It seems only to be obvious to you.
I happen to think you are absolutely wrong.
The author's reading (not yours) is the correct one.
What is it (other than your personal bias) that makes you think your interpretation is correct?
From the law: ‘‘(5) the term ‘domestic terrorism’ means activi- ties 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 gov- ernment by intimidation or coercion; or ‘‘(iii) to affect the conduct of a gov- ernment by mass destruction, assassina- tion, or kidnapping;
and ‘‘(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.’’. ,
To summarize, the construction is "A...; B...; and C...."
That each element is neccessary is obvious.
For those who've never thought about logic, or have an IQ barely sufficient for everyday activities, an example of this construction would be an order at a fast-food emporium for "regular fries, regular coke, and a Big Mac".
Of course the order would not be fulfilled by supplying only one of it's elements.
(For those, unlike Lew Rockwell readers, who appreciate logic, there is an example in clause B of an "or" construction- in which, unlike an "and" construction, any one element is sufficient to fulfill the requirements of the clause.)
Now, are we to believe that an author is too stupid to understand this- even a Lew Rockwell author? Possible, but very unlikely.
The conclusion is that the Lew Rockwell readers are assumed too stupid to understand this, and that the Lew Rockwell author is consciously taking advantage of their assumed clinical idiocy to decieve them.
Oh, and please, please feel free to abandon your dull obstinance and try to justify the author's alternate logical construction of the law.