Celebrating the Fourth of July, 2026

 Celebrating the Fourth of July, 2026

Our nation is 250 years old. What contributed most to our survival as a nation, is the passionate embrace of our founding principles. At the heart of the matter, we are a nation of law, and not of men.

Early in 1776, John Adams authored his “Thoughts on Government”. Those principles were that “happiness is the end of government,” “consent the means,” and “sovereignty of the people” were the foundation. He wrote that the foundation of every government is some principle or passion in the minds of the people. "The noblest principles and most generous affections in our nature then, have the fairest chance to support the noblest and most generous models of government. . . ."

"A CONSTITUTION", wrote Adams, "founded on these principles, introduces knowledge among the People, and inspires them with a conscious dignity, becoming Freemen. A general emulation takes place, which causes good humour, sociability, good manners, and good morals to be general."

The minority often bristles, and oppose conformity to a standard that is determined someone else. They will claim that their liberty is being violated by the 'tyranny of the majority'. But if any society is to experience peace, it must have order. Our system of government, rooted in founding principles, was created to balance order, and liberty as two parts of a whole cloth.

Thomas Jefferson, shortly after his election to the presidency, wrote his famous letter to the Danbury Baptists in which he articulated this principle: " I shall see with sincere
satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend
to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has
no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

Liberty is essential. So is order. For these two to coexist, requires mature citizens with enough knowledge and understanding to keep the balance. That, I believe, is the fundamental purpose of education, which must incorporate study of history, philosophy, and religion.

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,” wrote George Washington, “Religion and morality are indispensable supports.’ These words are perhaps George Washington’s best known statement concerning religion, and since their publication in 1796. This belief was shared by almost all of the founding fathers at that time.

We have lost that perspective, or at least, lost the passion to maintain that perspective. That is the undoing of the Republic of the United States of America. We are 'immature' as citizens, seeking our own passions and forgetting that we are parts of a whole. We want the liberty without the corresponding restrictions of order.

This year, we celebrate what we WERE, more than what we have become. We must restore the Republic, before it is too late, or there will be nothing to celebrate.

God Bless America, because we have proven beyond doubt that we are too stupid to do it on our own.
JAS, 2026

Public Media-Rights and Duties of Journalism

 

The Rights, Duties, and Obligations of the Media

“Journalists play a crucial role in maintaining media culture and a democratic society. The free flow of information and the protection of sources contribute to social development and the protection of individual rights. Journalists have a fundamental right to know what is happening in society and a duty to inform society as accurately as possible.

The United States Constitution defines the right to freedom of speech and of the press. The First Amendment protects both. According to this, journalists have the right to access public places to gather and disseminate news. This includes, among other things, the ability to record video or audio of public events, including law enforcement activities, as long as they are not interfering with or obstructing law enforcement.“ (SOURCE: https://foreignpress.org/.../on-the-rights-duties... )

In the context of journalistic duties, we need to talk about the ethical duties of journalists.

These are probably the most important duties:

• Accuracy and Truthfulness: Journalists have to report accurate and factual information. Verify facts, cite reliable sources, and correct any errors promptly.

• Independence and Impartiality: Maintain independence from political, commercial, and other influences. Avoid conflicts of interest.

• Fairness and Objectivity: Treat all subjects fairly and without bias and represent diverse perspectives.

• Integrity: A clear distinction between news reporting and opinion articles.

• Present a balanced view of events, allowing readers to form their own opinions.

• Privacy and Sensitivity: Respect individuals’ privacy rights. Avoid unnecessary intrusion into private lives.(id.)

