Democrats’ Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act Shields Jihadists



ow interesting that the familiar array of Islamist-apologist and left-wing groups, notoriously opposed to U.S. counterterrorism efforts, has lined up in support of congressional Democrats’ latest push for a “Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act.” Could it be because the proposed legislation goes out of its way to shield domestic terrorists who are catalyzed by foreign jihadist organizations?

You needn’t read far into the bill to hear the alarm bells.

Section 2 provides a definition for “domestic terrorism.” Sounds sensible . . . until you remember that federal law already has a definition of domestic terrorism. The term is codified by Section 2331(5) of

Articles You May Like

NHL team skips ‘Pride Night’ warmup jerseys: ‘We support everyone’s individual right to respectfully express their beliefs’
It Looks Like Biden Is ‘Wagging the Dog’ With Ukraine to Distract From Garage-gate
Graphic bodycam video shows suspect violently swing hammer at Paul Pelosi after police arrive
New Mexico Dem’s proposal would require solar panels and charging stations in each new home, drastically increasing building costs
FLASHBACK: The Media Lovefest That Kicked Off Hillary’s 2016 Campaign

1 Comment

  1. This is very interesting as applying that definition of Domestic Terrorist could be applied to those that stormed the capital during the protest on 6 Jan. However look at the definition closely:
    (5)the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
    (A)involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
    (B)appear to be intended—
    (i)to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
    (ii)to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
    (iii)to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
    (C)occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States;
    As there was loss of life section A could apply and B(ii) as they were wanting Congress to re-evaluate and examine election results in a protest that after breaching the Capital bldg would be considered attempt to intimidate Congress.
    Now expand the vision here if they go this route. Look back at 2020, all the BLM protest were riots broke out, the direct threats to Police and officials. You could easily apply section A since there was loss of life at many of the protest and direct threats of life as well. And section B hit every sub category of intimidation to civilians, government, attempts to influence policy by intimidation, mass destruction into the Billions of dollars.

    When you try to apply your definitions on limited focus on conservatives or right wing leaning citizens, remember when looked at broadly they could be used against the liberal left with an even broader stroke from Antifa to BLM to even the pink hat screaming feminist yelling f this f the president f police and f all males who don’t bow down to them.

Leave a Comment - No Links Allowed:

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