Tom DeWeese
Strong Cities Network; DHS; and the SPLC
Thinking globally, acting locally to destroy freedom
By Tom DeWeese
On September 29, 2015, Attorney General Loretta Lynch delivered a speech to the United Nations that should be considered one of the most powerful and frightening threats to American freedom ever conceived. Lynch was announcing United States' support and participation in a new program called the Strong Cities Network.
Of course her words were cleverly prepared to disguise the obvious threats of the program. She spoke of creating a link between cities to learn new ways to "lift up communities worldwide." She went on to say, "It also sends a message about who we are and what we aspire to be – as an alliance of nations and as a global community."
Those words alone should send a clear warning to everyone that the Strong Cities is bad news – a direct threat to national sovereignty and the establishment of a one size fits all socialist society of man. I've been sounding the warnings against that as the direct goal of Agenda 21 and its threat to our local communities through Sustainable Development and Smart Growth.
But the Strong Cities Network is much more than that. To get through all the double speak and rhetoric designed to throw you off the trail, one must look at the source of the program.
Like most things that emerge from the global cesspool called the United Nations, the Strong Cities Network springs from a Non Governmental Organization (NGO) called the Institute for Strategic Dialog (ISD). It's what's referred to as a "think and do tank." In other words, ISD doesn't just dream up these schemes, it then sets about to make them reality.
The ISD has set its sights on tackling "Extremism." Now, given the insanity that is overtaking our world in recent years, it's reasonable to believe that the average reader would probably think that the ISD fight against extremism would be aimed at radical Islam and its effort to wipe out western culture. Beheadings of Christians, suicide bombers in crowded buildings, and mutilation of women are a few visions that come to mind. Is the ISD a force to bring some sanity to those attacks on innocent people?
Well, ISD does give some lip service to their concern over women, particularly American women who are being lured to join ISIS over the internet. But, no, Muslim extremism really isn't the focus of ISD. "Far Right Extremism" is the battle cry, according to the ISD website (www.strategicdialogue.org).
The ISD actually believes the threat of Far Right Extremism is a threat to Islam! Here is a direct quote from the website, "Though parliamentary manifestations of the radical right are non-violent and operate within the rules of democracy, there remains confusion over ...the dangers of the growing presence of far-right extremism... and the increasing legitimization of anti-immigration and anti-Islamic discourses..."
Beheadings, burning people alive, drowning them in cages as they are slowly lowered into a pool – these apparently are not a threat according to ISD. But citizens of European nations and the United States that express concern – "non-violent" words – about the flood of immigrants rushing across their borders, especially an invasion of radical Islamists who seek to change their culture, rape their women, and dismantle their governments – that's a threat to world peace according to the ISD!
And this is what Attorney General Loretta Lynch, representing Barack Obama's Administration, endorsed for our nation through the Strong Cities Network. Just weeks before her appearance at the UN, she announced that her Justice Department will create a new position in the department that will focus on investigating domestic terrorist, defining them as those who hold racist, bigoted or anti government views or see themselves as "sovereign citizens." Now, through the Strong Cities Network Lynch plans to "globalize" local police forces to enforce the strategy.
Where have we heard such talk before? For years, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has targeted Conservatives as a threat and issued report after report labeling Conservatives as possible domestic terrorists. I personally have been on such lists and the focus of at least four SPLC reports.
In one SPLC report entitled, "30 New Activists Heading Up The Radical Right," I was named along with what SPLC calls "Islamophobes," "Political Opportunists," "Religious Right Anti-Gay groups" and "Patriot groups." Says the report, "Most dramatically, so-called 'Patriot' groups – which, unlike most hate groups, see the federal government as their primary enemy – have grown explosively in just the last three years..."
Of course they're talking about the Tea Party as a hate movement, and I'm pretty sure that's why I'm listed. In particular, they report on my efforts against Agenda 21, saying "DeWeese's outfit is only one of several obsessed with what has become one of the main conspiracy theories of the antigovernment 'Patriot' movement." This report from SPLC is just one of a series of attacks against Conservatives and others who support the founding principles of the United States.
In March, 2010, SPLC issued a report entitled "Rage on the Right: The Year in Hate and Extremism," in which groups opposed to issues like the Obama health care plan and illegal immigration were lumped with white supremacist groups like the National Socialist Movement and Neo-Nazi Skin Heads.