“To give more strength to the link between truth and freedom of expression, it is significant to introduce the idea of parrhesia (παρρησία) as it was known in ancient Greece; Plato in particular referenced this idea. In modern English, it translates as “boldness” or, more pertinently, as “freedom of speech,” but the original idea contains much more than what is in our modern conception of this human right. Indeed, the correlation between the freedom for everyone to express their thoughts is intrinsically related to the expression of the truth for Plato. Further, we are able to trace parrhesia back to the central idea that freedom of expression should not be considered as an absolute right, but rather it should be recognized only to the extent to which it is useful and utilized towards what is best for democracy and society.” (Source: Tomasso Tani, )

As with any right claimed, there is also a corresponding duty imposed in the equation. The very goal of public discourse assumes veracity and implies the existence of an objective truth. While is appropriate in some venues to assert mere opinion, when an entity places itselve in the position of purveyor of truth (the ‘news’) there is a reasonable expectation from the public that the news is accurate, and truthful. It is essential for the health of a democratic republic that truth not only be available, but that the reporter has exercised due diligence to separate fact from opinion.

When Thomas Jefferson penned his response to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, he said this: “I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.” Expressing the sentiment commonly held by our Founders, Jefferson understood that all claim of right by individuals must contemplate also their duties as members of society, towards the common good.

The duty of a free press to be accurate was imagined by our founders as a means of making our system of government possible. The framers recognized that the republic’s fate depends on citizens having access to reliable and timely news.

The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution protects freedom of speech, regardless of the content, as long as no harm is done. The measure of ‘harm’ is quite subjective. When people rely on accurate reporting to make informed decisions of great importance, it is no stretch to argue that deliberate misinformation IS destructive of those ends. Actual harm IS done when, under the guise of ‘news’, a reporter promotes a political agenda that results in loss of income, damage to reputation, and lost opportunity costs for some people, while improving the power and wealth of another.

(Sources from the Internet)

Rights and Government-Basic Principles

 Truth. 

A RIGHT in one person creates a DUTY in another person. If YOU have a RIGHT, then I have duty to not interfere with your right.
When people have rights, the government has a duty to protect those rights.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," (Declaration of Independence)

There it is. The first founding principle-that God ENDOWS (an endowment is a gift in perpetuity) His creation (mankind, in His spiritual likeness) with RIGHTS above all other creatures. The second founding principles is that the PRIMARY PURPOSE of civil government is to PROTECT those rights against whomever, or whatever, might pose a threat thereto, INCLUDING government itself.
THAT is why the SECOND Amendment is the Second one listed. It's important.

In Exodus 20:3 Moses was directed to inform the people that we are to have NO OTHER GODS ahead of, or instead of the one God, who led the Israelites out of Egypt. If God gives a gift, then ANYONE who tries to TAKE that gift is asserting himself ABOVE God. Man cannot TAKE what God has given without usurping God's authority. Man is given authority to protect himself against any other man, or spirit, that would attempt to subjugate him because man, through his own free will, is intended to SEEK (relationship with) God. This is the basis of the RIGHT of self-defense. God gives us freedom. Ergo, any man who TAKE out freedom, is asserting his authority over God and that man is liable for his own demise.

The founders understood this and the Declaration asserts this truth as the basis for the War of Independence. Politically, we were dissolving the bonds with England because the king was usurping the authority of God by denying basic rights. Tactically, and practically, the people needed arms to protect that freedom from a power-hungry tyrant.

The principles are still valid. Nothing has changed.

Any person who does not understand this fundamental truth, is ignorant of the history, philosophy, and theology that undergirds the foundation of the republic. No person with that level of ignorance is qualified to hold a position of public office. People already IN office, who do not honor their oath of office (which includes commitment to these principles) should be removed immediately.
JAS

Where did common sense go?

 Common sense. A flower that does not grow in every garden.
I have a theory...
Common sense used to be 'common'. Also, men sitting around "chewing the fat" or "shooting the bull", used to be common. Men told stories, shared experiences, reminisced, etc..
Wisdom is MORE than just the accumulation of knowledge-it is the APPLICATION of that knowledge to achieve a better outcome. You can gain that wisdom through personal experience (which often includes a lot of failure, and sometimes great pain), OR, you can acquire knowledge vicariously, through someone else's experience.
Sometime in the sixties, when I was in my teens, I saw men sitting on buckets, barrels, boards...talking, smoking, sometimes laughing...but always drawing from each other's life experiences. Accumulated wisdom was being distributed freely.
At the same as this practice began to disappear, so did the construction of large front porches on new homes. Small town life gradually changed and with it, so did the presence of common sense.
Other things contributed to our demise, but this is one of those American portraits that exists now only picture books and old movies.
Sad.
JAS 

 

An Immigrant Parable

  

An Immigration Parable

 

I got some land that's been in my family for awhile. I bought some, and some was inherited. (Some was stolen a long time ago, but those issues were long since settled. That's not part of the story) I fenced some pasture and enclosed the outbuildings, but after I experienced some vandalism and theft, I fenced some more of it. I invested in infrastructure (barn, conveyor, tractor, stalls, corral, water well, etc. ).

