Big Brother to Monitor ‘Sovereign Citizens’

fbiWND – by Aaron Klein

With almost no media coverage, the White House last week announced its new Interagency Working Group to Counter Online Radicalization to Violence that will target not only Islamic terrorists but so-called violent “sovereign citizens.”

The FBI defines “sovereign citizens” as “anti-government extremists who believe that even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or ‘sovereign’ from the United States.”

The law enforcement agency noted such citizens believe they don’t have to answer to any government authority, including courts, taxing entities, motor vehicle departments or police.

The FBI warned that sovereign citizens commit murder and physical assault; threaten judges, law enforcement professionals and government personnel; impersonate police officers and diplomats; and engineer various white-collar scams, including mortgage fraud and so-called “redemption” schemes.

The new online working group will be chaired by the national security staff at the White House with input from specialists in countering what the Obama administration calls violent extremism.

Also included in the group, according to a White House release, will be “Internet safety experts, and civil liberties and privacy practitioners from across the United States Government.”

The new group says its initial focus will be on raising awareness about the threat and “providing communities with practical information and tools for staying safe online.”

The working group says it will coordinate with the technology industry to “consider policies, technologies, and tools that can help counter violent extremism online” while being careful not to interfere with “lawful Internet use or the privacy and civil liberties of individual users.”

Today, Obama is reportedly poised to issue an executive order aimed at thwarting cyber attacks against critical infrastructure.

The Hill reported the executive order would establish a voluntary program in which companies operating critical infrastructure would elect to meet cybersecurity best practices and standards crafted, in part, by the government.

Because of the troubling ideology of some Obama officials, the question arises as to exactly which citizens are considered threats by the government.

WND broke the story about a lengthy academic paper by President Obama’s so-called regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, suggesting the government should “infiltrate” social network websites, chat rooms and message boards. Sunstein stepped down last year.

Such “cognitive infiltration,” Sunstein argued, should be used to enforce a U.S. government ban on “conspiracy theorizing.” Among the beliefs Sunstein classified as a “conspiracy theory” is that global-warming advocacy is a fraud.

Last year, Reuters revealed that a government document indicates the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s command center routinely monitors dozens of popular websites, including Facebook, Twitter, Hulu, WikiLeaks and news sites such as the Huffington Post and Drudge Report.

Reuters reported that a “privacy compliance review” issued by DHS in November 2012 confirms that since at least June 2010, the department’s national operations center has been operating a “Social Networking/Media Capability” which involves regular monitoring of “publicly available online forums, blogs, public websites and message boards.”

The government document states that such monitoring is meant to “collect information used in providing situational awareness and establishing a common operating picture” to help manage national or international emergency events.

Last year, Attorney General Eric Holder signed new guidelines that relaxed restrictions on how counterterrorism analysts may retrieve, store and search information about Americans gathered by government agencies for purposes other than national security threats.

The new guidelines allow the government’s National Counterterrorism Center to keep Internet data collected on private citizens for up to five years instead of 18 months.

Sent to us by a reader.

7 thoughts on “Big Brother to Monitor ‘Sovereign Citizens’

  1. OMG! He’s once again, tightening his grip on WE THE PEOPLE.

    “that will target not only Islamic terrorists but so-called violent “sovereign citizens.”

    The FBI defines “sovereign citizens” as “anti-government extremists who believe that even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or ‘sovereign’ from the United States.””

    Do you believe this horseshit? Just because I hate my government and enjoy my sovereignty now makes me a terrorist? WTF?? And it totally goes against the 1st Amendment. UNFLIPPINBELIEVABLE!!! And no debate, media coverage or vote held for this to pass as a measure. Just an “interagency” group. UNBELIEVABLE!!!

    And how can anyone be “sovereign” from the United States when the foreign government called the UN controls the U.S. and IS separate and “sovereign” from the United States itself? Wouldn’t that make THEM the terrorist and not WE THE PEOPLE? They just totally contradicted what they were saying.

    Does the FBI even know what the hell they are defining? My guess is that they don’t have a clue and that good old Janet Napolitano sent it over for them to publish and gave FBI credit for it.

  2. Pfffft. lol “online radicalization,” simply means anyone getting their news, and info from sources other then mainstream organs of brainwashing.

    Which — given there are only 6 entities (really one when you think about it) in ownership of all media, and the volume, frequency, and magnatude of their exposed, and otherwise glaringly obvious lies — is quite naturally, and rationally a most obvious endeavor.

    Human beings are pattern matching, information seeking machines. We can’t really function properly without reliable information. Bad information kills. If replacing toxic input with healthy input is radical, then I guess good is evil, poison is wholesome, which obviously is false, so…

    Every day, at an increasing rate, they unabashedly expose themselves as the hardened criminal psychopaths they are. These criminals are repeat offenders, remorseless, and unrepentant, incorrigibly without hope with regards to rehabilitation.

  3. someone should look into taking a case against FOX-NEWS for intentionally trying to “radicalize” people!

    more and more,
    i see the governments – all of them as the ones making people get angry and “radicalized”

  4. Sovereign Citizenship is the status held by our forefathers. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and everyone else who won their freedom from the British Empire had this status. It was the birthright of all Americans, and we were generous in extending this most important right to foreign-born persons through the naturalization laws. With this status, our unalienable rights of life, liberty, and property couldn’t be infringed. During the Civil War a method was discovered by the leading attorneys, financiers, and politicians of the day to deprive us of this status. Fortunately, we can get it back.

    This brings us to the question, “What are we getting back?” What does it mean to be a Sovereign Citizen?

    The word “sovereign” is defined in the 6th edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, published in 1990, as being, “A person, body, or state in which independent authority is vested; a chief ruler with supreme power; a king or other ruler in a monarchy.” Prior to the War for American Independence, the British king was the sovereign and the American people were his subjects. The war’s outcome changed all this:

    The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people – and he who before was a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”

    -State v. Manuel, North Carolina, Vol. 20, Page 121 (1838)

    Thus, the people became Citizens of their respective states. But more importantly, for the first and only time in recorded history, the people were recognized as being the true sovereigns:

    It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the sovereigns in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance… No such ideas obtain here; at the revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects… and have none to govern but themselves…

    -Chisholm v. Georgia, Dallas’ Supreme Court Reports, Vol. 2, Pages 471, 472 (1793)

    People really need to learn what the f#@k they’re talking about before they make any kind of statement for or against it. I’m particularly tired of the incessant amount of sheer f#@king stupidity exemplified by a majority of people. That’s what you get, though, whenever you let a central power monopolize on education–a bunch of mentally deficient sheep who don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground.

    1. If you are a citizen you are a part of a collective under a government. The term “sovereign citizen” is an oxymoron. We are sovereign nationals. Our status as such was not passed from a king to a collective. Our rights are inherent in our being and we are sovereign as individuals, each and every one of us on a par with the Queen of England as individuals.
      The unconstitutional 14th Amendment was the crowned heads’ attempt to reestablish us as citizens under a government. It is a fraud. We are nationals and the government is below us as a servant. We are not subject to the government’s will, the government is subject to our will.
      Under our Bill of Rights, we are self governing and the government is nothing more than a group of individuals we employ to carry out our will as individuals, so long as that task in no way infringes upon any right of any individual.
      We are sovereign nationals living in a Republic, not collective citizens living in a democracy.

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *