Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Biden Admin’s Strategy to Combat Domestic Terrorism Calls White Supremacy, Militia Groups as Biggest Threats

Biden Admin’s Strategy to Combat Domestic Terrorism Calls White Supremacy, Militia Groups as Biggest Threats

“Today’s domestic terrorists espouse a range of violent ideological motivations, including racial or ethnic bigotry and hatred as well as anti-government or anti-authority sentiment.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3p_ar91klI

President Joe Biden’s administration released its strategy to combat domestic terrorism. It labeled white supremacists and militia groups as the most significant threats.

Biden ordered a review of threats due to the January 6th Capitol Hill riots. In March, the National Security Council determined “that domestic violent extremism posed a ‘heightened threat’ in 2021.”

NSC Report

The document is vague. The NSC did not provide enough specifics except those they find the biggest threat to America.

Honestly, it sounds like the government is more concerned about the politicians than we regular people.

The NSC defined domestic terrorism as “activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”

By the way, the NSC placed us small government and anti-authority people in the same group as racists.

“Today’s domestic terrorists espouse a range of violent ideological motivations, including racial or ethnic bigotry and hatred as well as anti-government or anti-authority sentiment,” wrote the NSC. “They also take on a variety of forms, from lone actors and small groups of informally aligned individuals, to networks exhorting and targeting violence toward specific communities, to violent self-proclaimed ‘militias’ who, despite legal prohibitions in all fifty states against certain private militia activity, assert a baseless right to take the law into their own hands.”

The strategy does not include new domestic terrorism laws, even though Biden demanded one during his presidential campaign.

People, especially liberty-minded people, remained skeptical about a law due to possible “government overreach and infringements on privacy rights.” The NSC addressed it:

New criminal laws, in particular, should be sought only after careful consideration of whether and how they are needed to assist the government in
tackling complex, multifaceted challenges like the one posed by domestic terrorism and only while ensuring the protection of civil rights and civil liberties.

Therefore, even as we augment our approach to domestic terrorism under existing authorities, the Department of Justice is examining carefully what new authorities might be necessary and appropriate. As with the rest of this Strategy, we are ensuring that such examination is driven by the facts and informed by the analysis of the experts who can guide our understanding of both the current authorities for addressing domestic terrorism threats and the implications for civil rights and civil liberties of pursuing any changes to those authorities. Duly informed by their analysis and by the recommendations of Federal law enforcement leadership, we will, in consultation with the Congress, consider whether seeking legislative reforms is appropriate and, if so, which to pursue.

The White House also wants to strengthen the sharing abilities between all law enforcement in America and the private sector.

Yes, Biden’s administration is seeking help from social media platforms:

Availability of domestic terrorism related recruitment material online is almost certain to persist at some level. That is especially true on the platforms that explicitly encourage or tacitly condone such material, as well as on end-to-end encrypted platforms where such material can be harder to identify, even by those operating such platforms. Dealing with the supply is therefore necessary but not sufficient: we must address the demand too. Today’s digital age requires an American population that can utilize essential aspects of Internet-based communications platforms while avoiding vulnerability to domestic terrorist recruitment and other harmful content deliberately disseminated by malicious actors online, such as international terrorist groups like al- Qa’ida trying to incite imminent violence or hostile foreign powers seeking to undermine American democracy. Consequently, we will pursue innovative ways to foster and cultivate digital literacy and related programs, including educational materials and interactive online resources such as skills-enhancing online games. This can prove a useful component to forging the resilience that may help to stem domestic terrorism recruitment and mobilization to violence.

About Those Civil Liberties…

When does the promise of not violating our civil liberties begin? How about they start now with the rioters?

Authorities have placed many of the participants in solitary confinement. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and the ACLU are furious. I’m not kidding:

“I do not believe in solitary confinement for extended periods of time for anyone,” Warren, a Massachusetts senator and former Harvard Law School professor, said of the Jan. 6 rioters when asked by the Washington Examiner.

[Sen. Bob] Casey, a Pennsylvania Democrat, who says he wants to look into the issue further said, “Obviously, in any instance, I think solitary confinement is concerning.” Republicans also objected to the treatment of the jailed Jan. 6 rioters.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which has recently drawn criticism for favoring liberal causes over its tradition of representing unsympathetic clients and causes, is also weighing in on the side of Trump protesters being held alone.

“Prolonged solitary confinement is torture and certainly should not be used as a punitive tool to intimidate or extract cooperation. We’re pleased to see that message is getting through to Senators,” Tammie Gregg, deputy director of the ACLU National Prison Project, told the Washington Examiner in a statement.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

There are no white supremacists. See John Derbyshire’s short essay in response to John McWhorter

https://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/RadioDerb/2016-12-02.html#05

    mark311 in reply to rhhardin. | June 15, 2021 at 2:08 pm

    The article you link too claims that the term “white supremacist” is overly broad in its current use not that they don’t exist.

      healthguyfsu in reply to mark311. | June 15, 2021 at 10:56 pm

      And that’s somehow a defense of ridiculous and willful, grossly negligent mishandling of that labeling from a federal administration’s own policy documents??

