Merrick Garland And The Re-Defining Of "Domestic Terrorism"

Bill Clark/Pool via AP

The constant world-play and games that are spewed forth from the talking heads who act as the masters of the universe gets old. Thematically the progressive agenda is really great about re-branding. You don’t need to be cracking open a cold can of Woke-a-Cola in order to see this. Commonly-owned rifles become “assault weapons”, or even worse, “battlefield weapons of war.” 17-round magazines are suddenly “large capacity.” And gun control becomes “gun safety.”

Now we’re starting to see the phrase “domestic terrorist” used as a synonym for some, but not all, acts of politically-motivated violence. The good news? We have a statutory definition in the US Code to help aid us on our journey:

(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;…

A recent article in the Washington Times brings up a very compelling and interesting question. The headline reads “Lawmakers push AG Garland: Shooting at 2017 congressional baseball practice was domestic terrorism”. You don’t need a law degree to be able to connect the dots here. To get you up to speed:

Attorney General Merrick Garland on Tuesday promised House lawmakers that he will look into why the FBI deemed the 2017 shooting that nearly killed Rep. Steve Scalise, Louisiana Republican, and several GOP colleagues as “suicide by cop,” instead of domestic terrorism.

The shooting, which targeted Republicans practicing in Alexandria, Virginia, for the annual congressional baseball game, was carried out by a lone gunman who had made numerous social media posts backing far-left causes and the presidential candidacy of Sen. Bernard Sanders, Vermont independent.

Apparently this information only became public recently. I think the lawmakers that are putting out this query have solid ground to stand on. What kind of shenanigans were going on when this violent attack occurred to classify it as “suicide by cop”? Because the lone gunman died during the melee?

It’s disturbing to see the situation cast as such by a governmental agency. What’s also disturbing is the common practice of not referencing any and all “mass shooting” with the same label. You’ve got the formula; make up your own mind if any of these mass casualty events fit the definition of domestic terrorism.

In today’s world, we’re being conditioned to recoil in disgust anytime the word “gun” is spoken. It is by design that we’re being fed phrases such as “gunman” or “gun violence”. Whichever way you want to perceive these awful acts, they are acts of domestic terrorism by terrorists. I don’t read too many headlines touting a murder involving a “knifeman”. One step further, was the Oklahoma City bombing conducted by a “bombman”? Are the riots that take place on a regular basis in places like Portland conducted by “brickmen”? I think you get my point.

Headlines were popping up left and right on Tuesday concerning Garland’s push to fight “domestic terrorism”. I’m all for that. Except looking at the subtext, I don’t think he’s talking about the straight up statutory definition of the term. I fear that this is a push to combat anyone that is an enemy of the state, which by today’s standards means an opinion that is different than the progressive zeitgeist we’re being fed. Maybe I’m wrong, but one such article stated:

“Both forms of terrorism are of extraordinary concern to me. We never want to take our eyes off of what happened on 9/11 and the risks that our country continues to face from foreign-origin attacks on the homeland,” he said. “Likewise, we have a growing fear of domestic violent extremism and domestic terrorism. Both of those keep me up at night.”

The dangers have only increased in recent years, he said. “The lethality of weapons available to these kinds of terrorists, both foreign and domestic, has increased. The consequence of the internet and encryption means that they can send information and make plans much more swiftly and in greater secrecy than could have been done before,” Garland said.

I’m not going to tell anyone how to read that, but to me there are several little word association games going on. Inserting “extremism” into the mix has been a stand in for “different opinion”. Citing the “lethality of weapons available” is another interesting thing to point out. Unless some sort of mythical weapon has come out on the market since the 1950’s that I’m not aware of, the “lethality of weapons available” has not changed since the Eisenhower administration. Is Garland talking about “ghost guns”? That must be it. Getting the Attorney General’s commitment to look into the shooting that almost killed Representative Scalise and see why it was branded as such is important. However, his subtle messaging in unrelated statements shall not go unnoticed.

We need to salute the few lawmakers that are pushing the issue with Garland. As for the rest of the talking heads out there, many of them are simply playing games (like Garland to a degree). It’s time to retake control of our language and call a spade a spade. The people who commit these atrocities on American soil are domestic terrorists, and that is exactly how the news ought to be phrasing it.