I was raised on this land, as were my children and now we are raising grandkids. Life is good.  MOST of just want to be left alone to raise our families, take care of what’s ours, save a little if we can (But we can’t because the cost of seed and fuel, and even a trip to the doctor is so blamed expensive that we can’t go unless a bone is sticking out.) Our kids go to school, we know most of our neighbors from church. We help each other when we can and do right by each other-respecting each other’s property, respecting our elders, respect the law and do what we think the Bible instructs us do.  Those that do differently, they pretty much leave us alone, and we pretty much leave them alone.

Lately, there have some people (not from these parts) who are staying on my land without permission. I got quite a bit of land so I don't see 'em much and I usually can't catch 'em anyway. But, it's my land, and when I can, I report them to the sheriff. For different reasons, he is no help at all. If I try to take matters into my own hands, I'M the one who gets in trouble for it! (We're still working on that!)

Some of the people from elsewhere in the county, and a few from the next county over, give these trespasser money (and KEEP giving ‘em money), so they (the trespassers) usually have some pocket jingle and not much incentive to stay away. I think that only makes the problem worse. Some of those with a will to work come around from time to time to help with some of chores and I don’t mind that, if they are polite, and respectful. But the sheriff says I can’t hire them for real because Congress passed a law against it. I don't get that because I should be the one who decides who can, and who can't be on my property. Anyway, they all got money from somewhere.

The problem is, it isn’t just a few, like it was at first.  Now I’m seeing family members (I guess-I don’t really know WHO they are) and now my land and my operation is feeling a squeeze. Grass is being trampled, firewood is being cut down, fences are broken down, trash is left around, gates are being left open, and I heard in a town meeting that I could personally be held liable if they get injured on MY property, EVEN if it is posted, NO TRESSPASSING.  There is NO respect for other people rights or property. What’s this country coming too?

I even heard at a town meeting once, some of the townfolks tried to say that EVERYBODY in the whole county owed a duty to take care of the trespassers. That doesn't make any sense either, and sure didn’t make a lot of others very happy.  We're working on THAT one too.

We tried to get the sheriff to force those people out of county and off of our but he wouldn’t/couldn’t do anything so a bunch of us went up to the capital and petitioned the governor to send the state police to come down here and make something happen.  It turns out that there are laws (even though the sheriff said they weren't HIS laws) and the governor said he COULD do something about it.

Well, they came down pretty quickly and things were started to move along but then a bunch of college kids from the capital came down protesting because the people trespassing on my land were being “treated unfairly”. (We pretty much told 'em that since they weren't even supposed to BE here, if they didn't like how they were being treated on MY land, the smart thing to do would be shuffle off wherever they last WAS!  That made the college kids mad!)  Then the Methodists got with the Episcopalians in the next county and starting chanting and parading with signs saying if we didn’t let them stay on our land, that we were not Christians and that we didn’t understand what the Bible says on the subject. (I looked in my Bible and couldn’t find it, but when I asked one of them, they couldn’t find it either. I think they just say stuff because it sounds like what THEY would do if they were in charge instead of Jesus.)

Then those college kids went from protesting, to fighting the state police (with guns, explosive and Molotov cocktails) and the next thing you know the news reporters were here, stirring things up some more. NONE Of this sounds like the exercise of wisdom and restraint, to me.

