that targets Christian groups including the Family Research Council. Is the SPLC going to have a seat at the table?
Another concerning aspect of the first Pillar how the government calls for working more closely with the private sector. The report says the private sector may be the first to identify a potential threat and that information sharing is essential. They want private corporations to identify early threats by what the report deems as “credible non-governmental analysis.” Basically, they want corporations, the tech sector, and the financial industry to serve as their eyes and ears. This is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to spy on ordinary American’s and bypass the warrant process.
Given what we witnessed over the last two decades, and how complaint private entities have become, what’s to say they won’t willingly share your information with the government whenever the government requests information on an American citizen? See, it’s much easier for corporations to willingly turn over private information to the government than it is for the government to have to get a warrant to obtain the information.
Are all these private entities going to be filing suspicious activity reports like the banking sector does? Will these suspicious activity reports be filed against so-called radicals who take the wrong position on guns, education, healthcare, immigration, and virtually any other issue?
While Pillar One is concerning, the other Pillars that are far more concerning.
Pillar Two
Let’s move to the second Pillar starting on page 19. It discusses the need to “prevent individuals from being drawn into the grip of domestic terrorism in the first instance.” Let’s examine how they intend to do that, and the first thing that jumps out at you is where the document reads, “reducing both supply and demand of recruitment materials by limiting widespread availability online.”
Essentially what they are talking about is widespread censorship. If you jump back to page-10 where they discuss what motivates domestic violent extremism, they point to narratives. Logic would say that in order to prevent individuals from being drawn in, you must prevent the narratives from taking shape, thereby controlling the information of what people see and hear. This is an obvious overreach. Oh wait, I just said overreach. I am now deemed anti-authority and can be labeled a domestic terrorist.
Seriously though, you are talking about the government wanting to control the narrative and
determine what people can and cannot see. Now, this is obviously unconstitutional, but the workaround is easy. They want to empower Google and the social media giants to go on a widespread censorship blitz. You will now have the government and the tech sector coordinating talking points and determining what can and cannot be said.
On page 20, it begins to talk about communities, families, and individuals. At the bottom of page 20, it alludes to the idea that veterans, those separating and retiring from the military, are particularly susceptible to domestic violent extremism. Now, I want to know what they are basing that on? Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing occurred nearly 30-years ago. Once again, they make a statement, but they don’t provide any data.
But what really troubles me is on page 21. The document talks about recruiting individuals, families, and local communities, in order to prevent domestic terrorism. Pre-COVID, this would have been a harmless statement, however, given everything we’ve witnessed over the last year and a half, this is no longer the case.
When I appeared on Tucker, I brought up the Vermont governor. Some people reached out to me, and they didn’t know what I was talking about. Last Thanksgiving, Republican Governor Phil Scott implored people not to have Thanksgiving celebrations, and that when students return to school after Thanksgiving break, the schools will ask the children to tell on their parents and let the school know if they celebrated Thanksgiving with anyone from outside their household. Essentially, turning children into narcs against their parents.
And he wasn’t the only one. The Governor of Washington, Kate Brown, encouraged citizens to call the police on their neighbors if their neighbor has more than six people in their homes. Comrade DeBlasio called on New Yorkers to take a picture of anyone who violates social distancing and lockdown orders, and send the picture to the government so they can be identified and punished. Essentially, turn us into a nation of snitches.
They did this in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, where children were encouraged to tell their teachers if their parents said anything negative about the Saddam regime. Now obviously, I’m exaggerating using Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as an example, but how long before we are there. These are tactics used in a police state, not a free society. And now they want to recruit individuals and families to essentially serve as spies for the government. To be its eyes and ears.
On the bottom of page 21 and top of page 22, we see there is no limit to government monitoring, and here we witness the building out of the surveillance state. While social media immediately comes to mind to monitor the population, it’s not limited to them. This document includes virtually any communications platforms, “including social media, online gaming platforms, file-upload sites, and end-to-end encrypted chat platforms.”
Now, it’s not to say those with nefarious intent don’t operate on these platforms, they certainly do, but I would like to know what safeguards are in place to ensure people’s privacy? And again, they will use the companies to bypass the warrant process. This is nothing more than mass monitoring.
Pillar Three
Let’s move to the third Pillar, and on the top of page 24, we see how they intend to include hate crimes as domestic terrorist incidents. To all the morons out there, I am not justifying hate crimes, but hate crimes and domestic terrorism are two distinct and separate things. Terrorism focuses on the intentional targeting of civilians and government in an effort to instill fear and reshape government policy. Hate crimes are committed through hate and are not done to influence policy.
