2. Obama's "Rightwing" Assassin: The DHS memo states that "Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president...but they have not yet turned to attack planning...Extremists appeared to be in the early planning stages of some threatening activity targeting [Obama], but law enforcement interceded."
OBAMACSI.COM: In the stunning report from Missouri Law Enforcement (no doubt authored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security), sweeping generalizations and scapegoating are made by law enforcement officials regarding the American people, their alleged threat to the U.S. government, and their classification as would be "terrorists".
Title: MIAC Strategic Report: The Modern Militia Movement
Date: February 20, 2009
Source: Missouri State Highway Patrol
Abstract: In the now de-classified document, the following groups of people have been labeled as potential "rightwing" terrorists:
1. Christians2. White Nationalists3. Sovereign Citizens4. Pro-Lifers5. Tax Resistors6. Anti-Immigrationists7. Gadsden Flag "Don't Tread on Me" Wavers9. Ron Paul Supporters
2. OBAMA'S "RIGHTWING" ASSASSIN
OBAMACSI.COM: The DHS memo states that "Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president...but they have not yet turned to attack planning...Extremists appeared to be in the early planning stages of some threatening activity targeting [Obama], but law enforcement interceded."
Title: Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic And Political Climate Fueling Resurgence In Radicalization and Recruitment
Date: April 7, 2009
Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Abstract: (U//LES) Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.
(U//LES) Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use.
Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment. From the 2008 election timeframe to the present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential sympathizers.
(U//LES) Most statements by rightwing extremists have been rhetorical, expressing concerns about the election of the first African American president, but stopping short of calls for violent action. In two instances in the run-up to the election, extremists appeared to be in the early planning stages of some threatening activity targeting the Democratic nominee, but law enforcement interceded (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2009).
3. THE "CHRISTIAN" TERRORISTS
OBAMACSI.COM: The link between terrorists such as Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City Bombing) and Behring Breivik (Norway Terror Attacks) has been repeatedly made, and it is clear that Christians will now be scapegoated in future terror attacks.
Date: October 28, 2002
Source: Free Republic
Abstract: Not again, I thought. In the middle of a cogent argument against giving in to terrorist demands in a vain attempt to win their hearts and minds, New York Post columnist Jonathan Foreman tries to construct an analogy to the Oklahoma City bombing:
"It was committed by young white Christians who felt great rage again the United States government...What would winning the hearts and minds of these people have involved? Mandatory Christian prayer in schools, perhaps?"
Timothy McVeigh, Christian terrorist? I certainly did not remember him that way. Where had any responsible journalist gotten the idea that McVeigh murdered 168 Americans in order to get prayer in schools? I spent the afternoon looking over years of press clippings probing the mind of McVeigh. In contemporaneous accounts, McVeigh was never described as killing out of religious motives. Nor was there any evidence that, at the time of the bombing, he even considered himself a Christian.
On the two great state occasions McVeigh had, at his sentencing and his execution, Jesus made no appearance in his rhetoric. At the sentencing, McVeigh quoted from Louis Brandeis' 1928 decision: "Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example." McVeigh's last public act before he was executed was to distribute copies of the 1875 poem "Invictus." It begins: "I thank whatever gods may be/ for my unconquerable soul," and ends "I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul" -- sentiments that to a Christian are at least vaguely blasphemous.
In a letter to the Buffalo News and in conversations with author Dan Herbeck, McVeigh said he had no firm convictions about an afterlife: "And he told us that when he finds out if there's an afterlife, he will improvise, adapt and overcome, just like they taught him in the Army," Herbeck said. In May 2001, Esquire published 13 letters of McVeigh's. In them, he portrays himself variously as a patriot, a lover of "The Simpsons," a "Star Trek junkie," a fan of the movie "Unforgiven," a reader of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged," an enthusiastic consumer of Hustler and Penthouse magazines. His only direct religious reference (other than a Christmas card) was a letter dated April 11, 1998: "Yesterday was Good Friday; tomorrow is Easter; and it's been so long since I've been to church (except Christian Identity) (kidding!)."
Reporting on his execution, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution described McVeigh as "an avowed agnostic" whose sudden last-minute decision to see a Catholic priest just before his execution surprised everyone who knew him. As recently as July 2001, even a lefty like Barbara Ehrenreich (writing in the Progressive) did not portray McVeigh as having religious motives. She called McVeigh a "homegrown neo-Nazi mass murderer," yes; Christian fundamentalist, no.
