Dakota Beacon

On June 15, 2021, President Biden announced a new strategy to counter “domestic terrorism.” The strategy includes a series of changes to elevate the federal government's response to an “urgent problem” with renewed efforts to deter, detect, and prosecute those who would use violence in pursuit of political aims. So far, so good.

Biden stated, "[O]n my first day in office I directed my national security team to confront … domestic terrorism with the necessary resources and resolve. Today, I am releasing the first-ever National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism...”

The White House published the document that may be found at URL https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/National-Strategy-for-Countering-Domestic-Terrorism.pdf

Attorney General Merrick Garland said he would “reinvigorate” the domestic terrorism executive committee that was first created by Attorney General Reno. (The same Janette Reno who, in April 1993, authorized the attack on the Branch Davidian [Seventh Day Adventist] compound burning it to the ground ultimately resulting in the death of 82 of the 86 Davidians and 4 ATF agents.)

Reading the text, it becomes apparent that even the most casual critic of the Biden administration could be ensnared and face consequences. Obviously, attorneys did not write this document. It was probably the work of political appointees pushing an authoritarian agenda.

Three apparent tenets drive the “threat” of domestic terrorism. The first is racism. Racism is mentioned but never defined beyond the implication of White supremacy -- which is also not defined. Unwittingly – or wittingly – Biden’s declaration conveniently lumps people together as if racism is "inherent" from birth. This begs the question, “Are Caucasians born 'domestic terrorists' under this new national strategy?” It certainly dovetails nicely with critical race theory imparted to schools and federal agencies.

The second tenet of “domestic terrorism” is anti-government sentiment. In plain English, that would be any feeling antagonistic to government policy or action. This view holds that opposition to government policies and their proponent agencies certainly could inspire violence and must be monitored if not curtailed. This tenant becomes a nightmare for civil liberties and the antithesis of limited government. Any opposition to the weakening of federalism, the increased debt and inflation, and rapidly expanding federal power holds the potential for violence. This could be grounds for charges of “domestic terrorism.”

Use of vague terms can encompass any interpretation. The document talks about violence. Most people shun violence and agree it should not be tolerated. But the document goes much further and stresses incitement.

Thus, the third tenet discusses incitement and that which could incite domestic terrorism. It gives no explanation except for the fact that the government (some politically appointed bureaucrat?) will determine what "incitement" means. Page ten includes a few examples. If you question the 2020 election or if you question COVID mandates or engage in what the government deems a conspiracy then that could be construed as grounds for incitement of violence and, consequently, domestic terrorism. From recent events, it would be plausible that selected individuals could be identified, targeted, and punished for infractions. So, if someone tweeted that they believed the 2020 election should be questioned or audited in any way, the current administration could deem that as conspiratorial and subject to DOJ surveillance and potential punishment. Such tweeting, after all, just might incite violence.

A citation from Wikipedia under the heading “Domestic Terrorism in the United States” echoes the Biden strategy. “The Department of Homeland Security reported in October 2020 that ‘white supremacists’ posed the top domestic terrorism threat, which FBI director Christopher Wray confirmed in March 2021, noting the bureau had elevated the threat to the same level as ISIS. The DHS report did not mention antifa, despite persistent allegations about its threat from the political right in recent years.”

Are you a domestic terrorist? Here are some plausible examples of how the “domestic terrorist” label might be applied by federal bureaucrats to anyone who objects to federal policies. a) Those that display the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”). b) Those concerned about illegal immigration. c) Those who believe in the right to bear arms. d) Anti-abortion activists. e) Those opposed to critical race theory. Pick your own example and you just could become a target.

A friend of mine concludes his emails with a standard tagline. “I love my country. It’s the government I fear.” In today’s environment, that says it all.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).