https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2x6ck8
Is Schumer concerned about this?
MathBoiFly (Waukesha terrorist), June 9, 2020, online post:
“We start bakk knokkin white people TF ion wanna hear it. The old white ppl 2. Knokk Dem TF out. Period.”
47-47
Just goes to show how divided the nation is and that the left thinks all Whites are White supremacists.
Nah, the Pubbies blocked the Make 1984 Real Bill
We need Truth in Labeling.
Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) was the only Republican to vote for it.
My bio says Country First. I didn’t say which country. - Kinzinger
https://twitter.com/RepKinzinger
I agree. Call it what it really is. Democrat terrorism .. by mentally defective leftists.
Oh please...It was a mass murder. Happens every weekend in Chicago.
Yeah, it was a Criminalize any Opposition to ‘Rat Oligarchs bill.
A lot of school board meetings would be raided by this new task force.....if it were allowed to pass. Republican caucuses across the country would not be safe, especially Trump rallies.
Doesn’t matter. No means later, next time. Without question it’s coming. In practice it’s here now, just not codified with extra fun stuff tossed in.
So now we have another one to contend with in Texas.
What is the FBI for? They want another agency? Why?
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2x6ck8
So they found their nuts for a day?
Dems always want the issue and never want a solution that works…
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.
“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.