In August, 2010, SPLC launched an attack against my organization, the American Policy Center, and our Freedom Action Conference, held at Valley Forge, PA. The event featured such speakers as best selling author Tom Woods, former presidential candidate Michael Badnarik, Sheriff Richard Mack, five respected state legislators, and many more well known spokesmen. Someone at the conference commented to me that I had assembled the "brain trust" of the Freedom Movement at my conference.
The title of the SPLC attack against me read, "Patriot Rhetoric Becomes Increasingly Violent," and said we were "united by rage" at the federal government. Not one speaker at our conference advocated violence or lawlessness of any kind. I can prove these statements because we have the entire conference on video tape. Yet we were labeled as dangerous and potentially violent terrorists by SPLC.
I live in the world of rough and tumble politics. Charges are regularly made in both directions. I give as good as I get. I state my opposition to some policies. They attack my positions for the same reason. It's called political discourse; debate; and free speech. It's been our right to participate in such public activity for over 200 years. So, why do I care what this one private organization (SPLC), with its own political agenda, says about me?
I care because the Southern Poverty Law Center has direct ties to the Department of Homeland Security, helping to write official DHS policy that may affect my life, my freedom, my ability to travel and my ability to speak out.
Now, through the creation of the Strong Cities Network, those attacks and the close ties of the SPLC with the Department of Homeland Security have new, much more dangerous implications to freedom of speech, assembly, and independent thought. Step by step, local police forces are being militarized and trained to look for dangers from "Right-Wing extremists." Consider the following facts:
Item: In 2009, The DHS issued a report entitled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."
That official document of an agency of the United States government said "Right-wing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."
Item: Two weeks later, the DHS released a second report entitled: "Domestic Extremism Lexicon," designed to provide specific definitions of just who may be Right wing extremists.
That report labeled the following to be extremists, bordering on terrorism: Those concerned over the economy; loss of jobs; foreclosures; antagonism toward the Obama Administration; Criticism of free trade programs; anti-abortion; oppose same sex marriage; believe in the "end times;" stock pile food; oppose illegal immigration; oppose a New World Order; oppose the UN; oppose global governance; fear of Communist regimes; oppose loss of US manufacturing to overseas nations; oppose loss of US prestige; use of the internet (or alternative media) to express any of these ideas.
And there's more. The Department of Homeland Security has established Fusion Centers in each state. These are designed to combine federal, state and local law enforcement. Their stated purpose is to assure immediate and efficient response to a terrorist attack or a Katrina-like disaster without bureaucratic red tape.
Item: However, in 2009, the Missouri Fusion Center set off a fire storm over a report it issued entitled "The Modern Militia Movement." Reported Fox News, the report "identifies the warning signs of potential terrorists for law enforcement communities." In other words, this report was issued to law enforcement agencies across the state as official documentation described who the cops should look out for as potential violent terrorists.
According to the report, the list of potential terrorists included Americans who voted for presidential candidate Ron Paul; Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin); and Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr. It also cited those of us who opposed the creation of a North American Union with Canada and Mexico.
Item: in the Spring of 2010, the Department of Homeland Security organized a "Countering Violent Extremism Working Group." This is an advisory council given the task of creating a plan to reach out to local law enforcement and community activists for training to respond to potential violence and terrorist threat.
Leafing through the report one gets the distinct impression that the plan is basically a "turn in your neighbor," neighborhood- watch approach. It talks extensively of "sharing" information, along with "training, training, training."
Training for what? To identify potential terrorists, of course. And who are those potential terrorist? A look at the members of the working group offers a clue. While the group includes several public and law enforcement officials from around the nation, it also includes Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an un-indicted co-conspirator in a case concerning the funding of Muslim terrorist organizations. In 2012 the SPLC issued a report labeling those who oppose radical Islamic activities as "Islamophobes." Coincidence?
The working group member list also includes Richard Cohen, President of the Southern Poverty Law Center. In addition, as one of the "Subject Matter Experts," it lists Laurie Wood, an analyst for the Southern Poverty Law Center and an instructor for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
That training center is run by the Southern Poverty Law Center and is one of the most visible direct links between DHS, the Fusion Centers and SPLC. Law enforcement agencies actually send their personnel to these training classes to gain Federal Law Enforcement Training Center certification.
