Biden Accidentally IDs Antifa And BLM As Domestic Terrorists

On Tuesday, President Joe Biden released his plan to tackle domestic terrorism, which he calls a “serious and growing threat.” His clear intent is to target right-wing groups, but his definition of domestic terrorists perfectly describes Antifa and the Black Lives Matter radicals.

The “fact sheet” accompanying Biden’s “National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism,” lists only two types of domestic terrorists: violent extremists who advocate for the superiority of the white race, and anti-government or anti-authority violent extremists.

But it also describes domestic terrorism as:

‘Activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.’

Now, who do you think fits into these categories? Which groups have acted in ways that are “dangerous to human life,” want to “intimidate or coerce” as a means to “influence the policy of a government,” and use “mass destruction” to get their ways?

Would it be QAnon and other right-wing groups, about whom the best team Biden can seem to come up with is that “they may be on the verge of carrying out more violence in real life on Democrats and others that they perceive, however falsely, to be threats”?

Or does that definition of domestic terrorism better describe what Antifa and BLM followers have already said and done?

Let’s review.

A BLM leader in Washington, D.C., is videotaped saying: “I’m at the point where I’m ready to put these police in a f***ing grave. I’m at the point where I want to burn the f***ing White House down.”

The president of Greater New York Black Lives Matter said that “If this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it. All right?”

A Princeton University study – which was widely reported to exonerate BLM violence – actually found some 543 BLM “demonstrations” involved violence and destruction in nearly 220 locations spread all across the country, violence that claimed multiple lives, injured hundreds, and cost billions in property damage.

How about Antifa?

A 2017 article in The Hill described Antifa this way: “Anti-fascist activists … are unapologetic about what they describe as the necessary use of violence to combat authoritarianism.”

The Anti-Defamation League explained that “while some Antifa use their fists, other violent tactics include throwing projectiles, including bricks, crowbars, homemade slingshots, metal chains, water bottles, and balloons filled with urine and feces. They have deployed noxious gases, pushed through police barricades, and attempted to exploit any perceived weakness in law enforcement presence.”

One of the founders of an Antifa organization in Washington, D.C., extolled violence, saying “the justification is that Nazi ideology at its very core is founded on violence and on wielding power by any means.”

What’s more, both of these groups made it perfectly clear that the violence was explicitly designed to “influence the policy of a government.”

Of course, Democrats and the press (but we repeat ourselves) have downplayed or rationalized violence perpetrated by these groups, while often exaggerating violence done by the right, as has been the case with the events on Jan. 6.

But Biden claims he has no tolerance for violence of any kind, for any political reason. The strategy document he released states that “there is simply no governmental tolerance – and instead denunciation and rejection – of violence as an acceptable mode of seeking political or social change.”

Got that? No tolerance for such violence. Zero. Zip. Nada.

We agree, which is why we are anxiously waiting to learn how Biden plans to thwart Antifa and BLM terrorist activities going forward.

— Written by the I&I Editorial Board