Are 'right-wing extremists' worse than Islamic fanatics?

As Chelsea Schilling reports here at WND, a new intelligence assessment circulated by the Department of Hopeless Insecurity on behalf of the Obarmy administration has concluded that "right-wing sovereign citizen extremists" are more of a threat to the United States than Islamic terrorists.

CNN, which got a look at the assessment, reported: "Some federal and local law enforcement groups view the domestic terror threat from sovereign citizen groups as equal to – and in some cases greater than – the threat from foreign Islamic terror groups, such as ISIS, that garner more public attention."

Mr. Obama has described ISIS as a "non-Islamic" group whose recruitment of radicals to behead and burn Christians is "fueled by poverty and hopelessness." Nice try, but no. ISIS is an explicitly Islamic group, operating with at least the tacit support of a large segment of Islam.

And ISIS is carrying out the explicit instructions in the Quran to kill non-Muslims wherever they find them.

Now, as anyone who has worked in government will know perfectly well, it is a central principle of national security that the intelligence services must not – repeat not – allow the political propensities and proclivities of the current administration to sway their judgment or derail their impartiality.

For there is no surer way to encourage domestic terrorism than to give the impression that the intelligence services have ceased to defend all citizens and have instead taken partisan sides with the administration to act selectively against those citizens whom it regards as its political opponents.

Mr. Obama is already in quite enough trouble for bowing to Saudi royalty, calling himself a Muslim, and disingenuously pretending that various Muslim terrorist factions are nothing to do with Islam.

Now his administration has foolishly given the appearance of actively siding with the Islamic terrorists by circulating its heroically daft assessment that "right-wing sovereign citizen extremists" who kill by the twos and threes are more of a threat to the security of the United States than the terrorists who shriek Allahu akhbar as they kill U.S. citizens by the thousands.

There have been a dozen terror attacks by gun-slinging mass murderers or terrorists on U.S. soil in recent years, though not all of these were "right wing." But let us set these admittedly lamentable events in a rather obvious context. In a single incident in 2001, some 3,000 innocent citizens were killed, on U.S. soil, in the destruction of the World Trade Center.

And the people behind that massacre were not "right-wing sovereign citizen extremists." They were – like it or not, Mr. "Muslim" Obama – Islamic extremist terrorists.

It was that incident, after all, that led to the establishment of the Department of Hapless Ineptitude in its present form.

In the past couple of decades, all the supposedly "right-wing" extremists in America have killed a minuscule fraction of the numbers slaughtered by Islamic terrorists.

Why, then, has the Department of Helpless Incompetence decided to target the "right-wing extremists"? The reason, alas, is obvious: It has become yet another of the agencies of this grim administration that has abandoned the iron rule of civil-service neutrality in favor of partisan support for Mr. Obama and his faction.

The Infernal Revenue Service, with its deliberate and vicious targeting of Mr. Obama's political opponents among the 501(3)(c)s, is another department that has become thus infected by partisanship.

The Environmental Destruction Agency is yet another avowedly partisan department, daily defying Article 1 Section 1 of the United States Constitution by making new laws, a right that the Constitution explicitly reserves to the elected Congress.

And the Supreme Court, which for decades has tended to vote on narrowly partisan lines time and again, is another agency that is no longer acting with the Olympian political detachment that is of the essence not only of the civil-service function in general but of the judicial function in particular.

What is to be done?

The GOP must get tough with the increasingly totalitarian bureaucrats throughout the civil service. It might usefully begin by amending the oath of office, which currently reads thus:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Now, the obligation of impartiality is noticeably absent from this oath. I recommend replacing "well and faithfully" with "well, faithfully and impartially."

Next, a resolution of both Houses should give the sense of Congress that it is no longer acceptable for the unelected officials of this or any administration to act in a prejudiced or partisan fashion, on pain of dismissal with loss of pension rights.

If necessary, legislation may have to be brought forward to give teeth to that resolution.

As for the Department of Helping ISIS, it and any other department acting in a rankly partisan fashion should be made to feel the wrath of the people's elected representatives by having its administrative budget cut. And the heads of any department that acts without the impartiality that the new oath of office will require should roll. These people should be sacked.

For, as Marcus Tullius Cicero said in the dying days of the Roman Republic, it is necessary that the civil service should be civil, and that it should be a service.

Media wishing to interview Christopher Monckton, please contact [email protected].