(Freedom.news) In case you haven’t noticed, the federal government has been warning of a “terrorism” threat of some sort ever since Barack Obama has been in office, and various government and intelligence agencies have done so again, recently. This should be something you’re paying attention to, and I’ll explain why.
Last week, as reported by the Washington Free Beacon, top U.S. intelligence officials warned Congress – again – that the nation is facing the highest terror threat since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, “citing a record-breaking increase in the flow of foreign fighters to Syria and Iraq, as well as joint Iranian-North Korean plans to boost “attack capabilities” and other efforts by leading terror groups to increase their offensive capabilities.”
As Iran “continues to be the foremost sponsor of terror” across the globe, ISIS has emerged as the “preeminent global terrorist threat,” with its combined strength now exceeding al Qaeda’s, says Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who warned lawmakers on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that “unpredictable instability has become the new normal.”
Clapper and other U.S. intelligence officials say the reason why the threat has gotten so serious is because terrorist groups have managed to develop unprecedented capabilities to hide their actions.
These warnings come on the heels of similar warnings by the Department of Homeland Security over the past several years – all during the Obama administration – which were even more ominous in that they appeared to be directed at Americans – citizens who simply have a different political perspective than the current administration.
As noted by CNN a year ago:
A new intelligence assessment, circulated by the Department of Homeland Security this month and reviewed by CNN, focuses on the domestic terror threat from right-wing sovereign citizen extremists and comes as the Obama administration holds a White House conference to focus efforts to fight violent extremism.
Some federal and local law enforcement groups view the domestic terror threat from sovereign citizen groups as equal to — and in some cases greater than — the threat from foreign Islamic terror groups, such as ISIS, that garner more public attention.
In 2009, DHS issued a similar warning, focused on “right-wing” (read Republicans and conservatives) extremists and even returning veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
Recall that, in recent years, a few Americans have essentially justified the administration’s warnings. In April 2014, there was a standoff in Nevada between a local rancher, Cliven Bundy, and the Bureau of Land Management, ostensibly over fees and grazing rights that the Bundy family has exercised for nearly a century. And last month some of the same people involved in the Nevada incident took over a federal building in Oregon resulting in another standoff that ended with several arrests and the shooting death by a federal agent of one of those Americans.
Regardless of the complaints and whether you think they were justified, both of these incidents have essentially substantiated the two damning DHS assessments.
Now, couple these incidents with continued warnings by the Obama administration about the rising instances of “terrorism” – domestic and international – and you have to ask what Obama is prepared to do if such standoffs happen again, before he leaves office; would he be willing to declare a national emergency – a nation in rebellion – and subvert the Constitution completely?
There is precedent, albeit an extreme one.
As the Civil War began following the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter, President Lincoln declared a national emergency, exercising power and taking actions that had enver before been taken by a president, all of which were eventually upheld by the Supreme Court or authorized with after-the-fact legislative action by Congress. Why? Because it was the nature of the national emergency – the context Lincoln assigned to it – that make it easier for Congress and the federal courts to side with the president.
The Heritage Foundation notes:
In the 80 days that elapsed between Abraham Lincoln’s April 1861 call for troops–the beginning of the Civil War–and the official convening of Congress in special session on July 4, 1861, Lincoln performed a whole series of important acts by sheer assumption of presidential power. Lincoln, without congressional approval, called forth the militia to “suppress said combinations,” which he ordered “to disperse and retire peacefully” to their homes. He increased the size of the Army and Navy, expended funds for the purchase of weapons, instituted a blockade–an act of war–and suspended the precious writ of habeas corpus, all without congressional approval.
Lincoln termed these actions not the declaration of “civil war,” but rather the suppression of rebellion. We all know that only Congress is constitutionally empowered to declare war, but suppression of rebellion has been recognized as an executive function, for which the prerogative of setting aside civil procedures has been placed in the President’s hands [our emphasis].
Lincoln’s designation that the country was in rebellion rather than at war is an important distinction, and no doubt a calculated one.
Some scholars would argue that since states comprising the Confederacy actually formed a functional government that it was indeed a sovereign country, not a region in rebellion, and that attacking it would be tantamount to an act of war (which Lincoln could not declare on his own). Others say Lincoln was correct in deeming secession an act of rebellion and then governing as such.
Which side was ultimately correct is still a matter of academic research and debate, but as far as many are concerned, it is a settled issue: The president determines a state of rebellion and may then govern accordingly (executive actions, emergency orders, etc.), while Congress declares war. And as we’ve seen, Obama plays a sort of catch me if you can with Congress and federal courts; he issues the orders and then dares the other branches of government to stop him.
It’s also noteworthy that Obama has often cited Lincoln in his public comments; is Obama prepared to emulate the 16th president and use the next act of resistance as a way to deem the nation in rebellion and, thus, take appropriate offensive and defensive actions to “suppress” it?
One thing to remember is that Lincoln stood for reelection while the war was still being waged; other, regular federal elections were held as well. But Lincoln was trying to reunite the country; Obama has done whatever he could to divide it and “fundamentally transform” it. Obama is more interested in power than country.
It is also important to point out that Obama’s actions are very likely to spur even more “rebellion” among various groups around the country, and he would, of course, use those examples to further justify his actions.
No one knows what’s in Obama’s heart and soul but him, of course. Still, there are some ominous signs that our government is hyper-focused on “terrorism” and in particular, “domestic terrorists” (the first step in a revolutionary’s playbook is to personalize and demonize your opponent). And our constitutionally schooled president is well aware of its history.