On Domestic Terrorism: A Commonsense Analysis

(Opinion)

We are not the same!

When people such as I who the progressives/Marxists or the "left" claim are full of hate and violence didn't like a company's values, we simply stopped buying their products (Example: Bud Light) which hurt their bottom line in a passive and peaceful way. That is called peaceful protesting or peacefully boycotting a company while staying within the confines of the law.

I have an open challenge to anyone to put together a video excluding the Jan 6 entrapment (we know it was a set up by now) that shows Trump supporters firebombing buildings and other private property, looting, assaulting people and we can compare. It has been at least 3 years with no takers.

When the left disagrees with a company's values, they try to burn the company to the ground with firebombs, (in this case TESLA) destroy its profits while also endangering millions of Americans jobs, pensions and futures not to mention their very lives in the process. I am sure they don't mind though, right?

Both of these have been called " Domestic terrorists" by the other so what exactly is a "domestic terrorist" under U.S. law? Which of these two ideologies better fits the literal definition of terrorism through their actions because domestic or outside the base definition of terrorism remains the same.

Domestic terrorism has been a pressing and growing concern in the United States for quite a while now. Understanding its legal definition within the framework of the Constitution is essential for policymakers and especially us citizens. The more we know the harder we are to bullshit and that's a fact. This scribble explores what constitutes domestic terrorism through U.S. constitutional law, clarifying the implications, challenges, and legal parameters involved. It is my opinion that the vast majority of our current problems and disunity all come down to the same thing, ignorance. What we don't know is not only hurting us it is literally destroying us and the only way to fight ignorance is to learn ourselves and then pass that knowledge on to others. Which is why they have worked so hard to divide us in every way possible. We can't pass our knowledge on to people who will not even listen to us.

Remember, these are my own thoughts and opinions based on my own research and are intended for educational/informational purposes only. So, let's get to it.

---

Domestic terrorism typically involves violent actions carried out by individuals or groups within the United States with the goal of intimidating or coercing the civilian population. It also encompasses efforts to influence government policy through intimidation or coercion. Actions that may be considered domestic terrorism include bombings, armed attacks, or other crimes designed to instill fear.

Currently, there is no universally accepted statutory definition for "domestic terrorism" in U.S. federal law, which often leads to ambiguity. Which is why we will be using the definition of terrorism because terrorism is terrorism.

The Constitution:

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution safeguards the right to free speech, assembly, and petitioning the government. This protection is crucial in discussions of domestic terrorism, as it allows citizens to express their discontent with governmental actions. However, the challenge lies in determining where free speech ends and incitement to violence begins, there is a line, it has just been blurred in order to create confusion.

The High Court:

The Supreme Court has established in cases like Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) that speech is protected unless it incites imminent lawless action. For instance, if someone encourages a crowd to commit violence during a protest, this will cross the line. Such cases create challenges in balancing civil liberties with the need to address domestic terrorism effectively.

Legal Stuff: "Just the facts ma'am, just the facts."

The USA PATRIOT Act, enacted in 2001, expanded the federal scope concerning terrorism. It laid out specific provisions for dealing with domestic terrorism, particularly activities committed by U.S. citizens. For instance, Section 802 of the act defines domestic terrorism based on actions that:

‘‘(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State. (Pretty sure firebombing, arson, and destruction of private property worth millions of dollars would qualify.)

‘‘(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.’’.

Happening right now!

These federal guidelines emphasize the government's strategy towards different types of domestic terrorism, setting them apart from wider global terrorism frameworks. However, states frequently have their own definitions and laws concerning domestic terrorism, which may align with federal statutes but vary in scope and application. This inconsistency complicates enforcement efforts. Prosecuting individuals for domestic terrorism can be challenging, especially when proving intent or ideology. For instance, in 2022, in a case involving a group associated with the January 6 "riots," prosecutors encountered legal obstacles in definitively classifying their actions as domestic terrorism.

The judiciary is also vital in addressing disputes stemming from domestic terrorism cases. Courts assess whether actions taken to combat terrorism align with constitutional standards. Landmark cases such as Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010) reveal the complexities of providing support for designated terrorist organizations, weighing national security against free speech. Judicial oversight ensures that the definitions, charges, and penalties related to domestic terrorism are applied fairly. The court system acts as a check on potential governmental overreach, reinforcing the framework established by the Constitution.

All of this is of course based on the absence of corruption, this is how it is supposed to work. The reason corruption flourishes is because in general people do not even know how to recognize it, much less fight it.

---

So, let's pull it all together.

When we on the center-right didn't like a company's values, using Bud Light as our example we simply stopped buying their products, no fires, no widespread vandalism

or looting. We hurt their bottom line through loss of sales, period.

When the left disagrees with a company's values, they attempt to destroy the company, such as TESLA, by damaging its stock value and profits, thereby endangering millions of American jobs, pensions, and futures, as well as lives in the process. They admit to doing this for political reasons. They also exhibit a pattern of violence when their demands aren't met. Recall the "Summer of Love"? The progressive-controlled media referred to it as "mostly peaceful protests" even as buildings burned down, and assaults, vandalism, and even murders occurred around them.

If it were Trump supporters doing this, you can bet your ass the media and progressives would be screaming "domestic terrorism". The same with the attacks on TESLA. You know I am right.

A Reminder.

So, I will leave you to it. I could go much, much deeper into this but based on this factual synopsis which group more closely fits the definition of "terrorism" domestic or otherwise. Remember, commonsense is a wonderful tool but only if we use it.

Something to think about, until next time. ~Ghost

---

Connective Tissue

I use a less harsh term "willful ignorance", but this video aligns with my own commonsense based beliefs and theories that encompasses virtually any context one chooses. For those who want to delve deeper.

More