      This is pure weaponization of ideology by the left and you can’t weasel your way out of that.

        mark311 in reply to healthguyfsu. | June 16, 2021 at 2:38 am

        Not really, given the evidence of far right groups and incidents related to then along with catelogued terror plots with far right themes I’m not really clear that full blown denial is particularly rational. Sure there can be a reasonable debate about the extents of white supremacy etc but hand waving away the issue is a disservice to reality

          Bruce Hayden in reply to mark311. | June 16, 2021 at 9:24 am

          This is called the Big Lie.

          Almost all of the racism and violence is running the other way these days. Blacks evidencing racism against Asians, Jews, and Whites, and Black on Asian, Jewish, White, and Blue violence. The left desperately wants a race war, and seems to be willing to do almost anything to incite it – they have substituted race for class as the basis for their Marxist struggle. They are racists, and expect everyone else to be, as a result. But so far, all we have is massive projection and wishful thinking on their part, and the right continues to accept King’s dream of a co;orb;one society.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | June 16, 2021 at 11:56 am

          @Bruce Hayden

          The claim is with regard to terrorism not violence in general. Do you have stats to support your position? The left doesn’t want a race war that’s your assertion, and its a big one requiring considerable work to make sound remotely reasonable.

    n.n in reply to rhhardin. | June 15, 2021 at 10:04 pm

    Color supremacists. Notably rabid diversitists (i.e. color judgments), not limited to racism, sexism, ageism. The principle of political congruence (“=”) serves to progress class-based bigotry. Demos-cracy is aborted at the Twilight fringe, with a Pro-Choice religion, liberal ideology, through policies of social justice anywhere is injustice everywhere.

Joe Biden is a fascist not hyperbolic but a traditional fascist in the mold of many European leaders from the 20th century.

stevewhitemd | June 15, 2021 at 1:24 pm

Who are these domestic terrorists? If they were people who were a true threat to the republic, you’d think we’d all know who they are. That the DOJ, White House, and MSM can’t name them, their leaders, and provide a credible accounting how HOW these folk are a threat, should tell us all what we need to know.

Who are they?

    mark311 in reply to stevewhitemd. | June 15, 2021 at 2:17 pm

    Look at the Jan 6th charge sheets, quite a few are named. It’s been pretty well documented by specialist groups that document White supremacist groups nationally including crimes etc. Indeed it was homeland security that has highlighted white supremacists as the main threat. I’m not really clear what authorative source suggests otherwise?

      geronl in reply to mark311. | June 15, 2021 at 3:33 pm

      Antifa and BLM burned down half the country but are not considered threats. Think about it. Meanwhile the Portland federal building has been attacked for more than 130 days straight… but no threat there apparently.

      Milhouse in reply to mark311. | June 15, 2021 at 4:39 pm

      What “specialist groups” would those be?

      If your answer is “the SPLC”, you automatically lose.

      “What authorative source suggests otherwise”?! Anyone who knows anything about the real world.

        mark311 in reply to Milhouse. | June 15, 2021 at 6:42 pm

        @Milhouse

        Why what’s wrong with the SPLC? As far as I’m aware they specialise in legal prosecutions of these kinds of issues. I’m not clear that you get to just “you automatically lose” with no coherent response. Nor are they the only group that looks at these kinds of issues such as The Centre for America Progress and the Counter Extremism Project or indeed Homelands securities own threat assessments. Anyone who knows about the real world understands that there are a significant number of far right types falling under the White Supremacist Umbrella, there is plenty of evidence for that. I’m not clear what your argument actually is?

        @geronl

        That’s a slight exaggeration don’t you think, your argument is to an extent a matter of degree. Comparing the number of terror plots from far right vs far left and the former are far more active. That’s not excusing either side that’s just a statement of what is actually happening.

          geronl in reply to mark311. | June 15, 2021 at 7:15 pm

          What terror plots? Who decides what a “terror plot” is? We’ve seen innumerable plots from the left that are just ignored and waved off by the establishment. These same people call a stupid tweet a “terror plot”. So numbers mean nothing.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | June 15, 2021 at 8:09 pm

          @geronl

          “We’ve seen innumerable plots from the left that are just ignored and waved off by the establishment.” Such as

          “Who decides what a “terror plot” is” read the report

          https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-united-states

          “right-wing terrorist attacks caused 335 deaths, left-wing attacks caused 22 deaths, and ethnonationalist terrorists caused 5 deaths.” From the above report.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | June 15, 2021 at 10:55 pm

          The source linked cites the University of Maryland START database as a primary source. Being highly familiar with this source of data, I do not see how they arrived at their conclusions. It can only be how the generators of the report coded the START incident data. The University of Maryland START database was highly focused on recording Islamic terrorism.

          healthguyfsu in reply to mark311. | June 15, 2021 at 11:00 pm

          If you’d not followed up with the obviously partisan SPLC with a laughable pivot to the CAP (should be CRAP) then someone might actually believe that you are just that far behind the 8 ball in terms of partisanship and propaganda smears.