So when did the media begin to routinely portray McVeigh as a Christian terrorist? Right after 9-11. Here are two early examples: On Sept. 17, 2001, a San Francisco Chronicle columnist blurted: "The hijackers are no more typical Muslims than Timothy McVeigh is a typical Christian." On Oct. 4, a USA Today columnist picked up the refrain, describing Sept. 11 terrorists as having "more in common with Timothy McVeigh, whose twisted paramilitary take on Christian retribution led him to avenge the Davidians' death."
Timothy McVeigh, Christian terrorist. How has such a patent
falsehood spread so quickly and easily through responsible media?
Evidently the psychic need to equate Christian fundamentalists, millions
of whom have lived peacefully in America since its founding, with
radical Islamic terrorists who commit mass murder simply overwhelmed
standards of journalism. Or, one might add, common decency (Free Republic, 2002)
Date: January 7, 2010
Source: World Net Daily
Abstract: I don't know how many times I've heard it.
Over the years I've had many debates with moral relativists who insist on turning a deaf ear to the obvious connection between Islam and terrorism.
They never fail to minimize the direct connection between Islam's embrace of violent jihad and the actions of its adherents, while claiming, "Christians are terrorists, too."
When you ask for an example of a Christian terrorist, the name Timothy McVeigh, the man executed for his role in the Oklahoma City bombing, is usually offered as exhibit A.
Next month, ABC will be airing a documentary called "Different Books, Common Word: Baptists and Muslims" featuring the Rev. Bruce Prescott, executive director of something called "Mainstream Oklahoma Baptists."
In publicizing the documentary, Prescott made the following statement: "We have extremists in both our faiths. We're just trying to find some common ground to promote peace."
Ask Prescott about who those extremists are within his faith and he will readily point to McVeigh.
There's just one problem with this example: McVeigh was not a Christian.
McVeigh was a secular humanist who claimed "science is my religion."
Here's what he said: "I was raised Catholic. I was confirmed Catholic (received the sacrament of confirmation). Through my military years, I sort of lost touch with the religion. I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs."
Asked if he even believed in God, McVeigh offered: "I do believe in a God, yes. But that's as far as I want to discuss. If I get too detailed on some things that are personal like that, it gives people an easier way to alienate themselves from me and that's all they are looking for now."
Try as one might, you will not find McVeigh ever associating himself with Christian beliefs. In all the interviews he gave on this subject, he does just opposite – distancing himself from Christianity.
Nevertheless, in the nine years since his execution as a mass murderer, he continues to be the poster boy for some non-existent link between Christian belief and terrorist violence.
Now, this is not to suggest that the name of Christianity hasn't been misused throughout history to perpetrate some horrific crimes and injustices. Indeed it has.
But to suggest a moral and quantitative equivalence between
terrorist violence inspired by Islam and terrorist violence inspired by
Christianity is so absurd it hardly needs to be stated. One would need
to be willingly blind of horrors taking place around the world on a
daily basis – beheadings, bombings, riots, misogyny in unspeakable
forms, genocidal policies and the forcible imposition of Saudi-style and
Taliban-style Shariah law.
On the other side of the coin, there is McVeigh – a man with a tenuous childhood connection to the Catholic faith who openly rejected it as an adult and embraced "science."
Is this the best evidence Prescott and others have for "extremism" among Christians?
I suspect there's a subtle form of racism at play here. McVeigh is a white guy who was raised in a Western country. As he makes clear himself in more than one interview, his religious beliefs were secular, not Christian. But being a white Westerner is enough, apparently, to lump him in with Christianity, which is somehow perceived as a "white" religion – which it is clearly not. Christianity is growing rapidly in Africa and other non-white countries. Nowhere is it used as a justification for terrorist violence on a scale approaching Islam.
Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims are disproportionately the victims of terrorist violence in the U.S. and around the globe.
To continue to blame the terrorism we see at work around the
world on "extremists" and to pretend it is simply the work of
individuals disconnected from any ideology is a disservice to reason
and, to be put it mildly, a disservice to the truth (World Net Daily, 2010).
