Media outlets, Biden now referring to what happened on January 6th as an act of ‘domestic terrorism’


WASHINGTON, D.C.- On Wednesday, January 6th, thousands of pro-Trump supporters peacefully protested on the streets of Washington, D.C. as Congress was set to verify the electoral college votes for the 2020 presidential election.

By later in the afternoon, we witnessed people storm the steps of the U.S. Capitol. Many were seen climbing the walls of the building, windows were smashed, doors were breached, and many made their way inside.

Days later, law enforcement in the D.C. area remain on high alert as there are reports that some of the individuals involved in January 6th’s attack have remained in the area. Law enforcement officials are concerned that those individuals may be planning more attacks on the city and on federal buildings, including during the upcoming inauguration. 

To avoid a repeat of the chaos and destruction, Army Secretary Ryan D. McCarthy said that the Capitol will be fortified by fencing and there are now thousands of National Guard troops deployed into D.C. to help secure the city. 

Protecting our nation’s Capitol from any type of destruction is a good thing and it seems that this reactionary response is appropriate given January 6th’s violent events. We should keep our nation’s Capitol safe.

However, some are now boldly calling what happened a domestic terror attack. On Thursday, January 7th, referring to the pro-Trump “mob,” President-elect Joe Biden said:

“Don’t dare call them protesters. They were a riotous mob. Insurrectionists. Domestic terrorists. It’s that basic. It’s that simple.”

Biden is not the only one using the term “terrorism” as a description of January 6th’s events. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser called the assault on the Capitol “textbook terrorism.”

Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, one of President Donald Trump’s fierce and key allies in Congress also called the attack a “despicable act of terrorism.”

Yes, I believe that what transpired on the steps of the U.S. Capitol on January 6th was horrible and terrifying; it was disgraceful, but calling it an act of domestic terrorism after our country saw nightly violent protests that tore through our country for months on end, burning down local businesses, breaking into local businesses and looting, and tearing down historical monuments and statues as well as assaulting local, state, and federal officers is considered lawful?

Tom Warrick, a former Department of Homeland Security counterterrorism official, said the Capitol riot was a “textbook definition of domestic terror.” He said:

“An assault on the Capitol in an attempt to disrupt the federal election by the counting of the electoral ballots really is an act of domestic terrorism and really needs to be condemned as such by everyone.”

Again, I go back to the restless nights of civil unrest in Portland, Oregon or Seattle, Washington where federal buildings were continually attacked. Windows were smashed, doors were breached, offices were broken into and fires were set inside.

Federal officers who were protecting the perimeter of those buildings had broken glass bottles and rocks thrown at them, harmful lasers pointed in their eyes, violent individuals attacked them as they attempted to arrest those who were committing crimes and yet the term “domestic terrorism” was not used once by President-elect Joe Biden or those serving on city council’s in those cities.

According to the FBI website, domestic terrorism is defined as:

“Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.”

Domestic terrorism also means activities that:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;

Appear 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;

Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

These are the types of criteria law enforcement organizations like the FBI and others are concerned with when making the determination of whether a specific act constitutes “domestic terrorism.”

In his seminal book, Inside Terrorism, scholar Bruce Hoffman wrote:

“On one point, at least, everyone agrees: ‘Terrorism’ is a pejorative term. It is a work with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one’s enemies and opponents.”

Politicians often apply the word “terrorism” to the actions of individuals and groups they see as opponents and enemies in order to delegitimize and demonize them. The list of foreign terrorist organizations is often portrayed in the media as some kind of exhaustive, authoritative list of terrorist groups around the world.

This, however, could not be more incorrect.

The truth is that groups that get included on the list and groups that get excluded is largely a political determination, not an analytical one. Groups that may well engage in the same types of activities as groups on the list have been consciously left off for political reasons.

Back in 2012, in his book, The Tyranny of Clichés, Johan Goldberg goes on a rant against the phrase, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” He wrote:

“As a descriptor, terrorist is almost never applied rigorously and consistently to describe the tactics a group is using, rather, it is invoked as a pejorative to vilify the actions only of groups one wishes to discredit.”

Just like now, after January 6th’s events, many in the political arena are calling it an act of “domestic terrorism,” yet they refuse to condemn the violent protests that destroyed many of our beautiful cities over the course of the summer months.

Portland and Seattle have literally been under fire and many local businesses cannot secure insurance money to re-open, not only ruining the downtown culture and vibrance of these beloved cities, but these violent demonstrators have literally tore down their own community in an effort to “make a statement.”

Now, Biden and other political figures are using the label for clear political reasons, which means they might not even believe that the label actually fits, but they will use it to forge ahead and to scare people into believing something they are not even sure of themselves.

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

LA health official claims not wearing a mask is the same as performing acts of domestic terrorism

November 30th, 2020

Editor’s note: This article has been updated to reflect the correct person being quoted. The previous article stated that these comments were made by The Los Angeles County health official, Dr. Muntu Davis, but were in fact made by Lancaster Mayor, Rex Parris. 

LOS ANGELES, CA – The Lancaster, CA Mayor said that those who decide not to wear a mask are the same as those who commit acts of domestic terrorism, as if blowing something up with millions of people killed is equivalent to not wearing a mask.

The Lancaster Mayor, Rex Parris, made the comments a week before Thanksgiving to the Los Angeles Daily News.  In that interview, Parris called for those deciding not to wear a mask to be arrested. 

