Posted on 05/26/2022 11:00:12 AM PDT by RandFan
Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked a bill to create domestic terrorism offices within federal law enforcement agencies in response to a mass shooting in Buffalo, N.Y., that left 10 people dead.
Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) framed the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act as an opportunity to vote on Republican and Democratic amendments to curb gun violence, but his plea for GOP support to begin the debate fell flat with Republican colleagues.
“The bill is so important because the mass shooting in Buffalo was an act of domestic terrorism. We need to call it what it is, domestic terrorism. It was terrorism that fed off the poison of conspiracy theories like white replacement theory,” Schumer said on the floor before the vote.
The vote broke down along party lines, 47-47, with not a single Republican voting for the measure.
The legislation would have created an interagency task force within the Justice Department, Department of Homeland Security and the FBI to analyze and combat white supremacist infiltration in the military and federal law enforcement agencies.
Republican senators argued that new federal laws and offices are not needed to monitor and prosecute domestic terrorism because politically motivated violence is already covered by existing laws.
They also voiced concerns that the bill could open the door to improper surveillance of political groups and create a double standard for extreme groups on the right and left of the political spectrum.
The failed Senate vote comes roughly one week after the House passed the legislation largely along partisan lines, 222 to 203. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) was the only Republican to vote for it.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) called the legislation an “insult” to police officers and military servicemembers.
“It would be the Democrat plan to name our police as white supremacists and neo-Nazis. I met policemen throughout Kentucky and I’ve not met one policeman motivated or consumed with any kind of racial rage,” he said.
“What an insult it is to put a bill before the House and say our Marines are consumed with white supremacy and neo-Nazism,” he added.
“Oh Please! It was a mass murder. Happens every weekend in Chicago.”
How many people were murdered in Chicago this year and last weekend.
https://heyjackass.com/
Illustrating Chicago Values
The bill is rubbish.
No, Schumer, mass shootings are not always terrorism. To be terrorism, the objective of the attacker has to be political change motivated by the fear he causes, and not simply misplaced rage, prejudice, or revenge, suicide by cop, stupidity or whatever. Sometimes mass murder is just mass murder. I don’t know what sort of political change, if any, the Buffalo murderer hoped to accomplish. Maybe he just wanted to express his hate and didn’t care what the reaction to the crime was. Or maybe he was a terrorist thinking his action would cause a desired political outcome. If so, what was he hoping the outcome would be? I don’t know, I didn’t read his manifesto. Did he leave one?
But, what I have seen, is a concerted effort by the left to use the deaths of innocent people and other selected crisis to force political change through lawfare without the hassle of give and take debating, free and fair elections, or due process of their targets. They often take acts that were not committed by a terrorist but rather by an ordinary nonpolitical criminal or insane individual, and use those acts opportunistically in ways the perp never anticipated, to a terroristic end, to achieve political change through means of fear. I am not sure it technically qualifies as terrorism under the law if you just hijack someone else’s action to create fear to support your own political ends, but ethically it is just as bad as setting off a bomb personally.
Replace Chuck.
"Republican senators argued that new federal laws and offices are not needed to monitor and prosecute domestic terrorism because politically motivated violence is already covered by existing laws."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Regarding federal involvement in political violence, post-17th Amendment ratification Senate RINOs are arguably wrongly blurring the constitutionally enumerated distinction between politically motivated violence and domestic violence imo.
More specifically, here is the fed's constitutionally enumerated power to deal with politically motivated violence, no formal request for help from state required.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions [emphasis added];"
On the other hand, here is the fed's constitutionally enumerated power to deal with domestic violence, the Constitution actually requiring the feds to stand down on such violence unless elected state leaders formally request federal assistance.
"Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence [emphases added]."
In fact, Justice Joseph Story had explained Section 4 this way.
”§ 1819. It may not be amiss further to observe, (in the language of another commentator,) that every pretext for intermeddling with the domestic concerns of any state, under colour of protecting it against domestic violence, is taken away by that part of the provision, which renders an application from the legislature, or executive authority of the state endangered necessary to be made to the general government, before its interference can be at all proper [emphasis added]. On the other hand, this article becomes an immense acquisition of strength, and additional force to the aid of any state government, in case of an internal rebellion, or insurrection against its authority. The southern states, being more peculiarly open to danger from this quarter, ought (he adds) to be particularly tenacious of a constitution, from which they may derive such assistance in the most critical periods.” —Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, Article 4, Section 4.
Based on Story's clarification of requirement for formal request with domestic violence, what the delegates to the Constitutional Convention evidently didn't foresee is this. They didn't foresee desperate, constitutionally undefined political parties staging political violence, thus giving the feds a constitutional indefensible excuse (imo) to interfere in state affairs, no obligation to stand down until getting a formal request for help from a state.
Corrections, insights welcome.
Next, patriots are reminded that they must vote twice this election year. Your first vote is to primary career RINO incumbents. Your second vote is to replace outgoing Democrats and RINOs with Trump-endorsed patriot candidates.
Again, insights welcome.
They don’t want to stop it. They actively encourage it.
“It was terrorism that fed off the poison of conspiracy theories like white replacement theory...”
Really? What kind of twisted logic did Schumer use to come to that conclusion?
The shooter was an Hispanic queer.
Last I checked the dems controlled all 3 branches of government. If something fails its their fault
Correction, all 4 branches. Many people forget about the little known Aministrative branch, which controls the entire nation through made-up regulations and extra-judicial courts, putting the nation’s populous under threat of sentencing and fines. Thus branch of government is populated by unhappy union employees that cannot, for the most part, be removed or fired and operate under the authority they grant themselves.
Wait until the next terrorist attack occurs (under Biden's watch). Then the DNC blame machine will explode.
The title and first 1:30 are about Hillary's sedition but the rest of the 10:41 second video report is about the NSBA letter. Very damning!
HUGE! The Wall Street Journal TURNS ON Clinton! Releases Article Confirming SHE'S GUILTY! Liberal Hivemind
Bingo!
Biden speechwriters/teleprompters use the term "ultraMAGA's" when describing the group as domestic terrorists.
However, when speaking off the cuff with the MSM, Biden drops the "ultra"; and that is no doubt the practice in his circles and around the WH.
It should never be said we were not given fair warning.
It treats “White” and “domestic terrorist” as synonyms.
Dems thrill off of death and chaos.
Schumer is a Satanist.
I think it is part of the Great Reset, the acceleration of the Demonicrat push for the wealthy global takeover.
Excellent. It is already hundreds, if not thousands of laws, on the books to cover things like this. If they were only enforced, most of these issues would go away and be properly dealt with.
The onlt way Obama can continue his 3rd tem as president is to criminalize Trump and his deplorable MAGA people. I mean 70% of all voters are domestic terrprosts?
I reckon Biden Obama want a shooting war.At this rate they just might get it.
I think it may more than half
The real psycho ones are the unpredictable. Don’t know what will set them off.
It may be as simple as to having to wear a mask 24/7.
OR trying to figure out who is lying to you the most.
Kinzinger is not in the senate, which is where the bill was stopped.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.