Title: Stephanie Miller: A Christian Terrorist...Like Timothy McVeigh
Date: August 30, 2010
Date: July 25, 2011
Source: Common Dreams
Abstract: Timothy McVeigh, meet Anders Behring Breivik.
Those two jihadists—two right-wing reactionaries, two terrorists, two anti-government white supremacists, two Christians—have a lot in common, down to the way the massacres they carried out were first mistaken for the work of Islamists by an American press rich in zealotry of its own. And they have a lot more in common with the fundamentalist politicians and ideologues among us who pretend to have nothing to do with the demons they inspire.
After the Oklahoma City bombing in April 1995, speculation flew on television news stations about Arab terrorists seen in the vicinity of the federal building. The thought that a home-grown, Midwestern Army veteran of the first Gulf war could possibly murder 168 people, including 19 children at a day care center, seemed as foreign as those Islamic lands that were then inspiring so much of bigotry’s latest American mutant. McVeigh turned out to be as all-American as he could possibly be, with extras. His paradoxical worship of the Second Amendment was the faith that fueled his hatred of a government he felt had betrayed American ideals by enabling what he called “Socialist wannabe slaves.” His idealism of a golden-age white America was the Christian translation of al-Qaeda’s idealized caliphate.
It became quickly evident that the bombing in Oslo and the massacre on Utoya Island on Friday had been carried out by Anders Breivik, who surrendered to police 40 minutes after beginning his killing spree on the island. Yet the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial on Saturday putting the blame for the attack on Islamist extremists, because “in jihadist eyes,” the paper said, “it will forever remain guilty of being what it is: a liberal nation committed to freedom of speech and conscience, equality between the sexes, representative democracy and every other freedom that still defines the West."
The paper subsequently amended its editorial to concede that Breivik “was an ethnic Norwegian with no previously known ties to Islamist groups.” But the rest of the piece still framed the attack in the context of Islamist terrorism. It’s a common tactic at the Journal and Fox News—co-owned by Rupert Murdoch’s scandal-riddled News Corp.—where facts are incidental to ideology. It is enough for the Journal to insinuate a connection for its Foxified audience to catch the drift and run with it. Breivik may be Norwegian. But he wouldn’t be doing what he did if it weren’t for the pollution of white, Christian European blood by Muslims and multiculturalists, by leftists, by Socialist wannabe slaves.
McVeigh and Breivik are bloody reminders that Western culture’s original sin—the presumption of supremacy—is alive and well and clenching many a trigger. It’ll be easy in coming days, as it was in 1995, to categorize the demons as exceptions unrepresentative of their societies. Easy, but false. Norway, like much of Europe, like the United States, is in the grips of a disturbing resurgence of right-wing fanaticism. “The success of populist parties appealing to a sense of lost national identity,” The Times reports, “has brought criticism of minorities, immigrants and in particular Muslims out of the beer halls and Internet chat rooms and into mainstream politics. While the parties themselves generally do not condone violence, some experts say a climate of hatred in the political discourse has encouraged violent individuals."
It’s convenient duplicity. The parties don’t explicitly condone violence. But they would have no appeal without explicitly endorsing beliefs of supremacy and projecting the sort of scorn and hatred for those who fall outside the tribe that cannot but lead to violence or the sort of fractured society we’ve become so familiar with. Those “Take Back America” bumper stickers share most of their DNA with the same strain of rejectionist white Europeans who think their culture is being bankrupted by Socialism and immigrants. Those idiotic anti-Sharia laws creeping up in Oklahoma, Arizona and Florida take their cues from the likes of Geert Wilder, the Dutch People’s Party leader who compares the Koran to Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Florida’s own Koran-burning Terry Jones or the Rev. Franklin Graham’s velvety crusade against Islam are Wilder’s American clones.
Timothy McVeigh’s rhetoric may have been more extreme, but it was indistinguishable from the more college-polished and aged rhetoric of anti-government reactionaries now pretending to speak for American ideals under the banner of patriots, tea parties, Fox News’s hacking of the “fair and balanced” parody, or more establishment oriented zealots in Congress. The common denominator is exclusion and heresy: those who supposedly belong to “true” American values, and those who don’t. Al-Qaeda’s loyalty oath is identical: those who belong to “true” Islamic values and those who don’t. Either way, the inclusive, tolerant, broad-minded, and yes, multicultural outlook is under siege by fundamentalism in virtually every part of society as we know it: cultural, political, economic, religious. Timothy McVeigh and Anders Breivik used bombs and rifles. More seasoned zealots use rhetoric and policies. The ongoing march of folly over the national debt is merely one example among many.