Parris believes that those that make the personal choice not to wear a mask are of the same ilk as Timothy McVeigh, who detonated a bomb and killed 168 people, including 19 children.  

The Los Angeles Daily News reported:

“County public health officials – faced with dramatically increased rates of transmission and potentially exponential growths of deaths in the coming weeks – have been ringing major alarm bells in recent days as hospital rooms fill up again and depleted hospital staffs scramble to keep up.

“They worry that such resources could be overwhelmed this month across the country, as more people ignore public health guidelines, and if businesses were able to remain open without constraint.”

Parris commented:

“If it were up to me, anybody not wearing a mask when they are out in public would be arrested.  That’s an act of domestic terrorism and should be treated like one.”

The Public Health Department in Los Angeles County has issued new restrictions that go into effect at the end of this week, allegedly to combat new infections and hospitalizations in the area.  The health department released a statement which said:

“Today, Public Health has confirmed 24 new deaths and 4,544 new cases of COVID-19. Currently, the five-day average of new cases is 4,751.  On November 17, Los Angeles County established thresholds for additional actions if the five-day average of cases is 4,500 or more or hospitalizations are more than 2,000 per day.”

The health department statement continued:

“A new Health Officer Order would be issued for three weeks that offered additional safety modifications while allowing essential and emergency workers and those securing or providing essential and permitted services to leave their homes.

“In the new Order that goes into effect on Monday, residents are advised to stay home as much as possible and always wear a face-covering over their nose and mouth when they are outside their household and around others.”

Restaurants, bars, breweries, and wineries remain closed for in-person dining and may remain open for pick-up, delivery, and take-out. Breweries and wineries can remain open for retail sales at 20% occupancy.

The health department justified the new restrictions:

“There are 1,893 people with COVID-19 currently hospitalized and 24% of these people are in the ICU. On October 27, one month ago, there were 747 people hospitalized with COVID-19.”

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

Well played: City council member protests mask policy, infuriates fellow members by putting on a Guy Fawkes mask

November 25, 2020

WESTBROOK, ME—Elliot Storey, the Ward 5 Councilor of the Westbrook City Council in Maine, protested the council’s passing of a policy on Monday requiring council members to wear masks during meetings by wearing a mask of his own.

The City Council approved the policy in a 6-1 vote, Storey being the sole member in opposition. After it was confirmed that the policy was approved, Storey donned a Guy Fawkes mask as a display of protest for what he says is “government overreach.”

Storey has stated that he disagrees with the way that the governor of Maine has handled the coronavirus pandemic for the state, calling her recent mask mandate and previous lockdowns “draconian.”

Storey said that he “felt the need not to comply” with wearing a mask, specifically to council meetings, due to the fact that he had been furloughed from his job at Stantec and due to the impact the preventative coronavirus measures have had on his wife’s work.

Ironically, however, the mask policy for the City Council was drawn up specifically because of the fact that Storey had not worn a face covering to previous meetings. Both Council President Gary Rairdon and Mayor Mike Foley pointed this out in a letter to Storey:

“You have elected not to wear facial coverings, and we have received complaints from your fellow City Councilors as well as the public that this puts their health and safety at risk. We have both spoken to you about this request in an effort to avoid consideration of this order and you have refused to comply.”

The officials went on to say that Storey would have to participate in council meetings remotely from another room if he continued not to comply with the policy.

Not surprisingly, Storey did not wear a mask to the meeting regarding the policy. After the policy’s approval, however, he put on a Guy Fawkes mask.

Fawkes is known for his attempt to blow up the British Parliament, and after a mask of his face was popularized by the movie “V for Vendetta”, it became renowned as a symbol for protest.

Storey stated in an email after the meeting that the mask directly displays his opposition for the Westbrook City Council. He declared:

“They want to take away liberties, I want to preserve them. They hate the Bill of Rights, I love it. They trod all over the Constitution, and I uphold it as I swore I would.”

Storey went on to say that the issue with the recent mask mandate from the Maine governor was that it “expanded [the] definition of the word public” to include private meetings. He also disagrees with masks being worn in private businesses. Storey stated:

“My house is not public. Your business is not public. We deserve the responsibility to decide for ourselves the risks we take each day to enter establishments. We should be able to choose who to offer and refuse service to, and it’s our government’s function to preserve private property.

I’ll be up here fighting when they come for your guns. I’ll be up here for you. It saddens me to be alone in that fight, at least on this stage but I am not alone in the community.”

To prove his point, Storey cited several studies which indicate that masks may be ineffective at preventing coronavirus.

At-large Councilor Claude Rwaganje, however, expressed disagreement for Storey’s stance, stating that the decision to wear a mask is “not a political statement.”

Rwaganje argued:

“It’s the only thing we can rely on to protect our citizens, families. Basically, that’s the only thing close to a vaccine we have at the moment. If I am not protecting myself, I am protecting my neighbor, my mom, my dad. It’s unfortunate we have to take this time for a common sense topic. It’s not a big deal to wear a mask.”

Rwaganje and the other councilors voiced their approval of the policy. Storey, meanwhile, was told after the meeting that he will not be permitted to wear the Fawkes mask to future meetings, as it is not made of cloth.

Storey mentioned that he saw the rules about what the covering should be made from had “some gray area”, and concluded that, regarding the overall topic, he would “continue to fight.”

For more on mask policies and potential mandates, read “Washington governor says Biden will get people to wear masks at home, reconsider Thanksgiving plans.”

Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  
Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!
Facebook Follow First
Related Posts