          But you gave yourself away with that one, marky (by the way, 311 stands for KKK…11th letter of the alphabet is K so we should put you on the terrorism watch list and stop you from flying on a plane or entering any government buildings). See how easy that is to smear you!

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | June 16, 2021 at 2:53 am

          @BSR

          Don’t cherry pick, the report methodology clearly states that the START database was relied upon only for early years. It goes on to state numerous sources

          “In total, we drew from the following data sets: START GTD (1994-2017); Janes Terrorism
          and Insurgency Events (2009-2020); the RAND Database of Worldwide Terrorism
          Incidents (RDWTI) (1994-2009); and the Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) Hate,
          Extremism, Anti-Semitism, and Terrorism (H.E.A.T.) Map (Anti-Semitic Incidents: 2016-
          2020, Extremist/Police Shootouts: 2008-2020, Extremist Murders: 2008-2020, Terrorist
          Plots & Attacks: 2002-2020, Islamist: 2002-2020, Left Wing: 2008-2020, Right Wing:
          2002-2020). We also compiled events as recorded in ADL publications1
          and Federal Bureau
          of Investigation (FBI) annual reports and news releases (1994-2020). We cross-referenced
          events against local and national news sources, including the New York Times, Washington
          Post, and Los Angeles Times.”

          As for START itself I’m not clear what your criticism is here? Are you suggesting that the authors cherry picked cases? In which case I’d suggest you show that’s the case. I’m not a fan of people saying ‘its wrong’ without showing that’s actually the case.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | June 16, 2021 at 2:58 am

          @healthguy

          That’s a laughable argument, saying you don’t like the source because it suits your narrative isn’t great is it. You haven’t actually fended of the central claim which is that the data shows there is a legitimate concern with far right /white supremacy activities including terror plots. Indeed I cited multiple sources showing the same thing. You can either address the substance of claim which is data and fact driven or you can continue to be arrogant and act in a dismissive manner.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | June 16, 2021 at 3:01 am

          @healthguy

          11th letter of the alphabet eh, so that gives you k and the the 3 gives you c. So CK. Yeah I’m really Calvin Klein /s. Not gonna lie that was jaw droppingly stupid logic, talk about tenuous. If that how all your arguments are derived you have serious issues.

          Milhouse in reply to mark311. | June 16, 2021 at 3:10 am

          Why what’s wrong with the SPLC?

          Wow. I had guessed that you were quoting that pack of hateful frauds, but expected that upon seeing my challenge you’d have the sense to look them up and find what’s wrong with them. Evidently you don’t.

          SPLC is
          1. A scam to make money from gullible liberals.
          2. A vicious hate group that has already incited at least one terrorist attack.
          3. A group that has no credibility whatsoever.

          For the information supporting this, just search for SPLC on this site, for crying out loud.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | June 16, 2021 at 4:27 am

          @milhouse

          Firstly I haven’t relied on the SPLC as you well know if you’d actually read my comments. Secondly you haven’t actually addressed the substance of the claim which is that there is a significant amount of far right / white supremacist activity including terror plot. Sure SPLC has some biases but multiple sources valid the the central point of the claim as stated above.

          Having looked in more depth at SPLC I can see that it has issues, I’ve not done enough research to see the extents but yes appreciate the point.

          Its funny that I am quite willing to accept criticisms of my argument but you don’t seem able to acknowledge the flaws in yours.

          Milhouse in reply to mark311. | June 16, 2021 at 6:45 am

          Mark, since you mention cherry-picking, how does a “study” that starts in 1994 not make you sit up and take notice? That’s just one year before the OKC bombing, and seems chosen so as to include it.

          The OKC bombing, of course, was a unique event, coming as two men’s response to the Waco massacre. They waited a year to see whether there would be any sign of justice being done, and having concluded that there would be nothing ever, they decided that the FBI was at war with the American people and that someone had to do something about it. But note that the massacre does not count as “domestic terrorism”, while the response to it does. In any case, setting the start date there obviously skews the numbers, and seems designed to do so.

          More generally, all the organizations you cite, including DHS, are left-wing propaganda units with not much credibility. I’d have to see a list of the incidents they count, and how they categorized them, and look up each one to see whether they’re justified. For instance, how are they counting the Pulse shooting? I have no idea, but it would be very dishonest to count it as “right wing”, and I’m not sure they didn’t.

          And the count of “plots” is particularly suspect because we have nothing but the FBI’s word for their existence.

          There’s more but this should do for now.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | June 16, 2021 at 8:53 am

          @milhouse

          They explain that in the report as previous years have less reliable data.

          Sorry the DHS is left wing are you fucking kidding me! Your argument so far seems to extend to you don’t like the sound of the source, you haven’t actually looked at the data set or pointed to another source that provides an argument that undermines mine.

          I appreciate your point about OKC but that doesn’t help much when the stats suggest considerably more right wing violence in 2018-19 as per the DHS report. Even then with regard to OKC the claim is that White Supremacist as a threat is worse now.

