Proof Positive that the government rates body scanner resisters as “Non-Islamic DomesticTerrorists”

My report DHS & TSA: Making a list, checking it twice has apparently stirred a lot of controversy. It has also been met with skepticism and denials about its actual existence. Some find it difficult to believe that our government would actually label anyone who opposes the use of naked body scanners and aggressive airport pat-downs as "domestic extremists." It is unfortunately obvious that there are many people who are living in a state of denial or blissful ignorance. We are living in a time when our government can issue an official 86-page report about the mass murder of 13 people at Fort Hood by a man who shouted "Allahu Akbar" before he began pumping bullets into innocent bystanders yet never once mention Islam, Muslim or the Islamic ideology that allegedly motivated the attack.

---

Alternatively, the government has labeled anyone opposing abortion, illegal immigration, or members of the "alternative media" as "domestic extremists." Such designations were made infamous by the leaked "MIAC Memo," a shortened reference to the "strategic report" issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center dated 20 February 2009. Careful research will show that the memo, which was a law enforcement work product that was actually limited in its intended dissemination, was rebuffed by DHS officials and later "retracted." Government officials downplayed its intent after the publication went "viral." It was defended as a training aid that was overblown and taken out of context. Subsequent assurances have been made by the federal government that no such designations exist, at least not in the context of surveillance or other oversight measures of anyone but enemies who pose actual threats to our homeland. These assurances have been parroted by the corporate media shilling for Napolitano and others, who further imply that assertions to the contrary are nothing but conspiratorial nonsense that have no basis in fact. Visits to politically polarized Internet forums and web sites will find pundits and posters disparaging anyone who would fall for such conspiratorial nonsense. They demand proof through publication of the existence of closely guarded and classified memos, lists, and documents that detail such designations. Absent of such proof, they vociferously contend that it simply does not exist. To provide insight to those who are concerned over the direction our current leadership is taking our national security, perhaps we should refer to DHS source document IA-0233-09 dated 26 March 2009 titled "Domestic Extremist Lexicon." It is an eleven-page document prepared by the Strategic Analysts Group and the Extremism Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division. Arranged in alphabetical order, the preface clearly states that that the lexicon addresses the nature and scope of the threat that domestic, non-Islamic extremism poses to the United States, and specifically names such groups and provides a definition for each. A perusal of the "threat" identified found the following on page two:

Carefully note that the intentionally definition of "alternative media" includes any information source outside of the corporate media. Next, take a look at an entry on page three of this document:

Perhaps one of the more interesting "threats" is listed on page four, which states that any act of "civil disobedience" (including "protests") is considered a domestic threat to the United States:

To those who remain skeptical that the DHS under the direction of Janet Napolitano, does not classify individuals or groups who would protest the recently enhanced security screening procedures implemented at U.S. airports as non-Islamic domestic terror threats to the U.S. are either in a perilous state of denial or ignorant of the current focus of our "homeland security ." Indeed, threats to the security of the United States exist within our country. Some have walked or driven in across the border. Others, we've voted in or have been appointed by those who have been elected. In any case, it would appear that "Big Sis" is looking in all the wrong places. I contend that it is by design.