More importantly, if hate crimes are now considered a form of domestic terrorism, wouldn’t hate speech also be considered domestic terrorism? Follow their own logic in this report. Wouldn’t hate speech be considered incitement and therefore worthy of being branded as domestic terrorism?
Here’s the problem with that…how is hate speech defined? Again, in this day and age, simple policy disagreements have been labeled as hate speech and offensive speech. So, who gets to define what constitutes hate speech and what doesn’t?
On page 26, we see calls to expand the terrorist watchlist. Once again, they don’t identify what this expansion entails, but the assumption is that it will be anyone who gets the anti-government, anti-authority label, and just think how some have called for sitting members of the House and the Senate to be put on no-fly lists and terrorist watchlists. I can easily see this one get abused.
Pillar Four
But the fourth Pillar shows just how it’s all about politics. This Pillar talks about confronting the long-term contributors to domestic terrorism, and how to eliminate the threat going forward. You can easily see this by looking at pages 27-29.
It talks about tackling gun violence, and this isn’t the only section to bring up firearms. On page 11, the report talks about access to firearms, and on page 19, it says that reducing access to assault weapons is necessary. So in order to stop domestic terrorism, we must implement strict gun control measures.
Another way to eradicate domestic terrorism is through the education system. The report states, “It means ensuring that Americans receive the type of civics education that promotes tolerance and respect for all and investing in policies and programs that foster civic engagement and inspire a shared commitment to American democracy, all the while acknowledging when racism and bigotry have meant that the country fell short of living up to its founding principles.”
Essentially what they are arguing is that Critical Race Theory (CRT), and Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity (DIE) programs, need to be incorporated and codified in curriculums throughout the country.
And it’s not just about confronting racism, it’s also about advancing “equity for under-served communities.” Again, language is important, and equity is the new buzzword for a socialist agenda.
Another solution to ending the long-term threat of domestic terrorism, the report calls for “Congress to deliver immediate financial relief to millions of Americans, thus contributing to an equitable economic recovery that can counter the economic dislocation and even despair felt by many Americans.” Essentially, we need to provide a universal guaranteed income to prevent people from becoming domestic terrorists.
The report makes it clear, adopt the Democrat agenda, and that solves the problem of domestic terrorism.
Proponents of the National Strategy
Proponents of the national strategy, and those that support this, will say I am exaggerating the claims. They’ll say I’m using hyperbole. They’ll say there are safeguards built in to prevent abuses. They’ll say the document repeatedly mentions respect for civil rights and civil liberties. They say it will never be used for political purposes. They will say the report says any investigation and prosecution will be insulated from any political influence or biases.
Let’s take the idea of safeguards first. For those that say to you safeguards are built-in, ask them what those safeguards are? Tell them to specifically reference the document and to show you what page these so-called safeguards are listed on.
When they say that the report repeatedly mentions respecting civil rights and civil liberties, they’re right. The report does mention this, but so what? Has the government never lied? Have they never violated civil rights and liberties?
Just look at the Patriot Act. Remember we were told that the government would never spy on people? How did that claim age? Remember when we were told that the Patriot Act was solely for the purpose of combating international terrorism. Well, since the Patriot Act was enacted, it’s been used in a whole host of investigations that have nothing to do with terrorism.
Sorry, I’m not just going to take what the government says at face value. It’s my job to be skeptical of government, and when we just give blind trust to the government, it’s when the government will almost certainly abuse its powers. It’s also important to remember that people with good intentions have done some bad things all in the name of protecting people. Don’t ever just blindly trust the government and what they say. Ask questions and push back.
Also, I think the coronavirus is also a perfect example. If I told you two years ago that the government would determine which businesses are essential and which ones are nonessential. If I would have said the government will dictate when, where. and how, you practice your faith. Who can and cannot come into your home. Where you can and cannot go. You would have called me a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist, yet here we are.
The idea that the government won’t use this to target political opposition is illogical. We are human beings, and all of us are flawed. Anything we create is also going to be flawed, including the government. And because of certain human characteristics such as greed, envy, jealousy, and ambition, we will always see people in power use tools like this and abuse these tools.
On page 12, the report states, “Particular investigatory and prosecutorial decisions are for law enforcement alone, unaffected by and insulated from any political influence or bias.” That one is just laughable on its face. I know because we’ve never seen law enforcement or the intelligence community operate in a political capacity before. We’ve never seen them inject biases in their investigations.
Also, doesn’t this contradict the narrative we’ve been told over the last several years, especially the last year, where the drumbeat has been that law enforcement is biased towards a certain group of people? Doesn’t this contradict the entire idea of institutional bias and systemic racism? I mean, think about this logically, the same people telling us that there is nothing to worry about and the government won’t overstep its bounds, are the same ones who have repeatedly stated that all institutions of government are biased. Go figure that one out.