          Bruce Hayden in reply to mark311. | June 16, 2021 at 9:46 am

          This is the definition used by CIS:

          “ First, right-wing terrorism refers to the use or threat of violence by sub-national or non-state entities whose goals may include racial or ethnic supremacy; opposition to government authority; anger at women, including from the incel (“involuntary celibate”) movement; and outrage against certain policies, such as abortion.6 This analysis uses the term “right-wing terrorism” rather than “racially- and ethnically-motivated violent extremism,” or REMVE, which is used by some in the U.S. government.7 Second, left-wing terrorism involves the use or threat of violence by sub-national or non-state entities that oppose capitalism, imperialism, and colonialism; pursue environmental or animal rights issues; espouse pro-communist or pro-socialist beliefs; or support a decentralized social and political system such as anarchism. Third, religious terrorism includes violence in support of a faith-based belief system, such as Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and Hinduism, among many others. As highlighted in the next section, the primary threat from religious terrorists comes from Salafi-jihadists inspired by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. Fourth, ethnonationalist terrorism refers to violence in support of ethnic or nationalist goals—often struggles of self-determination and separatism along ethnic or nationalist lines.””

          Anger at women is right wing terrorism? Millions of American men get angry at women every day. And some of them use violence against them – often using their strength advantage against women’s traditional verbal advantages. Nothing new there. The only thing new is that CIS. and other leftists, now consider it right wing violence. This is one of the most egregious examples of padding statistics I have ever seen.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | June 16, 2021 at 10:10 am

          @Bruce Hayden

          Id say that in context they are talking about anger at women leading to violence AND for a political reason such as anti abortion motives. That’s as opposed to just anger at women as a stand alone thus differentiating between domestic violence which you allude too.

          This is party referred to within the methodology section

          “Non-political motives: We also excluded incidents in which the perpetrators’ motives were not political in nature. Frequently, these perpetrators had personal motivations, including revenge or financial gain. For example, there were 11 incidents of arson at luxury homes in the Phoenix area between April 2000 and January 2001. Though these crimes were committed under the guise of ecoterrorism, the perpetrator, Mark Warren Sands, was later found to have personal rather than political motives.”

          That seems to answer your concern, which is valid in the sense that the quote you used is slightly ambiguous.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | June 16, 2021 at 11:54 am

          I am saying I am very highly familiar with the START data which appears to be a primary source. It is not likely they “cherry picked” the data, but rather how they coded the data contained in the database. This could have been due to bias in those doing the coding, or it could be due to unfamiliarity with the data, or some combination of both.

          There has been a move recently to use Natural Language Processing (NLP) to assess large data sets that contain voluminous descriptive written information. The intent of NLP is to make the search and classification of the data quicker and remove the variability that naturally comes with human based assessment. It does not remove inherent bias however, which is coded into the NLP algorithm developed and employed. But at least it is transparent and reproducible.

          It appears this was a manual human based assessment which is therefore reliant upon both the biases and variability in bias and assessment (accuracy) of the assessor.

          This is recognized flaw in the approach used. Not that it invalidates any report. There are statistical measures of quality control that can be employed to check human assessment for consistency and accuracy, of which there is no evidence of on this case as such measures were not discussed or disclosed.

          My only assertion is the START database, of which I am highly familiar, would not support the conclusions stated in the report.

          Therefore, it is rightful to suspect the report and its methods and sources. I would hope you agree that is reasonable.

          healthguyfsu in reply to mark311. | June 16, 2021 at 1:43 pm

          marky, not only are you a buffoon but you lack both self-awareness and possess the inability to detect sarcasm.

          The 311 “argument” was parody based on an old, debunked rumor about the band and the fact that some KKK members actually did use the number as a way to refer to the KKK (I wouldn’t need to spell this out for you if you weren’t displaying absolute inanity but 3 of the 11th letter would be 3 K’s). The point of the sarcastic post was to parody reality, which is that you can actually be cancelled if someone decides you are racist for stupid illogical reasons. If you don’t believe me, ask this guy (who isn’t even white).

          https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2020/nov/25/cover-sdge-line-man-fired-white-power-sign/

          Now, the government is weaponizing this ridiculous logic and lumping in anyone who is “anti-government” aka anti-leftist progressive propaganda as a domestic terrorist. I’m sure you are too dense to realize the clear, classical totalitarian parallel and dangerous rationale behind this type of movement that we have seen in such bastions of freedom as East Germany, USSR, PRC, DPRK, and some lesser shitholes that your side admires.

          BTW, the word “data” is plural. You might know that if you looked at more than one cherry-picked source. (that last line is sarcasm before you get literal and clown yourself again)

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | June 17, 2021 at 3:00 am

          @healthguysfu

          Writing a parody eh, well maybe next time you should write something that doesn’t allow me lead to an entirely different conclusion.

          Well regarding your more substantive point. The question is this. Is there actually a problem with domestic terrorism from right wing nuts. The evidence suggests that’s true, its a gov primary purpose to protect its people from threats and provided it’s done in a constitutional , rational and lawful way I’ve problem with that.