“We tend to think of national security narrowly as the risk of a military or terrorist attack,” the columnist Nicholas Kristof writes today. “But national security is about protecting our people and our national strength — and the blunt truth is that the biggest threat to America’s national security this summer doesn’t come from China, Iran or any other foreign power. It comes from budget machinations, and budget maniacs, at home.”
Islamists who may want us harm need only sit back and enjoy the view.
They might as well have outsourced the job to their Christian brethren,
with plenty of assists from mainstream conservatives. There’s no
segregating these demons and maniacs. They’re an integral part of
western culture. They’re us (Common Dreams, 2011).
Date: July 31, 2011
Source: San Francisco Chronicle
Abstract: When the "enemy" is different, an outsider, it's easier to draw quick conclusions, to develop stereotypes. It's simply human nature: There is "us," and there is "them." But what happens when the enemy looks like us — from the same tradition and belief system?
That is the conundrum in the case of Norway and Anders Behring Brevik, who is being called a "Christian extremist" or "Christian terrorist."
As westerners wrestle with such characterizations of the Oslo mass murder suspect, the question arises: Nearly a decade after 9/11 created a widespread suspicion of Muslims based on the actions of a fanatical few, is this what it's like to walk a mile in the shoes of stereotype?
"Absolutely," said Mark Kelly Tyler, pastor of Mother Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Philadelphia. "It clearly puts us in a position where we can't simply say that extreme and violent behavior associated with a religious belief is somehow restricted to Muslim extremists."
"It speaks to cultural assumptions, how we are able to understand something when it [comes from] us," Tyler said. "When one of us does something terrible, we know that's not how we all think, yet we can't see that with other people."
Psychologists say stereotypes come from a deeply human impulse to categorize other people, usually into groups of "us" and "them."
"Our brains are wired that way," said Cheryl Dickter, a psychology professor at the College of William and Mary who studies stereotypes and prejudice.
When Dickter examined brain waves, she found that people process information and pictures about their "us" group differently compared with information about "them" groups. People remembered information better when it reinforced their stereotypes of other groups, she said, and when information didn't fit their stereotype, it was often explained or simply forgotten.
"That's how stereotypes get maintained in the face of all this [contradictory] information," Dickter said.
So during the first reports that someone had detonated a car bomb and then opened fire at a youth camp in Norway, many assumptions clicked into place.
"In all likelihood the attack was launched by part of the jihadist hydra," Thomas Joscelyn, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, wrote within hours on the Weekly Standard website.
The massacre was actually committed, police say, by a blond Norwegian whose photo would not seem out of place in an American college directory. As Breivik's 1,500-page manifesto emerged, calling for violence to rid Europe of non-Christians and those he deemed traitors to Christian Europe, some seized on the religious aspect of his delusions.
Mark Juergensmeyer, editor of the book "Global Religions: An Introduction" and a sociology professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, wrote an essay likening Breivik to Timothy McVeigh, the American who killed 168 people in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. It was the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil until 9/11.
McVeigh and Breivik were both "good-looking young Caucasians, self-enlisted soldiers in an imagined cosmic war to save Christendom . and both were Christian terrorists," Juergensmeyer wrote.
In a column for Salon.com, Alex Pareene said Breivik is not an American-style evangelical, but he listed other connections to Christianity. "All of this says 'Christian terrorist,'" Pareene wrote.
Such claims drew strong resistance. "Breivik is not a Christian. That's impossible. No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder," Bill O'Reilly said on his Fox News show.
That makes sense to Joyce Dubensky, CEO of the Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding. She said it also makes sense that "millions of Muslims say Osama bin Laden is not a Muslim, that no one who believes in the prophet Muhammad commits mass murder."
"We need to hear Bill O'Reilly, but we also need to hear and understand the voices of the overwhelming Muslim majority around the world who condemn those who are terrorists in the name of their faith," she said.
People have a hard time seeing extremism in their own religion.
For Christians who think of their faith as preaching peace, how to explain the faith-sanctioned killing of the Crusades? For Muslims, what about the thousands of jihadists now following violent interpretations of Islam?