And if this report wasn’t biased, then why isn’t there any mention of Antifa? Why didn’t it talk about the violence we witnessed last summer, and in some cases, the violence we continue to witness in Portland. Destroying cities, tearing down statues, creating autonomous zones, I could easily categorize this as anti-government and anti-authority, yet no mention of any of this in the document. Interesting.
Closing
But that brings me to the final point. That it doesn’t matter what your political ideology is. It doesn’t matter if you are a Democrat or a Republican. This could easily be abused and manipulated. This grants an enormous amount of power to the federal apparatus.
For those who are going to say, “You’re just a conservative, and you don’t like anything Biden does.” I’ve been a conservative my whole life, and in 2003 I warned about the increasing government power. That’s when President Bush was in office, and we had a Republican-led Congress.
I warned then, “The United States and the American people must tread carefully in this unexplored territory. If U.S. citizens begin to give up their rights in order for a guarantee of safety and security, the foundation of the United States justice system will be lost forever, the U.S. Constitution would be worthless, and everyone who has fought and died for this country would have done so in vain. Everything our founders believed in and fought for would be undermined and completely destroy the system they created. The control of government by the individual and the rights of the individual is what has made America the greatest civilization in human history and the beacon of hope throughout the world. The more rights relinquished to government, the more powerful and authoritarian the government becomes.’
And trust me, there are both Democrat and Republican officials that want to see this enacted. Here’s the thing none of you can predict who’s going to be in power 5, 10, 15, 20-years from now.
None of you can predict what the country will look like. And what I do know is that it doesn’t matter which political party controls the White House. Anything one President does, the next President will do and usually expand upon it.
With the exception of Dwight D. Eisenhower, power is rarely restored to the people. Government programs, once instituted, rarely go away. In fact, they only grow and expand.
It makes it even more concerning that many who support this document have called for their political opposition to be deprogrammed, re-educated, purged from society. These same people have called for truth commissions and have talked about creating lists. Do you really think this strategy won’t be used for these purposes?
And take a listen to this clip. This is the former FBI Assistant Director for counterintelligence, Frank Figliuzzi, and what he says should send shivers down your spine. Take a listen
Play Sound Clip
Own Your FREEDOM, Your HEALTH, Your WELLNESS
Peace of mind in a box - keep a Medical Emergency Kit in your medicine cabinet
Get 10% off your order Use code PAS at checkout
That’s insane. This is not some random far-left pundit. This is the former FBI Assistant Director for counterintelligence. Here he is saying that sitting members of Congress, who’ve been duly elected, need to be rounded up. That the Republican party itself is a domestic terror organization and the command-and-control structure exists within the Republican party in Congress. God help us if that’s the mindset of current officials.
This is what they do in third-world countries, where they criminalize opposition and round up political opponents. This is not democracy. This is totalitarianism.
For those of you who may support the Biden agenda, and this document, would you support it if it was written and released by the Trump administration or the Bush administration? Just take out the Democrat examples and policy issues and replace them with Republican examples and policy issues. Would you support it then? Be honest with yourself. You know you would be screaming dictator, fascist, authoritarian.
But that’s exactly what this document is, and if we don’t stand up and speak out against this document now, mark my words, this will be just the beginning. I will guarantee you that this will be just the foundation for the surveillance state and the social credit system many have been calling for.
If this document goes into full effect, it won’t be long before we start seeing speech codes get implemented. From there, we’ll adopt European-style speech laws and certain speech will become criminal. As we begin to see a tighter grip on speech, it will quickly move to the press.
Unfortunately, our officials are disregarding these safeguards, and it threatens the entire system and our way of life. Every member of Congress needs to read this document and recognize how dangerous it is.
But it’s also on you as well. Each and every one of you should contact every single member of Congress. It doesn’t matter whether they have a D or R next to their name, and it doesn’t matter if they’re in your district. Use your voice and raise the alarm bells about this document. The legislative branch serves as a check on executive power, and we need to force Congress to use that check when it comes to this document.
It’s critical we spread the word about this document. Share this episode with others. Share it with your friends and family. We need to stop this now.
I want to thank you for joining me, I want you to stay safe, and I’ll be back next week.
The P.A.S. Report wants to hear from you. Send your feedback to podcast@pasreport.com. Please leave a 5-star rating and write a review on Apple Podcast.
Please share this episode with others & on social media.
*PA Strategies, LLC. earns a commission when you make a purchase through any affiliate links on this website and within this post.
Follow Nicholas Giordano
You must be logged in to post a comment.