#the communications department is ???? on why notorious mass-murderers are calling asking about what kind of flowers capt likes???

[introspectivememories]

every time the red-hair pirates get a new crew member, benn sits them down for a Talk. rules of the ship, what kind of behavior is expected, what kind of behavior is tolerated, and what kind of behavior will get you keelhauled. near the end of the talk, benn lays down the 3 most important rules:

there is nothing i can do about the homoerotic relationship capt has with the clown

trust in capt always. even if he doesn't look like it, capt has plan. believe always.

there is nothing you can do about the homoerotic relationship capt has with the clown

and as always, the newbie gets it into their head that they can fix capt and the clown and sets up some convoluted plan to get the two back together again. and as always it fails because capt and the clown will dead and rotting in the ground before they ever Talk to each other properly. benn needs a fucking pay raise.

[creepingsharia]

Democrats’ Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act Shields Jihadists

Amazing how quickly they wrote this bill, almost as if they had it planned, pre-written and waiting in the wings in the event of a successful coup.

Keep in mind, Muslim groups have been advising DHS/FBI/DOJ for years to change focus from Islam terror to white supremacy. The DHS whistelblower who exposed that information was killed shortly after doing so.

See video at end of post.

Democrats’ Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act Shields Jihadists

By Andrew C. McCarthy

How interesting that the familiar array of Islamist-apologist and left-wing groups, notoriously opposed to U.S. counterterrorism efforts, has lined up in support of congressional Democrats’ latest push for a “Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act.” Could it be because the proposed legislation goes out of its way to shield domestic terrorists who are catalyzed by foreign jihadist organizations?

You needn’t read far into the bill to hear the alarm bells.

Section 2 provides a definition for “domestic terrorism.” Sounds sensible . . . until you remember that federal law already has a definition of domestic terrorism. The term is codified by Section 2331(5) of the criminal code. It’s been there for a long time, and it’s perfectly fine. So why would we need another one?

Obviously, Democrats are not defining but redefining. The point is not to clarify what is already clear about domestic terrorism. It is to carve out an exemption from the definition — specifically, to create a new safe haven for a very specific category of terrorist.

Under the longstanding Section 2331 definition, “domestic terrorism” means activities that occur primarily within the territorial U.S., that are “dangerous to human life,” that violate state or federal law, and that are intended to accomplish one of the following three objectives: 1) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, 2) to influence government policy by intimidation or coercion, or 3) to affect government conduct by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

Among the best things about this straightforward definition is that it has no exceptions. As long as the activities involved meet the stated criteria, the definition “domestic terrorism” applies to any terrorist, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, ideology, or any similar characteristic. It makes no difference whether a terrorist is animated by white supremacism, sharia supremacism, black separatism, communism, anarchism, or any other -ism. If the terrorists are operating in our country, and they use or threaten to use force to intimidate our citizens or coerce our government into acceding to their demands, they are engaged in domestic terrorism. Period.

Not so with the Democrats’ new proposal. After throat-clearing about how “domestic terrorism” means what Section 2331 says it means, the proposal hastens to add “except . . .”

Except what? Domestic terrorism is heinous, so why would we want to exempt from the definition any person or group who engaged in such conduct? Apparently, to insulate domestic jihadists from scrutiny — or, if you prefer, to guard against mutiny by the Democrats’ Islamist allies.

The proposed exception states that the standard definition of domestic terrorism does not include acts perpetrated by individuals associated with or inspired by (A) a foreign person or organization designated as a foreign terrorist organization … ; (B) an individual or organization designated under Executive Order 13224 [which relates to foreign terrorists and foreign entities] … ; or (C) a state sponsor of terrorism[.] [Emphasis added.]

In other words, if a Muslim in the United States commits a mass-murder attack because he has been inspired by al-Qaeda’s call for believers to attack American targets, or by the Iranian regime’s revolutionary jihadism, that attack would not be considered domestic terrorism.

You may be thinking, “Hey, McCarthy, stop getting everyone all riled up. Your hypothetical terrorist doesn’t need to be covered under domestic terrorism because he’s already covered under foreign terrorism, right?”

Wrong.

Or are you forgetting the Obama-Biden administration legerdemain? Whether it was the mass murder at Fort Hood, in San Bernardino, or at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, the administration, its Homeland Security and Justice departments, and the FBI all resisted labeling the attack as “terrorism” because, they told us, the Muslim assassins did not appear to have “operational ties” to foreign terrorist organizations. Even if an attack was obviously terrorism, it wouldn’t be called “terrorism” because it hadn’t been directed by an organization the government had designated as “terrorist” — just “inspired,” which wasn’t good enough.

Of course, such an act would have fallen under the definition of “domestic terrorism,” but that’s because the Section 2331 federal definition did not have any exceptions. Now, if the Democrats’ proposal were enacted, there would be an exception — domestic attacks inspired by overseas jihadist groups would not be considered domestic terrorism. Why do you think the groups that reliably oppose counterterrorism measures are supporting this one?

What’s the point of these definitional shenanigans? It is that the proposed legislation would mark a change in the federal approach to domestic terrorism. Up until now, Congress has merely defined domestic terrorism, it has not prescribed any domestic terrorism crimes or pushed for domestic terrorism prosecutions. Currently, terrorism crimes in federal law target foreign and international terrorism. That is because, as I’ve previously detailed, there are numerous federal and state crimes on the books that can be used to investigate and prosecute domestic terrorists. Congress focused on foreign terrorists in its statutes because they tend to operate outside U.S. jurisdiction; the federal government needs extraordinary laws to reach them — laws that enable surveillance, the interruption of funding and recruitment streams, and prosecution (which often requires coordination with foreign governments).

The Democrats’ new proposal, however, would target domestic terrorism in an unprecedented way. There would be no new domestic terrorism crimes, at least not yet; but there would be a new concentration on investigating, arresting, and prosecuting domestic terrorists. Just not all domestic terrorists. In fact, just a very specific breed of domestic terrorist: white supremacists and neo-Nazis — i.e., what Democrats consider to be right-wing terrorism or, more specifically, Trump-inspired insurrectionists in the wake of the January 6 Capitol riot.

The proposed legislation would require domestic terrorism units to be created in the Department of Homeland Security, the Justice Department, and the FBI, in addition to a new “Domestic Terrorism Executive Committee” made up of high-ranking federal law-enforcement officials. Besides staffing up, these agencies would be required to file semi-annual reports for the next decade, outlining the extent of the domestic terrorist threat and the efforts they are making to combat it — how many investigations, arrests, indictments, etc. There would also be a mandate to establish “Training to Combat Domestic Terrorism” so that the feds could instruct state, local, and tribal law-enforcement in how to detect domestic terrorists, keep them from infiltrating police forces, and prosecute them.

But again, Democrats are not interested in combating all domestic terrorism. Not only have they effectively excluded from coverage American-based jihadists who are associated with or inspired by foreign terrorist organizations and their state sponsors. The new proposal, again and again, is explicit in focusing on “white supremacists and neo-Nazis.”

The required reports, for example, would have to “include an assessment of the domestic terrorism threat posed by White supremacists and neo-Nazis, including White supremacist and neo-Nazi infiltration of Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.” They would itemize “any White-supremacist-related incidents or attempted incidents” that have occurred since April 19, 1995 — that would be the day Timothy McVeigh bombed the Oklahoma City courthouse. Federal agencies would also account for all their “White-supremacist” cases, from investigation through sentencing, and so on.

Here’s a thought experiment: Every time the proposed legislation invokes the term “white supremacism,” ask yourself what Democrats and their supporters would say about a bill that instead said “sharia supremacism” — the animating ideology of jihadist terrorists.

As federal law has recognized for decades, all terrorism in our country poses a threat. None of it should be exempted, and all of it should be aggressively investigated and prosecuted, consistent with the constitutional principle of equal protection under the law. The Democrats’ proposal is not about countering terrorism; it is about weaving a political narrative.

The shielding of jihadists is no surprise. The last time Joe Biden was helping run the government, the word “terrorism” was verboten and “violent extremism” was substituted. Out of this same epistemological haze came such tragi-comic terms as “man-caused disasters,” so determined were Democrats to avoid upsetting their Islamist allies by noticing the not infrequent coincidence of terrorism and Muslims. (Apparently, “white-man-caused disasters” can safely be called terrorism.)

Studiously unmentioned in the Democrats’ proposal, moreover, is the radical left — no Antifa, no Black Lives Matter militants, no communists, anarchists, or enviro-terrorists. Even as Portland, Seattle, and Denver remain under siege, the plan is to pretend that the last seven months of insurrectionist rioting never happened; or if it did, that it was the noble kind of insurrection.

The proposed Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2021 would prevent terrorism about as much as President Biden’s executive order blitz will meet his inaugural vow to unite the country. Under the guise of addressing a real problem, Democrats would give a pass to jihadists and left-wing militants, appease their interest groups, and intensify the nation’s deep divisions.

---------------------------------

Interestingly, 135 so-called civil rights organizations - many are simply subversive, foreign-linked and funded, anti-American, anti-white hate groups - signed a letter to Congress opposing new domestic terror laws.

Why? Because they don’t want those laws used against “Black Activists, Muslims, Arabs, and movements for social and racial justice.” In other words, they don’t want them used against the real threats to America - the BLM’s, NFC’s, Antifa’s and other groups - likely some who signed the letter - who have been actively working to overthrow America for decades.

Instead, they want Congress to use appropriations (taxpayer money) to label anyone who opposes their views as white supremacists, shut them down and jail them if possible.

Oh, they also want to report on white supremacist crimes quarterly. Remember when Democrats took over the House, they stopped producing a monthly report on Islamic terror that focused on domestic Islamic terrorists. That was the impetus for the Creeping Sharia monthly report titled A Month of Islam in America.