Or consider the Ku Klux Klan's burning crosses. If those were the actions of a misguided minority, shouldn't the same be said of the 19 men who hijacked airliners on 9/11?
Art Markman, a psychology professor at the University of Texas at Austin, said research shows that when people are asked to describe someone else's behavior, they focus on personal characteristics — who that person is. But when asked to describe their own behavior, people focus on their individual situation.
"If you're a Christian and you see this Norway murderer, you say, I have these teachings and I haven't murdered anyone, so the teachings can't be the problem," Markman said. "But if you're talking about the 'other,' it's different. And if you don't know what the actual Muslim teachings are, it seems like a plausible explanation."
Some Christians say they do know the Muslim teachings, and that they are the problem. "There is a lot of text to justify the link between Islam and terrorism," said Michael Youssef, founder of the Evangelical-Anglican Church of the Apostles in Atlanta. "In the Quaranic text, and in the tradition that was written by the followers."
Many Islamic scholars say violent interpretations are wrong, and Youssef acknowledges that. However, "If your role model is Jesus, then nonviolence will be the way you change things. If your role model is somebody who waged war and killed people, then you say, 'I can do that,'" said Youssef, who was born in Egypt to Christian parents.
But Arsalan Iftikhar, an international human rights lawyer and author of the upcoming book "Islamic Pacifism: Global Muslims in the Post-Obama Era," said the Norway attacks "proved that terrorism can be committed by a person of any race, nationality or religion."
Iftikhar, who is Muslim, said one effect of the tragedy would be "to restart a debate on the term terrorism, and who and when the term should be applied."
"Sadly, the last ten years, the term has been co-opted in public
discourse and only applies to Muslims," he said. "Now here we have a
right-wing Christian extremist who has committed an act of terror, and
many people don't know how to react" (San Francisco Chronicle, 2011).
Title: Norway Massacre: A Christian Terrorist Debate
Date: August 1, 2011
Source: Christain Post
Abstract: The attacks that shocked the world in Norway have also led to much needed debate about the stereotyping of the “other” that has become quite a common reality since two airplanes crashed into New York's twin towers in 2001.
Breivik, the admitted orchestrator of the massacre that killed 77 people in Norway, is being dubbed everything from a 'Christian Terrorist' to a 'Christian Right Wing Extremist' to 'Christian Fundamentalist,' and it has sparked a global debate about the use of religion as way to define the acts of a fanatical extremist.
Bill O'Reilly said on his news show, "Breivik is not a Christian. That's impossible. No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder."
However, scholar Mark Juergensmeyer wrote an article that linked Breivik's actions to those of Timothy McVeigh calling them, "Self-enlisted soldiers in an imagined cosmic war to save Christendom… both were Christian terrorists."
Juergensmeyer argues that so long as we label people like Osama Bin Laden an "Islamic Terrorist" we should label Breivik a "Christian Terrorist" as well.
Debates on the label of "Christian Terrorist" run the gamut with some Christian leaders believing the label is fair, even though they point out that he has lost his connection with “true Christianity.”
Like us on Facebook
Others argue that labeling Breivik Christian is incorrect and misleading due to the fact that Breivik himself differentiated his version of Christianity, one based upon social and cultural affiliation, from the religious aspect of faith, and a relationship with God, which he did not maintain.
In his 1,500-page manifesto that was put online prior to the attacks Breivik stated, “If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.”
Some critics find that although Breivik may consider himself a “social” Christian who is fighting a battle for Christianity that he has made up in his mind, he is no different from other extremists that are labeled as “Muslim Terrorists.” But advocates argue that neither groups are acting out the true tenants of their alleged faiths.
Thus the death and devastation that Breivik has brought about has ushered in a new debate on the appropriate label for a terrorist. The new debate seems to place more emphasis on the question of stereotyping that the world has grown accustomed to.
The labeling debate is so heated and strong that it is unlikely a consensus will ever be reached by all on what to call mass-murderer Anders Breivik.
important thing is that it is sparking debate, and people are forced to
reassess the affects stereotyping and labeling can have on groups. One
thing is becoming increasingly clear; that terrorists can come from any
country, any socioeconomic background, and can call choose to label
themselves as from any religion – however, does just an outside label
confirm what is true on the inside? (Christian Post, 2011).