That means that policy for this DHS working group is being created by the very organization that has labeled those who advocate Constitutional law to be potential terrorists. The pattern is clear, one of the nation's leading hate groups, the Southern Poverty Law Center, which opposes even the right of free speech by people it labels potential terrorists, is helping the largest federal enforcement agency in the nation to create its policy.
That policy clearly implies, according to DHS reports, that anyone disagreeing with actions by the U.S. government is a potential terrorist and must be, at least, watched and monitored by federal, state, and local authorities.
The result of such surveillance could possibly lead to loss of freedom, loss of jobs, loss of the right to travel, and loss of the ability to speak publicly, for anyone who opposes the Obama Administration and the private agenda of the Southern Poverty Law Center. It is an effort to silence their opponents. Honest political debate is being interpreted as dangerous extremism.
Now, Attorney General Loretta Lynch has upped the stakes by joining forces with the United Nations and international NGOs with the stated purpose of closing the lid on right – winged opposition.
Will this effort bring Blue Helmeted police into American cities as some believe? Probably not, at least in the short term. The Southern Poverty Law Center and the Department of Homeland Security have done their job well to train local police forces. Now, through the Strong Cities Network, mayors and city councils are being encouraged to use their local offices to direct local authority to take action against this so-called Right-Wing threat.
How long will it be before Tea Party groups are denied the ability to rent meeting rooms to assemble? When will such meetings be interrupted by armed swat teams sent in to close it down and arrest participants? When will spokesmen such as myself be denied access to air travel? How soon will even the threat of such action scare people into staying home, perhaps even on Election Day? That is the threat we face with the Obama/Lynch/UN cabal organized in the name of the Strong Cities Network.
Will the U.S. Congress allow such a threat to freedom to be imposed by the Department of Justice? Will it simply sit back and do nothing as it has throughout the openly hostile Obama Administration? Or will new Speaker Paul Ryan honor his stated commitment to "fix" this broken system and put a stop to this dangerous assault on American freedom?
And how about every concerned American? Will you fight back and demand that Congress take action to protect your Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms of speech, assembly and private thought?
If you want to take action, I have prepared a petition to Speaker Ryan demanding that he lead the Congress to take action to stop the Strong Cities Network. Sign it here and demand action in the name of Freedom in the United States of America – or do nothing and watch our nation disappear. Now is the time to decide.
Sign the petition now
© Tom DeWeese
December 2, 2015
On September 29, 2015, Attorney General Loretta Lynch delivered a speech to the United Nations that should be considered one of the most powerful and frightening threats to American freedom ever conceived. Lynch was announcing United States' support and participation in a new program called the Strong Cities Network.
Of course her words were cleverly prepared to disguise the obvious threats of the program. She spoke of creating a link between cities to learn new ways to "lift up communities worldwide." She went on to say, "It also sends a message about who we are and what we aspire to be – as an alliance of nations and as a global community."
Those words alone should send a clear warning to everyone that the Strong Cities is bad news – a direct threat to national sovereignty and the establishment of a one size fits all socialist society of man. I've been sounding the warnings against that as the direct goal of Agenda 21 and its threat to our local communities through Sustainable Development and Smart Growth.
But the Strong Cities Network is much more than that. To get through all the double speak and rhetoric designed to throw you off the trail, one must look at the source of the program.
Like most things that emerge from the global cesspool called the United Nations, the Strong Cities Network springs from a Non Governmental Organization (NGO) called the Institute for Strategic Dialog (ISD). It's what's referred to as a "think and do tank." In other words, ISD doesn't just dream up these schemes, it then sets about to make them reality.
The ISD has set its sights on tackling "Extremism." Now, given the insanity that is overtaking our world in recent years, it's reasonable to believe that the average reader would probably think that the ISD fight against extremism would be aimed at radical Islam and its effort to wipe out western culture. Beheadings of Christians, suicide bombers in crowded buildings, and mutilation of women are a few visions that come to mind. Is the ISD a force to bring some sanity to those attacks on innocent people?
Well, ISD does give some lip service to their concern over women, particularly American women who are being lured to join ISIS over the internet. But, no, Muslim extremism really isn't the focus of ISD. "Far Right Extremism" is the battle cry, according to the ISD website (www.strategicdialogue.org).
The ISD actually believes the threat of Far Right Extremism is a threat to Islam! Here is a direct quote from the website, "Though parliamentary manifestations of the radical right are non-violent and operate within the rules of democracy, there remains confusion over ...the dangers of the growing presence of far-right extremism... and the increasing legitimization of anti-immigration and anti-Islamic discourses..."