It’s not over yet, but here’ what I know. We have laws that have stood the test of time, as they are rooted in solid principles upon which is built our system of government. Kids (of any age) with little to no life experience, little to no education in philosophy, economics, history (especially history) are never going to garner much respect or credibility with the folks who own the land, the farms, and the businesses, and upon whom is shouldered the weight of a free country.  No one has ANY right but from God, that they themselves have not procured for themselves nor has been paid by the blood of their fathers.   Any protest by the illiterate, the profane, the evil, or the self-righteous, will not attract much attention, nor achieve lasting results with noisy theatrics, as they will never be taken serious by any rational person who walks in wisdom, and the means to defend themselves. All we ask of government is to NOT get in the way of Truth, Justice, and the American way as we protect that which is ours, from those that would take it.
John Sterling 2/13/2026

.

Facts, Feelings, and the Assassination of Charlie Kirk

 

Facts, Feelings, and the Assassination of Charlie Kirk

September 15, 2025

I have never watched much of Charlie Kirk debating students (and others) at colleges. I applauded what he was doing and I certainly knew that he was an apologist for the faith, but I just didn't take time to listen to the debates.

 

Until this week. I've spent more than 20 hours listening and watching Charlie engage the issues in the last three days. I seriously under-appreciated his work.

 

Watching these video clips, I have been dumbfounded at the level of energy by students arguing their point-of-view in total ignorance and absolute denial of facts and reason. I've seen several video clips involving people with obvious hatred of truth and reason. In all of my years, I have only seen this level mental implosion in patients with acute mental disorders. I watched people shouting obscenities, and calling Charlie 'brainwashed' 'liar', 'hater', and 'evil'. These same people, when courteously asked by Charlie to refute his arguments with facts, or to defend their position with credible evidence, became visibly unhinged, displaying the very traits of which they were accusing Charlie . A significant percentage of those who claim to be 'progressives' celebrated the assassination of Charlie Kirk. I find this reprehensible, as do most Americans.

 

The reason for the hate?  The liberal left resorts to name-calling, and violence when their beliefs are challenged, and their point of view is not taken seriously. They hate the objective truth because it shatters their subjective reality. But, facts are facts and when facts are ignored because they are in opposition to beliefs that one holds dearly, then there is a term for that. It is called confirmation bias.

 

(From Britannica) Confirmation bias is one example of how humans sometimes process information in an illogical, biased manner. The manner in which a person knows and understands the world is often affected by factors that are simply unknown to that person. Philosophers note that people have difficulty processing information in a rational, unbiased manner once they have developed an opinion about an issue. Humans are better able to rationally process information, giving equal weight to multiple viewpoints, if they are emotionally distant from the issue.

Confirmation bias surfaces in people’s tendency to look for positive instances. When seeking information to support their hypotheses or expectations, people tend to look for positive evidence that confirms that a hypothesis is true rather than information that would prove the view is false (if it is false).

 

Confirmation bias is important because it may lead people to hold strongly to false beliefs or to give more weight to information that supports their beliefs than is warranted by the evidence. People may be overconfident in their beliefs because they have accumulated evidence to support them, when in reality they have overlooked or ignored a great deal of evidence refuting their beliefs—evidence which, if they had considered it, should lead them to question their beliefs.

There are a few different ways that we can try to overcome confirmation bias:

 

“It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.”  Thomas Sowell

 

 

TEN COMMANDMENTS of LOGIC

1. Ad hominem – Thou shall not attack the person’s character, but the argument.
2. Straw man fallacy – Thou shall not misrepresent or exaggerate a person’s argument in order to make them easier to attack.
3. Hasty generalization – Thou shall not use small numbers to represent the whole.
4. Begging the question – Thou shall not argue thy position by assuming one of its premises is true.
5. Post Hoc/False cause – Thou shall not claim that because something occurred before, it must be the cause.
6. False dichotomy – Thou shall not reduce the argument down to two possibilities.
7. Ad ignorantum – Thou shall not argue that because of our ignorance, claim must be true or false.
8. Burden of proof reversal – Thou shall not lay the burden of proof onto him that is questioning the claim.
9. Non sequitur – Thou shall not assume “this” follows “that” when it has no logical connection.
10. Bandwagon fallacy – Thou shall not claim that because a premise is popular, therefore it must be true.

