The unlawful use of violence and intimidation against civilians in the pursuit of political aims is the standard, or at least the most common definition of terrorism. Domestic terrorism may then be understood as the commission of terroristic acts in the perpetrator’s own country against his fellow citizens.
However, there’s no such thing as domestic terrorism in federal statute. As my fellow criminologists and criminal law experts will agree, if there’s no statute, then there’s no crime. We even have a fancy latin phrase for this: nullum crimen sine lege—translation: “no crime without law.” We live in a democratic republic with the rule of law, not a Kafkaesque dystopia where Democrats invent criminal law categories on the fly.
On the substantive question, participants in the January 6 riots did not direct their hostilities at civilians, but rather the situation at points devolved into violent alterations with police officers. Indeed, at several points, actions by police appeared themselves riotous. There was destruction of property, as well, albeit property destruction is not universally included in definitions of terrorism.
However, using the typical definition of terrorism, Antifa and Black Lives matter violence occurring over the summer and into the fall of 2020 would likely constitute domestic terrorism if such a statue existed. The unlawful use of violence and intimidation by Antifa/BLM targeted civilians. Scores of citizens were killed, injured, and intimidated. If one wants to include property destruction in the definition, there was plenty of that, too.
Do I have to remind readers that Democrats celebrated the BLM riots? Or was the reverence for BLM and apologetics for Antifa by party members the result of violence and intimidation by those parties?
The Judiciary Committee subcommittee on the weaponization of government, chaired by Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, hearings has so far been highly revealing. It’s obvious that Democrats are all in with Big Tech and the deep state suppression of information on social media platforms.
When New York’s Hakeem Jeffries, minority leader of the House, condemns the hearings are not dealing with any of the issues Americans find important, he is admitting that Democrats do not find the First Amendment to have any relevance to the concerns of the citizens they feign to represent. Democrats on the committee apparently didn’t even know that Schenck v. US (1919) was effectively overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).
The love affair between the Democratic Party and the FBI and other security agencies expressed in the dismissive tone of their questions only served to further reinforce the point of the hearings: to make obvious the role of the administrative state in advancing the political interests of the Democratic Party, which align with those of corporate America. One might think that these lawmakers would dissimulate their loyalties with the world watching. But they’re telegraphing to corporate power that they are ready, willing, and able to continue serving their interests.
Yesterday’s hearings also produce memorable exchanges. I liked this one in particular:
Today’s star was Democrat Party apostate Tulsi Gabbard. Here she tells us what’s at stake.
freedom and reason 