Ken Klippenstein:

With the mainstream media distracted by the made-for-TV drama of James Comey’s indictment, Trump has signed a little-noticed national security directive identifying “anti-Christian” and “anti-American” views as indicators of radical left violence. Called National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, it’s being referred to as “NSPM-7” by administration insiders.

Just to get this out of the way, studies show that the majority of political violence comes from people with right-wing ideology. It appears that the administration knows this too, considering the DOJ deleted their report that came to the same conclusion. If the government actually wanted to tackle the problem of political violence, they would start on the right.

Of course, they don’t care about political violence coming from the right. I’m not even sure they care about violence coming from the left; or rather, they only care about it to the extent that it gives them an excuse to go after political opponents. And that’s exactly what this directive is.

Some of the things that are considered to be indicators of violence include anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity. Not only do we have a First Amendment right to express these views, it’s unclear how these will even be defined. Trump has said that he thinks Democrats hate America, so is being a Democrat an indicator of violence? What about someone who supports Medicare for All? Is that anti-capitalism and therefore that person is considered dangerous? If I say that I think Christianity does more harm than good, will I be put on some kind of list?

Other examples listed as indicators of violence include extremism on migration, race, or gender. Again, it’s unclear what this actually means. Polling data from multiple sources including PBS, Gallup, and CNN, shows that over half of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of immigration and think the administration has “gone too far.” Could half the country be classified has having an extreme position on migration? Is it extremism on race to talk about racial disparities in prisons? What does it mean to be extremist on gender? Will trans people be surveilled for simply existing? Or is simply supporting trans rights enough of an excuse to be investigated by law enforcement?

The follow-up article details how law firms are interpreting the directive, and what they believe the practical effects will be. The general assessment is that this could apply to a wide variety of non-profits and political advocacy groups. It seems that not only could the organizations be targeted, but their employees and supporters as well.

The reason this is possible is because, as Hasan Piker said, “It’s not violence that they’re combating, it’s rhetoric.” This is another attempt by this administration to shut down political dissent and erode free speech. Perhaps the First Amendment will hold strong in the end, but it’s frightening how proudly and violently they’re attacking it.

In summary, I return to Ken Klippenstein:

I don’t want to sound hyperbolic but the plain truth is that NSPM-7 is a declaration of war on anyone who does not support the Trump administration and its agenda.

This is fascism.