 

Cautions from Proverbs 14:

A fool’s mouth lashes out with pride, but the lips of the wise protect them.

An honest witness does not deceive, but a false witness pours out lies.

The mocker seeks wisdom and finds none, but knowledge comes easily to the discerning.

Stay away from a fool, for you will not find knowledge on their lips.

Fools mock at making amends for sin, but goodwill is found among the upright.

There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end, it leads to death.

 

 

WHAT IS EVIDENCE?

The legal definition of evidence is: “Any fact that tends to prove the truth of the matter asserted”.   That’s it. Simple. Any fact that ‘tends to prove’ the truth. Emotions are not evidence, no matter how strongly they are embraced. Opinions are not evidence because an opinion is a belief that something is true ABSENT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. An ‘informed opinion’ is a conclusion if that which ‘informs’ meets the definition of evidence. A CONCLUSION is the result of a REASONED PROCESS of evaluating evidence.

The reason we use criminal trial-type procedure is that we make the practical judgement, on the basis of this experience: that taking evidence, subject to cross-examination and rebuttal, is the best way to resolve controversies involving disputes of adjudicative facts, that is, facts pertaining to the parties. Charlie Kirk said often that dialog and discourse are the things that keep us from resorting to violence. The one(s) who killed him, and those who rejoiced at his murder, are those who are unable to continue dialog because their beliefs (worldview) cannot be supported by objective truth.

 

There are different kinds of TRUTH.  OBJECTIVE truth is generally held to be true because sufficient experience/research/study has gone into the matter that most people are persuaded without further evidence. SUBJECTIVE truth is "subject" to the filtering process of one's own personal experience, or perceptions. These two terms are NOT mutually exclusive...that is, one MAY exist with the other. In other words, some "truth" may be a mix of objective and subjective reality. ALSO, truth itself is used differently in context. There is TRUE (as in morally right), and there is TRUE (as in factually correct), and there is TRUE (as in "original") etc.. You see, the word "true", without context, is ambiguous (having more than one possible meaning).

Charlie Kirk’s murder is celebrated by people who do not understand and/or cannot accept  the light that objective truth brings into the conversation. They embrace violence as the only remaining alternative to validate their (subjective) point of view.

Someone on Facebook accused Charlie Kirk of being a ‘vile’ human being.

Here is my response on Facebook:

“I used to be a cop. I have seen up close, vile human beings. I know them by their fruits. I have sat through trials of people who have been adjudicated, based upon the evidence, as to their vile state. Contrasted with average 'normal' everyday Americans, a vile human being spews hate and embraces violence. Charlie Kirk did neither.

 

In the last three days I have watched over 20 hours of video demonstrating Charlie Kirk's interaction with all kinds of people. Even to the ones who demonstrated ignorance, arrogance, confrontational behavior, and total disregard for facts in evidence, Charlie was polite and open to dialog. I have not seen any evidence of behavior that a reasonable person would call 'vile'. I HAVE seen pseudo intellectuals, highly emotional people, accuse Charlie of being 'brainwashed' but NONE could offer even a shred of evidence to support their assertions.

I saw and heard people accuse him of being a 'provocateur'. According to Webster's a Provocateur is a person who provokes trouble, causes dissension, or the like; an agitator. Again, reasonable people who are intellectually honest and academically aware, know that stimulating debate and encouraging open dialog is NOT the definition of a provocateur. But in those more than 20 hours of videos, I seldom saw any evidence that those who challenged Charlie Kirk displayed ANY behavior that might be categorized as 'intellectual honesty, or academic integrity. They were, by and large, ignorant of history, philosophy, science, and religion. I cannot remember ANY of those challengers who knew the Constitution, or understood the legitimate role/duties of federal government in a constitutional republic.

 

In all that I viewed, I saw Charlie Kirk state his beliefs, and support his beliefs with logic, reason, history, and science, and the people who could not articulate a well-reasoned response-could not frame a cogent argument or defense of their own for THEIR beliefs- became angry, frustrated and embarrassed. In such a case, it was not Kirk who was the provocateur, but rather the challengers who came to a debate with nothing but emotions and soundbites.”