          You do realise that it’s the right that has undermined democracy with the election fraud lie narrative. If anything it’s the right that is attempting to lead towards a totalitarian state. If Trump had been competent.

          Cherry picked source eh, it’s not since I’ve cited multiple sources and the sources themselves are reasonably authourative. Can you actually address the underlining data or not?

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | June 17, 2021 at 4:43 am

          @BSR

          Interesting, if I understand correctly then you think that the biases may well undermine the credibility of the report. It seems to me that its a case of it might nudge the figures in one direction or another depending on the event being assessed. I appreciate your point but the report is backed up by DHS year on year figures. Its also the case that the difference isn’t marginal there is a clear difference between left and right.

          I think it worth saying that you have made clear your views on the issue in the sense that you do acknowledge that far right activities at least exist and are an issue. So I suspect are disagreement is in terms of degree as opposed to being in complete opposition.

        Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | June 16, 2021 at 4:19 pm

        Yes, the DHS is left-wing . How is that news?

          mark311 in reply to Milhouse. | June 17, 2021 at 4:45 am

          @milhouse

          That’s really not the impression I get however it still doesn’t really address the underlining data. Your point about OKC not with standing that doesn’t explain the year on year figures which are consistent.

          Do you even acknowledge that there is far right violence?

      Ironclaw in reply to mark311. | June 15, 2021 at 7:13 pm

      I think you’d have more luck looking at the pedophile-in-chief who eulogized an exalted cyclops of the KKK while also claiming him as a friend and a mentor. You don’t get more white supremacist than that.

      Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | June 15, 2021 at 9:51 pm

      “Look at the Jan 6th charge sheets, quite a few are named.”

      The charge sheets specify criminal trespassing for the most part. There is no evidence those who breached the capitol on Jan 6 were white supremacists. These people were concerned that an election had been stolen. They were not trying to foist white supremacy, your lies not withstanding.

      I see no rash of white supremacist violence. Please point to the statistics. The increase in crime lately has been mainly black-on-black crime, but also an increase on black-on-non-black crime, according to your authoritative government statistics. The mostly peaceful violence of last summer was not white supremacist violence, very obviously.

      Just because a government entity declares someone a threat or an enemy does not make it so. The world is full of nefarious and bad people, and they also inhabit governments, examples of which are replete throughout human history. When I start to see white supremacist violence, I will certainly change my mind, but there is none, but stop lying that the people who stormed the capitol on 6 Jan were white supremacists.

        @BSR

        criminal trespass, interfering with lawful processes, assault, carrying dangerous weapons, stop cherry picking. There were circa 140 assaults on Capitol Police officers.

        Oath keepers, proud boys etc were known participants all of whom can legitimately be considered far right and potentially white supremacist

        I’ve already stated stats relating to terror plots, the article relates to that not crime stats more generally. That’s an entirely separate issue.

        https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-united-states

        “right-wing terrorist attacks caused 335 deaths, left-wing attacks caused 22 deaths, and ethnonationalist terrorists caused 5 deaths.”

        “When I start to see white supremacist violence, I will certainly change my mind,”

        Homeland securities threat assessment gives figures relating to WSE (in there terminology) includes stats

        https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/2020_10_06_homeland-threat-assessment.pdf

        Figures indicate 39 deaths as a result of these kinds of groups from 2018-2019

        “lying that the people who stormed the capitol on 6 Jan were white supremacists.”
        For clarity the claim is that some of those attending were far right types and certainly the vast spectrum breaking into the Capitol building were on the right. That’s been supported by ample documentary evidence and the charge sheets.

          Bruce Hayden in reply to mark311. | June 16, 2021 at 9:33 am

          Yes. Charges of trespass.

          It has also been documented that the instigators of violence that day were AntiFA. They were the ones breaking windows and into locked areas. Oh wait.

          Bruce Hayden in reply to mark311. | June 16, 2021 at 9:59 am

          “criminal trespass, interfering with lawful processes, assault, carrying dangerous weapons, stop cherry picking. There were circa 140 assaults on Capitol Police officers.”

          And yet not a single weapon was found, nor has there been a single judicial finding that a single assault was carried out by a single white supremicist. Etc. And the only person killed by violence that day was Ashli Babbit, by a still unidentified Capital police officer, exonerated by a secret process, despite clear video evidence that she posed no danger to anyone. And despite many thousands of hours of video that day being hidden by order of Speaker Pelosi. If you want anyone outside your left wing echo chamber to believe your narrative, then make the video available. So far, all we have is a Capital police answering to Democrats Pelosi and Schumer and DOJ operatives, agents, and employees reporting to Democrats Garland and Biden. The longer they hide their work, the more obvious the lie.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | June 16, 2021 at 10:18 am

          @Bruce Hayden

          No link with Antifa has been established other than one idiot as far as I’m aware. The vast majority of those entering the building were Trump supporters that’s corroborated by overwhelming video evidence.

          Actually some weapons were found, you can look at the specifics in the charging sheets. Its fair to say in terms of fire arms they had limited amounts of weapons but its well documents that they used a lot of make shift weapons.