Beheadings, burning people alive, drowning them in cages as they are slowly lowered into a pool – these apparently are not a threat according to ISD. But citizens of European nations and the United States that express concern – "non-violent" words – about the flood of immigrants rushing across their borders, especially an invasion of radical Islamists who seek to change their culture, rape their women, and dismantle their governments – that's a threat to world peace according to the ISD!
And this is what Attorney General Loretta Lynch, representing Barack Obama's Administration, endorsed for our nation through the Strong Cities Network. Just weeks before her appearance at the UN, she announced that her Justice Department will create a new position in the department that will focus on investigating domestic terrorist, defining them as those who hold racist, bigoted or anti government views or see themselves as "sovereign citizens." Now, through the Strong Cities Network Lynch plans to "globalize" local police forces to enforce the strategy.
Where have we heard such talk before? For years, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has targeted Conservatives as a threat and issued report after report labeling Conservatives as possible domestic terrorists. I personally have been on such lists and the focus of at least four SPLC reports.
In one SPLC report entitled, "30 New Activists Heading Up The Radical Right," I was named along with what SPLC calls "Islamophobes," "Political Opportunists," "Religious Right Anti-Gay groups" and "Patriot groups." Says the report, "Most dramatically, so-called 'Patriot' groups – which, unlike most hate groups, see the federal government as their primary enemy – have grown explosively in just the last three years..."
Of course they're talking about the Tea Party as a hate movement, and I'm pretty sure that's why I'm listed. In particular, they report on my efforts against Agenda 21, saying "DeWeese's outfit is only one of several obsessed with what has become one of the main conspiracy theories of the antigovernment 'Patriot' movement." This report from SPLC is just one of a series of attacks against Conservatives and others who support the founding principles of the United States.
In March, 2010, SPLC issued a report entitled "Rage on the Right: The Year in Hate and Extremism," in which groups opposed to issues like the Obama health care plan and illegal immigration were lumped with white supremacist groups like the National Socialist Movement and Neo-Nazi Skin Heads.
In August, 2010, SPLC launched an attack against my organization, the American Policy Center, and our Freedom Action Conference, held at Valley Forge, PA. The event featured such speakers as best selling author Tom Woods, former presidential candidate Michael Badnarik, Sheriff Richard Mack, five respected state legislators, and many more well known spokesmen. Someone at the conference commented to me that I had assembled the "brain trust" of the Freedom Movement at my conference.
The title of the SPLC attack against me read, "Patriot Rhetoric Becomes Increasingly Violent," and said we were "united by rage" at the federal government. Not one speaker at our conference advocated violence or lawlessness of any kind. I can prove these statements because we have the entire conference on video tape. Yet we were labeled as dangerous and potentially violent terrorists by SPLC.
I live in the world of rough and tumble politics. Charges are regularly made in both directions. I give as good as I get. I state my opposition to some policies. They attack my positions for the same reason. It's called political discourse; debate; and free speech. It's been our right to participate in such public activity for over 200 years. So, why do I care what this one private organization (SPLC), with its own political agenda, says about me?
I care because the Southern Poverty Law Center has direct ties to the Department of Homeland Security, helping to write official DHS policy that may affect my life, my freedom, my ability to travel and my ability to speak out.
Now, through the creation of the Strong Cities Network, those attacks and the close ties of the SPLC with the Department of Homeland Security have new, much more dangerous implications to freedom of speech, assembly, and independent thought. Step by step, local police forces are being militarized and trained to look for dangers from "Right-Wing extremists." Consider the following facts:
Item: In 2009, The DHS issued a report entitled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."
That official document of an agency of the United States government said "Right-wing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."
Item: Two weeks later, the DHS released a second report entitled: "Domestic Extremism Lexicon," designed to provide specific definitions of just who may be Right wing extremists.
That report labeled the following to be extremists, bordering on terrorism: Those concerned over the economy; loss of jobs; foreclosures; antagonism toward the Obama Administration; Criticism of free trade programs; anti-abortion; oppose same sex marriage; believe in the "end times;" stock pile food; oppose illegal immigration; oppose a New World Order; oppose the UN; oppose global governance; fear of Communist regimes; oppose loss of US manufacturing to overseas nations; oppose loss of US prestige; use of the internet (or alternative media) to express any of these ideas.
And there's more. The Department of Homeland Security has established Fusion Centers in each state. These are designed to combine federal, state and local law enforcement. Their stated purpose is to assure immediate and efficient response to a terrorist attack or a Katrina-like disaster without bureaucratic red tape.
Item: However, in 2009, the Missouri Fusion Center set off a fire storm over a report it issued entitled "The Modern Militia Movement." Reported Fox News, the report "identifies the warning signs of potential terrorists for law enforcement communities." In other words, this report was issued to law enforcement agencies across the state as official documentation described who the cops should look out for as potential violent terrorists.
According to the report, the list of potential terrorists included Americans who voted for presidential candidate Ron Paul; Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin); and Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr. It also cited those of us who opposed the creation of a North American Union with Canada and Mexico.
Item: in the Spring of 2010, the Department of Homeland Security organized a "Countering Violent Extremism Working Group." This is an advisory council given the task of creating a plan to reach out to local law enforcement and community activists for training to respond to potential violence and terrorist threat.
Leafing through the report one gets the distinct impression that the plan is basically a "turn in your neighbor," neighborhood- watch approach. It talks extensively of "sharing" information, along with "training, training, training."
Training for what? To identify potential terrorists, of course. And who are those potential terrorist? A look at the members of the working group offers a clue. While the group includes several public and law enforcement officials from around the nation, it also includes Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an un-indicted co-conspirator in a case concerning the funding of Muslim terrorist organizations. In 2012 the SPLC issued a report labeling those who oppose radical Islamic activities as "Islamophobes." Coincidence?
The working group member list also includes Richard Cohen, President of the Southern Poverty Law Center. In addition, as one of the "Subject Matter Experts," it lists Laurie Wood, an analyst for the Southern Poverty Law Center and an instructor for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
That training center is run by the Southern Poverty Law Center and is one of the most visible direct links between DHS, the Fusion Centers and SPLC. Law enforcement agencies actually send their personnel to these training classes to gain Federal Law Enforcement Training Center certification.
That means that policy for this DHS working group is being created by the very organization that has labeled those who advocate Constitutional law to be potential terrorists. The pattern is clear, one of the nation's leading hate groups, the Southern Poverty Law Center, which opposes even the right of free speech by people it labels potential terrorists, is helping the largest federal enforcement agency in the nation to create its policy.
That policy clearly implies, according to DHS reports, that anyone disagreeing with actions by the U.S. government is a potential terrorist and must be, at least, watched and monitored by federal, state, and local authorities.
The result of such surveillance could possibly lead to loss of freedom, loss of jobs, loss of the right to travel, and loss of the ability to speak publicly, for anyone who opposes the Obama Administration and the private agenda of the Southern Poverty Law Center. It is an effort to silence their opponents. Honest political debate is being interpreted as dangerous extremism.
Now, Attorney General Loretta Lynch has upped the stakes by joining forces with the United Nations and international NGOs with the stated purpose of closing the lid on right – winged opposition.
Will this effort bring Blue Helmeted police into American cities as some believe? Probably not, at least in the short term. The Southern Poverty Law Center and the Department of Homeland Security have done their job well to train local police forces. Now, through the Strong Cities Network, mayors and city councils are being encouraged to use their local offices to direct local authority to take action against this so-called Right-Wing threat.
How long will it be before Tea Party groups are denied the ability to rent meeting rooms to assemble? When will such meetings be interrupted by armed swat teams sent in to close it down and arrest participants? When will spokesmen such as myself be denied access to air travel? How soon will even the threat of such action scare people into staying home, perhaps even on Election Day? That is the threat we face with the Obama/Lynch/UN cabal organized in the name of the Strong Cities Network.
Will the U.S. Congress allow such a threat to freedom to be imposed by the Department of Justice? Will it simply sit back and do nothing as it has throughout the openly hostile Obama Administration? Or will new Speaker Paul Ryan honor his stated commitment to "fix" this broken system and put a stop to this dangerous assault on American freedom?
And how about every concerned American? Will you fight back and demand that Congress take action to protect your Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms of speech, assembly and private thought?
If you want to take action, I have prepared a petition to Speaker Ryan demanding that he lead the Congress to take action to stop the Strong Cities Network. Sign it here and demand action in the name of Freedom in the United States of America – or do nothing and watch our nation disappear. Now is the time to decide.
Sign the petition now
© Tom DeWeese
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
