Here is why talk of U.S domestic terrorism and further laws could be scary in this highly sensitive political climate.
Everyone loves safety and security. As a matter of fact, it should be high on your list of priorities in this modern world. But you should always pay attention when governments talk about security, national defense, and safety.
Different government representatives may have good intentions, but it can lead to dire consequences and government overreach. You see a prime example of this issue with the highly suspicious Hong Kong security law in China.
The Hong Kong security law deals with domestic terrorism activities such as insurrections, collaborating with foreigners, secession inclinations, and other activities that can easily be construed as domestic terrorism. If China deems an individual unruly, they can face life in prison or suffer similar punishment.
As such, it is peculiar that more calls for domestic laws appear within the United States, a land that is known as a beacon of freedom and democracy. The FBI has only fairly recently warned about the rise of domestic terrorism, and there is domestic terrorism talk in legislative bodies in recent times.
That is troubling for several reasons, especially in an era where the United States is full of highly contentious views and divides.
The Issue Resides in The Definitions of Domestic Terrorism and the Definer
There is a growing group of civil liberties groups showing issues in domestic terrorism language. For instance, did you know that if you have libertarian tendencies, are a firm subscriber to civil liberties, and a Constitutional rights enthusiast, that you may fall under a domestic terrorist watchlist?
This is far from hyperbole. Those who subscribe to Christian beliefs, loathe digital privacy invasion by Big Tech and Big Brother, and talk about the rising tide of censorship of certain views, can also fall under domestic terrorist watchlists.
If you are known to talk about the potential evils that may befall the world with the rise of the Anti-Christ, discuss the last book of the Bible, or have similar tendencies, then the DHS could classify you as a domestic terrorist.
The issue is that definitions of domestic terrorism could target around 50% of the United States population. Experts have written in the past over alarming local law enforcement training by the DHS. It can be even more concerning if there is a centralization of these principles and dissemination of these points in local communities by the Federal government.
It causes more concerns as the DHS has involvement in other organizations such as the Transportation Security Agency and even FEMA.
If individuals who are more libertarian oriented, like bitcoiners, who appreciate the second amendment, like the NRA, and, oh, yeah, bitcoiners who favor gun clubs, then that poses an issue. But, other designations also may be alarming.
Suppose you consider yourself someone who is self-reliant and appreciates books like Patriots or One Second After that talk about survivalism and self-sufficiency in general. In that case, you might fall under a potential domestic terrorist category.
Unfortunately, it also applies to those who cry out about rising debt levels, hedge their portfolios with precious metals, store physical gold, and think about the barter system.
Further, those who conduct homeschooling and discuss or stay up to date on the great reset, the new world order, and similar topics can also fall into this category.
The worst part is that it’s almost as if you have individual thoughts, do not want to live solely on government support, believe in the value of self-reliance, put effort into your children’s education, and be generally prepared. It makes you a potential threat that is capable of being an extremist and seemingly, a problem hiding in plain sight.
Domestic Terrorism Language Can Be Scary in the Digital Era
It is even more troubling in a digital era where user activity, location, and sentiments can be tracked even more easily than ever before. The unholy matrimony between technology and more surveillance-oriented governments does not bode well for civil liberties, freedom of speech, and overall individual expression.
Letting United States organizations run rampant collecting a massive amount of data on its citizens distracts from growing threats abroad. Former FBI Agents have noted the rate of data collection and reports filed on the United States and citizens and the various problems that it poses.
In regard to more laws, there already several laws on the books relating to terrorism, both abroad and domestically. Yes, a slew of laws were added after the 9/11 attacks. These laws cover each aspect of life, from financial movement to further regulation of other elements of life.
To be clear, no one wants domestic terrorists, destabilization, or violence. These aspects do not contribute to a robust, healthy and prosperous United States, but it is hard to stand by as over reach occurs at every segment of life.
More laws could certainly foster abuse and even further invasion of privacy.