          With regard to judicial findings that process is ongoing so you are a tad premature in your assessment

          With regard to Ashli Babbit she was charging through a breach while her comrades were smashing a glazed screen. Given the situation its surprising that more didn’t die, I think its fair to say that many breathed a sign of relief that the body count was so low given the potential for more extreme violence.

          Plenty of video has already been seen and with due respect there are court cases going on. releasing the videos prior to any juror selection would be the height of stupidity.

          Once the day in court arrives for those folks then we shall see. I’m not really clear what you are saying, what exactly are they lying about?

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | June 16, 2021 at 12:10 pm

          Where to begin.

          The assertion from you was that the breach into the capitol was done by white supremacists for white supremacy. I am not asserting that no one conducted illegal and criminal acts to include assaulting police officers, but you are conflating these acts to acts of white supremacy committed by white supremacist when, in actuality, is was driven by no such ideology but rather by concern that a national election had been stolen, which is not a white supremacist idea. Slandering those who hold the opinion that the elect was or may have been stolen is simple slander to tray shup these people up.

          Whatever the flaws of the Oath Keeper or Proud Boys, these are not white supremacist organizations, again, despite the organized and dishonest slander. The leader of the Proud Boys was a “person of color,” for Pete’s sake.

          As for the CSIS report, one report does not prove anything. Sorry, it just does not.

          I do not dispute that rightwing or even white supremacist groups do not comprise a threat. What I contest is that it is a major threat worthy of the focus of the full power and might of the federal government when things like fentanyl and heroine kill 80,000 mostly young Americans each year. It seems to me the FBI, DHS, and other federal entities would concentrate their resources on removing this threat from the nation, and not groups that kill 20 or so.

          Because they focus on the one and not the other, one must wonder in regards to the source and nature of the motivation to focus the government on the the latter rather than former. I, for one, find it to be very curious.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | June 17, 2021 at 4:37 am

          @BSR

          “The assertion from you was that the breach into the capitol was done by white supremacists for white supremacy”

          No my assertion (which is evidenced) is that a proportion of white supremacists AND far right types were present, in addition I asserted that the capitol breach was dominated by right wing elements (ie Trump supporters)

          I’ve mixed my terminology a bit ie far right and white supremacy. I see both as equally as bad.

          My position is a bit more nuanced than just far rights attacked the capitol building, its clear that i think as a whole those who breached the capitol were idiots, in some cases violent etc. Perhaps I could have been clearer in making my point so hopefully the above clarifies my position.

          Oath Keepers and Proud boys are typified by being far right organisations.

          As for the CSIS report, I’ve quote several reports including the DHS threat assessment. You are entitled to be dubious about the report but the overall stats do support a serious issue. I would agree that there is a debate to be had around the extents of that threat and how serious it is, that’s always an open question and always worth pondering. So yes I acknowledge that gov sometimes overreaching with its responses, they do need to be proportionate. TO be clear I’ve no real issue with gov using its resources to find and prosecute these types of people the issue i would have is where the response becomes illegal, unconstitutional and involves additional powers for the government. I’m not aware that this is the case at the present time.

          “What I contest is that it is a major threat worthy of the focus of the full power and might of the federal government when things like fentanyl and heroine kill 80,000 mostly young Americans each year”

          You know id actually agree on this point wholeheartedly, A valid criticism of the gov response to terrorism in general is that it displaces action on more pressing issues.

          “Because they focus on the one and not the other, one must wonder in regards to the source and nature of the motivation to focus the government on the the latter rather than former. I, for one, find it to be very curious.”

          That’s an interesting question, gov has always over reacted to terrorism, its the disproportionate emotional impact of the events and consequences. It ‘forces’ gov to react in a way that must feel like action. That’s my thought on it anyways.

      n.n in reply to mark311. | June 15, 2021 at 10:09 pm

      Yes, the conflict progressed following the murder of an unarmed female veteran while she was in a vulnerable position and surrounded by security personnel. Apparently, elective abortion for property is a novel justification for self-defense.

        Bruce Hayden in reply to n.n. | June 16, 2021 at 10:00 am

        But remember opposition to abortion is a right wing cause, according to CIS.

          mark311 in reply to Bruce Hayden. | June 16, 2021 at 10:27 am

          Well its typically argued by the right, hence red states typically trying to enact anti abortion measures. I’m not familiar with the left arguing for the anti abortion movement and in particular with regard to laws prohibiting it.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to stevewhitemd. | June 15, 2021 at 2:21 pm

    They are a potential treat that has not yet done anything to reign in Marxists and Dems.

    We are living in an era where words have been changed to camouflage their meaning. If these Marxists were openly executing a communist takeover and were now just mopping up, they would refer to their opposition as “counterrevolutionaries”. But today, although we are in the late stages of their “closing the deal” operations, the 100+ million who voted against it are referred to as “insurrectionists” and “domestic terrorists”. We are simultaneously being positioned for being ratted out by our own families, friends and neighbors.

