By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A leaked memo from US Attorney General Pam Bondi instructs the Department of Justice to create a list of potential “domestic terrorism” organizations holding “extreme viewpoints” on various social and political issues. This memo expands on National Security Presidential Memorandum-7, a directive calling for a national strategy to investigate and disrupt political violence. The memo directs law enforcement agencies to refer suspected domestic terrorism cases to Joint Terrorism Task Forces for comprehensive investigations into all culpable participants. The memo defines the “domestic terrorism threat” as organizations using violence or threats to advance specific political goals, including opposition to immigration enforcement and adherence to “radical gender ideology” and “anti-Americanism.”
Read the original article here
Leaked Memo Shows Pam Bondi Wants List of ‘Domestic Terrorism’ Groups Who Express ‘Anti-American Sentiment’
The core of the issue revolves around a leaked memo, supposedly indicating that Pam Bondi is seeking a list of “domestic terrorism” groups, defined by their expression of “anti-American sentiment.” This raises serious concerns, especially given the broad and potentially subjective nature of the criteria used to define such sentiment. The memo’s details, which include opposition to law enforcement, “extreme views” on immigration, adherence to “radical gender ideology,” and hostility toward traditional values, open the door to political targeting.
The core concern, it seems, is that anything deemed critical of the current administration or, by extension, the perceived “American way,” could be labeled as anti-American. This creates a dangerous precedent where dissent is equated with terrorism, potentially silencing legitimate criticism and political opposition.
Many believe that the definition of anti-Americanism will become synonymous with anti-Trump sentiment, effectively criminalizing disagreement with the former president and his supporters. The ability to label individuals and groups as terrorists based on their political beliefs and affiliations is a key indicator of authoritarianism.
One of the more alarming implications is the potential for this effort to be used to target specific groups, such as those advocating for social justice, environmental protection, or simply holding views that differ from the current administration. The use of terms like “anti-capitalism” in the criteria further broadens the scope of potential targets, effectively including any criticism of economic policies.
Given the current political climate, this move is seen by many as a modern-day McCarthyism. The concern is that anyone who has ever expressed dissent against the current administration could be targeted. The historical parallels to the Red Scare and other periods of political persecution are difficult to ignore.
The memo’s vagueness is a major source of concern. Without clear and objective definitions, the criteria for “anti-American sentiment” are open to interpretation and manipulation. This lack of clarity allows for selective enforcement and the targeting of political opponents.
Some individuals feel that the memo’s ultimate goal is to quell dissent and pave the way for a more authoritarian government. This is a very real fear, given the current political divisions. The timing of the memo, coupled with the administration’s past actions, fuels the belief that this is not an isolated incident.
The response to this memo is a reminder of the core tenets of American democracy and the importance of safeguarding free speech and dissent. The very foundation of the United States is built on the right to question, criticize, and challenge the government without fear of retribution.
Some consider the move a direct threat to the First Amendment. The ability to express political beliefs without fear of being labeled a terrorist is a core tenet of American democracy. This attempt to stifle dissent directly attacks this fundamental right.
The question of who gets to decide what constitutes “anti-American sentiment” is paramount. If the criteria are solely determined by those in power, it will be used as a political weapon. This further illustrates the dangers of such an initiative.
It is noted that many have questioned the patriotism of the current administration itself. The fact that the administration is even doing this and has seemingly questionable motivations further highlights the hypocrisy. The irony of the situation lies in the fact that the very administration attempting to define and punish anti-Americanism is, in the eyes of many, exhibiting un-American behavior.
There is a sense of urgency. The implications of this memo are far-reaching, and the call to action is clear. To prevent the erosion of democracy and the targeting of political opponents, it is crucial to raise awareness, challenge the administration’s actions, and protect the rights of all Americans to express their views freely.