DHS and FBI "Threat Bulletin" Issued... You Won’t Believe What it Says and Who They are After…

Here are a few shocking quotes from the bulletin: 

“Domestic extremism, however, remains a persistent threat, and the United States has experienced violent ideologically motivated criminal acts, both prior to and after the Oklahoma City attack…. Many of the same motivations used by domestic extremists to justify their criminal acts in the mid-1990s—anti-government and anti-law enforcement sentiment; racial, ethnic, and religious hatred; and advocacy of violent conspiracy theories—continue to influence domestic extremists and their targeting choices in 2015.” (page 2)

“FBI and DHS assess with high confidence that domestic extremism will remain a persistent threat through the end of 2015 and beyond.” (Page 5) 

So what is FBI’s and DHS’s definition of a domestic extremist, militia extremists, and Sovereign Citizen Extremists? Here are the answers: 

“Domestic Extremists: individuals present in the United States who seek to further political or social goals, wholly or in part, through unlawful acts of force or violence. The mere advocacy of political or social positions, political activism, use of strong rhetoric, or generalized philosophic embrace of violent tactics may not constitute extremism, and may be constitutionally protected. This definition does not include or describe homegrown violent extremists, who are defined by the FBI as al-Qa’ida-inspired individuals based in the United States and radicalized primarily in the United States, and are not directly collaborating with a foreign terrorist organization.” (pg.6)

“Militia Extremists: individuals who seek, wholly or in part, to engage in unlawful acts of force or violence in response to perceived abuses of power or authority by government, perceived threats to Constitutional rights by government, or bureaucratic incompetence in attending to critical tasks. The mere advocacy of political or social positions, political activism, use of strong rhetoric, or generalized philosophic embrace of violent tactics may not constitute extremism, and may be constitutionally protected.” (pg.6) 

“Sovereign Citizen Extremists: individuals who openly reject their US citizenship status, believe that most forms of established government, authority, and institutions are illegitimate, and seek, wholly or in part, through unlawful acts of force or violence, to further their claim to be immune from government authority. The mere advocacy of political or social positions, political activism, use of strong rhetoric, or generalized philosophic embrace of violent tactics may not constitute extremism, and may be constitutionally protected.” (pg.6)