 

To my response, and my assertion that Charlie never exhibited racism, or misogyny, or hatred towards people with sexual identity issues, I was sent a youtube video that purported to show evidence of those very things. In one segment, Charlie was arguing that Martin Luther King Jr was not a good candidate for a national holiday. In another, he said the policy initiative DEI, spawned by Affirmative Action , which came out of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, was bad law and bad policy. The POINTS he was making is that government policies have NOT improved race relations, and they HAVE increased suspicions and concerns over actual qualifications of people holding important positions. i.e. police chiefs, doctors, airline pilots etc.

 

You may disagree with his assessment of the law, and of government policy, but his stated position was NOT racist. However, those with confirmation bias could not see anything else BUT racism. This is evidence of the intellectually debilitated state of so many people today- they cannot discern or differentiate between the point being articulated and the analogies used or the example given to support the point.    

 

 Here is my reply to that video:

 

“I watched the whole thing. Most of what he said was that the focus on race was causing more problems than it was solving. While that is debatable, it is NOT 'racism; nor 'bigotry'. It is a call to analyze the effect of policies and programs that are (or may be) counterproductive, like DEI.

To his point, DEI has cause reasonable people of all races and ideologies to legitimately wonder if the professional in whose hands they are entrusting their lives (pilots, doctors, etc) are actually the most qualified, or if their position was influenced by their minority status. That is a legitimate question.

MLK did great things to help dissolve the racial barriers. That work should be remembered. Charlie's points was NOT that MLK did not do good work, but that when contrasted with his personal life (marital infidelity) he is undeserving of a national holiday, especially when there are so many other good black men whose lives and whose works are finer moral examples. Charlie never maligned MLK's contribution to race problems in America. To those who accuse Charlie of hypocrisy because he supports Trump who is also a philanderer, nobody is proposing a Trump national holiday. THAT is the issue being discussed, NOT race.

This conversation highlights an eternal truth: people see and hear what they want to see and hear because it supports their narrative. It has always been difficult, and it is increasingly more difficult, to get people to exercise reason over emotion.”

 

FREE SPEECH

I absolutely cannot find ANY evidence that when the founder's contemplated the First Amendment, that they envisioned people could say whatever they wanted in the public square. It was universally understood, that matters of religion and politics had room for discussion and people should be able to discuss those (and other relevant social topics) in public, without government censorship. It wasn't until the U.S. Supreme Court broadened the scope that we begin to have problems. There are multiple Supreme Court decisions on this topic. The reader should research the topic thoroughly before rendering an opinion on social media.

 

Liberal media is reporting that people are losing their jobs because they are exercising their right of free speech by rejoicing at the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

This is NOT a 'free speech' issue. This IS another example of confirmation bias.

This a repudiation by mainstream America, that we are SICK of being 'tolerant' of evil in our midst. By any objective standard, when someone publicly rejoices at the murder of an innocent man, then we, the people demand, and deserve to require common decency.

We, the people, demand a return to civility that USED to be a hallmark of a civil society.

We, the people, will now require that regardless of your politics, you will conform to a higher standard of behavior than we are seeing here. We want to see a return to a place where the common man has enough decency, and self-restraint, to show respect for the PROCESS, even if you don't respect the victim.

 

We, the people, expect both government, and the media, to LEAD BY EXAMPLE.

Self-government will NEVER work if the people are not self-disciplined. Government needs to back off and let people police their own communities.

 

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams

Conclusion

The Bible clearly teaches that the function of civil government is to “do Justice” (Ro 13: 1-6; ). Justice is define by God, and NOT subject to reinterpretation by people who do not follow God.

James Madison wrote: “To preserve the Republic, it is in the hands of the people. We have staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments”

 

If you hate America, and every fundamental principle which framed our existence and forged our identity, then you are no friend of America, and no friend of true liberty.