    While so many of “us” have already been lured into their home arenas, academia and courts, only to get bogged down in endless debate where no one is listening and the outcome rigged, our entire social fabric is being destroyed. It’s personal and we ALL have to be in on the fight. NOW.

    It would be a good time to once again ask why the governments built so many FEMA camps everywhere after the hurricanes and earthquakes 20-30 years ago. They are still there and vacant. Just listen to what our AG Garland said yesterday. Isn’t it plainly obvious by now what is going on? It’s too late to be “winning” arguments. It’s time for action.

Propaganda of this nature is extremely dangerous in and of itself.

Not surprising. I have been saying for some time now that barring a first strike from China the next major war the US military is involved in will be on American soil – against American citizens. The Biden* administration has been openly and loudly saying this since they seized power. Why do so many choose not to believe them?

The Friendly Grizzly | June 15, 2021 at 1:53 pm

If this dangerous nonsense is not brought to a swift and harsh end, we are destined to be the next Rhodesia or South Africa.

    To be honest, I think that is the goal. Zimbabwe and South Africa are one party hellholes where the rulers use racial/tribal violence to keep their genocidal supporters both busy and happy. That is very appealing to the American Communists who run the government.

    In South Africa the real fireworks will probably happen after the country finally hits economic rock bottom. The low-level ethnic cleansing that is currently going on there will likely escalate. South Africa has the potential to be much worse than what happened in Rwanda in 1994. I lived in Tanzania for many years (my wife’s family is still there, and we have many friends) and met a number of refugees from South Africa. These refugees were mostly from smaller tribes fleeing oppression for the Xhosa-dominated ruling ANC party.

      Yes, progressive South Africa is ripe to repeat its founding through indigenous lynching and genocide of native whites, or something similar to the Hutu/Tutsi cycle of retributive and redistributive change,

First they came for the QANON supporters….

I am not really joking. The FBI and the DOJ are coming after QANON supporters because they ‘might be planning acts of violence against the government.’

There are people who were waved into the Capital by Capital Police who are being kept in solitary confinement. This is really happening folks.

    geronl in reply to MattMusson. | June 15, 2021 at 3:36 pm

    “QAnon supporters” is a vague thing. Just because they support it don’t mean they are violent, maybe not even ten percent of them would ever get off their butt. Besides “QAnon” is a big nothing burger in the grand scheme of things, only 4% of Trump voters have a favorable view of QAnon.

      txvet2 in reply to geronl. | June 15, 2021 at 5:23 pm

      Besides, everybody knows that QAnon is just an idea, not a real organization.

      Bruce Hayden in reply to geronl. | June 16, 2021 at 10:03 am

      I volunteer as a QAnon supporter. I have read their stuff on occasion. But then did a lot of the Democrats in DC over the 4 years Trump was in office.

      lichau in reply to geronl. | June 16, 2021 at 10:46 am

      I am a Trump supporter and I have no idea who or what QAnon is. Therefore, I have no view, favorable or otherwise. Except, given the vitriol directed by the MSM towards it, the old “when you are taking flak, you must be over the target” comes to mind.

Burning down police precincts = Not domestic terrorism
Burning down federal court houses = Not domestic terrorism
Armed Militias Blocking freeways and roads = Not domestic terrorism
Burning down businesses = Not domestic terrorism
Sabatoging railroads = Not a serious threat
Bombing ICE facilities = Not a serious threat
Executing people because of their perceived political affiliations = Not a serious threat. (Portland)

At some point, someone has to call bullshit. All of this is sanctioned violence. Once it was just that local and state level, but now it’s at the federal level.

Wait for the next crop of Lois Lerners to arise at the IRS, then you’ll really see our government weaponized against the wrong thinkers.

    geronl in reply to Andy. | June 15, 2021 at 3:38 pm

    It’s called a dirty war. It happens all over third world crap-holes. Everyone knows about Pinochet because the left hates him, but he overthrew a leftist who conducted a dirty war against his opponents too. Nobody ever talks about that.

    Milhouse in reply to Andy. | June 15, 2021 at 4:42 pm

    Burning down federal court houses = Not domestic terrorism

    Except while the court is open. Blinken allowed as how that was terrorism. It’s only not terrorism after hours.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to Milhouse. | June 15, 2021 at 8:48 pm

      Under letter of the law that may be true, but for people in the building and other building, it is terror. Intentionally burning public buildings should be chargeable as domestic terrorism.

So, domestic terrorist is the new commie name for deplorable Trump supporter. #MAGA

Note how the vile, utterly despicable Dhimmi-crats can’t summon even a scintilla of opprobrium regarding their goose-stepping bands of Muslim supremacist/terrorists who were conducting a violent pogrom against American Jews in multiple cities, weeks ago, imitating German National Socialists in the 1930’s and 40’s.

Where is the Dhimmi-crats’ precious outrage regarding their Muslim supremacist/terrorist supporters’ behavior, or, the behavior of the Dhimmi-crats’ paramilitary cadres of “Anti-fa” and “Black Lives Matter,” who destroyed cities, businesses, murdered innocents and desecrated synagogues across American, for most of year 2020?