 

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -- Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Homegrown Violent Extremists and Minneapolis Protestors

 HVEs and Minneapolis Protestors

 Terrorism Counteraction in the U.S. recently produced categories of terror and terrorism to facilitate investigation and counteraction. One such term is Homegrown violent extremist (HVE), and is used to describe a person who was raised in a western cultural tradition but has rejected those norms and who seeks to replace those norms with something else, by using violent means. Historically, the HVE’s have been raised in America but have embraced the Ideology of Islam.

One working Definition of a Homegrown Violent Extremist (HVE) is this:
“Homegrown violent extremists are those who encourage, endorse, condone, justify, or support the commission of a violent criminal act to achieve political, ideological, religious, social, or economic goals by a citizen or long-term resident of a Western country who has rejected Western cultural values, beliefs, and norms.” (1)


Since 9/11/2001 the principle and largest threat to America, its Western values and traditions, and its form of government, has been the ideology of Islam. Some pundits feel more comfortable identifying the threat as ONLY from some form Islamic fundamentalism or extremism, but elsewhere I have argued that the ideology of Islam, as taught by Mohammad, and transcribed or compiled by early Muslim scholars (2) makes it very clear that Islam requires either the annihilation, or the complete subjugation of all non Muslims. In other words, there is really no such thing as an 'extremist Muslim'. You either ARE a Muslim, or you are not. While that viewpoint is extreme with respect to other religions or ideologies, within Islam itself, it is quit consistent.

When identifying and labeling any extremist group, we look to their objective(s). If that (those) include(s) the complete destruction of any viewpoint in opposition to their own, and the willingness to use violence to achieve that end, then it is pretty easy to attach the label of extremist/terrorist.  

How does one recognize a violent Extremist? One identifies another's membership in a class or species by examining the common characteristics. As the Bible says about Christians: "By your fruits ye shall know them"(Mt 7:20). Examine what the say, of course, but the real truth is observable; what do they D? It is helpful to compare behavior against the list compiled by law lenforcement.

Indicators of VIOLENT EXTREMISTS.

Attempting to obtain explosives; purchase of military style gear;
Leakage on social media; Acquisition of weapons;
Expressing acceptance of violence; Switching from one violent ideology to another;
Attempting to radicalize others; Increased isolation;
Joining groups promoting violence; Discussing ways to avoid law enforcement;
Suspicious financial transactions; praising past successful attacks or attempts;
Suspicious travel; replacing family and friends with violent extremist social groups;
Deleting Social Media posts Counter surveillance;
Encrypted media applications; Acquiring maps/blueprints of potential targets ;
Attempting to travel to a conflict zone
(3)

Looking at the definition and the indicators, the characterization of an HVE is not ideology-dependent. If any person in America, regardless of their citizenship, violently opposes legitimate government law enforcement operations, especially when they cause injury to police, they may treated according to rules of engagement for any other terrorist. 

The dissident protestors in Minneapolis and elsewhere in the U.S., regardless of the sincerity of their beliefs clearly and unambiguously fit the definition (above) of a Homegrown Violent Extremist. It doesn't matter their race, sex, economic status, religious background, education, or anything else; if they oppose law enforcement, are intolerant of any other point of view, and are willing to use violence against others to influence the outcome in their own favor, and start 'checking the boxes' from the list of indicators, then it is (should be) easy to respond accordingly. 

 
JAS 1/2026

 

1.  https://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter/content.ashx/cops-w0738-pub.pdf

2. In Sunni tradition, it is believed that the first caliph Abu Bakr ordered Zayd ibn Thabit to compile the written Quran, relying upon both textual fragments and the memories of those who had memorized it during Muhammad's lifetime, with the rasm (undotted Arabic text) being officially canonized under the third caliph Uthman ibn Affan ( 644–656 CE). Other early scholars recognized include: 'Abd Allah ibn Abbas (619-687 AD)- highly regarded for his knowledge of traditions and his critical interpretation of the Qur'an; Ibn Umar (610-693 AD), a friend and also brother-in-law of Muhammad; Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud (594-693 AD)- also a close companion and friend of Mohammad whom Sunni Islamic tradition regards as the greatest interpreter of the Qu'ran of his time. Source: Wikipedia

(3.) https://nrt.response.epa.gov/sites/107/files/HVEPresentationMaritime.pdf