Ghost Rider | June 15, 2021 at 3:09 pm

There’s nothing worse in all of humanity than our precious politicians — those professional liars — being threaten in their house of government worship. The lamest unarmed insurrection in the history of western civilization really shook establishment politicians to the core. Who cares about the burning, looting and shooting that took place in our cities…… their precious lives are so much more important than anyone else.

    alaskabob in reply to Ghost Rider. | June 15, 2021 at 4:28 pm

    More than that… the hundreds of thousands of Trump supporters at rallies and in DC pose a true threat to the continued attempted coup of the country. They are purging any opposition by resorting to use of non-governmental factions to work around the Constitution. Now it will be SJW neighbor playing STASI/Gestopo snitch. Business getting selective treatment fo0r collaboration.. ala Germany and now CCP.

    amwick in reply to Ghost Rider. | June 16, 2021 at 7:05 am

    You are right about the blm protests… I read the NSC definition of domestic terrorism, and they checked every damn box But, I don’t think the ” insurrection” shook the establishment.. That would be like the tail wagging the dog. They are the great pretenders, after all. The one take away from that ridiculous event should have been some kind of legitimate investigation into the shooting of Ashli Babbitt. Say her name.

“Today’s domestic terrorists espouse a range of violent ideological motivations, including racial or ethnic bigotry and hatred as well as anti-government or anti-authority sentiment.”

Well, that’s true. It’s true that there is an extremely wide range of ideologies among domestic terrorists.

It’s true that a certain percentage of them are motivated by racial or ethnic bigotry and hatred, which in turn includes a small percentage who are white supremacists, as well as a somewhat larger percentage who are black supremacists.

And a certain percentage are motivated by anti-government or anti-authority sentiment. Some of them are even on the right, though the vast majority, such as Antifa, are on the left.

But who make up the bulk of domestic terrorists? Islamists, that’s who. And they’re not mentioned. We just had the fifth anniversary of the Pulse Nightclub massacre, a jihadi attack on the USA. And Democrats fell over themselves lying through their teeth that it was an attack on gays. The 49 victims did happen to be gay, but they didn’t die for that, they died for the crime of not being Moslem.

    geronl in reply to Milhouse. | June 15, 2021 at 7:17 pm

    “Today’s domestic terrorists espouse a range of violent ideological motivations, including racial or ethnic bigotry ”

    So they do include Antifa, BLM and the Democrat Party at least in spirit. lol

    lichau in reply to Milhouse. | June 16, 2021 at 11:28 am

    Well said, Millhouse.

    I proudly come from and identify with the American subspecies variously known as “redneck”, “deplorable”, “bitter clinger”, “irredeemable”. I voted for Trump twice–although he distinctly isn’t even close to being one of us. But, he doesn’t (apparently) hate us.
    Why do I say “proudly”? Lots of reasons, but when it comes to all the favored minorities (LGBTQABCXYZ, Blacks, LatinABCD, etc.) we don’t hate them BECAUSE they are what they are. I admit that since we are viewed as the scourge of the earth, we do view individuals from those groups, until we get to know them, with a certain trepidation. We know that they are conditioned to hate us.
    The primary differentiator is that we don’t LIKE them BECAUSE they “belong” to some protected subspecies. For the most part, it is the Martin Luther King “content of character” criterion. If you are a purple Martian and a good guy, the “good guy” predominates.
    I know, or have known, a lot of people of my class/background. Yes, there are some nuts. As with the other side has some. I have tried to think of a single person that both a) thinks Whites are superior and b) believes anything should be done about it. IMO, that is the functional definition of “White Supremacist”.
    The beauty of the US is (or used to be) that you are free to hate anyone you want. You are just not permitted to do anything about it.
    However, times are changing. Not in a good way. Blanket demonization of any group cannot end well.

    mark311 in reply to Milhouse. | June 17, 2021 at 5:13 am

    The data doesn’t support your position, in terms of violent deaths its got a strong association with the far right. Year on year figures support that.

    The issue with Antifa even if you categorise them as far left is that it tends to be in terms of property damage whereas far right incidents tend to involve more violence

henrybowman | June 15, 2021 at 9:41 pm

“Biden Admin’s Strategy to Combat Domestic Terrorism Calls White Supremacy, Militia Groups as Biggest Threats”

Let’s be more specific:

Militia groups are the biggest threats to Biden and the other Commiecrats.

Biden and the Commiecrats are the biggest threats to constitutional America.

It’s like all the Left can do these days is gaslighting. Absolutely no word about Antifa and BLM, the two groups most responsible for all the civil unrest we’ve been having the last year.

barbiegirl ny | June 16, 2021 at 9:37 am

All this while the commies totally ignore videos put out by the Black Panthers blatantly calling for killing whitie. I said it before, I’ll say it again, Charles Manson would be proud of these scumbags pitting races against each other. It was his dream to start race wars, for those who don’t know. Thank God cooler heads prevail thus far, but it does show how all the evil degenerates in this country are in the same camp.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend